 I thought maybe for the final session, I'll open it up more for questions, but I thought I would just maybe begin with sort of the observation that I think throughout the papers we've definitely seen the material turn or materiality turn. There has been a topographical turn and we had a geographical turn here, but these papers have all dealt with kind of the traditional, in some ways to recall the traditional curatorial category of works on paper. You've all dealt with things that are on paper which were portable, circulated, collected, recalled here for our scrutiny. Ellie, you had your sketchbook that was traversing the peninsula. You kind of talked about that geography in terms of centering periphery. Jeff, you had site specificity in a church. You also talked about the Via Ostienza and you also had us visually under the ground in your topographical kind of consideration. And Hyun-Ji, you collapsed and bridged space and you kind of talked about that in terms of the thematization and commercialization consumption as reverse prostitution. So I was just wondering to throw a question to all three of you whether there is any relevance in thinking about the medium of paper and its properties and qualities and the ways that you might have brought it into your discussion and then this notion of bridging spaces or topographies, whatever, and then we can throw it out to them. I thought there were lots of very different things that you all dealt with. This is my attempt to try to pull the papers together and then we'll throw it out to the audience. And if you have nothing to say, we'll just throw it right out to the audience. No, I appreciate your attempt. I think it's a good one. Of course, it's at the very center of everything dealing with the sketchbook but even his drawings in general because they really have become incredibly dispersed and they are scattered all over including, of course, I think even some pages from the sketchbook. It was purchased by Morgan from Charles Fairfax Murray and it was presented to him as here is a sketchbook as if it had always been bound in this order and this is the finite object and it's not. More and more I'm uncovering sheets in other collections that I believe are part of it and even the obvious fact as well that ten of the drawings at the Morgan are not by Chaseday. They're in the Chaseday De Sesto album but they are by anonymous. They've been catalogued still as anonymous 16th century. So yes, trying to trace the way that by its very portability I do think it matters. What I'm trying to figure out as well with the conservators at the Morgan right now is was this a sketchbook? Which, you know, maybe some people would think doesn't matter so much. I would argue that it does and so trying to even disentangle and figure out what were these pieces of paper and how were they moving and in what form. Were they bound together and when and when then were they dispersed but to talk about portabilities. The very center of Chaseday as the person and Chaseday as the artist and of course his paintings have moved but as we all know, you know, paintings sometimes don't move around as much or just not to the same degree as these little bits of paper do. So it's something I'm constantly running up against as it's very nature of its ability to travel easily quickly and far. Can I just follow that up? So are you imagining that there were over time multiple sketchbooks or... It's one possibility. I do think that however I'm leaning towards the fact that he, Chaseday probably did have this sort of Roman sketchbook of his time mostly spent in Rome and then add into a little bit here and there. It does seem like there, I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons. They literally have like columns and lists of evidence for and against the sketchbook. But they definitely I know were brought together at some point long ago. And I think by Chaseday himself is what the evidence is leaning towards but I don't think for example that there are enough other surviving drawings that they could have formed another sketchbook. They're very different kinds of drawing, kind of more traditional preparatory studies for individual figures, very detailed workups of sometimes particular hands, feet, faces. And they're just very different in technique I think and in purpose from what we see in the sketchbook study. So I do think there was just one, at least that has survived. Other comments before we throw it out to the audience? Well for me I was very interested in this painting and also the idea of a lost painting that I still gathered would have been really important for the time, for the reasons I laid out. And kind of what that means for I don't know the historiography of the artist or the burrow when you have this important monument that becomes lost and then forgotten and you can't really recreate it except we are fortunate to have such rich surviving drawings. So it was sort of turned to work some paper for that. And then even though I had seen reproductions of the drawings it wasn't until I went to study them in person that I started noticing those background details and I got very excited and I mean all those photos are from my iPhone zooming in and realizing, you know it's one thing if you were to see that in a painting, you'd be standing far away and you would maybe see it in the background. But it so works on paper you know you're getting this intimate glance into Tiggerley's working process against multiple sheets and that kind of fixation always including at least a few of the same monuments, especially the pyramid that I love seeing from the really quick sketches to the final squared version shows you that was kind of the fixed idea that he had in placing the scene. You've got sort of a reproductive etching that is in certain ways promiscuous and it's sort of journeying around as well and going to different environments. Yes absolutely. And paper as a support is very important for some because he's primarily an etcher and watercolorist. I haven't been able to locate any oil painting done by him. He dabbles on lithography just a little but it's mostly his works are on paper and he does a lot of etching so he almost treats this copper plate as some sort of his sketchbook. He just dabbles and creates this really whimsical vignette and then prints and nobody knows why he did that. With this particular etching and some of similar designs that Somme does for other commercial establishment in Paris, what really interests me is that he does these commercial designs for calling cards in etching which is not the medium that is most friendly to mass produce. There's a wonderful article by Elizabeth Menon who is one of the very very few scholars who has done any work on Somme and she delves into this kind of mismatch between Somme's works commercial nature and this nature of etching. Do we need the little, yes we do. We'll start with Steven and then we'll move across the front row. The question is not about paper but it's for Geoffrey and I was really interested in the dimension of the altarpiece itself which in fairing from the drawings locates the beholder in the space with this phonological awareness of the spot where they are standing and looking at the image. I'm just wondering if we can think about this in a broader context for this. I can think that Raphael does this in the Saladin Constantino which reminds you of the spot where you're standing, the constant times vision of the cross at the Vatla de Mulvian Bridge is happening right in the Vatican at this spot as it was a millennium before and I can think of Barocci especially as approached by Peter Gilgren in a recent book incredibly kind of site aware making you think of for instance the Marchitum of San Vitale of the actual Pozzo which is preserved as a topographical place of pilgrimage in Ravenna. I think who does this is Lotto but who in Rome is doing this at this point? Is there anybody? I'm just asking out of curiosity if you can think about why did Shigley decide to do this at this point? I like the examples you gave to think about outside of Rome because that could help me contextualize this within a larger study and since I just wrote the introduction to my dissertation I had to kind of get the context leading up to this moment and my sort of markers, they begin and then they don't have this specificity yet with this site but the kind of precedence I begin with the Marchitum scenes in Centro Stefano for example and those aren't about the actual site of Centro Stefano but bringing up Bargaret of imagery and then I get to tracing a few things like but for me the moment in 1600 with Centro Cecilia by Moderna, the marble sculpture that recreates her appearance when her body was miraculously found in that year 1599 and then her actual corpse is displayed at the church for 33 days and then for various reasons the patron commissions this sculpture to make this marble version of that that is now displayed under the high altar and that to me is this sort of moment combined with the Caravaggio Intumin to think about bodies and altars in new ways at the beginning of the 17th century and then Shigley chronologically is the first but what's interesting since you mentioned it well is the next case study is almost, let's say a year later Shigley gets another commission and he gives to his student Billy there which is the Marchitum of St. Colyxtus a third century pope who was turned into a well and it's for the church of Sanctus to entrust every and then the altar which is the altar piece is still there and to the right of the altar is the well so it opens up into the ground and that's another very complicated thing I looked into because there's the well that goes into the earth actual hole but the marble relic of the well has interesting history and it was sold in 1909 and it's now in Germany but I try to re-contextualize all these things and then I have an image of another case study of Saint Sebastian being thrown into the sewers 1612 so that's sort of my overview. Thank you. Thank you all. Three of you for three great, three more great papers. My question is for Hyeong-ji and I'm wondering if we could get the slide of the one that you showed the most, the fantasies Japanese. If not, that's fine. Thank you. I think you're going into the booth to get it. I don't want to make a big deal out of this it's only if it's easy. I can talk about it. They're going into the booth to do it. I loved your paper and I thought it was fascinating and really convincing what you were saying about the imagery kind of articulating this fear of women and fear of a female consumer desire and sexual desire and the way that these are intersecting. Something that I was that struck me as I was looking at that one etching had to do with the objects that are stretching into the background and how endlessly they go into the background and how kind of mundane the objects actually look. There's not a whole lot of articulation of each one. I was wondering if Somme is poking fun at... I'm looking at the ones on the right foreground. There's this endless parade of objects coming in. I started thinking about whether or not he's poking fun at not just this idea that the woman has this fantasy of what Japan is but that she has a fantasy that these objects actually have value and that maybe it has something to do also with commodity culture and obviously it does because you were alluding to that but the kind of arbitrariness of value. I see. Yes, absolutely. And these holding plans, absolutely. In the late 1870s anything that came from Japan was extremely popular especially after the 1867 Paris Exposition Universal and 1878 Paris Universal Exposition where there was a Japanese exhibition and everybody in Europe was so excited to see these seemingly mundane objects almost like folk art directly imported from Japan to Europe and everybody was really kind of longing to own some and the popularity got to the point where these objects started to appear in Parisian department stores. In terms of value, I think you're right. I don't think they had an absolutely fine artistic value because they were kind of as a dump imported from Japan to Europe to really meet the demand of European consumers. I guess what I'm asking is is he also saying something about the way that capitalism works? I think he's definitely making a comment of how capitalism works in these commercial establishments. He is definitely recognizing that women is becoming more and more visible as consumers. I'm not sure as to whether he is making any kind of value judgment on that. I found that the quote that you opened with was so fascinating because it seemed to be charting this move from almost now it's turning into kitsch. That guy was basically saying this used to be something that only the really sophisticated people in the know collected and it was cool then. Now that house board housewife can go out and buy it, it's become kitsch and it's not special anymore. That's part of a lot of theories of capitalism. At the same time when Goncourt was writing this in his journal, he had a very specific agenda to promote himself as a pioneer in Japanese who brought in this new culture to a Parisian society as this avant-garde figure. I'm not sure as to how he was so faithful to this dramatic comment that he was making about popular Japanese. He was a very dramatic figure. Yes, absolutely. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. I have a comment. First, I was so happy to see you show the Chesreda Cesta Louvre drawing that sort of after Raphael's figure in the transfiguration because for me it was a wonderful example of an artist's practice where he's not copying obviously the figure in the Raphael, but he's saying, ah, that's a canonical pose that I am going to take a model in the studio tell the model to pose in the way of the transfiguration figure and then do it again from life and that's something that in the Karachi practice was done again and again as has been established. Here we've got Chesreda doing this. Excuse me? We might, because the thing that's interesting about this is that it might once again be about exchange of drawings and not really about anything from life because while nothing by Raphael survives it is this woman in the nude although we could imagine perhaps he has Yes, yes, yes. There is a drawing that's been variously attributed to Raphael's school or to perhaps Julio Romano that's in the Albertina in Vienna that is actually a nude version of a turning woman. But this is the way Chesreda kind of inserting himself into this very amorphous open workshop of Raphael in Rome at that time or it could be him drawing from life, I don't know, but there is that possibility of that. But then of course this figure then becomes a figure for an Iblei Karachi in The Choice of Hercules. It's this pose that becomes canonical over time and Raphael is this figure then that gets in a sense deified. And so in Jeff's talk there were references to Raphael as well. So Chigoli starts off in the compositional drawing with a compositional sketch after the entombment but that's just sort of to get his ideas flowing and then he goes somewhere else with it. And then in the Vignale drawing, here I have a question sort of for both of you where if it's indeed by Vignale after the just the figure of Paul. So Vignale comes to Rome and what does he do? He goes out to San Paolo and of course Chigoli for him would be an older master of great accomplishment that he's going to look at. But he doesn't do the compositional drawing of the altarpiece perhaps he does but he focuses in on this. And so it makes me wonder whether this is also an act of thinking about the importance of San Paolo as a pilgrimage site and the importance of the burial underneath the altar. So it's not just about copying from a revered older Florentine master but it's about something else too. The traveling to this site, the experience of the altar piece and I wonder for Ches that I going and traveling if he's not also responding to things other than just seeing things and copying them down in his sort of travel sketchbook. So I don't know if there's a question in there but it's a part of that you're provoking these ideas for further conversation. I agree with that. I would have to think about is the figure on the verse so he does both figures. My next step I would be interested in, I've heard in Rome that they have boxes of vignale drawings that maybe there's sort of I could do some motif hunting for things that might also be after Chiguli or even specifically from the altarpiece maybe there's something else I could find. I guess I would just say quickly too I really like the example and of course that it is Karachi that you bring up as well because so much of what we talk about with the Karachi is can information or anti-can information and how already something that Cheseday is drawing then perhaps as Raphael himself because there's some interesting things about thinking about dating and then with that mean Cheseday was passing back through Rome this is when that soon to be canonical work is still in the process of even being worked out and Cheseday is present there at that moment the sort of moment right before we get so much of this can information and so the way that Annibale uses it already I guess one generation later is so different and perhaps what Cheseday's encounter with this is so I guess more direct or not one remove and it's just a different obviously point in time but also just an entirely different approach to his sources. You're going to just toss that back to you. Well done. That feels more successful than finishing a talk. Thank you all so much for your talks. As someone interested in paper topography and paper as topography I was obviously really your talks made me think in so many interesting ways. This is my attempt to kind of ask a question of all of you and Trace a thread through all of your talks to focus on I'm trying to find the right word either distance or absence or both and I guess what I mean by that in all of your talks is Hange your talk I was so struck by this notion of Japan as an absent thing both distant but also like not even existing and also thinking about maybe commodity culture in that way right the commodification entails a kind of absentee and of course in a critical way alienation when something becomes a commodity there's a kind of distance or absence that becomes necessary. Ellie as much as your talk so skillfully talks you know really brings in an idea of transit and transmission across mediums and also across geography it strikes me that in Cheserey's kind of peregrinations and his self-fashioning as this artist keeping his sources at a remove seems crucial to how he then introduces them into a new location and then lastly Jeffrey I love this notion of say specificity specifically in you know being distant from Rome or being outside of Rome and of course you're also dealing with the absence of the thing itself at the center of your project and I guess for all of you I wanted to know whether working in this way has helped you I don't know think about loss or absence or distance as historically constituted ideas like whether your research has allowed you to see those things as historical subjects in their own right and whether there's been any interesting insights as a result. Yes, okay so the two big things of course that I'm always I don't know they're actually trying to dance around or confront with Cheserey is copying influence all of those of course however you want to define them they have a lot of you know valence to them but are kind of dealing with absence presence or proximity or distance and of course that they just can become these really big catch-alls and I find myself using it as a shorthand all the time too we all know what it means to say okay copy this here to this or you was influenced by this here and there's obviously it's I don't know one of the ways I try to combat it is by trying to deal with it on a case-by-case basis because it does vary so much his relationship to his to the other ideas or inspiration or motifs or whatever you want to call them at times I think he's really strategic about it often and it can sometimes also raise that personicity question of well who would get the references and is that part of I don't want to say games that makes it seem trivial but is that part of it as well how much you know since he's never really that overtly copying things who's going to pick up on it all the time of course not everyone is going to get it so then it becomes also this a lot of the burden kind of becomes on the on the viewer to see how much they're you know how much of this they're going to get and do they even you know if you don't know some things there to begin with then is that absence magnified so I I guess it's not really an answer to say that yes I pick up on the same things that obviously you've noted as well and they're really important to keeping in mind and I'm always trying to deal with them I mean for me I talked about the you know the loss of the painting in terms of maybe not recognizing its importance for art history but there's also another thing I didn't talk about which is that you died before finishing it but it was left installed and we really have no it's impossible to know how far he got or what it looked like but it was enough that it was okay to leave it on the altar that everyone knew what the composition was and that you could make a print after the composition so it was that legible and also there's an interesting in the 17th and 18th century guidebooks and in some of the artist's biographies like Gaudenucci and others talking about that it's you know it remained on the altar unfinished but some you know it was perfect in its imperfections which is something Bissari says about Michelangelo and his unfinished marvels for example and you know they say the monks at the church left it without any hand touch it because it was so you know perfect even though it was unfinished but I mean that unfinishedness is another very very interesting type of loss that you know he died and he mentions on his death that they still owed him money for it but I mean otherwise they seem to have a good relationship but we don't really know and then by 1823 which is around its last I think 1815 is the last time it's mentioned it was definitely damaged by humidity especially on the outskirts of Rome and possibly the material being on slate so then there would have been like a third loss or however you want to count so there's unfinishedness as death and then whatever loss happens and then the ultimate loss unless it is somewhere hidden I know this is a kind of heyday for works on slate but does it matter in the context of entombment that this is on stone or? Oh that's really interesting Yeah I have to think about it but yeah it is you know beginning with Sebastiano 100 years earlier and then Rubens had the same year's painting on slate at the Cusen Wova and there's interesting time for that Other questions from people in the audience there's Rachel you'll have to throw about two rows again two rows My question is towards the Japanese fantasy I was just very curious about the part where you talked about the imagination like how they wrote books on how they like hallucinated and I was just a little confused because it's so abstract how did they know these women were daydreaming and imagining and contributed this to hallucination and wrote like I was a little perplexed about that The truth value of those statements are very difficult to determine and we can't really be sure whether these medical authorities were actually diagnosing these symptoms or prescribing their ideas of what these daydreaming and fantasies were based on their understanding of how hysteric women were but in terms of just using this mental faculty to imagine something outside once immediate kind of realm of experiences and thoughts constrained or shaped by norms I'm more interested in how these kind of imaginative experiences could assume subversive qualities because it kind of implies a possibility of kind of going beyond these norms and conventions that these medical authorities were very much keen to protect under the name of protecting the bourgeois order, the gender roles, etc. I'm not sure if this answer consolidates any of your confusion. I have a question like how did they think of how were they like it's weird these women are imagining like how did they come to that point where they were prescribing these women like I'm a little confused about the start like what was the origination of this prescription like what was the triggering in terms of diagnosing what constituted women's daydreaming I would have to go back to those sources because it's been a while since I consulted the three sources that I showed by Sigmund Freud, Joseph Royer, Kershaw So I would have to go back to that. I think it may be the moment to sort of close the proceedings with this particular panel and then all the speakers