APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

[epitalon]

Millet has produced a partially accurate painting of the winter night sky. Starting with the belt of Orion, one sees it points down (roughly) to Sirius and can see the other major stars of Canis Major. In the other direction (going up from the belt) the accuracy seems to fail, as it looks like Aldebaran and the Pleaides have been dragged to far eastward, just to make it in the painting (or maybe I am misinterpreting some of Orion's "shield" stars here). One can also see the "sword" of Orion (containing the Orion Nebula - M42) and Rigel to its lower-right. What intrigues me is how bright he has represented Algiebba ("eta" Orionis). It appears as bright as Sirius, although this variable star isn't supposed to exceed +3.34 Mag. This sar is really a quadruple system with an eclipsing binary. Why did he show it so bright? At any rate, the meteors are definitely artistic license, with their arc-like appearance. Although loooonnnnggg meteors show a curve on photographs, I believe these are too short to do so. Were they added for interest?

I see a quite realistic picture of orion. About Algiebba, maybe it is a planet occuring to be just here, in front of Algiebba.

[CuriousChimp]

Am I missing things?

To each their own, but some art is properly enjoyed with history lessons. Nocturnes are a rare kind of painting, and van Gogh... is van Gogh.

Thank you for being so understanding. I do do the Art History thing if the art is, in my opinion, worth my efforts and time. Vincent's isn't. Others most definitely are.

Too many books, not enough reading time.

[geckzilla]

Am I missing things?

To each their own, but some art is properly enjoyed with history lessons. Nocturnes are a rare kind of painting, and van Gogh... is van Gogh.

Thank you for being so understanding. I do do the Art History thing if the art is, in my opinion, worth my efforts and time. Vincent's isn't. Others most definitely are.

Too many books, not enough reading time.

There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.

[CuriousChimp]

There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.

You have no idea what I know little about, nor do you know what I know much about. To assume you do either is presumption and unjustifiable hubris. For all you know I could be an Art Historian specialising in "pretty pictures". "Just saying".

If mentioning that I dislike something that looks, to me, like the scribblings of an intensely myopic child with severe astigmatism and no sense of colour is "spreading negativity", then yes, I will in future keep silent. Even should it not be, I will.

It is nice to know that diversity of taste is so utterly accepted and embraced in this Millennial Milieu. That criticising even "The Greats" can be received with a warm, friendly discussion of differing viewpoints. That speech is indeed freely allowed.

Fare well.

[geckzilla]

There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.

You have no idea what I know little about, nor do you know what I know much about. To assume you do either is presumption and unjustifiable hubris. For all you know I could be an Art Historian specialising in "pretty pictures". "Just saying".

If mentioning that I dislike something that looks, to me, like the scribblings of an intensely myopic child with severe astigmatism and no sense of colour is "spreading negativity", then yes, I will in future keep silent. Even should it not be, I will.

It is nice to know that diversity of taste is so utterly accepted and embraced in this Millennial Milieu. That criticising even "The Greats" can be received with a warm, friendly discussion of differing viewpoints. That speech is indeed freely allowed.

Fare well.

You said you don't learn about things you don't like, so it follows that since you don't like van Gogh, you don't learn about him. Hence, just seems to me you're talking trash (this is indeed different from criticism) for no reason, really. Now you're being insulting, and ageist on top of that. Anyway, don't dish it out if you can't take it back.