3月13号惨败，在职备考人4月27二战，学习的道路，没有捷径

evamimi

画家与赞助商

Patron-Artist Relations in the Renaissance The subject of artist-patron relations has been a touchy（指问题﹑ 情况等）需小心处理的（因可能引起争议或不悦）one since the beginning of the phenomenon. Nowadays it does not take such great precedence, as the artist leans more toward a personal, individual type of art typical of freelance. Serious commissions exist only in public art and architecture, where the needs and feelings of a large group are considered. Artist and patron must work out a compromise as to what is acceptable and also respects the aims of the artist. The patron in this case generally has the last word最后拍板（下最终决定）的权力, as demonstrated by Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" controversy in the mid-80s where the artist's piece was actually removed from its site because of public objection. However, nowadays the artist is insured against such damages, which was not the case in the beginning of the Renaissance, when artists were just starting to make a name for themselves使某人出名. At this time, artists still depended greatly on patronage for a living and fought to distinguish themselves from the guild system.
They still succumbed to religious guidelines and subject matter which generally limited their exploration of more personal means of expression, but with the rise of secular art collectors such as the Medici, we see a more modern artist-patron relationship emerging. By so distinguishing themselves in their field, patrons gave them certain leeway余地 in commissions. Patrons and artists worked together, the patron outlining material, size, and general subject matter, but leaving aesthetic decisions concerning composition up to the best judgment of the artist--- the master--- himself. Although there is evidence of a lord-servant type of relationship between the patron and artist in several documents--- Domenico Venenziano writes to a lead Florentine patron, speaking of his "low condition" and how "duty-bound" he is to the patron ; Matteo de' Pasti writes to his patron about specific details concerning the subject matter of a work, referring to himself as the patron's "least servant" who wishes to obey his "master" ; Fra Filippo Lippi writes to Cosimo de' Medici that he is "here entirely to be a slave to you" --- one must remember that Italy was still working out final kinks纠结 in a new middle-class-minded capitalist system, and dredges淤泥 of the medieval system of feudalism still influenced aristocratic patrons. The artist could be building up trust and good relations so that he may be referred to other commissions and thus make a name for himself: Venenziano was slyly狡猾地 using diplomacy外交手腕 in order to gain a coveted梦寐以求的 commission, says Gilbert; De' Pasti wanted to verify his content, not technical details, so as to have a successful commission and be paid well; Lippi was asking for money and proceeds to specify what for. In fact, we actually see the painter Cossa standing up for himself to his patron (who generally paid by the square foot) as a more learned artist with a name, and thus deserving of more pay
It seems as though many patrons grew increasingly aware of artists' aesthetic mastery, and few documents exist where detailed instructions were given. A contract between Master Martino and his patron(s) is an exceptional case, where the artist was instructed to finish a vault mural in the same "workmanship, manner, and form" as "the other four vaults in the chapel" which were done by a previous artist. This served to preserve the continuity and consistency of the style of the murals. Another exceptional case involves the German patrons of Matteo Giovanni, who requested specific imagery according to their tradition and cultural tastes, expounding on specific proportions based on another altarpiece. However, they trusted him to use the "judgment" of any "good master" as to how compositional elements would be arranged and colored.
The third exceptional case involves a very personal gift, that of a belt buckle commissioned by Marco Perenti for Filippo Strozzi, for which the symbolism was very complex and thus designed by Perenti himself. Gilbert suggests that this consistent lack of instruction in most commission contracts alludes to the fact that artists, having repeatedly painted similar religious subjects, were considered masters of the imagery. In a 1461 document that he mentions, the artist Benozzo Gozzoli was instructed to simply paint the specified saints "in their usual costume" or "with all their standard decorations." In many cases, we actually see the artists themselves specifying such things as materials, and even giving aesthetic advice to their patrons on how to improve specifications. Pierro de' Medici is denied the change he requested in a commission by Benozzo Gozzoli, who retorted that the element in question "was nothing to make a fuss over." The Master Andrea Mantegna chides his patron for hurrying him with a rather far-fetched牵强的 request that he paint from life a subject that was not present. Giancristoforo Romano gives detailed instructions to his patron concerning a marble大理石 purchase for his commission, requesting a "man who understands the nature of these marbles" to make the purchase.
Antonio Del Pollaivolo suggests to his patron that he consider a grand equestrian骑术师 portrait instead of a simple bust, claiming that he would make the man "immortal." This pride in their artistic skill is felt by the artists' patrons. We see several instances where the patron actually concedes to the will of the artist. In a case where a sculpture by Donatello was rejected, the patron(s) actually proceeds to give him some money for his troubles, an action which Gilbert suggests might have been to appease any possible problems the artist might bring up. In a series of letters between the Duchess of Milan and the Marquis of Mantua, the Marquis mentions difficulties in working with Mantegna, saying "these masters have something of the fanciful about them, and it is best to take from them what one can get." In 1505, when Isabella d'Este wanted a work by Giovanni Bellini, she was advised against "very specific terms." She specified the theme, but left the "poetic invention" up to Giovanni. Thus we see a mutual respect becoming evident in artist-patron relations of the Renaissance.
Some well-known artists of the time, such as Mantegna, enjoyed courtly appointment and rubbed elbows with some of the most elite members of society, painting their portraits, discussing private collections of art, and even being included in those collections. Some might argue that artists gained fame by copying the styles that preceded them in tradition, but there is increasing evidence of personal involvement and style: Mantegna's hand was recognized among many in a fresco cycle in a church of Padua. The artist-author Leon Battista Alberti emphasized drawing from nature, and not simply copying previous models. He expounds that the painter is like a god, wielding a "divine power" that comes only through the constant study of the world about him. Patrons recognized this divine power in the Renaissance artists, and thereby gave them the relative aesthetic freedom that they deserved.

evamimi

工厂与定制服务

The factory of the future is not a place where computers, robots, and flexible machines do the drudge繁重﹑ 乏味work. That is the factory of the present, which, with money and brains, any manufacturing business can build. Of course, any competitor can build one too—which is why it is becoming harder and harder to compete on manufacturing excellence alone. Lower costs, higher quality, and greater product variety are like table stakes赌桌上的赌注 in poker—the price that companies pay to enter the game. Most products can be quickly and easily imitated; and the most automated design and production processes cannot decisively beat the second most automated. Who wins and who loses will be determined by how companies play, not simply by the product or process technologies that qualify them to compete.

The manufacturers that thrive into the next generation, then, will compete by bundling把某物捆成捆services with products, anticipating and responding to a truly comprehensive range of customer needs. Moreover, they will make the factory itself the hub中心 of their efforts to get and hold customers—activities that now are located in separate, often distant, parts of the organization. Production workers and factory managers will be able to forge建立（通常为长期关系） and sustain new relationships with customers because they will be in direct and continuing contact with them. Manufacturing, in short, will become the cortex of the business. Today’s flexible factories will become tomorrow’s service factories.

About 200 years ago, when horse-drawn carriages马车 were made largely by craftsmen工匠, the most successful carriage maker was invariably the most accommodating根据情况调整的. Though he prided himself on being a technician—a manufacturer—his success depended heavily on his willingness and ability to talk with customers at key points: before the sale, so he could get a clear idea of what the client needed and what features would satisfy him; during the manufacturing process, so he could incorporate any necessary changes in the product; and after delivery, so he could learn what features had worked (and what hadn’t) and what the client needed for maintenance, repair, and replacement.

Mass production overtook customized craftsmanship because customers came to value standardized goods over higher priced, personalized goods. As a result, work grew increasingly compartmentalized细分 through the division of labor. Craftsmanship (that is, manufacturing) became separated from downstream activities, like sales and postpurchase service, as well as from upstream activities, like new-product development and design. Gradually, manufacturing received more and more of its information and instructions through filters—divisions and departments that were separated, functionally and physically, from the production site. Not surprisingly, manufacturing managers complained that those who defined their work rarely understood it or cared enough about its details, problems, or technical possibilities.

For decades, companies muddled through胡乱应付过去. In recent years, as Japanese competition put pressure on manufacturing businesses everywhere, manufacturers have worked mightily强烈地; 有力地and successfully to educate workers and break down some of the barriers between their upstream activities and the work of the factory. They have encouraged interfunctional communication between product designers and manufacturing engineers and between R&D and quality managers on the factory floor.

These imaginative efforts to accelerate product innovation and improve manufacturing performance were necessary and important. But they are no longer adequate. Today downstream activities have to be joined to the tasks of the factory too. Increasingly, factory personnel have the means to support the sales force, service technicians, and consumers. This support should, and will, be used. Competition is shifting away from how companies build their products to how well they serve customers before and after they build them.

Some of America’s best-run companies—Hewlett-Packard, Allen-Bradley, Caterpillar, Frito-Lay—already operate factories whose activities reflect the new role of service in manufacturing competition. None of their facilities is a complete service factory. We are still many years from that. But in the range of upstream [coser to the point of production or manufacture than to the point of sale] and downstream[closer to the point of sale than to the point of production or manufacture] activities these factories perform, and in the degree of interaction between production workers and customers, they point the way to the future.

Service for a manufacturing company inescapably revolves around its products—their design, features, durability, repairability, distribution, and ease of installation and use. Even the most traditional factories of yesterday proffered提供﹑ 提出某事物 service of a kind, but their conception of service was narrow. To old-guard保守的 factory managers, service was little more than a commitment to meeting due dates. Logistics and distribution urged the factory to complete orders in a timely fashion, to give advance notice of delivery problems, and to package materials for ease of shipment and damage control. Customers were simply numbers on a production schedule.

livia2012

亲爱的加油~等你好消息哦

evamimi

有个关于竞争动态研究的实验，设计俩一年生植物，波斯菊和兰草，俩在欧亚大陆和美帝都很常见。而且兰草这东西在面对波斯菊竞争的时候长的更好。10年前左右，哥做了一系列实验试图搞清楚drive的因素，以及竞争对于植物数量的影响。
哥收集了20种左右的波斯菊。收集了每棵的种子建立了花园实验室。来测试面对兰草竞争时候的表现。哥种了每组的siblings，把每棵单独种，然后被12棵兰草环绕。结果是这波斯菊在有兰草下，长的更好，丫一棵上开了比没竞争时候更多地花。

为啥？基因问题么？anyway哥的实验没办法说明这一点，因为这些花他妈生活的环境是不一样的。但是，在本人的实验中这个是可以控制的哈哈，哥在温室里培养了3代波斯菊，然后重新实验。结果是，在面对竞争的时候这些花表现出不一样的结果，但是没竞争的时候都一样。而且，如果花他妈在竞争的时候比较牛，后代就牛。在证明了基因啊亲就是basis啊！！

什么东西让花更有竞争型呢？仔细看实验啊，哥记录了每个花发芽时间和植株高度。结果发现牛逼的花早发芽啊！！（70%）然后长的快的也牛逼啊

然后这就让人弄了另外一个实验啊，哥把露头慢的在露头快的花放在前面种，这样俩不是就一起露头了咩~。然后结果还是印证了哥的预测啊，果然还是竞争优势来源于早点露头啊~。露头时间的小差异导致表现差异是大大的啊~另外一个哥们也证明了影响是动态的xxx

如果露头影响了成功，就可以推断是不是在露头的过程中什么影响了竞争因素。事实上，如果成株已经在了，种子发芽率会被降低，以避免跟本株竞争。在遇到其他种子的时候也是，波斯菊和兰草都一样。在种子密度和发芽率之间是有严密关系的。种子之间也有交流。然后一系列实验证明，兰草和波斯菊同种，如果有正在发芽的种子，那么其他种子露头率会大大加快，已经露头的也会分泌一些化学物质（具体是啥还不知道），加速之后的种子露头。

以上是植物密度分布的第一部分early winner的翻译...
我发现我看了半天还没看到重点...

phoebe0624

来看看MM

babybearmm

mm要考试了啊~加油

babybearmm

mm加油~等你的好消息