Thursday

Silhouette Identification Guide





My Carrick's book is all torn apart. You may not believe this but I read it every night in bed. I fall asleep with it. I must have read about Saint Memin, Bache, Peale, Williams and the like over a thousand times. It is tough to remember what I read half asleep so I read them again and again. Still, I scarcely remember what I have read.

Why would anyone want a reprint of this book is beyond me. The original is quite common, priced right and "smells" good.

I have cut out most of the illustrations from the book and made identification guides, at a quick glance. They are pasted onto two panels of poster boards. I can see them from my bed. Perhaps that is why I dream about them. I am working overtime about silhouettes even in my dreams. A real nut case, you may say. I can not argue with you.

I think I found an unfinished Williams, quite similar to what Carrick illustrates. This, too, looks ugly and bald headed. Get the Carrick out and compare her silhouette with mine. Carrick does not mention whether that specimen has an embossed "WILLIAMS." Mine does not. Why would any artist put a signature on an unfinished work? But then, without the embossed mark how would Carrick know that it is by Williams? Strange! Many mysteries go unanswered.

With all due respect, and more, to Carrick, I believe she was shooting the breeze sometimes with her writing. I am not talking about Williams. Carrick sometimes got carried away with her words. Perhaps that is why the book is so enjoyable and readable. Nevill Jackson, a superb author on silhouettes, could not write like Carrick. Desmond Coke wrote with interest. But then, he was a novelist as well.

Carrick wrote about a hollow-cut silhouette by Martha A. Honeywell in the Magazine Antiques, in 1925 if I remember correctly. She does not mention it in her book. Did it turn out ot be misattributed or a bogus? Does anyone know?

No comments: