---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 03 February 2005 00:00 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
To: Recipients of VICTORIA digests <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: VICTORIA Digest - 1 Feb 2005 to 2 Feb 2005 (#2005-34)
There are 14 messages totalling 619 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes (8)
2. public statues or monuments
3. public statues and monuments
4. Levee's
5. Uncollected Letters of A. C. Swinburne
6. VICTORIA Digest - 31 Jan 2005 to 1 Feb 2005 (#2005-33)
7. Mud and Muck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:14:58 +1100
From: Lee O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
This is in response to Michel's response to "fishwives".
I stand by what I said about the photograph of Elizabeth Hall (which was one
of a series): to my mind it *does* challenge stereotypes, stereotypes that
Michel articulates and reinforces in a way that, I have to confess, made me
very angry. Of course I defer to Michel's superior knowledge in this
field - I simply don't have his knowledge-base or expertise - wish I did.
But I smell a rat - perhaps it's a "reality" rat. Fishermen are noble.
Fishermen are good (think Pegotty and the fishers of men). It's their wives
who are the problem, relentlessy demonised (but *not* by Hill and Adamson).
I'd like to show you a portrait, one that doesn't exist: a fisherman and his
fishwife. A saint and a sinner. What's wrong with this picture? To my
mind, a lot. Presumably they both ate the same food (which Michel helpfully
describes), aged as horribly as we all do, were partial to a drop or two,
and the fisherman behaved as badly as his wife when of a mind to. So how,
Michel, do you account for the difference in reputation down the years? I
can easily account for it - I see gender stereotypes at work (the sorts of
ones that differentiate between "housework" and "work").
Stereotypes - ah yes, what about them? I'd like to make it clear that I
don't think of myself as outside stereotypes in some privileged position of
superiority. I'm regularly appalled by things I've written/said in which
the murkier ideological underpinnings reveal themselves too late. What did
Barthes say: "in each sign sleeps that monster: a stereotype". We are all
devoured by them. I think it's very hard to disentangle one's "own"
thinking from the stereotypes informing categories that make thought and
civilsed exchange - as well as abuse - possible. I enjoyed reading the
review of Sickert's biography, but my response was not a simple one, and on
some levels I felt considerable irritation. I didn't much relish the way
that (a) Sickert's dirt and dallying with fishwives was used to set him
apart from the rest of the - by implication benighted, constipated -
Victorian middle class and (b) the way that the fishwife who bolstered
Sickert's bohemian cred was described. The energy and humour of the review
relied on a false and simplified sense of a monolithic Victorian middle
class which Sickert's "endearing" (for some) eccentricity exposed.
Everything i read in that review indicated that Sickert was a man who
enjoyed considerable gender and class privilege. Bohemianism is parasitic
of working class culture and mores and dubiously constructed as separated
off from *the* Victorian middle class - whatever that was. Falling in love
with one's own bodily products - and eveyone else's - may be a good
definition of bohemianism (go for it, just don't invite me to dinner) but
it's based on class privilege. Being born into a hovel where you can't
avoid the shit, and dying decades before you reach your picturesque dotage
is another matter. But Sickert was aware of all this - and so was the
reviewer. It's the unreflecting gender stereotypes that I really couldn't
stomach more than the class, but both stink: "Fishwives anyone - you'll love
the bouquet - and while you're at it - bring that stream over here so I can
pee in it". Oh, the seductiveness of the boy's own view of the world.
Oh well, why bother. George Bush is in the Whitehouse and John Howard is
cemented into Kirribilli house for the forseeable future. Why don't we all
just lie back and think of the stereotypes. Goodnight Michel.
Lee
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:44:19 GMT
From: Lesley Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
> But I smell a rat - perhaps it's a "reality" rat.
Fishermen are noble.
> Fishermen are good (think Pegotty and the fishers of
men). It's their wives
> who are the problem, relentlessy demonised (but
*not* by Hill and Adamson).
> I'd like to show you a portrait, one that doesn't
exist: a fisherman and his
> fishwife. A saint and a sinner.
The stereotype might have to do with the position of
women in maritime economies - with the men away for
substantial periods at sea, the women had to be de
facto heads of households in their absence, leading
perhaps to 'unwomanly' independence and self-
assertion. Also, 'fishwives' are themselves
participating in the economic marketplace, by selling
fish and related products. Think of the associations
of 'Billingsgate' (major London fish-market).
Lesley Hall
[log in to unmask]
www.lesleyahall.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:34:50 -0000
From: Michel Faber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
My response to Lee O'Brien's post about fishwives evidently angered
Lee, which was not my intention. This will be my only further
contribution to this thread, for fear that it may begin to stray far outside
of Victorian parameters.
> Of course I defer to Michel's superior knowledge in this
> field - I simply don't have his knowledge-base or expertise - wish I did.
> But I smell a rat - perhaps it's a "reality" rat. Fishermen are noble.
> Fishermen are good (think Pegotty and the fishers of men). It's their
> wives who are the problem, relentlessy demonised (but *not* by Hill and
> Adamson). I'd like to show you a portrait, one that doesn't exist: a
> fisherman and his fishwife. A saint and a sinner. What's wrong with
> this picture? To my mind, a lot. Presumably they both ate the same food
> (which Michel helpfully describes), aged as horribly as we all do, were
> partial to a drop or two, and the fisherman behaved as badly as his wife
> when of a mind to. So how, Michel, do you account for the difference in
> reputation down the years? I can easily account for it - I see gender
> stereotypes at work (the sorts of ones that differentiate between
> "housework" and "work").
There was nothing in my post that denied these gender stereotypes.
Nor was there anything in my post that suggested that male fishermen
were/are noble, handsome or "good". The difference in reputation
between male and female fisherfolk can indeed be attributed (with some
caveats below) to a perennial pro-male, anti-female slant on labour.
Such prejudices have always troubled me -- so much so that they
constitute one of the main themes of my fiction.
I had hoped it was implicit in my original post that I appreciate that the
factors which erode the health & physique of females doing hard, dirty
labour erode the health & physique of males just the same. I live in the
far north of Scotland and for the first seven years lived right outside a
fishing village called Portmahomack. I'm only too well aware that lower-
class men who work outdoors in all weathers, year in year out, on a diet
consisting largely of spuds and booze, do not look like movie stars or
behave like saints.
However, while I accept that fishwives have an unfairly bad reputation
compared to fishermen, I think the two examples cited by Lee are both
problematical. Dickens's Daniel Peggotty is a kind man but there's no
suggestion that his life of hard labour has left his physique unmarred.
He, no less than his wife, is a typical Dickensian working-class
stereotype. The following 1880s print is one of many illustrations
depicting him as a grotesquely unlovely creature:
http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-2219.jpg
In any case, citing Daniel Peggotty in an argument about the difference
in reputation between male & female fisherfolk is inherently unsound.
Dickens paints Peggotty's wife as a paragon of virtue. She is an
Mummy of Beatrix Potter dimensions, so fantastically lovable &
nurturing that even the most determinedly feminist sociologist may feel
a twinge of nausea.
Dickens's portrait of Ham Peggotty, the son, is at the same time more
realistic and more questionable. Dickens arguably hints at the physical
deterioration that may beset the young man in a few more years -- the
"simpering boy's face" that may soon be weatherbeaten into something
more simian, the curly light hair and "sheepish" look that may soon be
transformed into fleecy grey wisps on a gormless head. Or maybe not.
But anyone who has observed real fishing communities will raise an
eyebrow at the idea of Ham being "a huge, strong fellow of six feet
high". Towering height is yet another physical attribute that doesn't
come easily to people who are raised on hard labour and poor
nourishment. All the fishermen & women I've ever seen have been short
or, at most, of average height.
Lee's reference to "fishers of men" is even more problematical. The
authors of the gospels had no agenda to make these fishermen appear
noble or handsome. Indeed, part of the point of the Jesus story is that
he associated with riff-raff (including prostitutes) rather than getting
chummy with ecclesiastical big-wigs. The fishermen who became
Jesus's disciples were, in the minds of the gospel writers, real
fishermen who looked like manual labourers in the Middle East. It is not
the gospel authors' fault that Renaissance painters and other
promulgators of Catholic mythology chose to depict these fishermen as
beautiful Italian youths in flowing white robes. Indeed the whole issue of
religious iconography is complex and has nothing to do with anti-
fishwife prejudice. In religious art, virtually everyone intimately
associated with Christ is made "beautiful" according to Western notions
-- including Mary Magdalene, Jesus's mother and of course Jesus
himself. This opens up a vast discussion of concepts of beauty, racism
(Jesus may have looked like Ariel Sharon, but who's to say that Ariel
Sharon is ugly, etc etc) and the intersection between idealism & reality.
A discussion in which Victorian fishwives can play only a tiny role.
I would argue one thing, though: the cooing admiration of Mrs Elizabeth
Johnstone Hall, "the beauty of Newhaven", need not be seen solely as
a rejection of stereotypes. It can be seen as a reinforcement of
stereotypes, too. Mrs J.H. worked as a fishwife yet managed to remain
(by Victorian middle-class standards) physically presentable. Many of
her fellow fishwives in the village did not manage this. (Hence Mrs
J.H.'s singling out as "the beauty of Newhaven). Might this not
encourage the notion that there was something about Mrs J.H. that
exempted her from the brutalising effects of hard labour? Some moral
purity, some inner virtue? The same mysterious self-immunising
Goodness, perhaps, that keeps Dickens's Oliver Twist pure & innocent,
despite being raised in a harsh, deprived and criminal environment?
In short, is Mrs J.H. an anointed member of that class to which many
Victorians accorded an almost anthropological status, The Deserving
Poor?
Best wishes,
Michel Faber
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:34:19 -0500
From: David Latane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
There's no doubt that the word "fishwife" was a metonymy for what
misogynists disliked in unladylike behavior in the working classes, but
that's different, I think, than looking at the actual conditions of
wives of fishermen. There I suspect Michel is pretty accurate, and if
Society didn't stereotype the rough edges of fishermen perhaps it's
because they had the Irish naavies and coalheavers ready to hand--and
after the railroads began, in their gardens. (Fitzgerald had his
fisherman, though, his handsomeness perhaps again the exception to the
rule.)
Fishwives may have been a conveniently inherited stereotype (factory
girl behavior, for instance, wasn't mentioned in the renaissance), and
"fishwife" like "billingsgate" (most frequently used about men's speech
/ writing) it strikes me is a word disassociated from its origin.
David Latane
Victorians Institute
www.vcu.edu/vij
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:08:40 -0800
From: Peter O'Neill <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: public statues or monuments
In his lecture "Traffic," delivered at the Bradford Town Hall in 1864, John
Ruskin, invited to propose an architectural plan for a new Exchange,
subverts the ceremonious occasion by bluntly refusing to give any advice on
the subject, adding, "I do not care about this Exchange--because you
don't." Ruskin goes on chiding the philistine businessmen: "Now, pardon
me for telling you frankly, you cannot have good architecture merely by
asking people's advice on occasion. All good architecture is the
expression of national life and character; and it is produced by a
prevalent and eager national taste, or desire for beauty."
Now, to address the query more directly, Ruskin gives up, for the moment,
cultivating heroic elements in exchangers' practices. In short, he
parodies a memorial to the "Goddess of Getting-on":
"If you chose to take the matter up on any such soldierly principle; to do
your commerce, and your feeding of nations, for fixed salaries; and to be
as particular about giving people the best food, and the best cloth, as
soldiers are about giving them the best gunpowder, I could carve something
for you on your exchange worth looking at. But I can only at present
suggest decorating its frieze with pendant purses; and making its pillars
broad at the base, for the sticking of bills. And in the innermost
chambers of it there might be a statue of Britannia of the Market, who may
have, perhaps advisably, a partidge for her crest, typical at once of her
courage in fighting for noble ideas, and in her interest in game; and round
its neck, the inscription in golden letters, "Perdix fovit quae non
peperit." Then, for her spear, she might have a weaver's beam; and on her
shield, instead of St. George's Cross, the Milanese boar, semi-fleeced,
with the town of Gennesaret proper, in the field; and the legend, "In the
best market," and her corslet, of leather, folded over her heart in the
shape of a purse, with thirty slits in it, for a piece of money to go in
at, on each day of the month. And I doubt not but that people would come
to see your exhange, and its goddess, with applause."
Best,
Peter O'Neill
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:47:16 -0500
From: brigham taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: public statues and monuments
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:00:05 -0500
Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
An extremely detailed catalogue was produced in conjunction with the
restoration of the Albert Memorial, which details its plethora of symbolic
images. I don't have the bibliorgaphic data, unfortunately.
Also, Queen Victoria's "artistic" daughter (and only childless offspring),
Louise, Duchess of Argyll, was a sculptor who is credited with quite a few
public statues.
Brigham
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:00:00 -0500
From: Eileen Curran <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
A tangent, perhaps an unravelling of this thread, but Michel's=20
discussion of Dickens' characters and illustrations of those characters=20=
should not go unchallenged.
> However, while I accept that fishwives have an unfairly bad reputation
> compared to fishermen, I think the two examples cited by Lee are both
> problematical. Dickens's Daniel Peggotty is a kind man but there's no
> suggestion that his life of hard labour has left his physique =
unmarred.
> He, no less than his wife, is a typical Dickensian working-class
> stereotype. The following 1880s print is one of many illustrations
> depicting him as a grotesquely unlovely creature:
>
> http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-2219.jpg
First, why appeal to an 1880 depiction of Daniel Peggotty, of which=20
Dickens, who died in 1870, knew nothing--unless, like that Vermonter=20
who completed "Edwin Drood" from the late author's dictation, the=20
illustrator was communicating with the departed. "David Copperfield"=20
appeared in 1849/50 illustrated by Hablot Browne (Phiz), Dickens'=20
friend, and Dickens usually saw and accepted illustrations before=20
publication, sometimes asking for alterations. Phiz's, and presumably=20=
Dickens', Daniel Peggotty is a not unhandsome man, certainly neither=20
grotesque nor unlovely. When we meet him, his face is first black --he=20=
has come in from work--and then red--from a good scrub in hot water (by=20=
the way, to get the "muck off"): colors to be expected from anyone in=20=
either situation. The young David sees him as "a hairy man with a=20
very good-natured face"--the hairiness shown as a mass of curls that=20
have been rubbed dry but not combed. Much later in the novel, after=20
the Steerforth/Em'ly worry, his face is thinner, features gaunt and=20
sharp, and the hair, though as unruly as ever, seems thinner.
>
> In any case, citing Daniel Peggotty in an argument about the =
difference
> in reputation between male & female fisherfolk is inherently unsound.
> Dickens paints Peggotty's wife as a paragon of virtue. She is an
> Mummy of Beatrix Potter dimensions, so fantastically lovable &
> nurturing that even the most determinedly feminist sociologist may =
feel
> a twinge of nausea.
>
> Dickens's portrait of Ham Peggotty, the son, is at the same time more
> realistic and more questionable. Dickens arguably hints at the =
physical
> deterioration that may beset the young man in a few more years -- the
> "simpering boy's face" that may soon be weatherbeaten into something
> more simian, the curly light hair and "sheepish" look that may soon be
> transformed into fleecy grey wisps on a gormless head. Or maybe not.
> But anyone who has observed real fishing communities will raise an
> eyebrow at the idea of Ham being "a huge, strong fellow of six feet
> high". Towering height is yet another physical attribute that doesn't
> come easily to people who are raised on hard labour and poor
> nourishment. All the fishermen & women I've ever seen have been short
> or, at most, of average height.
Admittedly I have not taught, or read, the novel for several years, but=20=
hasn't Michel found an 1880 re-writing of Dickens, or a 1980 filmed=20
revision? Daniel Peggotty was not married that I remember; Ham=20
Peggotty was his nephew, not his son. The woman known simply as=20
"Peggotty" was not his wife but his sister, Miss Clara Peggotty, who=20
became Mrs. Barkis, the wife, and widow, of a carrier, not a fisherman.=20=
I'm not sure how literally we should take the description of Ham as=20
huge and 6 feet; this is the way the very young David sees him. Phiz's=20=
first illustration of Daniel Peggotty shows him also as tall, again as=20=
seen by the young David, and in Daniel's schooner home, where the rooms=20=
seem small and low-ceilinged. (How explain Dickens' fascination with=20
such homes? Witness Esther's doll's house of Bleak House 2.)
Poor nourishment? Not as Dickens sees it. The first meal at the=20
Peggottys' is "boiled dabs [plaice or sole], melted butter, and=20
potaoes, with a chop for me." The chop is clearly a luxury, but=20
obtainable. Milk is mentioned. (Today's U.S. food pyramid would have=20=
been considered grotesque in Dickens' world. There's a letter from=20
Jane Carlyle ridiculing an acquaintance who ate vegetables rather than=20=
meat.)
Back to the class and gender issues. Dickens seems unable to present=20
working class characters without making them somehow comic, and he=20
makes the women particularly comic, in a physical, slap-stick fashion. =20=
I will probably immediately (and rightly) be challenged on this=20
off-the-cuff generalization, so to return to the Peggottys. Miss Clara=20=
Peggotty, known simply as Peggotty, is described this way: "=85 being=20=
very plump, whenever she made any little exertion after she was=20
dressed, some of the buttons on the back of her gown flew off." She=20
isn't a fishwife, but she's a servant class woman.
Eileen
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:49:05 +0000
From: Gillian Kemp <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Levee's
2 February 2005
Please could someone tell me - or point me in the direction of writings -
about levees held by Victorian artists. What did they entail? Who could
attend? Where were they held - and why? What sort of artist held them -
only RA's?
Many thanks
Gillian Kemp
MPhil/PhD History student
Birkbeck College
University of London
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:09:26 -0500
From: Terry Meyers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Uncollected Letters of A. C. Swinburne
In my recently published _Uncollected Letters of Algernon Charles
Swinburne_, I was distressed to discover that the index does not cover
Appendix B, where I add information to Cecil Lang's _The Swinburne
Letters_ (6 vols; 1959-1962). The 45 page appendix includes all kinds
of stuff pertaining to 291 of the letters in Lang--identifications of
people, correspondents, and incidents, new or corrected dates,
corrected readings, locations of holographs, etc. etc.
John Walsh, editor of The Swinburne Project, has generously posted
my newly completed index to Appendix B at his excellent site:
http://www.letrs.indiana.edu/swinburne/
I'm taking the opportunity also to make there some additions to the
notes and to correct a number of errors that got past me.
I'll update the list from time to time as I find other errors (and
would be grateful to hear from readers who might see problems I've
overlooked).
I might mention that at the site too is a previously unknown drawing
of Swinburne by the Pre-Raphaelite artist Charles Fairfax Murray (it is
taken from a known photograph). The volumes themselves include as
frontispieces three pictures of Swinburne, including a photograph (of
ACS and Adah Isaacs Menken, very similar to one well-known) and a
caricature (by William Rothenstein) that are, as far as I know,
previously unpublished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Terry L. Meyers Phone: 757-221-3932
English Department Fax: 757-221-1844
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg VA 23187-8795
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 15:51:57 -0500
From: Carol Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
From Lee:
<<Fishermen are noble. Fishermen are good....It's their wives who are the
problem, relentlessy demonised (but *not* by Hill and Adamson.>>
I haven't seen anyone else address this point, but are fishwives
necessarily the wives of fishermen? My dictionary defines a fishwife as a
woman who sells fish.
Carol
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:41:47 -0800
From: kristi jalics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: VICTORIA Digest - 31 Jan 2005 to 1 Feb 2005 (#2005-33)
Keith Wilson wrote:
> Is this perhaps the same woman as the one named Mrs. Elizabeth Johnstone
> in Colin Ford, ed., "An Early Victorian Album
I believe it is. See
http://www.johnlyle.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/oldnewhaven/photoindex.htm
for the name and many other early photographs of Newhaven Fishwives.
Kristi Jalics
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:09:03 EST
From: Robert Lapides <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mud and Muck
Thanks for the additional responses I've gotten
since my last note of thanks. They've been helpful.
Also, I've remembered that in "My Secret Life"
Walter notes that there were few or no public
places in London where one might relieve one-
self. As a consequence, people would use open
fields, and when there was no open field nearby,
almost any place would do.
Bob Lapides
bmcc, cuny
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:27:36 +0800
From: Tamara Wagner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
Apologies if that has already been mentioned, but
isn't there a tale in the Arabian Nights in which a
fisherman (initially contented, if I remember
correctly) wastes his three wishes through squabbling
with his uncontented wife? Considering the popularity
of the Arabian Nights as the childhood reading of
mid-Victorian writers(David Copperfield among them),
the stereotype might be a literary cliche and not
grounded in experiences of Victorian fishermen, their
wives, or unmarried fishwives... Just a suggestion, though...
=====
Tamara S. Wagner
Assistant Professor, English Literature
Website: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/tswagner/tamarawagner.htm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Download the latest ringtones, games, and more!
http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:30:52 -0600
From: Patrick Leary <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the review, the fishwife,the photograph and the stereotypes
For what it's worth, there appear to be some overlapping stereotypes
involved here. One is of "fishwives" generally, meaning, as Carol points
out, women who sold fish -- in our period, a variety of costermonger
-- not necessarily wives of fishermen, although many of them would have
been. Judging by the OED, the name has been a byword for gossip,
truculence, and verbal coarseness since at least the middle of the 17th
century; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this particular figure goes
back to Chaucer or even earlier. The condescending remark about Sickert's
"brawling fishwife" in Dieppe certainly draws from this traditional meaning.
The "Newhaven fishwife" is a somewhat different tradition, one that
finds this distinctive local community, whose origins may have been
Flemish, winningly picturesque in speech and dress. There are 18th and
early 19th-century comic ballads modelled on the supposedly witty, rambling
talk of the Newhaven fishwife, and in our period (and later) she was seen
as a curious and appealing folk survival, appearing in plays, paintings,
postcards, photographs, and novels. (Christie Johnstone, in Charles
Reade's 1853 novel of the same name, is a Newhaven fishwife --
interestingly in this context, she and a dashing young painter fall in
love.) There was even a brief fashion in the 1870s or 80s for women's and
girls' clothing modelled on the Newhaven fishwife's traditional blue- or
red-striped skirt, matching shawl, and white cap. So the photograph of
Mrs. Hall participates in this sentimental "stereotype," as well. She was
singled out, not necessarily because she was unusual in having retained her
good looks, but as an outstanding specimen of what was considered a
picturesquely attractive, and perhaps vanishing, Scottish type. From what
little I know of the photographers, this sort of documentary impulse lay
behind a lot of Hill's and Adamson's pictures.
-- Patrick
___________
Patrick Leary
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
End of VICTORIA Digest - 1 Feb 2005 to 2 Feb 2005 (#2005-34)
************************************************************
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
