A few weeks before Thanksgiving, I attended an art exhibit at the Amherst College Art Museum. While at this exhibit there was a bar of wine and mojito-like cocktails, and a large and very delicious platter of four different kinds of cheeses (!!!!!) , not to mention a scavenger hunt, I remember best a section of the museum to the right of the entrance, that features a number of portraits from the 1880′s depicting young children. There was one in particular of a little boy, maybe 11 or 12 years old. My friend Brian referred to him as “a Victorian era Justin Bieber!” Upon closer examination I saw that he was…besides his old fashioned dark boots, white collared shirt and brown vest, he did look a lot like Justin Bieber, right down to the baby-like face and shaggy blonde hair. Despite this funny discovery, I also felt a little bit sad, because I remembered our conversation at the beginning of the course about the need to document children photographically during this era in order to capture their memory, in case they died young, as so many did. I also thought about our discussion we had when reading Alice and examining the photograph in the book of Alice Liddell. I remember how shocked I was to see how…contemporary…the real Alice seemed. She looked like the little girl on my block who I babysit. As silly as it may sound, this image, paired with the Justin Bieber look alike over in Amherst, adds a very human element to the subjects that we’ve been studying.

 

While reading Alice and looking at the images by Tenniel, I was really interested by the way he chose to illustrate her hair. I couldn’t help but find it to be remarkably suggestive of the styles shown to represent women’s madness, as we briefly discussed in class. It appears that there is a thin line being drawn between childhood and the untamable.

But this is not only limited to Alice. It seems that every female character has some sort of wild and exaggerated hairstyle.

This is not to say that the male characters aren’t exaggerated, they are just as much, but it is interesting to notice that there is so much emphasis placed on the use of hair when pertaining to women.

While I was looking around for some images on the internet, I came across an article written in The Vancouver Sun about an Annual Hair show from last year. They decided to have the shows theme be based on Alice in Wonderland. I think it’s interesting to look at how these hairstyles went from representing lunacy to representing fashion and something desirable (or at least fashionable).

These are two of the images from the “Blonde Events’ fourth Annual Fantasy Hair Show”

 

While looking around at various Images of Alice, I came upon a sale sight where someone had posted their collection of Alice and Wonderland Cigarette Cards from the 1930’s.

The cigarette company which had these was the British Tobacco Company Carreras which was established in London in the nineteenth century by a nobleman from Spain, Don José Carreras Ferrer. Apparently this was a company well known for it’s marketing strategies. Supposedly, J.M. Barrie (the author of Peter Pan for anyone whose not familiar) was a valued customer and when he wrote the novel My Lady Nicotine, in which the tobacco substance is referred to as “Arcadia Mixture”, Carreras realized that Barrie’s sole supply of tobacco was the Craven Mixture he sold at Wardour Street. Barrie confirmed that Arcadia Mixture and Craven Mixture were one and the same. Shortly afterwards, Carreras began using Barrie’s endorsement in his advertising, benefiting both parties.

I just find their marketing strategy to be interesting considering that even at that time Alice was designated as a children’s novel, so it makes me wonder why they would choose those characters for promotion, and why did they choose the images they did? For example, I can understand the reasoning behind the Caterpillar’s mushroom, but what was the reasoning behind the image of Alice holding the baby turned pig? Were they trying to appeal to children who would beg their parents to buy these particular cigarettes so that they could get the cards? Or were they trying to attract a younger audience who may have still been under the impression of Alice in Wonderland or similar stories?

In Harajuku, Japan, one can see all kinds of high fashion in the streets. One of the many fashion crazes in Japan with teenagers and young women right now is called Lolita. This style is characterized by Victorian-era clothing (think petticoats, corsets, bonnetts, lace gloves and stockings) and often a head full of curls. The three main branches of Lolita are Gothic, Sweet, and Classic. The Sweet Lolita style evokes childlike innocence through the use of items associated with young girls: hair ribbons, stuffed animals, etc. It’s not suprising then that many followers of the Sweet Lolita persuasion cite Alice as their main style inspiration. The large hair bow is a favorite, and is called an Alice bow.

A classic example of an Alice-inspired Lolita style

More images and information on Alice Lolita can be found here.

Last night, as I was getting ready to go to work, I ended up thinking about the discussion we had in class one day about the public vs. private sphere in today’s world relating directly to the idea of Hannah Cullwick and the issues she ran into while wearing her slave band.

It made me think about rules still complied with in particular job settings today, particularly that of serving. I work as a waitress in what’s considered a “fine dining” establishment. I guess you could say it’s a modern upper-class place, being that it’s a set menu per person automatically without drinks. On average, a four-person check will be upwards of $400 if they don’t get after dinner drinks, which most do, and most of the guests are “regulars”. It undeniable that there is a set social group that comes in, whether anyone who works there wants to admit it or not. And because of this “fine dining setting” there is a very specific set of rules adhered to by all staff.

Dress Code:

Black button down shirt, black Slacks, black lace shoes

Hair in Pony Tail for Girls, combed back for guys

Makeup- foundation allowed, no other makeup to be worn

Clear chapstick only

Only 1 post earring allowed per ear

No other jewelry at all, wedding rings only exception

No nail polish of any color including clear

No perfume, non-fragrant deodorant only
Other General Rules:

No cell phones to be seen in dining room (obviously)

No conversation between servers on floor

Avoid conversation with guests if possible

Excuse yourself by answering I’m very sorry but I’m needed in the kitchen

Never answer personal questions about the chefs

I’m sorry, the chefs only talk to us about the food.

“Be friendly, but not familiar”

 

These are a few of the rules which are abided in the restaurant. There is to be no understanding of the staff as people. Our main goal is to provide “invisible” service, seen and heard only in connection with the dishes being presented. Drinks and bread are to be refilled automatically and without notice, as is all silverware and napkins. But the world of fine dining is kind of an entity all on it’s own, but I just think it’s really interesting to compare these two worlds, when so many people think that kind of thing ended.

When researching, pondering, and looking for interesting topics for my final paper I could not really come to any satisfying concept until I looked into the incredibly academic world of Yahoo Answers . I think a great deal of information about how we as humans perceive and are simultaneously deceived can be seen through the uneducated, or un-reasearched answers we can find on sites like Yahoo or Wiki answers. These answers, especially when ungrounded, can give us a window into how many different visual and textual mediums can come together to create an altogether false or unfounded common knowledge. 

For example when I type into the Google search bar, “Was Lewis Carroll a…” google gives me the most commonly asked question, “Was Lewis Carroll a pervert?” If I accept this wording and click search, my first internet hit is a link to yahooanswers.com( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100513155537AALX8Hy) The best answer chosen by the asker is: 

“Without ANY DOUBT Lewis Carroll was a dirty old man, but because he was a great mathematician and an even better writer of fascinating childrens books like many other famous people his “transgressions” are forgotten and forgiven, and how about his photos of little girls almost naked? yes the guy was a pedophile but a very ingenious and genial one. 

Voila.”

Or alternatively, if I search, “Drug references in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” in my first three hits I get linked to an article that uses images from the 1951 Disney movie to describe possible references to drugs in the 1865 children’s novel.(http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2011/02/22/alice-in-wonderland-demonstrates-various-drug-use/)

So voila. That’s that. No but seriously now, how do we come up with this information? Where is the source? I don’t think there is one specific source, there is instead, a culminating effect of ideas and guesses based off  sometimes unrelated imagery that yields fallacious knowledge. Maybe this is not interesting to others, maybe I am reading too far into the depths of silly online forums, but I really do think there is something in this false understanding. I believe it may show that unrelated images from different time periods can shape people’s conceptions of history in a very real way, whether it be Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland or something completely different. 

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon, is very much inspired by The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.  The protagonist of the story, Christopher, sets out to unveil a mystery concerning the murder of his neighbor’s dog.  Like Sherlock, Christopher relies on his deductive reasoning skills to solve the undeserved crime.

Detective fiction certainly wouldn’t have been the same without Doyle’s new approach regarding the solving of crimes.  Doyle explains his disappointment with “chance” playing such a huge role in books written by his precedents.  Doyle wanted to make mystery novels more compelling, which he very much did.

 While I was reading Silver Blaze, I stumbled upon this conversation between Holmes and Inspector Gregory:

“” You consider that to be important?” he asked.

“Exceedingly so.”

“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

‘To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night time.”

“That was the curious incident,”

remarked Sherlock Holmes.”" (197).

This was a very exciting discovery for me, and seems to tie well in our discussion of Doyle’s influence.  Clearly Haddon’s protagonist, and Haddon himself were inspired by Doyle, at least enough to name his novel in homage to Sherlock’s quote.

Sometimes we need to pay attention to what’s absent, as well what’s present.  That is the similarity between two stories.

Annie Leibovitz’s portrayal of Alice in Wonderland with high fashion is breathtaking. Here are the some of the images captured during the shoot. Enjoy!

Caring for your home and children were fundamental concerns for Victorian women. Companies idealized this perception of women through their advertisements, in the hopes that women alike would feel compelled to buy their products.  In a way the advertisements  suggested that if women didn’t buy their products, they were either bad caretakers of their home, and therefore bad wives, or inadequate caretakers of their children, and thus, bad mothers.  This rationale inspired Loeb’s Consuming Angels: Advertising and Victorian Women.  The perception of women as “angels” of their household is misleading, especially with the advertisements depiction of them as being rather masculine and self-sufficient.  This text also puts a spotlight on the middle-class and the growing impact consumerism attained.

My favorite advertisement within this reading continues to be the Grecian woman for Matchless Metal Polish because of its feminist qualities.  Portraying women as Greek goddesses served as a motif for advertisements alike.  This Matchless woman is depicted as especially strong, and is not subjected to any levels of subordination.  She appears to have slain other people, or products, in a public area.  The shield she grasps is the top to the polish which is both a) indulgent and b) highly unrealistic.

Regardless, this ad is genius.  It makes consumers feel like they cannot live without this product, while recognizing women in a public sphere. It is important to note that women were very much targets in the eyes of the companies.  In addition, the middle-class as a whole became targets as well:

” The buyers of the world are the great MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE- the man and woman in good or fairly well-to-do circumstances.  These people are the backbone of every city and every country.  These are the men who have built the houses and the shops, the women and men who fill the churches and make life worth living and upon whose children rest the future of every nation under the sun” (Consuming Angels).

After reading this segment of the book, I realized how nothing really has changed regarding the ways in which companies sought out to sell their products.  Consumers become entranced with the products, i.e. informercials, and feel compelled to buy the products.

Consumerism seems to want mothers to compete over their levels of maternity to their children.  Without certain products, it seems, companies suggest her incompetency in being a mother.  Here is an example of an ad made in 1993:

 

 

Both Lewis Carroll and Sally Mann experiment with visions concerning childhood.  Just as Carroll is the patriarch for the Liddell sisters, Mann serves as the matriarch for her three children, whom she so famously photographed.  Another similarity both photographers share is the controversy they were subjected to with the release of their photographs.  In 2006, Smithsonian Magazine interviewed one of Mann’s daughters regarding her thoughts on being photographed as a young child. Smithsonian Magazine states:

“The experience of collaborating with her mother taught her about the power of art, she says.  And she admires the way the photographs provoke questions about the difference (or lack of it) between reality and fantasy, even as they touch on something deeper.  ”There is magic in things, life is magical and wonderful”".

The article also referenced opposing views on Mann’s children being the subject of her focus, stating that they were immoral and should not be seen.  A New York Times article, entitled The Disturbing Photography of Sally Mann discusses some of these controversies including problems the NYT had in depicting the images:

“The nudity of the children caused problems for many publications, including this one.  When The Wall Street Journal ran a photograph of then-4-year-old Virginia, it censored her eyes, breasts and genitals with black bars.  Artforum, traditionally the most radical magazine in the New York art world, refused to publish a picture of nude Jessie swinging on a hay hook.  And Mann’s images of childhood injuries–Emmett with a nosebleed, Jessie with a swollen eye — have led some critics to challenge her right to record such scenes of distress…”

This article was very distressing to read, as it took away from the innocence Mann, and Carroll, were intending on exposing.  Is it possible that by calling these images examples of child pornography, we are taking away the photographs real intentions? I think yes. Viewers saying that Sally Mann is selling her children to pedophiles around the world seems rather insulting.  Pedophiles I don’t think begin their quest for material via Sally Mann Photography.

Lewis Carroll’s photography of young girls, and his infatuation with Alice especially, have stirred a lot of controversy as well.  Mavor pays tribute to Gernsheim’s acknowledgement of these photographs that so many have glanced over.  An “innocent love” is generally tagged in describing Carroll’s affection for young women, which I now recognize.

Children have been subjects of the lens for hundreds of years.  Instead of vulgar or provocative, I find the photographs quite romantic and curious.  Children’s inquisitiveness is shown in how they interact with the camera.  The sense of trust Carroll and Mann must attain to capture these images should be more recognized.