Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Animals with the Midas Touch

A golden bat recently discovered in Bolivia has joined the ranks of nature’s richly gilded creatures.
The newly described Myotis midastactus is named after Midas, the king of Greek legend who turned everything he touched to gold.

A photo of a golden bat.
The newfound bat, Myotis midastactus. Photograph by Dr. Marco Tschapka

The discovery was made after comparing specimens from museum collections in a study led by Ricardo Moratelli, a wildlife biologist at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fundação Oswaldo Cruz) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Thought to be confined to central Bolivia’s tropical savanna region, M. midastactus’s “peculiar and distinctive fur color” is a puzzle, Moratelli admitted.
“Apparently it is not related to camouflage, because two other species of Myotis that occur in the same area are consistently darker and use similar [daytime] roosts,” he said. 
Another, unrelated South American bat, Noctilio albiventris, does share the newfound bat’s coloration. Since both species eat colorful insects, their diet may influence their striking appearance, Moratelli added.
Here are more animals that dazzle us with their golden splendor:
Golden Lion Tamarin
Destruction of its coastal rain forest habitat in eastern Brazil has made the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) a familiar zoo refugee. Efforts to reintroduce the animal—listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—into the wild have been successful.

A photo of a golden lion tamarin
A golden lion tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia. Photograph by Joel Sartore, National Geographic Creative

Named for a lustrous, lion-like mane that frames its dark, impish face, the golden lion tamarin may get its color from exposure to tropical sunlight and a liking for foods rich in carotenoid, a pigment responsible for yellow colors in nature.
Golden Poison Dart Frog
Another South American resident, the golden poison dart frog (Phyllobates terribilis) gleams luridly as a warning to predators. The amphibian’s skin contains potent alkaloid toxins that target nerve cells, causing heart and respiratory failure.

A photo of a golden poison dart frog
A golden poison dart frog in Cauca, Colombia. Photograph by Thomas Marent, Minden Pictures/Corbis

Fatal even to large animals, including humans, the frog’s toxin was famously used by indigenous hunters in Colombia to poison their blowpipe darts. 
Where the frog collects the ingredients for its lethal toxin is unknown, though scientists suspect that a diet based on prey beetles from the Melyridae family may be responsible.
Article posted by James Owen in Weird & Wild.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Is It Art Or Not?

The controversy continues. I would be delighted to read your comments on this question. (click on Comment below). Bibliography included for those who care to follow up with the publications cited. BBLoyd

Portrait of Madame Cézanne

From Wikipedia,
Portrait of Madame Cézanne
Portrait of Madame Cézanne.jpg
ArtistRoy Lichtenstein
TypeMagna on canvas
Dimensions170 cm × 140 cm (68 in × 56 in)
LocationPrivate collection
Portrait of Madame Cézanne (sometimes Portrait of Mrs. Cézanne) is a 1962 Pop art painting by Roy Lichtenstein. It is a quotation of Erle Loran's diagram of a Cézanne painting of the same name. It was one of the works exhibited at Lichtenstein's first solo exhibition in Los Angeles. The work became controversial in that it led to a reconsideration of what constitutes art.
Lichtenstein and Loran sparred in the press, and art critics were intrigued by the viewpoints of the two. Loran's view was that Lichtenstein had plagiarized his work, and at one point filed suit. Lichtenstein felt that he was making a statement with his painting on the ridiculous attempt by Loran to explain Cézanne by diagram. The press frequently used the word transformation when crediting Lichtenstein's work, but Lichtenstein attempted not to accept the association of his work with that word.

Erle Loran's diagram ofPortrait of Madame Cézannefrom Cézanne's Composition, 1943
Paul CézannePortrait of Madame Cézanne, 1885–1887, Barnes Foundation,PhiladelphiaPennsylvania
Portrait of Madame Cézanne was exhibited along with works such as Man with Folded Arms at Lichtentein's first Pop exhibition in Los Angeles.[1] The linear twice-removed black-and-white (along with Man with Folded Arms) is regarded as a quotation of Erle Loran's outline diagram ofCézanne's compositional methods[2] published in a diagram book called Cézanne's Composition.[3] The book was popular in the academic community.[4] Loran's representation in a "harsh black outline" depicted the axes of the composition without representing the "texture and expressiveness of Cézanne's original." In fact, Loran stated that "this diagrammatic approach may seem coldly analytical to those who like vagueness and poetry in art criticism."[5] Loran's diagrammatic techniques were standard at the time; redrawn outlines of the figure were illustrated with alphabetized arrows to identify areas and directions. The diagram highlighted body part positioning without studying the painted surface.[6]
According to John Coplans's Roy Lichtenstein, the artist was fascinated by the drawings: "isolating the woman out of the context of the painting seemed to Lichtenstein to be such an oversimplification of a complex issue as to be ironical in itself";[7] the oversimplification referred to was Loran's representing Cézanne's work with nothing more than black lines.[3] The work marked the first of Lichtenstein's "artistic appropriations of the canonical works of Modernism" that resulted from his realization of the interrelation "between avant-garde and kitsch".[5]


The two images garnered attention among critics by highlighting the nuances between copying and creating art, between real and fake art. As Andy Warhol challenged the status quo by "humanizing mass-produced product", Lichtenstein dehumanized masterpieces.] This demonstrates "that the quotation of popular culture was not the sign of intelligence suspended but rather the shape of thought."[9]
The publication of this work was considered by some observers as more sacrilegious than Duchamp's revisions to the Mona Lisa. Loran wrote two hot-tempered letters in response.[10] In September 1963 issues of ARTnews and Artforum,[11] His articles were written after Lichtenstein's first Pop exhibition in Los Angeles, which featured the two life-sized works depicting Loran's images.[1][12] Loran, whose text was by this time over twenty years old,[1] even attempted to sue Lichtenstein.[6][13]According to David Deitcher, "The angrier of the two tracts appeared in Art News, where Loran openly expressed his contempt for Lichtenstein's work and hinted at his desire to sue.":[14]
In a recent sell-out exhibition at the Ferus Gallery, Los Angeles, he [Lichtenstein] gave the title of Portrait of Mme. Cézanne to the black and white line drawing on bare canvas reproduced here. Sale price: $2000, or more. I suppose I should be flattered that a diagrammatic sketch of mine should be worth so much. But then, no one has paid me anything—so far.
—Quote from Erle Loran's September 1963 "Pop Artists or Copycats?" ARTnews article, [15]
One critic noted that although Loran was making instructive points with his diagram, Lichtenstein's was an artistic statement.[16] However, Loran was joined by Brian O'Doherty, a critic with The New York Times, in ridiculing the defense of Pop art as transformative rather than appropriationist art.[1] In 1963, O'Doherty wrote his belief that Lichtenstein's work was not art in The New York Times saying, he was "one of the worst artists in America" who "briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."[17] Loran felt Pop art paled in comparison to the aesthetics of Abstract Expressionism.[18] Lichtenstein did not accept the transformation defense.[18]Other critics got involved in the matter, with Gene Swenson querying Lichtenstein "about the charges of antagonistic critics 'that Pop Art does not transform its models."[19] Lichtenstein responded that art forms but does not transform.[19] Max Kozloff opined that Loran was being mocked and that while Lichtenstein's product had didactic content, its purpose and need was questionable.[20] Kozloff worried in The Nation that Lichtenstein's work may lead to the values that modern art held being rejected moving forward.[18]
The painting is regarded as "another of his comments on the way in which we view art."[21] The work, along with his Femme au Chapeau from 1962 mark the beginnings of Lichtenstein's presentations of art about art because it was among his first paintings that drew upon a predecessor artist.[3] Lichtenstein noted his objection to the attempt to reduce art diagrammatically: "I wasn't trying to berate Erle Loran ... but it is such an oversimplification trying to explain a painting by A, B, C."[22] He also noted that "The Cézanne is such a complex painting. Taking an outline and calling it Madame Cézanne is in itself humorous, particularly the idea of diagramming a Cézanne when Cézanne said, '... the outline escaped me.'"[22][23]
Lichtenstein obtained legal validation that his work was original when Loran's lawsuit was dismissed,[24] clearing the way for artists to elaborate on images produced by others.[16]


  1. Jump up to:a b c d Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. p. 91.
  2. Jump up^ Coplans (ed.). . p. 42.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Livingstone, Marco (1990). Pop Art: A Continuing HistoryHarry N. Abrams. p. 76. ISBN 0-8109-3707-7.
  4. Jump up^ Mercurio, Gianni (2010). Roy Lichtenstein: Meditations 0n Art. SKIRA. p. 61.ISBN 978-88-572-0460-4.
  5. Jump up to:a b Rondeau and Wagstaff. . p. 48.
  6. Jump up to:a b Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "Lichtenstein Looks at Art". Roy Lichtenstein.Benedikt Taschen. pp. 52−54. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0.
  7. Jump up^ Coplans (ed.). . pp. 22−23.
  8. Jump up^ Coplans (ed.). . p. 23.
  9. Jump up^ Alloway, Lawrence (1983). Roy LichtensteinAbbeville Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-89659-331-2.
  10. Jump up^ Lippard, Lucy R. (1970). "New York Pop". Pop Art (third printing ed.). Praeger Publishers. p. 92.
  11. Jump up^ Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. p. 90.
  12. Jump up^ Mahsun. "The Issue of Transformation". pp. 56−58.
  13. Jump up^ Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. pp. 91, 93.
  14. Jump up^ Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. p. 91.
  15. Jump up^ Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. p. 93.
  16. Jump up to:a b Mercurio, Gianni (2010). Roy Lichtenstein: Meditations 0n Art. SKIRA. p. 63. ISBN 978-88-572-0460-4.
  17. Jump up^ Monroe, Robert (1997-09-29). "Pop Art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein dead at 73".Associated Press. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
  18. Jump up to:a b c Deitcher, David. "Unsentimental Education: The Professionalization of the American Artist". In Bader. p. 93.
  19. Jump up to:a b Mahsun. "The Issue of Transformation". p. 58.
  20. Jump up^ Mahsun. "The Issue of Transformation". pp. 58−59.
  21. Jump up^ Waldman (1993). "Cliches into Icons: Early Pop Pictures". p. 33.
  22. Jump up to:a b Waldman, p. 37.
  23. Jump up^ Mahsun. "The Issue of Transformation". p. 59.
  24. Jump up^ Mercurio, Gianni (2010). Roy Lichtenstein: Meditations 0n Art. SKIRA. p. 7980−. ISBN 978-88-572-0460-4.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Caution: Toxic Paints

Robert Genn, the great Canadian painter, died a few months ago. His daughter Sara is reviewing his posts from the past and will rerun the most helpful. The following information was first published in 2008.


"Artists of the past often suffered poor physical and mental health due to the materials they worked with: lead, powdered pigment, turpentine, carcinogens, etc. We know Vincent van Gogh put paint in his mouth. Clinical pathologist Dr. Paul Wolf of the University of California cites that illnesses, rather than being obstacles, can be the paths to genius. He mentioned the likes of Einstein, Warhol, Newton, Cezanne, Goya, Michelangelo, Turner and Berlioz. According to Wolf, these folks suffered varying degrees of depression, autism, myopia, anxiety, chronic pain, gout, stroke and dementia.

Portrait of Michaelangelo by Raphael

Historically speaking, we artists have been through a hundred years where "artist" has been aligned with "nut case." It hasn't always been so. I, for one, am working to have this current connection declared null and void. Actually, clear-sighted individuals with no known diseases may be the ones who are doing most of the good work.

Today, in our "safe" world of food and drug administrations, we may not be taking as many precautions as we might. Artists like Michelangelo and da Vinci certainly knew they were working with nasty chemicals because they prepared their own. They were very much aware of lead poisoning. Indeed, the fall of the Roman Empire had a lot to do with drinking water supplied through lead pipes. But it does stand to reason that a lot of painters died early because they didn't protect themselves from the ingestion of toxic lead-based paint--particularly through their skins."

Da Vinci's self portrait in red chalk