Eakins and Icons - Thomas Eakins

(64.) Philadelphia Press, Nov. 25, 1880, quoted in Hendricks (as in n. 20), 61.

(65.) Shinn (as in n. 13).

(66.) L[eslie] W. M[iller], "Art: The Awards of Prizes at the Academy," American, no. 274 (Nov. 7, 1885): 45, reprinted in Hughston and Cash (as in n. 33), 124.

(67.) S.G.W. Benjamin, "The Exhibitions: IV. Society of American Artists," American Art Review 1 (Apr. 1880): 261.

(68.) "Art Notes," New York Art Journal 8 (1882): 190.

(69.) Goodman (as in n. 56).

(70.) In contrast to Goodman, Fried, 64, sees the history of artistic realism as one in which "tactics of shock, violence, perceptual distortion, and physical outrage were mobilized against prevailing conventions of the representation of the human body specifically in order to produce a new and stupefyingly powerful experience of the 'real.'"

(71.) Goodman's argument has been criticized by Mitchell (as in n. 56), 72-73, on the grounds that styles of depiction can become "familiar, habitual, and standard" without ever being regarded as "realistic." I agree with Mitchell that "Realism' cannot simply be equated with the fansiliar standard of depiction but must be understood as a special project within a tradition of representation Nonetheless, within this enlarged conception of realism, familiarity and unfamiliarity do play significant roles. See also Mitchell, Picture Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994).

(72.) The quotation comes from the introduction to the volume edited by Caroline Jones and Peter Galison, Picturing Science, Producing Art (New York: Roudedge, 1998), 3.

(73.) Eakins's careful specification of viewing distance and height in his perspective studies may imply an embodied viewer. I would argue just the opposite: his specifications plot the location of the monocular vantage point fundamental to classical perspective theory.

(74.) On Cartesian perspectivalism. see Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), esp. chap. 2.

(75.) Peirce lived from 1839 to 1914. Eakins from 1844 to 1916. For more on Peirce, see Leja (as in n. 44).

(76.) Charles Sanders Peirce Papers, Cambridge, Mass., Houghton Library, Harvard University, file 1514 (S). The marginal notes in the manuscript of Peirce's translation reveal that he was unimpressed by Marey's powers of logic and argument. His disparaging comments begin with wisecracks about Marey's discussion of time-lapse photography: "He ought to show the movements of slime moulds and the growth of a child from the cradle to old age." A later section on the scientific applications of chronophotography provokes this outburst from Peirce: "I wouldn't have written this if I had known what a charlatan this creature was to show himself to be.... This is unspeakable rot! A disgrace to an educated man. As if there ever could be an analogous situation to that of Galileo! Is the camera going to supply intelligence and genius? Does not this mark the degeneracy of France? This man is Membre de I'Institute. This is enough for me. I want to know no more of this charlatan.... He simply has no conception of the subject. "