TITLE: fortneal NAME: Neal Delfeld EMAIL: delfeld@mailcity.com TOPIC: Fortress COPYRIGHT: I SUBMIT TO THE STANDARD RAYTRACING COMPETITION COPYRIGHT. JPGFILE: fortneal.jpg RENDERER USED: MegaPov 0.5a TOOLS USED: Paint Shop Pro 4 RENDER TIME: ~15 minutes HARDWARE USED: AMD 350, 64mb ram, Gloria Synergy (Permedia 2 based) graphic card (8mb), IMAGE DESCRIPTION: (The definitions and origins (roots) of the words are provided at the end of this text file.) I often enjoy my own pictures, since I understand where they come from, and why (for the most part). At times, it is difficult to convince others to like them, since there is no universal point of reference. Each person subjectively nourishes her or his own viewpoint. Postmodernism initially responds well to this problem of communication. It makes the claim that subjective understanding is the only viewpoint we have, and that subjective viewpoints are chance occurences of 'threads' - thoughts, matter, or anything in time and space that randomly appears and disappears. Universal concepts (such as truth, judgement, art) are simply similar appearances found in two or more subjective manifestations. (The incongruity of postmodernism holding to its own ideas does not change the possibility that it could be right.) In an art form where the thinking is non-linear, such as painting and 3D stills, it is not as inflammatory to declare, "there is no universal interpretation" as it is in a more structured medium, such as writing. Non-linear thinking is closer to postmodernism. . . a visual artist is subjectively exploring and creating more rules than a writer (though this is questionable with modern writing, especially poetry). Since there is no necessary structure for images, the question can be asked, "What are the criteria that define whether I (as viewer and judge) should or should not _like_ a work of art?" This is where postmodernism sits and refuses to be dismissed, regardless of its other faults. It asks, "Is my subjective viewpoint equivalent to the author's? How can I know?" It seems true that we all seek a consistent and coherent grounding for understanding and judgement of art which still allows active thinking (exploration). The rating categories of the IRTC attempt to create such a grounding. Currently, the categories are 'Artistic', 'Technical', and 'Concept, Originality, and Interpretation of Theme'; despite honest and thoughtful intentions, they fail to summarize a judgement of images. It necessary to look at the categories a little closer to see why this is true. The 'Technical' rating is concerned with the judge's knowledge of a medium, and claims that knowledge affects judgement. This rating is the most sound, since the viewer is asked to consider what the person knows about 3D and how they explore what they know. It does not clarify whether this should be a technical limit (such as knowledge of features in a program) or a creative limit, but it is ok to leave that open. The catch-all rating of 'Concept, Originality, and Interpretation of Theme' is concerned with how the image relates to the competition's current theme. The idea of 'Originality' is stuck in the middle, and strives to thrive despite its akward placement. . . since when is originality only thematic? The most difficult category is 'Artistic', and is the origin of this essay. This assumes that a judge both knows what art _is_, and is capable of judging fairly. Since this role is given without an exam, postmodernism is right to dispute this power. I do think there are universal approaches to judging, at least in theory. The 'Technical' category needs to be broadened, since there are formal qualities within art beyond 3D ray-tracing that can be contemplated. Some forms are categories of 2-dimensional art: color, line and space, pixels; some forms cover different mediums (writing, music, etc.): symbols, composition, rythym. Theory is also a formal quality; it describes either a genre of art, or explains all art. Since there is an extensive list of formal qualities, it does take some time to learn the current divisions. It also takes a while to determine whether or not someone is using a specific form in the work, and then contemplate how well that form is used. To choose (or invent) and explore one's own reasons to create is autonomy. This comes through in all art; so it can be used a basis for judgement. Formalist critique is unable to become a universal judgement, since the ability of an artist to think independently of the forms would have to be rejected. If judging in a postmodern bent, the artist would have to be seen rejecting any formal or technical ideas. It is necessary to recognize that a person's work is not identical to the person, and may be completely foreign to an artist's or viewer's mentality; but a person thought about and explored the possibilities for his or her self, and the result is the image. Thinking _with_ the artist, then, is a universal way of judging. Hopefully, this essay will help you with judging the IRTC image, or viewing in general. But if not, please let me know what you think! DESCRIPTION OF HOW THIS IMAGE WAS CREATED: I was doodling! I see the topic 'Fortress' as rather ridiculous. I do not like the idea of war defining the consruction of a place to live, and I dislike imagery based on war. I started designing an empty space with four pillars, and discovered MegaPov's extruded sphere feature that made this shape. I thought I might make it into a flame, but stopped when liked the look of it. I grumbled about the idea of 'fortress' some more, and thought of the skin being a fortress, which is rathre silly. It contains some stuff and keeps other stuff out, but is not impervious, nor tries to be. It is a seive for various chemicals (like nicotine patches) as well as for sensations. So I explored the roots of the word "epidermal" and came across the word "epic", which I liked the look and sound of. So I put it in. "Pretext" was part of the search after epic. "Fascia" was a mistake. I meant to add "pericardium". And I thought that I had better add the idea of imitating a 'fortress' without accuracy, so "semblance". I added the 'river' because it needed something there. I arranged them pleasantly, which means that they imitate the shape of the blobby thing. The ground was added early on. . . I thought it looked like snow covered ice on a lake, and the imagery stuck. I clipped it to the image that I liked, re-rendered, then added a border in Paint Shop Pro. Definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary: sem_blance (s_m_bl_ns) n. 1. An outward or token appearance. . . . 2. A representation; a copy. 3. The barest trace; a modicum. Root: sem-1. One; also adverbially _as one,_ together with. . . . IV. Zero-grade form *s_-. . . . 4. Suffixed form *s_m-alo-. . . from Latin similis, of the same kind, like. fas_ci_a (f_sh__-_) n. . . . 1. Anatomy. A sheet or band of fibrous connective tissue enveloping, separating, or binding together muscles, organs, and other soft structures of the body. 2. A broad and distinct band of color. 3. (also f__sh_-_) Architecture. A flat horizontal band or member between moldings, especially in a classical entablature. 4. (f__sh_) Chiefly British. The dashboard of a motor vehicle. Root: Latin, band. pre_text (pr__t_kst_) n. 1. An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse. 2. An effort or a strategy intended to conceal something. Root: teks-. To weave; also to fabricate, especially with an ax; also to make wicker or wattle fabric for (mud-covered) house walls. 1. . . from Latin texere, to weave, fabricate. ep_ic (_p__k) n. 1. An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero. Root: wekw-. To speak. . . . 3. Suffixed form *wekw-es-. . . from Greek epos, song, word. Pokorny _ek_- 1135. skin (sk_n) n. 1. The membranous tissue forming the external covering or integument of an animal and consisting in vertebrates of the epidermis and dermis. Root: sek-. To cut. . . . 5. Extended root *skend-, to peel off, flay. . . from Old Norse skinn, skin, from Germanic *skinth-.