|
Author
|
Topic: Dress in Italian Painting, 1460-1500, Birbari: Opinions?
|
Nikki
Member
Member # 27
|
posted 08-01-2001 10:19 PM
    
I'm skimming through _Dress in Italian Painting, 1460-1500_, E. Birbari, 1975, 0-7195-2423-7, prior to looking in depth at any part of it, and wondering what to make of it. The closeup plates (altho most are in b+w) are nice, and the discussion of interpretation of art in terms of getting useful construction techniques is interesting. Also, the handful of attempted reconstructions of garments is something of a different approach from that of most other historical-clothing books that I've seen.However, I'm quickly growing leery of the lack of source quotations (aside from the plates) for many of the claims in the text...and the 'excuse' in the Notes of
quote:
No bibliography has been included since there are, so ar [sic] as the author is aware, no books especially relevant to this approach to the subject.
!!
For instance, on the subject of women's undergarments:
"Although the camicie worn by peasants were made of linen or hemp, which must have been woven at home....." with no references to why the cloth of the lower classes must be home-made and not purchased. I personally don't know whether this is a valid claim or not, but the lack of references or substantiation makes me very wary (plus some vaguely remembered discussions of the linen industry from archaeology books).Has anyone else read this book who would like to offer up opinions as to what it should/should not be trusted about?
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
EleanorR
New Member
Member # 192
|
posted 09-02-2001 07:38 PM
I recall that this was one of the first books I looked at when I thought about exploring Italian clothing, but it sure didn't get me very far!
This book has the same problem that a lot (but not all) of Italian scholarship does: it focuses on term definitions and sweeping statements rather than details like citing sources. So I feel that while Birbari _might_ have good reasons for thinking that linens were woven at home, I have to ignore what she says because she doesn't provide documentation. It's frustrating, because sometimes when I read Italian books, I know where the author is getting some info because I've read the source material. So the new info I find probably also came from some uncited source material, but the book I'm reading won't help me find it! Anyway, from Birbari I got some familiarity with Italian clothing terminology (although if I remember correctly she doesn't deal much with the likelihood that terms changed and may have had different meanings), and some good pictures. But to find out what to trust about her scholarship, I'd have to know all the other books/archives/paintings on the topic, and then why would I need her book?
Sorry I can't be more constructive- I recall wishing for the magical appearance of informative footnotes as I read the book, and then feeling like throwing it out the window. And I guess in a figurative way I have- it's just not worth using as a reference. [ 09-02-2001: Message edited by: EleanorR ] -------------------- Eleanor
Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 09-03-2001 12:48 AM
Nikki, I read your post just as we were [figuratively] stepping out the door for pennsic. At the time I thought "Gee, I wish I had time to tell her what I thought about this book..." Maybe it's divine providence that makes Eleanor bring it up again now that I'm back.Birbari was one of the very first costume books I bought when I first joined the SCA way back when. I think it was published in the early 80's, a time when costume books were few and far between. I paid a princley sum for my copy, it being my first "real" costume book. I remember being dissapointed after I read it, and thought I must be missing something because all the costume people around me were going gaga over it. As Eleanor points out, there are no footnotes, just a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions. I was also confused by her decision to recreat all kinds of "angel" clothes and skim over the meaty, "real" clothing. Still don't have any good answer for that one.. When I purchased it I was told it was her doctoral thesis, which is one reason I paid so much for it. That claim has never been substantiated, and comparing this to some theses I've seen, I doubt very much if this book is one. I've read your posts, so I know you know a fair amount about period clothing. I'll give you my opinion- read it with a critical eye and you'll be able to see what's good and what's bad about it. If nothing else, what it lacks will define and clarify what you want to see in a reference. Beyond that, there is one great thing about it, and that's the chapter about interpreting clothing in art. That chapter revolutionized my analysis of what I saw in paintings, and introduced me to the concept of iconography in art. I have yet to find a better summary for the novice costumer, and still recommend it to anyone starting down the road of using paintings as a research resource for period clothing. Just my 2¢, for what its worth- Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
