Re: Sandberg's Transhuman Art Exhibit

Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:33:46 +0100

boogie woogie wrote:

> Some comments = Summary opinion is the
> 'exhibition' is heavy on eye candy and light on
> content. I'm a graphic artist with a computer
> gaming company and I fancy myself a
> transhumanists too so I can comment on both
> sides of the coin.

I thought the "monolith contemplating Mondrians paintings" was inspired, as was the "portrait of the artist as a small geometric system" (for me this sums up transhuman art in one sentence).

> From an technical art standpoint there was
> nothing there that you cant find in an AOL
> graphics forum. No epiphany engines. The
> rendering work was mediocre. It was good for an
> amateur. Im assuming Sandberg is not a formally
> trained graphic artist. Several illumination
> problems, questionable material and vector
> calls. But nothing requiring crucifixion. :-)

AFAIK Anders used PoVRay (www.povray.org), I don't know what you use, but it's likely to be 3D Studio MAX, Softimage, or AW Maya in the games industry. PoVRay is a freeware ray tracer without much of an advanced interface.

> I havent figured out the whole 'transhuman art'
> concept yet so its hard for me to judge whether
> Sandberg succeeded. I doubt anything I saw would
> inspire someone to change their views about
> transhumanism. Then again you can say that about
> everything Ive seen that is called transhuman or
> extropian art. Anyway.....

Regardless of their effect on other people, it's clear that the artistís intentions were
transhuman. The images and words (and especially some of the quotes from list members - harking back to a time when no one talked about "hot babes" (and coincidentally I didn't talk at all)) fitted together perfectly.

BM