What tells a story in a picture better than any other picture? If my premise is "Every picture tells a story" and I drop a single dab of paint onto canvas then, yes, there is a story. The story of the choice I made to drop only one bit of paint to canvas, the choice to leave the rest blank, the choice of color, etc. The viewer could interpret the picture as a story of lonliness or the tragic loss of ideas. But at that point, the viewer is really telling the story not the artist. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing just a different thing. What makes the distinction between a suggestion and the telling of a specific story? ------- This occurs to me as the entries pour in for the Cover Contest and I am surprised at some of the looser interpretations of the criteria. Some have suggested that my interp was too literal, clearly I am in the minority. What are peoples thoughts on this?

IN terms of the contest I interpreted the chellenge to mean "give us a pic that someone would create a story out of" kind of a "what happened" or "what happens next". I think there are some AMAZING images enetered but very few of them convey any sense of story to my mind. In a loose sense one could create a "story" out of anything. It will be interesting to see what the judges choose.

woah...that's deep man..

Art is a participatory creative form, without the viewers participation, only the artist sees the work, as artists, for our creations to truely evolve we must include those that view our work as an integral part of it, we must evoke an emotional or visual response from the viewer, spark their imaginations, then our works of 'art' become complete....

Oh, boy! Here we go. And yet, Zhann, there is the idea that my Art is created as my own self expression. It exists because I. by my time and effort brought it from an idea into the world of form. It does not cease to be Art any more or any less if you like it or hate it. For my work to evolve it only requires that I continue to live. If by "evolve" you mean that I change my work based on the pos/neg votes by the majority then it sounds like "design by commitee". I believe that Art is a stand one takes by displaying choices, my choices. Others can vote all they want but I have no agreement with them to change my work to please anyone but myself. Now, if I want to communicate with another person, like telling a story, just for example : ) my signal must be clear enough to be understood. I paint "Lonliness" and someone sees "Happiness". Clearly communication has not been established. It's ok if they want my picture to mean "Happiness" but they didn't get me. And if asked to tell a story with a picture and by looking, one doesn't get the story being told, who do you hold accountable? The transmitter or the receiver? Thanks for the reply, Zhann. And Claymor, I agree with you (which is why I asked the question) there are some OutStanding! pictures submitted but I believe to tell a story certain elemental requirements must be satisfied.

Evolution of your art has nothing to do with positive/negs votes of an individual or a group..... 'I paint "Lonliness" and someone sees "Happiness".' Emotions are subjective, each person feels them differently, you've heard, 'one man's trash is another man's treasure' well, same goes for emotion. The fact is you can't dictate how a viewer will interpret your art, they are subject to how they 'feel' when they look at it, and the key word there is 'interpret', you interpret what you see or feel, and put that into your art, the viewer interprets what they see, based on what the artwork does for 'them'... one day it's one thing and another day it could be something else... 'And if asked to tell a story with a picture and by looking, one doesn't get the story being told, who do you hold accountable? The transmitter or the receiver?' That's what I mean about the interaction of artist, artwork and viewer, the story is subjective... Example; you do a an extraordinary landscape with a huge gnarled tree as focal point, and several people look at it, to some it's just a pretty picture, to another it's a symbol of loss, aloneness, isolation, to another it's paradise, a sheltering place, a place for respite, to another it's a symbol of fear, the unknown, things that go bump in the night, so which one of these people is wrong, which has misinterpreted your vision?

This is the one of the main reasons why I quit art school.... I was a design communication major (graphic design... whatever your local institution of higher learning calls it)... until I got into an argument with a professor one day. During a class critique one day, I was asked what a certain piece meant to me. In my opinion it showed skill on the artist's part; but, frankly, I didn't really care for it. Trying to be diplomatic, I responded that it meant, to me, that this particular person could draw fairly well. He then asked me what message I was trying to convey in my piece... I stated that I wasn't really trying to "convey" anything. I was merely trying to complete the project while meeting all of criteria for that particular assignment. The professor said, "Well, then, you're not an artist. You're an illustrator." I said, "Fine, I've seen hundreds of commercials on TV for 'starving artist' sales, but I've never heard of any 'starving illustrator' sales."... For some reason, he asked me to leave his class.... sarcasm IS an art form, isn't it?... This is probably why I like the challenges here so much... gimme an assignment and I'll come up with something... BTW... what was the question???? ;D

Same here FWTempest, a piece of art means different things to different people, and he was wrong, you are an artist...:)

The problem, FW, was that your teacher was not an artist...he was a poor excuse for an educator, aka, a critic. At the moment he asked you the question you WERE functioning as an illustrator...but a crappy artist makes a crappy illustrator and a crappy critic makes a poor art teacher. :)

Sarcasm is not an art form...it's the lowest form of wit. Sadly, I hated all my teachers at regular school and only like one in higher education. I was educated in the era highlighted in Pink Floyd's The Wall - We don't need no education....a time when all teachers thought they were being clever when they put down a pupil's work along with the pupil's personality, derision being next to sarcasm. To hell with them! I learnt that I was if not better than teachers then at least their equal..sorry if I'm ranting or sound arrogant...but I did hate school. Art means so many things. It is diverse and complex and simple all at the same time. Personaly, I don't generally get along with abstracts, although I love the stuff that Zhann exibits especially in her screen-savers. IMO there is a tendancy these days to put up crap and call it art. It exists in many galleries (not on the net but in the real world) and I would throw it all away and shoot the so-called artists. I have found that here in the 'Rend the more work it has taken to produce a piece the better it looks, although this is not necessarily true of all the work exibited here. Art is what you 'Appreciate'...and encompasses the subject matter, the pov, the fov, and the materials used. How it is executed is also a major factor. IMO if every picture tells a story then it's art...nuff said!

Every picture tells a story, don't it
-Rod Stewart..;) I think the caption goes a long way towards setting the mood, explaining away the mistakes, and directing the public's attention towards what you just did..;)
Over in the Writer's forum, they'll give us a 'rosity cover, and have us write stories about it..usually the top 5 get displayed, and they're nowhere near close to each other..

While the artist may be telling one story, the viewer may (and probably is) hearing another. I remember that in school I often had a different interpretation of a story or a poem than everyone else. Even though I could support my position, I was often told I was wrong. The thing is, once you send something out into the world, you don't know what people will do with it, or how it will be reinterpreted over time. I suppose that all anyone can do is tell the story they have to tell, in the way that seems best to them, then try not to get caught up in what other people think about it. Lin

"What makes the distinction between a suggestion and the telling of a specific story?" The relative shared Visual literacy of the artist and audience, possibly? Very little of the content in any Artwork can ever be self evident unless the viewer can draw on a common fount of imagery, colour identification, object/figure/context of setting/cultural avatars etc. I doubt that any image can have a universal appeal because of it's ability to tell a story, more likely, it might get a emotional response from it's colour, form and texture. A simple example would be, if a member worked in an traditional Australian Aboriginal style, the resulting image might move us because we can recognise the stylised animals and humans coupled with the earth colours and universal forms of dots and stripes, all points of reference that we can identify with. Very few folks would be able to extrapolate the meaning of the image. Such work would never find its way onto the Magazine cover in the current contest because the paradigm is very much a western mind set centred around imagery culled from folklore type vagaries about the spirituality of Mother-earth figures and other such archetypal yearnings that haunt the urbanised. To tell a story, we need shared signs and symbols, any other response is purely particular to the emotional interiority of the viewer. ...well that's what I think!

well,.... i dont know much about art but i know what i like. (Bryce for experimental work and beutiful images, and sf, and landscapes, and just evrything you know) (Poser = T&A) - OOoooh thats not fair. Joking aside, i interpretd it as a picture rom a story, so i guess i got it completely wrong.

The whole contest is a farce.....................!

geez, catlin, you threw that rock in another thread. Are you going to explain yourself or are you just gonna ring everybodies doorbell and run? Seriously, what's up?

Brendan, I liked your response or at least I think it addresses what I was trying to come to grips with yesterday. A Rosity Judge could come along and say, "No, deci6el, you got it so wrong. We just meant that EVERY picture tells a story so cough up what you'd like to do and we'll interpret it for you and if it makes the magazine look good we'll put it on the cover." I don't think they meant that. There are some great images submitted that would make attractive magazine covers. Attractive as in pulling someone closer to the newsstand to get a better look at the magazine. But I don't think they tell a story. Yes, I could make a story out of it, you could, and on but that doesn't make Them a good storyteller. It might make them good "emotion synthesizers" . I think there is value in evoking mood but one isn't neccesarily the other. A story needs a beginning, middle and end. What's happening here? What happened before and as Claymor said way back up top of this thread, "What will happen next?" And to give that kind of information you have to use the tools that Brendan was talking about, imo. And since this thread sort of developed into an informal survey of our experiences with the educational system, I'll add: I had few good teachers but the ones that were Great changed my life forever but only because I was willing to get it.

Of all the works that have been submitted purporting to be inspired by the given subject of the competition, I find it odd that the clear winners chosen for the front covers have been one foetus and a selection of female heads. I don't suppose the problem could be that the subject set for the latest contest is merely a platitude and not a serious call for an image with any semblance of a moving narrative? This is where the confusion lies as to what the Magazine team really mean. It boils down to the difference between a still from a film and running the spool. If you know the film ? then the still is a trigger for a recall of the narrative. The *Stations of the Cross* have a narrative and tell a story, a picture of the *Virgin and Child* illustrate a construct of associations and is more likely to be the vehicle of choice for the cover because of it's *Poser* friendly aspirations. Fact is! most folk can tell a story but that don't make them *Storytellers*. The upshot of the call for submissions is, we must forgive them, for they know not what they ask! --- The sad story of my education is the one whereby I was always on the rung of the *Ladder of Maturity* below the one I needed to be on. Still am!.

Brendan, you scare me for a minute! I thought that someone had gone back on their word and instead of declaring the winner on July 16.... I think what you're seeing at the top of the contest page are the previous 6 covers for Renderosity. Those aren't the winners of the "Story" contest.

I didn't want to skip over your well thought out comments so belatedly here is my response: Zhann, I agree and disagree with your reply. To be sure, I have delighted in how people have had new interps of my work or enjoyed the way that others' work could be seen from different angles so clearly there, we agree, subjectivity flows freely and there's no stopping it. But on the other hand, if you're an artist that at one moment wants to communicate something specific then the choices have to be less ambiguous if you don't want to create ambiguity. Or FW, if you're an illustrator and there is a client and a product, like a book or a cereal box, there will be definite goals that need to be conveyed. As an illustrator, you won't choose a style that will conflict with the message. You wil always be more than an objective organic camera. So Zhann, where I disagree is that the story isn't subjective. If it is the story of Tristan und Isolde then you have definite requirements to adhere to. Subjectively you could choose to represent that story of True Love with Lima beans and cigarette butts, however I don't think the Art Director is going to approve it for print. You never know. Where am I going with this? I think, originally, I just wanted to be clear that I love pictures that live on their own visual merit, no title, no explanation, no alterior motive other than to be seen and appreciated or not. They have a welcome right to exist in my universe. But, if one is asked to tell a story, then there are criteria that must be satisfied just like any other challenge that occurs in the Forums. So, FW, the question was what makes a picture tell a story. And it seems that Everyone agrees that any and every picture can tell a story if the viewer wants to see one or make it up themselves. And it's my belief and I think, Brendan, agrees with me, that if you're trying to tell a specific story, like a movie condensed into one frame, you need dramatic action described by a visual lexicon. Hey, how 'bout that Deep Texture Editor, eh?