lol i love this
 

it'sa skull :D

loll

so modern or post-modern even i dunno

the replies: views ratio should have told me this thread was shite

sorry certain idiots don't appreciate hans holbein. not my fault.

hey moron, guess what that blob is in the bottom!

and no it's not a smear!

That's really fucking creepy.

Oh well. At least some dead chick didn't pop up and scream.

LOLZ

Translation:
"If you don't appreciate everything that I appreciate, you're an idiot. Further more, the world is BLACK. Not white (cause that means that there's another side to everything), and sure as hell not grey."

You really belong on the music forum.

the name "Samsa" is a great indicator as well...

i think its neither nor

well yeah, i mean it's renaissance so of course it's not modern/post-modern, but putting a motherfucking SKULL in the picture. it seems so post-modern or something you know?

No it doesn't.

excuse me kypper, but scouse_dave replies to a thread i made posting a great painting by one of the great renaissance masters, and says that this thread is 'shite'. why would he reply to my thread telling me it's shite? no fucking reason. just to be a jerk. and actually it's the other way around. he's the person who sees the world in black and white, obviously, since he has the audacity to come into my thread and accuse it of being shite just because netphoria chose not to reply to it

and no guys, you don't fucking get it. it's NOT photoshopped. hans holbein put that skull in there. it is not photoshopped at all.

eh. i never liked that painting. gimmicks. ehk.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/H/h...bassadors.jpg.

here's an even bigger pic of it :D

edit:

:mad:

see i don't see it as a gimmick. well it is, but it's so fucking old it's like excusable. like if someone made a painting like that htese days it would be so obvious, but i mean, when you put it into context of the times it's so fucking cool or like alternative or just post-modern i can't even explain. it just rocks my socks that this renaissance dude put an anamorphic skull in there like a big fucking blob. lol.

Hans Holbein’s portrait of Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selves, prominent figures at the court of Henry VIII, is among the most famous modern examples of anamorphic painting technique. In anamorphic painting, the artist constructs the image based on one or more eccentric points of view, so as to ***** an element or elements which are not discernible without the use of distorting mirrors, or unless viewed from a specific position. In “The Ambassadors,” the brown-gray smear near the bottom of the painting is revealed to be a very realistic human skull when the painting is viewed from a point just above the top-right corner. The classic interpretation of the skull is that it marks the painter’s ironic commentary on the vanitas of Renaissance science and art, represented by the finery of the men’s costumes, and the many artistic and scientific tools and artifacts displayed on the table between them.

Foister, Roy, and Wyld’s excellent monograph on The Ambassadors (commemorating the recent – and controversial – restoration of the painting) discusses its visual elements and historical ********** in detail:

Foister, Susan, Ashok Roy, and Martin Wyld. Holbein’s Ambassadors. London: Yale University Press, 1998.
Jurgis Baltrusaitis’s classic book on anamorphic technique is probably the best modern introduction to these traditions:

Baltrusaitis, Jurgis. Anamorphic Art. Trans. W.J. Strachan. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1983.
Holbein’s painting figures prominently in Jacques Lacan’s seminar on The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (it appears on the cover of the 1973 French edition):

Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1981.
Lacan uses the Holbein painting to illustrate the split – the Freudian Spaltung – induced by the encounter of a signifier with the real. In Lacan’s ontology of the subject, this traumatic encounter precipitates the subject in relation to the eccentric object-cause. (It may help to think of the subject as a form approaching the split from the side of the signifier, and the object-cause as a form approaching the split from the side of the real, thus only cognizable by the subject in fantasy.) In the field of the visible, this object-cause takes the form Lacan calls the “gaze,” our fleeting awareness of an eye which seems to look back, watching us, as it were, from outside the field of vision.
In Lacan’s interpretation, the skull-blot of the Holbein portrait signifies the fundamental relation of obliquity upon which the subject’s assertion of its existence is sustained, even though the subject is incapable of cognizing that relation (Four Fundamental Concepts, 88–89.) In this sense, the distorted skull is the residual trace of a species of knowledge which is impossible for the conscious subject, and which may be approached only at the boundary of the visual-imaginary order of subjectivity.

http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~tharpold/resources/holbein/

dude, where?!

furthermore, what people still don' tunderstand is i don't really care if someone disagrees with me, as long as they have a valid reason or at least somewhat know what they're talking about or say it in a non-normative way. dave replied to my thread calling it 'shite' for no fucking reason even though it basically consisted of me posting a great work of art. i would consider that a highly biased and ridiculous statement considering it's my thread, he doesn't have to look at it if he doesn't want to, and it's a great renaissance master. so it's really funny you single me out for getting offended when some jerk comes in and calls my thread 'shite' just because he happens to not appreciate art. do you not fucking understand how your comment is so fucking hypocritical considering you chose to apply it to me and not everyone else on here?

pretty russian meghan on the other hand, comes in here, and says 'eh i never liked that painting'. that is exactly the response i was hoping to get. well not THE response but the form of response. a response directed at the painting and about the painting. so i obviously don't get mad when people disagree with me, as long as it's a valid or sort of constructive form of disagreement. i posted the painting so it could be looked at and reacted to. not so someone coudl call my thread 'shite' just because it consists of an image, not words.

tilt your head to the left and look at the blob

The Ambassadors
(thing) by sneak241 (15 hr) (print) ? 1 C! Tue Nov 20 2001 at 22:18:40


Painting by Hans Holbein, the Younger depicting two ambassadors from Pope Clement VII sent to Henry VIII of England to help resolve the situation that arose when Henry married Anne Boleyn. By looking at the sundials and other scientific instruments on the top shelf in the painting, experts have concluded that scene takes place at 10:30 AM on April 11, 1533. The two ambassadors, Jean de Dinteville and George de Selve, are standing on opposite sides of a shelf full of advanced scientific and musical instruments. Near the floor between the ambassadors lies an anamorphosis, which is a deliberately distorted skull.
I believe that in this painting Holbein was showing the briefness of human endeavors. Next to all of these symbols of human achievement, such as the instruments and the clothing, he quietly shows us four emblems of that briefness. These emblems are the crucifix partially hidden behind the curtain, the broken string on the lute, the human skull on the badge on Dinteville's hat, and the anamorphosis. By combining this symbolism with an accurate depiction of an important event in history, Holbein created a masterpiece of Renaissance art.

woohoo! thanx! :D

OKAY

actually no i'm pretty sure i'm done cutting and pasting for now

I finally saw that stupid skull in the teeny picture, but I think if I saw the bigger one first, I might have caught on to it faster. But yeah, nice. :thumbsup:

You realize you replied to yourself here? I know I know, it's hard to keep track.