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

131–140 of 246 posts

Re: Sistine Chapel

#131

Post by projectileboy »

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.

At the Minneapolis Institute of Arts they're very clear about this, as is the Art Institute of Chicago and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and I'm sure many others. Outside the U.S., I don't know.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#132

Post by Alex3917 »

walden42 wrote: post #78
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.

> It often makes me wish for a non-religious religion -- just a refuge of tranquility. Have you looked into Buddhism yet? Because that's exactly one of the ways I'd describe it--a non-religion whose focus is on tranquility. If you haven't looked into yet, this is a great easy-to-read book to start with: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/...

> I'd describe it--a non-religion whose focus is on tranquility.

The reason white people invented Buddhism 150 years ago or whenever was explicitly to be a religion. This was in order to provide an argument against western imperialism, among other reasons.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#133

Post by pcrh »

lostlogin wrote: post #96
pcrh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely those interpretations of Michelangelo's frescoes as brain stem, etc are a case of pareidolia. In the case of the "brain cross-section" (where God touches Adam) There is no reason why Michelangelo should choose what is now a standard representation of the brain in a sagittal cross-section over any other cross-section; in fact the image doesn't look very much like a real brain in cross-section, but is close…

A midline section is the obvious one. And there are images by him in the chapel that have similarity to coronals too. Of all the images that look like anatomy the most famous one of the brain is the least obvious one in my opinion. Although that said, it isn't too much of a stretch to see it. I wouldn't really call it that stylised so much as obscured, presumably to prevent the bill payer moaning. Out of curiosity, w…

MR images, etc, are very modern. The choice of image to be displayed in a text book is not based only on what one would see if one had a brain to dissect at hand; dissection procedures, and the sections that result, are determined by precedence.

The "standard" sagittal section as in this image (i.imgur.com/ZTvy55n.jpg), or this image (i.imgur.com/73YdDXa.jpg) is chosen precisely because it shows in one image several important features of the brain, and is also recapitulated nicely by MRI images, as you mention.

However, there is no reason why Michelangelo would know anything about the different regions of the brain and therefore choose a representation that showed them.

A "fresh" human brain (which is what Michelangelo would have seen) looks like this (i.imgur.com/KXBLtrx.jpg), or this (i.imgur.com/Bm5l8n6.jpg), and without further dissection do not look much like his paintings.

Such brains can be further sectioned in any number of ways, none of which are necessarily obvious. The question then is would Michelangelo have dissected brains in the same way as is now done?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#134

Post by Gracana »

probably_wrong wrote: post #70
tjr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best way I've seen it implemented was a museum that not only had a lengthy explanation about how to turn off your flash (including examples for Sony point-and-shoots, which were fairly popular), but also had a "test table" with similar light as you'd find inside, so experts could adjust their exposure/ISO accordingly. Perhaps that's expecting too much from the average tourist, but still, I found it cool.

The table thing is very considerate of them. I wonder how many people use it?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#135

Post by dredmorbius »

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

Don't make that attribution error of associating the patron with the artist.

Yes, religion was the primary patron of visual, sculptural, and musical arts for much of the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. But it wasn't the only.

And you'll find beautiful works among the secularist of the Classical and Romantic periods, say, the Pre-Raphaelites. Of whom neither the artists, models, nor subject are generally highly religious in nature.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#136

Post by wyager »

dredmorbius wrote: post #135
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

Don't make that attribution error of associating the patron with the artist. Yes, religion was the primary patron of visual, sculptural, and musical arts for much of the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. But it wasn't the only. And you'll find beautiful works among the secularist of the Classical and Romantic periods, say, the Pre-Raphaelites. Of whom neither the artists, models, nor subject are gener…

I'm disappointed that you are in the negative points. Your comment was insightful and interesting, and I know more after reading it than I did before.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#137

Post by pbhjpbhj »

gnaritas wrote: post #100
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a terrible reason, it's a tourist attraction, not a place of worship;even if it still were many don't care about your superstitions and don't need or want your superstitions imposed upon them. We don't all walk around with delusions of a creator in our minds.

>not a place of worship //

Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? And they don't have art work depicting the lives of important people in the Christian faith, or imagery that Christians might use as part of their worship.

When the Sistine Chapel choir sings the Miserere, say, to assembled members of the Roman Catholic church, you don't think that maybe, just maybe that means that the people who own the building consider it to be - perhaps - just a tiny bit of a building for religious devotion ... now what's that word, oh yeah, perhaps they consider it to be a chapel.

Would you go to a Mosque, perhaps the Great Mosque in Istanbul, and say "people shouldn't be imposing their religion on me, like, just because I came to a mosque".

"Why should I respect your beliefs as a Christian when I choose to visit a Christian chapel" is that really your considered opinion?

TBH if it weren't for your long standing on this site I'd have dismissed your comment as an obvious troll.

Now if I go picking apart your need to hide from God, your desire to run from the truth, your imposition of your beliefs on others in an affront to the truth ... I'm guessing you're going to consider that this isn't really the appropriate forum for such a conversation, that I'm being crass and troll-like, no? Perhaps you'll start by telling me you're only interested in the truth despite your "not a place of worship" claim being the most obvious of falsehoods and putting the lie to such a notion ...

- - -

¹ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M Roman Catholic mass being celebrated in the Sistine Chapel, March 2013.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#138

Post by cfield »

Alex3917 wrote: post #132
walden42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It often makes me wish for a non-religious religion -- just a refuge of tranquility. Have you looked into Buddhism yet? Because that's exactly one of the ways I'd describe it--a non-religion whose focus is on tranquility. If you haven't looked into yet, this is a great easy-to-read book to start with: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/...

> I'd describe it--a non-religion whose focus is on tranquility. The reason white people invented Buddhism 150 years ago or whenever was explicitly to be a religion. This was in order to provide an argument against western imperialism, among other reasons.

Curious what you mean by "white people invented Buddhism 150 years ago". What is this in reference to?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#139

Post by CamperBob2 »

neltnerb wrote: post #116
jacquesm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest enemy of pigments is ultra-violet and lots of cheap flash kits do not filter that out. Sunlight is about 1 KW/square meter on a non-cloudy day at noon, directly from above. 4% of that is a typical value for the UV component. So the UV power hitting a 1 square meter surface at noon is about 40 Watts. Photographic flash is on the order of a millisecond give or take, and power output of a typical flash durin…

It's worth mentioning that white LED flash has essentially zero UV. This shows an LED light spectrum with one cool white LED. The warmer colors have even less of the 450nm peak. http://saikoled.com/design.html#AAAAAAAAAAAAABAAA (click on "Actual Brightness" to see the spectrum in mW instead of lumens, I didn't implement that in the URL header yet)

That's really a cool idea, is this your site?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#140

Post by christiangenco »

bobbles wrote: post #105

When I was in the Sistine Chapel a couple of years ago, someone opened that big black door at the back of the hall (between the two wooden walls). This was not the tourist exit, and inside there were huge beautiful golden hallways with exquisite paintings all around. Does anyone know if this part of the chapel is visible or recorded anywhere?

From my high school AP Art History class, I believe that door is where the priest would enter. I vaguely remember something about a controversy when it was revealed that Michelangelo put the depiction of hell in the lower right (directly above the door) with the tormented characters pointing at it.

For the life of me I can't find verification of this online, though, so hopefully Mr. J (my APAH teacher) wasn't just making it up.

Edit: Ahh wait, I think you were talking about a different door. Mine is a smaller black door in the lower right of The Last Judgement.

Post reply on HN