I am looking for some very high quality images of Masonic artwork; something at least 1024 x 1024 in size. Please email them to me if you have something compelling. I have been scanning the various image search engines and, though I have occasionally found some nice images, they have all be too low resolution. One interesting observation though, I note that a lot of the hits that come to this site source from locations other than Google. For example, a lot of image hits come from Altavista. Hell, I didn't even realize Altavista still existed. For the heck of it, I tried typing my name into an Altivista image search and it ended up pulling up nearly every image I have ever posted on this blog. That is certainly a lot more relevant than I have seen from other sites in the past! Of course, if you type in 'big boobs' you find an equally relevant set of search results so I can only imagine that this explains the continued existance of this ancient search engine (what is it, like four years old? Didn't all the Internet dinosaurs die since then?)

I am having a Poker party on March 18th. If you are friend of mine (and you know who you are if you are) consider yourself invited.

Finally, let me close with this strange carbon copy. While using Google image search looking for high resolution images of Fine Art I ran across this absolutely, and I am absolutely-fantasmatical website. It is hosted by Lee Sandstead an art historian. It is the most incredible collection of high resolution, and high quality, art images I have ever found! (If you know of any site better than this, please email me the link!) That said, I did find one thing on his website just a tad bit disconcerting. Every single one of the high resolution images he so kindly, and generously, posted on the Internet had an embedded copyright notice in it. While I am eternally thankful that he posted these high resolution images at all, I'm not quite certain that he should be considered the 'author' of these digital captures of famous paintings.

I sent him the following passive-aggressive email and I am curious to hear what kind of response I receive. In the meanwhile, I strongly suggest you visit his website. The content is absolutely amazing!

---------------------------------


First of all let me tell you how absolutely and completely I have enjoyed your photographs. I am in envy that you have been able to spend time enjoying this incredible artwork, and I especially thank you for sharing it online.

I recently returned from a visit to Paris where I was able to take photographs of some sculptures at the Petit Palais. You can find some of my photographs here. I apologize that the images are of such poor quality. Sadly, I did not have access to my best camera on the trip and I had to rely on a fairly poor quality digital unit. Nevertheless, the original source art does manage to seep through on occasion.

I do have one question. I notice that with your online photographs you have a copyright notice. I am a little bemused by this. As an artist myself (you can see my portfolio here) I am a little surprised. You did not paint these great paintings. All you did was take a photograph. I thank you for the photographs and I thank you for posting them online. I especially compliment you on having taken such good quality *reproductions*. However, you did not paint these paintings. You do not hold the ‘copyright’ to these great works of art which are, and should be, made available to the public. I respect your right to sell high quality prints of this breathtaking artwork. I, myself, might well be ordering copies from you quite soon. What I question is your ‘right’ to ‘copyright’ images made by other great artists. I’m not sure I even care what the ‘law’ says on this topic; to me it is a matter of ethics. Make your own great masterpiece painting and copyright that. Photograph someone else’s masterpiece (no matter how good a job you did at setting up the lighting so you could get a reproduction nearly the quality of a digital scanner) and I’m not sure that qualifies.

I don’t mean any disrespect. I am impressed by your photographs and applaud you for putting them online. I am thrilled you are selling high quality prints of masterpieces I could never own. I just question the concept of smearing a copyright on another master’s work.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Actually, a photograph is considered a copyrightable work regardless of its subject. It's kosher for a photographer to put his copyright notice on anything he shoots.
4:16 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Planetside Screenshots

Image
I realize that this post is going to cause some Web-Wiplash, but I think that is ok. For years I have held onto some old Planetside screenshots that I wanted to post online some day. After scouring an old hard drive yesterday these are the ones I came up with. Still, I know I am missing many of the screenshots I really wanted to keep. Especially ones from when the game was very early in development. I designed the entire client side game engine myself and I had a lot of fun during the development process. One of my regrets is that, in many respects, the final game did not look nearly as visually impressive as it did at certain points during development. There were a number of reasons for this. One was from a technology stand point. Most developers of an MMO game engine might assume it would be reasonable to stream data in as a player moved around the environment. That was certainly my original design. However, once the game got into heavy beta testing there was a strong push to get eve...
Read more

Just now who's crazy?

Image
Just a follow-up to yesterday's post about Dr. Steven Greer and his paranoid fantasies. One of Greer's most popular paranoid fantasies is that there is a secret cabal, comprising members of government, industry, and religious leaders, who suffer from eschatological delusions and are co-ordinating a massive world-wide effort to bring about the 'end-times'. Sound's pretty nuts doesn't it? I think so to. I don't buy into paranoid conspiracy theories because they are based, not on evidence but, rather, the *lack* of evidence. Dr. Greer's theories include the idea that 9-11 was actually executed by this secret cabal and that a missile, not an airplane, struck the Pentagon (I guess I should go tell the families of those poor folks who were on the plane that hit the Pentagon about that..) In fact, I find these kinds of bizarre paranoid conspiracy theories dangerous, destructive, and borderline treasonous. The Internet may be a powerful tool to spread truth...
Read more