Dicionário das Artes Plásticas no Brasil by Roberto PontualReview by: Erdmute Wenzel-WhiteArt Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Autumn, 1970), pp. 110+114Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/775365 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:30:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

gins appear baffling. This Master of the Holy Ghost shares very little with other illumina- tors and does not seem to have been essen-

tially a miniature painter; Meiss thinks he

might have been a sculptor. His human race issued from concepts of greater force than

recognizable in the French tradition: the se-

verity of the countenances conveys overtones of strict, hard, and occasionally almost sinis- ter connotations, rather than nobility or se-

renity. These moods may be associated with Germanic tradition, and specifically more with German than with Flemish or Nether- landish. These faces lack that mischievous- ness or simply naive grimace preferred by the latter (the Master of 1402, Master of Berry Apocalypse); the overwhelming voluminous beards are striking, invoking, along with dis- tincitive physiognomies, rabbinical types. One

may also wonder whether these could not be an artistic reaction to the visit of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II in Paris in 1400-2. In veiw of these observations I submit a hypoth- esis that perhaps the "paintre alemant" who worked in 1408 at the Duke's Chateau de Bic- etre was this master rather than Pol de Lim-

bourg as Professor Meiss proposes. We are told of the richness of interior decoration,

tapestries, wall paintings, and a gallery of

portraits, all of which perished in the fire of the castle in 1411. The Holy Ghost Master reveals in his miniatures compositional con-

cepts of a muralist or a panel painter much more than does Pol de Limbourg, who seems to have delighted in the minute surfaces of the scenes on the parchment.

Meiss values highly the large scenes in the Trds Belles Heures de Notre Dame in Brus- sels which he identifies with Jacquemart de Hesdin who, in fact, was mentioned as illumi- nator of "Tres Belles Heures" in the Berry inventory of 1402, identified by L. Delisle as the manuscript in Brussels.

Among the host of scholarly contributions

abounding in the present study perhaps one

may be stressed as exemplary: the clearing of the confusion surrounding the case of "Zebio da Firenze." As fama crescit eundo the earlier proposed reading of a painter's signa- ture was well on its way to become an "estab- lished fact," and we must be grateful for Meiss' rectification. In the Brussels Hours there are seventeen historiated initials clearly from the hand of an Italian illuminator whose name was read by Otto Pacht as Zebio da Firenze in scribbled words found in a dif- ferent manuscript illuminated by the same hand. Meiss refutes this identification since the interpretation of the inscription is debat- able and its implications may be misleading in the conceptualization of his style. (Yet it must be conceded that the names do not al-

ways tally with topographico-stylistic connota- tions, e.g. Domenico Veneziano, Antonello da

Messina.) Meiss calls the painter simply the Master of the Brussels Initials and reproduces

gins appear baffling. This Master of the Holy Ghost shares very little with other illumina- tors and does not seem to have been essen-

tially a miniature painter; Meiss thinks he

might have been a sculptor. His human race issued from concepts of greater force than

recognizable in the French tradition: the se-

verity of the countenances conveys overtones of strict, hard, and occasionally almost sinis- ter connotations, rather than nobility or se-

renity. These moods may be associated with Germanic tradition, and specifically more with German than with Flemish or Nether- landish. These faces lack that mischievous- ness or simply naive grimace preferred by the latter (the Master of 1402, Master of Berry Apocalypse); the overwhelming voluminous beards are striking, invoking, along with dis- tincitive physiognomies, rabbinical types. One

may also wonder whether these could not be an artistic reaction to the visit of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II in Paris in 1400-2. In veiw of these observations I submit a hypoth- esis that perhaps the "paintre alemant" who worked in 1408 at the Duke's Chateau de Bic- etre was this master rather than Pol de Lim-

bourg as Professor Meiss proposes. We are told of the richness of interior decoration,

tapestries, wall paintings, and a gallery of

portraits, all of which perished in the fire of the castle in 1411. The Holy Ghost Master reveals in his miniatures compositional con-

cepts of a muralist or a panel painter much more than does Pol de Limbourg, who seems to have delighted in the minute surfaces of the scenes on the parchment.

Meiss values highly the large scenes in the Trds Belles Heures de Notre Dame in Brus- sels which he identifies with Jacquemart de Hesdin who, in fact, was mentioned as illumi- nator of "Tres Belles Heures" in the Berry inventory of 1402, identified by L. Delisle as the manuscript in Brussels.

Among the host of scholarly contributions

abounding in the present study perhaps one

may be stressed as exemplary: the clearing of the confusion surrounding the case of "Zebio da Firenze." As fama crescit eundo the earlier proposed reading of a painter's signa- ture was well on its way to become an "estab- lished fact," and we must be grateful for Meiss' rectification. In the Brussels Hours there are seventeen historiated initials clearly from the hand of an Italian illuminator whose name was read by Otto Pacht as Zebio da Firenze in scribbled words found in a dif- ferent manuscript illuminated by the same hand. Meiss refutes this identification since the interpretation of the inscription is debat- able and its implications may be misleading in the conceptualization of his style. (Yet it must be conceded that the names do not al-

ways tally with topographico-stylistic connota- tions, e.g. Domenico Veneziano, Antonello da

Messina.) Meiss calls the painter simply the Master of the Brussels Initials and reproduces

a series of additional illuminations in several

manuscripts which clearly show that there is

nothing Florentine about these works and that their style is basically Bolognese. It could also be connected with the production of Padua and Verona, as the comparative ma- terial indicates. In any case, the work of this Italian artist done in Paris is of considerable interest to art historical deliberation con- cerned with the problem of the absorbtion of

foreign contributions by a local milieu on the one hand, and a foreigner's assimilation of forms prevailing in his new milieu on the other. I think that our painter represents a remarkable resistance to assimilation and

might have been instrumental in spreading Italianism in Paris. I seem to recognize "Bo-

lognese physiognomies" in the Annunciation in the Brussels Hours, reproduced in color on the jacket of the twin columes. Italianate fea- tures of this painting, assigned by Meiss to

Jacquemart de Hesdin, were stressed in previ- ous research. There are other Italianisms in the large scenes in the same manuscript as-

signed to Jacquemart (or to "Jacquemart and assistant" whenever inferior quality calls for

differentiation.) Among the excursions revealing Professor

Meiss's commendable knowledge of problems in Italian and Mediterranean painting is his

linking of the Anjou Bible to Neapolitan production and to the enigmatic three panels in Aix-en-Provence and in the Lehman Col- lection.

There are other fascinating problems in the Duke's manuscripts, such as that of the two dedication pages in the Brussels Hours, dealt with in the present book. Opinions on the artistic quality and date of the dedication double page in grisaille differ diametrically: Meiss rightly considers it the work of a major French master about 1385 (ca. 1390 in the illustration caption) while Porcher mini- mized the work ("its style is feeble and mar- red by shocking lapses into clumsiness") and

assigned it to some time after 1406 (ca. 1409) because he felt that the Madonna was

probably copied from the one in the dedica- tion page of a devotional treatise presented to Marie de Berry. The advanced age of the

kneeling Duke would seem to point to a later date, but it is hard to accept Porcher's hy- pothesis that it was copied from the treatise of 1406. Moreover, his attribution of the lat- ter illumination with Marie de Berry to Pol de Limbourg is untenable.

On an enthusiastic impulse, one would wish to learn more in detail about the other pro- duction of the period in France, such as of the manuscripts created under the King's pa- tronage, and to have also these illuminations

reproduced in toto. These works appear in the allusions as pale hazy visitors, and one would like to meet them and gaze into their faces to see if they are relatives or ethnically distant strangers. Yet the task would be enor-

a series of additional illuminations in several

manuscripts which clearly show that there is

nothing Florentine about these works and that their style is basically Bolognese. It could also be connected with the production of Padua and Verona, as the comparative ma- terial indicates. In any case, the work of this Italian artist done in Paris is of considerable interest to art historical deliberation con- cerned with the problem of the absorbtion of

foreign contributions by a local milieu on the one hand, and a foreigner's assimilation of forms prevailing in his new milieu on the other. I think that our painter represents a remarkable resistance to assimilation and

might have been instrumental in spreading Italianism in Paris. I seem to recognize "Bo-

lognese physiognomies" in the Annunciation in the Brussels Hours, reproduced in color on the jacket of the twin columes. Italianate fea- tures of this painting, assigned by Meiss to

Jacquemart de Hesdin, were stressed in previ- ous research. There are other Italianisms in the large scenes in the same manuscript as-

signed to Jacquemart (or to "Jacquemart and assistant" whenever inferior quality calls for

differentiation.) Among the excursions revealing Professor

Meiss's commendable knowledge of problems in Italian and Mediterranean painting is his

linking of the Anjou Bible to Neapolitan production and to the enigmatic three panels in Aix-en-Provence and in the Lehman Col- lection.

There are other fascinating problems in the Duke's manuscripts, such as that of the two dedication pages in the Brussels Hours, dealt with in the present book. Opinions on the artistic quality and date of the dedication double page in grisaille differ diametrically: Meiss rightly considers it the work of a major French master about 1385 (ca. 1390 in the illustration caption) while Porcher mini- mized the work ("its style is feeble and mar- red by shocking lapses into clumsiness") and

assigned it to some time after 1406 (ca. 1409) because he felt that the Madonna was

probably copied from the one in the dedica- tion page of a devotional treatise presented to Marie de Berry. The advanced age of the

kneeling Duke would seem to point to a later date, but it is hard to accept Porcher's hy- pothesis that it was copied from the treatise of 1406. Moreover, his attribution of the lat- ter illumination with Marie de Berry to Pol de Limbourg is untenable.

On an enthusiastic impulse, one would wish to learn more in detail about the other pro- duction of the period in France, such as of the manuscripts created under the King's pa- tronage, and to have also these illuminations

reproduced in toto. These works appear in the allusions as pale hazy visitors, and one would like to meet them and gaze into their faces to see if they are relatives or ethnically distant strangers. Yet the task would be enor-

mous. One soberly realizes why the French

colleagues of Professor Meiss showed surprise and disbelief (as we are told in a humorous

way in the introduction) about the feasibility of completing such a catholic and disciplined project even in one lifetime.

To our great delight, the third volume

dealing with the Boucicaut Master is already out, and we are waiting for others to come.

MOJMfR S. FRINTA State University of New York at Albany

Roberto Pontual

Diciondrio das Artes Plasticas no Brasil, 560

pp., more than 1200 ill. (24 in color). Rio de

Janeiro: Editora Civilizaa5o Brasileira, 1969. 80 Novos Cruzeiros.

The lack of necessary research tools for scholars interested in the study of Brazilian culture is notorious. Biographical dictionaries in all fields are much needed. The new Diciondrio das Artes Pldsticas no Brasil, is- sued at the end of 1969 by the publisher, Civilizacao Brasileira, will help to fill the gap.

Roberto Pontual produced this volume al- most without assistance. The thirty-year old writer, who is a member of the Neo-Concretist

Group of Brazil, has published short stories, verse, literary and art criticism in several noted Brazilian newspapers and reviews. Re-

cently he has also worked on the biographical entries for Latin and North American artists of the Delta-Larousse Encyclopedia.

The dictionary Pontual has produced is the result of three years of traveling and

compiling information. It is a one volume work covering the span of Brazilian art from colonial times through the 1969 Salao Na- cional de Arte Moderna of Rio de Janeiro. The contents are concerned exclusively with

biographical and critical data pertaining to artists, art historians, scholars and critics who at some time in their career have been active in Brazil. Sculpture, painting, design, metal work, tapestry, folk art and caricature are in- cluded, while architecture, photography, stagecraft, cinema and industrial design are left aside. According to Pontual, there are 3200 biographical entries arranged in alpha- betical order, ranging in length from very short statements of a few words to articles of several pages. Information given includes the name of the artist and, whenever they are

known, the place and date of his birth and death, studies, experience, exhibitions, official

recognition and awards, and the media in which the artist worked. The details vary, and a critical evaluation of the artist's activity may or may not be provided. The data were

gathered from archives, books, catalogues, journals, correspondence, and personal inter- views. Sixty percent of the information con-

cerning living artists was obtained directly from them.

Preceding the biographical entries are

mous. One soberly realizes why the French

colleagues of Professor Meiss showed surprise and disbelief (as we are told in a humorous

way in the introduction) about the feasibility of completing such a catholic and disciplined project even in one lifetime.

To our great delight, the third volume

dealing with the Boucicaut Master is already out, and we are waiting for others to come.

MOJMfR S. FRINTA State University of New York at Albany

Roberto Pontual

Diciondrio das Artes Plasticas no Brasil, 560

pp., more than 1200 ill. (24 in color). Rio de

Janeiro: Editora Civilizaa5o Brasileira, 1969. 80 Novos Cruzeiros.

The lack of necessary research tools for scholars interested in the study of Brazilian culture is notorious. Biographical dictionaries in all fields are much needed. The new Diciondrio das Artes Pldsticas no Brasil, is- sued at the end of 1969 by the publisher, Civilizacao Brasileira, will help to fill the gap.

Roberto Pontual produced this volume al- most without assistance. The thirty-year old writer, who is a member of the Neo-Concretist

Group of Brazil, has published short stories, verse, literary and art criticism in several noted Brazilian newspapers and reviews. Re-

cently he has also worked on the biographical entries for Latin and North American artists of the Delta-Larousse Encyclopedia.

The dictionary Pontual has produced is the result of three years of traveling and

compiling information. It is a one volume work covering the span of Brazilian art from colonial times through the 1969 Salao Na- cional de Arte Moderna of Rio de Janeiro. The contents are concerned exclusively with

biographical and critical data pertaining to artists, art historians, scholars and critics who at some time in their career have been active in Brazil. Sculpture, painting, design, metal work, tapestry, folk art and caricature are in- cluded, while architecture, photography, stagecraft, cinema and industrial design are left aside. According to Pontual, there are 3200 biographical entries arranged in alpha- betical order, ranging in length from very short statements of a few words to articles of several pages. Information given includes the name of the artist and, whenever they are

known, the place and date of his birth and death, studies, experience, exhibitions, official

recognition and awards, and the media in which the artist worked. The details vary, and a critical evaluation of the artist's activity may or may not be provided. The data were

gathered from archives, books, catalogues, journals, correspondence, and personal inter- views. Sixty percent of the information con-

cerning living artists was obtained directly from them.

Preceding the biographical entries are

110 110

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:30:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forty-eight pages of texts concerning the his- torical development of Brazilian art and one article on folk art. They were written by well- known Brazilian critics in order to give the

non-specialist an opportunity to familiarize himself with Brazilian art and to provide a context for the biographical material to fol- low. The quality of these articles varies.

A general introduction to colonial art is the contribution of Mario Barata. It is fol- lowed by a study dealing with the baroque of Minas Gerais written by Lourival Gomes Ma-

chado, and previously published in 1957 and

again in 1969. Roberto Pontual contributes an essay treating the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts and the importance of the French artistic mission of 1816. The Neoclassic Pe- riod is the subject of comment provided by Carlos Cavalcanti. Flavio Mota introduces the

beginning of twentieth century art with spe- cial attention devoted to the work of Eliseu Visconti. There is a section covering the Modern Art Week of 1922 and the birth of Modern Art in Brazil written jointly by Araci Amaral and Walter Zanini, as well as an es-

say on contemporary trends by Ferreira Gu- lar. Brazilian folk art is presented by the so-

ciologist Edison Carneiro. This introductory section is not paginated,

and the volume has no table of contents. Antonio Houaiss, the noted translator and lit-

erary critic, wrote a short preface, which is followed by Pontual's introduction and ac-

knowledgements including explanatory re- marks concerning orthography and abbrevia- tions. A one page bibliography of little conse-

quence is provided. The text is accompanied by 1200 small

black-and-white reproductions, usually two or three to a page, illustrating the works of vari- ous artists. A section of twenty-four color

plates is found at the beginning of the vol- ume. In addition there are three full page illustrations, but the quality of all the repro- ductions is poor. The location of a work re-

produced as well as the date of execution are often omitted. Only two institutions were

helpful, actually supplying pictorial data: the Museum of Arts of Sao Paulo and the Pina- coteca of the State of Sao Paulo. The other illustrations were acquired by the author himself as best he could.

A few shortcomings of the dictionary should be pointed out. A significant number of artists were omitted, and a disparity of treatment is often apparent. The space allot- ted to each entry is not always in relationship to the importance of the person in question. Some important details are lacking, and there are many careless mistakes, e.g. Tarsila's first one-man show in Brazil took place in 1929 at the Palace Hotel and not in 1931 (see p. 511). Furthermore, she is said to have stud- ied with Zadig and Mantovani in Sao Paulo, but one searches in vain for their entries. The critical evaluations in the entries are of-

forty-eight pages of texts concerning the his- torical development of Brazilian art and one article on folk art. They were written by well- known Brazilian critics in order to give the

non-specialist an opportunity to familiarize himself with Brazilian art and to provide a context for the biographical material to fol- low. The quality of these articles varies.

A general introduction to colonial art is the contribution of Mario Barata. It is fol- lowed by a study dealing with the baroque of Minas Gerais written by Lourival Gomes Ma-

chado, and previously published in 1957 and

again in 1969. Roberto Pontual contributes an essay treating the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts and the importance of the French artistic mission of 1816. The Neoclassic Pe- riod is the subject of comment provided by Carlos Cavalcanti. Flavio Mota introduces the

beginning of twentieth century art with spe- cial attention devoted to the work of Eliseu Visconti. There is a section covering the Modern Art Week of 1922 and the birth of Modern Art in Brazil written jointly by Araci Amaral and Walter Zanini, as well as an es-

say on contemporary trends by Ferreira Gu- lar. Brazilian folk art is presented by the so-

ciologist Edison Carneiro. This introductory section is not paginated,

and the volume has no table of contents. Antonio Houaiss, the noted translator and lit-

erary critic, wrote a short preface, which is followed by Pontual's introduction and ac-

knowledgements including explanatory re- marks concerning orthography and abbrevia- tions. A one page bibliography of little conse-

quence is provided. The text is accompanied by 1200 small

black-and-white reproductions, usually two or three to a page, illustrating the works of vari- ous artists. A section of twenty-four color

plates is found at the beginning of the vol- ume. In addition there are three full page illustrations, but the quality of all the repro- ductions is poor. The location of a work re-

produced as well as the date of execution are often omitted. Only two institutions were

helpful, actually supplying pictorial data: the Museum of Arts of Sao Paulo and the Pina- coteca of the State of Sao Paulo. The other illustrations were acquired by the author himself as best he could.

A few shortcomings of the dictionary should be pointed out. A significant number of artists were omitted, and a disparity of treatment is often apparent. The space allot- ted to each entry is not always in relationship to the importance of the person in question. Some important details are lacking, and there are many careless mistakes, e.g. Tarsila's first one-man show in Brazil took place in 1929 at the Palace Hotel and not in 1931 (see p. 511). Furthermore, she is said to have stud- ied with Zadig and Mantovani in Sao Paulo, but one searches in vain for their entries. The critical evaluations in the entries are of-

ten superficial and their sources are fre-

quently left unidentified. Sampling revealed numerous typographical errors. The absence of an index and of cross references makes it a chore to find names and entries. Pontual has

preferred to enter each artist under his most well-known name, which is not an unattractive

system; however, the chaos of Brazilian no- menclature makes an index or cross-reference

obligatory. Also missing is a key to museums and a guide to galleries, and an organized bibliography would have enhanced the utility of the work. The typographic aspect of the book is disappointing, since it was printed on an offset press.

Nevertheless, this is certainly an indispens- able tool for specialists, museums, libraries, students, and anyone interested in the history of Brazilian literature, criticism, and visual arts. The information offered in this dictio-

nary would be impossible to find elsewhere. The author should be congratulated for his indication of the scope and variety of Brazil- ian art, which facilitate research in a field still largely neglected by scholarship, and un- discovered by collectors.

ERDMUTE WENZEL-WHITE The University of Texas at Austin

Stylianos Alexiou, Nikolaos Platon, Hanni Guanella, photographs by Leonard von Matt

Ancient Crete, translated by D. J. S. Thom- son. 238 pp., 182 ill. (30 in color). New York: Frederick A Praeger, 1968. $29.50.

This publication is primarily a running text of introductory remarks on the nature of Minoan art by Mrs. Guanella preceding her comments on individual photographs taken

mostly by Leonard von Matt. The book grew out of a previous collaboration between these two which resulted in the January 1967 issue of Du, devoted to Crete. Stylianos Alexiou

(Ephor of Antiquities of Crete and Director of the Archeological Museum at Heraklion) presents a brief, general outline of Minoan art with special emphasis upon painting in 10

pages of text; Mrs. Guanella's pleasant, easy writing is about 31 pages in length; and Ni- colaos Platon (in charge of the excavations at

Zakro) writes 7 pages about the recently dis- covered Palace of Kato Zakro.

The plates are handsome (some previously "unpublished") with the general views of sites and Cretan landscape at times more exciting and provocative than the illustrations of works of art. There are plans of the five ma-

jor complexes on Crete (Knossos, Phaestos, Hagia Triada, Mallia, and Zakro).

The brief, select, annotated bibliography identifies 23 publications on the same field, two-thirds of which have been published within the last eight years. Even though this does not represent an overwhelming amount of duplication in a currently popular field, there is sufficient material here to have us ask

questions about the publishing field in rela-

ten superficial and their sources are fre-

quently left unidentified. Sampling revealed numerous typographical errors. The absence of an index and of cross references makes it a chore to find names and entries. Pontual has

preferred to enter each artist under his most well-known name, which is not an unattractive

system; however, the chaos of Brazilian no- menclature makes an index or cross-reference

obligatory. Also missing is a key to museums and a guide to galleries, and an organized bibliography would have enhanced the utility of the work. The typographic aspect of the book is disappointing, since it was printed on an offset press.

Nevertheless, this is certainly an indispens- able tool for specialists, museums, libraries, students, and anyone interested in the history of Brazilian literature, criticism, and visual arts. The information offered in this dictio-

nary would be impossible to find elsewhere. The author should be congratulated for his indication of the scope and variety of Brazil- ian art, which facilitate research in a field still largely neglected by scholarship, and un- discovered by collectors.

ERDMUTE WENZEL-WHITE The University of Texas at Austin

Stylianos Alexiou, Nikolaos Platon, Hanni Guanella, photographs by Leonard von Matt

Ancient Crete, translated by D. J. S. Thom- son. 238 pp., 182 ill. (30 in color). New York: Frederick A Praeger, 1968. $29.50.

This publication is primarily a running text of introductory remarks on the nature of Minoan art by Mrs. Guanella preceding her comments on individual photographs taken

mostly by Leonard von Matt. The book grew out of a previous collaboration between these two which resulted in the January 1967 issue of Du, devoted to Crete. Stylianos Alexiou

(Ephor of Antiquities of Crete and Director of the Archeological Museum at Heraklion) presents a brief, general outline of Minoan art with special emphasis upon painting in 10

pages of text; Mrs. Guanella's pleasant, easy writing is about 31 pages in length; and Ni- colaos Platon (in charge of the excavations at

Zakro) writes 7 pages about the recently dis- covered Palace of Kato Zakro.

The plates are handsome (some previously "unpublished") with the general views of sites and Cretan landscape at times more exciting and provocative than the illustrations of works of art. There are plans of the five ma-

jor complexes on Crete (Knossos, Phaestos, Hagia Triada, Mallia, and Zakro).

The brief, select, annotated bibliography identifies 23 publications on the same field, two-thirds of which have been published within the last eight years. Even though this does not represent an overwhelming amount of duplication in a currently popular field, there is sufficient material here to have us ask

questions about the publishing field in rela-

tionship to scholarship at all levels of appli- cation.

The price of Ancient Crete is three times that of Platon's Crete (The World Publish-

ing Company, Cleveland, 1966) and fifteen times that of Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete

(Penguin, 1962); obviously the number and

quality of the plates makes the difference. The January 1967 issue of Du had essentially the same text with some identical plates for $1.40. We might ask college administrators if American higher education's publish or per- ish principle partially causes the current ava- lanche of art publications, and we might in-

vestigate the relationship between the omni-

present, lush books and our society's sensual

binge. However, the publication of Ancient Crete raises other questions considerably more important for scholarship-for the un-

derstanding of man and his world. The 48 pages of text do not give us infor-

mation, even in a generalizing way, which was not already available in Du, Platon's own Crete or Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete. Crete was called ". . . a brilliant synthesis and a summary of our knowledge of Minoan Civi- lization . . ." by the distinguished Director of the Excavations at Mycenae, Dr. George My- lonas (Archaeology, Oct. '67, p. 313); and Hutchinson's Penguin paperback lives up to the solid reputation of that house. All in all we have here a typical example of a coffeeta- ble publication (or over-publishing?) and I ask the question-why was this book pub- lished?

The preceding remarks could be made in a similar fashion about many current publica- tions and could be taken as a general assess- ment of the condition of publications in the field of art. With the publication of Ancient Crete as an example I am led to ask the fol-

lowing questions: -is a goal of scholarship being met even by

the fantastic growth of art publications of the past ten years?

-are there ways in which publishing talents can be more useful to the scholar and to the layman?

-should art editors be represented on gov- erning boards of regional and national art associations? (e.g., what relationship exists between publishers and CAA?)

-what is the relationship between periodical publishing and book publishing?

-would it be to the advantage of free scholar-

ship if there were established a research council whose duty it would be to recom- mend new material for publication (and to

identify what gaps exist in published schol-

arship concerning all phases of the history and appreciation of art)? Perhaps this brief review is not the place to

ask such questions, but for such questions now is the time.

DALE K. HAWORTH Carleton College

tionship to scholarship at all levels of appli- cation.

The price of Ancient Crete is three times that of Platon's Crete (The World Publish-

ing Company, Cleveland, 1966) and fifteen times that of Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete

(Penguin, 1962); obviously the number and

quality of the plates makes the difference. The January 1967 issue of Du had essentially the same text with some identical plates for $1.40. We might ask college administrators if American higher education's publish or per- ish principle partially causes the current ava- lanche of art publications, and we might in-

vestigate the relationship between the omni-

present, lush books and our society's sensual

binge. However, the publication of Ancient Crete raises other questions considerably more important for scholarship-for the un-

derstanding of man and his world. The 48 pages of text do not give us infor-

mation, even in a generalizing way, which was not already available in Du, Platon's own Crete or Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete. Crete was called ". . . a brilliant synthesis and a summary of our knowledge of Minoan Civi- lization . . ." by the distinguished Director of the Excavations at Mycenae, Dr. George My- lonas (Archaeology, Oct. '67, p. 313); and Hutchinson's Penguin paperback lives up to the solid reputation of that house. All in all we have here a typical example of a coffeeta- ble publication (or over-publishing?) and I ask the question-why was this book pub- lished?

The preceding remarks could be made in a similar fashion about many current publica- tions and could be taken as a general assess- ment of the condition of publications in the field of art. With the publication of Ancient Crete as an example I am led to ask the fol-

lowing questions: -is a goal of scholarship being met even by

the fantastic growth of art publications of the past ten years?

-are there ways in which publishing talents can be more useful to the scholar and to the layman?

-should art editors be represented on gov- erning boards of regional and national art associations? (e.g., what relationship exists between publishers and CAA?)

-what is the relationship between periodical publishing and book publishing?

-would it be to the advantage of free scholar-

ship if there were established a research council whose duty it would be to recom- mend new material for publication (and to

identify what gaps exist in published schol-

arship concerning all phases of the history and appreciation of art)? Perhaps this brief review is not the place to

ask such questions, but for such questions now is the time.

DALE K. HAWORTH Carleton College

114 114

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:30:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions