> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > > I now don't care. What little interest I had,
> > > which given I never responded to the thread
> > > started about this subject should give an
> > > indication, evaporated with your idiotic
> > reposting
> > > of each picture with ??? behind each dynasty.
> > Thank you
> Your welcome.
> > I was asking a question, hence the question
> > marks.
> No, you were being a sardonic idiot.
I was asking for confirmation. Thanks for the insult.
The fact you
> would lie about your intent afterwards tells me
> even you realize it was lame.
No, not a fact.. A figment of your insecure imagination.
There may still be
> hope for you yet. Your trollish repeating of each
> Dynasty I noted followed by "??" was not a
> "question", but feigned indignation of your
> feigned "disbelief",
No not disbelief, a question. How else does one ask a question??
stage 2 of your poorly
> constructed strawman, which the good Samaritan in
> me played along regardless giving the benefit of
> the doubt you may in fact be that ignorant as to
> need this information provided to you as could
> just as likely be the case.
All you had to do was answer the question. If for whatever reason you didn't want to answer then just say so.
No need for drama.
Or did you
> really think I had gotten them all wrong?
No I asked a civil question.
> > I fully understand you reluctance to debate the
> > very obvious discrepancy in the artistic skill
> > levels between alleged Old Kingdom 3D artistic
> > resolution and that of alleged Old Kingdom 2D
> > artistic resolution.
> I have spoken of and posted more pictures of AE
> statuary and art than every other poster on these
> boards combined since the inception of this forum,
> to the delight of some and detriment of others,
Well done, I'm sure your efforts are appreciated.
> which you, the "art expert", need help finding
> examples of AE 2D art and perspective,
> think you and I are to have some
> debate about the historical comparative art
> mediums of the ancient Egyptians? My "reluctance",
> i.e. zero interest in what you think, has nothing
> to do with these "discrepancies" I assure you.
Fair enough, if you have little interested in the, artistically profound "discrepancies" across media, then just say so.
It's no big deal is it.
I personally have a great deal of interest in the very obvious "discrepancies".
Please feel free to continue to turn a blind eye and ignore those very obvious "discrepancies".
"Discrepancies" that I had taken the trouble to point out in the vain hope that you might show a modicum of interest.
However the recognition that there are indeed "discrepancies" across media, especially when the finest resolution is manifest in the most challenging of media does inspire me to carry on.
I'll take that as a... You cannot answer the question then??
> But my, what fine looking non-human/different
> species of humans the OLC were:
What on earth are you talking about?
> And how clever the later primitive AE were to so
> expertly use the unusually large open spaced
> borders to place the hieroglyphs they couldn't
> even understand so perfectly. Its almost as if the
> statue were made such just for that purpose.
If there's a space.. Fill it! The graffiti artists canvas.
An act of appropriation. A marking of ownership and territory.
The glyph carvers certainly had zero understanding of negative space. A visual-spatial concept that the statue carvers were clearly very well aware of.
Anyway, there has to be good reason for the enormous "discrepancy" in artistic skill demonstrated across the spectrum of fine statuary and the very primitive attempts at two dimensional representation seen within the royal tomb wall paintings.
Simply ignoring the "discrepancies" won't make them go away.
They're there for all to see.
It just needed someone to point them out.
Something that certainly should not be ignored in our attempts to understand the desire to make art.
So the question is..
How do you make a beautifully proportioned three dimensional representation when you have the drafting ability of a
modern day child. That's not an insult either, it was after all the early bronze age. Perfectly understandable.