New newsgroup - comp.art?
Marius Ibenhardt Watz
(From the DKB-L mailinglist)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 04:20:08 TUR
From: Michael James Gebis <mjg5...@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
The purpose of the group would be to discuss computer art, such as
fractals, ray-tracing, image processing, and anything else that has to
do with computer produced art. It would hopefully be an unmoderated
group. It would _NOT_ be a binaries group. In other words, a .pov file
would be appropriate, but a .gif file would not. An article pointing to
an ftp site of that .gif, however, would be perfectly in order.
I think it's a great idea to create a newsgroup for computer art,
seeing as the newsgroups currently available(alt.artcom,rec.arts.fine)
are either for conventional artists, used for art discussions
(i.e. "$1.8 million for a Rothko picture! No Way!!") or populated
by less technical people preoccupied with featurism("Fractal Painter
is so great! It's just wow! Like, total!").
I see a clear need for a newsgroup for the discussion of computer-
generated art, such as that made by William Latham, Cliff Pickover
and other artists or scientists whose work is dependent on computers.
There is little or no communication(at least publicly) between
artists in this field, especially not between those who are not
artists in residence at big bucks computer companies.
Where are the low end artists? Is there no garage computer
art? I have often felt amputated trying to work with computer
art, getting little or no feedback on my work, little communication
with others that work with related themes and being frustrated
by the lack of stimulating literature on the subject. Pickover
has been a gold mine of information and Latham and Todd's
"Evolutionary Art and Computers" has been a touchstone for me,
but I feel it's not enough. I need feedback from real(gasp!)
people that are qualified to discuss such obscure matters
as visual aestethics coupled with algorithmic efficiency.
Personally, I am a Computer Science student whose attention
is more and more diverted towards working creatively with
computer graphics. I program, I use image manipulation
software such as PhotoShop and Painter. I use POV to make
abstract 3D graphics. Recently I've been working on a project
to recreate some of Latham's methods for use with POV and
is now trying to extend them to work as a creative tool
for personal expression.
I believe that there are others out there like me who are
a bit lost, caught between the occult science of programming
and the just as inaccessible realm of art. You can engross
yourself in either of these fields, but to know both is
a difficult task. This is because computer art(especially
when algorithmically produced) is invented as we go along.
We really need a forum for serious discussions of such
matters as artistic use of fractals, what software give
good results, sharing of interesting algorithms and giving
feedback on each other's work(via the excellent OTIS project,
for example).
Various group names were proposed, but the one that seemed to be okay by
everyone was "comp.art". This would get the groups the widest
distribution.
I agree on this name. It will do as a starting point. If the
interest grows, we might be able to extend it into several
groups.
This thread originated on the DKB-L list, but I would
hate to see it end there. POV users might benefit from
having their own newsgroup, but a general computer art
group is far more important.
I will forward this message to the OTIS mailinglist and
several newsgroups. I hope the discussion will continue
and bear fruit. The OTIS list is administrated by Ed
Stastny(e...@sunsite.unc.edu) and its largest ftp site
is sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/multimedia/pictures/OTIS.
Check it out. The quality varies, but some is promising.
In fact, I'll probably be uploading some stuff there
soon.
I need you opinion.
You got it.
--
Mike Gebis m-g...@uiuc.edu Mean people suck.
Marius Watz mar...@ifi.uio.no
Bob Anderson
>I believe that there are others out there like me who are
>a bit lost, caught between the occult science of programming
>and the just as inaccessible realm of art. You can engross
>yourself in either of these fields, but to know both is
>a difficult task. This is because computer art(especially
>when algorithmically produced) is invented as we go along.
Being lost between those two poles is a blessed place.
Why do you want to make it an easy and explainable place?
Bob Anderson PairODice BBS 512.451.7117 & 4610 Supports Austin EFF, PGP
bazooka%podbo...@cs.utexas.edu Scream, Amiga, OTIS, APN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I use your work, you use my work, we use everone's work." -Kathy Acker
Iain Sinclair
>generated art, such as that made by William Latham, Cliff Pickover
>and other artists or scientists whose work is dependent on computers.
>There is little or no communication(at least publicly) between
>artists in this field, especially not between those who are not
>artists in residence at big bucks computer companies.
I'd strongly support comp.art, so long as the charter made
very, very clear that it wasn't a place for people to post
their DKB/POV input files of reflective spheres on checkerboard
planes, or another place for the endless FAQs about Pixar,
which raytracer should I write/use, "virtual reality",
"multimedia", etc.
Discussion should be about algorithms, aesthetics, exhibitions,
and new works/trends.
>I believe that there are others out there like me who are
>a bit lost, caught between the occult science of programming
>and the just as inaccessible realm of art. You can engross
>yourself in either of these fields, but to know both is
>a difficult task.
There are hundreds of people in similar situations. A real newsgroup
is long overdue.
--
Iain Sinclair axo...@socs.uts.edu.au
Adam Alpern
>very, very clear that it wasn't a place for people to post
>their DKB/POV input files of reflective spheres on checkerboard
>planes, or another place for the endless FAQs about Pixar,
>which raytracer should I write/use, "virtual reality",
>"multimedia", etc.
I agree. If people want to exchange pictures, sounds, etc..., a sub-group,
i.e. comp.art.pictures, or comp.art.sounds, should be created. We already have
groups for all the other topics mentioned above. Spillover into those topics
would needlessly clutter up the conversation.
>Discussion should be about algorithms, aesthetics, exhibitions,
>and new works/trends.
YES!!!! I have been doing work in algorithmic composition, and finding other
people to talk about it with has been difficult.
> >and the just as inaccessible realm of art. You can engross
> >yourself in either of these fields, but to know both is
> >a difficult task.
>There are hundreds of people in similar situations. A real newsgroup
>is long overdue.
I myself split my interest between computer work and music, and my heart likes
equally with both.
- Adam
a...@neural.hampshire.edu
--
* Adam Alpern a...@neural.hampshire.edu -*- *
*"The Buddha, The Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a *
* digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as He does at the top *
* of a mountain or in the petals of a flower." - Robert Pirsig *
Steven Hatch
following is what we should do next...
> :Voting
>
> After the discussion period (which is mandatory),if it's been
> determined that a new group really is desired, a name and charter are
> agreed upon, and it's been determined whether the group will be
> moderated(and by whom), a Call For Votes (CFV) shouldb e postedto
> news.announce.newgroups, along with any other groups that the original
> Request For Discussion was posted to. The CFVshould be posted (or mailed
> to the news.announce.newgroups moderator) as soon as possible after the
> discussion ends(to keep it fresh in everyone's mind).
>
> The Call for Votes should include clear instructions on how to cast a
> vote. It's important that it be clearly explained how to both vote for
> and against a group (and be of equivalentdifficulty or ease). If it's
> easier for you or your administrator, two separate addresses can be used
> to mail yes and no votes to, providing that they're on the same machine.
> Regardless of the method, everyone must have a very specific idea of how
> to get his/her vote counted.
>
> The voting period can last between 21 and 31 days,no matter what the
> preliminary results of the vote are. A vote can't be called off simply
> because 400 "no" votes have comein and only two "yes" votes. The Call
> for Votes should include the exact date that the voting period will
> end_only those votes arriving on the vote-taker's machine before this
> date can be counted.
>
> To keep awareness high,the CFV can be repeated during the vote, pro-
> vided that it gives the same clear,unbiased instructions for casting a
> vote as the original;it also has to be the same proposal as was first
> posted. The char- ter can't change in mid-vote. Also, votes that're
> posted don't count_only those that were mailed to the vote-taker can be
> tallied.
>
> Partial results should never be included;only a statement of the
> specific proposal, that a vote is in progress onit, and how to cast a
> vote. A mass acknowledgement ("Mass ACK" or "Vote ACK") is permitted;
> however, it must be presented in a way that gives no indication of which
> way a person voted. One way to avoid this is to create one large list of
> everyone who's voted, and sortit in alphabetical order. It should not be
> two sorted lists (of the yes and no votes, respectively).
>
> Every vote is autonomous. The votes for or against one group can't be
> transferred to another,similar proposal. A vote can only count for the
> exact proposal that it was a response to. In particular, a vote for or
> against a newsgroup under one name can't be counted as a vote for or
> against another group with a different name or charter, a different
> moderated/unmoderated status, or, if it's moderated, a different
> moderator or set of mo derators. Whew!
>
> Finally, the vote has to be explicit; they should be of the
> form *
> *`I vote for the group foo.bar as proposed'or `I vote against the group
> foo.bar as proposed'. The wording doesn't have to be exact,your inten-
> tion just has to be clear.
>
> :Copyright cfl1992 Brendan P. Kehoe
So, I vote, 'YES' for comp.art
--
========================================================================
- Steven D. Hatch ha...@andromeda.rutgers.edu -
- Multimedia Designer tel:908.654.7117/fax:5318 -
- The Turnaround Team, Inc. 123 South Ave, Westfield, NJ 07090 -
========================================================================
reg...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>>I'd strongly support comp.art, so long as the charter made
>>very, very clear that it wasn't a place for people to post
>>their DKB/POV input files of reflective spheres on checkerboard
>>planes, or another place for the endless FAQs about Pixar,
>>which raytracer should I write/use, "virtual reality",
>>"multimedia", etc.
>
> I agree.
Does this mean that those of us who are still trying to get to grips with how to
get the computer to do what we want, or even learn what the computer can do have
to go elsewhere? Which newsgroups cater to discussion regarding which graphics
programe/computer/printers are best/most useful.
The newsgroup that flames honest questions isn't very useful IMHO.
Darren
Marius Johnston
/(From the DKB-L mailinglist)
/Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 04:20:08 TUR
/From: Michael James Gebis <mjg5...@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
/ The purpose of the group would be to discuss computer art, such as
/fractals, ray-tracing, image processing, and anything else that has to
/do with computer produced art. It would hopefully be an unmoderated
/group. It would _NOT_ be a binaries group. In other words, a .pov file
/would be appropriate, but a .gif file would not. An article pointing to
/an ftp site of that .gif, however, would be perfectly in order.
/I think it's a great idea to create a newsgroup for computer art,
[rest deleted]
As a computer artist (in truth!) how could I not support this! :<)
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eusa 5:..in tu the hart uv the stoan hart uv the dans. Evere thing blippin +
movin in the shiftin uv thay Nos. Sum tyms bytin sum tyms bit. Riddley Walker
Marius Johnston Mar...@netcom.com
Marius Johnston
Clearly this is part of the issue, but only part in my mind. In the last
analysis it is what one does with the tools at hand, not the tools
themselves. Both need to be discussed but ART first and foremost.
Ranjit Bhatnagar
> I see a clear need for a newsgroup for the discussion of computer-
> generated art, such as that made by William Latham, Cliff Pickover
> and other artists or scientists whose work is dependent on computers.
> There is little or no communication(at least publicly) between
> artists in this field, especially not between those who are not
> artists in residence at big bucks computer companies.
Ah-hah! There do exist organizations whose very purpose is
to foster communications between people interested in art
and technology. Including alt.artcom. But I was thinking
of, for instance:
The Small Computers in the Arts Network (SCAN)
c/o Dick Moberg
PO Box 401
Ambler, PA 19002 USA
+1 215 283 0860
email: write to me (ran...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu)
YLEM: Artists Using Science and Technology
PO Box 749
Orinda, CA 94563 USA
email: bev...@idiom.berkeley.ca.us
Fourth International Symposium on Electronic Art (FISEA)
Minneapolis College of Art and Design
2501 Stevens Ave.
S. Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA
+1 612 874 3754, fax +1 612 874 3732
email: fis...@mcad.edu
Australian Network for Art and Technology
PO Box 8029
Hindley St.
Adelaide 500 AUSTRALIA
+61 8 231 9037, fax +61 8 211 7323
email: an...@peg.pegasus.oz.au
> Where are the low end artists? Is there no garage computer
> art? I have often felt amputated trying to work with computer
> art, getting little or no feedback on my work, little communication
> with others that work with related themes and being frustrated
> by the lack of stimulating literature on the subject.
Garage art? Shoestring art? You'd like the Small Computers
in the Arts Network. SCAN puts on a conference in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania every fall, and the 13th
Symposium on Small Computers in the Arts will take place
November 12th-14th. Attendance tends to run from 200-300
people, a wide mix of art students and educators,
professional artists, scientists, mad scientists, and garage
geniuses. The symposium has a friendly, informal feel, with
impromptu concerts springing up in the halls and at least as
much knowledge being exchanged over snacks and dinner as in
the scheduled events. It may not be too late to submit
proposals for presentations, concerts, or installations at
this year's symposium, and it's certainly not too late to
register to attend. The conference always includes several
nights of concerts, a small commercial exhibit, and an art
show; in recent years the art shows at Philadelphia's
University of the Arts or the Franklin Institute Science
Museum have enjoyed wide public exposure. Besides the
yearly conference, SCAN sells proceedings of the 12 previous
years: a wonderful mix of bright ideas, technical hints,
and, well, eccentric babble.
YLEM's monthly newsletter and yearly Directory of Artists
Using Science and Technology are wonderful resources. The
newsletter contains a few interesting articles, pictures of
neat stuff, and a nice long list of exhibits, conferences,
competitions, and opportunities. Even better, for those of
you in the San Francisco Bay Area, the monthly Ylem Forum
held at the Exploratorium Science Museum holds presentations
on varied and exciting themes from holography to underground
art. Ylem, like SCAN, is very encouraging to and supportive
of low budget, "under the table" work.
FISEA is, obviously, the fourth in a series. This year's
conference is being held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA,
November 3-7. I've never been to an ISEA conference, but I
hear good things about them. (See below.) I believe next
year's conference (what will they call it? FISEA II?) will
be held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
The Australian Network for Art and Technology publishes a
bi-monthly newsletter similar in content to the YLEM
newsletter, but with (naturally) a more Australian slant.
They also provide services to local artists. ANAT helped to
produce last year's Third International Symposium on
Electronic Art (TISEA), about which I reproduce the
following from their Dec 92 newsletter:
The third International Symposium on Electronic
Art was the most exciting and influential electronic
art event ever held in the country. It brought
together over 300 delegates and participants from 30
countries to demonstrate and discuss leading edge
developments in the relationship between the arts,
science, and technology.
...TISEA provided an opportunity for the global
community to gather together to present their work
and discuss its implications in a number of exhibition
contexts and critical forums. The transfer of
information and the exchange of skills made possible
by the program of courses, workshops, papers and panels
and informal meetings will have a significant effect
on the contining development of the arts, education,
telecommunicats and electronic media culture.
If I may say so, a lot of those comments apply nicely to the
SCAN symposium too....
> The OTIS list is administrated by Ed
> Stastny(e...@sunsite.unc.edu) and its largest ftp site
> is sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/multimedia/pictures/OTIS.
> Check it out. The quality varies, but some is promising.
I left this in because OTIS is yet another valuable forum
for the advancement of art and technology. Anyway, I hope
that you will get in touch with any or all of the above
organizations, and no longer feel quite so lonely as a
practicioner of electronic art.
Ranjit Bhatnagar
--
"Trespassers w" ran...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
he tells me that the american flag stands for "disruption of spirit," like
when one sees stars after a severe blow to the head
J Murdock
I agree with Adam here, a group such as comp.art would not want to be
continualy interupted by Joe random who beleives that a computer can
make up for their total lack of artistic ability. The computer allows
anyone to draw a perfect circle, this does not make anyone an artist.
Anyone asking about virtual reality is usually a nonscrot who has just
finished watching Lawnmower man, or the more literate among them has
perhaps finished a tacky SF book, or (even worse) has seen an article
in the media. There is a 50% chance that if you talk to them, they'll
then ask if it's like [drugs|sex]. I'd best stop ranting now, or I'll
demand that it be moderated as well ;)
where can you ask, you could always try crossposting to a few
comp*advocacy groups...
>The newsgroup that flames honest questions isn't very useful IMHO.
The user who asks inappropriate questions isn't worth answering, IMHO.
>Darren
--
That's all folks.
Jeff Harrington
: >I see a clear need for a newsgroup for the discussion of computer-
: >generated art, such as that made by William Latham, Cliff Pickover
: >and other artists or scientists whose work is dependent on computers.
: >There is little or no communication(at least publicly) between
: >artists in this field, especially not between those who are not
: >artists in residence at big bucks computer companies.
This certainly sounds appropriate and much needed - but I would recommend
another name. Take a look at what's happened to comp.music. There are
endless discussions about how to get a band started - what sequencers work
with what computers - who's playing and where. If you like music and own a
computer people post there.
I would recommend a more focussed name - rec.arts.fine.computer - something
which could filter out the non-computer generated art discussions more
effectively. If you call it comp.art - you'll just have another rec.arts.fine
with endless Rothko discussions - what brand of paint to use - on and on.
Any names alright with me - but be forewarned :).
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV (*) Zappin' CBS Evening News (*)
(*) idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org (*) Since 1983! (*)
(*)(*)For more info ftp quartz.rutgers.edu /pub/subgenius/Ideal-Order(*)(*)
Tom Duff
>continualy interupted by Joe random who beleives that a computer can
>make up for their total lack of artistic ability. The computer allows
>anyone to draw a perfect circle, this does not make anyone an artist.
Everybody is an artist at birth, as anyone whose self-image has not
withered can tell you. The idea that whatever skills you think you've
developed or can recognize distinguish the true artist from `Joe random'
is highly offensive. I will support the creation of comp.art only if
you promise to keep this sort of fetid offal there and not in newsgroups
that I read.
Adam Alpern
>Everybody is an artist at birth, as anyone whose self-image has not
>withered can tell you. The idea that whatever skills you think you've
>developed or can recognize distinguish the true artist from `Joe random'
>is highly offensive. I will support the creation of comp.art only if
>you promise to keep this sort of fetid offal there and not in newsgroups
>that I read.
The point behind trying to limit what goes on on comp.art is that we already
*have* newsgroups devoted to learning how to use programs and create images.
There *isn't* anything like a comp.art out there right now. The one attempt,
comp.music, has become mostly a hardware and sequencer discussion.
Keep your fetid offal to your self.
-Adam
shih liang lei
Let's not go overboard yourself, sir. I will keep this short, since this
matter has little to do w/ this this group. I'll only say that you may have
your definition of what art is, but others may not agree w/ you. This does
not mean that art has no objective elements, nor that everyone is an artist
( or any other conclusions drawn by either side ). Highly offensive? I get
offended when programmers, engineers, or whomever other "technical" people
proclaim how the world cannot turn w/o them. "Everyone is born an artist,
a scientist, or whomever else," I'll paraphrase. Hey, sure, everyone has
creativity from birth, just like everyone has a left and right brain from
birth ... Does this mean everyone is an Einstein?
Give artists a little more respect, and perhaps they'll respect you dull
technical people a little more.
BTW, in supporting the idea of artistic ability, I'm not limiting myself to
drawing or painting draftsmanship ... there are other factors, many in number
but not so many that necessitates calling everyone an artist.
Tom Duff
>In article <26...@alice.att.com> t...@alice.att.com (Tom Duff) writes:
This poster could not be more wrong. Every statement in this posting is
either counterfactual or leads to the opposite conclusion to that drawn
by the poster. I will paraphrase and rebut, sentence by sentence:
1) Others may not agree with my definition of art.
This is true. The post I was replying to suggested
(read the quote!) censoring people because they don't
agree with his idea of art. I opposed this fetid idea.
2) Art has objective elements.
This is objectively false!! The whole history of art
in the 19th and 20th century points at this. How can anybody
say this after Duchamp hung a urinal on a gallery wall?
3) Contrary to me, everyone is not an artist.
This misquotes me. Everyone IS an artist AT BIRTH!
It is extremely difficult to find a 4-year-old child
that does not exhibit an artistic sensibility and
produce moving and vibrant works on a par with the
world's best easel painters. (Picasso spent most of
his adult life trying to regain this innate ability.
He didn't do that just so vulgarians could tell him
``My four-year-old can do better than that,'' he did
it because he recognized the intrinsic worth of their
art.) Children have this ability systematically educated
out of them by people whose attitude parallels that of
elitists like the two poster's whose positions I oppose.
4) I am just a techno, and therefore my opinion on matters of
art has no value.
This is just plain wrong, on two counts.
First of all, I am not just a techno. I find discussing
my credentials offensive, but you have forced me. I am
not just an artist, but a professional. I have done book
and magazine covers and illustration for popular mass-market
magazines and technical journals. I have done animation
for several feature films, done textile design and have been
exhibited by art galleries for twenty years. In addition,
I have done technical work, and published extensively. Two
of my early computer graphics papers are still widely cited,
more than ten years after their publication; the ideas described
in them are widely implemented in commercial high-end computer
graphics hardware and software.
Secondly, even if I were a no-neck bit-jockey, as you implied,
my opinion on matters of art carries as much weight as yours:
Chacun a son gout.
5) I should have more respect for artists.
I attacked no artist. I attacked people who deny artistic
credentials to people that manifestly have them. You are
the ones that have no respect for artists, possibly because
your lack of self-esteem will not allow others any success
in comparison with which your's might pale.
6) There are many criteria for artistic ability, but artists are
still an elite group.
I've already said what I think of this idea. This sort of
elitism is normative, stultifying and anti-art. Anybody
who makes a serious study of art must come to the conclusion
that art is where you find it. The idea that the academy
(that's you, Chucko!) can determine artistic merit is
ludicrous -- an elite can only impose its prejudices on
the great majority of people that cower before expertese.
Unfortunately for you, I know too many experts to be fooled
by one.
I cannot afford to waste any more time on this debate. This message
will serve as my rebuttal to all future opposing arguments. You can
fill in the details for yourself. I reiterate: I will support the
creation of comp.art only if you promise to keep your elitist bullshit
out of MY NEWSGROUPS!
Marius Johnston
: I cannot afford to waste any more time on this debate. This message
: will serve as my rebuttal to all future opposing arguments. You can
: fill in the details for yourself. I reiterate: I will support the
: creation of comp.art only if you promise to keep your elitist bullshit
: out of MY NEWSGROUPS!
Your elitism amazes me!
Unfortunately your exclusionary "democratic" notions of art have no foundation
(how could they!). You offer little more than "art is everything". Consider
the word "aesthetics"......and don't trip :<}
D U D L E Y
>I agree with Adam here, a group such as comp.art would not want to be
>continualy interupted by Joe random who beleives that a computer can
>make up for their total lack of artistic ability. The computer allows
>anyone to draw a perfect circle, this does not make anyone an artist.
How very shallow. If someone finds drawing a perfect circle on a
computer to respresent something expressive to them, then by golly I'm
not gonna rain on their parade just because I don't feel the same.
If you're going to discuss appropriateness and 'junk' or noise, then
think before you speak. Talking about a device/machine/software
dependant applications might qualify as inappropriate since their are
newsgroups tailored for that. However, if the techniques or ideas apply
to the rest of us, then I'm all ears. Flame wars on the interpretation
of what art has no place in this group. If you want to express an
opinion, the state it as such "my opinion on this" and recognize
other's rights to feel the way they do.
If you haven't learned how to skip a bad article thread by now, then I
pity you. If however you just like to jump on the bandwagon and
complain, then at least be original so we can get some amusement out
of it.
>Anyone asking about virtual reality is usually a nonscrot who has just
>finished watching Lawnmower man, or the more literate among them has
>perhaps finished a tacky SF book, or (even worse) has seen an article
>in the media. There is a 50% chance that if you talk to them, they'll
>then ask if it's like [drugs|sex]. I'd best stop ranting now, or I'll
>demand that it be moderated as well ;)
If you don't consider virtual reality or multimedia to be a serious
contender in computer art, you are as ignorant as the nonscrot you
described. I will grant that the media has given an often one-sided,
tacky view of VR, but some of us are capable of arriving at opinions
aside from what the media feeds us.
If you are critzing the curiosity of someone who has just been exposed
to something via the media, I hope you never have to learn about
something that is innovative to you. If they don't appear to be serious
about it, or have a misguided notion, you may choose to ignore them or
correct them.
Moderation does have it's advantages (elimination of duplicate posts,
redirection to more appropriate groups, etc) along with it's
disadvantages (increased turnaround time, more overhead to news admins,
etc). I think the greatest disadvantage of moderation is the fact that
one person has control over what he feels is appropriate. In the wrong
hands cencorship in the name of noise reduction can lead to a mentality
that may govern the future of the way we communicate.
>>The newsgroup that flames honest questions isn't very useful IMHO.
>The user who asks inappropriate questions isn't worth answering, IMHO.
The mind you save may be your own.
--
J "Dudley" Hunkins
PGP info available through finger or email dud...@cis.ksu.edu
Michael James Gebis
has been proposed...it fits in better to the current hierarchy. And no,
this does not mean that the focus must be on graphics first and then
artistry second. The group is what the readers make it.
Now, about the thread on moderation: The definition of art is not
easy to come by. In fact, if there is anything in the world that's
purely based on opinion, it would be art. I would hate to impose the
opinions of the moderator upon the masses. I realize that there are
lots of good reasons for moderation...any group that's bound to be a
flame fest might be better of with moderation, or any group that's
strict in the content of its messages. I hope that
comp.graphics.artistry won't be either of these.
Maybe that's a mistake on my part. I've seen some groups that have been
moderated very well, but also seen groups that have terrible moderators
that ruin the group. Art's a touchy subject, and it would be hard to
find a moderator who would satisfy everyone's needs.
Vote yes on comp.graphics.artistry!
Yung-Chung M Su
Hi, How are you? I have a question about reading image files: because I am doing a image compression programs and need to read the TIFF files.
I want to read a .tiff file, I may use some utilities to convert it into the binary format. I also know in the beginning of each tiff file there is a header which with many fields to hold the image information, like image length, width, compression? strips, number of colors... and the image data. I just see a lot of binary number and can't tell which value for the image length, which for the first pixel... Where can I get the information for that and how to do it? Thanks for your attention.