Tek wrote:

 > However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty 
distinguishing between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad 
lighting a technical or artistic failure?
 >


Here's how I see the categories right now:

====> Artistic Merit:
Does the artist effectively use tools beyond bare pictoral exposition to 
communicate and/or editorialize his subject matter?

Composition is among these tools, but no knowledge of composition is 
needed to judge the competition. Effective composition is always "good" 
composition, though the (many) pedants among the IRTC voters will be 
looking for that golden ratio or "tonal balance."

Some non-aesthetic tools which come to mind are humor, complexity, and 
disorientation.

====> Technical Merit:
Several years ago, the Chex cereal people figured out that their cereal 
tastes pretty good mixed with pretzels and nuts. It does, but the fact 
that anyone can make it in ten minutes is why Chex Mix isn't often 
served at weddings. Find a recipe that takes ten /hours/ and you can bet 
your guests will remember it.

Cobbling together borrowed models is Chex Mix. Restricting your scene to 
what can easily be done with CSG is Chex Mix.

Lighting is IMO an artistic issue. At least one of the most famous IRTC 
images was rendered using rad settings pulled right out of the 
newsgroups. And anyone can paste his model into an hdri scene. Using 
these elements effectively is a challenge, but not a technical one.

====> Topic:
Was Frank Lloyd Wright creative? Damn straight. And what was his subject 
matter? ...House.

Some of the most creative painters I can name painted landscapes and 
bridges. Not all creative artists are humorists or surrealists. I like 
to see surprising (big C) Concepts as much as anyone else, but this is a 
competition for CG artists, not authors. To determine whether an image 
is creative, I believe the voter must simply ask himself whether the 
image is boring.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message