The Late Byzantine period (1261ndash;1453) is marked by a paradoxical discrepancy between economic weakness and cultural strength. The apparent enigma can be resolved by recognizing that later Byzantine diplomatic strategies; despite or because of diminishing political advantage; relied on an increasingly desirable cultural and artistic heritage. This book reassesses the role of the visual arts in this era by examining the imperial image and the gift as reconceived in the final two centuries of the Byzantine Empire. In particular it traces a series of luxury objects created specifically for diplomatic exchange with such courts as Genoa; Paris and Moscow alongside key examples of imperial imagery and ritual. By questioning how political decline refigured the visual culture of empire; Cecily J. Hilsdale offers a more nuanced and dynamic account of medieval cultural exchange that considers the temporal dimensions of power and the changing fates of empires.
#1517469 in eBooks 2013-11-05 2013-11-05File Name: B00GX4V8O4
Review
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. The best critical study of WellesBy Joseph McBrideIts good to see a new updated edition of James Naremores classic study of Orson Welles -- the best critical study of Welles ever written.There are some revisions and a thoughtful new introduction; "Orson Welles at 100." Naremore has a way of getting to essential aspects of Welless staggeringly complex career and analyzing them in depth. He deals with aspects often slighted; such as Welless keen interests in politics and education (some of the leads to these topics were revealed by Welless FBI file; which Naremore managed to get released). Id recommend this new edition to anyone interested in Welles; including those who have read the two earlier editions. Ive been rereading older parts with pleasure. A good book has that way of inviting you to return and remember and discover.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Engaging and Entertaining.By Amber LAn amazing book that does not try and make a case for Welles genius; but lets the historical facts do all the talking. Naremore has collected the best sources and information to craft a biography that not only engages on a narrative level; but constantly challenges the reader to form their own opinions on the man who was Orson Welles.5 of 6 people found the following review helpful. The full WellesBy Dr Reneacute; CodoniNaremore-Welles (1989)James Naremore : The Magic World of Orson WellesSouthern Methodist; 1989; new and revised (first OUP; 1978)For the first time in history; Sight Sound; the monthly magazine of the slightly eclectic British Film Institute; has voted Citizen Kane (1941) No2; switching place with Hitchcocks Vertigo (1958); which is now No1 (191 against 157 votes) of the Worlds 50 best films of all times (past; of course). This statement says a few devastating things about ranking in general; and about datedness no problem for top rankers. In my judgment; this particular ranking is too wide in spread (over 100 years) and too narrow in sample. That it also elected Jean-Luc Godard four times and Francis Ford Coppola with three best films further ridicules the approach.Welles; whatever anybody votes; to me remains clearly a more interesting filmmaker; not unlike Hitchcock; who is also using much sophisticated camera work; but Welles is altogether more innovative; with more real drama than the calculated thrillers Hitchcock offers. In a way; they are both history; where they managed to attract crowds. Hitchcock today is as much as easier as he always was: films all available on dvd; always. Welles had many parallel careers; as actor also; as a Shakespearean director and actor; as a narrator; and an author of many amounts of filmed material. He also liked working in Europa; where he is still considered the top authority on film language and camera work.Of all of Welles works; I myself concentrate on five: Citizen Kane; The Lady from Shanghai; The Third Man (actor only); Touch of evil; The trial. Naremores book analyses four (less the Third Man); but of course all the others as well. As the disparate pieces of Welless work can not be bridged easily; it is analytically easier to concentrate on a selection (as Brecht would likely have done). His strength on Shakespeare makes Naremore (who was Professor of English next to film) a natural on the subject - I find it belongs more to the theatre. Analytical skill is clearly spent on not so important matters - getting all Welles under one hat may be felt to be an obligation to the reader; but the price is too high and the result too meager. Still makes it four out of five.fbus81- Naremore-Welles (1989) -The full Welles - 19 December 2012
