Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Oct 17th, 2017: Queen Tarzi

Recent Images

Oct 16th, 2017: Cook Pines
Oct 15th, 2017: Station Dog (Jim Dog)
Oct 14th, 2017: Doughnut Girls & Donut Dollies
Oct 13th(Friday), 2017: Internment Camps
Oct 11th, 2017: Santa's Bones
Oct 10th, 2017: Blood in the Streets
Oct 9th, 2017: Food Rationing

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Thursday Jun 28 01:22 PM

June 28, 2007: Trash shadow



This is featured in a Tate Gallery magazine item called "The Emblem of Earthly Vanities", featuring art with shadows or other things that make us see an art object differently. But xoB found it here at a blog entry featuring shadows in art.

Credit Tim Noble and Sue Webster for the work entitled "Dirty White Trash (with Gulls)", 1998. And the interesting thing is... the trash shown is said to be six months of the artists' refuse.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 28 01:26 PM

I think that is great. There are also some good ones on the Earthly Vanities website you posted.

Thanks UT and xoB!



Coign  Thursday Jun 28 02:20 PM

Quote:
the trash shown is said to be six months of the artists' refuse.
The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 28 02:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?
Hi Coign.

You know how it is. Those seagulls were SO last year!


Cloud  Thursday Jun 28 02:39 PM

amazing detail in the shadow figures



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 02:48 PM

I think this one illustrates how the 3-D pile gives no clue as to what the shadow will look like. I'm in awe of people who think this stuff up.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 28 03:09 PM

Is that Flint's drum set?



Flint  Thursday Jun 28 03:23 PM

Quote:
I think this one illustrates how the 3-D pile gives no clue as to what the shadow will look like...



axlrosen  Thursday Jun 28 04:44 PM

I don't think that's the actual shadow. Certainly that's the case for HE/SHE piece (in that second link).



Happy Monkey  Thursday Jun 28 04:51 PM

They are all actual shadows.

With the possible exception of Flint's.



BigV  Thursday Jun 28 04:54 PM

Bruce who? Bruce Lee? Bruce Almighty? Bruce the Shark? I don't recognize the 3D shape for that profile, Flint. Could you be more specific?



Flint  Thursday Jun 28 05:06 PM

I'm always thinkin' ...

What about a sculpture that appears to be one thing, but casts the shadow of a different thing? Srsly



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 05:23 PM

Like a would be cartoonist that proves to be a childish AGer.



Flint  Thursday Jun 28 05:25 PM

No, really. If the sculpture that casts the shadow had a visual meaning of it's own, different from the shadow. That would be really tricky.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 05:34 PM

That's what the thread is about. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.



Flint  Thursday Jun 28 05:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
... If the sculpture that casts the shadow had a visual meaning of it's own, different from the shadow. That would be really tricky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
That's what the thread is about. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
A pile of trash is pretty visually flexible when you're aiming for a desired effect on the other side. So is a welded together mess of pots and pans, or whatever that is. These pieces have one subject. What I'm talking about is a piece with two distinct subjects, IE a statue of object A that casts a shadow of object B. What would complicate this is that the shadow is fixed (2-D) but people could look at the 3-D part from different angles.


HungLikeJesus  Thursday Jun 28 05:54 PM

Flint -- even better if different light angles produced different shadow images. Then you could have the 3D object on a rotating platform and the shadow would change to show different 2D images.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 06:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
A pile of trash is pretty visually flexible when you're aiming for a desired effect on the other side. So is a welded together mess of pots and pans, or whatever that is. These pieces have one subject. What I'm talking about is a piece with two distinct subjects, IE a statue of object A that casts a shadow of object B. What would complicate this is that the shadow is fixed (2-D) but people could look at the 3-D part from different angles.
A pile of trash with two seagulls is an identifiable sculpture. Being easy to create or "visually flexible" has no bearing on it. It's recognizable and casts a shadow of something completely different. If you want it to be a more defined sculpture, why don't you go make one and stop bothering the adults?


Flint  Thursday Jun 28 06:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HLJ View Post
Flint -- even better if different light angles produced different shadow images. Then you could have the 3D object on a rotating platform and the shadow would change to show different 2D images.
Interesting. What I've been working on is casting a flat image on an irregular surface, so that when viewed from a specific angle, the visual data compiles back into the original flat image. The obvious limitation, depending on how you look at it (no pun intended) being that you have to view it from that specific angle. Now, I don't know about moving images, but I suppose I could attempt maybe three fixed images viewed from three distinct vantage points, cast on one 3-D object. (I'll leave it to your imagination what specific object I'm using as a "canvas" here...)


HungLikeJesus  Thursday Jun 28 06:52 PM

Julian Beever has done some interesting 3-D sidewalk drawings with chalk, like:


and



Here's another good one:



Keep in mind that these are all 2D, and only look right from one angle.

You can find more here.



Happy Monkey  Thursday Jun 28 07:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
A pile of trash with two seagulls is an identifiable sculpture.
More than the other ones, at least. They're all amorphous, but one has seagulls.

This reminds me of the digital sundial (check out #8).


monster  Thursday Jun 28 08:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
The artist threw away a pair of perfectly good seagulls?
Couldn't find a good recipe.


Flint  Thursday Jun 28 08:51 PM

The closest thing to what I'm thinking, regarding multiple images cast and reproduced on a single, complex 3-D surface, and this is a gross over-simplification, but you know those billboards that change as you drive by? Like that, but, not to name the particular object, it's much more interesting than parallel, vertical louvers with angled facets.

To do what I'm talking about, you'd need something like a Tracer, which I do have, and which most notably a friend and I used to blow up a single eye from an india ink, cross-hatched illustration (he did) of a photograph of a model's face, up from about one inch to about ten feet across, then re-colored it with oil pastels, thus making a perfect photographic reproduction of a human eye that you can only see from at least twenty feet away.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 09:03 PM

And what did it's shadow look like?



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 28 09:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
More than the other ones, at least. They're all amorphous, but one has seagulls.
Aren't all piles of trash amorphous at first glance? That was the point, they are supposed to appear as piles of trash and not hint at the shadow they would produce, even though they were carefully constructed like any other sculpture.


Flint  Thursday Jun 28 09:53 PM

To carry this idea to a really ridiculous level (because, why not?), I suppose you could cast the shadow of one 3-D object onto another 3-D object, and have the resulting image represent a third subject (appearing to be 2-D on the surface of the second 3-D object). Continuing to expand upon the idea of shapes and images projecting and changing upon the surface of one another, eventually you could build an Escher-esque funhouse where you wouldn't even be sure what you were looking at! This thread certainly opens up what you might even call a can of worms. Like, art worms.



spudcon  Friday Jun 29 12:11 PM

Seagulls, shadows, or whatever, we're all fortunate to be viewing this away from the stink of 6 month old garbage.



Happy Monkey  Friday Jun 29 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Aren't all piles of trash amorphous at first glance?
I think that was Flint's point.


LabRat  Friday Jun 29 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
...a perfect photographic reproduction of a human eye that you can only see from at least twenty feet away.
Wow, do you or he have any close vs. far pics of that? I would love to see how that turned out!


Flint  Friday Jun 29 01:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
Seagulls, shadows, or whatever, we're all fortunate to be viewing this away from the stink of 6 month old garbage.
I'd say this is definitely a case of someone suffering for their art!

Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat View Post
Wow, do you or he have any close vs. far pics of that? I would love to see how that turned out!
I don't have any pics; but as soon as I get a chance (whenever I go to my friend's house next) I will take some from the normal standing-next-to-the-wall-looking-at-a-painting range, and then from the distance-that-the-image-starts-to-make-sense range.

.

.

.

So, I sketched up some diagrams...
..the first two involving casting shadows on 2-D and then 3-D surfaces, while the 3-D surfaces retain their information...
..the third involving projected, visible light images, reproduced on 3-D surfaces, so that different images become visible depending on the angle:


HungLikeJesus  Friday Jun 29 02:13 PM

Flint -- you've certainly put a lot of thought into this.



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Jun 29 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
I think that was Flint's point.
But the artist's point was to make a sculpture of the trash they generated in six months and have it show a shadow of them. To say that isn't a real sculpture, that it doesn't look like anything, the art work is only the shadow, is assinine. It was contructed to look exactly like the artist intended.


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Jun 29 04:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HLJ View Post
Flint -- you've certainly put a lot of thought into this.
Yeah, but it is impossible as drawn. Projecting visible images on planes that don't exist. Projecting two images on a single plane and only see one of them at a 45 degree angle. Even Disney can't do this fairy tale.


BigV  Friday Jun 29 04:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
'always thinking'

What about a sculpture that appears to be one thing, but casts the shadow of a different thing? Srsly
Over thinking. Nothing particularly hard about this. It's literally a matter of perspective.


Happy Monkey  Friday Jun 29 04:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
But the artist's point was to make a sculpture of the trash they generated in six months and have it show a shadow of them. To say that isn't a real sculpture, that it doesn't look like anything, the art work is only the shadow, is assinine. It was contructed to look exactly like the artist intended.
But the shape of the pile of trash is irrelevant, if not for the shadow. The materials are the artistic statement of the pile, not the shape.


Happy Monkey  Friday Jun 29 05:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Projecting two images on a single plane and only see one of them at a 45 degree angle.
On a plane, yes, but it's possible on a 3D surface for the shadow to make one image from one angle and another image from another angle.


glatt  Friday Jun 29 05:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Over thinking. Nothing particularly hard about this. It's literally a matter of perspective.
Nice illustrations, BigV.


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Jun 29 05:17 PM

"Image A reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
"Image B reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
Viewed from the image A projection point you will see half of image B if it's projected on a sphere or cylinder. From the same point you wouldn't see all of image A, unless it was a whole lot smaller than the sphere or cylinder, or what ever the hell that is, that has the planes that don't exist going through it. It won't work.
I won't even bother trying to explain why the other two are bullshit, his knowledge of optics is obviously zero.



Happy Monkey  Friday Jun 29 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
"Image A reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
"Image B reproduced on this plane". There is no plane.
Perhaps he should have used the word "projection", or "cross-section". I understood it, at least.
Quote:
Viewed from the image A projection point you will see half of image B if it's projected on a sphere or cylinder.
And if it was neither a sphere nor a cylinder, but a shape designed to catch shadows in a very specific way, you get a different result.
Quote:
I won't even bother trying to explain why the other two are bullshit, his knowledge of optics is obviously zero.
The other two work as well. The sculptures are not cylinders, the circles indicate "insert sculpture here".


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Jun 29 06:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
Perhaps he should have used the word "projection", or "cross-section". I understood it, at least.
Then you are as fucked up as he is. You can't project on a cross section. Duh
Quote:
And if it was neither a sphere nor a cylinder, but a shape designed to catch shadows in a very specific way, you get a different result.
"Projected image is not shadows, it's an image.
Quote:
The other two work as well. The sculptures are not cylinders, the circles indicate "insert sculpture here".
Where the fuck does it say insert sculpture here?
1st diagram ~ In order to get the shadow of profile A alone, profile B has to be smaller. If Profile B is smaller, then you can't see it from "viewer".
2nd diagram has an order of magnitude more errors.

But, I tell you what, you build it and put it up on YouTube and I'll admit I'm wrong.


Happy Monkey  Friday Jun 29 07:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Then you are as fucked up as he is. You can't project on a cross section. Duh
That's a pretty obtuse way to interpret it. You project on the surface, and the [plane, cross section, 2D projection, whatever you want to call it] is "what the pattern looks like from that angle". Like if you look at a cube from on angle, it's a square. From another, it's a rectangle. From another, it's a hexagon. If you project a pattern onto that cube, and move around it, the 2D projection of that pattern that you see will change shape. And if it's a more complicated shape than a cube, you can get more complicated patterns.

Quote:
"Projected image is not shadows, it's an image.
A projected image is a shadow. A shadow is a projected image. The shadow of a colored translucent film can be more interesting than the shadow of an opaque object, but it's all the same in this context.

Quote:
1st diagram ~ In order to get the shadow of profile A alone, profile B has to be smaller. If Profile B is smaller, then you can't see it from "viewer".
Profile B is "what the viewer sees when looking at the object from the indicated position". If the object is visible, then the viewer can see Profile B. Whether it's bigger or smaller than Profile A is irrelevant.

This all seems to be based on some misunderstanding you have of Flint's terminology and diagram conventions. It all works.


Flint  Saturday Jun 30 12:58 AM

I certainly don't have anything negative to say about the piece in the original post here, I think it's very clever. That the artist actually carried through with the idea, past the conception phase and into the execution (with real, stinky garbage, no less!) is incredible.

As a further compliment to the artist, their work has inspired me with a few ideas of my own. How great is that? Artwork that makes you think. Even got BigV to illustrate some pretty peculiarly-shaped objects (very cool, BigV).

For the most part, I think this has beed a very positive, stimulating thread. Thanks for another great IotD, Undertoad.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 30 01:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post


This all seems to be based on some misunderstanding you have of Flint's terminology and diagram conventions. It all works.
. You seem to be morphing the illustrations into some concept you have in your head. I said what he drew won't work, and it won't.


Spexxvet  Saturday Jun 30 09:18 AM

HM, you are doing a fine job in this thread handling some pretty mystifying assertions and addressing some baffling misconceptions.

You're doing this maturely and intellectually, in the face of unfounded name calling and ridicule.



ukamikanasi  Saturday Jun 30 11:02 AM

This reminds me of some photos that are hanging on the wall in the lobby of Building 26 at Microsoft. Check out the Empty Spaces series: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/artc...wplay/gallery/



freshnesschronic  Saturday Jun 30 11:16 AM

Totally not reading the main thread, but I almost can't believe those shadows are generated by inanimate objects like trash and metal circles or whatever.

Cool stuff. But continue on with whatever the mud slinging was here.



Happy Monkey  Saturday Jun 30 05:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
. You seem to be morphing the illustrations into some concept you have in your head.
Almost- the diagram created the concept in my head. That's what diagrams are for.
Quote:
I said what he drew won't work, and it won't.
And if you follow blueprints incorrectly, you end up with weird, quarter-cylinder-shaped "doors" you can't walk through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
I certainly don't have anything negative to say about the piece in the original post here, I think it's very clever. That the artist actually carried through with the idea, past the conception phase and into the execution (with real, stinky garbage, no less!) is incredible.
Agreed. I did find it off-putting that this discussion with Bruce almost made it seem as if I were putting the original artist down in some way.


Happy Monkey  Saturday Jun 30 06:08 PM

Quick and dirty demo of the first diagram.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 30 11:34 PM

Very nice, except it's not what's shown in the first diagram. Profiles A and B don't intersect.



Happy Monkey  Sunday Jul 1 08:59 AM

Whatever that means. It's exactly what was portrayed by the diagram. If it is not what you thought the diagram meant, you were mistaken. The profiles "intersect" insomuch as any two different 2D projections of a 3D object "intersect".



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jul 1 01:35 PM

intersect

• verb 1 divide (something) by passing or lying across it. 2 (of lines, roads, etc.) cross or cut each other.

— ORIGIN Latin intersecare ‘cut, intersect’.



Flint  Sunday Jul 1 01:45 PM

I thought you said they don't intersect ???



Happy Monkey  Sunday Jul 1 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
The profiles "intersect" insomuch as any two different 2D projections of a 3D object "intersect".
I'm not sure what it is you think the word "profile" on the diagram means, but that word seems to be what is preventing you from understanding the diagrams, which is why I tried a few other words.

What I understand it to mean is "the 2D pattern that the object appears as when viewed from the designated angle". As such, any two of them, as long as they aren't colinear, will "intersect", though I'm not sure the word is completely relevant.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jul 1 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
I thought you said they don't intersect ???
Yours do, his don't. Yours are impossible, his are possible.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jul 1 03:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
I'm not sure what it is you think the word "profile" on the diagram means, but that word seems to be what is preventing you from understanding the diagrams, which is why I tried a few other words.

What I understand it to mean is "the 2D pattern that the object appears as when viewed from the designated angle". As such, any two of them, as long as they aren't colinear, will "intersect", though I'm not sure the word is completely relevant.
You've demonstrated your interpretation of what he diagrammed. It would be an interesting World if every craftsman was allowed to interpret the plans.


Happy Monkey  Sunday Jul 1 10:33 PM

My interpretation works, yours apparently doesn't.

If you look at blueprints, you don't interpret the



as a quarter-cylinder.

Ah, well. We seem to be repeating ourselves.



Flint  Monday Jul 2 10:41 AM

...



skysidhe  Monday Jul 2 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
I'd say this is definitely a case of someone suffering for their art!

I don't have any pics; but as soon as I get a chance (whenever I go to my friend's house next) I will take some from the normal standing-next-to-the-wall-looking-at-a-painting range, and then from the distance-that-the-image-starts-to-make-sense range.

.

.

.

So, I sketched up some diagrams...
..the first two involving casting shadows on 2-D and then 3-D surfaces, while the 3-D surfaces retain their information...
..the third involving projected, visible light images, reproduced on 3-D surfaces, so that different images become visible depending on the angle:

*thinks to self*

oh..my...f'king gawd,,,give me a break


way to dissect childs play

....it's shadow play Flint!




ok don't get mad. I am not attacking you...just saying.


Flint  Monday Jul 2 02:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
I'm not sure what it is you think the word "profile" on the diagram means...
Maybe this will help? From dictionary.com:

Quote:
pro•file
4. an outline of an object, as a molding,
formed on a vertical plane passed through the object at right angles to one of its principal horizontal dimensions.
5. a drawing or the like representing this.
10. The look, configuration, or lines of something: cars with a modern profile.
13.Theater. a flat stage property or scenic piece cut from a firm, thin material, as of beaverboard or plywood, and having an irregular edge resembling the silhouette of a natural object.
16. to draw a profile of.

pro•file
1. a. A side view of an object or structure, especially of the human head.
b. A representation of an object or structure seen from the side.
2. An outline of an object.

profile
1656, "a drawing of the outline of anything," from It. profilo "a drawing in outline," from profilare "to draw in outline," from pro- "forth" + filare "draw out, spin," from L.L. filare "to spin, draw out a line," from filum "thread."

profile
2. an outline of something (especially a human face as seen from one side)

profile
the view of a face, head etc from the side; a side view

pro•file
1. A side view of an object or a structure, especially of the human head.
In other words, exactly what my diagram illustrated.

The "vertical plane" that a profile is formed on can intersect with a "vertical plane" upon which a different profile is formed. If these profiles are made to represent two different objects, then, from the viewer's persepctive, the first object casts the shadow of the second, different, object.


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Jul 2 05:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
My interpretation works, yours apparently doesn't.

If you look at blueprints, you don't interpret the



as a quarter-cylinder.

Ah, well. We seem to be repeating ourselves.
Your doorway is a standard symbol and universally understood. Obviously we'll never agree on this. I believe the divergent point was, "insert sculpture here".


Flint  Monday Jul 2 05:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
I believe the divergent point was, "insert sculpture here".
Did you also think the "viewer" was a hovering, disembodied, yellow disc, or did you understand the implied "insert human being here"?


xanex  Thursday Jul 26 05:28 PM

Dual shadows

There was a (New?) Mexican ?artist? who carved some sculptures (10?) 70 years ago? in 1970-ies?

Anyway, those are now collector's items and best displayed in the corner with two lights, so that it casts different shadows on 2 surfaces.
The one I saw (TV, xx yrs ago, 3 min clip) was eagle with raised wings/elk with big horns.

Flint's third picture reminded me strongly of that, and nobody mentioned those carvings...



theotherguy  Thursday Jul 26 06:16 PM

I (we) (you) (them?) am very confused (un-enlightened) (unsure?) (not clear) as to where you were going with your post.

BTW, welcome to the cellar!



Flint  Monday May 19 11:39 PM

This series is another excellent example of perspective-specific images.



Shawnee123  Tuesday May 20 12:01 PM

I like the dead guy in pic 8



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.