Difference between revisions of "Plaque portrait"

From Dead Media Archive
Jump to: navigation, search
(The lexicon of space and illusion)
(Encoding figurative images onto the Plaque)
Line 33: Line 33:
 
=== Encoding figurative images onto the Plaque ===
 
=== Encoding figurative images onto the Plaque ===
  
 +
The plaque portrait is usually used for monument those who has a great achievement. As we could see the plaque portrait of George Washington, it is considered as an efficient way to represent figures. In addition, “An illustration of the plaque is taken from the same photograph as the present plate.” (Strong, 1920:214) Hence, we could see the other example of the plaque portrait as below: “This Plaque is 32 cm. high and nearly 19cm broad rounded at the top and pierced with holes for suspension or attachment. The philosopher is represented in profile, facing right, with long hair…” (Strong: 1920: 217) “A Monumental Plaque designed by Bernini was placed on the interior façade of S. Maria in Aracoeli; a magnificent temporary catafalque also designed by Bernini was erected in the same church for the obsequies that were held there on 3 August.” (Lavin, 1983: 6)
 +
However, the plaque portrait is limited to represent everything that the figurative image has since it is based on the two dimensional. Even if there are many ways to iconography something onto the two dimensional space in terms of paper, the wall and, of course, the plaque etc, it is not good enough for represent figurative images and does not mean the two dimensional art works is useless anymore. Moreover, it does not address what are huge heterogeneous features between two dimensional and three dimensional arts work. The point is why the plaque portrait is getting fade out these days? What makes the plaque portrait is less significant way of representation?
  
  

Revision as of 21:18, 7 December 2010

Definition: Plaque[1]

–noun

  • 1. A thin, flat plate or tablet of metal, porcelain, etc., intended for ornament, as on a wall, or set in a piece of furniture.
  • 2. An inscribed commemorative tablet, usually of metal placed on a building, monument, or the like.
  • 3. A platelike brooch or ornament, esp. one worn as the badge of an honorary order.

(Cited, plaque. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved December 04, 2010)

The Aesthetic of Portrait

From the perspective of psychoanalysis, Lacan’s theory takes a place on the most far-reaching theories: “The mirror stage.” Before beginning with the briefly illustration of Lacan’s theory, the first thing is how people construct themselves in cognition and how to illustrate ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ to be specific the subjectivity and objectivity. The most far-reaching theory in psychoanalysis – which is the mirror stage – is about the formation: “the forming of and I, of an identity.” (Gallop, 1983:119)

According to Gallop (1983), “the mirror stage is a turning point. After the subject’s relation to himself is always mediated through a totalizing, unified concept – a division between an inside and an outside – there is no ‘self’ before the mirror stage.”(120-121) In this notes, Gallop asserts “It is a turning point in chronology of a self, but it is also the origin, the moment of constitution of that self.” (121)

In addition, the moment of formation itself is one of the constituent foundations to build up the development of portrait. Moreover, the mirror stage would be the first moment to realize self and the other and promotes the first historical sketch on the portrait.

Iconography and disjuncture: Between the portrait and the photography

As the moment of formation of itself, the way of iconography gets a various ways to illustrate either being seen, or seeing. Before advancing the photography, the portrait has an authority not only to encode figurative images but also make an archive. “Hence Iconography, as a term approximately parallel to bibliography, means the gathering of images or representations which show some stated subject or person or place or symbol, so that the subject may be studied in the light of various ways in which it has been recorded by artist and photographers.” (Vanderbilt, 1958:107) From the point of iconographical view, it would be a homogeneous character between the photography and the portrait. On the other hand, the way of encoding process is one of the most different ways. First of all, Richter reasserts Adorno’s definition about the self - portrait below: “While Adorno’s self-portrait is, in both versions, also about the very process of being looked at -caught – in the act of self-portraiture, the second version makes the dimension of spectatorship more explicit.” (Richter, 2002: 5) If so, the characteristics of the photograph would be briefly defined as below: “The Photograph is “the advent of me and as other: a cunning dissociation of consciousness from identity,” then the “madness of photography” can be said to have “transformed subject into object, and even, one might say, into a museum object.”(Richter, 2002:-3) How do we recognize ourselves? And also how could we trace the way of representation? What is the beginning of the iconography of portrait as the way of representation? Derrida asserts “the portrait captures the eyes, meaning the gaze, meaning that far which, among other things, photography exists. We assume of the gaze that it is what the subject itself cannot see in its life. If you look at yourself in a mirror, you see yourself either seeing or being seen, but never both at once.” (Richter, 2002:3) As mentioned above, the portrait is considered as the archive of representation. Moreover, the portrait may emphasis any point of view from the subject that being seen and then it has own authenticity which is not to simply duplicate portraits as many as it could without any technical aids. In this sense, here is the most outstanding feature of the portrait. “It is no accident that the portrait was the focal point of early photography (my emphasis). The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value of the picture. For the last time the aura emanates from the early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human face. This is what constitutes their melancholy, incomparable beauty.” (Benjamin, 1935: 226) Among, whole discourses around the portrait, the questions of authority and authenticity come up.

Questions of Authenticity

The plaque means “A thin, flat plate or tablet of metal, porcelain to commemorate or intended for ornament.”Definition: PlaqueIn general, there are many ways to express a portrait onto any materials in terms of paper, woods, stones, and walls etc…But the plaque portrait has limited accessibility and owns an authenticity since getting the materials for plaque portrait is not a customary ones. “Among the most original manifestations of German art the carvings in box, lime, pear, and other finely grained woods which particularly characterize the sixteenth century. While other countries worked in precious woods, no country showed a greater predilection for these materials than did Germany; and in one charming bypath, the realm of portrait plaque and medallion…” (M.M, 1928:155) The origin of plaque is described as below: “The Original inventory description of the plaque dating from 1861, as published by Raftery (1941:106), gives the materials of the plaque as “thin sheet iron covered with pellicle of copper and gilt.” More than forty years ago, Raftery (1941:106) stated that “it is made of then iron covered with bronze. The latter was gilt, but the gilding is now nearly all gone.” In his most recent comments, Raftery (1980:34) states, however, that it is of bronze, and in addition says that “the features are raised from the back, where there are traces of an iron background to which the mount adhered originally.” The back of the plaque, of which a photograph is published here.”(Harbison,1984:1)In this sense, the plaque does not publicize to anyone. Hence, the artwork made from the plaque has unique features.

The lexicon of space and illusion

Encoding figurative images onto the Plaque

The plaque portrait is usually used for monument those who has a great achievement. As we could see the plaque portrait of George Washington, it is considered as an efficient way to represent figures. In addition, “An illustration of the plaque is taken from the same photograph as the present plate.” (Strong, 1920:214) Hence, we could see the other example of the plaque portrait as below: “This Plaque is 32 cm. high and nearly 19cm broad rounded at the top and pierced with holes for suspension or attachment. The philosopher is represented in profile, facing right, with long hair…” (Strong: 1920: 217) “A Monumental Plaque designed by Bernini was placed on the interior façade of S. Maria in Aracoeli; a magnificent temporary catafalque also designed by Bernini was erected in the same church for the obsequies that were held there on 3 August.” (Lavin, 1983: 6) However, the plaque portrait is limited to represent everything that the figurative image has since it is based on the two dimensional. Even if there are many ways to iconography something onto the two dimensional space in terms of paper, the wall and, of course, the plaque etc, it is not good enough for represent figurative images and does not mean the two dimensional art works is useless anymore. Moreover, it does not address what are huge heterogeneous features between two dimensional and three dimensional arts work. The point is why the plaque portrait is getting fade out these days? What makes the plaque portrait is less significant way of representation?