...more recent posts
Too late for Halloween, but maybe next year you'll want to go as a Magritte.
Hey, maybe Jim can comment on this. I bookmarked a Japanimation website a few months ago. When I clicked it tonight, I got the following:
"You have reached the webservers of the American Cancer Society, although it appears that you are trying to reach the website of the Anime Web Turnpike, at www.anipike.com. That website is temporarily incorrectly mapped to our address.
"Please rest assured that the American Cancer Society is working with the Anime Web Turnpike to resolve this problem as quickly as possible.
"The Anime Web Turnpike is available via a mirror site at http://www.anime.jyu.fi/~anipike/."
I've never gotten this message before when clicking on this link, and it seems dishonest to me. My take is that the ACS attempted to reserve the URL, found out it was taken by an organization with less clout, and/or a weaker domain registrar (ie, pimply fans), and just muscled on in. Fine, but why couldn't they say this:
"You thought you were clicking on Anime Turnpike, but, surprise, we finessed them out of their URL. Eventually we won't even post this message, you'll just have to get back to the search engines and find Anime Turnpike on their second choice URL. If you don't like it, let us remind you that we're trying to cure cancer here, and if you have a problem with that, then may God have mercy on you, heartless person."
Is there any possible scenario where Anime Turnpike was in the wrong here? Maybe they started using it and found out ACS had it in reserve. Still, it seems to me that prior, extensive use should count for something.
O.K., what's the deal? The little I know about art history I've learned from the very well informed people here. Alex, in particular has been quite a good teacher. And I know I learned all about the use of the "camera obscura" by many of the great painting masters (most notably Vermeer?) This was presented to me as a well known fact. But now I keep reading everywhere (here, here, here, here - links from here) that David Hockney has a new book out where he supposedly floats this "new" and "controversial" theory.
Is it really new? Does Hockney have any claim to this idea? Or is this just a rehashed controversy being trotted out to drive book sales?
Sarah MacFadden (who may be lurking hereabouts) has jewelry on display with Tiffany Peay, opening this Friday. But can she take advantage of publicity for the upcoming Tolkien movie by making magic rings?