doubting about where we are going

[Guest olivier]

Dear All,

 

I am now doubting about where we are going...

I want to talk about the state of, what everybody calls, "CG Art". An maybe the word of "Art Gallery" is not really appropriate, is it really Art ? maybe it's allready, or it will be.

 

Now, we are participating to the growing adventure of GI rendering and radiosity on our tiny machine. But, on all the visible production that you see in some "web gallery", GI rendering is comparable to Airbrush technic for painting Art. It is all about re-creation of what eyes see or imagine, when it's not a copy of photography ( as Airbrush technics ). But the computer approach allows us to visualize complexity, "mathematical complexity". Things which are almost impossible to draw on the canvas. This is a step further. We are able to create impossible citys or landscape, geometry, like Escher did at his time, with a touch of "reality".

 

The aim of all the softwares we are using is to separate the "reality" in different layers, such as shadows, reflections, caustics, DOF, ...etc. And all these layers are similar copies of how we could divide our reality, the one we have in our eyes. This is the most logical way to approach reality. The image produced are more and more "realistic" and in few years by just pressing "Render" you will take a photo at 1/500 sec of your model. This story feels not for me like an "happy end". At the beginning they were called "new images", at the apogee they will be not so "new" ?

 

But what about inventing our own reality, or manipulating this reality. In the computer we can enter a complete model and we can simulate real light behaviour. What is the liberty which is offer ? like in painting, lot of different approachs emerge as abstract, impressionism,....

In CG, people are working in that field. Benoit Mandelbrot invented fractals objects. These images are not charming anymore. Now, these researchs are include in all softwares to reproduce real phenomena. These image are "hidden".

 

Maybe, the essentiel difference with painting is the introduction of time and mouvement. That's why CG is more and more used in cinema and video clips. And i am sure that, with the help of cinematographic art, CG can take its place. As you can see, lot of films use more and more CG but rarely fully CG. "Final Fantesy" was a try, but too "DoomLike". It is like a long Intro for a game. The main problem is time consumming and Money consumming. And at that point a lot of "CG animations" are less and less a demonstration of technic, we are on a good way.

 

So what CG in motion can bring ? Can we go further than the realistic representation ? Particularly with GI rendering, why not producing abstract images by using realistic behaviour ? Is there a way to hijack the aim of the engine or the software ? What is happening when we doing this in motion ?

 

searching and waiting.

[TAKA]

ladies and gentlemen: this way plz

 

(just preparing u for the flood i expect to have over this post)

[kid]

Something Ive been thinking about lately is the parallels and differences between the architectural photographer and the photoreal 3d artist.

 

I am very interested and take part in architectural photography and I approach my 3d art with the same mindset, but what I am at odds with is the notion of reality and abstraction. When shooting a real building the photographer may pursue the most abstract of compositions - focussing on a minute detail or the like, the freedom for abstraction is much greater for we know that no matter how abstract the resulting image may be the object from which it was taken was and is very real.

 

The 3d artist who wishes to approach his (and I'm saying his because I'm a him ) work the same way that the architectural photographer would has until recently been very limited in his use of abstraction, for if the image is not clearly distinguishable it is quickly disgarded. The mind knows it is not real so there is no mystery to unravel, there is no question "I know this is real, what is it?" Therefore the 3d artist has had to rely on easily distinguishable framing and composition to hold the viewers attention. This is very evident in advertising literature for Developers and such. The lighting and materials in the image could be the most appauling and unrealistic but with the right amount of entourage that can be forgiven, with the right amount of entourage it looks real enough (?).

 

But this situation is changing. Render engines today are now a sophisticated marriage of scientific research in the behaviours of light, and immense artistic freedom. We should therefore no longer need to rely on tried and true, clearly distinguishable delivery. We have the tools and hopefully the ability to work in the realm of the abstract and have people question "I think this is real, what is it?" and maybe soon "I know this is real, what is it?".

 

OK, enough blabber, I've gotta get to school