|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 9/26/2008
|
Gracias nuevamente Mary.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Brown
{K:71879} 9/26/2008
|
The depth of this is wonderful. It makes me want to run through the trees. Lovley colour and light.
MAry
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 9/25/2008
|
Me alegra que te guste.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Luigi Andena
{K:3580} 9/25/2008
|
interesting geometric nature : well done 7
Luigi
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 7/28/2008
|
Gracias Tony!, me alegra que te guste.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Quilty
{K:591} 7/28/2008
|
Excellent image of the woods. Well done Gustavo
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/25/2008
|
Gracias Erick! muy amable.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
Eric Richard
{K:2987} 6/25/2008
|
very nice!
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/16/2008
|
Thanks a lot once again for the URL, Gustavo! But is thetre any translation of all that? I can't discover any english version of that, and I am only willing to understand something because it looks fantastic! That's what I name the look of a website about rock! Direct, sincere, powerful!
About poetry, arts, Hammill, and everybody else. Artsits should stop behaving as if they had to say something about such subjects! They don't have to say anything at all! They have to keep silent! This is *not* a matter of arts! This is not a matter of fantasy, especially when such writings are presented to public as some kind of philosophy, while it is only arts! It is philosophical thin air and nothing more! Really, this is the only thing we miss, that everybody can take some instrument, sing some salad of lyrics, and present that sald as a "philosophy".
We had more than enough philosophical rubbish from the artists, and also artistic rubbish from the philosophers. Russel doesn't have to do absolutely anything with Hammill's writings even if some sources available would present such "connections" on the web. The intrinsic contradiction of Hammill's text is only cheap! We don't talk about that when we talk about the philosophic-mathematical consequences of the impossibility of the absolute truth. This is not merely stating A=NOT(A) like Hammill did in his text, that no way represents even the slightest of the difficulties of the philosophical problematic. Hammill is a very good musician but he is a miserable self-declared philosopher and that's all! There is absolutely nothing philosophical on his lines. Only salad!
I wonder how the "artists" assume the right to propagate such an inconsistency as a possible philosophical system. That's laughable, isn't it?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/15/2008
|
:-), pero justamente de eso se trata!, esto no es un tratado sobre existencialismo, esto es poesía, arte, y al arte no tiene porque ser riguroso, matemático ni exacto. Esto no está en el mundo diurno de la razón, esto se despliega entre las sombras nocturnas de las pesadillas y la fantasía.
Justamente que diga pero al mismo tiempo no diga nada, esos confusos razonamientos elípticos son el logro de este texto. No es certeza, sino confusión lo que se lee aquí. Para certezas, no se, Bertrand Russell, pero para ciertas deliciosas confusiones, Peter Hammill!, y me consta que a usted también, de ves en cuando, le complace caer en algunas locuras... Aunque sin dudas las suyas no son tan "hammillianas" como algunas de las mías...;-)
Bueno, te reitero lo que por error te puse en "under the skin": "Este texto de Hammill es muy viejo, de sus primeros trabajos y hasta donde se no lo hizo nunca canción, yo lo leí hace muchos años en un revista argentina sobre rock: "Expreso Imaginario" ahora ya mítica y transformada en objeto de culto, conservo aún ese ejemplar. Me alegró encontrarlo en la web y en el ingles original, porque en "Expreso Imaginario" lo publicaron traducido al español. En un texto que puede gustar o no, pero muy querido para mí.
Sobre la "expreso", te dejo aquí un link: http://www.dospotencias.com.ar/rebelde/cultura.htm, interesante porque además muestra un poco de lo mejor de una bella época del rock argentino."
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/15/2008
|
As an example for the stupidities that Hammill writes:
"Confusion is an answer. Confusion is a certainty. Confusion is an end without end."
OK, so that's his unbased and totally "at will" definition, which doesn't say anything at all, but let's accept that for a moment as a definition.
Some lines before that he says:
"A definition is the moment when everything ends. A definition is death."
Let's accept that as a definition too for a moment. And then what? His own "definitions" are the death of his definitions, or aren't they? They are telling me that they aren't telling nothing but nonsense. And I am to examine such serious subjects using the incompetent building of Hammill's "principles" that breaks down at the very moment of conception?
No thanks! I have other sources.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/15/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the texts of Hammill, Gustavo, but I don't care about the incompetence of any musician when it comes to cognition and theory. Hammill takes here some few fragments of all available philosophic streams, mixes them up with some completely inconsistent "airy" thoughts, adds his sauce of eloquence and here we are that salad. You don't read Hammill for such subjects but rather Mach, Popper, etc. Or else each and every priest and astrologist can also come and tell us what is going on.
My second message didn't tell anything else at all than that the concept of mathematics is perhaps useful but that it doesn't claim to describe any "reality" in a one to one manner. And here is the difference to such pseudo-philosophers like Hammill! They will always go much further and tell us what *is* while mathematics and real philosophy stop at the point where no answer is possible.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/14/2008
|
Sigue.
What is a definition?
A definition is the moment when everything ends. A defin-ition is death. A definition is the answer to which you must look up the question in the back of your book. There are mis-sing pages.
Pages are prisons, and missing pages are inescapable prisons. All is confusion.
What is confusion?
Confusion is an answer. Confusion is a certainty. Confusion is an end without end. Confusion is all the fragments and the coming together and the falling apart and the moment when it is neither together nor apart and the moment when it is both. Confusion is the frontispiece and the first chapter and the appendix.
What is between?
Fragments. Glue. Answers. Definitions. Me. You.
Who are you?
Me.
Who am I?
I am twenty-three years old and a plagiarist.
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/14/2008
|
Ya aquí me cuesta entenderte querido amigo, ni el google translator ni mis "basic" clases de ingles me ayudan!, pero por donde sigo tus razonamiento ya estamos cercanos al solipsismo donde todo existe dentro de la mente del individuo...ja...ja...
Para sumarle algo más de confusión, te dejo este viejo texto de nuestro querido Peter hammill:
I am twenty-three years old and a plagiarist. I steal my friends' and enemies' and acquaintances' lives and put them in my mind. Some day I will take them all out again and use them. Some I have used already. I have no need of comfort; I have no need of company. Everything exists inside my mind.
Outside exists inside; reality is only what I choose it to he and if I choose to make reality a lie, then it is so. I know I am real because I have decided I am. I think, therefore you exist.
Who are you?
You are seven years old and a typewriter. You are crystal and osmotic barrier and iron curtain and drug. You are everything that never existed; you are the sum total of human knowledge from infinity to infinity. You hold the final clue to the ultimate mystery. You are the glue that holds me together.
Who am I?
I am several fragments of my several accumulated lives; I am the total of my fragments. I am held together by blood and bone and glue and mystery. If there was no mystery I would fall apart and if I fall apart there would be a mystery and so I would fall together again. I keep falling apart and putting myself together again because whenever I fail apart I fall together and so I am a mystery and mystery is eternal. It happens to us all.
Who are we?
We are the fragments when I have fallen apart. We are the spaces between the mystery, the mystery of the spaces and every cell and molecule which threatens itself. We are self-destruction and genocide and retribution. We are the Law and the hangman and the hanged man. We are the dead and the riot and entropy. We are the trace lines on an oscilloscope, nothing more. There is nothing
more.
What is nothing?
Nothing is the moment when we know what we are. Nothing is the moment when we have just fallen apart and have not yet fallen together. Nothing is the song that has never been heard, but is compiled through infinity. The song is the puppet master's, and is irrepeatable. Nothing is the bridge
between the future and the further future. Nothing is certainty. Nothing is any definition of anything.
Continúa.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/14/2008
|
Oh, indeed it's much easier to model mathematically than to take good images, Noemi. Gustavo was sure in his about that I would respond to his title with a model, and so I responded! We don't deny such a favor to a good freind, ey?
The whole thing is about why you see *apparently* more trees at the depth, which also serves taking a good image. The same number of trees is seen under a smaller optical angle (alpha) as the distance to them grows. So you see the same number of trees under a smaller angle, or more trees under the same angle The attached sketch could be a help for that as the graph shows how the density of the trees grows *apparently* as the distance to them grows too. Almost linear for greater distances, ey? (Blue line)
BTW, knowledge of physics (optics) is of course not sufficient at all for taking good images. But it is necessary! Which means, if we know about optics it doesn't mean we are going to get good images. But if we *don't* know about optics we *don't* get good images.
Cheers!
Nick
|
The mathematics behind it |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/14/2008
|
Are you sure that reality goes "beyond mathematics" Gustavo? OK, what is then a distance? You think that a distance really exists in nature?? False! It only exists in your own version of mathematical thinking! We *can't* think anything differently. The question is not how to add "more variables" and the like. This would be a completely constructionistic attitude which has be already proven to be... *false*! It's not the detail of the model, it's the mere fact that we never do anything else than modelling mathematically nature. The formalism is already telling us: You don't speak about "reality" when you speak about me. ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/14/2008
|
Efectivamente!, en el about la señalo, esta es un poco más luminosa. En cuanto a la progresión al infinito de los árboles, fijate en el comentario de Nick, ahí pone cual es la función matemática que la modeliza...:-).
Un gran abrazo y gracias por tu visita.
|
|
|
|
|
Alicia Popp
{K:87532} 6/14/2008
|
Recuerdo una parecida!
Una estupenda compisición con esa progresión que se dispara al infinito... muy buen juego!
Felicitaciones!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/14/2008
|
Ja...ja.... Nuestro amigo Nick, matemático y científico ha respondido a un pedido mío, y esto es: mostrarnos el modelo matemático que calcula como aumenta el número de árboles a medida que vas alejando la mirada (comienza con uno, dos en la fila de atrás, hasta el mismísimo infinito allá en el fondo, si uno pudiera mirar tan lejos, claro...ja...ja...), en fin, solo locuras nuestras...:-)
Un gran abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/14/2008
|
Gracias Noemi por tu visita, siempre bienvenida.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
Noemi Jurado
{K:8849} 6/13/2008
|
Nick this was engrossing, but I wont even dare to say I can even understand the idea behind what you are trying to say...all I know is I want to take pictures...and that you my friend are truly are a whiz ;) Be well!
|
|
|
|
|
Noemi Jurado
{K:8849} 6/13/2008
|
Ah muy lograda la composicion la cual guia perfectamente a la vista. Estas no son facil de hacer aunque a simple vista pueda aparentarlo. En distintas ocasiones las he intentado sin exito. Para la proxima usare lo mencionado como guia y veremos. Mil gracias y saludos!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/12/2008
|
Ja...ja...sos una maestro sin dudas mi querido amigo, sabía que ibas a aceptar mi desafío.
Efectivamente la realidad siempre se escapa un poco a los modelos matemáticos, pero también siempre existe la posibilidad de tener en cuenta más variables, más detalles y que los modelos se acerquen...mmm, digamos, asintóticamente a la realidad que pretenden describir.
Un placer leer tus ecuaciones y que simpáticas suenan las funciones trigonométricas, los cosenos, las tangentes y por supuesto los amados, queridos y deseados "senos" ;-), (esta es una broma que seguramente solo se entiende en español....senos=tits...;-))
Un gran abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/12/2008
|
Oops! Errata!
It should be
alpha = 2*arctan(l/(2*d))
and then n/(2*arctan(l/(2*d)))
Shame on me! :-D
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/12/2008
|
First of all the photographical "model", and what a model it is! Ypu allow the spectatorto see those "almost" symmetries, to see the leading lines, the many target points that coexist in some approximated manner! The well balanced light makes everything visible, as it *has* to be on such images. Each and every detail is but a small piece of that repeating pattern.
But it is an "almost pattern". Almost regualr and still recognizable over and over again. I include an attachment of the idealization of the reduced geometry of that pattern, which is similar but not absolutely the same as the real existing one. Actually in this case there is no strict pattern at all in reality - only in our minds. But there is that kind of self-similar thing in the perspective. Actually the real density of the trees is almost constant. But in the pespective... since the optical angle alpha under which we see a linear group of threes arranged along a line segment of length l at some distance d from us is given by:
alpha=2*arctan(d/l)
the apparent angular density of trees at that distance is n/(2*arctan(d/l)), where n is the real (almost constant) number of trees per lenght d. So the apparent angular density grows approximately linear after some distance d. And we see more and more trees as the distance to us grows. BTW, why don't we see a night sky where far stars are apparently adjucent to each other, ey? ;-)
But still, if the image doesn't show that so exactly, then the visualisation isn't as srong despite the still valid mathematics. And so the image is just about perfect for itself - and not for the mathematics behind it. Only... pergaps a small rotation to the left?
Very very good work, Gustavo! And quite nice to see real depth too!
Cheers!
Nick
|
Geometry of the image |
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/12/2008
|
Gracias Vanessa, qué alegría leerte!
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
vanessa shakesheff
{K:68840} 6/12/2008
|
Great dof ..the trees are endless..lot,s of detail..nessa 7+++++++
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/12/2008
|
Efectivamente, la mayoría del papel que se produce en el mundo a costa de enormes recursos medioambientales lamentablemente se utiliza como papel higiénico, algo que fácilmente podría reemplazarse en los hogares por lo infinitamente más higiénicos bidets.
Un abrazo y gracias por tu aporte e interés!
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 6/12/2008
|
Yes, great subject, Gustavo! We have these Poplar plantations, too. Goes into toilet paper! :) The contrasty light is great because it reinforces the patterns! Well seen!
Eb
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/10/2008
|
Gracias Sam!, aprecio que te guste.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
Sam Dec
{K:1005} 6/10/2008
|
Nice and moody atmosphere with great nature outlook
Regards: Sam D
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/10/2008
|
Gracias Gerhard, aprecio tus palabras.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/10/2008
|
Gracias Ugo!, un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/10/2008
|
Me alegra que te guste Violetta!, un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/10/2008
|
Gracias Pablo, muy amable.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard BuschEFIAP/AFIAP
{K:18382} 6/10/2008
|
La atmósfera de un día frío de otoño representó exitosamente. Sinceramente Gerhard
|
|
|
|
Ugo Rimoldi
{K:6232} 6/10/2008
|
Stupenda nature Gustavo, complimenti.
|
|
|
|
|
Violetta Tarnowska
{K:24497} 6/9/2008
|
Immediately I like this image....
Excellent!
Warm hugs, Gustavo:)
|
|
|
|
Pablo Dylan
{K:63918} 6/9/2008
|
Bellissima,sembra un quadro.
Complimenti Gust@vo.
Pablo
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias, aprecio mucho tu comentarios, te tengo mucho respeto como fotógrafo.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Hola Zeev mi viejo amigo, como siempre me alegra leerte.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias Francisco, me alegra que te guste.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
1301307 60
{K:44058} 6/9/2008
|
Very good for the project,, great pattern captured here Gustavo.. fantastic color and lines..
great shot!
|
|
|
|
|
Zeev Scharf
{K:25603} 6/9/2008
|
Excelente imagen Gustavo,excelente simetria en los arboles,preciosa composicion
Un abrazo
|
|
|
|
|
Francisco N-G
{K:28728} 6/9/2008
|
En verdad, ad infinitum... Me fascinan estos patrones forestales.
Un abrazo.
F.
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias Siamak, querido amigo.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
:-), ya lo se Sounak, pero yo casi nunca puedo con mi genio!...:-)
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias Alberto, muy amables tus palabras.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
siamak jafari
{K:20075} 6/9/2008
|
excellent graphic.
siamak
|
|
|
|
Sounak Mukhopadhyay
{K:2854} 6/9/2008
|
I love your "normal" photography, you know that,GUS!
|
|
|
|
|
Alberto Di Gangi
{K:2375} 6/9/2008
|
Ottima idea la sensazione dell'infinito!
Bravo Gust@vo
Alberto Di Gangi
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
:-), gracias por tu opinión David, y me alegra que te guste.
Yo creo que aquí me ajusté muy clásicamente a las reglas de la composición, (el horizonte en el tercio inferior, el árbol en primer plano sobre el tercio derecho, las líneas de perspectiva siguiendo las diagonales, una luz lateral, un encuadre adecuado...en fin), además un motivo agradable, natural y común, de los que la mayoría reconocemos como bello. Así no hay modo de errarle... :-), aunque claro, para ser original hay que correr muchos más riegos en el sentido estético...:-)
Un gran abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias Stan, aprecio mucho tus palabras.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
Stan Hill
{K:35352} 6/9/2008
|
Nice deep shot, like the symmetry and pattern of the trees. Nice angle for the shot. Could not read the about but I hope I can learn more Spanish in time. Be well, Stan
|
|
|
|
David Rodriguez
{K:11965} 6/9/2008
|
Excelente foto Gustavo! me gusta mucho, como decirte? creo que yo hubiera hecho la misma toma! jeje! El cielo las ramas, los troncos y el cesped, una lograda composicion. Hermosa perspectiva en la linea de algunos arboles. La luz me gusta mucho como da en ese bosque. Muy buena captura.
Te dejo un abrazo
David
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias querida amiga, una foto clásica, me alegra que te guste.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 6/9/2008
|
So very fine dear Gust@vo ! :)))
fantastic symmetry, depth, lightening, angle, composition, clearity ....
hugs :)
Srna
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 6/9/2008
|
Gracias John querido amigo!, siempre atento!
Un gran abrazo!
|
|
|
|
John Hatz
{K:156973} 6/9/2008
|
good shot Gustavo, good focus - clarity even into the deeper trees.
be well!
|
|
0 
