Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I take of my hat and bow low, Shay.

Thank you.

> Your effort reminds me of a Chinese 
> story:

I wonder how the story ends. Does the patron buy the painting or walk 
out of the painter's studio shaking his head?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Spectacular.
> 
> I especially like this because I honestly can see no way of doing it myself!
> Obviously we're all here because we know (at least a bit) about using POV-Ray
> to generate interesting imagery, but it does take some of the magic away when
> you look at someone's image and can see exactly how they've made it, even if it
> is stunning.
> 
> Bill
> 

Thank you very much.

I will give away just one little bit to share the fun that can be had 
with these types of models: so much can be done on paper. There are many 
"special" (like 30/60/90) triangles to be found within the shape. Much 
of this model, including all transformation matrices, was "figured" with 
a Bic pen while I was at work and away from any computer.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

john wrote:
 >
 > Have you seen what Goerge Hart has done with a very similar sort of
 > sculptures ?

Yes. Our "sculptures" are "very similar" in the way that all paintings 
on canvas are very similar. The finite number of forms around which 
"polyhedral art" can be built are visually distinctive as a group (more 
so than canvases) because most artists do not have the interest or 
aptitudes to work around these forms.

George Hart and I are wired in such a way that working on these forms is 
as straight-forward as working on a canvas; It is the paint applied to 
the canvas that matters. In this respect we are dissimilar. George Hart 
is making polyhedron art, I am using polyhedral symmetries as a 
mechanisms of iteration. What does that mean? Well, it means that George 
Hart's non-polyhedral works are foam "prints" of mathematical functions 
while mine are print works which employ other forms of iteration. 
Sculpture wise, it means that my sculpture would be heavier than his and 
that I'm not interested enough in the form itself to feel it "carries 
itself" as a shitty-looking piece of acrylic.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I take of my hat and bow low, Shay. Your effort reminds me of a Chinese 
> story:
> 
> A rich patron visited a famous painter and asked him if he could draw a 
> life-like copy of a bird (I think it was a cock, but I do not remember 
> exactly) with one single brush stroke. The painter told him to come back a 
> week later. That day, the painter took a virgin piece of paper and painted 
> the bird in one single brush stroke. The patron was duly impressed and asked 
> the painter the price of this painting. The price was a very large sum of 
> gold. "What? said the patron, so much for a single brush stroke?". The 
> painter took him to another room which was stuffed full with countless 
> rejected trials of the bird. "It is not that single brush stroke that you 
> pay, but all the days and nights I have spent to reach perfection."
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Nice take on Shay's larger story about this piece.

But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the patron an 
idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd painted it in a 
single stroke first time then and there!  Would that be more, or less, 
impressive/valuable?

More purely in the art realm, either it is beautiful/stirring/etc. or it 
is not.  Does it matter if takes Mozart second, a week, or ten years to 
come up with a beautiful musical motif?  If two hundred years later 
hearing it played gets us out of our seats cheering madly,... then it does.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Much
> of this model, including all transformation matrices, was "figured" with 
> a Bic pen while I was at work and away from any computer.
> 



Yes, one of the VERY saticfying experiences you can have with POV-Ray, 
is to pull that off.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:00:31 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

>But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the patron an 
>idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd painted it in a 
>single stroke first time then and there!  Would that be more, or less, 
>impressive/valuable?

That's not the point of stories set in far-a-way lands. It is like
deconstructing a parable IM(ns)HO :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> 
> I don't share code.
> 
> It would take me weeks to clean it up,

Seeing the complexity of the object, I have no difficulty to understand 
that :-)




> More importantly, I feel that sharing to much of the "how" robs the 
> magic from the "what."


I don't know... Sometimes knowing how it is done can also deepens the 
mystery : 'ok, I know that I get this by doing so and so, but why is it 
so appealing?'

In fact, apart from the complex symmetries and transformations, I am 
also wondering how you got the coloring of each individual piece with 
hand-coding (I have not the least idea how to get such a coloring excpet 
with UV mapping)!

Thibaut

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the
> patron an idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd
> painted it in a single stroke first time then and there!  Would
> that be more, or less, impressive/valuable?
> 
> More purely in the art realm, either it is beautiful/stirring/etc.
> or it is not.  Does it matter if takes Mozart second, a week, or
> ten years to come up with a beautiful musical motif?  If two
> hundred years later hearing it played gets us out of our seats
> cheering madly,...  then it does.

Painting the bird in a single stroke the first time would have been less 
valuable. Could the painter have done so and had he called the patron an 
idiot, the patron would have walked across the street and purchased 
another single-stroke painting of a bird. APTITUDE IS COMMON. The more 
art I see, the more certain I become that *the* open frontier in art is 
work ethic.

I will say of my own picture, despite its flaws, that although a person 
may not find it beautiful or stirring, nor understand why it took me 
months to complete, he won't often see another like it. The form can be 
repeated, but the details I have taken the time to include, however 
minuscule, are *something* extra-ordinary he can take from it. That 
cannot be said of a thousand nude photos one could download from the 
Internet, no matter how beautiful/stirring/etc. those photos may be.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> Painting the bird in a single stroke the first time would have been less 
> valuable. Could the painter have done so and had he called the patron an 
> idiot, the patron would have walked across the street and purchased 
> another single-stroke painting of a bird. APTITUDE IS COMMON. The more 
> art I see, the more certain I become that *the* open frontier in art is 
> work ethic.

Yes, but need you show the room full of 'dirty linen' every time just to 
prove the worth of the result?  That worth should be manifest in the 
result alone, should it not?  I think the painter was, at a minimum, 
very patient with his patron.  Perhaps my impoliteness would be a poor 
thing, but in the painters place, I surely would have let the patron 
walk across the street and buy another artist's painting, if all he 
apparently wanted was a low price for a single stroke of the brush.



> 
> I will say of my own picture, despite its flaws, that although a person 
> may not find it beautiful or stirring, nor understand why it took me 
> months to complete, he won't often see another like it. The form can be 
> repeated, but the details I have taken the time to include, however 
> minuscule, are *something* extra-ordinary he can take from it. 


The latent craftmanship of a work, is something most people can respond 
to and take pleasure in.  You have always concerned yourself with 
latencies in artwork, latencies often beyond craftmanship alone.  It is 
the common thread, to my mind, in the various work I've seen you do over 
the years.  I is a level of awareness that I value very much, even if I 
don't always pursue it myself.*

*Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:00:31 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>But the story bothers me.  The painter should have called the patron an 
>>idiot and left it at that, imo.  I mean suppose he'd painted it in a 
>>single stroke first time then and there!  Would that be more, or less, 
>>impressive/valuable?
> 
> 
> That's not the point of stories set in far-a-way lands. It is like
> deconstructing a parable IM(ns)HO :)
Simple, old story, hoary, old debate. I'm up for it.

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Sep-08 23:39, Shay wrote:
> The second meaning required the extra work. All of my images are hand-coded, 
> but this one was done without the use of Python. No Python = no class(es). 
> One last time with pure POV sdl. 

I doubt that. ;)

> Wanted to show what could be done just by opening up the POV editor[1] and 
> typing. Got as crazy as implementing divide-and-conquer delaunay triangulation 
> in POV sdl.

Perfectly normal behaviour I would say (at least for that Shay that I 
know from p.b.i)


> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Very cool
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>>> This is my last image. It's been real.
>>
>> What????  I have been missing seeing your images up here lately - was 
>> wondering if we'd see more of your magic.  :-)
> 
> If only it were magic. This was months of work, and the reaction to all 
> who have heard that has been "what took so long?" There's a joy in 
> discovering the just-right look for a particularly challenging type of 
> corner, but that is a *very* expensive high, and no one can tell the 
> difference in the finished image - especially when POV goofs up my 
> triangles.
> 
> I'm having dinner later this month with a successful professional artist 
> and former gallery director[1] to discover the value of a wooden 
> sculpture of this model. My family have a laser engraver capable of 
> cutting out the dozens of necessary pieces. IF that works out, I may 
> design more. 

Funny, when I saw this I immediately started wondering if this was one 
piece or a couple of pieces. And if the latter, if you could physically 
separate them. BTW I do have access to a 3D printer in ABS plastic (see 
e.g. last item on 
http://members.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/visitekaart/en/ceramics.html). 
Possibly other materials as well if I really want to, but that would 
cost money. Can that laser engraver thing do rounded edges? If not you 
could employ a 5 axis milling machine or something like that.
Knowing you, I guess you want total control of what happens with your 
designs, but if you think some rapid prototyping could help, drop me a line.

 > I could have designed this as a wooden piece in 1/5 the time.

Only if they are separable but not too loose. That is a fine line. OTOH 
somehow I think you have already checked that.

Just in case that was not clear yet: I really do like your work and 
approach.

Aside: in my ceramics class nearly all seem to think that things should 
not be perfect because otherwise you might just as well buy them in a 
shop. I am really glad that at least somewhere on this planet there is 
one other person thinks that that is total nonsense. Keep up the good 
work and don't slow down. Sorry, I mean: don't speed up.

> 
>  -Shay
> 
> [1]michelleywilliams (dot com)
hmm slightly different style.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?

It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
butterfly stroke?

What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is 
more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't 
appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.

And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
"manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.

> You have always concerned yourself with latencies in artwork,
> latencies often beyond craftmanship alone.  It is the common
> thread, to my mind, in the various work I've seen you do over the
> years.

Thank you.

> *Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.

Craftsmanship, process, journey, ............ and shoes. All themes I 
have recognized and appreciated in your images.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> BTW I do have access to a 3D printer in ABS plastic (see e.g. last
> item on
> http://members.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/visitekaart/en/ceramics.html). 

That's how you did it. I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't 
remember an explanation. Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.

>  > I could have designed this as a wooden piece in 1/5 the time.
> 
> Only if they are separable but not too loose. That is a fine line.
> OTOH somehow I think you have already checked that.

The pieces in the drawing are separable, but currently a bit loose. They 
can easily be made tight because the individual pieces are so full, 
unlike the finger-width tentacles of other polyhedral art I have seen. 
There is another option of extending pieces to connect to one another on 
the outside of the group. The connections would meet at 90deg angles. I 
can make the whole thing very solid.

The end result would not be flimsy or spindly.

> Just in case that was not clear yet: I really do like your work
> and approach.
> 
> Aside: in my ceramics class nearly all seem to think that things
> should not be perfect because otherwise you might just as well buy
> them in a shop. I am really glad that at least somewhere on this
> planet there is one other person thinks that that is total
> nonsense. Keep up the good work and don't slow down. Sorry, I
> mean: don't speed up.

Thanks! And I have to let you know that I got quite a few laughs from 
your humor in this post.

>> [1]michelleywilliams (dot com)
> hmm slightly different style.

To be honest, I don't get it. I immediately think of some Rauschenberg 
pieces I've seen. ... didn't get those either. But many people *do* get 
it. She's had a lot of financial success. She left my wife a $600 tip once.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 05-Sep-08 23:31, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> BTW I do have access to a 3D printer in ABS plastic (see e.g. last
>> item on
>> http://members.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/visitekaart/en/ceramics.html). 
> 
> That's how you did it. 

yes, I get an idea, implement a user interface to adjust a group of 
splines. Add the symmetry constraints. Write an export to blender, 
compose a partial scene. Export to POV to see if it works. Get them 
printed. Create molds and some other things to make ceramic copies. Find 
out that they too easily fall over because I forgot to check where the 
center of gravity is :( . Redo in a somewhat larger size adding a few 
extra challenges. (these are not on the page yet. the other set just 
above it is hand modelled an they don't fit that well, but much faster 
to create)

> I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't 
> remember an explanation. Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.

Machine reads the STL format, basically yet another triangle format, so 
that could be just your thing.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> I get an idea, implement a user interface to adjust a group of
> splines. Add the symmetry constraints. Write an export to blender,
> compose a partial scene. Export to POV to see if it works. Get them
> printed. Create molds and some other things to make ceramic copies.
> Find out that they too easily fall over because I forgot to check
> where the center of gravity is :( . Redo in a somewhat larger size
> adding a few extra challenges.

Whoa! And here I am belly-aching that I spend so much time sitting on my 
butt staring at vim! A lot of work, but your results are one of a kind.

>> I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't remember an explanation. 
>> Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.
> 
> Machine reads the STL format, basically yet another triangle format, so 
> that could be just your thing.

Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this 
(http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the print, 
pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many pieces 
together into a complete sculpture. What do you think?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> A lot of extra work, but I couldn't resist the double-meaning of this
> title.
> 
> The first meaning will be obvious to any who remember my "...geeks
> only?" or "high school math" post.
> 
> The second meaning required the extra work. All of my images are
> hand-coded, but this one was done without the use of Python. No Python =
> no class(es). One last time with pure POV sdl. Wanted to show what could
> be done just by opening up the POV editor[1] and typing. Got as crazy as
> implementing divide-and-conquer delaunay triangulation in POV sdl.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Yep, some smudging in gimp to get rid of radiosity artifacts. Did as
> good a job as I have the patience to do.
> 
> This is my last image. It's been real.
> 
>   -Shay
> 
> [1] Don't want to mislead anyone. I didn't use the POV editor, which
> only comes with the Windows version.

Hi,

I have been going back and forth between your images and I must say that I'm 
appreciating them more and more. Since I have no math knowledge what so
ever (it just eludes me) I'm just stunned by how you can pull something
like this of. Not taking away any from my understanding how much time this
can take.
I would honestly love to have your objects sitting on a display in my home.
Sadly I can't afford to have you make one for me.

I'm in aw of what a bright mind and a texteditor can accomplish together :)
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> schreef in bericht 
news:48c151f1$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I wonder how the story ends. Does the patron buy the painting or walk out 
> of the painter's studio shaking his head?

Good question. I don't know. I suppose this is left to the imagination of 
the listener as a kind of moral fable.

In any case, I have great respect for your achievements and your dedication.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:48c17746$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Yes, but need you show the room full of 'dirty linen' every time just to 
> prove the worth of the result?  That worth should be manifest in the 
> result alone, should it not?  I think the painter was, at a minimum, very 
> patient with his patron.  Perhaps my impoliteness would be a poor thing, 
> but in the painters place, I surely would have let the patron walk across 
> the street and buy another artist's painting, if all he apparently wanted 
> was a low price for a single stroke of the brush.

I think there are a couple of things playing here. First of all the attitude 
towards painters and/or the painters craft, in imperial China. A bit similar 
to the painters in Rembrandt's time who were considered artisans, not 
artists: it was often the effort, the toiling, that was considered valuable 
over the ultimate piece produced. The estethics of the final piece were 
certainly appreciated, but more so through the awareness of shedded sweat, 
so to speak. It is the way, not the goal, that counts.

Even today, such attitudes still exist. In the town I lived in recently, the 
municipality had provided for several monumental sculptures in and around 
town. A laudable effort. However, at the disclosure of one of them (A giant 
child's top in stone) the municipality official in his speech told the 
audience that the sculpture was indeed beautiful, but that in his opinion, 
it would have been even more beautiful if it had been twice its present 
size!

I think the story - in the sense of Confucius - is supposed to drive home 
that you have to do your best to achieve something.... (?)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:48c1e358$1@news.povray.org...

> Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this 
> (http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the print, 
> pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many pieces together 
> into a complete sculpture. What do you think?

    Hey Shay, wonderful work, as always! Been meaning to say something since 
you posted it.

    I've been looking at the image in the link again, and I think you'll 
have a job producing that one if the base component doesn't have a gap in 
it.

     With this one though, it looks possible, and I would make it out of 
pewter and then you could soft solder the units together. You could make a 
jig that holds two units at the exact angles you need, solder them together 
and then have another jig that holds those subsequent units together, and so 
on.

     This is something you could do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, 
just a propane tank, the right torch and some Delft Clay:

      http://www.delftclay.nl/index.php?page=home&hl=usa

     I've used it many times with silver and gold, and it casts well, but 
you can only use it once per cast, but with pewter, because of its low 
melting point, you'll probably get 5 components (maybe more) before you'll 
need to remake the mould.

    How many components are in this image?

        ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:15:13 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

>Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.

Firstly, Shay: your image is stunning.

I've had difficulty starting this reply (lie, I've had no difficulty starting
just keeping my thoughts in a straight line). As Thomas points out some art is
appreciated not just for its beauty but for the work that went into making it.
Knowing that an old artisan spent his entire life polishing one piece of jade
into a shape makes that artefact more "worthy" than if it were carved then
polished in a fraction of the time. I don't think so! Is it better to look at a
naturally beautiful woman (or man or sheep) than to look at one who uses
artifice to make herself beautiful? (Note the pejorative use of the word
artifice.)
Beauty is in the eye… it is also in the ear and the mind. You can be talked into
thinking something is beautiful so it is subjective IMO ipso facto it must be
true 'cause I used a Latin phrase.

I say that Shay's work is beautiful whether he spent months working on it or
not.
But if he had not spent the time designing and developing it. It would not be
the same piece of work. He did what was needed in this case.
Art needs skill, juvenilia needs salesmen.

Shay, are you still on the rigs? And are you having fun during the hurricane
season?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:23:56 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> I'm up for it.

I don't know if I am but I'll give it ago :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Sep-08 3:54, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> I get an idea, implement a user interface to adjust a group of
>> splines. Add the symmetry constraints. Write an export to blender,
>> compose a partial scene. Export to POV to see if it works. Get them
>> printed. Create molds and some other things to make ceramic copies.
>> Find out that they too easily fall over because I forgot to check
>> where the center of gravity is :( . Redo in a somewhat larger size
>> adding a few extra challenges.
> 
> Whoa! And here I am belly-aching that I spend so much time sitting on my 
> butt staring at vim! A lot of work, but your results are one of a kind.

I think you might actually spend more time on your product. The 
similarity is in it that I also do get accused of overkill sometimes.
> 
>>> I remember seeing these in p.o-t, but don't remember an explanation. 
>>> Very cool. My mind is flooding with possibilities.
>>
>> Machine reads the STL format, basically yet another triangle format, 
>> so that could be just your thing.
> 
> Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this 
> (http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the print, 
> pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many pieces 
> together into a complete sculpture. What do you think?
> 
Difficult, but doable. You'd have to position the cuts that have to be 
glued together very precise. Either where you just won't see them in the 
finished model, or where you have enough access to polish the seams. The 
mold also probably has to consist of several parts, because you have to 
take the thing apart to get your piece of of it. That'll be a whole new 
level of planning. I think the mold for this latest model would be more 
easy. Ceramics tends to deform when drying. This building block is more 
or less planar, so you can let it dry between planks to keep it in 
shape. Resin has the advantage that it does not deform and that rubber 
molds may be used. Ceramic does deform when drying out, but you can glue 
it with clay before firing it, so you can have a seamless result.

All in all, I think that whatever you do it'll be a lot of fun and will 
take more than a lot of time to get it right. Perhaps starting with 
something that you design with physical construction in mind would be my 
advice. Don't worry, even that'll go wrong the first few times if you 
are lucky.

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:48c24944$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message 
> news:48c1e358$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this 
>> (http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the print, 
>> pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many pieces 
>> together into a complete sculpture. What do you think?
>
>    Hey Shay, wonderful work, as always!

     I'll take that back and replace it with wonderful *and* Masterful work.

>    How many components are in this image?

      After studying it most of the day, I'd wager not as many as I think 
overall. There are two initial components, both with three arms each.

       How you put that together Shay, I just can't begin to imagine...

         Do I get a toffee?  ;)

        (Oh, and *I* do like the colours).  ;)

          ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Sep-08 11:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:15:13 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>> Craftsmanship is quite important to me though.
> 
> Firstly, Shay: your image is stunning.
> 
> I've had difficulty starting this reply (lie, I've had no difficulty starting
> just keeping my thoughts in a straight line). As Thomas points out some art is
> appreciated not just for its beauty but for the work that went into making it.
> Knowing that an old artisan spent his entire life polishing one piece of jade
> into a shape makes that artefact more "worthy" than if it were carved then
> polished in a fraction of the time. I don't think so! Is it better to look at a
> naturally beautiful woman (or man or sheep) than to look at one who uses
> artifice to make herself beautiful? (Note the pejorative use of the word
> artifice.)
> Beauty is in the eye… it is also in the ear and the mind. You can be talked into
> thinking something is beautiful so it is subjective IMO ipso facto it must be
> true 'cause I used a Latin phrase.
> 
> I say that Shay's work is beautiful whether he spent months working on it or
> not.
> But if he had not spent the time designing and developing it. It would not be
> the same piece of work. He did what was needed in this case.
There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the 
artist as well as the other way around. Shay is not the same guy anymore 
as he was a few years ago. Because Shay chose to do everything by hand 
and not use any modelling tools, he now knows more about symmetry of 
dodecahedra and 2nd and 3rd order continuity of triangles than most of 
us, even probably all of us. Here I used 'knows' because I don't know 
what other English word to use. I mean not just knowing in the high 
school sense of the word, but knowledge that becomes part of your being. 
One day it starts affecting his life. He won't be able to see a new 
design for a car, boat, bike or sculpture without immediately seeing the 
flaws in the way different parts are connected. At the point where he 
starts applying this to his wife he will be in trouble.

Although many of us could re-create something like his images in less 
time than he did[*] using other tools, the point is that we wouldn't. We 
have the technical ability but not the right frame of mind. So we can 
and at the same time we can't.

> Art needs skill, juvenilia needs salesmen.
> 
> Shay, are you still on the rigs? And are you having fun during the hurricane
> season?

[*] possibly that is not even true. We could get close very fast, but 
then every step closer would take an increasing amount of time. Most 
would give up at 98% because they would not be willing to spend so much 
time on getting it really right.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:15:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the 
>artist as well as the other way around

I could not agree with you more. 
I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even "grok"
from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:h8j7c452ld5s20hjf7d37l5svogc1hbh44@4ax.com...
>
>>There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the
>>artist as well as the other way around
>
> I could not agree with you more.
> I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even 
> "grok"
> from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
>

And I totally agree with both of you.
"grok" should be introduced officially in English (or in any language for 
that matter). I think this describes perfectly the process Andrel writes 
about.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
> right torch and some Delft Clay:

Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!

> How many components are in this image?

Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out 
the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want 
to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate 
designs.

Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded 
corner?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

> I'll take that back and replace it with wonderful *and* Masterful
> work.

Thank you.

> After studying it most of the day, I'd wager not as many as I
> think overall. There are two initial components, both with three
> arms each.
> Do I get a toffee?  ;)

You do.

> (Oh, and *I* do like the colours).  ;)

So do I; Nothing wrong with mustard yellow in my book. But I have/do 
acknowledge issues with the renders of all three. Another reason I feel 
it best to continue with sculptures.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

>> Here's what I'm thinking: print a small sub-section of this
>> (http://tinyurl.com/5s5nbm) earlier model, make a mold around the
>> print, pour resin or ceramic (I've got a kiln), and glue the many
>> pieces together into a complete sculpture. What do you think?

> Difficult, but doable. You'd have to position the cuts that have
> to be glued together very precise. Either where you just won't see
> them in the finished model, or where you have enough access to
> polish the seams. The mold also probably has to consist of several
> parts, because you have to take the thing apart to get your piece
> of of it. That'll be a whole new level of planning. I think the
> mold for this latest model would be more easy. Ceramics tends to
> deform when drying. This building block is more or less planar, so
> you can let it dry between planks to keep it in shape. Resin has
> the advantage that it does not deform and that rubber molds may be
> used. Ceramic does deform when drying out, but you can glue it
> with clay before firing it, so you can have a seamless result.

Not very concerned with seams, so it sounds like resin would be best for 
this one.

I very much want to try ceramic, however. My family have always kept 
very busy with hobbies. I grew up around canning, woodwork, gardening, 
home-spun wool and angora (from our own sheep, goats, and rabbits), and 
ceramic. I'm thinking now about another design with slightly dished 
plates. These could be held between bowls rather than planks when 
drying. Or, just something where a bit of deformation won't hurt.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Is it better to look at a naturally beautiful woman (or man or
> sheep) than to look at one who uses artifice to make herself
> beautiful? (Note the pejorative use of the word artifice.)

Life isn't all about beauty. I'd look across the street to see a 
beautiful girl, but I'd walk across the street to see Pan Qing Fu's 
(anything but beautiful) knuckles.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Ger wrote:

> I have been going back and forth between your images and I must
> say that I'm appreciating them more and more.

Thank you.

> Not taking away any from my understanding how much time this can
> take.

I want to clarify a bit about the time. I could look at this completed 
picture and model it in a reasonable amount of time. The unreasonable 
time use comes from constructing modeling algorithms which allow me to 
the freedom to edit the shapes. Then there's the editing. At one point, 
these planar plates were in some areas connected by curved plates. A 
nice idea, but the curved plates hid too much of the complexity underneath.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:20:04 -0500, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:

>Life isn't all about beauty. I'd look across the street to see a 
>beautiful girl, but I'd walk across the street to see Pan Qing Fu's 
>(anything but beautiful) knuckles.


That's not what I was trying to illustrate. But Pan Qing Fu's knuckles would
pale into insignificance by seeing his beautiful movements. 
Now that is artifice IMO.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 17:01, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> Or, just something where a bit of deformation won't hurt.

As long as it does not prevent your pieces from matching up.

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
> 
> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
> 
>> How many components are in this image?
> 
> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out 
> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want 
> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate 
> designs.
> 
> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded 
> corner?
> 
I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one 
piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all 
the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast 
using liquid clay.

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 14:46, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:15:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the 
>> artist as well as the other way around
> 
> I could not agree with you more. 
> I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even "grok"
> from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
> 

Indeed that would be a good word. I have come across the word, but only 
used as a stronger version of understand. I was not aware of the 
original meaning. Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:48c3e9c2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>
> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!

     Hehe, :) not as reckless as you may think, and thinking about it, you 
wouldn't need propane, (that's me, I'm propane mad!), you could just use a 
butane canister, or camping stove to melt the pewter. Find yourself an old 
soup ladle from some junk shop somewhere to melt and pour your pewter, and 
while you're there, ask the shopkeeper if he/she has any old pewter kitchen 
equipment, like teapots, coffee pots, or even old beer mugs. Should be much 
cheaper that way. (Although, I think it's fairly cheap to buy new anyway).

>
>> How many components are in this image?
>
> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out 
> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want to 
> try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate 
> designs.

   I envy you. You're about to set sail on a road of discovery that you will 
really enjoy. Oh, and I'm here to help if I can in the metal department. :)


>
> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded 
> corner?

    Sure. Pewter is great for that. All you would need is either a nylon or 
rawhide mallet (preferably nylon like on that site in the products section, 
because a rawhide mallet might leave a texture) to 'gently' tap it around a 
dome. If you've ever played with lead, then that's how flexible pewter is 
depending on its thickness of course. I say 'gently' because it is a soft 
metal, and will easily distort if hit hard, but if you want a section of a 
sphere, then that's the way to go. I'm not sure what you would dome it on, 
It would depend really on how big the end product would be. But, think 
glass, (large marbles, solid crystal balls of varying sizes which are *very* 
strong, and won't chip), think brass and steel, (engineering scrappers, 
rejects, i.e., spherical bearings and bushes). I use all of these except for 
crystal balls.

     Good luck Shay.

         ~Steve~



>
>  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
>> St. wrote:
>>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>> 
>> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
>> 
>>> How many components are in this image?
>> 
>> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out
>> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want
>> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate
>> designs.
>> 
>> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded
>> corner?
>> 
> I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one
> piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all
> the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
> Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast
> using liquid clay.

As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all pieces
are flat (as in a plane). If that is the case then it might even be doable
to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
if I had the actual shape.

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 18:21, Ger wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
>>> St. wrote:
>>>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>>>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>>>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>>> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
>>>
>>>> How many components are in this image?
>>> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out
>>> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want
>>> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate
>>> designs.
>>>
>>> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded
>>> corner?
>>>
>> I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one
>> piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all
>> the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
>> Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast
>> using liquid clay.
> 
> As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all pieces
> are flat (as in a plane). 

In this last image, I also think they are sort of flat but with rounded 
edges. Shay was also referring to an earlier work with not so flat pieces.

> If that is the case then it might even be doable
> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it

Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve 
metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).

> if I had the actual shape.

Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.

BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion 
POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing 
camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer 
to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case 
somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

>> 
>> As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all
>> pieces are flat (as in a plane).
> 
> In this last image, I also think they are sort of flat but with rounded
> edges. Shay was also referring to an earlier work with not so flat pieces.
> 

Well, yes, some of Shay's images are virtually impossible to make in wood
unless you fully carve them and I'm not that good at woodwork :(
I think the edges are at an angle, as slanted, but that doesn't make a
difference in making the pieces in wood.

>> If that is the case then it might even be doable
>> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
> 
> Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve
> metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).
> 

Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

>> if I had the actual shape.
> 
> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.

Life is never without problems :)

> 
> BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion
> POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing
> camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer
> to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case
> somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.
> 
 I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:39:21 -0500, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:

>
>Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

Too true, that's why St made TC-RTC a "challenge". 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 19:39, Ger wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> If that is the case then it might even be doable
>>> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
>> Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve
>> metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).
>>
> 
> Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

OK what about a 'concerted effort'?

>>> if I had the actual shape.
>> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.
> 
> Life is never without problems :)
> 
>> BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion
>> POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing
>> camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer
>> to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case
>> somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.
>>
>  I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)

What I meant is that defining a scene and the generation of output are 
two different things. Shay did define his scene in POV-SDL and was able 
to export his scene as a 2D jpg. If we want to create something physical 
we need a 'camera' that can output stereo lithography files (common 
extension of those files is STL). In comparison, Blender can output 
those, but that does not have a scene description language. Hence, I 
would like an STL camera in POV4 (or at least the possibility of 
including one).
Does that make sense?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

>>> Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve
>>> metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).
>>>
>> 
>> Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest
> 
> OK what about a 'concerted effort'?
> 

Sounds better

>>>> if I had the actual shape.
>>> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.
>> 
>> Life is never without problems :)
>> 

>>  I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)
> 
> What I meant is that defining a scene and the generation of output are
> two different things. Shay did define his scene in POV-SDL and was able
> to export his scene as a 2D jpg. If we want to create something physical
> we need a 'camera' that can output stereo lithography files (common
> extension of those files is STL). In comparison, Blender can output
> those, but that does not have a scene description language. Hence, I
> would like an STL camera in POV4 (or at least the possibility of
> including one).
> Does that make sense?

Yes, very much so. Thank you.

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> Thibaut Jonckheere wrote:
> >
> > Wow, impressive and beautiful !
>
> Merci beaucoup !
>
> >
> > I would be curious to see the code :)
>
> I don't share code.
>
> It would take me weeks to clean it up, and I'd only be subjecting myself
> to more crap from guys like the POV tag member who told me in p.o-t that
> I shouldn't bother trying to code something complex because I don't know
> what a "stack" is.

Who told you that!? Think I have met the dork. There are some here with egos so
huge that their big fat heads get in the way every time. They of course should
be ignored and avoided; they have no capacity to work together.

>
> More importantly, I feel that sharing to much of the "how" robs the
> magic from the "what."
>
>   -Shay

A magical game called ping pong is the one I love the most. Its a game where you
boldly ignore the idiots and post your code. Then someone, who does work well
with others, makes sugestions, everbody learns, everybody wins. The dorks can
only win if you allow it.

Just my thoughts, I am NOT suggesting you should post your code. ONLY you can
decide that. Troublemakers deserve my responses. This one you mention was lucky
I wasn't there.

So relating to your issue with idiots here,
aQ

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Spectacular.
>
> I especially like this because I honestly can see no way of doing it myself!
> Obviously we're all here because we know (at least a bit) about using POV-Ray
> to generate interesting imagery, but it does take some of the magic away when
> you look at someone's image and can see exactly how they've made it, even if it
> is stunning.
>
> Bill


But a mystery to be explored. And another possible reference point, jumping-off
point to soaring. Cant fly without a flight plan that includes a launch point
(point of reference) path and landing. The remaining metaphores I leave to you.

In the depth of mystery there is sublime dignity and elegance of character mixed
with authority and freedom. That *is* the "magic".

So keep those things and none of the "magic" would be lost by revealing a
mystery.
aQ

Post a reply to this message

Stunning work.

I keep coming back to your pieces. I find that I'm confounded by them, 
trying to figure out how they look inside. Not inside the code, but the 
centers of the spheroids. Give me a hint, please, are they solid all the 
way through or is there an inverse of the surface on the inside?

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
> 
> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
> butterfly stroke?
> 
> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is 
> more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't 
> appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
> 

I don't know that the idiot would be correct.

Sure, taking a vacation snapshot is easier then painting the same scene, 
whether with oil or with sand. But, should you want to draw a picture, 
you can light it how ever you like. Want each subject lit from a 
different angle, you can just create the picture that way. Want a 
physically impossible scene, there is nothing that prevents it. With a 
camera you are bound by the real world, making that 'perfect' picture of 
a sunset or a rainbow difficult to get. And trying to convince a ladybug 
or a feral cat to take the pose you want . . .

I agree that the worth does not need to be manifest in the work. 
However, it always will be. One person's junk is another's thing of 
beauty, not always for some objective perfection, but through the 
feelings that it brings out in the person experiencing it. Be that 
person the artist knowing that they spent so much time creating it, or 
knowing that they perfected their art so well that they could create the 
piece in but minutes; or be it the viewer seeing the piece and being 
reminded of something important, or just being transported by it. 
Without those, the viewer will just see the 'value' that is held by the 
components of the work; with those feelings, they will see so much more.

> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
> 

That second look should be mandatory, anyways. However, I personally 
find it more impressive when the artist can force me to take a second look.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
> 
> 
> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
> butterfly stroke?
> 
> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is 
> more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't 
> appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
> 
> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
> 

Well stated, and obviously I've gotten myself trapped within logical 
containers: "all" vs "some", "necessary" vs "sufficient", "should" vs 
"could".  There is a concensus building in the thread here, one that is 
certainly true, that meaning lies with the individuality viewer, beauty 
with the taste of the beholder, and merit in the judgement of the patron.

Yet the artwork remains the necessary focus for all this sentience.

If the story is Confucian, as Thomas suggests, then I agree the 
pragmatic assertion, the value of the painting can be demonstrated once 
the labor behind it is made apparent, would be favored over the abstract 
question, what are the qualities of the work itself that embody value?

The story also turns on the "single stroke" request.
The request which occasioned the best the painter could offer in 
creative toil, skill, and ingenuity, focused instead on simple execution 
and is revealed to have been rooted in the vulgar concerns of money. 
This is certainly a pivot of some interest.

Shay it seems to me that there is a mild twist to how this conversation 
has played out.  Labor, and especially craftmanship, could be qualities 
cited to show the artwork itself does have universal, or at least 
persistent value outside of context.  Yet for you, correctly, these 
become evidence that the particular knowledge of the viewer enhances an 
artwork.  Yet craftsmanship, in particular is one that I hang up on.  I 
can't get it to reside wholly with the viewer.

And I still go back to my music example. (Though you have allowed my 
point here.)  If I think Germany's National Anthem is beautiful, I do it 
with little concern for anything else.

Post a reply to this message

On 08-Sep-08 4:56, Jim Charter wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
>>
>>
>> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
>> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
>> butterfly stroke?
>>
>> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
>> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand 
>> is more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many 
>> wouldn't appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
>>
>> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
>> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
>> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
>> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
>> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
>>
> 
> Well stated, and obviously I've gotten myself trapped within logical 
> containers: "all" vs "some", "necessary" vs "sufficient", "should" vs 
> "could".  There is a consensus building in the thread here, one that is 
> certainly true, that meaning lies with the individuality viewer, beauty 
> with the taste of the beholder, and merit in the judgment of the patron.
> 
> Yet the artwork remains the necessary focus for all this sentience.
> 
> If the story is Confucian, as Thomas suggests, then I agree the 
> pragmatic assertion, the value of the painting can be demonstrated once 
> the labor behind it is made apparent, would be favored over the abstract 
> question, what are the qualities of the work itself that embody value?
> 
> The story also turns on the "single stroke" request.
> The request which occasioned the best the painter could offer in 
> creative toil, skill, and ingenuity, focused instead on simple execution 
> and is revealed to have been rooted in the vulgar concerns of money. 
> This is certainly a pivot of some interest.
> 
> Shay it seems to me that there is a mild twist to how this conversation 
> has played out.  Labor, and especially craftsmanship, could be qualities 
> cited to show the artwork itself does have universal, or at least 
> persistent value outside of context.  Yet for you, correctly, these 
> become evidence that the particular knowledge of the viewer enhances an 
> artwork.  Yet craftsmanship, in particular is one that I hang up on.  I 
> can't get it to reside wholly with the viewer.
> 
> And I still go back to my music example. (Though you have allowed my 
> point here.)  If I think Germany's National Anthem is beautiful, I do it 
> with little concern for anything else.
> 
Couple of remarks:
- in this story the painter is just like a drug company that tells you 
that you are not paying for the manufacturing of *this* pill, but for 
everything they did to be able to make it in the first place.
- Craftsmanship is a double headed sword. It can either show itself when 
an artist spends a lot of time getting it exactly right. It may also 
show by the artist getting it right extremely fast. Sometimes we 
appreciate the one, sometimes the other.
- Any discussion on what is art is made impossible by a group of Artists 
and Art Connoisseurs that have elevated originality to the main 
criterion to judge by. So much so that they think somethings are 
interesting because nobody did it before, while the rest of the world 
knows that nobody did it because it is ugly and uninteresting. We need 
another term to denote this kind of institutionalized 'art'. Shay's work 
is more traditional. It speaks of craftsmanship even if you don't know 
how it was made. Knowing it may or may not increase the artistic value. 
It is the kind of art that sells well, but won't make it into a museum 
of modern art (though it might, retrospectively, 3 centuries from now)

Post a reply to this message

I must say, I love it!  This image, and this discussion, has made me 
admire you true artists all that much more (however one defines arts value).

-- 
// The Mildly Infamous Blue Herring
#version 3.61;#include"functions.inc"global_settings{assumed_gamma
2.2}isosurface{function{-f_strophoid(x/2-.45,y,z*3,1,1.2,1,1.5)-.05}
contained_by{box{<-2.1,-1,-1/3>,<1.4,1,1/3>}}max_gradient 12inverse
hollow pigment{rgbf 1}interior{media{samples 8 emission<3,80,150>/255
density{crackle metric 1color_map{[0rgb 6][.03rgb 0][1rgb 0]}scale<1,
2,1>warp{turbulence<.5,.75,.5>}scale 1/3}}}translate z*3}

Post a reply to this message

On 09-Sep-08 20:24, Blue Herring wrote:

> (however one defines arts value).

Oh no, not again! ;)

Post a reply to this message