I know I often give the appearance of falling against my keyboard and accidentally posting nonsense, but this series of blogs has been in the pipeline for a while. At Christmas I read a fabulous book entitled Men in Wonderland which informed a lot of my thinking about the defence of the otherwise indefensible, and managed to change my thinking on what was going on behind those all too familiar images. It reinforced for me the idea that in many ways we have to learn how to see Victorian pictures through their eyes, and it is possible that just because it's a recognisable image (i.e. that of a child) it doesn't mean that we completely understand what we are viewing or should judge using our morals and prejudices.
I wanted to show some images of girls that I am quite relaxed with, that I would gladly have on my wall. I'll start with Ford Madox Brown and The Irish Girl (1860).
It's tonally gorgeous and beautiful, her dark hair contrasting with her pale skin and the vivid red. There seems to be nothing exploitative or suggestive about the image, it's both powerful and innocent. This is in contrast to Mauvais Sujet (1863).
Oh dear, where to start. Is it the apple, or the ribbon? Maybe its the red earring, but this is a bad girl. Her name may be 'Mary' (as graffitied on the desk) but I get a terrible suspicion that we won't be prefixing that with'Virgin'. You can say that it is an honest portrayal of precocious teenage sexuality, a precursor to Lolita, or you can say 'Ford! Really!' I still like The Irish Girl, it's far more dignified.
Okay, while I'm in the realm of the wrong, let me just share this with you....
The New Whip Charles Barber |
We do actually own a print involving children, it's very special to us indeed at Chez Walker...
Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose (1885-6) John Singer Sargent |
We liked this picture so much our daughter is named for it. The use of the light source, the dark and white, it's an exquisite picture, just this side of well-known. We saw it at the Tate's Sargent exhibition in the late 90s and I have loved it ever since. May I just clarify that my daughter's name is 'Lily-Rose' not 'Carnation-Lily-Lily-Rose'. That would border on child abuse...
See it is possible to not stray into weirdness (or dog whips) when picturing little girls. I turn to my good friend Rossetti for further inspiration...
Jenny Morris (1871) D G Rossetti |
Possibly a little bit wrong and a little bit right is this extremely famous image by G F Watts...
Choosing (1864) G F Watts |
So, imagine me at Christmas, thinking about these posts, and I thought about Julia Margaret Cameron. I love her pictures of children, they are beautiful and imaginative, but also as straightforward as a photograph can be. Take Annie, My First Success of 1864...
It's marvellously modern, like many of Cameron's works it would be hard to date it because this could easily be a child from the 1930s or even 1960s. This got me thinking, and I am one to put my money where my mouth is, so together with Miss Lily-Rose Walker, I began to plan our own interpretation of the Victorian child aesthetic. I think my favourite Cameron image is Call, I follow, I follow, let me die! from 1867...
With this in mind, Miss Walker and I put on our very best Pre-Raphaelite expressions and I took some photographs. The result is this...
Lily-Rose, December 2011 |
Well done, Rossetti!
ReplyDeleteI love love Sargent because his watercolors (which is or was my major) are suberb. His capture of light is so wonderful. I am fortunate to live near museums that have a few of his works (oils) and I cannot even discribe how they glow.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonder essay you did and I love your own photos of Miss Lily-Rose. I think Julia photographed children because they were accessible. I love her work because they are so vocal in their silences.
It's hard to separate the modern train of thought from what was thoguht of in the past. I have a friend who is an interpretor for historical museums and he often explains the mind set. Something we would think of as horrible now would have been thought of totally different back in the time we discuss. It's such an eye opener to me sometimes. I'm drawn to the early women biologists - Mary Anning and Elizabeth Philpott who choose to be spinsters to follow their vision. (Book tip is Tracey Chevalier's Fascinating Women.) Women during this time are so fascinating thank you for adding another dimension.
Thank you!
(Third time is the charm) The name of Chevalier's book is Remarkable Creatures. Sorry. It's the heady experience of being able to respond on the blog and not through e-mail.
ReplyDelete:)
Thank you Ladies for the comments. It's a bit of an unusual experience saying 'Well done for not being a weirdo!' to Rossetti, but he has no issues in this area (possibly only this area). Nancy, there is no stopping you now! Thanks for the book suggestion. I agree that JMC's work is astonishing, I loved my visit to her house on the Isle of Wight, I really must go back.
ReplyDelete