Monday, December 28

lapidary

Lapidary manuals deal in alluring terms like ‘chatoyancy’ [the cat’s-eye effect] and ‘asterism’ [as seen in a star sapphire], both related to the play of colour in the dispersion of light – how it may split inside the gemstone and be affected by its pavilion angles. So beryl, corundum, and tourmaline crystals will splinter light into two rays, at right angles; the quality named ‘birefringence’. And ‘pleochroism’ means the differentiated colours in these split rays, as happens in the gemstones andalusite, axinite, corundum, iolite, spodumene, tourmaline, and tanzanite. The professional lapidary will cut each stone accordingly, to get its most productive faceting. Dark garnets, for instance, will need only a shallow cut for the best dispersion of their limited internal light. But the differing properties of gemstones mean that only certain types can be faceted. Whereas the ‘cabochon’ cut is a smoothing, domed style which suits amber, cornelian, and onyx, for instance.

Denise Riley, 'On the lapidary style'

Thursday, December 24

clouds

Each in their own region, high or deep, may expatiate at their pleasure; within that, they climb, or decline,— within that they congeal or melt away; but below their assigned horizon the surges of the cloud sea may not sink, and the floods of the mist lagoon may not be swollen. 

--

Hitherto I have spoken of all aqueous vapor as if it were either transparent or white—visible by becoming opaque like snow, but not by any accession of color. But even those of us who are least observant of skies, know that, irrespective of all supervening colors from the sun, there are white clouds, brown clouds, gray clouds, and black clouds. Are these indeed—what they appear to be—entirely distinct monastic disciplines of cloud: Black Friars, and White Friars, and Friars of Orders Gray? Or is it only their various nearness to us, their denseness, and the failing of the light upon them, that makes some clouds look black and others snowy?

I can only give you qualified and cautious answer. There are, by differences in their own character, Dominican clouds, and there are Franciscan;— there are the Black Hussars of the Bandiera della Morte, and there are the Scots Grays whose horses can run upon the rock. But if you ask me, as I would have you ask me, why argent and why sable, how baptized in white like a bride or a novice, and how hooded with blackness like a Judge of the Vehmgericht Tribunal,— I leave these questions with you, and pass on.

Admitting degrees of darkness, we have next to ask what color, from sunshine can the white cloud receive, and what the black?

You won’t expect me to tell you all that, or even the little that is accurately known about that, in a quarter of an hour; yet note these main facts on the matter.

On any pure white, and practically opaque, cloud, or thing like a cloud, as an Alp, or Milan Cathedral, you can have cast by rising or setting sunlight, any tints of amber, orange, or moderately deep rose—you can’t have lemon yellows, or any kind of green except in negative hue by opposition; and though by stormlight you may sometimes get the reds cast very deep, beyond a certain limit you cannot go,—the Alps are never vermilion color, nor flamingo color, nor canary color; nor did you ever see a full scarlet cumulus of thundercloud.

On opaque white vapor, then, remember, you can get a glow or a blush of color, never a flame of it.

But when the cloud is transparent as well as pure, and can be filled with light through all the body of it, you then can have by the light reflected from its atoms any force conceivable by human mind of the entire group of the golden and ruby colors, from intensely burnished gold color, through a scarlet for whose brightness there are no words, into any depth and any hue of Tyrian crimson and Byzantine purple. These with full blue breathed between them at the zenith, and green blue nearer the horizon, form the scales and chords of color possible to the morning and evening sky in pure and fine weather; the keynote of the opposition being vermilion against green blue, both of equal tone, and at such a height and acme of brilliancy that you cannot see the line where their edges pass into each other.

--

The top of that dome of cloud is two thousand eight hundred feet above the sea, the mountain two thousand six hundred, the cloud lying two hundred feet deep on it. Behind it, westward and seaward, all’s clear; but when the wind out of that blue clearness comes over the ridge of the earth-cloud, at that moment and that line, its own moisture congeals into these white—I believe, ice-clouds; threads, and meshes, and tresses, and tapestries, flying, failing, melting, reappearing; spinning and unspinning themselves, coiling and uncoiling, winding and unwinding, faster than eye or thought can follow: and through all their dazzling maze of frosty filaments shines a painted window in palpitation; its pulses of color interwoven in motion, intermittent in fire,—emerald and ruby and pale purple and violet melting into a blue that is not of the sky, but of the sunbeam;— purer than the crystal, softer than the rainbow, and brighter than the snow.

--

A flag ripples in the wind, but it does not undulate as the sea does,— for in the sea, the water is taken from the trough to put on to the ridge, but in the flag, though the motion is progressive, the bits of bunting keep their place. You see a field of corn undulating as if it was water,—it is different from the flag, for the ears of corn bow out of their places and return to them,—and yet, it is no more like the undulation of the sea, than the shaking of an aspen leaf in a storm, or the lowering of the lances in a battle.

--

The leaf hears no murmur in the wind to which it wavers on the branches, nor can the clay discern the vibration by which it is thrilled into a ruby. The Eye and the Ear are the creators alike of the ray and the tone; and the conclusion follows logically from the right conception of their living power,—”He that planted the Ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the Eye, shall not He see?”

John Ruskin, "The Storm-Cloud of the Nineteenth Century"

Monday, December 7

transcription

Plus, he argues, every note we play anywhere, any time, is a reinterpretation, a transcription. The idea of “authenticity” in musical performances is bogus, he suggests. “Every time I sit down to play Bach it’s a reworking. We cannot know how Bach played his music. We cannot even imagine.” Think about the times in which he lived, he says, when the horse was the fastest way to get around, when everything – time itself – must have felt so different.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/apr/30/pianist-vikingur-olafsson-interview-bach