If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   The 3-Da Vinci Code   (mnn.com) divider line 24
    More: Strange, Mona Lisa, Martin Prado, University of Montreal  
•       •       •

6482 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 10:59 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-06 05:15:44 AM  
img1.wikia.nocookie.net
This is a fake.
 
2014-05-06 11:03:46 AM  
I don't know. When I do the cross-eyed stereoscopic thing with the side-by side images, the resultant combination does look mildly 3-D, which is impressive considering how different the images look.
 
2014-05-06 11:07:17 AM  
Was the Mona Lisa originally painted with that yellowish cast? Part of the reason I never saw the appeal of that work is that she looks puffy and jaundiced. If that's weathering/aging/dirt, why haven't they restored it?
 
2014-05-06 11:08:26 AM  
The 3D is broken with these two pix . . .


img.fark.net

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-06 11:22:43 AM  
the oldest 3-D artwork

Venus of Willendorf unimpressed
www.art-prints-on-demand.com
/you keep using the term 3-d; i do not think it means what you think it means
 
2014-05-06 11:51:27 AM  
It appears that it's really just a different painting from a different artist, maybe a student, painted at the same time. Which makes sense, and is cool enough on it's own that it doesn't need to be embellished as "3-D" or degraded as a "copy".
 
2014-05-06 11:51:58 AM  
I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.
 
2014-05-06 12:04:45 PM  

People_are_Idiots: I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.


I think it's funny that "People_are_Idiots" pointed that out.

/points at author
 
2014-05-06 12:04:56 PM  
i857.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-06 12:05:43 PM  

People_are_Idiots: I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.


...or even that the student copied the original painting a little later and never saw the model at all. The variations could easily be the vagaries of human error, especially since they only seem to correspond to stereoscopy in one carefully chosen area.

(If they were both in the studio with the model, the second painter was apparently standing behind and slightly to the left of Da Vinci, possibly on a step, peering over his shoulder. I could imagine master and student setting up this way so that the student can see both the model and the master's work and technique, but I don't know if there's any evidence that anybody ever actually did so. Is there an art historian in the house?)
 
2014-05-06 12:07:57 PM  
So art class studios with 7 students in a semi-circle all painting the same model are actually experiments in 7D-vision. Cool.

But it is actually an interesting theory, if only a theory. I mean, if it *was* just the result of Da Vinci's students painting the same model, they wouldn't be within-millimeters duplicates. Seems to me that had to be conscious, perhaps an experiment.
 
2014-05-06 12:10:21 PM  
done in one.

They are just copies made before scanners could duplicate things exactly.
 
2014-05-06 12:10:57 PM  

brimed03: So art class studios with 7 students in a semi-circle all painting the same model are actually experiments in 7D-vision. Cool.


No, it's 15th century Bullet Time.  They just didn't have bullets yet.
 
2014-05-06 12:12:30 PM  
Da Vinci's Demons is a suprisingly good show. I recommend it.
 
2014-05-06 12:20:11 PM  

foo monkey: brimed03: So art class studios with 7 students in a semi-circle all painting the same model are actually experiments in 7D-vision. Cool.

No, it's 15th century Bullet Time.  They just didn't have bullets yet.


That's funny.....
but yeah, they did

It's amazing how old eyeglasses are too
 
2014-05-06 12:45:45 PM  
They say 2.7" to the left I would say 2.7" behind since the other person saw more of the background (vases) than the other.
 
2014-05-06 01:31:16 PM  

TNel: They say 2.7" to the left I would say 2.7" behind since the other person saw more of the background (vases) than the other.


...but only for that one specific area of the crossed hands. In other areas, the separation is more vertical than horizontal.

Hence my theory that either (a) the student is standing behind and slightly left of the master, perhaps on a platform, so that he can see both the model and the master's work; or (b) most likely, somebody copied the original as closely as they were able, resulting in slight variations that in just one area of the picture line up peculiarly and elsewhere don't.

You know what would be interesting? To take a look at other copies from the same period (it was not at all uncommon for masters or students to paint copies of the master's work) and see whether they are equally close and what variations they show. If this degree of variation is commonplace, then it's just a copy. If this degree of similarity is unique, then it's something more interesting.
 
2014-05-06 01:32:01 PM  
Those were my first thoughts as well.  Obviously they wrote a paper about it and I didn't (and haven't read it), but it just seems to strain incredulity that they got one area right in a 3-D horizontal separation sense and the rest they got all wrong, to the point of having vertical separation.  Sure seems far more likely error than intent, especially when one considers how many times the Mona Lisa has surely been copied by artists of varying quality; surely many of those copies would reflect unintentional differences in "perspective" in certain regions of the paintings.


czetie: People_are_Idiots: I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.

...or even that the student copied the original painting a little later and never saw the model at all. The variations could easily be the vagaries of human error, especially since they only seem to correspond to stereoscopy in one carefully chosen area.

(If they were both in the studio with the model, the second painter was apparently standing behind and slightly to the left of Da Vinci, possibly on a step, peering over his shoulder. I could imagine master and student setting up this way so that the student can see both the model and the master's work and technique, but I don't know if there's any evidence that anybody ever actually did so. Is there an art historian in the house?)

 
2014-05-06 01:54:17 PM  
Let's ask Professor Robert Langdon !
 
2014-05-06 02:31:53 PM  
Aside from it being painted by Da Vinci, I never understood the draw of the Mona Lisa.

Why is it one of the most famous paintings ever?
 
2014-05-06 05:46:09 PM  

foo monkey: brimed03: So art class studios with 7 students in a semi-circle all painting the same model are actually experiments in 7D-vision. Cool.

No, it's 15th century Bullet Time.  They just didn't have bullets yet.


That's pretty funny, I didn't know that effect had a name.  Trademarked no less.

But if that's where we're going with this, I prefer to think of it as a really awkward Flip Book.
 
2014-05-06 10:15:47 PM  

mdeesnuts: Aside from it being painted by Da Vinci, I never understood the draw of the Mona Lisa.

Why is it one of the most famous paintings ever?


You know what, that's an exceptionally good question, one that many people never pause to ask.

When it was painted it was a remarkable technical and artistic breakthrough in its subtlety and composition, but those achievements were quickly matched by other masters. For a long time it was considered to be among the great paintings, but by no means the singularly iconic image that modern popular culture has made it. That only really started in the mid- to late-19th C, and at least in part because the romantics of the age chose to project their own interpretations onto that enigmatic expression. It got a big boost early in the 20th C when it was stolen, and the crime became attached to an elaborate failed scam that would have made an awesome mid-60s caper movie with Michael Caine (as well as inspiring an episode of White Collar and probably one of Leverage, if memory serves).

For most people, their reaction on seeing the real thing for the first time is something like "Really? That's it?", closely followed by "Wow, it's much smaller than I expected".
 
2014-05-07 08:20:54 AM  

czetie: For most people, their reaction on seeing the real thing for the first time is something like "Really? That's it?", closely followed by "Wow, it's much smaller than I expected".


Speak for yourself! Oh wait you were still talking about the painting... carry on.
 
2014-05-07 12:00:41 PM  

TNel: czetie: For most people, their reaction on seeing the real thing for the first time is something like "Really? That's it?", closely followed by "Wow, it's much smaller than I expected".

Speak for yourself! Oh wait you were still talking about the painting... carry on.


That reminds me, your mom says "hi".

/I'm not small, I'm... fun sized. Yeah.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report