Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!amdahl!jon
From: jon@amdahl.UUCP (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: raytracing and stuff
Message-ID: <3585@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Aug-86 13:04:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.3585
Posted: Thu Aug 28 13:04:07 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 22:39:59 EDT
References: <250@net1.UCSD.EDU>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 22

In article <250@net1.UCSD.EDU>, fritzz@net1.UCSD.EDU (john) writes:
> Anyway- now that graphics has become an art form, should we be trying to
> make it real art, or should we be content with stuff that looks pretty.
> (i know, I'm one to talk. after all, what can you do with just balls?)

    One of the essays in the SIGGRAPH Art Show booklet this year
said something like "computer graphics is obviously unsuited for
representational art". Perhaps this explains why I don't understand
or like 95+% of computer graphics ``art'' (i.e. the stuff this looks
like random numbers were driving a plotter).

    The graphics group at Caltech interacts with students from the
Pasadena Art Center College of Design on occasion; they teach industrial
design art. Sometimes when particularly horrible errors occur in our
rendering programs the ACCD students comment on how wonderful it looks.
There is an obvious and probably impassable gap between the researchers
who are trying to attain realism of form, motion, and rendering, and
the artists who have no use for it.

    -- Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    UTS Products / Amdahl Corporation
    __@/