Is Raytracing Art? (Was YKYBRTLW)
Ken Cecka
We've been debating that fairly heatedly in my dorm here at UW this
year, and here are a couple of points the opposition is standing on:
-Raytraced images, or "computer art" as they call it, can be
perfectly reproduced an
unlimited number of times.
-"computer art" doesn't deteriorate or lose quality over time. It's
static.
First of all, I turned to my American Heritage Dictionary for a
definition of "art" which was the following:
"1. Human effort to imitate, supliment, alter, or counteract the work
of nature. @.a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds,
colors, forms, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of
beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or
plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. C. The product of
these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High
quality of conception or execution; aesthetic value. 4. A field or
category of art, such as music. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning;
one of the liberal arts. 6.a. A system of principles and methods
employed in the performance of a set of activities; the art of
building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system: the art of
building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system: the art of
the lexicographer. 7.a. Skkill that is attained by study, practice, or
observation: the art of the baker. b. Skill arrising from the exercise
of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified
to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). 8.a. arts. Artful devices,
strategems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Print.
Illustrative material."
Now, I think that's a pretty long and exhaustive definition, cover both
the standard and essoteric interpretations of the word. Maybe I missed
something, but I don't see anything in there about reproducability or
decay...Anyone?
Even if it was in there, I think both of those arguments
(reproducability and decay) can be directly contradicted.
I would venture to say that ray-traced images are no more reproducable
than a Picasso. I own many prints of paintings, but I only own a few
originals, and those are originals that were given to me by an artist
friend of mine. If someone looks at a print of a Picasso, they accept
it as art, yet it is just as reproducable as any raytraced image. They
would be right in arguing that the original work, with all it's brush
strokes and detail on a piece of canvas. In the world of raytracing,
the canvas would be the .pov file, or the .dxf file, with all it's
associated nuances and variations on style. Now they would be right in
claiming that those source files and object files are reproducable, but
if I delete my source file or object file, even I, the artist, could
never reproduce the exact image I created. That source file was an
original, done by an artist, and it's un-reproducable. I think everyone
would agree that given a frame from Toy Story, they couldn't design a
scene that would produce an image that looked exactly like it.
I would also like to draw on the economics of the situation. Prints of
famous paintings are fairly cheap because they are just copies. The
original, on the other hand, can cost hundreds and thousands times more
than the prints. It's no different in the 3D graphics world. You can
go by any of the 3D model vendor sites and find lots of rendered images,
and they'll give you those for free. When you want to have the original
mesh though, you'd better be ready to fork out several hundred dollars
or more. They don't mind giving away the images for free because no one
is going to be able to take that image and get a mesh out of it that
reproduces it exactly. It takes an artist to create a mesh.
I could go on about the reproducability argument, but I'll let it rest
for a moment and address the decay issue. People are often frustrated
when they go to a museum or a castle or some old preserved building to
tour and they aren't allowed to take flash pictures because the light
will destroy the color. And how often have they wished there wasn't
that glass box arround the ancient work of art so they could see it
better, but it has to be protected from the open air. Keeping art from
decaying takes maintenance. You can't just let it sit there in some
forgotten corner. Eventually, somethings going to go wrong. Now, I'll
admit that this argument is a bit of a stretch (and if someone comes up
with something better, I'd be glad to hear it), but I think it's valid.
If I left all my pov files on 3.5" floppies and left the disks on a
corner of my desk, I think we all know from personal experience that
those images would have long ago "decayed" into "Error reading drive A!
Abort, Retry or Fail?" Obviously, floppies are an extreme example, but
it applies to hard drives too. My nextdoor neighbor is an avid user of
Raydream Studio. He spent most of fall quarter desigining a dungeon
jail scene. He did up a bunch of animations of it (which I must say
were very impressive) and then moved on to another project. Here we
have the case of the original (the scene file), and the animations (the
prints or copies). He had the animations stored in several places, both
on his system here, and his parents computer at home, and another hard
drive, but when he formatted his hard drive to install NT, he forgot
about the scene files, and lost them. His dungeon is now
unreproducable, and well beyond decay. It takes some care and effort to
"maintain" those scene files. I know I tend to forget about my piles of
pov files that I've finished with. And then 4 months down the road, I
go searching for them, and they mysteriously have dissappeard. You have
to maintain those files, lock them away in some folder that your not
going to mess with, just like those glass boxes in the museum. Don't
let your disks get exposed to dust, heat or magnetism, otherwise the
storage media, just like the paint and canvas, will deteriorate.
I guess that was probably a little more than just my 2 cents, but I've
been meaning to bring this subject up for a while, and I decided to
throw out the whold shebang. Any comments?
Ken
Garvin Hicking wrote:
> Hi Jeff!
>
> JL> You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When...
>
> ROTFL!
>
> Because we just are on this topic: [Question to all of you:]
>
> Would you describe raytracing/rendering as "art"? I do. But if other
> people, not familar with tracing and just doing their CorelDRAWing and
>
> Paintbrushing, throw a look at my pictures they just say: "Well, nice.
> But
> the computer does all the work for you. You don't have to be good in
> drawing/painting/whatsoever, it's the computer. Everybody would be
> able to
> do this."
>
> Any agreements? Or any good advices, what I can tell those people to
> let
> them "pay respect" to my images?
>
> ---
> Over and Out, -[= *PGP*-Key available at
> request =]-
> Garvin -[=
*http://home.pages.de/~garvin* =]-
> --
> |FidoNet : Garvin Hicking 2:2453/690.16
> |InterNet: ava...@icemans.ndh.com
> |
> |From IceMan's BBS, Bad Honnef, Germany [+49-2224-931979]
dastardly
Stig M. Valstad wrote:
> As for the 'computer does all the work' argument; I spend a lot
> more time making a raytraced picture than I did making a painting
> when I made them the old-fashioned way.
I agree. That is like saying that photography is not an art because
the camera does all the work for you. All you had to do was point and
click.
One of the most important elements in a work of art is composition,
or the arrangement of forms to manipulate the eye. The artwork should
lead the viewer's eye around, directing what to see first, second,
third, and so on. Raytracing lets an artist focus on that.
On the other hand, raytracing can be used as visualization for
electronically stored models, which is a work of art just like a clay
model. Then, raytracing is like the eye itself; it allows you to
see the model.
> All new art forms tend to be met with 'that's not real art' in
> the beginning. Just the standard distrust of what is new.
Well, at least its not as bad off as Dada. People today say
that the art created in that movement wasn't art.
> Now if you use a modeller rather than write scene files in a
> text editor, I would be more reluctant to call it art >;-)
>
> --
> Stig M. Valstad - sval...@sn.no - http://www.sn.no/~svalstad
>
> The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
> Passer of the Moral Circle.
Bye,
--dastardly
dastardly@_REMOVE_SPAM_geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/9043/
JosephMoon
I think your friends are confusing the distiction between visual art and
performance art.
Performance art (a play, a concert, or ballet) is non-reproducible in that
every time a play is performed, it is a little bit different. It is never
performed in exactly the same way. A movie, however, is a visual art, in
that it is the same everytime you watch it.
But just because you have copies of a movie, or multiple recordings of a
concert, does that mean it's no longer art? Is only the orginal print of
a movie art? Of course not. Just because the artists choose to work in a
reproducable medium
doesn't have any effect on their creations validity. Same with computer
art.
My personal defintion of Art is a creation in which the creator attempts
to communicate something about the human experience to an audience.
Whether a painter, for example, does that successfully is the difference
between his painting being Art or just a picture.
So the real question is: What are you creating with your Raytracing? Art
or just pictures?
Parallax
On Sat, 17 May 1997 12:45:32 -0700, Ken Cecka <cec...@televar.com>
wrote:
>Lots of stuff
Great ideas there, and I'd like to add: When people tell me that
raytracing is simple compared to paintbrush et al, or 'real' art, I
tell them to try it themselves, and offer Pov-Ray. Generally, they
make a face and mumble something about too much math.
However, it's really easy.
Also, about using preprepared textures, does the conventional artist
grow the wood, pull the clay from the ground, weave the canvas, smelt
the iron? NO! I think it's no different with raytracing.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't draw. I can't paint.
Hell, I have trouble coloring between the lines. I can't sing. I can't
dance. I can't play an instrument. All I can do is envision and dream.
Without Pov-Ray, my dreams would remain that. With it, my dreams
become reality.
And what else is art, but dreams becoming reality?
--Parallax
Stig M. Valstad
Ken Cecka <cec...@televar.com> wrote:
>We've been debating that fairly heatedly in my dorm here at UW this
>year, and here are a couple of points the opposition is standing on:
>
> -Raytraced images, or "computer art" as they call it, can be
> perfectly reproduced an unlimited number of times.
Lithography is also reproducible, but is still considered art.
And remember that computer art will never look the same viewed
on different monitors, or printed on different printers.
> -"computer art" doesn't deteriorate or lose quality over time. It's
>static.
Artists have always sought ways to make their art more permanent.
An oil or watercolour painting made with good pigments can last
centuries without significant deterioration if they are protected
from sunlight and dirt (recent tests has shown that flash photo-
graphy isn't as damaging to paintings as previously thought).
Acrylic paintings are probably going to be even longer-lasting.
As for the 'computer does all the work' argument; I spend a lot
more time making a raytraced picture than I did making a painting
when I made them the old-fashioned way.
All new art forms tend to be met with 'that's not real art' in
the beginning. Just the standard distrust of what is new.
Now if you use a modeller rather than write scene files in a
Daniel Gotlieb
Raytracing is art.
At the moment I'm a photography student and the two are very similar,
especially if your photographing still life.
Would anyone argue that photography is art?
Daniel.
Angus Christian
In fact, this very same debate raged in the late 19th and early 20th century
over whether photography was a fine art or 'just a craft'. Even photography
magazines of the 60's and 70's would occassionally revisit the argument, and
there are still die-hards (blow-hards?) today who keep it going - it's all
been hashed out before.
To me, the answer is pretty obvious and works equally for photography and
raytracing - some of it is art but most of it isn't, just as the photography
of Ansel Adams or Yousef Karsh is art while cousin Harry's holdiay snaps most
probably aren't. Somebody who understands the visual reasons for using
raytracing instead of another medium will probably produce genuine art.
Somebody who uses raytracing because he can't draw or paint probably won't.
Just my 2 centavos
Angus Christian
George Erhard
Parallax wrote:
Well, Parallax, you seem to have a point there. (Pun intended, wink
wink nudge nudge.) If it weren't for my computer and it's ability to
number-crunch, my "art" would be limited to hand-doodled cartoons and
the occasional "Study in Perspective" done with a protracter,
straightedge, and lots of eraser scars on the paper... and nary a curved
line in sight. As it stands now, I can produce spectacular views of
the country I grew up in (via USGS DEM maps), strange abstract
sculptures in strange environments, or seemingly lifelike trees and
animals and people. Sure, I don't have the "skill" to draw all this by
hand, or even with a mouse or a digipad and stylus. Those are the
tools. The creativity doesn't come from the tools, it comes from the
mind that uses them. So, be it by paintbrush or by Corel 7 or by
pushing POV code around a text file, everyone that puts a scene in their
mind onto paper, into clay, or onto a computer screen is an artist. ":)
dcnblues
--
If the opinions above are caught or killed, we will |
disavow any knowledge of their actions. |
----------------------+----------------------------------+
George Erhard | POP: dcnb...@geocities.com |
Android Productions | HTTP: www.geocities.com/ |
225 Mayhew Way #5 | SiliconValley/Park/8640 |
Walnut Creek CA 94596 | IRC: DcnBlues (Undernet) |
----------------------+----------------------------------+
Parallax
>Somebody who uses raytracing because he can't draw or paint probably won't.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Jimi Hendrix couldn't play the
violin, but he was a great guitarist. Not to compare myself to JH (For
one I'm still alive :) but I can't paint to save my life and can only
draw cartoon-style. Does this mean my raytracing is not art? I don't
think it does by any means. My raytracing is or is not art based on
it's own credentials (I think I spelled that wrong, seems I can't
write either :). Each work, each picture, each render, is or is not
art based on one thing, wether or not I and others like to look at it.
An aside, I've never thought of anything I've ever drawn or painted as
a 'work'
--Parallax
Simon Smith
In article <337EB5...@geocities.com>,
dcnb...@geocities.com (George Erhard) wrote:
O'course, on this newsgroup, we're all a bit biased...
--
Simon Smith
"What is the meaning of this? I ordered a bottle of medium dry white wine,
and you've brought me an ornamental bird bath... with a cheesegrater in it."
Dr. Dave
My $0.02:
I couldn't agree more that all graphic art is reproducible, whether in
prints or in image files. As a matter of fact, some companies that make
prints of paper/canvas art now scan some of that art and store it on
computers, and create the prints from those.
The decay argument is silly. If Michelangelo could have painted the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in such a way that he knew it would never
lose its color or decay, you can bet he would have done it. The fact that
the technology exists now to create art that can be maintained in its
"pure" form indefinitely is no reason to say the original creation isn't
art. If the characteristic of decay was truly a part of the definition of
art, then a painting couldn't be considered art until it proved that it
could decay.
Finally, for those who made the argument that "anyone can raytrace", I
challenge them to sit down right now with a copy of POV and create some
art. Sure, they could probably put together a really nice picture of a
sphere sitting on a plane, right? Now ask them to create "Glory" (winner
of the last IRTC). They couldn't do it. With years of experience, they
could get much closer to creating an image like "Glory". To look at that
from the other direction, I could sit down with pen and paper right now and
sketch a picture of a church. If you consider that (bad) art, then you'd
also have to recognize the sphere on a plane as (bad) art as well. If you
don't consider my sketch to be art, then neither is the sphere on a plane.
Some might argue that raytracing isn't art because you can reuse objects
that someone has created for another, different scene. If that's true,
then Warhol's images of Campbell's soup cans isn't art either. For that
matter, you often see "modern" art in museums that is comprised of a
collection of objects -- created by others -- placed in a new or more
interesting array. If you're one of the people who thinks those things
aren't "real" art, then you could argue that scenes created using
ready-made objects aren't art... but you couldn't say the same about
scenes with original objects. So, you couldn't say that *raytracing* isn't
art, you could only say that certain scenes created through raytracing
aren't art.
That brings me to my final point: Raytracing isn't art. It's a method
used to create art, like painting or sculpting... or welding, for that
matter. What defines art is not the method used to create it, rather the
product of that creative method. Some uses of that method would be
considered art ("Glory", Dali's "Hallucinogenic Toreador"), and some
wouldn't (sphere on a plane, the painted wall in my bathroom). What an
individual considers to be "real art" along this spectrum depends entirely
on their personal aesthetic sense.
Whew!
---------------------
David Brown, MD
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, MO
"... but when I put my arms around you,
I'll be looking over your shoulder
for something new."
-- Matt Johnson of TheThe
e robson
Well, if there's one idea that I feel lucky to have taken
away from art school, it's this:
Whether or not something's "art" is far less relevent a question
than whether or not a piece is interesting or engaging in some way.
There are a number of artists in the 20th century that have questioned
the precious with which we use the label "art". As far as I'm concerned,
at this point, it's better to ask whether it's good art or bad art.
e
http://home.earthlink.net/~erobson
Temporary home page
Gautam N. Lad
Hi,
I believe (and maybe you too): IF YOU THINK IT IS ART, IT IS ART.
So, no matter how crappy others (or maybe even you) think your art is, or if
others think it's not art, whatever, to you it will always be art. If you don't think
that way, I'm assuming you are not appreciating your talent or yourself.
I hope this message, might put the YKYBRTLW messages back to it's
humourous state.
Bye!
****************************************************
* Gautam N. Lad *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* *
* E-Mail : gau...@interlog.com *
* Website : http://www.interlog.com/~gautam *
* *
* OS/2, DOS/Windows, Graphics Gallery, Software, *
* Links, Rayzor Editor/2, POV-Ray, TexturEyes, *
* POV-PAK and lots lots lots more!!!!!!! *
****************************************************
Parallax
On Mon, 19 May 97 01:57:52 GMT, gau...@interlog.com (Gautam N. Lad)
wrote:
>I hope this message, might put the YKYBRTLW messages back to it's
>humourous state.
Hey, we moved it to a new thread so we could beat it into the ground.
Anyway, my latest render, a 25 hour (un)masterpiece, gives me the
basis for my addition the the fun side of this:
You wait more than a day to render a terribly complex image then,
noticing one or two tiny pieces out of place, render it AGAIN. After
that render, you find that moving one of those pieces doesn't reflect
the light quite right and...
Bill DeWitt
Parallax wrote:
> . Each work, each picture, each render, is or is not
> art based on one thing, wether or not I and others like to look at it.
>
bad art and no-one likes to look at it but that doesn't mean it's not
art.
Art is the expression of emotion using a media other than unconscious
reactions. IOW, a purposefull display of emotion by any media, even
facial expressions. As a raytracer who can draw, play music on real
instruments and digital, dance, act, sing, write and make Bonsai, I feel
qualified to say that if you intend to express an emotion with your
coding, it's art. Now if you just throw some things together and say
"Hey! That looks cool!" no matter how cool it is, no matter how hard you
worked and how long it took, it's not art.
I've seen a lot of paintings that were technically great but were not
art. Only because the artist -intended- to express nothing. Some of it
was bought as art and I guess at some level it satisfied the consumer as
art (I really doubt it but there's a chance) but because of the lack of
Intent, I won't call it art.
I have a Animated Gif at my site that I consider art. I know that there
are dozens of these things around and I'm sure some are better than
mine. But I remember when I was making the cloud texture, I thought to
myself, "I need more turbulence, this Earth is supposed to be an
excited, active Earth, not a peaceful, serene Earth." Poof! Art! Did I
do a good job ? ie: Is it good art? Probably not, but it's art.
--
The Image Mill
Complete Graphics and WEB Service
Featuring GIF89a Animations
http://www.TheImageMill.com
Angus Christian
In article <338095...@TheImageMill.com>, TheM...@TheImageMill.com wrote:
>Parallax wrote:
>> . Each work, each picture, each render, is or is not
>> art based on one thing, wether or not I and others like to look at it.
>>
> Nope, art is art if the artist intends it to be art. Sometimes it is
>bad art and no-one likes to look at it but that doesn't mean it's not
>art.
Hogwash. That simply attempts to resolve the issue by giving 'art' a
meaningless definition. You might as well call it 'floofle'
"... and by god it's floofle if I INTEND it to be floofle. It may be good
floofle or may be bad floofle..."
> Art is the expression of emotion using a media other than unconscious
>reactions. IOW, a purposefull display of emotion by any media, even
>facial expressions. As a raytracer who can draw, play music on real
>instruments and digital, dance, act, sing, write and make Bonsai, I feel
>qualified to say that if you intend to express an emotion with your
>coding, it's art. Now if you just throw some things together and say
>"Hey! That looks cool!" no matter how cool it is, no matter how hard you
>worked and how long it took, it's not art.
Who said it has to be an expression of emotion? Art can equally be an
expression of IDEAS. But I agree with your last point about 'throwing things
together'.
> I've seen a lot of paintings that were technically great but were not
>art. Only because the artist -intended- to express nothing. Some of it
>was bought as art and I guess at some level it satisfied the consumer as
>art (I really doubt it but there's a chance) but because of the lack of
>Intent, I won't call it art.
This is called 'craft', which used not to be a dirty word in artsy circles.
Giotto, Cellini, Michelangelo, etc., were all considered great CRAFTSMEN in
their time. It's history that has come to regard them as great artists. I
remember reading an interview with one of the great photographic darkroom
technicians of the century (whom many photographers consider an 'artist' in
his own right) in which he strenuously maintained that what he did was a
craft, not an art - and he was damned proud of it.
Angus Christian
Chris
The arguments are irrelevant. What really matters is that _you_
created the image they see. You may not have taken your pencil and
drawn it line-by-line, but you created it nonetheless. I've spent
hours gleefully assembling scenes, and then weeks waiting for them to
render, and the results are, in my humble opinion, art. Now, though,
the question becomes: "Is this _good_ art?" :)
Text by: Luce the fallen
------------------------
And the little Maggot gets its wings
The intrinsic order to all things
The wyrm falls, and the worm crawls
Again
Garvin Hicking
Hi Ken!
KC> -Raytraced images, or "computer art" as they call it, can be
KC> perfectly reproduced an
KC> unlimited number of times.
KC> -"computer art" doesn't deteriorate or lose quality over time.
KC> It's static.
[...]
KC> Maybe I missed something, but I don't see anything in there about
KC> reproducability or decay...Anyone?
I don't think, that reproducability or decay has something to do with art
- I think, the part from the dictionary describe, what I think of art. And
if a picture/song/... can be perfectly copied [BTW, there's another
question coming to my mind: We can go on and discuss, if Techno is art.
It's perfectly reproducable, but it's still seen as art in terms of
musical art.], it mustn't be no art anymore. It depends on the image, I
think.
KC> That source file was an
KC> original, done by an artist, and it's un-reproducable. I think
KC> everyone would agree that given a frame from Toy Story, they couldn't
KC> design a scene that would produce an image that looked exactly like it.
Yupp. I know how hard reproducing is. I've tried it many times when I see
a fabulous image on the web. I tell myself "Wow, that looks great and can
sure be done fairly easy by myself". One week later I sit on my computer
and cry: "Hey, I didn't know it would be *that* hard" :)
[Selling meshes]
KC> dollars or more. They don't mind giving away the images for free
KC> because no one is going to be able to take that image and get a mesh
KC> out of it that reproduces it exactly. It takes an artist to create a
KC> mesh.
Yes. I also think everybody know's it's even impossible to creat good-
looking meshes with free-ware or shareware packages. It's only possible
with those expensive programs like 3D-Studio, Lightwave or What-Do-I-Know-
What-Else-For-3000$.
KC> forgotten corner. Eventually, somethings going to go wrong. Now, I'll
KC> admit that this argument is a bit of a stretch (and if someone comes up
KC> with something better, I'd be glad to hear it), but I think it's valid.
KC> If I left all my pov files on 3.5" floppies and left the disks on a
KC> corner of my desk, I think we all know from personal experience that
KC> those images would have long ago "decayed" into "Error reading drive A!
KC> Abort, Retry or Fail?" Obviously, floppies are an extreme example, but
KC> it applies to hard drives too.
Yes, you're sure right. But this kind of decay can be easily avoided by
just copying the files many times around, and backup them often...
KC> to "maintain" those scene files. I know I tend to forget about my
KC> piles of pov files that I've finished with. And then 4 months down the
KC> road, I go searching for them, and they mysteriously have dissappeard.
KC> You have to maintain those files, lock them away in some folder that
KC> your not going to mess with, just like those glass boxes in the museum.
KC> Don't let your disks get exposed to dust, heat or magnetism, otherwise
KC> the storage media, just like the paint and canvas, will deteriorate.
Yes. I'm alway very afraid of my "art". I think my "best" images/objects
can be found on about 5 harddisks, 3 ZIP-Disks and about 20 floppies. Hey,
who just said "You're paranoid"? I heard it! ;)
KC> I guess that was probably a little more than just my 2 cents, but I've
KC> been meaning to bring this subject up for a while, and I decided to
KC> throw out the whold shebang. Any comments?
Thanks for your POV. :)
But you "just" covered the aspect of reproducability and decay. I think
those are the least important points you have to declare something as
"art". Doesn't anyone have a better "striking" argument about which you
can declare raytracing as art? :-)
---
Over and Out, -[= *PGP*-Key available via request =]-
Garvin -[= *http://home.pages.de/~garvin/* =]-
Garvin Hicking
Hi Parallax!
p> Great ideas there, and I'd like to add: When people tell me that
p> raytracing is simple compared to paintbrush et al, or 'real' art, I
p> tell them to try it themselves, and offer Pov-Ray. Generally, they
p> make a face and mumble something about too much math.
LOL :)
Yupp, that's what my friends say too. :)
p> However, it's really easy.
Well, I think POVRay is not *that* easy, even though I'm tracing about
half a year...
p> I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't draw. I can't paint.
p> Hell, I have trouble coloring between the lines. I can't sing. I can't
p> dance. I can't play an instrument. All I can do is envision and dream.
p> Without Pov-Ray, my dreams would remain that. With it, my dreams
p> become reality.
p> And what else is art, but dreams becoming reality?
*THAT* is a good definition of Art. I think I'll have to memorize that.
---
Over and Out, -[= *PGP*-Key available via request =]-
Garvin -[= *http://home.pages.de/~garvin/* =]-
glenn ivan butler
Well said . . . . art is indeed the creation of reality; the manifestation
of our dreams. Dream on!
Parallax wrote in article <337e4472...@news.apk.net>...
>
>And what else is art, but dreams becoming reality?
>
>
Hugo B. Asmussen
Sorry if this theame has already been debated enough. I did'nt know all
you people already posted your fine thoughts as I wrote the things
below:
Is raytracing art ? Of course it is !
If you look at a spaceship in StarTrek (maybe other sci-fi series too)
would you then say: "it's not art, the computer is doing all the work
for them" ? Unbeliveable! That spaceship did'nt pop up internally in
some SGI computer! Some human being brain, or a few, uses a very big
amount of brain-power to internally create some ideas, forms, objects,
colours, looks, and then goes into hard work for many weeks, slowly
building up a model in a computer which look the way they imagine. As
the work passes through it's many levels, the human-beings brains look
at the results, perhaps comes up with even more and better ideas on how
to get this to look even better, based on years of training and
trial-and-error. And since this is art, the final result is good
looking, well constructed, a unik object who signifies individualitet.
The folks can be proud of it and in this case sell it for many thousand
of dollars.
Also, I happen to know that in StarTrek they also create some ships as
physical models, which is also art. And, StarTrek uses physical created
surroundings/sets, which certaintly is art too! Is'nt architecture art?
We can tell the pencil-users that their work is not the only thing to
honour.
Sincerely,
Hugo Asmussen.
Jeff Lee
Min...@islandnet.com (Angus Christian) wrote:
> In article <338095...@TheImageMill.com>, TheM...@TheImageMill.com wrote:
>>Parallax wrote:
>>> . Each work, each picture, each render, is or is not
>>> art based on one thing, wether or not I and others like to look at it.
>>>
>> Nope, art is art if the artist intends it to be art. Sometimes it is
>>bad art and no-one likes to look at it but that doesn't mean it's not
>>art.
>
> Hogwash. That simply attempts to resolve the issue by giving 'art' a
> meaningless definition. You might as well call it 'floofle'
Indeed -- though in this day and age, the term "art" is already fairly
meaningless. Take, for instance, Marcel Duchamp's celebrated
masterpiece: Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" with a beard and moustache pencilled
on. Wow, what talent.
And yet if *that* is widely considered to be art -- ten seconds' worth
of work which consists of nothing more than a defacement of a revered
painting -- then it's rather silly to be arguing about whether or not
raytracing is art. Nevertheless...
>> Art is the expression of emotion using a media other than unconscious
>>reactions. [...] Now if you just throw some things together and say
>>"Hey! That looks cool!" no matter how cool it is, no matter how hard you
>>worked and how long it took, it's not art.
>
> Who said it has to be an expression of emotion? Art can equally be an
> expression of IDEAS. But I agree with your last point about 'throwing things
> together'.
Many still-life paintings really have no underlying idea other than the
depiction of objects. They're generally studies in shape, texture and
shading, with no other underlying idea; yet they are well-represented in
art museums, are they not? Is a Rembrandt still-life not "art" because
he just threw some things together and painted them? Are portraits not
"art" because there is no underlying idea other than that the patron
paid the artist to do a likeness?
Conversely, is a black canvas "art" if the painter claims it represents
man's hopelessness in a modern world? If it is, would a different black
canvas *not* be "art" because its painter was just covering over a
painting he was unhappy with? If the answer to both questions is "yes",
then the term "art" is really very arbitrary and meaningless.
(To extend this example to the raytracing world, let's say we have two
identical images of a plain red sphere on a black-and-white "checker"
plane. The first one, according to its creator, represents the sum
total of humanity sitting atop the gameboard of life. The second one
was done by a person just learning how to place objects in POV-Ray. Is
only one of them art, even though they are, pixel for pixel, exactly the
same? If so, we might as well call it "floofle"...)
I honestly don't think you can use only one or two criteria to determine
whether or not something is art. It is, after all, a very subjective
thing; some people like abstract paintings, others prefer
representational art. Some like pointillism, some like cubism, some
like realism. Some like the Dutch Masters, some like soup cans, some
like melting clocks. And, apparently, some people like pencilled
moustaches.
But getting back to whether or not raytracing is "art"...
Because art is subjective, my definition of it really speaks more about
my individual tastes than about what art really is; others may find my
viewpoint wholly invalid. But I tend to consider something "art" if it
evokes a response in me -- either emotional or cognitive -- and I find
it aesthetically pleasing.
My personal aesthetic tastes tend towards the use of the techniques
employed by the Renaissance masters: the use of lighting to set mood,
perspective and placement of objects to draw the eye along a desired
path, realism and attention to detail. Raytracers can accomplish all of
those things -- if the users ask them to -- so raytraced images, in my
opinion and by my definition, *can* be art.
But to play Devil's Advocate to my own argument, an image can employ all
of these techniques, yet not be considered "art" -- perhaps it is merely
"artistic". Indeed, Rembrandt's still life paintings are indisputably
artistic, but (other than perhaps an appreciation of his technique) what
response do they invoke in viewers? Still lifes are usually very dull,
no matter how skilled the painter. My entry for the IRTC "school" topic
is (IMHO) the most artistic render I've ever done, but is it really art?
Beats me.
A raytracer is just a tool, just as a pencil is. A pencil can be used
to create a technical drawing, a masterful sketch, or a random doodle;
whether the result is truly "art" is really up to the individual viewer
to decide.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Or something like that...
--
Jeff Lee (KoX/SP5/INTJ) shi...@gate.net http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/
"The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality
is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes."
Daniel Gotlieb
So far this argument has only centered around the end result of art,
which is fully fair enough, but art is also a means.
A lot of people so far have said that they can't draw, paint etc so
raytracing is the only art they know. I can draw, and I really enjoy
it. Although I do a lot more raytracing than sketching I don't get the
same sort of 'creative buzz' that I do while doing more hands on art.
I've already said on this thread that raytracing is art because
photography is art, and like photography it seems to me to be more of
a task to create an impressive end result than being art all the way
through.
Maybe other people do get a buzz off tracing, I'm only speaking for
myself.
Daniel.
Jon Gellman
Bill DeWitt <TheM...@TheImageMill.com> wrote:
>Parallax wrote:
>> . Each work, each picture, each render, is or is not
>> art based on one thing, wether or not I and others like to look at it.
>>
> Nope, art is art if the artist intends it to be art. Sometimes it is
>bad art and no-one likes to look at it but that doesn't mean it's not
>art.
SNIP
> I've seen a lot of paintings that were technically great but were not
>art. Only because the artist -intended- to express nothing. Some of it
>was bought as art and I guess at some level it satisfied the consumer as
>art (I really doubt it but there's a chance) but because of the lack of
>Intent, I won't call it art.
Nice try, but who made you god with the sure knowledge of what was in
the mind of the creator of a work. Perhaps the intent was there
without any talent at all to express it. Personally, I believe
defining art to be a silly exercise of academics. Art is what ANYONE
believes it to be. There's plenty of things in art museums, such as
tools, that weren't intended to be art but someone was affected by and
declared it art. I'm willing to bet there's an artist you love who had
their work declared non-art by some pundit such as yourself.
Jon
Jeff Lee
dan...@xtra.co.nz (Daniel Gotlieb) wrote:
>
> So far this argument has only centered around the end result of art,
> which is fully fair enough, but art is also a means.
Indeed. Unfortunately, since "art" has a number of meanings, there are
a number of different arguments which might apply.
For example, what is the difference between an art and a skill? An art
is something which requires skill (with the exception of certain modern
forms of art and music, and I use those terms very loosely), but also
incorporates a hard-to-define "something" which transcends mere rote
application of that skill.
Using a raytracer is a skill, but using it in a way that makes people go
"wow" is an art. I've seen images that are made up of nothing more than
simple spheres, but they're used in such a way that the end result is
breathtaking.
> A lot of people so far have said that they can't draw, paint etc so
> raytracing is the only art they know. I can draw, and I really enjoy
> it. Although I do a lot more raytracing than sketching I don't get the
> same sort of 'creative buzz' that I do while doing more hands on art.
Each art form seems to produce a different feeling, at least for me.
Making music is relaxing; doing a painting is satisfying, and finishing
a raytrace is almost a sense of pleasant shock.
I think the reaction I feel to the latter is because, using just a text
editor to create scenes, the process is intellectual and somewhat
abstract -- but to see the realisation of those ideas appear before my
eyes is almost like experiencing magic.
> I've already said on this thread that raytracing is art because
> photography is art, and like photography it seems to me to be more of
> a task to create an impressive end result than being art all the way
> through.
Why is it not art all the way through? Because it deals with
mathematics? Because there are discrete steps that must be taken to
construct each individual object?
Perhaps calligraphy, then, is not an art: each letter is constructed in
a certain way; there is a particular sequence of steps in creating each
glyph. Or perhaps music is not art all the way through, for similar
reasons (take, for instance, Bach's fugues -- they are mathematically
precise, and follow very strict rules -- but they're among the most
beautiful applications of mathematics I've ever heard).
All art forms (that I can think of, anyway) involve a part of the
creative process that doesn't seem very artful, but rather tedious and
mundane.
> Maybe other people do get a buzz off tracing, I'm only speaking for
> myself.
Well, I certainly do.
[posted/mailed]
Charles
Reproducibility and decay?
Funny, but I'd say that's what Art is all about, really. But not in
the way that's been covered here so far: far from it.
Art is one of several varieties and species of metaphysical
viruses which infect the human mind. (Benign viruses, usually.)
Art is a virus in the sense that it is the attempt by the Human
Imagination to reproduce its essence in another host/mind. The
medium of Art is irrelevant. It can include, but is not limited to
Raytracing (yea!) , Paint programs,
Canvas, Paper,
Photography,
Music,
Spoken word (storytelling),
Action/Gesture (mime),
Spoken word + Gesture (acting),
Written Word, (novels, stories)
Graphic Art + Written Word (web pages)
and whatever else a creative mind can think of.
The important thing, as far as Art is concerned, is the attempt
to communicate Imagination from one mind/brain/soul to another.
And in this, it often fails. This is the part about decay. But what
a failure!!! Just as with biological viruses, these metaphysical
viruses often mutate from one host to the next. The recipient
host may very well perceive a conceptualization quite unlike
what the communicant host intended. This "mutation" results
in an infinite variety of new concepts which in turn attempt to
reproduce themselves, making more Art.
Incidental side note: Another popular variety of metaphysical
virus is the Sister-Virus to Art, and her name is "Science". What
Art is to imagination, Science is to observation and experience.
Mutatuions in the Science variety of virus result in new answers
being derived from old questions "mis" interpreted.
So then. Is raytracing a Science? <malicious grin>
Charles Fusner
--------------
author of Fusner's Galleries
http://www.enter.net/~cfusner
Daniel Connell
>For example, what is the difference between an art and a skill? An art
>incorporates a hard-to-define "something" which transcends mere rote
>application of that skill.
But I'm sure many tradesmen would think of their craft as a sort of
art, if they really get into it and they can get expressive through
it.
>Making music is relaxing; doing a painting is satisfying, and finishing
>a raytrace is almost a sense of pleasant shock.
:-)>
>Why is it not art all the way through? Because it deals with
>mathematics? Because there are discrete steps that must be taken to
>construct each individual object?
Well, yes. Although it is fun to start modeling some objects and
putting them into a scene, after twenty hours of trying to get it
right the flow tends to get interrupted and it just gets tedious.
>Perhaps calligraphy, then, is not an art: each letter is constructed in
>a certain way; there is a particular sequence of steps in creating each
>glyph. Or perhaps music is not art all the way through, for similar
>reasons (take, for instance, Bach's fugues -- they are mathematically
>precise, and follow very strict rules -- but they're among the most
>beautiful applications of mathematics I've ever heard).
That's a good point, but some people are gifted enough that they don't
have to worry about the complexity of what they're doing, it just
comes naturally. Shakespear for example could bash sonnets off by the
hundreds. Have you ever tried to write a sonnet? It really isn't easy.
Anyway, the point of my posting was not to say that raytracing isn't
an art, I think it is. It was to point out that we might need to
broaden our definition of art to the process as well as the result if
we're going to discuss it.
Daniel.
Jeff Lee
pagan....@xtra.co.nz (Daniel Connell) wrote:
>
>>For example, what is the difference between an art and a skill? An art
>>is something which requires skill , but also
>>incorporates a hard-to-define "something" which transcends mere rote
>>application of that skill.
>
> But I'm sure many tradesmen would think of their craft as a sort of
> art, if they really get into it and they can get expressive through
> it.
I'd be willing to say that many "crafts" or "trades" have the potential
to be "arts", even if they're not "art" (arrrgh, these multiple
meanings for the word are getting annoying)...
I know a lot of people (okay, I include myself) who consider computer
programming to be an art. To many people, it might be *an* art, but not
be *art* -- but for some weirdos (okay, I again include myself), a
well-crafted computer program can be a thing of beauty and wonder (and
therefore *art* as well as *an* art).
For example, the most fascinating code I've ever seen was a uudecode
program for MS-DOS machines that is itself an encoded text file. If the
text file is saved as a .com file, it can be directly executed. The
actual machine instructions are of necessity rather bizarre, but it is
such an elegantly written program that it still flabbergasts me after
years of use (it's also the *fastest* MS-DOS uudecode program I've ever
seen).
>>Why is it not art all the way through? Because it deals with
>>mathematics? Because there are discrete steps that must be taken to
>>construct each individual object?
>
> Well, yes. Although it is fun to start modeling some objects and
> putting them into a scene, after twenty hours of trying to get it
> right the flow tends to get interrupted and it just gets tedious.
Other arts can get tedious, too -- to use a previously named example,
calligraphy.
>>Or perhaps music is not art all the way through, for similar
>>reasons (take, for instance, Bach's fugues -- they are mathematically
>>precise, and follow very strict rules -- but they're among the most
>>beautiful applications of mathematics I've ever heard).
>
> That's a good point, but some people are gifted enough that they don't
> have to worry about the complexity of what they're doing, it just
> comes naturally. Shakespear for example could bash sonnets off by the
> hundreds. Have you ever tried to write a sonnet? It really isn't easy.
A sonnet? No, I haven't tried; my skills are rather lacking when it
comes to the use of words. Programming comes naturally to me; but then
again, I've been doing it for twenty years this July. Music is as easy
as breathing, but I've been doing it for even longer.
> Anyway, the point of my posting was not to say that raytracing isn't
> an art, I think it is. It was to point out that we might need to
> broaden our definition of art to the process as well as the result if
> we're going to discuss it.
Or it could be split off into two different discussions: "Is Raytracing
Art?" and "Is Raytracing *an* Art"?
Personally, I think the answer is "yes" to both questions (or, more
precisely, the answer is "it *can* be" to both).
dastardly
Jeff Lee wrote:
> I know a lot of people (okay, I include myself) who consider computer
> programming to be an art. To many people, it might be *an* art, but not
> be *art* -- but for some weirdos (okay, I again include myself), a
> well-crafted computer program can be a thing of beauty and wonder (and
> therefore *art* as well as *an* art).
I agree. Programing is an art. I go through the same process I use
to create an artwork as I do to write a program, and I feel the same
once they are finished.
> For example, the most fascinating code I've ever seen was a uudecode
> program for MS-DOS machines that is itself an encoded text file. If the
> text file is saved as a .com file, it can be directly executed. The
> actual machine instructions are of necessity rather bizarre, but it is
> such an elegantly written program that it still flabbergasts me after
> years of use (it's also the *fastest* MS-DOS uudecode program I've ever
> seen).
>
Cool. Where can I get a copy of this?
> --
> Jeff Lee (KoX/SP5/INTJ) shi...@gate.net http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/
>
> "The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality
> is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes."
Bye,
--dastardly
dastardly@_REMOVE_SPAM_geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/9043/
***********************************************
I seek not to reproduce reality, but to mock it.
***********************************************
Ricardo J. Méndez
> > For example, the most fascinating code I've ever seen was a uudecode
> > program for MS-DOS machines that is itself an encoded text file. If
the
> > text file is saved as a .com file, it can be directly executed. The
> > actual machine instructions are of necessity rather bizarre, but it is
> > such an elegantly written program that it still flabbergasts me after
> > years of use (it's also the *fastest* MS-DOS uudecode program I've ever
> > seen).
> >
>
> Cool. Where can I get a copy of this?
Me, me, me! If you know where to get it, drop me a line please?
Ricardo J. Méndez
------------------------------
Unsolicited commercial e-mail is NOT welcome.
The e-mail address needs to be modified, but if you're
NOT a spambot most likely you already know how.
PegasusX
The screen is my canvas, the computer my brushes and knives etc. Pov
Ray is my palette where I mix the colors and develop techniques to place
it on the canvas.
How can anyone ask such a question . Of course it's art!
Peg
Andrew Humphries
IMHO, raytracing is not always art but it CAN be art.
Also, Art is something that inspires me to do something better.
I would not class anything I've done yet as art.
It is like saying that painting is art. I would class the Mona Lisa by DeVinci
as art because it captures the painters feelings when he painted it. I would
not class work done by a 4 year old in nursery school as art because it doesn't
capture the painters feelings.
I believe this arguement is also relavent to raytracing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Humphries
E-mail: andrew.h...@ndirect.co.uk
WWW: http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~andrew.humphries/rays/RAYWELCO.HTM
Favourite quote: "If at first you don't succed, cheat"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel A.K. Halsey
Andrew Humphries wrote:
[clipped]
> It is like saying that painting is art. I would class the Mona Lisa by DeVinci
> as art because it captures the painters feelings when he painted it. I would
> not class work done by a 4 year old in nursery school as art because it doesn't
> capture the painters feelings.
I'd have to argue with the statement that a painting (or other work) by
a 4 year old does not capture the individual's feelings. While the
painting may not reflect great skill, they are nonetheless expressing an
emotion. By this time, of course, they still have not gained either
full fine motor control or decent emotional conotrol, and so, may not be
considered great craftsmen, philosophers, or, in a composite definition,
artists, but almost everything they do is laced with some emotion.
BTW: I would consider most of my magna opi* from my early childhood to
be closer to "art" than anything I've done recently (though I've had fun
doing it, I don't see my works to be an expression of my "self")
*(for at that age, I believed each work to be my greatest; didn't
everybody)
--
Daniel A.K. Halsey | Toothpick Instructions:
(aka Estragon, enchanter [Tim]) | Hold stick near center of its length.
mailto:estr...@cc.gatech.edu | Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert
http://estragon.gt.ed.net/ | in tooth space, blunt end next to gum.
Spooooon! | Use gentle in-out motion.
Rick Bolman
Andrew Humphries wrote:
>
> IMHO, raytracing is not always art but it CAN be art.
> Also, Art is something that inspires me to do something better.
> I would not class anything I've done yet as art.
>
> as art because it captures the painters feelings when he painted it. I would
> not class work done by a 4 year old in nursery school as art because it doesn't
> capture the painters feelings.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Humphries
> E-mail: andrew.h...@ndirect.co.uk
> WWW: http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~andrew.humphries/rays/RAYWELCO.HTM
> Favourite quote: "If at first you don't succed, cheat"
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that I must now step in and make my "feelings" known.
In my experience, I do not believe that you will ever find anyone who expresses
their feelings in what they draw any better than a child. At a young age, children
are as of yet unfettered by what other people feel that they should be portraying
in their drawings and paintings. A childs drawings are pure emotion. They haven't
yet learned that the reason you produce art is for other people (tongue in cheek).
A friend of mine considers herself to be an artist. She likes to buy antique
furniture and paint it in pastels. She is expressing her emotions in her work. She
considers it art. I consider it destroying a beautifully constructed hand worked
chair. Who is right? Who defines art? The creator, or the viewer?
DaVinci was a great artist, and the Mona Lisa is a great portrait. But I don't see
the artists emotions, I see the subjects emotions. A 4 year old may not be a great
artist, but in my nieces and nephews drawings, I see a great deal of their
emotions...
Rick
PCR DaveD
>>Finally, for those who made the argument that "anyone can raytrace", I
challenge them to sit down right now with a copy of POV and create some
art. Sure, they could probably put together a really nice picture of a
sphere sitting on a plane, right?<<
Shouldn't that be "Mirrored Sphere floating above a checkered plne?"
Parallax
Or even better, "Mirrored Sphere stuck 3/4 of the way into a checkered
plane"
PCR DaveD
>Or even better, "Mirrored Sphere stuck 3/4 of the way into a checkered
plane"<
Wow, you can do that?
Matthew Resmer
PCR DaveD wrote:
>
> >>Finally, for those who made the argument that "anyone can raytrace", I
> challenge them to sit down right now with a copy of POV and create some
> art. Sure, they could probably put together a really nice picture of a
> sphere sitting on a plane, right?<<
>
> Shouldn't that be "Mirrored Sphere floating above a checkered plne?"
Phhhht ... write your own raytracer ... put some "you-ness" in it and
then generate some interesting images ...
Matt