"(BTW -- I can't take the test, because I have no idea how implicit vanishing points can be found, and certainly cant find any in that painting)".
In that painting vp doesn't need to be found- it should be felt. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Art and Optics Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:38:56 GMT Assuming that everyone here has something like Photoshop on their computer, here's a fun exercise for our group: 1. Download an image of Manet's "Folies Bergere" 2. Put a red dot wherever you see an "implicit vanishing point" 3. Email that image to me, and I'll put them all up on a webpage 4. Then we can compare them all with the ones that William has found. Do you think they will all be the same? If they are different -- how might we prove which, if any, are correct? If such a proof can be convincingly made -- those who were wrong may then ask themselves if they can see the work better after knowing where the real vp's can be found. (BTW -- I can't take the test, because I have no idea how implicit vanishing points can be found, and certainly cant find any in that painting) >By implicit vp in Manet's painting, I refer to the multiple vps in the work, none of which organizes the whole painting but only sections, implying that when one looks at a section it is organized to a vp but when one looks elsewhere in the painting, another vp takes over, that contradicts the other, and so on. Actually there are many vanishing points in the painting and they tell you where your eye level is and what your position is vis-a-vis the painting. wc ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=sT4Yr4G_LdkXuqC8MzryTgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
