That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg
The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.
The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either.
Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.
You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting.
Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?
There is no way to judge art other than by subjective opinion.
> There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting.
> Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?
I do like Picasso's and Dali's work and also Cezanne's work. I even like the picture I linked to. But this is the key part:
> if the result is interesting.
I don't see how the wrong perspective and tilted platter add to the appeal of the painting. It seems to be an accident.
Certainly for me, a tilted bowl of fruit that defies logic is more interesting than a boring bowl of fruit. It still doesn't fascinate me incredibly, but it at least adds something worth thinking about. I'm not that well-versed in painting, however, so perhaps somebody more enthusiastic than I can explain to both of us what makes Cezanne so awesome?
First, I'm not talking about people, but about works. Second, I wasn't saying there was a reverse correlation, but not really any, in my experience. Exciting work (from the consumption standpoint) is not really any more or less likely to be well-done in a technical sense, as far as I've experienced.
It certainly shows that he's got a good sense of perspective re: drawing bodies. And that's the suggestion Paul's making, right?, that Cezanne makes stupid goofy mistakes. The sketch here is just a sketch, but it shows he knows his shit.
Sorry, but no. Left arm (right from the observer's POV) is orangoutan-sized, while the other (closer to the viewer) appears too small and thin in comparison, even accounting for perspective. Hip bone goes way too high, and thorax is amorphously portrayed in comparison. Neck starts behind guy's back. Head outline is missing.
The thing that bites guy's ass is ridiculously sized if a lion was intended, and that front leg looks more human than animal (then again, he might be going for some mythological chimera-ish thing).
Overall, the drawing is confusing and I can't make out what many of the lines in the legs/ground area are supposed to represent.
Finally, this is not a casual doodle. Lines were drawn and refined several times over. If he was going for manierism or El Greco-ish stylization, fair enough, but still proves little about his ability to draw. If he was trying to achieve a render true to anatomy and perspective, I call fail.
I don't know whether Cézanne could draw or not, but I don't think this works as evidence that he could.
Cezanne can't be blamed for the lion. This is a drawing of a statue in the Louvre. The sculptor may have made the lion small intentionally. But the human was pretty anatomically correct as far as I remember.
Cezanne had at least six years of classical drawing instruction, where you begin by drawing various geometric forms, move on to making sketches of plaster statuary, and then finally draw from the model. It's a highly technical form of training akin to doing scales all day long on a musical instrument. I'm sure there's a folder in some archive in Aix full of extremely boring and careful studies he did at the time. I've linked the one example I could easily find online above.
Saying Cézanne couldn't draw is a glorious form of missing the point, like saying Stravinsky couldn't hold a tune.
There are perhaps other qualities in Cezanne's paintings, but PG is far from being the only person who considers Cezanne's drawing skills quite deficient.
Messiaen was obsessed with symmetry and patterns in rhythm (see his explanation of "non-retrogradable rhythms" in "The Technique of My Musical Language"). It's silly to say that he couldn't be aware of the pattern he was creating.
So I have a really interesting job in the front office at a real investment bank. I have worked here for several years and have used (among others) perl, python and C++. I have touched precisely 3 lines of java in all my time here.
Our development cycle is super fast, yet I work on very sensitive applications and infrastructure (real time trading, pricing, risk etc).
Bottom line: Jobs vary significantly in any industry and within any firm.
Not really. A bank is more like Ancient Greece, squabbling, semi-independent fiefdoms that only look united from the outside. Two groups in the same bank can be like night and day culturally. The biggest factor is the personality of whoever's the head trader (that week).
Larger and more profitable. The sort of things that will get your cv noticed by the right people around here are: Haskell, some sort of particle physics or similar simulation experience, and/or games programming experience.
Oh, and for goodness sake don't put down on your cv that you've read the first 13 chapters of Hull and know Ito's Lemma and the Black Scholes model. (Unless you just want to give people a good chuckle.)
If you really want to bone up on your financial maths with a bias towards a job in computational finance I always recommend people read Joshi. http://www.markjoshi.com/
...oh, and covered bonds linked to a specific income stream is also not new. XS0271006602 for example is a covered bond linked to the income stream on a chain of pubs in the UK.
Yup having a secondary market is extremely important. That's why it already exists (just like mezz finance, which is what he has reinvented here, also exists). The idea of having an instrument that pays linked to a particular income stream is also not new - covered bonds, asset-backed securities, pfandbriefe etc for example all work this way.
What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a...
How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps? http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~3...
The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.