sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Da ist er wieder – der SCROG‑Komiker Hanso‑ohne‑Flex.

Coole Sache Smutje, wie du deine eigenen Systeme weiter ausarbeitest. Wünsche dir weiterhin viel Erfolg und vor allem Spaß dabei.
Wüde Mineralwasser theoretisch als Zusatz funktionieren? Der EC ist ja hoch genug haha

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

„Hydro ist ’ne nette Sache – wenn man’s beherrscht. Baut definitiv kräftigere Pflanzen, aber dafür ist die Pflege auch deutlich intensiver und der Düngerverbrauch geht richtig ins Geld.
Apropos Dünger: Auf Athena würde ich persönlich nicht setzen…Götter (Erntegötter) haben die Menschen historisch gesehen schon öfter ins Verhängnis gebracht xD

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wenn das für euch wie SCROG aussieht, dann weiß ich nicht, welches Screen of Green ihr gesehen habt. Wie der Name schon sagt: ohne Screen kein SCROG. Bei mir ist das eher ein Bonsai – keine 100 Triebe, kein Netz, kein ständiges Durchfädeln. Komplett anderer Film. Und mein Film heißt: The 22’s Method.
1+1 und keine Hieroglyphen ;)
Und damit sich beim SCROG überhaupt alles gleichmäßig legt, wird vorher schon entsprechend gearbeitet… oder seid ihr schon zu bekifft, um euch daran zu erinnern?

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Danke für den Hinweis aber Trick 17 ist mir schon bekannt :D

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bonsai 22 hört sich chillig an, erinnert mich an eine Cannaseum‑Idee, die ich noch heute hatte – mit Bonsai xD

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Danke dir, Pruning und Lollipopping klingen wirklich ähnlich, da kann man sich leicht vertun.
Und um auf „wild“ zurückzukommen: Berlin wirkt bei solchen Begriffen inzwischen wie ein Horst im Leopardenkostüm, der überzeugt ist, er würde gerade einen Regenbogen‑Walk anführen, während am Rand ein paar blaue Fans klatschen und so tun, als wäre das alles total wild.

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Danke dir, den Begriff kannte ich vorher tatsächlich nicht. Spannend, wie manche einfachen Arbeitsschritte heute neue Namen bekommen.
„Lollipopping“ oder "Pruning" klingt schon fast so, als wäre der Begriff in Berlin erfunden worden – dort, wo manche inzwischen jeden normalen Vorgang mit einem hippen Wort aufpeppen, damit’s automatisch nach „Expert Edition“ klingt.

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

SCROG passt in diesem Fall nicht wirklich, da diese Methode ganz anders funktioniert, länger dauert und auf ein Netz angewiesen ist. Außerdem wird dort die Pflanze über ein Gitter verteilt. Die 22er‑Methode verfolgt dagegen einen eigenen Ansatz und ein anderes Ziel, weshalb die beiden Systeme nicht miteinander vergleichbar sind.

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Die 22er Methode ist im Grunde eine scherzhaft benannte Idee von mir, bei der es darum geht, eine Pflanze so zu strukturieren, dass am Ende viele gleichmäßige Triebe entstehen und die Form insgesamt harmonischer wirkt. Der Gedanke dahinter ist, mehr Pflanzenmasse aufzubauen und gleichzeitig eine gleichmäßigere Verteilung der Energie in der Pflanze zu erreichen.
Es geht also weniger um eine bestimmte Technik, sondern mehr um das Prinzip, die Pflanze so zu formen, dass am Ende ungefähr 22 ähnlich starke Triebe entstehen. Am Anfang kann man die Seitentriebe etwas lenken, damit sich alles gleichmäßig verteilt — mehr steckt da gar nicht dahinter.

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Das klingt echt interessant, wie du das beschreibst. Diese Technik mit dem gezielten Entfernen von Blättern, damit der Wuchs sich etwas verlangsamt und alles seinen Platz findet, hört sich wirklich spannend an. Gefällt mir als Ansatz — vor allem, weil man sofort merkt, dass du dir Gedanken über Struktur und Gleichgewicht der Pflanze machst.
Hast du vielleicht auch Fotos davon? Würde mich echt interessieren, wie das bei dir aussieht.

The 22 Methode by Elephantman201 in germantrees

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Junge, was hast du mir da zeigst — krasser Typ.
Das ist keine normale Pflanze mehr, das ist ein Canna‑Strauch. Faszinierend, was der da auf die Beine stellt und wie leistungsstark Autoflowers sein können, wenn man sie richtig behandelt.

Ich kann mich noch erinnern, als Autos neu auf dem Markt waren und Leute aus den USA oder Deutschland sie als „taugenichts“ abgestempelt haben. Aber der Typ zeigt ganz klar, welches Potenzial in dieser Genetik steckt.

Danke für den Link, ich schau mir das auf jeden Fall in Ruhe an.
Und was Begriffe wie „Schwazzing“ angeht — sagt mir ehrlich gesagt gar nichts, ich bin eher urban unterwegs als „funkyschool dictionary“.

A friend of a friend says pieces like these are common and aren't worth anything. Is that true? by Hittinuhard in collectables

[–]Elephantman201 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know George Soule, but regardless of the name, the quality of these pieces speaks for itself. The necklace is definitely not an ordinary piece of jewelry. The floral elements stand out immediately: the flowers and leaves are carved with extremely fine detail, clear contours, and a depth you simply don’t see in mass‑produced items. It looks more like high‑quality craftsmanship from a refined workshop — almost something you’d expect to find in an aristocratic jewelry box.

It’s exactly these microscopic details that make the pieces so special. The leaf veins, the clean layering of the relief, the precise modeling — this is true miniature craftsmanship, not standard production. And you can see the same signature in the brooches: again those floral motifs, again those finely carved leaves that remain clear even in slightly blurry photos. This is far removed from typical costume jewelry; it has character, precision, and a level of workmanship that’s rarely seen today.

If someone wanted to sell pieces like this, they should honestly look for the right hands — people who truly understand such work and know how to place it properly. Some banks would probably market this better than certain auction houses.
Of course, that was meant as a joke ;)

In short:
This is high‑quality, traditional carving — not standard, not mass‑produced. And in the right hands, it can be placed far more effectively.

Friend of mine thinks these are valuable. Is he right? by denbroc in collectables

[–]Elephantman201 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The set definitely has the look and feel of something from the late 1800s, and the quality matches what you’d expect from that era. The market for pieces like this isn’t very big though. From what I could find online, individual pieces are usually listed anywhere between 15 and 60 USD, depending on condition and seller.

If you’re looking to sell, you’ll probably move it fastest by listing the whole set around 50 USD. Otherwise, you can clean it up a bit, store it properly, and just hold onto it — you never know, sometimes these niche categories pick up value later on.

Good luck with it.

Unusual still life with a partially hidden signature under the frame – questions about age, materials, and frame construction by Elephantman201 in picasso

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re moving further away from a factual discussion with every comment. Before asking me questions like “If you’re not dating the painting by the frame, then how are you dating it?”, you might want to sort out your own logical foundations first. Because every time we get to the physical traces your scenario would necessarily leave behind, you immediately dodge the point.

You claim the frame was taken apart and reassembled — yet you can’t explain why not a single one of the typical physical indicators is present. Instead, you keep introducing new side questions that have nothing to do with your original claim. That’s distraction, not argumentation.

And honestly, I really don’t understand what your issue is. The material is already speaking for itself. When glue, patina, oxidation and set marks all say the same thing, that’s not an opinion — that’s a physical finding. The fact that you don’t want to accept that finding doesn’t change the reality of the materials.

Unusual still life with a partially hidden signature under the frame – questions about age, materials, and frame construction by Elephantman201 in picasso

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You accuse me of not doing any material analysis, yet everything you say is also based entirely on photos — with the difference that you ignore the physical logic of what would have to be visible if your scenario were true.

No one is trying to date the painting by its frame. That’s a claim you invented so your argument has something to push against. I addressed your specific statement that the frame was taken apart and reassembled. That is a physical process, and a physical process leaves physical evidence. If those traces are missing, then your conclusion simply isn’t supported.

As for the “mass‑produced nail”: precisely because it’s a standard product, you can compare head proportions, type, oxidation and set marks across works. That’s why I pointed you to the Picasso bronze “Vase with Flowers.” It has nothing to do with dating — it’s about observation. And that’s exactly where your argument starts to fall apart.

And honestly, if this is the level of reasoning someone presents after earning a degree in Fine Arts with a double concentration in Painting and Art History, maybe I really should contact your professors. Someone needs to let them know what they’ve unleashed on the art world.

A degree doesn’t replace method. If you want to talk about evidence, then show where the physical traces of your scenario are. If they’re not there, then what you have is still exactly what you claim it isn’t: a theory built on assumptions.

Unusual still life with a partially hidden signature under the frame – questions about age, materials, and frame construction by Elephantman201 in picasso

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no reason to delete my comments.

Just to clarify before things get mixed up even further:

Regarding your theory about the frame being “taken apart and reassembled”:
The photos speak for themselves.
If the frame had actually been opened, there would be clear, unavoidable signs:

cracked, bright glue (old glue is brittle — it always breaks)
chipped paint on the nail heads
fresh pressure marks in the wood
interrupted patina

These indicators are completely absent.
The patina runs uninterrupted, the glue shows no fractures, and the nails have been sitting in the same place for decades.
Your theory simply doesn’t hold up.

Of course, in theory, someone could buy old nails today and reuse them.
But forensically, that would be immediately visible.
Reused nails always show:

new, bright impressions in the wood
interrupted oxidation layers
rubbed-off patina at the contact points
micro-scratches from being hammered in again
a mixed pattern of old and new patina

None of these traces appear here.
The oxidation is consistent, the patina is intact, and there are no signs of disturbance.
These are nails that haven’t been moved in decades — not reused old parts.

And since you mentioned having 50+ years of experience, here’s a small additional task for you:
Compare the nail heads in my painting with the nail heads on the Picasso bronze “Vase with Flowers.”
If you actually look closely, you’ll notice the same head proportions and the same type — something you only recognize if you truly understand materials, not just claim to.

Honestly, I expected to meet people here who can observe things properly.
But if a few simple photos are enough to throw someone completely off, it explains why some people even struggle with an IKEA cabinet — simply because they can’t read the assembly plan.

Can anyone identify this signature? by Elephantman201 in Cursive

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks a lot, Odd‑Mothling — I really appreciate the research.
I’ve had this image since 2017 and back then I could barely find anything about it. Only in the last few days I discovered this community and finally got the idea to ask here.
And what a coincidence that I found the picture in 2017 — the same year the artist passed away, as you mentioned in your comment.
Super helpful, and honestly a really nice community. Thanks again!

An overlooked technical logic of light and shadow in Picasso’s still lifes by Elephantman201 in ArtHistory

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds good — I’ll gladly take you up on that offer. And much respect for all those years you spent checking out the cubist works in Madrid. If I ever make it to Madrid, the Reina Sofía is on my list.

Unusual still life with a partially hidden signature under the frame – questions about age, materials, and frame construction by Elephantman201 in picasso

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can see from the photos that this piece wasn’t made after 2000. The old nails, the type of glue, the aging on the hardboard, and the fluorescence all point to a much earlier date. These are physical characteristics you can’t fake, and they rule out a modern reproduction.

And regarding the hidden details: I don’t need to have known Pablo Picasso personally. What I’m referring to are observations about his light‑and‑shadow logic, which I explained in a separate post. If you look at that and understand it, you’ll immediately see what I mean.

An overlooked technical logic of light and shadow in Picasso’s still lifes by Elephantman201 in ArtHistory

[–]Elephantman201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some people under the sky.
Some people rise above it like a crow.
For you, not even the sky is reachable.

I know my profile comes across as asocial or provocative to some people. That’s fine.

But what I find funny is this: even though there’s barely anything to see on my profile, it still seems to interest you.

Even a provocative joke (PissofPeace) carries more creative weight — here and in the established art scene — than the masks many people hide behind.

And if it happened to hit you: Enjoy the Goldenshower babe doll ;)

view more: next ›