I have an idea which may help a little bit to avoid the so-called
category cross-contamination.
  A short recapitulation: There is a little problem in the voting of the
irtc images (and perhaps animations too): There are three different
categories to vote, but they are usually used as a general "how stunning
image this is"-vote, ie: if an image is stunningly beautiful/photorelistic
or whatever, it will probably be scored high in each category, no matter
if it isn't very good on each one of those.

  The idea: After voting each category, voters have to write a short
description about why they gave that score in that category. The votes
and description are published with each image (as the comments pages are).

  Perhaps this way people may think a bit more on each category.
  For example:

  "Wow! This is an astonishing image! Wonderful! Great! All that detail!
Let's vote."

  Tech: 20. Great image! So photorealistic! The amount of detail is
astonishing. etc etc...

  Art: 20. The image is beautiful. It's... er... well...
hmm...
  Art: 18. The image is beautiful, but perhaps a little bit unimaginative...
hmmmm... actually...
  Art: 16. The image is rather beautiful, but a little bit unimaginative.
Although it's technically great, it looks more like an architecture book
photograph, not like a painting. etc etc...

  Concept: 16. .... well, er...
better:
  Concept: 10. This image doesn't fit very well in the topic. It really
isn't absolutely out-of-topic, but I don't think it represents the topic
very well. Also there is a total lack of originality: just a boring
building with nothing special in it. etc etc...


  Just an idea.

-- 
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

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   I have an idea which may help a little bit to avoid the so-called
> category cross-contamination.
>   A short recapitulation: There is a little problem in the voting of the
> irtc images (and perhaps animations too): There are three different
> categories to vote, but they are usually used as a general "how stunning
> image this is"-vote, ie: if an image is stunningly beautiful/photorelistic
> or whatever, it will probably be scored high in each category, no matter
> if it isn't very good on each one of those.
> 
>   The idea: After voting each category, voters have to write a short
> description about why they gave that score in that category. The votes
> and description are published with each image (as the comments pages are).
> 
>   Perhaps this way people may think a bit more on each category.
>   For example:
> 
>   "Wow! This is an astonishing image! Wonderful! Great! All that detail!
> Let's vote."
> 
>   Tech: 20. Great image! So photorealistic! The amount of detail is
> astonishing. etc etc...
> 
>   Art: 20. The image is beautiful. It's... er... well...
> hmm...
>   Art: 18. The image is beautiful, but perhaps a little bit unimaginative...
> hmmmm... actually...
>   Art: 16. The image is rather beautiful, but a little bit unimaginative.
> Although it's technically great, it looks more like an architecture book
> photograph, not like a painting. etc etc...
> 
>   Concept: 16. .... well, er...
> better:
>   Concept: 10. This image doesn't fit very well in the topic. It really
> isn't absolutely out-of-topic, but I don't think it represents the topic
> very well. Also there is a total lack of originality: just a boring
> building with nothing special in it. etc etc...
> 
>   Just an idea.
> 
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/


I think this might help, but I see a problem arising here. It takes a
lot of time looking through the entries carefully and then voting
carefully. I guess this is also true for most of the voters. When I
checked the voting results I saw that only 50 (!!!) votes had been made
and only 45 (!!!) complete votes had been made. This means that not even
50% of the entrants did vote! If the workload for voting increases the
number of voters may drop to a level which may not be representative
anymore. 

Maybe the numbers given in the voting form can be precised by added text
like:



artistic 20: Perfect arrangement of objects and colors...
.
.
.
artistic 10: This picture hardly shows some several flaws in the
arrangement.
.
.
.
artistic  1: This picture has absolutely no artistic merit

This method has the advantage that it doesn't slow down the voting but
it makes people more conscious what they are voting and it might even
help voting newbies.

Just my two cents.

Marc
 
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   I have an idea which may help a little bit to avoid the so-called
> category cross-contamination.
>   A short recapitulation: There is a little problem in the voting of the
> irtc images (and perhaps animations too): There are three different
> categories to vote, but they are usually used as a general "how stunning
> image this is"-vote, ie: if an image is stunningly beautiful/photorelistic
> or whatever, it will probably be scored high in each category, no matter
> if it isn't very good on each one of those.
>
>   The idea: After voting each category, voters have to write a short
> description about why they gave that score in that category. The votes
> and description are published with each image (as the comments pages are).
>
>   Perhaps this way people may think a bit more on each category.
>   For example:

 <snipped good stuff>

Just to play the devil's advocate here...

There is merit in what you say but I see a possible fault in your logic.
You are asking people to rationalize a decision they have made for
each catagory and once they have made that decision for what ever
reason it was justifiable to them at the time. There may be some people
shooting from the hip on the way they vote but when pressured to
justify there decision pride will force them to rationalize that desicion
in favor of their voting scores. It may only complicate the voting
process without actually adding any real benefits to it.

Or as you say maybe it will force them into thinking about what they
are doing. Unfortunately human nature favors my former arguments.


Art critics are a fickle bunch and you may quote me on that.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

That kind of evaluation will not work because it is vague.
I would like to see:
- Change the rules on voting. eg, Vote. Send your image, register,
vote and you will be IN the contest . Only if you vote, there are a lot of
programs
that make just that, if not, do them.
- Why don't use a simple scale? What is the problem with a scale?
Very simple:  The evaluator has to know What to evaluate and how,  points
are
non important, because they can always be translated into the 20.
-I am interested in a scale - I am making one* and I would like you to help
me-. Who is eager to establish what 'exact' parameters are needed to
evaluate the technical part? Will you please send me your check points? No
matter
how many points you assign; if 100 points are what you are used to, will be
OK.
- Maybe CSG use, loops and so on,  modeling (does that scores or not, does
that is completely neccessary for the image to be what it is?, are we
evaluating the image as a POVimage or a raytraced image,  which are the same
but are not the same.etc
 Thanks in advance,

Marjorie Graterol

* The scale is for my use primarily, so it will be imperfect, but it is
something to start with. I refuse to enter in the next round and then saying
the same thing all over again. I will publish it in my home home page once I
finish them ( the scale AND the page redesign). I'll post the link  only to
the scale.

>
>Or as you say maybe it will force them into thinking about what they
>are doing. Unfortunately human nature favors my former arguments.
>
>
>Art critics are a fickle bunch and you may quote me on that.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>

Post a reply to this message

Pedro Graterol wrote:

>  Thanks in advance,
>
> Marjorie Graterol
>
> * The scale is for my use primarily, so it will be imperfect, but it is
> something to start with. I refuse to enter in the next round and then saying
> the same thing all over again. I will publish it in my home home page once I
> finish them ( the scale AND the page redesign). I'll post the link  only to
> the scale.

Perhaps it is too vauge but your proposed method of evaluation by points
is doomed to failure (maybe). There are times that technical can achieve
high points without having to use every feature in the program. The technical
isssue is related, quite closely, to the other point groups, theme and composition.

For a good example look in the povray.binaries.images group at
the image "You know you have been...". This image is simplicity
in itself but the message it conveys and the artistry used to convey
that message are exemplary. In the right round I would give it fairly
high points in all categories just because it comes together so well.

If you want a grading of which povray features are most likely to be
used by a beginner and which by the more advanced user the I will
try to make a simple, prioritized, list for you. Even that will be a
subjective list because what may be difficult for me may be a simple
thing to someone else. I could only offer it as an opinionated bias.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36A35560.EA5AC0B4@pacbell.net>...
>Perhaps it is too vauge but your proposed method of evaluation by points
>is doomed to failure (maybe). There are times that technical can achieve
>high points without having to use every feature in the program. The
technical
>isssue is related, quite closely, to the other point groups, theme and
composition.


I don't agree with that because the whole constest is then doomed. It is
very easy to convert 100's to 20. What I am asking for is a way to be
objective. This, again, is not that easy but can be done and it is done in
every work. The simplest way is to say yes or not, e.g, You drive or not,
otherwise you crash (in conditions to drive a car) period. The other way is
to
evaluate how yo do that, assuming of course you passed the first one.  You
can list all the aspects you want and assign any value. The next step is
prioritizing, what goes first. e.g, I cannot drive if I cannot turn the
engine on. Dumb? Not. It happens.
>
>For a good example look in the povray.binaries.images group at
>the image "You know you have been...". This image is simplicity
>in itself but the message it conveys and the artistry used to convey
>that message are exemplary. In the right round I would give it fairly
>high points in all categories just because it comes together so well.

I do not have any problem with images themselves., in fact,  I usually
under-evaluate them. In the same way it is very easy for you to establish
the technical things and how they go together., in the same way I "look at"
images.  And I was not asking for your help in this aspect., just because I
know the field.

>
>If you want a grading of which povray features are most likely to be
>used by a beginner and which by the more advanced user the I will
>try to make a simple, prioritized, list for you. Even that will be a
>subjective list because what may be difficult for me may be a simple
>thing to someone else. I could only offer it as an opinionated bias.


I was asking for those points because it is irresponsible for me to evaluate
something I do not know enough., but this is something that happens the
other way around, simply put, I am not a programmer and you are not and
artist and viceversa.

And yes, I have many options:

1- Enter in the contest and not judging  -letting others that really know to
evaluate my work -
2- Ask for categories inside the contest, beginner, advanced, out of this
world, etc.
3- Be very aware of the nature of judges, and what they evaluate.
4- Do my homework without asking for help, stop whinning and go ahead no
matter what.

Obviuosly, 4.
Thanks

Marjorie Graterol



>

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: Just to play the devil's advocate here...

  Why that doesn't surprise me?-)

  Your point of view is also very justifiable and probably true.
  But anyways, there's another thing the method I presented might help and
which I forget to mention in my article:
  Often people score very low in each category if the image is very ugly,
but if they have to state arguments for their vote, then they really have
to think why they are giving so low scores, and perhaps they will notice
that scoring very low in each category is not very fair, since, although
very ugly, the image may have a very good idea which represents very well
the topic, etc.
  Perhaps (this is only a dream...) this way votes would be more fair.

-- 
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

just curious :
could you cite me an image (even from past rounds) that
deserves a vote like 20-10-12 or 10-9-16 or anything like that ?
I don't remember seeing one, even after 16 months of IRTC.

Cheers,
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   I have an idea which may help a little bit to avoid the so-called
> category cross-contamination.

	My zwei Pfennig in this comes from scoring many proposals for
the US government. 

	This is the first time I have read about the scoring, being a
newcomer and all. 20 levels? Go to 6 levels, 0-5, with 3 as
average and 0 as [expletive deleted.] Or outstanding, above
average, average, below average, poor, expletive. 

	Unless people have nothing better to do and have no shame they
are not going to participate in the first place unless they have
done something noteworthy compared to what they have seen on the
web. All of us newcomers hunt for everything we can find and
compare, borrow, whatever. So users have a good idea what is
going on and if they are competative before spending the time. 

	Average becomes the state of the art in comparable renderings.
As in sports, the average goes up every year as does outstanding
as in 70 homeruns last year. Doing better than Babe Ruth is no
long for the record book. 

	1) This gets rid of the fine distinctions that cloud judgement.
It is either outstanding or it is not. 

	2) Evaluators tend to avoid 5 as much as 0. It lets things stand
out like a great technical accomplishment without artistic merit.
For example, the first realistic rendering of X used in a manner
that is almost not on topic and being nothing but the object in a
featureless background. People are not likely to be that extreme
but without a 4.4 available it causes differentiation. 

	3) It makes judging much easier and can get more judges. It is
much easier to judge between, ho-hum, impressive and if your jaw
drops on seeing it. 

	And from that government experience I am aware that categories
tend to go from 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 over the years and then
someone starts over again at 3. It is quite cyclic.

Post a reply to this message

This ain't high diving.

Any ol' fool can throw a bunch of sloppy CSG and isosurface patches and fail
miserably for technical merit in my book.  I think that Annig's earlier post
talked about "appropriate use" of technology.   I have rated images low for
being an obtuse showcasing of a raytracing program's capability.

An entry could use nothing but boxes, cylinders, and one plane, and deserve a
higher rating than another image which used heightfields to texture a
building.   Cross-contamination is one way to describe a vote you disagree with.
Consider the entry a few rounds ago with bald, pale, hairless, identical
(Poser2) cavemen.  I found that detail offensive to its artistry: who'd want
that entry hanging on a wall?  It was offensive to technical merit: it showed
careless use of a canned model.  It was offensive to concept:  WHY ON EARTH
would a group of cavemen be cloned and bald?  What kind of message is the author
trying to convey:  time travel? loss of identity in cults?


Pedro Graterol wrote:

> -I am interested in a scale - I am making one* and I would like you to help
> me-. Who is eager to establish what 'exact' parameters are needed to
> evaluate the technical part? Will you please send me your check points? No
> matter
> how many points you assign; if 100 points are what you are used to, will be
> OK.
> - Maybe CSG use, loops and so on,  modeling (does that scores or not, does
> that is completely neccessary for the image to be what it is?, are we
> evaluating the image as a POVimage or a raytraced image,  which are the same
> but are not the same.etc
>  Thanks in advance,
>
> Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <"gregj;-)56590"@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
<36dc9466.0@news.povray.org>...
>This ain't high diving.
>
>Any ol' fool can throw a bunch of sloppy CSG and isosurface patches and
fail
>miserably for technical merit in my book.  I think that Annig's earlier
post
>talked about "appropriate use" of technology.   I have rated images low for
>being an obtuse showcasing of a raytracing program's capability.


I am answering this because I saw one of my post  attached to this one, and
I like the topic.

I strongly agree with Annig's personal evaluation scale regarding topics or
aspects to review.  I was trying to be objective assigning points and/or
qualifications. To this regard, I  keep my word to the last answer in the
same thread, which obviuosly has not been referenced.

>I found that detail offensive to its artistry: who'd want
>that entry hanging on a wall?  It was offensive to technical merit: it
showed
>careless use of a canned model.

 I won't ever discuss any judgement regarding technical merit about using
raytracing. It is very simple, I am not a programmer, nor mathematician.
However, I do not have to be one of them to raytrace and, by the same token,
nobody has to be an artist to raytrace.  I have realized that the more I
raytrace -or try to- the more I learn. This said, It's matter of time -in
appreciation, rendering, analysis, trial-and-error renderings and
experimentation - that I can differenciate and/or aprehend more technical
subtleties

> It was offensive to concept:  WHY ON EARTH
>would a group of cavemen be cloned and bald?  What kind of message is the
author
>trying to convey:  time travel? loss of identity in cults?
>

The magic word here is art, which means primarily freedom.  Unfortunately,
the downside of art is precisely the opinion of the viewer, which cannot
affect the artist nor the artwork itself. It is a viewer's  point of view.
In the same way Duchamp was dumped from a museum when he put a toilette in
the middle (go now and ask for the price of that toilette); in the same way
Picasso was rejected when he stopped painting "in the right way" ; in the
same way the collage technique is now  "a state of the art " to make
portraits (after being someting confined to entertain kids in rainy days)..
and so on., everybody is entitled to depict, represent or figure out
everything is a free way.  Raytracing has become a superb tool to do many,
many things. After all, this is 1999.
I also realize that raytracing is *not* photorealism. This is a trend, and
slowly -and because this is the same cycle repeating when photography
finally took the "reality burden" from painting- raytracing will evolve more
and more.

A also realize the importance of writing the description in IRTC, as odd as
it appears.  To me, it is aimed at jurors, not to explain *why* I did
something. It is to enlighten  one's mind.  I was very upset first, when I
sent my second entry -elements-, which was about the Periodic Table of
Elements. When I read the comments, I sadly agreed with those that
encouraged me to 'write about'. , it was evident that not many people knew
what a periodic table is.  This is a learning process, where we all learn,
or more accurately and not to offend anybody, where I am very proud of being
learning.


Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message

I probably gave something like 18-12-10 to an entry in the last round,
First Encounter.  The entry was a view up into the bottom of some kind
of mushroom-shaped spacecraft.  The entry had a brilliant collection of
bright colors.

ARTISTIC:     Wow. That is pretty.  Neat screensaver. Neat T-shirt. Neat
wall decoration in my living room.
TECHNICAL: Hmm.  Probably not that hard to make, just lights and
coloring.
CONCEPT:     Nah.  A spaceship?  Whoo-peee.

In thinking about cross-contamination more, I think I've both been the
victim of it badly, and I think that I may be a pepretrator, and I think
that it's a too easy criticism to make of a rating you disagree with.

Fabien Mosen wrote:

> just curious :
> could you cite me an image (even from past rounds) that
> deserves a vote like 20-10-12 or 10-9-16 or anything like that ?
> I don't remember seeing one, even after 16 months of IRTC.
>
> Cheers,
> Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Since the last round, I asked for some help to build a scale, an evaluation
scale. As I stated, I needed orientation in the technical aspect or field
because it is the field I know less. Ken Tyler re-posted a Jerry Anning's
point of view, which I support. Since this is personal, I don't want you to
think I am imposing my scale. I only want you to know that this is the scale
I am using. It is easier for me and eliminates a great deal of guessing, and
"liking", in regard to artistic field.
It is still imperfect though. I would have liked to confine every item to an
easy yes or not, but that is impossible.
Artistic
overall/imp 3
This is a compromised judgement, based on how I perceive the image. It has
to do with the background of the viewer and tests the image's strength to
stand and speak by itself, without the help of the text file or description.
Comp/balance 6
Balance of the composition. How many 'planes' does it have? Foreground
and/or background. Elements of the composition, do they have certain
pattern? Is that pattern innovative? Unity and variety, are they balanced?
Is it static, dynamic? How are all the components arranged? The image, is a
whole?
Composition structure (basic elements)
Line 2
How are they determined, do they play any role? If I deleted them, the
images persist? Do they contribute with my perception?
Color 2
Is there any chromatic harmony, no matter the palette? Do they enhance the
image? Do they contribute with my perception?
Light/mass 2
How is the balance between light and shadows? Do they underline the mass and
volume -if any- or on the contrary? Does it have depth? How is that
achieved?
Texture 2
Is texture the result of the above? How is it enhanced? By the way, is the
texture balanced into the composition? Is it important in the image?
Style 3
Stylistic coherence INSIDE the image, not regarding another work. Style can
be certain way to use colors, lines, textures, lights and so on. This can be
very subjective because of the viewer's background again.
Technical
Here I have to read the description file. Working with POV now in my first
year, has been invaluable. It has prompted me to search, research, read,
look, observe and –overall-, analyze and differentiate. It is easier to work
with a modeler after you know how to read a file in POV.
Originality 4
Obviously, is it original? Why? If not, why do I think it is not original?
How has been the software used to get the effects the artist says are there?
Is that true?
Overall design 8
Can I understand what is the artist talking -writing- about? How is the
design of the image from inside to outside? What kind of tools is used to
get what? Do I understand it? If not, where is the source? Does the
technical design is the bone of what I see?
Rendering 5
How the code is written and executed? Is there any kind of enhancement? How
does it look like? Is everything intended, in the right place? What about
the quality? Is that a wild compression, or an excellent one?
Usage/create 3
What kind of ‘new things’ is used? Do they contribute to the image, or are
they baseless? E.g., is there a macro to display only two objects? Does it
worth? Is there a reason for that? How the artist manages include files, and
resources, to achieve the image?


Topic
originality 6
Is it a copy as far as I know?
It has to do from using a preset from any program and saying, "I made it",
to a copy from another artist. Some people can make an image like Da Vinci,
and that is just that: "like Da Vinci" without adding any personal
intervention, basically because he/she has spent a great deal of time
copying. Copying is a good technique to learn, not to create. I would spend
time trying to copy one of the characters of A Bug's Life just to achieve a
great texture. Many people start drawing with the help of a grid, only to
get frustrated when they cannot put it aside and enjoy the work.
Rules 6
Abiding by the rules simply put. Size and post-processing. If I cross the
street with a red light I am dead, period. So, correct size, no post-process
except signature and compression. Otherwise, nothing.
Express 8
The big one. Expression. What is this? What is the transcendence of this
image, no matter what the artist say? What does this image mean to me? Since
telepathy is not one of my features, the image only has sense regarding my
perception. I won't waste my time thinking about what does the artist want
to express, that's his/her business. Mine is to appreciate and catch a
meaning coming from the image. An artwork talks. Sometimes is a quiet voice;
some other is a scream, who knows? The description file sometimes
contaminates my perception. It is very easy to agree or disagree with the
author regarding what he/she thinks he/she did, and that is contamination.
If I don’t have anything worthy –and not obvious- to say, I will not
comment.  That’s a way to show my respect for those hours of work, no matter
if I don’t like it. That’s irrelevant.

Notes. Yes, I have changed this time to Winvote. It is the only way to
evaluate and load my little excel scale in the background.

Any comment to enhance  -specially the technical field- is highly
appreciated.

Regards,
Marjorie Graterol




Greg M. Johnson <"gregj;-)56590"@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
<36e0a20a.0@news.povray.org>...
>I probably gave something like 18-12-10 to an entry in the last round,
>First Encounter.  The entry was a view up into the bottom of some kind
>of mushroom-shaped spacecraft.  The entry had a brilliant collection of
>bright colors.
>
>ARTISTIC:     Wow. That is pretty.  Neat screensaver. Neat T-shirt. Neat
>wall decoration in my living room.
>TECHNICAL: Hmm.  Probably not that hard to make, just lights and
>coloring.
>CONCEPT:     Nah.  A spaceship?  Whoo-peee.
>
>In thinking about cross-contamination more, I think I've both been the
>victim of it badly, and I think that I may be a pepretrator, and I think
>that it's a too easy criticism to make of a rating you disagree with.
>
>Fabien Mosen wrote:
>
>> just curious :
>> could you cite me an image (even from past rounds) that
>> deserves a vote like 20-10-12 or 10-9-16 or anything like that ?
>> I don't remember seeing one, even after 16 months of IRTC.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fabien.
>

Post a reply to this message

Pedro Graterol wrote:
> 
> Since the last round, I asked for some help to build a scale, an evaluation
> scale. As I stated, I needed orientation in the technical aspect or field
> because it is the field I know less. Ken Tyler re-posted a Jerry Anning's
> point of view, which I support. Since this is personal, I don't want you to
> think I am imposing my scale. I only want you to know that this is the scale
> I am using. It is easier for me and eliminates a great deal of guessing, and
> "liking", in regard to artistic field.
> It is still imperfect though. I would have liked to confine every item to an
> easy yes or not, but that is impossible.

< snipped a whole bunch of good stuff >


   Speaking of defining a scenes elements I came across a site with a three
 part discussion on what makes a computer generated image photo realistic.
 While art doesn't need to be photo realistic to be good there are times
 when you do go for the realism and fall short because of the inherently
 sterile, overly accurate, nature of computer graphics. This article
 discusses what you whould look for in an image or if you are the person
 doing the modeling what things you should think about when designing your
 scene.
   Now you may be asking what has this got to do with judging the i.r.t.c
 contest are you ever going to get to the point Ken. Why yes I am. I found
 the article added a new depth perseption to my thinking in regards to
 scene layout and the importance of what key elemets to include. This
 applies as much to making an image as it does in evaluating one.

   With that out of the way I recommend that people reading this message
 take a little time to stop by the posted links below and see what the guy
 has to say on the subject.



 Reality is Chaos  or  Creating Photo Realistic Scenes
 -----------------------------------------------------

 Part One
 http://www.3d-domain.com/articles/realityischaos/1/index.shtml

 Part Two
 http://www.3d-domain.com/articles/realityischaos/2/index.shtml

 Part Three
 http://www.3d-domain.com/articles/realityischaos/3/index.shtml

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbellnet>...

>   With that out of the way I recommend that people reading this message
> take a little time to stop by the posted links below and see what the guy
> has to say on the subject.
>

I remember having read that a long time ago -I have them bookmarked :)-,
because it is indexed somewhere in serious3d.com, before I received my first
and only issue -now it will go online-.  I remember that clearly because it
prompted me to re-think what I thought. Of course, rebel to death, I do not
agree completely.  Why? Because I consider photorealism to be a trend.
Technically, this is, the content and reasons given by Fleming are
excellent. Even If I do not agree with the trend -flow- they worth every
letter read.  An advantage - for me- is that I do not work with graphics
every day and somehow I see the whole thing from another point of view.  I
also recommend something that illustrates the "other" point of view.  These
articles are about Digital Aesthetics and yes, are current.

Part 1

http://www.webreference.com/graphics/essay/essay2/index.html

Part2

http://www.webreference.com/graphics/essay/essay3/index.html

Part 3

http://www.webreference.com/graphics/essay/essay4/index.html


Thanks Ken for this reminder. I had almost forgot it! I do not know exactly
what I have in my HD.

Regards,
Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message

"Marjorie Graterol" <pgr### [at] emailmsncom> wrote:
>
> Why? Because I consider photorealism to be a trend.

Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, it's
not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.

(Then again, as someone who prefers the realistic portrait miniatures of
Nicholas Hilliard and Isaac Oliver over the paint-spatterings of Jackson
Pollack or the pencilled-moustaches-on-lithographs-of-Mona-Lisas of
Marcel Duchamp, I for one hope the photorealistic "trend" of raytracing
continues for a very long time indeed.)  :-)


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet        http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

  "The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality
  is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes."

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Lee<SHI### [at] GATENET wrote in message <36e4c3a3.0@news.povray.org>...
>Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, it's
>not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.
Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, called
art. In Art, "soon" as a word does not have meaning, because of the very
nature of the makers, this is, humans. I would like to make clear that I
see -watch, observe, appreciate, try- raytracing from my point of view,
severely contaminated by years of art history study and above all,
influenced by analysis and philosophy. This has taught me to recognize the
freedom of choice anybody is entitled to, including me. :)
>(Then again, as someone who prefers the realistic portrait miniatures of
>Nicholas Hilliard and Isaac Oliver over the paint-spatterings of Jackson
>Pollack or the pencilled-moustaches-on-lithographs-of-Mona-Lisas of
>Marcel Duchamp, I for one hope the photorealistic "trend" of raytracing
>continues for a very long time indeed.) :-)
I would say that, rethinking the whole term, it would be good -for me- to
call it 'cycle' instead. We are still used to think in the space in a XV
century conception. IMHO Brunelleschi never thought about the permanence of
his points., as well as Egyptians never conceived that someone could say
they never knew "how to paint properly", and for sure, Mondrian never
thought his works would be recognized as "L'Oreal" instead of Mondrians.
Everything is "related to" another thing. Indeed, this is an amazing world
to analyze. :-)
BTW, I do not like Pollack, nor Duchamp. I respect every artist but that
does not mean I compromise my choices. I have a lot of 'preferred' artists.
I like Dali, an example, since I first saw his works (years, and years, and
years ago :-) ). I admired that, even being so "classic" (!)-we historians
wannabes call it 'eclectic'- he was able to transform the meaning of
painting. I liked Escher a long -equally eons- time ago, because he was able
to tease so many people before and after his death, especially
psychologists. I like Sorolla, because nobody has been able to re-create the
sun's light as he did, yet. And Caravaggio, and ancient chinese painters
that painted with the main plane up in the canvas, and many others., those
that have had the courage to make their own choices, no matter what the
world thinks.
As time passes, however, I realize that Borges was right when he said before
death: "It is so much I have not read yet!". (*)
Regards,
Marjorie Graterol
(*) I am not English speaker, so please excuse my grammar

Post a reply to this message

"Marjorie Graterol" <pgr### [at] emailmsncom> wrote:
> Jeff Lee<SHI### [at] GATENET wrote in message <36e4c3a3.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>> Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, it's
>> not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.
>
> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, called
> art.

I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
to disagree strenuously).


> In Art, "soon" as a word does not have meaning, because of the very
> nature of the makers, this is, humans.

That is true.  But I wonder if, centuries from now, the abstract and
Dadaist works of the twentieth century will be held in as high regard as
the works of da Vinci or Rembrandt.  My personal opinion is that
*talented* artists, like Dali, will achieve that kind of lasting
appreciation, but the people who only seem capable of drawing a single
white line on a black canvas and calling it "art" will fade into
obscurity.


> This has taught me to recognize the freedom of choice anybody is entitled
> to, including me. :)

Of course; it works both ways.  I'm perfectly willing to let someone
call a toilet or a telephone a work of art -- as long as they allow me
the right to say it takes no artistic talent to do so.  And, of course,
then they're free to make the usual defensive statement that I just
don't "get it", to which I will happily agree.  :-)


> I would say that, rethinking the whole term, it would be good -for me- to
> call it 'cycle' instead. We are still used to think in the space in a XV
> century conception.

Well, *I* am, at least -- just like I think of music in terms of
classical harmonic structures.  Modern artists and musicians may reject
these old-fashioned "limits" or "burdens", but my personal sense of
aesthetics prefers them over the chaotic (and often ugly) artistic and
musical forms of the twentieth century.

As to fifteenth-century conceptions of space, it was then that the
concepts of perspective and realism really came into flower in the
Western art world.  The way I see it, this is the spatial concept which
is best represented by the raytracer, since it works by the mathematical
principles which lie behind perspective drawing.


> those that have had the courage to make their own choices, no matter
> what the world thinks.

And yet, now that contemporary art has departed from photorealism, is it
not a valid artistic choice to choose realism, no matter what the art
world thinks?  ;-)



-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Lee wrote in message <36e5914c.0@news.povray.org>...
>"Marjorie Graterol" <pgr### [at] emailmsncom> wrote:
>> Jeff Lee<SHI### [at] GATENET wrote in message 
<36e4c3a3.0@news.povray.org>...
>>
>>> Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, 
it's
>>> not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.
>>
>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, 
called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).
>


Please read it again!  :-) 

>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, 
called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).

The misinterpretation relies in taking raytracing as photo-realism. 
Photorealism is old, like me :-). It is from the 60's and 70's, as an 
artistic movement, that derived to super-realism.  Art has been always 
ahead its  time,  Raytracing on the other hand is a way of 
representation.  

>...the people who only seem capable of drawing a single
>white line on a black canvas and calling it "art" will fade into
>obscurity.


That's for sure, until the concept of "talented" changes again.  In 
Neoclasicism, every sculptor re-created their works  following the 
classics. And they ended up with sculptures without eyes. It is just 
that they did not realize that originals had lost their eyes with time. 
:-)  They were realist, and they were not realists. 


Regarding music, It is the same concept. There is music that gives me 
headaches,- well, I do not call it music-.  I usually get cured with 
some genuine rock., I am from the 70's :-)

>The way I see it, this is the spatial concept which
>is best represented by the raytracer, since it works by the 
mathematical
>principles which lie behind perspective drawing.

Right again. Only when that space concept changes, is when everybody 
scream. That's good. 

>And yet, now that contemporary art has departed from photorealism, is 
it
>not a valid artistic choice to choose realism, no matter what the art
>world thinks?  ;-)


Yes it is valid. What happens is that realism is another term.  Realism 
not as a movement -USRR, Daumier, etc-., realism  that involves a way of 
thinking, a way to aprehend reality. ( BTW, what reality? :-) )  When I 
discussed that with a mathematician friend of mine, I asked her to show 
me a four., no examples. Show me one, in nature. It is a formal thing, 
like aesthetics, only in the mind.  :-)

It has been a good exercise, :-)


Regards,
Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (5 KB)

Perhaps I am showing my great arrogance and ignorance of fine art.

I imagine that in painting, an artist can make a smudge of yellow paint in one
corner, and one viewer chooses to  be offended at their interpretation of a
yellow dog and another viewer takes delight in their interpretation of a yellow
canary.  All along, the artist may have meant it to be a tiny yellow campfire.

Similarly, in fine arts like painting, silly people can get offended, say, if
Picasso stops painting in blue or if an artist places a toilet in the middle of
the gallery.

I think that in many fine arts, artists willfully INTEND to do things, and yes,
the observer has the freedom to delight or take offense or totally miss the
boat.

I wonder if raytracing is a bit different. I think that when a raytracing artist
makes an error, it is more offensive to 'theme.' A raytracer will always create
an image for you, no matter how much work or little thought the artist puts into
it.  You don't use your hand to make a yellow smudge of paint. Instead, you
might simply say, "MAKE BOX" or "INSERT POSER FIGURE", and get exactly what you
ask for.  In raytracing, the result will often look like a real-world photograph
with a few inane, arbitrary changes made to it.  For example, you will end up
with an image that looks just like a photograph from the true Stone Ages where
someone has taken the time to airbrush out all of the cavepeople's hair. As
another example, you can end up with a Christmas scene of a boy opening presents
where the boxes are perfect rectangular solids with high ambient light. The
result looks like a photograph of a boy opening presents, where someone inserted
a flat cardboard drawing of boxes infront of the boy.

I have the freedom to ask, "Why are the cavemen bald clones?"  I have the
freedom to ask, "Why are the presents a 2-D cutout of a drawing of boxes?"  I
hope I'm not as silly (abusing my freedom) as the person who said, "But Picasso,
that's not blue and you are still in your blue period."

Of course, if the artist shows that he or she intends for things to look
cartoony, surreal,  or odd with a very consistent style of construction, then we
often can find good theme and artistic merit.   That is why I am much tougher on
sloppy photorealism than on cartoonism. The best photoreal images usually get
the highest ratings from me, nonetheless: my personal voting often picks the
podium.  But sloppy, half-hearted photorealism as an intentional form is
offensive artistically and thematically to me.  All their scores get
contaminated downward.

Pedro Graterol wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson <"gregj;-)56590"@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
> <36dc9466.0@news.povray.org>...
> >This ain't high diving.
> >
> >Any ol' fool can throw a bunch of sloppy CSG and isosurface patches and
> fail
> >miserably for technical merit in my book.  I think that Annig's earlier
> post
> >talked about "appropriate use" of technology.   I have rated images low for
> >being an obtuse showcasing of a raytracing program's capability.
>
> I am answering this because I saw one of my post  attached to this one, and
> I like the topic.
>
> I strongly agree with Annig's personal evaluation scale regarding topics or
> aspects to review.  I was trying to be objective assigning points and/or
> qualifications. To this regard, I  keep my word to the last answer in the
> same thread, which obviuosly has not been referenced.
>
> >I found that detail offensive to its artistry: who'd want
> >that entry hanging on a wall?  It was offensive to technical merit: it
> showed
> >careless use of a canned model.
>
>  I won't ever discuss any judgement regarding technical merit about using
> raytracing. It is very simple, I am not a programmer, nor mathematician.
> However, I do not have to be one of them to raytrace and, by the same token,
> nobody has to be an artist to raytrace.  I have realized that the more I
> raytrace -or try to- the more I learn. This said, It's matter of time -in
> appreciation, rendering, analysis, trial-and-error renderings and
> experimentation - that I can differenciate and/or aprehend more technical
> subtleties
>
> > It was offensive to concept:  WHY ON EARTH
> >would a group of cavemen be cloned and bald?  What kind of message is the
> author
> >trying to convey:  time travel? loss of identity in cults?
> >
>
> The magic word here is art, which means primarily freedom.  Unfortunately,
> the downside of art is precisely the opinion of the viewer, which cannot
> affect the artist nor the artwork itself. It is a viewer's  point of view.
> In the same way Duchamp was dumped from a museum when he put a toilette in
> the middle (go now and ask for the price of that toilette); in the same way
> Picasso was rejected when he stopped painting "in the right way" ; in the
> same way the collage technique is now  "a state of the art " to make
> portraits (after being someting confined to entertain kids in rainy days)..
> and so on., everybody is entitled to depict, represent or figure out
> everything is a free way.  Raytracing has become a superb tool to do many,
> many things. After all, this is 1999.
> I also realize that raytracing is *not* photorealism. This is a trend, and
> slowly -and because this is the same cycle repeating when photography
> finally took the "reality burden" from painting- raytracing will evolve more
> and more.
>
> A also realize the importance of writing the description in IRTC, as odd as
> it appears.  To me, it is aimed at jurors, not to explain *why* I did
> something. It is to enlighten  one's mind.  I was very upset first, when I
> sent my second entry -elements-, which was about the Periodic Table of
> Elements. When I read the comments, I sadly agreed with those that
> encouraged me to 'write about'. , it was evident that not many people knew
> what a periodic table is.  This is a learning process, where we all learn,
> or more accurately and not to offend anybody, where I am very proud of being
> learning.
>
> Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message