Hey Mark,

We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces 
that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job 
since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us 
contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my 
input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think 
persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to 
discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that 
matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea 
to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the 
progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss 
the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is 
like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed, 
and should produce a richer context within which the community can 
produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim, 
Your input is great.
 
For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
thoughtful discussion takes time. 

It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?           

There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting. 

I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
feedback.     
Bill P. 

Jim Charter wrote:
> 
> Hey Mark,
> 
> We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
> that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
> since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
> contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
> input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
> persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
> discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
> matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
> to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
> progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
> the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
> like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
> and should produce a richer context within which the community can
> produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?
> 
> -Jim

Post a reply to this message

William F. Pokorny wrote:
> Jim, 
> Your input is great.

Thanks, I see it as an exchange of ideas, not the final word.

>  
> For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
> a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
> thoughtful discussion takes time.

I think it should be getting in my way more.  Still, I guess I am 
looking for some useful way to contribute to this beyond the occasional 
picture.  It will be a long time, like never, until I have any useful 
sdl to contribute.

> 
> It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
> participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
> Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
> while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?  

I have noticed that too, at least it is more satisfying for me to hear 
their response.  Polling which artists want to participate is an 
interseting thought, another thought I had was to commit to just the 
number of images it takes to encompass the winners...while allowing 
anyone ... any other... as you said

> 
> There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
> with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
> it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting.

It usually doesn't take much display of enthusiasm to get Bill Marrs to 
act, but I'm afraid we didn't get a response to meet even that low 
threshold.

> 
> I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
> also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
> level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
> images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
> Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
> by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
> to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
> a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
> feedback.     
> Bill P. 
> 

You state the problem very fairly.  It's hard to be stylin' when it will 
probably just be received as technical incompetence.  The form just 
hasn't gotten far enough yet for much holistic discussion.  Content, 
even style, might warrent mention in the more accomplished pieces, as 
you say.  On the other hand I guess I am eager to gently point out that 
any image is open to interpretation, which is what makes the whole thing 
fun, beyond mere technical accomplishment. Are the two levels of 
discussion exclusive to each other?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
>We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
>that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
>since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
>contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
>input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
>persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
>discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
>matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
>to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
>progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
>the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
>like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
>and should produce a richer context within which the community can
>produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?

It does look like interest has tailed off. I've appreciated and learned from
your (and everyone's) input and had hoped we'd get a lot more unique points
of view, both artistic comments and technical feedback.

I plan to continue through the top 20 images; I think we have a lot to learn
from many of them. Whether we do learn anything is up to the community. My
own comments are fairly average but I'd hoped they would be general enough
to get the ball rolling.

Post a reply to this message

The level of interest has definitely dropped along with the rankings....
maybe the top 10 would be more workable.

All of the points made above are good ones, and I think another point is
simply this forum, for two reasons.

1) Being on the POV newgroup may put off artists who are using other
software.

2) POVers who don't participate in the IRTC may simply not be interested.

I personally like the idea Mark has here. I'm always particularly interested
in discussion of other artists creative process, the "why I did this"
factor.

RG

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:

> I plan to continue through the top 20 images; I think we have a lot to learn
> from many of them. Whether we do learn anything is up to the community.

Okay then, on to the next one!

  My
> own comments are fairly average but I'd hoped they would be general enough
> to get the ball rolling.
> 
> 

I usually have some ideas written down a day or so ahead, only to find 
that I end up repeating what you say, just in different words.  So I 
have to elaborate.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

>I usually have some ideas written down a day or so ahead, only to find
>that I end up repeating what you say, just in different words.  So I
>have to elaborate.

Feel free Jim, or anyone for that matter, to post first on any image. It
would be nice if the artists themselves posted first, as that might guide
the discussions better, but they may not be comfortable posting first.

gonzo's comment about discussing the origins of the idea, the creative
process, would also add a lot to the discussions.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e95965c@news.povray.org...

I found this a little late, but have been reading and enjoying the
various threads. I believe that he problem with participation has to do
with the fact that you have put more thought into your comments, Jim,
than many of the entrants have put into their images. Regarding most of
these images there simply isn't anything to discuss.

That isn't meant to be as strong a criticism as it may sound. Building a
scene in Povray can be a long and difficult process, and the act of
completing a scene provides the same type of  satisfaction as completing
a model airplane. It is obvious that whereas many put a lot of effort
into creating their entries, very few put much thought into the scenes
themselves.

There is a thought process involved in building an unimaginative scene,
but the process is automatic. The inclusion of most objects has less to
do with artistic expression than with the availability of a model or
source material. To ask why an entrant placed a horse in front of a
carriage is to ask why he put legs on a table. One of the better
concepts of the round was the radio graves entry, and Slashdolt
confesses to adding many of the elements simply because he liked them.
Even the main idea of his picture doesn't provide a lot of provocation
for discussion. The idea is somewhat ironic, but the irony isn't
analogous to any human experience. The idea is however not threadbare,
which deserves a lot of credit.

If you accept that most of the images are more like model cars than
attempts at art, then the majority of the emphasis should be on
technical merit. When I comment on pictures in the IRTC, most of my
comments are related to this. However, there is not a whole lot to
contribute in that area, either, since so few have really taken or had
the time to get as far as they could without help. What help can you
offer someone whose scene is only half finished.

If you want to do something to "advance raytracing as an art," then I
would suggest focusing your creativity on your own works rather than
those of others. That, and voting for provocative topics for the IRTC
rounds. I think that people will find more creativity if they are
focusing on an idea about which they are passionate.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3e95965c@news.povray.org...
> 
> I found this a little late, but have been reading and enjoying the
> various threads. I believe that he problem with participation has to do
> with the fact that you have put more thought into your comments, Jim,
> than many of the entrants have put into their images. Regarding most of
> these images there simply isn't anything to discuss.
> 
> That isn't meant to be as strong a criticism as it may sound. Building a
> scene in Povray can be a long and difficult process, and the act of
> completing a scene provides the same type of  satisfaction as completing
> a model airplane. It is obvious that whereas many put a lot of effort
> into creating their entries, very few put much thought into the scenes
> themselves.
> 
> There is a thought process involved in building an unimaginative scene,
> but the process is automatic. The inclusion of most objects has less to
> do with artistic expression than with the availability of a model or
> source material. To ask why an entrant placed a horse in front of a
> carriage is to ask why he put legs on a table. One of the better
> concepts of the round was the radio graves entry, and Slashdolt
> confesses to adding many of the elements simply because he liked them.
> Even the main idea of his picture doesn't provide a lot of provocation
> for discussion. The idea is somewhat ironic, but the irony isn't
> analogous to any human experience. The idea is however not threadbare,
> which deserves a lot of credit.
> 
> If you accept that most of the images are more like model cars than
> attempts at art, then the majority of the emphasis should be on
> technical merit. When I comment on pictures in the IRTC, most of my
> comments are related to this. However, there is not a whole lot to
> contribute in that area, either, since so few have really taken or had
> the time to get as far as they could without help. What help can you
> offer someone whose scene is only half finished.

Okay, I think I follow you, my comments are largely beside the point.
Do you think they are actually discouraging participation?  And I am 
confused about whether you think any discussion is irrelevent?

> 
> If you want to do something to "advance raytracing as an art," then I
> would suggest focusing your creativity on your own works rather than
> those of others.

So everyone was having fun making meaningless model airplanes and I came 
along stole it all by taking them seriously and imposing meaning? 
Possibly.  There is an appropriation of the work when I note my 
reactions to it and try and interpret them.  But three objections come 
to mind.  One, you may very well be selling some people short.  Two, 
when a work enters the public domain, it is open to interpretation and 
has meaning, like it or not.  Three, some minimal attempt at meaning 
seems implicit in a contest which centers around a "topic" and in which 
2/3 of the judging is based on artistic and conceptual merit.
But I will concede that claiming to "advance raytracing as an art" is a 
bit grand.  I retract any such claim and admit that this process serves 
personal ends, trying to organize my own ideas.

  That, and voting for provocative topics for the IRTC
> rounds. I think that people will find more creativity if they are
> focusing on an idea about which they are passionate.
>

Hey, the "Worlds within Worlds" topic was my suggestion!
Isn't it possible that a discussion of the artisitic side of the entries 
might lead to better topic ideas being generated?  And if they find an 
idea about which they are passionate, and focus on it, and find some 
creativity, wouldn't it be even more fun if myself or another comes 
along and further validates it?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e976c48@news.povray.org...

> So everyone was having fun making meaningless model airplanes
> and I came  along stole it all by taking them seriously and imposing
> meaning?

Of course not. I guess my first sentence was a bit backwards. Let me try
again:

"I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact that
many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you have
put into your comments, Jim. "

Yes. That is much clearer.

I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
model airplanes. Hell, even some of the entries this round *were* virtual
model airplanes. I don't mean this as an insult, just an observation based
in large part on the contents of the text files accompanying the entries.

>
> Hey, the "Worlds within Worlds" topic was my suggestion!

That was a good topic which produced a lot of interesting entries in
addition to the winners.

> Isn't it possible that a discussion of the artisitic side of the entries
> might lead to better topic ideas being generated?

Perhaps. More likely, this discussion may encourage entrants to put more
thought into the ideas behind their entries within the scope of whatever
topic is selected.

> And if they find an
> idea about which they are passionate, and focus on it, and
> find some  creativity, wouldn't it be even more fun if myself
> or another comes  along and further validates it?

*IF*, then yes, but I feel that recognizing this passion *only* when it
exists is what provides validation. I have trouble accepting that many
entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
technical challenge of producing those entries.

I think that comments like yours and Rendergdog's do a lot to encourage
participation in the IRTC and to encourage people to improve their skills. I
think that what you are doing is a good thing and was in my original post
only reporting why others like myself may not have the motivation to do the
same.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Carrie Ann and/or Shay wrote:

> 
> "I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact that
> many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you have
> put into your comments, Jim. "
> 

Okay, now I gotcha.

> 
> I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
> model airplanes.

I would say you are not selling *everyone* short.  I would go further 
and say that the model making paradigm is the prevailing attitude.  That 
is, that to produce a raytraced image is to produce an accurate 
*recreation*.  And to be clear here, I am talking about the image, not 
the ( csg ) model underlaying it.  Though many make that confusion also.


> 
> Perhaps. More likely, this discussion may encourage entrants to put more
> thought into the ideas behind their entries within the scope of whatever
> topic is selected.
>

That is my hope.


> I have trouble accepting that many
> entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
> entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
> technical challenge of producing those entries.

Well I have certainly been there with my own entries.  I would guess 
that maybe half of mine began with the desire to explore a particular 
technical issue, and tried to adapt that endeavor to the topic.  That 
said, I think it is also important to acknowledge that the creative 
process can begin anywhere and follow an indirect path.

> 
> I think that comments like yours and Rendergdog's do a lot to encourage
> participation in the IRTC and to encourage people to improve their skills. I
> think that what you are doing is a good thing and was in my original post
> only reporting why others like myself may not have the motivation to do the
> same.
> 

I appreciate you saying so. Peace.  Just let me add that I care alot 
about the work I see exhibited here and am wary that I may very well be 
exploitive.  You loose your sense of boundaries while you write sometimes.

Post a reply to this message

Let me first say that the feedback is extremely valuable, and I like to
both give and get feedback.

> The level of interest has definitely dropped along with the
rankings....
> maybe the top 10 would be more workable.
I was away and wasn't able to respond to "my" post right away, I think a
lot of discussion died because of that..

> 1) Being on the POV newgroup may put off artists who are using other
> software.
True. As a POV user, I also feel I can give better feedback on POV
images.

> I personally like the idea Mark has here. I'm always particularly
interested
> in discussion of other artists creative process, the "why I did this"
> factor.
I always do a lot of thinking about the image, not just making a lot of
models and put them together. But there is always a lot of things you
haven't though about, which others do, I think that's great! Though it
feels a little weird to get a positive "WOW!!" response on something you
didn't even notice :-)

I suggest that the people that want response to their image can post an
thread about it. Then we'll only get discussion where the artist
participate, which I think is a good thing. Plus those who place lower
than top 20 could get some feedback too.

Just a thought..

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Interesting discussion, Shay & Jim!

> Carrie Ann and/or Shay wrote:
> > "I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact
that
> > many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you
have
> > put into your comments, Jim. "

That's a damn fine thesaurus you got there, Jim! I'm going to frame
everything you said about my image! ;-)

> > I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
> > model airplanes.
> I would say you are not selling *everyone* short.  I would go further
> and say that the model making paradigm is the prevailing attitude.
<snip>
> And to be clear here, I am talking about the image, not
> the ( csg ) model underlaying it.  Though many make that confusion also.

I think these all relate to Jim's earlier comments about "advancing the ART
of raytracing". (emphasis added on ART)  Raytracing hasn't been "art", its
been programming, or science, or "tech".
The model making paradigm is unavoidable in any 3D work; you have to have
the models. Todays faster processors mean that it no longer has to be the
primary focus of a CG hobbyist. Things I can render today in a few hours
would have taken weeks or been impossible 5 years ago. Now the artist has
time to stop focusing on the models and start focusing on the image.  Say
"Ok, I've got these models, now, artistically, what can I do with them?"

> > I have trouble accepting that many
> > entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
> > entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
> > technical challenge of producing those entries.

Hmmmm, two different creative processes... the artist or the engineer... POV
seem to attract a lot of both.

> Well I have certainly been there with my own entries.  I would guess
> that maybe half of mine began with the desire to explore a particular
> technical issue, and tried to adapt that endeavor to the topic.

True... :)

That
> said, I think it is also important to acknowledge that the creative
> process can begin anywhere and follow an indirect path.

Even truer! :)


RG

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> 
> That's a damn fine thesaurus you got there, Jim! 

LOL!  I try to reign it in.


I'm going to frame
> everything you said about my image! ;-)
> 

Keep up the good work!

Post a reply to this message

I got behind on this list.  I suppose that's human nature.  But even 11 days
after this post, there were a couple things that I'd like to get on the
record.

1.  I think this discussion is great.  But...  Most of the enthusiasm seemed
to die down after a couple days.  I wonder if it would be more worthwhile to
simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone go on a commenting
flurry for the next several days.  And yes, if anyone wants to put any other
image up for comment, they should feel free to do so.

2. Sometimes I get the feeling that Jim's comments are able to bring things
out that are very hard for the artist to decisively express with words.  On
the other hand, perhaps other times the artist was simply unable to get
something to look right, so he/she fudged it in some way.  I agree that the
further down the list, "fudging" probably becomes more likely.  To use an
example from the other thread I recently started, in Malevich's "Red Square"
the fact that the square is not "square" was intentional.  However, if I
tried to paint a red square, it may be unintentially "non-square".  Even so,
it makes me wonder if even great artists have made "mistakes", which in
retrospect, seemed like one of their most brilliant ideas.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3ea45fd5$1@news.povray.org...
| Slashdolt:
|  simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone
|  go on a commenting flurry for the next several days.

This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
good idea, or top ten.

| Slashdolt:
|  On the other hand, perhaps other times the artist was
|  simply unable to get something to look right, so he/she
|  fudged it in some way.

I'm very sure that happens.<g> On the other hand, recognizing those
unintentional good elements might be the start of a valuable intentional
technique.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:33:14 -0500, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> said:

>
>"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
>news:3ea45fd5$1@news.povray.org...
>| Slashdolt:
>|  simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone
>|  go on a commenting flurry for the next several days.
>
>This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
>good idea, or top ten.

I agree, top 20 is too much.  I think top ten is a more reasonable
amount.

---
Jet Jaguar
Visit my crappy home page at http://home.att.net/~chmilnir/
MSTie #54297

Post a reply to this message

> This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
> good idea, or top ten.
>

My concern was simply that interest wanes.  By the time we got to #5 in this
round, very few comments were being entered anymore.  Perhaps a portion of
this concern is simply my guilt over having received so many comments.
However, I did help keep the ball rolling, since I could probably comment
endlessly on just about anything I do.  ;-)  Even so, had I come in 10th, I
doubt that many would still be around to comment at that point.  By taking
the 6 "winners", and putting them out there as soon as the results are
announced, anyone could feel free to comment on any of them.

I don't believe that all of the comments need to appear on Day 1. A person
could still enter one comment per day if they wanted, but they could do that
in any order they wanted.  I believe that shortly after the results are
announced everyone feels the most enthused about the competition, and those
images with lower scores would probaby be able to get more response.  I
understand the purpose of slowing things down.  I just wonder if it's being
slowed down at the expense of the artist receiving valuable criticism and/or
praise.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
enough new blood to carry on the discussions.

I still feel many of the best images are not in the top 10, so maybe next
round I'll post a few to discuss, no matter where they scored.

One very positive result of these discussions is I've learned how to look at
the images more carefully, to better appreciate their creative and
technical aspects.

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
>It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
>top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
>enough new blood to carry on the discussions.

I'm afraid I'm the one who suggested top 20, and I see I may have been over
enthusiastic.  The basic format is sound, it's just that interest has waned
faster than I thought it would.  Top ten looks like it would be a more
reasonable number, but even two weeks might be too long.  How about for the
next round we try to do the top ten at a rate of two per day, so we can get
through all of them in a week?

If someone wants to talk about an image that falls outside the top 10, they
are free to bring up any other entry at any time.

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
> 
> It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
> top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
> enough new blood to carry on the discussions.


I've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
Is the quantification of art really that important?

What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.

And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
stupid to deserve to live.

<runs away>

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> Is the quantification of art really that important?

No more or less important than quantification of politics, religion, pop 
culture, or other favorite topics.
> 
> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
> thrill of it all.

We are interested in attracting those who are interested in discussing 
it.  It is something that I have thought was missing for awhile but 
didn't have the guts to suggest.

  If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
> then it serves a purpose. 

No guarentees.

If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
> to me, serve no purpose. 

This is always true no matter the subject, considering "conversation" as 
something different.  The question of whether serious dicussion has 
intrinsic value would be an interesting discussion perhaps?

I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
> having to discuss it 

True, but I have found that I get lazy unless I try to formulate my 
thoughts into words, and better still, a sustained arguement.

> 
> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
> stupid to deserve to live.
> 

I'm guessing you wouldn't mind getting the 17 mil for it though.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
>I've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
>studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
>something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
>Is the quantification of art really that important?

Understanding why something is beautiful (or the attempt) might make it
easier to create something beautiful?

>What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
>the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
>people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
>thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
>then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
>to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
>having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.

Assuming we learn nothing from the discussion, which isn't true for me, I
still enjoy talking with people who share my hobby. It's fun!

>And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
>a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
>stupid to deserve to live.

I think of art like that as exercises of the extreme. How simple can a piece
be and still be art? More as an experiment, and a very successful one
judging from the discussions here alone.

Post a reply to this message

> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is
into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for
many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the
technical
> thrill of it all.

For me, that thrill disappeared a few months ago.  It's like the difference
between writing a dictionary and writing a novel.  You can't write a novel
without a good understanding of the language, but nobody really wants to sit
and read the dictionary.

Jim, unlike many of us, falls into the "artistic side".  The IRTC takes both
technical and artistic into consideration, so I feel that a discussion of
both is appropriate.  Christoph suggested better lighting for my entry,
which led to a very technical thread.  Other threads had more to do with the
artistic merits, and others with concept/theme/etc.

I personally enjoy hearing more discussion of the artistic merits of our
entries, since that is where I personally feel the most deficient.  Visiting
Gilles' Oyonale web-site I often think that I may be able to do many of
those things on a technical basis, but it's the artistic aspect that keeps
me returning and inspires me.

> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot
painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being
too
> stupid to deserve to live.
>

Everyone knows that a red-dot is meaningless, it's only when it's a red
square on a white background that it has meaning...  Duh!  ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:

> top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, 

I think there is a real possibility of this though it will be 
interesting to shift one's critical stance for different topics.  At the 
moment I have no idea how I will approach "architecture".

> 
> I still feel many of the best images are not in the top 10, so maybe next
> round I'll post a few to discuss, no matter where they scored.

Yes I think this is the best approach.  I also think that the six 
winners should always be discussed along with any entries which rank 
among the winners.

> 
> One very positive result of these discussions is I've learned how to look at
> the images more carefully, to better appreciate their creative and
> technical aspects.

Your initial instincts were right, that there is a tremendous amount of 
work put into these entries, and they *will* support a little more 
attention, even on the content side.  While I think I have pooped out 
finally, I found that all the top entries we've reviewed were ones I'd 
given top ranking in my own voting and had little problem getting 
enthusiastic about them.  I few of them stretched my appreciation.  I 
think this experiment has been a good success.  I think shrinking the 
number of mandatory works to review and encouraging the number of ad hoc 
reviews is the way to go. There are some entries I thought were 
interesting that fell outside our net but after the number of mandatory 
reviews I've attempted already, I really can't get to them. I did toy 
with the idea of balling a few entries together into one set of 
observations. I will probably attempt this in the future. One of the 
things that worries me is that the attention could have a chilling 
effect on entries. That novices might fear exposing their work to an 
overly critical environment. That is why I personally took the approach 
of being as positive as possible while at the same time hinting at the 
different artistic and interpretive issues as they come up. I hope that 
my approach gave others the space to provide friendly and helpful 
criticism.  I just listened to some tapes by John Bradshaw, "The Price 
of Nice", which talk about the tremendous harm false niceness can cause.
And the value of someone who will give honest criticism.  So it is a 
fine line we have to walk I feel.  I also know of art schools that 
became such severe critical environments that creativity was no longer 
nurtured.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea59cd0@news.povray.org...| Renderdog wrote:

| Jim Charter:
|  I think there is a real possibility of this though it will be
|  interesting to shift one's critical stance for different topics.
|  At the  moment I have no idea how I will approach
|  "architecture".

If I finish my entry, I will once again try to leave a comment on every
picture when voting. This time, however, I will not make an attempt to
sum up every aspect of the picture in my comment. I will only say
whatever I feel is important, or failing that, most important, and then
move on.

| Jim Charter:
|  I think I have pooped out finally,

It was a good run, Jim.

| Jim Charter:
|  One of the things that worries me is that the attention could
|  have a chilling  effect on entries. That novices might fear
|  exposing their work to an  overly critical environment. That
|  is why I personally took the approach of being as positive as
|  possible while at the same time hinting at the different artistic
|  and interpretive issues as they come up.

I think that negative comments on someone's hard work are accepted
graciously as long as they are not dismissive. If I finish my entry, I
will look forward to seeing people's honest reactions whether positive
or not.


| Jim Charter:
|  I just listened to some tapes by John Bradshaw, "The Price
|  of Nice"

The tapes I would like to hear are "The Price of the Damn Internet." It
is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,
because about two thirds of what is written seems to be an attempt by
the author to not be misunderstood. There is a ritual we must all go
through when speaking about our own pictures to avoid sounding arrogant,
because almost anything written appears that way. Knowing consciously
that you are performing this ritual does not help, because to choose not
to do so would be to knowingly dissuade others from accepting the
information you are trying to share (the important 1/3).

If I were to meet any IRTC entrant in person, I could likely go on for
hours about his entry, but it is hard to even begin when I don't even
know if the person is a child or not. And it is just as difficult to be
clearly positive as it is to be clearly negative. A simple compliment
that would be appropriate when delivered in person, can appear fantastic
when written. There was a discussion about this only a few rounds ago.
People become afraid to post anything at all for the fear that it will
be misinterpreted.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> If I finish my entry, I will once again try to leave a comment on every
> picture when voting.

I gotta admire that.  I swear, doing that would turn my brain to pablum.

> 
> It was a good run, Jim.

Thanks man.


> The tapes I would like to hear are "The Price of the Damn Internet."

LOL

  It
> is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,


Ain't it the truth.


> People become afraid to post anything at all for the fear that it will
> be misinterpreted.

Yet with sufficient effort, you and I worked it out.  I've really 
enjoyed your input here.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

>   It
> > is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,
>
>
> Ain't it the truth.
>

Yes, and that alone can be annoying.  Hence all of the *winks* in everything
I write, just in case someone isn't quite sure it's a joke.  Couple that
with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it
really opens the door for misunderstandings/misinterpretations.  I enjoy
everyone's opinions here, and I think we all have an underlying respect for
one another, which helps as well.

As for the "discussing" v. "creating", I can't seem to create anything
lately, but I sure don't have a problem discussing...  *sigh*  Maybe I
should run for office...  ;-)

--
Slash
"I kill me...  which saves everyone else the trouble..."

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:

> with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it

What would be your first language?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea5f40c$1@news.povray.org...
> Slashdolt wrote:
>
> > with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it
>
> What would be your first language?
>

Hmm... That didn't come out the way I meant it.  English is my first (and
pretty much only) language, and I haven't quite mastered it yet.

Perhaps "...the fact that many in the POV-Ray/IRTC community speak English
as a second language..." would have been better.  Since I'm part of the
community, "us" seemed appropriate, in one sense, but apparently not in the
other.

Strange...  In a post about how misunderstandings can occur, I'm
misunderstood.  Irony rules!  ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message