Lou Kessler
Lou Kessler
I cannot stand in the way of the imortal words of Jimmy Durante. I concede.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Events of the Night In Question
- Thread starter Chris Coad
- Start date
Lou Kessler
Lou Kessler
Immortal----You idiot!originally posted by Lou Kessler:
Truth will otI cannot stand in the way of the imortal words of Jimmy Durante. I concede.originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
To Lou... my apologies; that is not the intended feeling.
To Oswaldo... well, at some distance, your visual apparatus decides that that level of fuzziness is acceptable.
To Mrs. Calabash... good night, wherever you are.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What's the proper distance for admiring a Monet landscape? And, at the proper distance, does all that hazy stuff snap into focus?
If you think he painted Dejeuner sur l'herbe, you're too far away. If you can't tell whether what you're looking at is a cathedral or a water lily, you're probably too close up. On the other hand, if you like Dejeuner sur l'herbe or you don't think it matters whether what you're looking at is a water lily or a cathedral, you can probably choose any distance.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I only begged the question because there are "proper" distances for looking at some Vermeers.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If you can't tell whether what you're looking at is a cathedral or a water lily, you're probably too close up.
You're acting as though figuration matters most. What if texture is of greater interest to me?
On the other hand, if ... you don't think it matters whether what you're looking at is a water lily or a cathedral, you can probably choose any distance.
This would be invalidated, as well.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If you can't tell whether what you're looking at is a cathedral or a water lily, you're probably too close up.
You're acting as though figuration matters most. What if texture is of greater interest to me?
On the other hand, if ... you don't think it matters whether what you're looking at is a water lily or a cathedral, you can probably choose any distance.
This would be invalidated, as well.
The remark you quoted second was precisely to take care of interests in non-representational aspects. I'm not sure what your objection to it is. And for me, at least, different distances from Monet paintings bring different experiences of what he's doing, so that I can indeed choose any distance. I have a problem with the Water Lily room at the new MOMA precisely because the narrowness of the room limits distance variation.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
You're oversimplifying. If I have a specific interest in a specific property of the painting (say, its texture, rather than any number of other attributes it might have (and I say "might," because maybe it's just not that complex an object)), I cannot choose any distance, because "across the room" or "in the next gallery" removes my interaction with that property of the painting. Viz., I cannot discern its texture.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
You're oversimplifying. If I have a specific interest in a specific property of the painting (say, its texture, rather than any number of other attributes it might have (and I say "might," because maybe it's just not that complex an object)), I cannot choose any distance, because "across the room" or "in the next gallery" removes my interaction with that property of the painting. Viz., I cannot discern its texture.
It's true, if your sole interest is texture, you have to be pretty close. I have to say, even with say Clifford Stills, I find texture an interest consequential upon its affect on visual experience and a matter therefore of curiosity with regard to how that was achieved. So the distance you need to get that information wouldn't be the one distance I would choose. And for the range of non-representational experiences of the painting, there is no one distance and in that sense, the distance doesn't matter. But this goes beyond any intention I had in joking around. Oswaldo was right that I was questioning the notion of a proper distance to view a Monet. There might of course be a proper distance for seeing texture, to the extent that one does that, just as there are proper distances for other specific information one wants (is it a cathedral or a water lily), but that's a different issue from proper distance tout court.
I find the experience of good paintings, and Monet's cathedrals and water lillies I rank among those, sufficiently complex to attract both extended regard and, when the opportunity occurs, repeat viewings.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by SFJoe:
Much easier just to have one name for all grapes, isn't it?originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
Altesse is called roussette. So is jacquere, though less frequently. Gringet used to be called roussette as well.
Very nice bottle of wine, the 2010, now that I've had a chance to play with it in peace and quiet, with authentically BBQed Korean beef. The first glass gave me an impression of something I'd really appreciate but could not drink a lot of, due to a bit of roundness and flavours just a touch South of what I'd prefer, but I couldn't be more wrong - the bottle was empty in under an hour, with me responsible for about two thirds.
Jeff Connell
Jeff Connell
I'm a bit lost here. Which wine? It does seem that people are callincg any variety any name when someone calls Jacquere Roussete.