DL's Book

[dlewis]

I'm going to get started on new work, and because I am terrible at committing to a lot of things at once, I probably won't be on OL that much anymore, maybe once/twice a month. Just wanted to say if anyone has a question about the book (or anything really) I can be reached at danieljaylewis@gmail.com or dlevergreen@gmail.com. Thanks so much for all the thoughtful discussion on this site-- it's been a pleasure.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm going to get started on new work, and because I am terrible at committing to a lot of things at once, I probably won't be on OL that much anymore, maybe once/twice a month. Just wanted to say if anyone has a question about the book (or anything really) I can be reached at danieljaylewis@gmail.com or dlevergreen@gmail.com. Thanks so much for all the thoughtful discussion on this site-- it's been a pleasure.

Wait a minute! I haven't said anything worth a damn yet!

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I'm pretty sure that it's the largeness - combined with the darkness - of the hat, plus the thickness of the clothing which produce the "off" impression on me in the soldier-and-girl painting. If I focus just on his face, I can see that it isn't disproportionate.

That painting is one of my favorites of Vermeer's paintings. The positioning of dark and light, the arrangement of figures, window, painting-within-a-painting, the light on the girl's face, and her smile. But the immediate impression it makes on me in terms of perspective is that Vermeer did some adjusting of accuracy for artistic effect.

Vermeer may have done some adjusting for artistic effect in his paintings, and/or he may have made some errors. I don't think that we can know for sure which is which. Without being able to interview and test him on his technical knowledge and intentions, it is impossible to make an objective judgment of all of the technical aspects of his art. Any deviations from reality in is work might be intentional, or they might not be.

Zooming in on the posts (bollards?), I don't see those as indicating much if any slope.

If you extend perspective lines from them, they converge on a point that is below the horizon, which suggests that they are on a slope.

The tops seem just about aligned with each other. However, I notice that if I adjust the position on the screen (an iPad is so handy!) so that I'm just seeing the bottom part of the painting - the foreground and part of the canal - the perspective in that part looks right.

My guess would be that Vermeer used a camera obscura with a wide lens, and, like in the soldier painting, he may have visually attempted to "correct" some of the distortion that occurred by slightly adjusting just a few elements here and there (in the soldier painting, it would be just the lower horizontal plank of the chair), perhaps not realizing that adjusting them (or perhaps even eliminating them) would cause viewers to lose their place in the image. When I find some time, I think I might seriously grid up the View of Delft and measure exactly what's what and where's where.

Now that I've been to Delft, an aspect which fascinates me about both that painting and the "Little Street" one is how much Delft still looks like the paintings. Change the people's clothes and ignore some roads which have been added, plus the (not many) cars and the (very many) bicycles, and the scenes are almost the same. It's a magic place, enchanting.

I'm jealous. I'd love to see it.

J

[Jonathan]

I'm going to get started on new work, and because I am terrible at committing to a lot of things at once, I probably won't be on OL that much anymore, maybe once/twice a month. Just wanted to say if anyone has a question about the book (or anything really) I can be reached at danieljaylewis@gmail.com or dlevergreen@gmail.com. Thanks so much for all the thoughtful discussion on this site-- it's been a pleasure.

Please do check in once in a while, even if only to say "hi."

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

When I find some time, I think I might seriously grid up the View of Delft and measure exactly what's what and where's where.

I'd be really interested by the results if you do find some time to do that.

I'm jealous. I'd love to see it [Delft].

I think you'd be ecstatic if you could visit there, especially in high summer. The proportions and lay-out of the architecture in the central old city, which has been kept historic, is like wandering around within an art work - and the light... Larry and I kept commenting about understanding why someone living there would become enamored of the effects of light. The light caresses.

Ellen

[eva matthews]

First of all, regarding oil paintings, it's obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth associated with the medium's use of various strokes, from smooth to blotch.

Moreover, the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface.

re Book:

'Knowledge' seems to be reduced to 'information'. In this sense, yes, human brain function is one of many kinds.

The real issue that doesn't seem to be addressed by the article, however, is that ultimately the only 'form' of knowledge that is accountable for information is the aforesaid human brain. This means we 'think'

To think, we have to be 'awake'. But calling these 'axiomatic' consciousness and knowledge fails to add anything meaningful in terms of real.insight. Rather, it's merely a philosophical gloss that Vermeer might have thought amusing.

EM

[Brant Gaede]

To think, we have to be 'awake'. But calling these 'axiomatic' consciousness and knowledge fails to add anything meaningful in terms of real.insight. Rather, it's merely a philosophical gloss that Vermeer might have thought amusing.

EM

Well, does the starting line add anything to the race? Now we have something to talk about.

--Brant

[eva matthews]

To think, we have to be 'awake'. But calling these 'axiomatic' consciousness and knowledge fails to add anything meaningful in terms of real.insight. Rather, it's merely a philosophical gloss that Vermeer might have thought amusing.

EM

Well, does the starting line add anything to the race? Now we have something to talk about.

--Brant

In the math of geometry, 'axioms' are starting points for everyone because they're acknowledged as deductively sound. For example, seeing any triangle, we can deduct 180 degrees because we've set as an axiom that 180 is always true.

And because Euclid wrote 2200 years ago, the term has simply carried over as one of convenience.

But consciousness, identity, etc aren't 'axiomatic' because these are precisely the things that real philosophy examines. In terms of your own expression, philosophy has no clearly-defined starting line.

Eva

[Jonathan]

First of all, regarding oil paintings, it's obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth associated with the medium's use of various strokes, from smooth to blotch.

Not only is it not obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth of oil paintings, but it's also not true. It would depend on who was taking the photograph and how much they knew about the medium. If, say, you, Ayn Rand or Diana Hsieh were the person taking the photograph, then I'd agree that it would most likely not reproduce the depth of certain oil paintings, but if the photographer was knowledgeable and skilled, he could reproduce the depth.

Moreover, the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface.

Who are you referring to as "et al"? All artists? Some of them? Only the ones who were like Vermeer in some way?

And what do you think you mean by the term "glossing the surface"? Do you mean varnishing a finished painting? Do you mean using the technique of glazing colors over others? How have you determined that "glossing the surface" is what achieves or enhances the sensation of depth? By what means have you eliminated other possible explanations?

J

[eva matthews]

First of all, regarding oil paintings, it's obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth associated with the medium's use of various strokes, from smooth to blotch.

Not only is it not obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth of oil paintings, but it's also not true. It would depend on who was taking the photograph and how much they knew about the medium. If, say, you, Ayn Rand or Diana Hsieh were the person taking the photograph, then I'd agree that it would most likely not reproduce the depth of certain oil paintings, but if the photographer was knowledgeable and skilled, he could reproduce the depth.

Moreover, the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface.

Who are you referring to as "et al"? All artists? Some of them? Only the ones who were like Vermeer in some way?

And what do you think you mean by the term "glossing the surface"? Do you mean varnishing a finished painting? Do you mean using the technique of glazing colors over others? How have you determined that "glossing the surface" is what achieves or enhances the sensation of depth? By what means have you eliminated other possible explanations?

J

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner. Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

EM

[Jonathan]

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

[Peter]

Kids born with one functioning eye from amblioglia (lazy eye: An eye disorder characterized by an impaired vision in an eye that otherwise appears normal, OR out of proportion) or some other malady can still play ball. When the ball is pitched, the kid will move their heads two or more times to get two or more readings on the ball coming towards them, and so they are simulating “depth perception.” Sometimes a child’s eye is crossed, but early intervention and glasses can correct the eye and just as importantly the area of the brain built to receive the sensory / perceptual data will be utilized. If a parent waits too long, that portion of the brain in the child is lost. If it goes unused an adult with amblioglia will never be able to utilize that part of their brain, though research into neural plasticity may change that.

[Brant Gaede]

Kids born with one functioning eye from amblioglia (lazy eye: An eye disorder characterized by an impaired vision in an eye that otherwise appears normal, OR out of proportion) or some other malady can still play ball. When the ball is pitched, the kid will move their heads two or more times to get two or more readings on the ball coming towards them, and so they are simulating “depth perception.” Sometimes a child’s eye is crossed, but early intervention and glasses can correct the eye and just as importantly the area of the brain built to receive the sensory / perceptual data will be utilized. If a parent waits too long, that portion of the brain in the child is lost. If it goes unused an adult with amblioglia will never be able to utilize that part of their brain, though research into neural plasticity may change that.

My father had untreated lazy eye that left him almost blind in it. He had to have surgery so the lazy eye side matched up with the good side. I don't know what you mean about not having (and using) part of one's brain consequently; he had an IQ of 189 and in college had a bout of pure creative genius when he wrote his "Cat Philosophies." Do you mean he couldn't have been a painter or done any visual arts? Possibly, but he had caligraphy and sign painting skills and got into advertising after journalism. A sign painter wouldn't apprentice him when he was a boy so he followed him around. The painter got real pissed and shook his fist at him: "You steala the trade!"

--Brant

I don't like to read the cat stuff for they metaphorically and literally presaged the Holocaust which was years away and haven't even seen them since I don't know when

[Brant Gaede]

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

Thanks, J! I can't wait to use this!

--Brant

how about a triple?

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Do you mean he couldn't have been a painter or done any visual arts?

end quote

No. Quite literally, that portion of the brain is no longer programmable and will not receive more than a fuzzy image even if the defect in the eye is corrected. The afflicted person may still do visual arts, play ball, or even shoot a rifle quite well since that requires no depth perception. That small portion of the brain is mainly for vision, not thinking. During the Viet Nam War draft a person was not 4F if he was lacking good vision in one eye. "You're in the Army now." Of course the draftee could never be a pilot or an astronaut.

Also from reading I know that a person with lazy eye may have enhanced peripheral vision but only fuzzy or no straight line vision. It seems unfair. A kid might fight wearing glasses with an eye patch to force the poor eye to function and the brain to be programmed but it is necessary. So far no young’uns in my family have vision problems.

I had cataract surgery two years ago and my vision is 20/20 for far vision though I opted to not have a bifocal lens so I still wear glasses for reading. The operation is not much more uncomfortable than getting drops to dilate your pupils and then have them looked at by an ophthalmologist. The sedative did not work for me, so the doc said, "Give the man more juice!” but that did still not work, so I instructed him to tighten down the vise around my head which he did. That left a bruise mark. During a hernia surgery I sat up and said, “Doc that is really hurting!” and when I had a colonoscopy I heard the guy say, “I can tell this guy is of Swedish or Finnish extraction, he’s as smooth as a baby’s butt,” to which I answered I am both and also . . . with a list of my lineages. “Give the man more gas,” he bellowed. It didn’t help. I have no way of knowing why but I need a lot of “juice,” to stay asleep. I had a second hernia surgery to correct the first, in the same hospital, and they knocked me out good, but damn, it hurt recovering. Sorry for blathering.

[Jules Troy]

Jonathan Eva obviously has not seen your marvellous paintings.

She also knows nothing about how the old masters painted. I do know that as paints age they become more transparent. The masters knew this and when they painted I believe they also had in mind "what will this look like in 300 years" and mixed accordingly. Some under painted in white knowing that over time this would come through and enhance the painting even more.

Caravaggio comes to mind..

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote: Do you mean he couldn't have been a painter or done any visual arts?

end quote

No. Quite literally, that portion of the brain is no longer programmable and will not receive more than a fuzzy image even if the defect in the eye is corrected. The afflicted person may still do visual arts, play ball, or even shoot a rifle quite well since that requires no depth perception. That small portion of the brain is mainly for vision, not thinking. During the Viet Nam War draft a person was not 4F if he was lacking good vision in one eye. "You're in the Army now." Of course the draftee could never be a pilot or an astronaut.

Also from reading I know that a person with lazy eye may have enhanced peripheral vision but only fuzzy or no straight line vision. It seems unfair. A kid might fight wearing glasses with an eye patch to force the poor eye to function and the brain to be programmed but it is necessary. So far no young’uns in my family have vision problems.

I had cataract surgery two years ago and my vision is 20/20 for far vision though I opted to not have a bifocal lens so I still wear glasses for reading. The operation is not much more uncomfortable than getting drops to dilate your pupils and then have them looked at by an ophthalmologist. The sedative did not work for me, so the doc said, "Give the man more juice!” but that did still not work, so I instructed him to tighten down the vise around my head which he did. That left a bruise mark. During a hernia surgery I sat up and said, “Doc that is really hurting!” and when I had a colonoscopy I heard the guy say, “I can tell this guy is of Swedish or Finnish extraction, he’s as smooth as a baby’s butt,” to which I answered I am both and also . . . with a list of my lineages. “Give the man more gas,” he bellowed. It didn’t help. I have no way of knowing why but I need a lot of “juice,” to stay asleep. I had a second hernia surgery to correct the first, in the same hospital, and they knocked me out good, but damn, it hurt recovering. Sorry for blathering.

Well, Dad had poor depth perception, I'm sure. My own's not that great but good enough for government work. You don't need anesthesia for a colonoscopy--I didn't have any though the nurse kept pushing it on me (I had to drive home). Why you'd get a general ana for that procedure I've no idea. The protocol is you take a pill which makes you groggy. I let my dentist drill on my teeth over ten years with no anesthesia--I hated the numbness on one side of my face. I switched dentists when I moved west and it so unnerved my new dentist when he did it once I went back to the needle. I just grabbed the arm rests and squeezed real hard while the pain shuddered through me. No, I didn't refuse it for a root canal.

--Brant

[eva matthews]

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

You're free to consult Wiki on 'glossing oil painting' or its synonym, 'varnishing oil painting'. Ha Ha.

EM

[eva matthews]

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

That means that my ass knows more human physiology than your brain.

[Jules Troy]

EM....You should ask to see some of Jonathan's paintings. Someone plucked this guy out of the renaissance and put him here to remind the world what good art is.

[Brant Gaede]

Popcorn time!

--Brant

where's the soda?

[Jules Troy]

Popcorn time!

--Brant

where's the soda?

[Jules Troy]

Root beer ok?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eva,

You drink, don't you?

Two different posting styles--vastly different.

But only one Eva.

Michael

[eva matthews]

Eva,

You drink, don't you?

Two different posting styles--vastly different.

But only one Eva.

Michael

Michael,

Actually, my parents have permitted me a glass of wine with dinner since I turned 16. Otherwise, with high moderation in socials with my friends--having nothing to do with me turning the big 2-1 in 2 mths.

Now for a request and suggestion, please:

It's not that I cannot handle myself, which has, I spoze, become obvious by now. Rather, it's for the convenience of not having to wade thru personalized schlock and meaningless digressions in order to find the subject of a thread.

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva