Reply
Thu 8 Mar, 2007 12:51 am
Quote:First British paintings of Native American chiefs at National Portrait Gallery[/URL
In 1710 four "Indian kings" visited the London court to forge a treaty with the British crown. Their arrival, prompting a nationwide stir, was commemorated by John Verelst's stunning portraits, the first representations of Native Americans in British art. Tomorrow, for the first time, the portraits go on public view in Britain, at the National Portrait Gallery in its exhibition Between Worlds: Voyagers to Britain 1700-1850.
The gallery's curator, Stephanie Pratt, herself one of the Crow Creek Dakota Sioux, says the works are a fascinating example of individuals from one culture being interpreted - with only partial understanding - by an artist of another. "They were not Indian kings. They were representatives of the Iroquois ... It's an example of an artist attempting to fit an unfamiliar people into European artistic conventions. They stand in formal poses in landscape backgrounds as if English aristocrats. Yet the way they are dressed ... the clan symbols - bear, wolf and turtle - scream out their difference."
According to Keith Jamieson, a culture consultant, an alliance forged in 1710 guaranteed for the Canadian and US Iroquois compensation for lands lost through the American war of independence. He called yesterday on the UK to support the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory in their current dispute - over land in Caledonia, Ontario.[/quote]
source: (photos) The Guardian, 08.03.07, page 13;
online report
These pictures could be used as a demonstration of the differences between painting and photography.