Posts filed under “Art”
Apparition of St. Carmen Miranda, by an unknown Baroque artist who was even baroquer after this image appeared.
We have mentioned before how Google uses its massive artificial intelligence to identify objects and locations in collections of photographs. But did you know that Microsoft is giving Google some stiff competition? If you store images in Microsoft OneDrive, Microsoft will helpfully categorize them for you. For example:—
In the sense that this could depict a conference of the Olympians, “Sky” is appropriate. Or—
The moon is indeed an outdoor phenomenon, in the sense that it does not fit indoors in any building our puny Earth technology has hitherto been able to construct. Bravo, Microsoft. And here is some text:
It is actually the lower part of a picture of a snake with its tail in its mouth, but perhaps Microsoft meant “text” as short for “subtext.”
At any rate, it is good to see that Google has a rival in the artificial-intelligence market, and we may expect to see great things emerging from this healthy competition.
Dear Dr. Boli: I hear people talking about the “Fine Arts,” the “Useful Arts,” and so on. What is the distinction they are making? —Sincerely, Ann Ellers, Acting Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts.
Dear Madam: There are several generally recognized levels of art, and perhaps the best way to make the differences clear would be to give several examples of each.
The Fine Arts: Painting, sculpture, classical music, poetry, novels that no one buys, novels that everyone buys but no one reads.
The Pretty Good Arts: Illustration, popular music, movies, Broadway musicals, television shows, novels that people buy and read.
The Useful Arts: Architecture, cookery, garden design, plumbing, graphic design.
The Embarrassing Arts: Singing telegrams, macramé, karaoke, mime, advertising, performance art.
Dr. Boli hopes these examples will make the distinctions clear and be of some assistance in your work.
D for the Dermatologist you must see if you have a growth like this on your head.
E for the Ennui suffered by the bagpipe player who must keep up a constant drone for an hour.
L for the Liquor to which this poor man is addicted, causing him to see wild boars that no one else can see.
R for little Roberta playing the starring role in her third-grade play, Our Friend the Roach.
T for Throwing, a monkey’s favorite hobby.
X for Xerxes counting his million-man army and coming up with 999,997.
More fun with initials may be had on our page of initials in the Illustrations collection.
Eli “Bonkers” Johnson: Diagonal Line #6: Anthraquinone Blue, Upper Left to Lower Right, but Deviating Slightly About Three-Quarters of the Way Along Where a Fly Landed on the Artist’s Elbow. Acrylic on canvas.
Albrecht Kunsthammer: Venus Giving Cupid a Time Out After That Business with the Movie Star and the State Representative. Oil on Wood.
Crandall Pinsk: Untitled No. 2: Revenge of the Untitled. Stuff glued together with a hook in the back for hanging.
Margaret Derby-Wallington-ffitch: Philadelphia Fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus) Posed as an Allegory of Virtue. Crayon on construction paper.
Boris the Dog: Paw Prints No. 38. Mud on the mistress’ best linen.
Natural (adjective).—1. Of food, cosmetics, etc.: Packaged in materials made from petroleum by-products and processed into standardized units from ingredients ultimately derived from substances present in the physical universe.
2. Of art, literature, etc.: Conforming to the current clichés that define what is correct in representational art, as opposed to the clichés of the era immediately past, which are designated artificial.
What would it look like if the world were in color?
A monochrome world has a stark beauty of its own, of course. But what if we could see colors as well as shades of grey? This is the world our old friend Father Pitt decided to visit for a little while in his newest and oddest art project. He has created a world of Imaginary Color, and has begun to populate it with pictures of the world rendered as if the world were in color. So far the collection is small, hosted on an experimental site on a free server; but it demonstrates the principle. In theory, any monochromatic picture could be rendered in colors through the same process.
What is the process? It begins with an ordinary monochromatic picture. Some of the pictures old Pa Pitt has used were taken on monochrome film, but the same results can be obtained by taking a color picture and throwing out the useless natural colors. Then each segment of the image is hand-tinted, until the appearance of a colored landscape is created.
Is there any good reason for doing this? We hope not. Both Dr. Boli and Father Pitt abide by the principle emphatically stated by Mr. Oscar Wilde: All art is quite useless.
This utterly charming scene is used as the frontispiece to a history of toys from 1882, where it is labeled “Les Jouets de l’enfant Jésus, d’après une peinture sur bois de la fin du XVe siècle” (The Toys of the Child Jesus, after a painting on wood from the end of the fifteenth century).
Even better, though, is what you get when, hoping for more information about the painting, you use DuckDuckGo to look up “jouets de l’enfant Jésus” (“toys of the child Jesus”):
Now we know what Jesus was doing in the years between the return to Nazareth and the trip he made to Jerusalem at the age of twelve.