Rufino Tamayo
1899 - 1991
Mexican
Beat Yves Tanguy in Round 1.
Held off Dutch Master David Teniers in Round 2 by a single vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!
Jean Tinguely
1928 - 1991
Swiss
Defeated Giovanni Battista Tiepolo in Round 1.
Held off Dutch Master Hendrick Terbrugghen in Round 2.
Vote for the artist of your choice in the comments, or any other way that works for you. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Saturday, July 8, 2017
The Infinite Art Tournament, Round One: Weight v. Wesselmann!
Carel Weight
1908 - 1997
British
-----
Tom Wesselmann
1931 - 2004
American
----
Vote for the artist of your choice! Votes go in the comments. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
1908 - 1997
British
-----
Tom Wesselmann
1931 - 2004
American
----
Vote for the artist of your choice! Votes go in the comments. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
The Infinite Art Tournament, Round Two: Vermeer v. Vieira da Silva!
If you're all like "What happens to Vaserely/Valazquez?" then you are really paying attention! The answer was, it was a tie, and the brackets have been shuffled a bit accordingly.
Jan Vermeer
1632 - 1675
Dutch
Beat Veronese easily in Round 1.
Maria Elena Vieira da Silva
1908 - 1992
Portuguese; worked in France
Defeated Andrea del Verrocchio in Round 1.
Vote for the artist of your choice in the comments, or any other way that works for you. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
The Infinite Art Tournament, Round Two: Utamaro v. Vallotton!
Kitagawa Utamaro
1753 - 1806
Japanese
Beat Paolo Uccello in Round 1.
Félix Vallotton
1865 - 1925
French
Defeated Maurice Utrillo by a single vote in Round 1. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!
Vote for the artist of your choice in the comments, or any other way that works for you. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
1753 - 1806
Japanese
Beat Paolo Uccello in Round 1.
Félix Vallotton
1865 - 1925
French
Defeated Maurice Utrillo by a single vote in Round 1. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!
Vote for the artist of your choice in the comments, or any other way that works for you. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
The Semi-Finals: Magritte v. Lissitzky!

"Semifinals" designates the Fourth to Seventh Rounds of the Infinite Art Tournament. This is a Left Bracket Fourth Round Match between René Magritte (4-1, 39-23, .629) and El Lissitzky (3-1, 27-22, .551). Lorenzo Lotto (3-2, 28-30, .483) leaves the Tournament after falling to Magritte.
René Magritte
1898 - 1967
Belgian
- Skunked -- skunked! -- sculptor Aristide Maillol in Round 1.
- Won a close one against Mabuse in Round 2.
- Lost badly to Andy Goldsworthy in Round 3.
- Beat Théodore Géricault in the Left Bracket Third Round.
- Defeated Lorenzo Lotto in Left Bracket Third Round Elimination.
El Lissitzky
1890 - 1941
Russian
- Defeated 15th century German Stefan Lochner in Round 1.
- Got all modern on Fra Filippo Lippi in Round 2.
- Beat famous photographer Ansel Adams in Round 3.
- Lost to Leonardo da Vinci in Round 4.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
The Infinite Art Tournament, First Elimination Round #59/64
Faceoff #1: Tintoretto v. Tobey
Jacopo Tintoretto
1518 - 1594
Venice
Lost to James Tissot in Round 1.
-----
Mark Tobey
1890 - 1976
American
Lost to Titian in Round 1.
Faceoff #2: de Troy v. Twombly
Jean-François de Troy
1679 - 1752
French
Stomped by Toulouse-Lautrec in Round 1.
-----
Cy Twombly
1928 - 2011
American
Stomped by J.M.W. Turner in Round 1.
Vote for the two artists of your choice! Votes generally go in the comments, but have been known to arrive by email, by postcard, or in a sealed envelope.
Please note that you may vote only once in each face-off. Opining that both of the artists in one of the two face-offs is superior to the other is fine, but casting your votes for two artists in the same face-off is not permissible.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Michael5000 vs. Dickens: The Old Curiosity Shop
2012 Assessment: “I haven't read it. The title made me think maybe I had, but I was thinking of the rag and bone shop from Bleak House.”
Current Reading: I listened to a version from Naxos AudioBooks.
The biggest disappointment of The Old Curiosity Shop is that it has so very little to do with an old curiosity shop. This is simply not plain dealing. Using such a title lays out the promise that we readers will get to spend time lurking among oddities and knick-knacks considered quaint and queer even by people of the Victorian age, with all its massive trade surplus of old curiosities. But no, the shop in question is simply a location where things happen to happen (as it were) in the first few chapters, and for all the descriptions we are given it might as well be an old law office, or an old inn, or an old marine chandler’s shop, to choose three examples of businesses that Dickens made come to life far more vividly than he did this one.
Now, it may well be that Dickens’s original plan was more old-curiosity focused than the novel that actually got written. This is not as far-fetched as it may sound. Like many novels of the day, this one was originally published as a serial. Unlike most of them – at least unlike most of them that are still read today, anyway – Old Curiosity Shop shows clear evidence of major rethinking after the first bits were already in print. The first few chapters are told in first person by a narrator who meets a charming young girl in the street and helps her find her way home to – wait for it! – an old curiosity shop, where she lives with her grandfather. While he’s there, they receive colorful visitors, and Dickens starts to have trouble figuring out where to put his narrator while he’s overhearing all of the plot-laden conversations. Eventually, he gives up, and the narrator says something like “look, I’m just going to tell the rest of this story in third person,” then vanishes without a trace. It’s quite something.
So, it’s not at all unlikely that there is an unwritten novel here in which the narrator character stuck around and became significant, and much was made of the old curiosity shop and its old curios. But it probably isn’t a very good unwritten novel, or else Dickens wouldn’t have gone through the embarrassment of abandoning it so conspicuously.
The charming young girl, by the by, is the famous Little Nell, and you might have two notions about her. One is the crowds who gathered on the pier in the United States, begging people arriving from across the Atlantic to tell them whether Little Nell survived. This is a great story, but common sense warns us to be suspicious of the scale of the phenomenon. The second is Oscar Wilde’s quip that “one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without dissolving into tears . . . of laughter.” This is a great line, but a bit vague in its application, since Little Nell dies offstage. Certainly, most modern readers will, I think, find Little Nell a fairly insubstantial fluff of virtue, sympathize with Wilde, and wonder why the Americans were so invested in her survival. For myself, I only felt that she went from remarkably robust pluck to feeble ill-health with surprisingly little transition, although I might be wrong about this. Missing key transitions is a constant risk when you read by ear.
Plot: Nell is in the care of her grandfather, who is in the grips of gambling addiction. When he can not pay back the money he has borrowed from an evil dwarf – you heard me, an evil dwarf – he and Nell take to the road for a new life of privation and grinding poverty. A variety of secondary characters begin looking for the vagabonds for a variety of reasons, scheming with and against each other for comic and tragic effect. A young wastrel named Dick Swiveler and a waif he calls The Marchioness form an unlikely relationship that is nevertheless rather charming. But meanwhile, Nell’s health takes a sudden turn for the worse.
Prognosis: Although it is not as episodic as some of the Dickens novels, I found that Old Curiosity Shop had sections and scenes that I found effective and entertaining, and others that bored me to tears. This was, for instance, the alternative means I found for shedding tears over Little Nell’s unfortunate exit. I don’t think we’d be reading this book today if its author hadn’t written his masterpieces. But if we happened on it by chance in that alternative universe, we might still decide it was “neglected.”
Second Opinion: In a 2011 Guardian poll, 1.2% of respondents listed The Old Curiosity Shop as their favorite Dickens novel, putting it third-to-last ahead of only Martin Chuzzlewit and the unfinished Mystery of Edwin Drood.
Current Dickens Score: I have now read 12/14.5 of the non-Christmassy Dickens novels. On deck are Oliver Twist, Little Dorritt, and the Mystery of E
Current Reading: I listened to a version from Naxos AudioBooks.
The biggest disappointment of The Old Curiosity Shop is that it has so very little to do with an old curiosity shop. This is simply not plain dealing. Using such a title lays out the promise that we readers will get to spend time lurking among oddities and knick-knacks considered quaint and queer even by people of the Victorian age, with all its massive trade surplus of old curiosities. But no, the shop in question is simply a location where things happen to happen (as it were) in the first few chapters, and for all the descriptions we are given it might as well be an old law office, or an old inn, or an old marine chandler’s shop, to choose three examples of businesses that Dickens made come to life far more vividly than he did this one.
Now, it may well be that Dickens’s original plan was more old-curiosity focused than the novel that actually got written. This is not as far-fetched as it may sound. Like many novels of the day, this one was originally published as a serial. Unlike most of them – at least unlike most of them that are still read today, anyway – Old Curiosity Shop shows clear evidence of major rethinking after the first bits were already in print. The first few chapters are told in first person by a narrator who meets a charming young girl in the street and helps her find her way home to – wait for it! – an old curiosity shop, where she lives with her grandfather. While he’s there, they receive colorful visitors, and Dickens starts to have trouble figuring out where to put his narrator while he’s overhearing all of the plot-laden conversations. Eventually, he gives up, and the narrator says something like “look, I’m just going to tell the rest of this story in third person,” then vanishes without a trace. It’s quite something.
So, it’s not at all unlikely that there is an unwritten novel here in which the narrator character stuck around and became significant, and much was made of the old curiosity shop and its old curios. But it probably isn’t a very good unwritten novel, or else Dickens wouldn’t have gone through the embarrassment of abandoning it so conspicuously.
The charming young girl, by the by, is the famous Little Nell, and you might have two notions about her. One is the crowds who gathered on the pier in the United States, begging people arriving from across the Atlantic to tell them whether Little Nell survived. This is a great story, but common sense warns us to be suspicious of the scale of the phenomenon. The second is Oscar Wilde’s quip that “one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without dissolving into tears . . . of laughter.” This is a great line, but a bit vague in its application, since Little Nell dies offstage. Certainly, most modern readers will, I think, find Little Nell a fairly insubstantial fluff of virtue, sympathize with Wilde, and wonder why the Americans were so invested in her survival. For myself, I only felt that she went from remarkably robust pluck to feeble ill-health with surprisingly little transition, although I might be wrong about this. Missing key transitions is a constant risk when you read by ear.
Plot: Nell is in the care of her grandfather, who is in the grips of gambling addiction. When he can not pay back the money he has borrowed from an evil dwarf – you heard me, an evil dwarf – he and Nell take to the road for a new life of privation and grinding poverty. A variety of secondary characters begin looking for the vagabonds for a variety of reasons, scheming with and against each other for comic and tragic effect. A young wastrel named Dick Swiveler and a waif he calls The Marchioness form an unlikely relationship that is nevertheless rather charming. But meanwhile, Nell’s health takes a sudden turn for the worse.
Prognosis: Although it is not as episodic as some of the Dickens novels, I found that Old Curiosity Shop had sections and scenes that I found effective and entertaining, and others that bored me to tears. This was, for instance, the alternative means I found for shedding tears over Little Nell’s unfortunate exit. I don’t think we’d be reading this book today if its author hadn’t written his masterpieces. But if we happened on it by chance in that alternative universe, we might still decide it was “neglected.”
Second Opinion: In a 2011 Guardian poll, 1.2% of respondents listed The Old Curiosity Shop as their favorite Dickens novel, putting it third-to-last ahead of only Martin Chuzzlewit and the unfinished Mystery of Edwin Drood.
Current Dickens Score: I have now read 12/14.5 of the non-Christmassy Dickens novels. On deck are Oliver Twist, Little Dorritt, and the Mystery of E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










































