Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>

>
> Sure, I'll agree with "encourages."

[Snip]

>    Furthermore there is a distinct preference for
>   "complete" scenes that suggest you are always seeing
>   a fragment of the greater world jsut out of camera view.



>
> But, an aside, when I used
> the term "mimetic" I was reserving it for
>   the narrow situation of faithful, even slavish recording of
> the world, where said record becomes pretty much the point of
> the endeavour.  Not really an argument but mentioned
>   only as a clarification of my original intended
>   meaning.  I usually use "depictional" to refer to broader, usually
> narrative uses of recognizable imagery, however stylized.
> It was the situation where the artist is more or less focused
> on achieving a record, and not necessarily anything further, that I was
> attempting to comment on.


the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their



>
> IMO CG is too new
>  > for original styles to have developed yet.
>
> I think it is really that it is too new yet to mount much of a critique
> of its processes with success.

Yes, styles are just evolving, as is Pov-Ray. It is interesting (to me) how
styles like impressionism can be rendered.

>  But I've forgotten their names.

Starved of the oxygen of publicity, how cruel.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message