The Paul Mellon Centre is an educational charity that champions new ways of understanding British art history and culture. We publish, teach and carry out research, both at the Centre in London and through our online platforms. Our archives, library and lively events programme are open to researchers, students and the public. The Centre’s grants and fellowships programme supports institutions and individuals with research projects, publications, exhibitions and events. Through all areas of our work, we promote activities that enhance and expand knowledge about British art and architecture. The Centre was founded in 1970 by the art collector and philanthropist Paul Mellon. It is part of Yale University and a partner to the Yale Center for British Art.
Excellent content; truly enjoyable and edifying. Meredith Gamer is superb. Tom Nero's dead or near dead hand is also pointing (as is his club above the horse, the arrow above the dog etc) to the cauldron and the void it represents for skeletal traces of the deceased. I found Hogarth's use of the phrase, "the infant race" curious thinking first that he meant the English but suspecting that he spoke of children and adolescents. Regardless, by this remark Hogarth suggests that cruelty is not the product of well-reasoned thinking. An 18th century crime wave! I'd never have thought such a thing possible but context is everything. Well done. I heard of this work only today as a colleague in History of Humour presented on the Massacre of Cats (~). Found this channel in an internet search.
@26:58 "There is, of course, not a single phase plan in Summerson's Architecture in Britian." Wrong, sir. There are at least three, so far, that I've come across while reading the book, and I'm not yet finished. In the first Chapter, "Architecture at the Court of Henry VII", the first figure of the book is a phase plan of Hampton Court Palace. So I'm not sure why you would have made the remark, given it you read the book it's so obviously incorrect? There is a second phase plan in the fifteenth Chapter, "The Royal Works 1660-1702", figure 195; another of Hampton Court Palace, this time from Wren's period of construction. It can be compared with the first. Furthermore there is a third phase plan in the eighteenth Chapter, "The Royal Works 1702-26", i.e., figure 235; this one of Greenwich Hospital and The Queen's House. Yes, perhaps these phase plans do not offer as "precise" of an analysis as those from the archeological antiquarian tradition, but nonetheless I believe they would qualify.
Summerson was right, sorry. They were simply rubbish and "one damned house after another." It's pretty impossible to argue with. This obsession with keeping old buildings for no other sake than they're old, is basically just stupid.
What you're doing is trying to make your angle interesting by adding something unexpected - this is what universities encourage. The art was the taste of the King - ask Henrietta.
I have found a Wedgwood teapot but its made in 1671. Does it belong to the family before Wedgwood company being funded ? the pot has nothing on it and its just a date(1671)
The guy who made these was clearly some sort of rare genius. You did a great job articulating what's so interesting about them and your ending description on the engravings blew me away.
Benevolent!? Wow. Benevolent.🤔 I could not fathom this treatment as benevolent. Benevolent would have been leaving Prince Alamayou among his people. Instead his life was stolen to satisfy the curiousity of those who abducted him 👍💯⭐.
His saftey would have been compromised had he stayed in Ethiopia. There were arch rivals and opponents against his father, Emperor Tewodros. Btw..i'm an Ethiopian.
Too bad this "expository" video on the rood/choir screen has not a jot of materially relevant information regarding the craft and construction of the actual screen.
Hi @Brewskin78 This video was part of a series of features exploring the Hereford Screen from different perspectives. You might find what you’re looking for in one of the other contributions: www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/issues/issue-index/issue-5
There was a bloody bullet hole ridden frock of a Lakota 1 yr old child murdered at wounded knee that was being auctioned off at Sotheby's. This just shows the depravity of the European mind.
Because it's not necessary to maintain the integrity of the items. Whenever you see an archivist use gloves, it's usually because of they don't, they get inundated with comments about how they should wear gloves. Clean hands don't harm most objects, no matter how old
A bit of defiance and resistance to the new Orthodoxy in academic Art History is quite appropriate. Much of what passes for "Social Art History" is not actually ART history -- or even much HISTORY -- but rather the use of works of art to illustrate axiomatically derived "theories", usually with a clear left tilt. And it often is indeed an Orthodoxy. Challenging the academic axioms can provoke truly ferocious attacks. The Revolutionaries of yesteryear inevitably turn into today's Establishment. What is ironic about today's Art Historical academic Establishment is that they often think of the themselves as revolutionary, progressive -- and socially relevant, when they usually are none of it. And in practice that "intellectual rigour" is often conspicuous by its absence.
The exclusivity club: The fact that connoisseurship requires actually looking at actual works of art will restrict connoisseurship to those who can actually get to looking at the actual works of art. There is not substitution for that, however unfair it may feel. But then, that's how it is will all skill and knowledge.
There is no formal authority to determine truth. The truth is the truth. Formal authority does come into play for specific purposes and in relation to specific rules.
The question of what public money shout be spent on is a completely different question from what connoisseurship is, whether it exists and how it's done.
Myrone's point about that other aspects than attribution are important is completely banal. It is no criticism of conoisseurship that it isn't something else. Any amount of Foucault will help you in attribution.
"At the end of the day" is always a warning sign. It's usually a sign of argumentative desperation. It is also pretty strange to suggest that legal requirements for disinterest actually achieves that. I think all the evidence we can come up with will show that it does no such thing. There can be no problem that private sector connoisseurs have more time to spend on a picture. If they do, that's good, because then they can do something someone else can't. It is no valid criticism of connoissers that they are not civil servants; and vice versa.
One of the challenges for conoisseurs to explain the light bulb is that looking at art is akin to making it: it's largely based on tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, what is more, that will always remain tacit. It is an academic misunderstanding that everything can be explained in text.
Never heard of Tuke before having to do an assignment on the Uranians. His paintings are very beautiful and unless youre aware of his friendships not really that lustful
