It's a piece by Piet Mondrian. He wanted to create a "real equation of the universal and the individual." I'm fascinated by modernist artistic philosophies like his because of their brashness and audacious optimism, which was clearly a failed project. But I also like his aesthetic.
Reply to Noble Dust I would have sworn that was Frank Lloyd Wright art deco. I have definitely seen it before. I too like the aesthetic of it. Very orderly.
I killed my parents, and replaced them both. The monkey king is goku, but hes one of many many representations of the ideal man. Spiritual mother likewise is utena, the ideal woman.
Besides art though, im not massively immersed in the eastern tradition, so i tend to use a lot of protestant christian vocabulary as i was raised and am immersed in that tradition. I also fall back on some buddhist and yogic tradition as i live that tradition most.
The goal though, which has been my goal since i was about seventeen is to surpass humanity, and become the world. Thats more like plan b though, ill try being normal first... only if i fail that.
The claw foot chair is not well equipped to grasp its escaped ball, but feels compelled to reach anyway. Sort of like life itself. Should I change my handle from "bitter crank" to something else? What would you suggest.
Nobody will ever know the species of succulent Escher used. It is has an unusual leaf margin together with an obovate shape. Pelargonium related possibly but it remains a mystery.
So geopisa, why didn't you explain yours? You started this...
Mine represents my history. I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary. When forced to choose between science and dogma, it's science that's going to win.
Anybody recognize it? Clues are all there.
That and I like the background as an example of something that isn't yellow, a fantastic illustration of the difference between naive realism and representative realism.
So geopisa, why didn't you explain yours? You started this...
Mine represents my history. I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary. When forced to choose between science and dogma, it's science that's going to win.
Anybody recognize it? Clues are all there.
I think I can detect the source of your illustration being from Calvin and Hobbes, and it appears to be an object in flight. Maybe it is a figurative expression that you threw away Calvinism?
My avatar is an illustration of the American Flamingo by J.J. Audubon from his masterpiece, the Birds of America. It is significant to me for a variety of reasons, but basically what it boils down to is that I am an avid birdwatcher.
I think I can detect the source of your illustration being from Calvin and Hobbes, and it appears to be an object in flight. Maybe it is a figurative expression that you threw away Calvinism?
Comics yes, but not Waterson. Scott Saavedra is the artist.
The character is an ever-present but rarely interacting sidekick, sort of like Weiderman in Mr Boffo.
Google Its science radium and my avatar was taken from the 3rd image, the cover of issue 2.
I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary.
A similar thing happened in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a mostly German branch of Lutheranism in the US) in the 1980s. It was engineered. It split the synod, congregations, and institutions. The institutions (like the seminary and college administrators) adopted a very conservative, literalist Biblical view. A lot of talent and congregations left to join mainstream Lutherans.
There was nothing inherently, theologically conservative about the German Lutherans in the US. Like I said, it was engineered. It wasn't a mass-movement change.
How did this change come about in your experience?
Well, it's Lloyd. Lloyd the bartender, from Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (I won't say Stephen King's as it seems he thought the movie had little to do with the book, a fact which doesn't trouble me). Lloyd may or may not exist, but is a striking and intriguing, and somewhat eerie, figure with whom Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance converses while knocking back Jack Daniels, though he's an alcoholic and knows he shouldn't be doing so. A perfectly groomed, polite, efficient, chillingly-friendly purveyor of what we want but what our reason tells us we can't have, played by the great Joe Turkel.
I like how you can already see the beginnings of his style and focus in how the trees in his early work look like tapestry. Makes me think his evolution must have been more instinctual and intuitive, even if also guided by his philosophy.
How did this change come about in your experience?
Maybe the change was already there and I was too naive to see it. But part of it was my father informing me that you can't be a christian and believe in evolution at the same time. That clued me in that the church was teaching more literalism than was the school that they supported. I guess my dad forced my hand, probably not the way he intended.
If you can't get wisdom from your bartender, why drink?
Wisdom from the bottle.
My avatar is Max Ernst with a dog on his shoulder against a blue sky with fluffy clouds. I happen to like Max Ernst's art, but really I just like the photograph. It's striking and amusingly odd. I don't like images that exist primarily to convey an external meaning.
From the bartender I thought, but some do get it from the bottle.
It's striking and amusingly odd. I don't like images that exist primarily to convey an external meaning.
The source of my image might have meaning, but the image itself means nothing. I think it's cute, and I can spot my posts quickly in a fast scroll through a long discussion.
My avatar is Max Ernst with a dog on his shoulder against a blue sky with fluffy clouds. I happen to like Max Ernst's art, but really I just like the photograph. It's striking and amusingly odd. I don't like images that exist primarily to convey an external meaning.
It is an interesting portrait. Part of what is odd about the photograph is that it was seemingly taken at a high aperture so that the distant clouds appear to be at the same depth as the subject.
I dislike photos that are overcomposed. Lots of wedding and family photos are like this. Is that the same thing as conveying an external meaning?
I can spot my posts quickly in a fast scroll through a long discussion.
That's good thinking and come to think of it that's the entire purpose of an avatar, which I now realize I completely overlooked when choosing my own. :s
It is an interesting portrait. Part of what is odd about the photograph is that it was seemingly taken at a high aperture so that the distant clouds appear to be at the same depth as the subject.
I think the effect isn't owing to the aperture choice but to the relatively low point of view, such that there are no features on the ground to put him in context. This is why it almost looks like he could be standing in front of a painted stage background. (EDIT: Actually, the aperture width might contribute to this, so you could be right).
I dislike photos that are overcomposed. Lots of wedding and family photos are like this.
Why do people like to have their wedding and family photos taken this way--lined up looking like they were waiting for the firing squad to begin?
In the early days of photography, the results were often very rigid-looking because people had to sit still for an eternity (in photographic time--maybe 20 to 40 seconds--to get a clear picture. Is that how that 'look' or 'style' become associated with photography?
Or, is it the fault of people who do wedding photography? Are they just unimaginative? Or is it people who get married that have that problem?
Why do people hate getting their picture taken so much that they look like they were going to be shot--literally?
Mine is Musician Angel (1520) by Rosso Fiorentino. I like the melancholy expression on the cherub's face and the fact that he's playing a lute. My state of mind is often similar to that reflected by his expression, and I also play guitar in a black metal band, which is a melancholy genre of music.
Mine is Musician Angel (1520) by Rosso Fiorentino. I like the melancholy expression on the cherub's face and the fact that he's playing a lute. My state of mind is often similar to that reflected by his expression, and I also play guitar in a black metal band, which is a melancholy genre of music.
The expression rather makes me think that he's saying something like, "Damn--now how am I going to get both a G# and a C natural on top of this F# chord to get an F#9(#11)??"
Comments (51)
Besides art though, im not massively immersed in the eastern tradition, so i tend to use a lot of protestant christian vocabulary as i was raised and am immersed in that tradition. I also fall back on some buddhist and yogic tradition as i live that tradition most.
The goal though, which has been my goal since i was about seventeen is to surpass humanity, and become the world. Thats more like plan b though, ill try being normal first... only if i fail that.
Quoting geospiza
Mondrian Vs. Frank Lloyd Wright:
Just like the word "sin" comes from archery, and means to miss the mark. Similarly both seem to be about aiming.
Thanks for encouraging me to explore my avatar.
Escher and the Art of Mezzotint
Nobody will ever know the species of succulent Escher used. It is has an unusual leaf margin together with an obovate shape. Pelargonium related possibly but it remains a mystery.
You should only change your name to accompany a strategic change in your persona and target audience. Marketing. Otherwise stick with what you've got.
Mine represents my history. I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary. When forced to choose between science and dogma, it's science that's going to win.
Anybody recognize it? Clues are all there.
That and I like the background as an example of something that isn't yellow, a fantastic illustration of the difference between naive realism and representative realism.
Petals of Fire by Cy Twombly. I think it looks pretty (and a little menacing too).
I think I can detect the source of your illustration being from Calvin and Hobbes, and it appears to be an object in flight. Maybe it is a figurative expression that you threw away Calvinism?
My avatar is an illustration of the American Flamingo by J.J. Audubon from his masterpiece, the Birds of America. It is significant to me for a variety of reasons, but basically what it boils down to is that I am an avid birdwatcher.
The character is an ever-present but rarely interacting sidekick, sort of like Weiderman in Mr Boffo.
Google Its science radium and my avatar was taken from the 3rd image, the cover of issue 2.
A similar thing happened in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a mostly German branch of Lutheranism in the US) in the 1980s. It was engineered. It split the synod, congregations, and institutions. The institutions (like the seminary and college administrators) adopted a very conservative, literalist Biblical view. A lot of talent and congregations left to join mainstream Lutherans.
There was nothing inherently, theologically conservative about the German Lutherans in the US. Like I said, it was engineered. It wasn't a mass-movement change.
How did this change come about in your experience?
I have a plastic pink flamingo in my yard, for purposes of low camp. Audubon was spared this embarrassment.
Hail Hydra!
An ideal avatar for a philosophy forum, I think.
What is it like to be a disciple of Wittgenstein?
It ain't easy, nobody understands you.
(Y)
I like how you can already see the beginnings of his style and focus in how the trees in his early work look like tapestry. Makes me think his evolution must have been more instinctual and intuitive, even if also guided by his philosophy.
Maybe the change was already there and I was too naive to see it. But part of it was my father informing me that you can't be a christian and believe in evolution at the same time. That clued me in that the church was teaching more literalism than was the school that they supported. I guess my dad forced my hand, probably not the way he intended.
If you can't get wisdom from your bartender, why drink?
Good point!
Wisdom from the bottle.
My avatar is Max Ernst with a dog on his shoulder against a blue sky with fluffy clouds. I happen to like Max Ernst's art, but really I just like the photograph. It's striking and amusingly odd. I don't like images that exist primarily to convey an external meaning.
The source of my image might have meaning, but the image itself means nothing. I think it's cute, and I can spot my posts quickly in a fast scroll through a long discussion.
It is an interesting portrait. Part of what is odd about the photograph is that it was seemingly taken at a high aperture so that the distant clouds appear to be at the same depth as the subject.
I dislike photos that are overcomposed. Lots of wedding and family photos are like this. Is that the same thing as conveying an external meaning?
That's good thinking and come to think of it that's the entire purpose of an avatar, which I now realize I completely overlooked when choosing my own. :s
A wise American owl provides greater juxtaposition than a wise British owl.
Am I right, @Sapientia?
Ah, the Simpsons rationale. How fitting that yours is also yellow.
I think the effect isn't owing to the aperture choice but to the relatively low point of view, such that there are no features on the ground to put him in context. This is why it almost looks like he could be standing in front of a painted stage background. (EDIT: Actually, the aperture width might contribute to this, so you could be right).
Quoting geospiza
That's not really what I meant. I just meant I like images for their thisness rather than for any kind of message or overt symbolism.
Why do people like to have their wedding and family photos taken this way--lined up looking like they were waiting for the firing squad to begin?
In the early days of photography, the results were often very rigid-looking because people had to sit still for an eternity (in photographic time--maybe 20 to 40 seconds--to get a clear picture. Is that how that 'look' or 'style' become associated with photography?
Or, is it the fault of people who do wedding photography? Are they just unimaginative? Or is it people who get married that have that problem?
Why do people hate getting their picture taken so much that they look like they were going to be shot--literally?
This is too good a topic not to create a spinoff post.
Fairytale Photos
I just chose that photo because I liked it. I hadn't a clue what region it was native to.
That's normal; I am just a biogeography nerd.
That's a lute, not a guitar :)
No goals
No chains
No aims
No border
No order
No gain
No pain
The inane
The insane
I'm TheMadFool
The expression rather makes me think that he's saying something like, "Damn--now how am I going to get both a G# and a C natural on top of this F# chord to get an F#9(#11)??"