u/haditwithyoupeople

I'm looking at buying a piece of art from the early 1950s that appears to be on very thin paper. I don't know specifically what it is. It's painted with tempera. what I'm assuming is gouache, but I'm also not sure about that. It does not look like oil or acrylic, and it's not watercolor. It has the more flat/matte appearance of gouache.

The paper is described as "tissue paper" by the auction place and it's quite brown. It also appears to be wrinkled/rippled across the surface. I'm not sure if that happened over time or if it's from the paint drying on thin paper.

The art is framed so I can't see what the backing or other framing materials are. If I buy it I'll have a local conservator open it up.

Is there any chance this paper could be somewhat restored without damaging the paint? I'm guessing this is hard to answer without more details, but are there cases where paper browning can be reversed?

https://preview.redd.it/vftfj03s5djh1.jpg?width=401&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62759f8f1b6b206751ec223e44f7e7e92df60956

I have a function question I don't understand. I'm not having trouble with the algebra - I don't understand the operation to be performed.

It shows 3 functions: f(x) = blah blah blah, g(x) = ....., h(x) = ....

The question is: f(0.5) =

I have no idea what to do with these 3 functions. Multiply?

I don't believe this is a composite function, because that is covered in the next chapter. Neither the book nor the lecture video have a similar example.

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Gen Z forum. We had two kids, almost 23 and 26. The 26 year old moved out at 19 and moved back in last October to "save money." The 23 year old moved at at 20.

We neither encouraged nor discouraged them from moving out. We let our 26 year old move in because all the roommates from a house he was renting went different directions, and he wanted to regroup and save some money. No problem.

Now that the 26 year old has moved back in, the 23 year old is asking if he can move back in. Our answer was no, with an explanation.

The 26 year old is saving no money. He has bought at least 10 watches since moving here. I know this because he brags about it. He has an unreasonably expensive car, and is trying to buy a more expensive car.

He's clearly living here so he can spend money on stuff he wants. That's fine, but I'm giving up space I need (and want) for him to be here and we're paying for a lot of his food.

I know how to manage this with him, and we're doing so. I'm not asking how to get the 26 year old out. I'm struggling more with why he's here When I was 22 the LAST thing I wanted to do was to live with my parents. Yes, it would have been free or inexpensive. I wanted my independence. I wanted to be an adult. I wanted to not be dependent on my parents. And yes, it was a struggle for me financially.

Both my kids seem to want to be dependent and have a safe place to live for free. They seem to want us to cook dinner for them. I really don't get this. FYI, they both make ok money and can afford to live on their own.

Are other parents of Gen Z kids seeing this?

I'm studying transformations. I thought it was going well, but I'm stuck on this problem and the teacher won't be available until Monday afternoon.

Given that g(x) = (x-2) - 5 where f(x) =√5)/2

I have to first identify the transformations. The -5 seems obvious: this is a y shift down by 5 units.

The -2 is inside is not as clear to me. I'm not sure if it's x shift to the right by 2 units or if it's the square root of x-2?

Appreciate any help. I have searched for some videos and I can't find one that make it clear if the -2 is under the square root or if it's shift after √x.

I have graphed √x, √(x-5) and √x-5. I don't know which the transformations is correct. Or I am getting this completely wrong?

Not a framer, but a collector. I do frame some art. I mostly use pros. It's not clear to me when it's ok to frame but not protect art with glass or plexi. Note that I'm considering 99% UV protection for glass or plexi the standard for protecting art.

I would prefer less protection when it makes sense. I use Museum Glass or Optimum plexi. (Optium plexi is great, but yikes! on the cost.)

I know there are some general rules:

- Canvas: usually no protection, but sometimes (ex: I just saw some Rothkos framed with plexi in a museum)

- Pastel, charcoal/graphite, ink on paper(?) should be protected

- I assume paper that is not completed covered with oil/acrylic paint or ink should be covered to help prevent the paper from aging?

Where it's less clear to me:

- Acrylic or oil paint on paper. Better to cover? If so, is this to protect the paper from UV? Does it matter if the paper is 100% covered with paint or ink?

- I have prints made with oil ink on Arches paper (I don't recall the specific paper). Do these need to be covered? They are very durable, per the artist. He has soak these in water for a day to make it easier to emboss the paper with a pattern. He has told me I can dust them carefully and have no negative consequences.

- Acrylic or oil on board. These are usually protected when framed. I've done some acrylic on board floated on a mat (or a painted art board to give it some texture) in a frame. Is there any reason this is sub optimal?

Thanks for any answers or guidance.

Was talking to my 22 year old step son. He's one of 4. We have a good relationship. He moved out a couple of years ago and was over for dinner. He was very much enjoying dinner and we were talking about food.

When they were pre-teens and teens my wife worked nights so I was feeding the kids dinner 4-5 nights per week. There always push-back, complaining, arguing, and refusing to eat. It was always at least one of them. Sometimes more than one. Every meal.

When I asked about this, he admitted that they he sometimes did this just to make it more difficult for me. He said the others were doing it as well. When I asked why, he said "I'm not sure." He does seem to be sorry but also shrugged it off.

I appreciate his honesty, and I don't like him or love him any less. And I get that teens being occasionally terrible is normal. But holy shit dude... why?

Do any step parents have experience with this? Why would this happen. I can get past it, but it was so unnecessarily hard. I'm not sure if it was about control, or was resentment (over what?), or just them not liking me.

Not the end of the world, but a little heartbreaking given what I did for them. I'll chalk it up to kids not really appreciating what they have. But the intentional screwing with me I can't really understand.