131–140 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying NFTs is the public equivalent of wiping your -ss with money. Not sure how to feel morally neutral about it.
If someone destroys their own money, that is a pure gift to the rest of society. If that doesn't make sense to you, you have not understood what money is!
There are more productive ways to deal with wealth inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone destroys their own money, that is a pure gift to the rest of society. If that doesn't make sense to you, you have not understood what money is!
A gift in the form of an insult. There are more productive ways to deal with wealth inequality.
In my experience, that doesn't serve one well.
The Peterson Museum (basically the Louvre of automobiles) did the same -or very close- with wonderful video tours of areas that only paying 150$ would get you to see (The Vault). https://www.youtube.com/user/PetersenMuseum/videos The Seattle flight museum also started a series where the main curator would talk about individual planes in long format, way better experience than looking at photos online. https://www.you…
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2020/04/16/things-to-do-...
Why don't these photos to have color calibration targets? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163309-REG/Kodak_1907... And maybe some meta data about the camera and settings. I don't recall any online collections using targets. Surely these curation and archivist domain experts record this stuff. I've casually asked a few times, but no leads. -- My partner likes to create master copies. Portrait, still life. I've…
You should ask for your money back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you look at the terms and conditions for downloading, as with most museums, it's clear that they want to still sell prints and "licensing" images of any art they own they definitely have color-calibrated images, but not for the public edit: for those unaware, in the US, reproductions/photos of public domain 2D art are themselves public domain and not subject to copyright
We've definitely ordered prints directly. At best, they've been IKEA poster quality. Might as well just use Kinkos. There's a modest niche opportunity for a high end print shop to just handle it. White label the service so museums can reskin, rebrand, integrate. I pitched the notion to the two local shops I use (high end, preferred by artists). Build relations with some museums, create a simple e-commerce site. No in…
Maybe, or maybe not. In my experience, a lot of print shops, especially the chains, won't touch paintings for fear of liability, copyright or otherwise.
I tried to get one of my wife's paintings scanned and printed in a major American city, in order to send the print to her mother for Christmas. I must have gone to at least 30 places over two or three months, and none of them would touch it because there was no way to prove ownership. They wouldn't take our word for it. Some wanted paperwork from a lawyer.
I ended up taking it to a friend who is an architect, and he had it done in his office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no problem believing this. Nonetheless, I'd like to see a good hypothetical example to really understand how it would work. Would the seller have to be in on the deal? Probably, or not?
One hypothetical where the seller _is_ in on the deal: Let's say I want to send you money for something illegal. You, however, don't want the government getting suspicious about how you're spending $large_amount on $small_salary. I could gift you the money, but if we don't have an existing relationship or reason to do so that looks mighty suspicious, and additionally gift tax can end up being more than income tax. Th…
And there is almost certainly a large real world contingent salivating at the thought that they can soon launder huge amounts of money, based on infinite products, that are impossible to value and trivial to create.
And as usual there will be a handful of technology people afterwards standing around shocked, saying they had no idea they enabled the 21st century's money laundering platform, and
Just like the cliche "I just wanted to make an anarchist digital currency, I didn't think it would impact society in negative ways we can't control!"
The Peterson Museum (basically the Louvre of automobiles) did the same -or very close- with wonderful video tours of areas that only paying 150$ would get you to see (The Vault). https://www.youtube.com/user/PetersenMuseum/videos The Seattle flight museum also started a series where the main curator would talk about individual planes in long format, way better experience than looking at photos online. https://www.you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because that one is a copy of the original (still old, but ~100 years posterior to Da Vinci's). According to https://www.pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/mnr/MNR00265 its last known owner was Friedrich Welz, an Austrian gallery owner, so the work must have come to Paris postwar to figure out whether it needed to be restituted to a previous owner. The original Joconde is https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl01…
Thanks for clarifying this. Is it standard to use the original painter’s name even though it’s not their own work?
When the name of the copyist isn't known, it's common to file the copy under the name of the original artist – and with the “d'après” at the end not to break the alphabetical order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The date of creation seems wrong, right? Shouldn't it be ~1500?
Maybe it's one of those things where someone mixed up the centuries. The page states "XVIIe siècle" (17th century), if someone somewhere mixed up "16th century" (which is correct) with "the 1600s", that could explain the error. Personally I'm really not a fan of using the "century" notation, and in my native language it's never used.
So how do you handle fuzzy dates? What language is it, if I may ask?