←back to thread

717 Gigapixel Image of Rembrandt's Nightwatch

(hyper-resolution.org)
565 points gaws | 2 comments | 25 Jan 22 00:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
biesnecker ◴[25 Jan 22 01:17 UTC] No.30066616[source]▶
Seeing Night Watch at the Rijksmuseum a decade or so ago totally changed my view of seeing things in a museum vs. seeing them online. I'm a child of the internet and had this view that seeing it on my screen was good enough, but wow is Night Watch incredible up close and in person. Overwhelming, almost. A totally different experience.

That said, this image is amazing, and lets you see a lot more detail than you can easily manage at the museum.

replies(12): >>30067178 #>>30067649 #>>30067760 #>>30067783 #>>30068206 #>>30068646 #>>30069100 #>>30069177 #>>30069304 #>>30070314 #>>30072498 #>>30072922 #
bitexploder ◴[25 Jan 22 02:35 UTC] No.30067178[source]▶
Our brains just love the tactile. Knowing you are feet from the threads and paint of a master. That you can connect with this long dead artist so closely, in 3 dimensions. It’s very human.
replies(2): >>30067563 #>>30068283 #
labster ◴[25 Jan 22 05:04 UTC] No.30068283[source]▶
I’m a religious person, but we don’t need this religious mumbo-jumbo to explain why oil paintings are better in person. They just provide more experience in person. A photo gives you one angle and flattens the depth. The real object is designed to be viewed from lots of angles. It looks different from close up, as it does from far away. It interacts with the ambient light.

If you walk a couple buildings over from the Night Watch, you get a whole museum dedicated to me droog, Vincent van. And Van Goghs are so highly textured with impasto that they are far more radiant, more life-like, in person.

That said the quality of museum experience is important. If you get rushed through the queue to see the Mona Lisa for fifteen seconds (and it’s pretty small), you’ll probably enjoy a print more.

replies(2): >>30068593 #>>30071876 #
1. acomjean ◴[25 Jan 22 05:48 UTC] No.30068593{3}[source]▶
The Getty museum in California uses natural light in their galleries which was pretty special.

Your right about the mono Lisa. When I went 1 year before the pandemic you couldn’t get close. and it was the only painting in its own room. Luckily that museum has no shortages of good paintings.

There are a couple of VanGoghs at the Rodin museum in France which are pretty amazing and not to busy.

replies(1): >>30069491 #
2. labster ◴[25 Jan 22 08:19 UTC] No.30069491[source]▶
The Getty is a great museum except for the art. Not that it’s bad, it’s just that the collection is not the great artists at their best. If you want a better art experience, head over to the Norton Simon in Pasadena. Simon was an art collector who was rich, while J. Paul Getty was a rich person who collected art, and the difference really shows in the collection quality. Both Getty museums are really good architecturally, and worth a visit.

Good tip on the Louvre, though. The best art is not the most famous, but whatever emotionally connects to you. And most museums have plenty of pieces that can do so.