First, I rate ARTISTIC merit according to the questions, "Would I like to wear this on a T-shirt? Would I like this to hang in my living room?"
I rate TECHNICAL merit according to the apparent attention to detail; I'm likely to rate an entry lower which appears as an obtuse showcasing of the features of a raytracing program.
I think that there are about four or five different categories of entries, and I list them from highest to lowest as I typically rate them:
TIER I: SUPERB PHOTOREALISM
These rare entries attempt to look just like a photograph and excel
at it! Recent IRTC entries in this category include AFROG, 8_FORGIV, and
STRIKE.
A great master of this style who I've run across is Victoria Brace,
non-IRTC'er, whose work can be found at
http://www.vika.org/images/index.html
TIER IIA: COOL CARTOONY LOOK
These entries evoke favorite childhood toys or 3-D versions of cartoons,
like the entries FOOD101 and MAGIC from this contest, and POOLSHARK from
the last Animations round. (When I went to the IRTC voting overview page,
I found that I had ranked FOOD101 highest: will you forgive me?).
I hope that in heaven we'll have bodies like this. I'd much rather
the entry to be fun and entertaining than be an over-exerted attempt to
be photographic and fall short. Again, some photo-realism of the unreal
characters is required, but there are fewer details to screw up. The artist
attempts something simple and does it well. Note that I'm NOT talking about
the Garfield entry of a few rounds ago.
A great master of this style (another non-IRTC'er) that I've run across
is Troy Paiva and his work can be found at
http://designshed.com/shed.html
TIER IIB: PEN-AND-INK REALISM. These look like a watercolor or ink drawings of a very realistic 3-D scene. "Ice Giants" and MG_ROSE form this round fall into this category.
TIER III: UNPLEASANT ATTEMPTS AT PHOTOREALISM
With all due respect, GE_FIRST falls into this category. I usually
give these 7-13 in the artistic & technical categories. These entries
don't look like a photograph, but look like unsuccessful attempts at making
one. The artist attempts something unnecessarily ambitious and fails at
it. Common ways in which my eye is offended include:
A. Human figures which are ugly, not by artistic intent, but out of
less than careful modelling or texturing. A humorous dwarf or Ernest Bergnine
character can be quite appealing; ugly babies are not.
B. Superbly photorealistic scenes with a few glaringly unrealistic
components not related to artistic intent or theme. One such example
was the bald, paleskinned, cloned cavemen.
C. Superbly photorealistic landscapes next to sloppily constructed
CSG objects.
D. (For 1998) Most uses of Poser 2 faces, especially when bald.
E. (For 2000) Most uses of Poser 3 faces.
F. Lighting and contrast problems, such as:
1. Use of too much ambient light.
2. My inability to tell what entry is about from the thumbnail.
I expect to be able to detect the content from the thumbnail and be surprised
by a second meaning or added details when I go to the 800 x 600!
If I paid the artists to wear these entries on a T-shirt, my friends
would have to squint and to touch my chest to see what they were about.
TIER IV: PRANKS AND OFFENSIVE STUFF
I usually give these very low numbers, much lower than 8. Yes, I'm
easily offended.
A. Pranks, such as previous entries "Pixel," and "Night".
B. Entries which glorify violence or torture. One non-IRTC image that
comes to mind is an image of a naked Poser woman in a dark prison cell.
"Houhahaha," the artist probably thought to himself.
C. Drug use.
D. Anything looking 2-D. Sue me.
E. Multiple entries from same person which simply mean rearranging
objects on a table.
F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows. Sue me. FOOD101 makes
me chuckle; enCOWnter makes me ill.
With all due respect to my talented friends.
___________________________
Greg M. johnson
http://members.xoom.com/gregjohn/index.html