Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcurve | Hacker News Reader

This is a real treat...

I can see Van Gogh like this one http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ep/original/DT1567.jpg in such detail, without having to go to the museum.

With my degrading eye sights, this might even be better than going to museum.

View on HN

Unless you have a really big monitor, like 40" or so, nothing compares to the real thing. I once saw a Rothko and my jaw dropped to the floor. The thing was so imposing, not only the theme was captivating but the sheer size of the picture made it look grandiose in every sense. The same goes for Pollock's artworks, some Picassos and so on.

Also hard to see the depth of some of those brush strokes in the flat scan. Some of them are quite thick.

This. No 2D image of most of van Gogh's paintings can match the real thing because the 3D texture of the paint is such an integral part of the experience. I discovered this when I visited the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. The 2D representations look lifeless to me now that I know how much more visceral the paintings are when viewed in real life.

I really hope someone would get a high-def 3d camera on those paintings and convert then to a web-gl format

Somebody at TU Delft did some work on making 3d scans / reproductions of paintings, and one of the artists they were scanning was van Gogh.

I think the reproductions were for sale, but they were pretty expensive (~$25K???).

Hackaday did a story on it in 2013: http://hackaday.com/2013/09/24/priceless-paintings-scanned-a...

I have a friend that works at the Met, and (with management's permission of course) was able to get me into the modern wing during a time it was being renovated. It was just incredible, being able to sit in front of such giant paintings in peace.

If you stand as close as you can to a Rothko (with your knees practically touching the velvet rope barrier), and stare for a while it just completely envelopes your eyes. The colors take over your entire field of vision and you can really get lost in them, and just "feel" the painting. You can't really do that otherwise without someone asking you to please move. The Pollocks were my favorite, but it's all incredible. It definitely became my favorite type of visual art after that and I will always visit the Met and MoMa when in town.

Edit: Unfortunately, seems like none of those are public domain, so only low resolution images are available.

It's more noteworthy that very small works can be easier to study on screen, and then there's obviously the advantage of a total absence of contention for the physical space directly in front of the print/painting.

Rothko's works are often installed in "environments" like at Tate Modern or in Houston. Many people can experience them at the same time and there's not much to be gained from closing in to six inch viewing distance. They're works of the movie age.

On the other hand, the situation with a Durer print or some other delicate miniature image is really helped by digital distribution. For 3D artifacts, being able to orbit them in a viewer is another good thing that we'll probably see more of. Lightfields, even.

Rothko is an interesting case for digital reproduction because his work is all about aura and atmosphere but, technically, his work is not exactly impossible to fake. Is his work really spiritual or maybe a bit bogus, for that reason of being grandiose and imposing yet also "easy"?

Best argument, I think, in favour of Rothko and the like is the idea that "what's difficult is not to make something, but to put oneself in a state conducive to making." (Brancusi)

How different complex, technical software engineering is to the simplicity of even the most elaborate painting/sculpture...

> Unless you have a really big monitor, like 40" or so, nothing compares to the real thing

I disagree; simply, "nothing compares to the real thing". But I can't have the real thing right here, so a large hi-def monitor is better than nothing.

EDIT: If I sell a 40" monitor displaying a high-res Van Gogh - will the price compare to the real thing? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Well, there was a guy selling other people's Instagram pictures at $15k a pop...

That would be Richard Prince. But he made $90k a pop. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagra...

I should probably pursuit a career in copy.

What is it about Rothkos that are so impressive? Its's big bars of solid color painted on the wall. I just don't get it...

I think his talent was he was great at selling

Finally, a reason to buy an MS Surface Hub (https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-surface-hub/en-us). Or at least a Surface Studio (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-stud...).

Am not someone who can claim to "get" art. Is there some description someplace that will help interpret the work of art - for the one you've linked to, for example?. A background of the context perhaps?

Here's the page for that painting rather than the direct image link. Lots of notes there :)

http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436535?sortBy...

Thank you!

Yes. There are lots of resources that help explain art concepts and particular paintings. Just google them.

Instead of going through historical academia to try and understand art, I would instead suggest exploring what's currently going on in the art world.

Instagram has been absolutely great for understanding art as its happening right now. There are so many curators out there that'll help you "get" it.

A few favorites:

https://www.instagram.com/aureta

https://www.instagram.com/diaartfoundation

https://www.instagram.com/avant.arte

https://www.instagram.com/booooooom

https://www.instagram.com/larryhofmann

https://www.instagram.com/ignant

https://www.instagram.com/charlottedicarcaci

https://www.instagram.com/delpozo

(and follow the people they follow as well to get the complete picture)

If you understand why they do art now, you will understand why they did it 500 years ago.

> Am not someone who can claim to "get" art

(All IMHO, and sorry if it states things you already know:) I 'get' art, and I'll say that 'getting' art is a misunderstood, over-emphasized concept. Find works that move you, that challenge your perspective. Who cares what everyone else thinks or likes? Find your art. Art is in the eye of the beholder; don't worry too much about the artist's intentions - they lost that control once they put it on paper - what does it mean to you, as it is right there at that moment? Art isn't some secret code that needs decoding; it is what it is, to you. Just to get your mind working on it; here are some questions to ask yourself and tips:

* How does it make you feel? To really grasp art, bring the emotional part of you to bear - it's more far effective than the rational side in this regard. Then try to articulate it (which ties in the rational side). If I can't seem to get traction then I just think 'how do I feel?' - not even how does the object in front of me make me feel, but just 'how am I feeling?' - and often, presto, everything comes into focus.

* Unlike real life, nothing in a work of art is accidental or gratuitous (unless it's intentionally that way!). Why is that red line there? What would a different red look like? A much thicker line? A less opaque one? Rotated 90 degrees? Or, why is it set on a sunny afternoon? What if it was cloudy? Nighttime? Moonlight and stars?

* Often the most powerful question: What are the assumptions behind image in front of you? What didn't they paint (or sculpt, etc.)? If it's a Renior of nudes by a stream, the painting assumes there is beauty in pink flesh, in nature, a relationship between those two things, and it assumes there is no shame in it, no danger, but something positive.

If a work of art makes me uncomfortable, that's a great starting point - what is making me uncomfortable? It's just an object; it can't do me any harm or do anything at all. Often the works that make me most uncomfortable at first - the ones I hate - are the ones that I love the most in the long run. The ones that bore me are the worst.

Reading a book on art history can help you understand a lot of the context behind and specific images in the art (X was a big issue at the time, or image Y represented something in that culture), but IMHO it is much more valuable to read later, to learn something that enhances your burgeoning art appreciation rather than to learn about something you aren't familiar with in the first place. Just find what you love.

Perhaps this has already been done, but I'd be fascinated to see randomised controlled trials to test peoples enjoyment of art under different priming conditions, e.g. true/fictitious/absent information around description/background/value, social proof like crowds around particular pieces, etc.

A simple starting point for contemplating any art is to ask yourself the questions:

What is the artist trying to say?

Have they said it well?

Was it worth saying?

These are of course highly subjective. Your answers may be very different from those of others and even from the artist themselves. And that's fine.

These questions can also springboard your curiosity if you allow it. What was the artist trying to say? How can I tell? What can I read to help understand the context within which the artist was working? This can be a lovely, deep, rich contemplation if you choose. You can set your own pace, and decide when you have had your fill.

Well said!

An economist once argued that it would be worthwhile for museums to sell the bottom 1% of their collections (stuff that's destined to moulder in the archives and would never be displayed anyway) and set up trusts that would fund free admission. Then, people would feel freer to visit for just an hour and enjoy small tastes of art more frequently.

(Unfortunately, selling anything is taboo in the world of art museums. This plan "can't" happen.)

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/05/michael_ohare_o.htm...

Most museums offer annual memberships that are only 2-3x the cost of a single day ticket. I used to live within walking distance of MoMA and it changed my experience of art to be able to wander up and linger on a single piece or exhibit for long periods without worrying about "doing it all" in one day.

Strongly recommend getting memberships to your local museums!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com