July 19, 2008

Confusion on DeviantArt

I’ve been browsing through Photography > People&Portraits, looking for a photo I once saw but forgot to +fav it. And then I got stumped by the sub-categories — they apparently didn’t mean the same thing to different photographers.

To my uneducated eyes, there’s little difference between ‘Emotive‘ and ‘Expressive‘ photos. Understandable, because the descriptions of these two categories leave the interpretation rather subjective.

In some other categories that should have quite clearer borders, however, I am utterly confused. I have no idea how ‘classical’ is defined in ‘Classic Portraits’ description, or ‘spontaneous’ in ‘Spontaneous Portraits’. Reading the descriptions was educational, but hardly helpful.

In the ‘Classic Portraits‘ case, most photographers seem to see the word ‘classic’ and run away with it. This means the category is overrun by photos of people in period clothings, famous (or would-be famous) photos (as in being seen on the internet for a long period of time[1]), and some others that beg for a question: which dictionary are you using, exactly?

While browsing in ‘Spontaneous Portraits‘, I amused myself by imagining the photographer stopping the time to adjust the pose, arrange the props to his heart’s content, then flicking the time right on and shooting.Or surely, if there’s at least a single strand of hair out of place, a blade of grass stuck on the leggings, the photograph could be considered ‘spontaneous’.

After awhile, the best practice for using DeviantArt Browse is to come up with my own descriptions, trying to match the categories with the general trends of posted works.

This is actually fun :)

Artistic Nude‘: more in-your-face nude than usual
Classic Portrait‘: photographer’s favourite works
Emotive‘: mostly moody-sad-contemplative close-ups and, unsurprisingly, lots of ’emo’
Expressive‘: like emotive, but more mime-like
Miscellaneous‘: posted by honest photographers who admit to not knowing what the fuss these categories are about.
Costplay‘: clothes that normal people won’t wear to church on Sunday.
Pin up‘: I rather like this. It’s mostly girls in minuscule clothes with provocative poses, posted by frank photographers with no pretension to be ‘artistic’.


[1] This generates even more confusion to me, since a measure of ‘long time’ is definitely relative on the internet, without the need to proof Einstein’s General Relativity Theory. Nowadays, something being circulated around for two weeks can be ‘classic’.

July 18, 2008

Monkey shaped camera bag

Patents need not all be technical.
Like this one.


I wonder if Sock Monkey pattern was also patented.

July 8, 2008

RIP My Website (1996-2008)

This article via Spoongraphics

Can’t help but laugh at the screenshots. What were they thinking?

Hang on.
I think these blinding, psychedelic design are quite familiar.

Remember our computer class in the, oh, 8th Grade?
Everybody excited about HTML and first-time programming something.
TABLES were oh-my-god-so-Difficult.
IFRAMES were all the rage.

Girls would go searching for cute bullets, buttons, wallpapers and Sanrio-character graphic.
Boys would collect their favourite sports/bands pictures and banners.
And then we had a bet going who would be able to cram the most into a page.
The unofficial prize would go to the flashiest, most-embedded-to-heck website of the class.

Remember, this is a dial-up days of woefully slow connection, when 28.8 kbs was pretty fast.
But nobody cared about that, really.
We were just having a blast, like having another room of our own to decorate and fill up with stuff we like.

I’m still attempting to make a website from time to time.
Have learned quite a lot about various mark-ups, web typography, accessibility, blah blah blah, since then.

But somehow, creating website isn’t as fun as it used to be.
And the room doesn’t feel like something of mine anymore.

June 26, 2008

Books, Giants and Universe

Reading the last chapter of a biography is always difficult,
because I know how it ends.
Naturally. Realistically.

Even though I am not attached to Charles Nichol’s Leonardo as I was to Irving Stone’s Michelangelo, I am still putting off reading the last few pages for another time. Reading fewer and fewer pages each day.

I could have finished the biography in the tube today, on the way home.
But associating his last years and works with a noisy and bumpy ride in a public transport just doesn’t seem quite right.

Bernini arrived two day ago, in a tidily wrapped package of reuse paper, addressed in a near-calligraphic handwriting.
I hope it hadn’t been sitting in the attic for far too long, and that the last owner had at least enjoyed flipping through it as much as I will.

Haven’t gotten a chance to study Rembrandt’s etchings and drawings much, after that first night of submerging myself into the port folio — for it was much more than a collection of copies of copies of copies… — under fluorescent light in a dingy London motel.

On a totally unrelated note, Sagan’s “Billions and Billions” and “Pale Blue Dot” are travelling from the States. His books are one of the best sources of inspiration and hunger for learning for me. Even when I had to clutch Cosmos in one hand, thumbing a dictionary in the other, and the English homework be damned.

June 22, 2008

Murzkine Mock-Up (II) – Codified

Murz proudly presents…
{ Curly Murzkine }

In awe with sIFR and Blueprint at the moment.

CSS validated and passed with no error/warning (from my side, anyway)
(X)HTML, though, seems to be breaking nearly every rule there is.

One of these days, I’ll try to learn and use it properly.

Tags: , ,