Jim Charter wrote:
>We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
>that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
>since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
>contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
>input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
>persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
>discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
>matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
>to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
>progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
>the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
>like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
>and should produce a richer context within which the community can
>produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?

It does look like interest has tailed off. I've appreciated and learned from
your (and everyone's) input and had hoped we'd get a lot more unique points
of view, both artistic comments and technical feedback.

I plan to continue through the top 20 images; I think we have a lot to learn
from many of them. Whether we do learn anything is up to the community. My
own comments are fairly average but I'd hoped they would be general enough
to get the ball rolling.

Post a reply to this message