Hungry Hyaena: Alessandra Sanguinetti at Yossi Milo Gallery
I saw a selection of photos from Sanguinetti’s series, On the Sixth Day, when I visited New York last month. The exhibition had a powerful emotional impact, but since we were doing a four-hour marathon of Chelsea galleries that day, I didn’t have the time to thoroughly assimilate and analyze my own reactions. Fortunately, Hungry Hyaena reminded me about it with a thoughtful review at his blog.
Aposematism, 2006. Watercolor on illustration board
“Aposematism” is a type of protective signalling mechanism, usually but not always involving bright coloration, that draws the attention of predators. It might seem counterintuitive that potential prey would make themselves more conspicuous, but aposematic prey are defended by stings, venom, foul tastes, or other weapons, and they need to warn predators of that.
Continue reading
Mike Libby – Insect Lab
I love insects and I love clockworks. How can I not adore this guy’s work? Look at his beetles first. Not only are they beautiful, but this could be a great way to give your favorite conspiracy theorist a full-blown case of post-X-Files paranoia. Just plant one near the computer keyboard. . .
Ok, I don’t have any art in my closet. But I would, if I bought these delicious Gustav Klimt-inspired shoes, from Hollywould.com. They’re even on sale!
The ability to recognize oneself in a mirror is frequently cited as evidence of sentience. A dog may be frightened or excited by its reflection, but either way it does not appear aware that the reflection is its own. The dog’s behavior suggests that if it recognizes the reflection at all, it believes it to be another dog, appearing through a window.
If the dog did recognize itself, how could we tell? One test, devised in 1970 by Gordon Gallup, involves applying a mark to the animal’s face without its knowledge. If it can recognize itself in the mirror, it will understand that the mark it sees is on its own face. Evidence of this would be surprise, or an effort to investigate the mark, perhaps by turning to view it at different angles, or touching the actual mark with a paw. Gallup found that chimps would readily learn to recognize themselves, but macaque monkeys would not, even after several weeks of exposure to a mirror.
Human children fail the mirror test at one year of age, but pass at two. Until recently, great apes (like chimps) and dolphins were the only animals besides humans who succeeded. Now, it seems African elephants must be added to the list.
Publicity still from The Fountain, 2006
I wasn’t all that excited to see Darren Aronofsky’s new film The Fountain until I started reading press about the film. An article by Steve Silberman in the November 1 issue of Wired briefly mentions the father-son team, Peter and Chris Parks, responsible for the effects:
Parks and his son run a home f/x shop based on a device they call the microzoom optical bench. Bristling with digital and film cameras, lenses, and Victorian prisms, their contraption can magnify a microliter of water up to 500,000 times or fill an Imax screen with the period at the end of this sentence. Into water they sprinkle yeast, dyes, solvents, and baby oil, along with other ingredients they decline to divulge.
This is already such a delightful scene – kitchen alchemy, with Victorian prisms, no less – that it was nearly too much when I discovered the Parks’ studio is a 400-year-old stone building in the Cotswolds. How could this not be good stuff?
Pharyngula: Feminism is undermining human evolution!
Pharyngula has simply got to be my favorite blog. In this post, PZ Myers refutes an annoying pseudo-expert, William Tucker, who spews a lot of bogus biology on his roundabout way to bashing feminism.
Experts: Some women perform well in math
Talk about a non-surprise.
The title of this article, as usual, is misleading. The study served not to verify that some women can do math (duh), but to demonstrate the powerful effect gender stereotypes have on women’s math performances. In this study, women who were told that men are innately superior at math did worse on a subsequent math test than women who were told gender doesn’t affect math aptitude. Even women who are merely reminded of their gender in a math-free context do worse! It kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
As a Dorothy Sayers fan, I’m flat out horrified by this vintage cover art for Strong Poison
Unless I’m mistaken, it appears the seductive blonde in the painted-on dress is meant to be Harriet Vane. (Harriet was a paragon of intelligence, independence and wit, an Oxford graduate, and a most “decided-looking brunette.”)
If the artist had to vamp her into a pulp starlet, couldn’t he at least have let her keep her natural hair color? Grrrr.
I had to post this image from my recent trip to the Cloisters in New York. The Cloisters hosts most of the medieval art belonging to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and this is an illumination from a medieval manuscript. Unfortunately I didn’t note the manuscript’s name, but I believe this particular illumination depicts a scene from Revelations. It’s probably meant to be scary, but I think it’s charming.
The image captivates me because it seems so modern. The playful way the monsters’ bodies blend into one another as they cavort around the page, their copious teeth bristling and their orange eyes bugging — it looks just like the work of Maurice Sendak! Upon returning home and examining my copy of Where The Wild Things Are, I’m even more amazed at the family resemblance. What do you think?
