Flo de Haan wrote:
All images are blurry. They are some sort of blowups from very small drawings. That's the reason why i have to look for new images. They all show little details. Maybe that's also the reason why they all used to fit. They're not too explicit.
[...]
Jonno wrote:
What image are you referring to?
I mean all images. see above
OK, I see what you mean. But "lack of details" wasn't what I meant with "blurry", but rather what would have been called "out of focus" if it where a photograph. Or "smeared out" if it was finger paint. But more details are still very welcome.
Flo de Haan wrote:
I'm thinking of a hand that feeds money to another. This card is just too 'symbolic' to find the perfect image that'll please everyone. There are so many ways to interpret this card. Thought the wage is a very symbolic way of showing corruption, where my idea is the actual thing. (though you could find many other options)
Yes, corruption is very symbolic, it's in the very nature of the term. However, I
do like your suggestion of a concrete image.
Flo de Haan wrote:
What's wrong with borders. The commodities show borders too. This solves the problem of putting numbers in images. i really like the idea of borders, cause it solves these problems.
The calamity has borders around the
background image, not around the
feature image (the central symbols). If you want a border, you would have to remake the entire layout to make the border fit the "bigger picture". Compare with the commodities and your new advancement layout, where the border doesn't only encompass the image, but the entire layout. I'm not opposed a border
per see, only against a single plain boarder around the feature image.
Flo de Haan wrote:
I don't want to put 'tradable' on a card. it's not on commodities either. It's confusing by the way too. The only reason to mention 'non-tradable' is to warn.
This way we keep the form:
1 'non-tradable' and therefore major
2 major if not mentioned
3 minor if mentioned.
Actually, I don't think we need to state tradable, but I don't think we need to state major either, so then we get a blank. According to your 3 point table we shouldn't put either there, but then you'd either get a blank space or a different aspect ratio of some image...
Don't know what is the "least bad" to do, but I think tradable is less bad than major.
Flo de Haan wrote:
The only way to use this, is to draw an incomplete eclipse. this way the sky isn't blackened yet. guess this is the solution.
Well, you don't
have to do a incomplete eclipse. You could use some artistic freedom and depict the bright light with lots of colour (eg black) and the surrounding lack of light with a lack of colour (eg white)...
In fact I like my proof-of-concept so much that if it hadn't been because I trust you'll do a better job when you redraw it, I'd clean it up a bit and use it instead of the current image.
Flo de Haan wrote:
There are many stories on Iconoclasm. The one you mention is famous, and therefore maybe the one! But the menorah one is famous too. I'll come back on this.
The menorah in Rome might be famous, but I had in fact never heard of it before your mention. And the golden calf in Sinai is not just a famous instance of Iconoclams, it's the
first instance of iconoclasm in the Jewish religions (incl. Christianity and Islam), hard to beat the same day as the rule was set...
mcbeth wrote:
Prior to seeing Jonno's comment, my very first thought for a new Iconoclasm story was the destruction of the golden calf. Now that I see his thoughts, I agree even more. As far as the Menorah idea goes, I also am not comfortable with the imagery. The juxtaposition of any Jewish religious symbol with flames is something we need to stay away from for a long time to come.
Flo de Haan wrote:
Well, let's keep the modern age problems away form this game.
I agree completely with Flo. I'm honestly tired of being "politically correct" all the time, and isn't afraid of using emotionally "loaded" images if they serve a purpose. However, I do think that the golden calf just is a better fit.
Flo de Haan wrote:
The destruction of the calf might be the one. I have no problems with that.
Besides it's the current image anyway.
Well, not quite. The current image is of a calf or bull in front of a
temple. I'd like a calf in front of a
mountain.
Flo de Haan wrote:
Does anyone have good guiding image for that? (another than the original card)
That image is protected from inline linkage. One has to link to the page containing it:
http://mentalblog.com/2005/07/chop-em-down.htmlFlo de Haan wrote:
The same thing with the ten commandments by Moses for 'Monotheism', i'm doubting whether this would be the right image. It's based on belief rather than fact. I'm trying to keep that away from the images.
Honestly, one has to acknowledge the importance of religion in our history and culture, and like it or not, that is based on belief rather than fact.
Or if you want facts: It is a fact that the golden calf is the archetypical iconoclasm in three of the largest religions on Earth.
Quote:
Gold, is one of the most stable metals in the periodic table of elements and does not oxidize or react with most chemical agents. Burning a Gold Statue is thus impossible from a scientific point of view. With a melting point of 1337.33 K it would be impossible to even melt it using a standard wooden fire.
The possibility of grinding up gold is even less likely considering the technological limitations of the time. Gold is highly malleable and thus trying to grind it using a regular stone on stone mill would simply flatten the metal or deform it without creating the sought after Gold Dust.
Additionally, Gold is insoluble in water and highly dense. Gold would simply sink to the bottom of a glass of water and therefore it would be impossible to make a heterogenous mixture of water and Gold.
If you think the destruction is odd, what about the creation (loosely translated from my bible):
Quote:
Then I told them: He who has something of gold shall give it to me. I threw it in the fire and so the calf came to be.
However, some basic reasoning, and you soon figure out that they didn't have a forge with them in the dessert, and God wasn't about to perform a miracle to help them break his new law. So they must have made a calf out of wood, and then
clad it in gold. The wooden structure was later burned, and the ashes was mixed with water and drunk.
And BTW, you can drink gold. There are several kids of alcohol with 24 carat gold flakes in them. You have to stir the drink periodically or they'll end up at the bottom of the glass, but you
can drink it. and given gold foil, all you need is a pair of scissors and a lot of time, and you can make your own drinkable good flakes (and as your source points out, all you need to get gold foil is a mortar and some time).