In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Commentaries Readers’ comments offering substantial theoretical and practical contributions to issues that have been raised in texts published in Leonardoare welcomed. The Editors reserve the right to edit and shorten letters. Letters should be written in English and sent to the Main Editorial Office. COMMENTS ON “PROCEDURAL ART WITH COMPUTER GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGY” Computer graphics can produce pictures in an absolutely new way, in comparison with the traditional techniques such as photography, cinema or television. The synthetic image indeed is no longer the recording of a pre-existing object, it can be the visualisation of an abstract mathematical model. It is no longer the reality which pre-exists the image,but the software, the language. Hence it is necessaryto write very preciselywhat one wants the computer to do. Although it can compete with the photo, the computer does not give a representation of reality. It gives a simulation of it, that is to say, a model not only of the appearance of things but also of their structure and the laws to which they are subject. As Michel Bret says (Leonardo21,No. 1,3-9,1988), synthesis changes very deeply the making of the image. It changes our vision of the world as well as our imagination. Technicians, andalsoartists,haveto facethisimportant mutation. Therefore, it would be a good thing if artists could make their own tools-their own models-instead of relying on engineers. Michel Bret has realised for this purpose a powerful software program called Anyflo, which is in use by the students from the “Art and Technology of the Image” department at the University of Paris [13.Students can work with the software without knowing how to program and in a short time can make three-dimensionalpictures. However,they cannot control it completely without sound basic knowledge in computer graphics.Thus,they become ableto make their own models (for instance, they can write macros and subroutines) and consider the image during the process of its creation. The use of software and the satisfaction of makinginteresting pictures are a great motivation to students. It is difficultto objectivelyestimate the results, but they seem to sharea common quality: diversity.Everyonecanadaptthissoftware to one’s own needs. I am convinced that, if we welcome artists and allow them to program threedimensional software with a state of mind free from the pressure of commerce and from overly sophisticated demonstrations of high technology, computer graphics will become a rich and independent art. REFERENCE 1. They also use the “Rodin” software developed by HervCHuitric and Monique Nahas, both teachers in the department. Edmond Couchot Art and Technology o f Image Dept. University o f Paris 8 Paris, France COMMENTS ON JEAN-BERNARD CONDAT’S BOOK REVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP OF BARTOKAND KODALY BY E. LENDVAI In the Tannhauser legend the papal staff broke into bud. My golden section theory burst into bloom from my conductor’s baton. During repeated performances of Bartbk’sDivertimento I recognizedthat in the opening movement there existed a ‘harmony’ between exposition, development and recapitulation. I counted how many times the baton swung in my hand. It turned out that the proportion between the whole movement (563 beats of my baton)andthepart upto therecapitulation corresponded to the proportion between the parts preceding and following the recapitulation. In addition, exposition and development displayed a similar proportion. Later I realized that if we calculated throughout in quavers, the result would be more spectacular: 1039 : 642 : 397. Nevertheless, my conductor’s batonjustified the former solution. Roy Howat has discovered similar proportions in the opening movement of the Third Piano Concerto. (NB: My analysis on the golden section was finished just after World War I1 and the score of this work was still unknown to me.) If a painter, having a canvas 443 millimetres wide, succeeds in producing thegolden section-by eye-with a deviation of ’/4of a millimetre, this is a splendid result. The same deviation in the opening movement of Bartbk’s Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion is ‘incorrect’ according to my reviewers (Leonardo 21, No. 2, 1988)although the tolerance is no more than one quarter of one percent. Where does precision end and inaccuracy begin?I would propose that: (a) the difference between...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 339-340
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.