Posted 09/29/2007 9:48 pm
G'day, I have not researched these issues, but I have read another explanation for the omission of "HH" from the $2 coin.
The reverse image was not intended to represent a specific individual: it is a "generic" image of an aborigine. Continuing a long tradition, the sculptor's initials are included in the design.
Now, here is where the story gets murky.
I have heard it said that a photographer asserted that the generic design was in fact derived from a specific photo' that he/she had taken. So, a copyright &/or intellectual property dispute arose. The matter was settled, and as part of the settlement, the initials were removed.
To my ear, this version sounds more plausible, but I can't say that I have an impeccable source.
In my opinion, Portraits of "nobody in particular" are a stupid concept. The Mint would have done much better to pick a real person, by way of a role model worthy of commemoration: there are plenty to choose from.
And regarding this:
"many Aboriginal tribes have a cultural taboo regarding the naming and picturing of deceased members of the community"
- quite true, in my experience, but many groups have no such belief. Recently, an accomplished artist died at his home in N.T. Observing the convention referred to, the reported his death, describing him, rather than naming him. A few days later, it was discovered that he lefty a will, and that in it, he expressed his disagreement with the custom, and asked to be remembered, and referred to, by name. Custom and culture are evolving phenomena.
Peter in Oz
The reverse image was not intended to represent a specific individual: it is a "generic" image of an aborigine. Continuing a long tradition, the sculptor's initials are included in the design.
Now, here is where the story gets murky.
I have heard it said that a photographer asserted that the generic design was in fact derived from a specific photo' that he/she had taken. So, a copyright &/or intellectual property dispute arose. The matter was settled, and as part of the settlement, the initials were removed.
To my ear, this version sounds more plausible, but I can't say that I have an impeccable source.
In my opinion, Portraits of "nobody in particular" are a stupid concept. The Mint would have done much better to pick a real person, by way of a role model worthy of commemoration: there are plenty to choose from.
And regarding this:
"many Aboriginal tribes have a cultural taboo regarding the naming and picturing of deceased members of the community"
- quite true, in my experience, but many groups have no such belief. Recently, an accomplished artist died at his home in N.T. Observing the convention referred to, the reported his death, describing him, rather than naming him. A few days later, it was discovered that he lefty a will, and that in it, he expressed his disagreement with the custom, and asked to be remembered, and referred to, by name. Custom and culture are evolving phenomena.
Peter in Oz
