Hand-in of our assessment went smoothly. It was interesting to see the differences in what was submitted, as we are all studying our own subjects with individual styles. My display space (half a table) had a lot of books - sketchbooks (hand made and ready bound); exhibition book; various objects with analysis on luggage labels (sweater, soap, embroidery sampler, knitting pattern book); blog printout; contextual review; proposal.
Depending on students' focus, other people submitted 2/3 folders of carefully filed written work and nothing else; books documenting different styles of analysis and lengths of paper with landscape artwork experiments; several files of thoughts and extensive architects drawings; and some textile rubbings samples, and files of documentation.
In high good humour, I bounced down the stairs and popped in to see my tutor, Linden. I happened to say that I had a new idea to work up (while I was on my flight to New York next week). I said I had been thinking about Mrs Konieczny and how she liked cryptic crosswords. So I had decided to identify words about her, find a grid, fit the words into it, and set cryptic crossword clues to it. Then using blackwork, work it onto a sampler. Linden thought this was a great idea and that it would enable conversations.
Fitting the words to the grid will be the most difficult, but if I can have some words that can be adapted it will help - e.g. she was a nurse, but I could use nurse, nursing, nursed, depending what fits best in the grid.
Suitable words:
Nurse, care, Cambridge, Seven Kings, Walthamstow, Hoe Street, Chemist, Hobbs, conversation, church, Miriam, Anita, Chester, Leeds, appendicitis, hypotenuse, library, Esperanto, married,
I can get a cross word grid from the internet. Let's have a bash at getting them to fit.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
A great day at the Shedio
It was a delight to be back at the Shedio after the Christmas break. Brenda was back, having completed her first term at UEA. I was able to give her the pram blanket I had made for her son and daughter-in-law, and the peacock colour, and peacock print lining went down well.
We were working into photos and postcards as media for artwork. I had photographed some of Aunt Joan's artefacts and stitched into them, as inspired by some artists at the Jerwood prize. So I cross stitched appropriate colours around the Woods of Windsor soap, chain stitched the pattern over the jumper, and put a blanket stitch picot edge on the sampler. I did not get round to working into the book photo. Neither did I get round to photographing the stitched photos - and they are now part of my work displayed for assessment.
We were working into photos and postcards as media for artwork. I had photographed some of Aunt Joan's artefacts and stitched into them, as inspired by some artists at the Jerwood prize. So I cross stitched appropriate colours around the Woods of Windsor soap, chain stitched the pattern over the jumper, and put a blanket stitch picot edge on the sampler. I did not get round to working into the book photo. Neither did I get round to photographing the stitched photos - and they are now part of my work displayed for assessment.
Saturday, 16 January 2016
A mixed day at class - Hand-in and Presentations
I went to class, full of confidence that I was going to hand-in my Proposal and Literature Review a week early (the way I like to be). Famous last words. I should not have been so cocky! Virtually the first thing I found out, was that I had used the wrong referencing system on both submissions. Pooh! Totally my fault - I had used the Author Date system, as this is what I am familiar with, and totally failed to Read The Instructions - we use the MHRA system.
I was last to give my prevention in class, and fortunately it went very well. I had structured the presentation around methodology, and covered some of the key points of the literature review. I had some images that I found very inspirational to talk around, mostly found when I was doing content and object analysis at the Scottish National Galleries. I had the class falling about with laughter when I described a gender based example of orientational metaphors - "there is something very upright about the process of fathering a child, whereas women are described as falling pregnant!". I was delighted to be able to say I planned to go to NewYork later this month to conduct object analysis on Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party.
Then I was told my Literature Review was actually meant to be a Contextual Review. For some reason, I had it in my head that the written submission was a Literature Review, and the Presentation covered the rest of the context. Wrong! It is only the written work that gets marked - not the presentation! So, I left class, feeling a complete fool, needing to do a re-write on the Contextual Review. Fortuitously I have done all the research and most of the extra writing can be lifted from my presentation notes.
Doing the re-write and bibliography for the contextual review took a whole day's work. I also made about 20lbs marmalade. Just the Proposal to alter now.
I was last to give my prevention in class, and fortunately it went very well. I had structured the presentation around methodology, and covered some of the key points of the literature review. I had some images that I found very inspirational to talk around, mostly found when I was doing content and object analysis at the Scottish National Galleries. I had the class falling about with laughter when I described a gender based example of orientational metaphors - "there is something very upright about the process of fathering a child, whereas women are described as falling pregnant!". I was delighted to be able to say I planned to go to NewYork later this month to conduct object analysis on Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party.
Then I was told my Literature Review was actually meant to be a Contextual Review. For some reason, I had it in my head that the written submission was a Literature Review, and the Presentation covered the rest of the context. Wrong! It is only the written work that gets marked - not the presentation! So, I left class, feeling a complete fool, needing to do a re-write on the Contextual Review. Fortuitously I have done all the research and most of the extra writing can be lifted from my presentation notes.
Doing the re-write and bibliography for the contextual review took a whole day's work. I also made about 20lbs marmalade. Just the Proposal to alter now.
Saturday, 9 January 2016
Object Analysis Practice - Gilt & Silk Exhibition at The Burrell Collection
I have had another bash at object analysis, using the 2 red petticoats of Anne of Denmark, displayed in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow. I looked at them in detail, when I was there and made notes, but did not take any photos. There were no postcards of them for sale, so images have been taken from the internet (Thanks to Susan Elliott's blog - she had the sense to ask when she visited the Collection, whether photos were allowed, which they are.)
Interestingly, although the images I have found of these pieces are from other people's blogs, no-one has analysed the symbolism of the flowers and animals. Other bloggers are stitch enthusiasts, rather than symbolic researchers.
So, during my time looking at the embroidery, I noted down all the plants I could identify, from those plants I knew and from the artwork descriptions. I have looked up symbolism of plants, and tried to use sources which are pre-Victorian. It still means there are various different meanings of plants, so is not guaranteed accurate, but I have done my best. I also included the animals I could see.
Bird with leaf - Peace
Caterpillar and Butterfly - Charles I and Charles II (Burrell Collection definition)
Thistles - Scotland and Passion of Christ
Strawberry - good works of the righteous
Honeysuckle - love and generosity
Periwinkle - Virgin Mary, immortality
Lily - Virgin Mary, purity
Borage - courage
Daffodil/narcissus - Triumph of divine love over death/selfishness
Columbine - white dove/holy spirit
Oakleaf and acorns - England and endurance against adversity (oak made the cross)
Pansy - thoughtfulness (pensée) (Burrell Collection définition)
Peapod - fertility (Burrell Collection definition)
Carnation - pure love
Aspen leaves - trembling for Christ's sacrifice
Open briar rose - courtly love (Burrell Collection definition)
The embroidery is stitched on crimson red silk satin. The colour indicates it was probably dyed with cochineal, so would have been a very expensive, opulent fabric. Added to all the stitch work and expensive dyed threads, it is reasonable to assume it was created for a Queen. The exhibit description says it was "probably" owned by Anne of Denmark, and what I have found out makes the symbolism hang together with her story.
This is Iconic Content Analysis as I am looking at a form of artwork. Key questions are "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect".
Who says what: As the garment was owned by a Queen, she is wearing it as a statement of power and affluence. The petticoat is an expensive garment, a result of intense labour, made from the finest fabric and dye, embroidered with a huge number of symbolic images. The symbolism of the flowers and animals listed above alludes to the Catholic faith; the desired accession to the throne of Charles I and II; the hope for the continuance of this line of monarchy; and peace.
To whom: to all the people Anne of Denmark would have seen when wearing it. Presumably this luxurious, symbolic garment would only have been worn at significant personal and state occasions when observers would have had the knowledge to interpret it.
Why: As a clear indication of her faith and Royal loyalties.
To what extent: To a great extent to anyone who saw it. (This was prior to easy 20th century communications!) This would include those who planned and executed the work on this garment; her household; the household of anyone who hosted her and her family/prospective in-laws (marriages were arranged in royal circles in this time).
With what effect: It is not known when this garment was worn. She was painted wearing it, which would have extended the audience, beyond those who she met at the time. If worn during marriage negotiations, it would have given a clear indication of her desires … but this is pure speculation on my part. If worn after marriage, it gives a clear indication of the intention to return England (and Scotland/) to a Catholic Royal lineage.
As Object Analysis is "A research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication", this petticoat is a tool of communication … and what a tool!
Uses: Inferences about 1.antecedents, 2.characteristics, 3. effects of a communication.
Which data are analysed?
From the Gilt & Silk exhibition I chose the red petticoats.
How are they defined? Not sure what this means
What is the population from which they are drawn?
In this case, the petticoats are drawn from the textile archive of the Burrell Collection. This collection was gifted to Glasgow c1948 by a Victorian businessman, William Burrell. He was an eminent collector across various fields: church architecture; Greek, Roman sculpture; metalwork; tapestry and textiles; furniture; artwork. His collection was revered by many, but his collection style has been denigrated by others who labelled him as having no more discernment than a jackdaw! This petticoat has a clear link to Scottish heritage and royal aspirations. It is one of the largest pieces in the Collection. The Burrell has an international reputation for the standard of its textile collection with many rare and unique pieces.
What is the context relative to the data that are analysed?
The context in which this petticoat is analysed is that of a time of considerable political instability with different factions in Christianity vying for power within Royal households across Europe (not unlike the Muslim situation today!) The Royal households in Denmark had long held desires for sovereignty over Scotland and Anne's marriage to James I England & VI of Scotland would have given a strong link between the 2 countries. Anne of Denmark shows she was brought up Lutheran but converted to Catholicism around 1590, the time of her marriage. Her husband, James I/VI, who was Catholic Mary Queen of Scots son, was brought up Protestant, away from his mother. Anne of Denmark was known for love of extravagant masques and a prominent sponsor of the arts.
What are the boundaries for the analysis?
The data I have focussed on is the symbolism of the imagery to try to identify the values communicated through a high status piece of embroidery.
I could have considered the people who made it, the process by which the fabric was dyed, the stitches chosen. I could have considered who had owned the petticoats from Anne's death to present day, and how and why the garment had been altered. These were ignored as they are not my field of interest.
What is the target of the inferences?
That in a time of low levels of written literacy, visual and iconic symbolism was deeply important and significant to communicate power and status.
Interestingly, although the images I have found of these pieces are from other people's blogs, no-one has analysed the symbolism of the flowers and animals. Other bloggers are stitch enthusiasts, rather than symbolic researchers.
 |
| Anne of Denmark, wearing the silk petticoat. |
 |
| The petticoat in a perspex case |
 |
| Embroidered detail |
Bird with leaf - Peace
Caterpillar and Butterfly - Charles I and Charles II (Burrell Collection definition)
Thistles - Scotland and Passion of Christ
Strawberry - good works of the righteous
Honeysuckle - love and generosity
Periwinkle - Virgin Mary, immortality
Lily - Virgin Mary, purity
Borage - courage
Daffodil/narcissus - Triumph of divine love over death/selfishness
Columbine - white dove/holy spirit
Oakleaf and acorns - England and endurance against adversity (oak made the cross)
Pansy - thoughtfulness (pensée) (Burrell Collection définition)
Peapod - fertility (Burrell Collection definition)
Carnation - pure love
Aspen leaves - trembling for Christ's sacrifice
Open briar rose - courtly love (Burrell Collection definition)
The embroidery is stitched on crimson red silk satin. The colour indicates it was probably dyed with cochineal, so would have been a very expensive, opulent fabric. Added to all the stitch work and expensive dyed threads, it is reasonable to assume it was created for a Queen. The exhibit description says it was "probably" owned by Anne of Denmark, and what I have found out makes the symbolism hang together with her story.
This is Iconic Content Analysis as I am looking at a form of artwork. Key questions are "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect".
Who says what: As the garment was owned by a Queen, she is wearing it as a statement of power and affluence. The petticoat is an expensive garment, a result of intense labour, made from the finest fabric and dye, embroidered with a huge number of symbolic images. The symbolism of the flowers and animals listed above alludes to the Catholic faith; the desired accession to the throne of Charles I and II; the hope for the continuance of this line of monarchy; and peace.
To whom: to all the people Anne of Denmark would have seen when wearing it. Presumably this luxurious, symbolic garment would only have been worn at significant personal and state occasions when observers would have had the knowledge to interpret it.
Why: As a clear indication of her faith and Royal loyalties.
To what extent: To a great extent to anyone who saw it. (This was prior to easy 20th century communications!) This would include those who planned and executed the work on this garment; her household; the household of anyone who hosted her and her family/prospective in-laws (marriages were arranged in royal circles in this time).
With what effect: It is not known when this garment was worn. She was painted wearing it, which would have extended the audience, beyond those who she met at the time. If worn during marriage negotiations, it would have given a clear indication of her desires … but this is pure speculation on my part. If worn after marriage, it gives a clear indication of the intention to return England (and Scotland/) to a Catholic Royal lineage.
As Object Analysis is "A research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication", this petticoat is a tool of communication … and what a tool!
Uses: Inferences about 1.antecedents, 2.characteristics, 3. effects of a communication.
Which data are analysed?
From the Gilt & Silk exhibition I chose the red petticoats.
How are they defined? Not sure what this means
What is the population from which they are drawn?
In this case, the petticoats are drawn from the textile archive of the Burrell Collection. This collection was gifted to Glasgow c1948 by a Victorian businessman, William Burrell. He was an eminent collector across various fields: church architecture; Greek, Roman sculpture; metalwork; tapestry and textiles; furniture; artwork. His collection was revered by many, but his collection style has been denigrated by others who labelled him as having no more discernment than a jackdaw! This petticoat has a clear link to Scottish heritage and royal aspirations. It is one of the largest pieces in the Collection. The Burrell has an international reputation for the standard of its textile collection with many rare and unique pieces.
What is the context relative to the data that are analysed?
The context in which this petticoat is analysed is that of a time of considerable political instability with different factions in Christianity vying for power within Royal households across Europe (not unlike the Muslim situation today!) The Royal households in Denmark had long held desires for sovereignty over Scotland and Anne's marriage to James I England & VI of Scotland would have given a strong link between the 2 countries. Anne of Denmark shows she was brought up Lutheran but converted to Catholicism around 1590, the time of her marriage. Her husband, James I/VI, who was Catholic Mary Queen of Scots son, was brought up Protestant, away from his mother. Anne of Denmark was known for love of extravagant masques and a prominent sponsor of the arts.
What are the boundaries for the analysis?
The data I have focussed on is the symbolism of the imagery to try to identify the values communicated through a high status piece of embroidery.
I could have considered the people who made it, the process by which the fabric was dyed, the stitches chosen. I could have considered who had owned the petticoats from Anne's death to present day, and how and why the garment had been altered. These were ignored as they are not my field of interest.
What is the target of the inferences?
That in a time of low levels of written literacy, visual and iconic symbolism was deeply important and significant to communicate power and status.
Friday, 8 January 2016
Planning my next trip - to New York
Today I took a brave pill and decided to have a trip to New York, to go to the Brooklyn Museum to see Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party. I want to do some more content analysis, to contrast with the exhibition and gallery I analysed in Scotland.
While having my swim this morning (1750m), I decided to restrict the range of what I evaluate. I have been debating whether I should look at how women are represented in general galleries, or how they are represented in women only galleries or exhibitions. I happen to have found some interesting stuff in women only galleries, and I think I will restrict the range of women this way, so I consider what skills and talents are being represented first. I think considering what gets represented in a mixed gallery brings a much wider range of material to be considered, which brings too many variables. I am a beginner at content analysis and need to start with something manageable.
I am going to New York from 29 Jan to 5 Feb, Friday to Friday. This is a time of tourist bargains, and I have 3 weeks at uni with no lectures, while tutors are marking our submissions. You can go to New York for 3 days, but I chose to go for a week, as I cannot face an 8 hour flight for fewer days away. I suspect I will spend days in the Brooklyn Museum, but it is closed on Monday/Tuesday, so I will do some general tourism as well. I would like a bus tour, a trip up the Empire State Building and a theatre trip. I will try to get a show that has not been staged in London.
I have asked my tutor for a tutorial before I go. I want to be really hot at object analysis if I am putting this much time and effort into viewing and analysing a seminal feminist artwork.
While having my swim this morning (1750m), I decided to restrict the range of what I evaluate. I have been debating whether I should look at how women are represented in general galleries, or how they are represented in women only galleries or exhibitions. I happen to have found some interesting stuff in women only galleries, and I think I will restrict the range of women this way, so I consider what skills and talents are being represented first. I think considering what gets represented in a mixed gallery brings a much wider range of material to be considered, which brings too many variables. I am a beginner at content analysis and need to start with something manageable.
I am going to New York from 29 Jan to 5 Feb, Friday to Friday. This is a time of tourist bargains, and I have 3 weeks at uni with no lectures, while tutors are marking our submissions. You can go to New York for 3 days, but I chose to go for a week, as I cannot face an 8 hour flight for fewer days away. I suspect I will spend days in the Brooklyn Museum, but it is closed on Monday/Tuesday, so I will do some general tourism as well. I would like a bus tour, a trip up the Empire State Building and a theatre trip. I will try to get a show that has not been staged in London.
I have asked my tutor for a tutorial before I go. I want to be really hot at object analysis if I am putting this much time and effort into viewing and analysing a seminal feminist artwork.
A New Year's Day trip to The Scottish National Portrait Gallery
I tried to do some more content analysis on the images of women in the "Out of the Shadows" Gallery. I looked at the images and tried to work out what the message was in the image, or what the symbolism meant, then read the artwork description. Sometimes I was spot on, other times very much wrong. This time I put it into table form, which makes it much easier to read.
Scottish National Portrait
Gallery –
Out of the Shadows – Women’s
Gallery
1 January 2016
Name
My
interpretation
|
Approximate
Size
of image
|
Artist
Statement
|
Naomi
Mitchison
1897-1999
Scruffy, sad, and weary/wary expression
|
3’ x 4’
|
Writer, feminist, socialist,
educationalist, economic projects in Africa
|
Jane
Maria Strachey 1840-1928
Unconventional clothing, green cloak,
orange lining. Glasses. Upholstered chair in library. Left index finger pointing on lap. Wedding ring. Imperious with defiant chin. Educated.
|
2’ x 3’
|
Poet.
Independent mind and spirit.
Feminist and suffragette.
Mother of 10 – educated all children – boys and girls. Known for unconventional smart clothing.
|
Catherine
Waterston Nee Sandeman 1755-1831
Widows weeds and modest cap and lace
trim. Quiet determination. Sombre colours. Open box (Jewellery? Tea?) and silk scarf on table. Looks frugal but very smart.
|
10” x 14”
|
Widowed at 25. Merchant husband’s business expanded by
her. Sealing wax – candles –
peppermint cure-all – stationery and books.
Strict Gasite church. Light
from window – representing work ethic
|
Elizabeth
Johnston Hall and Jeannie Wilson & Annie Liston 1843-6
Fishwives. Cleaner than I would have expected. Very well wrapped up in shawls around body and head, with arms
free. Hard work in cold, dirty
environment.
|
6” x 8” x 2 Photo
|
Chumming system when husbands away at
sea. Very poor communities but very
strong social relationships.
|
Anne
Rigby 1777-1872 Mother
Lace cap and collar. No gaze – downward eyes. Folded hands. Widows weeds. Looks frugal. Demure and chaste.
|
6” x 8”
Photo |
12 children including quads. A good
example of how to age gracefully.
|
Lady
Eastlake 1809-93 Daughter
Side profile. High fashion dress. Sideways downwards and downwards gaze.
Demure but artificial and posed
|
6” x 8”
Photo |
Intellectual, journalist, art
critic. Frequent sitter -participated in composing the pose
|
Isabella
Burns Begg 1771-1858
Widows weeds, lace edged bonnet. Looks frugal, smart and severe.
|
10” x 8”
|
Burns sister. Looks like Rabbie Burns. Widowed 1813. Supported 3 children by setting up
schools. Acted as gatekeeper to Burns’
memory.
|
Alexander
Carse + mother + sister (both unnamed). 1770-1843
Women not named. Chaste gowns and bonnets. Full length images, seated. Artists tools depicted – palette,frames and
paintings.
|
8” x 10”
|
Mother reading from Bible. Christian values, filial duty, respect for
age and the word of God. Protestant –
individual salvation – all (ie inc women)
needed to be able to read the Bible.
Intellectual freedom for women.
|
Clementina
Stirling 1772-1877
High fashion. Red dress, black lace hat. Flirtatious. Courtesan?
|
6” x 8”
|
Literary circles of Edinburgh. Eccentric and unmarried. Used disguises to be free. Heiress – inherited brother’s estate. Beautiful and intelligent. Impersonator, author, translator, and
beekeeper.
|
Isabella
Smith 1755-1855
Widows weeds and white muslin cap. Gentle expression with intelligent, direct
gaze. Chin down
|
24” x 30”
|
Inherited husband’s fortune from W
Indies. "Gentle mind, untaught to
shine” Intelligence not encouraged to
develop.
|
Caroline
Norton 1808-1877
Demure downward gaze to sketchbook.
|
14” x 16”
|
Poet, author and social reformer. Left abusive husband who divorced hre for
adultery with PM Lord Melbourne.
Guiltless but husband kept children. Petitioned Queen Victoria in 1855
re Marriage and Divorce Bill, as Queen Victoria was female. This led to women in Scotland enjoying more
property rights than in England.
|
Queen
Victoria 1819-1901
Gentle gaze. Rosebud mouth. Very fair skinned. Plump arms.
Awkward arms holding each other. Drooping pink rose in left hand. White dress – off the shoulder.
Privileged, beautiful and genteel. Everything points to a leisured lifestyle,
where lack of practicality is not an issue.
|
2’6” x 3’6”
|
Victoria Head of State, Albert Head of
Family. Youth and femininity – 2 years after accession. Power – blue sash of garter. Crown – small hair ornament. Strong influence on Govt when Britain had
power and influence.
|
Mary
Somerville nee Fairfax 1780-1872
Black gown. White ruffled collar on shirt. Fur stole.
Brooch and buckle.
Affluence. Defiant chin. Intelligent gaze.
|
2’6” x 3’
|
Intelligent with a love of learning. Forbidden to study maths and algebra. Studied at night, despite paternal
disapproval and got international acclaim for astronomy, science, and
geography. Scientific publications
1831 and 1834. Was first signatory for
first petition for female suffrage in 1869..
|
Margaret
Gourlay Ferrier 1832-1900
Black dress – gaze down at child on lap
while playing piano. Window to front
shows view to forest. Piano stool on
top of animal skin – mankind dominates animal life? Child’s shoes cast aside on floor?
|
2’6’ x 3’6”
|
Victorian narrative painting. Mother and child @ piano. Teacher and moral instructor of child. Music uplifting, and love and respect for
nature as of God’s creation.
|
Charlotte
Nasmyth 1804-1884 Romantic artist as young
woman. Fresh blond complexion. White empire line dress – muslin. Holding flowers morning glory (affection),
buttercup (riches) and rosebud (youth),
and sketchbook. Demure.
|
2’ x 2’6”
|
Father gave same education to girls as
sons. Daughters taught art. She became professional artist of romantic
landscapes and exhibited widely
|
Pheobe
Anne Traquair 1852-1936
Working cap and smock. Imperious gaze. Formidable.
|
Sculpture, bust
|
Painter, Illuminator, embroiderer,
enameller. Had 3 children with
paleontologist husband
|
Susan
Ferrier 1782-1854
Severe and chaste. Imperious.
|
Sculpture, bust
|
Satirical novelist on subject of marriage. A clever, caustic mind. Independent minded and characterful
heroines in her writing. Devout and
charitable. Emancipated slaves. A serious woman, taken seriously.
|
Anne
Grant 1755-1838
Silhouette at writing desk. Plump and imperious. Absolutely upright on chair. Books and quills. Inkpot and pen
|
7” x 5”
|
Widowed.
Supported self and 8 children by writing. Scott descrbed her as a
bluestocking. Straightbacked and
formidable
|
Margaret
Oliphant 1828-1897 Pencil drawing. Demure
black dress, no collar. Muslin
cap. Cross and chain x 2. Sad look.
|
10” x 12”
Pencil |
Writer of novels. Prolific.
Widowed by 30, 3 children.
Heroines resourceful single women.
Age of science, enlightenment and progress. She believed it was definitely the age of
the female novelist.
|
Jane
Carlyle
Ballgown and ringlets. High fashion society. Affluent.
|
3” x 4” enamel
|
Obscured by husband Thomas Carlyle. Her writings cast a satirical eye on social
scene. Wit, sarcasm, sharpness and
humour.
|
Critiquing what I have recorded, I note it is a bit inconsistent. I have recorded what occurred to me when looking at the images, rather than always considering where the gaze lies, or what the angle of the chin is. It is the angle of the chin that makes me think these women appear imperious, or defiant. So what is the difference between the two? The chin is always up, but to be imperious, the gaze is down. And with defiant, the chin is up and the gaze is level.
I think the portraits of women in the 19th century had significance in their size, particularly when representing people of a particular faith. The Scottish protestant churches were noted for their frugality. Perhaps a small portrait gave status from the act of portraiture, but frugality and deference to God meant the image was restrained, respectful and deferential.
The bigger images were of 20th century women, royalty and affluent thinkers of their day.
I think the portraits of women in the 19th century had significance in their size, particularly when representing people of a particular faith. The Scottish protestant churches were noted for their frugality. Perhaps a small portrait gave status from the act of portraiture, but frugality and deference to God meant the image was restrained, respectful and deferential.
The bigger images were of 20th century women, royalty and affluent thinkers of their day.
Saturday, 2 January 2016
A trip to Scottish Gallery of Modern Art 2 - Modern Scottish Women exhibition
This was a wonderful exhibition, of art produced by women between 1880-1965. There were a lot of portraits, many of women and children, which I thought were fantastic, as well as some early photographs and a room of landscape and abstract art which are not to my taste and therefore left me underwhelmed. I had a discussion with one of the gallery attendants, and she said there had been criticism of the exhibition from the audience, as there was a lot of portraiture. We agreed that this was because women artists painted what was available to them - painting their friends and children probably meant there were no models fees. Also, male artists were less likely to paint women and children as commissioned works were typically of affluent people and more men made their living from commissioned work.
I did a quick check of attendees by gender for the 2 hours 30 minutes that I was in the exhibition. 44 women, 25 men and 2 children. I had expected there to be far more women. But it was New Year's Eve and maybe there were more older couples attending as a day out. There was definitely quite a high proportion of older couples.
So I tried to set some rules to analyse the exhibition, practising my content analysis. I looked at artist; gender of image; adult/child; number in image; head/half length/full length portrait; which side of face portrayed; eye position/gaze.
1880-1910
Bessie McNicol
F; head portrait; gaze forward and level; left side of face
F; head portrait; gaze to the left and level; left side of face
F; head portrait; gaze forward and level; front of face
Margaret Campbell MacPherson
F; head portrait; gaze to left; front of face
Mary Cameron
M x 3; half length; gaze 3 x down; 2 x right side of face, 1 x left; proposed 4 times to Royal Scottish Academy and rejected each time)
Stansmore Dean Stevenson
M; head portrait; gaze level; left side of face (Ambiguous name may have enabled
F; head portrait; gaze level; front of face acceptance in exhibitions).
Phoebe Anna Tranquair
Angels; full length; gaze askance and down; left side of face;
M faun; full length; gaze up; front of face
Flora MacDonald Reid
M x 3; full length; gaze down and away; right side of face x 1, left side of face x 2
1910-1930
Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh
F 1+8; 1 x full length, 8 x head portrait; eyes closed; right side of face x 1, front of face x 8.
Jessie King
F + frog; full length; left profile; gaze ahead; left side of face
Eleanor Allen Moore
F; half length self portrait; gaze level and left; left side of face
Mabel Pryde Nicholson
F and M; full length; children; side profile and full face; gaze forward and level x 2
(Always paid her children as models)
F; full length; gaze forward and level; left side of face
Cecile Walton
F and M; half length; gaze forward and level x 2; (Short art career due to divorce and child
F and M; half length; gaze left x 2 responsibilities)
Dorothy Johnstone
F; full length; gaze level and direct; front of face
F; half length; gaze left and forward, leant forward; front of face
F child; half length; gaze right and level; right side of face
F child; F x 8; Full length; mixed gaze aspects, no gaze visible; Life class image, with self portrait teaching in background
F; full length; gaze forward and up
Margaret Morris
Landscape
Beatrice Huntington
M; Head portrait; Spanish; gaze left and level; right side of face
F; head portrait; gaze right and up; left side of face
Norah Neilson Gray
F and child; full length; gaze to child; left side of face
M and W; 17; full length multiple gazes - no gaze visible; war hospital.
Doris Zinkeisen
F; head portrait; level gaze to left; left side of face; clear wedding ring visible
Dorothy Carlton Smyth
F; half length self portrait; Gaze left and level; left side of face. 1st female Director of Glasgow School of Art; died of brain haemorrhage prior to taking position.
Mary Armour
F; half length; gaze left and level; facing forward; Had to give up full time work due to marriage bar.
Anne Redpath
F; half length; gaze forward and down; left side of face.
1930-1950
Isabel Brodie Babianska
F; half length self portrait; gaze left and up; left side of face
Margaret Oliver Brown
F; self portrait; half length; gaze right and up, right side of face
Agnes Miller Parker
Multiple people; full length; modernism. No gaze
Multiples people full length; modernism. No gaze
Cathleen Mann
F; 3/4 length; Gaze down and left; left side of face
Ethel Walker
F x 4; full length; Nude, outdoor; gaze down and right; 2 x left side of face, 2 rear view
Anne Finlay
M, full length; gaze up and left; left side of face. Combines portrait, interior and sill life.
Bet Low
M; full length; gaze down; right side of face.
Doris Zinkiesen
M x 2; full length nude; no gaze. Caused outrage when exhibited - female artist with male nude, "looks like Belsen victim"
Margaret Melles
Wood; constructivism; abstract
Louise Annand
Abstract
Margaret Sandeman
3 - 1 F, 2 ?; gaze direct x 1, non x 2; left side of face x 1
M; half length; gaze ahead; left side of face
Joan Eardley
3 x boys; no gaze; 2 x left side of face; 1 right side of face
Anne Redpath
Interior; chair, shoes, rug
Interior; mantlepiece
Mary Armour
Still life; fruit and jugs
Still life; vase and flowers
Wilhemina Barnes Graham
Interior; easel, stool
Landscape; box factory.
1950-65
Anne Redpath
Coastscape, Corsice
Bet Low
Abstract, river and water
Wilhelmina Barnes Graham
Abstract; Glacier
Abstract; Red
Joan Eardley
Fishing Village
The Wave, seascape
Sleeping Nude. Received mega criticism- female artist and male nude.
Margaret Millis
Abstract; Flowers
Abstract; Shapes
Pat Douthwaite
Abstract; man.
I did a quick check of attendees by gender for the 2 hours 30 minutes that I was in the exhibition. 44 women, 25 men and 2 children. I had expected there to be far more women. But it was New Year's Eve and maybe there were more older couples attending as a day out. There was definitely quite a high proportion of older couples.
So I tried to set some rules to analyse the exhibition, practising my content analysis. I looked at artist; gender of image; adult/child; number in image; head/half length/full length portrait; which side of face portrayed; eye position/gaze.
1880-1910
Bessie McNicol
F; head portrait; gaze forward and level; left side of face
F; head portrait; gaze to the left and level; left side of face
F; head portrait; gaze forward and level; front of face
Margaret Campbell MacPherson
F; head portrait; gaze to left; front of face
Mary Cameron
M x 3; half length; gaze 3 x down; 2 x right side of face, 1 x left; proposed 4 times to Royal Scottish Academy and rejected each time)
Stansmore Dean Stevenson
M; head portrait; gaze level; left side of face (Ambiguous name may have enabled
F; head portrait; gaze level; front of face acceptance in exhibitions).
Phoebe Anna Tranquair
Angels; full length; gaze askance and down; left side of face;
M faun; full length; gaze up; front of face
Flora MacDonald Reid
M x 3; full length; gaze down and away; right side of face x 1, left side of face x 2
1910-1930
Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh
F 1+8; 1 x full length, 8 x head portrait; eyes closed; right side of face x 1, front of face x 8.
Jessie King
F + frog; full length; left profile; gaze ahead; left side of face
Eleanor Allen Moore
F; half length self portrait; gaze level and left; left side of face
Mabel Pryde Nicholson
F and M; full length; children; side profile and full face; gaze forward and level x 2
(Always paid her children as models)
F; full length; gaze forward and level; left side of face
Cecile Walton
F and M; half length; gaze forward and level x 2; (Short art career due to divorce and child
F and M; half length; gaze left x 2 responsibilities)
Dorothy Johnstone
F; full length; gaze level and direct; front of face
F; half length; gaze left and forward, leant forward; front of face
F child; half length; gaze right and level; right side of face
F child; F x 8; Full length; mixed gaze aspects, no gaze visible; Life class image, with self portrait teaching in background
F; full length; gaze forward and up
Margaret Morris
Landscape
Beatrice Huntington
M; Head portrait; Spanish; gaze left and level; right side of face
F; head portrait; gaze right and up; left side of face
Norah Neilson Gray
F and child; full length; gaze to child; left side of face
M and W; 17; full length multiple gazes - no gaze visible; war hospital.
Doris Zinkeisen
F; head portrait; level gaze to left; left side of face; clear wedding ring visible
Dorothy Carlton Smyth
F; half length self portrait; Gaze left and level; left side of face. 1st female Director of Glasgow School of Art; died of brain haemorrhage prior to taking position.
Mary Armour
F; half length; gaze left and level; facing forward; Had to give up full time work due to marriage bar.
Anne Redpath
F; half length; gaze forward and down; left side of face.
1930-1950
Isabel Brodie Babianska
F; half length self portrait; gaze left and up; left side of face
Margaret Oliver Brown
F; self portrait; half length; gaze right and up, right side of face
Agnes Miller Parker
Multiple people; full length; modernism. No gaze
Multiples people full length; modernism. No gaze
Cathleen Mann
F; 3/4 length; Gaze down and left; left side of face
Ethel Walker
F x 4; full length; Nude, outdoor; gaze down and right; 2 x left side of face, 2 rear view
Anne Finlay
M, full length; gaze up and left; left side of face. Combines portrait, interior and sill life.
Bet Low
M; full length; gaze down; right side of face.
Doris Zinkiesen
M x 2; full length nude; no gaze. Caused outrage when exhibited - female artist with male nude, "looks like Belsen victim"
Margaret Melles
Wood; constructivism; abstract
Louise Annand
Abstract
Margaret Sandeman
3 - 1 F, 2 ?; gaze direct x 1, non x 2; left side of face x 1
M; half length; gaze ahead; left side of face
Joan Eardley
3 x boys; no gaze; 2 x left side of face; 1 right side of face
Anne Redpath
Interior; chair, shoes, rug
Interior; mantlepiece
Mary Armour
Still life; fruit and jugs
Still life; vase and flowers
Wilhemina Barnes Graham
Interior; easel, stool
Landscape; box factory.
1950-65
Anne Redpath
Coastscape, Corsice
Bet Low
Abstract, river and water
Wilhelmina Barnes Graham
Abstract; Glacier
Abstract; Red
Joan Eardley
Fishing Village
The Wave, seascape
Sleeping Nude. Received mega criticism- female artist and male nude.
Margaret Millis
Abstract; Flowers
Abstract; Shapes
Pat Douthwaite
Abstract; man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)