Gallery of my favorite POV artists! :-)
(And a nice model by M.C. Escher of course)
I think I will put it on a webpage and have each painting be a link to
that artist's page. That way it's functional and also serves to give
full credit to the authors! Everyone's happy! (I would also make the
alt. text for each seperate image (yes I would break it down into
several images) include the artist and title because most browsers pop
this up as a tooltip.)
Render time 23:11:52 @ 1600x1600 (85 light sources might be the
problem...)

Includes:
Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Fuente
Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Castillo
Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Bonsai
Lance Birch -- Cyber Rose
Lance Birch -- Trapped
Jeff Lee -- Asteroid Belt
Jeff Lee -- Delta Vega
Jeff Lee -- Eminiar VII
Jeff Lee -- A Scholler's Tools
Justin Whitton -- Portal
Justin Whitton -- Seasword
Justin Whitton -- Living Color Cube
Justin Whitton -- Docked Defender
Justin Whitton -- Buttercup
Gilles Tran -- Migrants
Gilles Tran -- The Giant
Gilles Tran -- The Big Fight
Gilles Tran -- La Selva de las Palabras
Gilles Tran -- The Gallery
Gilles Tran -- The Chargers
Govert Zoethout -- O
Govert Zoethout -- X
Govert Zoethout -- P
Govert Zoethout -- U
Gail Shaw -- Give Me the Prize
Gail Shaw -- Crew Quarters
Gail Shaw -- Spooky Night
Mick Hazelgrove -- We're All Awash
Mick Hazelgrove -- African Nights
Mick Hazelgrove -- Four Elements
Mick Hazelgrove -- Mountain Tarn
Mick Hazelgrove -- Guardian
Mick Hazelgrove -- Evensong
Mick Hazelgrove -- Ploughed Field
Mick Hazelgrove -- Two Hands
Mick Hazelgrove -- Lake

Hope you enjoy (your ego, seeing your pic in the gallery that is :-) )!

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'museum_small.jpg' (78 KB)

Preview of image 'museum_small.jpg'

And apologies to Gilles for "upside-down" images I didn't know how else to
arrange them so it would look realistic. (The idea is people walk along the
ledge there so that the railing would be at their feet.)

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Excellent!  You sure you have those pictures hanging upright though?

Bob

Post a reply to this message

> Excellent!  You sure you have those pictures hanging upright though?

Okay, just tell me which direction is upright and I'll fix it... <g>
I should paste in a big sign near the entrance (which I'm guessing would
be the arch under the center steps) that says, "please do not walk on
the paintings". ;-)

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

i'd have used a more real rock texture

David Fontaine wrote:

> Gallery of my favorite POV artists! :-)
> (And a nice model by M.C. Escher of course)
> I think I will put it on a webpage and have each painting be a link to
> that artist's page. That way it's functional and also serves to give
> full credit to the authors! Everyone's happy! (I would also make the
> alt. text for each seperate image (yes I would break it down into
> several images) include the artist and title because most browsers pop
> this up as a tooltip.)
> Render time 23:11:52 @ 1600x1600 (85 light sources might be the
> problem...)
>
> Includes:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Fuente
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Castillo
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Bonsai
> Lance Birch -- Cyber Rose
> Lance Birch -- Trapped
> Jeff Lee -- Asteroid Belt
> Jeff Lee -- Delta Vega
> Jeff Lee -- Eminiar VII
> Jeff Lee -- A Scholler's Tools
> Justin Whitton -- Portal
> Justin Whitton -- Seasword
> Justin Whitton -- Living Color Cube
> Justin Whitton -- Docked Defender
> Justin Whitton -- Buttercup
> Gilles Tran -- Migrants
> Gilles Tran -- The Giant
> Gilles Tran -- The Big Fight
> Gilles Tran -- La Selva de las Palabras
> Gilles Tran -- The Gallery
> Gilles Tran -- The Chargers
> Govert Zoethout -- O
> Govert Zoethout -- X
> Govert Zoethout -- P
> Govert Zoethout -- U
> Gail Shaw -- Give Me the Prize
> Gail Shaw -- Crew Quarters
> Gail Shaw -- Spooky Night
> Mick Hazelgrove -- We're All Awash
> Mick Hazelgrove -- African Nights
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Four Elements
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Mountain Tarn
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Guardian
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Evensong
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Ploughed Field
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Two Hands
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Lake
>
> Hope you enjoy (your ego, seeing your pic in the gallery that is :-) )!
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___     ______________________________
>  | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
>  |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

David

This is IMHO amazing.
How long did it take you to do?

Peter

Post a reply to this message

bery good... like it alot... i think the linking web page is an exceptional
idea... hope you have fun... good luck...

David Fontaine wrote:

> Gallery of my favorite POV artists! :-)
> (And a nice model by M.C. Escher of course)
> I think I will put it on a webpage and have each painting be a link to
> that artist's page. That way it's functional and also serves to give
> full credit to the authors! Everyone's happy! (I would also make the
> alt. text for each seperate image (yes I would break it down into
> several images) include the artist and title because most browsers pop
> this up as a tooltip.)
> Render time 23:11:52 @ 1600x1600 (85 light sources might be the
> problem...)
>
> Includes:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Fuente
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Castillo
> Jaime Vives Piqueres -- Bonsai
> Lance Birch -- Cyber Rose
> Lance Birch -- Trapped
> Jeff Lee -- Asteroid Belt
> Jeff Lee -- Delta Vega
> Jeff Lee -- Eminiar VII
> Jeff Lee -- A Scholler's Tools
> Justin Whitton -- Portal
> Justin Whitton -- Seasword
> Justin Whitton -- Living Color Cube
> Justin Whitton -- Docked Defender
> Justin Whitton -- Buttercup
> Gilles Tran -- Migrants
> Gilles Tran -- The Giant
> Gilles Tran -- The Big Fight
> Gilles Tran -- La Selva de las Palabras
> Gilles Tran -- The Gallery
> Gilles Tran -- The Chargers
> Govert Zoethout -- O
> Govert Zoethout -- X
> Govert Zoethout -- P
> Govert Zoethout -- U
> Gail Shaw -- Give Me the Prize
> Gail Shaw -- Crew Quarters
> Gail Shaw -- Spooky Night
> Mick Hazelgrove -- We're All Awash
> Mick Hazelgrove -- African Nights
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Four Elements
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Mountain Tarn
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Guardian
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Evensong
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Ploughed Field
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Two Hands
> Mick Hazelgrove -- Lake
>
> Hope you enjoy (your ego, seeing your pic in the gallery that is :-) )!
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___     ______________________________
>  | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
>  |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

>Gail Shaw -- Give Me the Prize
>Gail Shaw -- Crew Quarters
>Gail Shaw -- Spooky Night


I'm flattered. Thank you

>Hope you enjoy (your ego, seeing your pic in the gallery that is :-) )!


Oh definatly <grin>

Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found  *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
* Definition of an upgrade: Take the old bugs out, put new ones in*
*******************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine schrieb:
> 
> Gallery of my favorite POV artists! :-)
> (And a nice model by M.C. Escher of course)
> I think I will put it on a webpage and have each painting be a link to
> that artist's page. That way it's functional and also serves to give
> full credit to the authors! Everyone's happy! (I would also make the
> alt. text for each seperate image (yes I would break it down into
> several images) include the artist and title because most browsers pop
> this up as a tooltip.)

Don't break it up! It might not be displayed correctly in
some browsers...
Create a client-side image map instead. Using the title=
attribute you can get a pop-up windows at least in
IExplorer, not yet in Netscape (v4.7)... or you can use
Javascript to display the information in the status line of
the browser... just an idea...

Uwe.

Post a reply to this message

Niffty ideas, for sure.

I'm use Netscape (v4.61), maybe I should upgrade.

Javascript, eww. gross. Gag me with a spoon. *Whatever*

Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom


Uwe Zimmermann wrote in message <38901656.4600AAC7@ele.kth.se>...
 >Don't break it up! It might not be displayed correctly in
>some browsers...
>Create a client-side image map instead. Using the title=
>attribute you can get a pop-up windows at least in
>IExplorer, not yet in Netscape (v4.7)... or you can use
>Javascript to display the information in the status line of
>the browser... just an idea...
>
>Uwe.

Post a reply to this message

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] halcyoncom> 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

Try checking the stuff done by Hieronymus Bosch and you might not think that
way: http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/
I have a picture of The Temptation of St. Anthony and always been amazing to me
that the guy was from 1500 A.D.  Many of the paintings remind me of 20th century
stuff, such as Dali.

Bob

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:389### [at] faricynet...
| > 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

Sigmund Kyrre Ås wrote in message ...
>"Peter Warren" <int### [at] halcyoncom> 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.


Yes, I do like them and I have seen very neat things done with
Javascript. But I find it can be unreliable and quirky if not
used properly.

I'm not sure how I feel about the copywrite notice in the source.

Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

RemCo

I was especially obnoxious yesterday.
This is what happens when I have my
ego stroked in a major (public) way.
Luckily this does not happen too often:)

I do have difficulty with your name for
some reason. I have done this (used
a K) before but caught myself.

later,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

Peter Warren wrote:
> 
> RemCo
> 
> I was especially obnoxious yesterday.
> This is what happens when I have my
> ego stroked in a major (public) way.
> Luckily this does not happen too often:)
> 
> I do have difficulty with your name for
> some reason. I have done this (used
> a K) before but caught myself.
> 
> later,
> Peter

That probably also explains why you didn't reply to my e-mail - which
isn't really relevant anymore ;)

Ciao!

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Try checking the stuff done by Hieronymus Bosch and you might not
> think that
> way: http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/
> I have a picture of The Temptation of St. Anthony and always been
> amazing to me
> that the guy was from 1500 A.D.  Many of the paintings remind me of
> 20th century
> stuff, such as Dali.

How about the other way around?

And have you ever stood in front of a Delacroix?
Shudders...

> 
> Bob

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote in message <38917705.A0E9B07E@xs4all.nl>...

>That probably also explains why you didn't reply to my e-mail - which
>isn't really relevant anymore ;)
>
>Ciao!
>
>Remco

Absolutely not.
What e-mail? Where?
I can only imagine that it was sent to intgrls,
in which case my dear twin brother has not
forwarded it to me, yet.
Otherwise I am at a loss.
Please, if you care to, I would like to
move this to Povray.Ignorant.Me.

CiaoCiao

Peter
war### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

>And have you ever stood in front of a Delacroix?
>Shudders...

In fact, no. Very visceral I imagine.
Even scary.

Peter

Post a reply to this message

Hi David,
I hope you are having a good morning.

                  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.

Thank you all for attending today.

Peter Warren

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.

Post a reply to this message

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

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 05:22:57 -0800, Peter Warren wrote:
>As to "flat" I must admit to being clueless about this.

Perspective came along fairly late in the game, so most "old" art
doesn't look right.  Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" 
(http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/vinci/lastsupp.jpg) for 
example, has zillions of vanishing points.  At least he tried to
establish depth, though.

-- 
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

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] halcyoncom> 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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:29:53 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
>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?

True, in some cases (when the camera isn't looking at the horizon.)  
And of course when the lines aren't parallel to the axes, they often
have a vanishing point all their own, so my statement that two is 
enough is just plain wrong.  But in the case of this picture, more 
than one is a mistake.

-- 
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 Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:29:53 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote:
> >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?
> 
> True, in some cases (when the camera isn't looking at the horizon.)
> And of course when the lines aren't parallel to the axes, they often
> have a vanishing point all their own, 

You got me there 8)

> so my statement that two is
> enough is just plain wrong.  But in the case of this picture, more
> than one is a mistake.
> 
Just for arguments sake (or because I'm slowly turning into a troll):
this is debatable.
Mistake meaning Da Vinci should've known better?
Could he? 
Supposing someone in this century would have painted an image like that
(with vanishing points all over the place) would he be wrong?

I suppose of course you're right (in a sense at least) but I like the
thought that _had_ DaVinci known how to work with vanishing points
according to the laws of perspective we get taught at schools he _still_
might have painted it the same giving this scattering perspective a
deeper meaning.

I like it when a picture has meaning 8)
(even though I may not understand it...)

> --
> 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

Kind regards,

Remco

Post a reply to this message

"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
news:38938601.E83E1621@xs4all.nl...
| Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
| quite convincing.

Had you ever heard the thing about DaVinci using himself as the model for the
Mona Lisa painting?  If true he must've not followed anatomy too closely.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> "Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
> news:38938601.E83E1621@xs4all.nl...
> | Da Vinci's anatomic drawings are
> | quite convincing.
> 
> Had you ever heard the thing about DaVinci using himself as the model
> for the
> Mona Lisa painting?  If true he must've not followed anatomy too
> closely.
> 
> Bob

That's probably a matter of perspective...?
;)

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote in message ...

>>Wow, honored, as always, to speak to you.
>
>I can't imagine why.


The "honor" I speak of, Ron, is for your, to my mind,
'vast' knowldege of the inards of PovRay.
This is something that I could never hope to achieve,
Whereas it may only be a normal part of your day
to day existence, for me it is a marvel.

>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.

The idea of perspective is a notion that had coalesced
fifty years before Da Vinci.(One need only to look at the
competition for the Baptistery doors in Florence.)
His exploration of this phenomenon may give the impression
of an unscientific result of perspective but I personally
would compare it to Picassos' breaking up of space
vis-a-vis Cubism in the 20th cent.

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote in message <38938D10.3C4AA785@xs4all.nl>...

>I suppose of course you're right (in a sense at least) but I like the
>thought that _had_ DaVinci known how to work with vanishing points
>according to the laws of perspective we get taught at schools he _still_
>might have painted it the same giving this scattering perspective a
>deeper meaning.
Da Vinci's knowldge of perspective was, IMHO, greater than you or
I could ever dream of in our wildest dream.

If this was something we cared to dream of.

Peter

Post a reply to this message