Talk:Silhouette

message: Mentioning IPod here is totally irrelevant. 12:30, 5 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.32.87 (talk • contribs) 
: I didn't see this comment here before I added a new section mentioning iPod commercials.  Why are they irrelevant? --MaskedSheik 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod

message: This article needs to mention the history of cut-paper silhouettes. ―BenFrantzDale 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper? 

message: This is just such an awful article, I cannot believe it hasn't been dealt with yet. There are bits repeated, frequent grammar mistakes, irrelevant sections etc. If nobody else wants to, I'll have a go in the next few days. - Ultravisitor 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite 

message: I do not assert, but it is my understanding, that until the photograph, the silhouette was the most accurate form of graphic portraiture.  I doubt the assertion that it was popular because it was cheap.  Larboard 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; prints, drawings and paintings are at least as "accurate" and more informative. A skilled cutter can do an impressive silhouette in about 3 minutes, with just scissors and paper. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  silhouette 

message: --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk  22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean the cliche? 

message: Why is only the metallic (animal) silhouette shooting mentioned? What about these human silhouette targets (made of paper/cardboard like ordinary targets, not of metal) in combat shooting practice (as shown in films but also documentations about shooting practice)? I cannot found these mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Is human silhouette shooting of negligible relevance even in the U.S.?--SiriusB (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not of negligible relevance. The reason that it has not been included is simply that the main writer of the article simply did not think about it. Why don't you add an appropriate sentence? Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silhouette target shooting 

message: I have returned this "Fair use" pic to the article. I believe its use is justified. There are a number of very fine images used here but this is the only one that is really widely known, "iconic" in fact. The use of "silhouette" as an art form is exemplified and made recognizable and memorable by this single image probably more than any other image in any art form. Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: E.T. Silhouette

message: There is a strong tradition in Russia of silhouette art, but i cant find any appropriate references. example is the amazing work of Turburam Sandagdorj , but this website doesnt have any solid info on the tradition. this tradition may then extend to the Silk Road region.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia

message: Why not add commons category?
I wanted to add but I'm not sure where. jcubic (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  commons cat 

message: I hope no one's upset that I changed this. I don't see how the story from Pliny is a "mythological origin". There's nothing divine or irrational about it. The term "mythological origin" does describe stories such as Syrinx's divine metamorphosis into the reeds from which Pan made his panpipes. The story Pliny has preserved describes a physical process that is not inherently implausible, attributed to a human inventor. It isn't really different from the invention of the telephone, which most people think of as the dramatic moment of Bell saying "Mr. Watson, come here!" That's the wrong way to think about it, of course; it was a long process, but that moment of culmination is thought to have actually happened – it isn't a myth in which Hermes comes to earth and delivers a communication system. So the reality is that you may not be able to pinpoint a single moment when an individual invented black-figure painting, and apparently Corinth and Sicyon both laid a claim as place of origin, but why should we think of Butades as only "mythological" and not an actual working potter? Pliny names other Greek vase painters that are historical and attested. Any stories he tells about them may be received with our skepticism without simply discounting them as fictions. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mythological origins" 

message: Seems like far too many photographs in the "recent" photographs gallery, and it isn't clear what each one contributes to illustrating the article – while some are clearly notable for their subject matter, others not so much. (Also, "recent" is relative and not a very encyclopedic label.) In the miscellaneous gallery right above the photos, the captions are often too long. I tried to clarify the relation of images to text, but it's not really an adequate effort because there are too many images and not enough explanatory text. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries