Roundup
Post #870 • September 15, 2006, 9:11 AM • 5 Comments
"The novelist Émile Zola famously described landscape painting as a corner of nature 'viewed through a temperament.' It's a perspective that helps the viewer understand the tender, poetic landscapes of James A. Suydam (1819-1865), a thoughtful amateur painter, well-to-do merchant and charitable art collector who is the nominal subject of a sweetly pleasurable touring exhibition at the National Academy Museum." Looks promising.
"Morality, generally speaking, doesn't have much to do with the art market. Posterity does." Michael Kimmelman, on a show at the Met of early moderns, but about Ambrose Vollard.
"For almost a century, Loveland [CO] was just a sweet little town built by farmers growing sugar beets. By the time the industry faded in the 1980s, farmers were replaced by artists, specifically sculptors."
Banksy has been on a tear. More here.
It's like grafitti. And yet... (Reddit)
"It would be nice if the planners of Ground Zero's reconstruction adopted the attitude that has become more common among architects in recent years: humbly pick the style that's 'right for the job' and then adhere to its rules with some deference to that style's internal, traditional rules." Todd Seavey for Reason.
"A true tetrachromat has another type of cone in between the red and green - somewhere in the orange range - and its 100 shades theoretically would allow her to see 100 million different colors." Sounds like it would be helpful, right? Females only. (Reddit)
Department of Skills: Michel Lauzière plays Mozart's Symphony #40. On bottles. With rollerskates. Um, just watch it. (Reddit)
Sorry about not posting yesterday. I'll make it up to you.
2.
September 15, 2006, 12:01 PM
"... it wouldn't have been the first time terrorists saw modernist architecture as a weird imperialist imposition"
And then the writer gives the examples of he Bilbao Gugg, and a Planet Hollywood franchise... what do either of these have to do with Modernist Architecture, you may ask? Good question.
3.
September 15, 2006, 2:30 PM
Modernist or not, they are certainly weird imperialist impositions.
4.
September 16, 2006, 1:48 AM
Hi
5.
September 18, 2006, 1:14 AM
and they copy - sadness and madness will come unpressidentedly...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://adrian.gimp.org/lava.jpg&imgrefurl=http://adrian.gimp.org/flames.html&h=256&w=256&sz=11&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=Ixfr_gsfjv1OCM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfire%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
(translate to image)
1.
George
September 15, 2006, 11:15 AM
I was not aware of the existence of abilities possessed by the tetrachromat. It’s an interesting read.
Buried in the geek links I posted on shooting images post was this article by Bruce Fraser on how we see color and how it is scientifically defined. It is worth reading in conjunction with the link Franklin gave on the tetrachromat. On page 3, Figures 6 and 7 give an example of how two colors, which seem similar (undistinguishable from one another) under one type of lighting, appear different with a different light source. This is something I think we all are empirically aware of.
The tetrachromat phenomena is essentially an extension of this, but rather than having a different illuminant, the tetrachromat has the extra receptor. The spectral response of the extra receptor would probably be similar to adding an extra "red" curve in figures 4 and 5 with it’s response peak shifted to the right. Colors in the longer wavelengths (red) are the most difficult to distinguish from one another, so an added receptor would make a significant difference perceptually.