> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
>> The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>>
>> "Meaning lies with the viewer."
>>
>> Sometimes tough to accept.
>>
>> Othertimes no help at all.
>>
> 
> Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
> have been raging for many, many decades.
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 
Well, years, decades, centurys, millenias,... all the same, just some 
small shifts in the points of view ;)


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
>>part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
>>plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the picture 
>>space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along the viewing 
>>axis.
>>
>>What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
>>very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
>>involves a sense of self.  What about cats?
> 
> 
> I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even 
> more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment 
> here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of 
> self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in 
> an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus 
> impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)
> 
> There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates 
> the artist's actions. I know this can  happen in photography, I think this 
> can also happen in portrait painting.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Humans usually define their personal space to include the reach of their 
extremities (and their is even some evidence that as tool users humans 
can mentally 'map' their bodily space to include the reach of the tool 
also.)  So if the artist, or even just the viewer, was to pursue this 
theme I am suggesting, of sentience as equated to the mapping of bodily 
space, then the position of the paws, and the drawing of attention to 
them could play a role don't you think?

(I accept your point, though, that, especially with a subject as kitchy 
as this one, and also with the face aligned so perfectly with the 
picture plane, the primacy of the eyes is difficult to avoid.)

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
> 
>>The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>>
>>"Meaning lies with the viewer."
>>
>>Sometimes tough to accept.
>>
>>Othertimes no help at all.
>>
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
> have been raging for many, many decades.
> 

"They fought and they talked in the North and the South, they talked and 
they fought in the West,
Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest"

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8b474f$1@news.povray.org...
> Humans usually define their personal space to include the reach of their 
> extremities (and their is even some evidence that as tool users humans can 
> mentally 'map' their bodily space to include the reach of the tool also.) 
> So if the artist, or even just the viewer, was to pursue this theme I am 
> suggesting, of sentience as equated to the mapping of bodily space, then 
> the position of the paws, and the drawing of attention to them could play 
> a role don't you think?

Yes indeed, and I am sure Mike was exploring just that. However, I think 
this works best when there are no obvious "highlights" imposing themselves 
in the first pace, one can then choose where to put the spotlight so to 
speak. It reminds me of the chiaroscura technique where this can be done in 
interesting ways. The recent contribution by Lightbeam (Julia) comes also to 
mind.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8b47a0$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "They fought and they talked in the North and the South, they talked and 
> they fought in the West,
> Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest"

Lol! Now, what does this remind me of...? I am not sure I can place it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Yes indeed, and I am sure Mike was exploring just that. 

I'd bet he wasn't! :P

But the point for me is that once you put an image out there it is open 
for anyone to interpret in any way. It functions independently 
uncontrolled by either artist or critic.

The thing I took issue with was my sense that, in your critique, you'd 
strayed into a position that no meaning was possible because you 
personally didn't see any meaning.  And that became your criteria for an 
up or down vote on the general success of the image.

Now my own sense of the picture is similar to yours.  That it appears to 
be a cutesy grab shot of a pet and without any indication of why I 
should see it in any other way, the unusual use of the DOF provides some 
visual interest, but not much and not for long.

Given the expected intention of such images, it even looks technically 
clumsy. Its look could have resulted mostly from the camera's 
autifocusing.  But, once 'hung on the wall', we must assume that the 
artist wanted it that way.  Editing and selection are a big part of 
photography.  So there is some responsibility, I believe, to get past 
habits of seeing and speculate on other possibilities.  That is part of 
my fascination with images, anyway.

And poor Mike, this is all rather beside the point considering the shot 
was ancilliary to his original posting. But I enjoyed the conversation. 
  Thanks to Mike for being a good sport about it.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8bf9dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> But the point for me is that once you put an image out there it is open 
> for anyone to interpret in any way. It functions independently 
> uncontrolled by either artist or critic.
>
> The thing I took issue with was my sense that, in your critique, you'd 
> strayed into a position that no meaning was possible because you 
> personally didn't see any meaning.  And that became your criteria for an 
> up or down vote on the general success of the image.

Yes indeed. I immediately sensed I had sprung a trap on myself :-)  Not a 
problem. My initial intention was to ventilate my personal opinion only, but 
it got sidetracked into a more general discussion where I could only loose 
firm ground. No problem either.

> And poor Mike, this is all rather beside the point considering the shot 
> was ancilliary to his original posting. But I enjoyed the conversation. 
> Thanks to Mike for being a good sport about it.

Absolutely! I certainly join you here.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

WIP of critter.

Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals. 
The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, too.

Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.

I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower 
resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level. 
Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings. 
Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more 
subtle.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> WIP of critter.
> 
> Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals. 
> The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, too.
> 
> Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.
> 
> I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower 
> resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level. 
> Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings. 
> Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more 
> subtle.

Oops, I guess it helps to post the picture?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lithma_pov_scene.jpg' (149 KB)

Preview of image 'lithma_pov_scene.jpg'

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a90083b@news.povray.org...
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> WIP of critter.
>>
>> Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals.
>> The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, 
>> too.
>>
>> Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.
>>
>> I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower
>> resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level.
>> Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings.
>> Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more
>> subtle.
>
> Oops, I guess it helps to post the picture?
>

I like this alien. Looking good.

I suppose it grows those crystals as defense? I wonder what the next stage 
of the foodchain looks like.... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message