How Does Your SL Look Today?

[Sid Nagy]

7 hours ago, Bagnu said:

I remember my art "professor" at U of T saying that it can take years to be able to make art look like stuff made in kindergarten. We got along well, but we had a few disagreements on the concept of art.   

I think kindergarten art stuff should be left in kindergarten. 

When I worked in a small hamlet at a really tiny school for a few years, there lived a painter on the other side of the street who made mainly huge paintings, with human figures straight out of kindergarten. His works can be seen in a few museums, corporate buildings and at well established galleries.

It made him enough income to have a very nice house for him and his family, with a huge workspace and a lovely garden. His main daily occupation was strolling through the neighborhood, work in his garden, talk with everybody who passed by.

He invited me over once to his house and workspace, to show me his art.
In the living room there where paintings from him showing his wife and two sons.
The guy could really paint very realistic. I guess your professor was right, it takes skills to make stuff looking like it is made in kindergarten.
 

Edited January 15 by Sid Nagy

[Sid Nagy]

21 hours ago, Bagnu said:

LOL, I like it!!!

Come and get it. The eyesore stands right in my sight when I'm on my balcony.
No charge as far as I'm concerned.
Bring a crane.

It is made by a now established artist BTW.  This early work is not in his online catalogue though.
So I guess he doesn't seem to find it a real masterpiece from him either.
I must say he made far better than this eh.. thing  I have to look at on a daily basis.

The title of the work is "Rain Catcher."
Which it does.

Edited January 15 by Sid Nagy

[2Tessa]

Edited January 15 by 2Tessa

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

The guy could really paint very realistic. I guess your professor was right, it takes skills to make stuff looking like it is made in kindergarten.

Yes, usually, I think.

If you are going to "break the rules" -- for instance, by painting like a kindergarten kid, or producing abstracts -- you need first to have mastered the rules. If you haven't, then "breaking" them won't be meaningful: it will be the result of incompetence rather than design. And people who break the rules are always (or should be) doing so deliberately and with the intent of creating a particular effect that is only, generally, evident in the context of work that is more conventional. Cubism, for instance, really only makes sense when you consider how it departs from realism.

I think defining art is a mug's game, and it's usually associated with some form of elitism as well: so-and-so is a "real" artist because their work corresponds with my ideas of what art should look like. In most forms of aesthetic criticism -- visual art, literary criticism, dance criticism, music, etc., the last 60 or more years has seen an understanding that the basic methods of criticism and interpretation can be applied to nearly any form of expression, including "popular" art, and produce insights about the art, the artist, and the culture that has produced both. That doesn't mean that the Twilight books are as important, or meaningful, or as interesting as To the Lighthouse, but it does recognize that they are both attempts to communicate meaning to us. And a whole lot more people have read the Twilight books than have dipped into To the Lighthouse, after all.

I generally resist calling my own stuff here "art." That's only partially modesty or insecurity: I also just don't think it's a very useful category. I prefer to talk about my medium, which is less subjective. I create digital photographs that I hope are visually appealing and "interesting." That's more important to me than whether they correspond to some random person's notion of "art."

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

32 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I generally resist calling my own stuff here "art." That's only partially modesty or insecurity: I also just don't think it's a very useful category. I prefer to talk about my medium, which is less subjective. I create digital photographs that I hope are visually appealing and "interesting." That's more important to me than whether they correspond to some random person's notion of "art."

My views of what I consider art have evolved over time.  For years I didn't consider photography art.  It was capturing something, not creating something. 

I now consider whether I think someone put thought into something.  Is there is intent behind a creation or capture?  Is there something someone is trying to get across to me?  A message? A statement? An emotion?  Is there effort put into the creation beyond clicking a button?

Using my new view of "art", I can confidently state that I believe your digital photographs taken in SL are, in fact, art.  You check nearly every box.

So, there.

Now I want to get inworld myself and put some thought into what I want to portray in a photo and how I want to do it.  Maybe I'll start with simple "emotions"

Today, my SL will look like digital photography.

[Bagnu]

I ran a test to see if a mirror will reflect projectors. Cat's mirror shows the light source, but the light isn't reflected into the room by the mirror.

[Bagnu]

1 hour ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said:

My views of what I consider art have evolved over time.  For years I didn't consider photography art.  It was capturing something, not creating something. 

I now consider whether I think someone put thought into something.  Is there is intent behind a creation or capture?  Is there something someone is trying to get across to me?  A message? A statement? An emotion?  Is there effort put into the creation beyond clicking a button?

You and I have taken a lot of pics together. Some of it was capturing, and some of it was creating. Photography can involve both. Our posed pics involved a lot of time and effort, and creativity. Even the one I "captured" of us dancing at Hipiestock took me an hour from start to finish. That involved both capturing AND creating.

Edited January 15 by Bagnu

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

9 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

You and I have taken a lot of pics together. Some of it was capturing, and some of it was creating. Photography can involve both. Our posed pics involved a lot of time and effort. Even the one I "captured" of us dancing at Hipiestock took me an hour from start to finish. That involved both capturing AND creating.

We may disagree on what art is, but I still enjoy your photos of life in SL.  I took a little time with my Hippiestock photos too, but using my own definition,  they're not art.  There was no intent or thought, no deep meaning.  They were just candid pics of people I know at a fun event that I wanted to share.  I cropped, I adjusted lighting, and even added a filter, but they are not art by my personal definition. 

The pics are simply "How does your SL look like today?"  More informative than creative. 

[Bagnu]

25 minutes ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said:

We may disagree on what art is, but I still enjoy your photos of life in SL.  I took a little time with my Hippiestock photos too, but using my own definition,  they're not art.  There was no intent or thought, no deep meaning.  They were just candid pics of people I know at a fun event that I wanted to share.  I cropped, I adjusted lighting, and even added a filter, but they are not art by my personal definition. 

The pics are simply "How does your SL look like today?"  More informative than creative. 

Not every photo or even drawing is art. Your Hippiestock pics weren't meant to be creative. You were acting as a reporter. I wouldn't classify my pics of Hippiestock as art, but I DID have to put creative effort into the final products. I combined a psychedelic filter with the "Jimi Hendrix" shot, and I had to create the smoke coming from your joint, as well as try a number of filters on both pics, and use multiple layers. No, it's not art, but it's more than just capturing an image. You had to put creative effort into yours too.

Really though, what IS the definition of art? I don't personally have one.

Edited January 16 by Bagnu

[Bagnu]

Pbr works well with glass surfaces set on maximum shininess. No probe needed. There is a probe in the mirror though.

Edited January 16 by Bagnu

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

2 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Pbr works well with glass surfaces set on maximum shininess. No probe needed. There is a probe in the mirror though.

What laws of physics are broken if you face 2 PBR mirrors towards each other and their probes intermingle?

[Bagnu]

10 minutes ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said:

What laws of physics are broken if you face 2 PBR mirrors towards each other and their probes intermingle?

it seems to show the next room.

[arton Rotaru]

14 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Pbr works well with glass surfaces set on maximum shininess. No probe needed. There is a probe in the mirror though.

You really want to set up a probe for each room, though. Otherwise what is reflected is the sky and everything from outside.

[Bagnu]

4 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

You really want to set up a probe for each room, though. Otherwise what is reflected is the sky and everything from outside.

I have. I was just trying what Cinny suggested to see what would happen, but that's not this pic.. There is a probe in the bathroom, and one in the bedroom.

Edited January 16 by Bagnu

[Luna Bliss]

Angel getting ready for take-off      

[Luna Bliss]

[MoiraKathleen]

Finally turned on signatures so I could get important links, and ventured out from my home today...

wonderful exhibit @Scylla Rhiadra

[Sid Nagy]

12 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Angel getting ready for take-off      

What a gorgeous outfit.

[Sid Nagy]

I had enough of my house underneath my platform, so I took it down.
Now I live here, until I will find a nice one to replace the old house on my forest parcel.

 

Edited January 16 by Sid Nagy

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Sid Nagy said:

I had enough of my house underneath my platform, so I took it down.
Now I live here, until I found a nice one to replace the old house in my forest parcel.

 

haha...my alt just rented a lovely campground spot.  And wish I was on the road in RL, enjoying the fire in a forest campground. I really must go on vacation this summer.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

I had enough of my house underneath my platform, so I took it down.
Now I live here, until I will find a nice one to replace the old house in my forest parcel.

 

In your country, is that more of a "camper", an "RV", or a "caravan"?

 

[Sid Nagy]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

In your country, is that more of a "camper", an "RV", or a "caravan"?

 

When one moves it with their own car it is called a caravan.

This is named a camper in NL. A large one sometimes motor home.
RV is not used as a name over here. I had to look that one up.

 

Edited January 16 by Sid Nagy

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

When one moves it with their own car it is called a caravan.

This is named a camper in NL. A large one sometimes motor home.

Slightly different that the US usages!

- RV ("Recreational Vehicle) is generally a "larger" vehicle where the motor/driving portion is permanently attached to the living portion

- Camper is generally "towed" behind a vehicle

- Caravan is really a "group" of travelers. (Although there is a vehicle created by Dodge named "Caravan".)

I figured it would be different!

 

[Sid Nagy]

55 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

haha...my alt just rented a lovely campground spot.  And wish I was on the road in RL, enjoying the fire in a forest campground. I really must go on vacation this summer.

Relaxing in SL can be a good substitute for a RL vacation IMHO. I haven't been on a RL vacation for three years now.
But I'm thinking of going to the Black Forest, Alsace in France or Switzerland this summer, because SL is never totally the same as RL (the weather conditions are far more predictable though).

[Bagnu]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:59 PM, Istelathis said:

This is what really confuses me, because I can use the viewer's snapshot tool in 9142 and capture pictures with my reflection in them now.  The only time it doesn't capture my reflection is when dynamic is not selected.  

Things like this, where I was playing around with hollow sphere mirrors, and found it funny that I was being reflected while inside of the sphere  and my camera was outside of it🙃  I think it is because I had the probe extended beyond the sphere itself.

Upside down me inside of that sphere, and a light source that I created out of it to play around with shadows.

I'm losing my head over this!  😜 This is what happens when I go into mouselook and have the show avatar option selected in preferences, otherwise I vanish entirely.  I know the reason behind it, but for some reason these all amused me. I wonder if LL will fix this in their viewer, I kind of hope they don't because bugs in games have always amused me.

I was hoping that I would have had a light reflected back on me here, but light doesn't reflect off surfaces as far as I can tell.  Shadows do though.  

I hope that LL is not removing this because I do like to capture reflections easily, perhaps a bit too much at times, well I mean this is a new toy and eventually I will find something else to get excited about.  Still it is nice to just take a snapshot in the viewer without all of the extra steps involved with creating a picture with reflections of my avatar in them. 

Sorry, I just realized I repeated your experiment in my later post. Yours are more comprehensive than my single experiment with Cailtin's mirror.