Comments on: Periodic Table of Printmaking http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/ The Neat Side of the Web Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:48:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anni http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/comment-page-1/#comment-1473627 Anni Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:36:24 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/#comment-1473627 I agree, that the artist should have done their research first. But on the flipside of the coin, after teaching years of art appreciation, I am appalled of how little people really know about their origins and culture. I agree, that the artist should have done their research first. But on the flipside of the coin, after teaching years of art appreciation, I am appalled of how little people really know about their origins and culture.

]]> By: Skipweasel http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/comment-page-1/#comment-1102871 Skipweasel Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:26:31 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/#comment-1102871 While it's a fun idea and some of the artwork is very good, it really does show the difference between (the bulk of) artists and scientists. Take, for example, the text that goes with caesium. [caesium]...can be produced solely by nuclear reactions. Not true, it's a naturally occuring element, though there's noticeable amounts of radioactive caesium in the environment that /has/ come from man made nuclear sources. [caesium]...is strong enough to etch glass, flesh and bone. No, its hydroxide is. ...it is one of the most biologically hazardous components of radioactive waste and nuclear fallout, No, it's not as readily absorbed as many other radiopollutants. Really, I despair of the standard of scientific education that leads to someone being unable to glean even basic information about something without reading some sentences out of context and getting the wrong end of the stick. While it’s a fun idea and some of the artwork is very good, it really does show the difference between (the bulk of) artists and scientists.
Take, for example, the text that goes with caesium.

[caesium]…can be produced solely by nuclear reactions.

Not true, it’s a naturally occuring element, though there’s noticeable amounts of radioactive caesium in the environment that /has/ come from man made nuclear sources.

[caesium]…is strong enough to etch glass, flesh and bone.

No, its hydroxide is.

…it is one of the most biologically hazardous components of radioactive waste and nuclear fallout,

No, it’s not as readily absorbed as many other radiopollutants.

Really, I despair of the standard of scientific education that leads to someone being unable to glean even basic information about something without reading some sentences out of context and getting the wrong end of the stick.

]]> By: Jenn http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/comment-page-1/#comment-419899 Jenn Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:33:19 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/#comment-419899 Thanks so much for the feature! Thanks so much for the feature!

]]> By: Akiro http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/comment-page-1/#comment-419213 Akiro Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:48:54 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/27/periodic-table-of-printmaking/#comment-419213 Excellent blend of science and graphic art. Great mediums too! Excellent blend of science and graphic art. Great mediums too!

]]>