CAPTION CONTESTED
It used to be that august institutions such as the National Portrait Gallery in London knew what they were talking about.
But there is a lot to object to in this caption to a Sarony cabinet card which came to my attention recently.
Noting the following errata for the record:
a lecture series in New York, called ‘Art of Art’s Sake‘ (sic)
There was not a lecture series “in New York”. Wilde gave individual lectures in New York as part of a series of lectures across North America.
And the lecture series was not called ‘Art of Art’s Sake’. Wilde’s tour of America did not have a generic name, only lectures with different titles which can be found here.
Moreover, the phrase alluded to (Art of Art’s Sake) is a misrendering of ‘Art FOR Art’s Sake’ (l’art pour l’art) which was a slogan of French intellectuals in the early part of the century that later became associated with the Aesthetic Movement.1
The photographer Naopleon (sic) Sarony spearheaded the development of artistic photography.
Apart from misspelling his name, Sarony did not really spearhead the development of artistic photography—although he is credited with directing it towards celebrity. Others such as F. Holland Day, Edward Steichen, and Alfred Steiglitz are more prominent in establishing the vision of fine-art photography.
In 1896 Wilde was sentenced to two years in prison for homosexual offences. During this time he wrote The Ballad of Reading Gaol
Wrong on both counts. Wilde was sentenced to prison on May 25, 1895. And he did not write The Ballad of Reading Gaol “during this time”. It was written in the months after prison during his exile in France.
he died just two years after his release
This is inaccurate. Wilde died 3 1/2 years after his release from prison.
Albumen panel card, 1892
Overlooking the irregular terminology, the date is wrong again. This photograph was taken a decade earlier on January 5, 1882.
I shall stop there because the NPG has over 1,000 portraits on display at any given time and I’ve only seen this one.
© John Cooper, 2024.
Footnote:
- With thanks to the eagle-eyes of Matthew Sturgis (see comments). ↩︎
Good grief! Some of these are real howlers. And there wasn’t much text to fact-check, though the caption is only one of many, so I have some (limited) sympathy.
Well spotted errors and mistakes! Such captions teach you to remain humble and pay attention to each and every detail.
Have you sent this to the NPG? It looks like it’s printed on nice cardstock and I bet they’d appreciate a knowledgeable assist here before there’s further embarrassment.
Well, my feeling is that they don’t care. If they did it wouldn’t happen in the first place. But I understand those with connections may be reaching out. Thing is, it seems that it was harder to make those errors than it was to get it right: five minutes on Wikipedia. It was pointed out to me that it appears to have been written from memory; but not just that because the ‘Art OF Art Sake’ mistake betrays ignorance.
There’s really no excuse. And Wikipedia has many ‘avocational editors’ inputting similar errors.
Perhaps this placard is undeserving of a nice frame in the name of self preservation. But for art’s sake, are museums not even a little curious about getting the sitter, subject and it’s creator right! Thanks John
Sigh…
Well done on this, John. And I do think you might add that the French phrase ‘L’art pour l’art’ should be rendered ‘Art FOR Art’s sake’ not their non-sensical ‘Art of Art’s sake’.
Yes, of course: post updated with thanks. Many people, myself included, might not have noticed that immediately because our eyes see what we expect them to see. Or, perhaps, the mind refuses to believe they would get this wrong. As such, it is possibly the most egregious of the errors because it is neither lack of research nor typographical: to get this wrong requires ignorance of a fundamental concept in art theory and its meaning.