Hospital São Francisco, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Ribeirão Preto - SP
Foto Esporte N. 57
Fotografia - Cartão Postal
domingo, 28 de junho de 2020
Hospital São Francisco, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Hospital São Francisco, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Ribeirão Preto - SP
Foto Esporte N. 57
Fotografia - Cartão Postal
Pizzaria e Churrascaria 13 de Maio, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
.jpg)
Pizzaria e Churrascaria 13 de Maio, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Ribeirão Preto - SP
Fotografia
Já não existe mais. Posteriormente foi aberto o rodízio de pizzas do Cascata no mesmo local (também já encerrado). Atualmente o imóvel está disponível para locação.
Nota do blog: Data e autoria não obtida.
Capa do "Catálogo Telefônico de Ribeirão Preto", 1970, Ceterp, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Capa do "Catálogo Telefônico de Ribeirão Preto", 1970, Ceterp, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
Ribeirão Preto - SP
Fotografia
Nota do blog: O sucateamento da Ceterp para posterior privatização foi um dos maiores crimes cometidos contra a população de Ribeirão Preto.
Figuras Comendo, Lanche Rápido (Eating Figures, Quick Snack) - Wayne Thiebaud
Figuras Comendo, Lanche Rápido (Eating Figures, Quick Snack) - Wayne Thiebaud
Coleção privada
OST - 181x120 - 1963
Eating Figures (Quick Snack), painted in 1963, showcases
Wayne Thiebaud’s masterful use of vibrant color and his unique ability to
approach the human figure with emotional distance by employing the same
techniques that make his sumptuous confectionery paintings so irresistible.
Freezing his figures against a white background in a transitional moment devoid
of narrative potential, Thiebaud instead draws viewers into the virtuosity of
his brushstrokes and use of bold, arresting colors that bring warmth to painted
flesh. One of a limited number of paintings that focus exclusively on the human
figure, Eating Figures (Quick Snack) is unique in its reference
to Thiebaud’s earlier iconic food paintings.
Two figures sit side by side on metal stools; though their shoulders are touching, they seem to occupy entirely different universes, gazing downwards. Both the woman and man hold a cup of soda in one hand and raise a hot dog toward their mouths with the other. The woman’s voluptuous hairstyle and floral dress typify the decade of this painting’s creation, the blue and green pattern perhaps taking its roots in the repetitive treatment of Thiebaud’s cake displays. The geometric metal stools on which the man and woman sit contrast with their warm and vulnerable flesh, rendered ironic by mechanical and nearly unnatural movements.
Painted in 1963, shortly after the artist achieved critical acclaim for his first solo show at Allan Stone Gallery, Thiebaud’s Eating Figures (Quick Snack) exemplifies a brief foray into figure painting. Born out of a desire to break away from his categorization as a Pop artist that resulted from his focus on consumer imagery, Thiebaud hoped to tackle the human figure and challenge himself, commenting that “an artist’s capacity to handle the figure is a great test of his abilities” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in Wayne Thiebaud: 70 Years of Painting, exh. cat., Palm Springs Art Museum, 2009, p. 22). While many of his previous works were painted from memory, he began using live models for his figurative paintings. He recalled, “…My wife and friends have posed long hours for me, making it possible to work for a considerable time on a single pose. This encourages me to work with specific visual information about the subject at hand and allows enough time to consider more details that memory does not furnish me” (W. Thiebaud quoted in exh. cat. Wayne Thiebaud: Figures, 2008, p. 7).
The process of choosing a pose sometimes took hours, but Thiebaud deliberately picked compositions that avoided implied action or intent. “If I come upon something that looks like it might be illustrational, I shy away from it,” the artist explained (ibid.,). The man and woman in Eating Figures (Quick Snack) address neither the viewer nor each other, but instead gaze downwards, caught just prior to a moment of action. Although both figures raise a hot dog towards their mouths as if to take a bite, their lips are closed, highlighting Thiebaud’s interest in capturing non-narrative moments. He has explained, “It occurs to me that most people in figure paintings have always done something. The figures have been standing, posing, fighting, loving, and what I’m interested in, really, is the figure that is about to do something, or has done something, or is doing nothing, and with that sort of centering device, try to figure out what can be revealed, not only to people, but to myself” (ibid., p. 8). Historically, figure paintings illustrate moments of maximum human tension, but Thiebaud focuses on what is about to happen, never providing a full narrative or giving the satisfaction of a full story. Rather than constructing a dialogue, Thiebaud sets up a tableau that leaves viewers wondering what will happen next.
The avoidance of expression could be perceived as isolated self-absorption, leading to comparisons between Thiebaud’s figures and those of Thomas Eakins or Edward Hopper. The present subjects, painted with emotional distance and reserve, display an avoidance of expression that leads them to appear object-like, similar to the still lifes. Thiebaud enhanced his concentration on the figures throughout the painting process via the use of techniques he borrowed from commercial photography studios. By placing models against a white backdrop and illuminating them with intense floodlights, he created an environment of clinical austerity, staring intently at his subjects in order to more fully examine their formal elements. Thiebaud emphasized the difference between staring and gazing. “Close staring has a tendency to expand what you are looking at,” he described. “I am very fascinated with the concept of stare. Staring fixedly at an object does something to expand time. The more you look at it, the more the edges, the inside and the minute particles quiver. It is almost as if it is loaded and you recognize a kind of stillness which tends to vibrate. When I stroke around the object with a loaded paintbrush it is calculated to echo the presence of that object” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in J. Coplans, Wayne Thiebaud, exh. cat., Pasadena Art Museum, p. 35-36).
The undulating edges and vibrant colors surrounding each form create an expressive energy, making the surface of the figures feel real despite their stillness. Known for his use of color, Thiebaud claims that he developed his sense of color accidentally, having never been to art school. Instead, he took note of how painters such as Monet and Van Gogh handled edges, using contrasting colors to highlight an object. Direct lighting techniques allowed Thiebaud to explore these halos: “…strong display lights have been developed which can do all kinds of goofey [sic] things … make an object cast colored shadows, change its local color before your eyes, glow and develop a halo” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in Wayne Thiebaud: 1958-1968, p. 28). Although in Eating Figures (Quick Snack) the vivid yellow, red and green outlines defining the man’s jawline and the woman’s shoulders do not make literal sense on the skin—they enhance the liveliness of the flesh. Equal emphasis and attention are paid to all areas, from facial features to the spaces between the fingers or the shoelaces on the man’s feet. Although they comprise a small portion of his total oeuvre, Thiebaud’s figural paintings epitomize his ability to present carefully constructed forms using vibrant color and composition. Produced on the heels of his first one-man show, Eating Figures (Quick Snack) demonstrates an exploration of the human condition, using the warmth of color and creativity to overcome isolation and loneliness that infect the modern world. Vendido em leilão da Christie’s em 2019 por USD 5,269,000.
Two figures sit side by side on metal stools; though their shoulders are touching, they seem to occupy entirely different universes, gazing downwards. Both the woman and man hold a cup of soda in one hand and raise a hot dog toward their mouths with the other. The woman’s voluptuous hairstyle and floral dress typify the decade of this painting’s creation, the blue and green pattern perhaps taking its roots in the repetitive treatment of Thiebaud’s cake displays. The geometric metal stools on which the man and woman sit contrast with their warm and vulnerable flesh, rendered ironic by mechanical and nearly unnatural movements.
Painted in 1963, shortly after the artist achieved critical acclaim for his first solo show at Allan Stone Gallery, Thiebaud’s Eating Figures (Quick Snack) exemplifies a brief foray into figure painting. Born out of a desire to break away from his categorization as a Pop artist that resulted from his focus on consumer imagery, Thiebaud hoped to tackle the human figure and challenge himself, commenting that “an artist’s capacity to handle the figure is a great test of his abilities” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in Wayne Thiebaud: 70 Years of Painting, exh. cat., Palm Springs Art Museum, 2009, p. 22). While many of his previous works were painted from memory, he began using live models for his figurative paintings. He recalled, “…My wife and friends have posed long hours for me, making it possible to work for a considerable time on a single pose. This encourages me to work with specific visual information about the subject at hand and allows enough time to consider more details that memory does not furnish me” (W. Thiebaud quoted in exh. cat. Wayne Thiebaud: Figures, 2008, p. 7).
The process of choosing a pose sometimes took hours, but Thiebaud deliberately picked compositions that avoided implied action or intent. “If I come upon something that looks like it might be illustrational, I shy away from it,” the artist explained (ibid.,). The man and woman in Eating Figures (Quick Snack) address neither the viewer nor each other, but instead gaze downwards, caught just prior to a moment of action. Although both figures raise a hot dog towards their mouths as if to take a bite, their lips are closed, highlighting Thiebaud’s interest in capturing non-narrative moments. He has explained, “It occurs to me that most people in figure paintings have always done something. The figures have been standing, posing, fighting, loving, and what I’m interested in, really, is the figure that is about to do something, or has done something, or is doing nothing, and with that sort of centering device, try to figure out what can be revealed, not only to people, but to myself” (ibid., p. 8). Historically, figure paintings illustrate moments of maximum human tension, but Thiebaud focuses on what is about to happen, never providing a full narrative or giving the satisfaction of a full story. Rather than constructing a dialogue, Thiebaud sets up a tableau that leaves viewers wondering what will happen next.
The avoidance of expression could be perceived as isolated self-absorption, leading to comparisons between Thiebaud’s figures and those of Thomas Eakins or Edward Hopper. The present subjects, painted with emotional distance and reserve, display an avoidance of expression that leads them to appear object-like, similar to the still lifes. Thiebaud enhanced his concentration on the figures throughout the painting process via the use of techniques he borrowed from commercial photography studios. By placing models against a white backdrop and illuminating them with intense floodlights, he created an environment of clinical austerity, staring intently at his subjects in order to more fully examine their formal elements. Thiebaud emphasized the difference between staring and gazing. “Close staring has a tendency to expand what you are looking at,” he described. “I am very fascinated with the concept of stare. Staring fixedly at an object does something to expand time. The more you look at it, the more the edges, the inside and the minute particles quiver. It is almost as if it is loaded and you recognize a kind of stillness which tends to vibrate. When I stroke around the object with a loaded paintbrush it is calculated to echo the presence of that object” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in J. Coplans, Wayne Thiebaud, exh. cat., Pasadena Art Museum, p. 35-36).
The undulating edges and vibrant colors surrounding each form create an expressive energy, making the surface of the figures feel real despite their stillness. Known for his use of color, Thiebaud claims that he developed his sense of color accidentally, having never been to art school. Instead, he took note of how painters such as Monet and Van Gogh handled edges, using contrasting colors to highlight an object. Direct lighting techniques allowed Thiebaud to explore these halos: “…strong display lights have been developed which can do all kinds of goofey [sic] things … make an object cast colored shadows, change its local color before your eyes, glow and develop a halo” (W. Thiebaud, quoted in Wayne Thiebaud: 1958-1968, p. 28). Although in Eating Figures (Quick Snack) the vivid yellow, red and green outlines defining the man’s jawline and the woman’s shoulders do not make literal sense on the skin—they enhance the liveliness of the flesh. Equal emphasis and attention are paid to all areas, from facial features to the spaces between the fingers or the shoelaces on the man’s feet. Although they comprise a small portion of his total oeuvre, Thiebaud’s figural paintings epitomize his ability to present carefully constructed forms using vibrant color and composition. Produced on the heels of his first one-man show, Eating Figures (Quick Snack) demonstrates an exploration of the human condition, using the warmth of color and creativity to overcome isolation and loneliness that infect the modern world. Vendido em leilão da Christie’s em 2019 por USD 5,269,000.
sábado, 27 de junho de 2020
Quatro Máquinas de Pinball (Four Pinball Machines) - Wayne Thiebaud
Quatro Máquinas de Pinball (Four Pinball Machines) - Wayne Thiebaud
Coleção privada
OST - 172x182 - 1962
Copan, São Paulo, Brasil (Copan) - Andreas Gursky
Copan, São Paulo, Brasil (Copan) - Andreas Gursky
São Paulo - SP
Coleção privada
Chromogenic print - 237x301 - 2002
Máquina Eletromecânica "Enigma" / "Olympia Buromaschinenwerke", 1944, Segunda Guerra Mundial, Alemanha
Máquina Eletromecânica "Enigma" / "Olympia Buromaschinenwerke", 1944, Segunda Guerra Mundial, Alemanha
Fotografia
A Four-Rotor Enigma Cipher Machine
Olympia Büromaschinenwerke AG in Erfurt, for Heimsoeth &
Rinke, 1944
Serial number M17176 to paper label applied to inside of lid and punched to metak casing underneath rotors, with electrical wiring, three aluminum rotors, bakeltite gamma rotor and B reflector , raised 'QWERTZ' keyboard with crackle black painted metal case, green night screen above keyboard, plugboard in the front with ten patch leads, the lid with two spare patch leads and fitted with three facsimile bulbs, housed in wooden carrying case with ghost of stencil paint 526. 131⁄2 x 11 x 6in. (34.5 x 28 x 16cm.)
One of the rarest and hardest Enigmas to decrypt; Allied efforts to break the M4, under the leadership of Alan Turing and Joe Desch, led to the development of the first programmable computer. Early in World War II, Karl Dönitz, head of Germany’s U-boat fleet, had concerns over repeated Allied successes against his submarines. Despite the fact that the Allies were by then regularly reading messages coded by earlier versions of the Enigma, German investigators determined that it was impossible for the Allies to read Enigma messages. It was thought that the Allies had used espionage, or radar, or simply had chanced upon the submarines. Nevertheless Dönitz ordered the development of a special 4-rotor Enigma for use by the German Navy's U-boat fleet. The machine’s use of 4 rotors, instead of 3, and the operator’s ability to select these from a pool of 8 interchangeable rotors, together with stricter operating procedures, gave the M4 Enigma a much higher level of encryption. For 10 months – a long time in war – the M4 defeated the previously successful decryption of Allied codebreakers.
So confident was Dönitz in the M4 Enigma that, in his later trial at Nuremberg, he declared that the Allies could not possibly have deciphered his Enigma messages; instead he attributed the destruction wreaked upon his fleet to advanced radar and direction finding alone. However, mathematicians and engineers under the leadership of Alan Turing at Bletchley Park, and of Joe Desch in Dayton, Ohio, had used information and ideas developed by brilliant Polish mathematicians to create what many call the world’s first programmable computers to defeat the M4 Enigma code. By mid-1943 the majority of M4 Enigma messages were being read by the Allies, but it was not until the 1970s that knowledge of the Allied successes against the Enigma was made public. The significant role that the M4 Enigma and that Allied codebreaking played in the Battle of the Atlantic has become increasingly well known as historians have revisited the history of WWII in the light of recently declassified information.
It is thought that fewer than 100 M4 Enigmas survived the war: they were produced in much smaller quantities than the 3-rotor machines, and since the majority were deployed on U-boats most were lost when the submarines were sunk in combat or scuttled by their crews at the end of the war. This M4 Enigma was probably used at a command and communications facility on shore because it does not have the corrosion characteristic of Navy Enigma machines used at sea. Towards the end of hostilities German troops were ordered to destroy their Enigmas rather than let them be captured by advancing Allied forces; and after the war Churchill ordered all remaining Enigmas destroyed to help preserve the secret of Allied decoding successes at Bletchley Park. These factors explain why Enigmas are so rare and of such interest to collectors and historians.
The engineering company which owned the patents for Enigma machines was founded by Arthur Scherbius and named Chiffriermaschinen AG. In 1933, when the German military bought the company to secure the patents, it was renamed Heimsoeth und Rinke. The company designed and marketed Enigma machines which it then arranged to have manufactured by third parties. This Enigma was manufactured in Erfurt, Germany, in 1944 by Olympia Büromaschinenwerke AG. Olympia Büromaschinenwerke AG, commonly known as the Olympia Typewriter Company, was founded in 1903, and produced various items for civilian and military use. The company survived the war but went out of business in 1992 as computers replaced the need for typewriters.
The M4 Enigma is a variation of the 3-rotor Enigma model “I” that was used by all branches of the Germany military from 1926 through 1945. The M4 accepted 3 standard rotors as well as a special fourth rotor in combination with a narrow reflector. The M4 was issued with 8 rotors. Five of the 8 rotors were identical in internal wiring with the 5 rotors issued with the 3-rotor Enigma. With the fourth special rotor in the “A” position, the M4 could communicate with the 3-rotor Enigmas in use by other branches of the military. Texto da Christie's.
Serial number M17176 to paper label applied to inside of lid and punched to metak casing underneath rotors, with electrical wiring, three aluminum rotors, bakeltite gamma rotor and B reflector , raised 'QWERTZ' keyboard with crackle black painted metal case, green night screen above keyboard, plugboard in the front with ten patch leads, the lid with two spare patch leads and fitted with three facsimile bulbs, housed in wooden carrying case with ghost of stencil paint 526. 131⁄2 x 11 x 6in. (34.5 x 28 x 16cm.)
One of the rarest and hardest Enigmas to decrypt; Allied efforts to break the M4, under the leadership of Alan Turing and Joe Desch, led to the development of the first programmable computer. Early in World War II, Karl Dönitz, head of Germany’s U-boat fleet, had concerns over repeated Allied successes against his submarines. Despite the fact that the Allies were by then regularly reading messages coded by earlier versions of the Enigma, German investigators determined that it was impossible for the Allies to read Enigma messages. It was thought that the Allies had used espionage, or radar, or simply had chanced upon the submarines. Nevertheless Dönitz ordered the development of a special 4-rotor Enigma for use by the German Navy's U-boat fleet. The machine’s use of 4 rotors, instead of 3, and the operator’s ability to select these from a pool of 8 interchangeable rotors, together with stricter operating procedures, gave the M4 Enigma a much higher level of encryption. For 10 months – a long time in war – the M4 defeated the previously successful decryption of Allied codebreakers.
So confident was Dönitz in the M4 Enigma that, in his later trial at Nuremberg, he declared that the Allies could not possibly have deciphered his Enigma messages; instead he attributed the destruction wreaked upon his fleet to advanced radar and direction finding alone. However, mathematicians and engineers under the leadership of Alan Turing at Bletchley Park, and of Joe Desch in Dayton, Ohio, had used information and ideas developed by brilliant Polish mathematicians to create what many call the world’s first programmable computers to defeat the M4 Enigma code. By mid-1943 the majority of M4 Enigma messages were being read by the Allies, but it was not until the 1970s that knowledge of the Allied successes against the Enigma was made public. The significant role that the M4 Enigma and that Allied codebreaking played in the Battle of the Atlantic has become increasingly well known as historians have revisited the history of WWII in the light of recently declassified information.
It is thought that fewer than 100 M4 Enigmas survived the war: they were produced in much smaller quantities than the 3-rotor machines, and since the majority were deployed on U-boats most were lost when the submarines were sunk in combat or scuttled by their crews at the end of the war. This M4 Enigma was probably used at a command and communications facility on shore because it does not have the corrosion characteristic of Navy Enigma machines used at sea. Towards the end of hostilities German troops were ordered to destroy their Enigmas rather than let them be captured by advancing Allied forces; and after the war Churchill ordered all remaining Enigmas destroyed to help preserve the secret of Allied decoding successes at Bletchley Park. These factors explain why Enigmas are so rare and of such interest to collectors and historians.
The engineering company which owned the patents for Enigma machines was founded by Arthur Scherbius and named Chiffriermaschinen AG. In 1933, when the German military bought the company to secure the patents, it was renamed Heimsoeth und Rinke. The company designed and marketed Enigma machines which it then arranged to have manufactured by third parties. This Enigma was manufactured in Erfurt, Germany, in 1944 by Olympia Büromaschinenwerke AG. Olympia Büromaschinenwerke AG, commonly known as the Olympia Typewriter Company, was founded in 1903, and produced various items for civilian and military use. The company survived the war but went out of business in 1992 as computers replaced the need for typewriters.
The M4 Enigma is a variation of the 3-rotor Enigma model “I” that was used by all branches of the Germany military from 1926 through 1945. The M4 accepted 3 standard rotors as well as a special fourth rotor in combination with a narrow reflector. The M4 was issued with 8 rotors. Five of the 8 rotors were identical in internal wiring with the 5 rotors issued with the 3-rotor Enigma. With the fourth special rotor in the “A” position, the M4 could communicate with the 3-rotor Enigmas in use by other branches of the military. Texto da Christie's.
Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil
Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brasil
Uberlândia - MG
Fotografia - Cartão Postal
Panorama, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Panorama, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Fotografia - Cartão Postal
Avenida 10 de Novembro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil
Avenida 10 de Novembro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil
Porto Alegre - RS
Fotografia - Cartão Postal
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)