|
|
| 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: |
knowing the author |
| Posted
By: |
Jack Censer |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-3-03, 8:50
PM |
|
Permit me to be tendentious.
The simple fact of knowing the author, as opposed to
knowing the date the image was created, can make little
or no difference in certain circumstances. If one is
interested in the meaning of an image for the public
view of an event, the main point at issue, it seems to
me, is how that image interrelates with other pictorial,
textual, and verbal descriptions of the same thing. In
other words, if the subject is simply public opinion,
a broadened version of intertextuality to include all
types of sources ought to produce the most relevant understanding
of particular images. Grasping this context suggests
the interpretation. Therefore, knowing the date that
an image is released is crucial; knowing the author far
less so. The one exception to that is if the author has
a reputation or political stance that contemporaries
would have been affected by. That would, of course, indicate
specific meaning.
On the other hand, knowing the author can be central
to dissecting the meaning that the image maker intended.
If we know the point of view of the author, then we
can really use far less guesswork in comprehending
his/her meaning in the image. But one might reasonably
ask: If we know the author’s intentions and his/her
goal was clearly to influence public opinion, don’t
we have a reasonably good view of how everyone would
have understood the image? Although I would accept
that point, I still think that the best source by far
for the general reading of an image is context, more
than author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
