Monat: März 2015

Michele Combs, as comment to:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/31/health/anglo-saxon-potion-mrsa

http://blog.flickr.net/2015/03/25/the-flickr-commons-welcomes-our-100th-institution/?linkId=13123794

“In total, there are more than 4 million images in the Commons. The collection has been viewed more than 1.3 billion times and the Flickr community has added 53 million tags, 1.5 million faves, and 220,000 comments.”

“The exhibition ‘Ingenious Impressions: the coming of the book’ is now up
and running at the Hunterian Art Gallery at the University of Glasgow.

This exhibition showcases 64 of the 1000+ incunabula found in the
University’s Special Collections, tracing their development from
manuscript to print and their 500 years of ownership history. Based on
the research of a nearly completed five year project to catalogue the
books in detail (http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/incunabula) this is a
rare opportunity for books from our Special Collections to be on public
display. It’s a feast for bibliophiles, so do visit if you are in
Glasgow!

For more info on what’s on show and exhibition opening times etc, see:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/hunterian/visit/exhibitions/major%20exhibitions/ingeniousimpressions

See also our project blog:
https://universityofglasgowlibrary.wordpress.com/tag/incunabula ”

Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Winter 2014), pp. 1337-1340
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679809 (toll access)

Excerpts:

“Most revealing is Bredekamp’s contribution: his refusal to recognize his own methodological failure is not only saddening, but also counterproductive. To put it bluntly, as has been done in the German press: if one of the world’s foremost art historians is incapable of seeing the difference between a 1610 drawing by Galileo and a 2005 forgery, what does that say about art history (or art historians)? […]

Are we, then, at a methodological impasse, where forgeries are unidentifiable?

The answer is a definite no. As the volume shows, what matters is the right approach. Nicholas Pickwoad, a new addition to the group, shows in his illuminating and characteristically brilliant chapter on the book’s structure that this analysis alone would have been sufficient to cast deep doubt on SNML’s authenticity. We now have a clear methodological directive: analyze bindings first, as this is where mistakes are most visible to the trained eye. It’s a short-term solution, though, that will disappear once the knowledge gap between binders and Pickwoad diminishes.”

See also
?s=galileo