I don't buy art books like this anymore because I have too many of them and they are pretty expensive anyways. But I have seen this show twice at the National Gallery here in DC, and looked at the book in the gift shop both times. It would make a nice memory of the show, and that is not a negligible virtue for an art book. But as to the criticisms of the previous reviewer that the book is filled with what he surmises to be only tangentially related art and artifacts, consider this. First, not to be flippant, but what else do earnest museum curators discourse on in exhibition catalogues except such tangents. Does the previous reviewer want them to lose their jobs? But, more seriously, and second, I have seen pictures of Arcimboldo's works over a long period and never appreciated them. I must have seen some in person in European museums, but the vagaries of being able to focus in crowded tourists meccas, clouded my appreciation apparently. This show knocked me down. The paintings are so ravishing and detailed it is hard to comprehend. They are so overwhelmingly beautifully painted that you blink to be sure that you are not dreaming. ( And I praise God that the National Gallery has never joined the gimmick-tending art trends in terms of display and lighting.) It would not be believable to me that even such a genius artist could have pulled such visual prowess out of nowhere. Thus, all the ephemera, which does not even seem so closely allied to painting, is in person, not implausible as a source or inspiration. Perhaps we can see in the quite workaday quality of the "inspiration" an example of the really almost inconceivable ability of great artists to metamorphose rather unspectacular sources. Yet I wouldn't stand by these passing impressions. But I would stand by the observation that to appreciate this artist you must see them in person.