Leonardo

Sculpture in Glass FibreAuthor(s): John PantingSource: Leonardo, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), pp. 191-192Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1572838 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 20:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:33:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters Letters Letters Letters

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

191 191 191 191

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:33:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and processes described in other sections are all defin- able in terms of change of state, e.g. (1) of any existing object from one material to another (say, clay to fibre- glass) or (2) of a known shape into a particular material (how to make, say, a fibreglass cube).

The making of sculpture direct with glass fibre/resin is presumably not simply the making of known forms. I describe one method of using glass fibre/resin with polyurethane foam as a technique for making modifi- able solid forms of an organic nature but other than that I cannot be predictive without proscribing the possibilities or results. I imagine that a sculptor who finds the polyurethane technique inadequate would look in other sections of the book for information that seemed relevant to his needs.

John Panting Central School of Art and Design

Southampton Row London WC1

England

'The Art of Jewelry'

I would like to make the following comments on the review of my book by Winefride Wilson in Leonardo 7, 88 (1974). I am sorry to have mixed up mezzotints and aquatints (it was set right in the French language

and processes described in other sections are all defin- able in terms of change of state, e.g. (1) of any existing object from one material to another (say, clay to fibre- glass) or (2) of a known shape into a particular material (how to make, say, a fibreglass cube).

The making of sculpture direct with glass fibre/resin is presumably not simply the making of known forms. I describe one method of using glass fibre/resin with polyurethane foam as a technique for making modifi- able solid forms of an organic nature but other than that I cannot be predictive without proscribing the possibilities or results. I imagine that a sculptor who finds the polyurethane technique inadequate would look in other sections of the book for information that seemed relevant to his needs.

John Panting Central School of Art and Design

Southampton Row London WC1

England

'The Art of Jewelry'

I would like to make the following comments on the review of my book by Winefride Wilson in Leonardo 7, 88 (1974). I am sorry to have mixed up mezzotints and aquatints (it was set right in the French language

edition a year ago) but the other mistakes pointed out are no more than differences in emphasis that are difficult to avoid with large generalisations. The wander- ing tribes of Europe did, in fact, leave behind them an amazing quantity of jewelry that, in my opinion, was of very much higher quality than the tiny amounts of textiles and sculpture that have survived. I stand by my statement that jewelry may have been the only art for the majority of these tribes. Early archaeologists, including Winckelman, fell short of modern standards of conservation of the historical evidence of sites but that is hardly surprising, as their science was a new one.

Perhaps the main character of the book is the con- tinuity of work represented. The Sumerian goldsmiths of about 2,600 BC used almost all the techniques found in a modern European workshop today. The hand- crafts of gold and silver are just as prevelant in our modern industrialised societies as they were at the beginning of civilization. I hope (which your reviewer did not say) that I may have helped antiquaries to enjoy new designs and modernists to enjoy those of the past, by showing how much they have in common with each other.

Graham Hughes Goldsmith's Hall

Foster Lane London EC2V 7AA

England

edition a year ago) but the other mistakes pointed out are no more than differences in emphasis that are difficult to avoid with large generalisations. The wander- ing tribes of Europe did, in fact, leave behind them an amazing quantity of jewelry that, in my opinion, was of very much higher quality than the tiny amounts of textiles and sculpture that have survived. I stand by my statement that jewelry may have been the only art for the majority of these tribes. Early archaeologists, including Winckelman, fell short of modern standards of conservation of the historical evidence of sites but that is hardly surprising, as their science was a new one.

Perhaps the main character of the book is the con- tinuity of work represented. The Sumerian goldsmiths of about 2,600 BC used almost all the techniques found in a modern European workshop today. The hand- crafts of gold and silver are just as prevelant in our modern industrialised societies as they were at the beginning of civilization. I hope (which your reviewer did not say) that I may have helped antiquaries to enjoy new designs and modernists to enjoy those of the past, by showing how much they have in common with each other.

Graham Hughes Goldsmith's Hall

Foster Lane London EC2V 7AA

England

192 192 Letters Letters

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:33:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions