|
 |
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 27-2-2012 20:05, Norbert Kern wrote:
> > Back in 2005 I invested a large amount of money in xfrog libraries.
> > Now I feel that lighting, perspective and general composition are much more
> > important than anything else.
> > Furthermore nature generates specific patterns for plant communities, which are
> > not random.
> > If you have generated a good vegetation pattern, you need only a small number of
> > different meshes.
>
> I totally agree. For instance, two or three different trees are enough
> to create a forest.
>
> > Therefore I will concentrate on my old vegetation simulation approach. Up to now
> > I haven't found another really convincing solution on that topic yet.
>
> Good work. What I appreciate in this image is the subtle philosophy
> enclosed. And the butterfly of course ;-)
>
> Thomas
The butterfly is the "bad guy" causing the malfunction, but I didn't had in mind
the famous "butterfly effect" - it's more a bit of humor.
In fact there is much more "philosophy" in my underwater image. I've learned
from philosophy, that there is no reality, if you really search for a certain
core. You can even question the approach taken by Descartes.
In the end all these little philosophic games are only "mindfuck" - only a
ladder, which has to be thrown away after using it, as Wittgenstein said.
But even if you have experienced the reality behind the curtain of the socalled
"reality", you have to live with it.
Then it is perfectly possible to make 3D images for your own pleasance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
