←back to thread

The rectangular cows of Art UK (2018)

(artuk.org)
151 points onychomys | 1 comments | 21 Nov 24 13:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
jdietrich ◴[21 Nov 24 14:17 UTC] No.42204522[source]▶
The shape of the cows is exaggerated, but not by much - many breeds of cow are just incredibly rectangular in profile.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5475e650e4b0df...

replies(7): >>42204692 #>>42205121 #>>42205331 #>>42205494 #>>42205851 #>>42206054 #>>42206400 #
masto ◴[21 Nov 24 15:34 UTC] No.42205331[source]▶
The first thing I did was take 5 seconds for an image search to confirm that the cows in the paintings look like.. actual cows. Then I read the article, and remain perplexed about art and those who write about art.
replies(2): >>42205529 #>>42208923 #
the__alchemist ◴[21 Nov 24 15:51 UTC] No.42205529[source]▶
I had the same reaction; this was a glaring omission; photos of cows should have been at the top of the article as a reference. The article's main (but unstated) point isn't cows in these paintings are rectangular, but cows in these paintings are unrealistic in the same way. To prove this point, he used many of these paintings, but no pictures of actual cows, which would have proven his or her point.

Doing the work myself, as you have, I find that many cows are rectangular. The author is unequipped to dispel me of this notion, if it's incorrect, but could have easily if he had addressed it preemptively by clearly stating his actual thesis. (Unrealism, not rectangleness). (And if he is correct)

replies(1): >>42206217 #
DiscourseFan ◴[21 Nov 24 16:54 UTC] No.42206217[source]▶
You’ve missed the point. It’s not that cows are unrealistically sqaure, it is that its strange how many paintings of rectangular cows there are, and the author guesses its because they’re all displaying the profile. Why is this perspective so dominant in the 19th century, and what does it mean for the formal considerations of the artwork? These are the questions that are important, not whether or not cows are actually sqaure.
replies(1): >>42206256 #
the__alchemist ◴[21 Nov 24 16:58 UTC] No.42206256[source]▶
I concur that what you describe is a central theme. I also think that a lack of addressing the question (with pictures or words) of realism leaves it open for readers to take away themes other than the one you highlight.
replies(1): >>42206430 #
DiscourseFan ◴[21 Nov 24 17:16 UTC] No.42206430[source]▶
There is no “realism,” photography is its own form of art. What’s remarkable is how common this perspective is even today, such that it has been produced as “realistic” for you and how you see the world.
replies(1): >>42206587 #
gilleain ◴[21 Nov 24 17:32 UTC] No.42206587[source]▶
I agree, however there is something to be said for the distance between the subject and the representation. If the 'underlying cow' is already somewhat square, then the representation in painting or photo is going to be close to that nebulous reality.

While it might be possible to take a photo of a cow that turns out looking spherical (due to the lighting or angle), it is surely going to be harder?

replies(2): >>42207003 #>>42213888 #
1. DiscourseFan ◴[21 Nov 24 18:13 UTC] No.42207003[source]▶
I guess there’s the platonist/pythagorean angle that circle, sqaure, and triangle are fundemental forms of seeing and artworks can only approximate them. But even then that is only for the forms of our perception and is not fundemental to the thing in itself, which has neither a name nor a definite shape, but is also in some sense shaped by forces of perception (in a material sense). But then I would argue that technology itself opens up not only new ways of seeing but also new formal possibilities and claiming that there is something fundemental to the forms of seeing to form in general limits those possibilities.