|
|
| 1. Are images vital
sources of historical knowledge that have been insufficiently exploited? |
| |
 |
images
as sources Lynn Hunt, 5-31-03, 5:48 PM |
|
|
RE: images as sources Wayne
Hanley, 6-6-03, 9:29 AM |
|
RE: Images as Sources (June
22, 2003) Barbara Day-Hickman, 6-22-03,
4:40 PM |
|
reading
images Lynn Hunt, 6-23-03, 10:44 PM |
|
historical knowledge Vivian
Cameron, 7-5-03,
5:15 PM |
|
Some belated comments Warren
Roberts, 7-9-03,
10:53 AM |
|
A postscript Warren
Roberts 7-9-03, 11:28 AM |
|
More on images as sources Joan
B. Landes, 7-12-03,
2:33 PM |
|
 |
RE: More on images as
sources Vivian Cameron
7-26-03, 4:22 PM |
|
| Subject: |
RE: More on
images as sources |
| Posted
By: |
Vivian Cameron |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-26-03, 4:22
PM |
|
Joan’s comments are a welcome response to some of the
problems I, as an art historian, had with some of the
questions. First, for the art historian, the image
is the primary document. That visual text then is read
in conjunction with written texts that can identify
characters, events, actions, and the like, but the
visual image is privileged over the textual evidence.
Second, as I state in my reply to question 5, regardless
of the intent of the author, images, just like texts,
will always have multiple interpretations, which are
affirmed, contested, refined, reframed. Third, these
multiple interpretations are dependent upon an audience
of diverse spectators, each individually different
because of the multiple combinations of class, gender,
race, religion, knowledge, education, family background,
psychology, etc. To discover the enormous diversity
of interpretations, one has only to read the multiple
reactions to a single work recorded in the Salon criticism
of the eighteenth century. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
