Hah, got me thinking maybe PG's pre-Viaweb startup idea to put art galleries on the Web was just too far ahead of its time[1].
Sistine Chapel
121–130 of 246 posts
Re: Sistine Chapel
#122Having 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.
"It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right."
Re: What would fit on American television today.
Pretty specious argument. Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. We also don't find hanging people in public squares appropriate anymore, or a million other things...
There are arguments to be made in favor of allowing more nudity on television. "They used to do it back in the day" is not one of the good ones.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#123From an American copyright point of view... Is this copyrightable? It is a reproduction of a work of art that is no longer under copyright. The image itself offers no creativity, other than as a reproduction.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#124Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.
All "offensive" details in The Last Judgement were covered soon after Michelangelo's death (1564). The fresco was restored 1980-1994, without the added loincloths, but a couple of the figures were actually heavily modified and impossible to restore. [0]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo...
Re: Sistine Chapel
#125Wow - though music a bit too much.
Palestrina. You couldn't get more appropriate music for the times this was painted. I think a couple decades after.
Not saying the music choice is inappropriate - I think it fits the piece perfectly. But - IMO - art spectatorship should be sober and limited only to elments the artist intended. So any use of extra music to enhance my experience feels redundant. But hey, that's why we have the mute button :D
Re: Sistine Chapel
#126other 360° views: http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/index_en.html
Re: Sistine Chapel
#127Earlier 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).
It is kind of difficult to copyright a 500 year old piece of art. BUT you can control access to it.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright was a good chunk of the reason, but there is a much better one: lots of flashing from cameras will fade the pigments just like sunlight fades outdoor advertising.
There's a better one still IMO. It's a place of worship, you're supposed to look at the images and ponder your relationship with, and position before, the Almighty Creator. If you're messing around with your camera, or others are, then you're invariably far to distracted to meditate on higher things.
So, one is only allowed to ponder your relationship before the Almighty Creator while one is in the Sistine Chapel? Or am I not supposed to be distracted by the beautiful works of art?
While I appreciate the need to respect others who may want some peace and quite while worshiping, this is total hogwash. One can ponder one's relationship with their creator ANYWHERE, not just in some small made up room.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#129Needs WASD to move, and a more "standard" mouselook.
For real. WASD would be a huge improvement.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#130I've been looking for Waldo for hours now. No luck.