

Google Art Project - rheide
http://googleartproject.com

======
deisner
Zoom into "A Sunday On La Grande Jatte" at the Art Institute of Chicago:
[http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-art-
institute...](http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-art-institute-of-
chicago/artwork/a-sunday-on-la-grande-jatte-1884-georges-seurat/609033/)

Seurat knew a lot about dots -- but seriously, the resolution is pretty
impressive.

------
hugs
This also means you can now (virtually) tour the White House:
[http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-white-
house/m...](http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-white-
house/museumview/)

~~~
donbronson
Really cool. I didn't know there was an awkward oil painting of Hillary
Clinton hanging in the White House.

------
dgurney
I've been trying out the Art.sy beta, and although the Art Project seems to
have more functionality, I like the navigation experience on Art.sy better.
Art.sy is simpler and more artwork-focused, which leads to more random
browsing. That said, Art Project is very well done. The winner of this market
will probably be determined by content, ie. who can sign the most museum
partnerships.

~~~
ScotterC
As far as I know, the google art project isn't selling anything. It's just art
out of several museum collections.

------
mturmon
Navigation is really klunky.

Variable resolution is the thing it has going for it. Ability to zoom in on
painterly detail, or on details of larger-scale work.

Much of the sculpture does not come across well at all -- no multiple views,
very static presentation (e.g.,
[http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-art-
institute...](http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-art-institute-of-
chicago/artwork/sideboard-designed-by-edward-william-godwin-made-by-william-
watt/450226/) or [http://www.googleartproject.com/artist/andrea-
zittel/4132322...](http://www.googleartproject.com/artist/andrea-
zittel/4132322/)). A loss.

They should focus on pieces that will come across in this format.

------
caublestone
[http://www.ted.com/talks/amit_sood_building_a_museum_of_muse...](http://www.ted.com/talks/amit_sood_building_a_museum_of_museums_on_the_web.html)

This is the video introducing this project at TED.

------
prawn
Quite a few of my clicks didn't seem to result in any progress within the
experience. Found it a bit confusing and disappointing.

------
mtts
Search artists by first name only. Not very useful. But the resolution is
indeed impressive.

------
ed209
The buttons look nice, but I don't have a clue what some of them do. Adding
tool-tips to icon-only buttons would be nice.

------
droz
Related: <http://www.wikipaintings.org/>

------
glesica
Horizontal scrolling... why?! I realize it works with a mouse wheel, but why
do it?

Awesome concept though. Probably would have been nice to have when I took art
history in college.

~~~
donbronson
Horizontal scrolling is the expected behavior on tablets

------
dmvaldman
I can imagine the technology behind this would be great for architecture and
real estate. Imagine wanting to buy a home and using the museum view to
navigate it remotely.

------
rnernento
Pretty cool but it seems kind of clunky by Google standards.

------
gourneau
Is there an API, or any easy way to get the URLs of the large images? I want
these images to rotate as my desktop background for the next few decades.

------
Spearchucker
Would love to post some relevant, intelligent and on-topic, maybe even amusing
comment, but the site doesn't work with IE.

~~~
melling
It works in Firefox 3.6, which is obsolete, IMHO. What "HTML5" features are
missing in IE? Give the IE10 beta a try. That will address many of the IE
HTML5 issues.

~~~
Spearchucker
Installing another browser (or even an OS, in the case of IE10) should not be
a requisite for accessing a web site. The irony is that this site was built by
a company whose browser was part inspired by that very nature of IE6.

~~~
melling
I guess if Google is using something browser specific it's one thing. However,
if they are simply using open standards and Microsoft is slow to implement
them, that's a different story.

Seriously, developers should be more aggressive about not supporting "legacy"
browsers. Many people, and organizations, won't upgrade until they have to.
IE6 and IE7 should be dumped now and IE8 should be dumped in a couple of
years. There are other options.

~~~
Spearchucker
I'm using IE9.

~~~
melling
In IE9, Microsoft greatly improved Javascript performance. However, better
HTML5 compatibility comes with IE10:

<http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html>

~~~
Spearchucker
Lol yeah. My point about having to change browser for a site stands though.
It's a self-imposed "denial-of-customer" attack :-) I raised it because I see
it more often than I would expect, and expect it least of all from an ad
company like Google.

HTML 5 is great and all, but if a web site is trying to gain
pageviews/users/whatever, then effectively blocking out one of the most
widely-used browsers makes no sense to me.

~~~
melling
Google isn't selling ads on this site. They are showing off Chrome, which they
are also trying to market.

In short, this entire thread was pointless. Thanks for wasting my time.

~~~
Spearchucker
Nowhere did I see any statement saying anything even remotely like "This site
shows off Chrome. It is intended _only_ for Chrome, because it is a Chrome
showcase"[1].

So:

Whether they're selling ads on the site or not, is irrelevant. They're an ad
company, and (one would assume) want, as a consequence, to get as many people
to their online estates as they can. That makes this site, whether it displays
ads or not, a springboard to their sites that do. Assuming they're in the
business of making money [2].

Similarly, whether HTML5 is a standard or not, is also irrelevant. The
_effect_ is the same as the effect IE6 had. It denies access to people who
choose not to use a specific tool. It's like telling me Linux is good because
it's free. Free doesn't make it compelling. Standards won't make me switch
browsers. Especially unratified new ones [3].

If Google're hoping to win me back (I've become anti-Google over the years),
or to use their browser, then this (blocking access to a web site I _may_
like) is not the way to do it.

[1] Doesn't even say it's an HTML5 showcase. This is what the site _does_ say:

You’re missing out…

Sorry, the Google Art Project uses technology that your browser doesn’t
understand.

Install Chrome Frame for Internet Explorer to improve your experience of using
the web. It’s simple and only needs to be done once.

Install Chrome Frame.

[2] I doubt they're altruistic enough to put a site up for the benefit of the
public at large, and not the benefit of their shareholders. If they _are_ that
altruistic they're failing their shareholders.

[3] Understand me here, I think standards are awesome. They're even more
awesommer when the standards are ubiquitous. Which HTML5 isn't.

~~~
melling
Runs in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera, all of which are free. You are
simply using a browser with outdated technology. No one here can fix that for
you. If you, or your company, insists on using IE, that's not something anyone
here can fix. The rest of the web is going to move ahead without you. Sorry.

~~~
Spearchucker
I'm starting to think you have an IE axe to grind. But anyway:

It's not about me insiting on using IE. It's about a web site that excludes
almost _one third_ of the Internet population
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers>).

Re-read what I wrote in the previous post. Also note my point that being free
will not make me use a product. Chrome is spyware. Firefox offers nothing I
need and don't already have. Safari means I have to switch hardware and
software.

Oh, and IE9 mainstream support only ends in 2015
(<http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex>). How's that an outdated
browser? Unless your only measure of "current" is HTML5. In which case 99% of
the Internet is outdated, no?

~~~
melling
Safari runs on Windows, and you can use the Webkit version too:

<http://www.apple.com/safari/download/>

<http://www.webkit.org/>

That one third of the Internet will have to wait for IE10 or upgrade to a
better browser. My problem is that I think we've waited long enough to move
forward with HTML5. Let's get on with it! There's no reason companies can't
install Chrome along side of IE, for example. Slow moving companies will
upgrade when they have to. It's starting to look like they have to.

