Winning Combination

Longtime Readers will know that among my many passions in life (guns, beautiful women etc.) are two things especially:  cars and fine art, especially paintings.

The latter two may seem a little at odds with each other, but there you go:  each of the two inspires wonder in me.

If you follow my reasoning, and you should, then let me introduce you all to some of the works of artist Alan Fearnley:

   

One may think that Fearnley specializes in older cars;  but one would be wrong:

One might also think that Fearnley specializes in classic pastoral themes, but again one would be wrong:

   

And finally, Fearnley doesn’t just do cars:

 

I have over a dozen of his pics saved as laptop wallpapers.  Here’s one:

Longtime Readers will not be surprised at this choice.

All the above, and many more, can be found here.  No need to thank me, it’s all part of the service.

Taking A Stand

Now here’s a place I’d like to visit the next time I go Over There, because the owner seems to have the Right Stuff.

A pub boss has called last orders on customers in sportswear in a bid to drive out ‘chavs and roadmen with bumbags’ from his watering hole.
Landlord Brian Hoyle, who runs The Orange Tree in Hereford, has put a blanket ban on customers wearing hoodies, tracksuits and Stone Island clothing in his pub.
He is also barring under 21’s from the city centre pub at weekends due to youngsters being ‘unable to handle their booze’.

Needless to say, his dress code and age limit have aroused the anger of The Usual Suspects:

But the ban, which Hoyle says is aimed at making his watering hole a ‘proper’ Hereford pub again, has proved controversial among residents in the cathedral city.
Some of the residents have accused the policy of being ‘discriminatory’.

You see, this is what happens when you start ascribing motives to an ordinary word, used in its original (and correct) sense for centuries.

Let me say right now:  there’s nothing wrong with being discriminatory:  it’s a human trait that distinguishes civilized men from savages and animals, and helps us provide order in our world.

Sadly, of course, “discrimination” these days is used almost exclusively to demonize racial discrimination, which is not necessarily a Good Thing when applied purely as a measurement of skin color.  But historically, that is actually the least of the word’s many applications.  Here are a couple more.

When I say, for example, that I loathe “American” cheese (that orange paste stuff) and prefer to eat Jarlsberg, Cheddar or Emmenthaler, I am showing that I have a discriminating taste — just as is someone who would prefer to own and shoot a Colt Government over a Jennings Saturday Night Special, or prefers to own good knives made by Ken Onion over cheap brittle stuff made in China.  Nothing wrong with that.  Experience has taught you that stuff of inferior quality is not worth ownership or use.

When you prefer to invite people of your own sort to dinner parties, you’re being discriminating in your choice of friends — and once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So of course, our worthy publican in the above story is setting his preferences — because over many years and much experience, he had discovered that people who dress a certain way and/or of a certain age tend to abuse his hospitality, so he wants to preclude them from coming in and, let it be known, spoiling things for people with manners, respect and proper attire.

Somebody needs to put an end to the loutish, boorish behavior of the younger generation, and he’s chosen to make a stand.

And good for him, say I.  If I were in his shoes, I would do precisely the same.

It’s Not Hypothetical Anymore

A Black intellectual asks this question, talking about a White man:

Confronted by someone who is constantly bludgeoning me about the evils of colonialism, urging me to tear down the statues of “dead white men,” insisting that I apologize for what my white forebears did to the “peoples of color” in years past, demanding that I settle my historical indebtedness via reparations, and so forth—I well might begin to ask myself, were I one of these “white oppressors,” on exactly what foundations does human civilization in the 21st century stand? I might begin to enumerate the great works of philosophy, mathematics and science that ushered in the “Age of Enlightenment,” that allowed modern medicine to exist, that gave rise to the core of human knowledge about the origins of the species or of the universe. I might begin to tick-off the great artistic achievements of European culture, the architectural innovations, the paintings, the symphonies, etc. And then, were I in a particularly agitated mood, I might even ask these “people of color,” who think that they can simply bully me into a state of guilt-ridden self-loathing, where is “their” civilization?

Good question, because there is no answer.

And as the title suggests, this is no hypothetical question because it is asked and answered every day by us White people.

The plain and simple fact is that the sum of our civilization, whether technology, sciences, language, philosophy and culture has been created almost exclusively by “Caucasian” or “White” men, and the contributions by “other races” — all of them — have been practically zero or at very best, minimal.

Prove me wrong.

Portrait Style

Reader Valine76 commented thus on the weekend post on Boldini:  “Vera de Nimidoff (1879-1963) was certainly done a favor by Boldini’s portrait of her (1908).”

Indeed he did, but not in the way one might think.  Here are the portrait and the photo, l to r:

 

If you look closely at Nemidoff’s face (between portrait and photo), you can see that he captured it rather well.  What Boldini did was to take her hair out of that ridiculous corseted Edwardian hairstyle and tousle it into that wild, wanton bush.

Now throw in a little non-Edwardian off-the-shoulder decolletage and a sexy pose with hooded eyes…

…and there you have it: a perfect Boldini portrait.

No wonder they all loved him and he had more business than he could handle.

Masterpieces

Went back among my old posts to look something up, and ended up here, where I spoke about Giovanni Boldini.

Well, so much for that search.  I ended up wandering along the highways, byways, trains of thought and their branch lines that is Teh Intarwebz.

So:  some more Boldini pics — just not the commissioned portraits this time.  I do love how he paints women’s faces, though:

But it’s when he gets naughty that I like him the most:

And then there was this one, which caused quite a scandal in its time:

Not yer typical society portrait, is it?

…and even some of those weren’t quite the typical Victoriana, like this one of Madame de Nemidoff:

or of Madame Pages:

Brilliant.