One of the chapters in 'Reading Pictures' is headed by a painting by Marianna Gartner, a Canadian painter of whom I had not heard, although I now realise that I had seen at least one reproduction of one of her paintings on a book by Margaret Atwood, titled 'Negotiating with the Dead: A writer on writing.
I have not read this book yet, but I've just discovered that my local library has a copy, so that will be my next read.Manguel's reading of Gartner's paintings seemed to me to lack something. Manguel states that since we no longer have a universally recognised symbolism of painting, as they did in the more religious past, our reading of paintings is 'blind', instead of 'sighted'. Yet, to me Manguel misses the feminist/womanly point of view that, in my opinion, many of Gartner's paintings seem to require. I searched the internet, expecting to find some scholarly article that would confirm this, but no luck. I did find a delightful U-Tube slide show of Gartner's paintings, created by a member who calls herself Accabadora and who has made quite a few slide shows of art works.
When I looked at other slide shows by Accabadora I was struck in particular by a movie called 'Portrait of a Lady'. Such beautiful, serene, strong and characterful women! So many of the faces look quite modern, even though the paintings are old. And the ending, which I won't give away here - you have to look for yourself - is very revealing I think. It creates an important perspective. For reasons I cannot quite explain this particular slide show moved me deeply. I'd be interested to hear your response.
The other chapter in Manguel's 'Reading Pictures' I take issue with deals with monuments. His leading picture is of a model of the Berlin Holocaust monument by Peter Eisenman. Manguel is fairly negative about Eisenman's monument and feels that this 'bulky memorial' will require large signs to explain its significance. Manguel feels that Eisenman's design emphasises the 'work of art' more than the 'dreadful event it is supposed to commemorate' (p. 259). Of course I had to look it up on the internet. The model of the memorial, reproduced in Manguel's book, does not do it justice at all, I think. This is clearly a place one has to visit and walk through and experience. I do not doubt that it will elicit some visceral response. There is a BBC announcement of the opening of the monument in May 2005 online. There's a sidebar with a video of the opening and pictures of the memorial. If any of my readers have been to the monument, I would love to hear their response.
Posts
2 comments:
Although I have never been to this monument, I have visited other war memorials in Berlin and found them to be very moving. They gave substance and evidence to all the disaster and devastation of the war; which I had only experienced through the media and Hollywood blockbusters. I would imagine this monument you write about would be similar - particularly as you can walk through it and not just look at it.
Your comment gets exactly why I believe we need such monuments in readily accessible places. You are second generation post-WWII. I heard vivid war stories from my parents who lived through it, but you, if you hear any stories, receive them secondhand. I believe it's important that we get a deep feeling for 'the disaster and devastation' of war as you put it. thanks for your response.
Post a Comment