but where does it come from? Did they themselves actually construct an original idea? ..or let a machine do it for them? ... and how fair is that if the machine did? i guess i may be alone in thinking that it takes no effort.. and effort matters to me. The amount of effort i put into my work far exceeds that of a simple render. I devise a flow first, then a color sheme, then piece together elements from various media, blend them as seemlessly as possible. Sometimes i can work on a piece for months.. weeks.. days.. even hours... but 2 minutes is what it takes to render something in Apophysis... how is that original and creative?
[Message Edited]

I more than often am less impressed by any manufactured, artificialy rendered "whosits" & "whatsits." How many blue, red, green, brown blobs do you have to wade through to get to some genuine art? Iremember a long time ago it was Balls connected singular and in many forms, then there was alien looking tech, alien swooshes, pseudo tribal icons in the middle of the screen, Portals, Kanji, just about every wave has been run out. No matter how good, you are in Bryce, everyone can tell it was done in Bryce. Face it the field is diminishing, of good work and really good software Dev as well. Any company that made cool software five years ago is gone, and the bones of thier software is twisting in a grave somewheres'. I hate to say it, but the more the PC is a boon to the true graphic artist, it is also the boon to many a would be hack as well. You can not derive talent, and vision from software alone, and what is missing from 99.9% of all these whosits' and whatsits, is talent and vision. welcome to the point and click equivalent of paint by numbers.

Personally I like that there are different levels - it makes it sort of like getting my photo's back from the chemist - going through loads to find the one gem that made the roll worthwhile. Sort of like treasure hunting.

I'm also sort of struck by the concept of 'sniffiness' in art - artists have frequently fallen back on cheats, technology and guile.

"Over 100 years of speculation and controversy surround claims that the great seventeenth-century Dutch artist, Johannes Vermeer, used the camera obscura to create some of the most famous images in Western art.

This intellectual detective story starts by exploring Vermeer's possible knowledge of seventeenth-century optical science, and outlines the history of this early version of the photographic camera, which projected an accurate image for artists to trace. However, it is Steadman's meticulous reconstruction of the artist's studio, complete with a camera obscura, which provides exciting new evidence to support the view that Vermeer did indeed use the camera.

These findings do not challenge Vermeer's genius but show how, like many artists, he experimented with new technology to develop his style and choice of subject matter."

Oh, I agree 100% queenendorf. A few more of those and we'll probably have to stop accepting them. It was nicec when it was different, but if it starts to be a new trend of "push a button and let the computer do the work" kind of walls, we'll adjust our criterias accordingly.

There's some comfort then... thanks paxx and Wreckless Eric.