Post #1354351

2026-04-18 00:58 UTC

https://blog.veritates.love/accuracy.html One of the things I believe about art is that accuracy is rarely wasted. A couple days ago I made a piece of art that I found really satisfying, but it isn't quite accurate yet. I improved a lot of details: I eliminated flat colors that caught the eye, removed visible seams, added more textures and shapes to give depth to the scene, and rerendered it dozens of times to see how it was progressing. But I haven't gotten back to fixing the small two-pixel shadows. The large shadows were added all at once: they have a consistent perspective that sets the scene for the art. But thanks to shortcuts I took, the small shadows point away from the center, not along the angle of the large shadows. It's a small detail that you might not notice unless it was pointed out to you. It doesn't look bad at all, and it is locally coherent, even – not glitchy. But I believe it contributes to a vague feeling of unease that most people could feel when looking at it. It just isn't right.

Replies (1)

@monoidmusician@tech.lgbt 2026-04-18 00:58

More than that, it makes the story about the lazy kind of symmetry, copying pixels around, instead of joy,— the joy of architectural symmetry being broken by shadows falling from the sun: the inflection of symmetry by the inexorable forces of nature. Of course, raw accuracy is not the goal of art. Telling a story is. Artforms have their own language, techniques, and craftsmanship that frame the art more than accuracy. And usually it is pretty clear when certain kinds of accuracy get in the way of telling your story. But on the whole? Being accurate contributes to a work of art's feeling whole, feeling satisfying. It makes it not just compelling but persuasive. It reflects pride in our work and why we do it.

Open ##1494376