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-. 

