06-04-2016, 11:37 PM
Well, with some seriousness, what I suggest is that the Tubingen Ram is a provisional identification. This is a discussion group and this is a point of discussion.
While you do make a number of seemingly valid points about how a ran should look, there is still the significant hurdle of presenting an example to match the VMs that is equivalent or better that the Tubingen ram. If it can be said: "All kinds of things appeared with nebuly lines, and wavy lines appear also in other settings." Then, simply present the better examples and we can go from there.
The criteria used to identify an image of a ram might be one with all the bells and whistles - and big horns. Most but not all do have big horns. How many ways are there to represent wool? It seems there are a variety of possibilities. The golden fleece example, covered with gold coins was interesting. If you take the imprint off of the coins, it leaves something very much like a scale pattern and in some parts it is turned backwards creating a certain similarity with the way the VMs image was drawn.
But here, perhaps, is where a difference of perspective exists. On the one hand it is suggested that in order for the animal to be a ram, it must look like a ram as much as possible. In essence, it *should* look exactly like a ram, in order to be seen as a ram. But taken from the opposite direction, consider the question: What is a minimal level of similarity necessary to still be evocative of the idea of the ram?
If everything is clear and obvious, where are the hidden secrets? If everything is clear and obvious, what's the big hang up?
So, let's put it this way. The challenge is to find an image, that is clearly not a ram, but is a better match for the VMs illustration than the example provisionally identified.
.
While you do make a number of seemingly valid points about how a ran should look, there is still the significant hurdle of presenting an example to match the VMs that is equivalent or better that the Tubingen ram. If it can be said: "All kinds of things appeared with nebuly lines, and wavy lines appear also in other settings." Then, simply present the better examples and we can go from there.
The criteria used to identify an image of a ram might be one with all the bells and whistles - and big horns. Most but not all do have big horns. How many ways are there to represent wool? It seems there are a variety of possibilities. The golden fleece example, covered with gold coins was interesting. If you take the imprint off of the coins, it leaves something very much like a scale pattern and in some parts it is turned backwards creating a certain similarity with the way the VMs image was drawn.
But here, perhaps, is where a difference of perspective exists. On the one hand it is suggested that in order for the animal to be a ram, it must look like a ram as much as possible. In essence, it *should* look exactly like a ram, in order to be seen as a ram. But taken from the opposite direction, consider the question: What is a minimal level of similarity necessary to still be evocative of the idea of the ram?
If everything is clear and obvious, where are the hidden secrets? If everything is clear and obvious, what's the big hang up?
So, let's put it this way. The challenge is to find an image, that is clearly not a ram, but is a better match for the VMs illustration than the example provisionally identified.
.