3 ms·

ASCII Art from 1934

30 points by martian 17y ago

muck 17y ago
I fail to see how this is ASCII art. ASCII didn't even exist before 1934. A more appropriate title might be Typewriter Art.
- mindstab 17y ago
  Lots of forms of art don't get a genera name until after they've started ;). Just because the first "cubist" painting came before the term got coined doesn't mean it isn't a cubist painting. And just because this showed up a few decades before ASCII itself was hammered out doesn't mean we all don't know exactly what it is when it's described as ASCII art.
  - Luyt 17y ago
    It is also reminiscent of an embroidering pattern.
    - allenp 17y ago
      I agree - I think this is more a cross-stitch pattern than ascii art - especially since it only uses one character (X). It is however quite fancy, and I do appreciate the time it would have taken to produce it.
      - zandorg 17y ago
        I imagine you could just trace over an existing picture then type X's over the tracing paper, with a typewriter.
        eru 17y ago
        You still need a monochrome [0] picture that looks good at low resolution. [0] Or rather bichrome.
    - Luyt 17y ago
      Apparently as early as the medieval times people recorded reference embroidery patterns and examples, see this cloth with an assortment of different building blocks: http://home.comcast.net/~mathilde/embroidery/gallery/va0782-054.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~mathilde/embroidery/gallery/va0782-...
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    For that matter, it's not "ASCII art" because it's encoded that way (as opposed to "UTF-16 art"), it's because it's made up of text characters in a grid. This certainly counts.
- malkia 17y ago
  Was Jesus Christian, and were Neandertahls from Neandertahl, and so and so...
  - eru 17y ago
    (The h in `Neandertahl' isn't quite right.)
muck 17y ago
I failed to mention this in my original comment, but it's also not ASCII art as it only uses one character. My understanding of ASCII art is that it using different characters to form an image. Just look at every ASCII art from Wikipedia's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_art). Different characters contribute different visual aspects (like the edges). By just using one character it's essentially a dot matrix image. I don't consider a dot matrix image ASCII art (even though it uses the ASCII character ".").

ASCII Art from 1934

30 points by martian 17y ago

muck 17y ago

I fail to see how this is ASCII art. ASCII didn't even exist before 1934. A more appropriate title might be Typewriter Art.

mindstab 17y ago
Lots of forms of art don't get a genera name until after they've started ;). Just because the first "cubist" painting came before the term got coined doesn't mean it isn't a cubist painting. And just because this showed up a few decades before ASCII itself was hammered out doesn't mean we all don't know exactly what it is when it's described as ASCII art.
- Luyt 17y ago
  It is also reminiscent of an embroidering pattern.
  - allenp 17y ago
    I agree - I think this is more a cross-stitch pattern than ascii art - especially since it only uses one character (X). It is however quite fancy, and I do appreciate the time it would have taken to produce it.
    - zandorg 17y ago
      I imagine you could just trace over an existing picture then type X's over the tracing paper, with a typewriter.
      - eru 17y ago
        You still need a monochrome [0] picture that looks good at low resolution. [0] Or rather bichrome.
  - Luyt 17y ago
    Apparently as early as the medieval times people recorded reference embroidery patterns and examples, see this cloth with an assortment of different building blocks: http://home.comcast.net/~mathilde/embroidery/gallery/va0782-054.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~mathilde/embroidery/gallery/va0782-...
- Semiapies 17y ago
  For that matter, it's not "ASCII art" because it's encoded that way (as opposed to "UTF-16 art"), it's because it's made up of text characters in a grid. This certainly counts.
malkia 17y ago
Was Jesus Christian, and were Neandertahls from Neandertahl, and so and so...
- eru 17y ago
  (The h in `Neandertahl' isn't quite right.)

muck 17y ago

I failed to mention this in my original comment, but it's also not ASCII art as it only uses one character. My understanding of ASCII art is that it using different characters to form an image. Just look at every ASCII art from Wikipedia's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_art). Different characters contribute different visual aspects (like the edges). By just using one character it's essentially a dot matrix image. I don't consider a dot matrix image ASCII art (even though it uses the ASCII character ".").