|
|
| 4. Is there anything
left to discover about the crowd in the French Revolution? Can
we contribute to the issues raised by Rudé, Soboul, and
Andrews over the last 30 years? Is the crowd a new topic for representation
in late eighteenth-century France, and if so, why is that important? |
| |
 |
question
4 Warren
Roberts, 6-9-03, 9:54 AM |
|
|
|
RE:
question 4 Jack Censer, 6-12-03, 4:46 PM |
|
| |
|
|
what
can we learn about the crowd Lynn Hunt, 6-23-03, 11:04
PM |
|
|
|
|
|
RE:
what can we learn about the crowd Barbara Day-Hickman,
7-15-2003,
12:58 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE:
what can we learn about the crowd Jack Censer, 7-17-2003,
10:18 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response
to Jack Warren Roberts,
7-21-03, 8:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Responses
to Barbara Warren Roberts,
7-19-03, 10:31 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Response to Warren
and Final Remarks Barbara Day-Hickman,
7-25-03, 1:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response
to Barbara Warren
Roberts, 7-28-03, 10:33 AM |
|
|
| Subject: |
Responses to
Barbara |
| Posted
By: |
Warren Roberts |
|
| Date
Posted: |
7-19-03, 10:31
AM |
|
I have nothing to add to Barbara’s fine reading of Prieur’s “Hanging
of Foulon,” which brings out most effectively
the disengagement that attends the image. This is in
striking
contrast, I feel, to Prieur’s “Intendant
Bertier de Sauvigny,” which is the sequel to
his “Hanging
of Foulon.” Here, in the sequel, the perspective
is up-close; the macabre scene is viewed at street level;
the violence is, so to speak, in your face. In the “Hanging
of Foulon” image we see a crowd lynching a hated
official at a distance; the viewer actually has to look
carefully at the image, to scrutinize it, to know what
is happening. This is in contrast to the “Intendant
Bertier de Sauvigny” image, in which the decapitated
head of Foulon is in the center of the work, with straw
stuffed in the mouth. This contrast should be seen within
the context of how prints for the Tableaux historiques were issued for sale to the public: They were sold in livrets of two, with accompanying texts. Prieur’s drawing, “Bertier
de Sauvigny,” was not engraved and offered for
sale to the public, along with the “Hanging of
Foulon” print, which was to have preceded it. It
seems to me that a reading of the first of these related
images should consider the other as well. The disengagement
of one might be seen as a way to set the stage for the
other, and to drive home its point. We should imagine
the two images appearing together, one next to the other.
To do this is to see the disengagement of one image as
a foil for the directness of the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
