Girls: Fact or Fiction
December 11, 2012 4:50 PM Subscribe
Girls: Fact + Fiction Gallery (some images MNSFW)
Massively NSFW
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:14 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:14 PM on December 11, 2012
Forgive me, but what is the difference between the Fact ones and the Fiction ones? Does it matter?
posted by Scientist at 5:14 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by Scientist at 5:14 PM on December 11, 2012
Real women; fictional women
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 5:16 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 5:16 PM on December 11, 2012
As in, the "fiction" ones seem to be fictional characters, the "fact" ones being factual characters I guess. I saw Nausicaa in among the "fiction," anyway.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on December 11, 2012
So "Phenomenal Woman" is real but Kali is not? I remain confused. I am going to go away now.
posted by Scientist at 5:21 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Scientist at 5:21 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Phenomenal Woman is Maya Angelou
lol @ RuPaul
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:25 PM on December 11, 2012
lol @ RuPaul
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:25 PM on December 11, 2012
I didn’t see the even slightly not safe for work part, and I’d like to.
posted by bongo_x at 5:34 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by bongo_x at 5:34 PM on December 11, 2012
I really wish these were labelled without having to go in and look at the filenames.
posted by Hargrimm at 5:41 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by Hargrimm at 5:41 PM on December 11, 2012
bongo_x: "I didn’t see the even slightly not safe for work part, and I’d like to."
I assume the M stands for 'mildly,' for stuff like this or this.
posted by Hargrimm at 5:43 PM on December 11, 2012
I assume the M stands for 'mildly,' for stuff like this or this.
posted by Hargrimm at 5:43 PM on December 11, 2012
I really wish these were labelled without having to go in and look at the filenames.
They are. Scroll down. There is a full list of subject and artist.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:50 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
They are. Scroll down. There is a full list of subject and artist.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:50 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Sorry, all. MNSFW is generally "Maybe Not Safe for Work." You know, for the cartoon nipples.
posted by ColdChef at 5:56 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by ColdChef at 5:56 PM on December 11, 2012
If any of this is NSFW where you work, I feel bad for you.
posted by Splunge at 6:56 PM on December 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by Splunge at 6:56 PM on December 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
Hey, #7 in fiction is Samus from Metroid and I didn't even realize it. It's a female character who's more recognizable when her face and body features are completely hidden, which is good for something. I guess.
posted by JHarris at 6:58 PM on December 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 6:58 PM on December 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
This is really nice. I was a little nervous about clicking just by glancing at the title, but it's a neat exhibition idea and I liked a few of the works a great deal. Thanks!
posted by Miko at 7:20 PM on December 11, 2012
posted by Miko at 7:20 PM on December 11, 2012
Is there some secret competition in which all artists and photographers compete to see who can come up with the most dreadful, unintuitive, painful to use UI for their web sites?
posted by Rhomboid at 7:43 PM on December 11, 2012 [6 favorites]
posted by Rhomboid at 7:43 PM on December 11, 2012 [6 favorites]
This is a brilliant piece of performance art. The pictures are irrelevant, it's a statement about cyber pain.
The first clue was 17.3 Mb for a page of small pictures. My first hard drive was only 10MB, and it contained all of Lucasarts' early graphical adventure games, as well as operating system, work etc. I have a modest laptop with modest broadband, and the page didn't load at all the first time. Then clicking anything makes the page freeze. I dread to think what it's like on a phone. But that was the clue: the target audience will be skewed to women and iPhone users. The site must be difficult and frustrating because life for a woman or man of conscience is difficult and frustrating.
Each image is ten times bigger than it needs to be (e.g. a 250k image looks perfectly OK if saved at 25k: these are thumbnails, they only serve to make you click for detail). I think this is a commentary on how women are undervalued, how they have hidden depth and detail that can never be appreciated.
I thought this was just poor design choice, but it has to be deliberately intended to cause pain: the thumbnails are saved at twice the final resolution then the browser shrinks them. This seems to be saying something about art is shrunken and demeaned by modern technology.
It's sort of anti-art: an art gallery where you cannot see the art. On a phone, or even a standard widescreen notebook (1024x600) all you see is white or generic text above the fold.
The religious element is quite clever: you cannot be saved, you can only be lost. If you choose Ctrl+S to save, the page is replaced by a search box.
The pictures seem to be about the Marxist concept of alienation: each artist is separated from her work, and can only be identified by treating them as numbers and removing her from context - you have to count the pictures then scroll to the bottom to work out what each one is.
The folder names seem to be a commentary on the random nature of life and the impossibility of finding meaning. E.g.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/5029c68d84ae261e07fb86ec/50b90eede4b012760adb2e9a/50b90ef0e4b012760adb2ea7/1354317093450/ etc.
Look at the javascript: half a megabyte of code just to show a static table of images that you click on! This seems to be some meta commentary on the futility of design: HTML could do that natively in the mid 1990s, and that means it is symbolically impossible in today's world.
Or 162k for the style sheet - and that's after minifying it! That's a work of art on its own!
I still haven't spotted the Simpson's link. But this is almost certainly a viral ad for the recent hipster episode. It's brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
posted by EnterTheStory at 7:46 PM on December 11, 2012 [28 favorites]
The first clue was 17.3 Mb for a page of small pictures. My first hard drive was only 10MB, and it contained all of Lucasarts' early graphical adventure games, as well as operating system, work etc. I have a modest laptop with modest broadband, and the page didn't load at all the first time. Then clicking anything makes the page freeze. I dread to think what it's like on a phone. But that was the clue: the target audience will be skewed to women and iPhone users. The site must be difficult and frustrating because life for a woman or man of conscience is difficult and frustrating.
Each image is ten times bigger than it needs to be (e.g. a 250k image looks perfectly OK if saved at 25k: these are thumbnails, they only serve to make you click for detail). I think this is a commentary on how women are undervalued, how they have hidden depth and detail that can never be appreciated.
I thought this was just poor design choice, but it has to be deliberately intended to cause pain: the thumbnails are saved at twice the final resolution then the browser shrinks them. This seems to be saying something about art is shrunken and demeaned by modern technology.
It's sort of anti-art: an art gallery where you cannot see the art. On a phone, or even a standard widescreen notebook (1024x600) all you see is white or generic text above the fold.
The religious element is quite clever: you cannot be saved, you can only be lost. If you choose Ctrl+S to save, the page is replaced by a search box.
The pictures seem to be about the Marxist concept of alienation: each artist is separated from her work, and can only be identified by treating them as numbers and removing her from context - you have to count the pictures then scroll to the bottom to work out what each one is.
The folder names seem to be a commentary on the random nature of life and the impossibility of finding meaning. E.g.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/5029c68d84ae261e07fb86ec/50b90eede4b012760adb2e9a/50b90ef0e4b012760adb2ea7/1354317093450/ etc.
Look at the javascript: half a megabyte of code just to show a static table of images that you click on! This seems to be some meta commentary on the futility of design: HTML could do that natively in the mid 1990s, and that means it is symbolically impossible in today's world.
Or 162k for the style sheet - and that's after minifying it! That's a work of art on its own!
I still haven't spotted the Simpson's link. But this is almost certainly a viral ad for the recent hipster episode. It's brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
posted by EnterTheStory at 7:46 PM on December 11, 2012 [28 favorites]
Yeah, EnterTheStory. I knew it was a True Art when I loaded the page and the interface made me want to stab myself in the face.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on December 11, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on December 11, 2012 [3 favorites]
I dread to think what it's like on a phone.
Actually it crashed ios safari (ipad, even) the first time I tried.
posted by advil at 8:34 PM on December 11, 2012
Actually it crashed ios safari (ipad, even) the first time I tried.
posted by advil at 8:34 PM on December 11, 2012
EnterTheStory: "Then clicking anything makes the page freeze. I dread to think what it's like on a phone. "
I agree that it is very poorly coded and so many "web designers" today are probably unable to even think about optimizing pages for limited bandwidth and RAM. THen again, this may be ceasing to matter. On my ancient Galaxy S2 (although upgraded to CM10 aka Jelly Bean 4.1) this page loads almost without hesitation on the Chrome browser, not showing the placeholders and filling in the 4-column images row by row top to bottom basically at the same speed I can scroll down the page so the UI "experience" is preserved. The Opera Mobile browser is slower, displaying multiple "image" placeholders for around 10 seconds and then populating them in an apparently random manner that precludes satisfactory scrolling until they are all done (which takes around 20 seconds). Both Opera and Chrome open the images instantly, rescaling them to fit fullscreen.
Ironically, on my laptop (admittedly, a 3-year old ULV Core2Duo), the page loads in a clunky fashion on Firefox that looks more like the Android Opera Mobile than anything else. And the rescaling to fit the screen is not automatic. So overall, from my sampling, this page has apparently been optimized for Android Chrome browser. But maybe that does count as perf art.
posted by meehawl at 8:48 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
I agree that it is very poorly coded and so many "web designers" today are probably unable to even think about optimizing pages for limited bandwidth and RAM. THen again, this may be ceasing to matter. On my ancient Galaxy S2 (although upgraded to CM10 aka Jelly Bean 4.1) this page loads almost without hesitation on the Chrome browser, not showing the placeholders and filling in the 4-column images row by row top to bottom basically at the same speed I can scroll down the page so the UI "experience" is preserved. The Opera Mobile browser is slower, displaying multiple "image" placeholders for around 10 seconds and then populating them in an apparently random manner that precludes satisfactory scrolling until they are all done (which takes around 20 seconds). Both Opera and Chrome open the images instantly, rescaling them to fit fullscreen.
Ironically, on my laptop (admittedly, a 3-year old ULV Core2Duo), the page loads in a clunky fashion on Firefox that looks more like the Android Opera Mobile than anything else. And the rescaling to fit the screen is not automatic. So overall, from my sampling, this page has apparently been optimized for Android Chrome browser. But maybe that does count as perf art.
posted by meehawl at 8:48 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yes, art galleries and restaurants continue to have websites that mystify users. That said, this was a lovely collection of illustrations. Lots of variety in all directions, I really enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it, ColdChef.
posted by harriet vane at 11:15 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by harriet vane at 11:15 PM on December 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
This loaded just fine for me. I don't know what's wrong with you guys.
posted by aubilenon at 1:07 AM on December 12, 2012
posted by aubilenon at 1:07 AM on December 12, 2012
The page brought my roughly five-year-old netbook to a crawl. You can argue about whether it's reasonable to expect better hardware than this or not, but for this sort of UI, it shouldn't be necessary in the first place...
I'd love some sort of context, for this, also, rather than just a list of loosely-themed drawings.
posted by Dysk at 2:41 AM on December 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'd love some sort of context, for this, also, rather than just a list of loosely-themed drawings.
posted by Dysk at 2:41 AM on December 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
> I really wish these were labelled without having to go in and look at the filenames.
for FF, hover cursor over thumbnail and check link reveal line at the bottom of the screen. Props to them for getting ONE thing about a decent art website right, namely that they've given their .jpgs informative filenames containing artist name and image title (e.g. 16_BriannaAngelakis_AnnieOakley.jpg) instead of the far more common 50b90ef5e4b0e7ebf067c1b1_ 61e07fb86ec.jpg beyond-useless style.
posted by jfuller at 4:46 AM on December 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
for FF, hover cursor over thumbnail and check link reveal line at the bottom of the screen. Props to them for getting ONE thing about a decent art website right, namely that they've given their .jpgs informative filenames containing artist name and image title (e.g. 16_BriannaAngelakis_AnnieOakley.jpg) instead of the far more common 50b90ef5e4b0e7ebf067c1b1_ 61e07fb86ec.jpg beyond-useless style.
posted by jfuller at 4:46 AM on December 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
Loaded fine for me on a cheap Windows laptop with Chrome. Noticed no issue.
posted by Miko at 6:03 AM on December 12, 2012
posted by Miko at 6:03 AM on December 12, 2012
There are a lot of really cool illustrations for this, but it was completely unviewable on iOS safari (I didn't try Chrome) and mostly works on Chrome on my laptop, but has also ... crashed the tab a few times. But the art is neat!
posted by sparkletone at 9:03 AM on December 12, 2012
posted by sparkletone at 9:03 AM on December 12, 2012
Wow. It's a personally somber realization that I recognize more of the fictional characters than the real. I think I need to re-evaluate a few things.
I had to copy-paste the list at the bottom of the page (I'm using FF on Mac Mt Lion) into a separate text editor, just so I could view the images with some kind of reference. I would have preferred the titles for the factual women to consistently use their full names, though. "Hold That Tiger" is the formal name, or is it some kind of metaphor? "Mother Monster" I assume is Lady Gaga, though I don't see the resemblance. And "Twigs" is supposed to be Twiggy?
posted by CancerMan at 9:23 AM on December 12, 2012
I had to copy-paste the list at the bottom of the page (I'm using FF on Mac Mt Lion) into a separate text editor, just so I could view the images with some kind of reference. I would have preferred the titles for the factual women to consistently use their full names, though. "Hold That Tiger" is the formal name, or is it some kind of metaphor? "Mother Monster" I assume is Lady Gaga, though I don't see the resemblance. And "Twigs" is supposed to be Twiggy?
posted by CancerMan at 9:23 AM on December 12, 2012
« Older Collective bargaining in Michigan? | Anon on the run Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by axiom at 5:09 PM on December 11, 2012