Friday, October 17, 2008
Pudding news
The white pudding from Moretonhampstead turned out to be very good, despite coming out of the wrapper a bit white and slimy. The whiteness was down to the skin being something intestinal, rather than plastic; the contents of the pudding was much the same colour as that from Slomers, via Cheam. (All Mr G can say is: Slomers Sausage Factory. Unit 17, Capital Industrial Estat, Crabtree Manor Way Sth, Belvedere, DA17 6BJ, Kent. Tel: 020 83123066. Number of Employees: 3. A foodie outfit without a web site). Sliced and fried in lard went down very well. Slightly more artisanal appearance and flavour than the Slomers model. For example, small pink bits. And less spice which was an improvement. On the other hand, the portion cooked at Epsom in our otherwise excellent non-non-stick frying pan stuck rather a lot. Which the Somers model does not do.
At the lunch preparation following, committed the grave sin of doing something else while preparing lunch: fish soup made with cod, potatoes, onions and butter. And was duly punished by the fish being overcooked in the skinning phase and the fried onions catching somewhat, rather than being soft and golden. The resultant soup was entirely eatable but not quite up to usual standard.
Which may have brought on some art historical bubblings or burblings, bubbling up from the recent trip to Florence. We observed, amongst others, three important strands of painting: crucifixes, madonnas and triptyches. Presumably, in the beginning, churches had real crucifixes and real, dressed statues of the Madonna (reading Romola reminded me that Madonna is or was the Italian meaning something like our 'Mrs'. With the special one being recognised by context). The dressed statues lived in more or less elaborate stone tabernacles. Not that differant really from the anathematised golden calf, so maybe the Muslims have a point when they ban images altogether. And then there were the portable folding triptyches used for travelling devotions by the rich. From crucifixes, we move to paintings of crucifixes, some of those in the Uffizi reminding me of orthodox icons and some reminding me of the art of the early 20th century. From Madonnas in tabernacles, we move to paintings of same. Presumably on the same wavelength as the saints in tabernacles you find in stained glass windows in our English cathedrals, noted somewhere above. And then the paintings of Madonnas in tabernacles get to be put in tabernacles of their own. And at least one such painting contained a picture of a reliquary decorated with a picture of a Madonna. Things are clearly moving on when we get pictures of pictures. The Madonna pictures start to be elaborated with snatches of landscape and narrative picturelets around the edges. Gradually become more realistic, with, amongst other things, the use of perspective. And then, within a very small number of years, we have moved onto entirely realistic pictures of naked ladies, more or less the pornography of the day. I am thinking particularly of the 'Venus of Urbino' by Titian. Reproduction to be posted shortly. This picture has the interesting property that if viewed from the bottom right, the body of Venus becomes the rather lurid face of a man with something in his mouth. The effect works much better with the real thing than with the reproduction, but there is just about enough of it left to see it. I wonder if Titian did it on purpose?
At the lunch preparation following, committed the grave sin of doing something else while preparing lunch: fish soup made with cod, potatoes, onions and butter. And was duly punished by the fish being overcooked in the skinning phase and the fried onions catching somewhat, rather than being soft and golden. The resultant soup was entirely eatable but not quite up to usual standard.
Which may have brought on some art historical bubblings or burblings, bubbling up from the recent trip to Florence. We observed, amongst others, three important strands of painting: crucifixes, madonnas and triptyches. Presumably, in the beginning, churches had real crucifixes and real, dressed statues of the Madonna (reading Romola reminded me that Madonna is or was the Italian meaning something like our 'Mrs'. With the special one being recognised by context). The dressed statues lived in more or less elaborate stone tabernacles. Not that differant really from the anathematised golden calf, so maybe the Muslims have a point when they ban images altogether. And then there were the portable folding triptyches used for travelling devotions by the rich. From crucifixes, we move to paintings of crucifixes, some of those in the Uffizi reminding me of orthodox icons and some reminding me of the art of the early 20th century. From Madonnas in tabernacles, we move to paintings of same. Presumably on the same wavelength as the saints in tabernacles you find in stained glass windows in our English cathedrals, noted somewhere above. And then the paintings of Madonnas in tabernacles get to be put in tabernacles of their own. And at least one such painting contained a picture of a reliquary decorated with a picture of a Madonna. Things are clearly moving on when we get pictures of pictures. The Madonna pictures start to be elaborated with snatches of landscape and narrative picturelets around the edges. Gradually become more realistic, with, amongst other things, the use of perspective. And then, within a very small number of years, we have moved onto entirely realistic pictures of naked ladies, more or less the pornography of the day. I am thinking particularly of the 'Venus of Urbino' by Titian. Reproduction to be posted shortly. This picture has the interesting property that if viewed from the bottom right, the body of Venus becomes the rather lurid face of a man with something in his mouth. The effect works much better with the real thing than with the reproduction, but there is just about enough of it left to see it. I wonder if Titian did it on purpose?
# posted by Jim @ 11:52 PM 
