Actually I recently did, not exactly the whole book but just a couple of pages of the introduction chapter. How did it happen?? Well, I was at the Wilson Library to read algorithms; though I usually try to study at home but for the past week or so, I am not that productive so a change of place was exactly what I needed. While I sat at the desk reading a chapter on graph algorithms, I noticed a book lying next to my desk. It was opened at a very colorful page revealing what appeared to be a beautiful painting. I ignored it for a while trying to concentrate on the job at hand but then I gave into it. I picked up the book and found out that the page had a picture of a glass painting taken at a cathedral. The book was about art; I felt kind of excited. Reading the preface (I always do!), I figured that the book was meant to be read at entry-level, so I decided to give it a try after I am done with my work. However, I started reading the introduction way before finishing my stuff.
The first thing that I noticed was the style of the book which was really different. What can I say, I cannot find a better word than 'artistic' :). Sentence formation was so different than what I had seen before. At times, it felt beautiful and at times I found the sentences difficult to understand at the first go; had to reread to get what the author is trying to say. I don't know if it was because of the way the book is written or a mere lack of subject knowledge on my part. One reason that I think the latter is true is my unfamiliarity with the words used in the passages. No wonder I didn't read more than two pages. However, it doesn't mean that I won't come back and continue from where I left. My interest is definitely piqued.
In just those two pages, I ended up learning something I never had in my agenda for the day. So what new do I know now? In short, a little bit about the basics of art and some very interesting views that the author expresses. Author talks about various dimensions to classify an art object such as time, place of origin, the artist, medium of expression and so forth. The interesting part was the way he justifies these dimensions; when you see an art object, it is in present and a viewer is free to interpret it in a way he/she pleases, why then does he need to know its time/place etc.. (My interpretation of) The idea conveyed by the author is that art is an expression of history and it communicates in an implicit language to the viewer. To understand that language, you really need to know the context else you are missing the point.
Well, to be specific, the book was "Gardner's Art Through The Ages"; definitely interesting. I think one of the advantages of sitting in a library is that you get exposed to a variety of other literature even when you don't go with such an intent. For me, its back to algorithms now!
The first thing that I noticed was the style of the book which was really different. What can I say, I cannot find a better word than 'artistic' :). Sentence formation was so different than what I had seen before. At times, it felt beautiful and at times I found the sentences difficult to understand at the first go; had to reread to get what the author is trying to say. I don't know if it was because of the way the book is written or a mere lack of subject knowledge on my part. One reason that I think the latter is true is my unfamiliarity with the words used in the passages. No wonder I didn't read more than two pages. However, it doesn't mean that I won't come back and continue from where I left. My interest is definitely piqued.
In just those two pages, I ended up learning something I never had in my agenda for the day. So what new do I know now? In short, a little bit about the basics of art and some very interesting views that the author expresses. Author talks about various dimensions to classify an art object such as time, place of origin, the artist, medium of expression and so forth. The interesting part was the way he justifies these dimensions; when you see an art object, it is in present and a viewer is free to interpret it in a way he/she pleases, why then does he need to know its time/place etc.. (My interpretation of) The idea conveyed by the author is that art is an expression of history and it communicates in an implicit language to the viewer. To understand that language, you really need to know the context else you are missing the point.
Well, to be specific, the book was "Gardner's Art Through The Ages"; definitely interesting. I think one of the advantages of sitting in a library is that you get exposed to a variety of other literature even when you don't go with such an intent. For me, its back to algorithms now!
p.s.: I never really noticed, I was sitting next to an aisle which houses art books.
