(Left to right) Warhol-inspired perfume; Delftware boot vase; Lady Gaga in Vogue, December ’09.

• For $220, you can smell like Andy Warhol’s Money series with Bond No. 9 New York — Andy Warhol perfume. Apparently, the prints smell spicy and citrusy. Who knew?
• Here’s a really unusual gift idea from ELLE’s December 2009 issue… Delftware-inspired Wellington rain boots — that aren’t rain boots at all, but in fact porcelain vases.
• Award for most simultaneously awesome and bizarre fashion/art crossover yet: Lady Gaga’s feature in Vogue’s December 2009 issue, where she poses as the witch in Grace Coddington’s interpretation of Hansel and Gretel.  In her feature, Lady Gaga describes her performance for the LA Museum of Contemporary Art gala, at which she played a piano made by Damien Hirst. Here’s hoping her next music video not only features the craziest of runway fashion, but some contemporary art too–might I suggest a dance segment alongside one of Jeff Koon’s metallic balloon dogs?

Have I missed any happenings between art & fashion? Let me know in the comments!

Georgia O’Keeffe premieres September 19 at 9pm EST | Website

Yoga in the Galleries, at the Ackland Art Museum

It seems that Amy Sedaris’ beloved Chagall (about which she talks with impressive scholarly fervor — rock on, Amy Sedaris) was stolen from her house after a wild party for ‘Wet Hot American Summer’ in 2001.  Missing since then, it was discovered in original SNL cast member Jane Curtin’s daughter’s apartment.  Apparently, it was given to Jane Curtin by Chevy Chase, who apparently stole it at said party.  An annoyed Jane Curtin said she had no idea it was stolen, but “now that I think about it, it doesn’t surprise me. Chevy and I were never that close — but I never thought he’d try to set me up.”  Meanwhile Amy Sedaris can’t remember that he was even at the party, although she’s certainly happy to have it back.

The whole thing feels more than a little fishy to me, and there seem to be some key parts missing (what did Chevy Chase have to say about this…?) — but who knows.  Just goes to show you art crime is happening even on the celebrity level…

Original article at PR-Inside.com

Image from the UK Daily Mail

The picture speaks for itself.  Personally, having seen some of the crazy hairstyles Roman women wore (seriously, you will want to click on that link. Just as funny as Roman Elvis up there), I’m a little hesitant to go shouting about Elvis’s long-lost great-great-great-etc. grandfather walking around the Forum… but well, on the other hand, the resemblance certainly is there…

Either way, perhaps the most astounding fact of all this is that Bonham’s, a pretty reputable auction house, is indeed auctioning it off, and it is expected to sell for one million pounds.  See the article in the UK Daily Mail here. Thanks to Gabrielle for this bizarre but entertaining news story!

Continuing with our theme of art infiltrating everyday culture, spotted on Fifth Avenue in New York City earlier this week was this display.  Henri Bendell’s jewelry window features Renaissance beauties decked out in necklaces and earrings… but not painted ones.  Rather, the jewelry poked into the “canvases” of the Lady with an Erimine and Maddalena Doni are, naturally, for sale in the high-end department store.  Clever or tacky?  I wonder if Leonardo and Raphael would approve…

Who says art history and celebrity gossip don’t mix?

Just over a month ago at the Cannes Film Festival, this picture of Brad Pitt and the expecting Angelina Jolie was taken as the happy couple made their way down the carpet. Someone at PerezHilton.com thought that their pose, Angelina’s green dress, and most importantly, her swelling stomach, were reminiscent of Jan Van Eyck’s masterpiece “The Arnolfini Wedding Portrait” (1434).

While this comparison is entertaining, it actually brings up a few key points about the painting. This painting is commonly accepted as a document of sorts, acting as a witness to the marriage of this couple. There is some scholarly debate over who is actually depicted in this bed chamber, but it is agreed upon that this is a marriage scene. Interestingly, Brad and Angelina are not married, and have vowed not to wed until everyone is entitled to an official and legal marriage to whomever they choose.

Another interesting point of comparison is the “baby bump” seen in both images. While it is widely known that Angelina’s is due to pregnancy, it is mainly agreed upon that the lady in the painting was not pregnant. She is most likely just demonstrating what the ideal of female beauty was at the time. In contemporary paintings, a more rounded and fertile-looking woman was the ideal, especially as a new wife whose job it was to provide heirs. She is also leaning back and thrusting her stomach out to display the bunched up fabric she is wearing, which served as a clear indication of her wealth and status.

Like many Northern paintings of this time period, the Van Eyck piece is full of miniscule details that really deepen the understanding of this piece as a “wedding certificate” of sorts, and I highly suggest looking into it further. The level of intricacy is astounding, and truly makes this piece a masterpiece.

My favorite part of this unlikely comparison is the discussions on the website. Literally hundreds of posts respond to this juxtaposition, many of which use Art Historical backgrounds to discuss the points I mentioned above, in addition to many others. It’s nice (and a bit surprising) to see an Art Historical debate running rampant on a celebrity gossip website.

After a bit of delving, it seems that the picture of this super celebrity couple and the painting of a respectable Netherlandish husband and wife have less in common than is apparent at first glance. But it is interesting that Brangelina triggered someone to make this connection, proving that art really can serve as a medium for discussion of daily life, even 600 years later.

Picture and full comments originally posted on PerezHilton.com

I found this interesting yet slightly ridiculous article today on Yahoo! News. It discusses how a 70 year-old man recently found out that an old mug given to him by his grandfather in 1945 is actually an ancient Persian golden cup from around the third or fourth century bce. This relic from the Achaemenid Empire (present-day Iran) is valued by an English auction house to be worth around a million dollars, and will go up for auction on June 5th. This beautiful cup was made from a single sheet of gold and was hammered out to depict the faces of two women facing in opposite directions, complete with detailed garlands on their heads in the forms of knotted snakes. While the current owner has no idea where his grandfather purchased the relic, he admits to using it as a target for his air gun as a child.

Moral of the story: think before you start shooting works of art.

Full story: “Childhood ‘Toy’ Revealed as Ancient Persian Relic” at Yahoo! News