 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Others can draw even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1mhfHklIRQ
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Others can draw even better:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1mhfHklIRQ
Very cool. Neat to see how someone goes about making a picture like that,
and how much effort really goes into it.
Now think about the great artists in oil paint, who didn't have "zoom" and
didn't have "make this guy skinnier" warps, and who didn't have a pallet
that would show them exactly the color they wanted before they actually
mixed it up. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>> Others can draw even better:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1mhfHklIRQ
>
> Very cool. Neat to see how someone goes about making a picture like
> that, and how much effort really goes into it.
>
> Now think about the great artists in oil paint, who didn't have "zoom"
> and didn't have "make this guy skinnier" warps, and who didn't have a
> pallet that would show them exactly the color they wanted before they
> actually mixed it up. :-)
better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no
desire other than zapping mindlessly...
Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 5:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
> other than zapping mindlessly...
>
That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of them.
> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
>
You could always ask David Hockney.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen escreveu:
> On 28/02/2011 5:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
>>
>> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
>> other than zapping mindlessly...
>>
>
> That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of them.
That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
baroque period; Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
Dickens manuscripts to Dan Brown writing in Word with spell checker and
still getting it wrong...
You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
>> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
>
> You could always ask David Hockney.
ah, I read that argument of his before. He seems to believe it
impossible for someone to paint photorealistic paintings akin to those
of the old masters, even in the face of plenty of evidence by any
competent arts student to the contrary. I can understand him feeling
that way for not knowing how to paint, though. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
factor of time selecting the best.
Could you name 15 classical composers? Could you name 15 contemporary
composers?
Could you name 15 authors that lived during Shakespeare's lifetime? Could
you name 15 authors that lived during your lifetime?
When you take the 1000 playwrights that lived in England along with
Shakespeare and pick the best, it's not going to be comparable to the
average writer today.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 08:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
> factor of time selecting the best.
For example, I bought a truckload of music from the 1950s. Listening to
this stuff, you'd think that it was an entire decade of astonishingly
good music.
In reality, you're listening to the 24 best tracks produced in 10 years
of popular music. Out of the countless millions of recordings produced,
these are the best 24 that anybody could find. No wonder they sound good...
Hell, if you took the music of 2000 until 2010, you could probably find
24 good tracks even in there. (Amongst all the utter **** that most
people seem to be producing these days.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 8:22 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen escreveu:
>
> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
> baroque period;
I've yet to see a baroque building that was built quicker, safer or
cheaper than modern buildings. If you want beauty in modern buildings
what about St Mary Axe, London, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, the Pompidou
Centre Paris? I could go on.
But I sympathise with your feelings.
> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
No arguments there but then I like few modern composers.
> Dickens manuscripts to Dan Brown writing in Word with spell checker and
> still getting it wrong...
>
Dickens is full of mistakes, characters and sub plots disappearing
without reason. Trollop was the same and as for Mrs Hendry Wood, enough
said.
Actually what you are seeing in modern authors is intellectual laziness.
> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>
You got me there, what is a renascentist?
>>
>> You could always ask David Hockney.
>
> ah, I read that argument of his before. He seems to believe it
> impossible for someone to paint photorealistic paintings akin to those
> of the old masters, even in the face of plenty of evidence by any
> competent arts student to the contrary. I can understand him feeling
> that way for not knowing how to paint, though. :)
>
I've never heard of Hockney being accused of photorealism. But he is
considered by many to be a great artist and he, in his old age, has been
using electronic media.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen escreveu:
> On 01/03/2011 8:22 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Stephen escreveu:
>> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
>> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
>> baroque period;
>
> I've yet to see a baroque building that was built quicker, safer or
> cheaper than modern buildings.
ah, it is a certain kind of art and beauty in itself to witness a neat
technical solution, isn't it?
They are built faster not only because of CAD, better engineering
practices, standardized materials and whatnot, but because they lack all
those artsy arabesques and filigrans that adorn all nooks and cranies of
old buildings. Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical
concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.
> If you want beauty in modern buildings
> what about St Mary Axe, London, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, the Pompidou
> Centre Paris? I could go on.
all mirrors, glass and metal tubes covering some gigantic basic
geometric figure. I guess most people can emulate these in povray SDL
quite comfortably. Try doing that with old buildings, palaces and
cathedrals... :D
> But I sympathise with your feelings.
a true renascentist, that is, a man from the Renaissance. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
>> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>
> The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
> factor of time selecting the best.
>
> Could you name 15 classical composers? Could you name 15 contemporary
> composers?
>
> Could you name 15 authors that lived during Shakespeare's lifetime?
> Could you name 15 authors that lived during your lifetime?
>
> When you take the 1000 playwrights that lived in England along with
> Shakespeare and pick the best, it's not going to be comparable to the
> average writer today.
that is feasible. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
