On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
Assuming that everyone here has something like Photoshop on their
computer,
here's a fun exercise for our group:
1. Download an image of Manet's "Folies Bergere"
2. Put a red dot wherever you see an "implicit vanishing point"
3. Email that image to me, and I'll put them all up on a webpage
4. Then we can compare them all with the ones that William has found.
Do you think they will all be the same?
If they are different -- how might we prove which, if any, are
correct?
If such a proof can be convincingly made -- those who were wrong may
then
ask themselves if they can see the work better after knowing where
the real
vp's can be found.
(BTW -- I can't take the test, because I have no idea how implicit
vanishing
points can be found,
and certainly cant find any in that painting)
Oh dear dear, another Miller's Analogy.
He asks, "how might we prove which are correct." And then, many pixels
later, he also says, "I have no idea how implicit vanishing points can
be found."
Let's see. Miller wants to set up a test about art --yet another in a
long list of art tests he has proposed-- but he admits that he cannot
judge the test because he "has no idea" how to do the test.
Well, that's all the convincing I need to be convinced that tests are
the most convincing way to determine facts and aesthetic things about
art. Sign me up.
But I could be wrong. That's just my perspective on this.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
http://thinkinglikeadesigner.blogspot.com/
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
