 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I must admit that ever the first version I didn't expect it to become
such a great thing (yet another Escher-interpretation...). But you've
made it into a a real post-modern masterpiece ;)
I think a larger version would be nice.
The image seems a bit crowded with the paintings all very close to each
other. This makes it look more like a late 19th centure 'salon' then a
museum. The copperlike texture also make it look slightly archaic.
Perhaps you could town down the stone structure just a little bit?
It seems you gave each image a little spotlight which I think is nice.
It isn't to clear everywhere, some images disappear a bit into darkness.
I wonder how it would look if you gave the images a higher ambient-value
(I have no idea if this works with imagemaps).
Anyway, a great technical achievement.
Have you seen Peter Houstons version of this Escher-image?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Warren" <int### [at] halcyon com> writes:
> Javascript, eww. gross. Gag me with a spoon. *Whatever*
Why is that? Check out www.php.net and tell me you don't like the popups there.
--
Sigmund Kyrre Aas
Trondheim, Norway
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote in message <389023D0.53819E7D@xs4all.nl>...
>I must admit that ever the first version I didn't expect it to become
>such a great thing (yet another Escher-interpretation...). But you've
>made it into a a real post-modern masterpiece ;)
What??? 'first'
For sure I ignore all Escher/Dali/Picasso posts. But this one
stopped me cold
>I think a larger version would be nice.
"Don't ask or you just might receive"
>The image seems a bit crowded with the paintings all very close to each
>other.
Just slightly, I leave it to the artist to decide.
>This makes it look more like a late 19th centure 'salon' then a
>museum.
Whow, how Right On could you be with this19th cent bit.
As if there is something wrong with this. David has it
spot on, I think.
>Anyway, a great technical achievement.
WCFM (What count for me) yea, for sure.
>Have you seen Peter Houstons version of this Escher-image?
no. should I?
Personal to Remko:
Your English is superb.
Don't let anyone tell you
otherwise.
however i.e. "ever since..."
oh yea, david your great, blah, blah,blah, whatever....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Warren wrote:
>
> Personal to Remko:
> Your English is superb.
> Don't let anyone tell you
> otherwise.
> however i.e. "ever since..."
>
> oh yea, david your great, blah, blah,blah, whatever....
That should've read "after the first..." or something like that.
After that I rambled on a bit but it was all meant in a positive way.
BTW whatever happened to the 'c' in my name?
;)
Rem#o
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:54:08 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
>The image seems a bit crowded with the paintings all very close to each
>other. This makes it look more like a late 19th centure 'salon' then a
>museum.
The last time I went to the Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, several years
ago, they were doing extensive renovations on some of their galleries,
and they had gathered all of their fine art together in a single room,
on a single wall, floor-to-ceiling, with very little room between
frames. A plaque on the floor had a guide as to which paintings were
which. The effect was stunning, far more moving than looking at any
one picture by itself.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:54:08 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
> >The image seems a bit crowded with the paintings all very close to
> each
> >other. This makes it look more like a late 19th centure 'salon' then
> a
> >museum.
>
> The last time I went to the Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, several years
> ago, they were doing extensive renovations on some of their galleries,
> and they had gathered all of their fine art together in a single room,
> on a single wall, floor-to-ceiling, with very little room between
> frames. A plaque on the floor had a guide as to which paintings were
> which. The effect was stunning, far more moving than looking at any
> one picture by itself.
>
> --
Since art move beyond frames (20th century) this is not very common any
more. Notice how many modern paintings have no frame, or at most an
insignificant one, while some 17th century masterpieces are more frame
then painting. Either way it's an artistic choice with a functionality.
Makes you wonder about a monitor as frame.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
> Ron Parker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:54:08 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
> > >The image seems a bit crowded with the paintings all very close to
> > each
> > >other. This makes it look more like a late 19th centure 'salon' then
> > a
> > >museum.
> >
> > The last time I went to the Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, several years
> > ago, they were doing extensive renovations on some of their galleries,
> > and they had gathered all of their fine art together in a single room,
> > on a single wall, floor-to-ceiling, with very little room between
> > frames. A plaque on the floor had a guide as to which paintings were
> > which. The effect was stunning, far more moving than looking at any
> > one picture by itself.
> >
> > --
>
> Since art move beyond frames (20th century) this is not very common any
> more. Notice how many modern paintings have no frame, or at most an
> insignificant one, while some 17th century masterpieces are more frame
> then painting. Either way it's an artistic choice with a functionality.
> Makes you wonder about a monitor as frame.
>
> Remco
Most Paintings from 17th century and previous were also VERY SMALL.... Take
the Mona Lisa.... it is like 13x20 inches.... or something like that.....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Most Paintings from 17th century and previous were also VERY SMALL....
Take
> the Mona Lisa.... it is like 13x20 inches.... or something like that.....
>
That was often due to the fact that they were painted on wooden boards and
thus had to be small.
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why is that? Check out www.php.net and tell me you don't like the popups there.
I've been there... I'm trying to learn it... but I find it annoying that if you
accidentally move the cursor over the button the thing pops up and *stays* popped
up until you hit the close button. I think it's the search one or something.
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Since art move beyond frames (20th century) this is not very common any
> more. Notice how many modern paintings have no frame, or at most an
> insignificant one, while some 17th century masterpieces are more frame
> then painting. Either way it's an artistic choice with a functionality.
> Makes you wonder about a monitor as frame.
IMHO I don't like all that old religious art. It always shows people and
everything is flat, kind of drab I think. (How many Madonna with Child
paintings can there be anyway?)
gack...sputter...my modem is dying on me again...
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
