Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About comicwiz

  • Boards Title
  • Birthday 06/05/1971

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    IT Consultant
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

713 profile views
  1. Oh and I didn't check the thread to see if it was mentioned, but that Frazetta BSG prelim was another one that surprised me
  2. Based on how Crumb OA has been going, that Big #2 one-pager is bound to hit $120K...
  3. Had the exact same thought. Makes the daily which recently sold on Hakes (with a great frame to boot) seem like a bargain!
  4. Maybe someone knows something about the fire. Or a certain oligarch that's unloaded a $450M painting is on a spending spree
  5. Comic Art Presentation for Comic Art students

    Great idea! Is there a possibility this could be video recorded for a wider viewing audience? I'm a big believer in continual learning, and even though I'm long out of academia, I've always enjoyed art research and studies. Except when I had to attend and be marked on it.
  6. Attributing the globe to a rock crystal is one thing. The issue as I see it is the way light and the optical effect of the globe/ball refracts no light. In fact, the folding effect in the robe travels linearly through the ball. This is phsyically impossible, unless what he is holding is an optical illusion - and this is not a globe, but a thin circular sheet of crystal. Even then, you would expect those lines from the robe to appear magnified at least fourfold, rather than abide to a linear consistency as is revealed in the painting. Here, there is no light bending at all. I'll reserve further thought on this when I see these supposed photographs of two heels, but even then, you have the issue that it barely abides to the physics of what it would look like to see through a concave lens acting as a prop, to appear as if someone were holding a ball in this manner. As much as Leonardo might have been an enthusiast of such minerals or objects, I'm not sure this exemplifies his manner of reflecting the science of how a rock crystal ball would function under ANY lighting conditions. What this person appears to be perpetuating is this notion that Leonardo found some anomalous condition where in the "right" lighting conditions, the rock crystal ball would function in a way where the physics of light refracting would no longer apply, but I don't buy this brand of pseudoscience. It's harped on in a way where it appears to suggest an achievement moment of perfect clarity, but the way those inclusions are painted, and the way the base of the ball is highlighted in the palm reveals a faint light source from above (see rock crystal photo below, where you can see the reflection of the light souces on the top edge and center of the sphere). Even in such circumstances where the light source is dimmed to achieve "see-throughness" that is otherwise not physically possible, you would still need to account for the background imagery to curve and appear magnified with an intense blurring that there would be no way you would be able to connect a pattern or line continuosly from where the robe stops and the sphere begins, much less 4 solid fold lines, and one large fold line casting a wider shadow effect. In sum, whoever painted this didn't even consider any of this as an afterthought, and instead painted in the optical effect of looking possibly outside his window to see how his shirt was air drying for inspiration.