If you are making a comment about a web page please add a reference to the page.
It looks as though what you offer in lectures may be of interest to us.
Thank you for your interest but I am fully booked for next year. The lectures and courses will be posted on http://www.shafe.co.uk/home/art-courses-lectures/ nearer the time.
I am currently writing an MA History dissertation which is looking into the way in which the commemoration of women changed in England c.1400 – c.1600 and came across your site whilst looking at Torrigiano’s work at Westminster Abbey. This abstract; ‘Some years ago art historians criticized Torrigiano for his conservative style but by examining such documents we can see that he was simply following the contractual agreement. At the time an artist was regarded as an artisan or simply as a technician’ from this part of your website ‘http://www.shafe.co.uk/home/art-history/tudor_contents/tudor_02_-_early_tudor_sculpture/’ came up in my search. I just wondered if you could possibly point me in the right direction concerning 1. which art historians held/published this point of view and 2. which documents (aside from the contract for Margaret Beaufort’s tomb) support the statement that Torrigiano was following contractual agreement, and where can I find these?
It would be of great help to me as I am not as familiar with the art history world as I am the history one!
I also forgot to mention, I will of course credit your site in my work too, I just wanted to source the original criteria and read it for myself to further my research.
Dear Dr. Shafe; I’ve enjoyed your Art History website and am interested to find out if you’ve published your notes on the Introduction to Modern Art: New York School presentation as yet. Obviously you’ve chosen a number of slides to feature in whatever format the talk/lectures are, but is it possible to obtain the written manuscript?
Thank you very much,
I have added my notes to the slides which were from a lecture I attended in 2004. The lecture was given by Dr Gavin Parkinson who, at the time, was at Birkbeck College, University of London. I am not currently lecturing on this area so I will not be extending the notes. Over the next twelve months I am working on a lecture series titled ‘300 Years of British Art: 1500 to 1800’.
I have been looking at the Miniature of the 9th Earl of Northumberland and think I may have uncovered an additional symbol – in addition to those you identify in your article. I would appreciate your thoughts and views on this and how the miniature may inform a new architectural proposal.
I am sure there are many aspects of the miniature that I have overlooked. What is the additional symbol you have in mind?
If you could email me at the above address then I will send you an annotated image which shows the philosopher’s stone.
Would like to ask you for your email so I could sent you some pictures to be veryfied to be the Doge F. Foscari.
I am sorry but I cannot verify or authenticate any artwork, or identify any person or location or confirm any image as genuine. I suggest researching online or in an art library. If you live in the UK and would like an artwork valued I recommend Christies or Sotheby’s in London.
Dear Dr. Shafe,
Writing on the Siena ‘sieve’ portrait of Elizabeth I; Wikipedia kindly tells me that their image is credited to you (though their link is to a removed page), and the ghastly UK copyright laws mean that I’m not able to reproduce it in my thesis without permission.
Please can I reproduce the image? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metsys_Elizabeth_I_The_Sieve_Portrait_c1583.jpg#globalusage)
My thesis is of course non-commercial, but a copy will be available in the Bodleian (fingers crossed I pass!).
Let me know!
I don’t know how I became accredited as the copyright owner. Probably because Wikipedia found it on my site but I found it on another site many years ago and unfortunately I have forgotten where. The Pinacoteca Nazionale di Siena does not appear to have the image on its site so perhaps you could accredit Wikipedia.
I personally think the lack of clarity on this issues is unhelpful for students. I don’t see how copyright can reside in a photographic copy that adds nothing to the original but I am not an expert and as far as I know there has been no test case.
Best of luck with the thesis.
I recently purchased a closely trimmed image – 8 ½” x 11 ½” – print of The Presentation in the Temple which is – in comparison to all the images I’ve seen online – a mirror image of the scene; the dog sits at the lower right and, at the lower left, etched in plate is “Rembrandt 1639.” Is there a known explanation for this? Whatever help you offer is much appreciated!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *