Word: 18th
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1940-1949
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Primitives & Preferences. Among the English paintings in the Providence show were familiar Raeburn, Romney, Reynolds and Gainsborough portraits in the grand manner. Also on view were works by a famed trio of 18th Century New Englanders: John Singleton Copley, Gilbert Stuart, John Trumbull - all of whom were influenced by English styles. But the surprise of the show was a group of little-known early American portraits, sound and penetrating studies by men who followed no tradition, who painted people as they saw them...
...with their degrees from Göttingen and Leipzig, belonged. Good translation, or even a reasonable fluency at writing English, were not among its ambitions. But Smith and Miller achieved a good translation. Their Iliad is published without scholarly notes or impediments and with Flaxman's beautiful 18th-Century drawings as illustrations...
Labeled Portrait of an Officer, Artist Unknown, it looked like a good, average, 18th-Century antique wall-piece, the kind that lends hints of lineage to a paneled drawing room. Bailey Stanton, Chicago lawyer and amateur art collector, liked it enough to buy it at auction...
...showed his Officer to Dr. Maurice Goldblatt, director of the University of Notre Dame art galleries. "My God, you've got something there," said Dr. Goldblatt, who once helped the Louvre authenticate its famed Mona Lisa. He was, in fact, "90% sure it was a Trumbull" (John Trumbull, 18th-Century American historical painter and portraitist). Later he raised his assurance to 100%. And it was probably a portrait of Lafayette...
Last September the austere London Times, most reverend of Britain's newspapers, apologized to its readers for a mistake perpetrated in its youth. Published every weekday throughout the year except on Good Friday, Christmas and Boxing Day,* the Times blamed a careless 18th-Century staff for an error which had caused the serial number on its front page to exceed the proper figure by 23. The mistake, said the Times, would be rectified by numbering 23 issues with the same number: 49,950. Last week, with the grievous error atoned for and corrected, the Times proudly printed its true...