posted
What is the best dye to use if you are dying someone's hair blue? (Please let it be semi-cheap...)
What is the best method when puting red streaks in one's hair?
Well you might find something useful at this site. (It might take a little while to load. It did for me.) Other than that, I admit myself unqualified to provide a better answer. Just as with medical questions, I must refer you to a qualified professional. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What advice do you have / resources do you reccomend for persons renovating/decorating hypothetical Victorian style houses? Particularly in regard to bathrooms?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manic Panic is the way to go for fun hair colors. If you're putting in red streaks and your hair is dark, if you really want them to stand out you'll need to bleach the streaks first, then dye them red. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: What advice do you have / resources do you reccomend for persons renovating/decorating hypothetical Victorian style houses? Particularly in regard to bathrooms?
There are many online resources that specialize in Victorian era decor. There are also a couple of magazines (I'll see if I can find some links) that are specifically for and about renovators of Victorian homes. The good thing about Victorian style homes, though, is that they lend themselves to many different tastes in terms of decorating. My advice is to visit a good newsstand and buy a couple of nice home decor magazines. Try and get at least one that is specific to Victorian homes, but don't limit yourself to them alone. One of the hallmarks of Victorian era homes was that for the first time fine fabrics and richly designed furniture was available to the middle classes. The result was that many "went overboard" filling their homes with fabric, paint, furniture, and knick-knacks. Some people today really like that lush, almost opulent decor. I, personally, prefer a less cluttered look, but I like to find unique pieces that fit my budget. I'd rather splurge on one really nice item than buy a dozen mediocre things for the same price.
At any rate, when decorating a Victorian era home, you can probably find someplace anywhere along the spectrum that you feel comfortable, from spartan to opulent. Decide where your comfort zone is, and keep that in mind as you look in the magazines. I'm finding that my house is responding well to very different decorating styles in different rooms. (Anyone who's seen my house will laugh at that statement as right now it's still a clutter of boxes and furniture and no single room is completely finished), but my kitchen is fairly modern and my new bathroom is mostly natural tile slate. Neither of those rooms is specifically Victorian, but I don't think the house suffers because of that in the least.
In a nutshell, what counts as "Victorian" is pretty wide. I'd have to know specifically where along the spectrum you fall to give you specific resources. Feel free to send me an email.
And good luck if you're looking at renovating something. I'm finding it really does cost more than you plan on, but it's a lot of fun.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heya Karl, sorry for the ginormous time lag between repsonses. Haven’t had time to do much more than lurk on the ‘rack.
quote:Before I were to try to convince someone of my view, however, I'd ask myself if I was trying to teach them to see beauty, or trying to steal the beauty they see and replace it with lasciviousness.
Very good point. *takes*
quote:You presume too much in your question. I'd argue that being painted or drawn does not preclude a nude figure from being pornographic, nor does appearing in a nudie magazine automatically make a photo of a nude figure void of artistic merit.
*nod* That was actually my point: where is the dividing line? (I just skimmed the first bit of that Porn Thing mayfly thread, which I apparently missed when it was first posted, and I’m guessing this bit is discussed in there. Hopefully I’ll have time to read that tonight. )
quote:I do not think it is arrogant and unfair to believe as you do. What I believe is arrogant and unfair is to assign ulterior motives to others without just cause. It is fine for you to think a photo is pornographic. It is arrogant and unfair to assume that despite the fact I say I like the photo for its aesthetic value and do not find it pornographic that secretly I'm really lusting over it and just don't want to admit it. See the difference?
Totally see the difference. Again, this was in relation to that art class, where there were people who had given me AMPLE reason to believe that they liked such controversial art for nothing more than the “hehe, boobs!” aspect of it *grin*. However, there were also people in the same class who, I believe, liked the pictures for something MORE than that as well, whose opinions I trusted. What were they seeing in the picture that was “aesthetically pleasing” but separate from the more titillating aspects of it?
I guess what I’m trying to get at is what makes the shape or placement of objects pleasing to look at? It seems so nebulous to me.
quote:Many people find beauty in a form, shape, arc, curve, proportion, or even ideal that is apart from specific subject matter. Others appreciate subject matter over craft in their art. That is why two people will look at the same still life and one will find it artistic and the other will find it boring. That also explains to some degree why some people will collect cat art regardless of its quality. They want it as long as it has a cat on it or in it.
This is completely the crux of it. How are the particular forms, shapes, arcs, curves, proportions or ideals of nude art in particular pleasing to look at, if they are not connected in any way to (for lack of a more descriptive term) “lust”? I mean, I’m a very straight male, and yet I find something pleasing about drawing a man’s anatomy in correct proportions. I know many straight female artists who feel the same way about drawing women. We’re not aroused by the pictures we make, but neither can we express what exactly it is that is pleasing about them. There’s basically just a sense that it “feels right”, that the work is “good”. (Of course, one explanation might be that none of us are quite as “straight” as we might lead ourselves to believe *grin*)
quote:If it were, I probably would have found it both aesthetically pleasing and arousing.
Where is the dividing line? Is there even a line at all, or is it a hopeless murky jumble? (Or even not a murky jumble at all, but rather a smooth blending of the two reactions, where they are impossible to quite separate, which makes anything like a concrete definition pretty much useless? *grin*)
About the only thing that I can think of about any art that is pleasing and yet does not depend on some form of bodily desire is the sense that the artist “got it right”. That is, they showed the “truth” about a human body, which is something we all come into contact with every day. Even THAT definition is too unclear for my taste, though. *hangs head*
That statue sounds cool, though.
quote:Can you recognize an aesthetic difference between a nude photo of a male athlete and a nude photo of, say, Danny DeVito?
Exactly! I can indeed recognize a difference between photos of nude athletes and nude Danny Devitos (which is one sentence I never particularly thought I’d ever write *laugh*). The question is WHY can I recognize the difference? I think of Devito as a pretty unattractive dude, which is what I assume to be some sort of evolutionary response that judges him to be someone unsuitable for my sister to mate with. I wouldn’t want his genes in my family if we were basing it entirely on external “beauty” (if you’re reading this, Danny, I’m sorry!). Of course, this opens up a whole different can o’ worms about the related issues of why bisexuals and homosexuals find each other attractive and what evolutionary advantage such attraction might be.
Is there some meta-rule that transcends our bodily hungers that makes art pleasing, some quality that can pretty much only be summed up as “it just feels right”? I don’t LIKE not knowing! *grin*
quote:I hope that I have provided some answers to your general questions. I believe it is possible for some people (myself for instance) to recognize aesthetic appeal apart from lustful appeal in renditions of nudes
You’ve certainly helped me to clarify my question (if indeed it is any clearer at all, my apologies for my ineptitude at this whole “writing stuff down” thing). Understanding more about my questions seems to be the right track to getting some friggin’ ANSWERS. *grin*
quote:However, as to the personal questions about the ability within yourself, only you can answer those. If you believe you can, even if you don't specifically know why you can, does it matter if you can justify that to an outside observer?
I suppose you’re right. Still, in some ways I treat my*self* as an outside observer (which might not be particularly healthy, come to think of it *laugh*) and I like to know WHY I think the way I think. It’s really pretty hopelessly narcissistic of me.
Anyway, thanks for your responses, dude. Very edifying.
Also, I don’t want this thread to die, so I’ma do my part. *grin*
…
Annie, I’ll be reading those links. Sounds like exactly what I’m looking for, thanks for the tip. : )
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!: Where is the dividing line? Is there even a line at all, or is it a hopeless murky jumble? (Or even not a murky jumble at all, but rather a smooth blending of the two reactions, where they are impossible to quite separate, which makes anything like a concrete definition pretty much useless?
I think its that last part. Some things are so completely subjective that they defy concrete rules or blanket definitions. If anyone had the ability to answer such questions definitively, much of the controversy would be gone from the world.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I thought this thread was dead and had stopped checking it.
Beanny: Why is Hatrack so great?
Because it is a near-perfect example of successful community building. OSC has created a place that attracts people through what is ultimately a very tennuous common connection, but it holds us here long enough to discover more and more common threads that bind us together.
Really, what percentage of Hatrack time does the average Jatraquero spend talking about OSC and his work in this forum? What percentage of posters here also post on "the other side"? While OSC and his work are the initial attraction for most of us, I'd venture to say it's the connections we make with each other that keep us here. That seems pretty great to me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
