#Three-dimensional

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

[olenaart]

“Impasto Wildflower Symphony” https://www.artfinder.com/product/impasto-garden-symphony-c9865/ A Lively Meadow in Colorful Relief

Impasto Garden Symphony

Step into the vibrant and textured world of “Impasto Wildflower Symphony”, an enchanting artwork that celebrates the exuberance of a blooming meadow. This three-dimensional masterpiece bursts forth with expressive character, capturing the essence of nature’s joyous field.

Key Features:

Impasto Technique: The artist skillfully employs thick impasto strokes, breathing life into the vivid flowers. Each brushstroke adds dimension, making the scene dynamic and captivating.

Rich Palette: Reds, pinks, yellows, purples, and blues intermingle harmoniously, mirroring the riotous hues of a sun-kissed meadow.

Textured Delight: Dabs and splatters of paint create a tactile experience, inviting viewers to explore the wild growth of the landscape.

Three-Dimensional Wonder: The canvas comes alive, inviting you to immerse yourself in the blossoming beauty.

Don’t let this unique and captivating artwork slip away. Add “Impasto Wildflower Symphony” to your collection and revel in the expressive nature of a flourishing meadow. 🌸🎨🌿 #texture #colourful #acrylic #canvas #vibrant #relief #pallet knife #artwork #painting #wildflowers #meadow #impasto #colorful #vibrant #dynamic #expressive #nature #texture #blooming #richpalette #three-dimensional #joyousfield @Artfinder @ArtRepublic

[cure-yo-curio]

The Fourth Dimension is something we can't perceive with the eyes.

After putting much thought, we can only imagine what the fourth dimension affects.

When we think of the word "expansion", we usually think of things that scale larger than another. When we use modeling software, we have been always familiar about tweaking the X, Y, and Z-axis to move or resize our objects to a desired direction or orientation. Considering the changes when we tweak such tools, I thought that it would be counted as an event of expansion.

When we put a square in the modeling software, we can see its set measures in every face, edge, and side. However, tweaking the X-axis could move or resize the square into a forward-stretched elongated rectangle. It might have changed the entire shape, but the face that comprised of measurements from the Y and Z-axis remained unchanged. Even when moving the object, the Y and Z positions remain the same.

We could observe the same when we move the Y-axis instead. We could also observe it when we move two axes simultaneously. Suppose that we move both the X and the Z-axis, the width and the position of the Y-axis would still remain the same.

This explains that a three-dimensional object, that we see naturally, can be morphed and moved into different directions. But, to morph the entire figure, it would require the modifications of all three axes. Otherwise, one axis will remain the same.

Now, going back to the thought of expansion. When we put negative values to modify the axes, we don't immediately perceive it as an event of expansion. Rather, for us, we would automatically see it as the opposite -- contraction. When something becomes smaller, it's not expansion. But similarly, contraction can be affected by moving or resizing an object with negative values.

When the square becomes a thinner rectangle by shrinking the X-axis measurement, the Y and Z-axis measurement would still remain the same like how the object would if expanded in the same fashion.

Now, we have been thinking about what the fourth dimension looks like. Personally, I saw a resemblance to how we understood Schrodinger's Cat theory. We will never know how the cat is doing unless we look inside the box. So while the box remains unopened, assumptions can only be made.

Judging by examining the three-dimensions of the cat-containing box, it remains unchanged regardless of the events that could already take place for the cat.

But what if the box was to be expanded and/or contracted? It would still be the same Schrodinger's Cat theory, except we cannot be certain anymore that it's only the cat inside the box. The cat here, could be what the inside of the box contains. It could also contain something else.

This is the idea behind the fourth dimension. I even personally think that we are affected by the fourth dimension. The smaller components that we have and us being part of a larger component, could be the fourth dimension. We can measure the three-dimensional sizes of the Earth, but the fourth dimension could only be assumed at best when viewing the Earth from an outer space perspective. We wouldn't know the exact state of the global population.

Similar to our own physiology, the fourth dimension could apply to the changes in our body. Molecules and bacteria are part of the fourth dimension that could be inside of us.

Given this, how are we supposed to manipulate an object in all four dimensions? The answer is: we can't. We can only manipulate an object in all three dimensions. Because to manipulate all four dimensions, we would have to simultaneously manipulate what comprises the object while we manipulate it's three-dimensional properties. The fourth dimension cannot be modified unless we can directly modify what's inside a solid enclosed object. It can also remain fixed as we modify the three-dimensional properties.

Even things outside the object counts as part of the fourth dimension. It did not mean that what's inside the object multiplied or expanded, it remained fix unless the fourth dimensional properties went through a change by itself like liquid turning into solid by natural freezing.

In conclusion, the fourth dimension is something that cannot be manipulated by physical means. It could be one of the unperceivable dimensions where it can be manipulated through the changes of properties.

[k00299471]

Sarah Sze. "Seamless"

Sze incorporates objects such as tools,ladders and spirit levels adding other components like miniature wooden bridges .The sculpture sweeps across the space in delicate curves connecting the objects into a larger construct.

The way Sarah Sze uses the wall space opens my mind up to sculpture in the space that you are working in, and the space that is available to you.

[catmask]

rotating this freak

[w1lmuttart]

To make a mend

[aardvaark]

i like how leverage throws in random details that are never elaborated on. hardison gets himself a front row seat at the oscars each year, but we only see that in a single throwaway flashback. parker broke a guy's fingers for touching her and it wasn't even a plot point, it was just one in a series of memories of stabbings and so forth. eliot continually knows extremely specific information which implies some extremely specific scenarios he's been in. the more we find out about sophie's backstory, the more questions it raises about what the hell is wrong with her. and the more we find out about nate's backstory, the more questions it raises about what the hell is wrong with him.

[tsa23urban-hostel]

_ik

[marzipanandminutiae]

everyone loves Jo March when she's playing the male parts in in a theatrical, or complaining about Girly Things, or wishing she could go off to war. but nobody wants to talk about the time she was so happily engrossed in dressmaking for her sisters that she decided to ruin Amy's entire day when she was dragged away from it to go visiting

Let Jo Have A Complex, Human Relationship With Gendered Behavior You Cowards

[mossycakes]

iwtv has a lot of strengths, but the complexity of each character is completely astounding. every single one of them, lestat, louis, claudia and armand have done terrible things, and i can understand and empathise with the motivations and reasoning behind every single terrible decision. they all hurt each other in their own ways, they all have their own unhealed tragedy and weakness, and i love every single one of them so dearly. with no spoilers, this sort of characterisation is PERFECTED in episode 5. i genuinely dont think i could name a show that does complex characters quite like iwtc, because holy fuck man.

[canisalbus]

sometimes i think about natural hair machete

.

[atomic-chronoscaph]

Leonard Nimoy - Star Trek (1967)

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

We could have had it all...

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[sixlane]

there’s been a lot of bartylily discourse (i feel like) recently so i wanted to add my two cents to the conversation. and to preface, people can do whatever they want with these characters, these are just my personal opinions.

i think that bartylily is the most interesting when they’re equals. it’s kind of a subversion of the expectation for both of them. barty as this domineering evil psychosexual disaster is pulled down to earth and made soft and curious by his relationship with lily, and lily as the perfect background mother/wife/student/best friend is made confident and adventurous and independent by barty. if you allow them to exist in their predetermined roles within the ship, i think it falls flat. sub lily x dom barty is boring because it’s expected. if you want that, you need to board the toxic jily train and let james be the shitty person he is. <- that dynamic is way more interesting to me (in fact i’m writing a fic about it. shameless self promo).

bartylily is about acceptance and personal agency and breaking the cycle and letting go. it’s about finding a mirror in another person you would’ve never expected. it’s about making choices. i’ve been saying this but barty is not a rebellion, he’s the first thing lily decides she can have. barty doesn’t make lily feel small. he makes her feel like the possibilities for her life are endless. he also gives her permission to suck sometimes, to be selfish and make mistakes. he just allows her to be a person. and she gives that right back to him. she defines his edges a little bit because he sees parts of himself in her (temper, lack of direction, forced confinement). it’s surprisingly balanced and beautifully finite. they’re both meant to eventually be elsewhere. but that doesn’t mean this isn’t important.

[platossoulmates]

every comic i read gets me more and more angry about his portrayal in the movies and media