Why do you think everyone is so interested in seeing Catlin paint a portrait? (Unfamiliar with how white men made images, creating realistic likenesses may have seemed like capturing someone’s spirit on canvas/paper)
Why do historians value Catlin’s paintings? (Catlin shows the details of American Indians’ dress and life before they adopted European clothes and customs; American Indians' way of life was about to change drastically due to the resettlement acts that would uproot them from their traditional homes and force them to change many of their customs)
Catlin first painted Mah-toh-to-pa indoors, but he changed the setting when he painted this version. Why did he do this? (Outdoor setting would be grander, would better reflect the Mandans’ home, would allow him to include more people)
Catlin didn’t include all the weapons the chief had been carrying. He said he left them out because he wanted to emphasize the grace and simplicity of his figure. Is it right for an artist to change details such as this? How would our impression of Mah-to-toh-pa change if he were wearing all his weapons? (Catlin was sympathetic to the Indian cause, perhaps he wanted to portray them in a less warlike manner to make them appear less threatening. Mah-to-toh-pa would look like a violent character if armed to the teeth.)
Catlin painted hundreds of portraits and scenes from tribal life of multiple American Indian tribes during his travels. See the link below for the complete first volume of his works.
(Below: Mandan Chief, Medicine Man, Bear Dance)
North American Indians: Being Letters and Notes on Their Manners, Customs, and Conditions, Written During Eight Years' Travel Amongst the Wildest Tribes of Indians in North America, 1832-1839. Volume 1 - http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3900:1.lincoln
No comments:
Post a Comment