On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:50:47 -0600, Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
>> 
>> --------------------------------
>> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
>> http://www.imbjr.com
>
>I like it! I am really enjoying your art. The expression on the woman's 
>face is really priceless. The only thing; a human body can't turn that 
>far. Unless the painful look is the intended effect (which it just might 
>be!), the posing will look more realistic if you turn on both "Use 
>Limits" and "Inverse Kinematics". "Auto Balance" might help in this 
>image too. "Use Limits" will ensure that the muscles do not move beyond 
>a natural range. "Inverse Kinematics" simulates the chained movement of 
>many muscles and often leads to better poses. "Auto Balance" simulates 
>weight distribution.

I'd have to check, but I'm fairly sure inverse k's are on. I know the
pose certainly is wild though, but then I'm not after realism - after
all who ever heard of a woman breast feeding a flying infant?

>
>I'd love to see a bigger version of this image. :-)
>
>By any chance, are you using subsurface scattering in this image? The 
>skin has an interesting sheen to it that suggests depth. Really, really 
>cool.

No, but I do have a Poser rendering of this character with the same
sheen apparent. It must have something to do with the texture that
came with the model.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:52:18 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:c23h60pmid9gg6mgb5368lqetvnq36fak7@4ax.com...
>
>A *vast* improvement.
>
>The poser woman is in this case sufficiently disguised so that my mental
>poser baggage doesn't clutter your image. 

Poser baggage? I assume you are referring to the more default
settings.

>You have escaped the
>paper-doll look of your recent postings. The soft, slightly fuzzy look
>of the woman, and to a lesser extent the cupid, contribute to the
>"unobviousness" of the image's meaning.

The paper doll look is to some extent deliberate. A lot of my models
are designed with similarity in mind. I've had MIBs and running
figures riddled throughout my work. I like the clone look.

>
>This imagery in this picture, unlike (the lesser IMO) 'MIB' and
>'contrasting union' are unfamiliar enough to invite study.
>
>There is a lot of talk here about interpretation, exploration, and the
>search for meaning in images. I agree with the need of course, but there
>are so many images here that an artist must establish trust before
>asking the viewers here to make that effort. *This* is an image which
>inspires trust. The obvious care you have given to this image invites an
>audience to reciprocate with careful viewing. Twenty more pictures like
>this and you will have begun to establish the trust that a paper-doll
>image requires to be taken seriously or that a seemingly simple theme
>needs to invite a search for its subleties.

Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
as an expression of my mind. 

It is quite in order that you think what you do about what you see,
but please don't expect me to follow your notions of how to enter into
some highly subjective dialog.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:2nij609tp55csa8lhse4tmjtdtn9rm754d@4ax.com...| On Tue, 30 Mar 2004
09:52:18 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
|
| The paper doll look is to some extent deliberate. A lot of my models
| are designed with similarity in mind. I've had MIBs and running
| figures riddled throughout my work. I like the clone look.
|
|
| Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
| not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
| as an expression of my mind.

Bull5h!+

You attempted to explain your art to me in this very same post. It's
hard to play rebel when you have (nick)named yourself after the icon of
a *social* group, IMBJR. Don't insult my intelligence, and go sell
"obdurate radical artist" somewhere else.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:24:53 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:2nij609tp55csa8lhse4tmjtdtn9rm754d@4ax.com...| On Tue, 30 Mar 2004
>09:52:18 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>|
>| The paper doll look is to some extent deliberate. A lot of my models
>| are designed with similarity in mind. I've had MIBs and running
>| figures riddled throughout my work. I like the clone look.
>|
>|
>| Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
>| not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
>| as an expression of my mind.
>
>Bull5h!+
>
>You attempted to explain your art to me in this very same post.

I attempted to explain it because an issue was raised. I would do the
same if asked to explain it. Otherwise I merely post. Why do people
struggle with this concept?

 It's
>hard to play rebel when you have (nick)named yourself after the icon of
>a *social* group, IMBJR. Don't insult my intelligence, and go sell
>"obdurate radical artist" somewhere else.

Pardon me, but my "nickname" is nothing of the sort:

Take the word CHAOS

Take the word ORDER

Treat each letter as if it had a value:

C + O / 2 = I
H + R / 2 = M
A + D / 2 = B
O + E / 2 = J
S + R / 2 = R

Hence IMBJR

As you can see, any resemblance to some social groups's icon is
actually purely coincidental. 

PS. I'm no where near being a so-called radical artist. I derive
pleasure from permutating a smoking figurehead and like to ocasionally
dabble in the kitsch and even the sentimental. Hardly the stuff of so
called radicalism. You really do need to get the facts in.

And here is my personal posting "philosophy" again:

Yes, I don't require dialog, but yes, I will explain. It's a simple
idea.



>
> -Shay
>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:e5qj601132s81pnsfecce1s916oorbgd3o@4ax.com...
|
| Pardon me, but my "nickname" is nothing of the sort:

On this point I stand corrected.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

> Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
> not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
> as an expression of my mind. 
> 
Then why show it at all?

I thought that Shay's point about establishing trust was quite far 
reaching and filled in piece of the puzzle for me that I couldn't quite 
get to in my own mind.  In short, it helped me further define what the 
symbiosis is between an expressive act and the community which it must 
take place within to have any meaning.  This given our mutual stance 
that private assemblies must be free to establish their own standards 
for individual freedom internally.

No I don't think that a 'work' without an audience can stand on its own. 
  And if you don't engage the community that forms your audience in a 
genuine way, you don't really have an audience.

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:39:55 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
> wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:15:17 +0100, IMBJR wrote:
>
>>>I know what you mean. One of my fellow Subgenius artists has a blog
>>>that I view at work with some trepidation as he likes to explore what
>>>can only be termed mutant porn.
>>
>>Since, god forbid, you actually, like, work, or anything.
> 
> 
> Eh? I can't see why God forbidding me to work as anything to do with
> this?

Yeah, it wasn't the Sabbath! ;-)
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

<snip />

> I'd have to check, but I'm fairly sure inverse k's are on. I know the
> pose certainly is wild though, but then I'm not after realism - after
> all who ever heard of a woman breast feeding a flying infant?

What... what are you saying, I had a strange childhood? The doctor told 
me that was normal. NORMAL! (Hugging self, rocking)

>>I'd love to see a bigger version of this image. :-)
>>
>>By any chance, are you using subsurface scattering in this image? The 
>>skin has an interesting sheen to it that suggests depth. Really, really 
>>cool.
> 
> No, but I do have a Poser rendering of this character with the same
> sheen apparent. It must have something to do with the texture that
> came with the model.

Hmm! It really turned out nice. Kinda like the golden skin of a turkey 
on Thanksgiving day.

Mmmmn... turkey.

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> IMBJR wrote:
> 
>> Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
>> not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
>> as an expression of my mind.
> 
> Then why show it at all?
> 
> I thought that Shay's point about establishing trust was quite far 
> reaching and filled in piece of the puzzle for me that I couldn't quite 
> get to in my own mind.  In short, it helped me further define what the 
> symbiosis is between an expressive act and the community which it must 
> take place within to have any meaning.  This given our mutual stance 
> that private assemblies must be free to establish their own standards 
> for individual freedom internally.
> 
> No I don't think that a 'work' without an audience can stand on its own. 
>  And if you don't engage the community that forms your audience in a 
> genuine way, you don't really have an audience.

I'm starting to think IMBJR's communication with the group is actually 
part of the artistic expression itself.

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, IMBJR wrote:

> Pardon me, but my "nickname" is nothing of the sort:
> 
> Take the word CHAOS
> 
> Take the word ORDER
> 
> Treat each letter as if it had a value:
> 
> C + O / 2 = I
> H + R / 2 = M
> A + D / 2 = B
> O + E / 2 = J
> S + R / 2 = R
> 
> Hence IMBJR

Shouldn't you have taken CHAOS and COSMOS? ...although they have different 
numbers of letters...

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message