>The painter naturally visited Nadar’s studio fo a portrait; it captures an artist of fierce intelligence:
As true as it might be in many cases, I've begun to think that there might be something fundamentally groady about basing assumptions of intelligence on appearance. A brief meeting is bad enough, but a single photo? It's poetic to think that they tell us more about a person than they do.
godelski · 12m ago
> I've begun to think that there might be something fundamentally groady about basing assumptions of intelligence on appearance
I find this odd to hear. Not because I think we should base our opinions on someone's appearance but because I thought it was a common belief that we shouldn't. Or rather that you would be committing a faux pas by making such a statement publicly. That people at least wanted to paint the image of themselves as upholding this virtue, despite it being clear that society operated under such biases.
Growing up (American millennial) it was routine to see public service announcements to tell people to not judge others by their appearance. It was the lesson of not just children shows but a frequent trope in popular movies. Such as James Bond entering a fancy resort looking like a homeless man, being treated as such by some staff, only for that staff member to be chastised for not treating him with the upmost respect. "Don't judge a book by its cover". "The ugly duckling".
Have things changed? Is this no longer a social taboo? To at least feign this virtue?
nindalf · 8m ago
I think people are taught not to look down on others based on appearance, but not to avoid looking up at them.
scott_w · 28m ago
I’d say it’s not that the man is intelligent and you can tell just from a photo. It’s instead saying that the photograph is framed in such a way as to make the subject look intelligent.
A comment on the artistry rather than the subject.
Noumenon72 · 1h ago
A non-groady interpretation might be that we know Manet was intelligent, and the portrait captured that well; you might not be able to judge food by its photograph, but a photo that makes it look delicious when it actually is delicious has managed to capture the deliciousness.
Personally, I don't find it groady anyway; pretty sure a neural network trained on IQs and photographs could find reliable signals of intelligence therein. I can imagine a species that evolved to conceal the appearance of intelligence, but in humans I think it's more something natural selection would try to broadcast.
There's a lot of really interesting things to see there besides the sites themselves. The obvious one worldwide is that this is before the mass commercialization of clothing + planned obsolescence of such, which seems to have a very negative outcome.
But one thing not so visible that's really interesting to see is how simultaneously stern everybody looks with no fake smiles or hidden gazes. People were willing to just stare at something or somebody odd. But that sterness is regularly belied by things like a couple of guys in their 40s happily putting on a fake fight in front of the camera, falling on their asses, and just basically playing around like school boys having a great old time - a far rarer site now a days.
fn-mote · 3h ago
A fascinating tour of 19th C France through the the photographs of one man.
Captivated me much more than reading about the AI-enhanced-startup du jour.
lblume · 2h ago
I cannot really explain why, but I feel like each of these photos captures so much more about the respective person than a modern colored photo ever could.
akomtu · 1h ago
Portraits are like long exposure photos where the artist watches a person and captures the right elements at the right moments.
umvi · 2h ago
> and to slow the predatory opening of Japan that had begun with American warships’ arrival in 1854.
As true as it might be in many cases, I've begun to think that there might be something fundamentally groady about basing assumptions of intelligence on appearance. A brief meeting is bad enough, but a single photo? It's poetic to think that they tell us more about a person than they do.
Growing up (American millennial) it was routine to see public service announcements to tell people to not judge others by their appearance. It was the lesson of not just children shows but a frequent trope in popular movies. Such as James Bond entering a fancy resort looking like a homeless man, being treated as such by some staff, only for that staff member to be chastised for not treating him with the upmost respect. "Don't judge a book by its cover". "The ugly duckling".
Have things changed? Is this no longer a social taboo? To at least feign this virtue?
A comment on the artistry rather than the subject.
Personally, I don't find it groady anyway; pretty sure a neural network trained on IQs and photographs could find reliable signals of intelligence therein. I can imagine a species that evolved to conceal the appearance of intelligence, but in humans I think it's more something natural selection would try to broadcast.
There's a lot of really interesting things to see there besides the sites themselves. The obvious one worldwide is that this is before the mass commercialization of clothing + planned obsolescence of such, which seems to have a very negative outcome.
But one thing not so visible that's really interesting to see is how simultaneously stern everybody looks with no fake smiles or hidden gazes. People were willing to just stare at something or somebody odd. But that sterness is regularly belied by things like a couple of guys in their 40s happily putting on a fake fight in front of the camera, falling on their asses, and just basically playing around like school boys having a great old time - a far rarer site now a days.
Captivated me much more than reading about the AI-enhanced-startup du jour.
Reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5LY4Mz15o&t=282s
Finally, those who can do both: life of Jobs
No comments yet