Just out of curiosity... how many of you vote for the IRTC topics?
I was looking thru the choices today and one caught my eye:
nonrepresentational.  I don't think anything like that has been
done in any previous rounds, and it sounds like a lot of fun.  Any
thoughts?

--
Doug Eichenberg
http://www.nls.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:399352fa$1@news.povray.org...
> Just out of curiosity... how many of you vote for the IRTC topics?
> I was looking thru the choices today and one caught my eye:
> nonrepresentational.  I don't think anything like that has been
> done in any previous rounds, and it sounds like a lot of fun.  Any
> thoughts?

That would mean abstract forms and surreal looking images?
HH

Post a reply to this message

> That would mean abstract forms and surreal looking images?

The description said "anything goes, so long as no one can tell what it is."
I thought that was a pretty good idea... it's wide open, but also kind of
restrictive.  I immediately thought of the paintings by Yves Tanguy
(one of the surrealists):

http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/tanguy/tanguy.indef-divisibility.jpg

- Doug Eichenberg
  http://www.getinfo.net/douge
  dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

That is the sort of thing which came to my mind as well when you said
"nonrepresentational."


"Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:3994bd97@news.povray.org...
> > That would mean abstract forms and surreal looking images?
>
> The description said "anything goes, so long as no one can tell what it
is."
> I thought that was a pretty good idea... it's wide open, but also kind of
> restrictive.  I immediately thought of the paintings by Yves Tanguy
> (one of the surrealists):
>
> http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/tanguy/tanguy.indef-divisibility.jpg
>
> - Doug Eichenberg
>   http://www.getinfo.net/douge
>   dou### [at] nlsnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I thought surrealists like Tanguy intended to depict or represent dreams, a
mental reality?

Halbert wrote:

> That is the sort of thing which came to my mind as well when you said
> "nonrepresentational."

>
> "Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
> news:3994bd97@news.povray.org...
> > > That would mean abstract forms and surreal looking images?
> >
> > The description said "anything goes, so long as no one can tell what it
> is."
> > I thought that was a pretty good idea... it's wide open, but also kind of
> > restrictive.  I immediately thought of the paintings by Yves Tanguy
> > (one of the surrealists):
> >
> > http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/tanguy/tanguy.indef-divisibility.jpg
> >
> > - Doug Eichenberg
> >   http://www.getinfo.net/douge
> >   dou### [at] nlsnet
> >
> >

Post a reply to this message

Doug Eichenberg wrote:
> 
> Just out of curiosity... how many of you vote for the IRTC topics?
> I was looking thru the choices today and one caught my eye:
> nonrepresentational.  I don't think anything like that has been
> done in any previous rounds, and it sounds like a lot of fun.  Any
> thoughts?

Fear. :-) This topic will be impossible to judge.

Post a reply to this message

> I thought surrealists like Tanguy intended to depict or represent dreams,
a
> mental reality?

I think what the surrealists were trying to do was present the viewer or
reader
with an image that was illogical... something to force people to think in
ways
outside of how we've been taught to think.  Dreams have always been strange
and confusing, so painters like Dali used them for inspiration.  The
emphasis,
though, was not so much on dreams as it was on subconscious or unconscious
impulses.

--
Doug Eichenberg
http://www.nls.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

> Fear. :-) This topic will be impossible to judge.

I don't think so... but I do think it would force everyone to do something
they haven't tried before.  I think we'd see some very cool entries... kind
of like Micks entry in the nature round.

Doug Eichenberg
http://www.nls.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

> I think what the surrealists were trying to do was present the viewer or
> reader
> with an image that was illogical... something to force people to think in
> ways
> outside of how we've been taught to think.  Dreams have always been strange
> and confusing, so painters like Dali used them for inspiration.  The
> emphasis,
> though, was not so much on dreams as it was on subconscious or unconscious
> impulses.
>

Yes I agree, that is a very fair encapsulation.  I guess I just wanted to point
out that they still maintained the trappings of a depictional space.  But it
did go very far toward abstraction, especially with artists like Jean Arp or
late Jean Miro.  And I also agree that a revisiting of their brand of
"abstraction from reality" woulid make for an interesting group of raytraces.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Doug Eichenberg wrote:
> 
> I don't think so... but I do think it would force everyone to do something
> they haven't tried before.  I think we'd see some very cool entries... kind
> of like Micks entry in the nature round.

Okay, I agree. But I still think a vast majority of entries would
be from people who don't have a clue about such abstraction and who
would just put some spheres and planes.

But, no. I'm beeing too negative here. Let's trust people. Okay,
where do we vote/apply pressure to?

Post a reply to this message