Today's Topics:
Re: Guillory & response abilit
Re[2]: Ololon
why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Re: Re[2]: Ololon
Re: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Re: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Ololon
Re: Keats is to Shelley as feets is to belly
Re: Blake at MLA
Re: Howard Roark? & Kabbalah/Scholem/Benjamin
Blake list?
Re: Blake list?
20/20 Blake in freeview stereo 3D
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:48:04 +0000
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Guillory & response abilit
Message-Id: <5591.199701240848@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Tim Linnel suggests a "great irony" in his perception that Blake's problem was
>first in not being accepted and now in *being* accepted (i.e. canonized). I
>agree with what I think is his implicit pointQthat canonization of a work
>comes with an agreement on how it is to be readQbut wonder if his alternative
>emphasis on "the essential uniqueness of artistic self expression" is not an
>example of precisely that "Romantic Ideology" (to borrow Jerome McGann's
>sense) which he seems to be criticizing:
I wasn't criticising 'Romantic Ideology' but the process of pigeonholing by
the artistic and literary establishment that excluded Blake when he was
alive, and which now seeks to include him. I suppose I was pointing out that
nothing really changes.
I don't consider myself a romantic (I've never really thought about it:
perhaps naive would be a better word), but I do strongly believe in the
individuality of artistic expression, and that things should be appreciated
for what they are and not what they resemble.
I appreciate that groupings are necessary to frame teaching, but the
pigeonholing process (and indeed the fact that it is presented to
impressionable young students as accepted truth) does cause very real and
practical problems to actual artists who stray outside the boundaries of
contemporary groupings, as did Blake. Perhaps it would be useful to form a
'Loose Canon' to include these square pegs?
Tim
PS: In 200 years, there will be doubtless general astonishment on the Blake
mailing list at the canons employed in the late 20th Century. Can I suggest
that anyone who wants to avoid the general vitriol goes out and finds a
struggling artist or writer whose work they actually like, regardless of
what they believe their colleagues or fellow students will think, and BUY
SOMETHING!
PPS: "el eye double en ee double el", the traditional chant of the Linnels
(sic) for centuries, learnt by our wives on the night before their wedding
before they lose the names they were born with and which no one has any
trouble spelling.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:30:21 -0600
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re[2]: Ololon
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks to Mary Lynn for supplying more passages on Milton and Ololon than I
had time to trace. I don't think you're oversimplifying, but then again,
_Milton_ is the most difficult of the prophecies for me, even though it's
the shortest.
Incidentally, I'm supervising for the first time a senior honors thesis on
Blake. The student doesn't have a very specific topic yet: she's
interested in apocalypse (narrows it down, I know!), and right now we're
working through the shorter prophecies, Lambeth books, etc. Given her
interest, I especially want her to read one of the full-length books, but
I'm not sure which one. When I did a similar project as a senior, I worked
on _The Four Zoas_ and found it difficult but not impossible, especially in
the middle, where Blake recasts material from _Book of Urizen_, etc. If
time becomes a problem, I suppose I could have her read _Milton_ instead,
but I honestly don't know how that would go, since I don't know what it's
like to read _Milton_ without having read _FZ_ first. Ditto for
_Jerusalem_, for that matter. Any thoughts out there?
Jennifer Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:57:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Message-Id: <199701241957.LAA11485@igc2.igc.apc.org>
Tom Vogler is troubled by my remarks, esp. the following:
>Most readers I have encountered who want to "get something out
>of" what they read tend with amazing frequency to get what they
>want and what they expect. If not, they can dismiss it as
>something that does not (in Dumain's terms) "respond to his/her
>needs."
Let's see if I can make this simple enough to be understood. All
these debates about canonicity, literature, cultural capital,
etc., have nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of literary
works nor with the reasons ordinary people read them, but with
questions of social status and hierarchy. So I pose this
question: who are the people who care about such things? Does the
average person care about the opposition between high and low
culture, or the cultural capital of the stuff (s)he reads? Is the
average reader so concerned with either snobbing or slumming to be
interested in anything other than what a specific work means to
him/her personally? If you think so, please marshal the evidence
to prove your case. I would say that the people most obsessed
with social status -- including those who oppose the elitist canon
-- are precisely the people most psychologically close to it and
mesmerized by it. This is true in every department of art and
literature. It is always the most bourgeois of people who feel
the necessity to epater les bourgeois. It is always the
intellectuals who are in the forefront of doctrinal
anti-intellectualism. It is always the art snobs who feel like
revolutionaries by spray-painting "A" on the walls outside art
museums or installing urinals inside as anti-art objects. I am
singularly unimpressed by such exercises in thumbing one's nose at
"art".
Do you think what Blake means to people has anything at all to do
with Blake's place in the canon? Who gives a shit? I'm from
Buffalo, a dying blue-collar burg. Outside of any educational
institution, I developed a network of people interested in Blake
in every neighborhood and ethnic group in the city. People would
call me up late at night for me to read poetry to them over the
phone. Does this happen anywhere in America? Is it possible that
there are people everywhere so hungry for inspiration they will
gobble it up the first chance they get, without any concern over
whether it is "culture"?
When I was in elementary and high school, we never learned Blake.
At most, we got the poems "The Lamb" and "The Tyger", without any
elaboration. But boy did we get Wordsworth up the wazoo. "The
world is too much with us late and soon" -- what a bloody bore!
And worse, this crap about preferring "a creed outworn", or to
"hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn." What a load of
ballocks! Phony pompous bastard! Why is it so mysterious that
Blake rubbished Wordsworth?
What Guillory should have told his auditorium full of bootlicking
asswipe grad students, whose most frequently used word is
"problematize", is: not only are none of you going to get any good
jobs, but you are wasting your time writing your jargon-ridden
postmodern crap, children. Get a fucking life. Learn how to
write English prose, because you're going to need to learn how to
communicate with ordinary people when you end up teaching high
school. Problematize this!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:14:43 -0500 (EST)
From: TomD3456@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Ololon
Message-Id: <970124133410_947489554@emout07.mail.aol.com>
"Again, I know I oversimplify and I have an old-fashioned tendency to see an
underlying design in apparently disparate and chaotic anti-narrative works by
Blake."
Mary Lynn, your irony is noted and appreciated. Thanks for tracing some of
the golden threads in Milton so clearly.
--Tom Devine
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:53:35 -0800
From: reillys@ix.netcom.com (susan p. reilly)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Message-Id: <199701242253.OAA07093@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>
Ralph,
If you think that the debate you "pillory" has nothing to do with who reads Blake,
lovers of literature, or the fact that you read alot more Wordsworth than Blake in
grade school, you're mistaken, as your observation about Wordsworth points out!!
Without an interested bunch of "elitist" "snobs" to edit and bring to press editions
of Blake-- some of whom salvaged Blake's reputation from the dumpers and brought his
works to the world's attention -- you or I may never had access to any edition of
Blake at all. But I guess in that case you would have crossed the ocean to sit in the
reading rooms where Blake's papers were mouldering in manuscript before publishers,
poets, scholars, and interested patrons unearthed and reproduced them...
The vogue for Wordsworth you describe is just the kind of thing that the debate over
canon addresses, as who is "in" and who is "out" can influence readers at all levels
and the works to which they are exposed (what gets printed, taught, etc.).
The trend now is toward including more writers into the "canon" (just as Blake once
got "canonized, which is why you and I are reading him). The problem, of course, is
that means that some writers or their works may have to go to make "room" for the
others. If you would acknowledge the debate at a little slightly deeper level you
might see that nobody's trying to be a snob. There are writers who are now "facing"
posthumously the issue (if one can put it that way!) of "getting read," just as Blake
once did.
(Blakeans forgive any errors in the chronology or precise facts on the resurrection
of Blake's reputation & works. I generalize to make the point).
You wrote:
>
>Tom Vogler is troubled by my remarks, esp. the following:
>
>>Most readers I have encountered who want to "get something out
>>of" what they read tend with amazing frequency to get what they
>>want and what they expect. If not, they can dismiss it as
>>something that does not (in Dumain's terms) "respond to his/her
>>needs."
>
>Let's see if I can make this simple enough to be understood. All
>these debates about canonicity, literature, cultural capital,
>etc., have nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of literary
>works nor with the reasons ordinary people read them, but with
>questions of social status and hierarchy. So I pose this
>question: who are the people who care about such things? Does the
>average person care about the opposition between high and low
>culture, or the cultural capital of the stuff (s)he reads? Is the
>average reader so concerned with either snobbing or slumming to be
>interested in anything other than what a specific work means to
>him/her personally? If you think so, please marshal the evidence
>to prove your case. I would say that the people most obsessed
>with social status -- including those who oppose the elitist canon
>-- are precisely the people most psychologically close to it and
>mesmerized by it. This is true in every department of art and
>literature. It is always the most bourgeois of people who feel
>the necessity to epater les bourgeois. It is always the
>intellectuals who are in the forefront of doctrinal
>anti-intellectualism. It is always the art snobs who feel like
>revolutionaries by spray-painting "A" on the walls outside art
>museums or installing urinals inside as anti-art objects. I am
>singularly unimpressed by such exercises in thumbing one's nose at
>"art".
>
>Do you think what Blake means to people has anything at all to do
>with Blake's place in the canon? Who gives a shit? I'm from
>Buffalo, a dying blue-collar burg. Outside of any educational
>institution, I developed a network of people interested in Blake
>in every neighborhood and ethnic group in the city. People would
>call me up late at night for me to read poetry to them over the
>phone. Does this happen anywhere in America? Is it possible that
>there are people everywhere so hungry for inspiration they will
>gobble it up the first chance they get, without any concern over
>whether it is "culture"?
>
>When I was in elementary and high school, we never learned Blake.
>At most, we got the poems "The Lamb" and "The Tyger", without any
>elaboration. But boy did we get Wordsworth up the wazoo. "The
>world is too much with us late and soon" -- what a bloody bore!
>And worse, this crap about preferring "a creed outworn", or to
>"hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn." What a load of
>ballocks! Phony pompous bastard! Why is it so mysterious that
>Blake rubbished Wordsworth?
>
>What Guillory should have told his auditorium full of bootlicking
>asswipe grad students, whose most frequently used word is
>"problematize", is: not only are none of you going to get any good
>jobs, but you are wasting your time writing your jargon-ridden
>postmodern crap, children. Get a fucking life. Learn how to
>write English prose, because you're going to need to learn how to
>communicate with ordinary people when you end up teaching high
>school. Problematize this!
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:57:00 -0800
From: mthorn@ix.netcom.com (MT)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
Message-Id: <199701242257.OAA03382@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: why pillory Guillory? Cultural capital--who cares?
>>Tom Vogler is troubled by my remarks, esp. the following:
Blue collar Ralph brilliantly rebutts:
<...wazoo-sized, but respectful snip>.
>... Problematize this!
S'cool.
You sure yer not just a little bummed about
the Bills missing the SB *again*?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 97 10:13:40 -0600
From: Andrew Elfenbein
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Ololon
Message-Id: <32ea31346901002@mhub1.tc.umn.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Many thanks for the extremely helpful replies to my query. What follows is
a relatively long posting, so those not interested in this thread may want
to delete now. I have been struck by how certain assumptions designed to
help "make sense" of Blake's epics become ossified. Even though at the
general level numerous critics warn against pronouncing too confidently
about "what Blake says" in works as shatteringly hard as the later
prophecies, such pronouncements ooze in anyway. The easy assumption that
Ololon is Milton's emanation seems particularly flat to me for several reasons:
1. It simplifies the sex/gender relations of the poem into a dull "boy goes
after girl/girl goes after boy/boy and girl get together and live
apocalyptically ever after" narrative (been there, done that). In
particular, the moral/spiritual/imaginative/ sexual stakes in Ololon's
descent to earth seem to me to become much more interesting if we imagine
that she/they are NOT somehow intrinsically female or intrinsically "linked"
to Milton.
2. Milton does say that he descends to redress wrongs to his Emanation.
After he recognizes that "they and / Himself was Human" - where pitching
"correct" grammar becomes an mode of grasping a higher perception (knowledge
enabled in some way for Milton by entering Blake's foot - so that a peculiar
form of male-male physical penetration enables the mental realization of
male-female higher identification), he basically knows all he needs to know.
Yet Ololon never quite seems to know what is going on in the same way as
Milton (it's nice to know that someone in the poem is as confused as the
reader), which makes her/their journey much more interesting to me.
3. The origins of her descent are especially complicated (for example, how
she/they could NOT have heard the Bard's song - it's not exactly easy to
miss - it's part of the strange "great things of us ignored/forgot" quality
of so many of the characters - how could Milton have been so dim as not to
notice that he didn't have his Emanation? and Ololon's wonderful speech
later "& now remembrance / Returns upon us" - as if memory, a quality that
Blake usually opposes to inspiration - has been raised up). As Johnson
notes, the phrase "those who Milton drove / Down into Ulro" technically
means that Ololon drove Milton down - but the word order still preserves a
flicker of ambiguity about whether Milton also may also have driven down
Ololon - issues of grammatical priority point to more difficult issues of
origin.
How Ololon got to be the 12-year old virgin is again quite weird: it's
evidently that "they could not step into Vegetable Worlds without becoming /
The enemies of Humanity, except in a Female Form" - but femaleness has
hardly seemed so uncontentious in this poem that appearing as a virgin
should be taken as an obvious sign of a friendly visitor. In Ololon's "big
speech" asking "Is this our Feminine Portion, the Six-fold Miltonic
Female?", I want to read the questions as "real" rather than, as is usually
done, as rhetorical. It tends to be read as if she/they said, "I am your
Feminine Portion, the Six-fold Miltonic Female," but that isn't what
she/they says. It seems to me a real question if a portion of Ololon's
complicated sense, _her_ feminine portion, is really equivalent to the
Six-fold Miltonic Female (which doesn't necessarily mean Milton's Female -
just a Female who is somehow Miltonic).
4. Some (by no means all) of Blake's feminist critics have wanted to
condemn Blake because, as they see it, Ololon "sacrifices" herself for
Milton at the end of the poem (one writes, for example, "Blake wants to end
the game of hunter and hunted by having the prey willingly submit to the
hunter"). Without denying that there are misogynistic elements to Blake's
poem - the Female Will has serious PR problems (although the various
versions of the Male Will don't come off so well either), I think this
reading is silly. The Virgin part of Ololon does divide "Six-fold" but
doesn't disappear - she instead "fled into the depths / Of Milton's Shadow
as a Dove upon the stormy Sea" - a neat inversion of the gender roles at the
opening of _Paradise Lose_, where the Holy Spirit is "dove-like" and the
feminine is ungallantly relegated to the "vast Abyss."
5. Then, all the rest of it: Ololon remains as a "Moony Ark" and her
descent "In clouds of blood" allows the "Starry Eight" to become "One Man"
(meaning that Milton's "male portion" has also had to submit) with she/they
Ololon as the "Garment . . . within & without" giving meaning to the
Revelation. Plus, the many female images at the end of the poem suggesting
that the apocalypse is going to be a joint endeavor - Oothoon has finally
ditched the two slackers she was hanging around with and has taken up
organic farming ("weeping o'er her Human Harvest") - and has with eminent
good sense gentrified her living conditions from a cave to "the Vales of
Lambeth" - and whereas the poem begins with a man going forward into the
text by breaking Milton's name, it ends with a woman emerging from the veil
while two pod people look on. (And Hilton's gorgeous observation that
Ololon's name survives in "r_ol_l _o_ver _Lon_don - which, if it is
over-reading, is an excess like grace).
Sorry for the long post. Still gathering my harvest in Minneapolis (where
anyone who wonders why Blake thought nature a "hindrance" need only try to
shovel my driveway)
Andrew Elfenbein
elfen001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
when will I become like the swallow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:29:18 +0000
From: masch@community.net
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Keats is to Shelley as feets is to belly
Message-Id: <32EA6D10.280A@community.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hugh Walthall wrote:
>
> Keats did not know Blake, or know of Blake. To this day, in Eternity,
> he has never met him or read his works, or seen any drawings etc. by
> Blake. It's weird, I grant you. Like Shakespearean characters lost in
> a haunted wood, they wander through Kastle Miltonus, never in the same
> room at the same time. Two rare earth metals, never present together in
> the same ore, yet commonly grouped on most periodic tables. Go figure.
>
> Hugh Walthall hugwal@erols.com
>
> p.s.: p.327 of Bate Bio of Keats: (Oxford Paper edition 1964) Keats knew
> little, if anyything, about Blake.
Very elegant and concise. Bravo! masch
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:40:32 -0500 (EST)
From: MTavish@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake at MLA
Message-Id: <970126004031_1178241459@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Hi Marcus,
I'm a gradual student working towards a PhD. I did my
MA orals on prophecy as a genre and met with a lot of
skepticism about the usefulness of the topic or even
the possibility of truly analyzing the topic. I did, though,
get a good response after the exam. I learned a lot,
too. Kate
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:59:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Edward Larrissy
To: blake@albion.com, reillys@ix.netcom.com
Cc: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Howard Roark? & Kabbalah/Scholem/Benjamin
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:32:15 -0800 "susan p. reilly"
wrote:
>Hi, Pam,
>I would like to know more about your kabbalistic readings of Blake.
>What evidence did you uncover for Blake's readings in the Jewish
>mystics-- (if the sources for Blake's kabbalistic reading are
>well-known, I apologize in advance for my ignorance)--?
Dear Susan Reilly and others,
I apologize for not having noticed if somebody has already replied to
the question about Blake's having read the Kabbalah, or at least having
come across kabbalistic ideas. Kathleen Raine, in -Blake and Tradition-
(1968), ii, 77, suggests that he might have come across such ideas in
the works of Robert Fludd. She specifically includes among possible
influences the idea of 'Tsimtsum' - God's withdrawal from the world, the
departure of light from the spheres of the universe, and the
degeneration of the Tree of Life into a dead husk. These ideas can be
seen as at least an influence on The Book of Urizen.
They are, of course, expounded in Scholem's -Major Trends
in Jewish Mysticism-, and they can be seen as an influence not only on
Benjamin's 'Mechanical Reproduction', but also on The Angel of History.
I touched on these connections in a paper I gave at the Blake
conference organized by David Worrall and Steve Clark in July 1994 at
Strawberry Hill College, Twickenham, near London, and I hope that the
proceedings will be published by Macmillan/St Martin's Press as -Blake
in the Nineties-.
Best wishes,
Edward Larrissy
>
>Have you thought about posting your paper on one of the electronic
>journals (i.e. Romanticism on the Net)? Some of the conference papers
>at NASSR will appear there by invitation, and my understanding is that
>this does not preclude their appearing in other, "printed" venues.
>
>Susan
>
>You wrote:
>>
>>I'm not sure how to resolve the issues raised re spiritual reading of
>Blake
>>since I find the application of currently popular literary theory to
>Blake
>>reductionist for the same reasons that Steve Perry would find the
>>application of any model so - even a kabbalistic one. Moreover, most
>of
>>my work and understanding of Blake precedes any attempt to apply
>>another, kabbalistic, model. What excites me is the the Kabbalistic
>model
>>, which I began investigating many years after my original close
>>response to the contrary images of Blake's text, fitted exactly...
>that is, I
>>found that the ways in which I had interpreted Blakes' vision of the
>Fall
>>initially seemed to be perfectly corroborated by every new insight I
>>arrived at through becoming familiar with the symbols and ideas of an
>>entirely new discipline. If you are really interested, I could put up
>pape
>>by pae of my argument in my intended book ... but this would perhaps
>not
>>be in my best interests if I wish to publish the ms??? Believe, me,
>you
>>have seen the merest tip of a very deep iceberg in my postings. An
>>easier way would be to do a mutual discussion of Jerusalem, as I
>>suggested earlier, then Ralph and others could put their
>interpretations
>>side by side with my own , and students and other Blakeans can
judge
>>for themselves which readings are reductionist. Since Blake's
themes
>>deal with the Fall and how to regain Eden, and Jesus is a central
>figure in
>>all of his longer poems, I hardly see how a spiritual (though very
>>unorthodox) reading can be avoided. I prefer Minute Particulars to a
>>general , abstract discussion and Blake's words are always a
pleasure
>>to contemplate again. However, as Universities here are on vacation
>for
>>the Summer, this would be an idea for next year. Meanwhile, thanks
>to
>>all for a scintillatingly happy year of mental challenge. .. warmest
>wishes
>>for Christmas.
>>
>>
>
Ed Larrissy
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jan 97 07:15:48 EST
From: Philip Benz <100575.2061@CompuServe.COM>
To: "internet:blake@albion.com"
Subject: Blake list?
Message-Id: <970127121547_100575.2061_GHW111-1@CompuServe.COM>
Is this the address of a listserver dedicated to Blake? If so how
can I join and post & receive messages?
I ran across several of your discussion archives while running an
excite search for Blake, sublime, Frye, Bloom and like that. I turned up
a lot of sites with Blake's texts and images of his color plates, but
not much criticism.
Thanx in advance for your assistance in getting on this list -- if
listserver it be. Sometimes navigating the internet can be almost as
difficult as finding your way to Golgonooza.
Cheers, --- Phil from the Ardeche [100575.2061@compuserve.com]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 07:26:33 CST
From: MTS231F@vma.smsu.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake list?
Message-Id: <9701271328.AA06168@uu6.psi.com>
To join Blake Online, send your message to
blake-request@albion.com
Put nothing in the body of the message, but on the subject line put
subscribe
On 27 Jan 97 07:15:48 EST Philip Benz said:
>
> Is this the address of a listserver dedicated to Blake? If so how
>can I join and post & receive messages?
>
> I ran across several of your discussion archives while running an
>excite search for Blake, sublime, Frye, Bloom and like that. I turned up
>a lot of sites with Blake's texts and images of his color plates, but
>not much criticism.
> Thanx in advance for your assistance in getting on this list -- if
>listserver it be. Sometimes navigating the internet can be almost as
>difficult as finding your way to Golgonooza.
>
>Cheers, --- Phil from the Ardeche [100575.2061@compuserve.com]
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:20:41 -0800
From: george@nowhere.georgecoates.org (George Coates)
To: blake@albion.com
Cc: dc@caruso.com, lee.gomes@news.wsj.com
Subject: 20/20 Blake in freeview stereo 3D
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"20/20 Blake" in 3D
This site offers 3D image pairs of Blake paintings and scenes in"free-view"
taken from the live show "20/20 Blake" now running in San Francisco.
"Free-viewing", is a technique to see stereo 3D imagery free of special
glasses or software by training your eyes on a side-by-side pair of
images causing two images to fuse into a a single third 'stereo' image.
Go first to the demonstration page at:
http://www.georgecoates.org/Blake/howto.html
for a brief explanation describing how to do it.
In the live stage production of 20/20 BLAKE Adobe software was used to
make large scale projected 'virtual stage sets' from digitized Blake
paintings. The images are projected onstage in stereo 3D. The audience
wears polarized glasses to experience the paintings as illusions of
three-dimensional volumetric space enabling live performers to appear
within the paintings. Throughout the show familiar characters from Blake's
paintings appear to dissolve away as they are replaced by live performers
inhabiting the paintings. Additional information about the production
along with a preview of some images from the show is available for viewing
on the 20/20 BLAKE web site .
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #7
************************************