 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] none none> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
