Awesome stuff! Thank you, homunculus. posted by BeerFilter at 6:27 PM on April 17, 2007
These remind me very much of those electron density maps they used to generate from X-ray diffraction runs, but which I am completely unable to find any pictures of. posted by chrismear at 6:40 PM on April 17, 2007
These are amazing. But I'm desparate to walk around one of them and look at it in all it's 3D glory - no Quicktime VR's of these creations, is there? posted by Jimbob at 6:42 PM on April 17, 2007
I had this idea ten years ago in college, but I was too drunk to follow through with it! Oh, the glory that could have been mine! posted by interrobang at 6:59 PM on April 17, 2007
But I'm desparate to walk around one of them and look at it in all it's 3D glory ...
That was my first thought too, but I suspect that if there is any "3D" motion effect, it would be within a narrow range of movement at best. I'm betting these are really meant to be viewed from just one angle ... like those damn photos of 3D-sidewalk-chalk-guy that everyone keeps forwarding me.
But I could be wrong. Either way, these are beautiful and I'd love to see them in person too. posted by itchylick at 7:45 PM on April 17, 2007
This "idea" has been around for at least 50 years or so, and she's really not a very good artist. posted by signal at 8:08 PM on April 17, 2007
This "idea" has been around for at least 50 years or so, and she's really not a very good artist.
Care to expand the thread by providing any links to support your assertion? I thought it was a pretty impressive post and found the paintings interesting. Let's see what you have to blowing it out of the water. posted by theantikitty at 8:55 PM on April 17, 2007
Excellent, thankyou.
I live about 500m north of the academy he teaches at. I should go an accost him at the gates and get him to sign some spectacles lenses or something... posted by Abiezer at 2:13 AM on April 18, 2007
Could we hear some elaboration from the "good idea, terrible artist" camp? What don't you like about the artistry? posted by churl at 11:09 AM on April 18, 2007
Maybe the fact that it isn't pleasing to look at? posted by Citizen Premier at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2007
I mean, the glass effect is. But the paintings themselves obviously can't stand on their own, to me at least. posted by Citizen Premier at 11:20 AM on April 18, 2007
why didn't I think of that?!?!
It's like a giant rotoscope machine, but sideways! posted by joelf at 8:29 PM on April 18, 2007
Oh okay, thanks! Here I was liking it, but I guess you set me straight. Now that I know what you think, I'll consider it rubbish as well.
You're welcome. Educating the masses is usually a thankless job, it's good to get some recognition. posted by signal at 9:26 AM on April 19, 2007
« Older A 350 lb. runner named Jacob... | Duelin' Firemen... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
There is nothing I respect more than someone who progresses the art form.
posted by Count at 6:04 PM on April 17, 2007