Two volumes in one slipcase, limited edition book produced on the occasion of the exhibitions,"The Tomb" at Peter Blum Soho and "In Search of" at Peter Blum Chelsea, New York September 17 - November 13, 2010
You thought that when the Romans left, the Saxons came; at least that was what we were all told in school. There are precise dates as well The Romans left in 410 AD and the Saxons came in 440AD. Somewhere in this clear cut time lies a problem called the Arthurian legends. It is as if the clear cut strata in an archaeological dig are subjected to a microscopic analysis to reveal a rather less clear cut profile. Further, we all have a concept of King Arthur that has been handed to us since the time of Mallory. So that was Arthur was it? Wrong. The only invaders were Saxons, right? Wrong. Arthur was something to do with Merlin-right? Wrong. We are always told the truth by historians, right? Wrong. In terms of what we know, the history has been defined within those references which have led to a distortion of the history. Be in no doubt that King Arthur existed and there was more than one. Unravelling the ancient sources such as Gildas, Nennius, Bede and other works leads us out of a fairytale of Hollywood into the harsh reality of the early post Roman empire; a world of Civil war and Celtic invasion. What has been learned is that there was more than one Arthur, in fact many names were repeated and confused, Ambrosius, Ambrosius Aurielanus, Uther, Arthur, Maximus (which one would you like) and Vortigern at a time when not only were the Saxons coming, so were the Scots (the real name of the Irish as conferred by the Romans), Danes at the same time as a tripartite Roman civil war was taking place. So the history of the time is clear?-please read on, its time to become confused.
Today we associate the Renaissance with painting, sculpture, and architecture—the “major” arts. Yet contemporaries often held the “minor” arts—gem-studded goldwork, richly embellished armor, splendid tapestries and embroideries, music, and ephemeral multi-media spectacles—in much higher esteem. Isabella d’Este, Marchesa of Mantua, was typical of the Italian nobility: she bequeathed to her children precious stone vases mounted in gold, engraved gems, ivories, and antique bronzes and marbles; her favorite ladies-in-waiting, by contrast, received mere paintings. Renaissance patrons and observers extolled finely wrought luxury artifacts for their exquisite craftsmanship and the symbolic capital of their components; paintings and sculptures in modest materials, although discussed by some literati, were of lesser consequence. This book endeavors to return to the mainstream material long marginalized as a result of historical and ideological biases of the intervening centuries. The author analyzes how luxury arts went from being lofty markers of ascendancy and discernment in the Renaissance to being dismissed as “decorative” or “minor” arts—extravagant trinkets of the rich unworthy of the status of Art. Then, by re-examining the objects themselves and their uses in their day, she shows how sumptuous creations constructed the world and taste of Renaissance women and men.