Sta.sh
| Sketch without any perspective ideas... |
| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| Sketch without any perspective ideas... |
| I am not a photographer nor an artist. I am not the boring average either. I enjoy and understand art. It gets more meaning when you consider the construction of the universe. Everything making up the universe works in perfect harmony. Yet they are utilitarian. Science does not measure aesthetics. But everything science attempts to explain about the universe does not compromise in details of awesomeness even to the eyes of ones who know not much about science. For me science is just like counting sheep for falling asleep. Explaining everything with numbers might get you good at maths, and then get you confused like the 'big-name' scientists we have. The universe has forever kept revealing new details as we kept inventing new methods of observation. But probably they are all missing the point. Just thinking about the thought required to put behind all the existing creations is quite formidable. If everything around you and me came about because something happened somewhere at some time, then its again a result of events where the start of the events is blurred out and not explained. Its not understandable how the nebulae and galaxies are so beautiful if these were all just a result of a chain of boring events. However, what exists around is more than a domino effect. From the tiniest discoveries to the immeasurably tremendous, details as we humans can comprehend, the universe is a work of art. Art, cannot be produced by science, since it cannot differentiate from what is truly beautiful and what is not. From this standpoint, just measurements and calculations alone do not convince me that science could reveal the mystery of creation. I work in 3D software like 3ds Max, Maya, Cinema 4D, CityEngine, Vue etc. and it helps to understand a different perspective to look at the surroundings. Some really pro guys do the coding from scratch at Autodesk, e-on or Maxxon to create the software we use. That makes up the 3D space where CG artists begin what they make. After a successful making of a model its as dead as a flower vase. To animate and make the model interactive, the artist needs to provide values to get near realistic results. Which means, in 3D workspace, just because you modeled an object, it will not generate mass or weight. It will not break or bend. It will go through another object without any complaints. Only when you add up physics laws, and assign them to the object do they start to work. And the object will only respond according to the values you put in. So the object will behave following your commands. Now if someone with no idea how this all works came to the scene and started the traditional explanation of how things started, I'd really not pay attention to what he/she has to say. Mind me, I am not saying science is useless. Surely science gave us Airplanes and PlayStations. Also the Hubble and Chandra space telescopes and pushed our horizon to further then we imagined. But then, science is just not good enough to answer if there is a god. So for the most important question, its useless... i.e. if you are one of many who attempts to rule out the concept of a creator because you screwed up in your maths class... you might have to tell your story to someone else... |
...
