|
|
| 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: on gender, class, and
violence |
| Posted
By: |
Vivian Cameron |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-26-03, 3:22
PM |
|
I really appreciated Joan’s
analysis, particularly her comments about enthusiasm
and fanaticism; female enthusiasm and violence; and the
ambivalence about women involved in politics. This is
a case where having both prints in front of us would
help. In the Prieur, in addition to the female spectators
in the mid-ground of the composition and those found
in the windows above the crowd, there are a few women,
distinguished by their caps, mixed into Prieur’s crowd.
Although they don’t figure amongst the central participants
hanging Foulon, they are, as I’ve stated in my paper,
complicit members of this crowd, as indeed are the female
spectators (beneath the awning on the right) who seem
to be about 15 feet away from the man with rope. This
print was executed in 1792, and it may well be that Prieur
was trying to legitimate the people’s role in the Revolution,
but I think that the people, according to Prieur, would
include both women and men. (Prieur did two prints celebrating
the women’s march to and from Versailles, for instance).
One way in which he tried to concretize events—throughout
the entire series of the Tableaux historiques de la Révolution
française—was
to be precise about setting, generally providing a panoramic
view of parts of the city, in this case of the Place
de Grève. In many cases, that
distances the reader/spectator of the image from the
more horrific aspects of the action.
In the anonymous print, the reader/spectator is a witness
close-up to the violence performed not only by men but
by a central figure of a woman, holding a paving stone,
and mirroring the male figure (back to us) on the left
side. But she is more prominent because she is seen head-on
and she is centralized. The scene is made horrific because
the corpse being stoned is a headless corpse. And it
is even more horrific because one of the protagonists—a
central one—is a woman. We could try to read this as
equal-opportunity violence but I think Joan is right
to suggest inter-connections between female enthusiasm/
fanaticism/violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
