+ Reply to Thread
Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 411

Thread: Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II

  1. #361
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    H,
    Well, which of your three replies is 'true'? Your initial repost was to try to belittle, then denial saying you hadn't promoted Sacred Geometry, now that you were forced into using the term and you now seem to be blaming the 'editor'. Obviously the reader has no knowledge of what the 'original article' was - the only thing they see is the article as published on the web site - which for all intents and purposes was written by you.
    Going back to what Plato, Pacioli, and Kepler thought about geometry and its relationship to G_d, it's a bit difficult to ask isn't it? But I would guess that it was along the lines of what I tried to explain - that ALL geometry is seen as being a way of getting a glimpse into the workings of the mind of G_d.

    J- you ignored the assertion that the article presented the geometry as being sacred for purpose of subject matter, when that was how the subject had also been considered. Dont forget that it was your idea that the article states that one geometry is sacred and the rest is not. This is your assertion. And, this is not the point of the article, anyone is capable of discerning this. I obviously had no problem with it because from my point of view it did not change the content of the work. This is more of s stylistic issue you seem to have problem with, something of a personal criticism related to the style of presentation. Really, thats your problem.

  2. #362
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    H,
    To draw anything, you have to start somewhere. In YOUR article on the Dagobert parchment, you stated that you started with an R (from recollection) and constructed from there. You said:
    '....The Dagobert Parchment of Rennes Le Chateau fame also contains a similar form.

    The steps for finding this are as follows:

    Starting with the raised R in the center of the document, use this point as the center point. ...'

    My question was then, and is now. How did you select that R? You then 'decide' on a radius - how?

    The reason for the question is obvious isn't it? Without a reason for selecting the start point (and then the radius - ie the 'size' of the geometric shape) then any shape can be drawn anywhere on that document.

    That is then 'true' of any shape drawn anywhere. If there is no reason for selecting points in the construction, then does the construct actually exist anywhere other than in the mind of the constructor/viewer.
    You've sidestepped the question I put forward to you and have settled back on your old argument in hopes that no one will remember or bother looking at that conversation. I already told you that I presented the "R" to simplify the means of producing the geometry in the image. I did not assert that this is the only means of producing the geometry. I DID assert that anyone can look at the image and see where the points terminated and how it is justified. I even gave you directions for something to look at.
    I CAN assume that since you are still going back to this that you didn't bother. So, please in your next reply address why you feel inclined to keep on the same dead issue BUT didn't bother looking to see how it is justified through simple observation.




    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    I'm not sure that I got my point across. It seems that from the 13th century on, perspective and harmony based on Phi became the 'thing' in art. I would guess that the artists were then taught this as part of their apprenticeships. As with other guilds and trades, I would 'guess' that the artists developed methods and ways of achieving compositions that were both harmonic and perspectively correct in the simplest way. I would then assume that the composition would be planned on the canvass, with the construction lines. So I would expect geometric lines/shapes on the canvass - didn't D allude to pin holes in Poussin's canvass (how did he know that by the way?) being construction points - fine. So I have no issue with geometry in art at all.

    Fine.

    But H - it's the same issue as the Dagobert parchment isn't it?. YOU are deciding which points are relevant. Is a pointing finger relevant? Yes? Then are all pointing fingers relevant? Do they indicate the centre of a circle or the corner of a square? Do two pointing fingers give a radius or a diagonal or a side or....Who decides on the scale of the geometric shape? Why does your circle have the radius it does?
    You say '..the method I am using...' ...grand - what is that method? Doesn't method imply something you can explain and repeat? BUT that seems to be the opposite of what you're doing - as with the Dagobert parchment, you kept saying that the selection of the point wasn't arbitrary, but then simply refused to say how you selected the point. Is that the same here - or do you really have a 'method/plan/system' for selecting the relevant points?

    Why do you ask "what is that method" when I have already given you this answer? I said it was simple observation of the painting and connecting points and following lines in the composition. Do I need to restate it again so that you don't forget? You can answer all of your questions by looking and seeing. Let me know when you've done this.

  3. #363
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    J- you ignored the assertion that the article presented the geometry as being sacred for purpose of subject matter, when that was how the subject had also been considered. Dont forget that it was your idea that the article states that one geometry is sacred and the rest is not. This is your assertion. And, this is not the point of the article, anyone is capable of discerning this. I obviously had no problem with it because from my point of view it did not change the content of the work. This is more of s stylistic issue you seem to have problem with, something of a personal criticism related to the style of presentation. Really, thats your problem.
    Good grief H. Wriggle a bit more. Are you seriously now saying that the term 'sacred geometry' wasn't used to try to elicit some form of '...oooh, spooky ...it's sacred...' reaction?
    You do make me smile.

  4. #364
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    You've sidestepped the question I put forward to you and have settled back on your old argument in hopes that no one will remember or bother looking at that conversation. I already told you that I presented the "R" to simplify the means of producing the geometry in the image. I did not assert that this is the only means of producing the geometry. I DID assert that anyone can look at the image and see where the points terminated and how it is justified. I even gave you directions for something to look at.
    I CAN assume that since you are still going back to this that you didn't bother. So, please in your next reply address why you feel inclined to keep on the same dead issue BUT didn't bother looking to see how it is justified through simple observation.
    Then humour me H and provide the method/plan/system that you used for selecting the points and scales used in all your 'sacred geometry'. It's you who consistently sidestep the issue. You seem to pick a point on the shoulder of Poussin for the centre of the circle. Any method behind that? Why his shoulder and not his eye, or his ring or...


    Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    Why do you ask "what is that method" when I have already given you this answer? I said it was simple observation of the painting and connecting points and following lines in the composition. Do I need to restate it again so that you don't forget? You can answer all of your questions by looking and seeing. Let me know when you've done this.
    No. You have not provided a method for selecting the starting points or the scales used. In the Dagobert article, you simply said to start from that R - you never said why that R rather than any other letter on the parchment.

    So if you have a method/plan/system for selecting the points/scales in the Poussin/Da Vinci paintings then all you needed to do was to say what they are. But you seem unable. You seem to just say that the proof of the geometry is in the geometry itself. That does not work.

  5. #365
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Good grief H. Wriggle a bit more. Are you seriously now saying that the term 'sacred geometry' wasn't used to try to elicit some form of '...oooh, spooky ...it's sacred...' reaction?
    You do make me smile.
    My point is that your observations are only criticisms. So far, you haven't even addressed the materials in the article, only how it is being presented, which tells me you don't have an argument, just more criticisms.

  6. #366
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Then humour me H and provide the method/plan/system that you used for selecting the points and scales used in all your 'sacred geometry'. It's you who consistently sidestep the issue. You seem to pick a point on the shoulder of Poussin for the centre of the circle. Any method behind that? Why his shoulder and not his eye, or his ring or...




    No. You have not provided a method for selecting the starting points or the scales used. In the Dagobert article, you simply said to start from that R - you never said why that R rather than any other letter on the parchment.

    So if you have a method/plan/system for selecting the points/scales in the Poussin/Da Vinci paintings then all you needed to do was to say what they are. But you seem unable. You seem to just say that the proof of the geometry is in the geometry itself. That does not work.
    I've humored you enough. Enough of your nonsense games.

    Let me know when you've done as I've instructed on the Dagobert parchment.

  7. #367
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    I will no longer reply to you unless you upload proof that you drew the line.

  8. #368
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    I will no longer reply to you unless you upload proof that you drew the line.
    But really, if you really want to know how it was constructed, I want to teach you how to do it. But first you have to show me you're willing to learn by confirming the first line.

  9. #369
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubyfelixir View Post
    Hayward, you probably should have just told Sixer13 "NO", and you could have avoided this argument, especially as the entire reason that Sixer13 would have wanted to use the term "sacred" is because it just sounds "more inspiring", because Easter, even though the geometry should have inspired all by itself. I'm not sure what Jlockest hopes to achieve, but it seems that Jlockest thinks that he can disprove your geometry and your entire premise by disproving that "sacred geometry" exists, even though that still leaves the "geometry" part, and a painter might use under-lying geometry in a painting for a number of reasons. Perhaps Jlockest will seek to disprove painting next.
    Ruby-
    I didnt see any real problem with it since it did not change anything in terms of the article's main premise or idea. The argument that is being presented here from J has no relation to dispute of any fact or piece of information mentioned but is instead posed as a value judgement being passed in terms of the personal preference of terminology and presentation, which is rather arrogant. It's also a rather convenient way to detract from the focus of the article itself which is about Da Vinci's Last Supper geometry. No address of that main idea whatsoever, just just circumstantial debate about the "dress" surrounding the theory. Its like what happens in contemporary news journalism, debating the context rather than the content. A means of drawing conclusions through impression rather than from observation.

  10. #370
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    But really, if you really want to know how it was constructed, I want to teach you how to do it. But first you have to show me you're willing to learn by confirming the first line.
    Ahh, an impasse. Odd how perception is from a particular standpoint eh? As from my point of view you steadfastly and consistently refuse to say how you selected your start point - you said in the Dagobert article, just start with the R without presenting any rhyme or reason as to why. Then you draw similar constructs on other artworks without again explaining how or why you selected various points to build the construct. I think the problem is that you can't - you don't know why - but you still want people to believe the construct was intended by the artist. C'est la vie.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts