What are you reading?

[Faust]

Re: What are you reading?

[quote user="shahrinbahar"]NO logo by Naomi Klein<div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>read it carefully guys, carefully..</div>

[/quote]</p>

Ok, doc.</p>

[pbt]

Re: What are you reading?



Today's Observer is in good form. From a (classic) feature on Katharine Hamnett:</P>


Sometimes, listening to her, I wondered if we've been wrong all these years to believe that Lynne Franks was the inspiration for Ab Fab - much of KH is pure Edina. Take, for instance, her Anti-Anthrax Salad Dressing. 'The height of my anxiety was when I thought we were all going to be anthraxed in 2001 and I just thought, "ohmigod!". I was absolutely petrified and read up on anthrax and apparently not everybody gets it - if your immune system is in amazing condition you don't get it. So I invented this anti-anthrax salad dressing. You take 15 cloves of garlic, which you cut up really, really fine and put in balsamic vinegar for about five minutes, then add the quantity of oil you would normally use. And the vinegar takes the bite out of the garlic, so it means you can eat an unbelievable amount. You'd feel kicked in the stomach if you ate it raw but it's absolutely delicious, everybody loves it. And so far everybody's health has been better, we have far less colds - and certainly far less anthrax!' It seems a bit plodding to point out that actually I haven't caught anthrax either despite my lack of salad dressing - with Hamnett you just have to go with the flow.</P>


And:</P>


When I ask who she would most like to dress she says Noam Chomsky.</P>

[Faust]

Re: What are you reading?



/\ Jeebus, thanks for decreasing my IQ :-)</p>


Veblen - Theory of the Leisure Class
</p>

[droogist]

Re: What are you reading?



Right now I'm on Secret History by David Hockney, which is as intriguing as an art history book can aspire to be, and Collapse by Jared Diamond, whose books would be a lot more compelling if they didn't read like sixth-grade social studies textbooks.
</p>

[quote user="nairb49"]</p>

hahah, I always wonder what the booksellers think of my purchases. A couple days ago I came out with the Mr. Palomar by Calvino, The Lunatic at Large by Clouston and Absurdistan by Shteyngart.
</p>

oh, and 3 Choose Your Own Adventure books. ;)</p>

[/quote]How do you like Absurdistan? I quite enjoyed it up until about halfway through, at which point I thought the wheels came off in spectacular fashion. Shteyngart's ambition doth outstrip his talent, imo.
</p>

[dontbecruel]

Re: What are you reading?

Secret Knowledge right Droogist? I really enjoyed the book for Hockney's enthusiasm for the painters hewrites aboutand for his absolute self-confidence. I would love his theoryto be true but suspected itmight not be(why isn't there morecontemporary evidence?).

[droogist]

Re: What are you reading?



Yeah, that's what I meant. Duh. [:$]

No suspension of belief required on my part - I'm a believer. (As someone who's done a fair bit of figure drawing/painting in the past, I find Hockney's technical examples very convincing, particularly as regards line quality and perspective.) As for the lack of contemporary evidence, I think it's important to keep in mind that for a good many centuries painting and draughting was a trade, and therefore subject to trade secrecy. Moreover, it was a trade that effectively died out, and quite some time ago at that, once meticulously realistic representation was rendered obsolete by the advent of photography. In fact it's not all that difficult for a skill to be "lost" once technological developments provide an adequate replacement - as this is a fashion forum, rapidly disappearing haute couture techniques come to mind - so on reflection I think it's less than surprising that a closely guarded technique of a long-dead trade should now be forgotten.</p>

[dontbecruel]

Re: What are you reading?

All good points Droogist and I still hope you're right. Mysterious historical quirks like this make the world seem like a more limitless place. Even for a cynic like me.

[Servo2000]

Re: What are you reading?

[quote user="droogist"]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Duh. [:$]

No suspension of belief required on my part - I'm a believer. (As someone who's done a fair bit of figure drawing/painting in the past, I find Hockney's technical examples very convincing, particularly as regards line quality and perspective.) As for the lack of contemporary evidence, I think it's important to keep in mind that for a good many centuries painting and draughting was a trade, and therefore subject to trade secrecy. Moreover, it was a trade that effectively died out, and quite some time ago at that, once meticulously realistic representation was rendered obsolete by the advent of photography. In fact it's not all that difficult for a skill to be "lost" once technological developments provide an adequate replacement - as this is a fashion forum, rapidly disappearing haute couture techniques come to mind - so on reflection I think it's less than surprising that a closely guarded technique of a long-dead trade should now be forgotten.</p>

[/quote]</p>

There's actually finally a minor revival of the trade coming about (supposedly! You seem to be far more knowledgeable than I, so perhaps you've heard otherwise). I take lessons at a small Atelier in San Diego run by Jeffrey Watts, who was trained as close to classical traditions as is esentially possible in the arts of figure drawing, and learned plein air painting from his father. One of the most incredibly knowledgeable people I've ever met when it comes to sheer information on drawing, he knows his anatomy better than anyone I've ever seen. It's an honor to learn from him, and I've been hearing recently that along with him there's been a minor revival of going back to these original techniques, at least in education at smaller schools, as well as in popularity for these sort of works.</p>

He paints very much like Fechin, so not entirely realistic, but more in the method of his training. </p>

Would you mind explaining a little more about the book, Droogist? It sounds fascinating.
</p>

[pbt]

Re: What are you reading?

Servo, I think what's being referred to is Hockney's conjecture that the Old Masters used lenses to trace their subjects.

[Servo2000]

Re: What are you reading?



[quote user="pbt"]Servo, I think what's being referred to is Hockney's conjecture that the Old Masters used lenses to trace their subjects.[/quote]

</p>

I have almost no doubt that they did, personally, just from the small bit of art history that I've heard, which may have been informed by Hockney. I'll have to take a look.</p>

[dontbecruel]

Re: What are you reading?

[quote user="Servo2000"]


I have almost no doubt that they did, personally, just from the small bit of art history that I've heard, which may have been informed by Hockney. I'll have to take a look.</P>


[/quote]</P>


I think the controversy is about which specific painters and paintings were draughted with which optical aids. I don't think there is any doubt that some "old masters" (I hate that term) tried out lens-based projection.</P>

[droogist]

Re: What are you reading?



Servo, Hockney theorizes that not only was the use of optical techniques far more commonplace than previously thought, but that it was their use that triggered the paradigm shift in visual representation that occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries. It's a fascinating book and I highly recommend it.
</p>

[Seventh]

Re: What are you reading?


Droogist, I agree that the Hockney book is fascinating. I have been recently playing with camera obscuras and using concave mirrors (in the way that Hockney describes), to lay out images for paintings and drawings. It is actually <u>a lot</u> more tricky than I expected!

Servo, a lot of artists/historians flipped out when Hockney's book came out, as they believed that his theories oversimplified or explained away the genius of "the masters." It got really acrimonious, many artists felt threatened and argued that Hockney is a terrible drawer (which I think is true) and therefore doesn't know what he is talking about (not sure if I agree with that).

I sorta come down in the middle; I think it is likely that certain artists (like Holbien, Caravaggio and Vermeer) were using some type of optical projection. However, it is possible to draw/paint at an extremely high level of realism without aids--artists like Titian and Rembrandt don't seem to have used optics (for example, there is no way to do a self portrait using an optical projection).

My one complaint about the book is that it is written very simply and geared towards a mass audience. I hope another writer follows up on Hockney's ideas but at a much higher art-historical and scientific level.

[laika]

Re: What are you reading?



I remember reading a review of the Hockney book in Harper's ages
ago, and it sounded so fascinating....thanks for reminding me, all.</p>

Reading:</p>Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy

[Faust]

Re: What are you reading?

The World, the Text, and the Critic - Edward Said