Christian Bök, “The Great Order of the Universe”, in Poetry, Vol. 194, No. 4, July and August 2009, p. 334. (via)
He Would Cease to be A Mechanic
July 1st, 2009 § 0
In 1926, Edward Steichen brought into the United States a sculpture by Constantin Brâncuşi. The customs office declared that it was not a work of art and was therefore subject to import duty. On the advice of Duchamp, Brâncuşi paid the fee and then sued the United States Customs Court to recover his payment. Here is part of the transcript1.
Brâncuşi was represented by attorneys Charles J. Lane, M. J. Speiser, and Thomas M. Lane. The government was represented by attorneys Charles D. Lawrence, Marcus Higginbotham, and Reuben Wilson. The witnesses for Brâncuşi were the photographer and importer of the work Edward Steichen, the sculptor Jacob Epstein, Forbes Watson, editor of The Arts, Frank Crowninshield, editor of Vanity Fair, William Henry Fox, curator of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and Henry McBride, art critic for the New York Sun. Brâncuşi himself remained at home in Paris, where Ezra Pound wrote to him: “I was sick to hear a bastard in New York made you pay duty on your sculpture. I could spit in the eye of the skinflint in charge of these matters.”2
Mr. C. J. Lane: Where do you reside Mr. Epstein?
In New York.
What is your profession?
I am a sculptor.
How long have you exercised this profession?
I have been a sculptor for thirty years in New York, Paris and London.
Mr. Epstein, will you tell the court just where you are represented as far as your work is concerned?
I have a piece of sculpture, I am happy to say, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in this city and in London in the Tate Gallery, which is the National Gallery in Britain for modern works. I have a piece in the Manchester Art Gallery, the Glasgow Art Gallery, the Dundee Art Gallery and in Ireland in the National Gallery in Dublin and in the Aberdeen Art Gallery.
Are you represented in Hyde Park as well?
Yes, I have a work in Hyde Park in London.
Mr. Epstein, are you acquainted with one Constantin Brâncuşi?
Yes, I have known Constantin Brâncuşi’s works for the last fifteen years.
I asked you about the man himself.
I knew him fifteen years ago. I met him from time to time in Paris and in London.
Are you acquainted with his work?
Very well acquainted.
Is Constantin Brâncuşi a sculptor?
In my opinion, yes, decidedly so.
Is he so considered in the world of art?
He is considered so in the world of art.
Mr. Higginbotham: I object to the “world of art.”
Justice Young: Limit it to his own knowledge.
Justice Waite: What is his reputation among artists, men who are judged artists. How is he considered as an artist?
He is considered as a very great artist I should say.
Exhibit One: Constantin Brâncuşi, L’Oiseau dans l’espace
Mr. C. J. Lane: Mr. Epstein, will you look at Exhibit One in this case and tell the court whether in your opinion that is a work of art.
In my opinion, it is a work of art.
Cross examination by Mr. Higginbotham: You say you have been working as a sculptor for thirty years? In what schools did you study?
I started at the beginning as a student at the Art Students’ League in this city and from there I went to the national School of Fine Arts and the Academy of Beaux Arts in Paris, where I studied for six months. Leaving there, I went to the School where I studied for about two years.
Did you receive a diploma or certificate from these schools?
I don’t believe diplomas are given in the schools.
Whether you believe it or not, did you receive any?
I know of no such thing as a diploma.
Justice Waite: Did you receive anything in the way of a certificate in writing as an acknowledgement of the work that you have done in these institutions?
I won my way into the Gallery Of Beaux Arts by competition with the entire class, where I had to model a figure so as to get in. I take that as meaning what you wish. You are not admitted unless you show yourself competent in some work.
Mr. Higginbotham: Your business now is what?
My business here, to exhibit a collection of my own works.
Your own works?
Of my own works, yes.
In this city?
Yes, Sir, in this city.
What line of sculpture is it?
I do everything.
When you say everything, do you do human figures?
Yes, sir.
Do you do any painting?
Yes, I have done painting.
Do you make painting your profession?
No, sculpture is my profession.
Do you have anything to do with making sculpture similar to Exhibit One?
Well, all sculptures are different.
I asked you if you made anything like Exhibit One?
I may not have the desire to make it.
I did not ask you that.
Justice Waite: Answer the question. Did you make anything like that exhibit?
No.
In all your thirty years?
No, I have not made anything like that.
Do you consider from the training you have had and based on your experience you had in these different schools and galleries—do you consider that a work of art?
I certainly do.
When you say you consider that a work of art, will you kindly tell me why?
Well, it pleases my sense of beauty, gives me a feeling of pleasure. Made by a sculptor, it has to me a great many elements, but consists in itself as a beautiful object. To me it is a work of art.
So, if we had a brass rail, highly polished, curved in a more or less symmetrical and harmonious circle, it would be a work of art?
It might become a work of art.
Whether it is made by a sculptor or made by a mechanic?
A mechanic cannot make beautiful work.
Do you mean to tell us that Exhibit One, if formed up by a mechanic—that is, a first class mechanic with a file and polishing tools—could not polish that article up?
He can polish it up, but he cannot conceive of the object. That is the whole point. He cannot conceive those particular lines which give it its individual beauty. That is the difference between a mechanic and an artist; he (the mechanic) cannot conceive as an artist.
Justice Waite: If he can conceive, then he would cease to be a mechanic and become an artist?
Would become an artist; that is right.
Mr. Higginbotham: You say you have known Mr. Brâncuşi for a good many years?
For about fifteen years.
You say he is known as a great artist?
He is known as a great artist.
Is he known as a great artist or a great sculptor?
I use both titles; they are synonymous to me. A great artist may be a great sculptor and a great sculptor may be a great artist.
You have seen many pieces of his work?
I have seen probably twenty or thirty pieces.
Were they all similar to the exhibit one here?
No, they are not similar; they are different.
In what way are they different?
Well, they are individual creations, each work must be different.
What do they represent, the ones you saw?
Some represented birds, some human forms, nude forms and anatomical studies even.
So he has made sculptures of human forms?
Yes, decidedly.
When you say some represented a bird, does that (Exhibit One) represent a bird to you?
To me it is a matter of indifference what it represents.
In so far as that piece of sculpture is concerned, in appealing to the aesthetic taste, it does not make any difference what it represents?
Not at all. There are limits.
We will say a certain piece of rock, marble, is taken by a sculptor and simply chipped off at intervals. As long as that chipping off at intervals was done by a sculptor, you would consider it a work of art?
The moment a piece of rock, marble, is begun in the hands of the man, if he is an artist, it can become, from that moment, a work of art.
Mr. Speiser: Mr.Epstein, I ask you if you are familiar with the works of Mr. Brâncuşi?
Yes.
I hand you a publication “The Arts”, dated July 22, 1923, and ask you if you have seen any of Mr. Brâncuşi’s pieces pictured therein as works of art, beginning at page 18 to 29?
I have seen one of these; this one on page 18.
Mr. Lane suggests that you might enlighten the court as to whether you would think that object (Exhibit One) a bird?
I would, of course, start off with that artist’s title, and if the artist called it a bird, I would take it seriously, if I have any respect for the artist whatsoever. It would be my first endeavor to see whether it was like a bird. In this particular piece of sculpture there are the elements of a bird, certain elements.
Mr. Higginbotham: What elements?
If you regard the piece of sculpture in profile, you see there, it is like the breast of a bird, especially on this side.
All breasts of birds are more or less rounded?
Yes.
Any rounded piece of bronze then, in other words, could represent a bird?
That I cannot say.
Justice Waite: Looks more like the keel of a boat, too?
If it were lying down.
And a little like the crescent of a new moon?
Yes.
Mr. Higginbotham: If Mr. Brâncuşi called this a fish, it would be then to you a fish?
If he called it a fish I would call it a fish.
If he called it a tiger, it would change your mind to a tiger?
No.
In your thirty years experience you have met many other sculptors and artists?
Yes, Sir.
You have seen their works?
Yes.
Do any of them do works of this class and character?
There are other artists that do work similar, not absolutely like Brâncuşi, but of that character.
So he stands practically alone and isolated in this particular class of art?
No. He is related to a very ancient form of sculpture; I should say even to the Egyptian. He does not stand absolutely alone. He is related to the fine ancient sculpture like the early Egyptian three thousand years old. If you would like me to bring into court a piece of sculpture, ancient sculpture, which I happen to have, I can illustrate. (Witness leaves the stand to get the sample3.)
Constantin Brâncuşi, Sleeping Muse I, 1909-10, Marble, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution.
Giza: G 1171, Faience bird from G 1171 (found in sand): Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 37733. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
What is that piece you have there?
That is a hawk.
Will you show it to the court so as to illustrate your answer?
This is an ancient Egyptian hawk, three thousand years ago.
Justice Waite: You can see some similarity in form, with what you understand to be a hawk?
An ornithologist might not find it. I see the resemblance to a bird; the feathers are not shown; the feet are not shown.
Justice Waite: The wings and the feet are not shown, still you get the impression it is a hawk?
Yes.
- Reproduced from “The Case of Constantin Brancusi vs. the United States of America: an extract”, in The Art Newspaper, Vol. 63, October 1996. A full transcript is available as Diane Francesca Rose (Ed), Brancusi vs. United States: The Historic Trial, 1928, Preface by Margit Rowell, Afterword by André Paleologue, Vilo, Paris, 1999. This book was actually originally published in France as Brancusi contre Etats-Unis, translated by Jocelyne de Pass, Adam Biro, Paris, 1995. The original transcript can be found at MoMA; see http://arcade.nyarc.org:80/record=b520131~S8. For a scholarly account of the trial see Thomas L. Hartshorne, “Modernism on Trial: C. Brancusi v. United States (1928)”, Journal of American Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, April 1986, pp. 93-104. For a journalistic account see Martin Gayford, “When art itself went on trial”, in The Telegraph, 24 January 2004. [↩]
- Gayford, Ibid. [↩]
- I have not been able to find any information on the piece of sculpture introduced here [↩]
Coupling
June 30th, 2009 § 0
Convergent evolution?
The more Dr. Lewis watched firefly courtship, the clearer it became that the females were carefully choosing mates. They start dialogues with up to 10 males in a single evening and can keep several conversations going at once. But a female mates with only one male, typically the one she has responded to the most.
Carl Zimmer, “Blink Twice if You Like Me”, New York TImes, 30 June 2009, p. D1.
Men and women are rotated to meet each other over a series of short “dates”, usually lasting from 3 to 8 minutes depending on the organization running the event. At the end of each interval, the organizer rings a bell or clinks a glass to signal the participants to move on to the next date. At the end of the event participants submit to the organizers a list of who they would like to provide their contact information to.
“Speed Dating”, Wikipedia, 25 June 2009.
All Bearded Victorians Look the Same
June 29th, 2009 § 0
Less than half of those surveyed were able to select Darwin’s picture from a selection of five bearded Victorians.
From “Awareness Of Darwin Not Evolving”, ScienceDaily, 27 March 2009.
Journal Paper of the Day
June 28th, 2009 § 0
On the occasion of arriving in Paris for the summer, a special edition of Journal Paper of the Day.
G. Vázquez, F. Chenlo, R. Moreira, A. Costoyas, “The Dehydration of Garlic. I. Desorption Isotherms and Modelling of Drying Kinetics” and “The Dehydration of Garlic. II. The Effects of Pretreatments on Drying Kinetics”, in Drying Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1999, pp. 1095–1108 and pp. 1109–1120.
Key words and phrases: drying of sliced garlic (Allium sativum. L.); desorption isotherms; diffusional kinetic model; variation in volume; rehydration ratio; blanching; solutions of potassium carbonate; potassium carbonate and olive oil; sodium hydroxide or sodium metabisulfile.
Key quotes:
“There is very little published work on the drying of garlic” (p. 1096).
“Fresh heads of garlic (Allium sativum. L.) were purchased from a local market” (ibid).
Key equation:
The solution obtained for diffusion within a planar slab under the assumption that moisture transfer is unidirectional, that the initial moisture is uniformly distributed in the substrate, that external resistance to heat and mass transfer is negligible, and that the volume of the substrate and the effective diffusion coefficient of moisture in it are constant throughout the drying process1:
![\displaystyle X^{*} = \dfrac{X-X_e}{X_0-X_e} = \dfrac{8}{\pi^2} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \dfrac{1}{(2n+1)^2} e^{\Biggl[\displaystyle -(2n+1)^2 \dfrac{\pi^2D_{\text{eff}}t}{L^2}\Biggr]}](http://s.wordpress.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdisplaystyle%20X%5E%7B%2A%7D%20%3D%20%5Cdfrac%7BX-X_e%7D%7BX_0-X_e%7D%20%3D%20%5Cdfrac%7B8%7D%7B%5Cpi%5E2%7D%20%5Csum%5E%7B%5Cinfty%7D_%7Bn%3D0%7D%20%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B%282n%2B1%29%5E2%7D%20e%5E%7B%5CBiggl%5B%5Cdisplaystyle%20-%282n%2B1%29%5E2%20%5Cdfrac%7B%5Cpi%5E2D_%7B%5Ctext%7Beff%7D%7Dt%7D%7BL%5E2%7D%5CBiggr%5D%7D&bg=T&fg=000000&s=0 "\displaystyle X^{*} = \dfrac{X-X_e}{X_0-X_e} = \dfrac{8}{\pi^2} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \dfrac{1}{(2n+1)^2} e^{\Biggl[\displaystyle -(2n+1)^2 \dfrac{\pi^2D_{\text{eff}}t}{L^2}\Biggr]}")
Where X* is the dimensionless moisture content, Xt, X0 and Xe are the moisture contents in kg of water per kg dry mass at time t (in s), at t = 0 (initial value) and at equilibrium, respectively; Deff the effective diffusion coefficient (in m2s-1); and L is the half-thickness of the slab (in m). Planar slab geometry is justified by geometrical considerations and by structural properties of garlic because the slices were obtained with the natural external wall (less permeable to water) as the cylindrical wall allowing, practically, to remove the water though both planar faces.
In the same issue of the journal can be found a technical note on the drying of chopped spring onion.
- John Crank, The Mathematics of Diffusion, Oxford University Press Oxford, 2nd Edition, 1975. [↩]
Quote of the Day
May 29th, 2009 § 0
Do you want to know how to tell when you have gotten old? It’s when a cyclical theory of history starts to strike you as plausible. It begins to seem that the same stuff keeps coming around again, just like Hegel said. Except that it’s not ‘transcended and preserved’; it’s just back.
Fodor, Jerry. 2001. “Doing Without What’s Within: Fiona Cowie’s Critique of Nativism”, in Mind, Vol. 110, No. 437, January 2001, pp. 99–148.
Quote of the Day
May 27th, 2009 § 0
If I could only go now, with my head sixty years old and my body twenty-five, I could do something.
Charles Darwin, on the Beagle voyage, as reported in James D. Hague, “A Reminiscence of Mr. Darwin“, in Harper’s, Vol. 69, No. 413, October 1884, pp. 759-763.
Searching
May 26th, 2009 § 0
My favourite searches landing here, for the year so far:
- existential query
- fall from horse now with vomiting and headache
- fractured occipital bone/seizures
- full recovery after mania
- observing people in cars
- synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
- biodegradable robot
- great fraternity of steadily scribbling on
- latest trivia about psychology
In The Beginning
May 16th, 2009 § 0
One of Daniel Dennett’s favourite cautions is to be careful what you infer from failure of imagination:
“Here I had committed the sin I’d so often found in others: treating a failure of imagination as an insight into necessity”
(Daniel C. Dennett, “Can Machines Think?”, in Michael G. Shafto (Ed), How we Know, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1985, pp. 121–145).
“Philosophers’ Syndrome: mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity”.
(Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1991, p. 401).
“the philosopher’s fundamental foible: mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity”.
(Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1995, p. 175).
“But Descartes’s almost articulated argument, like the more often discussed versions of the Argument from Design, mistakes a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity”.
(Daniel C. Dennett, “Descartes’s Argument from Design”, in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 105, No. 7, July 2008, pp. 333–345).
A beautiful example of this danger is provided by a landmark paper just published in Nature:
Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland and John D. Sutherland, “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions“, in Nature, Vol. 459, No. 7244, 14 May 2009, pp. 239-242.
Jack W. Szostak summarises the discovery as follows:
For 40 years, efforts to understand the prebiotic synthesis of the ribonucleotide building blocks of RNA have been based on the assumption that they must have assembled from their three molecular components: a nucleobase (which can be adenine, guanine, cytosine or uracil), a ribose sugar and phosphate. Of the many difficulties encountered by those in the field, the most frustrating has been the failure to find any way of properly joining the pyrimidine nucleobases — cytosine and uracil — to ribose. The idea that a molecule as complex as RNA could have assembled spontaneously has therefore been viewed with increasing scepticism. This has led to a search for alternative, simpler genetic polymers that might have preceded RNA in the early history of life.
But Powner et al. revive the prospects of the ‘RNA first’ model by exploring a pathway for pyrimidine ribonucleotide synthesis in which the sugar and nucleobase emerge from a common precursor. In this pathway, the complete ribonucleotide structure forms without using free sugar and nucleobase molecules as intermediates. This central insight, combined with a series of additional innovations, provides a remarkably efficient solution to the problem of prebiotic ribonucleotide synthesis.
Later, he concludes:
Of course, much remains to be done. We must now try to determine how the various starting materials could have accumulated in a relatively pure and concentrated form in local environments on early Earth. Furthermore, although Powner and colleagues’ synthetic sequence yields the pyrimidine ribonucleotides, it cannot explain how purine ribonucleotides (which incorporate guanine and adenine) might have formed. But it is precisely because this work opens up so many new directions for research that it will stand for years as one of the great advances in prebiotic chemistry.
And so one more complex structure falls prey to nature’s cunning. For commentary, see here and here.