Deep in Sherwood (2004)
Here's another exercise in deep(er) zoom. Inspired by obese friars and Errol Flynn.
If we cut away a section, like such...
Thumbnail of "Deep in Sherwood"
...and blow it up, then you can hopefully get a feeling for some of the hidden forms and textures in the image:
Detail of "Deep in Sherwood"
~/~
And...meanwhile...in a galaxy far away...where the poor scrape by and bathe in the light of Fox News...and the rich glut themselves by lapping up dried lard sticking to the bottom of the pork barrel...
Earlier [Wednesday], President Bush signed into law the infamous tax bill that couldn't provide a more stark contrast between the two political parties. By now, we're all pretty well-acquainted with the reality that a $40,000 income will net you $17 in tax benefits (woo hoo!) while the millionaires among us will reap $42,000.
But there's a more powerful -- and simple -- metaphor lurking behind the scenes during the history of negotiation of this legislation.
When first proposed, the Senate version included a revision of arcane accounting rules under which the oil companies were escaping taxes by being permitted to undervalue oil in storage. This change would have netted the federal government approximately $5.1 billion in taxes. When the House and the White House objected, the provision was removed.
Also present in the original Senate bill was an extension of expiring college tuition deductions designed to help middle class Americans handle the spiraling cost of higher education. According to Sen. Charles Schumer, who talked to bloggers on a conference call yesterday, the savings to middle America was approximately the same as the amount originally proposed to tax the oil companies. During reconciliation of the House and Senate bills, the tuition deductions were stripped.
So. We are presented with our metaphor: continuing tax breaks for Bush's oil cronies in the same amount that was denied the middle class to educate its children.
--by SusanG at Daily Kos
As Robert Plant once observed: And it makes me wonder.
And how are you gonna feel, Mr. and Mrs. Red State Middle Class Bush Backers, as you fill up your SUV at your hometown service station before hauling Junior off to college this fall?
3 comments:
These zoom-in details remind me of something funny. I was at a website of fractal art once and I quickly clicked on a couple of thumbnails that looked really great. After waiting for them to load I was rather disappointed and went back to check the thumbnails again. Sure enough, the thumbnails looked better!
Your stuff is different, of course. I always thought when looking at some of the artwork on your site that they probably contained alot more detail and that it didn't make it into the smaller, compressed, online images.
It's just like viewing any other art on the internet. Paintings for instance at art sites; they look good, but they don't contain anything like the details and brushstrokes that one notices right away when viewing them in a gallery, or from a print.
Actually, I've never seen a fractal in any other medium other than on a computer screen.
wow...I loved this Sherwood Series...blew me away...hope all is well your way Cruel Animal- gonna lurk about for a bit- think I need a dose of your fine art....grey day here...
Tim,
I had a similar experience sometimes when I'd wander around Renderosity. The thumb of an image would look terrific but the image itself would seem flat.
Of course, I deliberately post-process and pay attention to texture. Really, the blow-ups I did here only scratch the surface. The real "brush strokes" come out while printing.
You really should try printing something sometime. It's a strange and wonderful feeling to see something you've done rendered at such a large size. Textures turn up that you'd hardly notice on the screen -- especially in a Giclee. I think printing also influences how you compose and "frame" images, too.
~/~
E4Ever,
Good to see you out and about. I hope all is well with you. I'll have to drop by your site later and see what's up.
Post a Comment