AggieLit, take your obsession to a different thread. Hell, you can go make a thread SPECIFICALLY about this - that way it'll be easier to ignore you.
quote:
Never said that. I said you were a ****ing idiot, which you continue to prove.
The statue in Washinton Circle is 14 feet tall, on top of a ~8 foot rise of marble.
The statue in the museum of art is 12 tons of marble and 12 feet tall with him sitting down (so well over 20 if standing).
The Bust of George Washington on GWU campus is at least 25 feet tall.
The Washington National Cathedral statue is 22 feet tall including the base.
These are just statues I remember seeing in person, years ago, and found a size of with a quick google search.
TL;DR: Your choice of "20 feet" was a pretty poor one and you're still a ****ing idiot.
quote:Actually, that was very nearly the exact expressed intent of the museum of art statue. Have you even seen it?
artist was not trying to be bombastic
quote:
Good job, dip**** - I went to school there for awhile, I know where the GW statues are at GWU.
quote:
Yes, he'd be taller standing up, but the sculptor chose not to stand him up. He was not trying to wow everyone Lenin-style by making an overwhelming statue.
quote:
When did I ask you for exact measurements of the Gill statue? It looks pretty obvious to me that it will be larger than life-size. I actually went with a more conservative figure choosing 20 ft.
quote:
Oh and a sitting statue by definition allows the artist to make the individual larger than if they were standing as it would fit within the same space and yet have a larger presence.
quote:
The most well known statue in the entire ****ing world is a larger than life man. It's also the most classy in the world.
I guess the statue of David is cheesy, bombastic, and would have been better off being a smaller than life statue.
quote:
**** just got real
quote:
Actually, Ridge, I'm a physicist and a mathematician by trade, so yes, I'm a scientist.
quote:
Not arguing that one is taller than the other.
Just saying that a sitting statue at 20 ft would be way more imposing than 20 ft standing statue.
Think of a man sitting next to a standing boy with the man the same height sitting as the boy standing.
quote:
Ridge,
Do me a favor, sit on the floor and have a friend/wife/gf measure how tall you are sitting.
Divid that number into your actual height.
This is the number you will use to scale a sitting version of yourself to your own height. Every part of your body will scale with that number. Your legs will be larger. Your arms will be larger. Your entire body will be larger, but because your legs are out in front of you, you will be the same height.
A sitting statue at the same height as a standing statue will NOT have the same weight. Everything will scale up for the sitting statue.
quote:
Ridge,
Why would you need to see numbers for that?
A sitting statue will obviously be shorter than a standing one if at the same scale. So it stands to reason that a sitting statue can be scaled up to fit within the same space as a standing statue.
But if you want to see some numbers, here are some for you and then I will oblige the others and cease:
The Academic Building stands roughly 50 ft tall, and Lawrence Sullivan Ross stands 10 ft tall. He is 1/5 the height of the building.
Kyle Field by an old estimate I found online stands 180 ft tall. A 20 ft E. King Gill would be 1/9 the height of the stadium.
Well within reason.
A proposed 100 ft tall Sully by AggieLit would be a 2/1 ratio allowing Gill to proportionally stand 360 ft before AggieLit could throw a fit.
(All of those numbers were found very quickly online with the exception of the height of Kyle Field, which took about 5 minutes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Station,_Texas