I think you're onto something there... kind of Escher-esque!

--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

> Here's a quick test version. I think this idea has potential, thanks for
your
> suggestion I don't think I would have thought of this on my own!

Here's a rough test version I did... (don't worry I am not entering any irtc
competitions...)

As soon as I did this quick render I realised that perhaps the windows
should go round as well.

Also if you put it in a normal place like a city street and have the
buildings look as realistic as possible at first.  Ie textures etc are nice
and structure is great... then things go weird...

Perhaps the buildings on the far left and right look ok but the middle is
all rounded and cap it off with grass streets instead of the normal looking
pavement on either side?

Man and I don't take drugs!!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'surreal-buildings.jpg' (127 KB)

Preview of image 'surreal-buildings.jpg'

The location I imagine this in is by a river, running just to the right of the
more surreal buildings, with our point of view being on a bridge over the river.
The road runs from the bridge then down to the left and in front of the
buildings there. Also I imagine some more distant realistic buildings on the
other bank of the river at the extreme right of the scene. I think everything
apart from the buildings should be completely realistic.

This reminds me a lot of a particular place I know in Bristol (England) so
that's where I'm getting my inspiration from. And also is kind of reminiscent of
some music videos from the Future Sound Of London, who had wierd CG objects
floating through city streets.

I like the idea of round windows :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

"Neonux" <neo### [at] softhomenet> wrote in message
news:3f0f9560@news.povray.org...
> > Here's a quick test version. I think this idea has potential, thanks for
> your
> > suggestion I don't think I would have thought of this on my own!
>
> Here's a rough test version I did... (don't worry I am not entering any irtc
> competitions...)
>
> As soon as I did this quick render I realised that perhaps the windows
> should go round as well.
>
> Also if you put it in a normal place like a city street and have the
> buildings look as realistic as possible at first.  Ie textures etc are nice
> and structure is great... then things go weird...
>
> Perhaps the buildings on the far left and right look ok but the middle is
> all rounded and cap it off with grass streets instead of the normal looking
> pavement on either side?
>
> Man and I don't take drugs!!
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I thought you were off topic until you wrote
...
> great feel that I stumbled on more by luck than judgement.
...

My art history isn't up to much but I believe most of the surrealists aimed
for just that approach. As an example: the Ernst that was posted the other
day was, IIRC, created by scraping paint across rough surfaces, then working
images into the resulting random patterns.

There's a million and one definitions for surrealism. According to Google
this is the original :
'SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is intended to express,
verbally, in writing, or by other means, the real process of thought.
Thought's dictation, in the absence of all control exercised by the reason
and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.'
(Andre Breton 1924)

I don't understand all of that, but I think the crux of it is "absence of
all control exercised by the reason". i.e.. the less you think about it, the
better it will be. I'm not sure this is good advice!


Anyway, on topic or not that's a lovely picture. Colours and composition are
great, and I love that painterly feel. Surreal? I'd say a kind of art deco
take on cubism, but either way I like it!

apologies for rambling...
Luke.

Post a reply to this message

That idea of  "a million and one definitions for surrealism" is an
interesting point.  I think a lot of folks will think of names like Dali
when surrealism is brought up... yet Dali's paintings are executed with
almost draftsmanship-like precision... is that really something that
demonstrates automatism?  On the other hand, look at Jackson Pollock... the
paintings he was known for show almost no control or aesthetic concern
whatsoever... and yet he is classified as an abstract expressionist.


--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

Doug Eichenberg wrote:
>That idea of  "a million and one definitions for surrealism" is an
>interesting point.  I think a lot of folks will think of names like Dali
>when surrealism is brought up... yet Dali's paintings are executed with
>almost draftsmanship-like precision... is that really something that
>demonstrates automatism?  On the other hand, look at Jackson Pollock... the
>paintings he was known for show almost no control or aesthetic concern
>whatsoever... and yet he is classified as an abstract expressionist.
>
>
>--
>Douglas C. Eichenberg
>dou### [at] nlsnet
>http://www.getinfo.net/douge


I've just read up on Dali's paranoid critical
method(http://www.dali-gallery.com/html/method.htm) - You're right that it
doesn't easily fit into Breton's definition, though IIRC (and it's a long
time since I learned this) Breton was a poet, and took some convincing that
surrealist painting was even possible. I'd imagine he'd have similar
reservations about surrealist raytracing.
....Ooh, I've just taken a look at your site. Those blobby things look very
much like what I'd been imagining might fit this brief (note just imagining
- "absence of reason" so far as to how it's acheived). Would you class them
as surrealist renderings, or renderings with a surreal feel? (surreal
feel-? looks like I'm a poet too:)

 Luke.

Post a reply to this message

Those were inspired by Tanguy's paintings.  I have no clue how I'd classify
them though... never gave it much thought :P

--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

"Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:3f102286@news.povray.org...
> Those were inspired by Tanguy's paintings.  I have no clue how I'd
classify
> them though... never gave it much thought :P
>
I don't think it matters - they're really impressive whatever you call them.
And thanks for pointing me towards Tanguy - that's pretty impressive too.
(although Google images also came up with Tanguy boots, Tanguy biscuits and
some kind of drill bit - surreal huh?)

Post a reply to this message

Thank you for the compliment :)

Always glad to introduce someone to Tanguy, btw... he's never gotten his
proper recognition IMO (although his boots, biscuits, and drill bits are
quite popular).

--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

web.3f101313f2124eafc7b964be0@news.povray.org...
> I've just read up on Dali's paranoid critical
> method(http://www.dali-gallery.com/html/method.htm) - You're right that it
> doesn't easily fit into Breton's definition, though IIRC (and it's a long
> time since I learned this) Breton was a poet, and took some convincing
that
> surrealist painting was even possible. I'd imagine he'd have similar
> reservations about surrealist raytracing.

I think Breton's definition is a good definition, but it's
not complete. Works fine with what he says, writing,
theatre, movies (Dali was accepted in the surrealist

not because any "oil on canvas")
Talking about surrealism in painting, I think Dali gave the
definition, not Breton. Even the group, Breton included,
accepted his "paranoid critical" method, which is more
related with Freud's theories.

Just an opinion.
Bye

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message