For a room where you spent the whole time looking up... that gimbal lock is really annoying.
Quaternions, please?
Sistine Chapel
161–170 of 246 posts
Re: Sistine Chapel
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
That hardly obfuscates the fact that people WERE mass murdered in the name of religion.
So, people were mass murdered in the name of both theism and atheism. What does that mean?
Just as it's offensive to celebrate's Hitler's (or Bush's) artistic achievements, it's offensive to celebrate the works of any religion. But for some insane reason, religions get to be celebrated for their contribution to the arts and humanities despite having been the force behind many episodes of genocide. Humans are crazy in that way.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#163Hah, 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]. [1] http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html
VRML was a big deal back in 1994. At least it was supposed to be ;-)
Re: Sistine Chapel
#164Has the actual Chapel aged so well or have the images been reworked to give show more color?
They recently had a multi-year restoration. Before that it was almost completely black from soot and smoke.
Relatively recently ;-)
According to Google "The frescoes of the Sistine Chapel and in particular the ceiling and accompanying lunettes by Michelangelo have been subject to a number of restorations, the most recent taking place between 1980 and 1994."
Re: Sistine Chapel
#165Very 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…
Only thing that I would change, would be to add Easter eggs.
look down on the floor, there is one!
Re: Sistine Chapel
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Bach was deeply religious, and not just because of some lap-dog sense of "that's who's paying the bills." He signed most of his works as "SDG", short for "Soli Deo Gloria", which roughly translates as "to God alone belongs all glory. His meaning being that any ability Bach thought he had was solely just God showing off: Bach made beautiful music, but God made Bach, and he knew it.
> he \emph{believed} in it
ftfy
Re: Sistine Chapel
#167Very 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…
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.
a non-religious religion is what I dream about too!
After many years despising religion (I am Italian, I know what Rome actually means) I traveled the world and learned that religion actually serves some high purposes.
I really miss being religious, so if you build a non-religious one, count me in!
sounds almost like a good start-up idea :)
Re: Sistine Chapel
#168on a thread dominated by insightful comments on religion history and art I hate to do this but ... I can't get pinch to zoom to get in close on the iPhone - is the image only "as seen from ground level" or can you really get up close if using a PC?
Re: Sistine Chapel
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's a good question. I think that his interest in dissection was not driven by any desire to know anatomy per-se, but mostly by a desire to be a better sculptor. From his perspective (or at least, from what I know of his perspective, which is very much limited by what we know about him) what was in the head was not all that interesting. But muscles, the skeleton, the locations of internal organs that gave shape to the abdomen and such were of great interest. He could use that knowledge to depict people in a more realistic way.
The inside of the skull is not shaping the skull in a way that it will come out 'wrong' if you don't know about what's in the skull.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
> Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. That means current church dogma is just temporary ... it has no 'absolute validity' in it, which is even worse than allowing the nude pics. Or current theology is just creative thinking that happened in-between then and now. Why should a religious man submit to recent theology instead of the original Christian th…
Since when does the Catholic Church have a say in U.S. broadcasting standards?