(sorry, apparently comment notifications are being iffy)bellatrysDecember 9 2009, 00:28:39 UTC
"at people in the equestrian world about the stupidity and ahistoricality of contemporary attitudes regarding paints".
Sorry, that was a bit of horsey jargon - and American jargon at that! Back when I was but a horse-crazy kid, devouring all the books I could get my hands on about breed standards and such, one of the things that was going in the old equivalents of flamewars was the argument that Arab horses couldn't be pintos, aka "paints" or paint horses, because the parti-colored coats weren't "authentic" - there was this attitude that they're somehow an American thing, because pintos are most famously known among the mustangs of the Wild West.
Except, we didn't *have* horses on continent after they went extinct with most of the rest of the early megafauna, and they were brought back by the Spaniards in a much-modified form. And that pinto gene didn't just spontaneously appear - as the paintings of horses like the ones that these Mughal lords and ladies ride to hunt, or in photos of Indian cavalry riding Arab horses today - and they aren't buying their remounts from Colorado, I'm sure! The paint horse has obviously been part of the Asian landscape all along, and so the argument that it wasn't legit to allow the color type in based on "authenticity" was born of, well, ignorance of art history.
Most historical equestrian cultures would be incredibly confused by the idea that women should/would/could ride any other way.
You'd be amazed at how many modern writers think that pre-19th century women couldn't ride (or at anything but a sedate walk along flat paths on a palfrey) because they wore skirts and the modern sidesaddle hadn't been invented. Well, no, you probably wouldn't, because you share my low opinion of the Serious Folks, but it still makes me want to head-desk sometimes. Dur! it's not like Reubens is an obscure artist! It's not like the Penguin editions of Byzantine chroniclers aren't cheap and easy to find! But you have to want to know, first.
women didn't always cover themselves in the ways outsiders to those cultures might assume and the historically in/accurate artistic representations of that are another layer of complexity.
This is also true of Western women's fashions! There are some amazingly low-cut and sheer outfits being worn from the late medieval/early-renaissance on, right through to the almost-Victorian era. And at least one 16th-century college boy left his unguarded opinions of contemporary translucent dirndl-bodices in writing -- "then you get a treat!" - before going off to die horrible of gangrene in a conquistador's following, after turning prodigal. (Three Behaim Boys, a remainder-table treat.) Respectable matrons in Colonial New England wore some astonishing things that would get you fined by the FCC nowadays, for family portraits. And "Nursing Madonna" icons always make for much goodly amusement with modern Puritans.
Lolzing 4 ever! I know exactly what you mean. The mental gymnastics UTTERLY OBJECTIVE art n literary critics must go through not to accidentally include dreadfully declasse and OMG SUBJECTIVE sociology in their opinionated output are astonishing, heh.
I just sat there at the desk in my college library's oversize-section (where all the best art books end up) and just - my mind went completely blank for several long moments as I looked at this exquisite 18th century glazed ware taking up the whole page and tried to avoid thinking the words "the stopper - the stopper's in his - that's the spout, his PENIS IS THE SPOUT AND YOU POUR YELLOW SALAD OIL OUT OF IT ON YOUR SALAD" and then I tried to stop sporfling loud enough that anybody'd come round to see--
Then I turned the page over to read what the cultured critic was saying about it and - not a peep. Not. One. Like, I thought at first they'd stuck the wrong caption on, b/c that seemed more likely than Not One Bloody Word about what it would look like when you used this bit of tableware...
(I so want to use it in a Regency-era story, or see someone else use it in a Regency-era story. Doesn't it seem like something that Bergholt Stuttley Johnson might have come up with, if he'd taken some time off to do "minor works"--?)
I looked at this exquisite 18th century glazed ware taking up the whole page and tried to avoid thinking the words "the stopper - the stopper's in his - that's the spout, his PENIS IS THE SPOUT AND YOU POUR YELLOW SALAD OIL OUT OF IT ON YOUR SALAD" and then I tried to stop sporfling
The rich are ever vulgar and have traditionally enjoyed inflicting their tastes on guests who aren't in a position to say no.
Re: (sorry, apparently comment notifications are being iffy)spiralsheepDecember 10 2009, 23:54:55 UTC
Ah, thank you, I believe I've heard the term "paints" before but I wouldn't have recalled it.
it's not like Reubens is an obscure artist! It's not like the Penguin editions of Byzantine chroniclers aren't cheap and easy to find!
It's not as if anyone educated in my country could possibly have escaped seeing Chaucerian women riding astride. And what about all the women who rode to the Holy Land on pilgrimmage or crusade (such as Eleanor of Aquitane)?
I've also heard people claiming that women in Britain in earlier time periods rarely left the house for public entertainments because of the lack of public toilet facilities. What on earth did they think big skirts were for? o_O
Sorry, that was a bit of horsey jargon - and American jargon at that! Back when I was but a horse-crazy kid, devouring all the books I could get my hands on about breed standards and such, one of the things that was going in the old equivalents of flamewars was the argument that Arab horses couldn't be pintos, aka "paints" or paint horses, because the parti-colored coats weren't "authentic" - there was this attitude that they're somehow an American thing, because pintos are most famously known among the mustangs of the Wild West.
Except, we didn't *have* horses on continent after they went extinct with most of the rest of the early megafauna, and they were brought back by the Spaniards in a much-modified form. And that pinto gene didn't just spontaneously appear - as the paintings of horses like the ones that these Mughal lords and ladies ride to hunt, or in photos of Indian cavalry riding Arab horses today - and they aren't buying their remounts from Colorado, I'm sure! The paint horse has obviously been part of the Asian landscape all along, and so the argument that it wasn't legit to allow the color type in based on "authenticity" was born of, well, ignorance of art history.
Most historical equestrian cultures would be incredibly confused by the idea that women should/would/could ride any other way.
You'd be amazed at how many modern writers think that pre-19th century women couldn't ride (or at anything but a sedate walk along flat paths on a palfrey) because they wore skirts and the modern sidesaddle hadn't been invented. Well, no, you probably wouldn't, because you share my low opinion of the Serious Folks, but it still makes me want to head-desk sometimes. Dur! it's not like Reubens is an obscure artist! It's not like the Penguin editions of Byzantine chroniclers aren't cheap and easy to find! But you have to want to know, first.
women didn't always cover themselves in the ways outsiders to those cultures might assume and the historically in/accurate artistic representations of that are another layer of complexity.
This is also true of Western women's fashions! There are some amazingly low-cut and sheer outfits being worn from the late medieval/early-renaissance on, right through to the almost-Victorian era. And at least one 16th-century college boy left his unguarded opinions of contemporary translucent dirndl-bodices in writing -- "then you get a treat!" - before going off to die horrible of gangrene in a conquistador's following, after turning prodigal. (Three Behaim Boys, a remainder-table treat.) Respectable matrons in Colonial New England wore some astonishing things that would get you fined by the FCC nowadays, for family portraits. And "Nursing Madonna" icons always make for much goodly amusement with modern Puritans.
Reply
I just sat there at the desk in my college library's oversize-section (where all the best art books end up) and just - my mind went completely blank for several long moments as I looked at this exquisite 18th century glazed ware taking up the whole page and tried to avoid thinking the words "the stopper - the stopper's in his - that's the spout, his PENIS IS THE SPOUT AND YOU POUR YELLOW SALAD OIL OUT OF IT ON YOUR SALAD" and then I tried to stop sporfling loud enough that anybody'd come round to see--
Then I turned the page over to read what the cultured critic was saying about it and - not a peep. Not. One. Like, I thought at first they'd stuck the wrong caption on, b/c that seemed more likely than Not One Bloody Word about what it would look like when you used this bit of tableware...
(I so want to use it in a Regency-era story, or see someone else use it in a Regency-era story. Doesn't it seem like something that Bergholt Stuttley Johnson might have come up with, if he'd taken some time off to do "minor works"--?)
Reply
The rich are ever vulgar and have traditionally enjoyed inflicting their tastes on guests who aren't in a position to say no.
Reply
it's not like Reubens is an obscure artist! It's not like the Penguin editions of Byzantine chroniclers aren't cheap and easy to find!
It's not as if anyone educated in my country could possibly have escaped seeing Chaucerian women riding astride. And what about all the women who rode to the Holy Land on pilgrimmage or crusade (such as Eleanor of Aquitane)?
I've also heard people claiming that women in Britain in earlier time periods rarely left the house for public entertainments because of the lack of public toilet facilities. What on earth did they think big skirts were for? o_O
Reply
Leave a comment