Although Titus discusses historical paintings, not monuments, I think a lot of the same principles about *whose* history we remember – by commemorating places or spaces of significance in our collective memory – can apply to our readings for this week.
Enjoy!
-bnb
Hi Bethany,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this video, it was very educative and I learnt a lot. For instance, I could relate this TED Talk show to today’s readings by Owen & Derek’s “Memorial landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors”. To first explain, Owen & Derek through their study demonstrated how geographers examined and made meanings of memorial landscapes via three different metaphors which includes: arena, text and performance whilst Titus Kaphar on the other hand discussed a historical painting and its meaning.
To make this connection, I would focus on visual aspect of “text” and relate it to Titus Kaphar’s paintings which he unveiled whilst delivering his speech. As a matter of fact, initially when he unveiled the art piece, I only saw four white people (I supposed it was a man, his wife, their son and daughter), a black boy and nothing more. However, he went on and said, painting was a language and everything in it was meaningful; for instance, he revealed that there was a reason why the white man was in the highest sitting position as compared to the remaining four, and similarly a reason why the woman and her daughter had gold chains. According to Titus Kaphar, this distinct features depicted power and the economic status (wealth) of the whites in the painting which were in contrast to the black boy who appeared to be marginalized.
In my opinion, since “text” can be visuals and memorials can be elements such as street signs, landmarks, sculpture, conserved sites and parks, a painting can also be used as an art piece to commemorate history; that is, having the tendency to conceal as much as reveal issues of past.
Hi Freda,
ReplyDeleteThank you for watching! I thought the TED Talk was pretty striking, too. It amazes me to think that paintings of past times can be read as political statements, like the one Titus unveils in the opening of his talk. Certain aspects of 'reality' (ex. the man becomes larger, the woman's silk becomes a status symbol) are augmented, while others (the black boy servant in the background) are diminished. The past, then, may not always be what it *appears* to be!
Similar to photography, we think a still photograph shows reality -- though we live in an age where photographs can be staged and altered using technological adaptations. Even *real life* is altered sometimes by our perceptions of reality (we see what we want to see...).
Is there any way to get history *right*?
Thank you for watching!
-bnb