- Joined
- Dec 17, 2020
- Messages
- 399
- Reaction score
- 1,150
Thanks - appreciate your feedback. I didn't anticipate it would become known in its present form and will improve the CSS (style sheets). But for the moment, I'm focused on research and a pile of half-written content.@usselo I read some of the articles you posted on your site - it looks great.
I suspect others are planning to use it for a book - judging from past experience and the amount of site-scraping (I think) I'm seeing.What are you planning to do with it? Is there a book or something like that on the way?
Would you read a book on IHASFEMR? If so, what format would you prefer? How important are the multimedia clips?
My sense is that the long-form, factual read is comatose, if not dead. And has been unprofitable for most authors for a long, long time. Long-form writing is really easy for me - especially if I'm poking at orthodoxy - but I don't see an incentive for long-form compared to alternative modes of presentation.
The arrival of multimedia has pushed on to stage a fascinating challenge for writers. The challenge of finding and editing media clips plus imagery that work with text to impel novel ideas into the limit-enshrouded brain-spaces of engineered intelligences, be they humans or computers. What's not to like?
It's a richer texture of communication. It's an archon thing. Much harder for me to do. Being a neophyte at multimedia, I get a lot of learning-reward and fun-reward from working with it. However, once command-line AI can create scriptable animations with controllable backdrops, then... well, they'll probably have to use decency laws to hold me back.
That one is a screen grab I made from an animation of a 3D scan of that sheela. Those black areas are visible on many of the 3D scans of sheela na gigs. I think they are an artifact of scanning. That is, a statistical shadow left where there was less scan data to create a high definition rendering of that area. But that's a guess.One thing, I was struck by a couple of the images. I'm not concerned with the representation, I'm making a point about potential editing or fakery of the images:
View attachment 27261
(from Sheela Na Gig Clues to Retail of the Past | IHASFEMR)
The image definitely has been edited. I screengrabbed it as a .png, cropped it, and converted it to a .jpg (IIRC).
Do you mean her intimate black bit? Or the black bit under her left foot (or foot-like appendage)?The black bit around the head (and elsewhere) looks edited or odd to me, and out of keeping with the rest of the photo style.
View attachment 27260
(from Shop Signs of the Brothel-Keepers | IHASFEMR)
This also looks edited - the black bit is not in keeping - it seems too black. I guess this is to do with the source, or maybe I'm being oversensitive?
This image is the same one I used in a much earlier post in this thread IIRC. I'd dig out the link but I'm getting pushed for time. I originally took it from the digital version of Barbara Freitag's Sheela-Na-Gigs - Unravelling an Enigma, whose comments and data I quoted in that post (and in the IHASFEMR version of that post). May have been from Images of Lust but I don't think so.
I would say that many sheela na gig images are low contrast. They are often not well positioned for decent lighting and the sheelas I discuss are in the UK and Ireland, both countries with cloudy weather. Authors may digitally increase the contrast to try to overcome this. So I wouldn't be surprised by that.
Not at all. It's a natural consequence of being an engineered intelligence. I don't take offence at it.Please don't take offence at my raising this with you - I just can't help noticing and then mentioning oddities like these.
Last edited:








