Mike the Elder wrote:
> Comments for TINA CheP participants:
> (The feedback that one receives from other participants has always been one
> of my favorite aspects of the IRTC.
Me too, let's face it we are depraved junkies for feedback, I clung to
your every word. Thanks for making the effort and hopefully more will
Some reactions of my own:
'This is a knot, checkered, on a plane'
My first reaction: Glad one of Bill's knots showed up. Like
seeing an old friend.
Then: Interesting how these things adapt to difference contexts.
Almost like actors, you see both the star and the character. ie I
both Ratso, and Dustin; Tootsie, and Dustin, etc. My first association was
to some sort of strange water toy that one is always surprised by at
or that treading water ball invention thing the guy wanted to cross the
(or am I dreaming now...)
Then: Yup, I've used the granite-for-water trick...works good.
Then: Yup, fog too, used it this round, might get addicted.
Then read the description: Owe so that's it how he does it...
Then I started looking at the image and thinking about the technique and
And I started thinking about how these things have a funny organic feel
like worms or snakes or some such, they seem to writhe, yet caught in
stasis. But then,
to actually writhe, the plates would have to compress somehow or change
snake scales slide past each other,...but what if it is a different kind
of organic, like a
tree for instance, living but more rigid, adapting the form to obstacles
in the path, so such
variation in unit size possible, but in a differnt way...
"TINA CheP's evolution"
I have to admit I needed to read the explanation to help understand it,
is not a shortcoming of the picture. My first reaction was to try and
figures were all in exactly the same pose or not. Because the sense of
is deceptive and interesting. For me, the most interesting part. The
idea of having
several figures in the same still indicate a sequnce of motion or events
has a long
and intersting history. Muybridge of course, but also Masaccio
I have played with this on and off myself.
A nicely thought out response to the topic, acknowdging its source, and
showing a sense of the "taking stock" aspect of the larger situation.
The Perils of Tina (or: "That is NOT a checkered plane!")
Well Thomas, it would seem that what people MOST like about Magritte are
"Plane Checker" indeed ;P
Fabulous scene! You have developed your narrative and cinematic abilities
to a high level. Love the wide lens,...together with posing of the
figures you get the realistic
feel of the street photographer's "grab shot". Several characters
but in a slightly scewed way, ultimately in their own private worlds.
The major focus,
the artist's face, its expression is very realistic, and the supporting
plots of the retreating
Tina, her expression the duement and summation of the scene, and the
distant figure, excellent.
The setting catapultes us through several levels of
fictive reality,...game spaces with their labrinth of modularized
props,...the hint at the
accumulated detrious of POV checkered planes, (in gut grinding colors
and from which
those props spring up), the ultimate reference to Renaissance
all reinforced again by the sense of distortion of
peeking through a lens. Just wonderful!
Yes I love the humour here, especially if you let your imagination
chess pieces. They are like knights all decked out in war armour who
have arrived at the
field of battle only to find it commandeered for a bingo tournament.
Not a checkered plane. A render of a brushed-in checkered pattern on a
paper surface. Which perhaps even more than with Magritte's pipe, asks:
what is a checkered plane anyway? The picture has a sharp, reductivist,
design sense about it with several levels of play on pictorial
I wish I could accomplish such things, "for fun".
And I must examine that code! I am still not picturing how you got that
"Tina entertains the boys at the POV Club"
Well you are depicting Tina in a bad light, you bum. But secretly we
her for it, and the scene is one of the most humanistically masterful
have ever done Steve. You have allowed understatement to create a very
realistic effect of a dark, cheezy-bad-lighted club. You started with
the pun on TINA,
added the checkered reference, and came up with a statement that
that. The camera angle is crucial of course. Perhaps in the end it is
the POV clubbers that
are really depicted.
Or..."Who Moved My Cheese?"
A checkered aeroplane composed entirely
of stretched spheres? And how did Crivelli's fly
get into the picture? Clever, clever man.
"HERE'S LOOKING AT HUES, KID"
Awesome scene! Clever and very compelling. Do you suppose that POVer's
like to use a checkered plane as a neutral setting for their
brilliant csg models? I wonder why? But you add checker to the background
props, and we have more than a sequence of knowing puns and references,
we have a strange and sensuous fictive world that we can step right into.
Phew! You went to a lot of work, son! I love the premise and the humour.
Every texture BUT checkers. Wonderful! But why does everyone want to
poor Tina in sleazy neon??? I don't know about you guys.
Post a reply to this message