FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2078467329> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2078467329 endingPage "125" @default.
• W2078467329 startingPage "109" @default.
• W2078467329 abstract "D(XIlJMENTS Why Did Suffragettes Attack Works of Art? Rowena Fowler Mary Richardson's attack on the Rokeby Venus on 10 March 1914 was the first and most famous in a campaign of deliberate damage to works of art during the last months of suffragette militancy before the outbreak of war. Fourteen pictures were slashed and nine women arrested between March and July. The statements made by the women in self-justification and the reactions of public and government demonstrate the poUtical and sodal importance of works of art and their powerful symboUc status. The attacks received widespread pubUdty at first and were almost universally condemned. For nonmUitant suffragists, and even for some more radical sympathizers, the destruction of art was the crudal test of the validity and expediency of the campaign of violence. Even though the discussion of the rights and wrongs of the attacks often took place at a rudimentary level reminiscent of the ethical old chestnut about babies and paintings in burning buildings, the feelings of outrage and puzzlement cannot just be reduced, as the suffragettes argued, to hypocrisy. It was not necessary to be an art lover or connoisseur to be disturbed by the threat to a valuable but vulnerable national possession; it was genuinely upsetting to see beautiful things spoüed and to find great and timeless works of art forced into proximity with the messiness of contemporary poUtical conftid. It also contributed to the impad of the attacks that they were not carried out surreptitiously or anonymously but took place in pubtic during the open hours of museums and gaUeries. All the women involved were immediately apprehended and charged; only one gave a false name. I shaU discuss the reverberations of these seemingly irrational acts of violence, deliberately and conspicuously perpetrated by respectable and sometimes timid women against something they professed to care for and appreciate. Of particular interest is the surrogate nature of the pictures which were attacked; the way in which a painting of a woman or a portrait of a man was perceived as standing for female exploitation or male authority. For this reason I have concentrated on two female nudes and four portraits of important men. A list of the attacks can be found in the Appendix. Mary Richardson claimed that her slashing of the Velasquez Venus was a reprisal for the Glasgow arrest of Emmeline Pankhurst. In a statement sent to the office of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), she wrote: I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in © 1991 Journal of Women-s History, Vol. 2 No. 3 (Winter) 110 Journal of Women's History Winter THE GASHES MADE IN VELASQUEZ'S VENUS WITH THE MIRROR, IN THE NATIONAL A dastardly outrage took place in the National GaUery, in Trafalgar Square, on Tuesday, March 10, when a militant Suffragette attacked the world-famous Rokeby Venus, of Velasquez, mutilating it with a smaU chopper. The actual damage done is shown in this illustration. The marks made by the woman on the canvas are exactly as is here shown; and they are here reproduced by authority of and courtesy of the Times. That paper describes the damage as follows: 'To judge from the damaged frame, the first blow was struck at the point marked by the star in the reproduction of the picture-----What is described by one who afterwards saw the damaged masterpiece as probably the most serious blow has caused a cruel wound in the neck. For three or four inches, he says, it runs almost 1991 DOCUMENTS: ROWENA FOWLER 111 GALLERY: THE HARM WROUGHT BY THE MILITANT TO THE £45,000 MASTERPIECE verticaUy, and spreads out an inch wide. Another severe cut has been aggravated apparently by the chopper's having been twisted a Uttle as it was withdrawn for the next blow. Further, there is a broad laceration starting near the left shoulder and roughly forming, with two other cuts, a letter 7N/ Two of the limbs of that letter are six or dght inches long, and the third is a gash extending right beyond the body and some inches through the drapery bdow it. The other cuts..." @default.
• W2078467329 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2078467329 creator A5074289584 @default.
• W2078467329 date "1991-01-01" @default.
• W2078467329 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2078467329 title "Why Did Suffragettes Attack Works of Art?" @default.
• W2078467329 cites W2795419706 @default.
• W2078467329 cites W562705403 @default.
• W2078467329 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2010.0130" @default.
• W2078467329 hasPublicationYear "1991" @default.
• W2078467329 type Work @default.
• W2078467329 sameAs 2078467329 @default.
• W2078467329 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292012 @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292014 @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292017 @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292018 @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292019 @default.
• W2078467329 countsByYear W20784673292020 @default.
• W2078467329 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2078467329 hasAuthorship W2078467329A5074289584 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C205783811 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C2775874189 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C2776876785 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C2780193096 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C138885662 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C142362112 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C17744445 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C199539241 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C205783811 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C2775874189 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C2776876785 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C2778137410 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C2780193096 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C41895202 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C52119013 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C94625758 @default.
• W2078467329 hasConceptScore W2078467329C95457728 @default.
• W2078467329 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2078467329 hasLocation W20784673291 @default.
• W2078467329 hasOpenAccess W2078467329 @default.
• W2078467329 hasPrimaryLocation W20784673291 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W109438073 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W169794994 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W2253945764 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W2268712973 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W2300634748 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W2796092422 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W4239004715 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W577538335 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W627686627 @default.
• W2078467329 hasRelatedWork W635221961 @default.
• W2078467329 hasVolume "2" @default.
• W2078467329 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2078467329 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2078467329 magId "2078467329" @default.
• W2078467329 workType "article" @default.