[ASM scene] Assembly graphics compo question

[Matthew Westcott]

On 7 Aug 2008, at 20:37, Andrew 'Truck' Holland wrote:

> So as for it being a bad idea: It just isn't.  It can increase the  
> competition, as it allows people to inspect just how an image came  
> about, and provide longer time on screen WITH additional interest.   
> It changes the process from "yeah yeah yeah pictures on screen whee  
> I don't care" to "hey, cool, they got THIS from THAT." It amplifies  
> the 'WOW' effect naturally; and if the competitor actually  
> understands the process of generating the 'WOW' effect, it can  
> amplify it.

What Truck said.

How close does your typical Assembly visitor get to seeing "the  
creative process"? Showing work stages is pretty much the difference  
between "Here's some stuff that those guys upstairs made. Now sit  
quietly and be appreciative of how great we are" and "This is what we  
do. People like you are making this stuff - it doesn't just arrive  
here from another planet. Why don't you try it some time?"

Although, playing devil's advocate for a moment: it's hard to see why  
this should only apply to graphics. If I suggested that demo compos  
should include a bit where key scenes get played back in wireframe,  
or that musicians should expect their stuff to be replayed with  
tracks randomly muted, you'd rightly think I'd gone mad, so why  
should graphics entries be treated like that? I don't actually have  
the answer, but I guess it must be something to do with 'trickery'  
being regarded as acceptable or even positive in some disciplines  
more than others.

- gasman