Random links, part 3? of an ongoing series.

[brooksmoses]

Another batch of links that I found interesting and entertaining over the past month or two....

An auction of modern furniture, including a number of George Nakashima pieces. I was previously familiar with his work that's very much about taking a large outstanding slab of wood and showing it off, as in this coffee table (Lot 1), this dining table (Lot 5), and this coffee table (Lot 20A), but his more-traditional pieces such as this maple-topped dining table (Lot 27) and this storage headboard (Lot 29A) are also very nice, and show off the wood in their own way. I was particularly interested in the pieces that are a combination of the two styles, such as this desk (Lot 329) and this very understated wall shelf (Lot 336). Also in the same auction, I am quite taken by the naturalistic shapes of this desk by Wharton Esherick (Lot 134).

A collection of surreal photomanipulations by Erik Johannson. They're full of subtle and not-so-subtle visual humor (and occasionally a bit creepy). I particularly liked this one for the absolutely perfect joke, and this one, this one, and quite especially this one as art.

This was an interesting take on the standard Windows XP "bright green hill" wallpaper image. See also this page (where I got that link from), which compares it to the original. The artist also uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons as a high-resolution creative-commons-licensed image.

An interesting example of abstract art of the "simple painting and complex manifesto" style. What I found particularly interesting about this piece was the contrast between Malevich's Black Square and his superficially very similar Red Square. In particular, Black Square was first piece, with a solemn and deep manifesto and symbolic meaning likening it to the face of God. The Red Square, painted two years later, has instead of a manifesto a subtitle, and one which I take as indicating that the painting is at least on its surface simply a macabre joke (with a sound effect, perhaps, of "squish"). If that was the intent, it seems a thing very characteristic of much art of the era (c.f. Dadaism, a year later) -- create something, and then deconstruct and reject it.

An entertaining little teahouse, and an interesting outlook of the architect and culture that it came from.

Bicycles are not something where I normally think about design a lot, but this bicycle (MOOF, by Sjoerd Smit) particularly caught my eye. I really like the purist simplicity of its lines, and the way the lights are incorporated into it. Actually, now that I look, all three of the bicycles sold by that company are very eye-catchingly interesting, but the MOOF is particularly interesting in being so perfectly classical that it comes out the other side into modern ultra-clean-lines design.

These corkboard tacks are cute. For some reason, I think keshwyn needs some.

Some cute little lamps, that would fit perfectly into the spacious sparse loft style of interior decorating that is so very much not what my house is. I still think they're delightful.

In the completely different category of things that it's bizarre to realize we didn't know until recently, this essay with illustrations (scroll down below the webcomic) about the depiction of Earth from space from a 1969 Star Trek episode. It's really cheesy and obviously fake -- but, as David points out, it was not until three years later, in 1972, that we actually had a photograph of what the Earth looked like from space. And it was only a little before that that anyone had any idea what it looked like other than guesses from first principles.

A review of Kenneth Branagh's rendition of Shakespeare's Robin of Sherwood, which is not at all hampered by the lack of existence of either the movie or the original play. And many of the commenters continue the playing.

A very nifty idea: Portraits of people done by painting a picture of their books, rather than of their face.

Photographs of Dutch tulip fields. These are quite remarkable colors for entire fields to be.

Comments

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

The bikes are neat, but two are single-speed and a third is two-speed. I realize that direct-drive, single-speed bikes are all the rage these days (although, it seems, primarily with hyper-style-focused people who have not actually ridden a bike since their childhood), but I just can't conceive of commuting (they are all identified as commuter bikes) on a single-speed bike. It would be *ridiculously* impractical. That leads me to believe that the designers are also themselves probably not cyclists, but are designing things to be pretty rather than usable.

[autumnesquirrel.livejournal.com]

A number of the people I know who use bikes to commute ride fixed gear bikes, and won't ride anything else.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I'm (honestly) curious as to why. Have they ever mentioned a practical advantage of a fixed gear bike?

[autumnesquirrel.livejournal.com]

Wikipedea says that fixies weigh less, are easier to maintain, are easier to do a track stand on, and are more efficient to pedal. Also, hipsters like them. Apparently, they are also often used by bike messengers. I'm going to guess that the hip factor gets people onto them and then some people like them and some people don't. Personally, I do not like riding any bikes so I am most likely not the right person to be asking about why someone might like one bike over another, but they are popular among my hard core bike riding friends.

[suzanne.livejournal.com]

Could it be a region-issue? My commute is /really/ flat. Though it is slightly inclined towards home.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Is it really flat and really *short*? Because not only is gearing down really important for hills, but gearing up can get you through the flat sections much faster. If you're only covering short (like, walkable) distances, then I guess I could see it, but then, you can also just not shift a shiftable bike if the circumstances requiring shifting don't come up. (I understand that direct-drive bikes are better for some kinds of stunt riding, but within the context of commuting...)

[suzanne.livejournal.com]

My commute is about 3 miles. I do agree with you though, I use about 3 of my gears during that ride. (It's only /mostly/ flat). I could probably use a direct, but I prefer my gears.

suzanne

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

My bike's got umpty-a-lot gears, and I really only use maybe two of them. So I don't know that I'd mind a fixed-gear bike, although I haven't tried one.

[mapache]

I could see not being able to switch gears if you live somewhere flat, but not having a freewheel sounds crazy.

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

Wait, they don't coast? I thought they were like the bike I had when I was a kid, where it braked when you pedaled backwards. If they don't coast then what's the point of having wheels?

[mapache]

There's low-end bikes with the pedal-backwards-to-brake mechanism, which mainly seems to be about being cheaper than real brakes. Then there's fixed-gear bikes, which mainly seem to be about being a smug pretentious git that goes on about "greater connection to the ground" and "mystical extension of your body".

[brooksmoses]

The MOOF has coaster brakes. So it's not a fixed-gear in that sense, just a single-speed. I'm not sure where a $600 bike fits into the "being cheaper than real brakes" space, though -- I'm guess it's a design statement about simplicity but not a silly one like being a fixed-gear.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Coasting is definitely a plus, but for $600, I'd want some gearing. I can understand simplicity, but gearing systems aren't *that* complex (they can typically be understood just by looking at them) and they really do add huge amounts of practicality and value.