Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdietrich | Hacker News Reader

The shape of the cows is exaggerated, but not by much - many breeds of cow are just incredibly rectangular in profile.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5475e650e4b0df...

The first thing I did was take 5 seconds for an image search to confirm that the cows in the paintings look like.. actual cows. Then I read the article, and remain perplexed about art and those who write about art.

I had the same reaction; this was a glaring omission; photos of cows should have been at the top of the article as a reference. The article's main (but unstated) point isn't cows in these paintings are rectangular, but cows in these paintings are unrealistic in the same way. To prove this point, he used many of these paintings, but no pictures of actual cows, which would have proven his or her point.

Doing the work myself, as you have, I find that many cows are rectangular. The author is unequipped to dispel me of this notion, if it's incorrect, but could have easily if he had addressed it preemptively by clearly stating his actual thesis. (Unrealism, not rectangleness). (And if he is correct)

You’ve missed the point. It’s not that cows are unrealistically sqaure, it is that its strange how many paintings of rectangular cows there are, and the author guesses its because they’re all displaying the profile. Why is this perspective so dominant in the 19th century, and what does it mean for the formal considerations of the artwork? These are the questions that are important, not whether or not cows are actually sqaure.

I concur that what you describe is a central theme. I also think that a lack of addressing the question (with pictures or words) of realism leaves it open for readers to take away themes other than the one you highlight.

There is no “realism,” photography is its own form of art. What’s remarkable is how common this perspective is even today, such that it has been produced as “realistic” for you and how you see the world.

I agree, however there is something to be said for the distance between the subject and the representation. If the 'underlying cow' is already somewhat square, then the representation in painting or photo is going to be close to that nebulous reality.

While it might be possible to take a photo of a cow that turns out looking spherical (due to the lighting or angle), it is surely going to be harder?

I guess there’s the platonist/pythagorean angle that circle, sqaure, and triangle are fundemental forms of seeing and artworks can only approximate them. But even then that is only for the forms of our perception and is not fundemental to the thing in itself, which has neither a name nor a definite shape, but is also in some sense shaped by forces of perception (in a material sense). But then I would argue that technology itself opens up not only new ways of seeing but also new formal possibilities and claiming that there is something fundemental to the forms of seeing to form in general limits those possibilities.

The article points the contrast between how cows and how cattles are represented. "With ‘cattle’ you see lots of typical landscape scenes; lovely green meadows, maybe some water, and groups of nicely-painted cows grazing away." The cows paintings have different composition - a little to no background and a single standing large cow in focus.

Likewise, there is contrast between how highland cows are represented - from the front "the cows look like they’re posing for an album cover.". They do indeed look like a cow metal band could. They dont look rectangular, they look hairy.

I spent my time trying to figure out what artuk was.

One of the first things you learn about farming cows is that meat cows are rectangular, and dairy cows are triangular.

Some of the paintings are quite exaggerated though, probably for the purpose of bragging rights by the patron.

And the beef cattle industry ideal shape has evolved over time as well. In the past that rectangle with short stubby legs was what they wanted.

https://onpasture.com/2016/07/04/from-big-to-small-to-big-to...

All 3 parts of this are fascinating.

Now in certain regions cattle are bred for being hardy and general overall health in extreme climates, quantity of beef production vs resources that are put into a herd financially... Such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughtmaster

There is also the aptly named SQUARE MEATER which maintains the rectangular cow aesthetic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Meater

“Ideal” is a nice word for arbitrary fashion, literally a herd mentality.

This mirrors what happens with muscle cars, women’s handbags, JavaScript frameworks, and so many other things. The purpose remains ostensibly functional but the real driver is peer group status, to the point that function is totally compromised but the peer group loves it.

Isn’t any philosophy about cows a herd mentality?

So an arbitrary ideal, then? As in, not conforming to 'the' ideal in the sense of some platonic, eternal idea of a cow, but some ideal in the mind of farmers of what they would prefer cows to be.

Ideal with livestock is usually for A reason, not arbitrary.

You don't want stubby legs because they don't breed as easily.

Breeding animals isn't like technology.

I should note that this image of a rectangular cow is hosted on SQUAREspace.

Honestly, I knew I had to submit it when I got to the sheep. The cows aren't far off, but that sheep!

Haha yeah that sheep is pretty wack.

Brits had Minecraft sheep before Minecraft

Those beluga whale pigs I’ve seen somewhere before and they haunt my dreams.

These are the widely renowned "Brother, may I have some oats" pigs.

Particularly in the haunches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthorn

One of the cows pictured.

Gorgeous brisket!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com