Gardner’s Art through the Ages 16th edition vs. 15th edition. I’m shocked by how poor the 16th edition is. Desaturated images and paper so thin text can be read through the other side. It’s disheartening

As the embroidery arrives in the UK for the first time in 950 years, experts say the women who created it were playing a strategic game of survival

Everyone always assumed this was a Polynesian depiction because family lore said it was by a student of Gauguin (it's not). What is the actual "subject" of this painting, and can someone tell me more about the style and technical details?

I believe I've identified it as a painting by Joza/Joseph Švasta/Belohorsky, an Austrian-born Czech artist who spent the latter half of his life in the UK (and had had a wife who "pulled a Gauguin"), and that tracks with its provenance. The little info about him lines up with it being dated Nice, 1927, far from Pont-Aven, and no suggestion he was ever anywhere near the Pacific. There's also *very* few images of his art to compare, especially in regards to oils and during this time frame. Supposedly he did some portraiture on the side.

So, what was going on in Nice around 1927 that could've inspired or led to this? And how would you define/describe the painting itself? Though it's never been cleaned, and l suspect was exposed to years of cigarettes, amongst other damage, there's still a halo fully around the subject and what appears to be some oddly geometric shading around the woman's belly button. Am I just seeing remnants of back-lighting? Can brush strokes really look like that?

I'm completely unsure on how to characterize the painting as well as what or who is behind the intention. I simply want to understand it better for my own appreciation.

Looking for advice from anyone who has done research at the Met Museum in NYC.

I'm trying to learn more about an exhibition they did in 1945 about Army Handicrafts (artworks made out of salvaged materials by WWII soldiers in their free time). We have a family picture of something my great uncle made in 1944 - the story was always told to us that this piece was taken to the 'Met Museum in NYC' and only recently did we discover that they had this exhibition in 1945, perhaps adding some truth to the story!

Information online is scarce, I'm wondering if they might have a list of objects or photos of the exhibition in their library... is that wishful thinking? Has anyone been to this library before? Will they help me research? I cannot find much in their online archives about the exhibition, other than a document saying it happened. Any advice is helpful, thanks to all!

In the beginning of the Horror movie "1408" the jaded protagonist (played by John Cusack) has a fascinating little art survey and monologue of the room he sits in. The character is a writer traveling to hotels with supposed ghosts (mostly tourist traps) and writes about them. In Room 1408, however, the manager, Olin (played by Samuel Jackson) really DID plead with him not to go in that room.

Cusack thinks it's a clever ploy by the manager and as he settles in, remarks this in his tape recorder:

"$8 for Beer nuts... this room IS evil... [sits back on the bed] Olin said hotels are about fertile creature comforts. It's a good line, but I wonder whether they're really about reassuring platitudes, a prosaic sense of the familiar. Yes... I've been here before. It's safe. There's a sofa, writing desk, full antique armoire, floral wallpaper. The carpet is unremarkable except for a stain beneath a thrift store painting, "Schooner Lost at Sea." The work is done in the predictably dull fashion of Currier and Ives. The second painting is an old woman reading bedtime stories - Whistler knockoff - to a group of deranged children while another madonna and child watch from the background. It does have the vague air of menace. The third and final painfully dull painting is the ever popular "The Hunt". Horses, hounds and constipated British Lords. Some smart ass spoke about the banality of evil. If that's true, then we're in the seventh circle of hell. It does have its charms."

The reason this stood out because it's erudite quality seemed different from the rest of the movie. I checked the original script (at least what's available online) and sure enough, the passage isn't there. Someone, either Cusack himself or some other writer must have added it later. Maybe some frustrated Art history student.

I’m putting together a historyguesser map and could use a few good moments. Which one would be most interesting to see?