This is an article I have found very interesting.

The exhibition "Julia Margaret Cameron's Women" could be faulted for the exclusivity of its focus on the female sex. It is true that Cameron portrayed the men of mark of her day: Carlyle and Tennyson, Darwin and Herschel, Watts and Rossetti number among her pantheon of patriarchs. Thus, it is also true that in the absence of those bearded eminences, the sheer worldly ambition that drove her to photograph is not conveyed as well as it might be.

On the other hand, women were the main object of Cameron's eccentric zeal, and the exhibition, curated by Sylvia Wolf of the Art Institute, conveys that admirably. Beards may be largely absent, but flowing tresses cascade here, there, and everywhere, crammed onto every possible partition and every available surface: and so the utter excess of Cameron's dedication to the topic of Woman comes across in spades. More gender balance would have subtracted from that effect, which would have been a greater misrepresentation. For as much as Cameron's photography ran on ambition, so it was fueled by immoderation.


Can anybody trust politicians any longer?

NEVO