Talk:Lillian Schwartz

Image: Hommage to Lillian Schwartz

Is the inclusion of the image Hommage to Lillian Schwartz appropriate for this article? It seems to be original artwork (OR?) that is unrelated to Lillian Schwartz. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It might not be appropriate for this article, because there isn't proof that it was done by Lillian Schwartz and the person who did the piece may have just wanted to pay homage to her, as suggested by the title. Also, google results don't yield anything outside of English and Swedish Wikipedia. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is misshapen.

The article is misshapen. I collaborated with Lillian on numerous projects during her 3-decade-plus stay at Bell Labs where she changed the entire shape of the computer from an engineering tool, linear and monochromatic, to something that she could use for art, animation, effects, and objective historical analysis. She was brought into the Labs in 1968 by Leon Harmon, famous for his least amount of imagery needed for identification, e.g., a portrait of Abe Lincoln. Leon's assistant, John Vallaro, spent six months teaching her programming available for outputting grayscale images; putting frames together could create a vague form of animation. At the same time, she went to the New School for Social Research and attended classes in programming. The first program she tried to use for a commissioned film was BEFLIX, which was too constrictive; most of the early films were composed of hand animation and a lot of work on the optical bench and in the color lab.She worked with Knowlton to push to a higher level, creating EXPLOR, but that program, too, did not go to where she wanted which was absolute control over every pixel, including every layer. Ironically, her films beginning in 1971 could be viewed in 2D; later, 3D glasses called Chromadepth were invented and she discovered that almost all of her films and graphics were 3D -- without pixel shifting, just using the colors, texturing, and editing techniques. The Labs was an astonishing place. She could walk up and down hallways stopping to peer into rooms which is how she met people like Don White and his lasers, or super-programmers who could think up languages such as the OS UNIX and the tool set C. Super-programmers back then wrote elegant, small programs that did fantastic work using little memory, completely different from Microsoft's glob-like systems. Lillian eventually was able to piece together peripherals and programs that let her work on the computer alone; her real love was the AI machine, Symbolics, unfortunately no longer with us. With it, she could analyze famous artists from brush strokes to palettes. Her other analytic work involved scientifically comparing Leonardo's Portrait with the Mona Lisa, finding a perfect match; Isabella of Milan royalty had been the first model; he was the last model. The same strictly objective analysis showed that Leonardo use the face of his Vitruvian Man to finish the Shroud of Turin (a result that was unfortunately distorted by Britain's Channel 5 whose crew in 2008 or '09 filmed her, asking mainly about her Mona Lisa work, the techniques for which were also used in her Shroud analysis; the documentary put a sound bite of "It's a match" when she was discussing the Mona Lisa discovery over a picture of the Shroud so that it seemed she was saying that Leonardo had used his features fir that, too. So goes unreality when one is not sent a film snippet for approval. She also derived the original formation of the harbors at Carthage, Leonardo's different uses of perspective in The Last Supper. Eventually, the Labs closed, in part because of the terrible mistake in permitting the AT&T divestiture, and in part because the higher-ups at Lucent did not know how to market Unix, C, the first digital juke box, the first digital camera, and lots of other stuff granted to snoops ranging from Dali (stealing Bela Julecz's cyclopean perception 3D technique for his Christ image -- Dali had also wanted Lillian to do projects for him that he alone would sign; while they talked, Gala took a liking to me and I was chased all over the St. Regis followed by Warhol's crowd). Lillian became legally blind but did become a teacher at SVA. Her repository is at OSU Rare Books but it was Walter Forsberg, a professor at the NYU film school who really helped change things around beginning in late 2010 or so. He started getting her original A,B, and audio rolls and restoring them both to film (much better for seeing the 2D/3D) and digitally. He and Dan Streible of NYU dragged her up to Flaherty in 2011 for a viewing of newly restored 2D/3D works and the crowd went crazy. She had a huge number of 2D/3D images and wanted to make a dozen films using a new technique she had developed with texturing. She worked with students, telling them what she wanted. But then she went for the first of two operations on her dead right eye. She was introduced to the terrifying world of home health care aides. But she pushes herself through blindness, scoliosis, post-polio syndrome, this tiny figure behind a walker with exhibits worldwide. See www.lillian.com; buy some Chromadepth glasses (the name may be different now; the company was recently sold). Compare what she achieved without pixel shifting to what James Cameron has done. When I worked at Fox Inc. as a consultant (I was also a consultant to Bell Labs) and tried to explain digital issues with the heads of divisions in the early 1990s, I got blank stares. I also remember being faxed the first vast check to Cameron's company plus a copy of his contract. It amazes me that a woman from a large family surviving the Depression, polio and radiation serving in Japan between Hiroshima and Nagasaki who never received a large check (but did win numerous prestigious awards) achieved more than Cameron. -- The images attached to the article should be removed. The so-called Mona Leo take-off is offensive. LaurensRS (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

I really do not know the topic and the work of Schwartz and hence can not address these issues. I did, however, notice that the other image was not created by Schwartz and was by an unknown artist, hence I removed it. Given that LaurensRS seems to be disputing the accuracy of the article, I will tag it as such based on those comments, given that she may not know the suitable Wiki-tag. Then whoever knows the subject should either correct the material with WP:RS sources or delete the disputed items. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

History - you wrote this bio. too? It is really so very wrong. She did not morph da Vinci's face or use morphing in any historical analyses. To say that shows a complete lack of understanding of computers, programs, and what she was confronted with in 19768 and how she re-molded everything. The article omits important details. It is, sorry to say, terrible. Considering that I twice cited to her article on the prolonged, painstaking work involved in the face matching and to have you say morphing is a slap on the face. You talk about verifiability (finding the truth) -- you could have taken the even simpler route of beginning with her Web site, then reading our book, The Computer Artist's Handbook (W.W. Norton, available on Amazon used), the cited article, the multi-volume work on Bell Labs published by the Labs. You could have asked me to verify items since I was at the Labs as a consultant after working at AT&T Legal HQ on the divestiture which was the worst decision ever permitted in this country, costing us trillions in infrastructure costs plus the demise of the Labs, the only place for freedom and intelligence (many of the Labs' better scientists migrated to Google, Pixar, China, and India. But morphing? A child does morphing. It does not align pixels of images based on objective principles using a rigid algorithm with unique testing and reliability factors written in. I'm willing to work with you but at this point do not know where to begin. I note that you've written hundreds of entries. It took me five years tio write a history book, going back to original materials in rare book libraries, translating languages, verifying addresses in the 1700s. I then wrote treatises on computer law when it was unknown turf; I spent hours every morning researching before going to work. To say morphing is mortifying.LaurensRS (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

The article remains a mish mash. For example, she did not begin doing artwork on her own in the 1980s; she did not go to the Labs in her early career stages; she did not argue about the Mona/Leo and there is extensive historical that is in the article published in Florence to celebrate Leonardo. His entire history in Milan; his relationship with Isabella; techniques he used in Milan that were dropped when he left; and so on. I even dug up some old letters. Moreover, he always put a commissioned portrait into his record books as to who was sitting and the price. The fingers did not wear a wedding band. Just read the article. As for the rest, it is just s skeleton and even there, a skeleton that has lost weight. She was an artist by training; attended Happenings; member of EAT where she met Billy Kluver and Rauschenberg and the infamous turtle; was in the MOMA show that brought her together with Leon. Her work in programming. That she developed a 2D/3D process in 1971 that did not involve pixel shifting. that even though legally blind, she continues to teach and is finishing a film where she pushes her 2D/3D images to another level. She worked on analyses of numerous artists; she had a particular fascination with Leonardo that led to her various undertakings including the Shroud of Turin which used the same set plus other programs for ensuring the proportions; the harbors at ancient Carthage (an issue the anthropologist and oceanographers had not been able to resolve. If you want to make it even more interesting, she is an atomic vet. She was a navy cadet when she was shipped to occupied Japan to a town right between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While soaking up intense radiation, she contracted polio, which was endemic to Fukuoka, where she was stationed. Western doctors gave up on her; she was paralyzed basically from the neck down. The Japanese aides had always liked her and brought in a Zen monk. He had her focus on one muscle at a time until she reached her right arm and hand. He had her focus on holding brushes; doing calligraphy; paintings. But she now has post-polio syndrome. -- Back to computers, she worked with many famous composers such as Jean Claude Risset; she also used other sources for soundtracks. Besides having studied art, she studied math, logic, programming. She experimented constantly. Before joining the Labs in 1968, she had worked in colored fluids, osmosis, motorized flow through glass shapes with different lighting; on removing additives from liquid plastic to create images in the plastic as it began to harden; painting images on sheets of clear plastic, mounting them on light boxes; her kinetic sculpture Proxima Centauri that was shown at the MOMA show and attracted Leon because of the internal complexity house in a simple black box that came to life when approached; she worked with and did a film with Bela Julecz, who discovered cyclopean perceptions; she was always experimenting with intercuts and new editing techniques; she studied the writings of Land(of Polaroid fame); her repository is OSU Rare Books;she is the author of a book and many articles; she was with the early SIGGRAPH; on and on. As I noted before, Dali call her to the St. Regis and presented her through his mustaches with various projects she was to do with him without her co-signature; for years, Lillian was a representative of the US via the USIA which sent her to places like the USSR and China (the latter as the first good-will ambassador after the thaw in relations. By the way, when it comes to studying Lillian, there are numerous people and professors who write completely incorrect articles, essays, book contributions; you can see from the mis-edit in the Shroud documentary and then in a newspaper article that mentions the documentary but used a longer quote from her about discovering and then proving that the proportions were accurate; what the writer omitted was that after she had said 'proportions' she had continued with 'between those of Leonardo's face of the Vitruvian Man and the face on the Shroud. Since there is so much to write about Lillian, the question is why not just brevity but why also incorrect statements. At least read the Mona Lisa article since that will show you how there was a side of proof using programs, and another side using extensive historical research. The same methodology was used with the Shroud. LaurensRS (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

I do not understand why you do not read materials by Lillian herself and cite to them. When I was asked to contribute to books about people whom I knew, researchers wanted items such as letters from the horse's mouth, not the watering hole. The biography remains confusing. The use of red lines is discussed in The Computer Artist's Handbook; the history involved in the Mona Lisa portrait is detailed in the article published in Italy. The bio. is choppy and omits major events, including kinetic work to new 3D techniques to music to The shroud of Turin.LaurensRS (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

Unsourced content that is wrong must be removed, per WP:BLP. Feel free to add biographical content that is properly sourced, and neutral in tone. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as sources, please read policy at WP:RELIABLE and WP:PRIMARY. These guidelines are in effect because people tend not to be objective about themselves and their achievements. In this case the subject is clearly of import, so there ought to be multiple reliable sources that can be accessed. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Image based on Mona Leo

Image created using techniques similar to Schwartz's Mona Leo

Just to clarify, the image I created (right) for Wikipedia was not meant to reproduce Schwartz's Mona Leo exactly, but rather is based on similar techniques that she used to create it. Schwartz replaced the right half of the Mona Lisa with the right side of a flipped version of da Vinci's self-portrait (see the image here, for example), whereas I overlaid a smaller portion of the left side of Mona's face with the left side of a flipped self-portrait.

It would be nice to include Schwartz'z actual Mona Leo image here on Wikipedia, but copyright limitations (as I understand them) make it difficult for us to do so. That's why I created a similar alternative form for use here. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Major restructuring

I have just done a basic revision of what was indeed a very poor article, and I have worked from various public sources of information, including the book Schwartz co-wrote with her son, her resume, external websites, and my own limited knowledge of her work. It remains very undercooked, with a particular need for biographical details (blindness, when, how?) and a more thoroughgoing assessment of her artistic oeuvre — its trajectory, individual works of note, influence on later artists, etc. Anyone with direct knowledge of Schwartz and her career is strongly encouraged to help shape this article.

LaurensRS: Since you appear to have detailed knowledge, it would be terrific if you could suggest specific edits (or make them yourself). Your long comments in Talk are so tantalizing, but not much in them meets wikipedia standards of precision and verifiability at present, although I've certainly included what I could in the current version of the entry. Alafarge (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mona Leo theory

"Mona Leo" redirects to this page about Lillian Schwartz, but it appears there is no mention of the concept on her BLP. The recent obituary by The New York Times even mentions the Mona Leo theory, and we should probably add something about it to this page, no? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you want to edit an article, you can just do it! If you are worried about your idea, and want to instead try to suggest an edit for other editors to make for you, then I'd suggest actually writing out the edit yourself to post here so your suggestion is as clear as possible. The edit you are saying you want to make (adding information from a New York Times article) does not seem like a problem and seems like a good idea to me. If someone has a problem with it, they too can edit the article after you do. Thanks, looking forward to seeing your edit. Asparagusstar (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there was probably already something in this article about the Mona Leo theory, thus the redirect ... I have yet to dig through the page history to see for myself.

From what I have read, her "theory" on this was quite controversial in academic art circles at the time, so including other sources as well would be good to help build out this info, not just the NYT obituary piece. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)