 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I didn't know who, or what, a Delacroix was. So I looked it up...
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Illusions/2cross-view/Vieux/Delacroix/
which is apparently an attempt to see 3 of his paintings using cross-eyed
stereopairs. Looked flat to me. I have seen these paintings before.
There's a more contemporary artist with the same last name:
http://www.art-gallery-plus.com/gallery/Delacroix_Michel_/
Don't think I have seen these before.
Bob
"Peter Warren" <int### [at] halcyon com> wrote in message
news:38919edc@news.povray.org...
|
| Remco de Korte wrote in message <38919B3C.B4D97213@xs4all.nl>...
|
| >I must
| >say it beats staring cross-eyed at a 15-inch screen when it comes to
| >getting an impression of another (virtual) reality ;)
|
| Probably better than a sterogram but I have great hopes
| of these variously sized-screens.
|
| >Sorry for the rambling.
|
|
| No problamo over here.
|
| Ramble on,
|
| Peter
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Try checking the stuff done by Hieronymus Bosch and you might not think that
> way: http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/
Unable to locate server...
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi David,
> I hope you are having a good morning.
Why thank you :-)
> PW_Lecture_101
>
> Hello, all. Before I begin I would hope that you
> completed yesterdays assignment. I cannot stress enough
> the importance of *really* bad Lee Majors pseudo-science
> fiction movies on your local late show.
>
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
>
> David raises a good point with his reference to "that
> old religious art." My humble suggestion would be to
> remove the word 'religious'. If, for instance, 500
> years from now a 'human' was looking at a Fontaine
> image and said "that old computer art" I (<ahem> my
> clone) would surely take objection.
> What does this leave us with?
> "...that old art."
> Let us narrow the discussion.
> "old"
> "It always shows people and
> everything as flat and everything is flat..."
> Narrow it even more.
> "It always shows people..."
>
> Forgiving my flawed logic...
>
> Here it would be necessary to imagine a time before
> the invention of photography where a recent/decent
> painting (say one of Da Vince's obtuse works or one
> of those Raphael's, as if he actually painted one, being
> too busy...) was looked on as *almost* a
> miracle.
> Or image a time, only 50 or so years previous (1450)
> that lifesize frescos were painted by Masters such
> as Masaccio, or even that dolt Giotto.
> Then you would have to imagine a time, earlier, where
> humans actually believed in the 'truth' of images.
> This, however, goes beyond the scope of this lecture.
>
> As to "flat" I must admit to being clueless about this.
> "Drab", ...not looking at the recently (and controversial)
> restored Michelangelos.
But you keep referring to the Reniassance artists. You are also
referring to the most famous artists. So what about the common
pre-Reniassance artist? I think more recent art has much more individual
style; people have developed their own unique forms of art. Besides, the
fact that I find some art monotonous is an entirely opinionated matter
and there's no use arguing about it :-)
> Personal to David: Have they finished renovating that
> park across the freeway from the Walker Art Center?
> Man, all that construction when I visited really
> harshed my mellow. A great city, nonetheless,
> for sure.
*shrugs* haven't been by there lately, actually. i should probably go
have a look. you know, they completely redid the Science Museum, i
should check that out too.
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I checked it again and IE started it up proclaiming Unknown Zone (security
zone no doubt). I can get there just fine though. Here's a URL to one section
of a painting, part of Garden of Earthly Delights, called Hell:
http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightr.jpg
Maybe you can get to the jpegs instead, probably no difference unfortunately.
Try this one below instead, but the other places shows many more.
http://www.poster.de/artist/bosch/bos1.htm
Bob
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3891E6C8.74576CEC@faricy.net...
| > Try checking the stuff done by Hieronymus Bosch and you might not think that
| > way: http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/
|
| Unable to locate server...
|
| --
| Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
| ___ ______________________________
| | \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
| |_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> I didn't know who, or what, a Delacroix was. So I looked it up...
>
> http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Illusions/2cross-view/Vieux/Delacroix/
> which is apparently an attempt to see 3 of his paintings using
> cross-eyed
> stereopairs. Looked flat to me. I have seen these paintings before.
>
It helps when you see such paintings in real. Honestly.
I've seen paintings that had more depth (litterally ;)) than any
3D-rendering I have ever seen. Best example is the abstract work of
Gerhard Richter, but you'd HAVE to see it in reality, because in a
picture it's all lost. Rothko is a good example too.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmm, I checked it again and IE started it up proclaiming Unknown Zone (security
> zone no doubt). I can get there just fine though. Here's a URL to one section
> of a painting, part of Garden of Earthly Delights, called Hell:
> http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightr.jpg
> Maybe you can get to the jpegs instead, probably no difference unfortunately.
> Try this one below instead, but the other places shows many more.
> http://www.poster.de/artist/bosch/bos1.htm
It's all working fine now. Maybe I had one of my "bad connections" earlier
(retrieving posts was taking quite a long time too)
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
>doesn't look right. Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
>for
>example, has zillions of vanishing points. At least he tried to
>establish depth, though.
Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
Zillions?, uh, for sure.
"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
Peter Warren
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Warren wrote:
>
> Ron Parker wrote in message ...
> >Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
> >doesn't look right. Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
> >for
> >example, has zillions of vanishing points. At least he tried to
> >establish depth, though.
> Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
> Zillions?, uh, for sure.
> "At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
>
> Peter Warren
This, funnily enough, is also a matter of perspective. We're judging
DaVinci or whoever from our perspective as late 20th century Western
barbarians. It could well be that the Chinese for instance have an
entirely different opinion about that. There a few centuries ahead of us
in art.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:21:52 -0800, Peter Warren wrote:
>
>Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>>Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
>>doesn't look right. Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
>>for
>>example, has zillions of vanishing points. At least he tried to
>>establish depth, though.
>Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
I can't imagine why.
>Zillions?, uh, for sure.
Well, it should only have two, so more than two is a mistake.
>"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
I think he did okay, too. My point was that this was one painting
that was done before the notion of perspective drawing took off.
Most painters of the time wouldn't have even tried, so their work
appears flat.
--
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 Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:21:52 -0800, Peter Warren wrote:
> >
> >Ron Parker wrote in message ...
> >>Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
> >>doesn't look right. Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
> >>for
> >>example, has zillions of vanishing points. At least he tried to
> >>establish depth, though.
> >Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
>
> I can't imagine why.
>
> >Zillions?, uh, for sure.
>
> Well, it should only have two, so more than two is a mistake.
Three?
>
> >"At least?", I think he did an ok job, would you disagree?
>
> I think he did okay, too. My point was that this was one painting
> that was done before the notion of perspective drawing took off.
> Most painters of the time wouldn't have even tried, so their work
> appears flat.
>
There are some really funny 'mistakes' with perspective in paintings
from the earlier ages. On the other hand there are several other
techniques to create a sense of depth. Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
quite convincing.
Oooooo......(shut up!)
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
