NeVeR SeeN ReNdErInG BeAuTy : KPT Bryce.
Kevin Patrick Thibedeau
as the best renderer
Thomas Kluyskens (tkl...@eduserv.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: KPT Bryce is definitely the *best* rendering program in the world. Alias,
: Lightwave, Softimage : the big boys don't beat the feeling you get when
: your Bryce things rolls out of the processor.
: Check it out :
: http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~tklskns/Gallery.html
: Tom
--
Kevin Thibedeau-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._
_.-._.-._.-...@wpi.edu._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-
Sherry Stinson
tkl...@eduserv.rug.ac.be (Thomas Kluyskens) wrote:
I'm having a problem with KPT Bryce. Every single time I start to render a
scene, no matter how plain and simple, it renders for awhile, then
completely locks up my system. It has consistently done this each and
everytime I use it. What could be the problem? I'm on a MacIIvx with 16mb
RAM and close to 1.5gig hard drive. Please e-mail since my server drops
messages quite quickly.
--
Sherry L. Stinson <<>> prnt...@ionet.net
The Printed Image Electronic Design and Production Studio
"...Magazines...Catalogs...Ad Campaigns...Electronic Publishing..."
Publisher of "The Printed Image" - a hot new 'zine
for designers & printers...Subscribe at desig...@aol.com
PDF Version - ftp://users.aol.com/designzine/outgoing/
Web Version - http://users.aol.com/designzine/welcome.html
Thomas Kluyskens
Stephen G.
speed. It is one of the slowest Raytracers around.
Just like POV which has a fantastic Rendering Engine, it
is very slow. Bryce will never be good at doing
anything but stills since it will always be to slow for
Animation work. It is nice quality. I don't really
consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal
textures built in to it.
--
Visit Me at the Magick Rainbow:
http://web2.airmail.net/sgiff/
Michael Eilers
wrote:
> What Bryce has in terms of quality it suffers from in
> speed. It is one of the slowest Raytracers around
I can render a full-screen picture (832x624) in 20 minutes. A comparable
image in Infini-D would take 8 to 10 hours. What more could you want?
.
> Just like POV which has a fantastic Rendering Engine, it
> is very slow.
POV is a pice of freeware, and not worth a comparison. It has not been
speed-optimized, and I really don't consider its rendering to be anything
special.
Bryce will never be good at doing
> anything but stills since it will always be to slow for
> Animation work.
we will see soon: Bryce Pro will have full flyby/through support.
I don't really
> consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
> the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal
> textures built in to it.
Ah, my friend, the plage of a thousand art critics will descend upon you:
Art is created independent of the tools used, and great art is often the
result of great accidents or natural subjects. Are matisse paintings not
art, because they describe natural landscapes (which are, after all,
fractal in design, if you belive chaos theory)? The secret of art is not
in the materials or subject, but in the strength of the composition.
michael
____________________________________________________________
\ /\ /| F E A R F U L S Y M M E T R Y D E S I G N S
\ \/ / | >-------------<
\ / | Web Page Grfx * Logos * Fractal Images
\ \/ /| 3-D Models & Rendering * Web Design
/ /\ \| Copywriting * Flyers * Brochures
/ \ |
/ /\ \ | <http://aruba.ccit.arizona.edu/~eilersm>
/ \/ \| eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu * Michael Eilers
____________________________________________________________
|
| "Om is where the art is, God is where a fart is."
| --The Residents
|
| "Windows 95: You wanted to go WHERE yesterday??"
Jerry Kindall
Thibedeau) wrote:
>Last time I checked Bryce only did landscapes. That hardly qualifies it
>as the best renderer
It only does landscapes if you lack creativity. The KPT Bryce Book, by
Susan Kitchens, has quite a number of very surprising images created with
Bryce, many of which don't look very landscapy at all.
Bryce's modeling tools are geared toward landscapes, true. That doesn't
mean you can't make anything else with them. Nor does it mean you can't
generate artwork in some other application and import it to Bryce. In any
case, once the model is in Bryce, the ray-tracing engine is just as nice
as renderers costing ten times as much. With Bryce it's not so much that
it's a lot of tool, but that the price is astonishingly low for the amount
of tool you do get.
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
Jerry Kindall
>What Bryce has in terms of quality it suffers from in
>speed. It is one of the slowest Raytracers around.
>Just like POV which has a fantastic Rendering Engine, it
>is very slow. Bryce will never be good at doing
>anything but stills since it will always be to slow for
>Animation work. It is nice quality.
What do you consider to be "too slow" for animation work? A couple years
ago, when I was doing simple animations using Lightwave 2.0 on an Amiga
2000 with a 40 MHz 040 accelerator, my animations required anywhere from
30 minutes to an hour and a half per frame. And I wasn't using ray
tracing at all!
Bryce, on my 7500/100, can render an average frame at 640x480 in under 10
minutes and a fairly detailed one in half an hour, and it uses realistic
ray-tracing which would have been time-prohibitive in Lightwave. I
consider this to be a distinct improvement.
Now, I understand that Lightwave is also quite a bit faster than it used
to be, and that my 7500's floating-point performance is somewhat better
than the old 040's was. But in my mind, if 30-90 minutes per frame was
"fast enough" for doing animations, then three times faster is also "fast
enough." Eh? And what happens when I put a 200 MHz 604e processor in my
7500? Would another three times faster be "fast enough"?
BTW, I believe one of the design goals for the next version of Bryce is in
fact enhanced performance, so even if you think it's too slow for
animation work now, that certainly doesn't mean it "always will be." Wait
until they actually release the version that can DO animation before
stating so categorically that it's too slow for animation!
>I don't really
>consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
>the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal
>textures built in to it.
You need to look at the "before and after" versions of the scenes,
originally by Kai Krause and Susan Kitchens, that Eric Wenger "tweaked" by
improving the composition. (These examples are in Kitchens' The KPT Bryce
Book.) No doubt about it, the man IS an artist. There's more to creating
beauty than fractals.
>--
>Visit Me at the Magick Rainbow:
>http://web2.airmail.net/sgiff/
--
Brian Ross
: What Bryce has in terms of quality it suffers from in
: speed. It is one of the slowest Raytracers around.
: Just like POV which has a fantastic Rendering Engine, it
: is very slow. Bryce will never be good at doing
: anything but stills since it will always be to slow for
: Animation work.
The current version of Bryce, that is.
SuperBryce will have animation support; perhaps
it will be optimized?
: It is nice quality. I don't really
: consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
: the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal
: textures built in to it.
I don't really consider oils or watercolours to be real
artwork since the beauty of watercolour paintings are
due to the ways paint chemicals interact.
Or do we really want to define 'artwork' in terms of the medium?
If so, many traditional artists would claim that all photography and
computer graphics is gauche. Bryce's technical strength is it's amazing
algorithmic texturing. Whether that disqualifies it's output as 'artwork'
is another matter. I prefer to judge whether an artists vision was
realized using Bryce and other tools, and the eye of the beholder.
--
____________
Brian Ross \__________________
br...@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca \_______________
http://sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca/~bross \______________
Dept of CompSci, Brock U, St Catharines, Ont, Canada L2S 3A1 \ Carpe carpum.
Mike McNally
>I don't really consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
>the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal textures built
>in to it.
Yeah, and I don't consider any photography to be real artwork, since the
beauty of what's on film is just what's there in the subject matter.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m...@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Johansen
Does Bryce create shapes of any sort apart from extruding fractal maps.
Can you create an image in a paint program and extrude that.
Not to put the program or its users down, but those Bryce
Landscapes all seem a bit samey.(Although the add with the egg and burger
is pretty cute )
Enquiring minds want to know
Steven
--
X
Sunil Mishra
\\ There are several "primitives" available in Bryce---sphere, cube, cone,
\\ plane, pyramid, cylinder. In addition you can import height maps and
\\ modify and extrude them; same with PICT images.
But no means for editing the primitives - a must for any serious rendering
work. You can't even work with DXF files, I believe, something that even
StrataStudio Pro allows. (I don't really have all that much respect for
that program, can't even do refraction and transparency correctly.)
The true strength of Bryce is in the textures it can give. They are indeed
lovely. Other than that, I could probably do everything that Bryce offers
using a program otherwise available for free - POVRay. Of course,
describing a scene is often a pain...
Sunil
v0!d
ste...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Johansen) wrote:
> Just out of interest,(I don't use Bryce or own a Mac)
> Does Bryce create shapes of any sort apart from extruding fractal maps.
> Can you create an image in a paint program and extrude that.
> Not to put the program or its users down, but those Bryce
> Landscapes all seem a bit samey.(Although the add with the egg and burger
> is pretty cute )
>
There are several "primitives" available in Bryce---sphere, cube, cone,
plane, pyramid, cylinder. In addition you can import height maps and
modify and extrude them; same with PICT images.
With a little work, you can coax scenes other than landscapes out of Bryce.
I built a living room which is the main imagemap for my CastleVoid WWW site
using Bryce.
Can't wait for Bryce Pro, though; I applied to be a beta-tester but
haven't gotten approved yet. :<
--
V O I D M S T R : WWW Design, Production and Consulting
Home Page: <URL:http://www.primenet.com/~voidmstr>
New: Harry Shearer <URL:http://www.pobox.com/harry>
CastleVoid <URL:http://www.phantom.com/~voidmstr>
void...@primenet.com, @phantom.com, @pobox.com, @aol.com
Stephen G.
>artwork since the beauty of watercolour paintings are
>due to the ways paint chemicals interact.
First of all I am not attacking Bryce which is a wonderful program. The
comparison of oils to computer generated textures is stupid. The algorithmic
textures mimic real world textures that is why the scenes are beautiful. Oils
look like oils and nothing else. It takes an artist to make oils look good,
while Bryce's textures already look good.
>Or do we really want to define 'artwork' in terms of the medium?
>If so, many traditional artists would claim that all photography and
>computer graphics is gauche. Bryce's technical strength is it's amazing
>algorithmic texturing. Whether that disqualifies it's output as 'artwork'
>is another matter. I prefer to judge whether an artists vision was
>realized using Bryce and other tools, and the eye of the beholder.
>
Face it you don't create the fractal textures, nor the atmospheric effects nor
the fractal landscapes. They are randomly generated unless you use a
heightfield or premade object. All you do in Bryce is arrange the crap so
please don't pretend that it is the same as an artist creating a work of art.
Yes it does take a person with an artistic vision to make a good composition
however in Bryce, it takes nothing more than a good sense of composition. It
does not rely on technique like most mediums.
I stand by my original statement. I will agree that Bryce pictures can be
considered art, I just think most of the credit for that art should go to the
programmers.
s.g.
Todd A. Fiedler
ste...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Johansen) wrote:
>> Just out of interest,(I don't use Bryce or own a Mac)
>> Does Bryce create shapes of any sort apart from extruding fractal maps.
>> Can you create an image in a paint program and extrude that.
>> Not to put the program or its users down, but those Bryce
>> Landscapes all seem a bit samey.(Although the add with the egg and burger
>> is pretty cute )
>>
>> Enquiring minds want to know
>> Steven
>> --
>> X
Yes, you can create work in other programs and import into Bryce. There is
actually a cover of this in one of the more recent Mac mags. I don't
remember which one though.
Sunil Mishra
\\ POV is a pice of freeware, and not worth a comparison. It has not been
\\ speed-optimized, and I really don't consider its rendering to be anything
\\ special.
The rendering is fine, the program though has some deficiencies (such as
insufficient control on lights) that need to be worked on. They are right
now working on V3.0, and it promises to be a great deal better.
Bryce does indeed render very quickly relative to a normal ray tracing
program. I think the reason is that there are some very fixed constraints
on how things can be set up. You cannot have a bulb sitting in the middle
of the scene, for instance. I'm sure they have made quite a few other
assumptions that work only with landscapes.
Sunil
Mark Alan Cirino
wrote:
> Face it you don't create the fractal textures, nor the atmospheric
effects nor
> the fractal landscapes. They are randomly generated unless you use a
> heightfield or premade object. All you do in Bryce is arrange the crap so
> please don't pretend that it is the same as an artist creating a work of art.
> Yes it does take a person with an artistic vision to make a good composition
> however in Bryce, it takes nothing more than a good sense of composition. It
> does not rely on technique like most mediums.
>
> I stand by my original statement. I will agree that Bryce pictures can be
> considered art, I just think most of the credit for that art should go to the
> programmers.
In defense of Bryce users everywhere, I feel I should put in my two cents'
worth here. I agree that Bryce can be very easy to use, and of course you
can create scenes with very little effort using only built-in functions.
However, if you really get into it, you can go way beyond the built-in
stuff to create some truly amazing stuff. I have scenes I created using
several software packages, scanning photos and real objects, and generally
pushing the limits of Bryce's features, as well as the Mac's. Whether it's
art or not, is for the viewer to decide, but you can't tell me that
Bryce's programmers 'created' it. I like to think that, just like
pigments and brushes, an artist who studies, learns and USES the tools
he's chosen has a better chance of coming closer to 'art'.
This is the beauty of Bryce: For some novice or casual users, even
learning the basics can be complex. Seeing a pretty image render on their
screens is just as gratifying to them as seeing that minute pixel-tweek to
my texture map render just the way I hoped it would. Giving a person a
chance to feel accomplishement - in a strange way, that's art, too.
- mark alan
Stephen G.
>In defense of Bryce users everywhere, I feel I should put in my two cents'
>worth here. I agree that Bryce can be very easy to use, and of course you
>can create scenes with very little effort using only built-in functions.
>However, if you really get into it, you can go way beyond the built-in
>stuff to create some truly amazing stuff. I have scenes I created using
>several software packages, scanning photos and real objects, and generally
>pushing the limits of Bryce's features, as well as the Mac's. Whether it's
>art or not, is for the viewer to decide, but you can't tell me that
>Bryce's programmers 'created' it.
What I said was the Programmers are responsible for creating the Beautiful
landscape and atmospheric textures which is arguably a majority of why Bryce
images are beautiful.
s.g.
Mike McNally
>Face it you don't create the fractal textures, nor the atmospheric effects nor
>the fractal landscapes.
Speak for yourself, Mr. G. *You* might not be willing to put the time into
working on G2H maps, terrain layout, positioning, camera details, 3d cloud
objects, textures, atmosphere effects, or other issues, but some other
people might be.
There are photographers, and there are people who buy Kodak box cameras for
parties. (And yes, I'm sure there are artists among the second group and
clowns among the first, but you know what I mean.)
>They are randomly generated unless you use a heightfield or premade object.
Uhh... Ok. So you're saying unless you work on it you're not doing any
work. Maybe...
>All you do in Bryce is arrange the crap so please don't pretend that it is
>the same as an artist creating a work of art.
And a photographer does what exactly? Or are they not artists?
>Yes it does take a person with an artistic vision to make a good composition
>however in Bryce, it takes nothing more than a good sense of composition. It
>does not rely on technique like most mediums.
If composing is not "technique", what is it? If expert development and
application of texture isn't "technique", what is it?
>I stand by my original statement.
Your privilege, of course. Your statement is wrong, but you can stand by
whatever you like.
>I will agree that Bryce pictures can be considered art, I just think most
>of the credit for that art should go to the programmers.
So should most credit for works of photographic art go to Nikon?
Mike McNally
>What I said was the Programmers are responsible for creating the Beautiful
>landscape and atmospheric textures which is arguably a majority of why Bryce
> images are beautiful.
Ah, I see. You just don't know how Bryce works. I understand now how you
might develop such a mistaken impression of what it is to work with the
tool.
Richard Dorman
: KPT Bryce is definitely the *best* rendering program in the world. Alias,
: Check it out :
: http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~tklskns/Gallery.html
: Tom
Hi.
I don't agree that Bryce's rendering quality is better than some of the
top end renders. Admittedly Bryce generates some beautifull scenes but
I think the quality comes not from the renderer but from the attention to
detail. For example the textures used for rocky landscapes and for the
clouds have been carefully and cleverly designed to suite landscape scenes.
Applied to something inorganic such as a car the result may not be as
impressive.
Richard
rab
>
> In article <4d76n7$5...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, thib...@wpi.edu (Kevin Patrick
> Thibedeau) wrote:
>
> >Last time I checked Bryce only did landscapes. That hardly qualifies it
> >as the best renderer
>
> It only does landscapes if you lack creativity. The KPT Bryce Book, by
> Susan Kitchens, has quite a number of very surprising images created with
> Bryce, many of which don't look very landscapy at all.
>
> Bryce's modeling tools are geared toward landscapes, true. That doesn't
> mean you can't make anything else with them. Nor does it mean you can't
> generate artwork in some other application and import it to Bryce. In any
> case, once the model is in Bryce, the ray-tracing engine is just as nice
> as renderers costing ten times as much. With Bryce it's not so much that
> it's a lot of tool, but that the price is astonishingly low for the amount
> of tool you do get.
>
> Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
> Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
> http://www.manual.com/home/
Is Bryce a product that runs on SGI's?
--
Rick Bilonick
r...@nauticom.net
=============================================================================
Check out my web page: http://www.nauticom.net/users/rab/consult.htm,
PLEASE!
Brian Ross
: In article <4dg16k$oo7$1...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au>,
: ste...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Johansen) wrote:
: >> Just out of interest,(I don't use Bryce or own a Mac)
: >> Does Bryce create shapes of any sort apart from extruding fractal maps.
: >> Can you create an image in a paint program and extrude that.
: >> Not to put the program or its users down, but those Bryce
: >> Landscapes all seem a bit samey.(Although the add with the egg and burger
: >> is pretty cute )
: >>
: Yes, you can create work in other programs and import into Bryce. There is
: actually a cover of this in one of the more recent Mac mags. I don't
: remember which one though.
You can import alpha-channeled bitmaps, that is (no 3D model importing, yet).
Michael Eilers
>
> What I said was the Programmers are responsible for creating the Beautiful
> landscape and atmospheric textures which is arguably a majority of why Bryce
> images are beautiful.
>
in saying this, youare committing two of the most common fallacies
committed by people attempting to define artwork--first, equating art
quality with difficulty of creation, and secondly, mistaking medium for
content.
To say that artwork that was "tougher" to make is therefore better art is
nothing short of ludircrous--if this is the case, then the finest artists
in the world are those people who dress fleas with tiny clothes: after
all, that *has* to be tough to do. If you are implying that the Bryce
artist did not work hard enough to create the image, then you are falling
into this trap...
Also, many people bleive that becuase the computer is doing the actual
drawing, that disqualifes the artist from "owning" the final product. This
is similar to claiming that because Daguerre invented the photograph, all
photographers owe allegiance to him and can never hope to eclipse him.
The materials or the means used to create Art are absolutely irrelevant.
True Art emerges despite such details. There are millions of oil painting
in the world, and they are mostly dreck and garbage--yet once and a while
something amazing merges, and makes an impact on history. The same will
happen for Bryce on other digital images--there are a lot of similar,
run-of-the mill pieces, but a few will emerge as masterpieces.
Oh, and to ther person who said that art was in the eye of the beholder:
it is not. Art has nothing to do with what you or I think about
it--*history* decides what is, and what is not art. And I think Bryce has
made an impact on history allready....
Mas
>In article <4dg16k$oo7$1...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au>,
>ste...@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Johansen) wrote:
>
>>> Just out of interest,(I don't use Bryce or own a Mac)
>>> Does Bryce create shapes of any sort apart from extruding fractal maps.
>>> Can you create an image in a paint program and extrude that.
>Yes, you can create work in other programs and import into Bryce. There is
>actually a cover of this in one of the more recent Mac mags. I don't
>remember which one though.
In fact Bryce can import a grayscale image (it recognise over a 1000
levels of gray) and then extrude it. Anything that is black, is a low
point, anything that is white is a high point and any shade between is
a height inbetween. You can then erode, invert, merge and do a lot more.
You can also use something called mask rendering where, an image or
texture containing black will become totally transparent where there is
black or white (depending on the setting).
Andre-John
--
- Andre-John MAS ----------------------------------------------------------
| Email: A.J...@herts.ac.uk *** Web: http://www.cs.herts.ac.uk/~cs4dr/ |
| Smail: 4 Deans Gardens, Marshalwick, St Albans, Herts, England |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belaal
"Stephen G." <sg...@airmail.net> wrote:
>I don't really consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
>the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal textures built
>in to it.
Whoa! Everybody stand back, little-minded Steve is gonna decide what is
art. Listen up, buddy, I don't care if you take a crayon and draw big X's
on a wall in you living room, it IS art! It sounds to me like you're one
of the (very few) persons unable to grasp Bryce as a whole and you're
jealous because other people can create ORIGINAL and BEAUTIFUL works of
_ART_
and you can't. Please! Why don't you show us what IS art (in your
opinion).
Slightly annoyed,
D
Mas
all you have to do is import the finished image into photoshop and then
use one of the appropriate filters. There are other programs that will
so this.
BTW - We say that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I believe
that ART is in the eye of the belholder.
Mas
renders designed for animation probably don't include so much detail.
The makers of KPT Bryce (Metatools software - I think that is their
name) are in the process of bring out a new version of KPT Bryce known
as KPT Super Bryce that will allow you to do movies and it will also
allow you to do binary addition, well whatever it is called it means
that if you have a circle intersecting a square, you will have a dip
in the corresponding area on the square.
I saw a some previews of what KPT Super Bryce can do and it is
amazing.
By the way, I have seen a fancy way of putting trees a landscape. If
you have a photo or picture of some trees with a black background then
you can use the ability of mask rendering to make it fit into the
scene.
That's all...
Brian Ross
: True, KPT Bryce probably only is good for stills. But then again,
: renders designed for animation probably don't include so much detail.
: The makers of KPT Bryce (Metatools software - I think that is their
: name) are in the process of bring out a new version of KPT Bryce known
: as KPT Super Bryce that will allow you to do movies
It would be fantastic if Metatools Bryce algorithmic texture
technology were available for a high-end animation system
(Softimage, Alias, Vertigo). In fact, if Vertigo were indeed being ported
to the Powermac, it would make a nice complement to Renderman.
Michael Eilers
wrote:
> In article <eilersm-1901...@192.0.2.1>,
> eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.eduè says...
> >in saying this, youare committing two of the most common fallacies
> >committed by people attempting to define artwork--first, equating art
> >quality with difficulty of creation, and secondly, mistaking medium for
> >content.
>
> The difference that you are missing is that it requires absolutely
> NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. Choosing presets here
> and there and boom you have a decent picture. But it's a picture,
> not art.
>
because a decent picture is easy, an excellent picture cannot be art?
explain this logic to me, it is a little fuzzy.
you are still equating difficulty of creation with artistic quality.
Please provide some alternate arguments to this old saw. All 3-d rendering
programs have filters, primitives, and do all the math for you: does this
automatically disqualify all computer-rendered "pictures" from ever
entering the pantheon of Art?
I will repeat myself: Neither you nor I nor any of us has the ability to
declare *anything* we see as captial-A "Art." that is up to the whim and
province of history. The images of KPT bryce have become so ubiquitous and
achieved such cultural penetration that it seems inevitable one day
masterpieces will be created with this software.
Michael Eilers
> >> In article <eilersm-1901...@192.0.2.1>,
> >> eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu says...
> >> >in saying this, youare committing two of the most common fallacies
> >> >committed by people attempting to define artwork--first, equating art
> >> >quality with difficulty of creation, and secondly, mistaking medium for
> >> >content.
> >>
> >> The difference that you are missing is that it requires absolutely
> >> NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. Choosing presets here
> >> and there and boom you have a decent picture. But it's a picture,
> >> not art.
>
> >because a decent picture is easy, an excellent picture cannot be art?
> >explain this logic to me, it is a little fuzzy.
>
>
> word easy. He is saying you don't have to be an artist to create something
> beautiful with Bryce. You keep missinterpreting what everyone is
saying. Why
> don't you go take a class in reading comprehension.
tut tut, ad-hominen fallacies do little to boost your already shallow
chain of logic. if you would have read the entire post instead of quoting
out of context, you would realize the meaning behind my post. despite your
repeated denials, both you and kon have alleged that bryce is too easy to
use and therefore its pictures are not art. You suggested the computers
and porgrammers do all the work, so bryce pictures are not art--this is
the same as stating that the "artist" hasn't done the
nose-to-the-grindstone part, so the creation is too easy. Kon says
basically the same thing. the mutual lack of understanding you two are
displaying has to do with your loose use of the word "art." At no time did
any person suggest even for a second that everyhting created with Bryce
was automatically, by default, art--and it is certainly not automatic
"Art!" :)
however, both of you have alleged that Bryce cannot be used to create art
in several ways. This is my point of contention: the tool you use is
irrelevant. An artist who is sufficently skilled in Bryce can use it to
create art, while most hacks will churn out insipid run-of-the mill
landscapes. for a Bryce user to create art, he or she must not only master
color theory and composition, but know how to push the tool to the limits,
same as a user of oil paints or airbrush. The fact that some guy in a
factory in Venice created my paintbrush and paints has nothing to do with
the value of my final composition.
both of you also equated beauty with Art, another common fallacy that I
will not get into here...
as for the ubiquity of Bryce landscapes disqualifying them from ever being
art, as another poster suggested: go to a "starving artist" sale some day,
but don't eat lunch first, becuase the clowns and puppies and seascpaes
may make you sick. Millions upon milions of bad oil paintings are cranked
out every year, but a few are still selected to be remembered as Art.
Despite your lack of understanding, history does in fact determine what it
Art and what is not: the choices musems make, art critics make, and art
historians make determine exactly what is remembered from generation to
generation as Art and also determine what makes it into the textbooks, and
therefore is used as comparison material to more recent works. This
functions on a local level, not a global one, though that may be changing.
Just as every culture has different views of history, thet have different
angles on art.
The average person's ability to comprhend art usually consists of being
ably to say "I like it!" or "It sucks!" without being able to explain why.
this is not unusual or "bad," it just points out that the appreciation of
art is a learned skill that must be refined, just as appreciation of music
or good comma usage. Instinctive responses to artwork are rarely useful.
Brian Ross
: The difference that you are missing is that it requires absolutely
: NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. Choosing presets here
: and there and boom you have a decent picture. But it's a picture,
: not art.
:
: As for slog-work, wellll that's relative, isn't it? If you're prepared
: to try and create a landscape with a traditional 3D prog then it's much
: more of an achievement than clicking a few buttons and waiting for
: a preset to draw.
It doesn't matter if the tool is Bryce, Softimage, oil paint, or charcoal.
A serious artist will pay attention to composition, light
and colour interaction, subject matter, and his or her vision. And these
things are just as critical with Bryce as with any other medium. If you
disagree, then you haven't seriously used Bryce.
: However, to those people who go to the effort of creating bryce landscapes
: with their own presets and textures, I take my hat off.
Sorry, art is deeper than just unique "presets and textures".
Gary Zuercher
> "Stephen G." <sg...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >I don't really consider any Bryce stuff to be real artwork though since
> >the beauty of what it creates is because of the fractal textures built
> >in to it.
I am a self-employed illustrator, specializing in game and puzzle
design, aviation art and Science -fiction illustration. In the last two
years I have generated over $200,000 in income using KPT Bryce on 040 and
PowerMac platforms. I also publish a line of puzzles called Fractal Dreams
based on fractal images generated with KPT Fractal Explorer and KPT Bryce.
I work out of a spare room in my house and communicate with my
customers over the internet and an ISDN line. I do not have to drive the
freeways or otherwise complicate my life commuting to a regular office
every day. Bryce creations may not be art, I really don't know, or care if
you know, but this is how this wonderful, powerful, inexpensive program
has basically changed my life forever.
Oh, BTW, EVERYTHING in the universe can be described by fractal
geometry. Perhaps fractals are God's KPT Bryce.
Regards,
Chroma
Stephen G.
>committed by people attempting to define artwork--first, equating art
>quality with difficulty of creation, and secondly, mistaking medium for
>content.
>To say that artwork that was "tougher" to make is therefore better art is
>nothing short of ludircrous--if this is the case, then the finest artists
>in the world are those people who dress fleas with tiny clothes: after
>all, that *has* to be tough to do. If you are implying that the Bryce
>artist did not work hard enough to create the image, then you are falling
>into this trap...
Obviously you have not yet learned how to read. No where in any of my
statements did I say or imply anything about the word tough, or difficulty.
Go back and read it again. My point had nothing to do with difficulty.
>Also, many people bleive that becuase the computer is doing the actual
>drawing, that disqualifes the artist from "owning" the final product. This
>is similar to claiming that because Daguerre invented the photograph, all
>photographers owe allegiance to him and can never hope to eclipse him.
I never stated anything about owning the final product. My you come up with
some incredible interpretations of things I did not say.
>The materials or the means used to create Art are absolutely irrelevant.
>True Art emerges despite such details. There are millions of oil painting
>in the world, and they are mostly dreck and garbage--yet once and a while
>something amazing merges, and makes an impact on history. The same will
>happen for Bryce on other digital images--there are a lot of similar,
>run-of-the mill pieces, but a few will emerge as masterpieces.
I never stated that the rest of the world would not classify Bryce as art. I
was speaking only for myself from the point of view of knowing the process of
creation. I also stated that yes it is art, however most of the credit
should go to the programmer.
>Oh, and to ther person who said that art was in the eye of the beholder:
>it is not. Art has nothing to do with what you or I think about
>it--*history* decides what is, and what is not art. And I think Bryce has
>made an impact on history allready....
>
I disagree. You discount the reason for creating it in the first place. A
true artist creates for the sake of art or for money sometimes. However
History is not able to decide anything. Only people decide what is art and
if one person in a million finds something artistic then that is art. If art
was dependant upon the tastes of an entire planet, there would be no art.
s.g.
Rick Boden
On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Michael Eilers wrote:
>
> I will repeat myself: Neither you nor I nor any of us has the ability to
> declare *anything* we see as captial-A "Art." that is up to the whim and
> province of history.
Let me get this straight...if the Mona Lisa had been destroyed moments
after creation...it would not have been art?
The images of KPT bryce have become so ubiquitous and
> achieved such cultural penetration that it seems inevitable one day
> masterpieces will be created with this software.
>
Lets wait a hundred years or so...I'm still waiting for masterpieces from
the psychedelic art of the sixties.:)
Seriously now, the fact that it is so (relatively) easy to do assures us
that there cannot be a small number of masterpieces. The market will be
flooded with them and history just won't have room. The fact that art
has been hard to do accounts for the rarity of masterpieces and their value.
Rick
Michael Eilers
Hopwood) wrote:
> iafrica.com> <eilersm-200fw.net> <eilersm-2101...@192.0.2.1>
>
> >>instinctive reactions to art are rarely useful
> >>history decides what is art
>
> Michael, I don't wish to be offensive, but I think you are defending a
> ludicrous position here. You seem to think that *what is art and what is
> not* can be decided - as if there was some transcendental rule, some
> absolute truth: X is art, Y is not. In your example, the thing that does
> the deciding is history, but let's be more accurate, because after all what is
> history? History is a normative "truth" (ie opinion) decided by historians
> and others. You mentioned museums and textbooks and so forth. Ok, so in
> your definition, there is a sort of collective of opinion that decides
> what art is, and this process takes place over a length of time.
that is exactly what happens, and your denials sound a little ridicuous in
the face of fact.
>
> Sir, that is ridiculous. Firstly, the idea that art can be defined at all
> defies the very nature of art. Art is whatever you want it to be.
stop right there: once again, another person is falling into many of the
exact same traps... your argument is well intentioned, but also dreadfully
familliar to myself and my colleages. The problem is your loose use of the
term "art." allow me to explain:
Art is, and will forever be, a social/historical record of a
civilization's cultural achievements. I really doesn't matter a damn if
the artist thinks they are creating art or not--if a piece does not make
it into a museum or texbook, or does not in some way influence segments of
society or the art field in general, it is just a piece of junk, lost to
history. these are the facts. what is "art" and what is not is determined
by cultural values and tastes, and these change through history--what the
artist thinks, or what they are attempting, is as irrelevant as the tools
themselves. This does not in any way define or constrict art, it is
simply the method by which scribbles become masterpieces.
Pigment on a canvas is just pigment on a canvas.
That's
> obvious to anyone that gives it more than a moment's thought. Are you
> suggesting that artists live and die without ever knowing that what they
> do is art, because historical collective opinion has not yet defined
> whether or not it is art? How ridiculous. If it is art to them, it is art.
many, many artists lived and died without a shred of recognition, yet were
discovered (by people who influenced cultural opinion) and became
"artists" posthumously. Many, many artists consider their pieces "Art" and
struggle all their lives to be "appreciated," and fail. Take a look
outside your window or peruse a gallery or museum, and the process will
become evident. If picasso had put every one of his paintings into a hole
in the ground and sealed it up, we would not even recognize him as an
artist today: art is a *social document* that depends upon communication
to exist.
> If it is art to others as well, then so much the better for them, but it
> does not make *the art itself* better - how could it?
now you are off on a tangent--opinion *does* make art better or worse! I
find Jackson Pollock's splatter canvases infinitely boring, but a good
many scholars and critics do not, so his paintings are a permanent part of
American culture, and are revered in Europe. they affect every young
artist studying the craft. opinion is far more powerful than you think. by
the same token, 60's pop art was the darling of the critics for a long
time, but is now considered cheap trash--it has gone from masterpiece to
garage sale!
there is no such thing as "the art itself"--no work of human hands exists
in a vacuum. you are continually trying to seperate the object itself from
its meaning--this is like looking at the word "lemon" without using any
other words in relation to it. The art you are describing is just pigment
on a piece of stretched fabric, or pixels on a monitor, or ground minerals
on a fibrous surface. Art does not exist at the atomic level, it exists at
the social level.
Since what is good
> and what is bad is wholly subjective, and therefore not subject to
> rational justification.
there is nothing on this planet which is wholly subjective and therefore
undiscussable, unless it is created and anylyzed in a total cultural
vacuum. lanuage itself taints and makes common any object you attempt to
describe. for something to be wholly subjective, it could not even be
approached with language! All cultures are based on elaborate systems of
rational justificaion that determine internally what is "good" or
"bad"--that is part of the definition of cultures. Or do you exist in some
sort of self-imposed cultural vaccum?
often, my critical approach to a new piece is basically "instinctive," but
that instict is informed by many years of concentrated study of the
subject--and if I cannot rationalize my feelings toward a piece in some
manner, my opinion is useless to myself and to others.
perhaps you are aware of the American movie critic team of "Siskel and
Ebert?" they use rational analysis and detailed explantions, and determine
the movie tastes of millions of people as a result! The very process that
you are trying to deny the existence of (the cultural construction of
"what is art") happens every second of every day.
Why do you like the taste of sugar? I don't know,
> I *just do*. I can't justify it, becasue it is a matter of taste, you
> can't test for it
haven't you ever seen those "try one free" soft drink booths? they are
testing for taste right now :)
In the same way, one can't say with any meaning that
> one piece of art is better than another; one can *believe it* to be so,
> and the whole world could agree with you, it doesn't mean that it is
> better, just that the whole world believes it to be so.
again, you are trying to seperate the collection of atoms or pixels from
its result on the viewer, a pretty meaningless pursuit. Can you define
something without using words? Can you look at something without using
even the slightest shred of culturally-informed criteria to figure out
what you are seeing? Just like in quantum physics, the very act of
observation taints the object you are observing.
If the whole world believes something, than that thing is so. period. or
do you exist outside the world? People kill themselves all the time in the
service of beings called Gods which do not exist in any realm of fact, by
their very definition. If a crowd believes a theater is on fire, they will
trample you and the way to the exit regardless of wether you personally
believe fire exists or not.
When you say a
> piece of art is good, you are not changing anything about the art itself,
> you are merely describing your own reaction to it.
all of the above is a common, politically-correct verson of the tired old
saw "art is for everyone." art is NOT for everyone, and the appreciation
of it is a learned skill, not instinctive. the ability to tell sweet from
sour is useful for discriminating between Beavis and Butthead and 60
Minutes, but not much more. The people who *do* decide what works are
remembered and what are forgotten have refined palletes: they are like the
sugar growers that can tell the difference between northern cane and
southern brown just from the smell. And their critera changes dynamically
with cultural tastes, values, and historical interpretations.
saying "I like it" or "it sucks" about anything effectively ends the
conversation right there, and is completely useless. Are you trying to
suggest that discussing art is impossible, and there is nothing to be
gained by it? All of your arguments are bent on homogenizing taste and
cultural values down to a level of personal preference--this eradicates
any chance of useful discussion or rapport. what people think is art and
how they think it is a *learned response* to a *culturally constructed*
view of art, not some animal reaction. Mexican people often prefer honey
to sugar, not becuase they have different pallettes genetically and
physically, but because this is a learned preference.
> To relate this to our discussion of Bryce, anything and everything
> you can do on Bryce can be art. The interface itself can be considered
> art, if you want, in the same way that the design of a leaf on a tree is
> art, or the smell of the earth. If you believe so, anything you create on
> Bryce can be art. Whether or not the rest of the world agrees with you is
> wholly irrelevant to the illustration itself.
saying that is much like saying that the illustration is wholly irrelevant
to what the world thinks of it! I hope we all realize by now how
uninformed and useless that train of thought is.
> I hope that has helped you understand.
I hope you are beginning to understand how the term "art" functions, and
how your misinterpretation hobbled your otherwise promising argument. I'm
a little tired of giving my degree in critical theory a workout. Personal
belief is utterly irrelevant in the larger world. I am a writer by trade:
if I wrote what i felt was the greatest 800-page novel the world have ever
seen, but locked the manuscript in a safe and no human eye besides mine
ever saw it, it would have never existed--it would be as useless as dust.
I write every day, but until another person has read my work and believes
it to be of cultural signifigance in some way, it is just words. Art is
composed of two halves: the work, and its communication. without
communication, the mona lisa would just be dried pigments on a scrap of
canvas.
Joel Hopwood
>>instinctive reactions to art are rarely useful
>>history decides what is art
Michael, I don't wish to be offensive, but I think you are defending a
ludicrous position here. You seem to think that *what is art and what is
not* can be decided - as if there was some transcendental rule, some
absolute truth: X is art, Y is not. In your example, the thing that does
the deciding is history, but let's be more accurate, because after all what is
history? History is a normative "truth" (ie opinion) decided by historians
and others. You mentioned museums and textbooks and so forth. Ok, so in
your definition, there is a sort of collective of opinion that decides
what art is, and this process takes place over a length of time.
Sir, that is ridiculous. Firstly, the idea that art can be defined at all
defies the very nature of art. Art is whatever you want it to be. That's
obvious to anyone that gives it more than a moment's thought. Are you
suggesting that artists live and die without ever knowing that what they
do is art, because historical collective opinion has not yet defined
whether or not it is art? How ridiculous. If it is art to them, it is art.
If it is art to others as well, then so much the better for them, but it
does not make *the art itself* better - how could it? Since what is good
and what is bad is wholly subjective, and therefore not subject to
rational justification. Why do you like the taste of sugar? I don't know,
I *just do*. I can't justify it, becasue it is a matter of taste, you
can't test for it. In the same way, one can't say with any meaning that
one piece of art is better than another; one can *believe it* to be so,
and the whole world could agree with you, it doesn't mean that it is
better, just that the whole world believes it to be so. When you say a
piece of art is good, you are not changing anything about the art itself,
you are merely describing your own reaction to it.
To relate this to our discussion of Bryce, anything and everything
you can do on Bryce can be art. The interface itself can be considered
art, if you want, in the same way that the design of a leaf on a tree is
art, or the smell of the earth. If you believe so, anything you create on
Bryce can be art. Whether or not the rest of the world agrees with you is
wholly irrelevant to the illustration itself.
I hope that has helped you understand.
Yours Sincerely,
Joel Hopwood.
Rick Boden
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Michael Eilers wrote:
>
> The average person's ability to comprhend art usually consists of being
> ably to say "I like it!" or "It sucks!" without being able to explain why.
> this is not unusual or "bad," it just points out that the appreciation of
> art is a learned skill that must be refined, just as appreciation of music
> or good comma usage. Instinctive responses to artwork are rarely useful.
Well, my opinion is that instictive response is the definition of art.
If you have to learn how to appreciate it, then it's craftsmanship.
Rick
Belaal
D
Mark Alan Cirino
wrote:
> >In defense of Bryce users everywhere, I feel I should put in my two cents'
> >worth here. I agree that Bryce can be very easy to use, and of course you
> >can create scenes with very little effort using only built-in functions.
> >However, if you really get into it, you can go way beyond the built-in
> >stuff to create some truly amazing stuff. I have scenes I created using
> >several software packages, scanning photos and real objects, and generally
> >pushing the limits of Bryce's features, as well as the Mac's. Whether it's
> >art or not, is for the viewer to decide, but you can't tell me that
> >Bryce's programmers 'created' it.
>
> What I said was the Programmers are responsible for creating the Beautiful
> landscape and atmospheric textures which is arguably a majority of why Bryce
> images are beautiful.
>
I don't use their textures, I create my own. They're not very difficult at
all. Is it art, yet?
- mark alan
Andy Bates
> The difference that you are missing is that it requires absolutely
> NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. Choosing presets here
> and there and boom you have a decent picture. But it's a picture,
> not art.
I have been to the Museum of Modern Art, and have seen pictures that
required NO artistic skill to create. One such picture had about eighty
pounds of oil paint piled onto a canvas, then scraped across with a piece
of string. Another picture was completely white, with a green border. No
artistic skill was necessary for those pictures; does that mean they are
not art?
> As for slog-work, wellll that's relative, isn't it? If you're prepared
> to try and create a landscape with a traditional 3D prog then it's much
> more of an achievement than clicking a few buttons and waiting for
> a preset to draw.
>sigh!< Yes, you could say it's more of an 'achievement' to make a
landscape with a traditional 3D program, but you could also say it's more
of an achievement to paint a picture with both arms tied behind your back.
That doesn't make the picture inherently any "better" than a picture you
painted using your hands.
Oh, and by your logic, since there aren't true importable 3D models in
Bryce, it's more of an "achievement" to generate a non-landscape picture
in Bryce than it is in any other 3D program.
> However, to those people who go to the effort of creating bryce landscapes
> with their own presets and textures, I take my hat off.
As another said, there is more to Bryce than presets and textures.
Andy Bates.
Stephen G.
>In article <4dqsr4$a...@grovel.iafrica.com>, sta...@iafrica.com (Kon Wilms)
>wrote:
>
>> >committed by people attempting to define artwork--first, equating art
>> >quality with difficulty of creation, and secondly, mistaking medium for
>> >content.
>>
>> NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. Choosing presets here
>> and there and boom you have a decent picture. But it's a picture,
>> not art.
>because a decent picture is easy, an excellent picture cannot be art?
>explain this logic to me, it is a little fuzzy.
You truly are dense. Where in the above paragraph did the Kon ever say the
word easy. He is saying you don't have to be an artist to create something
beautiful with Bryce. You keep missinterpreting what everyone is saying. Why
don't you go take a class in reading comprehension.
s.g.
Andy Bates
wrote:
> Face it you don't create the fractal textures, nor the atmospheric
effects nor
> the fractal landscapes. They are randomly generated unless you use a
> heightfield or premade object.
Right. And if all you use are the randomly-generated landscapes, you end
up with Bryce pictures that look similar to many other people's Bryce
pictures. However, there are many tools within the program that let you
define and modify how you want the fractal landscape to look. You can meld
it with other grayscale pictures, you can erode it, invert it, wipe parts
of it away, build on it...those are the parts where creativity comes in.
> All you do in Bryce is arrange the crap so
> please don't pretend that it is the same as an artist creating a work of art.
Then photography must be less of an art form than Bryce! After all, you at
least have to "arrange the crap" in Bryce. In photography, the crap is
already arranged for you! All you have to do is take the picture!
> Yes it does take a person with an artistic vision to make a good composition
> however in Bryce, it takes nothing more than a good sense of composition. It
> does not rely on technique like most mediums.
If you're doing a simple sky-land-water picture using presets, then
composition is the main focus. However, there are so many other elements
in Bryce that composition takes a minor role in a complex picture. Custom
textures can be created, the color of ambient light, sunlight, clouds, and
the way they all interact has to be chosen carefully...all are elements of
an "artistic vision." Thus, the resulting pictures can be considered not
only art, but a creative work on the part of the user, not the programmer.
> I stand by my original statement. I will agree that Bryce pictures can be
> considered art, I just think most of the credit for that art should go to the
> programmers.
"I agree that oil paintings can be considered art, I just think that most
of the credit for that art should go to the paint mixers and canvas
makers."
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
(Richard Dorman) wrote:
> I don't agree that Bryce's rendering quality is better than some of the
> top end renders. Admittedly Bryce generates some beautifull scenes but
> I think the quality comes not from the renderer but from the attention to
> detail. For example the textures used for rocky landscapes and for the
> clouds have been carefully and cleverly designed to suite landscape scenes.
> Applied to something inorganic such as a car the result may not be as
> impressive.
Obviously someone has never seen the picture of the semi! Does someone
have a web site so we can educate this individual?
Andy Bates.
Stephen G.
>of the credit for that art should go to the paint mixers and canvas
>makers."
Now that is really stupid as I said before to someone
who made this stupid analogy, oil paint by itself
does not look like shit. The textures in Bryce were
carefully programmed by a genius to look good before
they even go onto a landscape.
Lame...
--
Jason Scheuerman
Andy Bates wrote:
>
> In article <4dqsr4$a...@grovel.iafrica.com>, sta...@iafrica.com (Kon Wilms)
> wrote:
>
> > NO artistic skill to create something with bryce. <snipped> It's a
> > picture, not art.
>
> I ... have seen pictures that
> required NO artistic skill to create. One such picture had about eighty
> pounds of oil paint piled onto a canvas, then scraped across with a piece
> of string. <snipped> Does that mean they are
> not art?
>
> > <snipped> If you're prepared
> > to try and create a landscape with a traditional 3D prog then it's much
> > more of an achievement than clicking a few buttons and waiting for
> > a preset to draw.
>
> <snipped> you could also say it's more
> of an achievement to paint a picture with both arms tied behind your back.
>
> > However, to those people who go to the effort of creating bryce landscapes
> > with their own presets and textures, I take my hat off.
>
> As another said, there is more to Bryce than presets and textures.
>
> Andy Bates.
I just have to add my $0.02. I've been debating in my own mind as to whether
ray-tracing in general is 'art' because it *is* so easy to create fantastic
scenes. However, nowhere is it said that one must suffer for art. Nowhere
does it say that art has to be difficult. Art is something... *anything*
created which has intrisic beauty. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean it's
not art. Just because 'anyone can do it' doesn't mean that it's any less
beautiful.
Beauty and art are not something to be coveted. It should be shared, and any
tools that make beauty easily accessable to the masses should be considered
art in itself.
I think the point being argued here is the method of creation. If I had to
create the images that are common to this group using Windows
Paintbrush (God forbid) and I came up with anything close to what I can
do with a raytrace program, I would be regarded as a great artist. There is
a difference between 'art' and a 'master of art'. A 'master' is
someone who can, given a set of tools that we all use, create a work
of art that makes me say "How did he do that?" It also challenges me
to find a way to do what they've done. And if I don't have the tools that
they had I try and get those tools.
What's important in the end is not the method of creation, but the ends.
Would you be so impressed with God if you could create life with a 486?
I think not.
I step down from my soap box.
Jason
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMQUdxPCShyGiOfSZAQGvnAP+Ln6OswRWgZ29qPolLsiLMU9fNw69DkpN
H0YkPL1/0jYN4OiRSUx8Ty4+MfUXftC1rIPJ43ZHoQhh7iShun9AJ0e5ezQxukdj
oA0Q+XJPrgL9cZ+at/B2DR7DRNImV4xf0p8xby7XJN3xVeRVUDLE4Ry6ArPsg6ht
sAxdYU/nSfA=
=NvLO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tom Fisher
eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Michael Eilers) wrote:
Snip...Snip
..... signifigance in some way, it is just words. Art is
> composed of two halves: the work, and its communication. without
> communication, the mona lisa would just be dried pigments on a scrap of
> canvas.
>
> michael
Hey Mike, too much caffine today?
thomas
===============================================================================
Microsoft Network, or any service owned in full or in part by Microsoft, is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright (C) Edward T. Fisher, 1996. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for US$1,000 per instance, or local equivalent. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation to fis...@op.net.
===============================================================================
David Simon
Well, let's put it this way: I like the images that Bryce creates. Some
appeal to me more than others. Thus I call it Art.
regards,
David Simon
Stephen G.
I personally would not equate something I did in Bryce
to a traditional 3D program where you are required to
create most of the textures and objects. Buying an
object from Viewpoint and texturing it is not the same
as creating your own object and texturing it. In the
same way, creating a picture in Bryce "to me" is not
the same as other programs where you are required to
have technique which is more than just a good sense of
design and composition.
Others may disagree, that's fine. I did say that Bryce
is art, only I think the programmers deserve most of the
credit for that art. No where in my statements did I
ever try and say that I was dictating to the entire
planet what should be considered art. I was only
speaking for myself. I also said that Bryce is an
incredible program and I think it can be a useful tool
in creating art. I did not mean to p.o. a lot of Bryce
users out there who are artists and use Bryce. Sorry if
I offended any Bryce Magicians.
Mike Russell
wrote:
-> >"I agree that oil paintings can be considered art, I just think that most
-> >of the credit for that art should go to the paint mixers and canvas
-> >makers."
->
->
-> Now that is really stupid as I said before to someone
-> who made this stupid analogy, oil paint by itself
-> does not look like shit. The textures in Bryce were
-> carefully programmed by a genius to look good before
-> they even go onto a landscape.
->
-> Lame...
Stephen - doesn't it make sense that if people are lame enough to think it is
possible to do anything creative in Bryce, that they would also so lame as
to fumble the footballs of wisdom you try to "pass" to them?
Mike McNally
Attention, Captain Clue!
I strongly suggest that you take a few minutes to learn about Bryce before
you make more statements that document your ignorance.
(Hint: the "genius" who makes the texture is very likely to be the person
preparing the scene, *not* a programmer at Metatools.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m...@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guy Morton
Buying a program that lets you create something that looks nice within 5
minutes of you opening the box doesn't make you an artist.
My definition of an artist is someone who puts in time and effort to master
a medium so that they can express themselves through it. The medium can
be paint or a program like Bryce (not that I've used it, I find KPT tools in
general creativity killers).
To my mind it's art if you create something in your chosen medium that is
the result of YOUR aesthetic decision-making. Using presets to create
something that looks nice doesn't cut it.
Mind you, if you want to feel like you're an artist and creating landscapes
using presets makes you feel like one, go ahead and do it. Who am I to spoil
your fun?
~~
~~ Guy Morton / Image Alchemy
~~ Email: g...@alchemy.com.au
~~ WWW: http://www.alchemy.com.au
~~
Andy Bates
> >"I agree that oil paintings can be considered art, I just think that most
> >of the credit for that art should go to the paint mixers and canvas
> >makers."
>
> Now that is really stupid as I said before to someone
> who made this stupid analogy, oil paint by itself
> does not look like shit. The textures in Bryce were
> carefully programmed by a genius to look good before
> they even go onto a landscape.
You're overlooking the fact that I have seen a painting hanging in the
Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco, that consists of a couple hundred
pounds of oil paint literally piled onto a canvas, scraped with a piece of
string, and hung onto the wall. Yet the Museum of Modern Art considers it
"art." So again, should the credit go to the artist, or the person (or
machine) who mixed the paint?
Andy Bates.
P.S. You should really see it: paint at least three inches thick, and the
final picture weighs hundreds of pounds!
Brian Ross
: > Sorry, art is deeper than just unique "presets and textures".
: Well, let's put it this way: I like the images that Bryce creates. Some
: appeal to me more than others. Thus I call it Art.
Then you are supporting my argument, since you are using deeper criteria
than simply whether "presets and textures" were used.
--
Stephen G.
category which can not be explained nor appreciated by people such as
myself. Paintings such as this are heralded as works of art by an
elite class that I have never met nor do I ever care to. Just as so
called "art" films receive rave reviews by critics who have long since
lost touch with the appetites of the of the society they live in. Many
people I know when visiting museums containing modern art have
expressed to me their confusion as to how much of what they see could
even be called art. If I saw the piece you refer to I would probably
not like it which brings me back to where I started. I define for
myself what is art and for no one else. Yet at the same time, unlike
the "elite", I know I belong to a much larger group that feels the same
way.
There comes a point where everyone has to draw the line. To me I could
not create a picture in Bryce and then say to someone, "I created this
piece of art". My own conscience would have to qualify this statement
by explaining that the textures and atmoshperic effects were generated
by a program which in turn were created by programmers. And before I
get more hate mail, I am not trying to define for everyone else what
their conscience should be telling them. Nor am I trying to say that
my conscience is above the level of anyone one elses. If I walk into a
room of professional artists who know Bryce and I say "look at this
piece of art I created". I know the response in their minds would not
be the same as if I were to walk into a room with a landscape painting
that I had painted by hand that looked just a beautiful. Why? Because
my peers would know that while it could be considered art and possibly
even beautiful, they would know that I was not the sole creator of the
piece done in Bryce. My only contention in starting this thread is
that so much of what makes a Bryce picture beautiful cannot be
attributed to the artist himself. I may have erred in the beginning by
not defining myself when I said that I did not consider Bryce art. I
consider Bryce to be art, I just think the credit should be given
equally to the programmers who created it.
I will say this if you are so bothered by the fact that I make a
statement questioning the artistic merits of Bryce. Then possibly your
defense is only an attempt to justify in your own mind that what I say
has no truth to it.
Michael Knauf
Distribution:
Stephen G. (sg...@airmail.net) wrote:
: (snip) "...I define for
: myself what is art and for no one else. Yet at the same time, unlike
: the "elite", I know I belong to a much larger group that feels the same
: way."
:
Which brings in the interesting question of aesthetics whereby the
judgement "this is great art" is absolute.
Meaning that, say you do not appreciate Michelangelo's David. Now 2
things are possible, either I can point out to you the technique and
mastery involved, and explain why the piece is so great, and you will be
converted as it were, to my point of view, or I will fail, and will
consider you pitifully unappreciative of "great" art.
The converse, that you will convince me that David is an inferior work,
just doesn't enter into the realm of possibility.
This single facet of the human psyche makes this sort of discussion
endlessly either boring or entertaining, depending on your perspective,
but in any case, not resolveable. However, the Bryce thing seems very
clear to me. Bryce is a tool. You can use any tool to achieve Art. (in
ths case of Brcye, you have to make that tool achieve something it
doesn't do automatically, so that your work is original and stands out.)
Does anyone think this is not possible?
Of course then there's the possibility that a computer, sutibaly equipped
and programmed could produce a great work of art, either through random
chance or through a "sum is greater than the parts" effect of programming.
And how do you feel about that?
Michael
Mike Russell
Well, I think Stephen has done a good job of explaining what he really meant
by the "Bryce is not art" statements, and I think he has a point: anyone
who sells Bryce paintings, implying that they are hand painted, is a big
phony scounderl - certainly no one in this group would consider doing
such a thing. ....right?
But what about the person who figures out how to transfer Bryce images
to the side of a van (remember those?), charging airbrush prices? - I
say no problem. Or the cover of a sci-fi book? No problem.
Pay them their money in full, that is, until the customer
finds out it only took 10 minutes of work. Now the market for Tolkienesque
decorations becomes saturated, landscapes become passe, and everyone has
to scramble for new ideas. If new media don't change the art market,
and the types of images that are interesting, then what use are they?
Bryce images fall midway between painting and photography in a way that
would not have been anticipated even a few years ago. It's a new thing,
and, yes, that IS a problem.
We humans have a way of dealing with a new thing that goes way back,
we fight tooth and nail over it: who owns it, who can use it, who cna
get the credit for it, who thinks the old way was better, etc.
As long as new forms of expression continue to
be invented, we will work hard to determine its social context, and, we
being human animals will squabble with one another, believeing that in
the fight itself we are standing up for the meaning of our own lives,
in the most deadly serious manner we can muster. Just look back on
this thread for an example of people tearing at one another over
a relatively trivial semantic difference. Flaming.
I still believe that this "flaming" is a temporary side effect of the
new net technology, and that good manners will eventually take hold and
give us a better virtual environment once again. But I'm not holding
my breath.
It may take a while before many of us realize that our nasty
and foolish words were being archived, that we had an identity on the
net, and that future would-be friends, spouses, and employers would scan
these archives for a quick look at what you were (and are) like. Indeed,
many of us will beg to have certain unwise postings, that were made in
haste and heat, purged - good luck!!!
Lighten up a bit, don't be so serious! There is more to come that is even
more mind boggling than Bryce, and in another 10 years the Bryce-meisters,
now a respected, stuffy school of their own, perhaps, will be complaining
that, mere alpha-wave based image rendering of dream impressions is not
art the way that Bryce is, where after all you at least have to shove
pixels and light sources around.
Just as the school of Ingres vanished when realistic oil portraits
turned into conspicuous baubles, other forms of art and craft will be
replaced by easier and apparently more superficial forms of the same. It's
a conveyor belt that we as computer users are very used to.
Prem Subrahmanyam
Well, when bringing in the landscape painting, be sure to give credit
to each brush, each tube of pigment, the manufacturer of the canvas,
etc...as your art stands on the shoulders of all of these...or did
you happen to make the brushes, pigment, canvas, etc. yourself. In
which case you deserve very high accolades...but I don't think you
did, so I guess you can't call the art truly *yours*.
See, most CG artists view the program as the medium, kind of like
a set of algorithmic paintbrushes and a virtual canvas. It is the
choice of parameters, the mixing of colors, the shaping and
placement of your 3d models, camera, etc. that define the process of
creating the work of art. Admittedly, in general, the computer
generated aspect of the artwork makes the time to completion less
than that of slaving over each brush stroke by hand. However,
we do not mix our own paints like the Leonardos, Michelangelos,
and the like did...that technology has become embodied in a precise
science of pigment manufacturing. So, too, the technology of
generating the landscape has become embodied in a precise science
of computer coded algorithms.
During the Renaissance, there was an understanding of the connectedness
of art and algorithm. Artists were schooled into how to use
perspective, how to paint musculature, etc. Today, in CGI, the
algorithm has been embodied in code executed by a computer, enabling
us to experiment with the precise combination of parameters, colors,
shades, and shapes rather than fretting over whether we painted our
objects in correct perspective wrt to their vanishing points.
The extreme form of this is "art" generated solely by mathematical
algorithm, like fractals and other purely mathematical forms. Are
these art? I still think that a classical Renaissance artist would
have considered it so. It is a relatively new development to
divorce art from math and study and to marry it solely to philosophy
and emotion.
What is "art" could be more than you think it is.
-- Prem
---------------------------------------------------------
Prem Subrahmanyam
pr...@wane-leon-mail.scri.fsu.edu
Home Page: http://www-wane.scri.fsu.edu/~prems
Programmer, graphics designer, fossil nut extraordinaire.
"Have you seen your Graptolites today?"
Mike McNally
"Stephen G." <sg...@airmail.net> writes:
> ... My own conscience would have to qualify this statement
>by explaining that the textures and atmoshperic effects were generated
>by a program which in turn were created by programmers.
BUT THE ARTIST *IS* THE PROGRAMMER!!!
Jeez. Have you actually used Bryce? Have you ever accidentally held down
the option key while clicking the "Edit Texture" button?
Just as it takes a talented musician to design effective synthesizer patches,
it takes talent to design textures, to apply the textures, and to arrange
a Bryce scene. If all you've ever done is click one of the presets, then I
certainly do understand why you'd be so utterly confused about what the
software does.
Mike McNally
>I think the term ART can only be applied to work created by an artist.
>Buying a program that lets you create something that looks nice within 5
>minutes of you opening the box doesn't make you an artist.
Ok. What does that have to do with Bryce?
>To my mind it's art if you create something in your chosen medium that is
>the result of YOUR aesthetic decision-making. Using presets to create
>something that looks nice doesn't cut it.
Ok. What does that have to do with Bryce?
>Mind you, if you want to feel like you're an artist and creating landscapes
>using presets makes you feel like one, go ahead and do it. Who am I to spoil
>your fun?
Why is it that the Clueless seem so strongly drawn to make comments like this
about stuff they admittedly know nothing about?
Stephen G.
>to each brush, each tube of pigment, the manufacturer of the canvas,
>etc...as your art stands on the shoulders of all of these...or did
>you happen to make the brushes, pigment, canvas, etc. yourself. In
>which case you deserve very high accolades...but I don't think you
>did, so I guess you can't call the art truly *yours*.
Excuuuse me? When did the tools you mention ever do any of the work
involved in creating the final art. The tools you mention are just tools
they do not do any of the work, unlike the code that generates the
fractal patterns in Bryce. I think your whole comparison is invalid.
>See, most CG artists view the program as the medium, kind of like
>a set of algorithmic paintbrushes and a virtual canvas. It is the
>choice of parameters, the mixing of colors, the shaping and
>placement of your 3d models, camera, etc. that define the process of
>creating the work of art. Admittedly, in general, the computer
>generated aspect of the artwork makes the time to completion less
>than that of slaving over each brush stroke by hand. However,
>we do not mix our own paints like the Leonardos, Michelangelos,
>and the like did...that technology has become embodied in a precise
>science of pigment manufacturing. So, too, the technology of
>generating the landscape has become embodied in a precise science
>of computer coded algorithms.
I disagree, even if we did mix our own paints today, it would still only
be paint, it would not in and of itself add any "artistic" beauty to the
final piece of art. The textures are programmed to look a certain way
and are applied by the computer in such a way that they look good with no
help from the Artist other than possibly placement.
>During the Renaissance, there was an understanding of the connectedness
>of art and algorithm. Artists were schooled into how to use
>perspective, how to paint musculature, etc. Today, in CGI, the
>algorithm has been embodied in code executed by a computer, enabling
>us to experiment with the precise combination of parameters, colors,
>shades, and shapes rather than fretting over whether we painted our
>objects in correct perspective wrt to their vanishing points.
Nice! I wish I had a vocabulary like yours, you are extremely well
spoken. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with my argument.
>The extreme form of this is "art" generated solely by mathematical
>algorithm, like fractals and other purely mathematical forms. Are
>these art? I still think that a classical Renaissance artist would
>have considered it so. It is a relatively new development to
>divorce art from math and study and to marry it solely to philosophy
>and emotion.
>
>What is "art" could be more than you think it is.
Again since you obviously did not understand my message, I have have no
argument whether Bryce or the algorithms can be defined as art. All I am
saying is who does the credit go to. In Bryce's case so much of that art
is created by the programmers that it no longer in the same genre of art
that is created solely by the artist. Thus the artist can not truly say
this is my art when referring to Bryce. Possibly what he should say is
"I am an artist I created this piece of work, and yes it is art but it is
not solely my creation". Or he could say "I worked on this piece of
artwork and I deserve some of the credit".
s.g.
Larry Gritz
Prem Subrahmanyam <pr...@wane3.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>Well, when bringing in the landscape painting, be sure to give credit
>to each brush, each tube of pigment, the manufacturer of the canvas,
>etc...as your art stands on the shoulders of all of these...or did
>you happen to make the brushes, pigment, canvas, etc. yourself. In
>which case you deserve very high accolades...but I don't think you
>did, so I guess you can't call the art truly *yours*.
There's a fine line here.
I think if your tools are a commodity (i.e. the competition's brush
would've been just as good), then you don't credit them on a
work-by-work basis.
However, if you chose a particular one-of-a-kind tool, or feel that
your work is only possible with that tool, or that the tool is
significantly more powerful than its competitors, then it's only fair
to the tool builder to give proper credit.
Some hardware/software falls into the former category, some into the
latter.
-- lg
--
Larry Gritz Pixar Animation Studios
l...@pixar.com Richmond, CA
Stephen G.
textures then I would be talking about all 3D programs
which I am not. So follow the thread or take your
stupid comments elsewhere.
LPAyers
and "cool"........?"This kind of question really cracks me up and partly
explains why the qraphics being done with computers these days have so
little if any imagination and are poorly done,...! even with a computer
program doing all the work! I've been painting for twenty-five years
and working with computers for three. In that time I've seen maybe a dozen
projects that use artistic skill and the creative imagination. Excluding
what programmers do,.. programmers are a new lot and some very exciting
things have happened and will continue to happen in computer science and
programming, but in the area of computer/art, it's a barren land. When
will computer nurds stop putting out so much junk and trash that
clutters-up the enviroment, noise, noise. I think it has a lot to do with
failed programmers/wanta-bees/never-wases/ lack of edu.- thinking they
can do great visual things without any training or work!!! ......Most of
these people will be better off trashing Infini-D or whatever and learn to
draw or paint then go to the computer if they have the ability to learn
what has to be learned! -Flip-
Stephen G.
McNally has pointed me to a WebSite that clearly shows
that Bryce can be used for creating beautiful Art that
is solely not based on algorithmic textures. While I
feel that most of Bryce art does not fall into this
category I do think that I bring up an important point
and that is this. As we grow into an age of hi-tech
computer generated art, the tools we are given make it
easier and easier to produce the kind of art that would
have taken a master to create by traditional methods.
At least what would have been considered traditional
methods of the past. At what point do we have to begin
giving credit to the programmers for much of what we
call art.
Captain Clue.
Stephen G.
computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
create works of such great magnitude. After all in 10
years when we can put on a virtual reality suit and
design landscapes far more complex than could ever have
been created by hand will not everyone migrate to these
new forms of art and discard the traditional methods?
Jerry Kindall
wrote:
>I would like to also say that as future technology in
>computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
>ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
>my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
>create works of such great magnitude. After all in 10
>years when we can put on a virtual reality suit and
>design landscapes far more complex than could ever have
>been created by hand will not everyone migrate to these
>new forms of art and discard the traditional methods?
Art forms change with cultures. You don't see many people painting
frescoes on the ceilings of cathedrals these days -- because that's not
how our culture expresses itself.
Some people, somewhere, probably do still paint on cathedral ceilings.
They likely do this to give their new work some of the historical weight
of this art form. In this way there will always be artists who use older
forms for their historical significance, even if the medium is not as
widespread as it once was.
>--
>Visit Me at the Magick Rainbow:
>http://web2.airmail.net/sgiff/
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
"This music won't take you higher unless you're a moron."
-- Edwyn Collins
Sam
> computer generated art, the tools we are given make it
> easier and easier to produce the kind of art that would
> have taken a master to create by traditional methods.
> At least what would have been considered traditional
> methods of the past. At what point do we have to begin
> giving credit to the programmers for much of what we
> call art.
I'm a programmer (amateur), and I don't think you have to... making a 3d
algorithm work correctly is science, not art... it's what you do with it
that counts.
Sam
>> homepage * http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d405ua/ * fiction, art, links and...
>> s0ftware f0rge programs * entertainment : MIDI utilities * Win 3.1/95
>> latest feature * SysEx Solution store/librarian/editor! * req. Win 95
Arthur and Corina Egges
complaining about, when the first photo cameras were produced. Would they
have had the discussion: "How could it be art, you just aim and push a
button?".
Nowadays we know better, don't we, photographs can be very artistic, even
though there are millions (billions?) of camera's and anyone basically
knows how to make a picture.
There are many people starting out with computer programs that enable them
to make impressive stuff. And just as nobody required a photographer to be
able to paint the exact scene he/she would like to frame, why should
Photoshop (KPT Bryce)-users be able to do the same stuff with paint or in
any other medium? The most important thing in art is that people use their
creativity. *Real* artists will always stand out, so I'm not sure what many
people in this news group are so excited about: afraid of some
competition?!
Best regards
Corina
Pablo
: Recent question ask in this group. "How can you make fire look convincing
: and "cool"........?"This kind of question really cracks me up and partly
: explains why the qraphics being done with computers these days have so
: little if any imagination and are poorly done,...! even with a computer
You, sir, are highly pretentious. A 'true' artiste? Please, do
tell. We're all sitting here, on the edges of our keyboards, waiting for
your next profound bundle of insights...
: program doing all the work! I've been painting for twenty-five years
I work in a very stressful job environment, and I've been told
that I'm a little too intense and lose my temper quickly; I'll refrain
from making the obvious comments to the above...next...
: and working with computers for three. In that time I've seen maybe a dozen
: projects that use artistic skill and the creative imagination. Excluding
Hmmm.. now we do have a dilemma here. The 'liberal' artiste,
the one of open mind and non-judgementalist views. You've painted for 25
and worked with computers for three...by your own definition, sir you
don't know much about the medium of computers in any area, so your
comments will not be taken too seriously.
: programming, but in the area of computer/art, it's a barren land. When
: will computer nurds stop putting out so much junk and trash that
: clutters-up the environment, noise, noise. I think it has a lot to do with
Probably as soon as people who dabble in any other medium of
'art' stop putting out the amount of junk and trash that plague those
mediums as well. You see, any legitimate medium is about 90% garbage,
period. Tv, is 90% garbage, radio, 90% garbage, literature- 90%
garbage, cinema- 90% garbage. Anyone who understands these 'mediums'
knows that most of the work contained therein is mere pulp. It's the
small percentage that becomes the defining edge of that medium. You
don't much understand computer art (obviously) so you are somewhat
surprised that there isn't much out there that, in your opinion, isn't
worth much. Personally, I believe that 99% of the modern status-quo art
world is an elitist, pretentious, garbage filled world of name dropping
and has such an extreme lack of imagination that often the only thing
left is controversy itself.
There is, however another side to my argument. That is, the
people who you so quickly judge and vilify (look it up) are merely
enjoying themselves and pursuing a hobby. Some of them may be future
great graphics design artists in the computer medium. Every artist, be
it graphical, musical, or otherwise borrows from other artists. It just
so happens that this is a public forum so sometimes the 'borrowing' or
gathering of information seems more obvious, hence the question "How do I
make cool or realistic fire". I guarantee you, there is art out there
that even you might find interesting and you wouldn't even know it came
from a computer. Oh yes, trust me, because I know exactly what you're
thinking, exactly, especially since this discussion is taking place in
the rendering raytracing group.
: can do great visual things without any training or work!!! ......Most of
Asking "How do I create cool looking fire" IS training. You're
just upset because they aren't attending the Inchbald School of Design.
: these people will be better off trashing Infini-D or whatever and learn to
: draw or paint then go to the computer if they have the ability to learn
: what has to be learned! -Flip-
Leave these people alone. They are enjoying and exploring a
world which lets them create worlds and scenes from their minds. Go back
to your pseudo cafe-society world of painting and leave the next
generation of creativity to us.
--
******************************************************************************
Thoughts by: Pablo (tm)
Free Bob Kelly...
******************************************************************************
People tend not to like one who is always right; people truly hate one who
really is...
.mw
Dominic Hagyard
>I would like to also say that as future technology in
>computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
>ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
>my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
>create works of such great magnitude. After all in 10
>years when we can put on a virtual reality suit and
>design landscapes far more complex than could ever have
>been created by hand will not everyone migrate to these
>new forms of art and discard the traditional methods?
From this posting and your previous one, I would say that you have a fairly
narrow definition of what art is. Do you really consider that the process
that was used to construct an object is the most important factor in assessing
its artistic merit? Surely the only person who can decide whether an object
merits the label of art is the person observing the finished piece? An even
then they can only fairly decide that it is art for them. Perhaps art is only
art if it provokes strong emotions or feelings in the viewer? That is my
definition of what art is, but I don't believe that anyone else has to live by
it.
I will concede that I have seen very few computer generated images that have
packed any emotional punch. I have seen many that have been impressive, a few
that have been witty or clever and some that have been beautiful or
intrigueing, but hardly any moving images. Computer images seem to have a
coldness to them, a detachment. But I am sure that with time I will come
across some images that work on the right level.
As for your question about mankind loosing the ability to create great works
of art due to the emergence of new technology: what rot! Maybe painting
skills are declining because of young talent turning to new technology - I
don't know. But I don't particularly care. I don't believe that art is
solely that which flows from the paintbrush from a self appointed artist. I
think that 'great works' have been created because a great imagination or a
beautiful image, wonderful feeling in the mind of someone has somehow been
connected with a method to allow others to share it. This method of sharing
can be anything from a voice raised in song, to words on a page, to paint on a
canvas, to pixels on a screen - it doesn't matter. What matters that the
connection is there, and that the feelings of the artist are reflected in the
mind of the observer. Future generations will have the benefit of more
methods of connection. It will be up to them to see if they will have the
imagination and will to use those tools to create great art.
IMHO of course,
Dom.
DOMINIC HAGYARD, SYS PG, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, ENGLAND. dm...@sys.uea.ac.uk
http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~dmph
The opinions expressed in this message in no way
reflect those of the University of East Anglia.
Brian Ross
Prem Subrahmanyam <pr...@wane3.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>Well, when bringing in the landscape painting, be sure to give credit
>to each brush, each tube of pigment, the manufacturer of the canvas,
>etc...as your art stands on the shoulders of all of these...or did
>you happen to make the brushes, pigment, canvas, etc. yourself. In
>which case you deserve very high accolades...but I don't think you
>did, so I guess you can't call the art truly *yours*.
One other factor in this debate is the fact that Bryce's interface is
truly easy to use. I wonder if some of it's detractors would have different
opinions if Bryce had a clunky, drab, numeric-driven front-end?
Michael M. Lawless
> I think the term ART can only be applied to work created by an artist.
> Buying a program that lets you create something that looks nice within 5
> minutes of you opening the box doesn't make you an artist.
>
> My definition of an artist is someone who puts in time and effort to master
> a medium so that they can express themselves through it. The medium can
> be paint or a program like Bryce (not that I've used it, I find KPT tools in
> general creativity killers).
>
> To my mind it's art if you create something in your chosen medium that is
> the result of YOUR aesthetic decision-making. Using presets to create
> something that looks nice doesn't cut it.
>
> Mind you, if you want to feel like you're an artist and creating landscapes
> using presets makes you feel like one, go ahead and do it. Who am I to spoil
> your fun?<<<
Thanks Guy. I know for certain you echo the sentiments of artist
everywhere who try to make a living competing with those who simply buy
software and start calling themselves artists, and then start doing
business in "cut-throat fashion" making it difficult for the real artist
to amke a living.
--
Mike Lawless
RaceArt/Lawless Designs
http://www.valleynet.com/~raceart
Adam Lowe
>Recent question ask in this group. "How can you make fire look convincing
>and "cool"........?"This kind of question really cracks me up and partly
>explains why the qraphics being done with computers these days have so
>little if any imagination and are poorly done,...! even with a computer
>program doing all the work! I've been painting for twenty-five years
>and working with computers for three. In that time I've seen maybe a dozen
>projects that use artistic skill and the creative imagination. Excluding
>what programmers do,.. programmers are a new lot and some very exciting
>things have happened and will continue to happen in computer science and
>programming, but in the area of computer/art, it's a barren land. When
>will computer nurds stop putting out so much junk and trash that
>clutters-up the enviroment, noise, noise. I think it has a lot to do with
>failed programmers/wanta-bees/never-wases/ lack of edu.- thinking they
>can do great visual things without any training or work!!! ......Most of
>these people will be better off trashing Infini-D or whatever and learn to
>draw or paint then go to the computer if they have the ability to learn
>what has to be learned! -Flip-
you know....I almost agree with you. Photoshop and other windows
*paint* programs do limit creativity. But look at all the computer
artists using programs like 3ds and lightwave. They are totally
origional! I believe that 2D *artists* do nothing than put a bunch of
presets together and make them look cool. The 3D programs actually let
you expand your resources while eliminating some of the barriers that
artists sometimes have> I'll admit, I use photoshop and FDP, but only
for the final touch-up's. All the creating is done by ME and ME ONLY!
Edmond Leung
brushes and/or kind of paints (water, oil etc) have different
characteristics. Same as the rendering engines in different software
packages.
Content is what it counts.
Edmond Leung
--
Computer Graphics & Design
Lloyd Burchill
Organization: Chebucto Community Net
Distribution:
Stephen G. (sg...@airmail.net) wrote:
: I would like to also say that as future technology in
: computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
: ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
: my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
: create works of such great magnitude.
What I value art for is primarily that way it lets me see the world
through the artist's eyes. If computerized imagery accomplishes that,
then I call it art. On the other hand, I feel that since CGI
takes over much of the draughtsmanship in an image, that the artist is
less inclined to linger over each detail in a way that infuses the
details with 'artist's-eyes' meaning. It can be - isn't always - like the
difference between writing an outline, which contains the ideas, and writing
the essay, which contains attentively wrought turns of phrase.
Lloyd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knot: 3D Abstract Mac Graphics http://ccn.cs.dal.ca/~aa731/knot.html
T McDonald
>To be fair I feel that I should point out that Mike
>McNally has pointed me to a WebSite that clearly shows
>that Bryce can be used for creating beautiful Art that
>is solely not based on algorithmic textures. While I
>feel that most of Bryce art does not fall into this
>category I do think that I bring up an important point
>and that is this. As we grow into an age of hi-tech
>easier and easier to produce the kind of art that would
>have taken a master to create by traditional methods.
>At least what would have been considered traditional
>methods of the past. At what point do we have to begin
>giving credit to the programmers for much of what we
>call art.
Should every guy who writes a programm give credit to intel for makeing
such a great chip. A tool is a tool, what is done with it is what matters.
Hugh Kawahara
[quoted doc. snipped]
>you know....I almost agree with you. Photoshop and other windows
>*paint* programs do limit creativity. But look at all the computer
>artists using programs like 3ds and lightwave. They are totally
>origional! I believe that 2D *artists* do nothing than put a bunch of
>presets together and make them look cool. The 3D programs actually let
>you expand your resources while eliminating some of the barriers that
>artists sometimes have> I'll admit, I use photoshop and FDP, but only
>for the final touch-up's. All the creating is done by ME and ME ONLY!
You mean painters (2D) do nothing and only sculptors (3D) do art?
-- Hugh <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kawahara/>
Tony Schreiner
peice of work using a 3D rendering package. I created 100% of the 20 or
so objects in the scene, drew all the textures (painted bricks, lables on
things that had lables, etc.) by hand with the exception of a few
procedural wood textures which were created differently.
To get to the point, I rendered the image in about 2500x2000x24bit and
printed it on a high resolution Tektronics dye sublimation printer. The
resulting print was photographic quality. I enjoy showing off my created
image, but I have an extremely hard time explaining how the image was
created. I can't say that I "drew" it, and most people don't really
understand the concept of 3D rendering! This is a fairly complex indoor
scene, so I currently just explain 3D rendering by pointing out the movie
Toy Story. This still isn't very effective, though.
How do I get people to comprend the creation process without making it
seem like the entire image was computer "created"? (ie. I _created_ it, but
the computer _rendered_ what I created?)
--
...........................................................................
: Tony Schreiner : Phone: (970)495-5222 :
: tsch...@holly.colostate.edu : INTP. TKD. Major: Computer Science :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Pablo
: >
: > My definition of an artist is someone who puts in time and effort to master
: > be paint or a program like Bryce (not that I've used it, I find KPT tools in
: > general creativity killers).
: >
: > To my mind it's art if you create something in your chosen medium that is
: > the result of YOUR aesthetic decision-making. Using presets to create
: > something that looks nice doesn't cut it.
: Thanks Guy. I know for certain you echo the sentiments of artist
: everywhere who try to make a living competing with those who simply buy
: software and start calling themselves artists, and then start doing
: business in "cut-throat fashion" making it difficult for the real artist
: to amke a living.
First of all, this is a very luddite view of art and it's
mediums. You assume that poor starving artists everywhere are being put
out of work by 'magic' software that does with a keypress what a 'real'
artist takes years to master. This is not what is happening. The real
artists will always be separated from the appliance users and the
keypunchers. This has been proven time and time again. A good artist
that trains him or herself to use a software package will get far better
results than a non-artist who trains him or herself to use the same
software package. I have a friend who is an architect and a very good
artist in other more 'standard' mediums...ie ink, oils, airbrush, etc. I
am not as skilled as he in these areas. We both use the same rendering
package, for instance, and he routinely gets better and more impressive
results than I. I am slightly better than average on the creative scale,
and I get better results than many others with the same package. The
trained artist will have a better sense of vision in the application of
the features of said rendering package, guaranteed. Yes, these packages
are always pushing the mediums, by allowing the unskilled to reap more
and more impressive results, but artists who bother to take the time to
learn that particular medium will consistently get better results.
John Tissavary | Luna Cie, Inc
>I would like to also say that as future technology in
>computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
>ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
>my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
>create works of such great magnitude. After all in 10
>years when we can put on a virtual reality suit and
>design landscapes far more complex than could ever have
>been created by hand will not everyone migrate to these
>new forms of art and discard the traditional methods?
Unless I define technique as the sole criterion of art, I can't really
disqualify the "magnitude" of art created in any medium. A work of
magnitude is, also, not necessarily a great work of art. A work done
in a traditional medium is also not, by definition, a great work of
art. Take a stroll through the Bel Age Hotel's corridors in West LA
sometime and you'll see a collection of some of the most hideous
victorian oils ever to be dredged out of their graves. And how about
all those great "sofa sized" paintings sold at Starving Artists
Liquidation Warehouses all over the country.
And, working in a new medium, like computer and code, does not, by
definition, cause bad art or art of a lesser magnitude.
It is the genius and technique of the artist that makes an
_individual_ work.
I hope there will always be artists who chose traditional media... and
plenty who use new media, whatever that may be.
jt
T McDonald
>Recent question ask in this group. "How can you make fire look convincing
>and "cool"........?"This kind of question really cracks me up and partly
>explains why the qraphics being done with computers these days have so
Dumbass. If a 48 by 36 inch, bright yellow painting, entitled, creativly
enough, Yellow# 6, is great art and worth $60k. Then a .gif of my dick
wearing a beard is great art.
I think we have a winner here Bob, so WHAT DID HE WIN!!!!!!!
Well, Wink, the lovable Mr. Stupid here gets a great big DUNCE cap for his
*INFORMED* opinion.
**APPLUASE**
**APPLUASE**
**APPLUASE**
**APPLUASE**
Ixalot
masterpiece, purchase or rent the music video The Gate to the Mind's Eye
(the third and best in the series). To me and many others this is not only
art but a masterpiece.
Ixalot
John Tissavary | Luna Cie, Inc
>On the other hand, I feel that since CGI
>takes over much of the draughtsmanship in an image, that the artist is
>less inclined to linger over each detail in a way that infuses the
>details with 'artist's-eyes' meaning.
I don't know that I agree with that. Although I'm not usually in the
position to create singular works of art for art's sake, every bit of
work I do takes quite a long time. We do animation, so we're not
really talking single images here... and I suppose there are those out
there who don't consider animation art (fork 'em...), but I definitely
get to linger. I can spend weeks just getting the shaders right on a
particular model, weeks lighting, days setting up a camera, and months
infusing life into the animation. Painstaking detail, lingering, and
anal retention are applied to every frame, within, of course, the
constraints of a particular deadline.
jt
Daniel Weber
both a professional photographer and a digital artist. I bought bryce
because I was interested in the Technology and I also own several other
fine products from MetaTools.
I can understand how someone would think that bryce is not art because
of its easy interface. But if you take to time to examine what the
program can really do, you will find that there is a lot of creative
potential. This whole discussion reminds me of when Photography was not
recognized as a form of art. As time passed and photographers
discovered their creativity, they learned to use the technology to
enhance their creative talent.
Sam
> I'm jumping into this discussion late, but recently I created a very nice
> peice of work using a 3D rendering package. I created 100% of the 20 or
> so objects in the scene, drew all the textures (painted bricks, lables on
> things that had lables, etc.) by hand with the exception of a few
> procedural wood textures which were created differently.
[snip]
> How do I get people to comprend the creation process without making it
> seem like the entire image was computer "created"? (ie. I _created_ it, but
> the computer _rendered_ what I created?)
Why not describe it as virtual model-making? You made all the little
objects and "painted" them, and then the computer did the "taking a
photograph" bit.
Andy Bates
(Adam Lowe) wrote:
> you know....I almost agree with you. Photoshop and other windows
> *paint* programs do limit creativity. But look at all the computer
> artists using programs like 3ds and lightwave. They are totally
> origional!
Is this a joke? I didn't see any smileys, so I have to assume it's not.
One could argue that saying that a 3D program is original, and a paint
program isn't, is like saying that a photograph is original, and a
painting isn't. There are arguments on both sides.
> I believe that 2D *artists* do nothing than put a bunch of
> presets together and make them look cool.
True, a Photoshop user could make a picture using nothing but presets and
standard techniques. However, a Lightwave 3D user could make a scene using
nothing but basic objects and preset textures. Does that mean that
Lightwave is inherently "better" than Photoshop?
Again, it's not the medium, it's what you do with it. Bryce is an
excellent program, but many people have used the same basic terrains and
skies and textures over and over again...and it shows. Similarly, many
painters have used basic techniques over and over...and it shows. Have you
seen any of those oil painting programs on TV? Same idea. Believe me,
anyone can be a bad artist in any medium.
"But," some people argue, "the basic land shapes and textures are so good,
someone can make a good-looking landscape with very little work! So how
can you say it's art?" Well, obviously the standards have to change
depending on the medium. A simple Bryce picture is along the same lines as
a simple PBS "Painting with Darrill" TV program. Neither medium is in
itself more or less "art," and great or bad works can be created in either
medium.
> The 3D programs actually let
> you expand your resources while eliminating some of the barriers that
> artists sometimes have>
One could argue that it is these "barriers" that make art great.
> I'll admit, I use photoshop and FDP, but only
> for the final touch-up's. All the creating is done by ME and ME ONLY!
I still don't see how a 3D program is inherently better than a paint
program, as you believe.
Andy Bates.
LPAyers
*same* ( with a very few exceptions) you have to say "it must be the
programs." I've been painting for a long time (Reference Yahoo "Philip
Ayers" for my url) and this stuff does't fly. An artist (excuse the corn)
could never live with this . There has got to be a better way. Try the
education system/Life experience/ it all seems so juvenile. I love the
computer, its a great tool but you have to be critical to get the best
work out of any program . Some programs are crummy for different reasons
but any number of programs should do the job in most cases. 3d programs
produce much a more canned product than do 2D programs. I would rather
build a "three-d object" in a paint program than in a 3-d program when
possible because you have more direct control over the end
product-howerver this isn't always possible I know. Too many people in the
computer design business lack the knowlege to be critical (Art and Design)
and it shows up in the kind of stuff being producted. I beleive it's even
worse than the movie industry and tv! forgive me for having this opinion-
later- Flip-
Brian Ross
: .iadfw.net> <3108FA...@wane3.scri.fsu.edu> <mgr-260196...@mike.aggroup.com> <4egej4$q...@news-f.iadfw.net>
: Stephen G. (sg...@airmail.net) wrote:
: : I would like to also say that as future technology in
: : computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
: : ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
: : my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
: : create works of such great magnitude.
: What I value art for is primarily that way it lets me see the world
: through the artist's eyes. If computerized imagery accomplishes that,
: then I call it art. On the other hand, I feel that since CGI
: takes over much of the draughtsmanship in an image, that the artist is
: less inclined to linger over each detail in a way that infuses the
: details with 'artist's-eyes' meaning. It can be - isn't always - like the
: difference between writing an outline, which contains the ideas, and writing
: the essay, which contains attentively wrought turns of phrase.
But this holds for many traditional art media as well.
For example, artists can let watercolours interact with one another
on a canvas, thereby letting nature determine the exact detail.
Perhaps this is analogous to using an algorithmic texture - in both
cases, the artist is using nature to accomplish some of the work.
David Gutteridge
>>I would like to also say that as future technology in
>>computer art becomes so advanced will we have lost the
>>ability to create great works like Michaelangelo's? In
>>my opinion we may have already lost the ability to
>>years when we can put on a virtual reality suit and
>>design landscapes far more complex than could ever have
>>been created by hand will not everyone migrate to these
>>new forms of art and discard the traditional methods?
What a sad point of view. Of course technology will eradicate old
methods. The problem here is not technology, but how you're defining
it. Nobody cave paints anymore, and nobody crushes their own berries
to make colours anymore either. (Maybe there's one holdout...)Leonardo
Da Vinci might accuse you of selling out for using a pencil - he
worked in silverpoint which is a lot more difficult to use. Today
'technology' has become synonymous with electronics, which seem less
human. But 'technology' is any advancement in tool use, whether from
paper to computer monitor or from cave wall to paper.
But in the end what does it matter? New technology does not invalidate
the old when it comes to expressing artistic ideas. No one form of
media is any more or less valid than another.
My personal theory - Most artists in traditional mediums are jealous
of the new technologies which simulate the artistic skills that
artists have felt they were the sole owners of. When i attended art
school i had a teacher go on at legth that cameras with autofocus were
less artistic than a manual focus. To me it is merely a difference of
the amount of effort put into it. I personally think everyone should
have the means to put some sort of visual piece together if they
choose. The easier the better. If everyone could have the means to
create a picture which resembled exactly what they imagined in their
head, then we could sidestep the question of whether or not the medium
is the message, or to what degree, and simply talk to each other about
what we are really thinking and feeling.
dave
Pablo
: Folks- When you looks at this stuff (computer art) and it all looks the
: *same* ( with a very few exceptions) you have to say "it must be the
: programs." I've been painting for a long time (Reference Yahoo "Philip
Man, I'll tell you.. Boy, have I got my work cut out for me.
Ok. Let me 'splain this world to ya. What does the art world
CONSTANTLY tell us 'non' artists? What are they constantly telling us,
peering down their noses? I'll give y'all a few seconds to ponder...
what's that? You give up? Ok.
To stand in judgement of art is nearly impossible in that art is
a completely subjective thing. What is art to one, is not art to
another, for an almost infinite number of reasons. Or, to simplify this
statement...art is in the eye of the beholder.
What scares you sir, is you don't understand the medium you are
beholding, therefore you are declaring it devoid of art. You have dived
head first into a realm of mass communication where every hobbyist,
amateur, tinkerer, hacker, what have you is able to display his or her
works to the world, no strings attached. I GUARANTEE YOU, if we could
peer into every amateur oil painter's living room to see their work, we
might affect the same attitude as yourself about oil painting.
I mean keeee-rist, we are 'instructed' to accept TONS of DRIVEL
and even give some of it federal funding because it's art. When anyone
questions that, we are berated with a venomous stream of accusations of
closed-mindedness because who are 'we' to judge? Whelp, sorry, goes both
ways. Of course there's a lot of sameness about the art you're looking
at because you're looking at amateurs who are using the same packages and
simply sticking to the defaults and presets. You continue to miss the
point entirely, but you have that right.
: produce much a more canned product than do 2D programs. I would rather
What of a 3d package is 'canned'? 3d art is more on a medium of
sculpture. We MUST stop comparing it to oil painting or other forms of
2d art. Would you hold up an oil painting and a lost-wax process
sculpture side by side and critique them on the same points? Well, you
might, but therein probably lies the problem.
: build a "three-d object" in a paint program than in a 3-d program when
: possible because you have more direct control over the end
: product-however this isn't always possible I know. Too many people in the
You don't build 3d objects in a paint program, you draw 3d
objects. I mean, with this thinking, you are saying that architecture
isn't art, because they use canned presets. They use marble tiles (they
don't have any control over what each individual strip of marble looks
like). The architect has a vision. The architect has a knowledge of
tools, materials and items at his or her disposal which can be mixed and
applied to his 'sculpture'. These are the textures which the 3d program
uses to add effects.
In fact, this is the best analogy I've seen yet. Yeah, that's
right, I like it. Think about this analogy before 'we' criticize another
hobbyist.
TOAGRAFIX
it is. If this were not true, the fauves, the cubists, the imressionists,
etc., would still not be considered art ("This crap isn't art!" says Joe
Bagadonuts--so therefore it must not be?). Art may also be individual and
private; hanging in a museum or being included in an art book does not
make something art or exclude from that designation anything that is not
hanging in a museum or printed in a book (BTW, that is probably the single
most ridiculous definition of art I have ever heard. If Picasso did bury
his paintings, he would still have been an artist; just an artist that we
never heard of). If I paint a picture or write a poem and keep it in my
home, and adimre it weekends over a nice brandy, it is still art.
Schmucks.
And, yes, you can create art with bryce. Bad art, basically unoriginal
art, but art. KPT makes some outstanding tools for creating art, no matter
what your definition; bryce--digital colorforms--just isn't one of them.
Alan Fraser
> I mean keeee-rist, we are 'instructed' to accept TONS of DRIVEL
>and even give some of it federal funding because it's art. When anyone
>
that keeps people coming back.
For the best perspective on critics, try to find a little book (sorry, I
don't remember the title) that includes the opinions of critics of the
times regarding Mozart, Twain, etc. Like the artworks in review, there's
only one percent of criticism that has any validity at all. And that's
probably being overly generous.
Alan Fraser
E-mail: a_fr...@one.net
Home Page: http://w3.one.net/~a_fraser
Orchid Conservatory: http://w3.one.net/~a_fraser/orchids.html
Brian Ross
: Too many people in the
: computer design business lack the knowlege to be critical (Art and Design)
: and it shows up in the kind of stuff being producted. I beleive it's even
: worse than the movie industry and tv!
Well, this "crap" is making a lot of money for a lot of "non-artists",
satisfying many art-ignorant clients needs, and I dare say, taking
away livelihoods from "real artists".
Besides, when you examine some of the garbage sold for big money in recent
years (eg. anything painted by a Holliwood celeb- Stallone and Hopper
and others, or the lovely human feces works), I don't think the art
community really has a lot to be critical of in the computer graphics domain.
Pablo
: In article <jefeDM6...@netcom.com> Pablo, je...@netcom.com writes:
: > I mean keeee-rist, we are 'instructed' to accept TONS of DRIVEL
: >and even give some of it federal funding because it's art. When anyone
: >
: There are tons of drivel in ANY art form; it's the one percent that isn't
: that keeps people coming back.
So...what are you saying. It sounds like you and I agree 100%.
This is PRECICELY what I've been trying to tell the individual that this
was directed at. You might want to read the previous messages in this
thread to understand what my position is.
Richard Ottolini
Either the media is transparent, you don't care, or the media is part of
the art. Much CGI-art doesn't meet this criterium yet, but some does.
Rick Boden
On 3 Feb 1996, Alan Fraser wrote:
> >
> There are tons of drivel in ANY art form; it's the one percent that isn't
> that keeps people coming back.
>
> For the best perspective on critics, try to find a little book (sorry, I
> don't remember the title) that includes the opinions of critics of the
> times regarding Mozart, Twain, etc. Like the artworks in review, there's
> only one percent of criticism that has any validity at all. And that's
> probably being overly generous.
Here's a good example:
A few years ago the local conservative newspaper had an editorial
criticising the purchase of a very expensive abstract by the national
museum. They didn't think it was art and used the example of Van Gogh.
"Anyone could look at a painting by Van Gogh and immediatly recognize it
as art", they said.
Here's what I find funny...didn't Van Gogh only sell one painting in his
entire life?
Rick
LPAyers
LPAyers (lpa...@aol.com) wrote:
: Folks- When you looks at this stuff (computer art) and it all looks the
: *same* ( with a very few exceptions) you have to say "it must be the
: programs." I've been painting for a long time (Reference Yahoo "Philip
Man, I'll tell you.. Boy, have I got my work cut out for me.
Ok. Let me 'splain this world to ya. What does the art world
CONSTANTLY tell us 'non' artists? What are they constantly telling us,
peering down their noses? I'll give y'all a few seconds to ponder...
what's that? You give up? Ok.
To stand in judgement of art is nearly impossible in that art is
a completely subjective thing. What is art to one, is not art to
another, for an almost infinite number of reasons. Or, to simplify this
statement...art is in the eye of the beholder.
What scares you sir, is you don't understand the medium you are
beholding, therefore you are declaring it devoid of art. You have dived
head first into a realm of mass communication where every hobbyist,
amateur, tinkerer, hacker, what have you is able to display his or her
works to the world, no strings attached. I GUARANTEE YOU, if we could
peer into every amateur oil painter's living room to see their work, we
might affect the same attitude as yourself about oil painting.
I mean keeee-rist, we are 'instructed' to accept TONS of DRIVEL
and even give some of it federal funding because it's art. When anyone
questions that, we are berated with a venomous stream of accusations of
closed-mindedness because who are 'we' to judge? Whelp, sorry, goes both
ways. Of course there's a lot of sameness about the art you're looking
at because you're looking at amateurs who are using the same packages and
simply sticking to the defaults and presets. You continue to miss the
point entirely, but you have that right.
: produce much a more canned product than do 2D programs. I would rather
What of a 3d package is 'canned'? 3d art is more on a medium of
sculpture. We MUST stop comparing it to oil painting or other forms of
2d art. Would you hold up an oil painting and a lost-wax process
sculpture side by side and critique them on the same points? Well, you
might, but therein probably lies the problem.
: build a "three-d object" in a paint program than in a 3-d program when
: possible because you have more direct control over the end
: product-however this isn't always possible I know. Too many people in
the
You don't build 3d objects in a paint program, you draw 3d
objects. I mean, with this thinking, you are saying that architecture
isn't art, because they use canned presets. They use marble tiles (they
don't have any control over what each individual strip of marble looks
like). The architect has a vision. The architect has a knowledge of
tools, materials and items at his or her disposal which can be mixed and
applied to his 'sculpture'. These are the textures which the 3d program
uses to add effects.
In fact, this is the best analogy I've seen yet. Yeah, that's
right, I like it. Think about this analogy before 'we' criticize another
hobbyist.
--
Thoughts by: Pablo (tm)
"Pablo"
Your thinking or your writing (not sure) is not even close to being
clear.
I can't agree with most of what you say, what I understood, but the point
this I would like to respond to-
> What scares you sir, is you don't understand the medium you are
beholding, therefore you are declaring it devoid of art. You have dived
head first into a realm of mass communication where every hobbyist,
amateur, tinkerer, hacker, what have you is able to display his or her
works to the world, no strings attached. I GUARANTEE YOU, if we could
peer into every amateur oil painter's living room to see their work, we
might affect the same attitude as yourself about oil painting.
THE POINT IS THAT EVERY AMATEUR OIL PAINTER DOES NOT , DOES NOT PUT HIS or
HER STUFF OUT AS IF IS WORTH THE SPACE IT CONSUMES! It usually stays
private for friends and family. If they did or could in the same kind of
parallel context as computer "artist" which I don't think most would
(because the reason most painters paint is to perfect a vision, even
amatuers!, not to seek publicity ,like too many computer wanta bees an
artists do.
Standards my friend! Standard are very important.
I can support the idea that anything is ok.
This will happen as better people get into the medium!
Last point: 3-D programs like Strata or Infini-D are not like making
sculpture. Sculptures have many more choices and possiblilities. I think
that the 2 -d draw programs and paint programs out there are better at
allowing the artist choices. I think 3-D programs aren't close to this
level of freedom. The choices one can make are limited. Thats all I'm
saying. As such, the result is more "canned", looks manufactured out of
standard materials. Animators haven' t ever had this limitation. I'm sure
this is going to change for the better . AS Always_Flip_
Painting Philip Ayers
http://www.infomall.com/ayers1.html
David Lewis
> THE POINT IS THAT EVERY AMATEUR OIL PAINTER DOES NOT , DOES NOT PUT HIS or
> HER STUFF OUT AS IF IS WORTH THE SPACE IT CONSUMES! It usually stays
> private for friends and family. If they did or could in the same kind of
> parallel context as computer "artist" which I don't think most would
> (because the reason most painters paint is to perfect a vision, even
> amatuers!, not to seek publicity ,like too many computer wanta bees an
> artists do.
Are you saying that you have a problem with everyone and their dog, so to
speak, being able to put their stuff on the WEB? If so, you are missing
the whole point of the WEB and espousing a rather totalitarion viewpoint.
If someone wants to put up their stuff for your viewing pleasure or for
their own publicity or whatever, so what? How does that hurt you? If you
are a "real" artist, you have nothing to worry about right? You and
everyone else out their is *free* to look at it and decide for yourself if
it is crap or not.
> Last point: 3-D programs like Strata or Infini-D are not like making
> sculpture. Sculptures have many more choices and possiblilities. I think
> that the 2 -d draw programs and paint programs out there are better at
> allowing the artist choices. I think 3-D programs aren't close to this
> level of freedom. The choices one can make are limited. Thats all I'm
> saying. As such, the result is more "canned", looks manufactured out of
> standard materials. Animators haven' t ever had this limitation. I'm sure
> this is going to change for the better.
I find it simply unbeleivable that you insist on comparing 2d programs to
3d programs or physical sculpture to 3d programs or any other medium to
any other medium. Jezz, for Mr. John Cage, silence, floor creaks, people
whispering, etc were the "music" for his famous piece entitled 4:33. It
may not be real music as we think of it, but it is certainly legitimate as
an idea. In other words, take things for what they are not for what they
are not. If you "listen" to 4:33 and say, "but that's not real music", you
are missing the point. There is a story about some lady missing the point
of a Cage concert once. She apparently went up to Mr Cage after the
concert and said something like, "What was *that* supposed to be? Anybody
could have done that. *I* could have done that" to which he responded,
"Yes madam, but you didn't"
Finally, I think the Architecture analogy is an excellent one. If you give
Moshe Safdie a pile of bricks, some concrete, steel, wood etc. and then
gave me or anyone else or even some other famous contemporary architect a
pile of bricks, some concrete, steel, wood etc. and asked them to design
something, you would end up with two **extremely** different compostitions
despite the fact that they are using presets (pile of bricks, some
concrete, steel, wood etc.) One thing that their compositions would not
look like is anything that you or anyone else has ever drawn with Adobe
illustrator. So what? It's a different medium. It is up to the artist to
make a successful composition out of whatever materials he or she chooses
to work with.
Brian Ross
: [...] Of course technology will eradicate old
: methods. The problem here is not technology, but how you're defining
: it. Nobody cave paints anymore, and nobody crushes their own berries
: to make colours anymore either. (Maybe there's one holdout...)Leonardo
: Da Vinci might accuse you of selling out for using a pencil - he
: worked in silverpoint which is a lot more difficult to use. Today
: 'technology' has become synonymous with electronics, which seem less
: human. But 'technology' is any advancement in tool use, whether from
: paper to computer monitor or from cave wall to paper.
: But in the end what does it matter? New technology does not invalidate
: the old when it comes to expressing artistic ideas. No one form of
: media is any more or less valid than another.
: My personal theory - Most artists in traditional mediums are jealous
: of the new technologies which simulate the artistic skills that
: artists have felt they were the sole owners of. When i attended art
: school i had a teacher go on at legth that cameras with autofocus were
: less artistic than a manual focus. To me it is merely a difference of
: the amount of effort put into it. I personally think everyone should
: have the means to put some sort of visual piece together if they
: choose. The easier the better. If everyone could have the means to
: create a picture which resembled exactly what they imagined in their
: head, then we could sidestep the question of whether or not the medium
: is the message, or to what degree, and simply talk to each other about
: what we are really thinking and feeling.
Bravo! One of the most rational responses on this thread so far.
In my opinion, some of the criticisms against CGI are well-founded,
from the perspective that attractive pictures do not necessarily
constitute concerted artistic expression. However, anyone who appreciates what
art is fundamentally about cannot suggest that the tool is the ends.
Rather, as you suggest, it's the realization and communication of ideas
that determine the worth of the results.
I also think that most of the knee-jerk cricicisms are from traditional,
conservative art-types who are very threatened by the new technology.
The arrogance implied in a recent criticism suggesting the lack of
"life experience" with CGI artists is a great example of this.
Let's face it - contemporary art and it's associated "market" lack
any relevance whatsoever to most of the population. CGI is essentially
creating a brand new genre of relevant, grassroots art. And just wait: after
a few years, when the technology becomes more mature, there WILL be
critically acclaimed CGI-based artists.