|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Uffington White Horse » uffington horse and the sun |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 07:30
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: But throughout the discussion, I was told that I was wrong. I wasn't told that someone disagreed with me or had a different opinion. I was told flat out that I was wrong, my perception was wrong and what I was suggesting was impossible, based on angles and alignments. You said "And for anyone viewing the horse from a position where its horsiness can actually be seen, the sunset will be to their right. " Simply the comment was wrong . Why do you continually bring up "angles and alignments " they were never used or needed to prove that the comment was wrong , they are the stuff of equidistance between sites and Thom . A standing stone is three dimensional. You can walk round it and view it from any angle. You can put it between yourself and any point on the horizon, so claiming it lines up with anything is clearly wrong unless there is a third point. A hill figure is a picture. When I go to the cinema, the best place to see the screen properly is not the seats right under the screen. When I watch TV, I wouldn't sit on top of the box to look at it from above. When I go to an art gallery, I don't peer round the side of the frame. In all these instances, to view the image I look at it from a distance away, face on. To view the horse in this way, you will be looking at it from the northwest, as you do from the train. From there, the sunset is on your right and if you on y he train, you are heading towards it. The horse appears to do the same, irrespective of whether it actually does when measured with a compass or viewed from the horse's back or wherever. This is my opinion of the position an artist would intend their picure to be viewed from. You can disagree with that, it's fine. But both you and ED told me I was wrong and that what I was saying couldn't possibly make sense. I have finished with this discussion, it now just feels like you want to keep arguing the toss over the same points until everyone agrees with you or stops. I'm stopping.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 07:51
|
||
|
The horse can be seen from a very wide area , much greater than a typical standing stone and due to it's size , much clearer . Because you saw it from the train doesn't give that particular viewing position any greater salience than many of the other viewing positions you ignore . What you were told was wrong was this comment “And for anyone viewing the horse from a position where its horsiness can actually be seen, the sunset will be to their right. “ .That was shown to be wrong . There was no need or mention of angles or alignments .
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 09:21
|
||
|
That's a very small element of th ways in which I was told I was wrong. What I was told was wrong, repeatedly, was that the horse doesn't align with any point on the horizon where the sun sets, therefore it could not possibly be interpreted as heading towards the sunset. The emphasis was very much on refuting any possible interpretation or perception because of a measurable orientation. You stated that possible artistic intention could not be considered as relevant and that appearance is "meaningless", because it doesn't match your orientation of the horse as not being aligned with the sunset. This assertion is based on you deciding how to align the horse. To do this, you must have chosen to view the horse as aligned or orientated in some way. Did you choose to do this by reference to its back, or its head, or its tail? Each is aligned on a different angle to the other elements. Why did you choose that particular feature and ignore the other features of the carving? I didn't challenge this, although it seems to contradict your view that any attempt to choose a particular angle to view or do anything from to the exclusion of others is meaningless and only used to suit an agenda. You also gave your opinion that the horse appears to be heading uphill, towards the barrow and hillfort. You have chosen to interpret the direction the horse is going in order to reach that opinion. I don't know where the horse is going, I haven't asked it. I offered the posssibility that it could be runnnng along the crest of the hill. In my view this is a possible interpretation. Unless we can ask the artist, or the horse, we'll never know what it's heading for. I'm open to the possibility it is doing either, or neither. You are not open to the possibility that it is running along the crest rather than your preferred option that it is going up the hill towards the barrow/fort. You said it was "not moving around the edge of the hill but continuing up what is left of the slope, prancing or galloping , it is unlikely to do such a sharp right turn when all the hard work has been done coming up the shoulder and the castle and barrow just straight ahead". This is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but it's not the only possibility at all. Personally when walking on the downs I rarely head for the top of the hill and routinely follow the top of the escarpment round, following the line of the contour round the tops of dry valleys. You maintain that interpreting the horse through perception or appearance is wrong: "others who were also using their perceptions and relying on the appearance got it wrong ." I do not accept that your perception is more or less right or wrong than anyone else's. It's their perception.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 09:24
|
||
IMO in comparison with the abusive and dishonest and disruptive stuff that has sometimes appeared on here, any disagreements, misjudgements and misunderstandings in this thread are nothing, certainly not worth more than momentary umbrage. So come on, like it or not we're bound together by a wish to talk about something almost no-one else wants to talk about! If you know a better hole go to it but if you don't, don't!
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 09:46
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: That's a very small element of th ways in which I was told I was wrong. What I was told was wrong, repeatedly, was that the horse doesn't align with any point on the horizon where the sun sets, therefore it could not possibly be interpreted as heading towards the sunset. . If you said that it was aligned towards the sunset ,any sunset then you were wrong . I pointed out that the alignment couldn't be more wrong for sun horse as a comment not directed at you , but generally . I didn't realise you had also made that mistake . The alignment is obvious , along it's back, tail to head , there is plenty of room for error for it still to be wrong . I said that the horse is static , you disagreed . If there is any suggestion of a movement I would go for forward , it's nearly at the top ,it's also unlikely to do the sharp turn .It's pointed towards the castle and barrow , I thought that aspect of he discussion moot . I was much more concerned with the reality of the siting not the hypothetical movement and said so. thesweetcheat wrote: You maintain that interpreting the horse through perception or appearance is wrong: "others who were also using their perceptions and relying on the appearance got it wrong ." I do not accept that your perception is more or less right or wrong than anyone else's. It's their perception. No I didn't I maintained that the perception that the horse was directed towards a sunset was wrong .You can interpret through perception and appearance as much as you like , it might be right or wrong .In the above case it would be wrong .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2017, 09:53
Aug 20, 2017, 09:50
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: IMO in comparison with the abusive and dishonest and disruptive stuff that has sometimes appeared on here, any disagreements, misjudgements and misunderstandings in this thread are nothing, certainly not worth more than momentary umbrage. So come on, like it or not we're bound together by a wish to talk about something almost no-one else wants to talk about! If you know a better hole go to it but if you don't, don't! Yes it's great not to have the abusive ,dishonest , disruptive stuff . Maybe it's a first . And last , for those that can't be arsed anymore .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 10:03
|
||
"Can't be arsed" really means uncomfortable with, I think. But my thesis is that discomfort here is very much a passing phase and should therefore be endured. If one has been here for years one can't really say one doesn't basically like it, full stop. I'm thinking of you, Evergreen. ;)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 10:17
|
||
I can't speak for anyone else , but I get the impression that for ED it is more ,or certainly different , from being uncomfortable .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 10:41
|
||
Well, maybe I understated it. But I stand by the thought that it will pass speedily. What doesn't, here?
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 10:49
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: I can't speak for anyone else , but I get the impression that for ED it is more ,or certainly different , from being uncomfortable . Well if its any consolation to ED his words, directed to me, followed by his action didn't make me feel in good in any way. So I get it. There is no point in posting on a forum if you just end up feeling uncomfortable, frustrated or angry about it. All rather negative. I'm sure he's not alone in that, just most don't bother with the leaving statement.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
