The Liz Smith Column | 11/17/2009 6:00 am
Liz Smith: Big Doin's for the Ruins in Manhattan's Institute for Study of the Ancient World

"The past is always dozing in the ice, waiting to alter the present," wrote essayist Roger Rosenblatt.
If you’ve ever visited the Metropolitan Museum’s relatively recent arrangement of Hellenistic, Etruscan and Roman treasures, then you are beholden to a woman named Shelby White. The Met’s "Leon Levy and Shelby White Court" attests to her generosity and that of her late husband.
Shelby’s biography is replete with Mount Holyoke and Columbia University honors, board membership at the Met, connections to the Freer and Sackler Galleries and the Harvard Museum, to name a few.
When her husband was alive, Shelby and Leon were the guiding lights behind the preservation of so many of the ancient world’s works of art. They were enthusiastic scholars and collectors. Shelby is a writer as well, the author of a book we have mentioned in this space, What Every Woman Should Know About Her Husband’s Money.
***
Now, Shelby has added another feather to her historical, archaeological and collecting cap. She bought a huge Manhattan mansion on 84th street between Fifth and Madison Avenues and completely did it over, creating a gallery, lecture hall and banqueting space.
Here, the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World is her brainchild, in connection with New York University. And Shelby’s mansion offers an unprecedented chance to see extraordinary works of art from so-called "Old Europe." (This is a relatively new term, coined in 1984 by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. It refers to Southeastern Europe, in particular the civilizations of the Danube Valley – Romania and Bulgaria, as well as Malta.)

My friend, the classical archaeologist Iris Love, told me of Shelby’s newest venture into the past.
The exhibition at The Institute shows how highly developed pre-Indo-European Neolithic civilization (5000 BC/3500 BC) really was. The presentation of ceramics and terra-cotta statuettes in this show shocks us because of their beauty and sophistication. Also, it is fascinating how similar some of these works are to Neolithic discoveries at Banpo. (Near Xian, the Shaanxi province of China.)
This is the first time these somewhat mysterious artifacts have been shown in the U.S. and they prove a connection between excavated works of art from the Aegean Sea to Anatolia and, possibly, even to Asia.
Iris pontificates: "Either migration and trading by rivers and across seas was more extensive than we previously thought, with sailors and commerce moving these objects great distances, or else the artistic movements of the time caused a creation of the similar shapes and decorated pots and terra-cotta statuettes in different, far-flung cultures." She has borrowed for us several photographs of these Danube pots. Says Iris, "I was just amazed by this; I didn’t even know such magnificent works of art existed."
***
In her customary long-winded manner, Iris expounded on how indebted we are to Shelby and her curator Jennifer Y. Chi – as well as to the National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest and the participation of the Varnia Regional History of Bulgaria. Let’s add the National Museum of Archaeology and History of Moldova, Chiinau. Whew! But Iris wasn’t finished: "The archaeologist Ms. Gimbutas has invented a new interdisciplinary field called ‘archaeomythology.’ And the Leon Levy Foundation makes it possible for us, in New York, to enjoy this unique and fabulous exhibition."
***
And now for something worlds away from all that science. Recently, we reported here the unkind words of the LA Times reporter Elizabeth Snead about Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow. She called them "two of the coldest and least sexy actresses." (Paltrow and Kidman are set to star together in a daring sex-change movie.)

Paltrow and Kidman/Images: AP/Shutterstock
I was surprised at how many of our readers responded critically to Ms. Snead and stood up for the stars. Some readers suggested the reporter be sued for libel. Others just asked where she got off being so critical and unkind.
























28 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
I think Nicole has become much prettier as time goes on. If you see some of her earlier movies (made in Australia) you will see she looks quite different - much more ordinary. Lots of big curly hair too (but that was the fashion then).
However, I think she’s done a good job with her face. I read someone saying that Nicole *needs* to look pretty and glam - and I’d agree with that.
I understand that Michelle Pfeiffer has also done a few things with her nose - which also looks OK. Michelle didn’t need to to anything to her beautiful lips (well not until now - maybe in her 50s she may want to, because soon everything droops). Both actors are in the best looking class IMHO.
Gwyneth looks quite ordinary - probably she hasn’t done anything to enhance her looks, yet.
I think most actresses look "ordinary" without their makeup, with a few notable exceptions; those exceptions have almost perfectly symmetrical faces, which are very rarely found in nature.
I am really bothered by the current expectation of plastic surgery, which is fast expanding beyond performers to "regular people" as well. So something droops. So your nose is a little off-center, or you have small breasts, or your lips have thinned, or you have a bit of a paunch from your childbearing years, or that turkey wattle under your chin. So what?
The thought that these "defects" are so horrific that they practically require surgery - not for medical, but for cultural reasons - is not too far off from something like the female genital mutilation practiced in some cultures. We raise a hue and cry over that, but our own culture presures women to get cut up and risk infections, loss of sensation, scarring, and even death, just to look like what the public expects.
Mr. Wow searched the Internet for pics of Nicole and her hubby that night. Her lips look fine, nothing "freakish" about them (that was the original description) I have a feeling Miss Kidman wasn’t as cooperative as the paps deemed she should have been, and they gave her some lip, so to speak. As for her bosom, Nicole herself says motherhood increased her size. Who is to say that isn’t so? It certainly does happen, it’s totally normal. However, even if she’s all natural, she shouldn’t force her breasts up to her collarbone. That look just begs to be gossiped over.
Anything else? Well, Mr. W. has never seen Nicole injected with Botox. That said, she looks unusually…untroubled. Perhaps she is?
Mr. Wow is right about some things begging to be gossiped over. At times I have sat next to somebody and have been preoccupied with hoping that their body was Botoxed because one small shift to the right or the left, unless they were glued in, was going to be a major wardrobe malfunction! ; D
Well, Mr. W. has never seen Nicole injected with Botox.
____________________
I doubt she invites people to come watch any more than anyone else with the exception of Joan Rivers would and while it is possible Nicole Kidman’s "new look" is the result of age and motherhood most assume a plastic surgeon has helped a little. They all will end up like Lana Turner did. Looking absolutely spectacular but leaving everyone wondering where the voice is coming from.
Dear Baby…leave poor Lana alone! It’s true she lost her juicy, bouncy, MGM sex-appeal by 1950. Then she maintained a high gloss lacquer, which served her royally right into the 1960’s. I don’t think she really messed with her face until 1967-68. Then it really was another person. But Lanita (as she signed her love letter to gangster Johnny Stompanato) was one of the great ones, a real movie star who—like Joan Crawford—always gave the fans what they wanted. She loved being a star. There was nothing else. At all. She was no closet intellectual.
I’m just trying to be kind of fair to Nicole. She’s suffered enough. She was Mrs. Tom Cruise. That alone could cause everlasting zombie-face.
Oh, please. Falcon Crest without doubt provided one of Jane Wyman’s best roles and the one she probably will be remembered most for having played. She must have channeled Bette Davis in Where Love Has Gone each time the cameras started rolling. She was one of the truly greats. On and off camera. At one point someone made the mistake of asking her if she regretted having divorced Ronald Reagan given that she would have been First Lady, she deadpanned them with "Not at all. I’m still making more money than he is."