 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here are some thoughts on how I vote. They were compiled during a very
boring meeting at work, anticipating having to defend earlier comments
about how and why I vote. I offer these comments with humility, in that
it involves criticism of people's work which is better than mine.
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (5 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>................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.
>
Hi Greg:
I am the author of ge_first. I believe that the commentaries of the judges
would have to be ample and deep, like his; although in this case I am the
victim. :-(
Consider the following thing. The human figures are very difficult to model
with Pov-Ray. With Spatch something can be done better, but it continues
being difficult; the work is very long and tedious. I do not believe that I
repeat the experience. You consider that the modeled one of human figures is
not common in the IRTC (exception Lorenzo Quintana, Anto Matkovic, and Gena
Obukhov). I hope that it is evident that my " baby " is not Poser.
Excuses by my English and thanks for its attention.
Guillermo Espitia
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aol com> wrote:
: F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows.
Does this mean you didn't like my COWBATH in the previous round?-)
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I didn't say I hated cows, but I did hate "Cow Pi." It's silly, as you say,
pretty good fun. Your whole theme is cool and bizarre and had some thought to
it, but was not a mere pun.
You put a lot of work into the intricate texture of the tiling. I have no idea
what score I gave you. It does'nt quite make it to "superb" (ie., score >>15),
due to the simple texture of the cow, wooden expression on the cow (shouldn't it
be surprised at us?) , grey untextured walls, and square-edged-cylinder shaving
cream. Your entry certainly doesn't merit the description "offensive to the
eye," but if you fixed all those details you could have possibly won!
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-10-31/cowbath.jpg
The point I was trying to make is that a well executed, rubber-ducky looking cow
in a more cartoonish-looking bathroom would have engendered as high or higher a
score as I gave to your entry.
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> : F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows.
>
> Does this mean you didn't like my COWBATH in the previous round?-)
>
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, hope I wasn't too harsh, Guillermo, and all of the flaws below don't
apply to your work. Yes, there is more originality, personal pride, and
technical merit in hand-made figures. That's why I create entries with what's
been called "ugly" figures made out of POV-Ray blobs.
I was trying to explain to my wife about how I like a cool, 3D cartoony look.
She said, "You mean Wallace and Gromit?" I said, "YES!" I think that Nick
Park had more to do with my interest in raytracing more than did Jurassic Park
or Lawnmower Man. Consequently, while there will always be a few great
perfectly photorealistic entries at the top of the heap, I like images that look
like a frame from a Nick Parks film.
Restating my advice to Nieminen, if one were to say to Nick Parks the words,
"Cow in a bathtub," he'd come up with a pretty neat looking image: can you
imagine it? And someone who can duplicate the fun of Park's work with raytracing
will in my heart get a higher score than all but the utmostly photorealistic
images.
Guillermo Espitia Rojas wrote:
> Hi Greg:
>
> I am the author of ge_first. I believe that the commentaries of the judges
> would have to be ample and deep, like his; although in this case I am the
> victim. :-(
>
> Consider the following thing. The human figures are very difficult to model
> with Pov-Ray. With Spatch something can be done better, but it continues
> being difficult; the work is very long and tedious. I do not believe that I
> repeat the experience. You consider that the modeled one of human figures is
> not common in the IRTC (exception Lorenzo Quintana, Anto Matkovic, and Gena
> Obukhov). I hope that it is evident that my " baby " is not Poser.
>
> Excuses by my English and thanks for its attention.
>
> Guillermo Espitia
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: what score I gave you. It does'nt quite make it to "superb" (ie., score >>15),
: due to the simple texture of the cow, wooden expression on the cow (shouldn't it
: be surprised at us?)
As I said in the description text, the cow wasn't my model. I don't have the
tools or the knowledge to model or to modify other people models.
I didn't work very much on this image and actually I was very surprised for
the high score (it got in the top 36).
, grey untextured walls, and square-edged-cylinder shaving
: cream. Your entry certainly doesn't merit the description "offensive to the
: eye," but if you fixed all those details you could have possibly won!
Why didn't you tell this on the comments page?-)
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is a really interesting voting philosophy, mainly because it is
just the opposite of what I think. I really spend the most of my time in
artistic merit. But there are some reasons for me to Not write anything
to anyone, as a Solomon measure. I am a fine arts and history teacher
and I analyze vary carefully the entries. Some comments about "a bunch
of lines" hurt deeply.
And since I am an entrant, I realize and accept that there are excellent
works, far better than mine, and far better than many images I have seen
before. In fact, I consider my images to be experimental, because this
programming stuff is new in my way of thinking.
What is interesting to me, is the parameter difference in art's field.
I will not condemn the "T-shirt" thing, because it might be my approach
to Technical merit., although it seems -the shirt- too much to those who
buy an oil painting because it matches with the upholstery. And that,
too is a freedom exercise, which is practiced in Arts like a mantra.
Discussing about causes, impulses, justification, and beauty -among
many things- is time wasted, exactly the same way many people have been
doing since 2000 years, ago.
Why do I spend more time in Artistic merit, and most importantly, what
am I evaluating? Well, these things:
- Structure
--Composition, balance, lines, unity, variety, use of color -and
expression through-, balance of color, Ligths and shadows and balance,
which produces the whole balance of the composition -, mass and volume,
forms distribution, among others.
-Topic
--The tricky part.
Can I evaluate like Kant, I do like or do not? What are my reasons?
Thankfully I do not know personally any of the authors, Can I see some
structure -other than the round itself?
Can I identify how the artist -if so- translates his/her world objects
without noticing it? Are these objects symbols of the society again
without noticing it? Or better yet, is the artist -if so- expressing
him/herself?
What is he/she expressing? How is he/she doing it? Which means -other
than the software as a tool- is he/she using?
The bottom-line, Does this trascend the maker?
As you can see, "ugly" and "beautiful" are meaningless at this point. :(
How my poor knowledge of the medium influence my appreciation? Is that
fair?
What if it is a masterpiece? And that would lead to another question:
What is a masterpiece? and equally important, Who says it? And so on.
Certainly artistic merit is a tough one for me. It has to do with my
values, my background, what I know, and my ability to do 'traditional
art', a field in which I was very comfortable. Now I am trying a new
medium, that requires more attention, an another type of knowledge. I
know how to draw and how to paint ...in canvases. I am learning to make
other images, or these kind of images.
This takes me to the technical merit. At this time and space, I would be
trivializing my own proccess if said that everything I see amazes me.
Not. In this year and a half or so, I have had to learn -or try to-
many things. I have learned to appreciate the technical aspect in the
image, basically because I started from 0-zero-. I sincerely admire
those of you who are able to translate the logic of something onto the
program, and I tend to overestimate this field.
As you can see, this field is a little daunting for me., but I am
confident. I know I have to "educate" my eye just like I have done for
Visual Arts. We are ALL entering to new fields, aren't we?
And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I have been
named as the"oldest female". GRRRRRRR!
Marjorie Graterol
eme### [at] emediezcom
http://www.emediez.com
PS. I am not English speaker/writer! Please excuse my errors
Greg M. Johnson wrote in message <36942BAB.F100F5D5@aol.com>...
Here are some thoughts on how I vote. They were compiled during a
very boring meeting at work, anticipating having to defend earlier
comments about how and why I vote. I offer these comments with
humility, in that it involves criticism of people's work which is better
than mine.
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (11 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pedro Graterol wrote:
> And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I have been named as
the"oldest
> female". GRRRRRRR! Marjorie Graterol
Would you prefer the eldest woman ? It sounds a little more respectful
of your station in life :)
Ken "they call me old too" Tyler
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's the difference between "oldest" and "eldest"? Is it something
like your discussions about colour and color? :)
Anyway, being a teen's mother I realiza that someday I will be a
"grandma". I will think about
that for "Horror" topic :) .
It was kidding. As I said -I don't remember where- it's an honor
-honour- for me to be the old-eld-est woman. Female was the word
the distinguished gentleman wrote. I am the eldest Me :)
Marjorie
Ken wrote in message <369B7B2A.A2B39CFB@pacbell.net>...
Pedro Graterol wrote:
And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I
have been named as the"oldest female". GRRRRRRR! Marjorie Graterol
Would you prefer the eldest woman ? It sounds a little more
respectful
of your station in life :)
Ken "they call me old too" Tyler
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (2 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Regarding my "T-shirt comment" for artistic merit. I guess that to me,
there are two kinds of great art, both based on emotional appeal:
1. Images that evoke fun, such as FOOD101, which I would in fact put on
a T-shirt (had I the copyright) for going fishing with my 7-year old
nephew.
2. Images that evoke awe, such as 8_FORGIV or AFROG, that I would hang
in my living room or my foyer which I would show to formal dinner guests
to my home.
Both evoke necessary or positive emotions. Some emotions I can do
without, such as those I get when the creator says through his or her
work:
A. "Look at me! I can show you what my software can do if let to run
for 48 hours,"
OR
B. "Hyuck, hyuck, I spent 15 minutes making up a pun!"
_________________________________
Greg M. Johnson
opinions solely those of my own.
Pedro Graterol wrote:
> And since I am an entrant, I realize and accept that there are
> excellent works, far better than mine, and far better than many images
> I have seen before. In fact, I consider my images to be experimental,
> because this programming stuff is new in my way of thinking.What is
> interesting to me, is the parameter difference in art's field. I will
> not condemn the "T-shirt" thing, because it might be my approach to
> Technical merit., although it seems -the shirt- too much to those who
> buy an oil painting because it matches with the upholstery. And that,
> too is a freedom exercise, which is practiced in Arts like a mantra.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
