In article <web.3f5e3b4c32318703a0c272b50@news.povray.org>, gonzo wrote:
>Well, constructive to me isn't a matter of your credentials. Your authority
>to do so is that you are a viewer. Even if I totally disagree with your
>comment it is still a good reminder that not everyone views an image the
>same way I do.
>
>But this is a tough round to score, and even tougher to comment.  The topic
>is broad and many images have little or no comparison to anything real.  I
>also try to say something constructive but in this round I often can't tell
>if what I'm seeing is intentional or not.  I'm giving a lot of benefit of
>doubt...
>

I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.

My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really surrealistic-
feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down considerably
after going back to it later. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
the whole topic is a bit worn out.

Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange" 
about them. The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a story
with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the concrete
because the whole thing had been explained to me.
 
Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
bizarre. I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this 
round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)

Post a reply to this message