Showerthoughts

30472 readers

897 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1

Rules

All posts must be showerthoughts
The entire showerthought must be in the title
No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
Posts must be original/unique
Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

vatlark

forkball

Thekingoflorda

A very low-resolution image is probably way harder for a painter to convincingly replicate than a pristine HD image of the same scene (self.showerthoughts)

submitted 2 weeks ago by 58008 to c/showerthoughts

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In computational terms, a low resolution version of an image is almost by definition 'simpler', with fewer colours and details intact, but it seems like it would be much harder to do a convincing 1:1 replication of it in a painting compared to recreating a 'clean' HD version.

Or am I way off the mark? 😆 I'm not a painter, obviously. Seems like getting all of those weird JPEG artefacts right would be something of a novel skill for a traditional painter (or even a digital painter, for that matter).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Valmond 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wut 😁?

The drama was because only (very) rich people could pay for a painting because paint was ludicrously expensive, who were rich? Kings. Who liked paintings of voluptuous battles? Kings.

For the last supper (jesus and his boys sitting on the same side of a large table), mebbe they didn't have to live in cramped up spaces like we do and had large tables, or maybe that would have been a boring painting with 6-7 necks in the middle. Your pick!

Art is not to paint realisticly (except for that time in history) you can, and should, make it beautiful or impressive or both!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the painting of Jesus was theological like a lot of religious art, meant to depict a story rather than be a realistic depiction of an event

[–] Valmond 0 points 1 week ago

Well of course.

Also made to look "holy" and magical. It was surely (I haven't looked it up) a comission from the church.