The Art of Being Late by Alise Stewart

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Gwenda

An Off the Subject Blog

The Art of Being Late (again)

I am late with this blog because I have been Spring cleaning my physical surroundings. Where that pertains to writing is: I have also had to do an emotional cleaning. My mother passed away two years ago. In order to avoid dealing with more emotion than we could handle, my brother and I saw fit at that time to pack ALL the accumulations of 71 years into an endless succession of cardboard boxes. A year later, we moved this menagerie out of storage, complete with stinkbugs, and into my tiny apartment. I lived through the winter surrounded by suppressed memories, refusing to explore any box, overwhelmed by the force of 71 years of love and hate, hopes and resentments.

My project this spring has been to sift through all the phantoms and transfer them to clear plastic storage boxes. It is not any easier living through your childhood a second time. Add to that, living through your parents’ lives, and their parents’ lives, ad infinitum, to the point of meeting people who died before you were ever born. You were simply a dream to them. It makes one feel insignificant and impotent. How can anyone live up to that many dreams and hopes? How does one live with ghosts?

Along with those fantasies come the resentments and griefs and losses that pervade anyone’s life. And regrets. What to do with this turmoil of emotions but write about them? Hold an object or memory of any ancestor and let your mind wander where it will. Let the sweet melancholia and fever pitches of the human struggle hold you for a while. When you are full of these emotions, write about them. I have a niece that inherited her great-grandmother’s hair…and some of her drawing talents. What better subject for writing is there? This is humanity, marching on through the centuries, crying in futility about it’s mortality, leaving things behind to mark it’s existence. Some things are spiritual and some physical. Such things actually make all of humankind immortal: it is our memories and failures to pass the stories on that mark the limits of our lives.

So tell the stories that your Mother told you, or your Aunt, or Grandmother, or Sister, and make sure that others and your children hear them. Tell them though you think no one is listening. It is a poetry all your own…and why we are immortal.

Until later on this month, gentle ones.

Posted in Arts Blog | Leave a comment

The Art of War – or At Least of a Military Transformation!

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Gwenda

The Art of War – or At Least of a Military Transformation!

By

B. Scott Crawford

 In March of 1838, while suffering from both the chronic diarrhea that accompanies dysentery and from fearing that death could be near as a result of his illness, First Lieutenant Joseph R. Smith wrote to his wife and informed her that he was contemplating resigning from the military.  Smith related to his wife how he believed he would survive his illness due to “the northern atmosphere, – and by the blessing of God.”  However, due to the fact that his unit was currently in Florida fighting the Seminole, his superiors had told him that upon recovery he would rejoin his unit, thus taking him away from a climate that was aiding his recovery and sending him into a climate that could possibly cause him to “sacrifice my health.”  Rather than suffer such a fate, Smith informed his wife that he would be “compelled to resign” and thus keep his health intact; however, this was no easy decision for Smith. Smith informed his wife that such a decision could be a burden for his family since he had nothing but his “present pay and profession.”  To give up a career in the military meant possible financial hardships for him and his family, which for himself he could “get along very well; – but you and our children; – it grieves me to think of it.”

While Smith’s fears about his dysentery returning and possibly killing him upon a return to Florida weighed heavy on his mind and served as the foundation upon which he formulated his thoughts about submitting his resignation, it was not the only factor that went into his contemplating such a drastic career move that could adversely affect not only himself but his wife and four children.  Smith’s letter to his wife touches on an important theme related to the state of the military during the Age of Jackson: the lack of respect the military received from the general public.  Smith states to his wife that if he could find another means to support his family he “would willingly quit a profession for which, – I think there is no longer a feeling of respect entertained by the country.”  Surely illness and the fear of becoming a casualty of disease, the force that killed more men in uniform in every war up until World War II, was the primary factor behind Smith’s contemplation of resigning from a career that was in many ways his life, but supporting him to make such a drastic decision was his belief that the sacrifices he was making as a United States soldier were no longer appreciated nor respected by the population at large.  Smith was feeling the force of Jacksonian Democracy.

The Age of Jackson and the rise of “Jacksonian Democracy,” referring to President Andrew Jackson, pictured above, gripped the nation as a new generation of Americans, those typically born between 1776 and 1800, came of age and began to grapple with the forces of republican thought and republican government that their fathers had formulated and created, respectively.  These “first generation Americans,” as the historian Joyce Appleby labels them, did not have to worry about creating a new government for the United States, as was the case with their fathers, but rather had to worry about how to make that system of government work and to grow.  As such, this first generation of Americans increasingly came to place emphasis on the need to reform society and expand republican ideology to as many people as possible, thus taking the country in a more democratic direction.  Suffragists fought for the expansion of the franchise to women; reformers embraced the Temperance Movement in order to curb the ill effects alcohol was having on the young republic; advocates for the poor emerged that fought for the creation of alms houses; Dorothea Dix and others lobbied on behalf of the mentally ill and urged for the creation of mental institutions; advocates for the rehabilitation of criminals launched the penitentiary movement; and abolitionists began to call for an end to slavery.  Every group in American society, with the possible exception of free blacks and Amerindians, became the focus of reformers who believed that the republican thought behind the United States’ government needed to expand; a new democratic spirit had gripped the nation.

As this democratic spirit began to spread across the nation, an institution that had always proven to be an anomaly in a society that embraced egalitarian thought and the belief that individuals possessed certain rights increasingly came under attack.  The military, which is hierarchical, not egalitarian, and which denies individual rights out of the need for order and discipline, did not seem to have a place within a society that was increasingly moving away from republican principles and toward democratic principles.  While the generation of the Revolution struggled with this, in the words of the historian William B. Skelton, “seeming paradox of American history,” the war with Britain forced Americans to embrace the military and all of its non egalitarian and tyrannical ways as it was the only institution that could insure Americans’ claim to independence could actually be made a reality.  That France and England continued to possibly threaten America’s independence up through the War of 1812 helped the military stay in place in American society; however, following the War of 1812, when the primary role of the military became frontier defense and Indian removal, less than glorious jobs, and as Jacksonian Democracy gripped the nation, the military increasingly came under attack.  Critics of the military either called for disbanding the military all together or, in a more egalitarian and democratic spirit, they emphasized the need to rely strictly on the citizen soldier and the militia for America’s martial needs.  In both cases critics viewed regular, full-time military forces as undemocratic, unnecessary, and potential agents of tyranny; it were such views that led Smith to relate to his wife that the nation no longer respected what he did as an officer in the United States army.

In his essay “An Officer Corps Responds to an Undisciplined Society by Disciplined Professionalism,” William B. Skelton argues that between the War of 1812 and the Mexican War the American military experienced an important transformation as it became more uniform and professional.  The attack on the military Jacksonian Democracy brought about, and the recognition that American land forces did not do as well as they should have during the War of 1812, with the exception being the Battle of New Orleans, as the Currier lithograph below depicts, forced officers to band together and explore ways in which to make the military both more professional, and thus be able to gain more respect from the masses, and more effective, and thus be able to better challenge potential enemies of the United States.

Coming from above, and resembling the many reform movements emerging throughout American society during the Age of Jackson, the officer corps began to develop a “professional ethos” that transformed the military into a more modern institution that had a degree of uniformity and standardization.  The rise in importance of military academies such as, and in particular, West Point allowed a degree of professional licensing to occur as clear standards emerged to which all officer candidates were accountable. Increasingly officers began to serve in the military for over 20 years and even, in some cases, for their lives.  While some did indeed resign from service, as Smith contemplated, an ever-growing number of officers stayed in the military and fought for professional standards and reform.  In 1797 only 6.6% of the officers in the military served more than 20 years, but in 1830 the percentage of officers in the military serving more than 20 years had risen to 44%. As critics attacked the military as being not in line with the egalitarian thought so much a part of the nation’s guiding political ideology, officers responded by intensifying their attachment to one another as a common group with a common cause. Just as critics attacked the military and advocated the militia, so too officers attacked their critics by demonstrating how ineffective the militia was as it tended to be undisciplined, politically charged, and grossly negligent and unsuccessful in combat.

David Claypoole Johnston’s A Militia Duty, painted around 1828, beautifully captures the tension between the military and the general population, as well as the attempt among the officer corps to make the military more respectable and professional.  Johnston’s watercolor is a satirical reflection of this theme.  The militia does not fare well in the work as they stand together in an anything but organized and disciplined manner.  The men who compose the ranks of this militia company share no common dress code, other than being in clothing reflecting their discombobulated nature, and they hardly look proficient or comfortable with their weaponry.  One man jokingly and unprofessionally uses his bayonet as a hat rack, while next to him a man painfully holds his foot, with his musket on the ground in front of him, following another militiaman’s inability to properly drill with his weapon as he slammed it down on the man’s foot.  Such a satirical representation of the militia not only attacks the military in general, it also supports the officer corps’ belief that the militia was an inefficient and ineffective institution.

While the militia comes under attack in Johnston’s work, the institution is not the only one to suffer at the hands of the artist.  The one figure in the painting in uniform, the officer commanding the company, in no way reflects a competent commander who deserves respect.  The officer stands overly erect and wears a uniform that reflects his over sense of both self and his position; he looks pompous and almost comical, as if Johnston is attacking the emerging professional ethos coming out of the officer corps as he exaggerates the professional standards the officer corps was beginning to embrace.  Overall, the work puts forth a comical portrayal of all those involved in the military at every level.

Such a work would have most likely offended an officer such as Smith.  While Smith would have most likely agreed with the manner in which Claypoole depicts the militia, he would have had issue with how the artist depicts those who lead men into battle.   It was such paintings and representations of the military that led the officer corps to form a close bond with one another and to begin a military transformation that left the nation, within just a few decades, with a military force that held uniform standards, was more efficient, and that was a truly modern military organization.  Through the military it becomes evident that not all reform movements tied to Jacksonian Democracy were egalitarian; in the case of the military, reform came to an institution that was, and is, somewhat undemocratic and less than egalitarian due to its need to find discipline and effectiveness.  And through this reform emerged the highly professional and disciplined troops that would sadly face each other in battle between 1861 and 1865 as in some cases literally brother took up arms against brother.

Posted in Arts Blog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

lauren e. simonutii

Posted on April 19, 2012 by Gwenda
lauren e. simonutii (1968-2012) It is with great grief, a heavy heart and profound disbelief that I find myself writing this email to let you know that Lauren passed away last week due to complications from her illness. As many of you know, I found Lauren’s work to be the most honest photography I have ever seen. She gained my respect instantly, as she welcomed me into her home, where she created… small intricate tableaus that invited the viewer into her imaginary world, laying bare her fears, hopes and pain. Through her photography, Lauren gave a voice to those that suffer in isolation. Her life mattered, and her legacy has yet to be written.  She will forever be in my heart, and while she may have felt alone, she always believed that her photographs would be her lasting memory – the one gift she would leave. My heart goes out to her family and the people whose lives she touched.  She was a brilliant writer, with great clarity.  She wrote often about her struggles, and it would only be fitting to give Lauren the last words: “Sometimes the difference between living and dying is just a little bit. Sometimes the difference between living and dying is just a sigh. Over (five) years I have spent alone amidst these 8 rooms, 7 mirrors, 6 clocks, 2 minds and 199 panes of glass. And this is what I saw here. This is what I learned. I figure it could go one of two ways- I will either capture my ascension from madness to as much a level of sanity for which one of my composition could hope, or I will leave a document of it all, in the case that I should lose. “
Posted in Arts Blog | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Whisper of Fields – River Laker

Posted on April 6, 2012 by Gwenda

http://whisperoffields.blogspot.com/2012/04/river-laker.html

River Laker

I met River Laker through some art event and interviewed him for a blog last year. I found him to be a sincere, hard working, Christian that loves working for the library system. He wants Roanoke’s Arts Community and events to grow by leaps and bounds.
He is from England and his father still lives there. He has an almost child-like love for libraries and communicating with others. He loves Roanoke and has a dynamic plan for it’s library system.
When he talked he showed a tender side. I imagine, from what I know of him, that he is terribly hurt by all the criticism that has surfaced since the 202 incident. I imagine that, coming from a different culture, he finds us terribly puritanistic. The U.S. is the most puritan of countries in the Western world.
I imagine he is amazed at how ridiculous the City of Roanoke is, dragging out an incident that took place on his own time, and not as a representative of the library. And at, of all things, a bachelor and bachelorette auction. Sexism at it’s best.
As for me, I hope they restore his duties and MOVE ON. What a loss it would be to Roanoke if he decided to leave. What a loss to the vitality of Roanoke’s libraries, as they would be put back onto the back burner of the City’s priorities once again.
Posted in Arts Blog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lots of stuff about the Sidewalk Arts Show 2012

Posted on April 4, 2012 by Gwenda

This is just some information collected together in one place.

Possible changes to the Sidewalk Arts Show participation requirements.  (to be confirmedby the Taubman ) A single tent can be shared by two people by permission of the CEO of the Taubman Museum, David Mickenberg.  If you choose to do this, find a partner to share with you.  Each person should fill out the application form; and both people should submit their information together (in the same envelope/package).  The cost should be as follows:
$35.00 (per each person entry fee) $20.00 for tent rental (@$10.00 for each person) $200.00 for space for tent (@ $100 for each person)
The total for each person will be $145.00 (Deadline extended until April 16th)

____________________________________________________________

Guest post and comments : from http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/03/guest-post-no-more-fences-for-the-sidewalk-art-show/

No more fences for the sidewalk art show? Photo courtesy of Ron Bill By Ron Bill I am an area artist who has been a participant in the sidewalk art show organized by the Taubman Museum supported by various sponsors. When I read over the 2012 prospectus for this year’s show I found that the museum is no longer providing fences for artist’s to display their art. For the last few years that has always been my preferred choice to display my art. The only option is to rent a 10 X 10 foot tent space for $200 (on top of the $35 non-refundable entry fee). Up until this year, artists had the option of renting a 4 or 8 foot fence section (8 foot cost $100, 4 foot was less). I called Aimee Hall, museum special events manager, to inquire about the change in policy concerning art display space. She explained that they lost their location to store the fences, the look of a tent only show is more professional and clean looking, that most shows offer only tents anyway and that, all and all, it will be a more enriching experience for the artists and spectators. All of this sounds well thought out but, as you well know, you can put a good spin on anything. I think the real reason is the museum just doesn’t want to fool with storing, putting up and taking down the display fences. Their decision to remove display fences from the show will eliminate an entire section of Roanoke area artists from this show. You have to sell at least $235 worth of art to break even (not including the expense of investing in a tent if you don’t have one). For a sizable segment of Roanoke’s artists, this year’s show will probably be a scratch when the joy of displaying their art to the public is weighed against the cost. I have seen the sidewalk art show slowly change over the years from a place where area artist of all levels of professionalism and talent could display their work to a much more polished financially driven art show. I will have to disagree with Aimee Hall in that many art shows don’t have fence display areas. Not at all true. The Lynchburg show is a good example, and probably a better show, more in tuned with the artists. Tents can be very confining and hot as the devil and if you have ever tried to move through the traffic between rows of tents you know that it’s difficult at best. If the cost and trouble of dealing with the fences is the motivating factor to do away with them, then shame on them. I doubt the cost is that much and volunteers do the setup labor. It should be about the art. They’re an art museum for Pete’s sake! Did I mention the museum will gladly sell any artist a tent if he needs one? Your thoughts? Posted at 08:00 by Dan Casey | Category: Guest post | 7 Comments 7 Comments » 1. Amazon has 10′ x 10′ pop up canopies with 4 zippered sides for $130. May be better deals as I only spent about 30 seconds on this. Comment by Ernie — March 9, 2012 @ 8:42 am 2. Good grief. Dan, enough with the entitled diva posts, please! Comment by tass — March 9, 2012 @ 8:46 am 3. Ron, What do you expect? The museum cannot be profitable based solely on membership and admittance fees, so they have to find other ways to generate any income they can find. Unfortunately for you local artists who wish to participate in the art show, you’re an easy target. Let them know you don’t approve….sit it out this year. If enough of you sit it out, they’ll have no choice but to reverse course. It’s hard to have an art show with no vendors and no vendors = no customers. Comment by RightWing — March 9, 2012 @ 8:53 am 4. Quit crying and deal with it or don’t go. Life’s not fair. It’s simple really. Comment by Uptheriver — March 9, 2012 @ 10:21 am 5. I’m still feeling sad for the peeps who didn’t like their new streetlights. Now this? Comment by Kristen — March 9, 2012 @ 10:55 am 6. Thanks for the kind words about the Lynchburg Art Festival. Please join us this coming September. Comment by George — March 9, 2012 @ 3:48 pm 7. This show has been a tradition since 1958. As artists, we do deal with it, we weather the storms, the wind, and the hot sun, what we shouldn’t have to endure is the treatment of the artists by the Taubman. Since they took over the prices, elitist attitudes, cliquishness, and pretentiousness has increased. The organization of the show has become more chaotic, with mistakes in spacing, incorrect charging of fees, etc. In my opinion, the quality has gone down as well. Sure, an artist can rent a tent, but what about those of us that do not have flats? You need those to hang on, you know? That was the appeal of the fences. Another consideration is that most artists do not have enough room in their vehicles for art, equipment, flats, and tents. Really…. The Roanoke Valley is home to a plethora of local artists, what a shame there is not a venue for them and them alone. Those in charge need to realize that they have this wealth of art and artists and need to appreciate and showcase them much more than they do; they need to include more than the ‘elite’ few. I have been here since the mid-1950′s and am well aware of the artists, the show, it’s history, and the passions behind it. It is disturbing to first find out the art is down by the railroad tracks with the noise and the stench of creosote, now this? I find this not acceptable. I have to say, Taubman folks need to rethink this. Perhaps one of the reasons is that membership is down and the museum is not a success is because of the ‘art’ etc. it offers. You have to know your audience; good writers know it, and successful artists know it, good managers know it. Look at your population and come up with a plan that does not make the museum look elitist and snobbish. Offer some programs that are more reasonable. What we really need is an art center, a place to include shows which include local artists, and the community at large on a regular basis. There is certainly room for improvement. Sad thing is, the artists of this valley are paying dearly for someone’s poor decision making. Lynchburg does have a wonderful show! They are good to the artists and also have much more organized community art happenings. It is a one day show, and in the fall. (Lynchburg, pat yourselves on the back!) Please pull it together, or else we all stand to loose. Comment by Doodles — March 26, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

_________________________________________________________

Meeting at Taubman Museum on April 1 to discuss Sidewalk Art Show changes

Have any thoughts on the changes to this year’s Sidewalk Art Show? Feel free to let me know in the comments.

The Taubman Museum of Art has sent a letter inviting artists to attend a meeting 6 p.m. April 1 in its auditorium to discuss concerns about changes to the 2012 Sidewalk Art Show.

When the museum released its call for applicants for the show, a Roanoke institution since 1958, a few artists immediately noticed a change in the prospectus.

The museum used to offer rates ranging from $50 to $190 to rent space along a length of fence to hang artwork, but the upcoming show no longer offers that option. According to the prospectus, artists can pay $200 for a 10-by-10 foot space to put up a tent, or they can pay $275 for both the space and a tent purchased from the museum. That’s in addition to the standard $35 entry fee.

Taubman Executive Director David Mickenberg clarified that the tents can be rented — they do not need to be purchased. A letter dated March 22 states tents can be rented for $20.

Though complaints about the changes have been few, the museum still offered a mea culpa for not discussing them with the regional arts community ahead of time. “We failed to discuss these changes with you and integrate your feedback into our decision making. That will not happen again,” stated the letter.

Mickenberg said the change was necessary because the museum has lost the use of the facility where it had been storing the chain link fence it used for the festival. Finding a new place to store it was too costly, Mickenberg said.

Last year’s show featured 175 artists. Mickenberg said last week that he did not expect the change to drastically affect artist participation. About two-thirds of the artists who take part already use tents, and of those who used the fence, only two artists made use of the $50, one-panel option last year, he said.

Having the entire show take place under tents will increase the quality of the experience and address concerns about sun and weather exposure, he said.

The letter also addresses an attempt to change the judging process. The prospectus requested that artists submit four digital images for each judging category entered, with the idea that images would be judged off-site. The museum now plans for all the categories to be judged at the show. The letter stated, “we understand how upsetting this was to some of our artists … All awards will be judged just as in years past.”

If you want to attend the April 1 meeting, the museum asks that you RSVP by March 30 by calling 204-4139 or emailing ahall@taubmanmuseum.org.

The show takes place June 2 and 3. The deadline for artists to register is April 1. For more information, call 204-4131 or SAS@taubmanmuseum.org.

1 Comment »

  1. I have considered exhibiting my art at this venue, but the entry fee has always been too high to support my cost in the long run. I do hope local art continues to be appreciated.

    Comment by Carolyn Nelson — March 26, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

Posted in Arts Blog | Leave a comment

Chautauqua Announces 2012 Art and Photography Show Press Release

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Gwenda

Chautauqua Announces 2012 Art and Photography Show Press Release

Who: The Chautauqua Art and Photography Committee
What: Entry Forms for the Chautauqua Indoor Art and Photography Show (and student levels) are now available, as are the Outdoor Art Vendor Forms
Where: http://www.wythevillefestival.org
When: Present until June 9, 2012
Contact: Phone – Shirley Cormier at 276-688-3599 or Leslie King at lsking@kingsmithstudio.com

There is that painting, that sketch, that collage, or maybe that photograph quietly sitting in your house, on your computer, in your photo album that is just waiting to be framed and hung in a place where others can enjoy it. The Wythe Art Council’s Annual Chautauqua Festival is the perfect place to show the world your artistic talents.

You are invited to submit your art work and photographs in the Indoor Art and Photography Show and to participate as an outdoor art vendor.

The Indoor Art and Photography Show will be held in the former Wytheville Community Center downstairs at 4th and Spring Streets from June 16 to 23. Accepted media in art include oil, acrylic, pastel, watercolor, pencil/charcoal, and mixed media. Accepted categories for photography are animal/wildlife, people, architecture/landscape, digitally manipulated, black and white/toned, miscellaneous, and professional category. There will also be two student categories in each of these – students grades 1 through 5 and grades 6 through 12.

Everyone is invited to submit three entries. Entry fees for adults are $5 per entry and students are $2 per entry. All will be eligible to win cash and ribbon awards.

The award winners will be anonymously chosen by two non-local art professionals. Jennifer Hand, an artist and art professor at Virginia Tech, will jury the art portion. Bill Ratcliff, a photographer and photography teacher at Radford University, will jury the photography portion.

Outdoor art vendor space rentals are also available, which is a great way to promote your art work. You can choose to set up for the entire week or for specific days. The spaces are 10 feet by 10 feet for  artists and photographers working in the same media as those included in the Indoor Art and Photography Show.

Guidelines and entry forms can be accessed at
http://www.wythevillefestival.org. Entry forms are due by June 9, 2012.

Art work and photographs must be brought to the former Wytheville Community Center on Thursday, June 14 between 4 p.m. And 8 p.m. Exhibited work may also be sold during the festival (15% of the  sale price to benefit Chautauqua). Work not sold must be picked up on Sunday, June 24 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

For more information, please contact Shirley Cormier by phone at 276-688-3599 or email Leslie King at lsking@kingsmithstudio.com. Both are co-chairs along with Darlene Frye and Colleen Mercier.

Indoor Entry Form   Outdoor Vendor Spaces

Posted in Arts Blog | Leave a comment

Works of Art as Windows to the Past

Posted on April 1, 2012 by Gwenda

B. Scott Crawford

For those of you who have attended Gathering in the Galleries, followed this blog, and/or watched my Art Detective segment on Daytime Blue Ridge, you probable recognize that when exploring works of art I try to bring as much history to bear on the art as possible.  In essence, I firmly believe that setting works of art in a proper historical, and not just art historical, context adds a fuller and even more complete appreciation for the artist and work of art.  However, I just as vehemently maintain that historians should explore works of art related to periods they examine to better understand those periods.  In short, works of art are wonderful windows to the past.

 

One example of how a painting can reflect certain events from the past is The Copley Family by John Singleton Copley.  John Singleton Copley, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, for most of his life, until he moved to England in 1774, began to portray himself and his family on canvas in 1776, just as thirteen of Britain’s North American colonies were in the process of declaring their independence. Even though Copley was in England at the time he completed this work, and while he was to some degree a Loyalist through marriage, the painting reveals much about changes that occurred in the American family during the late eighteenth century and that were related to the Lockean ideals that drove the American Revolution. Just as Jefferson turned to Lockean thought to justify the American Revolution, Copley captures the Lockean ideal of the family on canvas. In this sense, Loyalist, or at the very least political neutral, and Patriot converge.

Prior to the Lockean system the English world generally turned to the Filmerian system in order to understand family and government.  The Filmerian system viewed the family as a microcosm of the state. The father became a miniature king, and the wife, children, and servants became the patriarch’s subjects.  The Filmerian system supported the idea of absolutism as it reinforced a distinct social hierarchy that was basically masculine in nature.  During the English Civil War the Royalists formulated an argument against rebellion that proved unshakable for nearly half a century. The Royalists reasoned that since families were miniature kingdoms and fathers were, in essence, kings, if subjects did indeed have the right to rebel, then dependents in the home had the right to rebel against the patriarch. The Roundheads could not address this argument and thus failed to adequately philosophically justify their rebellion.

This concept is represented to some degree in Jan Steen’s 17th century painting The World Turned Upside Down.  Why is the world in a state of disarray and turned upside down?  Because the woman in the painting boldly stairs at the viewer, suggesting that she is in control of the home, while chaos reigns supreme.  The strongly symbolic key, a symbol for domestic order, is conspicuously hanging on the wall and not where it should be, in the lady of the house’s pocket.   This is yet another sign of disorder.  In short, the patriarch does not have control of his “kingdom.”  The result is chaos.

During the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, through the Declaration of Independence, was able to succeed where the Roundheads had failed as he philosophically justified the colonists’ rebellion against England.    Helping Jefferson in this endeavor was an event that occurred between the English Civil War and the American Revolution.  John Locke, in defending the Glorious Revolution, 1688/89, both successfully defended the right to rebel, and thus influenced Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration, and reconstructed the notion of the family, which influenced Copley when he painted The Copley Family.

Locke challenged the Filmerian System as he redefined the state of nature. To Locke, reason dictates that man should help his fellow man, while biology dictates that man should enter into a relationship with a woman and eventually start a family. However, Locke recognizes that reason does not guide everyone, thus necessitating the creation of government to protect both one’s life and property. Locke shows that the state and the family are not related or analogous since the family emerged before the state. To Locke, the right to rebel against the state has nothing to do with rebellion within the home; homes are not miniature monarchies, and husbands are not miniature monarchs.

Locke successfully separates the state and the family, thus allowing for the right of rebellion to exist in a manner less threatening to patriarchs. With this right to rebel established, Jefferson was able to successfully defend the colonies’ right to rebel against England in the Declaration of Independence. Yet the Lockean ideal of the family also redefined the woman’s role in society. The idea of the Cult of Domesticity emerged with the American Revolution and provided a way in which women could find a role in the new republic. Women were the instruments through which morally upright, virtuous citizens would enter political life, something essential in a republic. Men, though less virtuous, were more capable of surviving in the more dangerous public sphere while women, being more nurturing, were better suited to raise children.

The Copley Family

reflects all of these themes nicely. In the painting, Copley’s wife, Susanna, looks lovingly at her son, who equally lovingly looks toward her. All the while yet another child clings to Susanna’s arm, fearfully looking at the viewer; comfort can only be found in her mother’s arms. The virtuous and nurturing nature of women is clearly reflected in the mother’s face and through the calm manner she exhibits as not one but two children demand her attention.

Juxtaposed to this nurturing scene and the loving relationship between the mother and children is the interaction between Copley’s father-in-law and daughter. The grandfather looks off in the distance away from the child, he holds the child in an incredibly awkward manner.  The discomfort felt by the child is clearly evident on the child’s face as the child unsuccessfully reaches out to her grandfather for attention.

Copley is one of three figures to look directly toward the viewer.  In this manner he may be pulling the viewers into the painting as he intimately engages them through eye contact. Engaging the viewer in this manner allows him to tie himself to the public sphere.  He looks away from his family and toward the painting’s audience. Copley is also tied to the public sphere as he unveils the world beyond the domestic sphere that exists behind the curtains.  In the spirit of the Lockean system, this unveiled world is his world, masculine in nature, not fit for women. His wife is oblivious to the world her husband shows us as she looks inward, toward her child and family, in her own sphere.

While the painting strongly suggests that gendered spheres were indeed emerging just as the United States declared its independence, not all historians support the idea that such a gendered division of society existed during this period. Arguably, the Lockean system may have been an ideal construct, but it was not an entirely accurate portrayal of early national and antebellum American society. Women did find ways in which to operate within the public sphere, which was supposedly masculine and inaccessible to them. Carolyn Lawes argues nicely in her work Women and Reform that such gendered spheres were not the reality in antebellum America. Lawes demonstrates that through the church, sewing circles, work with orphans, and work outside of the home, women found “room to maneuver” and challenge the ideals of Republican Motherhood and the Cult of Domesticity. In essence, by using the very stereotypes that attempted to relegate women to the home, women were able to find ways in which they could “exert themselves and enforce their will upon a rapidly changing community.”

In this light The Copley Family could reveal not only the ideal of the Cult of Domesticity, but the painting could also reveal a society in which public and private spheres merged.  The only other figure besides Copley and his young daughter—the one who is holding onto Susanna in distress—to clearly look at the viewer is Copley’s oldest daughter who stands alone in the center of the painting. In this manner she exerts a degree of independence as she pulls the viewer into the painting to meet her family. She is not tied to the domestic sphere but, like her father, is interacting with the viewer who is in the public sphere. The doll tossed to the side in the painting possibly suggests that this daughter is approaching adulthood since the doll is tied to her through clothing yet has been tossed to the side. This is arguably a young lady who will soon be finding ways to interact in the public sphere.

The floral pattern on the carpet allows the private sphere to merge with the public sphere that Copley reveals to the viewer. The floral pattern on the carpet ties the home to the public sphere, thus suggesting that the two spheres are interconnected, similar to the “unofficial sphere” that Catherine Allgor examines in her work Parlor Politics, in which the women of Washington D.C. allowed their homes to become the medium through which national political issues could be settled. In this manner, The Copley Family not only reflects the themes related to Republican Motherhood and the Cult of Domesticity, it also nicely reflects the rich and complex historiography surrounding women’s history during the early national and antebellum periods.  This is a painting that serves nicely as a window to the past!

 

Posted in Arts Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Writers Block by Alise Stewart

Posted on March 20, 2012 by Gwenda

An Off the Subject Blog

It happens to all of us, don’t panic. One of the best ways I know to break it? Buy a book of poetry ‘forms’. That is: buy a book filled with the definitions of the thousands of different forms of poetry. There will be forms from all over the world and some have examples. Pick a form and write in that style. At the end of your effort, you will not only have a poem, but will have learned a new form. Try not to pick a form you are familiar with: the sonnet, rhyming couplets, etc. Stretch your mind around a foreign form…a pantoum, say. It will not only shake up your mojo to try this method, but will expand your mind and engender a sense of accomplishment…which is a great goal of writing.

 

 

The best places to find such books are: college book stores, and used book stores. Try the used book stores first since the professors tend to only order enough books for the class and some one might have to go without if you buy their books. Libraries are another good resource, but I find that buying one to keep forever is ideal.

 

 

Oh, and by the way, Happy Soring and never, ever, give your dog something with bbq sauce on it. Trust me.

 

 

Until next month, gentle readers…

Posted in Arts Blog | Leave a comment

The Art of Not Listening – Alise Stewart

Posted on March 1, 2012 by Gwenda

Off the Subject – Blog Series

Can you believe it’s almost Spring? One of my better suggestions was to talk back to your Mother, and you would have plenty to write about. I talked back to my mother enough to know, which brings me to making a fool of yourself. Don’t be afraid to. Too many people are too afraid of what others think and say. That’s the advantage of being an artist. It is a fool proof excuse, forgive the pun, to make an all out moron out of yourself and the public will worship your perceived creativity.

So make a fool of yourself occasionally by going out on a limb and writing and thinking and saying what you want. You’ll regret it, sure, but you’ll have something to write about, journal about, tell your grandchildren about and…in the end, you can say you have really lived.

Until next month, gentle reader.

Posted in Arts Blog, Off The Subject | Leave a comment

A Twisted Love B Scott Crawford

Posted on February 29, 2012 by Gwenda

Gathering in the Gallery’s Valentine’s Celebration

by B. Scott Crawford

February – the month of love.  With Valentine’s Day figuring prominently on the calendar, February’s Gathering in the Gallery simply had to focus on the topic of romance.  However, uncovering surprises in art is one of Gathering’s trademarks, so the work we explored, titled Metamorphosis of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, painted byJan Gossaert ca. 1520, threw everyone a little off as they began to explore the scene.  I purposely withheld the title of the work so that a discussion could unfold revolving around the gatherers’ ideas about what exactly the scene depicts.  All I told them was the name of the artist and the approximate year the painting was competed. Overwhelmingly suspicions came forward that the man and woman engaging one another in the shallow water were Adam and Eve. However, there was much discussion and even confusion about how the scene did not suggest any specific event surrounding Adam and Eve in “Genesis.”  Specifically, the male figure’s genital region is covered while the female’s is not.  Was this before or after the Fall?  It would appear that “Adam” is depicted post Fall while Eve is depicted ante Fall.  Also, and more importantly, much discussion centered on the “monstrous beast” found in the background to he left that appears to be two humans fused into one.  No such creature is found in the Book of Genesis.  So “what is this scene,” participants asked?

As the discussion evolved, some began to suspect that the figures could not be Adam and Eve.  One interesting theory was that the painting served as an allegorical treatment of marriage.  Some argued that the painting depicted before and then after two lives come together through Holy matrimony.  Some of the men in the audience even joked that the seemingly combative embrace of the figures in the foreground, with the woman seeming to have the upper hand, suggested the artist was treating marriage as an event where men ultimately lose freedom.  In this interpretation, marriage is something men naturally fight against!

At this point the participants received a small packet of information that helped them better understand what the scene depicts.  Included in the packet were the title of the work and the story of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis as told by Ovid.  Thus, rather than Adam and Eve, or even a direct allegorical treatment of marriage, Gossaert depicts his interpretation of that fateful, mythical meeting between Hermaphroditus, son of Hermes and Aphrodite (thus his name) and Salmacis, a water nymph.  Gossaert does depict a before and after scene, but rather than marriage serving as the pivotal point, it is Salmacis’ obsession with Hermaphroditus and her attacking him and then not letting him go that the artist uses as the focus of his work.  It was this obsession and struggle, according to the myth, that resulted in the creation of the first hermaphrodite, which was the result of Salmacis’ refusal to let the object of her affection go; through this struggle, the two were joined and magically became one.  It is this fusion that Gossaert represents in the figure in the background.  However, it should be noted that Hermaphroditus has been associated with marriage as a symbol of two lives becoming one, so it is not a stretch to find a reference to marriage in the work.

Now that the scene had been identified, we found a wonderful opportunity to discuss early Modern European ideals and understandings about gender and sexual identity.  During the period Gossaert captured this mythical event on canvas, the European mind was shaped by medical beliefs dating back to Galen.  According to the ancient physician Galen, human sexual anatomy revolved around whether or not a person fully developed into a man or remained underdeveloped and thus a woman.  According to Galen, there are not two sexes, just one.  This is aptly illustrated in an image created ca. 1700 by the Flemish anatomist and physician Andreas Vesalius (see image below).  Here we find the internal anatomy of male and female genitalia. Note the similarities!  There was no understanding that both men and women have unique roles to play in sexual reproduction, or, in other words, the human egg residing in the female was not understood.  In fact, it would not be until around the 1700s that the Western mind embraced the idea that women contributed the egg in sexual reproduction and were thus a separate sex!  Up until the 1700s, Europeans basically believed that sexual reproduction revolved around women simply providing the environment in which sperm could mature into a human being.  It was not understood that women contributed much more to reproduction than being only the vessel that carried a developing child.

During the early Modern period, it was actually believed that under certain conditions, a woman’s “maleness” could fall out and her sexual identity would become blurred; this was how Europeans explained the existence of hermaphrodites.  In order to see how this could play out, we need look no further than 1630s Jamestown, Virginia, when an individual by the name of Thomas Hall arrived in the colony.  In fact, Thomas Hall had been born Thomasine Hall and had been raised as a girl.  However, after successfully posing as a man in the early 17th century and fighting for the English in France and then returning home, resuming life as a woman, Thomasine again disguised herself as a man in order to indenture herself and go to the New World.  Upon arriving in the New World it was quickly noticed that Thomas possessed too many feminine skills, such as sewing, to truly be a man.   A debate began to occur throughout the settlement, located near Jamestown, as to whether or not Thomas should continue to wear men’s clothing – based on “his” skill set, many felt he should wear women’s clothing.  At this time in history, one was expected to wear clothing fitting his or her station.  Just as poorer individuals could not, by law, wear the clothing of a higher class, so too women could not wear pants.  If Thomas had feminine skills, then he should have been wearing a skirt.  This issue caused much debate as the community was obsessed with maintaining order and insuring everyone was represented accurately.

Things then went from bad to worse for Thomas, or Thomasine, when on several occasions groups of women and then men forcibly physically examined Thomas to determine if he was indeed a man or a woman.  To everyone’s surprise, no one could agree as to what sex Thomas was when he was physically examined!  After continued debate, the case found its way to the General Court in Jamestown.  The court could not reach agreement as to his or her sex, so it ruled that from that point forward Thomas/Thomasine was to wear men’s clothing along with a woman’s bonnet and apron!  His/her sexual ambiguity was to be outwardly reflected as he, by law, had to wear both men’s and women’s clothing.  An image I found online puts forth a suggestion of how this would have looked.  The image is not from the period, but contemporary to us.

So what does all of this really mean?  Well, as with anything, it is open to interpretation.  At the very least, however, Gossaert presents for us a scene that is mythical but in some ways real.  It depicts what would have been to Gossaert a strange “creature,” a hermaphrodite.  The painting would have at some level been a reminder to the average European living in the 16th century that the true sexual nature of humans involved a very close relationship between men and women with one sex being fully developed and one not.  The case of Thomas/Thomasine Hall also reveals that sexual identity was not entirely determined by biology.  Clothing, almost as much as biology, reflected one’s sex.  With Thomasine’s true sex indeterminable, the court ordered her to wear men and women’s clothing – a visible sign that her sex was unknown and indeterminable.  Also, do note the shape of the hermaphrodite in the painting.  The shape resembles the letter Y.  This reflects the influence alchemy at times had in Early Modern art in regard to portraying hermaphrodites.  In alchemy, the letter Y is a symbol of joining female and male items.  It was common in art during the period to depict hermaphrodites in a manner resembling this letter, as found in the image below.

Needless to say, this exploration of Early Modern Western beliefs about sexuality and anatomy took the participants in a direction not entirely expected.  But to me, that is the fun we can find in art – we never know what adventures and surprises await us as we move our eyes across the canvas!

Posted in Arts Blog | Leave a comment