I had a very interesting trip to the NPG. The 20th Century Gallery has been in the same format for about 15 years. They have had a rehang, closing off the windows on one side, thereby giving a lot more wall space for hanging, and dedicated lighting that is constant and not impacted by moving shadows caused by daylight. It's meant to represent inspirational pioneers, in a century of tremendous change.
This rehung gallery had 4 types of media represented - oil on canvas, black and white photos, cigarette cards and sculpture (head and shoulder busts). While the NPG is a gallery with conservative media, its Collections Policy states it is seeking to represent a wider selection of British people (and is aware of its under-representation of women and ethnic minorities) and to use a wider range of media. In my opinion, the media displayed in this gallery, seems to be more aligned with the male. Cigarette cards in particular would associate with men. So why no textiles?
It has been hung chronologically - 1900-1913, WW1, Interwar years, and WW2 and post war years to 1990. I only had the stamina to look at the first 3 sections, before I ran out of energy.
1900-1913 - I had seen a lot of these images before - lots of Charleston group artists and writers, suffragettes, (therefore good representation of women).
The WW1 images were heavy on representation of men, with three famous, huge, images of Army Generals, Navy leaders, and Parliamentary Statesmen. However there were also black and white photos of army people (I think who subsequently were the first armed forces who flew planes, i.e. before the RAF had formed) and cigarette cards. These were interesting - donated by a former director of NPG who had a large private collection. There were 6 cigarette cards, representing army and navy, old and young servicemen from Scotland, Ireland, England and Australia. There was also imagery of the first men to gain a double VC. Only one image of a woman nursing orderly, and one of an Indian soldier - both of which I have seen before (so obviously the paintings that get used to represent these groups).
I went into the Interwar section, and there were plenty of women represented - 33% - so not in line with population, but much better than usually represented. I need to go back and look again but my impression is that the women were artists, politicians, economists or significant in their own right e.g. aviators. Quite a few images noted that the sitter was of Polish Jewish origin, so migrant status could be inferred, although very few other minorities were apparent (e.g. Britten and Pears - gay men).
What was interesting was what was not there. Women were not represented as charming, beautiful, or sexualised. No nudes or partially clad bodies. Women were not represented as the sidekick of a significant man. Limited representation of the Royal Family - nothing of Elizabeth II subsequent to her accession or of her offspring or extended family. Representation of royalty was done via large old images of Edward VII and family when George V was a boy, a young Edward VIII (when Prince of Wales) in WW1 army uniform, George VI (who would not strike a royal pose) and George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Elizabeth & Margaret as a family. Definitely playing on family and service. Nothing about modern Royals. Very little about celebrity.
I'm going to finish my analysis on my next trip and see what the driving forces are for representation. So far the men seem to be portrayed on grounds of status and heroism, but I can't work out what the women were portrayed for. Status in their own right? For being innovators in their field? But this seems to be entertainment or typically male roles e.g. aviator. Nothing about being valued for being a woman. Watch this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment