Islamic art is not the art of a nation or of a people; but that of a religion: Islam. Spreading from the Arabian Peninsula; the proselyte believers conquered; in a few centuries; a territory spreading from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. Multicultural and multi-ethnical; this polymorphic and highly spiritual art; in which all representation of Man and God were prohibited; developed canons and various motives of great decorative value. Thorough and inventive; these artists expressed their beliefs by creating monumental masterpieces such as the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem; the Taj Mahal in Agra and the Alhambra in Granada; architectural works in which one recognises the stylisation of motives of the Muslim ceramics. Lively and coloured; Islamic art mirrors the richness of these people whose common denominator was the belief in one singular truth: the absolute necessity of creating works whose beauty equaled their respect for God.
#870704 in eBooks 2016-01-05 2016-01-05File Name: B016TX4EDU
Review
33 of 33 people found the following review helpful. Eagerly Anticipated Book Fails to DeliverBy Kindle CustomerThis long awaited book was a disappointment. I was surprised since Ed Sanders possesses extensive knowledge regarding the victims. the crimes. and the murderers; he proved this in his informative 1971 book The Family.The problem with Sharon Tate: A Life was foretold in the dedication when Sanders revealed his long time Manson case researcher/ investigator Larry Larsen died suddenly at the start of the project; this left Sanders with a formidable project and explains the publication date delays that occurred again and again.Readers will quickly turn to long awaited interviews with Sharons friend and former roommate Sheilah Wells; actress friends Joanna Pettet and Barbara Lewis (who lunched with Tate at Cielo Drive that last day) and Tates photographer and friend Sharokh Hatami. Much credit is due to author Sanders for securing interviews with these individuals all so relevant to Sharons life.Unfortunately the acclaim ends there. It feels like Sanders ran out of time. funding. or the necessary connections to delve further into Sharons life. The remainder of the book contains many examples of plagiarism without footnotes provided or much needed confirmation given. The original edition of The Family. published in 1971. while admirable in many ways. included a great deal of rumor and conjecture unsubstantiated at the time. Sanders published an updated edition of The Family about 2002 and in this edition great care was obviously made to clarify and delete inaccuracies. Sharon Tate: A Life repeats some of those innaccuracies (including references to underground erotic films depicting various Hollywood stars found at Cielo Drive and Sharon being famous among friends for her hash brownies) and includes a new. truly bizarre theory linking Sirhan Sirhan and the murder of Robert Kennedy to the case. There is also a sordid reference made to the real reason Peter Sellers. Warren Beatty and Yul Brynner (all friends of Sharon) offered a reward for information leading to solving the crime.Finally. why were no photos of Sharon in the book? While several photos of Manson and his associates are included. not a single photo of Sharon appears. Instead there are several arty/comic book type illustrations drawn of Sharon. of no interest to anyone. The question remains-the first published attempt at Sharons life story. but without photographs?A much awaited and timely project that unfortunately falls short of expectations.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Dont Get Your Hopes Up! Contradictory Reading Ahead.By Lisa Marie SmithI wanted to love this book because I remember what an incredibly researched and insightful read "The Family" was. Though Ed Sanders writing is solid as always (and I did enjoy the very scant tie in with the Son of Sam cult --THATS the book Sanders needs to write next. and pick up where Maury Terry left off!) what was very frustrating was the contradiction as to if Sharon was or wasnt supposed to be killed. On one side of the coin. Sanders is addressing this as a contract hit for a drug deal gone horribly wrong and Sharon was never the target so the killers. thinking she was not at home. moved ahead with the murder as planned but he also weaves in a very random substory about how Sharon WAS specifically killed because she overheard something she shouldnt have in relation to the killing of RFK. So which was it? She wasnt supposed to be at home but was so wound up killed or she was killed because of things she overheard? The story cant go both ways.I was also put off by the illustrations. That somewhat cheapened the effect of the book. Were illustrations chosen because they couldnt afford to license the actual photos or because the people involved wanted to distance themselves from the project because they werent fully on board?0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Cheesy and uninspiredBy Kate70Ill go two stars on this biography because two of its chapters were interesting. Had I wanted extensive information on her snake in the grass husband. Roman Polanski. I would have invested the money that way. In the first part of the text. Sanders justaposes their two lives. which I found annoying to the extreme. There is some good text about her early career aspirations. but again. Sanders clouds the account with more information than I wanted about Polanski. Also. if you are hoping for poignant pictures. forget it. Sanders apparently could not get past the copywriters on the photos that are right on the Internet. so he got a sketch artist to draw cheesy images. Unless this book is at a super bargain price. I wouldnt waste the money. As it is. this edition is on its way to the thrift shop.
