|
|
| 2. What are the advantages/deficits of
visual mediation of events and concepts in this period? Can images
provide knowledge that is distinctive and different from textual
sources? How do images either correspond with or differ from their
textual commentary? What does this reveal about the combination of
image and text? Can representations by their nature capture popular
attitudes? Are inherent male/female upper class/popular class tensions
either captured or effaced in these images? |
| |
 |
question
2 Warren
Roberts, 6-9-03, 9:50 AM |
|
|
|
RE:
question 2 Jack Censer, 6-10-03, 1:05 AM |
|
|
|
|
RE:
question 2 Warren Roberts,
7-2-03,
9:53 AM |
|
|
|
RE: question
2 Barbara
Day-Hickman, 7-1-2003,
3:17 PM |
|
|
|
RE: question
2 Warren Roberts, 7-2-03, 12:53 PM |
|
|
 |
RE:
question 2 Jack Censer,
7-26-03,
10:17 PM |
|
|
question
2 Vivian Cameron,
7-6-03, 6:05 PM |
|
|
Final
thoughts Warren
Roberts, 7-18-03, 5:38 AM |
|
|
| Subject: |
RE: question 2 |
| Posted
By: |
Jack Censer |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-26-03, 10:17
PM |
|
Barbara’s information and insights regarding captions
raise another question, it would appear. If captions
were malleable, did contemporaries pay much attention
to them, at least in their literal form? Did captions
have to be interpreted as much or more than the images
they graced? Especially for French revolutionary
image making, there is on the surface generally a
lack of subtlety. Or so it appears to the modern
historian. Upon reflection, I think we have been
too quick to assume their “obvious” meaning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
