Because I felt like it*, I decided to figure out if IRTC participation was
growing or shrinking since its inception.  It looks like it's shrinking.
:-(

Col 1: Year
Col 2: Avg entries / round

2002    89
2001    95
2000   103
1999    96
1998   112
1997   114
1996   129 (4 rounds)

* I would have graphed it, but I'm not that familiar with Excel.  I need a
life.

Maybe we just need some more interesting topics?  But since we get to vote,
you'd figure we'd vote for the most interesting ones...

Big Hit Topics from the past include:
Loneliness (133)
Sea (142)
Imaginary Worlds (143)
Water (158)
Night (131)
Magic (161)
Glass (183)
Science Fiction (222)


--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:
> Because I felt like it*, I decided to figure out if IRTC participation was
> growing or shrinking since its inception.  It looks like it's shrinking.
> :-(

That may not be a bad thing. The average quality seems higher.  Or at 
least the bar for the front runners seems very high.  I know I have 
improved my POV skills considerably over the four or so years that I 
have participated yet I feel farther than ever from being competitive 
with the front runners, even of yesteryear let alone currently.  I think 
that knowing how much work it takes to submit a respectable entry, plus 
rl difficulties has contributed to me not submitting for the last three 
or four rounds.  Part of my interest in providing verbal feedback is to 
help keep some momentum while I regroup on the rendering front.

> 
> Maybe we just need some more interesting topics?  But since we get to vote,
> you'd figure we'd vote for the most interesting ones...
>

   Topics might have something to do with it, but really, I personally 
don't commit to entering, or not, based souly on topic.  It used to be 
about whether I could think of an interesting thing to challenge myself 
with technically, and answer to the topic too.  Now it has more to do 
with whether I have an idea that I want to devote that much effort to. 
That would describe my last entry anyway, ( in the Loneliness round.) 
Now I think that rl worries are probably having the keenest affect on my 
creativity. I would have trouble entering in the near future no matter 
how compelling the topic.


> Big Hit Topics from the past include:
> Loneliness (133)
> Sea (142)
> Imaginary Worlds (143)
> Water (158)
> Night (131)
> Magic (161)
> Glass (183)
> Science Fiction (222)
> 

There seems to be something about irtc/pov that favours broad, 
archetypical topics.  Other groups that run contests seem to come up 
with topics which take more from popular culture.  They seem to cater to 
a greater interest in commercial cg art among the participants.  As cg 
becomes more popularized and as commercial tools become more prevalent 
there may be a shift to these "sexier" forums.  It may be that the whole 
phenomenon is attracting, particularily artist types, away from 
irtc/pov, which seems to be of more interest to science types, who have 
less interest in cg except as a hobby. Notice that "Science Fiction" 
(222) happens to provide a crossover between pop culture and science 
interests.

That is a further reason btw that I wanted to support Renderdogs 
initiative to have further discussion of the entries, to generate a more 
"artist friendly" atmosphere.  POV is a unique tool for artists, but 
there may not be a broad ability to understand just why.

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:

> Because I felt like it*, I decided to figure out if IRTC participation was
> growing or shrinking since its inception.  It looks like it's shrinking.
> :-(
> 
> Col 1: Year
> Col 2: Avg entries / round
> 
> 2002    89
> 2001    95
> 2000   103
> 1999    96
> 1998   112
> 1997   114
> 1996   129 (4 rounds)
> 

Personally, I don't think theres enough samples for any sort of accurate
numbers to be drawn. Also, I noticed that especially back in the early
days, many people submitted more than one entry.

Post a reply to this message

"Tyler Eaves" <tyl### [at] cg1org> wrote in message
>
> Personally, I don't think theres enough samples for any sort of accurate
> numbers to be drawn. Also, I noticed that especially back in the early
> days, many people submitted more than one entry.

I wonder about the number of samples, too.  But even if participation isn't
going down, it's certainly not going up either.  OTOH, maybe there are more
people submitting only a couple entries per year, rather than fewer people
submitting one or multiple entries each round.

I just hope people aren't losing interest.  The fairly recent Loneliness
round attracted quite a few people, so maybe those who enter are simply
being more selective as to which rounds they enter into.  For me, I had
decided to enter even before I heard the topic in the last round, but I
could certainly see some topics really appealing to me.  I was quite close
to entering the Loneliness round.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Remembering my childhood, I remember a young boy who used to draw
semi-trucks.  He drew them all the time.  His technical drawing skills were
very good, in retrospect.  At the same time, I remember another boy who
couldn't draw semi-trucks as well, but he could draw amazing things, like
people's hands, flowers, etc.  He was clearly more artistic, yet he probably
lacked many of the technical skills of the other boy.

It seems that POV-Ray attracts both of these camps.  Sometimes, you get
people which are very strong in both areas, but I still get the sense that
they lean one way more than the other.  And we need both.  To me, it's
almost ingenious that the IRTC recognizes that, and rewards both artistic
and technical merit.

My "art" skills have atrophed for many years, and I'm once again trying to
revive them.  After having considered myself a largely technical person for
the last several years, winning the IRTC has certainly boosted my confidence
immeasurably.  I used to paint, but computer creations became more
interesting.  POV-Ray is a beautiful combination of programming and art.  I
feel like it has set me free in many ways.

I'm getting emotional here.  I think it's late and I need to go to bed...

BTW, I love your comments.  I wish I could write so elequently.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e9ae047$1@news.povray.org...
| Because I felt like it*, I decided to figure out if IRTC
| participation was growing or shrinking since its inception.
| It looks like it's shrinking.

Just natural progression. The bar has been raised, as Jim said, so more
time is needed to complete an entry. There is also the fact that an
objectively judged contest between all styles of raytracing is as
impossible as an objectively judged contest between all styles of
painting. For this reason, the competition has naturally settled into a
style niche.

I looked up Jim's Loneliness entry after his having mentioned it in
another thread ( very nice, btw ) and got a laugh out of one of the
comments. Jim's pic is a stylized, monochromatic portrait of an author.
After seeing this, one viewers comment amounted to, "needs a
background." I thought this was funny because so many people said the
same think about my only entry. There are some elements and styles which
certainly don't go over well in the IRTC. That's not a complaint. For
anyone wishing to attempt a winning entry, the best situation is an
"apples to apples" competition.

Also, as unpopular an idea as this may be, I think that a lot of
enthusiasm is dampened by the missed deadlines for topic announcements
and the posting of results. I know that the people running the
competition are busy, but that does not change the fact that these types
of delays give the impression that the organizers themselves are less
than excited about the competition. For many who are only able to work
on their entries on the weekends, an proportionately large amount of
time can be lost due to even a small delay.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> My "art" skills have atrophed for many years, and I'm once again trying to
> revive them.  After having considered myself a largely technical person for
> the last several years, winning the IRTC has certainly boosted my confidence
> immeasurably.  I used to paint, but computer creations became more
> interesting. POV-Ray is a beautiful combination of programming and art.  I
> feel like it has set me free in many ways.

Yes it has been a way back in for me too.  For me it wasn't so much a 
matter of atrophy as emotional crisis.  When my paintings began to get 
some attention, it became too difficult to reconcile their fetish 
content and connection to bohemian life, with the life of family man in 
a stiff-job. I couldn't take the heat, had to get out of the kitchen.

The technical concerns of creating a lighted space, and then using it to 
create meaning haven't changed much.  But this is a new and exciting way 
to approach it.

> 
> I'm getting emotional here. 

Takes guts.


> BTW, I love your comments.  I wish I could write so elequently.
> 

Thankyou for saying so.  Just know that in college I studied modern 
painting like a man possessed.  So the language of "art talk" is 
familiar to me.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> "Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> news:3e9ae047$1@news.povray.org...
> 
> Just natural progression. The bar has been raised, as Jim said, so more
> time is needed to complete an entry. There is also the fact that an
> objectively judged contest between all styles of raytracing is as
> impossible as an objectively judged contest between all styles of
> painting. For this reason, the competition has naturally settled into a
> style niche.

You've summed it up nicely

> 
> I looked up Jim's Loneliness entry after his having mentioned it in
> another thread ( very nice, btw ) and got a laugh out of one of the
> comments. Jim's pic is a stylized, monochromatic portrait of an author.
> After seeing this, one viewers comment amounted to, "needs a
> background." I thought this was funny because so many people said the
> same think about my only entry. There are some elements and styles which
> certainly don't go over well in the IRTC. That's not a complaint. For
> anyone wishing to attempt a winning entry, the best situation is an
> "apples to apples" competition.

Yes you are right.  Why oh why do I struggle to break the same old mold?
> 
> Also, as unpopular an idea as this may be, I think that a lot of
> enthusiasm is dampened by the missed deadlines for topic announcements
> and the posting of results. I know that the people running the
> competition are busy, but that does not change the fact that these types
> of delays give the impression that the organizers themselves are less
> than excited about the competition. For many who are only able to work
> on their entries on the weekends, an proportionately large amount of
> time can be lost due to even a small delay.
> 
> 
This never actually occurred to me but you might be right.  I always 
took it as part of the charm, like a cafe where the service is scanty 
but you can sit there all night.  But in this customer-service oriented 
culture, it may very well be interpreted as you say.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:

>My "art" skills have atrophed for many years, and I'm once again trying to
>revive them.  After having considered myself a largely technical person for
>the last several years, winning the IRTC has certainly boosted my confidence
>immeasurably.  I used to paint, but computer creations became more
>interesting.  POV-Ray is a beautiful combination of programming and art.  I
>feel like it has set me free in many ways.

Well put!

I haven't studied art, or had any formal training, but it's something that
has always interested me.  But I got frustrated when I was younger because
I could visualize things in my head that I couldn't make work on paper, so
my visual side settled into photography, and my "I'm an artist, dammit, and
I need to create" side switched over to music. (and Musica been Verra Verra
good to me)

Now I'm an old geezer who can't handle being in the road all the time
anymore, so music has become a hobby, I got that real job my mother always
wanted me to get, and started playing around more with the computer.
Someone gave me a copy of Bryce and I discovered 3d. Someone else let me
play with their C compiler and I decided programming was cool.  Then I
found PovRay, it does Bryce-like things in a C-like manner, and looks
great!

And lo & behold, I discovered that all those scenes in my head from my early
years were now possible after all!  So I have to agree: a beautiful
combination of programming and art that sets the artist in me free. (or is
that sets the kid in me free...? or is that the same thing?)

RG - 48 going on 12

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:
> 
> I haven't studied art, or had any formal training, but it's something that
> has always interested me.  But I got frustrated when I was younger because
> I could visualize things in my head that I couldn't make work on paper,
> 
> And lo & behold, I discovered that all those scenes in my head from my early
> years were now possible after all! 

As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
I fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
>
>As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
>I fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.
>

Interesting!  Actually, I could always draw well, what was frustrating to me
was getting shading and coloring to look the way I wanted.  (The same
issues as CG... lighting & texturing!)  I always wanted realistic detail
that was simply beyond my drawing skills to produce.

But getting that is so much easier in 3d.  Not to say that lighting is
easy... but in 2d you have to visualize the highlights and shadows, then
figure out how apply them onto the subject accurately.  In 3d, you don't
highlight the objects, you simply move the light around, the highlights &
shadows will follow!

And not to say the objects aren't important too, but in 2d its all one and
the same; you draw the objects, and then color them and the highlights and
the shadows are all together as part of the coloring process.  In 3d, I can
work on the models and textures separately, combine them in a scene, and
then worry about lighting.

And in 3d if I don't like something, I can change it. That in itself adds a
lot to my creativity, because a scene is dynamic.  I may see something
halfway through a project that changes my whole perspective and I change
the scene to fit my new perspective.  In 2d that's called a lot of wasted
paper/canvas/enter_medium_of_choice.

RG

Post a reply to this message

> As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
> In fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.
>

I'm more like gonzo in that respect.  I found that I could paint trees,
mountains, etc. fairly well, but when it came to things like houses, shacks,
etc., I had a real hard time visualizing how a 3D object should look on the
3D canvas.  When trying to draw, it was even more difficult.  I simply could
not seem to visualize things properly in 2D.  Nevertheless, I felt this
tremendous urge to create.  I got a job in computer programming, with the
occasional chance to satisfy my desire to create.  BTW, programming can be
more creative than the average person realizes.

So in addition to everything else, POV-Ray has unlocked my creativity in a
way that nothing else had been able to.  I've tried paint programs, but I
always had that 2D handicap.  Creating things in 3D is actually easier for
me, even though I'm sure it's much more difficult and complex for others.

I used to play the guitar.  I was never real good, but I can play and sing
well enough that no one boos.  hehe.  Anyway, it makes me wonder what the
future holds for musicians.  I'm sure many people have music potential, but
find playing an instrument difficult.

Gotta go.  Buffy's coming on!  ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9c458d@news.povray.org...

>  Why oh why do I struggle to break the same old mold?

Easy question. Because two months is a long damn time to work on someting
just to please someone else.

The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.

My last entry was non competetive, but the picture on which I'm working
right now is much much much more so. The picture focuses on pattern, and I
can imagine the complaints about repetition already. An entrant can create a
simple cg window and repeat it across a building one hundred times, yet I
know that my creating an element with tens of thousands of vertices and
repeating it ten times will be sharply criticised.<g> So I'm obviously not
submitting something for accolades. If I wanted accolades, I would do
something for which I have more of an innate talent. Visual art is very
difficult for me.

The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> 
> Interesting!  Actually, I could always draw well, what was frustrating to me
> was getting shading and coloring to look the way I wanted.  (The same
> issues as CG... lighting & texturing!)  I always wanted realistic detail
> that was simply beyond my drawing skills to produce.

There is of course a separation between the perception of form, the 
volumetric shape of an object, and the perception of surface qualities 
which often work to negate form.  This was made very apparent to me when 
I would try to paint my favorite subject, shoes.  The way light plays 
across the lustre of leather, especially black leather, often has little 
to do with the form.  When I first began I would actually spend half of 
the working time making a detailed contour drawing in pencil in order to 
understand the form and the way light shaded the surface according to 
it.  I would then transfer this drawing meticulously to the surface of 
my canvas and fix it down with a fixative before I began to paint over 
it.  With the overpainting I would describe how the surface actually 
looked, even if it worked against form.

> 
> But getting that is so much easier in 3d.  Not to say that lighting is
> easy... but in 2d you have to visualize the highlights and shadows, then
> figure out how apply them onto the subject accurately.  In 3d, you don't
> highlight the objects, you simply move the light around, the highlights &
> shadows will follow!

> 
> And not to say the objects aren't important too, but in 2d its all one and
> the same; you draw the objects, and then color them and the highlights and
> the shadows are all together as part of the coloring process.  In 3d, I can
> work on the models and textures separately, combine them in a scene, and
> then worry about lighting.
> 
> And in 3d if I don't like something, I can change it. That in itself adds a
> lot to my creativity, because a scene is dynamic.  I may see something
> halfway through a project that changes my whole perspective and I change
> the scene to fit my new perspective.  In 2d that's called a lot of wasted
> paper/canvas/enter_medium_of_choice.
> 
> 
Yes I believe that it is the 'mechanics' of modelling and the 
'mechanics' of programming that makes for such a satisfying marriage of 
the two.  Conceptually you can separate out the contributing parts then 
watch how they all work together.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> 
> The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.
> 
I am conscious that my best answers to this question are evasive.

> My last entry was non competetive, but the picture on which I'm working
> right now is much much much more so. The picture focuses on pattern, and I
> can imagine the complaints about repetition already. An entrant can create a
> simple cg window and repeat it across a building one hundred times, yet I
> know that my creating an element with tens of thousands of vertices and
> repeating it ten times will be sharply criticised.<g> So I'm obviously not
> submitting something for accolades. If I wanted accolades, I would do
> something for which I have more of an innate talent. Visual art is very
> difficult for me.

I looked up your entry.  I remember it well.  That round was the first 
one it which I participated as a 'panel judge'.  I took the whole thing 
very seriously.  I remember I felt extremely self-conscious adding 
commemts.  I felt that it would be easier if I was also in the contest.
I remember that your entry challenged me in the extreme.  I wanted to 
ignore it.  I typically only comment on about 1/3 of the entries anyway. 
  But I couldn't back away from it.  Rereading my comments just now, my 
first reaction was that I must have been hallucinating.  I took awhile 
to remember what I was trying to say.  I realize that ultimately I was 
talking more about my own ideas than yours.  Ah the pitfalls.  I can 
assure you, though, that I gave it my best shot.  You really had me 
flat-footed.  I remember being impressed by the degree of the technical 
problems you had solved in the service of such an idiosyncratic image. 
I really didn't know how to approach it.  After reading your description 
I can understand why you found some of the criticisms annoying.  You got 
quite a few superlatives back too. But I understand that you are trying 
for a different level than that.

> 
> The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
> do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
> movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
> have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
> things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
> will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

Now I better understand why you reacted to my reviews of works from the 
current competition.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
>do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
>movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
>have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
>things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
>will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

I hope you do submit it. One of the reasons I wanted to discuss images
beyond the top 10 is because those images are often some of the best. The
IRTC is voted on by many people using a lot of different criteria, and the
results are an average, and not necessarily a good one at that. There are a
lot of images to judge, and most people don't have a lot of time. I find,
looking back and reading comments, that I often didn't properly appreciate
many entries.

As an artist, it's great to find that others "get" your work, and the IRTC
often fails at that. Probably all art contests are like that, though. I'd
hoped that further discussion of the works might bring some of that out.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9cc27c@news.povray.org...

| Shay:
|  The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.
|
| Jim Charter:
|  I am conscious that my best answers to this question are evasive.

*Very* cool sentence. When I first read it, I read "I am conscious that
my best answers to this question are elusive." It wasn't until I began
to read your second paragraph that the true meaning set in. Of course,
by calling attention to it, I've destroyed the subtlety for anyone else,
but I couldn't resist.

| Jim Charter:
|  I looked up your entry.

Now I feel a little disadvantaged<g>, your having seen the entirety of
my IRTC participation. I looked up your 'Loneliness' entry. What other
rounds have you entered?

| Jim Charter:
|  I typically only comment on about 1/3 of the entries anyway.

In the one round I entered, I made the commitment to comment on every
entry. It was very difficult for the same reason that I have not
commented on most of the threads in this group. I'm simply not
qualified. I know absolutely nothing about lighting an outdoor scene,
having never done one. The only other contributions I could make would
be a useless description of my concept of how a waterwheel picture
should look and an equally useless comparison of the picture to my
concept.

| Jim Charter:
|  Rereading my comments just now, my first reaction was that I
|  must have been hallucinating.

Your comments were actually really appreciated. You were one of the few
who understood that I had chosen elements consciously. The *only* think
I really want anyone to understand about a picture is that it was
created purposefully.

| Jim Charter:
|  <snip comments>

Thank you for sharing your reaction. I'm tempted to send in my next
entry without a topic description. Partly because I'm not sure I can
communicate what I'm trying to do in a few paragraphs, if at all. I'm
curious what type of reactions I would get as well. I'll likely submit
one however, even though I believe that a picture should be complete
without a description, because each entry is viewed for only a few
seconds, and a topic description can help to accelerate comprehension.

| Jim Charter:
|  After reading your description I can understand why you found
|  some of the criticisms annoying.

Hell, I appreciate any comment someone is willing to take the time to
post. There is one comment in particular that I wish were included in my
comment file for perpetuity. I received this in an email: (remembering
that 'Landscapes' was the topic) "I just wanted to see more height
fields and less people trying to be creative."<g>

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message
news:web.3e9d62a6de75e32a7ba9929f0@news.povray.org...||

| Renderdog:
|  I hope you do submit it.

I will if I am able to complete it in time. There is a lot of intricate
modeling yet to do.

| Renderdog:
|  As an artist, it's great to find that others "get" your work, and the
|  IRTC often fails at that. Probably all art contests are like that,
|  though. I'd hoped that further discussion of the works might bring
some
|  of that out.

I give the judging process a lot more credit than you, but agree that
there will occasionally be some really special entry whose qualities are
recognized only after closer inspection than the flood of IRTC images
allows.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> I give the judging process a lot more credit than you, but agree that
> there will occasionally be some really special entry whose qualities are
> recognized only after closer inspection than the flood of IRTC images
> allows.
>

I get that same feeling.  Additionally, I really don't feel very qualified
to comment or even judge a scene very well.  But by that same token, I would
imagine that many of us have that same feeling, so I do the best I can.
I'll freely admit that many abstract works will likely fly over my head.  I
remember seeing a famous painting called "Red Square" (I don't know the
artist), and to me, it was simply that: a red square.  Does that mean that
it was without artistic merit?  No.  But it was lost on me.

For most of my creations, I try to attain realism.  But, I generally don't
want it to be so real that someone would believe that it's a photograph.
For me the best comment would be something like, "It looks so real...  But
that simply can't be!"  Surrealistic?  Hyper-realistic?  I'm not real good
with those terms.

Anyway, because of my own biases, I'm sure I would tend to judge other
images according to the level that I would like to attain.  e.g.  An
excellent model with poor textures, will get a lower score than a less
complex model with excellent textures.  Even so, I try to balance any known
bias that I might have, trying to realize what the artist set out to
accomplish.  But that is at best a difficult thing to do.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
  What other
> rounds have you entered?
> 
I guess 10 overall

They are shown on this page:

http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/digital/irtcmenu.html

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9da17a@news.povray.org...

Since you were so generous in taking the time to share your impression
of my picture, I will share my impression of some of yours.

_____Carson:
There is a real challenge when deciding how to portray an emotional
person in CG. The distinct divisions between objects makes CG more
literal than paint, and for most, even the best CG approximation is much
less literal than a photograph. This leaves a cg artist looking for a
way to show human emotion in some fashion between realism and cubism.
The face and pose of your character do portray emotion, but I think that
the effect could be increased by moving just a bit more towards
abstraction. This, of course, would sacrifice some of the identity of
your subject. Tough call.


_____Oranges:
My favorite of the group by far. The way in which the objects are placed
tells me that they are not in their usual positions. The objects are all
Asian, but the obvious effort behind their being assembled shows that
the owner of the objects is not. The impression I get here is of a woman
's invitation to a man for a romantic Asian dinner, the peeled orange
suggesting an only partially veiled sexual invitation. The tone and
again the obvious care behind the placing of the objects shows that the
man receiving the invitation will see an Asian dinner as exotic. A pot
roast would not be displayed this way.

The only thing distracting me (OK, bothering the Hell out of me) in this
picture is the cup's being partially out of frame. This element is too
natural for such an unnatural "composition."


_____Nocturne:
A very interesting perspective for a scene type picture, and it does
have mood. Personally, I would decrease the size of the opening, but
that's just me. There is a root right at the corner of the (pier?) which
is vertical enough and close enough to the corner to give the panel of
light to the left of the corner a window like appearance, which
contributes to the rest of the roots appearing somewhat like window
cracks. I find this to be a little distracting, but perhaps you are
pleased with that affect.


_____Shorebirds:
This very chaotic image would be better without the sea behind it. The
familiarity of the scene (birds over the ocean) distracts too much from
the effect that you wanted to achieve with this picture. Personally, I
would just place some type of strong pattern (perhaps even just a white
panel) behind the birds and allow the birds to act as an obfuscation of
that pattern.


_____St. Mark's Place:
The closest building on the left is very nice. I think that an
orthographic camera in front of that building with all of the staircases
and details would produce an excellent picture. Interestingly, there
were no abstract entries in the 'The City' round. Almost every entry
included some landmark or distinctive architectural style that revealed
the scene as "a city." In my opinion, the inner structure and activity
of an office building or skyscraper would be less specific and a better
representation of "the city." Of course, almost every IRTC topic is like
that.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> 
> In the one round I entered, I made the commitment to comment on every
> entry.


That would turn my brain to pudding.

It was very difficult for the same reason that I have not
> commented on most of the threads in this group. I'm simply not
> qualified. 

You mean, I am guessing, that you are not technically qualified enough 
to make technical comments. I also have the same feeling but we differ 
then because I feel that content decisions are also important and can 
involve a lot of meaning, passion, expression, etc.  Still, I will allow 
that technical concerns are the major preoccupation at this stage in the 
development of the medium and that they underlie the effectiveness of 
the image whatever its intended content.

Anyway, I think that being able to introspect while letting an image 
affect you and then putting it into words is all the qualification
that is needed.  If all you find you are thinking about when you see an 
image is its technical shortcomings then so be it.  I think the comments 
I have seen you make so far are very accurate.

>
> 
> Your comments were actually really appreciated. 

Relieved to hear it.

> I'm tempted to send in my next
> entry without a topic description. Partly because I'm not sure I can
> communicate what I'm trying to do in a few paragraphs, if at all. I'm
> curious what type of reactions I would get as well. I'll likely submit
> one however, even though I believe that a picture should be complete
> without a description, because each entry is viewed for only a few
> seconds, and a topic description can help to accelerate comprehension.

It can definitely affect the scoring of a picture, I believe.  I have 
found that it influences me quite profoundly, along with knowledge of 
the artist's reputation.  I have personally, therefore, adopted the 
practice of using Winvote's fullscreen feature to go through all the 
images and score them without knowing who the artist is or what the 
description says.  Later I go through and read the textfiles and make 
some adjustments if I think it is really warrented.

  "I just wanted to see more height
> fields and less people trying to be creative."<g>
> 

LOL, that's precious.

I remember once, some discussion came up on these newsgroups after the 
"Worship" round.  One woman commented that my entry, "Chalice" could not 
have been the holy grail because it was, too paraphrase, "too fancy".

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> _____Oranges:
> My favorite of the group by far. The way in which the objects are placed
> tells me that they are not in their usual positions. The objects are all
> Asian, but the obvious effort behind their being assembled shows that
> the owner of the objects is not. The impression I get here is of a woman
> 's invitation to a man for a romantic Asian dinner, the peeled orange
> suggesting an only partially veiled sexual invitation. The tone and
> again the obvious care behind the placing of the objects shows that the
> man receiving the invitation will see an Asian dinner as exotic. A pot
> roast would not be displayed this way.
> 
> The only thing distracting me (OK, bothering the Hell out of me) in this
> picture is the cup's being partially out of frame. This element is too
> natural for such an unnatural "composition."
> 
> 

You have been very generous!  Your reactions to "Oranges" is intriquing 
on a couple of counts.  The image was originally inspired by a line from 
the Leonard Cohen song "Suzanne".  Cohen was talking about a type of tea 
with dried orange skins in it but I always pictured a simple repast of 
tea and peeled oranges offered, in the song, to male visitors.  The song 
is of course intensely erotic with its hints of virgin love.  Secondly, 
I have probably painted five hundred still lifes of varioius domestic 
scenes and objects, many of table settings, many of shoes, and I could 
probably count on my fingers the number of them that have objects 
cutting the edge of the picture frame.  So I'm not sure why I did that. 
  The picture was supposed to feature a peeled orange which I'd modelled 
with a macro using multiple blobs placed along splines.  But I had to 
exclude it because the final render was taking too long.  Its presence 
might have caused me to run the cup off the edge.  Not sure anymore, but 
as it stands now, I have to agree, it weakens the effect of the composition.
Maybe I just never resolved whether I wanted it to look casual or arranged.
May also have to do with the fact that I wasn't working from a 
prearranged model.

Thanks again for taking the time.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9df0a2@news.povray.org...

| Jim Charter:
|  Your reactions to "Oranges" is intriquing on a couple of counts.
|  The image was originally inspired by a line from the Leonard
|  Cohen song "Suzanne".

I've never heard of Leonard Cohen, but I was curious enough to look up
the lyrics to the song. I didn't have to fish around to find these
comparisons. All of these lyrics are from the first few lines of the
song (the part dealing with the tea and oranges).

Song: Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river
Picture: The impression I get here is of a woman's invitation to a man

Song: And she feeds you tea and oranges
Picture: invitation to a man for a romantic Asian dinner

Song: You can spend the night beside her
Picture: the peeled orange suggesting an only partially veiled sexual
invitation.

Song: tea and oranges That come all the way from China
Picture: the man receiving the invitation will see an Asian dinner as
exotic
Picture: the obvious effort behind [the objects] being assembled shows
that the
owner of the objects is not (Asian).

'Intriguing' doesn't come close to covering it. The volume, and more
importantly, accuracy of information contained in this simple depiction
of tea and oranges is somewhat more than intriguing.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9dcccc@news.povray.org...

| Jim Charter:
|  You mean, I am guessing, that you are not technically qualified
|  enough to make technical comments.

Depends on the methods which the person is using. I know a lot about a
few things. 'Scene' lighting is not one of them.

| Jim Charter:
|  we differ then because I feel that content decisions are also
|  important and can involve a lot of meaning, passion, expression,
|  etc.

We don't disagree on this at all. My point is that this requires a
degree of qualification as well. Slashdolt mentioned in another thread
that he saw a famous painting of a red square and was completely unable
to judge whether or not it was a good or horrible painting of a red
square. A waterwheel picture is one of my "red square" areas. Aside from
basic ideas about composition and color, I have no idea whether a water
wheel picture is complete crap or a f__king masterpiece. I have a Monet
calendar which was given to me as a gift hanging in my office. Without
looking, I couldn't even guess what the picture for April is. I couldn't
remember the picture from March to save my life. I am blind to this type
of picture.

I have an aquarium. 125 gallons, three fish, all identical, no
decoration of any kind. I am minimalist by my nature. Being raised
around carpenters has also given me an affection for order,
craftsmanship, and complexity (not variety). *These* are the qualities
which I am best able to appreciate and objectively judge. Everything
else is foreign.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e9d9b20$1@news.povray.org...
 I
> remember seeing a famous painting called "Red Square" (I don't know the
> artist), and to me, it was simply that: a red square.  Does that mean that
> it was without artistic merit?  No.  But it was lost on me.
>

Malevich was the artist.  If anyone would like to explain this, I'd be more
than happy to listen.  Seriously.  Maybe I'm missing something quite
profound.  Maybe a JPEG doesn't cut it...

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.peasant-woman.jpg

Sorry if I'm getting too far off-topic...

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=2765

Just sending you a link is kind of a cop out but it is necessary to 
understand what Malevich thought he was doing.  Understanding why it was 
to become so valued by a succession of "modernist" artists is still a 
fairly open discussion.  Depending on what it is that one likes about 
modern, especially abstract, art a  viewer can probably find it or its 
precursor in Malevich's work.  But locating meaning incontravertably 
with the subjective life of the viewer would be one of the biggies.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks!  That actually does put the painting into context.  Whether or not
it truly has meaning beyond any ideas that Malevich might have had is still
questionable in my mind, but I'll keep an open mind.  In the meantime, I
suppose I'll just continue with my Socialist Realism... ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

You could look into the following artists that come most readily to mind:

Robert Ryman  <-- has spent his entire career painting only with white paint

Yves Klien   <--- painted a whole series of paintings with a special 
blue he named after himself

Agnes Martin   <---- so called grid paintings

This essay is fairly typical of how art history is presented.  Malevich 
is not specifically mentioned but Mondrian is close enough.
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/modernism/

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3ea0cf31@news.povray.org...

My wife has a friend who works at a place here in Houston called "Diverse
Works." This place features some really off the wall modern art like a guy
puking in a glass toilet. What's interesting to me is that even some of the
strangest things there sort of make sense when her friend, Keith, shares
what the artists have told him about their work. Some, however, still
don't.<g>

Keith defines art as anything a peson does to express a thought or feeling.
I can't accept that, because that would mean that I've written a poem
everytime I say, "Ouch, that hurts" or "Damn, that was a really good
sandwitch." I'd use the narrower definition of art as something which
*conveys* a thought or feeling. It's surprising to me, though, how much
really odd stuff even fits that narrower description.

To use Malevich as an example. If I had never seen one of his paintings, and
someone had explained the ideals of Surpemism and from what time and part of
the world it had come, I'd probably imagine something like a red square on a
white background. I'm guessing so would most people.

I usually find that when I see a famous piece of art which makes no sense to
me whatsoever, I later find out that the artist and I have absolutely
nothing in common culturally. I miss the point not because the artist wasn't
communicating it, but because the point is simply too foreign for me to
understand.

It's always fun to look, however. Jim Charter's tea and ornages picture is a
perfect example. He is pretty modest about it, but every word of the first
verse of a song was included in his picture, and it was so plain to see by
just slowing down and looking at it for a second. I'm certinly no art
expert, but even I was able to see all of that in the picture.I'm excited by
using PoV-Ray to translate complex thougts (which would take pages and pages
to write) into a picture which can be seen in a glance and puzzled by why so
few others choose to do so.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3ea1ac16$1@news.povray.org...
> Robert Ryman  <-- has spent his entire career painting only with white
paint
> Yves Klien   <--- painted a whole series of paintings with a special
> blue he named after himself

In fact, for these two artists, one could even discuss the "monochromatic"
aspect. On close up, Ryman's paintings are not just white but complex and
quite vibrant surfaces, less emotional than Pierre Soulages' black ones
though, but certainly more than, say, Donald Judd's.
And Klein, well I've been going back to Pompidou for years and I just don't
get where he got that blue paint. It's very strange, almost velvety, and
really beautiful. I have a large boar skeleton here in my office and I
always wanted to have it painted in patented YKB, just for the fun of it :-)
One sure thing, though, is that monochromatic paintings don't look good when
scanned and put on web pages!

G.


--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> And Klein, well I've been going back to Pompidou for years and I just don't
> get where he got that blue paint. 

Yves Klein, of course, thanks for catching that Gilles.

I believe the Pompidou is the only place I seen a real one, 20 years ago 
now.

  I have a large boar skeleton here in my office

Now there's got to be a story there!

Post a reply to this message

> One sure thing, though, is that monochromatic paintings don't look good
when
> scanned and put on web pages!
>

I really need to get out more.  In fact, I'm hoping to do just that.
Suddenly, I'm realizing how art-deficient I am.  Even so, I've been viewing
more and more things via the Web.  I realize that it's not the same as
actually viewing a painting or other work of art first hand (perhaps digital
art excepted), but until I can afford to travel around, it gets me by.

> ... I have a large boar skeleton here in my office...

Un sanglier?  Avez-vous chassé pour lui avec vos mains nues? Ils sont fous
ces Gaulois!
Unfortunately, much of my French was learned via Asterix comics.  :-/
Hopefully, it's grammatically correct, funny, and not insulting...  ;-)

--
Jeremix
aka Slashdolt

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3ea2ea21$1@news.povray.org...

I'm pretty proud of having known who *one* of those guys was. Here's
some links I found for anyone else feeling the same way.

Robert Ryman:
<http://www.macalester.edu/~warren/courses/Hildegard/ryman.jpg>

Yves Klein:
<http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/klein-yves-das-blaue-schwammrelief-350
0045.jpg>

Agnes Martin:
<http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/agnes.jpg>

Pierre Soulages:
<http://www.nordnet.fr/mam/images/peinture_222x175.jpg>

Donald Judd:
<http://www.artline.com/associations/ifpda/ifpdafair/ifpdafair2001/exhib
itors/sheehan/Untitled_judd.jpg>

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <shi### [at] houstonrrcom> wrote in message
news:3ea1fa2a$1@news.povray.org...

Yaaaaaawn. Very typical of me. I get involved in some project and get so
caught up in it that I have to prattle on when I'm not able to be
working on it.<g>

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> 
> To use Malevich as an example. If I had never seen one of his paintings, and
> someone had explained the ideals of Surpemism and from what time and part of
> the world it had come, I'd probably imagine something like a red square on a
> white background. I'm guessing so would most people.
> 

Most of Malevich's paintings are like that.  Including if memory serves 
a painting of a white square against a white ground.  Accordingly, 
having never seen "Red Square" I am not sure if it is simply red or if 
it contains some sort of image.  The difference is quite significant as 
you say.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> I'm pretty proud of having known who *one* of those guys was. 

Wasn't Judd from Texas too?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea41ab8@news.povray.org...
||
| Wasn't Judd from Texas too?
|

He wasn't the oen with which I was falimiar (Soulages was), but since
I'm having a really poor day at work, I did take some time to look, and
Judd was born in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. He had a studio in Texas.
Here is an interesting link I found:
http://photos.nakedgremlin.com/marfatexas/view/15.html

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea41827@news.povray.org...

|  Accordingly, having never seen "Red Square"

http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/r
edsquare-18.jpg

I think he called it 'Peasant Woman in two dimensions'.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3ea41827@news.povray.org...
> 
> |  Accordingly, having never seen "Red Square"
> 
> http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/r
> edsquare-18.jpg
> 
> I think he called it 'Peasant Woman in two dimensions'.
> 
>  -Shay
> 
> 
LOL I've been thinking it was a monochrome painting all along.  Oh well, 
I guess what I've been saying still stands LOL

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3ea32da0@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>   I have a large boar skeleton here in my office
>
> Now there's got to be a story there!
I work in a Agricultural University and a long, long time ago, skeletons of
farm animals were used in anatomy classes. When anatomy was phased out in
favour of computer science (for example), the skeletons were discarded in
different ways. Some human bones were just put in a desk drawer (where the
desk's new owner found them recently to her big surprise, "oops, a tibia")
but larger animals were stored in the basement and later sent to the dump
when the administration thought they were taking too much valuable space. We
couldn't do nothing for a horse and a cow, but we rescued a big male pig and
put it on display in our office, where it's used for decoration (it looks
nice at Christmas for instance). We also got a chicken but it's less
impressive.

G.


--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3ea36e13$1@news.povray.org...
> I really need to get out more.  In fact, I'm hoping to do just that.
> Suddenly, I'm realizing how art-deficient I am.  Even so, I've been
viewing
> more and more things via the Web.  I realize that it's not the same as
> actually viewing a painting or other work of art first hand (perhaps
digital
> art excepted), but until I can afford to travel around, it gets me by.

Well, it surely helps to live at 30mn from several major art museums :) I
have a year pass at Pompidou, so sometimes I just "drop by". Of course, the
web is better than nothing, but if there's a big difference between
traditional and digital art media it is certainly that the digital
experience of non-digital art is often a letdown, while digital looks good
on the web. This perhaps even more the case for non-digital contemporary
art, and stuff that look just dumb where you read about it or see it printed
somewhere can be really great in real life.

> Unfortunately, much of my French was learned via Asterix comics.  :-/
Certainly a pleasant way to learn French!

G.

--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

> LOL I've been thinking it was a monochrome painting all along.  Oh well,
> I guess what I've been saying still stands LOL
>

I posted this link awhile back, too.  It's a larger image.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.peasant-woman.jpg

I had a few co-workers stare at this with me.  Some tried to figure out if
perhaps there was a hidden picture within the different shades of red paint.
Well, if Malevich was happy painting what he did, more power to him (except
that he was eventually forced to stop and died penniless).

If you notice, the square is not [square].  That bothers me.  My first
thought was that the picture was taken from an angle, but then I realized
this wasn't the case.  If I could imagine myself standing in front of it, I
would figure that I would feel compelled to change where I was standing
several times, thinking that if I just stood a little bit more to the left,
it would look better to me.  But doing so would make the bottom look wrong
(assuming Malevich envisioned a "top" and "bottom").  In that sense, I could
see myself staring at it from several different directions.

Ok.  So what seemed like a worthless picture (to me) initially is suddenly
taking on some meaning.  Even so, I'm not sure I'll ever truly understand
it.  However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
That said, I still prefer realism and/or surrealism (leaning more toward
"real" than "surreal").

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

=
> I posted this link awhile back, too.  It's a larger image.

Yes and I opened the link at the time, but I saw what I *expected* to 
see, a red painting on a white wall.  This expectation was based on my 
association of Malevich's name with the painting I remembered which is a 
white square against white ground.  Now I am even doubting that memory.
> 
> If you notice, the square is not [square].  

This is seen as introducing a *tension* to the composition within the 
reduced pictorial elements.  So, in a way, it's supposed to bother you.

> Ok.  So what seemed like a worthless picture (to me) initially is suddenly
> taking on some meaning.  Even so, I'm not sure I'll ever truly understand
> it. 

Doubt I will either.

  However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.

Well Klein is a real showman and its hard not to enjoy his various 
antics and means of poking tradition in the eye.  He mocks the 'system' 
then promptly makes money off of it.

> That said, I still prefer realism and/or surrealism (leaning more toward
> "real" than "surreal").
> 

Nothing wrong with it, just remember, many cultures over human history 
have shown a decided preference for the abstract.  And no doubt you do 
enjoy the formal abstract qualities of some architecture, music, and car 
design, even some paintings.

One more anecdote.  I should start by admitting my bias that I dislike 
the artwork of a German artist named Joseph Beuys.  I know I am probably 
offending some Germans in the audience but I mean no disrespect to 
Germany or Germans, I just don't like Beuys' art.  It seems overly 
precious, serious, and didactic to me, and most of the time quite 
derivative.  Never-the-less he enjoyed a tremendous popularity, 
internationally, a few years back.  At this time I did not realize how 
much I disliked the work.  Beuys was so embraced by the modern art world 
that I figured I had better learn to like/understand his work or remain 
a philistine.  So it was that I returned several times to a large 
retrospective of his at the Guggenheim. On one visit, I was standing 
near a work that was a small piece of dull steel, a few cm's in each 
dimension and flat, just sitting on the floor.  An older, middle aged 
man, with a weatherbeaten face, very sincere, looked like he earned his 
living with his hands, came over to me and asked me if I could explain 
to him what it meant.  With my newly minted MFA degree I was quite taken 
aback as I realized I didn't have the first idea of what it meant nor 
could I even speculate about it in any kind of terms that this man was 
likely to understand.  I felt quite embarrassed on behalf of this 
artwork, myself, and modern art by extension. It seemed to me, suddenly, 
that it had become so inbred that it pretended that looking at a small 
piece of steel on the floor was an enlightening thing to do.  The man, 
when he got no satisfactory answer from me, went over to a nearby museum 
guard and asked him the same question.  The guard, young and seemingly 
fresh from the Marines, tried to be helpful and suggested that they look 
at the title.  I'll never forget the sight of the two of them bending 
over the museum tag, next to this piece of steel, and the guard reading 
in a dispirited voice, "steel plate".  I felt that the whole edifice of 
modern art had nothing to say to these two men who in their own way, 
probably knew more about steel than did Joseph Beuys.  I suppose in the 
same situation today I might point out that our shared knowledge of 
steel is what Beuys was about.  Still don't think it would have 
impressed the guy much.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3ea47d3c@news.povray.org...
> at the title.  I'll never forget the sight of the two of them bending
> over the museum tag, next to this piece of steel, and the guard reading
> in a dispirited voice, "steel plate".

Hey, when this exhibition came to France some years ago I took a picture of
an elderly woman bent over the same steel plates, with her head framed by
the legs of the felt trousers hanging on the wall behind her :)
Actually I like Beuys. There's a large part of showmanship/histrionics at
work there too, including the (bogus?) story about him being saved by Tatars
during WWII, and way too much overhype (best German artist since Dürer, oh
please...), but there's some genuine emotion in some of his work. A piece
like "Plight" for instance (a walk-in installation with rolls of felt, see
http://perso.ensad.fr/~longa/cours/B4.html) is a very comforting, relaxing
place to be and one I regularly go to (and again it looks silly on the web).
The 30-year old butter stuff is yucky though so here's my advice to artists:
don't play with perishable, organic food. The steel plates, of course, are
quite the opposite, with a weighty, mineral, crude, everlasting presence.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea47d3c@news.povray.org...
|
|   However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
|

By the way. Is this:
http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/klein-yves-das-blaue-schwammrelief-3500
045.jpg
a painting? rocks glued to a board? hot solder dripped onto a piece of
metal? It is very hard to tell from the picture.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> By the way. Is this:
> http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/klein-yves-das-blaue-schwammrelief-3500
> 045.jpg
> a painting? rocks glued to a board? hot solder dripped onto a piece of
> metal? It is very hard to tell from the picture.
>

I believe it's a "sponge relief" (?) from what I can gather by viewing some
of his other works.  It's very difficult to get a sense of scale, but my
guess would be that it's probably a rather large item.  I guess I used the
term "painting" rather loosely.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> One more anecdote.  I should start by admitting my bias that I dislike 
> the artwork of a German artist named Joseph Beuys.  I know I am probably 
> offending some Germans in the audience but I mean no disrespect to 
> Germany or Germans, I just don't like Beuys' art. 
;-) There are many Germans don't liking Beuys, me included. There's the 
funny story of a cleaning woman, who removed a piece of butter from the 
corner of a room, not recognizing that it was art. She was taken to 
court for that but won the processes IIRC.

Well I never understood art, which only tries to provocate the viewer. 
Maybe Beuys is more than that, I don't know.
For the record: I really like some abstract art such as Miro or 
Hundertwasser. But I only like art, which doesn't need a theoretical 
explanation to give the viewer something. In german there's the saying 
"Kunst kommt von Können" which translates to "art comes from ability". I 
think that's the precondition for good art.

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Florian Pesth wrote:

> Well I never understood art, which only tries to provocate the viewer. 
> Maybe Beuys is more than that, I don't know.
> For the record: I really like some abstract art such as Miro or 
> Hundertwasser. But I only like art, which doesn't need a theoretical 
> explanation to give the viewer something. In german there's the saying 
> "Kunst kommt von Können" which translates to "art comes from ability". I 
> think that's the precondition for good art.
> 
And I like Richter and Kiefer :)  Nothing is ever pure.  I must admit 
that the Beuys retrospective came at a time when the fact that European 
artists had wrested the lead from New York was just starting to really 
sink in.  It's hard to explain but the chauvinism favouring American and 
especially New York art was so internalized I didn't realize I was 
subject to it.  I still don't think that Beuy's was as innovative as the 
hype would suggest, but to the extent that he did add something new, it 
flew in the face of the tenets that I had learned*.  Consequently I saw 
his work as largely derivative and when new, just wrong.  It may have 
been that I sort of sacrificed Beuys to my prejudice in order to allow 
myself to accept the invasion of the next generation of European artists.

-Jim

*What seems to be new in Beuys is the combination of serious 
expressionistic content with conceptual art means.

Post a reply to this message