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

> 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.

Or perhaps it's that, you know, fashions change?

(Plus, building a simple cube is probably vastly cheaper than building 
something beautiful. How many people can afford the extra cost?)

> 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

Oh hell, have you *seen* the geometry that goes into some cathedrals? 
It's like a mathematician's dream... or nightmare... I'm not sure which.

I could look at those spandrels all day...

Post a reply to this message

On 28/02/2011 05:07 PM, nemesis wrote:

> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
> other than zapping mindlessly...

Speak for yourself. :-P

I doubt I'd have learned about the Laplace transform, waveguide 
synthesis, numerical integration, fractal geometry, or a dozen other 
things if I lived way back in the days when "computer" was a valid human 
occupation.

> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...

Bach + DAW = the world is no longer safe. O_O

My god, the fugal possibilities are terrifying...

Post a reply to this message

>> 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;

Styles change. These days, if you build an intricate piece of 
architecture like that, everyone would go "eh, that's very old and out 
of date isn't it?"

> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;

I happen to *like* trance. :-P

(Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because 
I don't remember any of them.)

I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap 
mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple 
economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still 
out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical 
> concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.

Most buildings today are built with the intention of having multiple owners 
and occupants over their lifetimes. Buildings like court houses, legislature 
buildings, churches, etc where you're not expecting different people to 
occupy it over time tend to have many more occupant-specific decorations. 
Buildings like normal residential houses are more plain because you want it 
to be customizable by whoever buys it after it's finished. Look at normal 
residential buildings built 1000 years ago, and they're really not very 
decorated either. Again, 90% of old buildings have been torn down and 
replaced, so you don't see shanty towns built 200 years ago.

-- 
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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
>
> I happen to *like* trance. :-P
>
> (Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because
> I don't remember any of them.)

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about recognizing a high watermark for
the art when you are facing it.  Likewise, recognizing what is cheap, lame and
plain mindless no matter how much you like it.  In other words, it's about
putting your personal tastes in a balance and weighting it against what best
History has preserved for their worth.  Requires common sense, context and a
good dose of humility.

>
> I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap
> mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple
> economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still
> out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.

Don't you find that a bit disconcerting in the Information Age?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/2011 07:40 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
>>
>> I happen to *like* trance. :-P
>>
>> (Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because
>> I don't remember any of them.)
>
> It's not about liking or disliking, it's about recognizing a high watermark for
> the art when you are facing it.

Oh, I don't think anybody is arguing with the self-evident fact that 
there's almost nothing technically sophisticated about trance, and that 
the work of Mozart has a great degree of technical sophistication to it.

That doesn't mean I have to actually *like* it. And think about it - 
what kind of music is more profitable to produce? Music that's 
technically impressive, or music that people will actually pay money for?

That said, I really hope the general populous start getting bored with 
boy bands and girl bands really soon now...

>> I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap
>> mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple
>> economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still
>> out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.
>
> Don't you find that a bit disconcerting in the Information Age?

I figured I was just getting old or something.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/2011 4:09 PM, nemesis wrote:

>>
>> 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?
>

True :-)

> 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.
>

True but I put human life above art.

>> 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
>
Mere details ;-)

>> But I sympathise with your feelings.
>
> a true renascentist, that is, a man from the Renaissance. :)
>

Thanks I would say a renaissance man.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Music that's 
> technically impressive, or music that people will actually pay money for?

Mozart died a pauper. :-)

-- 
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 03/03/2011 9:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
>> actually pay money for?
>
> Mozart died a pauper. :-)
>
I think that’s a misconception. Mozart was buried in a multiple grave 
but that was common practice in Vienna at that time.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 9:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
>>> actually pay money for?
>>
>> Mozart died a pauper. :-)
>>
> I think that’s a misconception. Mozart was buried in a multiple
 grave 
> but that was common practice in Vienna at that time.

 From wikipedia:
There had been delays in calling a doctor—probably, according to 
Halliwell, 
because of a lack of funds.[26]

However, you may very well be right. I was under the impression he was po
or, 
certainly poor relative to his abilities.

-- 
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 03/03/2011 9:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I think that’s a misconception. Mozart was buried in a multiple grave
>> but that was common practice in Vienna at that time.
>
>  From wikipedia:
> There had been delays in calling a doctor—probably, according to
> Halliwell, because of a lack of funds.[26]
>
> However, you may very well be right. I was under the impression he was
> poor, certainly poor relative to his abilities.

I was listening to a radio programme the other day when I heard that 
snippet. BBC Radio 3 so it must be right. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/03/2011 09:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
>> actually pay money for?
>
> Mozart died a pauper. :-)

I gather that in his own lifetime, Bach was known as a virtuoso 
organist. But relatively *unknown* as an actual composer...

I wonder how many other "exceptional" composers were regarded as nothing 
particularly special when they were actually live?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 09:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
> >> actually pay money for?
> >
> > Mozart died a pauper. :-)
>
> I gather that in his own lifetime, Bach was known as a virtuoso
> organist. But relatively *unknown* as an actual composer...
>
> I wonder how many other "exceptional" composers were regarded as nothing
> particularly special when they were actually live?

You should remember that in those times musicians were actually servants to
aristocrats.  Their worth was in composing ceremonial music, ball music, sacra
music etc under some tight schedule.  There was not a great deal of cult of
celebrity as would develop during XIX's Romanticism, when artists lost
aristocratic patronage and had to struggle to survive by performing to an
audience or selling copies of their works.

in any case, sure folks those times had much better taste for arts... ;)

Post a reply to this message