Numbering The Ladies Waldegrave: Questions of Status and Display

IF 0.3 2区 艺术学 0 ART History of Photography Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/03087298.2022.2102287
Madeleine Page
{"title":"Numbering The Ladies Waldegrave: Questions of Status and Display","authors":"Madeleine Page","doi":"10.1080/03087298.2022.2102287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At first glance, it appears as though Sir Joshua Reynolds’s The Ladies Waldegrave (1780) is in two places at once: Strawberry Hill House and the National Gallery, Edinburgh. Despite their visual indistinguishability, however, the former is a copy of the latter created by Factum Foundation in 2018. In this article, I discuss the ontological relation between paintings and their visually indistinguishable facsimiles, along with certain consequences that relation has for display practices. Traditionally, paintings are understood to be ontologically singular; no copy, however faithful, can ever stand in as the work itself. Using The Ladies Waldegrave, I defend ontological singularity while maintaining that these visually indistinguishable facsimiles can be used to promote engagement with, and a better understanding of, originals. Drawing on the philosophical idea that objects have temporal parts, I suggest that what I call suitable facsimiles – copies that are visually indistinguishable from originals – are representations of particular temporal parts of those originals. My proposal allows paintings to maintain their singularity while acknowledging that some copies share a special relationship with the originals such that the former can stand in for the latter. I conclude by considering issues concerning the display of both originals and suitable facsimiles.","PeriodicalId":13024,"journal":{"name":"History of Photography","volume":"46 1","pages":"9 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Photography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03087298.2022.2102287","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At first glance, it appears as though Sir Joshua Reynolds’s The Ladies Waldegrave (1780) is in two places at once: Strawberry Hill House and the National Gallery, Edinburgh. Despite their visual indistinguishability, however, the former is a copy of the latter created by Factum Foundation in 2018. In this article, I discuss the ontological relation between paintings and their visually indistinguishable facsimiles, along with certain consequences that relation has for display practices. Traditionally, paintings are understood to be ontologically singular; no copy, however faithful, can ever stand in as the work itself. Using The Ladies Waldegrave, I defend ontological singularity while maintaining that these visually indistinguishable facsimiles can be used to promote engagement with, and a better understanding of, originals. Drawing on the philosophical idea that objects have temporal parts, I suggest that what I call suitable facsimiles – copies that are visually indistinguishable from originals – are representations of particular temporal parts of those originals. My proposal allows paintings to maintain their singularity while acknowledging that some copies share a special relationship with the originals such that the former can stand in for the latter. I conclude by considering issues concerning the display of both originals and suitable facsimiles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
瓦德格拉夫夫人的编号:地位和展示的问题
乍一看,约书亚·雷诺兹爵士的《瓦德格拉夫夫人》(The Ladies Waldegrave, 1780)似乎同时出现在两个地方:草莓山别墅和爱丁堡国家美术馆。尽管它们在视觉上难以区分,但前者是Factum基金会在2018年创造的后者的复制品。在这篇文章中,我讨论了绘画及其视觉上难以区分的复制品之间的本体论关系,以及这种关系对展示实践的某些影响。传统上,绘画被理解为本体论上的单一;任何复制品,无论多么忠实,都不能代替作品本身。在《Waldegrave女士》一书中,我为本体论奇点辩护,同时坚持认为,这些视觉上难以区分的复制品可以用来促进与原作的接触,并更好地理解原作。根据物体具有时间部分的哲学观点,我认为我所说的合适的复制品——在视觉上与原件无法区分的复制品——是原件特定时间部分的表现。我的建议允许画作保持其独特性,同时承认一些复制品与原件有着特殊的关系,因此前者可以代替后者。最后,我将考虑展示原件和合适的复印件的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: History of Photography is an international quarterly devoted to the history, practice and theory of photography. It intends to address all aspects of the medium, treating the processes, circulation, functions, and reception of photography in all its aspects, including documentary, popular and polemical work as well as fine art photography. The goal of the journal is to be inclusive and interdisciplinary in nature, welcoming all scholarly approaches, whether archival, historical, art historical, anthropological, sociological or theoretical. It is intended also to embrace world photography, ranging from Europe and the Americas to the Far East.
期刊最新文献
The ‘Chok’ of Image ‘Constellations in Themselves’: Reframing Walter Benjamin’s ‘Little History of Photography’ (1931) Maria Morris Hambourg: A Curator Lighthouse for Photography Sandra S. Phillips with Allison Pappas and Natalie Zelt: Excerpt from Framing the Field Interview Transcript, 21–23 March 2022 Deborah Willis with Allison Pappas and Natalie Zelt: Excerpt from Framing the Field Interview Transcript, 8–9 June 2022 After the Flood: Notes on Photography and the Archive
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1