I was fascinated with the images of Diana Thorneycroft's work that we view in class on Thursday. In class discussion we talked about the effect of her use of dolls, miniatures, and toys to set up disturbing scenes in her series "A People's History". Points were raised about the sharp contrast between the subject matter and the childlike medium that she used. Someone brought up a particularly interesting point about how the medium of dolls or toys basically fails to prepare us for what the scenes depict; our guards are left down and therefore we might be more strongly effect by the actual image than if it were a typical scene from C.S.I or something.
I thought a lot about what Thorneycroft accomplishes by presenting these disturbing facts of Canadian life and history in a way that is totally child-oriented...
First of all, seeing these scenes of dolls and toys step up into scene--outside of the context of the art gallery--at first glance, we might think a child had created them. What would we feel upon descovering a child--maybe even a sibling, niece or nephew--acting out scenes like these in their play? What would that mean? What would it mean to discover a white Canadian girl acting out "Burning Braids" with her dolls? What would it mean to discover an Aboriginal girl doing the same thing? It's difficult to think about.
Secondly, when we know that these scenes were not set up by children, (at a very quick glance) the materials used give the impression that they are at least meant to be viewed by children. Of course, they are not really, but it raises some urgent questions--I would guess, especially by anyone who is a parent or care-giver. How could we possibly explain these events to a child? What could we possibly have to say as to how these things were allowed happen, or to continue for so long, or--in some cases--how they are still being allowed to continue? The way Thorneycroft sets up these scenes forces us to knowledge in which these terrible events have played, and continue to play out is the exact same world inhabited by children, and there is nothing necessarily protecting them from it, which brings me to my next point...
It is difficult to ignore that many of the scene's in "A People's History" depict things that have happened to children, such as in "Burning Braids" and "Coach". In most cases the children who experienced these ugly things endured them for quite a while before anything was known or done about them. Children have different and sometimes limited ways with which to express what is going on with them--especially when they are very young; play is one of those forms of expression, like the kind of play a child might engage in with dolls like the one's used in these scenes.
I thought a lot about what Thorneycroft accomplishes by presenting these disturbing facts of Canadian life and history in a way that is totally child-oriented...First of all, seeing these scenes of dolls and toys step up into scene--outside of the context of the art gallery--at first glance, we might think a child had created them. What would we feel upon descovering a child--maybe even a sibling, niece or nephew--acting out scenes like these in their play? What would that mean? What would it mean to discover a white Canadian girl acting out "Burning Braids" with her dolls? What would it mean to discover an Aboriginal girl doing the same thing? It's difficult to think about.
It is difficult to ignore that many of the scene's in "A People's History" depict things that have happened to children, such as in "Burning Braids" and "Coach". In most cases the children who experienced these ugly things endured them for quite a while before anything was known or done about them. Children have different and sometimes limited ways with which to express what is going on with them--especially when they are very young; play is one of those forms of expression, like the kind of play a child might engage in with dolls like the one's used in these scenes.
No comments:
Post a Comment