10 reasons

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8308
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 10 reasons

Postby owlice » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:35 pm

How about using your words, Neufer?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Beyond » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:52 pm

Gee, owlice, if a picture(video) is worth a thousand words, then neufer's already expressed two thousand words. Granted, they're not his own, but he may be too tuckered out to haul his own to a post. :mrgreen:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Postby neufer » Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:00 pm

Beyond wrote:
owlice wrote:
How about using your words, Neufer?
Gee, owlice, if a picture(video) is worth a thousand words, then neufer's already expressed two thousand words. Granted, they're not his own, but he may be too tuckered out to haul his own to a post. :mrgreen:

Actually I AM using my own words (more or less).

My family can confirm the fact that I AM the guy in "Conspiracy-A-Go-Go"

(It's just a slightly different conspiracy and I can't get folks to be quite so interested.)
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Beyond » Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:25 pm

Dare i ask what the slightly different conspiracy is? Yes :!: I dare. So... what is it that you can't get folks quite so interested in, Mr. A-Go-Go :?:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Postby neufer » Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:21 pm

Beyond wrote:
Dare i ask what the slightly different conspiracy is? Yes :!: I dare. So...
what is it that you can't get folks quite so interested in, Mr. A-Go-Go :?:

Shakespeare (i.e., the final version at least) was written by a committee.

It's like the Apollo program or the LHC.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Beyond » Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:54 pm

Written by a committee :?: Hmm... could be. Final version :?: :?: Wadda ya mean by that :?:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8308
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 10 reasons

Postby owlice » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:06 pm

Image
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:11 pm

Is that the second horse? The previous one was already atomized.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8308
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 10 reasons

Postby owlice » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:16 pm

geckzilla wrote:Is that the second horse?

Eighteenth, I think.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

The Turin Horse

Postby neufer » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:24 pm

owlice wrote:Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche wrote:
<<Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (15 October 1844 – 25 August 1900) was a German philologist, philosopher, cultural critic, poet and composer. He wrote several critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy and science, displaying a fondness for metaphor, irony and aphorism. On 3 January 1889, after seeing a horse being whipped in the streets of Turin, Italy, Nietzsche had a mental breakdown that put him in an asylum for the rest of his life. Nietzsche is reported to have run over to the horse and held it in his arm to protect it before he collapsed to the ground. According to Botton, after the horse incident Nietzsche “returned to his boarding house, danced naked” and thought of shooting the Kaiser. In the following few days, Nietzsche sent short writings—known as the Wahnbriefe ("Madness Letters")—to a number of friends. Most of them were signed "Dionysos". Nietzsche began to believe himself to be Jesus, Napoleon, Buddha and other historical figures. Nietzsche’s family threw him into asylum where he died 11 years later at the age of 56.>>

Friedrich "Dionysos" Neufer
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock & the Golden Rule

Postby neufer » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:58 pm

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2011/12 ... -pilgrims/ wrote:
<<While popular history has the Pilgrims setting their sights on landing at what would become the Massachusetts Colony, they were really trying to reach the area known as “Hudson’s River.” As a result of poor navigation and strong prevailing winds, the first land they sighted was in what’s now known as Cape Cod. They tried to sail south but were unable to do so because of strong winds and dangerous shoals.

The crew of the Mayflower, who were not Pilgrims, had by this time tired of their passengers and put them off the ship at the first opportunity.

Once again, the myth of that landing doesn’t square with the true facts. While we all believe, today, that they disembarked at Plymouth Rock, we are wrong.

The tale of Plymouth Rock is first recorded in 1741, more than 120 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims to the New World. The story is attributed to Thomas Fraunce, then 95 years old, who claimed that his father told him the story when he was a young boy. However, Fraunce’s father didn’t reach the colony until three years after the original landing. The truth of the matter is that the original Pilgrim landing in the New World was at what is now Provincetown, Massachusetts.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Beyond » Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:08 pm

Yeah, just like a lot of history, warped, twisted and untrue. And for a lot of it that is right, it gets repeated wrong.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Warped, twisted and unTRUE

Postby neufer » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:07 pm

owlice wrote:
How about using your words, Neufer?
http://natmonitor.com/2013/11/24/owls-n ... chers-say/ wrote:
Secrets of owls’ near noiseless wings could lead to stealthier aircraft, researchers say
National Monitor, Lance Tillson | November 24, 2013

<<According to a news release from the American Physical Society, owls’ near noiseless wings could lead to stealthier aircraft. For owls, their specialized plumage gives them the ability to hunt and kill their prey in relative silence. Researchers believe that “silent owl technology” could improve the design of aircraft, wind turbines, and submarines. “Owls possess no fewer than three distinct physical attributes that are thought to contribute to their silent flight capability: a comb of stiff feathers along the leading edge of the wing; a flexible fringe a the trailing edge of the wing; and a soft, downy material distributed on the top of the wing,” noted Justin Jaworski, assistant professor in Lehigh University’s Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics.

For normal wings, the sound from the hard trailing edge usually holds sway over the acoustic signature. However, earlier work by the researchers showed that the porous, flexible nature of the owl wing’s trailing edge leads to major aerodynamic noise reductions. “We also predicted that the dominant edge-noise source could be effectively eliminated with properly tuned porous or elastic edge properties, which implies that that the noise signature from the wing can then be dictated by otherwise minor noise mechanisms such as the ‘roughness’ of the wing surface,” Jaworski posited.

The velvety down on top of an owl’s wings produces a flexible but rough surface, similar to a soft carpet. According to Jaworski, this material may get rid of sound at the source through a new mechanism that is a lot different than those of normal sound absorbers. “Our current work predicts the sound resulting from air passing over the downy material, which is idealized as a collection of individual flexible fibers, and how the aerodynamic noise level varies with fiber composition,” Jaworski remarked. The findings are offering insight into how a fuzzy surface can be formed to modify its acoustic signature.

A photographic examination of actual owl feathers by Ian Clark of Virginia Tech has shown a “forest-like” geometry of the down material. The researchers plan on using these observations to more accurately recreate the down structure in future theoretical and experimental research. Initial work at Virginia Tech revealed that a simple mesh covering is able to get rid of some sound produced by rough surfaces. “If the noise-reduction mechanism of the owl down can be established, there may be far-reaching implications to the design of novel sound-absorbing liners, the use of flexible roughness to affect trailing-edge noise and vibrations for aircraft and wind turbines, and the mitigation of underwater noise from naval vessels,” Jaworski added.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:38 pm

Image
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Postby neufer » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:50 am

http://www.insidescience.org/content/pl ... -noise/771 wrote:
Playing Skillfully With a Loud Noise
New technologies may help reduce supersonic jet takeoff noise.
Peter Gwynne, ISNS Contributor, Aug 22 2012

<<To simulate landing supersonic jets on aircraft carriers in heavy seas, U.S. Navy pilots fly over land -- almost always in the early hours of the morning, when the screech of their engines on takeoff and landing disturbs the sleep of local residents. But technology sponsored by the Navy promises to give the neighbors more peaceful nights. It works by interfering with the turbulence in jet engines that causes the noise.

The technology adds a new twist to a method recently introduced in civilian aircraft. That method involves shaping the rear end of jet engines -- the region through which the exhaust travels -- into a pattern of curves. The curves, called chevrons or cutouts, decrease the amount of turbulence in the exhaust. But they also reduce the engine's fuel efficiency slightly.

The new approach, under investigation by engineers from the University of Cincinnati and the Naval Research Laboratory, affects turbulence more actively. A small airflow introduced into the engine ahead of the exhaust influences the turbulence in much the same way as the chevrons. Pilots can save fuel by turning off this "fluidic technology" once the plane is in the air, when noise suppression is no longer needed. "We are in the business of trying to quiet planes without impacting their fuel efficiency," said Jeff Kastner from the University of Cincinnati.

Kastner highlighted his team's studies of chevrons and fluidic technology at the Internoise 2012 Congress Aug. 21 in New York City. "The military is willing to pay to obtain quieter engines," said James Bridges, a jet-noise researcher at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland who did not participate in Kastner's investigation.

The exhaust emitted from jet engines creates noise through a frictional effect as it slows down. "It's like the noise you get when you slam on the brakes in your car," Kastner explained. "The faster the exhaust, the louder the noise." When supersonic jets take off and land, they do more than disturb people's sleep. The noise also stresses jet aircraft's components and helps potential enemies to identify the planes.

Chevrons reduce the noise by interfering with the direction of the turbulence in engines' exhaust. "Engine exhaust tends to be unidirectional," Kastner said. "Chevrons disturb the flow. They make it more three-dimensional, at which point the process becomes less efficient. You may still have more turbulence, but it's not as effective at producing noise."

Manufacturers such as Boeing accept the small reduction in fuel efficiency that accompanies the chevrons they have introduced in their latest types of airliner. But because military jets consume far more fuel at supersonic speeds, the loss in efficiency presents a more serious problem. So far no military aircraft have been fitted with chevrons.

Fluidic technology offers a means of complementing chevrons in military aircraft while minimizing the loss in fuel efficiency. "It's a bleed placed in an earlier part of the engine. You're basically blowing the fluidic air perpendicular to the main flow," Kastner said. "The number one thing is that you can turn it on and off."

Pilots could switch on the technology during takeoffs and landings, when the engine noise causes the greatest distress, and turn it off once in the air. Alternatively, the technology could be pre-set like the cruise control system in automobiles. "The plane could be programmed to turn off the fluidics at will," Kastner said. "But the pilot could override it."

Previous studies of fluidic technology have produced mixed results. "We have seen some significant positive impacts, as well as some seriously negative ones," Bridges said. "The trick is in how you do it."

At the Internoise Congress, Kastner presented the results of studies on both noise-reducing technologies in a money-saving experimental set-up that uses engines one-tenth the size of those in military jets. "Results show appreciable noise reduction by both fluidic injection and chevrons," Kastner reported. If further results prove out the concepts, the military could soon insist on incorporating the technologies in their jet aircraft.

Bridges cautions that adding chevrons and fluidics to jet engines will require some skill. "It's not just a matter of slap it on and go with it," Bridges said.

It's also possible that the military could opt for fluidic technology alone, given its advantage in fuel efficiency. "It could replace chevrons," Kastner said. "But merging the two technologies could be more advantageous for military aircraft. When a plane goes supersonic it could be a little harder to control with fluidic flow alone."
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:26 pm

Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Beyond » Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:29 pm

All mirrors and no smoke.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Nitpicker » Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:36 pm

Vermeer's original is still better than the reproduction. All artists have their tools and the tools typically match the technology of the day and are typically labour saving devices. The artist is under no obligation to describe their process, or even to interpret the result. It is art.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:46 pm

Well, the point is that it's totally possible but art scholars will typically deny that it is even possible. Obviously it's not something that can be proven if the artist never documented it. It's an amusing analogue to Shakespeare. Humans are by nature very competitive and as an artist myself and having spent many years hanging around the digital art community I can tell you that it's no different with art. It is not surprising that some artists will "cheat" by claiming that their skill is what enabled them to do something when they actually used a tool such as photography which they will deny because it's seen as cheapening the art. I personally have nothing against any tools but some of them will claim that they painted something completely from imagination even if they used photographic assistance. Now there are entire communities of concept artists and matte painters who embrace the use of photography and are very forthcoming about it.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Nitpicker » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:14 am

geckzilla wrote:Well, the point is that it's totally possible but art scholars will typically deny that it is even possible. Obviously it's not something that can be proven if the artist never documented it. It's an amusing analogue to Shakespeare. Humans are by nature very competitive and as an artist myself and having spent many years hanging around the digital art community I can tell you that it's no different with art. It is not surprising that some artists will "cheat" by claiming that their skill is what enabled them to do something when they actually used a tool such as photography which they will deny because it's seen as cheapening the art. I personally have nothing against any tools but some of them will claim that they painted something completely from imagination even if they used photographic assistance. Now there are entire communities of concept artists and matte painters who embrace the use of photography and are very forthcoming about it.


Having married into the art scene and living in its fringe, it seems to me there are almost as many opinions in art academia as there are art academics. Consensus is not required in art. There are those who say that photography killed painting, and those who say that photography improved painting, because it forced painters to paint images that couldn't be attempted with a camera. And there is every conceivable opinion in between. It is (almost) universal that artists are reluctant to discuss their technique, because they rightly prefer the focus to be on the result (and they just don't like talking about their work anyway). If some feel the art is cheapened because a particular technique is suggested after the fact, then I might suggest they are immediately limiting their appreciation of the art, without the art having changed at all.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:53 am

It's not necessarily the art that is appreciated less, but the person behind the art and then the art by proxy is possibly less enjoyable. If someone is not just being secretive about things but telling lies, it's generally unacceptable once it's discovered. Not that I'm saying any of the old masters did this. I'd rather not dwell in unknowable things.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: 10 reasons

Postby Nitpicker » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:25 am

geckzilla wrote:It's not necessarily the art that is appreciated less, but the person behind the art and then the art by proxy is possibly less enjoyable. If someone is not just being secretive about things but telling lies, it's generally unacceptable once it's discovered. Not that I'm saying any of the old masters did this. I'd rather not dwell in unknowable things.


Yes, I think you're right, in the sense that the modern kerfuffles created by Oxfordians, et al, and by Hockney & Falco, have revealed many modern people who think that art must only be as good as the artist and/or their technique, which I hold to be flawed thinking. In the case of Hockney and Falco at least (because I am not at all across the vast breadth of the Shakespeare authorship debate), they reject the idea that their thesis (to explain the progression of European art) might de-value the art or the artists.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY

Re: 10 reasons

Postby geckzilla » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:39 pm

Conversely, you could take Hitler as an example who is generally regarded as a big jerk (to put it lightly) but that's actually what makes his otherwise pedestrian art interesting. There's a bit of a shock factor involved because you don't consider warmongers as being artists and then you see his art and it's surprisingly good in contrast to the man who made it.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

The Necessity of Making and Viewing Art

Postby neufer » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

http://venetianred.net/2010/03/06/hans- ... the-trade/ wrote:
Malian Bogolanfini and Cultural Identity
Art for Life’s Sake:
The Necessity of Making and Viewing Art

Hans Holbein: Tricks of the Trade
By LIZ HAGER

<<In his 1923 The Mastery of Drawing, art historian Joseph Meder advanced the theory that Hans Holbein the Younger (1497 – 1543) had utilized the tracing (perspective) apparatus first described by Albrecht Dürer (21 May 1471 – 6 April 1528) in his The Painter’s Manual (1525). Or perhaps, like the artist below, he painted on glass to get contours and spatial relationships just right.

It’s not so far-fetched an idea. In his fascinating book book Secret Knowledge , David Hockney posits a similar theory about Ingres, Velázquez, and Caravaggio (among others) use of optics and lenses to “improve” their draftsmanship, and with it portraits that were far and away more naturalistic than those of their contemporaries.>>

Code: Select all

--------------------------------------------------------------------
        ARCHILOCHUS solar eclipse:      April 6,  648 BC   Friday
         Koran descends to Earth:       April 6,  610 AD   Monday
          Petrarch meets LAURA:         April 6, 1327      Monday
          LAURA dies of plague:         April 6, 1348      Sunday
              RAPHAEL born:             April 6, 1483      Sunday
              RAPHAEL dies:             April 6, 1520  Good Friday

{LUCIO:  Does BRIDGET PAINT still, Pompey, ha?   [MfM Act 3, Sc. 2]}

               DURER dies:              April 6, 1528      Monday
            Kent EARTHQUAKE:            April 6, 1580   Wednesday
          BRIDGET Vere's birth:         April 6, 1584      Monday
          Thomas Hobbes' birth:         April 5, 1588  Good Friday
       Sir Francis Walsingham dies:     April 6, 1590      Monday
         Historian John Stow dies:      April 6, 1605     Sat/Wed.
    "native of Crete" EL GRECO dies:    April 7, 1614      Monday
     Start of _The SOUND & the FURY_:   April 6, 1928  Good Friday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13787
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Postby neufer » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:28 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
It probably took ~20 poets around 30 years to produce Shake-speare's First Folio. It was the Apollo program of the Elizabethan/Jacobean age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse wrote:
<<The Muses in Greek mythology, poetry and literature, are the goddesses of the inspiration of literature, science and the arts: Calliope -epic poetry; Clio -history; Euterpe -flutes and lyric poetry; Thalia -comedy and pastoral poetry; Melpomene -tragedy; Terpsichore -dance; Erato -love poetry; Polyhymnia -sacred poetry; Urania -astronomy.

Antiquity set Apollo as their leader:
Apollon Mousagetēs ("Apollo Muse-leader").>>
Art Neuendorffer


Return to “Open Space: Discuss Anything”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests