 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all.
I'm back from vacation and checking the ftp site I found
there is a new topic "Decay" and the zip files of the
surrealism round are ready to download.
Good luck to all the entrants (including me ;-)
Bye
Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Waoww, I looked at the images, and I can tell surrealism is a very high
level round !! (I'm not talking of my entry of course :-)
JC
Txemi Jendrix wrote:
> Hi all.
> I'm back from vacation and checking the ftp site I found
> there is a new topic "Decay" and the zip files of the
> surrealism round are ready to download.
> Good luck to all the entrants (including me ;-)
> Bye
>
> Txemi Jendrix
> http://www.txemijendrix.com
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes indeed! I too am very impressed with the entries this round. Strong,
inventive and expressive images from top to bottom.
JC (Exether) wrote:
>Waoww, I looked at the images, and I can tell surrealism is a very high
>level round !! (I'm not talking of my entry of course :-)
>
>JC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"William Pokorny" <pokorny_attglobal_net> wrote:
> Yes indeed! I too am very impressed with the entries this
> round. Strong, inventive and expressive images from top
> to bottom.
>
I can't see that much was expressed in the last round, but there are some
damn beautiful images for sure. I'm voting this round, so I will get a
chance to go through the images slowly and will likely see a lot of
important details which I missed in the rush.
I am excited about the 'Decay' round more than other recent rounds because
there are fewer cliches than in topics like 'Mystery' or 'Surrealism,' and
the cliches which do exist (rusted out pickups, very old people, ruins,
moldy gravestones, etc.) will for the most part require some extremely
technical modeling. The next one will be wide open. I don't expect to see a
lot of "been there, done that" in the 'Decay' round.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Txemi Jendrix <tji### [at] euskalnet net> wrote in message
news:3f536f23@news.povray.org...
> Hi all.
> I'm back from vacation and checking the ftp site I found
> there is a new topic "Decay" and the zip files of the
> surrealism round are ready to download.
> Good luck to all the entrants (including me ;-)
> Bye
>
> Txemi Jendrix
> http://www.txemijendrix.com
WOW! Some nice stuff there! A quick browse shows a lot of excellent images
with a nice variety of interpretation.
Gonna be tough to score.
RG - I knew I picked the wrong week to give up LSD
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f536f23@news.povray.org...
I'm surprised that more people aren't expressing some enthusiasm about
this topic. I'm really interested because for the first time in a while,
we couldn't all guess what the winning entry will look like from day
one. I guess there's a decent chance that it will be a flower or small
tree growing amongst rubble, but there's also a very good chance that it
will be something which we have never seen in the IRTC before.
The commenting in this forum has revealed some really interesting
aspects of seemingly ordinary pictures, and there is usually at least
one picture in each round which I find extremely impressive, but I'd
like to see a round with pictures the very concepts of which make me
think "whoa...what the f***?" instead of "what a well done variation of
that theme."
That being said, I doubt that I will be able to come up with anything
for the decay round. When I see something decayed, I am usually struck
more by the resilience of what remains or the strength of whatever force
is causing something to decay rather than the actual decay itself. I
guess I'm too optimistic for this one.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> "Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
> news:3f536f23@news.povray.org...
>
> I'm surprised that more people aren't expressing some enthusiasm about
> this topic. I'm really interested because for the first time in a while,
> we couldn't all guess what the winning entry will look like from day
> one. I guess there's a decent chance that it will be a flower or small
> tree growing amongst rubble, but there's also a very good chance that it
> will be something which we have never seen in the IRTC before.
>
> The commenting in this forum has revealed some really interesting
> aspects of seemingly ordinary pictures, and there is usually at least
> one picture in each round which I find extremely impressive, but I'd
> like to see a round with pictures the very concepts of which make me
> think "whoa...what the f***?" instead of "what a well done variation of
> that theme."
>
> That being said, I doubt that I will be able to come up with anything
> for the decay round. When I see something decayed, I am usually struck
> more by the resilience of what remains or the strength of whatever force
> is causing something to decay rather than the actual decay itself. I
> guess I'm too optimistic for this one.
>
> -Shay
>
>
Okay, since you ask ...
Decay is a subject I have circled around and toyed with over the years
but never actually confronted. I was mostly intriqued by the question
of whether the processes of decay, in say a human corpse, would be equal
in complexity to the processes of life in the same body. This was when
I was about 33 or 34 and living an irresponsible, unemployed painter's
life in Toronto. At the time I was working in a number styles, one of
which was painting on rattan mats, putting a separate paint stroke on
each thatch. I thought about decay and painted each thatch. I
considered encrypting the chemical formulas of the byproducts of decay
into the patterns I was painting, but rejected the idea. The painting
was about 6x9 feet, (several mats) and took me over two years to
complete. Eventually I brought it over the border
to New York and sold it to an interior design firm who used it in
decorating a bank. Meanwhile, back in NY, I met up again with a
beautiful young woman who had been a student of mine at Ohio State. She
had gone to grad school at Yale and was in a show at White Columns here
in NY. Her paintings, were still lifes of fruit, where the fruits were
assembled into molecular models of the chemicals which are the products
of organic decay. Oh brother! Back in the OSU days I had tried to
seduce her but she was stiff as a board. In New York we somehow got in a
fight and parted as enemies. Still, I think "decay" can be one of the
great themes of life. I am going to be thinking about processes where
humans could be considered the agents of decay. The beaches of Southern
India come to mind, where I believe huge cargo ships are taken apart for
scrap by armies of barefoot laborers. That was my first idea anyway,
when I saw the topic.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f558fd9$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Decay is a subject I have circled around and toyed with
| over the years but never actually confronted. I was
| mostly intriqued by the question of whether the processes
| of decay, in say a human corpse, would be equal
| in complexity to the processes of life in the same body.
This is the type of thing that I had trouble with in deciding on a theme
for the round (I have since chosen one). Things like human decay don't
make an impression on me. As an atheist, I only see a body as working
(alive) or broken (dead). The decay process just doesn't have any
significance.
|
| At the time I was working in a number styles, one of
| which was painting on rattan mats, putting a separate
| paint stroke on each thatch. I thought about decay
| and painted each thatch.
I'm in good company then. This is *remotely* similar to what I am doing
for the 'Decay' round. I have what I consider a good idea because it
could *only* be done with the precision of a computer.
|
| Back in the OSU days I had tried to seduce her but she
| was stiff as a board.
Lesbian b***h, lol.
|
| The beaches of Southern India come to mind, where I believe
| huge cargo ships are taken apart for scrap by armies of
| barefoot laborers. That was my first idea anyway, when I
| saw the topic.
I work with a guy from India who sells parts from those very ships.
Again, this is something with which I cannon associate as negative a
concept as "decay." Maybe dispersion? Absorption? Decay to me suggests
more a thing that is going to waste without being used or reused, like a
certain part of the anatomy of the previously mentioned ex-student.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I work with a guy from India who sells parts from those very ships.
Maybe he has some pics?
> Again, this is something with which I cannon associate as negative a
> concept as "decay." Maybe dispersion? Absorption? Decay to me suggests
> more a thing that is going to waste
Ah so for me it is more like decomposition, a natural process but
'decay' depending on your point of view. Putrifaction to me is
sustenance to a maggot. For you is is more like a blight? A
despoilation? Hmmm still not there yet. But I get what you mean about
negative. That does raise the ante. Still, can't negative from one
point of view be positive from another?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't forget "Moral decay" (assuming you're not amoral). ;-)
I have a general concept in mind, and I love it. Whether or not I could make
it work well is another matter entirely. Additionally, I plan to be quite
busy over the next couple months, so I'm not even sure I'll have the time to
enter this round. Or... Maybe my skills have increased to the extent that
I can make a good entry in less than 100 hours...
If you think about decay, it seems like it has to be a challenging topic for
POV-Ray. POV-Ray is great for making perfectly straight/round/shaped
objects, but when you want to start deforming those objects, it becomes much
more of a challenge. Perhaps it's the challenge that is beckoning me. I do
enjoy a good challenge. ;-)
--
Jeremy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f56538e$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Still, can't negative from one
| point of view be positive from another?
That's the problem. I suppose that there is always a benefactor from
decay, but an image focusing on that factor is not focusing on the decay
at all. In a sense, the concept of decay is still present, but no more
than it is present in any picture of a person eating, a plant growing,
etc.
I usually see more of the benefit than the actual decay. I'm not the
type to get upset about old buildings being torn down or what happens to
a body after death. True, there is occasionally what I feel is the
unfortunate decay of something which I feel should be preserved, but I
don't feel nearly strongly enough about that to work for two months on a
picture depicting that loss. I've got a *short* attention span, so I've
got to really want to do something to spend two months on it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Don't forget "Moral decay" (assuming you're not amoral). ;-)
>
Yes that is where we were headed, for sure. You have a natural process
of deterioration, but you view it as the more negative 'decay', it
seems to bring a moral component to bear. Like 'corruption' as a form
of decay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, I've got an idea here on "Decay" that I love. Let's see if I make it
this time... it's about time I get to participate on one IRTC, after all
these years lurking. :-)
> Hi all.
> I'm back from vacation and checking the ftp site I found
> there is a new topic "Decay" and the zip files of the
> surrealism round are ready to download.
> Good luck to all the entrants (including me ;-)
> Bye
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
>
> Gonna be tough to score.
>
No doubt. I'm taking a break from that right now. It seems that the longer
I'm at it, the more everything looks either great or 5h!++y. I lose my
sense of perspective.
What I'm doing is going through in Winvote and giving things a ballpark
score as I add comments. When I'm done with that, I'll get them all into
the order I want and then go down the list giving out entries/20 ones,
entries/20 twos, etc.. That's the fairest way I can think to do it.
I also find that it helps for me to form a concrete idea of what my
qualifications for each category are for the round. For 'Surrealism' I'm
using:
1. Artistic Merit - Does the look of the entry reflect the tone of what the
entrant was trying to communicate? Is it beautiful if it should be
beautiful? Ugly if it should be ugly?
2. Technical Merit - How much of what is in the picture is the entrant's own
work? How do the details hold up to close inspection?
3. Creativity/Interpretatin - Is the picture at all provocative? Does the
image inspire any curiosity within me about the objects, events, or
viewpoint of the scene?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3f596921@news.povray.org...
> What I'm doing is going through in Winvote and giving things a ballpark
> score as I add comments. When I'm done with that, I'll get them all into
> the order I want and then go down the list giving out entries/20 ones,
> entries/20 twos, etc.. That's the fairest way I can think to do it.
>
Same here, get them all on the board, then go back and look at the details.
I usually don't read the textfile on the first time through, the ball park
is more based on very basic reactions;
artistic - does it make me want to look twice or do I automatically head
for the back button,
technical - are there any glaring artifacts or conversely any objects or
effects that make me drool,
concept/originality - can I tell what it is without reading the file, do
7 other images look the same
interpretation - does it fit the topic (a pretty broad call in this
round...)
> I also find that it helps for me to form a concrete idea of what my
> qualifications for each category are for the round. For 'Surrealism' I'm
> using:
I always find the categories start to bleed over into one another...
>
> 1. Artistic Merit - Does the look of the entry reflect the tone of what
the
> entrant was trying to communicate?
Here's where the bleeding starts... "reflect what the artist was trying to
communicate" = artistic -vs- "reflect how the artist communicates the
theme"= concept/interpretation. Artistic & concept to me are often closely
related. For more strictly artistic criteria I look at composition, use of
color, visual appeal.
>
> 2. Technical Merit - How much of what is in the picture is the entrant's
own
> work? How do the details hold up to close inspection?
Technical bleeds the least, but even here I look at artistic/concept - if
the image is minimalistic I don't expect a lot of high technicality. Someone
with limited technical skills, but who knows their limitations and works
well within them I will give a better technical score than someone who uses
highly complex techniques but produces a mediocre product. To me, part of
technical ability is knowing when and how to apply it.
> 3. Creativity/Interpretatin - Is the picture at all provocative? Does the
> image inspire any curiosity within me about the objects, events, or
> viewpoint of the scene?
Definitely bleeding now... "provocative","curiosity", while I agree they
count conceptually, to me those weigh heavily in the artistic score as well.
Interpretation I relate strictly to the round topic, if I can't make the
connection even after reading the textfile, that's a 1.
And after saying all that, it's STILL a tough round to score! And I'm
wondering why the usual contingent of totally off-topic, completely
composited in photoshop, blatant ignoring-of-the-rules entries seems to be
missing this round... highly suspicious.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
> artistic - does it make me want to look twice or do I
> automatically head for the back button,
Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for concept.
I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol
> technical - are there any glaring artifacts or conversely
> any objects or effects that make me drool,
Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
ray-tracer?
> concept/originality - can I tell what it is without
> reading the file, do 7 other images look the same
Too much of that in this round, IMO.
> interpretation - does it fit the topic (a pretty broad
> call in this round...)
I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic. I'm afraid
that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware. Surrealism imcludes styles as
far from Dali as Joan Miro. I can imagine the ridicule his works would
receive if entered into this round of the IRTC.
> For more strictly artistic criteria I look at
> composition, use of color, visual appeal.
Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.
> Technical bleeds the least,
And I think that it's important for that reason. There are always a few
entires that are only slightly more "3D" than mapping a magazine picture
onto a plane. I look for pictures where the entrant has worked hard to
display his own vision rather than *featuring* the work of other people. A
technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
rather than by his convenience.
> Definitely bleeding now (Creativity/Interpretation )
This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
entries in the round rather than judging each against my own interpretation
is most useful.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3f5a3f4b@news.povray.org...
> Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for
concept.
> I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
> on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol
Exactly my point. Pretty colors or highly detailed modeling do not
necessarily equate to art.
>
> Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
> ray-tracer?
Yeah, I never know how to score that. It's impressive, but at the same time,
unless his ray-tracer does something unique that no other ray-tracer does it
has nothing to do with the image.
>
> I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic.
Well, I can't ignore it because if everyone ignored it, why have a topic in
the first place? I do have degrees of fit though, someone who blatantly
ignored the topic gets slammed, as opposed to an image that maybe I'm simply
not comprehending I give the benefit of the doubt. Good reason to always
give a description :-)
I'm afraid
> that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
> perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware.
Yes, and I suspect my own is in that category, but at least its my own :-).
On the other hand, despite the high number of stairways, clocks and other
Dali spin-offs, there is enough variety in interpretation evident in the
entries that I'm hopeful of an equally wide variety in judging. (That is of
course assuming that the less Dali afflicted take the time to vote...)
> > composition, use of color, visual appeal.
>
> Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.
Thank you, 'appeal' wasn't really what I wanted there. Effect is much
better. Actually, after two more cups of coffee, I think what I was really
looking for was "impact". (Leading back to the artistic point about hitting
the back button... if it doesn't have impact, I won't stick around or come
back for more.)
> > Technical bleeds the least,
A
> technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
> rather than by his convenience.
hmmmm, definitely sounds like bleed-over from the concept/interpretation
channel ;-)
> This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
> entries in the round rather than judging each against my own
interpretation
> is most useful.
Good point. Each round has a flavor of its own. I try to keep my own
interpretation mostly in check. Actually, my first point of reference is
the definition or description in the topic announcement. After I initially
go through all the images I get a general feel for how others interpreted
that definition, sort of a "definition range". The midrange of that becomes
a "10" and image scores are adjusted up or down from there.
Oh, and I see there is 1 non 3d entry in the round. I feel much better now.
A round without any rules violations at all would be unnatural.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:3f5a206d@news.povray.org...
> And after saying all that, it's STILL a tough round to score! And I'm
> wondering why the usual contingent of totally off-topic, completely
> composited in photoshop, blatant ignoring-of-the-rules entries seems to be
> missing this round... highly suspicious.
There's one (Illustrator + Photoshop) :
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/creat1lo.jpg
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/creat1lo.txt
Actually, the pic is much better than the "Hey I just discovered Photoshop"
of the usual off-topic entries but on the other hand it makes it harder to
understand how the author could miss the rules. Of course, he says that he
took "great quantities of hallucinogenic drugs" years ago, so he may have
fried the "read the rules" part of his brain in the process...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> a écrit dans le message de
news:3f5c92fe@news.povray.org...
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
From the feature list and screen shots
(http://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm) Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
but it's still within the rules IMHO.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> a écrit dans le message de
>news:3f5c92fe[at]news.povray.org...
>> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
>> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
>
>From the feature list and screen shots
>(http://www://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
>modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
>be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
>blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
>but it's still within the rules IMHO.
I remembered that I have a copy of Cool3d that I used to create a band logo
awhile back. It is essentially the same as an old shareware program called
Xara3d. It does indeed toe the line between 2d & 3d. It basically take a
2d image such as a font, and extrudes it into a 3d shape. The extrusion
and rendering processes allow you to apply effects & filters much like in
2d programs like Photoshop.
Questionable whether it's truly 3d, since many of the effects/filters can
only be applied in the final render, not to the object itself, but I don't
really see any difference between that and post-process effects being done
in a render in for example Mega-POV. The rules don't say an effect has to
be 3d, they just say they have to be done in a 3d program. For the image in
question, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
> news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
>
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
>
> -Shay
>
>
While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
description make any sense? Too technical for me.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
> While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
> description make any sense? Too technical for me.
Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
models... sounds fun but exhausting...
The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
and to the point.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:3f5d17e2@news.povray.org...
>
>>While we're on the topic, what about "Blue Cone". Does the technical
>>description make any sense? Too technical for me.
>
>
> Ermmm... well... ahhhhh... important BFD sampling in a studio with some
> models... sounds fun but exhausting...
> The image description was more in my league... highly detailed, yet concise
> and to the point.
>
> RG
>
>
lol I guess it was the reference to large studio lights that unnerved me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3f53cddc@news.povray.org...
|
| Gonna be tough to score.
Ahhhhhhh! There are so many!
This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so. One thing is
for certain. If I ever submit a competitive entry for the IRTC, I will
need to do so under a false name in order to have any chance of winning.
My usual goal of 'second to last' place doesn't require such
politicking.lol
Just want to add that my last comment is not meant to be
self-deprecating. I find self-deprecation disgusting. I only meant that
if at least *one* person enjoys seeing one of my submissions (reflected
by my not getting last place) then it was worth rushing to complete an
entry by the deadline. Otherwise, I should have finished on my own time.
If I only wanted to antagonize, I could find more efficient ways of
doing so.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>This is actually tough. I'm trying once again to leave some comment on
>every image as I vote. Even keeping those comments very short, I find
>that I can only get through a few images without taking a break. I try
>to give "constructive" criticism on the images in which I see areas for
>improvement, but this is of course awkward because I have done or
>accomplished nothing to give myself the authority to do so.
Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
same way I do.
But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment. The topic
is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real. I
also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
if what I'm seeing is intentional or not. I'm giving a lot of benefit of
doubt...
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org...
|
| Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials.
| Your authority to do so is that you are a viewer.
You've got to admit that it is odd, however, for people in competition
to comment on each other's work. Having created an image yourself, you
have already shown clearly what you believe to be the best
interpretation of the topic. By criticizing someone's image, you are in
effect comparing it to your own, an act which is effectively your
creating a case for your own interpretation. It's really like some type
of twisted, passive-aggressive debate. Very surreal in itself if you
think about it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org>, gonzo wrote:
>Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
>to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
>comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
>same way I do.
>
>But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment. The topic
>is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real. I
>also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
>if what I'm seeing is intentional or not. I'm giving a lot of benefit of
>doubt...
>
I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.
My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
the whole topic is a bit worn out.
Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange"
about them. The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
because the whole thing had been explained to me.
Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter McCombs" <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...
|
| common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually
| very recognizable, perhaps normal at first glance, but
| obviously there is something "strange" about them.
<http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Joan+Miro%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=
en&btnG=Google+Search>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Joan+Miro%22%
2Bsurrealism&btnG=Google+Search>
|
| the content is recognizable, yet bizarre. I found that
| most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots of
| low concept scores.
It's because of this type of attitude that we see round after round
after round of "recycled old ideas from established artists in the
genre."
At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles, I will offer
that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
"awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
in the picture is of no relevance.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter McCombs wrote:
>
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
> goes."
So do I,... on both counts.
And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal.
Historically surrealism had its abstractionist/formalist strain,
epitomized by artists like Arp and Miro. Indeed almost every major
strain of 20th century art has some surrealist analogue.
On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
> components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner,
and this makes it
> difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point
Subjective and self-consuming.
>
> My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
> feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
> I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
> image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
> after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
> the whole topic is a bit worn out.
Yet aren't these cliches precisely how we think of surrealism?
Surrealism had Dadaist roots and its agenda of attacking bourgeois
values easily devolves into a general license to be garish. Surrealism
as an art movement had already become vulgarized when along came the
psychedelia of the sixties/seventies. Album covers, posters, and other
vehicles of pop culture, celebrating the hallucinagenic experiences of
the mind, revived surrealism in a doppelganger of organic whorls and
pictorial contrivances. Our view of the movement, refracted through
these excesses, has little hope of retrieving much. It all seems to
collapse on itself when the introduction of randomness and process in
raytracing takes the particular form of noise functions and their
signature bozo patterns. Yet with what other topic can we enjoy the
garish appeal?
>
> Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
> relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
> I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
> common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
> perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange"
> about them.
Basically that is how Dali revived surrealism the first time. Art
historians might point to the fondness for mixing visual and tactile
pleasure.
The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
> author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
> with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
> reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
> because the whole thing had been explained to me.
Well put. As if... with pictorial constraints lifted, we can juxtapose
objects as ideas and finally manufacture a meaning? Not what the
originators had in mind. I agree with your analysis, yet with the
devalued state of surrealism I even found that this approach could be
permitted if I thought about it too much.
>
> Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
> bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
> of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
> round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)
A decent attempt on your part to extract some kind of consistency.
Maybe because I participated myself, or maybe because the topic turned
out to be quite difficult, I found I was sympathetic to the plight of
this round's entries. There were, as you say, some beautiful images. But
I gave few high marks. Oddly, in the midst of all my analytical
confusion, I had no trouble deciding which pictures I liked and which I
didn't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
> more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles,
Well I make a fool of myself here quite often. But I like to think I am
enthusiastic :)
I will offer
> that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
> an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
> whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
> "awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
> opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
> in the picture is of no relevance.
>
>
I think you could take that argument quite far.
-Jim
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter McCombs <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much
"anything
> goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
> components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
> difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.
Variety is the abstract spice of subjective surrealism? There did seem to
be a lot of 'anything goes' entries, but that goes back to the point Shay
made earlier about scoring in the context of the entries, rather than in the
context of a subjective definition. My subjective take on surrealism before
the round was probably based more on 60's psycho-delic album covers more
than anything else :-) After doing some research on the art and the
surrealist movement, I adjusted it to focus less on the image and more on
the process, as the idea seemed to be to let the subconscious dictate the
image. (And I have to say I found the process interesting... I will probably
do more 'surrealist' things based on what I developed from this round.) And
after viewing the entries I've adjusted it again to include somewhat more
abstract concepts than I started with, since I hardly consider myself an
authority on someone elses subconscious ... and some of the works of Arp
are more abstract than surreal.
>
> My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really
surrealistic-
> feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
> I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
> image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down
considerably
> after going back to it later.
Yes, there were some overused themes, and I didn't feel I was being too
critical if I knocked off points for it. While I don't pretend to know
someone's subconscious, I'm pretty sure I know when they're 'borrowing'
Dali's.
The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
> author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a
story
> with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
> reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the
concrete
> because the whole thing had been explained to me.
There are a couple that the artist tries to go through and attach a meaning
to every single object and I find that tedious and it does spoil some of the
effect. On the whole though, I prefer some kind of explanation. After all,
this is a competition, and I'm trying to make some kind of judgement. If
there is nothing to tell me what the artist is at least trying to say, then
I find it hard to judge how well they said it. One I saw just said "You
figure it out". Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out 103 entries.
>
> Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
> bizarre.
Hmmm... in looking at the works of Dali, Miro, Magritte, I see significance,
but accidental doesn't really come to mind. Dali in particular seems very
much thought out and carefully constructed. And I personally don't really
find them bizarre either. Max Ernst though I found bizarre.
I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
> of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
> round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)
Yes, some very nice stuff in this round. Even after my third and fourth
times viewing. I always appreciate an entry with staying power ;-)
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5e8a6b$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Well I make a fool of myself here quite often. But I like to
| think I am enthusiastic :)
You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol
|
| I think you could take that argument quite far.
If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture. I don't have much to
draw from in that department. I may like anyone else occasionally slip
gears at very high RPM, but I don't take drugs and very rarely remember
my dreams. The last dream I do remember was a "nightmare" about being
unable to tie my shoe laces without their breaking. Not much inspiration
to gain from that!
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
> option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol
>
Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)
--
Jeremy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
> shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture.
The danger would be in defining too great a divide between surrealism and
abstraction. The breakthroughs of early abstract painters fueled the
creativity of surrealism and later, surrealism's interest in the
subconscious fed subsequent breakthroughs in abstraction. More of a
symbiosis. Abstraction is probably a little harder to nail down than
surrealism.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)
No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
of the consideration behind them.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I'm trying to get in touch with my "inner-artist", but unfortunately,
my inner artist has atrophed for many years.
I feel inadequate to discuss the artistic merits of just about anything.
However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.
--
Jeremy
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f5f7db0$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> |
> | Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)
>
> No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
> only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
> of the consideration behind them.
>
> -Shay
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
> me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.
>
I recently saw a taped interview with Kirk Varnedoe
(http://www.amacad.org/events/varnedoe_bio.htm)
on Charlie Rose. He said that one of the roles art plays is that it's
fun to argue about. Varnedoe could bring a lot of panache to the
activity of gabbing about art.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
