|
|
| 6. a) If we take these two
prints as our point of departure, what difference does it make that
we know the “author” of
one print and not the other? (given that “authorship” is
a somewhat vexed notion in regard to printmaking) b) Can we say that
these prints represent the same ideas/ideals/notions/ presumptions
about crowd violence? How would we unpack the differences in representation
(the choice of perspective, for instance—the one telescoped,
the other wide angle)? Are these differences the result of differences
in the purpose of the prints (Prieur’s is part of a series, for instance).
c) In regard to Wayne’s interests, does this kind of event ever appear
on a medal or is the level of violence somehow incompatible with
that kind of representation (in metal as opposed to on paper, more
sculptural than pictorial, etc.) d) Is gender more of an issue when
the action is viewed up close? |
| |
 |
authorship
and politics Warren Roberts, 7-3-03, 4:46 PM |
|
|
knowing
the author Jack Censer, 7-3-03,
8:50 PM |
|
| |
 |
RE:
knowing the author Vivian Cameron, 7-6-03, 9:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
RE:
knowing the author Barbara Day-Hickman, 7-9-03, 4:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
RE:
knowing the author Jack Censer, 7-26-03, 10:03 PM |
|
|
on
gender, class, and violence Joan B. Landes,
7-16-03, 2:50 PM |
|
|
|
RE:
on gender, class, and violence Vivian Cameron, 7-26-03, 3:22 PM |
|
|
|
|
RE:
on gender, class, and violence Vivian Cameron, 7-26-03,
4:27 PM
|
|
|
Date? Joan
B. Landes, 7-16-03, 2:53 PM |
|
| Subject: |
RE: knowing the author |
| Posted
By: |
Vivian Cameron |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-6-03, 9:05
PM |
|
| While I agree with Jack’s statement
in part, I also think that knowing more about the author
would be helpful. We are fortunate to be familiar with
Prieur’s political stance because it helps us understand
why he chose certain incidents to illustrate. But I find
it more frustrating to deal with our anonymous author’s
work because we don’t know anything about the person
who created it. How would it help? It certainly would
help us know whether the image is meant to be critical,
ironic, etc. As I’ve looked at the work, I realize that
I’m not certain what the position of the image-maker
was. As I said in my paper, this is someone who had some
knowledge of artistic conventions—there are allusions
to the stoning of St. Stephen, etc. In fact, that might
mean that he wants the viewer to be sympathetic to Foulon.
What do other people think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
