add 3d stuff and other stuff

1 files changed, 29 insertions, 23 deletions

diff --git a/db.json b/db.json
index 3188cad..1dcbfa9 100644
--- a/db.json
+++ b/db.json
@@ -1050,7 +1050,11 @@
       ],
       "citation": "2016<br>\n35mm slide projector, 40 slides continuously looping, each slide 5 secs, 4:00 min loop, with wall text<br>\nCourtesy the Artist<br>\n",
       "description": "<p>\n<i>An Apology</i> is a 35mm slide projection that constructs the imaginary final lecture by Sir Anthony Blunt at the Courtauld Institute of Art upon his retirement in 1974. Blunt’s first public attribution occurred at the very start of his Art History career in 1938 with an essay published in the magazine Apollo claiming to have discovered Poussin’s Augustus and Cleopatra. After the war he brokered an acquisition between his MI5 comrade Tomas Harris, who was now an art dealer, and the National Gallery of Canada (NGC). From the start, his attribution was challenged by other formative Poussin scholars such as Denis Mahon and Jacques Thuillier, but he remained until his death unshaken in his original diagnosis. It seemed fitting to close his life’s work at the Institute by returning to the same painting that had only recently been stripped of attribution to Poussin by the National Gallery’s research curator Myron Laskin in the gallery’s 1971 report. Conscious that it was his final lecture, and thus bookending his career on the analysis of a single painting, Blunt starts with a slide of Poussin’s Dance to the Music of Time—a painting in which the iconography illustrates the infinite cycle of life as personified in\n</p>\n\n<p>\nfour figures: poverty, labour, wealth, and pleasure.\n</p>\n\n<p>\nAfter the prologue, the body of the lecture is broken down into four parts:\n</p>\n\n<p>\n1. Blunt lays out the original argument he drafted in Apollo;\n</p>\n\n<p>\n2. He updates his 1930’s gaze with a forensic analysis of radiographs that his Courtauld colleague Stephen Rees Jones developed as well as a radiograph taken of Augustus and Cleopatra at the NGC;\n</p>\n\n<p>\n3. He presents a survey of images by painters proposed by international scholars as alternative authors to the painting as logged in the “curatorial file” at the NGC;\n</p>\n\n<p>\n4. He offers a self-reflective conclusion that meditates on the role of the shadow in Poussin’s compositions and aesthetic theories. Blunt bolsters his connoisseur’s eye (relying on the conjectural Mancini/Morelli methods) with a conceptual analysis of Poussin’s thematic obsession with the shadow. Strategically differing from the chiaroscuro of Caravaggio and the Baroque spotlight which used light to focus attention on the key element of the tableau, Blunt argues instead Poussin often relies on an absent foci at the centre of his paintings—an absence Blunt argues that is not an emptiness but rather a very meaningful shade. It is with this argument that Blunt ties the controversial painting <i>Augustus and Cleopatra</i> to Poussin’s most famous painting, <i>The Arcadian Shepherds</i>, because, quoting an earlier essay by himself, ‘the exact nuance of the ideas expressed in the painting can best be seen by considering it in connexion with other pictures belonging to the same group.’ Structured using the same composition—a prostrated agent with the western setting sun casting their face in darkness—the geometric centre of both paintings locates the essential clue to the immaterial meaning of the tableaux. In the former, the black pouch with its secret contents and in the latter the inscription “Et in Arcadia ego” under the searching shepherd’s shadow. The lecture ends by recounting the Classical inspiration of the painting—Pliny the Elder’s account of painting’s origin as accidentally discovered when tracing the outline of a human shadow to preserve the memory of a lover going off to war—and contrasting Plato’s Cave of Shadows with the Greek term for painting, <i>skiagraphia</i> (which literally means ‘shadow painting’). With dramatic flair, Blunt ends the lecture not with an empty slide illuminating the classroom, but rather plunges the classroom into darkness with a full black frame. Here the slideshow automatically continues by looping to the first image: <i>Dance to the Music of Time</i>.\n</p>\n\n<p>\nSlidelist: \n</p>\n\n<p>\n01 Nicolas Poussin / Dance to the Music of Time / 1633-34 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n02 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra c.1624 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n03 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra (Label on back of stretcher) undated \n</p>\n\n<p>\n04 Nicolas Poussin / Death of Germanicus 1627 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n05 Nicolas Poussin / Comparison of Augustus + Germanicus \n</p>\n\n<p>\n06 Nicolas Poussin / Nymph and satyr drinking (2 Versions) / 1626-28 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n07 Nicolas Poussin / Martydom of St. Erasemus (Study vs. Altarpiece) / 1628-29 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n08 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra / c.1624 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n09 Noel Coypel / Emperor Trajan during a public audience / 1699 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n10 Marc Antonio / The Queen of Sheeba (after Giulio Romano) / c.1505\n</p>\n\n<p>\n11 Nicolas Poussin / Venus Bringing Arms to Aeneas / c.1620 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n12 Annibale Carraci / Remus Before Amulius / c.1590 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n13 Alessandro Allori / Annunciation / 1584 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n14 Nicolas Poussin / The Triumph of David (X-Radiograph) / 1631-33 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n15 Nicolas Poussin / The Triumph of David / 1631-33 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n16 Rembrandt van Rijn / The Anatomy of Dr. Tulp / 1632 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n17 Rembrandt van Rijn / The Anatomy of Dr. Tulp (X-Radiographic Detail) / 1632\n</p>\n\n<p>\n18 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra / c.1624 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n19 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra (X-Radiograph) / c.1624 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n20 Nicolas Poussin / Rape of the Sabine Women / 1633-34 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n21 Jacques Stella / Rape of the Sabine Women / c.1650 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n22 Nicolas Poussin / The Adoration of the Golden Calf / 1633-34 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n23 Nicolas Poussin / Rescue of Young Pyrrhus / 1634 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n24 Domenico Gargiulo / Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well / 1627 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n25 Nicolas Poussin / Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well / 1648 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n26 Nicolas Poussin / Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well / c.1665 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n27 Michelango Cerquozzi / The Rehearsal, or A Scene from the Commedia dell’Arte / 1630-40 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n28 Niccolò De Simone / Banquet of Absalom / c.1650 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n29 G.B. Quagliata Triumph of David / c.1650 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n30 Remy Vuibert / The Decree of Constantine / c.1630 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n31 Charles Le Brun / The Queens of Persia at the feet of Alexander / c. 1660 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n32 Charles Le Brun / The Death of Meleager / c.1658 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n33 Peter Paul Rubens / War and Peace / 1629 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n34 Anthony van Dyke / Portrait Charles 1 (Triptych) / 1635 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n35 Benjamin West / The Departure of Regulus / 1769 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n36 Benjamin West / Death of General Wolfe / 1770 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n37 Nicolas Poussin / Augustus and Cleopatra / c.1624 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n38 Nicolas Poussin / The Arcadian Shepherds / 1637-1638 \n</p>\n\n<p>\n39 Nicolas Poussin / Comparison of Cleopatra vs. Shepherds \n</p>\n\n<p>\n40 Darkness\n</p>\n\n",
-      "author": "CHARLES STANKIEVECH"
+      "author": "CHARLES STANKIEVECH",
+      "threeObject": {
+        "path": "data_store/30-Apology/",
+        "file": "textured_output.obj"
+      }
     },
     {
       "__index": 30,
@@ -1247,11 +1251,10 @@
       "description": "<p>\nIn this rare footage we see Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures, Sir Anthony Blunt, giving a tour of the Queen’s Gallery at Buckingham Palace in 1962. At this time Blunt was at the peak of his intellectual career and not yet unmasked for his double intelligence activities for both MI5 and the Soviets. What emerges here, in the heart of the British Empire, as casual banter about a portrait of King Charles
I and a clock that “keeps perfect time,” takes on a certain duplicity when seen in the rear view mirror of archival footage. The curatorial tour ends with a particularly ironic twist as Blunt discusses the Royal Family’s Fabergé eggs, which were gifts from the Russian royal family and were famous not only for their exquisite craftsmanship, but also because each egg opens to reveal a secret surprise. \n</p>\n\n",
       "author": "ANTHONY BLUNT",
       "thumbnail": {
-        "uri": "assets/data_store/36-BBC/36-BBC-thumb.jpg",
-        "caption": "",
-        "height": 225,
-        "width": 300,
-        "type": "jpg"
+        "uri": "assets/data_store/36-BBC/bbc-thumb.mp4",
+        "type": "video",
+        "width": 320,
+        "height": 240
       }
     },
     {
@@ -1279,11 +1282,10 @@
       "description": "<p>\nA collaboration between theorist and erotic writer Pierre Klossowski and filmmaker Raúl Ruiz, <i>The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting</i> presents a debate between an art collector and a disembodied narrator, set in a ghostly mansion where the scenes shift between paintings and recreations of paintings as <i>tableaux vivants</i>. On the surface, the film is a meditation on the symbols of secret societies but further reflection reveals the epistemological problematics of historic iconography, when the image is split between symbolic exchange and secret initiation. Six paintings are presented and lectured upon throughout the film, but the narrator’s theories can only be explained by postulating a secret, stolen seventh painting that would provide the key to unlocking the meaning of the series and thus the sex magick rite to which the images allude. Cinematographer Sacha Vierny, who also shot seminal works for Alain Renais, Luis Buñuel, and Peter Greenaway, uses carefully angled mirrors to follow a ray of light from one <i>mise en scene</i> to the next, tracking the narrative continuity through the light in each scene, by way of cinematic chiaroscuro. Literally bookending the exhibition opposite the National Gallery of Canada’s nº6092 the film is, as Raúl Ruiz claims, “a fiction about theory.”\n</p>\n\n",
       "author": "RAUL RUIZ ",
       "thumbnail": {
-        "uri": "assets/data_store/37-Hypothesis/37-Hypothesis-thumb.jpg",
-        "caption": "",
-        "height": 225,
-        "width": 300,
-        "type": "jpg"
+        "uri": "assets/data_store/37-Hypothesis/ruiz-thumb.mp4",
+        "type": "video",
+        "width": 320,
+        "height": 240
       }
     },
     {
@@ -1311,11 +1313,10 @@
       "description": "<p>\nThe lecture by the alias “Walter Benjamin” titled <i>Mondrian 63-96</i> parodies the discourse around objects that are not what they appear to be, and subjects who are not who they say they are. The exhuming of the persona “Walter Benjamin” as a pseudonym, by an eastern European artist/theorist in the 1980s, was a strategic move to question the hierarchy of original and copy while providing a novel position for the art critic. In this short video, an actor articulates an argument, trying to comprehend the paradoxes of duplicate paintings alongside paintings from the future that mysteriously hang in the current lecture hall. Taking the arguments to an extreme, the undead Walter Benjamin exclaims: “a copy is a meta-original.”\n</p>\n\n",
       "author": "WALTER BENJAMIN ",
       "thumbnail": {
-        "uri": "assets/data_store/38-Benjamin/38-Benjamin-thumb.jpg",
-        "caption": "",
-        "height": 257,
-        "width": 300,
-        "type": "jpg"
+        "uri": "assets/data_store/38-Benjamin/benjamin-thumb.mp4",
+        "type": "video",
+        "width": 320,
+        "height": 240
       }
     },
     {
@@ -1866,7 +1867,7 @@
       "__index": 48,
       "id": "page_48",
       "title": "<i>no6092: The Purloined Letter </i>",
-      "type": "image",
+      "type": "video",
       "tag_0": 1,
       "tag_1": 8,
       "tag_2": 12,
@@ -1876,16 +1877,21 @@
       "tag_6": 0,
       "tag_7": 0,
       "tag_8": 0,
-      "images": [],
+      "images": [
+        {
+          "type": "video",
+          "caption": "",
+          "uri": "https://vimeo.com/studiostankievech/no6092"
+        }
+      ],
       "citation": "2016<br>\nDigital Artwork Courtesy the Artist <br>\n",
       "description": "<p>\n<i>no6092: The Purloined Letter </i>consists of an encrypted digital image using the technique of steganography that is automatically emailed to the sender when they request the work by writing <b>no6092@stankievech.net</b>. Steganography is the tactic of hiding a secret message in unsuspected data.\n</p>\n\n<p>\nThe artwork <i>no6092: The Purloined Letter </i>is based upon the painting catalogued under accession no6092 at the National Gallery of Canada and currently attributed to an anonymous painter under the title <i>Augustus and Cleopatra </i>c.1630- 1650. While the artwork <i>no6092: The Purloined Letter </i>and the NGC’s digital reproduction of the painting look incredibly similar, the digital artwork has changed every pixel in a calculated process to encrypt a secret message. The verisimilitude and yet the micro-differences are the very function of the work. \n</p>\n\n",
       "author": "CHARLES STANKIEVECH",
       "thumbnail": {
-        "uri": "assets/data_store/49-S-Purloined/49-S-Purloined-thumb.jpg",
-        "caption": "",
-        "height": 220,
-        "width": 300,
-        "type": "jpg"
+        "uri": "assets/data_store/49-S-Purloined/purloined-thumb.mp4",
+        "type": "video",
+        "width": 320,
+        "height": 240
       }
     },
     {