Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000

timothy posted 1 year,5 days | from the I'll-take-the-poster-and-the-change dept.

The Almighty Buck 104

dryriver writes "The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam has developed high-quality 3D reproductions of some of its finest paintings, with what it describes as the most advanced copying technique ever seen. Axel Rüger, the museum's director, said: "It really is the next generation of reproductions because they go into the third dimension. If you're a layman, they are pretty indistinguishable [from the originals]. Of course, if you're a connoisseur and you look more closely, you can see the difference. Each reproduction is priced £22,000 – somewhat more than the cost of a postcard or poster. But the museum is hoping to increase access to pictures which, if they were sold, would go for tens of millions of pounds to Russian oligarchs or American billionaires. The replicas, called Relievos, are being created by the museum in partnership with Fujifilm, with which it has had an exclusive deal for three years. Such is the complexity of the technology, known as Reliefography, that it has taken more than seven years to develop and only three a day can be made. It combines a 3D scan of the painting with a high-resolution print. The "super-accurate" reproduction even extends to the frame and the back of the painting. Every Relievo is numbered and approved by a museum curator. There is a limited edition of 260 copies per painting."

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh, come on... (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665873)

"But the museum is hoping to increase access to pictures"

"Every Relievo is numbered and approved by a museum curator. There is a limited edition of 260 copies per painting."

Well, what's it going to be? If this is about 'increasing access' or some similar highflown motivation, why are they limiting the editions and pushing the individual-numbering-and-'approval'-to-make-a-reproduction-feel-authentic nonsense?

If this is just a fundraiser, why start at 22K?

Re:Oh, come on... (2)

Intropy (2009018) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665903)

Only one comment and it's exactly the one I would have made. It's not to knock the technology or even complain about the price, since they're still clearly in the recovering R&D costs phase. I wouldn't mind spending a couple hundred dollars on something like this if the claims of accuracy hold up in person. But that's never going to happen if you're limiting the supply to 260 copies worldwide.

A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (2)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666127)

Ok, it won't be stroke-for-stroke accurate, but for 90% of artwork, and 99% of viewers, a decent copy is good enough. They range in price from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand USD, depending on size.

Let's face it, most people really don't have the decor to support "classic art". This is clearly aimed at buyers who are looking to flaunt their wealth and/or support the arts, as well as have a conversation piece.

For certain art, even the artists made many versions... which version of Van Gogh's Sunflowers do you want? how about a Monet Haystacks?

I wonder if these pieces come with a EULA, restricting the making of copies from the copy... and how would they prevent that, unless they introduce "flaws" to be tracked...

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (1)

devman (1163205) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666341)

Don't need a EULA, copyright already restricts you from making copies of the copy. With one of these You bought, effectively a high quality print, you didn't buy the original with the right to make and sell your own prints.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (3, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666693)

Plenty of courts have shown that exact replicas of an existing work show no originality, and are thus merely mechanical reproductions unworthy of a unique copyright. In other words, the replicas cannot be copyrighted separately from the original work. (The ability to produce replicas remains with the original work's owner.)

Meanwhile, the original works are in the public domain, having been produced in the 1880s or 1890s. So there's no original owner. In other words, anyone can produce a copy or derivative of any style you choose, limited only by your access to the original to study it.

If these reproductions don't come with a EULA, there's nothing legally stopping me from scanning it myself and printing 2000 more copies.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,3 days | (#44676083)

Even with an EULA, it would be unenforceable on a work for which you hold no copyright upon which to exercise that EULA. The closest they could come is renting/leasing out the replicas with certain terms included.

Surely you don't think the EULA on Windows XP will be enforceable on copies made 150 years from now, do you? Regardless of how many times one hits the button to "accept" it.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (1)

Intropy (2009018) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667481)

Van Gogh died over a hundred years ago. The copyright has long since expired.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667561)

I can see it now: The Sonny Bono and Van Gough Copyright Extension bill.

3D printing pirates are stealing food from this poor, mentally ill artist! Van Gough and his children could barely afford to eat when he was painting this painting! Therefore we MUST increase copyright terms another 200 years after death; so his childrens childrens children can earn a living!

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44668737)

If the current law applied, his work would have been in the public domain for 50 years... I would call that some time ago but not sure about long. Copyright is ridiculous as it is now.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (1)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,3 days | (#44673193)

Copyright on the 3d data used to produce it? I'm not saying this is copyrightable, but it might be what they'd use in court.

Re:A couple of hundred is all a copy is worth (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667327)

Yes, the statue of David is a great work of art and there are plenty of good quality copies. I just don't want one in my house. It's a good way to raise money for the museum so I don't really see a problem, they will most likely release a bigger (cheaper) batch in the future and the "exclusivity" will become all about the serial number. Personally when I've spent a couple of hundred on "real art" it's been from "unknowns", I choose it because I like it, it's genuinely unique, and there's always a slim chance the "unknown" will be my grandkids version of Picaso when they are my age. Such items make ideal 21st/wedding gifts from a parent or close friend and help support not so famous (and not so dead) artists.

Re:Oh, come on... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665909)

Museums have always limited access to paintings. They are no longer under copyright, so what they do is refuse to let anyone take pictures or in this case 3D scans. Then they sell those pictures, because they're under copyright. The fewer the sell, the higher the price. Try pulling out a camera in a museum sometime, you'll be jumped by guards. If they let you take a picture, you own the copyright on the picture. Public good, my ass.

Not in the United States (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665941)

A 2-D photo of a 2-D work - and Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D" that a straight-on photograph without any framing or other "creative elements" in it is in the public domain.

Although a photo of a framed public-domain piece can be copyrighted, cropping away the frame removes the copyright.

But in Australia (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,5 days | (#44666015)

Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D" that a straight-on photograph without any framing or other "creative elements" in it is in the public domain.

This is true in the United States (Bridgeman v. Corel, citing Feist v. Rural). But some other countries recognize a "sweat of the brow" copyright: the Australian counterpart to Feist (Telstra v. Desktop) went the other way. I don't know how the law works in the Netherlands.

Least true of Van Gough among most painters (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666231)

A 2-D photo of a 2-D work - and Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D"

If you see them in person they are not at all in 2D, especially something like the famous Sunflowers painting - they have fairly tall ridges and brushwork all over the place.

There are many painters for whom what you say would make sense, not Van Gough. The 3D aspect is a large part of the appeal of the work.

Re:Least true of Van Gough among most painters (1)

camperdave (969942) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666419)

Meh, I saw all of Van Gogh I needed to in "Vincent and The Doctor".

Besides, given the title, "Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000", I was expecting a story about a high end 3D printer.

Re:Least true of Van Gough among most painters (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | 1 year,4 days | (#44670453)

...like the famous Sunflowers painting - they have fairly tall ridges and brushwork all over the place.

What you said. I once saw 'Sunflowers' at the Norton-Simon museum. It was mounted on the wall, with a plastic (or glass?) plate covering the entire thing, mounted about half an inch from the surface of the painting. I had the opportunity to eyeball it from only inches away. The brushwork is astounding to see up close, and seeing it like that gives you a different appreciation for the picture over all.

Re:Least true of Van Gough among most painters (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44670639)

Quite true. I had the opportunity to see Starry Night at the Met hanging on the wall with no glass in front of it. The brush strokes look more like they were squeezed out of toothpaste tubes than laid down with a brush, and down between the crevasses you can see the canvas underneath. No printed reproduction can convey this effect so I can totally see the value in this form of reproduction, at least with Van Gough. In a few years the Fuji exclusive will expire and 3D printing will have gotten better end the museum will still have the scans, that's when we'll see this type of reproduction become more wide spread, new tech usually hits the luxury market first which is where this is at now.

Re:Not in the United States (1)

Shirley Marquez (1753714) | 1 year,3 days | (#44672267)

Van Gogh's work is notable in its use of the third dimension. The paint stands off the canvas, and the texture of that paint is a significant part of the effect of the work. For most artists a good 2D print is good enough, but Van Gogh is an exception, and that is why the museum chose his work as their first use of this technology.

Re: Oh, come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44666067)

My guess is that flash damages the painting. There is a reason the museum rooms are dimly lit. Of course, explaining that your camera does not have flash is usually pointless.

Re: Oh, come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44666091)

explaining that your camera does not have flash

Mine doesn't. Thanks, Steve Jobs!

Re: Oh, come on... (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666097)

Flash damaging the paintings is the excuse. It's a great excuse because it contains a grain of truth.

The fact that they also won't allow photography without a flash is what reveals their real motive.

No, it's the flash. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666247)

The fact that they also won't allow photography without a flash

They will not allow photography without a flash because 90% of people who thought they were not using the flash would find it fired anyway in the dimly lit viewing room.

To actually take a half decent picture in those lighting conditions you'd pretty much have to have a tripod anyway.

It really is a matter of preservation more than anything else.

Re:No, it's the flash. (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666387)

My Canon EOS-M does not have a built-in flash and takes decent images in low light (cranking up the ISO does increase the grain, but you can get around that in post by taking more than one shot --- kinda like HDR but without the intent of bringing in the lights and darks). It would probably confound them enough that you'd get away with using it.

Black tape over the camera's flash (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666869)

They will not allow photography without a flash because 90% of people who thought they were not using the flash would find it fired anyway in the dimly lit viewing room.

If a photographer on museum property can show conspicuous black tape over the camera's flash, the only reason I can think of to restrict photography is monopoly protection.

Re:Black tape over the camera's flash (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666965)

If a photographer on museum property can show conspicuous black tape over the camera's flash, the only reason I can think of to restrict photography is monopoly protection.

... Or that the tape can be just as quickly removed as it was put on. They're being asked to protect a product that is slowly degrading with time, that is worth many millions, is a cultural and national treasure, and which can be damaged by the device you mentioned.

Look at this another way -- would you want someone carrying a loaded gun past airport security because a plastic tie-down was run through the trigger? I mean, he can't just pull it out and shoot... so no problem, right?

Unloaded (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667303)

Look at this another way -- would you want someone carrying a loaded gun

In your analogy, a camera with its flash neutered is closer to an unloaded gun with the ammo carried separately. One has to do an overt act (remove the tape or load the gun) to turn either into a working weapon.

Re:Black tape over the camera's flash (1)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,3 days | (#44673209)

Phone 'flash' isn't a real flash anyway. It's an LED. (most often)

Re:No, it's the flash. (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | 1 year,4 days | (#44671185)

Last time I visited Hurst Castle (decades ago), non-flash photography was allowed. The gift shop sold high speed film (ASA 2400, IIRC) which gave decent shots in the dim light. A time exposure may have worked, but tripods were not allowed.

Consider what the goal is. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665935)

The summary makes it quite clear that the goal is to offer rich people something so they will not buy all the real paintings in which case the museums had nothing left to display. There are not that many people around that could buy the originals, so there is no need to produce more. Actually having them more rare makes it more likely those that otherwise would buy one of the originals take one of those realistic reproductions instead.

Captcha: continue

Re:Oh, come on... (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665937)

Perhaps they are looking to recoup some of the investment by doing limited-edition runs. The process itself is probably pretty pricey as well. If that puts the price tag at 22k GBP, then that's where the "nonsense" comes in. I suspect that fewer people will pay 22k for a "3d printed replica" than will pay that for a "limited edition, museum-approved Relievo".

Of course that won't last. The museum will probably start selling scaled down replicas at more affordable prices, and when that happens it won't take long for accurate scans to find their way to the Pirate Bay. At some point you'll be able to print those at your local Kinko's.

Re:Oh, come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666337)

The process itself is probably pretty pricey as well.

If you have to pay anything like retail for archival grade inkjet ink and the picture has depth, they're probably selling at a loss.
Inkjet printer ink is an incredible ripoff.
     

Mod parent funny... (1)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666589)

... or insightful, depending on just how expensive it is to make these 3D prints.

Oh, and good inkjet ink at retail really does cost more than gold by the gram.

Re:Oh, come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665991)

This is the world of fine art, where exclusivity and elitism are desirable qualities. If they started mass-producing such close facsimiles, then anyone could own one.

Ugh.

Re:Oh, come on... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | 1 year,5 days | (#44666047)

Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.

Re:Oh, come on... (1)

mean pun (717227) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666161)

Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.

Well, that is factually incorrect. There are still some people left in this world that have other motivations than worshipping the almighty dollar (or other currency of your choice). But I'm sure there is a reason we don't count.

Re:Oh, come on... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666779)

Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.

That's part of my confusion, though: 22k and limited edition of 260 seems high by the standards of altruistic motives (even if the fancy 3d printing really does cost the full amount, which wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausible, the limited edition is clearly artificial); but seem quite low by pure cash grab standards.

Re:Oh, come on... (2)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666095)

The original reason for limited-edition prints wasn't driven by marketing. The stone or wood block would physically degrade with each print, and after a certain number of runs, the drop in quality was clearly visible (why earlier editions tend to be worth more)

With digital reproduction, this just isn't a factor any more, and limiting the production run is pure marketing; creating an artificial scarcity to inflate the price.

Most of this announcement is just empty art jargon; the elite paying lip service to their vision of the unwashed masses, framing things so the academics won't slam them too harshly, while still walking away with bags of money.

Ah, I didn't know that (1)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666675)

In the world of photographic prints, a well-cared for negative can make many prints with little or no difference in the printed copy. But even a photo-negative made of typical plastic materials won't last forever, especially if the printing process causes it to heat up under the light.

Utter bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666783)

What would make a reproduction worth seeing isn't whether the surface is 3D, oh God how stupid.

What would make a difference is color gamut and dynamic range (paint can have limitlessly pure colors by picking the specific pigments and much much wider dynamic range than normal printing).

Notice that this stupid advert doesn't mention anything like that which would affect the quality of the reproduction. You can google all you want and you won't find anything either.

It's bullshit pure and simple. Wow, the poor quality reproductions that won't look any more like the original than any other photograph will have TEXTURE. Gods, save us.

You know normal reproductions really DO fail horribly on color and dynamic range. And if the technology is based on 4 color printing then these will be SOOO horrible.

Re:Oh, come on... (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666913)

Also... selling for $40k a *REPRINT*... because "it would otherwise be worth tens of millions"... ... no it wouldn't... because they're reprints.

Re:Oh, come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667247)

The "limited edition" thing is just a silly marketing ploy. $34,000 x 260 is $8.8 million for just ONE painting. They have approx 200 Van Gogh paintings there, so if they were to somehow "sell-out" their limited edition for every painting, they would make a total of $1.76 billion USD. Of course, they won't make anything like this.

On an unrelated note, the museum and the art inside is excellent. A must-see for any visitor to Amsterdam.

3...2...1... wait for it!!! (2)

SerpentMage (13390) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665911)

No abuse will happen here, No way that the forgeries will become too good... No way that no computer will be hacked for a forgery!!!

I understand what they are trying to get at. BUT this is like 3d printed guns all over. Granted it relates to overpriced pieces of paint, but hey to each their own.

Re:3...2...1... wait for it!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44666089)

I doubt they'll be faking period paint. It's hard to fake provenance too. Even if they tried, one good scan with modern technology, and the signature of a copycat should be all over these things. Some things are literally impossible to forge or fence. Remember when The Scream was stolen? I was like, "where are they gonna fence that?" After a while, the thieves figured that out too and returned it.

Re:3...2...1... wait for it!!! (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666467)

Remember when The Scream was stolen? I was like, "where are they gonna fence that?"

To somebody with too much money and too little ethics. It's done all the time with irreplaceable objects. The thieves probably just lacked the right connections.

Re:3...2...1... wait for it!!! (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666195)

For a tenth as much I could pay a copyist to produce a better version.

Re:3...2...1... wait for it!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667531)

Exactly!

you are a dribbling cretin (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666937)

The purpose is to make a copy that LOOKS identical, you cretin. This means that unlike a counterfeit copy, materials will be used that make the replication process as easy as possible. Guess what, you idiot. This means that one second of inspection will make it clear the copy IS a copy.

How does a person get to be as stupid as you, SerpentMage? Is your IQ that low that you image a 3D printer that somehow uses the same types of atom found in the original painting, and somehow applies those atoms in ways that builds up the compounds that the canvas and paint now consist of? Are you REALLY that thick. I mean, this is a level of pure unadulterated idiocy that must set a new record for Slashdot. And yet, people up-voted your dribble. No wonder the owners of Slashdot push so many propaganda stories here designed to promote was with Syria, Iran and eventually China.

For god's sake, hanging around places like this does NOT make you smart. Try reading some books- attempt to learn something about the technical issues described here. Make an effort.

Re:3...2...1... wait for it!!! (1)

Cyberax (705495) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667361)

I bet it'll take about 1 second to detect a forgery (just look for pixelation with a looking glass). Besides, there are tons of artists who specialize in reproductions and can create a painting that is VERY close to the original, using real pigments and sometimes even pigments that were used in the relevant period. My family owns several such reproductions and they are damn good, if they were not clearly marked as reproductions they would have required an art expert with analytical equipment to distinguish them from the real paintings.

Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665923)

This enterprise will be

1. A huge flop, and

2. A favorite B-school case study for marketing class

How many zirconium necklaces would be sold if the price was $2000?

Re:Prediction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665971)

How many zirconium necklaces would be sold if the price was $2000?

Considering how well diamonds sell despite the fact that their scarcity is also artificial, that may not be a good way to make your point.

Re:Prediction (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666371)

Considering how well diamonds sell despite the fact that their scarcity is also artificial, that may not be a good way to make your point.

If the above is news to anyone- or something you hadn't thought much about- this article [theatlantic.com] and this article [theatlantic.com] (both from "The Atlantic") are very enlightening. Note that the first is from 2006, and the second from 1982, but still very informative. From the latter:-

The [..] idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. [.. They ..] realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity [De Beers] that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. At its height -- for most of [the 20th] century -- it not only either directly owned or controlled all the diamond mines in southern Africa but also owned diamond trading companies in England, Portugal, Israel, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland.

In the USA, these would likely be public domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665929)

I'll pretend to be naive and assume any future Supreme Court will stick with precedent that "slavish copies" of 2-D works and apply that to "slavish copies" of 3D works as well.

In other words, this could be a gold mine for museums that want to sell "extremely good reproductions" of non-public-domain works that at first glance show brushstroke-by-brushstroke accuracy in 3 dimensions, but for public-domain works, if the price is too high, cheap "second generation copies" sold near the cost of reproduction will reduce the money-making abilities of the museums, in the same way that if a museum sells a high-quality 2-D print of a Van Gough, I can make a bazillion very good second-generation knock-offs and sell them for under $10.

Reality check: Who knows who will be appointed to the Supreme Court between now and the time such a case reaches them?

If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44665933)

If you haven't seen the painting in person, don't make fun of this. Like most people, I saw pictures of Van Gogh's paintings in books for years. Then when I was in my early 20s I visited the Metropolitan, where IIRC at least two Van Goghs were there. The big takeaway from seeing them in person is the heavy paint. You might even go so far as to say "gobs", but that would be an insult. There was obvious genius in the way it was applied, and from that moment no picture books is the same. Strangely, Van Gogh paintings in person also reminded me a bit of 60s psychedelia which oddly (just a bit) made me think of them as cheap-looking, until I considered that this was the 19th century and what we now see as familiar was quite revolutionary.

Love or hate, you'll look at his work differently if you see it in person. The exhibit that traveled to Washington DC did not give me the same impression, but I seem to recall being velvet-roped a bit further back. The Met made up for that by having the security guard practically breathing down your neck, which is perfectly understandable.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44666087)

Love or hate, you'll look at his work differently if you see it in person.

I want to second this. To get a small taste, the Google art project has very high resolution imagery available to the public. Zoom in close on the crescent moon, in Starry Night [google.com] . Closer, on the crescent's bottom-right corner where the gap ends pointing upwards. The yellow stroke with the large thick blob on the end, and a bit of a hole on it? One of Van Gogh's dragons! (If you don't see it, it may help to rotate the image 90 degrees clockwise (or your head counterclockwise), like an emoticon.)

Let me guess... (1)

denzacar (181829) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666265)

You tend to be a bit obsessive-compulsive. [wikipedia.org] Right?

Re:Let me guess... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666491)

You tend to be a bit obsessive-compulsive. [wikipedia.org] Right?

He's posting on Slashdot.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

istartedi (132515) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666591)

Try as I might, I see no dragon. Doing a Google image search for "van gogh" dragon and "starry night" turns up zilch. Post an image with an outline of the dragon, please. Is the hole supposed to be the nose or an eye?

I think maybe you're just tripping up over your brain's natural tendency to see patterns. It's like seeing things in clouds.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667265)

Try as I might, I see no dragon.

It's there, but seems to me like a "man in the moon" phenomenon. The dragon's body is snake-like, flying and banking almost straight up, with the gap making the eye, a black spot the pupil, followed by a large snout. A single small wing points straight up (from the body).

It helps to zoom in close enough to see all the texture in the paint.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

istartedi (132515) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667527)

OK, but if I go to the *left* of the moon, I see some dark blue brush strokes, just above the star. See that? It's one of the World Trade towers, the one that had the antenna. You have to turn your head to the right to see that one. It's falling over. The Moon--a symbol of Islam, knocked if over. Plainly Van Gogh foresaw 9/11... NOT!

I can see the WTC because I decided to look for other random crap in the brush strokes. The data set is large, and combined with an imagination and a decent set of procedures (zoom, tilt, etc.) you can conjure up just about anything you like.

I can sort of turn that yellow brush stroke into a dragon... if I really, really, try; but the WTC thing is clearer to me.

Now let's see if we can find something a little less radical. Here's the challenge--find a telephone in the brush strokes. That was what I tried first, but as I panned left the WTC was more obvious.

Once again, it's all just looking at clouds. Some people are going to see stuff that others don't.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668593)

Which is why I wrote "Seems like a 'man in the moon' phenomenon."

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

istartedi (132515) | 1 year,4 days | (#44669557)

Which is why I wrote "Seems like a 'man in the moon' phenomenon."

Ahhhh, OK, so the semantics there were not clear to me. This reminds me of when the PE teachers used to say, "don't carry the ball like a loaf of bread" and I had no idea what they were trying to tell me, and I was too embarrassed to ask.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666139)

If you haven't seen the painting in person, don't make fun of this. Like most people, I saw pictures of Van Gogh's paintings in books for years. Then when I was in my early 20s I visited the Metropolitan, where IIRC at least two Van Goghs were there. The big takeaway from seeing them in person is the heavy paint.

The most recognizable Van Gogh in the Met's collection is "Starry Night."

If I understand the process correctly, these are digital photographs overlaid on 3D models of the canvas and brushwork. They are not built up layer upon layer as paint on canvas would be. That is why they are headed to the up-scale shopping mall and not to the gallery that specializes in hand-crafted reproductions.

Re: If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

expatriot (903070) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666179)

Consider how many people have prints on their wall (our house has four and six original works).
What percent of my wealth went on those (small).
What percentage of a muli-millionaire fortune is 22k?

Re: If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667219)

Is employing the Socratic method an apt choice for posting when making almost no point at all?

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (4, Informative)

wbr1 (2538558) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666271)

I paint some as a hobby, and Van Gogh is one of my favorites, as is Dali. The thick paint technique you are referring to is called impasto. When done well it adds depth, texture and -real- shadow/shading (that changes with the light) to a painting. It is a very difficult thing to do well IMHO. In addition it adds quite a bit of weight to the canvas, and the different layers of paint can separate, making the entire painting much more fragile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impasto [wikipedia.org]

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

stenvar (2789879) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666541)

If you haven't seen the painting in person, don't make fun of this. Like most people, I saw pictures of Van Gogh's paintings in books for years. Then when I was in my early 20s I visited the Metropolitan, where IIRC at least two Van Goghs were there.

And thanks to the way the van Gogh museum restricts access to the scans and issues only 260 overpriced copies, most people will never get to see these paintings, or replicas, in person either.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

rve (4436) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668909)

And thanks to the way the van Gogh museum restricts access to the scans and issues only 260 overpriced copies, most people will never get to see these paintings, or replicas, in person either.

The van Gogh museum has a lot of works by van Gogh, dozens, maybe hundreds, but none of the ones people actually want to see. The nice ones are in private collections, or in famous musea in New York. You see, the van Gogh museum was founded with the works that the van Gogh family (read: Theo's widow) wasn't able to sell, even after creating the hype around Vincent after his hysteric death.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667283)

This is true - I remember being blown away by the three-dimensional quality of Van Gogh's paintings when I went to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.

I don't remember the security guards being an issue at all, no ropes, I could get as close to the paintings as I wished. Plus they have literally hundreds of Van Goghs. Another good reason to visit Amsterdam!

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person... (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668135)

I'm no art guy, and never seen a real Van Gogh, but I had a similar impression from buying a cheap fake in a Vietnamese market in Ho Chi Minh city. These are pretty shoddy copies done by street artists but the fact that it's real paint with real texture makes them much better than any print.

Genius or no talent ass clown? (1)

rve (4436) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668209)

You may call it genius, but it's probably better described as dumb chance.

Vincent van Gogh didn't take up painting, or any kind of art, until his late 20's, and it shows. By looking at his early work objectively (meaning all but his very latest work), clearly shows him for what he really was: someone who, with very limited skill, tried to imitate Monet and his one sided friend Gauguin (van Gogh was too obtuse or too self absorbed to realize Gauguin didn't exactly like him back). Because he lacked the skill, and most of all because he was a lazy perpetual drunk, he couldn't be bothered to carefully place all those dots, and used bold strokes instead. That the result was something 'new' or at least idiosyncratic may not have been the result of an artistic, creative process, but rather of the lack of one. In his life, by all accounts he was a horrible narcissistic and neurotic freak, living as a parasite on his brother's back. The only time anything resembling talent started to shine through, was when he was confined to a psychiatric institution. It was only here, temporarily cut off from drinking and whoring, where he actually managed to put in the work, and created something that objectively (once you strip away the hype) could be described as art.

The rest of his career, he created infantile, amateuristic illustrations rather than art, but created the timeless hype by living his life as a kind of self destructive performance art.

In a way, it's best to think of him as the Sid Vicious of painting.

How is this different from an artist's copy? (3, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665947)

If you're a layman, they are pretty indistinguishable [from the originals]. Of course, if you're a connoisseur and you look more closely, you can see the difference.

Wouldn't the same apply to a copy by an artist?

Re:How is this different from an artist's copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667691)

Industrial scale. You can't have competent artists the same way you can build new printers. Prices will fall down.

paint, authenticity, and you (3, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,5 days | (#44665999)

I suppose I could make a crack about them trying this with a Pollock, but I personally consider slopping paint on the floor over and over again to not be art. My art history professor of course vehemently disagreed. But I digress (and I know you googled Pollock and didn't actually know who he was before now, but I forgive you)...

3D printing can indeed reproduce the topology of the painting; This isn't news. Fakes have been being produced for years with close attention to how each stroke was made, layered, etc. Some of them have even been computer-assisted, in much the same way signatures have been duplicated by recording and modulating the pressure of a pen on the paper. However, while they may look pretty authentic, anyone doing a proper forensic analysis on the work would very quickly uncover it. The fact is that 3D printers laying down paint do so at a very, achem, mechanical speed. Which means it doesn't form the same pattern of bubbling and whatnot that would happen if it was laid down by a brush, by a human. There's other physics involved as well; Carbon dating, pigmentation, humidity, temperature... all of these effect how the final work appears forensically. The best forgeries are still done by humans. Until a 3D printer is able to print in parallel, with each 'head' at varying speed and direction, it will be easy to detect.

And I don't care how limited the run is, or who it's signed by... it's xeroxing. Sure, it's in 3D -- good for you! It's still no different than buying a postcard in the art shop, and I wouldn't spend anything on that either. If I want to experience a painting in a real and viceral way... I pay for a museum membership (or befriend someone who has one) and arrange for a sitting with the painting.

Something not generally known to the public -- you can arrange for some one-on-one time with most paintings at most museums (except for the most famous ones... which tend to be more, ah, burgouise). Many fine arts majors do this in order to sit down paint with the real thing right next to them, under controlled lighting and such... in order to perfect their technique. But in case you're wondering... yes, a guard is in the room with you, so don't get any ideas. But for the true art lover... an after-hours viewing is worth far more than a 3D replicated version. And then there's the emotional presence of knowing you are sitting by yourself with a famous painting... not in some busy museum gallery, but in a quiet back room in a warehouse.

But for decorating my bathroom... I might consider something like this. As long as it isn't a replica of a Pollock... which if one were ever gifted to me, I'd promptly reach for the lighter fluid and see how well it burned.

Before you discount Pollock out of hand... (5, Interesting)

bdwoolman (561635) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666111)

Often imitated never equaled. Abstract expressionism was, and often remains, a high-brow art con game. That much is obvious. But many critics who were otherwise unimpressed by the 'abstract movement' felt that its founder, Pollock himself, was on to something different. They could see that he was seeing.... something. Pollock himself always maintained that he was painting "The rhythms of nature". Recently a discovery was made about his work that lends a lot of credence to his vision. I saw the documentary elsewhere, but this quote from the Wikipedia article on Pollock. [wikipedia.org] tells the story better than I can.

In the 21st century, the physicists Richard Taylor, Micolich and Jonas studied Pollock's works and technique. They determined that some works display the properties of mathematical fractals.[20] They assert that the works expressed more fractal qualities as Pollock progressed in his career.[21] The authors speculate that Pollock may have had an intuition of the nature of chaotic motion, and tried to express mathematical chaos, more than ten years before "Chaos Theory" was proposed. Their work was used in trying to evaluate the authenticity of some works that were represented as Pollock's.

As for this article... I bought a painting at IKEA for an apartment we were renting out . It was an abstract print on canvas, but it had real paint on it with lots of texture. I wondered if it was painted by a robot or some kind of 3-D process since it was one of several. Interior designers like abstracts because they are non-entities. They fill space but disappear. Since they have no narrative they can't offend. That is, unless you are offended by the very idea of them.

Re:Before you discount Pollock out of hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666209)

Look at a bag of dogshit long enough and you'll hear voices, too.

Re:Before you discount Pollock out of hand... (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666249)

Often imitated never equaled. Abstract expressionism was, and often remains, a high-brow art con game. That much is obvious. But many critics who were otherwise unimpressed by the 'abstract movement' felt that its founder...

Okay, look. I did a term paper on him. I'm not dismissing him out of hand, I'm dismissing him after a detailed analysis of his work. 25% of my grade for Art History depended on me being able to offer a detailed analysis of his work. Ignoring the fact that of all the artists that we drew straws for (well, strips of paper), and I got the short one... I think I can speak authoritatively on Pollock's work.

Anyway, I don't feel what Pollock was doing constituted high art. While you're right in that the process itself introduces design elements, intended or not, I consider the will of the artists and the technical proficiency by which he (or she) goes about realizing that vision to be the primary elements of artistic merit. Pollock was "on to something", sure, but he never developed it to a usable and proficient level... and neither has anyone else.

I'll tell you the same thing I told my professor (who begrudgingly gave me a 'B' on the paper, and asked me and only me to defend my essay in front of the whole class!), which is that if I were to show Pollock's work side by side with the paint drizzlings of a 5 year old with a brush asked to run back and forth across the canvas... how many laypeople could tell the difference? I argued that everyone has an innate sense of design, and while people's tastes may differ, almost all pieces of art display some level of consideration -- that is, the will of the artist. It isn't just a random hodge-podge of work. Even the Dadaists were very deliberate in their choice of "anti art", and it is this will, this force of personality, which I feel Pollock lacked. He was engaging in method without vision, and that, I feel, isn't art. Several of my classmates agreed. For something to truly meet the standard of artistic expression and to have artistic merit, academically or otherwise, there needs to be a clear expression of the artist's desire in the work. Other than perhaps the choice of color for the paint, I do not feel the layperson could find this expression in any of Pollock's exhaulted works.

As I concluded at the end of my Q&A with the professor (did I mention how unhappy he was with me?), one does not necessarily have to be a success in the art world to be famous... the Titanic is a very famous ship precisely because it sank. And if you ask me, Pollock is that era of American art's Titanic. There is perhaps merit in his work, but only in how miserably it failed; If you ask me, his work should be used as a warning to other artists not to get so lost in the abstract that your work becomes a random jumble of design elements.

Re:Before you discount Pollock out of hand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667417)

if I were to show Pollock's work side by side with the paint drizzlings of a 5 year old with a brush asked to run back and forth across the canvas... how many laypeople could tell the difference?

Interesting you should ask this. I read about a study that was done some years ago where they did just this -- imitation pollocks vs the real thing, shown to laypeople in a double blind study who were asked which they preferred. The Pollocks were overwhelmingly preferred. There's more than just imitatible randomness going on.

Well you gave a very spirited defence (2)

bdwoolman (561635) | 1 year,4 days | (#44671949)

I am, as I said, no great fan of Abstract Expressionism. A 'high brow con game' is what I said it had become. What I wanted to make clear was that Pollock was honest in his work. And that, without knowing he was doing so as such, he was channeling a mathematical reality that he saw or felt in nature. Nobody else has the high fractal index that his work has. It is diagnostic. And viewers sense it rather than see it. Our brains are wired to do so. That said, I agree with you that AE proved to be a dead end of sorts since it is so easy to phony up. Also the artist's expression of feelings is not communicated intact to the viewer with these paintings -- even Pollock's. They are emotionally quite neutral IMHO. Which is why interior designers love them for bank lobbies and such.

I am glad you did not dismiss him out of hand, but after due consideration. Ha ha. I think it took guts to stand up as you did to the tyranny of consensus. And to your small-minded art prof. You deserved an A for critical thinking. And for knowing what you like. And don't. And saying why.

For expressionism I prefer Edvard Munch. There is an awesome show in Oslo Norway [washingtonpost.com] for the next month or so for his 150th anniversary. He is a lot more than The Scream.

Re:paint, authenticity, and you (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666285)

Indeed GIT, sitting with a great painting can be a wonderful experience. My last museum foray however was the national gallery on a weekend. Not exactly quiet sitting time. I still remember studying a priceless Monet, then seeing a 9-11 year old boy that was a little hyper for an art museum come with inches of falling into it, hands first with hands that looked like he had been digging in the sand and mud on the mall.. The whole time his mother was oblivious, blathering away on her phone. I bet she posted on facebook later that her son got his culture for the decade.

Re:paint, authenticity, and you (1)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666315)

I suppose I could make a crack about them trying this with a Pollock, but I personally consider slopping paint on the floor over and over again to not be art.

My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting. I continue to get further away from the usual painter's tools such as easel, palette, brushes, etc. I prefer sticks, trowels, knives and dripping fluid paint or a heavy impasto with sand, broken glass or other foreign matter added. When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well. --- Jackson Pollock, My Painting, 1956

Pollock's finest paintings... reveal that his all-over line does not give rise to positive or negative areas: we are not made to feel that one part of the canvas demands to be read as figure, whether abstract or representational, against another part of the canvas read as ground. There is not inside or outside to Pollock's line or the space through which it moves.... Pollock has managed to free line not only from its function of representing objects in the world, but also from its task of describing or bounding shapes or figures, whether abstract or representational, on the surface of the canvas. --- Karmel, 132Jackson Pollack [wikipedia.org]

Pollack made an intense study of paint and canvas. Introducing random elements drawn from physics and mathematics into a work of art does not mean that you have lost control.

Once you've spent some time with a Pollack in a gallery you shut up about dripping paint on the floor.

Re:paint, authenticity, and you (1)

zippthorne (748122) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666381)

You sound like you're really into art, which is at odds with my impression about Pollock's work.

Namely that it's not really for regular people, it's for artists, because it says something to them about the nature of art. Like Cage's 4'33", or that painting that is all black lines and colored boxes.

Which means that I think it is art for artists and as a result probably gets too much press. Blue Poles shouldn't be able to play in the same sandbox as Guernica. They're both big paintings, but as far as I can tell, that's all that the pollock has going for it. Yet the Pollack commanded roughly a million dollars in 1973 (i did have to google that part. I could only remember that some museum organization in australia had once paid an outrageous sum for one of his works...)

Re:paint, authenticity, and you (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667747)

What is with the condescension? Everyone knows who Pollock is.

In the Netherlands, the currency is the euro (1)

fondacio (835785) | 1 year,5 days | (#44666007)

The article is in The Guardian, so it makes sense for the price of the paintings to be mentioned in pounds, but they could have changed it to euros for the summary. After all, that is the currency in the Netherlands. A bit of googling yielded more details [3ders.org] and a price of € 25,000 (about US$ 33,500) for each replica.

A picture that is worth a 1000 words (1)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,5 days | (#44666011)

Not bad, it's certainly not Van Gogh, but not bad. [amazonaws.com]

Pointless (4, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | 1 year,5 days | (#44666079)

If I have $34,000 to spend on an art, I'm going to buy a genuine art, not a reproduction.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44667817)

Let us know when you can find a Van Gogh for that price.

Re:Pointless (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | 1 year,4 days | (#44671369)

I can get a Van Gogh print for $20. A dollar at a yard sale if I don't haggle. That's just as real to me as any other reproduction.

Van Gogh couldn't paint to save his life (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666251)

So who cares? How convenient that they can reproduce Van Gogh's shitty paintings. What about Joseph Derby's?
'Modern' art is JEW art. The jew cannot produce anything of beauty, nor can they PAINT, so they came up with an idea to fool the masses into believing that the wonderful, 'intelligent' Jews had come up with a new 'art' - 'modern' art.
Have you never wondered why your country's cities are full of such ugly, vile buildings? That's JEW architecture, that's why. The Jew destroys everything of beauty.
Van Gogh is just another talentless nobody, like Picasso, and all the other useless 'artists' that you've all heard about - from the JEW media...

Big Deal (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666351)

I can get the same effect from 40mg of dimethyltryptamine and a half-pint of jagermeister.

Plus, the stars in Starry Night will turn into tiny aliens that talk to me.

outrageous (3, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | 1 year,4 days | (#44666495)

It's pretty outrageous that these institutions monopolize cultural treasures that are long out of copyright. These 3D scans should be publicly available so that anybody who wants to can reproduce the artwork in whatever detail they are capable of.

Re:outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44669621)

And to this I highly agree. The humorousness/horribleness of it is clear. Long ago, I have little doubt these same museums cringed at desktop printing for the same reason. Never mind that desktop printers aren't of the quality, consistent, or most notiably size to matter much (and it all excludes the point that most paints have some element of 3D to them so a 2D print is going to be far from a perfect replica). And now we finally see the advancement of 3D printers and a museum is more interested in selling a few high-end prints at high prices...without giving out the 3D models or likely giving access to those who would dare to make a 3D model and give it away*. There's no reason to not do the latter precisely because so few people have sufficient 3D printers and those that do (perhaps publishing companies) should be competing on price and branding not on enforced exclusiveness. But, then, that's a major reason museums should be non-profits and not seek profit (the former doesn't preclude the latter).

*Odds are good you can't step close to do a good scan if it's on the wall, they won't lay it on the ground for you (not enough employees), the technique to do the scan may be potentially destructive so they likely won't trust you to do the scan (maybe have Google do it, who can seemingly can break book spines with casual disregard--got to love how corporations are trusted more because if they're a company they're big and obviously they're big enough to have experts**), and then there's the whole argument that "but people will print it and use our name and sell at the same outrageous prices we do, but we won't see the profit...err...supporting funds". So, yea, I entirely agree with you.

**Experts like lawyers.

turing test for painting (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666625)

I always felt there should be a Turing test for painting. Where a robotic arm paints a picture, and the test is: can a fine art connoisseur tell the difference?

Out of Copyright, so... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#44666909)

Most valuable works of art are out of copyright, and have massive intrinsic value in and of themselves, so we should feel ZERO concern if somewhere like China churns out effective 3D copies of their own for a very modest cost of ownership. Indeed, it should be part of copyright law that out-of-copyright works displayed to the public should place no restriction on those reasonably seeking to obtain data to allow them to make their own copies. It is obscene when museums and art galleries attempt to continue to benefit from EXCLUSIVE access to the form of the work itself. The "we have the real version" should be good enough for them. If Mankind becomes satisfied with looking at good replicas instead, the overall IQ of the planet will have gone up significantly.

And for the dribbling shills that want to defend the art 'market', I'd point out that many artists made copies of their own works, so the concept of "as good as the original" replicas has existed since demand for particular works was first identified. Laws in nations outside the USA designed to 'protect' against unauthorised copies of museum/gallery works-of-art are in place purely to protect the financial interests of the elites, so the production of cheap 'perfect' (in look, not materials- these are most certainly NOT counterfeits) copies really sticks it to filthy groups of individuals that have manipulated the legal system for their own narrow financial benefit.

Cheap 'perfect' copies will NOT make the original vanish, and will not deny the rights of MORONS to value the original at obscene levels. Cheap 'perfect' copies will ensure that works of art are never lost- how many scumbag museums have allowed petty criminals to steal (and frequently destroy) 'priceless' works of art because the owners preferred to pocket profits rather than pay for even a single watchman- and of course none of these lost works had been subject to proper 3D photography and scans. .

Not so... (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667489)

Such is the complexity of the technology, known as Reliefography, that it has taken more than seven years to develop and only three a day can be made.

Only being able to produce three a day doesn't mean the technology is complicated, it only means they don't have enough machines.

Van Gogh prints in 3D (2)

Megahard (1053072) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667571)

Did he print himself an ear?

if i only had a 3d printer... (2)

jasno (124830) | 1 year,4 days | (#44667975)

If I had a 3D printer, one of the first things I'd do would be to scale up a Van Gogh and print a giant version. The depth of his paintings is insane and would look amazing scaled up a few times. Hell, this should be a thing - 12" square tiles you affix to a wall which make a giant version of, say, Mulberry Tree [nortonsimon.org] and cover an entire wall of a room from floor to ceiling...

unbreakable? (1)

Infoport (935541) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668075)

"each is clearly marked with an unbreakable seal."

that sounds like a challenge...

(and where a fraudulent fortune can be made, or because it is there, challenges get conquered eventually)

Ah, Memories (2)

hyades1 (1149581) | 1 year,4 days | (#44668105)

This reminds me of an old Popular Science story about how an LED watch (the first) cost $10,000 to buy. The technology to make perfect copies of your artwork of choice is only a year or two away. And the cost will by minimal.

Beyond 2000 (2)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | 1 year,3 days | (#44672687)

Am I the only one who remembers seeing this sort of 3-d painting reproduction featured on Beyond 2000 a good 20 years ago? They made a rubber mold of the original painting, printed the copy either with special ink or onto a surface that could be flash melted to fit the mold.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>