Comments on: Ornamentation Recapitulates Phylogenet – oh ferget it

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:51:18 +0000

Like Blossfeldt, decoration touched by a rigorous decadence. All very Fin de Siècle. The book designer has a sense of humor.

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:59:59 +0000

Apologies for the bad grammar; but I'm back for mornametation.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:33:00 +0000

I’m not sure whether to be proud or not that I found the title of this funny post funny…

By: Dh

Dh — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:23:04 +0000

To satisfy the grammar police, perhaps ‘They are the very model of premodern major genera.’

By: joejoejoe

joejoejoe — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:09:30 +0000

One of the cooler things I ever wasted time browsing was an old (early to mid 1900s) catalog of various moulds for plaster ornaments and moulding. It must have 300 pages of dense detailed technical drawings. If you like this kind of thing I found a similar modern catalog in a quick Google search (see link in signature).

By: Crooked Timber » » Fo Shizzle’ My Nietsizzle On Morality

Crooked Timber » » Fo Shizzle’ My Nietsizzle On Morality — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:56:04 +0000

[...] respect for Brian Leiter’s scholarship and have personally ordered a copy. That said – and while we are on the subject of strange covers showing up on Amazon – there is a problem. I can’t help but feel Routledge must be somehow [...]

By: John Holbo

John Holbo — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:05:52 +0000

Mrs. Tilton, as someone who spent hours this year creating X-Mas ornaments from pictures of these beasties, I definitely get where you are coming from.

But I don’t think I know you well enough to start discussing who does, and does not, need a little Haeckelian up-tarting. Especially in public.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:17:31 +0000

Yes, nnyhav clearly wins. But is victory worth the price of forcing the article and noun to disagree as to number? (Did nnyhav waterboard them?)

John, what I find curious is the mutual exclusivity between “ornament” and “life-form” that you imply. Especially WRT Haeckel, who obviously thought the Creator hadn’t been nearly ornamental enough when He made life-forms and set out to improve matters. (Moi, I think the Creator did a fantastic job, especially for an entity that doesn’t exist. The lovely tortoise-shell patterning of Scytodes thoracica, for example, needs no Haeckelian up-tarting.)

By: John Holbo

John Holbo — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:47:26 +0000

Ooh, nnyhav wins the thread.

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:18:02 +0000

Didn’t D’Oyly Carte do It is the very image of a modern major genera?

By: John Holbo

John Holbo — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:13:38 +0000

ben, I think the ‘small …. social class’ comment has it. barbara, lace doilies based on Haeckel plates is a fine notion. Get to work!

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:41:18 +0000

Wow, I would’ve sworn those were lace doilies, which I have a great interest in. So . . . I wonder what kinds of ornaments are covered in the book.

By: Ben Alpers

Ben Alpers — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:52:36 +0000

Way OT…

I followed the link to your Haeckel Xmas-card post, which linked to Belle’s phobia post, which in turn had a link to a post on Carla Hills, who, it turns out, is the mother of Belle’s friend Lisa. As it turns out, I know Lisa’s brother Rick from the wonderful world of college debate.

Small ~~world~~ social class.

And incredible intertubes.

By: "Q" the Enchanter

"Q" the Enchanter — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:55:08 +0000

Just another reminder that one should never throw the baubles out with the bathwater.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:12:51 +0000

Everything goes better with Haeckel. Am I wrong?