"Matthew Pace" <mat### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:matthewpace-79C3D0.15481402022004@news.povray.org...
|
| This was not sloppiness, and I am sorry you do not like the way
| I made it.

Looks like I was mistaken. I apologize, but certainly you can understand
my assumption.

Someone said once about abstract painters something to the effect of
their being more realist than "realist" painters, as the abstract
painters are presenting the reality of paint rather than attempting to
create an illusion. Carried over to cg, this paradigm legitimizes the
purposeful use of hard shadows, perfect corners, and the substitution of
ambience for glow.

I find this idea interesting and am therefore discouraged to see that so
many technically simple cg pictures carry tell-tale marks of sloppiness
like unscaled textures and arbitrarily placed or proportioned objects.
Of course there are times like this one when a person's intentional
design for his picture appears arbitrary when it is not. There are even
times when a person consciously decides that an element of his picture
truly is arbitrary and therefore gives no concern to that element.

Enjoy making the rest of your series.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message