Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sistine Chapel

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 246 posts

Re: Sistine Chapel

#51

Post by lostlogin »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
Locke1689 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried the Oculus Rift, the potential to experience this would be incredible. Although there's nothing quite like just sitting on a worn stone bench alone in a cathedral, just the chill air around you. It often makes me wish for a non-religious religion -- just a refuge of tranquility.

Mankind has made the most incredible art inspired by religion. Along the same lines, Bach's Chorales and in fact quite a bit of his other work. Try this, if you feel like some really nice classical music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC3Upv8DuRQ

You're quite right, but there is something strangely amusing to me about the idea of art inspired by religion in a thread about the Sistine chapel. It's almost more like science trumping religion. There are quite a few theories on just what some images are of - sections of brain, cross section of a penis, brain stem, eye, shoulder etc.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#52

Post by swang »

tormeh wrote: post #34
j2kun wrote: post #23

Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.

There are uncovered breasts! Penises! Can't find any vulvas unfortunately. It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right. Another way to think of it: Miley Cyrus is actually more covered than many of the characters in the Sistine Chapel.

I believe if its "art" they don't need to censor it.

See: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david...

At the very least, they don't do any close ups.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#53

Post by antoinec »

adambenayoun wrote: post #45
radley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Vatican's own web site...

I always wondered why there's a no photography rule. Is it because of copyright or because it's a sacred site? (Although the mere fact that we're watching a 360 photo on the site means that it's probably copyright).

"In return for funding the renovation, Nippon TV received the exclusive rights to photography and video of the restored art, as well as photos and recordings of the restoration process" http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...

Re: Sistine Chapel

#54

Post by iaskwhy »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…

I'd like to add the rest of the museum seemed really good and very relaxing since most people just wanted to see this famous fresco. It's quite big (thus tiring) though.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#55

Post by qq66 »

Really awesome stuff. I wonder why they chose this level of maximum resolution -- from the Gigapixel images it's clear that they could support zooming into the individual paint cracks, although with the publicity that this is getting, that might have incurred extreme bandwidth costs.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#56

Post by jacquesm »

lostlogin wrote: post #51
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mankind has made the most incredible art inspired by religion. Along the same lines, Bach's Chorales and in fact quite a bit of his other work. Try this, if you feel like some really nice classical music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC3Upv8DuRQ

You're quite right, but there is something strangely amusing to me about the idea of art inspired by religion in a thread about the Sistine chapel. It's almost more like science trumping religion. There are quite a few theories on just what some images are of - sections of brain, cross section of a penis, brain stem, eye, shoulder etc.

In this case I should have probably used 'funded', but in those days not having a religion was not really an option.

Michelangelo was at continuous odds with his employers during his lifetime, he dissected corpses illegally at first, later with tacit approval of some of the church bigwigs in order to improve his skills as an artist. It was a continuous give-and-take to see who got the most out of the arrangement.

In the end I think we, the future dwellers able to see his work no matter what caused them to come into being are the real winners.

Not bad for a man who declared himself unfit to execute the work because he was a sculptor, not a painter...

There is a very good book about him that I forgot the title of (I read it ages ago).

Re: Sistine Chapel

#57

Post by jimmcslim »

tjr wrote: post #31
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. So that's a good thing for a bad reason and I totally sympathize with the position of the stewards of this amazing work. I have a super nice story about this but I'm actually somewhat hesitant to tell it in detail in public, but I once…

I wish more places would specify "no flash photography" when that's really what they mean. I suppose some people don't know how to turn it off, but for those who do (or for those who don't bring a flash in the first place), it would be nice.

Most galleries I have been to lately have this policy now (obvious joke: 'but photos taken with rubbish cameras are fine...'), given the invention of cameras in everyone's phone its generally a lost battle to expect people won't take photos.

> I suppose some people don't know how to turn it off

I would argue that a majority of people either wilfully ignore this instruction or don't know how to do it.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#58

Post by [deleted] »

nandhp wrote: post #12
nitrogen wrote: post #7

Meta comment about the panorama interface: The click+drag view control feels inverted to me. I'm curious whether I'm in the minority, though. For FPS games on PC I use normal mouse, but for console FPS games I use inverted joystick.

Yes, it feels inverted to me too. You know who's responsible for that? Google Maps (specifically Street View). There used to be a bunch of different 360° Java applets and QuickTime VR embeds that did it this way; now they all feel backwards.

[deleted]

Re: Sistine Chapel

#59

Post by duncanawoods »

audiodude wrote: post #39

Just remember: whatever piece of code you're working on right now; whatever tiny feature on a tiny website you're trying to implement; that is your Sistine Chapel.

How true - a death march project of absurd scope driven by the ego of a tyrannical leader forcing you to use a technology you have barely any experience of, or interest in, taking you away from your real passion and expertise under threat of destitution.

You slave away day in day out through illness, injury and 1000 anxieties but, as someone once said... artists ship :)

Re: Sistine Chapel

#60

Post by lostlogin »

nitrogen wrote: post #7

Meta comment about the panorama interface: The click+drag view control feels inverted to me. I'm curious whether I'm in the minority, though. For FPS games on PC I use normal mouse, but for console FPS games I use inverted joystick.

It works beautifully on a touch screen. The only downside being that you can only zoom a very short distance. It is otherwise perfect on mobile.
Post reply on HN