 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Get more education.
Still not good enough, eh?
> BTW everytime I see a Stella, I think of you.
> This does seem Stellaesque.
Thank you![1]
He and I are both obsessed with 'Moby Dick.'
This and '...geeks only?' were both inspired in part by the Albatross
Footnote[2], but neither render is good enough for a serious
presentation. I can't go into why that is without derailing this thread,
but a better render of this image will hopefully exist someday. In this
sense, I have never completed a 3D work to my satisfaction. I've only
ever printed my "flat" pictures.
-Shay
[1] Exclamation point conditional on your saying this in reference to
the works he was doing in the 60s 70s and not the trash-pile sculptures
into which he has since regressed.
[2] I remember the first albatross I ever saw. It was during a prolonged
gale, in waters hard upon the Antarctic seas. From my forenoon watch
below, I ascended to the overclouded deck; and there, dashed upon the
main hatches, I saw a regal, feathery thing of unspotted whiteness, and
with a hooked, Roman bill sublime. At intervals, it arched forth its
vast archangel wings, as if to embrace some holy ark. Wondrous
flutterings and throbbings shook it. Though bodily unharmed, it uttered
cries, as some king's ghost in supernatural distress. Through its
inexpressible, strange eyes, methought I peeped to secrets which took
hold of God. As Abraham before the angels, I bowed myself; the white
thing was so white, its wings so wide, and in those for ever exiled
waters, I had lost the miserable warping memories of traditions and of
towns. Long I gazed at that prodigy of plumage. I cannot tell, can only
hint, the things that darted through me then. But at last I awoke; and
turning, asked a sailor what bird was this. A goney, he replied. Goney!
never had heard that name before; is it conceivable that this glorious
thing is utterly unknown to men ashore! never! But some time after, I
learned that goney was some seaman's name for albatross. So that by no
possibility could Coleridge's wild Rhyme have had aught to do with those
mystical impressions which were mine, when I saw that bird upon our
deck. For neither had I then read the Rhyme, nor knew the bird to be an
albatross. Yet, in saying this, I do but indirectly burnish a little
brighter the noble merit of the poem and the poet.
-Melville
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>
> Good job you said that Shay, because I was just going to bet you that
> there weren't any intersections. Guess what? You would have lost. ;)
I wouldn't have taken the bet, but I should have put that in my original
post, because someone might have. After hanging around here for SO many
years, it's easy to forget there are always a lot of people around who
aren't familiar with my fixations. I'm not exactly prolific.
> What I also meant to say is, great image!
Thank you.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Get more education.
>
> Still not good enough, eh?
>
Or that if you can do this with high school math, he is anxious to know
what you could achieve using some more advanced math. I know I would.
BTW, handcrafted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>
>>Get more education.
>
>
> Still not good enough, eh?
Hee hee, yeah, if you're going to stand there with your nose in the
doorway, I'm going to slam the door on it. I know you'd expect nothing
less of me and me of you.
>
>
>>BTW everytime I see a Stella, I think of you.
For any Stella this is true.
>>This does seem Stellaesque.
The later angular contortions are the obvious reference though I had
nothing really specific in mind. There are some pieces on show on the
roof gallery at at the MMA right now that share a feel with your work in
some general ways. Specifically the sense that we are being shown a
dimension or slice of some more complicated thing.
>
> He and I are both obsessed with 'Moby Dick.'
didn't know that. Melville is hard to top.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> [2] http://www.tiny.cc/pstdo
This is a dangerous site - it tried to install diskscrubber software. And
its full of spam and ads. Tinyurl.com does not intrude like that.
http://tinyurl.com/ynpfeo
And I should at that the image is simply amazing and instructive - in the
purist sense.
DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> > Or that if you can do this with high school math, he is anxious to
> > know what you could achieve using some more advanced math.
I know what he means. I'm just having a little fun. Jim knows from
previous conversations that I do not care for the type of
self-deprecation I am feigning.
> > I know I would. (like to see what you could do with more advanced
> > math)
Thank you, but I've not even approached the limits of my High School[1]
math. Looking at this and "...geeks only?"[2] might lead a person to
wonder exactly how complex a person could get with such a shape. The
answer is: VERY. Only aesthetics and RAM prevent these image from being
MUCH more complex.
> > BTW, handcrafted?
By the hard, scarred hands of a filthy manual laborer.
-Shay
[1] Plus that taught to me by ABX and Tor
[2] http://tinyurl.com/ynpfeo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm wrote:
>> [2] http://www.tiny.cc/
> This is a dangerous site - it tried to install diskscrubber software.
> And its full of spam and ads.
Thank you very much. I thought I was using tinyurl. I should be more
careful. I have canceled that post and reposted with the tinyurl you gave.
> And I should at that the image is simply amazing and instructive - in
> the purist sense.
Don't know if you're talking about the image in this post or the link
image. I imagine you'd be diplomatic and say "both" or "either."
Whatever the case, thank you for the compliment.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <shay@s.s> schreef in bericht news:46bcc3e4$1@news.povray.org...
[....] I'm not exactly prolific.
Maybe, but they are always eyecatchers!
(wish I had the math skills to do 1/10th of this....) :-)
Excellent!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> schreef in bericht
news:46bd626d@news.povray.org...
>
> (wish I had the math skills to do 1/10th of this....) :-)
>
.... which reminds me now that you have said somewhere that you hand-coded
your complex scenes, haven't you?
I take my hat off to you (as they say)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <shay@s.s> wrote:
> The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group, one
> prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more education!
>
> Oh well, I do what I can with what I have.
>
> -Shay
Nice pic although I preferred the Only for Geeks pic, possibly because it
looks more finished. Am I imagining things or does this pic bear more than
a passing resemblance with the other one? Apart from having more vertices,
that is.
I'm also curious on how you can state that it doesn't intersect. I'm not
doubting it, just wondering. If you used code that resembles the Why the
dark triangle? thread, one could argue that the code *could* be written as
a function.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
