Comments on: Join the Discussion http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/ Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:16:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jan http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-376 Jan Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:40:32 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-376 Dear Wendy, How I wish I had known about your exhibit - I would have flown to NYC just to see these illuminations in person. As an artist and illustrator, I've always been drawn to small detailed works, and the historical context of these are worthy of more study on my part. I will revisit again, as I bookmark this page for my "inspirational" web surfing. I'll be transported in time and feeling regret in having to drag myself back to my painting! Dear Wendy,
How I wish I had known about your exhibit – I would have flown to NYC just to see these illuminations in person. As an artist and illustrator, I’ve always been drawn to small detailed works, and the historical context of these are worthy of more study on my part. I will revisit again, as I bookmark this page for my “inspirational” web surfing. I’ll be transported in time and feeling regret in having to drag myself back to my painting!

]]> By: Wendy A. Stein http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-259 Wendy A. Stein Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:55:47 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-259 Dear Karl, Excellent question! Important question. I am sure you noticed the excellent condition of the paintings in the manuscript when you visited. Perhaps you marvelled at the brilliance of the color, the gleam of the gold, the minute brushstrokes. Part of why they are in such good condition is precisely because they were bound in a book, kept closed and clasped, protected from dust, air, and light for most of the time. Kept clasped, parchment stays flat, but release it and over time it will try to go back to the shape of the sheep, cockling and causing the pigment to flake. Exposed to light, colors fade. Exposed to air, other pigments may oxidize. Having a book bound is in itself a conservation technique. Furthermore, the Met got this splendid object in the form of a book. It was made to be a book. It must become a book again. It would be a crime against sound museum practice for the Met to keep it permanently dismembered. The responsibility of the Museum is to do its best to preserve and protect the objects in its care, and rebinding the <em>Belles Heures</em>, using the original sewing holes left from the first binding, will be part of that charge. Wendy Dear Karl,
Excellent question! Important question. I am sure you noticed the excellent condition of the paintings in the manuscript when you visited. Perhaps you marvelled at the brilliance of the color, the gleam of the gold, the minute brushstrokes. Part of why they are in such good condition is precisely because they were bound in a book, kept closed and clasped, protected from dust, air, and light for most of the time. Kept clasped, parchment stays flat, but release it and over time it will try to go back to the shape of the sheep, cockling and causing the pigment to flake. Exposed to light, colors fade. Exposed to air, other pigments may oxidize. Having a book bound is in itself a conservation technique. Furthermore, the Met got this splendid object in the form of a book. It was made to be a book. It must become a book again. It would be a crime against sound museum practice for the Met to keep it permanently dismembered. The responsibility of the Museum is to do its best to preserve and protect the objects in its care, and rebinding the Belles Heures, using the original sewing holes left from the first binding, will be part of that charge.

Wendy

]]> By: Karl Weber http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-255 Karl Weber Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:08:29 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-255 My wife Mary-Jo and I enjoyed the exhibition enormously this past weekend. Being able to see all the pages of the manuscript was a rare and wonderful opportunity. Which made us wonder: Why is it necessary to re-bind the manuscript? Why not leave the pages unbound and keep them on display as they are now? My wife Mary-Jo and I enjoyed the exhibition enormously this past weekend. Being able to see all the pages of the manuscript was a rare and wonderful opportunity. Which made us wonder: Why is it necessary to re-bind the manuscript? Why not leave the pages unbound and keep them on display as they are now?

]]> By: Wendy A. Stein http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-154 Wendy A. Stein Wed, 05 May 2010 17:06:28 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-154 Dear Ruth, Glad you liked the exhibition. You are right, the faces are on shields. I am sorry a colleague's description of the faces as "masks" was confusing for you. I refer to them as faces in <a href="http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/04/28/hours-of-the-passion/" rel="nofollow">my post</a> on the Hours of the Passion. Wendy Dear Ruth,
Glad you liked the exhibition. You are right, the faces are on shields. I am sorry a colleague’s description of the faces as “masks” was confusing for you. I refer to them as faces in my post on the Hours of the Passion.
Wendy

]]> By: Ruth http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Ruth Tue, 04 May 2010 22:06:23 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-152 This is a great exhibit and I am sorry it is going away so soon. I have a question about the two illuminations of the solders outside the tomb of Christ. The exhibit label describes the interesting detail of what looks like a sun in one and possibly a moon in the other, as masks. I assumed that they were the artists interpretation of Roman shields. Why does the Met identify them as masks? Thanks for your time! This is a great exhibit and I am sorry it is going away so soon. I have a question about the two illuminations of the solders outside the tomb of Christ. The exhibit label describes the interesting detail of what looks like a sun in one and possibly a moon in the other, as masks. I assumed that they were the artists interpretation of Roman shields. Why does the Met identify them as masks? Thanks for your time!

]]> By: wendy stein http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-91 wendy stein Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:45:37 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-91 Dear Roy Jones, Many thanks for your enthusiasm about the exhibition and for your question. Raphael, Michelangelo, and Caravaggio all worked at a later time than the Limbourg brothers, when the identity of the individual artist was more widely recognized. I do not expect there are any self-portraits of the Limbourgs in the <em>Belles Heures</em>, but we will never know. Wendy Dear Roy Jones,
Many thanks for your enthusiasm about the exhibition and for your question. Raphael, Michelangelo, and Caravaggio all worked at a later time than the Limbourg brothers, when the identity of the individual artist was more widely recognized. I do not expect there are any self-portraits of the Limbourgs in the Belles Heures, but we will never know.
Wendy

]]> By: Roy I Jones http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Roy I Jones Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:00:46 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-88 Like Carravigio, Michaelangelo and Raphael who pictured themselves in their art, would the brothers have pictured themselves in any of the illustrations? What a spectacular exibition both the Met and the Morgan has put on for a once in a lifetime viewing. This should not be missed by anyone who loves illuminated manuscript. Roy I Jones Charlestown, RI Like Carravigio, Michaelangelo and Raphael who pictured themselves in their art, would the brothers have pictured themselves in any of the illustrations?
What a spectacular exibition both the Met and the Morgan has put on for a once in a lifetime viewing. This should not be missed by anyone who loves illuminated manuscript.

Roy I Jones
Charlestown, RI

]]> By: wendy stein http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-54 wendy stein Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:50:17 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-54 Dear Rina, Thank you so much for your appreciative words and your enthusiasm. I too love having the magnifying glasses. They add so much to my appreciation of the wonder of these miniatures as well. Dear Sharon, How wonderful that you and your husband traveled up from Virginia to visit these manuscripts! I am glad you found them breathtaking - and worth the trip! As to questions of magnification, brushes, and other technical matters, these are of interest to many readers. Among the books already cited, the one by Timothy Husband has an excellent appendix by Margaret Lawson, who was the principal conservator of the <em>Belles Heures</em>, and I recommend it for all sorts of interesting information about the manuscript. For general information about techniques, I love a little paperback by Christopher de Hamel, part of the Medieval Craftsmen series, titled <em>Scribes and Illuminators</em>. According to this book, brushes were made from tail hairs of miniver or calaber (species of ermine and squirrel), tied and inserted into a feather. As to the question of the artists using magnification, we assume they did. According to De Hamel, pictures of painters wearing eyeglasses can be found as early as the fourteenth century. Wendy Dear Rina,
Thank you so much for your appreciative words and your enthusiasm. I too love having the magnifying glasses. They add so much to my appreciation of the wonder of these miniatures as well.

Dear Sharon,
How wonderful that you and your husband traveled up from Virginia to visit these manuscripts! I am glad you found them breathtaking – and worth the trip!

As to questions of magnification, brushes, and other technical matters, these are of interest to many readers. Among the books already cited, the one by Timothy Husband has an excellent appendix by Margaret Lawson, who was the principal conservator of the Belles Heures, and I recommend it for all sorts of interesting information about the manuscript. For general information about techniques, I love a little paperback by Christopher de Hamel, part of the Medieval Craftsmen series, titled Scribes and Illuminators. According to this book, brushes were made from tail hairs of miniver or calaber (species of ermine and squirrel), tied and inserted into a feather. As to the question of the artists using magnification, we assume they did. According to De Hamel, pictures of painters wearing eyeglasses can be found as early as the fourteenth century.

Wendy

]]> By: Sharon Cohen http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Sharon Cohen Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:19:37 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-53 Dear Wendy, My husband and I traveled up to New York from Virginia this past weekend to see both the Met's illumination exhibition and the one at the Morgan Library. Both were absolutely breathtaking and we learned a lot! But one big question I have has not been answered: how did the artists paint such small pictures that are so detailed, especially expressions on faces? Did they use magnifying glasses as they painted? And what about brushes -- were they made of one horsehair or something like that? I'm just amazed by it all. Do one of the sources listed above deal with this subject? Thanks. Sharon Dear Wendy,

My husband and I traveled up to New York from Virginia this past weekend to see both the Met’s illumination exhibition and the one at the Morgan Library. Both were absolutely breathtaking and we learned a lot! But one big question I have has not been answered: how did the artists paint such small pictures that are so detailed, especially expressions on faces? Did they use magnifying glasses as they painted? And what about brushes — were they made of one horsehair or something like that? I’m just amazed by it all. Do one of the sources listed above deal with this subject? Thanks.
Sharon

]]> By: Rina http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/2010/02/26/join-the-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Rina Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:16:30 +0000 http://blog.metmuseum.org/artofillumination/?p=1570#comment-49 I just wanted to post because I've been fortunate enough to visit the exhibition and I really appreciated the magnifying glasses provided by the museum. Wonderful; I just wish it were possible to have those at every single exhibition of drawings, and even at the drawings gallery on the second floor. Great also to have the blog; the images online are so bright an beautiful. I just love the Met. I just wanted to post because I’ve been fortunate enough to visit the exhibition and I really appreciated the magnifying glasses provided by the museum. Wonderful; I just wish it were possible to have those at every single exhibition of drawings, and even at the drawings gallery on the second floor.
Great also to have the blog; the images online are so bright an beautiful. I just love the Met.

]]>