Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> There is one person here who mentions something in conversation that is
> very close to my own experience.  The person is Jaime Vives Piqueres,
> and what he talks about is the role of "surprise" in his motivation for
> making pictures.  I think it is significant that he, like me, is mostly
> a mimetic artist.  This role of surprise was crucial to me during all
> the years I spent painting.  It may seem counter-intuitive to others but
> realists or mimeticists can be genuinely surprised at the outcome of a
> painting or image.  It is really at the heart of it, even when the sole
> purpose is to reproduce some object.  It has something to do with the
> idea of garnering and displaying empirical information.


for original styles to have developed yet. Also PovRay strives to be photo
realistic and we try to create images that look real. Even the mathematical
images are (just) beautiful visions of already described functions.
 Not that I think this is a bad thing.

Oh! Great goblet BTW, love the filigree on the base. I wish I could help
with the metal. How are your lights?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:44278004$1@news.povray.org...
>>
> Thanks for the feedback! Yes I have had a miserable time trying to get a 
> metallic look to it...

It may be that there's nothing to reflect off of the metal.  Try putting a 
large box with a multi-colored image map behind the camera.

Eric

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:



Sure, I'll agree with "encourages."
Taking a virtual picture of a virtual
lighted space is fundamental to the
paradigm after all. So that even when people try to go
abstract it is usually abstraction circa Kandinsky
  where they are creating the abstract effect by
  "picturing" some sort of geometric objects and
  there is a general sense of abstracting from nature.
But geometry, math, and a computer language for
deploying it are also parts of the POV paradigm, and those
features lend "encouragement" to those who wish
to explore more abstract compositions.
  More commonly however, people are making images by
  making models then picturing them and the
  results are intended to be depictional.  And as you say the
common goal is a sense of realism with photo effects being
the de facto standard for what is "real"
   Furthermore there is a distinct preference for
  "complete" scenes that suggest you are always seeing
  a fragment of the greater world jsut out of camera view.

But, an aside, when I used
the term "mimetic" I was reserving it for
  the narrow situation of faithful, even slavish recording of
the world, where said record becomes pretty much the point of
the endeavour.  Not really an argument but mentioned
  only as a clarification of my original intended
  meaning.  I usually use "depictional" to refer to broader, usually
narrative uses of recognizable imagery, however stylized.
It was the situation where the artist is more or less focused
on achieving a record, and not necessarily anything further, that I was
attempting to comment on.


IMO CG is too new
 > for original styles to have developed yet.

I think it is really that it is too new yet to mount much of a critique 
of its processes
with success.  Though there are some possible beginnings there.  The
  work of Rene Bui comes to mind.  Also the two banished attempted it
in crude ways.  But I've forgotten their names.

Post a reply to this message

Eric Freeman wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
> news:44278004$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>Thanks for the feedback! Yes I have had a miserable time trying to get a 
>>metallic look to it...
> 
> 
> It may be that there's nothing to reflect off of the metal.  Try putting a 
> large box with a multi-colored image map behind the camera.
> 
You know, that is the *oldest* suggestion in the book and I certainly 
did have some

  colors behind the camera to be reflected.

But it just occurred to me that I may not have had *enough* back there 
or at
a high enough ambient. Off to do more testing.

Thanks for the kick in the backside.  Apparently I needed it!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>

>
> Sure, I'll agree with "encourages."

[Snip]

>    Furthermore there is a distinct preference for
>   "complete" scenes that suggest you are always seeing
>   a fragment of the greater world jsut out of camera view.



>
> But, an aside, when I used
> the term "mimetic" I was reserving it for
>   the narrow situation of faithful, even slavish recording of
> the world, where said record becomes pretty much the point of
> the endeavour.  Not really an argument but mentioned
>   only as a clarification of my original intended
>   meaning.  I usually use "depictional" to refer to broader, usually
> narrative uses of recognizable imagery, however stylized.
> It was the situation where the artist is more or less focused
> on achieving a record, and not necessarily anything further, that I was
> attempting to comment on.


the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their



>
> IMO CG is too new
>  > for original styles to have developed yet.
>
> I think it is really that it is too new yet to mount much of a critique
> of its processes with success.

Yes, styles are just evolving, as is Pov-Ray. It is interesting (to me) how
styles like impressionism can be rendered.

>  But I've forgotten their names.

Starved of the oxygen of publicity, how cruel.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> 

> the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their
> world in water colours? 

A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter 
Lucien Freud.

"Depictional" would mean everything that depends on recognizable 
imagery:  gothic mosaics, Renaissance scenes, Disney cartoons,... and 
Lucien Freud.

But what about Analytic Cubism? Well maybe, but in that case the 
discussion would push precisely the limit of what I commonly mean when I 
use either word.



> 
> 
"record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
what "world" is Rene depicting?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:442c0d60$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> Lucien Freud.
>
> "Depictional" would mean everything that depends on recognizable
> imagery:  gothic mosaics, Renaissance scenes, Disney cartoons,... and
> Lucien Freud.
>
> But what about Analytic Cubism? Well maybe, but in that case the
> discussion would push precisely the limit of what I commonly mean when I
> use either word.
>

With Lucian Freud, I would add Frank Auerbach too. Less known perhaps, but a
mighty artist.
While one might think about Egon Schiele too...

>

> >
> >
> "record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
> what "world" is Rene depicting?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> >

> > the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their
> > world in water colours?
>
> A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> Lucien Freud.

At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
unpleasing to my eye. Although there are similarities to Stanley Spencer,
an artist I like. Especially his war work.


evaluate the seemingly pretentious claptrap that assaults my ears. Not that
I mean you or anyone here. In fact I thank you for enlightening me. {Oh!





> >
> >
> "record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
> what "world" is Rene depicting?



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>

>>A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
>>Lucien Freud.
> 
> 
> At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
> unpleasing to my eye. 


Okay, but you don't have to like his work to understand what I mean.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> >
> >>Stephen wrote:
> >>
>
> >>A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> >>Lucien Freud.
> >
> >
> > At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
> > unpleasing to my eye.
>
>
> Okay, but you don't have to like his work to understand what I mean.

True, I thought I made that clear. I know a little bit more now.
I originally meant that PovRay is good at rendering objects but it is not
easy to represent suggestions of an object. I can think of a few exceptions
like an object with no image but with a shadow. It is things like painting a


Stephen

Post a reply to this message