24 replies
4d21h
Huh. I share a surname with the original owner (Sheldon) and once researched Henry XIII for a people fair. I think that means I’m the rightful owner…
22 replies
4d23h
When you're an expert at something and you spend all your days looking at these things, you can pick out remarkable details from nothing. Any regular person looking at the original photo (below) would have seen nothing!
https://x.com/Warkslieutenant/status/1808884139585610231/pho...
(it's the picture with the curved frame on the left)
7 replies
4d18h
my nephew is good at identifying teslas.
"if the door handles are straight - S, together - X, hockey sticks - 3 or Y. No handles? cybertruck" :)
2 replies
4d4h
I remember reading something as a kid in the 70s where there was a character who could identify cars by their radiator grilles, so this tracks.
0 replies
4d3h
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9v0UTn6Eqw: kid who recognizes cars by their taillight.
“Wetten dass” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetten,_dass..%3F) also once had a contestant who could recognize cars by the sound their doors make when closing them.
0 replies
4d3h
Do they work for bmw now?
0 replies
4d17h
Ultrasonics-2018…
0 replies
4d11h
In all fairness I used to be like that about late 80s and early 90s Honda civics
0 replies
4d9h
Your nephew is picking up on design language
It's intentional and serves purpose. Anyone paying attention should find patterns/stylistic choice.
Saturn cars from decades past had very distinct looks, as did a Toyota. One is forgiven overlooking this in a world of "Nearly Everything Looks Like an Overweight Camry".
0 replies
4d9h
When i was a child ( 1970), we used to recognize cars by there tail lights.
7 replies
4d21h
Yeah, I worked with radiologists... What they can see in x-ray, CT, MR, PET, ultrasound... it's mind-boggling.
5 replies
4d18h
The most mind-blowing thing is just how much those skills rely on tacit knowledge and subconscious pattern recognition.
There is really a lesson to be learned here in our age when data-based everything is en vogue. Our decision-making shouldn’t be data-driven, it should be data-informed.
4 replies
4d11h
I disagree. Hasn't it been shown that AI outperform radiologists on recognizing diseases from images?
3 replies
4d9h
Not really. On very narrow datasets, from very specific machines. When they tried to generalize (the way a radiologist does) across multiple hospitals and multiple machines from different manufacturers, results are not that good.
2 replies
4d7h
can you point to any reports that provides these studies and outcomes?
0 replies
4d5h
This one comes to mind. The discussion section is helpful:
Despite the many interesting discoveries in pathology AI, translation to routine clinical use remains rare and there are many questions and challenges around the evidence quality, risk of bias and robustness of the medical AI tools in general
0 replies
4d1h
Anecdata but I broke two ribs and got an x-ray, a prescription and was sent home. While I was in line at the pharmacy the x-ray folks came and found me and sent me to the ER - one if their other techs looked at it and saw a punctured lung. None of the subsequent doctors/surgeons could see it on that x-ray but yeah, CT scan showed I had a punctured lung.
0 replies
4d6h
And yet, as a software developer or security researcher or whatever, we can do the same thing; for example a milliseconds delay in SSH leading to the uncovering of a years-long ploy to undermine security (although the diff that introduced the issue flew under the radar), or recognising an issue from the sounds a modem or hard drive makes.
2 replies
4d4h
I expect the same has happened with a lot of people here too. I know that I've been able to piece together pretty complicated situations from very limited evidence, amazing the junior devs on the team.
I also think this XKCD is relevant to the subject. You'll eventually become an expert on darn near anything you spend enough time on. https://xkcd.com/915/
0 replies
4d4h
Reminds me of Jesus' words: Everyone seeking finds...
Yeah there are some things you probably will never be a master of, but if you have the motivation to spend enough time at it, and not give up due to discouragement and reversals, you pretty much will become much better at it than you ever though possible.
0 replies
4d2h
It's funny to notice that the english language borrowed the word "connaisseur" from the french language but randomly changed the "a" to an "o" for whatever reason. In case you're wondering how it's related to the parent comment, "Connoisseur" is the title of the xkcd link.
1 replies
4d19h
An article from Smithsonian shows that there's a drawing showing what the gallery had looked like.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-historian-disc...
So somewhere in his brain he must have had "missing rounded-top portraits of 16th century VIPs, including one of Henry VIII posed kind of like this" filed away.
0 replies
4d5h
This article is much better than OPs. It clearly explains what the painting is missing from (a set of busts hung in a hall auctioned separately in 1781), and even shows a drawing of what that set is.
0 replies
4d16h
It does have a very unique shape, in the parlance of Playschool it’s through the arched window.
Just seeing the outline of the frame could probably highlighted it was part of the missing series, assuming that is there are very few other paintings with an arched frame.
16 replies
4d20h
Is it common in British English to use "for" instead of "by" when talking about the creator?
''' After inspecting it personally to test his theory, he confirmed the artwork was created *for* tapestry maker Ralph Sheldon and dated back to the 1590s.
It was one of a collection of 22 portraits made *for* Sheldon, but the whereabouts of only a handful were known.
'''
I'm confused whether Sheldon is the painter or the commissioner.
15 replies
4d20h
I don't think Sheldon made these portraits? They were commissioned as mentioned in other comments.
13 replies
4d20h
Got you. I was just confused as to why a guy would commission paintings of a king for his own use but I didn't live in that era so maybe it was in vogue.
11 replies
4d17h
It's patriotic to have a picture of your royals in your home. You'd find pictures of The Royal Family in British homes, not so much now, but certainly photos of say Diana were fairly common in the 80s.
10 replies
4d16h
That makes sense. I don't think it's really popular here in the United States to have a president on your wall but I have seen pictures of them in restaurants especially if they frequented the establishment.
It makes me curious about this specific example if the painter copied another painting of the king or he managed to somehow get time with the king in order to know what he looks like for the commission.
4 replies
4d15h
The British never really shed their love for royalty. Just one of the things us yanks like to “take the piss” from then on. Seems silly to us.
3 replies
4d11h
They are celebrities in sense, with at least publicly higher standards("presentable")...
2 replies
4d9h
Yeah but only weirdos have pictures of celebrities hung up in their house.
1 replies
4d1h
Plenty of teens' bedroom walls would disagree...
0 replies
3d19h
If an adult does that, it's considered rather sad.
1 replies
4d
I don't think it's really popular here in the United States
I recently read a longform interview of someone who married into the Pelosi family. Apparently, at least at those levels, a "vanity wall" with pictures of yourself/your family with famous folk (in this case: former presidents, perhaps foreign statesmen) is common.
I tried googling for that phrase... it matches a piece of bathroom furniture, instead of a wall of photos showing off you know famous folk in your expertise.
0 replies
2d5h
Bragging is common in many strata of society.
0 replies
4d9h
I don't think it's really popular here in the United States to have a president on your wall
In exchange there are flags and political posters and signs on lawns, and religious representations in some religious households.
0 replies
4d10h
or he managed to somehow get time with the king in order to know what he looks like for the commission.
That is unlikely for all kind of reasons. Chiefly among them that when the painting was painted the King was long dead.
The painting is dated to around 1590 while Henry VIII died in 1547.
0 replies
4d12h
You guys fly flags everywhere instead.
0 replies
4d8h
it is also done these days as well. Look at political and/or musical t-shirts, albeit they are cheaper. However, I have seen some, IMO, pretty crazy dedications. Just as an example: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... I'm sure that you can find similar for other famous politicians.
0 replies
4d20h
"The artist of the series remains unknown, although his distinct hand is recognised by the title of 'The Sheldon Master'."
Corroborated by the original blog post. Odd that the article isn't clear on this point.
https://historicalportraits.com/artworks/82-the-sheldon-mast...
https://adamfineart.wordpress.com/2024/07/04/ralph-sheldons-...
11 replies
4d23h
I think "Missing" is a pretty poor choice of word for this; "Presumed lost to history" would better explain what's happened - Which is both incredible and terribly dull at the same time! Somebody connected the dots on the provenance of a quite old painting that was venerated, but perhaps not as much as it should have been, not far from it's last known location - At least in distance, if not time. Great detective work, and far more interesting than if it'd been lost or stolen and people were looking for it - This was a piece that people knew existed, but nobody was looking for.
3 replies
4d23h
"Random" is also a pretty bad word for this. But hey, English is hard, and neither word usage impedes understanding of the article itself.
2 replies
4d20h
As in Random Access Memory? (I'm not sure of an application for memory that can only be accessed randomly).
0 replies
4d1h
I'm not sure of an application for memory that can only be accessed randomly
As long as you can request all of it at once, it's useful.
0 replies
4d19h
It's not exactly random, but delay line memory[1] accesses are arbitrary with respect to where your program counter is or what youre trying to access- so the delay can appear "random"
1 replies
4d21h
This was a piece that people knew existed
How did people know it existed and hadn't been destroyed at some point if no one knew where it was for so many years?
0 replies
4d16h
Existed is (can be) past tense. They knew it existed at one point and knew that they didn't know where it was or if it was now.
1 replies
4d23h
edit I was wrong, in my defense I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole of related topics.
0 replies
4d22h
Is it? It was made for a tapestry maker but the wikipedia pages and a close look at them say they're paintings. Oil on panel like a lot of other paintings of the period. I think you're misreading "for tapestry maker Ralph Sheldon", he didn't paint them and the artist is not officially known.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_VIII_(1491%E2%...
_-_WAR_WARSH_51.jpg){kind=link}
0 replies
4d23h
I dont know if it is fair to assume nobody was looking for it or wondering where it was.
It is not uncommon in the art world for paintings to go missing, only to be found again. There are people that actively hunt for them, and don't just presume they are lost.
0 replies
4d23h
I always read stuff like this as ‘someone hung it up at home and didn’t want random people bothering them about how it should be in a museum instead’. And/or stole it. Hah.
0 replies
4d22h
It’s that fourth quadrant of “don’t know that you know.”
I suppose that people in different fields are already using ambient or latent information from public websites for arbitrage opportunities. Glad it was a Sotheby’s provenanceer in this case rather than an art thief.
10 replies
4d23h
Reminds me of the "lost" painting that was rediscovered via the movie Stuart Little:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Little_(film)#Lost_pain...
7 replies
4d17h
That's wild. Also wild that the set dresser paid $500 from the film's budget for a random piece of non-key set dressing like this.
2 replies
4d13h
Makes me wonder what either priceless lost artefacts are hiding in plain sight somewhere.
1 replies
4d11h
One is definitely the Salvator Mundi painting which (at least according to most experts) is a lost Leonardo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)#Hist... - it was considered a copy of the lost original for most of its existence because at some point it had been very badly "restored".
0 replies
4d10h
Almost certainly not a leonardo and passed off as one to the tune of $500million which is why it’s disappeared ever since.
1 replies
4d10h
The article says that after the movie was made, the painting was owned by a set designer. I wonder if it was the same person who bought it for Sony. Seems kind of dodgy.
0 replies
4d1h
It is. They bought it from the production later, but before that it was reused in some TV shows.
0 replies
4d4h
Time is important. How much would it have cost them to keep looking?
0 replies
4d5h
Yeah, I don't know what the going rate is for decent-looking background paintings, but I can see why films cost so many millions of dollars to make.
1 replies
4d22h
I was thinking Vigo from Ghostbusters.
0 replies
4d11h
Actually, that (as I just discovered myself) wasn't a painting at all, it was a photo of the actual actor posed and lit to look like a painting:
https://triviahappy.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-vigo-t...
2 replies
4d7h
Does the bbc have a rule against posting links to Twitter or something?
1 replies
4d6h
No, why? You have to click Approve but then the tweet shows
0 replies
4d5h
Huh… all I see is two pictures and text with no links (there’s bbc chrome at the top and bottom)
2 replies
4d23h
Other Sheldon tapestries if you're interested, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sheldon_Portrait...
1 replies
4d22h
They are paintings not tapestries. Sheldon made tapestries but these were painting for him not made by him. The description of all of those in that page are either sketches or oil on panel paintings.
0 replies
4d21h
My mistake. Thanks!
2 replies
4d23h
Apparently was part of a set of 22 portraits commissioned in the 1590s by tapestry maker Ralph Sheldon and not the only one missing.
According to https://adamfineart.wordpress.com/2024/07/04/ralph-sheldons-...
The 1781 sale at Christie’s of the Weston portraits show that the group included portraits of Henry IV, Henry V, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Charles V, Prince Arthur, Henry VIII, Francis King of France, Edward VI, Queen Mother of France, Henry of Bourbon, King of France, Cardinal Wolsey, L. Cromwell Earl of Essex, Sir Thomas Moore, Duke of Alva, Comte Eglemont, Duke of Guise, Duke of Parma and the Earl of Essex.
1 replies
4d23h
Apparently was part of a set of 22 portraits commissioned in the 1590s by tapestry maker Ralph Sheldon and not the only one missing.
Yes, that's what the article says.
0 replies
4d11h
The article however doesn't mention that the paintings were auctioned off in 1781 (just "sold at auction"), so thanks for that info!
1 replies
4d21h
Is there some list of "missing" artwork some hobby OSINTers could try to find?
Surely this wasn't the first public photo of this painting posted to internet, was it?
0 replies
4d20h
1 replies
4d18h
As an aside, I really appreciated the BBC not loading twitter content by default and asking first.
This is pretty amazing that such an offhanded catch led to a recovery of something assumed lost to history though.
0 replies
4d17h
Especially when you consider the vast majority of art is hidden away in storage boxes as investments (someone for money laundering) never to be seen again.
1 replies
4d10h
What is the Warwickshire Lieutenancy? My understanding is it's some sort of royally appointed representative at the county level, but I'm not sure if it's a ceremonial role?
0 replies
4d10h
Mostly ceremonial/charitable but with some formal duties.
0 replies
4d10h
Kind of crazy how the painting ended up so close to where it started.
0 replies
2d21h
The sam2 segmenting model going through all social media scanning for stolwn art.
By British rules if you can smuggle it out of the country, it's legally yours.
That's how they filled the British Museum.
That’s such a dumb comment. Back when the British was taking items back to the UK. There were no rules or systems in place for this stuff. You could buy it, trade it, steal it. It didn’t matter. And the UK isn’t the only country to ever do this.
Laws were created to resolve/fix/prevent things happening. You can’t blame people for shit that happened before someone decided it’s wrong.
You can, however, blame them for refusing to return the shit they stole.
It’s a conundrum. If we start returning things that were stolen in the past, well that includes a lot of stuff.
If you are on the losing side you might sometimes have to return things (see looted nazi stuff), but if you are on the winning side you probably won’t (see pretty much all of the Americas).
That isn't a conundrum, it's a hassle.
Britain did the work to plunder the world, they can do the work to return the plunder, or pay rent to the countries they stole from if those countries choose to have their property remain in British custody.
The sun set on the British empire ages ago, and it's starting to set on the American empire. In the long term, both will end up on the losing side of history, as all empires do.
[citation-needed]
The US is the only first world country with demographic numbers that look not-apocalyptic.
Which is another way of saying that the US is the first world country with the least restrictive immigration policies.
You're just re-stating what happens, not why it can't happen.
'Museum attendance might drop a bit so the British Museum of History regrets to inform you and your country that the exhibit is just too popular to return to Tuva. Sorry.'
"Better luck next conquest!" -- is it okay to be that petty with regards to stuff that doesn't necessarily even have 'a winning side', aside from the vultures that profited from the museum work?
I'm imagining a local yokel telling that to the police, as they go through his garage cataloguing the stolen copper wire & stolen porch packages.
We're not talking about landback, that's a different issue. The United States actually has a much better record on repatriation than the British Museum.
Presumably because a lot of it wasn’t stolen but acquired through legal means at the time.
A museum, or generally any arm of academia, should strive to work towards a moral imperative rather than disregarding morality because of a contractual allowance.
Pilfering a nation is often times legal , but it's rarely right.
You’re assuming that there is a clear moral right or wrong in this scenario.
It’s not stolen, it’s just been moved for the very long term.
the moral relative concept that previous peoples' didn't know right-from-wrong is , as always, ridiculous.
we're not talking about a bogus modern concept here, we're talking about cultural theft on a global scale -- and we're pretending that the British did so without ever realizing that stealing artifacts from other nations around the world is A Bad Thing, until of course they produced modern rules to apply to their cultural theft so that the world stage doesn't think too poorly of them (now that they're no longer the king of the world).
Could it be that ancient peoples knew right-from-wrong but didn't care as long as it wasn't their shit disappearing, and as long as it wasn't their natives dying from foreign-borne disease during 'excavations'? As long as it was their museums profiting, and bolstering their professionals?
And how can we presume all this shit is bogus theater in order to have it both ways?
Well, how many artifacts has Britain given back to the world at large that they previously stole?
It's really a shame that those British laws you mentioned don't have any kind of retroactive clauses -- but that might spur actual justice to occur; I'm sure certain law makers may wish to avoid that...
Again. When the British were going to a lot of countries. They didn’t “steal” a lot of stuff. It was traded. They were gifts. Or they found them and took them back. No one was kicking up a fuss, half the counties were full of locals who would be classified as primitive and had no concept of cultural heritage.
Pretty much all countries are now governed in some form of another and have some laws protecting these things and/or preventing them from being removed from the country.
Yes we can debate if the British should return a lot of this stuff. But that’s a completely different topic.
But you cannot fly a single banner and call it 100% looting/stealing when that is not true.
Preverbal infants know that taking other people's stuff is wrong.
Ah, so when the British stole stuff in the first place, that was fine. But once they had it, they created a rule that said "finders keepers!" and no one was allowed to take it away from them.
(I grant that the whole scope of modern Western European history and law is a immense and complex topic, but the prior poster, like my snark above, is addressing a very valid topic: using a lax regulatory system to become a dominant player, then imposing rules that protect the established players and make it very difficult for new entrants to match them is something that occurs on many scales and not automatically a good thing, nor is questioning it "dumb".)
British? Isn't that just a human rule until about 1946.
This Henry VIII portrait is under UK jurisdiction at the moment.
When the original artists walk out of the catacombs to grab their stuff, I’m sure they would oblige.
You'd have to travel into the future to research Henry XIII
Ha, good catch
To be fair, they didn't specify Henry XIII of what. There are plenty of them - if nothing else a bunch from the House of Reuss where all male kids are called Henry (Heinrich) Number (one branch just keeps incrementing the number to 100, and then rolls over to 1; the other one rolls over every century).
There's even a living one who was in the news not all that long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_XIII_Prinz_Reuss