[Radthorne]

I think as long someone isn't selling the images, I'm fine with that. I appreciate that people like the art enough to want to wear it around! I am working on getting a CafePress store set up to market prints and t-shirts, in case there is enough interest from people to want to buy 'em. I have a test printing going on right now to evaluate the quality of their prints.

Good idea on the leaves; one or two on the table with the vase would be an excellent addition. I'll do that!

[Dazzlinkat]

This is a much better pic. I like it!

[Hereford Eye]

I, too, like this picture save for two niggling carps:
(1) The vases remain mismatched and I think she has too much class to decorate her rooms in that manner; and
(2) the crown of the vase on the left has too friggin' much detail for that style pottery. It's as if the potter was a schizo teenager condemned to repeating the patterns of the ancestors but rebelliousness enough to add mod bits and pieces whether the world likes it or not. The trouble is, the young potter has no sense of balance: that crown clashes with the vase proper.

[BrianC]

Hmm, Barbara Bova, her's was one of the 'polite declinations' I've received. I agree that it makes little sense for programming to put someone on a panel with the opinion that the panel is essentially worthless. But then, con programming folks have been getting a collective earful lately.

On the oriental picture: I like it, but the pattern on the shutter behind the woman's hand seems to clutter up that portion of the image..

[KatG]

Well she's widely respected. Which of course sort of made it all the more funny.

I'm not against people having opposing opinions on a panel, by any means. It just seems odd to have a panel to say discuss The Future of X and then the leading panel member announces that X has no future. Whether the person thinks that or not, quite clearly people are playing around with X and finding it interesting, which is why they had the panel in the first place. So maybe the people who are actually interested in the subject should be the ones on the panel.

But I imagine it's very difficult for con programmers to figure out who that is on the fly, and the need to have name people on panels to attract attendees obviously, so these things happen. But it sort of ends up shooting themselves in the foot. Especially, ahem, when other people on the panel don't speak up. :)

I guess it is the way art goes, isn't it. There's always that resistance to the new. Why is Mark Ferrari working with graphics software if he doesn't like it, is an interesting topic.

[Radthorne]

I should clarify that Mark is not against digital tools per se. The title of the panel was "How is Digital Art Produced?" This encompasses a great many 2D tools like Photoshop, as well as hardware devices like graphics tablets. In fact, much of the discussion (and the audience interest) was for such tools. Mark uses such tools extensively, noting that among other things the professional market for published artwork pretty much demands digital submissions these days rather than original art. And, as Mark noted, artists such as Todd Lockwood, who works extensively in the digital medium, produces outstanding work that mimics tradtional techniques quite faithfully.

Having said that, I believe Mark is primarily a digital tool user by default, in part due to an accident a few years back that has prevented him from using his preferred tool of the colored pencil, and due to the market forces noted above. His main concern is with regard to the 3D realm of things. He is currently working for a software gaming company, utilizing a high-end package called Maya. His frustration, it seems to me, stems from two things: one is that even with a high end package it is very difficult to replicate light realistically; and secondly, in his present capacity with the gaming company, he has to "dumb down" his creations in order to fit the limitations of the gaming platform, which cannot support detailed renderings of the type like my Asian lady above. His former complaint, from an artistic point of view, is valid; the latter issue is, I think, simply his own circumstance of having to create game art that does not permit him to use his full range of talents. These have combined to give him a very negative view of the 3D "space" if you will.

And Kat, you're right about the way panels are put together. The volunteer organizers have to balance potential topics with available pros to serve on the panels; in this case, being a small con, they had at least two artists with specific digital experience (me and Mark), plus a third who (like many artists today) at least makes use of things such as Photoshop and graphics tablets as an integral part of their work. So it certainly made sense for Mark to be there, and he certainly is more than entitled to voice his views on all aspects of the subject. Given my experience and background in all this relative to his, I just didn't see any gain to be had by trying to publically debate him on the relative merits of 3D art. I prefer to let me own work speak, as it does here; on my website; in the con art shows; and places like The Zone's site, newsletter covers, and people's t-shirts. :) Certainly I am continuing to develop all the time, and it does seem that enough folks rather like what I'm doing for me to keep at it and keep improving. So while his comments were a bit of a downer, they haven't dissuaded me from carrying on or wanting to encourage others out there to try their hand at doing this as well.

[KatG]

Interesting. There are so many tools out there, now, I imagine, but everything still developing. So a discussion of which tools are working and which aren't so well was probably very helpful to the audience.

Now, make me a picture that will cheer up a sick kid. :)

[Radthorne]

Well, I tried, but unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment; and the computer where I'm at is a real dog. It won't run Studio, and barely runs Bryce. I tried to make a Bryce picture for Jessica, but this machine just won't cut it; I can't make anything cool that doesn't take 12 hours (literally) to render. By the time I was done, Jess should (hopefully) be all better! So she'll have to make do with my good wishes for better health.

Pictures should resume by Friday, hopefully, once I'm back in my usual abode.

[Dazzlinkat]

KatG, hope your enduring the emptying of buckets and delivering of fluids.

Rad, maybe you need a more powerful traveling computer? It would also look cool if you could have a work in progress picture during the slower moments.

[Radthorne]

Rad, maybe you need a more powerful traveling computer? It would also look cool if you could have a work in progress picture during the slower moments.
Actually, this is somewhat of a working vacation, at least with my avocational occupations. However, I've been focusing on my next book :) rather than the art while here. Unfortunately, there is less to 'show' as a result. (Clearly I've spoiled you guys with my output rate! :D )

This is not to say that my brain hasn't been percolating with interesting picture ideas, which should hopefully sprout as soon as I get back...