Pip wrote:
Full Version: for Fred Doyle
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57
| QUOTE |
No red x's here. I can see them just fine. Great work Jeff. Love yours too Gem. That might make a fun project for me to play with this weekend. (feeling the creative juices after returning from vacation) Chuck |
Thanks.
I think I will try to play with different shaped stamps next time. I
also like it when they are one image divided into 4 stamps, but each one
stands on it's own as well.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
Dan wrote:
| QUOTE |
All the images on the page are red-Xed for me. WinXP, IE6. Dan http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com |
No IE6 for a Mac, so I'll have to start asking for more checkups from
here when I update I guess.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
My eyes, my eyes, my retina is burrrninggg.....
Nice site Tony ;)
Matt
--
I miss Rage Against The Machine.
"artonio7/Tony/Anthony/" <artonio7(remove)@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:be18ss$3mib$[Email Removed]...
Nice site Tony ;)
Matt
--
I miss Rage Against The Machine.
"artonio7/Tony/Anthony/" <artonio7(remove)@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:be18ss$3mib$[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| Ok... I know this has been torturous, and your eyes have probably all but bled from the horror! :-) But could you please take a look at this *first* page again? I've taken all of your previous comments into consideration while tweaking this version. Any new comments and criticism would be much appreciated. http://jcbantiques.com/ -- With warm regards, Tony http://artonio7.com |
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 1/6/03
How much are they paying for finding a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
At least we KNOW Saddam exists.
"48073" <[Email Removed]> escribi en el mensaje
news:[Email Removed]...
At least we KNOW Saddam exists.
"48073" <[Email Removed]> escribi en el mensaje
news:[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| Just heard US offers 50milj. for Saddam. 15milj. for one of his bro's. Good strategy me think. US strongest weapon: Just buy him. 48073. |
| QUOTE |
| How is it that just because you don't understand the meaning, you assume that its random? It is obvious that your collage has meaning only to you. Your artwork is, in effect, blank because you have not added anything to the canvas that would hold meaning for anyone other than yourself. If anything, you have created an anti-image, because in another medium your artwork would have sucked down resources meant for real art. |
I know you are just a flameboy, but anyway I find it amusing that
you are speaking on behalf of everyone.
But you are partly right. I mostly create stuph for myself. But I really
hope
others can find something in it too.
-Jarle
| QUOTE |
| But here is something that I got from someone else. ;) heh As I surmised, a random collage. Now, it has been assigned meaning, after the fact. |
I can assure you it is NOT random. I urge you to look up the word "random"
in a
dictionary and rethink your accusations.
-Jarle
LOL good point... maybe they should have put the money as rewards for the
weapons instead... wasn't that the most important thing? ;)
Matt
--
I miss Rage Against The Machine.
"Dnal" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:be3b3j$1rn$[Email Removed]...
weapons instead... wasn't that the most important thing? ;)
Matt
--
I miss Rage Against The Machine.
"Dnal" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:be3b3j$1rn$[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| How much are they paying for finding a Weapon of Mass Destruction? At least we KNOW Saddam exists. "48073" <[Email Removed]> escribi en el mensaje news:[Email Removed]... Just heard US offers 50milj. for Saddam. 15milj. for one of his bro's. Good strategy me think. US strongest weapon: Just buy him. 48073. |
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 1/6/03
Thank you all for taking the time and effort to respond. While considering
all of your input and good advice I've tweaked it a bit more. I do notice
that when viewing in Netscape 7 on a Mac the table at the top of the center
panel will not align at the top.How can I fix this?
Also can anyone give me a clue as to how to assign different Hover
attributes to different sections of the page. I tried in Dreamweaver to
change the attribute in the css but the hover style assigned to the page
over rides all others.
Thank you all again!
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7.com
"artonio7/Tony/Anthony/" <artonio7(remove)@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:be18ss$3mib$[Email Removed]...
all of your input and good advice I've tweaked it a bit more. I do notice
that when viewing in Netscape 7 on a Mac the table at the top of the center
panel will not align at the top.How can I fix this?
Also can anyone give me a clue as to how to assign different Hover
attributes to different sections of the page. I tried in Dreamweaver to
change the attribute in the css but the hover style assigned to the page
over rides all others.
Thank you all again!
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7.com
"artonio7/Tony/Anthony/" <artonio7(remove)@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:be18ss$3mib$[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| Ok... I know this has been torturous, and your eyes have probably all but bled from the horror! :-) But could you please take a look at this *first* page again? I've taken all of your previous comments into consideration while tweaking this version. Any new comments and criticism would be much appreciated. http://jcbantiques.com/ -- With warm regards, Tony http://artonio7.com |
www.garageband.com is pretty cool
th'don
"Adam - www.webresults4u.com" <info@_REMOVE_TO_REPLY_webresults4u.com> wrote
in message
news:IM6Na.60233$[Email Removed]...
th'don
"Adam - www.webresults4u.com" <info@_REMOVE_TO_REPLY_webresults4u.com> wrote
in message
news:IM6Na.60233$[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| This is pretty cool. There are bound to be some sites that some people don't agree with being there, but I just stumbled across the link. http://www.time.com/time/techtime/200306/index.html Adam www.webresults4u.com |
Yes the weapons are the most important thing, and everyone agrees they
existed. Funny how people forget that fact. Then sometime between the late
90s and 2003 they disappeared - weapons everyone from Clinton to the U.N. to
France to Iraq's own documentation showed existed.
And now they're gone. Without the slighest evidence that they were ever
destroyed.
But, odd, no one seems to care about that. I mean, why worry that something
you knew existed now can't be found? Golly.
existed. Funny how people forget that fact. Then sometime between the late
90s and 2003 they disappeared - weapons everyone from Clinton to the U.N. to
France to Iraq's own documentation showed existed.
And now they're gone. Without the slighest evidence that they were ever
destroyed.
But, odd, no one seems to care about that. I mean, why worry that something
you knew existed now can't be found? Golly.
Please hear what mr Blix said...
Remember that he never said there were any weapons, They had difficulies to
get cooperation from the Iraqies - that was what started the confrontation.
And that was why many countries was sceptical about starting the war.
The world now wait for results! But most likely, no great supplies of WMD
will ever be found. There is another country that is about to start making
new WMD however - although claiming them to be tactical and very small -
only half the Hiroshima bomb...
/Tomas
Remember that he never said there were any weapons, They had difficulies to
get cooperation from the Iraqies - that was what started the confrontation.
And that was why many countries was sceptical about starting the war.
The world now wait for results! But most likely, no great supplies of WMD
will ever be found. There is another country that is about to start making
new WMD however - although claiming them to be tactical and very small -
only half the Hiroshima bomb...
/Tomas
| QUOTE |
| Yes the weapons are the most important thing, and everyone agrees they existed. Funny how people forget that fact. Then sometime between the late 90s and 2003 they disappeared - weapons everyone from Clinton to the U.N. to France to Iraq's own documentation showed existed. And now they're gone. Without the slighest evidence that they were ever destroyed. But, odd, no one seems to care about that. I mean, why worry that something you knew existed now can't be found? Golly. |
Wait a minute! I never SAW any documentation. The Brits had to copy a
student thesis and try to pass it off as evidence. Their report to
Partliament was "sexed up" to make it sound more convincing, I am much,
much, much more concerned that innocent people and soldiers have been killed
in a war that as yet has not been justified. Forgot? Oh no. Not in any way
at all.
Best wishes :)
student thesis and try to pass it off as evidence. Their report to
Partliament was "sexed up" to make it sound more convincing, I am much,
much, much more concerned that innocent people and soldiers have been killed
in a war that as yet has not been justified. Forgot? Oh no. Not in any way
at all.
Best wishes :)
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| But I really hope others can find something in it too. |
You don't have to hope. Your art doesn't have to be random.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
What is art?
/Tomas
/Tomas
| QUOTE |
| "Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote: I can assure you it is NOT random. I urge you to look up the word "random" in a dictionary and rethink your accusations. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=random The idiomatic sense is exact. You have arranged random items in a random pattern and are hoping that it is art. |
"tomas.holm" <[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| What is art? |
(*giggles* ... okay ... THAT question ...)
My definition:
"Art is the broad collection of techniques used for demonstrating or
representing a concept."
Further:
My definition covers writing and sports as Art. The furthest extension of
my definition covers Life as Art - provided that you live deliberately.
Another person can assign Art as a label to an Archetype. For instance,
"There goes the perfect dope".
Techniques themselves are concepts.
My definition implies:
Without conception, there is no Art.
Beauty is a seperate concept from Art.
Art can be anything that can demonstrate or represent a concept.
Words can be art.
When I flame that other guy, my complaint is that there is no conception of
a theme, even a theme as ethereal as mood or color. It's just a collection
of odds that he has assembled unconciously and then covered with a few
filter effects. Effectively, he has done some fingerpainting - and, as he
is no longer in kindergarten, I'm taking him to task for it. That, and for
presenting it as Art.
I suppose that I could lighten up - after all, it *IS* fingerpainting. Yet,
it's still crap. paradox. My widdle mind is going to explode.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
Farlo <[Email Removed]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
| QUOTE |
| It is obvious that your collage has meaning only to you. Your artwork is, in effect, blank because you have not added anything to the canvas that would hold meaning for anyone other than yourself. If anything, you have created an anti-image, because in another medium your artwork would have sucked down resources meant for real art. |
Apparently you are one of the intellectually lazy masses that requires
a cut-and-dry explanation for everything.
You might want to look up the definition of "abstract" before spouting
your hostile and poorly conceived opinions.
You are also, most likely, a hack who creates work solely to appeal to
others, as opposed to having a voice of your own...
You might even be selling your work and making loads of money... but
that makes it no less sad or pathetic.
Artists make work and then sell it...hacks make work to sell.
Visual art is NOT story telling.
If you had a shred of imagination you could create meaning or relate
to non-representational work without having a diagram drawn for you.
If you want a story, read a book.
Art is subjective.
Just because you don't like something, or are too shallow to find
anything you can relate to in it, does not mean it will not reach
someone else on an emotional or intellectual level.
I promise you one thing:
If you think you know what "real art" is, and you honestly believe it
can be defined in set parameters, you have no hope of ever creating
anything original.
You are doomed to re-invent the wheel, again and again.
But that's ok... with people like you out there, we can all learn from
example what NOT to aspire to.
Robert Belgrad
http://www.arbitrarydesign.com
[Email Removed] (Arbitrary Design) wrote:
| QUOTE |
| Apparently you are one of the intellectually lazy masses that requires a cut-and-dry explanation for everything. |
You got it half-right. I require a cut-and-dry explanation. It's a lazy
Artist who has a stake in keeping art obscure and poorly understood.
IMO.
| QUOTE |
| You might want to look up the definition of "abstract" before spouting your hostile and poorly conceived opinions. |
Abtractionism as an art form will not shield you from critique. Sometimes
random squares of color are just "random squares of color".
It's not necessarily Art.
| QUOTE |
| You are also, most likely, a hack who creates work solely to appeal to others, |
My, what nasty terms ... "lazy", "hack", "sell-out" ... okay, I'm
inferring that last one. I am an amateur, no mistake. Try pouncing on
that some more, it'll give you credibility.
| QUOTE |
| Artists make work and then sell it...hacks make work to sell. |
"Oh no, I hate selling. That makes me a real 'Artist' again!"
Commercial artists and illustrators have my deepest sympathies every time
that I encounter someone with this limited view. I am a tradesman by
inclination, and cringe every time an "Artist" tries to step on other
Artisans.
| QUOTE |
| Visual art is NOT story telling. |
I never claimed that it was. Put up another straw man, wouldja?
| QUOTE |
| If you had a shred of imagination you could create meaning or relate to non-representational work without having a diagram drawn for you. If you want a story, read a book. |
Hmm, "Lazy", "Hack", "Sell-out", and now "Unimaginative".
| QUOTE |
| Art is subjective. |
The more that I learn about Art, different mediums and technique, the
more that I find this phrase disingenuous.
| QUOTE |
| Just because you don't like something, or are too shallow to find anything you can relate to in it, does not mean it will not reach someone else on an emotional or intellectual level. |
Reaching people unconciously isn't half so impressive as reaching out to
them deliberately.
| QUOTE |
| you have no hope of ever creating anything original. |
"Lazy", "Hack", "Sell-out", "Unimaginative" and now "Hopeless".
| QUOTE |
| You are doomed to re-invent the wheel, again and again. |
Plus, "doomed". How awful! =)
| QUOTE |
| But that's ok... |
Indeed.
Despite all your harsh words, I did visit your site.
It is what it is.
| QUOTE |
| Robert Belgrad http://www.arbitrarydesign.com |
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
*phew*, good thing someone gave an honest answer before me. I was
about to issue the standard sarcastic comment..
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:40:14 -0400, "Don Harris"
<[Email Removed]> wrote:
about to issue the standard sarcastic comment..
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:40:14 -0400, "Don Harris"
<[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| If you created it in Illy, it is already in vector format (assuming you didn't import photos or something). If you want to save it in a printable vector format, you should generally save it as an EPS file. th'don "Blue Egg" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message news:bNiNa.354402$[Email Removed]... I am using Adobe Illustrator 9.0 . How do I save my logo in vector format? Thanks! |
| QUOTE |
| LOL good point... maybe they should have put the money as rewards for the weapons instead... wasn't that the most important thing? ;) |
Uh.. Oh, sorry. Must have missed that.
48073.
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <[Email Removed]> wrote...
| QUOTE |
"It's Thoth, the ibis-headed god of writing, and more than that it's Capit, from the Latin "caput," head--the offset and the bird's head in profile make us look again, seeing a Januslike second image in the rough patch left of the bird. |
Funny - I didn't see a bird at all - if anything, I spontaneously thought of
another Egyption god -- Anubis.
I was also reminded of some sun-bleached roots my dad collected on a Greek
vacation. They looked vaguely like faces. Some (Norwegian, actually) friends of
ours took some photos of each other holding the roots like masks -- eerie.
The fact that your image is so open to interpretation and evokes different
thoughts in people (even the What Is Art discussion! ;) ) really speaks for
itself.
cheers,
nina
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:00:03 +0200, D�nal <[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| Wait a minute! I never SAW any documentation. The Brits had to copy a student thesis and try to pass it off as evidence. Their report to Partliament was "sexed up" to make it sound more convincing, I am much, much, much more concerned that innocent people and soldiers have been killed in a war that as yet has not been justified. Forgot? Oh no. Not in any way at all. Best wishes :) |
And don't forget that people are still killing, and still being killed in
Iraq.
--
Branko
Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug wrote:
| QUOTE |
| What you guys think? http://studiosilhuett.mpcnett.com/intenst.jpg Love to get you thoughts -Jarle |
I thought that was pretty cool, with the spirit of the
snake floating into that guy's head.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 05:08:15 GMT, Synic <[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| I have this little problem with my web design. I feel like all the graphics on it are childish looking. Not really because they suck bad enough to look like the art of a 4 year old, but silly non the less. Everytime I try to do something classy look, it ends up looking boring instead. It's always missing something. I've looked at a few of the links I've seen around here, and it looks like most everyone else has "it" whatever it is. What is it? S -Just wanting to make an attractive nitch. |
Maybe "it" is "not your style?" Why not be happy with your own style,
especially if it's different from what you see around?
Maybe it'd be better for you to stick to, and improve your 'childish'
style; and keep in mind that 'childish' has its own market.
OTOH, you could be one of those lousy designers.... Just joking. :)
--
Branko
LOL ;o) you mean like you could import it into photoshop, save it as PSD,
then use Streamline to Vectorize it ? and then get back into Freehand (just
to change software and not make feel that you can do everything in Illy),
from freehand, just save it as EPS ;o)
olivier
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3f05d495.3807354@news...
then use Streamline to Vectorize it ? and then get back into Freehand (just
to change software and not make feel that you can do everything in Illy),
from freehand, just save it as EPS ;o)
olivier
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3f05d495.3807354@news...
| QUOTE |
| *phew*, good thing someone gave an honest answer before me. I was about to issue the standard sarcastic comment.. On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:40:14 -0400, "Don Harris" <[Email Removed]> wrote: If you created it in Illy, it is already in vector format (assuming you didn't import photos or something). If you want to save it in a printable vector format, you should generally save it as an EPS file. th'don "Blue Egg" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message news:bNiNa.354402$[Email Removed]... I am using Adobe Illustrator 9.0 . How do I save my logo in vector format? Thanks! |
| QUOTE |
| When I flame that other guy, my complaint is that there is no conception of a theme, even a theme as ethereal as mood or color. It's just a collection of odds that he has assembled unconciously and then covered with a few filter effects. Effectively, he has done some fingerpainting - and, as he is no longer in kindergarten, I'm taking him to task for it. That, and for presenting it as Art. |
AGAIN... just because YOU dont se a theme doesn't mean there isn't one.
Many people don's see Mona Lisa for more than a simple portrait.
I can assure you there IS a theme. And therefore you standout pretty stupid
to me since I know there is NO such thing as a random collage in my
collection.
Every element is carefully considered for a larger composition. Therefore
beeing random is a paradox.
The picture is about selfasteem and the effects bad selfasteem can have on
the way one looks upon oneself. I easily admit that its not the most
important piece
in the world, but does everything have to be? Sometimes artists wants to
convey a mood,
a feeling, a state of mind rather than storytelling. I dont't call myself an
artist because of people
like you. You think you have predefined parameters for what is art and what
is not.
Is it easier to accept when I feed you with the background for it? Either
way you stand out pretty pathetic.
-J
| QUOTE |
| "It's Thoth, the ibis-headed god of writing, and more than that it's Capit, from the Latin "caput," head--the offset and the bird's head in profile make us look again, seeing a Januslike second image in the rough patch left of the bird. Funny - I didn't see a bird at all - if anything, I spontaneously thought of another Egyption god -- Anubis. I was also reminded of some sun-bleached roots my dad collected on a Greek vacation. They looked vaguely like faces. Some (Norwegian, actually) friends of ours took some photos of each other holding the roots like masks -- eerie. |
Im from noway. Maybe that is why you said that? :)
-J
"
| QUOTE |
| Apparently you are one of the intellectually lazy masses that requires a cut-and-dry explanation for everything. You got it half-right. I require a cut-and-dry explanation. It's a lazy Artist who has a stake in keeping art obscure and poorly understood. IMO. |
I guess you're not a big Andy Warhol fan. ;)
| QUOTE |
| You might want to look up the definition of "abstract" before spouting your hostile and poorly conceived opinions. Abtractionism as an art form will not shield you from critique. Sometimes random squares of color are just "random squares of color". It's not necessarily Art. |
Funny how you are arrogant enough to be the man to decide.
| QUOTE |
| Commercial artists and illustrators have my deepest sympathies every time that I encounter someone with this limited view. I am a tradesman by inclination, and cringe every time an "Artist" tries to step on other Artisans. |
Ehh.. HELLO?!?!?? You're the one stepping on others here.
| QUOTE |
| Visual art is NOT story telling. I never claimed that it was. Put up another straw man, wouldja? |
Between the lines you come off that way.
| QUOTE |
| If you had a shred of imagination you could create meaning or relate to non-representational work without having a diagram drawn for you. If you want a story, read a book. Hmm, "Lazy", "Hack", "Sell-out", and now "Unimaginative". |
And you're arguments against it is?
| QUOTE |
| Art is subjective. The more that I learn about Art, different mediums and technique, the more that I find this phrase disingenuous. |
Funny how you go back on earlier statements where you claim WHAT
is art and what is not, and now you say there is no "formula"?
Do we have to run everything that might be art by you so you can
verify it as art?
| QUOTE |
| Just because you don't like something, or are too shallow to find anything you can relate to in it, does not mean it will not reach someone else on an emotional or intellectual level. Reaching people unconciously isn't half so impressive as reaching out to them deliberately. |
Sorry.. I didnt try to impress you.
| QUOTE |
| you have no hope of ever creating anything original. "Lazy", "Hack", "Sell-out", "Unimaginative" and now "Hopeless". |
You actually took that out of the context. First sign of loosing
the argument.
| QUOTE |
| You are doomed to re-invent the wheel, again and again. Plus, "doomed". How awful! =) |
And agian...
| QUOTE |
| But that's ok... Indeed. Despite all your harsh words, I did visit your site. It is what it is. |
I'd LOVE to see some you did.
-J
Dream on Cowboy....
No right click? Right click while holding the SPACE BAR DOWN. release
the right mouse button and the usual box pops up and all you have to
do is save picture as...DUD
the no right click scripts are worthless. I usually run without java
running so I never see that crap anyway. Besides a screen capture is
impossible to prevent.
In case the moron trying to "steal" your pics, can't do a screen
capture, there is one method to foil a save as right click.
Put your pictures in a table. Set each picture as the background image
in a cell. Then make a pic that is transparent and the same size as
the original pic. Load the transparent pic into the cell as a normal
pic over the background which is your "real" pic. When they try to
save your picture, all they get is the transparent pic. But a good
screen capture will still foil this method, but most computer users
are still too lame to know how to use a screen capture or what it
actually means. However, If your pictures are really nice and they
want your pics, they will get it. A quick search through the internet
temp directories (like dumpster diving) will give up your pics.
Besides if your pics are so valuable, you should charge a fee to get
into your site and that would offset the one or two people who
actually want your pictures. You would probably get ZERO (like this
many "0" that means none) visitors and then you would truly be
protecting your pictures.
Good Luck Jim
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:28:10 -0700, Marcello do Guzman
<[Email Removed]> wrote:
No right click? Right click while holding the SPACE BAR DOWN. release
the right mouse button and the usual box pops up and all you have to
do is save picture as...DUD
the no right click scripts are worthless. I usually run without java
running so I never see that crap anyway. Besides a screen capture is
impossible to prevent.
In case the moron trying to "steal" your pics, can't do a screen
capture, there is one method to foil a save as right click.
Put your pictures in a table. Set each picture as the background image
in a cell. Then make a pic that is transparent and the same size as
the original pic. Load the transparent pic into the cell as a normal
pic over the background which is your "real" pic. When they try to
save your picture, all they get is the transparent pic. But a good
screen capture will still foil this method, but most computer users
are still too lame to know how to use a screen capture or what it
actually means. However, If your pictures are really nice and they
want your pics, they will get it. A quick search through the internet
temp directories (like dumpster diving) will give up your pics.
Besides if your pics are so valuable, you should charge a fee to get
into your site and that would offset the one or two people who
actually want your pictures. You would probably get ZERO (like this
many "0" that means none) visitors and then you would truly be
protecting your pictures.
Good Luck Jim
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:28:10 -0700, Marcello do Guzman
<[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| I wish to prevent visitors to my website from copying images on my website by disabling the right click function of the mouse which is used to access the function box used to copy things. Does anybody now how I do this using FrontPage 2002? I need the HTML code. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please respond via email to: [Email Removed] |
Farlo wrote:
| QUOTE |
| It is obvious that your collage has meaning only to you.<<< |
Are you reading the thread, Farlo? Your conclusions are unique to you and
resemble troll bait rather than valid objections.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Farlo" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| QUOTE |
| "Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <[Email Removed]> wrote: How is it that just because you don't understand the meaning, you assume that its random? It is obvious that your collage has meaning only to you. Your artwork is, in effect, blank because you have not added anything to the canvas that would hold meaning for anyone other than yourself. If anything, you have created an anti-image, because in another medium your artwork would have sucked down resources meant for real art. -- Farlo Urban Fey Dragon "Imperial" States of America (The Land of Confusion) |
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
Some (Norwegian, actually) friends of ours took some photos of each other holding the roots like masks -- eerie. Im from noway. Maybe that is why you said that? :) |
That's why I mentioned they are from Norway too. I guessed from your name that
you're One of Them. :)
cheers,
nina
| QUOTE |
| AGAIN... just because YOU dont se a theme doesn't mean there isn't one. You haven't got a coherent theme, and missed every opportunity to provide one. At this late date, you should have had the guile to present one after the fact. I noticed that you did try, once, to put off some ideas that I gave you, mixed in with your own. It wasn't even a theme. |
You are starting to bore me. Especially since you avoid the interesting
points.
| QUOTE |
| Many people don's see Mona Lisa for more than a simple portrait. That's the work of a master. Your picture was the work of Photoshop. The "art" cannot even be really ascribed to you, since Xara filters provided most of the work. |
Thats not the point... the point was that SOME people see just a portrait.
(people
like you). I could come up withother examples also but I
narrowed it
down to this so tha tyou MIGHT understand the point. But you didn't. You had
to point
out that DV was a master and that I use photoshop. Which is totally out of
context and
way beside the point
Even so... it shows how much you know. Not one filter was used in the
process. And I dont even think Xara
makes Photoshop filters. 4 photos from my Olympus camera was used.
Anyhow.. Photoshop is just the tool. Dave McKean is a pure master and
he uses Photoshop all the time, why are you even making a point out of it??
Its almost like pointing out
that painters cant use . Technique shouldn't be an issue.
I think you are starting to show your ignorance even more.
..Jarle
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| You are starting to bore me. Especially since you avoid the interesting points. |
You have no points. Not to your argument and not to your art.
You are therefore, "pointless".
| QUOTE |
| Many people don's see Mona Lisa for more than a simple portrait. That's the work of a master. Your picture was the work of Photoshop. The "art" cannot even be really ascribed to you, since Xara filters provided most of the work. Thats not the point... |
Yes, it is. You want your random collage to qualify as "art", and brought
up a famous name to add credibility to a feeble argument. I am interested
in objective substance - of which you have offered none. You can stop
this thread at any time by actually coming up with something that might
provoke some thought at my end. Currently, I can coast in any discussion
with you because it is so banal. Two other posters came up with topics
worthy of thought, and neither of them was you. You cannot defend your
art, and therefore command respect.
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow.. Photoshop is just the tool. Dave McKean is a pure master and he uses Photoshop all the time, why are you even making a point out of it?? |
Dave McKean uses a tool to make art conciously. You use the same tool to
make random pretty pictures. Again, you drop names to add credibility to
your nonsense.
Dave's Tarot photos at this unofficial site:
http://www.dreamline.nu/theparticletarot/
.... reflect some interesting perspectives on an old favorite of mine.
| QUOTE |
| I think you are starting to show your ignorance even more. |
Ignorance? Try "objectivity". It's not a dirty word.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
bvuki wrote:
| QUOTE |
| On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 05:08:15 GMT, Synic <[Email Removed]> wrote: I have this little problem with my web design. I feel like all the graphics on it are childish looking. Not really because they suck bad enough to look like the art of a 4 year old, but silly non the less. Everytime I try to do something classy look, it ends up looking boring instead. It's always missing something. I've looked at a few of the links I've seen around here, and it looks like most everyone else has "it" whatever it is. What is it? S -Just wanting to make an attractive nitch. Maybe "it" is "not your style?" Why not be happy with your own style, especially if it's different from what you see around? Maybe it'd be better for you to stick to, and improve your 'childish' style; and keep in mind that 'childish' has its own market. OTOH, you could be one of those lousy designers.... Just joking. :) |
I suppose I gotta be me. Sloppy but colorful. :p
Maybe I'll create a new style of Sloppy and colorful that
revolutionizes the web forever.
S
--
Let us support bi partisianship... I will hug your elephant, if you kiss
my ass.
http://personalpages.tds.net/~dcombs3 -the way it should be.
"Josh" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:S2vNa.3089$[Email Removed]...
news:S2vNa.3089$[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| I just thought I would say happy fourth to all the ADGers!!! It was a fun night, we set off lots of stuff that's not legal and then some :P Me and my bro got drunk and wrestled in the dirt, I think I have a small boulder lodged under my skin, but it was fun. What about everyone here, what all did you do for the 4th? |
I went to a party at the skate park. It was fun. I brought my little pocket
camera along and took a bunch of pictures. That was fun too.
http://www.rosserx.com/skatepark/skatepark.htm
--
ra
| QUOTE |
| I went to a party at the skate park. It was fun. I brought my little camera along and took a bunch of pictures. That was fun too. http://www.rosserx.com/skatepark/skatepark.htm |
I wanted to take a look, but your site was loading /very/ slow on my 56k.
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:55:43 GMT, Synic <[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| bvuki wrote: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 05:08:15 GMT, Synic <[Email Removed]> wrote: I have this little problem with my web design. I feel like all the graphics on it are childish looking. Not really because they suck bad enough to look like the art of a 4 year old, but silly non the less. Everytime I try to do something classy look, it ends up looking boring instead. It's always missing something. I've looked at a few of the links I've seen around here, and it looks like most everyone else has "it" whatever it is. What is it? S -Just wanting to make an attractive nitch. Maybe "it" is "not your style?" Why not be happy with your own style, especially if it's different from what you see around? Maybe it'd be better for you to stick to, and improve your 'childish' style; and keep in mind that 'childish' has its own market. OTOH, you could be one of those lousy designers.... Just joking. :) I suppose I gotta be me. Sloppy but colorful. :p Maybe I'll create a new style of Sloppy and colorful that revolutionizes the web forever. S |
That's the spirit! :)
BTW, I love your site. Not design-wise, but contents-wise. You're an
artistic type (if there's such a thing), aren't you? You used colors well
to reinforce the content. Color *is* your department, it seems. Though, I
must admit you do have to "dig it up and dust it off."
But you might consider working on typography, and some other very basic
design concepts, *if* you plan to work as a designer. Personally, I don't
require 'graphical sophistication' if I find interesting stuff to read on a
web site. So, your site is okay if you ask me.
And give us more of that save-the-Earth stuff. Since you call yourself a
'synic', there ought to be tons of stuff you could publish on your site,
ain't it right?
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot this: don't grey out the link to the 'Earth
Alert' page. I thought it was unavailable. Then I clicked anyway and found
out it works. Kinda confusing.
--
Branko
| QUOTE |
| That's the work of a master. Your picture was the work of Photoshop. The "art" cannot even be really ascribed to you, since Xara filters provided most of the work. Thats not the point... Yes, it is. You want your random collage to qualify as "art", and brought up a famous name to add credibility to a feeble argument. I am interested in objective substance - of which you have offered none. You can stop this thread at any time by actually coming up with something that might provoke some thought at my end. Currently, I can coast in any discussion with you because it is so banal. Two other posters came up with topics worthy of thought, and neither of them was you. You cannot defend your art, and therefore command respect. |
No it isn't. Since I was the person made the point in the first place, I
think
I know what the point was. The point was NOT who made the piece but the
piece
itself. The work.. not the maker. I didnt bring up the name of the maker but
the piece
itself. And the point was that ALOT of people dont see the picture for
anything else
than its "surface".
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow.. Photoshop is just the tool. Dave McKean is a pure master and he uses Photoshop all the time, why are you even making a point out of it?? Dave McKean uses a tool to make art conciously. You use the same tool to make random pretty pictures. Again, you drop names to add credibility to your nonsense. |
Ahhh.. so now it IS a tool? Now you can't hash me for using it? You better
make
up your mind. Pluss.. you're not the one to say how concious I am about my
stuph.
I know that alot better than you.
| QUOTE |
| Dave's Tarot photos at this unofficial site: http://www.dreamline.nu/theparticletarot/ ... reflect some interesting perspectives on an old favorite of mine. |
I bet you had not even heard of Dave McKean before I mentioned him.
Then Googled him up and now you are trying to show that you aren't as
ignorant as you are coming off.
| QUOTE |
| I think you are starting to show your ignorance even more. Ignorance? Try "objectivity". It's not a dirty word. |
lol.. you TRY to apear objective with claiming that you are the god of art.
But every concious creative beeing know that at the end its impossible to
remain
pure objective. You illustrated the point perfectly when you claimed that my
picture
had no theme. I even said what the theme was, but for some reason you seem
to ignore that.
Why is that???
-Jarle
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| And the point was that ALOT of people dont see the picture for anything else than its "surface". |
You project that concept onto "alot" of people, abdicating the
responsibility of having to explain your work. How will you ever make it
before a jury of your peers? You won't.
| QUOTE |
| you're not the one to say how concious I am about my stuph. I know that alot better than you. |
You demonstrate that I am right with your inability to defend your
artwork on any grounds.
| QUOTE |
| Ignorance? Try "objectivity". It's not a dirty word. lol.. you TRY to apear objective with claiming that you are the god of art. |
You project your view, but it does not change reality. I stated early on
that I am an amateur. Plus, I mocked you with the opportunity to pounce
on me some more for being an amateur.
| QUOTE |
| I even said what the theme was, but for some reason you seem to ignore that. Why is that??? |
You adopted the theme offered, mocking me for it in a post to another
person. You had no theme. Actually, "have no theme" still, since you
tried to borrow my criticisms as one.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| If you cant find a theme that is ok, but you're obviously so arrogant that you think the world spins around you. |
I predict that you have a great deal of unlearning to do before you make
anything worth viewing.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
| QUOTE |
| You adopted the theme offered, mocking me for it in a post to another person. You had no theme. Actually, "have no theme" still, since you tried to borrow my criticisms as one. |
What the hell are you talking about.. I have even explained the theme.
From now on you're on my killfilter.
-Jarle
Farlo wrote:
| QUOTE |
| You project that concept onto "alot" of people, abdicating the responsibility of having to explain your work. How will you ever make it |
before a jury of your peers? You won't.<<<
You are making a common mistake, Farlo: Confusing commercial art with fine
art.
Fine art needs no explanation OR purpose OR ulterior motive. The artist need
not answer to anybody....ever. Artist's have no responsibility to help
anyone see as they do, although that may be a motive for many. There is no
"jury of your peers" when it comes to art; that's a ridiculous notion.
Art just is, and artist's just are.
It is clear that Jarle's art has touched you in a big way.
| QUOTE |
| Plus, I mocked you with the opportunity to pounce on me some more for being an amateur.<<< |
One need not be an accomplished artist to offer critique, opinions or
praise. Most art is purchased (and loved) by "amateurs."
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Farlo" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| QUOTE |
| "Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote: And the point was that ALOT of people dont see the picture for anything else than its "surface". You project that concept onto "alot" of people, abdicating the responsibility of having to explain your work. How will you ever make it before a jury of your peers? You won't. you're not the one to say how concious I am about my stuph. I know that alot better than you. You demonstrate that I am right with your inability to defend your artwork on any grounds. Ignorance? Try "objectivity". It's not a dirty word. lol.. you TRY to apear objective with claiming that you are the god of art. You project your view, but it does not change reality. I stated early on that I am an amateur. Plus, I mocked you with the opportunity to pounce on me some more for being an amateur. I even said what the theme was, but for some reason you seem to ignore that. Why is that??? You adopted the theme offered, mocking me for it in a post to another person. You had no theme. Actually, "have no theme" still, since you tried to borrow my criticisms as one. -- Farlo Urban Fey Dragon "Imperial" States of America (The Land of Confusion) |
Guess he didn't make it ;o( but well he lost against a local from me ;o))
lol It's a little swiss guy who won Wimbledon tralalalaladlingsingasong ;o)
he made it ;o) and nice and clean win too ;o))) quite proud of him i must
say, i actually won a couple of matches in my life, against my teddyBear and
my dad (the first one probably let me win.. ;o) not quite sure about all
that ..)
but philippoussis played a very nice game, and i'm just amazed with his
aces. Didn't you just hate the way they had to ask the players questions
after the game ? not just let them speak freely ? that really annoyed me,
it's too much now, as if they didn't have anything to say, and couldn't just
align 2 words straight... talk about taking them for total idiots..
olivier
"Jeanne" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:[Email Removed]...
lol It's a little swiss guy who won Wimbledon tralalalaladlingsingasong ;o)
he made it ;o) and nice and clean win too ;o))) quite proud of him i must
say, i actually won a couple of matches in my life, against my teddyBear and
my dad (the first one probably let me win.. ;o) not quite sure about all
that ..)
but philippoussis played a very nice game, and i'm just amazed with his
aces. Didn't you just hate the way they had to ask the players questions
after the game ? not just let them speak freely ? that really annoyed me,
it's too much now, as if they didn't have anything to say, and couldn't just
align 2 words straight... talk about taking them for total idiots..
olivier
"Jeanne" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:[Email Removed]...
| QUOTE |
| << Go Philippoussis! He's a local to us.... I'm hoping to see him holding the trophy on Sunday! And it's not all tennis with him, he's a surfer too, lives in CA I believe. The matches he's come through during the fortnight have been thrilling (took out Agassi last week). Go Mark! Jeanne |
| QUOTE |
| You project that concept onto "alot" of people, abdicating the responsibility of having to explain your work. How will you ever make it before a jury of your peers? You won't.<<< You are making a common mistake, Farlo: Confusing commercial art with fine art. Fine art needs no explanation OR purpose OR ulterior motive. The artist need not answer to anybody....ever. Artist's have no responsibility to help anyone see as they do, although that may be a motive for many. There is no "jury of your peers" when it comes to art; that's a ridiculous notion. |
You said what I felt. Thank you :))
-Jarle
What about using a program like Image Guardian?
:)
Deb
:)
Deb
"Jarle Hrafn Grindhaug" <Hrafng@nospam)frisurf.no> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| What the hell are you talking about.. |
It's clear enough.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
"Dan" <[Email Removed]> wrote:
| QUOTE |
| Fine art needs no explanation OR purpose OR ulterior motive. The artist need not answer to anybody....ever. |
That's true, excpt that if the artist asks for critique or accepts a
commission he will answer to someone. There is also a social
responsibility to Art - Artists belong to society, whether they accept
the rules of society or not. Art may offend, and enough offense may have
consequences.
| QUOTE |
| There is no "jury of your peers" when it comes to art; that's a ridiculous notion. |
The local craft guilds have juried exhibitions, as does the local museum
of modern art.
| QUOTE |
| It is clear that Jarle's art has touched you in a big way. |
Did he push a button? I guess so.
| QUOTE |
| One need not be an accomplished artist to offer critique, opinions or praise. Most art is purchased (and loved) by "amateurs." |
I agree! Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
"Imperial" States of America
(The Land of Confusion)
"ribaja" <[Email Removed]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[Email Removed]...
news:[Email Removed]...
Caro Rino: ti d il benvenuto da tutto il gruppo.
Il modello presentato molto bello, cumplimenti!
Siamo pochi italiani che frequentammo il gruppo; la lingua ufficiale del NG
l'inglese, dunque ti prego di scrivere in inglese i prossimi messaggi;
cos tutti i frequentatore e lurkatori (che sono migliaia) posso usufruire
in una lingua comune della grossa creativit dimostrata.
Se hai un sito dove hai messo pi dei tuoi lavori, posta pure il link.
E se ci racconti un p su di te, ancora meglio.
Cordialmente,
Pepe
Milano, Italy
PS: I'm welcoming to the group the creator of that lovely model; one italian
guy whose name is Rino. No alien information feeding this time! :-)
| QUOTE |
| Dave McKean uses a tool to make art conciously. |
Looks like random pretty (and goofy) pictures.
Nothing much conscious about it.
| QUOTE |
| Dave's Tarot photos at this unofficial site: http://www.dreamline.nu/theparticletarot/ |
Nothing very Tarotic either.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Tarot News:
http://www.jktarot.com/news.html
************************************
"olivier Borgognon" <[Email Removed]> wrote in
news:3f09bfdc$0$29642$[Email Removed]:
news:3f09bfdc$0$29642$[Email Removed]:
| QUOTE |
| if i could give you some piece of advice, try and convince your client to invest in Dreamweaver MX, |
It would show very bad ethics to try to convince a client off a software
package that _they_ have no problem with. The designer works for and adapts
to the client's needs and not the other way around. Doing any
such convincing because of a simple techical problem would be even weirder.
| QUOTE |
| 1 simple thing that might convince him is that Dreamweaver has a feature : Clean Word HTML, and as the Word HTML is the same as frontpage HTML |
No, it definitely isn't. FP can create very good HTML, if the user knows
what he/she is doing.
--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
I see what you mean about not being crazy about the design. Just keep
surfing. Everytime you see a site that you think has "it" print a page
out. Keep a collection of thosepages. Go back ecide what you like
about each site and make try to make it work on your own.
BTW, I like your wallpapers very much. I have wallpapers on my site,
too: www.dreamscape.com/bowcap
I don't like my site much, either. It's almost 3 years old, and I'm
working on a new one right now.
Joanne
surfing. Everytime you see a site that you think has "it" print a page
out. Keep a collection of thosepages. Go back ecide what you like
about each site and make try to make it work on your own.
BTW, I like your wallpapers very much. I have wallpapers on my site,
too: www.dreamscape.com/bowcap
I don't like my site much, either. It's almost 3 years old, and I'm
working on a new one right now.
Joanne
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.