A very interesting take on portraiture

[Roger Hicks]

BSc in chemistry, MA with distinction in art, co-wrote the physical science in major dictionaries, including "The Collins English Dictionary"...

Dear Rich,

Well, maybe it's just that you're very, very bad at expressing yourself. Or that you sincerely believe that with your "BSc in chemistry, MA with distinction in art" you know all that there is to be known about particle physics and art theory, let alone analogies between the two. It doesn't really matter how well qualified you think you are. The trick lies in presenting a cogent argument, not a mixture of flat assertions and claims that you know it all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Incidentally, if we're going to play "I know it all because I wrote a dictionary entry", I wrote quite a few entries in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Does this mean I know all there is to know about photography? Hardly...

Cheers,

R.

 

[hlockwood]

Charlie Lemay: "As for Science, it has similar problems. Just look at…..the concept of dark matter and energy in contemporary physics for which there is as much physical evidence for as there was for ether."

Charlie, physicists often put quirky names to physical phenomena. Think of quarks, charm, color and the like. What we call dark energy and dark matter are entities that have physical existence, producing physical effects. Maybe they should be called Q4 and R7 to avoid criticism such as yours, and I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view. But the ether was posited out of (understandable) ignorance, not physical evidence.

BTW, I found the child portraits charming and fun. As to whether they are art, I'm not competent to judge; I'll leave that to Rich and Roger.

HFL

 

[Charlie Lemay]

In all religions, photography and science included, There will always be Mystics and Clerics, and the latter usually way outnumber the former.

There is some Eastern proverb that says something like, "The enemy of Truth is Certainty." I try to keep that in mind.

It's better to have more than one model for anything. It makes it possible to infer what actually is represented only partially by the models. With only one model, it is nearly impossible to do that. It's like having two languages. They never exactly agree in the way they describe the world.

 

[Michael Markey]

To finish, since this is a thread about portraits, here's a self-portrait (craft not needed!), "Dancing in Peckham", by Gillian Wearing, among the most influential and important British living artists. This piece is about making visible our internal self, which we usually keep hidden, by expressing it in an inappropriate public space, raising questions about personal identity and how we relate to others, and them with us. (Incidentally, this piece of contemporary art went down a storm with the residents of Peckham (a deprived, working-class suburb of London) - who loved it!)

Never heard of her Rich.
You`ve been living down London too long mate .
"visible internal self " ...dear oh dear . 🙂

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Actually my understanding about dark matter and dark energy is that their presence is postulated to reconcile the enormous difference in the equations that say there isn't any way to account for 90 percent of the gravity present in the universe based on our best estimates of the mass that is present. I take no issue with the names, but the fact tat we can't account for so much gravity is probably evidence that there is a problem with our understanding of gravity. it may not be evidence for something that has yet to be physically observed, but a fudge factor in the math.

 

[RichC]

Incidentally, if we're going to play "I know it all because I wrote a dictionary entry", I wrote quite a few entries in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Does this mean I know all there is to know about photography? Hardly...

Nor I science and art - I was simply responding to your assertion that "you [i.e. me] latch onto things you don't really understand, and talk about them as if you did". I'm hardly an authority, but I like to think I'm not entirely ignorant when I put finger to keyboard - however poorly you think I argue.

I'm not crafting essays here, and I agree I could be more cogent and nuanced. And of course I'm not putting myself forward as the arbiter of what's art. I'm sure you got the drift of my posts.

 

[RichC]

Never heard of her Rich.
You`ve been living down London too long mate .
"visible internal self " ...dear oh dear . 🙂

For jiggling about in a shopping centre and other such things Gillian Wearing was awarded an OBE, invited to be a member of the Royal Academy, and won the Turner Prize... 🙂

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

For jiggling about in a shopping centre and other such things Gillian Wearing was awarded an OBE, invited to be a member of the Royal Academy, and won the Turner Prize...

I take it you're claiming membership of the Honours Committee, Royal Academy and the Turner Prize judging panel shows a person to possess superior judgement to that of Joe Public?

🙄

 

[hlockwood]

Actually my understanding about dark matter and dark energy is that their presence is postulated to reconcile the enormous difference in the equations that say there isn't any way to account for 90 percent of the gravity present in the universe based on our best estimates of the mass that is present. I take no issue with the names, but the fact tat we can't account for so much gravity is probably evidence that there is a problem with our understanding of gravity. it may not be evidence for something that has yet to be physically observed, but a fudge factor in the math.

Actually, I believe you are taking issue with the names. But you are quite correct: cosmologists simply do not understand gravity. The hope is that a quantum theory of gravity will shine light on the issue. As for fudge factors, recall Einstein's fudge factor, the cosmological constant? First it was out; now it's back in - because it works. I consider "dark energy" and "dark matter" to be handy placeholders waiting for a better theory and perhaps, better names.

HFL