Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.


Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Historical Fact Becoming Imagination

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 29

1


Art embodies ideas and notions of race.  The art can be racist.  There is no relationship to art that isn't ideological.

2

We don't know exactly what she looked like, granted. And indeed, the reconstruction of her face is a projection.
But we're only misrepresenting history if we say "She looked like this" instead of "This is what we think she might have looked like." Opinions are not misrepresentations.

3

Well, they are constrained by factual constraints.  She's not black, for instance, or pale faced.  She may have been albino, for all we know.

4


"Art embodies ideas and notions of race."
Even when art deals with race, all of the ideas and meanings involved exist only in the minds of the artist and the audience.
"The art can be racist"
Art can be racist only in the same sense that a handgun can be murderous.
"There is no relationship to art that isn't ideological."
What?

5

Sure. And if they depicted her as a blonde, blue-eyed Nordic woman, that would raise a few eyebrows - and that might involve misrepresentation. Or it might not - it's possible that she was a foreign transplant that somehow ended up in Peru.

6

I don't see any mention of Amelia Earhart here at all.

7



I'll do this once, please, then let's agree to stop.  But please don't abuse taking the last word, if you feel compelled:
--------------------------------------------
"Art embodies ideas and notions of race."
Even when art deals with race, all of the ideas and meanings involved exist only in the minds of the artist and the audience.
LA: Art has no meaning from within.  It is always communicating with history and culture.
"The art can be racist"
Art can be racist only in the same sense that a handgun can be murderous.
LA: A handgun has no other purpose than to injure or kill.  I believe a handgun's intent is manifest, whether it's justified by law or not.  Art can embody racial ideas and ideologies.  You see a burning cross, the meaning is apparent and unavoidable, and avoiding it is doing obvious racial work that itself could be described as racist.
"There is no relationship to art that isn't ideological."
What?

8


So, "Historical Fact Becoming Imagination" is the point.

9

I posted that a couple days ago:
https://forum.com/home/dis...

10

"Art has no meaning from within.  It is always communicating with history and culture."
Which means... art cannot itself be racist.
"A handgun has no other purpose than to injure or kill"
It has other purposes: to intimidate, for one thing.
"I believe a handgun's intent is manifest,"
I assume you are using "intent" in a very loosely metaphorical sense here, because you are ascribing intent to an object.
"You see a burning cross, the meaning is apparent and unavoidable"
Disproof: if the depiction of a burning cross predates the US Civil War, it cannot have a racial meaning. I've seen such depictions in medieval-era artwork before.

11


the photo should be posted with an explanation that they only took photos of whites and blacks were left out.

12

I disagree. I've seen plenty of people in museums just looking at the p[pictures and moving on without reading the accompanying information.

13

That doesn't answer my question.

14

And... would any of them remember or learn much from the museum anyhow?
But even you must admit that such people are far more of a minority in a museum than they are in a newspaper audience.

15

Showing the all white photos would be telling the truth about S. Carolina which was totally racist at that time....and still is.

16

Doesn't work that way/

17

Like I said already. I disagree with you, which is why I think the photo would misrepresent more than enlighten.

18

Anything's possible.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

19

Ouch, it's glaring my eyes...

20

"Facts" exist to a degree of accuracy. Few historical facts exist to a degree of certainty of a natural law in physics. I agree that both mill photos should have been displayed, although the meaning to viewers today would almost certainly mean little to viewers a century ago.
The reconstructed face is a horse of a different paintjob. Few would think it is a depiction on a level with a photograph, but is it based on best evidence, so I think the charge that it is imagination, or false to the extent that the photo of only white workers would be an imaginary representation, is false.

21

yeah i've never liked or rather trusted these facial reconstruction things. not sure how we know those clay reconstructions form 'artists' that they display in museums are accurate. now 3d imagining. have they done any experiments to test the accuracy?
also i often question the 'facts' they extract form so little evidence. i heard this story the other day and they made it out to be that she must have been a ruler based on what was buried with her.

22

LOL! Sorry!
My point is (which I don't recall ever being accused of having one) is I think we project what we want to see. Granted, this is not a photograph of the actual Jesus (I don't think Kodak has been around that long), but if he looked anything like this, I don't think the Romans would have had to ask to have him pointed out.

23

Have you visited Madame Tousseau's?  Moving

24

I live not far from the site where the tomb was found. It is a face I've seen often. The racial characteristics are in keeping with the more native of the culture. The more European Spanish contribution is seen largely in the south, in and around Lima. I believe the work is fitting.

25

I agree with you Louis and I present the following two photos taken in Savanna Georgia in the late 19th century by the noted photographer, William E. Wilson.
The top photo, if viewed without regard to the inscribed title, is clearly not racist, but, inject the title, and it clearly is racist.  In this case, the work of art, which is the photograph, is not racist.
The second photo is quite different and is clearly racist without the title even being considered.  It presents the three kids in a well understood stereotypical manner, and the title only adds to what the photo already conveys.
Maybe these will help clear your discussion a bit.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

26

I think Beowolf (or whatever) asked you a valid question:  what point is it you thought you were trying to elucidate by getting into a discussion of European painters and Mediterranean subjects?

27

Well, if you read the entire thread, from the beginning and in it's entirety, it becomes pretty obvious where I fit into the picture.

28

Well, since you assumed responsibility for resteering our banter into a more useful direction, I see you neglected offering that choice with Beowolf, and his concerns about the jesus thing do seem to be at the heart of the matter, and he asked you, what were you trying to get at originally?
I see no reason you can't satisfy the question by answering it in a simple sentence, without re-interrogating the question, an obvious rhetorical tactic, and not genuine conversation.

29

To those who are only dimly aware of creative taxidermy or Photoshop, a faked photo can represent a "fact" of an alternative kind.  IOW, to those who strictly live by the saying, "Seeing is Believing", this fake picture can be proof of the existence of a cryptid critter.

Posts: 29

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Historical Fact Becoming Imagination

Similar topics in this forum