Through the Lens: Kirby Sattler and Edward Curtis

Edward Curtis was born in rural Wisconsin in 1868. He lived the majority of his life in poverty and when his father died it was up to him and his older brother to take care of the rest of the family. At this time they were living in Seattle. Curtis then risked all of his family’s income to invest in a photography studio. It was his passion ever since he was a little kid and at that time taking a risk like that was huge. That just goes to show how much confidence and dedication he had towards photography. It was also in the Pacific Northwest where he found his passion for photographing Native Americans. He always looked for those tribes who preserved as much culture as they were able, and those became the majority of his subject matter.

Kirby Sattler is entirely different than Curtis in the biographical aspect. He is virtually unknown, except through his art. He lives in the mountains of Mexico, away from most civilization. By looking at his portraits you really get a spiritual aspect from each and every one of them. In some of his paintings he even morphs certain animals to his subject’s body to show the spiritual connection between the two.

Although Edward Curtis was a photographer and Kirby Sattler is a painter, they both had a lot in common. One of the main similarities between the two is their choice for subject matter. Despite the fact that neither one of them are Native American, they chose the Native people to portray in their portraits. There are similar themes throughout the portraits, but their styles are really unique to their own personalities. Curtis has a softer, more natural and realistic style to his photographs, while Sattler chooses bold colors and contrasts in a lot of his paintings to send a more powerful, spiritual message.


Prompts

• Considering both men were Caucasian, what do you think caused this interest in a culture that is not their own?
• Other than similar subject matter, what do you feel were some common traits in both Curtis’s and Sattler’s portraits?
• Do you feel that by taking a deeper look at Edward Curtis you can get a sense of who Kirby Sattler is? Explain.
• Why do you think that an artist like Kirby Sattler chose to keep to himself more than other artists? Do you think that it might be because he is alive and the majority of artists people are familiar with are deceased?
• Which artist do you think has the most powerful imagery in their portraits?

"Olympia" Response

I must start out by saying that I enjoyed this story much more than I enjoyed Vreeland’s "Yellow Jacket". It was all because of Suzanne Manet’s character. Here is a woman who has been at the very hand and foot of a very well renowned artist. One would not find it uncommon to practically worship a celebrity, which is what Manet basically was. However, he was still a man, and as sweet as he could be at times, he was not a very good husband. He was a cheating womanizer in my eyes. The way I see it, Suzanne eventually got so tired of being a doormat that she gradually started being assertive. After Manet died, that assertiveness lead to slight aggression, but it was understandable. This was a faithful wife who had been cheated on repetitively and chose to brush it under the table rather than confront the problem. When she finally did confront it, she felt much more at ease.

I think my favorite passage in this story is when she rants on about how awful the syphilis actually was. The description alone would be enough for someone to get sick, but her anger on top of it was more than intimidating. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and this is what she was. It didn’t matter whether or not Victorine was the actual source of the syphilis, Suzanne had finally gotten the nerve to speak her mind to one of Manet’s models. There’s just so much power in this passage, it’s so easy to picture. Suzanne wasn’t as pretty as the other women Manet painted, but her personality had grown multiple times more than the models’. This section, to me, just shows how Suzanne’s timid shell shatters and she becomes this powerful woman who can finally speak for herself. I admire that.

In the beginning of the story, when you get the visual of Suzanne examining the paintings with her nephew, there is this other side of Suzanne that is apparent. She does become a very strong woman, that it may seem like she has been bottling up all this anger that has finally exploded, but she is also very loving. Despite all of the hell Manet put her through with his other lovers, she loved him dearly and she would have done anything for him. Even when she is looking at the paintings of the other women and discussing them, she notes all of these similarities between her nephew and Manet. However, they come off as compliments rather than snide comments, showing her deep affection for the man. She really did miss him, probably not his antics, but she missed him.

The visuals this story provided were powerful, and I love a story that allows me to picture what is happening. It had so much description that I was able to see the paintings without actually looking at them. I did not think the writing was too spectacular, however it was decent. I enjoyed the read. Suzanne Manet definitely was a character I admired most about the story. She was the woman who could have stayed timid, but no doubt had the free will to be strong and yet still have that compassionate side.

Alice Neel Annotated Bibliography

"Alice Neel: Last Sickness." The University Art Museum. 30 Jan 2009 .

Although this source was very short, I found it very compelling and worth-while. There are only a few sentences about Alice Neel and the painting "Last Sickness". The woman in the portrait is in fact Neel’s mother. And when she was a child, her mother used to say to her "I don’t know what you expect to do in the world. You’re only a girl." Then later in life, the very woman that said this to her finds it difficult that she has no way to express herself. To me, that says so much more about the painting than I originally thought. Honestly it puts some pieces into place and it helps me get a better understanding of why her face is set in that manner. However the woman is still depicted as being strong by the bold colors of the robe and the hard shapes in the background.


Allara, Pamela. Pictures of People: Alice Neel's American Portrait Gallery. Washington DC: University Press of New England, 1998.

I found an entire book on her portraiture, so I specifically looked in the book for "Last Sickness". "Last Sickness" was finished in 1952, depicting Neel’s mother. In the book, it tells how Neel took care of her mother during the last moments of her life. I find it odd how the book says the robe in the painting resembles a shroud or a body bag. I also liked how the book noted the irony in Neel becoming the caretaker for the mother, rather than the other way around. I didn’t read the entire book, but it was an excellent source. Sadly, there was really only a small section on that particular painting.

"The Art of Alice Neel." Whitney Museum of American Art. 2008. Traditional Fine Arts Organization. 29 Jan 2009 .

This source was particularly handy for all aspects of Neel. It started off discussing her art and where they are now located, for devoted fans. It then launched into a short bibliography. Neel was apparently married to Carlos Enriquez and bore her first child, Santillana, who only lived for a year. Later on, she was separated from her second-born daughter, Isabetta, after a divorce. She went through many hardships, including a nervous breakdown and a suicide attempt. She worked for the W.B.A. as a painter during the Great Depression. It was then when she really explored portraiture. The one thing I find interesting about this source is how Neel referred to herself as a "collector of souls" rather than a portrait painter.

In the article "Children of the Screen" by Hannah Baylon, it seems as though she is arguing that we are all influenced by pop culture, and in so doing we lose our sense of individuality. Personally, I do believe we are all children of the screen. It’s inevitable these days. No matter what we do, in some way we will be influenced by the media. It comes out in what we wear, what we buy, even how we decorate our homes. No one can live a life that is completely media free.

However, I must disagree with her statements "A negligible fraction of today’s society is free to explore and nurture their creative potentials," and "While watching television may seem a harmless break from the duties and routines of our daily lives, there is a higher cost to the consumer than is purely financial." I believe that there can be harmful effects of watching television, but there are some benefits. I also don’t believe that only a small portion of society is free to be creative. Look at it this way, without television or video games, sure people would be more active. But, for those who actually created those shows, movies, and games it’s a loss. That was their creative expression. The media allows so many opportunities for people to get out there and create a work of art.

A movie can have a positive effect upon a person. It’s not exactly detrimental to our health if we watch a few. Everyone is still "free to explore and nurture their creative potentials". No on is stopping that. It’s up to us what we choose to do. Whether or not we take the opportunity to do so is our own fault. Taking away the media wouldn’t change a thing, except taking away the creativity of the actors, screen wrights, directors, musicians, etc. Just because someone takes four hours out of their day to watch television, doesn’t meant that if it wasn’t there they’d be doing something extraordinary. The ambitious are the ones who will be creative. The media can’t take that away from them.

And I have to say, in her final paragraph she is a tad bit dramatic. We will not be spiritless just because we are influenced by the media. I think the article does have a point, but to say that all media is negative, I just can’t agree. Take, for example, the history channel. That’s an excellent way for people to learn who really won’t pick up a book. It’s probably more beneficial to read the book, but visual aid can’t hurt. And when she discusses the Darwinism take on the matter and our adaptation to our environments, I must say we’ve created an environment that has adapted to us, I think the key word being "created". We haven’t lost our sense of creativity. Some people just choose not to use it.

The Picture of Dorian Gray tells the story of a man who basically sells his soul to stay forever young. Through a portrait of himself, you can see who he really is and who he has become. As time passes, and his appearance stays the same, his soul becomes more corrupt and ugly. Eventually, the people around him begin committing suicide because of his actions and he even kills the painter of the particular portrait after showing him what has become of it. At the end, only one person is spared from Dorian’s ways and that is Gladys, the niece of the painter, whom he loves. After his one good deed is done, he then stabs the painting in the heart, thus killing himself. The portrait then returns to its original state, transferring all the wickedness onto Dorian himself, showing who he really is. I believe, throughout all of this, the message of the story is to not judge a person by his looks alone. Dorian Gray was a handsome man, but he was corrupt. So little of his friends realized this before it was too late.

Perhaps my favorite scene was in the beginning when Lord Henry Wotton captures the butterfly. The painting has just been finished and Basil and Gladys have just signed the portrait at the bottom. Lord Henry begins talking about how much a shame it is that the portrait will go on staying young forever, while Dorian himself, as well as the rest of them, will age with time. They will all begin to look different. Gladys then begs him not to change until she catches up with him. I find this ironic, because indeed he does not change by the time she reaches his age. While all this is happening, Lord Henry gets slightly distracted by a butterfly and captures it with his hat. He then puts it in some solution, which I can only guess traps the poor thing forever making it a souvenir. The butterfly then will be entrapped at that stage of its life. It’s in this scene that Dorian also makes his wish to basically trade places with the portrait so that it should age, instead of himself. He doesn’t realize it then, but his wish does come true. It’s this particular scene that sets the fate of Dorian and most of the other characters in the film.

That scene, even before I saw the rest of the movie, I knew would be my favorite. I think the symbolism of the butterfly is what did it for me. This beautiful creature would eventually cease to be, but Lord Henry captures it and in so doing, keeps it at that particular moment. It will be that beautiful thing forever. I think the other great thing about the fact that it is Lord Henry who captures the butterfly is he is the one who sets it in Dorian’s mind that youth slips away even before we realize we had it. But when he actually captures the butterfly, he’s so nonchalant when he says he caught it, as if it was no big deal. But in all actuality it was so significant to what happens to Dorian. Dorian is to be like that butterfly; stuck at one age, retaining all his youth and beauty. But, unlike the butterfly, Dorian’s beauty is only an illusion.

Who is that Person?

It took me a little while to determine the gender of this figure. You may argue that it is male or female, but I perceive this particular painting to be a woman, based on her very slender hands. I chose this portrait, because I think her expression can deceive people. When I first looked at her face I believed her to be sad or depressed. Her eyebrows are raised in the middle creating a crease in her forehead and her lips are slightly pursed giving her this slight pout. Trying to put an explanation behind the depressed appearance, I thought because this person is an elder it may have something to do with a lack of youth, as if she was finally defeated and age got the best of her. Her life was slowly coming to a halt and there wasn’t much left. Or that’s what I thought at first.

After looking at her face a little more in depth I noticed her eyes and stopped looking so much at the brow and the pursed lips. Her eyes definitely weren’t melancholy. Well, not for herself at least. They have a certain sternness that is recognizable in any parent or guardian when their child has acted out or gone against their will. Acknowledging her slouched posture and limp hands, she still seemed slightly defeated to me, however her defeat isn’t centered around herself. This is a portrait of a woman who is wise and cares for others.

I think the main reason her face is set the way it has been is because of what she does know. She knows too much for those she cares about, but there is nothing she can do to help them. She seems disappointed, possibly because of lack of respect the younger generation may have or because she’s not being accounted for by them. Her goal would be to help them to learn how to be a good person and how not to take life for granted, but each and every day she sees it happen. Her age is very apparent, but younger people don’t realize that every day they are getting older. This is something that she knows very well and only wishes they would see this as well.

This portrait reminds me of those elderly who truly are taken for granted every day. This is every person’s grandparent. The one who tries their hardest to make sure that you are raised right, live a good life, and make the right decision. But this is also the grandparent that sees the same child disappoint them. It doesn’t make them angry so much as it just upsets them. As every grandparent wishes and hopes for the best, they generally never expect to see themselves become disappointed as this one is. This face, to me, goes right along with someone saying " I love you, but you need to get your life together," or even "You’re better than this." Either one, the look on this woman’s face is not a sadness for herself, it’s definitely directed at a loved one.