Personal example - a few days ago, I was searching for a particular women painter from the 1500s in Italy. My search brought up many paintings OF females in the 1500s, but not my painter. One of the paintings, however, included a lovely younger woman with an eyepatch that was unfamiliar. I looked up her painting, and she was Ana de Mendoza y de Silva Cifuentas, Princess of Eboli, Duchess of Pastrana, 2nd Princess of Mélito, 2nd Duchess of Francavilla and 3rd Countess of Aliano. She had an amazing life.
Born an only child in Spain in 1540, she was 2nd Princess of Mélito, 2nd Duchess of Francavilla and 3rd Countess of Aliano in her own right. At 13, she was married off to King Phillip's friend Rui Gomes da Silva, 1st Prince of Éboli. This seems terribly young, even for the time, but their marriage was in name only and was not consumated until she was 17. The husband and wife went on to have 10 children together. Rui Gomes passed away in 1573, when Ana was only 33. She spent some time in a nunnery, as she was quite religious and in mourning, but then she came back to public life as, basically, a politician. She was quite close to the King's secretary and advisors, and was arrested for the murder of another secretary 1579. The King decreed that Ana should be confined to her family castle, to a particular suite of rooms, where she later died in 1592.
But why did she wear an eye patch? Nobody really knows. It is theorized that she became blind in one eye during her childhood, but regardless, she was always considered a great beauty.
There is a character called Princess Eboli based on Ana in Schiller's play Don Carlos, Infant von Spanien, and Verdi's opera Don Carlos.[6] She is also the subject of Kate O'Brien's novel That Lady,[7] and the 1955 film adaptation of O'Brien's novel, That Lady, starring Olivia de Havilland as Ana. La Tuerta, a stage play charting the life of Ana de Mendoza was performed at Bedlam Theatre as part of The Edinburgh Fringe Festival in August 2008. Julia Ormond played her in La Conjura de El Escorial (2008) and Belén Rueda in the TV film La Princesa de Éboli (2010). In 2018, Arthur (TV series) episode "The Princess Problem" had Lydia introduce D.W. to her as an example of a handicapped princess, saying she was blinded in a childhood sword fight, but there is no evidence of this theory.
These paintings are unattributed, and I am still trying to find the artists. I am also still trying to find that one particular artist from the 1500s. Maybe she was in the 1600s instead? And off I go, no doubt to find another rabbit hole.
]]>
There are some probably quotes that everybody thinks they know, and everybody is correct. Unfortunately, I could not think of a single one, because most of the famous quotes that "everybody knows" are consistently WRONG, either in their content or in their attribution. This is especially difficult in the day of the internet because blog and article writers often assume they know the quote and do not look it up themselves, or worse, they quote a completely separate article or blog that ALSO got it wrong. This drives me nuts, and I know I am not alone because many friends have sternly warned me that I better get the quotes right. I try to find the original source material for quotes that I use - I find a text of the book, speech, or even a recording. This means that if someone brings up a question on a quote that I use, I can literally turn to a source and say, with fair confidence, "THIS is where I found it, and that is how I know."
The same thing happens with art, sometimes - especially public domain art. I found a beautiful painting I wanted to use on a shirt. The painting was included with works be Edgar Degas, but it was not quite right. No matter how many times this painting kept coming up, it was not quite right and I kept seeing different artist renditions of it (kind of like a band doing covers of another band's songs). Finally, I had to go to the actual Degas collection and this one painting was not included - hence, the Degas scholars were telling me that it was not his. Therefore, I do not know the correct attribution, and cannot use the painting as I do not know anything about the rights.
So there are 2 largish reasons there why proper attribution is important - 1) to make sure that things are as correct as possible just for the sake of being correct and not looking like an idiot who can't research adequately and 2) making sure that the copyrights of art and literature are being adhered to so that creators get their fair credit. Of course, there will be people who will (wrongly) try to argue with me, and you, just because they can and about anything, but we can't really do anything to prepare for those people except understand that they exist.
]]>
A few years ago, there was a story on NPR about how a few libraries had received donations of large collections of films that they were initially not super excited about, so they relegated to a corner of a basement. But they later realized that some of the films they received were no longer circulating, and that they had, in fact, received some of the only remaining copies. This meant digitizing all the films before they could be lost, stolen, or just before they literally disintegrated.
Sometimes, we humans lose or destroy things. Ha, ok, often times we lose and destroy things. Regularly and on purpose, in fact. And occasionally, nobody will miss those things. Much like a box of clothes you forgot and have not unpacked in the last 2 moves, these things could go away forever and we would not have blinked or cried. Sometimes, however, we forget that Iranian angels were depicted with rainbow hued wings. Sometimes we forget all the insane, and ugly, ways the Christ child has been depicted in art. Sometimes, we find an app that we can use to see people that may resemble us in famous (or less famous) paintings. Sometimes we just find something that speaks to us in a way that art, or film, or poetry has never spoken to us before.
Public domain things are important, and because they are not new, or shiny (sometimes), they are in more danger of being lost. They can remind us of the past, shore up the present, or even give us a hint of the future.
I like this article about why the public domain matters, and you might also:
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2019/why/
]]>Wikipedia, the authority on all things, defines public domain as all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired, been forfeited, expressly waived, or may be inapplicable. There are various and multifarious laws that define how, when, and where creative works become public domain. The items I am posting for sale contain images and text that is available in the public domain where I live, the United States, so they are legal for me to sell. This is important, not just because I don't want to go to jail or be sued by the Great Mouse (or anyone else), but also because I don't want to take away the livelihood of an artist. Public domain works have no current copywrite, and usually because it is old enough that the person who created it has died a long while back. After a certain amount of time, a work will become part of popular culture, which may include being studied at schools, performed or shown on screen, or been referenced so many times that it is recognizable by millions.
Some of these items live on easily, like the gorgeous Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh and Shakespeare's iconic words. Some of these plays and books and poems are performed, sampled, and recorded time and again by new artists. Some fall into disuse, becoming forgotten over time except by a studious few.
I hope to renew remembrance in some classic literature, paintings, and even sayings. I hope to bring smiles to a few faces, and create a few products that make someone happy. I hope to send someone down a rabbit hole of research, trying to figure out where they know that from, or where they can remember seeing it before. I hope to help someone find something from their own past that they can pass on to a new future.
Amber
]]>