Names and details on everyone to be listed soon. But there are hints here and there on the site already, as some of you have figured out.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Two More Faces
Names and details on everyone to be listed soon. But there are hints here and there on the site already, as some of you have figured out.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
More Faces
One repeat to round out the lot, but otherwise new. Look for details soon; see who you know in the meantime.
Formatting?
1.
2. 
3. 
Here's a quick and dirty approximation of how Richter's images appeared - black and white, contrasty, all standard-sized, mostly frontal or no more than 3/4 views, with little to no background (I can't remember exactly). The first of these, to the left, probably comes closest to his version of images (again, standard encyclopedia head shots). What do you think?
Image information: 1. Toni Morrison, 1931-present (I know, it's outside the parameters, but this is still an exercise), literature; 2. Rosalind Franklin, 1920-1958, science (microbiology); 3. Amilie Emmy Noether [note the slight correction to my error below in regard to Eleftheria's suggestion], 1882-1935, science (mathematics).
2. 
3. 
Here's a quick and dirty approximation of how Richter's images appeared - black and white, contrasty, all standard-sized, mostly frontal or no more than 3/4 views, with little to no background (I can't remember exactly). The first of these, to the left, probably comes closest to his version of images (again, standard encyclopedia head shots). What do you think?
Image information: 1. Toni Morrison, 1931-present (I know, it's outside the parameters, but this is still an exercise), literature; 2. Rosalind Franklin, 1920-1958, science (microbiology); 3. Amilie Emmy Noether [note the slight correction to my error below in regard to Eleftheria's suggestion], 1882-1935, science (mathematics).
Faces, Dates, Names, Fields
1.
2. 
3. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
Some improved formatting here, though it's hardly 49 images' worth. Also, if Richter's formatting is any guide, we'd need to standardize the images to show more or less the same features (head and neck with little in the shoulder). Finally, the finish would need to be standardized. What do you all think?
5. 
6. 
Some improved formatting here, though it's hardly 49 images' worth. Also, if Richter's formatting is any guide, we'd need to standardize the images to show more or less the same features (head and neck with little in the shoulder). Finally, the finish would need to be standardized. What do you all think?
Here, in any event, is the basic information on each: 1. George Washington Carver, 1864-1943, science (botany); 2. Mary Douglas, 1921-2007, science (anthropology); 3. Virginia Woolf, 1882-1941, literature; 4. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, 1868-1963, literature, philosophy; 5. Barbara McClintock, 1902-1992, science (physiology/medecine); 6. Alice Hamilton, 1869-1970, science (toxicology).
By the way, the portrait below is of Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington, 1899-1974, composer.
And all the images, like Richter's, are from an encyclopedia, another parameter for how he made his selection, apparently (circa 1971, that is). The encyclopedia in this case is, perhaps needless to say, Wikipedia. (Got a problem with that? I think it's apt, insofar as the catalogue describing Richter's work mentions that he was interested in how cultural excellence is constructed and portrayed. So, yeah.)
A picture - can you identify?
Here's a wrinkle on the game we're playing that is mainly to test the way we might use pictures - and think about how to format the set once we've started getting a fund of them to put alongside each other. Hint on this one: he's on Lisa's list (first post below).
Some Questions
In a conversation with Anna (my landlady) last night, I started thinking a bit more about Richter's work. I realized that he might be playing a bit with the iconic aspect of some portraits (Einstein, Kafka, Wilde and Mahler come to mind) - those that are almost immediately recognizable, and others, placed alongside them, that are much less so. Many of the individuals he included were not household names, that is. They might well have been, however, to more localized groups; I wondered, for example, how many Europeans (or Americans of a certain class, even) would know John Dos Passos.
Also, we wondered together about whether it would be immediately apparent that, in our case, the portraits were all of women and non-white men. In Richter's case, Lisa (and others) as we were standing there noticed almost immediately that there were no women (that there were no men "of color" was not as immediately remarked on, I think). So, I think our proposed set would be an interesting litmus test of how transparent are such portraits that link a kind of face to a concept (crime, weakness, culture, power, etc.), how ready we are to simply accept a face for ideas. That is, Anna and I wondered, how readily might someone say of our set of 49 Tafeln "Where are the white men?" in the same way she asked "Where are the women?" of Richter's set?
Also, we wondered together about whether it would be immediately apparent that, in our case, the portraits were all of women and non-white men. In Richter's case, Lisa (and others) as we were standing there noticed almost immediately that there were no women (that there were no men "of color" was not as immediately remarked on, I think). So, I think our proposed set would be an interesting litmus test of how transparent are such portraits that link a kind of face to a concept (crime, weakness, culture, power, etc.), how ready we are to simply accept a face for ideas. That is, Anna and I wondered, how readily might someone say of our set of 49 Tafeln "Where are the white men?" in the same way she asked "Where are the women?" of Richter's set?
Monday, 13 April 2009
Emilie Noether
Eleftheria has suggested Emilie Noether. Thanks! Anyone out there with a picture, send one along!
Here's Emilie's (english) wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
Response to Gerhard Richter Portraits
National Portrait Gallery
April 2009
All of Richter’s portraits of ‘great nineteenth- and twentieth-century cultural figures’ [in 48 Tafeln] are of white males. What women, what men who would not describe themselves as ‘white’, might be included? The following is our attempt to balance Richter’s selection, but based on his criteria for selection (excepting his explicit exclusion of women). [Actually, now I’ve read the thing myself, he doesn’t actively exclude women – he just doesn’t select any. So this puts his non-selection of ‘politicians, artists, religious figures ore representatives of business and commerce’ into a different perspective, following on from our conversation earlier. Maybe it would be interesting to include such figures – certainly ones who had unique impact on culture, and there are many. – In that case the list of ‘white men’ would also need to be expanded. But keeping to his initial ‘criteria’ or ‘perspective’, these would be as follows. Either way, it’s an interesting exercise.]
Criteria:
· must be ‘active’ ca 1850-1970
· fields of achievement confined to literature, science, philosophy, music
Non-male and non-‘white’ counterbalance list
[numbering at present is random, just for having a count]
1
Marie Curie radioactivity
2
Rosalind Franklin DNA
3
Mary Douglas anthropologist
4
Virginia Woolf writer
5
Emily Dickinson poet
6
Simone de Beauvoir writer/philosopher
7
Duke Ellington composer/musician
8
Scott Joplin composer/musician
9
Lightning Hopkins (!) composer/musician
10
Frederick Douglass writer/philosopher
11
Karen Blixen writer
April 2009
All of Richter’s portraits of ‘great nineteenth- and twentieth-century cultural figures’ [in 48 Tafeln] are of white males. What women, what men who would not describe themselves as ‘white’, might be included? The following is our attempt to balance Richter’s selection, but based on his criteria for selection (excepting his explicit exclusion of women). [Actually, now I’ve read the thing myself, he doesn’t actively exclude women – he just doesn’t select any. So this puts his non-selection of ‘politicians, artists, religious figures ore representatives of business and commerce’ into a different perspective, following on from our conversation earlier. Maybe it would be interesting to include such figures – certainly ones who had unique impact on culture, and there are many. – In that case the list of ‘white men’ would also need to be expanded. But keeping to his initial ‘criteria’ or ‘perspective’, these would be as follows. Either way, it’s an interesting exercise.]
Criteria:
· must be ‘active’ ca 1850-1970
· fields of achievement confined to literature, science, philosophy, music
Non-male and non-‘white’ counterbalance list
[numbering at present is random, just for having a count]
1
Marie Curie radioactivity
2
Rosalind Franklin DNA
3
Mary Douglas anthropologist
4
Virginia Woolf writer
5
Emily Dickinson poet
6
Simone de Beauvoir writer/philosopher
7
Duke Ellington composer/musician
8
Scott Joplin composer/musician
9
Lightning Hopkins (!) composer/musician
10
Frederick Douglass writer/philosopher
11
Karen Blixen writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)