Original Usenet thread from alt.ascii-art, started 30 Jul 1994.
PARASITES INSIDE OF VIRUSES?
alt.ascii-art
· 29 messages · 30 Jul 1994 - 19 Aug 1994
In article <31bp9n$a1...@riscsm.scripps.edu> ant...@scripps.edu writes: > In article <31bdjr$pp...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, <Lud...@dartmouth.edu> > > writes: > When we find viruses inside of viruses, that feat will propell > > virology and biotechnology to newer heights. > > It's been done, Ludi--quite some time ago. There are some hazzardds, you > > see, with making such bold statements when you don't know the facts. > > -tony First things first. Colin Douthwaite, our resident artist did a wonderful illustration to my logical complaints against the reports of George Smoot and company. Pictures speak a thousand words and the artistry sort of brought that logic to life. I think that even George Smoot himself, after reading those logic complaints illustrated with pictures can "begin to perceive the errors of his ways". PU, PLuto, blesses the soul of Colin Douthwaite to The Fields of Elysium. ATOM I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior artwork. I think some friends over in sci.math can help me out in stating this math theorem precisely. And, if someone posts a logarthmic spiral, I would please like their permission to use it without reference for my work on superdeterminism. So please post that the spiral can be used-without-permission. Thanks in advance. Back to sci.bio. I need that logarithmic spiral to push the idea of superdeterminism. And I aim to link chemistry with biology, in order to show how highly predictive biology is. Once biology uses the correct science of superdeterminism, and not the fake-baloney of evolution.
Ludwig Plutonium: > I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic >spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing >in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one >maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a >profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer >screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic >spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior >artwork. Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all equally bad. :) ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best" straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what purpose? / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And besides, they look different on different terminals. (sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.) (The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.) --
In article <FLE...@dictionopolis.cse.psu.edu> fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes: > Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts > at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all > equally bad. :) > > ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it > depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly > learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best" > straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what > purpose? > > / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' > / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' > / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,' > > Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And > besides, they look different on different terminals. > > (sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but > Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.) > > (The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.) Your last statement about 1x1 is correct. Your other statements are wrong. When you have a perfect artpiece as the logarithmic spiral or sine curve then there are no artists who can draw either one to the perfection of math, even using instruments. Some will draw a better Ln spiral than others and each can be compared as to one another and one or a class of them can be claimed the best, but none will be as perfect as the math objects. This is perhaps the first doors of comparing artwork. Art, and masterpiece paintings will not stay so to speak "immune from math analysis". And this door will also be of economic value. Already masterpiece paintings are translated into bits on computer. Photographic pictures are many bits per area. I say there is a math theorem which begins to speak of art. I conjecture such will be proved along the lines of--- given a specific number of bits. Then each work of art can be compared math artistically against one another. Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that object and all others are inferior. Such a theorem and further theorems along the lines of art will come into economic importance in the future because the computer art will merge with photography and movie frames. In the long term future, there will no longer be any need for actors or stage props to make movies. Movies will be made from bits on the computer. We have some now, known as cartoons. The more sophisticated ones are special effects in science fiction movies. But, as the future rolls on, the computer manipulation will make people which are so difficult to tell apart from real live actors. The clue will be that the real live acting movies have blemishes, awkwardness, and have a roughness. In future movies, the people and background all originate from a computer. And the highest art work will be to maximize each frame so that it looks so lifelike. Call them computerized movies. In the future, the movie artists will be able to make a movie on Archimedes so authenthic looking that it will appear you were transported back in time and seeing the action as an eyewitness newsreporter.
Ludwig Plutonium: > Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a >finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that >object and all others are inferior. This is *rendering*, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of art. You may be able to develop some maximization function that describes how faithful a particular rendering is to a particular abstract conception, but so what? Consider a straight line. Since a mathematical line has no thickness, a perfect rendering would use no ink, no bits. This is useless for most purposes. Let's restate the problem as: find the best rendering of a particular thin, rectangular area. (Note that this choice is arbitrary. Why not a thin, sinusoidal area?) If you want to render it in grayscale pixels, then the anti-aliasing algorithm is arguably the best method. (Though this is hardly a trivial argument.) But in ascii, the choice of an optimization function is far from straightforward. Let's simplify even further: ignore the problem of the different shapes and proportions of different fonts. Limit the problem to just one particular font ("courr12" from X11) that's represented by 1-bit pixmaps. An obvious optimization function is to count the number of "on" bits within the thin rectangle and subtract the number of "on" bits outside the thin rectangle. For one particular thin rectangle, it turns out the "optimal" rendering looks like this: ,,,,,,,,,,, but I would argue that this: ___________ is a better rendering for most purposes, despite the fact that all of its "on" bits are outside the thin rectangle being rendered. At every step in this quest for a mathematical definition of maximal art rendering, I had to make gross simplifications and "aesthetic judgments", and the result is still lacking. If you really want to develop a rigorous, mathematical definition of perfect art, I wish you luck, but I doubt such a thing is particularly useful. (On a different point, art != realism. But this is another long, boring argument that I don't want to get into.) (Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art again.) --
In article <FLE...@colossus.cse.psu.edu> fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes: > This is *rendering*, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of > art. You may be able to develop some maximization function that > describes how faithful a particular rendering is to a particular > abstract conception, but so what? > > Consider a straight line. Since a mathematical line has no thickness, > a perfect rendering would use no ink, no bits. This is useless for > most purposes. > > Let's restate the problem as: find the best rendering of a particular > thin, rectangular area. (Note that this choice is arbitrary. Why not > a thin, sinusoidal area?) > > If you want to render it in grayscale pixels, then the anti-aliasing > algorithm is arguably the best method. (Though this is hardly > a trivial argument.) > > But in ascii, the choice of an optimization function is far from > straightforward. Let's simplify even further: ignore the problem of > the different shapes and proportions of different fonts. Limit the > problem to just one particular font ("courr12" from X11) that's > represented by 1-bit pixmaps. > > An obvious optimization function is to count the number of "on" bits > within the thin rectangle and subtract the number of "on" bits outside > the thin rectangle. > > For one particular thin rectangle, it turns out the "optimal" > rendering looks like this: > ,,,,,,,,,,, > > but I would argue that this: > ___________ > > is a better rendering for most purposes, despite the fact that all of > its "on" bits are outside the thin rectangle being rendered. > > At every step in this quest for a mathematical definition of maximal > art rendering, I had to make gross simplifications and "aesthetic > judgments", and the result is still lacking. > > If you really want to develop a rigorous, mathematical definition of > perfect art, I wish you luck, but I doubt such a thing is particularly > useful. > > (On a different point, art != realism. But this is another long, > boring argument that I don't want to get into.) > > (Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art again.) > -- More to it than just rendering Felix. I am saying that art is just dots per cm. The screen is about 30 dots per cm (dpc). The most advanced dpc is 300 dpc. What is the highest resolution of film photography? Is it 300 dpc? Paintings, masterpieces, movies are visual art. We can define art as resolution. We can define beauty in art as "intentions conveyed visually". Can the Mona Lisa be made better? Sure. In the future we will so to speak "atomize" all masterpieces into dots per cm. We will go below the current dpc of the Mona Lisa and then change some dots. Presto a new Mona Lisa better than the original Leonardo da Vinci work. Each will be pixels described by one math equation each. In other words, Felix. Art in the future is merely the technique of math dots per centimeter. Many math theorems will be proved which say alot about art. And even art beauty can be defined as "original intent". If we want a masterpiece of female face then the picture which resolves the female face to as close as a real female face, drop the brushes, and drop everything else. It is the atomization, the dots per cm which will be it. The best artists of the future will be using computers. You can say that the masterpieces of old is the pinnacle of "hand drawn dpc". In the future the computer will vastly exceed the dpc of the old masters such as Michelangelo, da Vinci, et al. But picture painting will not be as interesting as the union of sight resolution and sound resolution that is capable in movies.
Ludwig Plutonium: > Paintings, masterpieces, movies are visual art. We can define art as >resolution. We can define beauty in art as "intentions conveyed >visually". I think you're confused on several levels about the meaning and purpose of art. Today's silly example: "I wish to convey the essence of the dilemma that a Christian faces in attempting to reconcile a respect for the scientific worldview against a sincere religious conviction. I've narrowed it down to two possibilities: < and > Which is more optimal?" Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've missed the point entirely. --
In article <FLE...@colossus.cse.psu.edu> fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes: > > Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise > intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when > he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And > if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint > splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've > missed the point entirely. Precisely, his canvas "intended" to fleece the public out of money. All art has an intent. And that intent may be vague for even the artist himself/herself. Our Maker 231PU superdetermines it. And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa is second rate in comparison. Increasingly, math will take over art.
Ludwig Plutonium: > Precisely, his canvas "intended" to fleece the public out of money. >All art has an intent. And that intent may be vague for even the artist >himself/herself. Our Maker 231PU superdetermines it. > And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the >Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm >resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than >that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face >excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched >from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put >the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa >into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa >is second rate in comparison. Hmm. I think we're having semantic difficulties. You're using the word "intent" in a way I'm not familiar with. This "intent" that can change over time, is it a universal or is it something that varies subjectively? --
Ludwig Plutonium (Lud...@dartmouth.edu) wrote: > The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face > excels the Mona Lisa. Not true. The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty of a female face. Failure, or a lack of ability, to recognise the intangible aspects of The Mona Lisa can only lead to invalid assumptions in the development of any proposition " that mathematics will increasingly overtake art ". Even in the following very primitive ascii rendition of Mona Lisa, the intangible quality is present. There is a hint of it in inverse video mode, but it becomes evident when printed in Bold Pica Font on a dot matrix printer. The print needs to be viewed from a distance of 1 metre or more. ::';t)/!||||(//L+)'(-\\/ddjWWW#######WmKK(\!(/-|J=/\\t/!-/\!_L\)! :|-!/(!-)\L\)/!\5(!.!LWW###################WK/|!\\\\/!;\/\T\/((\- :|!'//\//(-!t\Y/\L!m#####M####################WLt\\!)\/J-//)/;t\, :--/-.\.\/\.!)///m######K#######################WK!/!-( )-!,|/\T ://,\--`--!-/\(q#######DD##########################L\\\\-!!//!\\, :-.-!\'!!\-\/:W########N############################W,).'-.-/\-'; :!.\!-!-!`!-!W#######P|+~**@@@#######################W/,/'\-/,\7- :--`,-- -/.:W###*P!' \`Z8#####################;,\\`,\,\ :`.'.'\`-.-d##5'- -- '-:V@##########W#########_\-!-\\- :`, -,.'/,G##K- ' - )7KM###################\-----/ :- '- --:##@; -!ZZ###################W! \'!-' : '-.`- G###|. `,D8K###################|/-.-/, :-' ,-//###@) -)ZWMW##################\` _\ :- ' .:Yd###! `-!(K5K##################|(/L|, : - :\G###Z- ` ! -;55ZZ#################)(4)' : . -!W####!\ ` ' !-tVG################XNVZ- : tt####@-. ` ')(W################D)8@| : )8#####\ .-`-/KW#################KD#| : ||Z####W!- .::,\.. -,;\bZKK######8#K#########(#8| : KN8#####( ,:!/GG_ d4KW8ZKW#WWK#W#88#######W##########WK#- : )/8K###K#W#WP~~~T4( dW##7'___L#M####MM8W###W############bM8| :\!48#K####8##W*###WY; WRob+~~######*ff/\NM8###############WW#| :.\\KW###W#,~t' !*~!', -M@) `~`,),' '.`K#################@KW| :.'8M###### -'..j/Z'' @//- ,,\\+\' :|W######M###########8| ::\#8#K###D \!` !:Z8###8@#####8W#W###8M| :q8W5###### `!- `-)8##################M8; :8WZ8#M####- / . .\tK############@######ZJ! :#W#@K###W#| // \\tW@###@K##W##W###K###Wm; :##8#M#8###P- -=/, /;D8W##############@###W##| :#8###M@####\- , _)jJ; -((WKK#####W####W##K######K| :###W@K##K##); `\..KW##WK )X)KW#M##W###MW##@#W######8#| :#K#W####@#@@/;- ~M####M\ ,.\\=)D8W##W###W##########8W##@| :####MW######(`\\' PPK((.:|/!-\-/)8XN@WMK#######W##MK#@#####| :##8##MK#W#@#b!--\)L_. .(ZLWbW#\'- ,-N|/KM#######W###@########W#| :##KW###K#W###/- !``~~Yff*N5f -' -.\))KK#######MK##W###M8W#W###| :#W###K@K######J-- .._dd/;)/- !//)NK#8W##########8########M#K| :##8W#K###W#####W!. `YY\)\\)\7(-)4dW#8#@###K#W#######8########| :M####8##K#KW###W#/, '-\\//)88W#M#@#K##M###@##M#8##@#W#8#M| :ZW#W#M#K##########m -)!/LtWW#W##@#W#####KW#######W###K###| :K##W#####W#M#8#####KL .-//dD##8W#K######8##########MK###W##M#| :tN#W##W#W#M##########bb4dKW#@##W##K####MK####8###########W#####| :)NM#8W##@###@##############@##@##8##K#W####M##K##K#@###8##M####| :(tMM###W##M8####@####@###@#########@####8W##8W################M| :tNZ##K###W####@#####8###/4N##8#W##W##M#8#MK#M8#K######W########| :M/K@8###M@###M##########|!t*Z#N####8##M8Z@ZZ#M###@#W#####K###W#| :WVd4M######@############D,\`(+KKZD#8WK#5@84VZ#WM############W##| :K5WM8#8W#W########8######,,-!/))ZK5@K4)@+(/XV/Z###@###W###M####| :+8WN@##@K##W###W#########b.-.\!||\X(5)Z/7\\\t5/K########W######| :8M8###@###@##8#########KDbt! !.-!t`(-\\!.\/.\!ZdG###W#MW###G###| :~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~` '' ' ` ` ' ' ` ``~`~`~`~~~~'~~~~' rob...@vlsi.cs.caltech.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bye,
Felix Lee, ponders the complexities of the golden rect.: > The golden ratio (tau) is (1 + sqrt(5))/2, which is approximately > 1.618. This number has the property that > tau / 1 = (tau + 1) / tau > And it's the only real number with that property. Note this relationship can also be expressed as: tau-1 = 1/tau and 1/(tau-1)=tau and tau^2 = tau+1 [snip snip] > > A golden rectangle is a rectangle where the ratio between the lengths > of the two sides is tau. Like so: > ___________________________________________ > | tau : 1 | > | : | > | : | > | : | > | : | > | : | > | tau : | > | : | > | : | > | : | > | : | > | : | > |________________________:________________| > > The top has a length of (tau + 1), and the side has a length of tau, > giving a ratio of (tau + 1) / tau = tau. [deleted] as you can see by looking at the ratio of its sides. The smaller > rectangle has the same shape as the whole rectangle. You can't fool me: all rectangles have the same "shape" ;-) The important thing is the ratio of the sides (Ie. Length/Width = tau) remains constant for each new rect. created when you "remove" perfect :) squares from the figure. ___________________________________________ | 1 : (tau - 1) | L/W = tau/1 = tau | : | | : | Next iterations: | : | | : (tau - 1) | L/W = 1/(tau-1) = tau | : | | 1 : | L/W = (tau-1)/(2-tau)=tau | : | | :................| L/W = (2-tau)/(2tau-3)=tau | : | | : (2 - tau) | etc.... | : | |________________________:________________| > Classical art and ancient Greek architecture uses the golden ratio > pretty often. The golden rectangle is supposed to be the most > aesthetically pleasing rectangle....... OK put in the Disney Classic "Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land" and voila... I new I had heard this stuff before. :) -- Greyshadow
In article <Col...@equinox.gen.nz> Col...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: > The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with > high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty > of a female face. I was hoping that Colin or someone would do a logarithmic spiral of the same rectangular dimension of the ascii Mona Lisa. The math proof of art would say something like this of the ascii Mona Lisa. There is a maximum best ascii of the Mona Lisa. Because of the limitations of number of bits (pixels) and the limitations of what character goes into the bits. When it comes down to the appraisal of two ascii Mona Lisa's, for instance, one of those will have say a ; in a bit whereas the other picture will have say a : in that same bit, and all other bits the same exact character. Then comparing those two ascii pictures of the Mona Lisa, the one with the ; instead of the : is of a higher resolution "compared with the actual Mona Lisa". Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have the heavy hand over it. The two essential aspects of art are "intention" and "resolution". The intention part is the "purpose of art". In the past history of art, since there was no photographic camera, later the movie camera. Art was the highest resolution hand work since no cameras existed. The intent in the old art for the majority of cases was to preserve a picture-- just like we use a picture camera for that purpose today.
In article <FLE...@colossus.cse.psu.edu> fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes: >From: fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) >Subject: Re: Art, math, realism, ascii (Re: PARASITES INSIDE OF >Date: 02 Aug 1994 17:30:50 GMT >> And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the >>Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm >>resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than >>that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face >>excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched >>from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put >>the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa >>into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa >>is second rate in comparison. The Mona Lisa is not great because it was a precision drawing, (although the Mona Lisa does have to give a little of its modern day populatity to its creator's name, but only a little) but because of the expression on her face, the way the light reacts, and so forth. After all, protrait painters were a dime a dozen. As are photographers today. | --- --/ /-\ /-\ | Christopher Beattie | Disclamer: | | | / | | | / | Tantalus @ Key West | My opinions are mine. | | | /-- \-/ | \ | chr...@central.keywest.mpgn.com |
In article <chr...@central.keywest.mpgn.com> chr...@central.keywest.mpgn.com (Christopher Beattie) writes: > The Mona Lisa is not great because it was a precision drawing, > (although the Mona Lisa does have to give a little of its modern > day populatity to its creator's name, but only a little) but > because of the expression on her face, the way the light reacts, > and so forth. > > After all, protrait painters were a dime a dozen. > > As are photographers today. I am glad you brought that up. In the future, the flaws of the Mona Lisa will be analyzed as precisely through math, just as all the combinations of the game tic tac toe have been analyzed through math game theory. The original Mona Lisa will be analyzed and it will be found that in several of its pixels or bits of information, that it was impossible for the "lighting to be such". In other words, when we look at a great sci fi movie and a real motion picture film, we soon spot the "fiction" part of the sci fi and know that it is not real. Likewise with the Mona Lisa compared to a top quality photograph. If we had never seen or heard about either one, we can recognize soon that the Mona Lisa is a type of "science fiction art" compared to the photograph art. In the future, a Scotland Yard type of art detector can spot the fake art from the true art, perhaps from the lighting, or something else which is inconsistent with the other pixels and bits. We can see some of this nowadays. Scientific American had a superposed picture of Marilyn Monroe with someone else. The math and physics art detectives will be able to distinguish them, no matter how cleverly arranged. If the Mona Lisa did not have that huge money price tag associated with it, then that hype about beautiful art would disappear. Show a starving person the Mona Lisa or the Grand Canyon, which mean little compared to a good dinner. To put it in perspective, 10,000 years ago some humans revered an animal and drew it in their cave-art. In 10,000 years into the future, the Mona Lisa will be to those future people what the cave-art was 10,000 years ago.
Ludwig Plutonium (Lud...@dartmouth.edu) wrote: : In article <Col...@equinox.gen.nz> : Col...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: : > The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with : > high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty : > of a female face. > I was hoping that Colin or someone would do a logarithmic spiral > of the same rectangular dimension of the ascii Mona Lisa. Keep hoping :-) > Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have > the heavy hand over it. A reasonable prediction given the continuing advance of technology in the formation and presentation of artwork. This does not mean however that mathematics or science will replace art. > The two essential aspects of art are "intention" and "resolution". These are essential elements of art, but there are others. They include the intangible elements present in all art forms which maths and science ( at least in their present form ) are unable to measure or quantify. Art has a lot to do with perception, and perception is highly variable and most difficult to measure. Science and mathematics seem very deficient in handling or addressing intangibles - and so we need Art to assist us. ...and here is another ascii version of Mona Lisa which does perhaps vaguely convey the intangible element but only if you have already seen a reproduction or photo of the Mona Lisa: iIYVVVVXVVVVVVVVVYVYVYYVYYYYIIIIYYYIYVVVYYYYYYYYYVVYVVVVXVVVVVYI+. tYVXXXXXXVXXXXVVVYVVVVVVVVVVVVYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVXXXXXVXXXXXXXVVYi. iYXRXRRRXXXXXXXXXXXVVXVXVVVVVVVVXXXVXVVXXXXXXXXXXXXXXRRRRRRRRRXVi. tVRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRXRXXXXXXXXXXXXXXRRXXXXRRRRXXXXXXXRRRRRRRRRRRRXV+. tVRRBBBRMBRRRRRRRRRXXRRRRRXt=+;;;;;==iVXRRRRXXXXRRRRRRRRMMBRRRRXi, tVRRBMBBMMBBBBBMBBRBBBRBX++=++;;;;;;:;;;IRRRRXXRRRBBBBBBMMBBBRRXi, iVRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBRBBMMV==iIVYIi=;;;;:::;;XRRRRRRBBMMMMMMMMBBRRXi. iVRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY;IBWWWWMMXYi=;:::::;RBBBMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBBXi, +VRMMRBMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY+;VMMMMMMMRXIi=;:::::=VVXXXRRRMMMMMMMMBBMXi; =tYYVVVXRRRXXRBMMMMMV+;=RBBMMMXVXXVYt;::::::ttYYVYVVRMMMMMMBXXVI+= ;=tIYYVYYYYYYVVVMMMBt=;;+i=IBi+t==;;i;::::::+iitIIttYRMMMMMRXVVI=; ;=IIIIYYYIIIIttIYItIt;;=VVYXBIVRXVVXI;::::::;+iitttttVMMBRRRVVVI+, ;+++tttIttttiiii+i++==;;RMMMBXXMMMXI+;::::::;+ittttitYVXVYYIYVIi;; ;===iiittiiIitiii++;;;;:IVRVi=iBXVIi;::::::::;==+++++iiittii+++=;; ;;==+iiiiiiiiii+++=;;;;;;VYVIiiiVVt+;::::::::;++++++++++iti++++=;; ;;=++iiii+i+++++iii==;;;::tXYIIYIi+=;:::::,::;+++++++++++++++++=;; ;;;+==+ii+++++iiiiit=;;:::::=====;;;::::::::::+++i+++++++++i+++;;; ;;;==+=+iiiiitttIIII+;;;:,::,;;;;:;=;;;::,::::=++++++++==++++++;;; :;====+tittiiittttti+;;::::,:=Ytiiiiti=;:::::,:;;==ii+ittItii+==;; ;;+iiittIti+ii;;===;;:;::::;+IVXVVVVVVt;;;;;::::;;===;+IIiiti=;;;; ;=++++iIti+ii+=;;;=;:::;;+VXBMMBBBBBBXY=;=;;:::::;=iYVIIttii++;;;; ;;++iiiItttIi+++=;;:::;=iBMMMMMMMMMMMXI==;;,::;;:;;=+itIttIIti+;;; ;=+++++i+tYIIiii;:,::;itXMMMMMMMMMMMBXti==;:;++=;:::::;=+iittti+;; ;;+ii+ii+iitiIi;::::;iXBMMMMMWWWWWMMBXti+ii=;::::,,,,:::=;==+tI+;; ;;iiiitItttti;:::;::=+itYXXMWWWWWWMBYt+;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,:==;==;;;; :;=iIIIttIt+:;:::;;;==;+=+iiittttti+;;:,:,,,,::,,,,,,,,:::;=;==::; ;::=+ittiii=;:::::;;;:;:;=++==;;==;:,,,,,,:;::::,,,,,,,,::;==;;::; :::;+iiiii=;::::,:;:::::;;:;;::;:::,,,,,,,:::;=;;;:,,,,,:::;;::::; :;;iIIIIII=;:::,:::::::,::::,:::,,,,,,,,,,,:;;=;:,,,,,,::::;=;:::; :;==++ii+;;;:::::::::::,,,,,,::,,,,,,,,,,,::::,,,,,,,,,,:,:::::::; ::;;=+=;;;:::;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::; ::;=;;;:;:::;;;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::,,::::; :;;:;::::::,::,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::; :::::::::::;;;:,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,...,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,:; ::::::::;=;;;;;::,,,,,,,,,,,.......,...,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,; :::::,,:;=;;;;;;;iVXXXVt+:,,....,,,,....,.,,,,,,,.,.....,,,,,,,,:; :,,::,,:::;;;;;;=IVVVXXXXVXVt:,,,,,..,..,,,,.,,,,,..,.,,,,,,,,,,,; ::,::,,,:,:::::,::;=iIYVXVVVVIYIi;,,.,.,,,::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::;+itIIIIIIi:;;i++=;;;;;;;;;::,,,...,,..,,,,,,,. :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=iitVYi++iitt==it;;:;;;;::;;::::,,,......,,,,,,,::. ::,,,,,,,,,,,,,++iiIVIi=;;=;+i;:;+:::,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,,,,,,::, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;=+it=:::,,,,,,,,,,.,......,,.,..........,,,,,,,,:: :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:=:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......................,.,,.,.,,: :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,..,........................,..,...,,: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....................................,.......,, ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,...............................................,, itittiiiii+=++=;;=iiiiiiittiiiiii+iii===;++iiitiiiiiii+=====+ii=+i There certainly is something quite exceptional about The Mona Lisa. Maybe we have to include the "Intangible Element" in the chemical Table of Elements ? :-) Bye,
>> Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise >> intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when >> he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And >> if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint >> splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've >> missed the point entirely. Okay, I realize that I am responding to flame bait. So be it. Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand, meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of even the most boorish of swine. Even the slightest education with regard to art will clear up the nauseating distastefulness of your putrid excrescence. I bid you good day, and banish you to a month of art history classes.
In article <325nhq$4c...@ganado.math.arizona.edu> uur...@math.arizona.edu (Steve Uurtamo) writes: >>> Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise >>> intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when >>> he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And > >Okay, I realize that I am responding to flame bait. So be it. Or possibly creating flame bait? >Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand, >meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended >to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of >even the most boorish of swine. Pardon this most boorish of swine, but I have a few oinks I'd like to share. If this Jackson Pollock fellow didn't toss it through a turbine and did indeed paint this work by hand, then he's more of a parasite than I thought, attempting to validate his claim to art through "great effort, and great intent". And as long as we're talking about math, realism, ascii, and parasites, if you do not believe that he intended to "fleece the public out of money" then you must at least believe that he hoped to get something for his "great efforts". >Even the slightest education with regard to art will clear up the nauseating >distastefulness of your putrid excrescence. No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and call it art. >I bid you good day, and banish you to a month of art history classes. Thanks, are you paying? Toney A. Cassel - ton...@acad.stedwards.edu (Note that mail sent to the IBM address probably won't make it. My opinions should not under any circumstance be confused with those of my employer. Ug.)
Ludwig Plutonium: > Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have the >heavy hand over it. The two essential aspects of art are "intention" >and "resolution". The intention part is the "purpose of art". In the >past history of art, since there was no photographic camera, later the >movie camera. Art was the highest resolution hand work since no cameras >existed. The intent in the old art for the majority of cases was to >preserve a picture-- just like we use a picture camera for that purpose >today. I still don't understand what you mean by "intent". The person who commissions a painting probably has a couple different purposes in mind, the painter has several more, and every viewer adds a few of their own. So far, I've come up with two plausible interpretations of your use of "intent", though neither of them seems particularly reasonable. 1. What Ludwig Plutonium thinks is the meaning of a piece of art. Now, while it may be possible to create a mathematical model that evaluates art according to a Pu-maximization function, who cares? 2. What some omniscient-viewpoint God thinks is the meaning of a piece of art. Again, who cares? Art is a human thing. --
>Pardon this most boorish of swine, but I have a few oinks I'd like to share. >If this Jackson Pollock fellow didn't toss it through a turbine and did >indeed paint this work by hand, then he's more of a parasite than I thought, >attempting to validate his claim to art through "great effort, and great >intent". And as long as we're talking about math, realism, ascii, and >parasites, if you do not believe that he intended to "fleece the public >out of money" then you must at least believe that he hoped to get something >for his "great efforts". No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty, or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on about things that you know nothing about. Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much, take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit about what the fuck you're talking about. Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand. >No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people >can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and >call it art. What emotions do you expect to feel when you look at art? The beauty of photographic reproduction? Go look in a photographic art museum. You won't even find what you're looking for there. Art is much more complicated than you have given it credit. It is about emotional response, whether beauty, ugliness, etc. It is about creation, it is about emphasis. Exercise for the day: Pick up a box of crayons. Try drawing something that you can see. Feel frustrated? There's a lot more to what you see than what you know. Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools, not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from the same institutions that sponsor fine art. steve
uur...@math.arizona.edu (Steve Uurtamo) writes: >>[snik] >No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of >any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness >would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists >that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty, >or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on >about things that you know nothing about. >Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much, >take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit >about what the fuck you're talking about. >Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van >Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an >incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because >of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand. >>No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people >>can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and >>call it art. >[snik] >steve Two questions: 1. Did Van Gogh take art classes ? 2. Why is this group called alt.ascii-art when it should be alt.ascii-skill or something like that ? Face it, 99.9% of stuff posted here is either basic, unpretending, or just a skillful representation of an image in ascii. Ah well, guess that's personal ;) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%%%::%:::::::::::.:..:.. . . . @%: L e n n e r t S t o c k ::%%%%%%:%%::::::::::::.:..:.. . . @@@@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%%%:::: s t o c k @ f w i . u v a . n l @@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%:%:%::::::::::::.:.:..:.. . . .
>Two questions: >1. Did Van Gogh take art classes ? >2. Why is this group called alt.ascii-art when it should be > alt.ascii-skill or something like that ? Face it, 99.9% of stuff > posted here is either basic, unpretending, or just a skillful > representation of an image in ascii. Ah well, guess that's personal ;) Alright, smart guy. Van Gogh was not formally educated, but he made it his goal to study under those people whom he considered the masters at the time. This includes Gaugin, whom he spent some time with before entering the asylum. It is quite obvious both from his writings to his brother, and his (and Gaugin's) art that both of the artists were very much influenced by the other. Education is education however it comes about. Some people take the burden of educating themselves, and are successful. Some people are unsuccessful and may need professional help. The quality of the education is pretty evident in their self-expression. When it becomes obvious that someone's education is hampering their ability to interact meaningfully with others, the general public may be offended to such a degree that they take it upon _themselves_ to educate others. It is sad that these things have to happen, but the value that many people place on classical education is next to zero. This is fine if they don't vote or talk in open forums about subjects which with they have no experience.
Oooo, a little tender to the touch, eh? :) In article <328cv9$bc...@ame2.math.arizona.edu> uur...@math.arizona.edu (Steve Uurtamo) writes: >>Pardon this most boorish of swine, but I have a few oinks I'd like to share. > >No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of >any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness >would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists >that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty, >or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on >about things that you know nothing about. Yep, and I shall blather on... >Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much, >take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit >about what the fuck you're talking about. I have taken several, and there's no need to resort to verbal abuse. This thread has meandered along here for a week or two and I THOUGHT I might get a little intelligent discussion out of it. I learn something new every day... >Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van >Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an >incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because >of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand. Van Gogh was an incredible artist. I don't particularly like his style, but our society has labeled it as incredible and I can't argue with the values of the society that I am a part of. Are you putting this fellow Pollack in the same class as Van Gogh? >>No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people >>can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and >>call it art. > >What emotions do you expect to feel when you look at art? The beauty of >photographic reproduction? Go look in a photographic art museum. You >won't even find what you're looking for there. Um, photographic reproduction of what? I missed your reference, there. >Art is much more complicated than you have given it credit. It is about >emotional response, whether beauty, ugliness, etc. It is about creation, >it is about emphasis. You are correct. Much more complicated. Unfortunately, there seems to be a fine line between creation merely for money and creation for expression. It is that complexity that I abhor. >Exercise for the day: > >Pick up a box of crayons. Try drawing something that you can see. Feel >frustrated? There's a lot more to what you see than what you know. Hey, now, I can't paint for a worn shilling, but I'm ok with a pencil and downright good with a crayon! :) >Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools, >not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from >the same institutions that sponsor fine art. This I must disagree with. I believe that a well-rounded individual should have a good grounding in the liberal arts as well as technical vocations. This is especially true for engineers. There should be as much art as functionality in the things that engineers create. >steve Toney A. Cassel - ton...@acad.stedwards.edu Art is "I"; science is "we". - Claude Bernard
In alt.ascii-art, uur...@math.arizona.edu (Steve Uurtamo) writes: > >Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools, >not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from >the same institutions that sponsor fine art. Woah, Woah, hold up skip. Engineering is a LOT more complicated than you think, and many engineers dont share this boobs interpretation of art. Talk to any architectural engineer. Vocational schools dont teach the advanced concepts needed for today's engineering degrees, and engineers dont walk around bragging about the art that is discussed at their school. Anyway, I have a feeling you werent trying to flame engineers as much as people who dont know V. VanGough from Dick Van Dike. There are MANY engineers and scientists (as Im sure you know) that appreciate art (and even took basic art history courses as electives). sm
In article <Col...@equinox.gen.nz> Col...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: >Ludwig Plutonium (Lud...@dartmouth.edu) wrote: > > >> The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face >> excels the Mona Lisa. > >Not true. ^^^^^^^^^ That's pretty subjective. Ludwig can like whatever he wants to like :-) > >The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with >high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty >of a female face. > >Failure, or a lack of ability, to recognise the intangible aspects >of The Mona Lisa can only lead to invalid assumptions in the >development of any proposition " that mathematics will increasingly >overtake art ". Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been competing with nature since day one. I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every other medium that a creative person can get their hands on, is becoming art. As for intangible qualities, everything has intangible qualities. The Mona Lisa has the advantage of being popular enough to influence people to invest years of study in the work. Not that it isn't a great work; I thinnk that it's become a little overrated since it's become the identifying icon of art. -Ian ObAscii: o 8"8 dP Yb .8 8. .8' `8. .8' `8. ooooooooooo 88 oooooooooooooooooooo ""8oo. dP io .oo8"" ""8oo "' `8 oo8"" ""88o. . Y.`" o "8oo. .ooo' 8 dP " oo8"" Yb o8 .oo8"" ooo. 8o .8.oo8"" ""8oo.8. o8P"" ""Y8o " " Namarie -- ia...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu | | UCD Mech & Aero, #02404; Davis, CA 95616 ---------------------------' `------------------------------------------ =========================== + ========================================== ---------------------------. .------------------------------------------
Steve Uurtamo: >Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand, >meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended >to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of >even the most boorish of swine. Urk. Since I wrote the original paragraph about Jackson Pollock, let me apologize. I was probably conflating him with someone else. I will cheerfully admit that I know very little art history (though I seem to remember more about the French impressionist school than anything; probably due to some high school French class.) "fleece the public" wasn't my statement; it was Ludwig Plutonium's. I was disagreeing with Ludwig's simplistic assessment of the purpose of art. I don't have a strong notion myself of what art is or is supposed to be. ("Art is some fat guy working at the corner cafe.") Isn't exploring the meaning of art part of the reason behind the various modern and post-modern movements? --
Ian Broverman (ia...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote: : In article <Col...@equinox.gen.nz> Col...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: : >Ludwig Plutonium (Lud...@dartmouth.edu) wrote: : > : > : >> The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face : >> excels the Mona Lisa. : > : >Not true. : ^^^^^^^^^ : That's pretty subjective. Ludwig can like whatever he wants to like :-) > Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been > competing with nature since day one. > I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every > other medium that a creative person can get their hands on, is > becoming art. Perhaps definitions of art and mathematics could be useful ? _______ / /, / // /______// (______(/ Jussi Roine _____ _____ ,/ `+' \. // ~~ ~ + ~ ~ \\ // ~~~~ + ~~~~ \\ //________,+.________\\ '---------`-'---------- The Westminster Dictionary: ART n. employment of means and methods to do a thing well ; applied especially to industries depending on taste. ARTFUL a. made with art ; exhibiting art or skill ; cunning MATHEMATICS n. the science that treats of quantity. MATHEMATICAL a. pertaining to mathematics ; rigorously precise. Ludwig Plutonium > Show Smoot trying to measure the parameters of > a virus using a meter stick. __ || || //////// || |:---[.] || |( _J || _ _ | ^ ( _| || ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \ / / \_____) || / ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( \( = =) / _____ \ || < ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( / ( ^ ) | / \ | || \ (__(__(__(__(__(__(__(__) ~ | | | | || ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ /\ /\__ | || | | \/--- \ \ ) | >_____/_____) \__________/ || / \ || | | ~~ \ \\ \ |\ \ | \ \ | | | | | | | | | / | |________/____| (_________)____) -mh- ============================== Now it would be difficult to class the above activity as either mathematical ( rigorously precise ) or artful ( exhibiting art or sklll ). Here I think Ludwig was pointing out how certain things cannot be successfully measured with the tools of mathematics -and that is contrary to his MathArt Theories. I suggest that the above definitions would indicate that mathematics cannot be closely allied to art which has little to do with rigorous precision or quantity. However, I guess you could say that Mathematics is " employment of means and methods to do a thing well ", but Art could hardly be described as " the science that treats of quantity ". Hmmm... Bye,
.................This is not a flame................................ ......................it is merely a clarification.................. >Ian Broverman (ia...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote: > >> Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been >> competing with nature since day one. > >> I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every >> other medium that a creative person can get their hands on, is >> becoming art. > Colin responds: >Perhaps definitions of art and mathematics could be useful ? [definitions deleted] >I suggest that the above definitions would indicate that mathematics >cannot be closely allied to art which has little to do with rigorous >precision or quantity. However, I guess you could say that >Mathematics is " employment of means and methods to do a thing well ", >but Art could hardly be described as " the science that treats of >quantity ". > Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to equate math and art. Mathematics and a chunk of marble are both things that (arguably) exist in nature. But in the hands of a creative artist, the chunk of marble becomes a statue, and the mathematics is transformed into a kewl screensaver. :) ObAscii: (O) <M o <M /| ...... /:M\------------------------------------------------,,,,,, (O)[]XXXXXX[]I:K+}=====<{H}>================================------------> \| ^^^^^^ \:W/------------------------------------------------'''''' o <W <W (O) -Ian -- ia...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu | | UCD Mech & Aero, #02404; Davis, CA 95616 ---------------------------' `------------------------------------------ =========================== + ========================================== ---------------------------. .------------------------------------------
In article <CuB...@ucdavis.edu> ia...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu (Ian Broverman) writes: >Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been competing with >nature since day one. au contraire, mathematics is an expression of a part of nature, as is art.... the only difference being, mathematics is more...well...mathemetical..... Adrian
In article <32a...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, Stephen Mastrogiovanni <mas...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wrote: > Anyway, I have a feeling you werent trying to flame engineers as much >as people who dont know V. VanGough from Dick Van Dike. There are MANY ^^^^ Hey, I don't know who this van Gouge guy is but you misspelled "The Great Van Dyke"'s name wrong!!!!! >engineers and scientists (as Im sure you know) that appreciate art (and >even took basic art history courses as electives). > >sm An engineer
Sinan Karasu (sin...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <32a...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>,
: Stephen Mastrogiovanni <mas...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wrote:
: > Anyway, I have a feeling you werent trying to flame engineers as much
: >as people who dont know V. VanGough from Dick Van Dike. There are MANY
: ^^^^
: Hey, I don't know who this van Gouge guy is but you misspelled "The Great Van
: Dyke"'s name wrong!!!!!
: >engineers and scientists (as Im sure you know) that appreciate art (and
: >even took basic art history courses as electives).
: >
: >sm
: An engineer
Well I think this is definitely Gough's Van...
________________________________________________________
/ / | ________________________________ \
/ / | | | |
/ / | | V. GOUGH | |
/ / | | | |
(------------------- -------------------------------- |
|| == | |
|| | -oOo- Painter & Decorator -oOo- |
|| ____ | ____ |
( | o / ____ \ / ____ \ |)
|| / / . . \ \ / / . . \ \ |
[ |_____| | . . | |____________________________| | . . | |__]
| . . | | . . |
\_____/ \_____/
But whether any of the following are Dick Van Dyke, or even Dick van Dike is
another matter. Perhaps someone will know.
.... ..
.;:-%/%%%%::
%:'%%%%'~%%%/:.
:/ `%~ :\%::. .......
:' - _ - - :%%::. .:::::::::::::.
| . ::%=:' .::' ''''' '::.
)-=~>` `<~=- :::=|' ___((|))___ ::: :::
; | :: ::')' / \ ::: :::
: ' ' :: ::v:' ((( --- --- ))) ::: :::
`. (_.=:.` /:':: \\ -o-/ \-o- // ::' '::
`./ :: \ :' :' ~\ (. .) /~ : : /~~~' '~~~\ : :
| ____ | :: ( / | \ ) :(: <o> | <o> :):
( '~ ~` .'| _____/\ -=- /\_____ '.: / \ :.'
\ '~~ .-'.::. /\|||\\#\_____/#//|||/\ ': (. .) :'
x---:' .::-'| /##||||\\##/o\##//||||##\ '. .:::::. .'
_./ `-._.:'~ :. ###|||||\\//$\\//|||||### : <-----> :
_.-'~ \ .' `. ###||||||\/$$$\/||||||### '. ~:::~ .'
~ LS `-._____.-' ` ##/|||||||$$$$$|||||||\## '. ' .'
'''''
What is certain is that this is certainly not Mary Tyler Moore...
______
_/ \_
/ __ \ \
/ / \_ \
/ / \ \
| | _/--- \ |
| | / __ | |
\ \ / ___/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ \
| \__ | | |
|_ ___ /) \ |
\'\ /'''' //| ||
()> (()> / | |\
/ | _/| / |
| | / | |
| ( . / | | /
| / | | |
\ /v\ / / \ |
\\_/ / / \|
\ / | ||
---/\ | \ -Liz Keogh-
/ || / \
/ /| / \
/ / / |
_____/ \
Bye,
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this thread.
These messages were posted publicly to the newsgroup
alt.ascii-art
in 1994 and are mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you one of the authors? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.