What is the image of youth being presented here, in a series entitled "The Rising Generation" that continued to appear in Punch throughout 1847? How might you contrast this image to the idea of children presented in the "whipping" article? How can we characterize the Victorian child? (January 16, 1847)
To me, the most interesting facet of this cartoon is the play between maturity and immaturity. At first glance, the boys are distinctly smaller than the other characters - highlighting their youth - but are dressed and posed as respectable, fashionable gentlemen - giving them the appearance of maturity. In the caption, the same dichotomy is apparent: while reference to 'young' Fipps suggests the speaker's superiority in age, the use of the slang-y 'jeuced' and 'gurl' as well as the juvenile humor in the snideness and disrespectfulness of the boy's comment about the 'gurl' suggests otherwise. Even then, though, the comment is surprisingly mature in the sexuality of its message (or is it a modern convention for children to view the opposite sex as 'full of cooties,' etc.?) and is directed at a girl much older than the speaker. The question, then (in my mind, at least) is whether this cartoon is making a jab at how Victorian families tried to dress up and "pseudo-maturify" their children through manner and appearance regardless of the fact that they're still juvenile at heart, or whether this is making some kind of comment about youth striving to appear mature - really, I wonder whether this cartoon pokes more fun at the juvenile and his friend or at the generation than raised them.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted this cartoon as a supplement to the article about whipping children. That article, in my point of view, was critiquing the society the children are being raised in more than the children themselves, emphasizing in both the article and the cartoon that society has a tremendous impact on children, and how they act and develop. The children in the cartoon are trying to act much older than their years, even though they are clearly much younger than the people they are talking about. They think their behavior is normal and encouraged, but only because they intuitively adapted society's values and norms. The Victorian child was impressionable and was greatly impacted by society to emulate his or her elders.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with Maria that the cartoon serves as a greater critique of society than of the children themselves, I would have to add that most generations believe their children are over-sexualized, and certainly this sexual progression is visible when compared through years/decades/centuries. Sexual liberation was a progression, it did not just happen in the 1960's. While art of the time was admired for its quality (statue of David), regardless whether the subject was nude, clothes were still relatively restrictive. A woman wearing a tank top and miniskirt would have been seen as either A) a prostitute (and even then, her dress would have been incredibly scandalous even for her profession), or B) insane. I would argue that Punch was mocking older generations' tendency to consider themselves above their children morally in addition to the effect of society in childrearing.
ReplyDelete