Pavilion Digest: July 2005

A plethora of perplexing pavilion posts. The Pavilion Annex thread, the Pavilion Discussion thread, and monthly digests of all messages from the Pavilion.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 12:03 pm

Pavilion Digest: July 2005

Postby admin » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:56 am

The following posts contain Art Deco Dining Pavilion messages for the month of July 2005.

Todd Cassel
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Postby Todd Cassel » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:56 am

Name: Todd Cassel
Source: unca20050815.htm
Speaking of Mr. Harryhausen; he will be attending the San Diego ComicCon, as will Ray Bradbury. In fact, I think I heard that at least one session will include them both.


Susan Ellison
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:20 pm

Postby Susan Ellison » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:13 am

Source: unca20050815.htm
One thousand dollars? Gulp! We had no idea.



Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:05 am

A Thousand Dollar Book

Postby Adam-Troy » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:29 am

Name: Adam-Troy Castro
Source: unca20050815.htm
Cripes, I thought the two hundred dollar Kubrick book was a lot.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Harryhausen haul

Postby David Loftus » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:37 am

Name: David Loftus
Source: unca20050815.htm
Holy cow. For that price, a tyrannosaurus egg ought to be included in the package.

Let's hope the bulk of the money is going straight to the creator.

Tim Richmond
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 12:36 pm

Postby Tim Richmond » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:38 am

Name: Tim Richmond
Source: unca20050815.htm
re: Harryhausen Portfolio.
When will I be allowed to sleep??

User avatar
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:18 am

Name: Frank Church
Source: unca20050815.htm
The Discovery Channel had this horrible Greatest American list, picked by the uninformed masses, ladled on by the inept ramblings of Matt Lauer.

Ronald Reagan, greatest American? If you notice, the list of 100 has no writers, no jazz musicians, few left of center people. The American people just voted on people they remembered from teevee.

The public have their heads up their asses.

Harlan is right, the common man suck.

User avatar
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:51 pm

Postby JaySmith » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:35 am

Name: Jay Smith
Source: unca20050815.htm

Yeah. In 229 years, you think they'd find a better list of candidates. Whatever crack-smoking mook that nominated John Edwards needs a beat-down and an 8th grade history lesson.

I think it was a test to see how stupid people really are and, based on the results, the Powers are now plotting to rid us of the useless third of our planet. Perhaps we can persuade them onto a sort of space ark and shoot them to Mars as some sort of Discovery Channel "award" for "unconventional thinking".

Or an escape from the Mutant Star Goat. I think with proper marketing, the idiots would buy it.

Amy Kostyn-Jenkins

Postby Amy Kostyn-Jenkins » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:15 pm

Name: Amy Kostyn-Jenkins
Source: unca20050815.htm
Too bad the idiots are the ones They want to KEEP.

User avatar
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby Duane » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:32 pm

Name: Duane
Source: unca20050815.htm
Hey, Malcolm X is listed, so it can't be all that bad.

Michael Moore is on the ballot? No wonder Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Cesar Chavez, Neil Armstrong and Carl Sagan are all running for cover.



Postby STAN » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:39 pm

Name: STAN
Source: unca20050815.htm
I have yet to see the movie, but geez louise! Every review I read whether on the puter or in the paper, has rated the movie not that good....except for the Spielberg effects...someone out there must have something good to say about it....if not...then I will save my ten bucks and by the DVD when it comes out. Then I will form my own opinion about the movie.
EXAMPLES....Cruise too over-the-top in his acting in it....Dakota Fanning screams entirely too much....and Tim Robbins was "underused" though effective in his role as the basement loner.

Posts: 386
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby BrianSiano » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:51 pm

Name: Brian Siano
Source: unca20050815.htm
About that Discovery Channel poll. IT IS NOT WORTH WORRYING ABOUT. It's just another bit of shitty news, probably designed to make intelligent people feel rotten and alone and nearly extinct.

But, if we're having some kind of competition, over who can work up the Nastiest Comment on those Stupid People, here's mine. I hate those people. I despise them. I hope they die alone, unloved, un-insured, uncomprehending of their misery, and soon. They deserve the leaders they've elected. They deserve to lose their jobs, their families, their lives, their means of reproduction, and any future joys they may get from their squalid, ignorant lives.

On a brighter note, Ray Harryhausen and CGI. Well, if Ray had CGI, we wouldn't be _half_ as impressed with his artistry now, would we? Would we enjoy Michelangelo more if he'd used a computer-driven Driml? If Leonardo da Vinci had an "Undo" key, would _The Last Supper_ seem as unique as it does? If Renoir used Photoshop, would Paris look as beautiful?

Ryan Leasher

Postby Ryan Leasher » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:10 pm

Name: Ryan Leasher
Source: unca20050815.htm

BRIAN: If Ray Harryhausen had utilized computers rather than armatures why wouldn't we be as impressed? Are you under the impression that the magic is in the tool rather than the individual? I'm damn tempted to go on a rant about this post for a host of reasons, not the least of which is your implication that the dumb digital box somehow makes it easier to be an artist. But I'll keep it brief...

I would love to see what Michelangelo, da Vinci, or Renoir would have done with access to another artistic outlet. Those boys were hard core and I'm betting they would have lit the rails no matter the medium.

Perhaps following your logic Harlan's work would be that much less if flowing from Microsoft Word rather than an Underwood...?

User avatar
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:42 pm
Location: Limbo

Postby JohnPacer » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:15 pm

Name: John Pacer
Source: unca20050815.htm
I have to agree with Ryan. Michelangelo and Leonardo are still impressive because they were brilliant DESIGNERS (over 400 figures in Mich's "Last Judgment") not because they used paint instead of a computer. A computer, like a brush or chisel, is a dumb tool. The reason most of the computer generated stuff is crap is not because it was built on the computer but rather the "artists" who created the stuff were poorly trained designers.
As Kenyon Cox said, "Without design, there may be representation, but there can be no Art."

User avatar
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:53 pm

Name: Rob
Source: unca20050815.htm

Your next post MAY open with, "that's not QUITE what I meant".

Still, taken at face value your last comments do suggest a certain naivete.

I've drawn since the age of 6 (I have animation stills I did when I was 12 sitting here in my room, which my mother mailed out to me from Connecticut several years ago); I've always been good, and I'm getting better.

Last January, I became addicted to PhotoShop, not as an enhancing tool, but to draw (from my head) and create images directly with the mouse. I now consider the computer my chosen medium (at least when it comes to painting), if only because I'm such a lazy fuck when it comes to cleaning up when I'm done.

I came up with some bizarre syntheses of Realism, Surrealism, and PhotoRealism - much of it rather disturbing and Ironic. Most of the illustrations came out as I saw them in my mind.

An artist's objective determines how he decides to implement the medium. He can evoke ANY great experience in the viewer no matter WHAT his chosen medium. Any excellent artist is capable - through his own subjective passion - his own personal drive and vision - of transcending the supposed limitations of a medium, including the brittle artificiality of computer generated imaging.

So - SURE! - had Leonardo been part of today's swingin' scene, he'd have STILL blown us away; with a mind like HIS - shit! - my guess is he'd have invented a new type of computer just to achieve his ends, and many timeless images.

It's not in the tool, as these other guys have been saying; it's all in the vision, the passion, and the technique.

As for Mr. Harryhausen, since my previous remarks COULD be misinterpreted, he is a remarkable craftsman passionate about his own techniques. MOST of the cgi he, along with the rest of us, get subjected to is ABSOLUTELY "souless" ("assembly-line" is what I tend to call it); not because of the medium, but because there aren't a helluva lot of Leonardos and Michelangelos behind the mouse.

I confess, it IS interesting: if I look at the original Kong or Mighty Joe Young, there IS something in the "un-naturelness" in the motion - maybe a surrealistic or dreamlike dimension it captures - that I do NOT experience in cgi.

But, again, this gives me the opportunity to point out that the resolution is WHO sits behind the mouse, not in the limitations of the tool.

Return to “The Art Deco Dining Pavilion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests