Exception or extension? : reorienting the Peacock Room among James McNeill Whistler's interior designs

"Although famous for his paintings and etchings today, James McNeill Whistler (1834-1903) was also an important interior designer in the nineteenth-century British Aesthetic movement. Whistler‘s most famous and only extant interior design is Harmony in Blue and Gold: The Peacock Room (1876-77). It is also his most puzzling interior. Long considered an exception to the rule of Whistler‘s other interiors, the Peacock Room has often been overlooked in the few studies of the artist‘s interior designs"

Memories of James McNeill Whistler, the artist /

"All the illustrations have been printed by lithography by T. Way ... except the etching "Fitzroy Square" ... and the photogravure of the "Thewhite Lady" ..."--P. xi.

Exposition des oeuvres de James McNeill Whistler. Palais de l'École des beaux-arts.

Paris, May, 1905.

The art of James McNeill Whistler : an appreciation /

"Works by James McNeill Whistler exhibited at the Royal academy": p. 119-121.

The "Art" of Criticism: Rubén Darío and his Unknown Chronicles of the 1895 Salon for "La Prensa"

With the impetus that has led recent studies on Latin American Modernism to a reevaluation of the sense of cultural fluxes from the modernity capitals to its peripheries –discarding categories such as “influence”, “exotism” and “ivory tower”, stereotypes that have clouded critical understanding of this aesthetics for decades- the present study intends to investigate a persistent practice of the main writers of the movement. This practice is modernist pictorial criticism, a genre that will be approached through the analysis of an unknown corpus: the seven chronicles Rubén Darío published in the journal La Prensa on occasion of the third art exposition of the Ateneo de Buenos Aires. Our hypothesis is that the rare creators of images portrayed by Darío by the end of 1895 work as a visual counterpoint of the eccentric writers’ biographical sketches that a year later will be part of the fundamental volume Los raros (1896). In this early “salon”, which we reproduce in its entirety, accompanied by explanatory notes, the leader of Modernism rehearses and consolidates his transcultural work with the universal tradition –now applied to the Salons (1845-1860) by Charles Baudelaire and to the monumental project by John Ruskin in Modern painters (1843-1860)- to legitimate, from another subgenre of Modernist criticism, a new figure of the critic, in dissent with the Enlightenment model of the writer.

Portraits of Whistler : a critical study and an iconography /

"Two hundred and fifty copies printed during November, 1918, by D.B. Updike, the Merrymount Press, Boston, USA. The first twenty-five copies printed have been numbered and signed by the author ..."--Colophon.

Whistler's pastels and other modern profiles,

Reprinted in part from Art and progress and the International studio.

Whistler v. Ruskin : art & art critics /

Printed brown paper cover dated Dec. 24, 1878.

Whistler,

Mode of access: Internet.

Whistler,

Mode of access: Internet.

American portraits, 1875-1900,

Mark Twain.--Henry Adams.--Sidney Lainer.--James McNeill Whistler.--James Gellespie Blaine.--Grover Cleveland.--Henry James.--Joseph Jefferson.

Rejoinder to James Hamilton

Hamilton (2001) makes a number of comments on our paper (Harding and Pagan, 2002b). The objectives of this rejoinder are, firstly, to note the areas in which we agree; secondly, to define with greater clarity the areas in which we disagree; and, thirdly, to point to other papers, including a longer version of this response, where we have dealt with some of the issues that he raises. The core of our debate with him is whether one should use an algorithm with a specified set of rules for determining the turning points in economic activity or whether one should use a parametric model that features latent states. Hamilton begins his criticism by stating that there is a philosophical distinction between the two methods for dating cycles and concludes that the method we use “leaves vague and intuitive exactly what this algorithm is intended to measure”. Nothing is further from the truth. When seeking ways to decide on whether a turning point has occurred it is always useful to ask the question, what is a recession? Common usage suggests that it is a decline in the level of economic activity that lasts for some time. For this reason it has become standard to describe a recession as a decline in GDP that lasts for more than two quarters. Finding periods in which quarterly GDP declined for two periods is exactly what our approach does. What is vague about this?