Security were not the only people to accost Richardson, visitors of the gallery did as well. Books were thrown at her by visitors and the entire commotion turned into a mob-attack (CP 214). Following this incident, Richardson was taken into questioning as security wanted to know if there were any other of her women in the gallery (CP 215). Her response, "Oh, I expect so" (CP 215). Even though it was a lie, Richardson's response was enough to set the entire gallery on edge; proving that during this era of suffragettes people feared the destruction that followed with these women.
Some questions that I had when reading this article were:
1) Why the Venus Velasquez?
-Richardson mentions its high value and her dislike of the image but I wonder if there was an underlying reason as well.
2) Were other artworks either destroyed or attempted to be destroyed by the suffragettes?
3) Art often serves as a response to a political or social issue, is that why artwork was targeted?
4) If Pankhurst had not been removed in Kensington would Richardson have been able to attack the artwork?
Thoughts?
Works Cited
Women in European History Coursepacket. Compiled by Shelley Wolbrink. Spring 2014.
Image from Google
2 comments:
Beth, a possible answer to your first question- why the Velasquez painting? - could be because of its connotations towards women. For instance, the woman is painted naked and she is focused on the mirror before her. This might represent the vanity in women. And maybe this vanity and this idea that a woman has nothing better to do than lie in front of a mirror and stare at herself was the justification of Richardson's attempted destruction of it.
Really great analysis McKenzie! I think Richardson, like Pankhurst, wanted to prove that there was more to a woman than just a pretty face. If this issue of vanity was present in the minds of many suffragettes I wonder if there were other works of art, similar to the Velasquez, that were targeted?
Post a Comment