U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Attn Chris + All Creart enthusiasts.A message from Pierre Duncan.

Re: Attn Chris + All Creart enthusiasts.A message from Pierre Duncan.

I aint a gonna toss disrepute @ JS here . . no need nor point to it . . . but, just seeing aRt in a book is perhaps enough. Once, @ the Uffizi, a circular Botticelli had just been restored. Nary a soul had gawked at it in such brilliance . . . the blues were like azure gems . . on the other note, while in high school in the early 50's, aRt began to seriously interest me. Oh, women did too: something about women's pulchritudinous quality piqued my then unknown libido. Why do I go on like this? Well, the artists of the 1500's intrigued me then. Grunewald, holy cow, could that guy draw the wildest aspect of the mind. Then, gee, there was Durer . . he outdrawed 'em all. But, Breuge . . Pieter the elder, generally blew my mind. Maybe it was my wonderful Latin teacher . . dunno. So, I found out later that some books had 'voluntarily' airbrushed the cod piece bulging of men's pants out. Too, back to women, in "men's" magazine's (True, Argosy) you'd never see a naked woman. I was visually hungry and tried nudist magazines. They too were airbrushed. You know, the volleyball game where the most important thing was the game: the ball. All else was airbrushed. Clean as a whistle ya know.
What I am getting at here is that the airbrushing of the nudes did not diminish my appetite, nor did the airbrushing of the cod pieces diminish my love for those marvelous paintings.
Now, older, not necessarily wiser, I've walked the walk through most of those repositories of aRt and see a lot of those Breugels.
Of course, in there as well, is Bosch: El Bosco, which, I believe, translates as 'the forest'. I'll leave you here wondering if the tree within el bosco creates a visual memory upon your seeing it felled.
Uhhh, any of you seen the one in the Museum of Ancient Art in Lisbon?


On May2007, at 7:12 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

On Sun, 27 May 2007, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

Hmmmm....I don't like to judge others' work online much, but...

The internet is really sometimes a pain--either images look way better than
they are in person, or worse. I know Carl Weese, for instance, "mimics" his
ziatypes for online presentation because there is no way to get an adequate
delicacy of detail online.
AFAIK, all art repro is a lie of one kind or another. I remember when we went to Florence (I think it was) first time in maybe 1963 (or like that) and saw the Fra Angelicos (must have been) in the plaster as it were for the very first time... I was so shocked, devastated actually, to see how washed out and dull they looked. The Fra Angelico's in the Skira books (what we had then) were richly colored, strong and bright.

As far as I know now, I doubt there's any book of art (except maybe one about retouching or an appeal for funds for restoration) doesn't *improve* the originals.