26 MICHAEL L.

WILSON

turns form into practice, and into one kind of practice specifically: the toundational capitalist pursuit

in social fields, as Bourdieu

offers a model of the stako
oT reu, agents compcte
as driven by
SOcal activity that ambiguously between a
sits Marxian model of society class struggle
and a liberal model of society as driven by privatc indivicuals competing to maximize proit. Although
Dourdieu complicates the nature of that valuc to include cultural as well as financial rewards, all aspects
of an
become subsumed to this
art work whether it is the
competition
of individuals
position-taking
or acsthetic practices that become socially recognized and disseminated in
po
Michel oucault, Les Mots et les choses; une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard, 196,
P 5 trMichel Foucault, Prcface, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New
York: Random House, Inc.,
1970), p. xxii.
Ogood basic introductions to natural scicnce models of complexity are Per Bak's How Nature Work
e ork Copernicus, 1996) and James Gleick's Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Penguin
Books, 1987).
t o r Pierre
Bourdicu, genre was what he called a "position." Jameson grasped this aspect of genre in
The Folitica Unconscious when he talked of it as a social contract, or what he also identified as a combi.
atoire rederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, N.Y.
Cornell University Press, 1981).
o erger quoting Walter Benjamin quoting Goethe: "The Suit and the Photograph," About Loking
(New York: Pantheon, 1980), p. 28.
Ann
Bermingham, Learning to Draw; Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art (New Haven,
Conn. and London: Yale
12 Adrian Rifkin, "Art's
University Press, 2000).
Histories," in The New Art History, A.L. Rees and F. Borzello (eds) (Atlantic
Highlands: Humanities Press, 1988) pp. 157-63.
13 Jonathan Crary, "Géricault, the Panorama, and Sites of Reality in the Early Nineteenth Century," Grey
Room 9 (Fall 2002): 6-25.
14 Debora L. Silverman, Art Nouveau in Fin-de-Siècle
France; Politics, Psychology, and Style (Berkeley, Calif.
University of California Press, 1989).
15 Mary Louise Pratt defines this useful notion in Imperial Eyes (London and N. Y.: Routledge, 1992).
16 Andrew McClellan, Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the
and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Origins of the Modern Museum (New York
1994).

Chapter 3

MICHAEL L. WILSON

VISUAL CULTURE
A useful category of historical analysis?

O HISTORIANS NEED ANOTHER REMINDER to take seriously the

D pictorial traces of the past? More dogmatically, must we embrace yet another critical
category of analysis, that of "visual culture"? The tempting answer is, of course, "No." Several
long generations after Jakob Burckhardt, Johan Huizinga, and Aby Warburg argued for the
crucial role of fine art in understanding the past, visual materials and issues of "representation
 VISUAL CULTURE 27

Across geographical and chronological special-

seem firmly entrenched in historical practice.
and major historical journals include illustrations and visual
izations, historical monographs,
sOurces on an increasingly regular basis. Historians now routinely examine images alongside
and manuscripts. Textbooks, perhaps due to the common-
archival records, printed sources,
that each generation is more visually literate than the previous, are larded
place assumption
overhead and digital projections, slides, television
with images; in the classroom many of us use
movies to give our students a more vivid and concrete understanding of the
programs, and
but professional scholarship.
past. Film seems especially well integrated for only teaching
into not

The journal Film&History has been published thirty years, the American Historical Review and
more specialized periodicals regularly review films, and a growing scholarly literature explores
relations between cinema and history.
In addition to finding a call for attention to visual culture redundant, historians may also
be dubious about the value to them of a field of study that is so vaguely and poorly demar
cated. Scholars of visual culture seem unable to reach consensus on what, exactly, their
culture" best defined as an
object of inquiry might be and how it is to be studied. Is "visual
expansion of the purviewof traditional art history, to include popular and commercial forms
of pictorial representation, such as advertising, caricature and cartoons, postcards, snapshots,
and mass spectacles?' Should "visual culture" attend more broadly to the visible character-
istics or appearance of all products of culture and every social activity?" Should it focus instead,
as W.J.T. Mitchell has suggested, on the long history of interrelations between image and
idea? Does this new field propose, in the words of the "Visual Culture Questionnaire" circu
lated by October, a "newly wrought conception of the visual as disembodied image, re-created
in the virtual spaces of sign-exchange and phantasmatic projection." Perhaps, as Chris Jenks
has posited, visual culture is to be grasped less as a particular range of objects than as a
process, a dynamic exploration of "the social context of both the 'seeing' and the 'seen' but
also.. . the intentionality of the practices that relate these two moments."° Or, as Irit Rogoff
has insisted, visual culture might be understood most importantly as a critical activity, a"ques
tioning of the ways in which we inhabit and thereby constantly make and remake our own
culture" such that "the boundary lines between making, theorizing, and historicizing lare
greatly eroded."7 "Visual culture," then, is used by its advocates to refer to any number of
phenomena: a particular range of images, or the image as such, or relations between
icons
and ideas, or the social process of visual perception, or a mode of criticism and analysis.
This range of possible definitions underlines that "visual culture" as an object of studv
does not simply emerge from the effort to comprehend a contemporary world dominated by
the image. It also stems, at least in part, from the influence of recent historical writing upon
Scholars of art, design, architecture, and mass media. That is, the successful efforts of these

analysts make more historical their own practice-to trace the social histories and social
to
Contexts of the "fine," "applied," and "commercial" arts-have themselves led in recent vears
to this reconceptualization of the commonalities underlying forms of visual representation.
Art historians, for example, have since the 1970s explored in depth the specific social and
economic circumstances shaping the development of painting, sculpture, and photography
across the nineteenth century; social and economic historians, however, have not felt a reci-
in their fheld
procal impulse to in vestigate the pictorial arts in order to explain developments
O1 inquiry. The advent of the field of visual culture, then, might be understood as contrma-
than historians
nat scholars of the visual have a greater need for historical understanding
have the need for
greater attention to the pictorial.
Such skepticism may only be strengthened by an examination of some of the operational
mptions that underpin scholarship in visual culture. One might point to the particularly
28 MICHAEL L. WILSON

elastic and undifferentiated concept of "culture" which is often deployed in this literature,
tramework expansive enough to include all material artefacts, buildings and images, plu
time-based media and performances, produced by human labour and imagination, which serve
aesthetic, symbolic, ritualistic or ideological-political ends, and/or practical functions." This
notion of culture as a way of life was borrowed (as it was by historians) Irom twentieth.
century anthropology. Here, though, the supposition that every detail of quotidian lite is (to
Some degree) interconnected and (at least potentiallv) meaningful is taken as the basisof
turther assertions that culture is pervasively organized and integrated into a singular visual
order, Whether cast as the Western "way of seeing", or the mode of "bourgeois perception",
or the modern
the coherence of visual culture is
"scopic regime," privileged:
Jhe weight of evidence certainly seems to convince us that the dramatic contluence
ot an empirical philosophical tradition, a realist aesthetic, a positivist attitude towards

khowledge and a technoscientistic ideology through modernity have led to a common-

sensecultural attitude of literal depiction in relation to
vision.
ucn à model of visual culture as a closed, overdetermined system seems reductive, suspi
cIously static, and unnecessarily totalizing. Connections must be demonstrated (not merely
assumed or asserted) between
empiricism, aesthetics, practices of arts and crafts, ideologies,
and comnmon sense. What are the
assumptions shared by different models of vision and percep-
tion-whether philosophical,
physiological, or neuropsychological-formulated at any
historical moment? How do such models
To what extent do
change, gain prominence, and challenge one another?
prescriptive texts concerned with the production and reception of images
intluence practitioners or reflect their work? How
conventions structuring different forms of visual
widespread, how commonsensical are the
culture, and how can we account for their
development and change? Who are the different audiences within visual culture and to what
extent can determine how they do or do not make sense of what
we

Let me draw particular attention to the last

they see?
of these questions, since a flattened notion
of culture is itself often at odds in visual cultural studies with a
stronginterest in reception.
As in cultural studies more generally, analysts of the
by which individuals and social
pictorial quite often stress the processes
groups perceive, appropriate, and transform the very materials
of visual culture. In Rogoff's formulation, the
attempt to analyze reception has at least three
components:

First there are the images that come into being and
claimed by various, and often
are
contested histories. Second there the
viewing apparatuses that we have at our
are

disposal that are guided by cultural models such as narrative or

there are the subjectivities of identification or desire or technology. Third,
and which
abjection from which we view
by we inform what we view,
Rogoff's account plots a steady critical movement from material traces to the individual
and places an emphasis on how psyche,
a closer examination of how
people make sense of their
experiences of images. However,
many scholars of visual culture work on
suggests that all three of these questions of reception
components are derived more from theoretical formula-
tions than from whatever records
visual culture. Discussions of "the
might remain of how historical
agents have participated in
gaze," "surveillence," or "spectacle" often begin with the
uncritical acceptance of assertions about how
modern society is
arship depends on abstract, usually psychoanalytic mappings oforganized.
Much of this schol-
the modern subject in whin
 VISUAL CULTURE 29

the individual is as much constituted by, as he or she is a shaper of, larger, inflexible social
forces. At its least convincing, Scholarship in visual culture posits an iron cage of visuality in
which universalized persons are subject to regimes of seeing over which they can exercise no
significant influence.
Yet for all that is problematic in attempts to forge this new discipline and to delineate
its aims and methods, the indifference (if not resistance) of historians to visual culture has
more basic causes. Contemporary historians are, by and large, logocentric. In all the exam-
ples I proftered in my opening paragraph and, I would argue, in the contemporary pursuit
of history more generally pictorial sources have value only to the degree that they add to
the main work of historical knowledge. In practice, the visual (in both its broadest and
narrowest manifestations) remains an addendum to the linguistic. Even so sympathetic a figure
as Peter Burkc, at the end of a recent book arguing for historical attention to pictorial evidence,
writes, "the testimonies about the past offered by images are of real value, supplementing as
well as supporting the evidence of written documents." Historians regard images as supple-
mental in the sense that they augment a method of inquiry firmly grounded in language (and,
to a limited degree, numbers). Visual sources are of interest insofar as they confirm what
historians learn by examining other kinds of records. For example, newspaper illustrations
postcards, and photographs of theatrical presentations may show us the specific visual markers
used in Victorian popular culture to stereotype Jews, gypsies, Africans, and Asians. However,
historians
are unlikely to see
images of "exotic," "marginal," or
inferior
peoples as having
interest in themselves, or as having the power to generate ideas and preconceptions about
those other groups. They are much more likely to cast these materials as illustrations or mani-
festations of Victorian social attitudes; and they are more likely to seek the motivations for
and the meaning of these (mis)representations-the ground from which they arise-in polit-
ical tracts, scientific treatises, travel literature, popular fiction, and other printed sources.
Historians' preference for working with written documents is not merely a matter of the
comfort and familiarity of words; nor is it simply attributable to the ways in which historians
are trained. Rather, historians prize the seeming transparency of language because their major
concern lies not with textual questions but with the prior reality that written sources record.
Despite what is often termed "the struggle with documents," historians are largely inclined
to move berond matters of representation (whether linguistic, numerical, or pictorial) to the
agency and experience of people in the past. The French, in the first half of the nineteenth
century, produced an enormous archive of images and descriptions of the various social "tvpes
inhabiting Paris, from the ragpicker to the financier, from the the milliner's deliverv girl to
the courtesan. Recent historians have generally explored only two aspects of these sources:
how this proliferation of images signals widespread anxieties about cities and their inhabitants:
ànd to what extent these images correspond to what Parisian life was "really" like." These

images are not considered of interest in themselves. Instead, visual representations of urban
hle serve historians as an indirect route to the social, economic, and political realities that

people experienced: the expansion of capitalism, urbanization, and fears of an urban under-
Class, transtormations in gender norms, and so on. Such connections between iconography
dnd social structure are, of course, there to be made; but historians habitually cast only social
enomena as analytically significant. Visual culture, then, is deemed inadequate tor addressing
ne basic aims of historical research, which is reducible to attempts to document (and mis-
cument) people, social processes, and events already identitied as having historical
portance. Pictorial sources remain marginal to most historians because, as Stephen Bann
P a t t, "the visual image proves nothing o r whatever it does prove is too trivial to count
as a component in the historical analysis."»14
 30 MICHAEL WILSON

Those books and articles

nreumption that visual
is "rivial" hecomes self-fulfilling. decorative, showing what
as merely
o n t a i n illustrations frequently treat thcse images
hat
"flavor." These works generally
addina Deriod
placr "a tuall" looked like
a
Tson
or or
Some books
include extensive
o t cite, much less analvze, any of the imaoes included. Even those
never explained.
eetons of illustrations whose relation to the printed text is d i s c u s s Caricatures

wOrks that make mention of the images they

contain may, for example,
documentary records
as transparent
their captions or treat photographs content, h e i r own
s ot illustrations in terms of their
visual
t e n , authors ofler no analysis of
which they construct
o r the
manner in
hiNtory, the genre conventions in which thev participate,
manner indicate to
of the world. Authors who use images
in this reductive
aepresentation historical inquiry.
ther readers that v isual materials are outside the
normal practice of
culture. Some have traced
O course, not all historians are indifferent in
their use of visual
a r t s . O t h e r s have
fine and applied
wh
great insight the institutions and material life of the how
vital role of in political life. 16 Two additional examples suggest
plored the imagery
historians are drawing on visual culture to enrich
and expand their analyses. Douglas
attentive uses architectural drawings
Mackaman, in his study of nineteenth-century French spa culture,
became decreas-
organization of spas
alongside archival documents to investigate how the spatial of privacy and
in bourgeois notions
ngly public and hcterosocial in accordance with shifts ,

and
the souvenir books of photographs
gender segregation. More provocatively, he examines an alter.
caricatures that could be purchased by spa-goers. Mackaman finds in these images
concerned with
native to the archivaland printed sources he examines, which are largely
stress the discomforting and
medical and therapeutic benefits. The souvenir books instead
of the spa-going experience that
humiliating aspects of spa treatment, suggesting a dimension
the written sources do not document."
American women's peri-
Similarly, in her examination of the role of the nineteenth-century
odical, Godey's Lady's Book, Isabelle Lehuu explores how the book's illustrations were frequentlv
at odds with its printed texts. The didactic moralizing fiction and non-fiction that Goder's
has long been thought crucial to the shaping of middle-class norms of femininity
in
published
the antebellum period. Lehuu, though, traces the tensions between these proscriptive texts and
the periodical's hand-colored engravings that show women displaying the latest fashion trends
in public settings. While she demonstrates that over time the fashion plates came more and
more to resemble sentimental genre scenes stressing domesticity and republican virtue, Lehuu
posits that Godey's rendered the world of white middle-class Protestant women visible in a wav
that had not been possible before. Moreover, she suggests that the illustrations, which were
frequently removed by readers and displayed in their homes, were more important to Godey's
readership than its written texts. These engravings were not "direct representations of the image
that ninetcenth-century white middle-class women had of themselves," Lehuu argues, but
images that readers were "appropriating, enjoying, and approving" in constructing their own
identities. By examining the complicated relations between text and image, and images
and their referents, Lehuu demonstrates that even so "Irivolous"and "trivial" a source as fashion
illustrations can reveal competing notions of gender and class in operation.
Promising as such examples are, they remain the exception rather than the rule. All
too often, historians subordination of the visual to the linguistic and of representation to
xperience appears intractable. l is certainly (but not merely) another instance of historio-
graphy's methodologiral conservatisn, of historians valuing the documentary and recon-
structive aspects ol their work more highly than its interpretive dimensions. Historians have
borrowed methods and even areas of research from any number of other disciplines over the
past century, but this intellectual exchange has largely involved the social sciences. The insights
 VISUAL CULTURE 31

oflered by economics, demography, or anthropology, for instance, have strengthened histo-

rians' ability to reconstruct the experience of the past in greater and greater written detail. Even
after the much-vaunted linguistic" and "cultural" turns, historiography remains firmly
materialist in aim; and disciplines such as philosophy, literary criticism, and art history, whose
objects and insights are not easily reducible to social, economic, and political generalizations,
continue to be perceived as peripheral to the production of historical knowledge.
The tensions between the practice of historians and that of visual cultural studies, though,
are not immutable. No matter how limited their mutual engagement and however uneven
the exchange, the two fields have much to offer one another. At the very least, scholars with
differing training can alert one another to new documents and sources, new archives, and
alternative methods of criticism and interpretation. Mastering new skills as well as encoun-
tering a body of unfamiliar critical literature are unquestionably time-consuming undertakings,
but they produce clear results. Historians would benefit from learning a range of modes of

analysis of pictorial texts from the rudiments of composition, to iconography, to film theory
to semiotics-for it would allow them to use a broader selection of sources with more tlex-
ibility and insight. With more methodological tools at their disposal, historians could distinguish
more subtly between different practices and registers of meaning within visual culture and

thereby make more effective use of them. Conversely, scholars of visual culture would benefit
from exposure to the methods historians have established for the systematic interpretation
and comparison of a variety of documents. Adapting some conventions of historical argument
would also allow for analyses of visual culture that rely less on juxtaposition, analogy, and
homology, and engage more with demonstrable linkage, contingency, and causality.
The interaction of historical and visual cultural studies would be especially productive
with regard to several crucial methodological questions. How do we weigh the explanatory
an illustration is just an illustration.) How
power of different bodies of evidence? (Sometimes
are we to apprehend and analyze the multiple relations between words and images, language
and the pictorial? How autonomous are cultural phenomena with regard to given social,
economic, and political structures?
Here I can treat only one such issue: the problem of periodization. Both fields tend to
Second
privilege chronological divisions derived either from political demarcations-Victorian,
Empire, Wilheminian, Antebellum-that may not bear a significant relation to social or cultural
developments, or from a conventional progression of aesthetic movements-Realism,
Naturalism, Modernism-that may only account for a small segment of cultural production
at any historical moment. Obviously, relations between cultural production, political activi-

ties, and the state are not negligible, particularly when discussing government-sponsored
art
institutions or instances of regulation and censorship. Similarly, the producers of visual
culturewhether or not they were considered "artists-were frequently knowledgeable and
self-conscious about the relations between their work and that of their contemporaries and
a false sense of coher-
predecessors. Still, both ways of organizing the study of culture impute
ence and homogeneity to the chronological units they create.
Of course, all attempts to carve time into manageable units are artificial and can only be
heuristic. Practically, periodization serves to limit the number of possible relevant contexts
that can be addressed in any particular investigation and to determine the range of possible

explanations that can be proffered. The challengefacing scholars in history and in visual
Cultural studies lies in setting such limits in a manner that is appropriate to and commen-
Surate with the phenomena they wish to examine. Political regimes and artistic movements
may be of too brief a duration to have more than a glancing elfect on cultural production;
modernity may be a process too slow, uneven, and widely dispersed to explain the emergence
32 MICHAEL L. WILSON

or
transtormation of specific forms of visuality. A number of ditterent timescales, of varyin
and
conflicting histories, might be required to account for the full range and significance of
visual culture.
Consider, for instance, the early history of photography, with its cluster of "inventors," com
peting technical processes, transnational exchanges, and troubled aesthetiCs. Mid-nineteenth
century photography could be located within chronologies concerned with technologies of
reproduction, burgeoning markets for consumer goods, the rise of a mass press, developments
n
popular science, ideologies of middle-class domesticity, and so on. It shares its implication in
some-but not necessarily all-of these narratives with the history of the panorama and the
diorama, these forms ofrepresentation were to some extent in competition with, influencedby
and an intluence
upon photography, but had a different relationship to the fine arts and to popular
entertainment. The potentially relevant contexts within which early photography might be
examined proliferate as quickly as did contemporary media: posters, political caricatures, engrav.
ngs of famous paintings and current events, wax museums, colonial exhibitions, world's fairs,
According to what terms, though, do the similarities and the differences between all these
practices become formally, ideologically, socially significant? How do we decide whether events
OcCurring at more or less the same time have any meaningful correlation, much less common cause
or causes? Or is the analytical imperative to make general claims itself dispensable? Concluding
that these examples of visual culture are the products of industrial technology, tools of the
imperial state, or constituents of a realist aesthetic (the list could go on) is a first step, but it is
only a first step. We need now to formulate intermediary categories, ways of describing conti-
nuity and change that mediate between isolated artifacts, transient events or trends, chronicles
of particular media, genres or traditions, and long-term transformations of social and economic
organization. Periodization is one means of organizing our investigations of the past, but it may
serve to obscure more than it does to reveal.
As this sketch suggests, encounters between historical practice and visual cultural studies
can make uncomfortably explicit the assumptions and values of both fields.
By designating
pictorial sources as belonging to a particular "period," historians affirm the primacy of context
over text, while scholars of visual culture insist that
textuality is constitutive and pervasive.
This in turn demonstrates just how dissimilar the explanatory models governing both fields
can be, and returns our attention to the
unsurprising fact that different disciplines (including
those styled interdisciplinary) have differing objects and aims.
Any productive exchange
between istorians and scholars of visual culture must begin with a recognition not only ot
what questions, methods, and materials they share, but of just how much separates them.
That such a reckoning is challenging has not prevented scholars from moving between and
among different disciplines, or from expanding and refining our knowledge of how the visual
has functioned in past societies. The current collection provides ample testimony of just how
fruitful such exploration can be. I imagine these interdisciplinary initiatives will continue and
will increase in frequency and scope. To answer the rhetorical
question posed at the start ot
this essay: historians need not adopt "visual culture" as a category of analysis, but if they fail
to
engage this new field, they risk intellectual and methodological impoverishment.
Notes
1 On Europcan analyses of
images as historical evidence from Petrarch through Huizinga, see Franco
laskel, History and is Inages: Art and the Interpretation of the Past (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1993).
Norman Bryson, Michacl Ann Holly, and Keith Moxey (eds.), Visual Culture: mages and Interpretatios
(Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1994).
 VISUAL CULTURE 33
h n A Walker and Sarah Chaplin, istual (ulture: An Introduction (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1997), p. 2.
4 W.J.T. Mitchell, lonology: Image lent, ldeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) and Picture
of Chicago Press, 1994).
Theory (Chicago: lUniversity
"Visual Culture Qucstionnaire, October 77 (Summer 1996): 25.
Chris Jenks, "Thc Centrality of the Eye in Western Culture," in C. Jenks (ed.), Fisual Culture (New
6
York: Routledgc, 1995), p. 16.
Irit Rogof, "Studying Visual Culture, in Nicholas Mirzocff (ed.), The Visual Culture Reader (New York:
Routledge, 1998), p. 18.
8 Walker and Chaplin, p. 2.
9 Jenks. p. 14. Sec also John Berger, Ways of Seeing (New York: Viking Press, 1973); Donald Lowe,
Hisor efBourgeois Percetien (Chicago: lUniversity of Chicago Press, 1982); Martin Jay, "Scopic Regimes
of Modernit" in Mirzoctt.
10 Rogot, p. 18.
11 Pcter Burke, Erewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 2001). p. 184.
12 Historians have themselves critiqued this tendency. See Hayden White, The Content of the Form
(Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Dominick LaCapra, History and Criticism
lthaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985); Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Polities of History
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1988); Robert Berkhofer, Beyond the Great Story (Cambridge,
Mass.: Belknap Press, 1995).
13 The classic work on this topic, Louis Chevalier's Laboring classes and dangerous classes in Paris during the
first half ef the nineteenth century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), demonstrates both
tendencies
Stephen Bann, Under the Sign: John Bargrave as Collector, Traveler and Witness (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University
of Michigan Press, 1994), p. 122.
15 See, for example, Daniel J. Sherman, Worthy Monuments: Art Museums and the Politics of Culture in
Ninerenth-Century France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989); Debora Silverman, Art
Nouveau in Fin-de-Siècle France: Politics, Psychology and StyBe (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California
Press, 1989); Leora Auslander, Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France (Berkeley, Calif.: University
of California Press, 1996); F. Graeme Chalmers, Women in the Nineteenth-Century Art World: Schools of
Ar and Design for Women in London and Philadelphia (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998); James
J. Sheehan, Museums in the German Art World from the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
16 See, for example, Maurice Agulhon, Marianne Into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France,
1789-1880 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Peter Paret, Art As History (Princeton,
N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1988); Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance of the French Revolution
(Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1992).
17 Douglas Peter Mackarman, Leisure Settings: Bourgeois Culture, Medicine, and the Spa in Modern France
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
18 Isabelle Lehuu, Carnivl on the Page: Popular Print Media in Antebellum America (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
of North Carolina Press, 2000), p. 105.
University