As Lynn advocates, not only in her comment, but in the
introduction I also think that there is something to
be gained from a discussion of the images. It was interesting
to read in the various analyses several common threads
emerge, but two questions stick out for me: What was
the intent of the creator and what was the message
of the images that was “read” by contemporaries?
Of the two questions, discerning the “intent” is
the easier to answer, particularly if the creator of
the image was a skilled artisan. But to begin to understand
how these images were “read” by their audiences,
they need to be examined in combination with other
sources which might offer new insights into how the
intent was received. The images themselves cannot answer
that type of question.
So yes, more analysis of the images and various types
of analysis are needed. After all, as we are reminded
in the introduction to this project, serious analysis
of Revolutionary imagery is a relatively new area of
study.
|
Previous
