Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Pet peeve of mine, but there are many 'history facts' twitter feeds (good) and they often include images with the facts (also good) but sometimes don't the dates of the images. Always differentiate 1 Period artwork, 2 scholarly reconstruction or 3 random early-modern painting.
Lay readers often cannot tell the different between period artwork/scholarly reconstruction and Renaissance of early modern (or modern) interpolation. They tend to assume, quite reasonably, if you are showing a picture, it's because 'that's what it looked like.'
Now there's value too in showing, say, a Renaissance painting of a classical scene with some history facts about the event as a way to say 'look, this remained relevant an interesting, here's another take on it.' But you've gotta date that painting!
(This is, to be clear, not in response to anything in particular and no one should take this as a subtweet. It is merely something that grinds my gears generally. It also drives me nuts in lectures, presentations and essays either online or in print)
Is this about (or at least partly about) the whole bare-unpainted-marble issue?
No, actually, but it is always worth adding, "the original would have been painted bright colors!"
Ha, there's one I love with the Biblical Saul in full knight armor.
Do you have any favourite such feeds? :)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
