jkahless posted:TOS posted:
I miss being at sea.
i was just thinking it was laundry day
before you say anything about his fashion choices, have you walked on the moon?
poor guy is suing his own kids over control over his estate
TOS posted:poor guy is suing his own kids over control over his estate
Ugh. That’s a horrible mess. I think he has always been a little eccentric, but I saw a fairly recent interview with him where he seemed perfectly lucid and on point. I think it is a travesty when any parent has to fight with their children over their finances.
Warin posted:TOS posted:poor guy is suing his own kids over control over his estate
Ugh. That’s a horrible mess. I think he has always been a little eccentric, but I saw a fairly recent interview with him where he seemed perfectly lucid and on point. I think it is a travesty when any parent has to fight with their children over their finances.
a real stan lee type situation
"Second Spanish church falls prey to well-intentioned restorer":
Admittedly the original artist wasn't particularly great, but this ain't a restoration.
Admittedly the original artist wasn't particularly great, but this ain't a restoration.
I don't think that's terrible in itself, actually.
I have seen a lot of people comparing that to the other famous one, and the other famous one was just awful. This one I think actually has some artistic merit in itself(although no, it's not really a restoration).
I have seen a lot of people comparing that to the other famous one, and the other famous one was just awful. This one I think actually has some artistic merit in itself(although no, it's not really a restoration).
obvs posted:I don't think that's terrible in itself, actually.
I have seen a lot of people comparing that to the other famous one, and the other famous one was just awful. This one I think actually has some artistic merit in itself(although no, it's not really a restoration).
Really? Let me count the ways:
--the face is not looking the same direction. In fact in the restoration the pupils of the eyes do not match so it looks like St. George is staring off unfocused with his right eye seeming to stare straight at the camera but his left eye more like the original, being focused upon something on the viewer's right.
--the original helmet appears to be peaked like on the left example below, but in the restoration the artist has rendered the helmet with a thin ridge over the top like on the right:
which is simply not the same. BTW: both of those are pictures from Dark Knight Armoury which makes--among other things--recreations of medieval helmets.
--the shape of the lifted face-guard in the restoration--while perhaps more detailed--is off-balance and shaped such that its right side looks like it will get stuck atop of St. George's cheek when lowered. Perhaps that dragon gave him a good left to the face. The picture of the original is not sufficiently detailed to see how the faceguard might have been attached, BUT it might be that the original artist's intention was to show St. George with a battered and scarred helmet (as after a furious battle) perhaps with even the part of his faceguard broken off, or maybe just time cracked it and it fell off. Being a 16th century statue, I would go with the latter explanation as artists of that time did not indulge that much into realism especially for such heroic religious icons.
Sure, not at all close to that abomination of the "Ecce Homo" restoration, but still pretty bad.
That dog is an uncouth individual.
Did you read what I posted before responding to it?DEyncourt posted:obvs posted:I don't think that's terrible in itself, actually.
I have seen a lot of people comparing that to the other famous one, and the other famous one was just awful. This one I think actually has some artistic merit in itself(although no, it's not really a restoration).
Really? Let me count the ways:
--the face is not looking the same direction. In fact in the restoration the pupils of the eyes do not match so it looks like St. George is staring off unfocused with his right eye seeming to stare straight at the camera but his left eye more like the original, being focused upon something on the viewer's right.
--the original helmet appears to be peaked like on the left example below, but in the restoration the artist has rendered the helmet with a thin ridge over the top like on the right:
which is simply not the same. BTW: both of those are pictures from Dark Knight Armoury which makes--among other things--recreations of medieval helmets.
--the shape of the lifted face-guard in the restoration--while perhaps more detailed--is off-balance and shaped such that its right side looks like it will get stuck atop of St. George's cheek when lowered. Perhaps that dragon gave him a good left to the face. The picture of the original is not sufficiently detailed to see how the faceguard might have been attached, BUT it might be that the original artist's intention was to show St. George with a battered and scarred helmet (as after a furious battle) perhaps with even the part of his faceguard broken off, or maybe just time cracked it and it fell off. Being a 16th century statue, I would go with the latter explanation as artists of that time did not indulge that much into realism especially for such heroic religious icons.
Sure, not at all close to that abomination of the "Ecce Homo" restoration, but still pretty bad.
I specifically said that it wasn't an artistic restoration, but that I thought that if considered outside of that fact it seemed to have some artistic merit, which was different than the other one. If it was a new painting I don't think people would go "That's awful." That's not the case with the other one, and that's not the same as an endorsement of what was done.
obvs posted:What am I looking at here?macuser posted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlyterrifyin ... ir_calves/
See how they have their left foot in some kind of step, inset into the wall?
Honestly, whenever you see uniformly dressed, thin but muscular women doing something creepy and maybe even physically impossible, it's probably ballerinas.
DEyncourt posted:"Second Spanish church falls prey to well-intentioned restorer":
Admittedly the original artist wasn't particularly great, but this ain't a restoration.
TOS posted:
she's making money from those pics, and the internet made her famous, good for her
-
how long until she's featured in a talk show? tv ad? sitcom? movie?
Every time I see that meme I think that the jealous girl is actually more attractive than the other one.
obvs posted:Every time I see that meme I think that the jealous girl is actually more attractive than the other one.
Yeah... it's really not about that. Remember Arnold Schwartzenegger's maid? Or that waitress who Tiger Woods got divorced over?
Guys are creeps.
obvs posted:Guys are creeps.
Sometimes. But while I'm not a big fan of marital infidelity, those women were at least ostensibly willing. (IIRC, maybe I'm misremembering.)
My point, rather, is that how "conventionally" attractive a potential dalliance is, compared to your spouse, isn't really the deciding factor in whether or not you cheat on them.
In the case of a sex addict like Tiger Woods or JFK (and hey, probably Ahnuld too) it doesn't matter because they literally can't see past the end of their dicks.
But in many, many other (most?) cases, like my uncle's relatively plain-looking (but absolutely lovely) mistress-now-wife, it's because the spouse is a conniving, evil sumbitch and you're looking for comfort from somebody who actually likes and respects you.
Human relationships are complicated. It's why I avoid them. Beepboop.
That dress looks red to me.
ukimalefu posted:TOS posted:
she's making money from those pics, and the internet made her famous, good for her
-
how long until she's featured in a talk show? tv ad? sitcom? movie?
i bet she got paid a pittance for those photos
