RoR: Forum

I just copy and paste them. That works most of the time. You can resize them once they get there.

Post 181

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:53pm

Rich:

I just copy and paste them. That works most of the time. You can resize them once they get there

No success here...

Post 182

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:11pm

Ah, it seems to work with Opera when I don't disguise Opera as IE... Now I can discard that risky IE!

Ok, I've tried to correct the perspective in "Not Guilty" in two different ways: by changing the paving stones (not easy with that low resolution, you almost have to play with individual pixels, so they're still far from perfect) and by elevating the horizon. In the first case I also lowered the left foot a bit. In the second picture there are still different vanishing points, but on the average they correspond better with the higher horizon (I see now that the optimum should be a bit lower, but I'm not going to change it again; this is just meant as an illustration...). The first picture is the original.

___________Original _______________________ Altered version 1 _______________Altered version 2__________
(Edited by Calopteryx Splendens
on 12/24, 8:20am)

Post 183

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:23pm

Hey Calopteryx,
You aren�t a nederlander " kass kop" are you?
There are a few things going on. One is he probably used a photo of the paving stones, and they are irregular, which would explain their lack of exact perspective symmetry. He probably painted the model from life standing up or sitting up high. The stones and Manhattan are from a lower perspective...in your change, her foot looks better but I find the total of the original more pleasing...but then again Capuletti doesn�t register on my art radar, way too influenced by Dali without a tenth of Dali�s skill.
Michael

Post 184

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:03pm

Michael:

You aren�t a nederlander " kass kop" are you?

That should be "kaaskop" (plural "kaaskoppen" = "cheese heads").

There are a few things going on. One is he probably used a photo of the paving stones, and they are irregular, which would explain their lack of exact perspective symmetry.

I don't think that that is the problem. The stones may be of different sizes, but they seem to be all rectangular or square, and in that case all the not-horizontal lines should still intersect all in one single vanishing point.

Theoretically the stones could be irregular just in such a way that they suggest a false perspective, just as in those deceptive pictures where one person seems to be a giant and another one a dwarf while they in fact are of the same size. But I think that it's very unlikely, and that it is just carelessness (or incompetence) on the part of the artist. The strange perspective struck me immediately when I saw the picture, even in this small and coarse reproduction.

Post 185

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:17pm

Look at the row (from foreground to background) of stones in the middle of the picture and the next row at the right. The lines along the left side of first row and at the right side of the second row are obviously meant to represent parallel lines in reality. But they intersect at a point far above the horizon, which suggests that the floor is strongly sloping backwards, as if it's a pitching ship deck.

Post 186

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 5:58pm

I like the lay-out in the second one (the one with the stone
lowered) better than that in the original. In the third
(the one with the horizon raised) the city bisects the body
in a way that interferes and that also -- by putting the city
at a greater distance -- dilutes the "message" of her
unconcerned nudity in full view of a populous metropolitan
area.

My hunch about the background of that painting (this isn't
based on "insider info"; it's just an hypothesis which I find
plausible) is that he seized the main chance after AR wrote
about his work in the December '66 *Objectivist* and
he quickly cobbled the painting together from three separate
pieces: a photograph or drawing of a stone quay; a drawing
he already had of Pilar; and an image suggested by Joan Mitchell
Blumenthal's "City in the Sky," prints of which were sold by
the book service. Lending confirmative weight to this hypothesis
is the respectives dates of "Not Guilty" and of "The Canal."
The former is dated (according to capuletti.com) 1967 -- i.e.,
after AR's article. "Le Canal" is dated 1966, and appeared
in the exhibit of his work which Rand wrote about.

Here's her description:

"In *Le Canal*, the violent blue of the water and the violent
red of a robe dropped on the shore are daringly, surprisingly
harmonious, integrated by sunlight, under a vast summer sky--
yet the canvas is dominated by the slender, naked figure
of a woman stepping into the water, by the delicately radiant
texture of her body." (pg. 13)

As is displayed in Adam's post of the two paintings side by side,
the composition of "Le Canal" -- which I think is a definitely
better painting -- could easily have been borrowed as the basis
for "Not Guilty."

Ellen

[edit: spelling error; the usual reason]
___

(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/24, 12:48am)

Post 187

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:03pm

I like the middle one; it does look good to correct the perspective. But the far right one is terrible�I want to see sky between her legs, ya know? Not water.

I�m on a roll with art today! Normally, I couldn�t care less and wouldn�t even read these threads. Bear in mind that this is the first time I�ve cared about art. That said, on perfect perspective, I�m undecided. I see its utility in The Last Supper, where every last thing in the room�even the flies on the walls�are pointing at Jesus� face. I see the value in using it that way to make a point. And I can understand that it can be annoying, especially for those who are trained in these things, to look at paintings which present perspectives that are impossible (if the pavers are true rectangular, etc.)

Sitting down and looking up at her ass, with those pavers pointing all over the place�would be impossible. However, I also notice that there are no guardrails. Maybe I should brush on some guardrails and post the results?

Jon

Post 188

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:48pm

Calopteryx,

I just had a horrific flash of feeling. You really should watermark the images that you edited...I would never want to see my work, or anyone's, altered by anyone! Its clear for this thread you demonstrating something...And once they are on the web people can take them and show them, mistakingly, as the real work.

Michael

Post 189

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:43am

Hmm, something clicked in my mind a few minutes ago about the title of
this thread -- and maybe this is the root of what Jonathan and I find
irritating in regard to the frequent tenor of Objectivist discussions
of art (I haven't time to describe the whole lengthy association train
leading to the "click," but I'll acknowledge that probably I was
misinterpreting Michael Newberry in believing that he was touting
the thesis which irritates me): I object to the very idea that
there IS an "Artistic Battleground" between (morally) acceptable and
nonacceptable art. There's a difference between good art and bad art,
but there's no "battleground" between OK art and non-OK art (nor is
there anything non-OK about liking art which is less than the best).

Ellen

[Edit: Wording detail, change to avoid awkward repetition]
__
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/24, 2:50am)

Post 190

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 1:33am

Calopteryx wrote,
"But I think that it's very unlikely, and that it is just carelessness (or incompetence) on the part of the artist. The strange perspective struck me immediately when I saw the picture, even in this small and coarse reproduction."

One of the first Capuletti paintings that I ever saw was the semi-nude that Ellen linked to earlier:

http://www.mayrena.com/GIFs/Historia/Capuletti%20Pilar.jpg

Artists have been known to occasionally tweak perspective to achieve one effect or another, so my initial assumption was that Capuletti had intentionally blown the playing cards way out of perspective to give the image a sense of weightlessness. But after looking at his other works, it was pretty clear that he had simply never mastered perspective and that there was probably nothing intentional about any of his many deviations from how things would appear in reality. Interestingly, though, I know of many art fans who would see such lack of mastery as a major part of Capuletti's appeal. They'd see his untaught method as giving his work a sense of primitiveness, spontaneity or innocence, and, in regard to at least a few of his works, I'd agreed that that is their primary charm.

J

Post 191

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 2:12am

Ellen wrote,
"(I haven't time to describe the whole lengthy association train
leading to the "click," but I'll acknowledge that probably I was
misinterpreting Michael Newberry in believing that he was accepting
the thesis which irritates me)"

Michael can be difficult to pin down, but comments like his praise in post #10 of George Cordero's post #9 imply to me that he accepts the "Artistic Battleground" thesis. In response to my questions about what Vermeer might have done to transcend his alleged "inner conflicts" and properly paint subjects like serenity or contemplation in a style in keeping with the tenets of Romantic Realism, Michael -- instead of agreeing with me in rejecting (or at the very least questioning) the premise that Vermeer's choices of subjects indicated inner conflicts and bleak metaphysics -- pondered how one might evolve a romantic soul, and whether or not there was a prescription for Vermeer's affliction.

J

Post 192

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 3:03am

J. wrote:

"Interestingly, though, I know of many art fans who would see such lack of mastery as a major part of Capuletti's appeal. They'd see his untaught method as giving his work a sense of primitiveness, spontaneity or innocence, and, in regard to at least a few of his works, I'd agreed that that is their primary charm."

His primary charm for me is his sense of drama AND of quite
Spanish sado/masochistic pain -- exactly the features which I believe most appealed to AR too. Haven't time now to type in Rand's comments about "The Last Vow" (don't remember off the top the English name and must go to bed, impossibly night person though I am), but she desribed that one as her favorite in the '66 exhibition at the Hammer Galleries, and judging from her descriptions of the others, it's the one I, too, would have picked (though I'd also, I think, as she did, have noticed the quality of *silence*, that he somehow conveyed -- a sense of absence of sound, e.g., in "Godiva's Last Ride," which was also shown in the '70 exhibit).

The majority of his paintings which are shown on Objectivist sites are ones I don't that much like (except for the nude with AR's face and Pilar's body -- a very sm painting). The ones I *really* like are ones which aren't talked about, generally, in O'ist contexts.

Ellen

___

Post 193

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 3:09am

Re J's post #191: I agree that Michael is hard to interpret. The sort of details you point out are the sort which led to my, too, interpreting him as touting (I changed the word in the earlier post to avoid an awkward word repetition) the so-called "Artistic Battleground"; but he says other things which lead me to wonder if he really does accept it. Maybe...time will tell (a trite but sometimes accurate sentiment).

E-

Post 194

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 8:22am

Michael:

I just had a horrific flash of feeling. You really should watermark the images that you edited...I would never want to see my work, or anyone's, altered by anyone! Its clear for this thread you demonstrating something...And once they are on the web people can take them and show them, mistakingly, as the real work.

I think that a watermark on such a vague thumbnail with a few pixels would be a bit of an overkill. I think it's very unlikely that someone will pick one of the altered images from this forum to display it as a genuine Capuletti on the web. And if they want to do that deliberately, nothing will stop them from altering the image themselves. Even the Mona Lisa hasn't always escaped some extra hair growth and a blinking eye.

But to avoid honest misunderstandings I've added captions to the pictures (spaces and tabs don't work, so I use the __ to position the text; perhaps there is a better trick?)

Post 195

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:22am

I wrote,
"They'd see his untaught method as giving his work a sense of primitiveness, spontaneity or innocence, and, in regard to at least a few of his works, I'd agreed that that is their primary charm."

Ellen replied,
"His primary charm for me is his sense of drama AND of quite Spanish sado/masochistic pain -- exactly the features which I believe most appealed to AR too."

Right, and I don't think there's a conflict between our views. Although Rand spoke of her admiration for Capuletti's precision, I think that his work's lack of it, and the resulting sense of primitiveness and spontaneity, is a contributing factor in delivering the stormy Spanish vibe (which can also be felt in works by Dali, El Greco and Goya for the same reasons). And though I can't imagine Rand ever praising sloppiness, I can see her being positively (though perhaps subconsciously) affected by it, especially when combined with "proper" sense of life elements, such as robust color, visual clarity and drama.

J

Post 196

Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:23pm

Merry Christmas

Ellen and Jonathan have been finding it difficult to "pin" me down. An unfortunate use of word. As in like a butterfly? Or on a wrestling mat?

Ellen wrote: I object to the very idea that
there IS an "Artistic Battleground" between (morally) acceptable and
nonacceptable art. There's a difference between good art and bad art,
but there's no "battleground" between OK art and non-OK art (nor is
there anything non-OK about liking art which is less than the best).

Ellen, if you go here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Author_17.shtml

You will see several articles, most of them published either in the Free Radical magazine or they are transcriptions of lectures I have been paid to give. Some of them are specifically about the artistic battleground. My most polemical ones are Terrorism and Postmodern Art (which for a few years was no. 1 on google search engine for "Postmodern Art") and Pandora's Box Part I. I believe my manifesto is also there, if not you can view and read that by following the link "Manifesto" at www.MichaelNewberry.com (Its short.) Pandora's Box Part III is an ode to a contemporary's work of art. And PB Part II is about my first hand experience of seeing how aesthetic ideas and teachers can affect art students.

Since I have written at length on the issues you bring up it would best for you to go there, think about the perspectives I offer and take it from there.

Michael

Post 197

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:27pm

CS,

You wrote:

But to avoid honest misunderstandings I've added captions to the pictures (spaces and tabs don't work, so I use the __ to position the text; perhaps there is a better trick?)

To completely avoid misunderstandings, errors and misuse, I suggest putting the captions on the paintings themselves - the ones that have been changed.

btw - Merry Christmas and very happy holidays to all my friends here.

Michael

Post 198

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:08pm

Michael (N.), just to let you know that I'm not ignoring your
post #196, in which you gave links to some articles you'd
written. Although I "kicked up my heels" a bit frolicking
through some Capuletti memories (and websites) just prior
to Christmas, I really am very time-pressured now with
deadlines on a couple copyediting projects for dear friends --
one of those my husband. ;-)

I did however look at some of your work (I'll look more
extensively when I have a chance). I think I'll feel very
hesitant to do much in the way of "philosophical" debating
about esthetics with you, since I think that you have an
artistic "fire" which I wouldn't want to say anything seemingly
intended to dampen.

I.e,, go for it, man! Whether we agree or not on the
philosophic issues of esthetics isn't the important issue.
Your following whatever sparks your creativity, is.

Ellen

PS: Btw, not addressed to Michael but to C.S.: I'm
fascinated that the "problem" which has always bugged me
about the "Not Guilty" painting is actually solved (though
the wrong anatomical details would still be mildy irksome,
but I now realize that those aren't the central problem)
by adjusting the perspective in the stone (the first
of your two computer-altered comparison pieces).

___

Post 199

Friday, December 30, 2005 - 8:51am