This is over my head, but quite interesting. I thought about race when I saw the picture, mostly because of the woman's kinky hair--but I liked it and thought nothing more of it. Well there is the oft-noted fact of how wide, phenotypicaly, "black" extends in non-New York America. And some bamboo earrings, an I tell you I could have gone to school with old girl.I just mean from an art historical perspective. These European white guys having a sort of skewed perspective bordering on colonial fetishism when it came to Africa (most notably Picasso), the Near and Far East (too many French Academics to mention), and the Pacific Islands (Gauguin). There's a sort of sometimes hidden, sometimes overt European colonialism to so much of the painting of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A couple obvious examples:
Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907), which is generally accepted as the 'first cubist painting' is little more than a culturally insensitive, borderline racist, not to mention misogynist depiction of nude European women striking poses in African tribal masks.It's nearly impossible to look at any of Gauguin's paintings from Tahiti and not think of the countless adolescent island girls to whom he brought the great gift of syphilis.
The Near East fascination, because of its connection to Biblical stories is far more intrinsic to the longer history of Western Art, so that, along with the unmistakable craft of somebody like Regnault (or Ingres before him) can obscure the realization that these were white Frenchman of the 18th and 19th centuries (in Picasso's case, Spanish and 20th century) depicting a very limited understanding of what it is to not be white and French.
I don't mean at all to take away from the painting, but it is my understanding that the picture was not originally to be of Salome, and was instead to be called something like "The Favorite Slave."
Also I think, given my obsession as a younger man with naming racism, I am a little fatigued. Well that's not quite right--I've come to accept prejudice as a rather natural thing. (White supremacy, not so much.) Thus, I kind of expect it in the art, and maybe miss some of it.
I looked at the Picasso, and wasn't really offended. But maybe I would be, if I knew more.
UPDATE: It's worth mentioning that highlighting racism--or any other -ism--in someone's work, isn't the same as saying that their art sucks. I think we'd lose a lot of art if started disqualifying stuff based on quotient of noxious ideas. I don't think Breaker was calling for anyone's head.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"wasn't really offended. But maybe I would be, if I knew more"
Naaahhh...
I think it's silly to moralize about the implications of a painting, beyond noting that these artists are often - obviously - bound by the assumptions of their time and culture. I don't think Picasso could have been signalling any more clearly that he was borrowing from African art, which puts his "revolutionary" explorations in context. How this is racist eludes me. Many of my favorite artists - like Caravaggio - were total pieces of shit or, at best, demented - like Van Gogh. Who cares ?
I love Caravaggio's life story. He was always on the run.
a gangsta
Hah! That's no exaggeration. We know most of what we know about the facts of Caravaggio's life from the depositions people gave about the various violent crimes in which he was directly or tangentially involved. He'd wander around the streets all tooled up (they did it with swords in those days), looking for trouble. He finally fled Rome after killing a dude in a brawl.
And all the while he was painting these absolutely transcendent, beautifully, deeply Christian works.
Such a contradictory figure. He's amazing.
this is all very tricky/complicated, was Picasso ripping off African art, or inspired by it, or both. Are his horrific paintings of his ex's or soon to be ex's never to be shown/celebrated because they are mysogynistic? etc. I would just suggest that while we can/should use these images for whatever point they are useful to illustrate, that we be very careful about either trying say what they do/should mean for all times/peoples, or turning to censorship. Art, at its best, isn't a shorthand/sign for ideas/theories/history, but a force/possibility/experience all of its own.
That's really what bothered me about learning art in high school; the constant necessity to tie it into the zeitgeist. I didn't take a single art class in college, but I enjoy going to museums a lot more now.
I wasn't calling Picasso a ripoff artist (although he is quoted as saying something like 'A good idea is not safe in the same room with me.'). What I was pointing to was his use of these masks as collectables. As something he didn't understand (nor care to) from any perspective other than basic aesthetics. I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't be offended by it, but that's what he did.
That Picasso quote points, not to a thief, but to an honest man. He's considered the most "original" artist of the 20th century and he fully understood he was borrowing right and left. It's the ability to appropriate feverishly, unselfconsiously and - of course - brilliantly (like that other "honest thief," Bob Dylan) that marks what ends up appearing as wild originality and genius.
"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal."
-Pablo Picasso
Again, I wasn't accusing him of ripping anything off. That wasn't my criticism. My criticism was about how he used the masks.
At any rate, I don't know how many people consider him the most original anything. I think I could name more than a dozen twentith century artists I'd consider more original. But, again, that wasn't my point.
I don't think you could name any 20th century artist who captured the public imagination as epitomizing "modern art"and the break from conventional representation in the way that Picasso did for millions. Not even Pollack in his "Life Magazine" period. It has nothing to do with "real" art history or criticism.
Well, he was definitely a celebrity. And he was prolific. I simply think most of his art isn't very good. I am not saying that he wasn't hugely influential. I think Matisse may have been more influential, but that's, again, not the point I was trying to make in the first place.
Picasso couldn't paint very well, but he could sure as hell draw (which is what carries most of his best paintings) and his engravings are wonderful.
I was referring to "Picasso", not that Picasso guy...
He was not an unskilled painter, either.
I get nothing looking at a Picasso purely as a painting compared to, say, van Gogh. I don't know much about painting compared to people who are deep into this, but to me in an awful lot of Picasso's stuff the paint just looks flat. I was especially struck by this when I saw the "Picasso as Engraver" show at the met about a dozen years ago and they had some paintings up in the show as well. I'd never really thought about it before, but his paintings weren't impressive and kind of sucked in that context. Maybe it's just a question of the kind of work with paint that I'm partial to...
While I am, generally speaking, no fan of Picasso's, the flatness wasn't because he couldn't paint depth. The man was a child prodigy and an accomplished illusory realist when he was a student.
Here's a painting he did when he was something like 16 or 17 years old.
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso3.html
The man knew quite well how to move paint. Even if his paintings kind of suck. There, I said it!
Sort of a side note, but I was blown away by his interpretations of Las Meninas at the Picasso Museum in Barcelona.
Damn, that's kinda obnoxious haha
No doubt there was a strong strain of colonial fetishism present in much of 19th century and early 20th century art. It was the age of empire and you had all these white guys looking out from the metropoles of Europe "discovering" a whole new world of aesthetics--and borrowing from it. This happens all the time and is how art (and music and lit) evolve. I have no problem with the evolution generally--that's exciting. It's how the evolution happened in that moment that causes concern. It wasn't an equal exchange or appreciation, and still isn't.
But while we can shake our heads at Picasso, Gauguin and others for not fully respecting (or getting) the cultures in the Pacific, Africa and elsewhere that inspired them, they also brought these aesthetics to a Western audience. When I think of Gauguin, I immediately see a bright sun and the dazzling colors and prints of women's sarongs; he wouldn't be famous if this hadn't been a strange and startlingly beautiful departure from what others were painting in France at the time. (The Nap is one of my all time faves.) And Desmoiselles d'Avignon, with its angularity and abstraction, paved the way for the entire modernist movement of art and design. We have the southern hemisphere to thank for this.
And one more thing: When I think about this period regarding art, it's not the Euro artists who upset me, but the museums aided by colonial governments. This was also the moment when France, Britain, and others raced to collect artifacts from around the world to pad their collections and "safe keep." That seems far more racist and nefarious.
I think that's a good distinction. It's the difference between enjoying, celebrating and assimilating an aesthetic or set of ideas -- which is how cultural interchange is supposed to work, isn't it? -- and appropriating an object, and taking it away to keep just for yourself.
But isn't that the tragedy-- that it took the Picassos and Gauguins for us to appreciate the art of Africa and the Pacific? Not to mention I wish he hadn't, you know, killed so many women.
Not to lessen Picasso's impact, but Modernism began long before Picasso was born. The people given the most credit for its birth tend to be people like Courbet, Manet, and, of course, Cezanne.
I don't think anyone is saying Picasso and Gauguin were racists, so we shouldn't enjoy their art. I do think we need to think a little bit more about the conditions of possibility and the representational stereotypes on which Picasso's and Gauguin's and Regnault's art depends (and, in the 18th and 19th centuries, perpetuated). One of Edward Said's points in Orientalism concerns the relationship between artistic representations and colonial power, i.e. the feedback loop between the two. To reduce the issue to one of looking for racism and being offended isn't really the point (and I don't think it was BreakerBaker's point).
I don’t mean to be shouting racism from the hills. And I absolutely didn’t bring it up in the hopes that you would turn your back on any of these artists’ works. I am not big on Picasso for reasons having nothing to do with cultural or gender insensitivity. I just don’t really like the paintings all that much. Gauguin is one of the only artists for whom I am absolutely turned off by the reality of context in which the images were made. Really, all I was trying to do by bringing it up is tip my hat to the more subtle histories of art history, which I don’t think people think about all that much when they’re walking through a museum.
For the record, I’ve seen that Salome a ton of times, and I think it’s gorgeous. No matter the historical context.
"the more subtle histories of art history"
I'm not sure these approaches are the "more subtle" - they're pretty much conventional wisdom at this point. And maybe I'm a philistine, but I am totally bored by studies of colonialism through the lens of art and literature. That's an interesting sidebar to "real history", but until I've learned more about what was going on in the blood and guts world of colonial reality, I'll take it for granted that the artists were largely as oblivious or as complicit as the rest. It's always struck me as nothing less than obvious. I guess I'm also more of the school that likes to find the value of a work of art in the work itself. I'm not anti-representational, but I don't like art because of what it represents. Something like the Salome is great because of what the artist was able to accomplish with paint on the canvas. That's all. If the painter happened to be more or less enlightened in his attitudes toward women or to women with kinky hair or in states of undress, it wouldn't matter one whit.
Yes. You are a philistine.
But proud...
Ok, forgive me for not being totally up to speed (and for mixing up responses to both Beaker and brucds), but is the issue here about the Regnault's Salome was, for a while, intended to be a slave portrait and morphed into a portrait of a Biblical character of seductive menace? Yes, she's a Jew (or the historical figure this piece depicts was), not sure how much anti-Semitism plays into it as much as the specific reference itself.
Like with the Picasso TNC mentioned, I am not sure if depicting what you see can be construed as racism. If Regnault saw slaves and painted one, what does that have to tell me about racism? If Picasso sees women in African masks (and he's far from the first European man to paint people/women in masks that clearly don't belong to their own culture), how can we not see it?
As for disregarding context - in the original Salome thread, someone made an excellent point that for the painter and the contemporary audience, the reference was not subtle, not an inside note to add a layer of meaning - often it was the point of the painting itself. Yes, there is a beauty to the craft and the artistic work. Yes it can be appreciated without knowing the context or looking for the meaning, but it is all over the painting and by wanting to ignore it, you're leaving a lot behind.
Knowing the reference behind this painting does make me view it quite differently than TNC does in his initial post, though I think he does express notice of the inherent threat of the painting.
Knowing that knife is going to be used to behead John the Baptist, that the head will be served up on that platter because it's Salome's birthday wish (in revenge for her mother because of an insult from John!) granted after doing a seductive dance for her stepfather, King Herod, doesn't that only add to the work?
I can see your point on being tired of colonialism studies, brucds. As a holder of an English-Lit degree I got tired of it dominating half my major classes by Junior year. I just don't know that the concept has gotten the mainstream acceptance as an idea enough to be put away just yet.
I think it's much more interesting to consider all the layers. You may still want that first 'cold' look, but then you can learn so much more.
A small point: I am not talking about viewing colonialism through the lens of art. I am talking about viewing art through the lens of colonialism. I am not suggesting we try to learn from history by looking at art. I am suggesting we try to learn more about art by looking to history. That's all. If that's a boring concept to you, then fine, but frankly I think the more you know about something, the better.
I guess my biggest question is how, say, the contextual discussion about Salome helps me understand why the picture is riveting and people still stop and stare, hundreds of years after it was painted. I doubt the historical or cultural context has anything at all to do with that.
I'm not sure that I made the claim that understanding the historical implications (in the context of the discussion we're having) is going to provide the least amount of insight into your visceral reaction to the piece. I don't think we try to find out more about a work of art so that we can better understand our own responses, but to inform them.
Fair enough. And I thought your origiinal comment was an excellent thoughtful one - set off what I thought was an interesting discussion that made me check out my own notions about this stuff.
I'm not saying, incidentally, that it's of no interest to consider how culture, warped social relations taken as normal, mysogyny, racism, alcoholism, dementia, a bad divorce or what have you might have shaped a particular work of art - but it's irrelevant to whether or not it's got the power of a great work of art, which always transcend those particulars in some way and touch something beyond.
I'll leave my thoughs at that, and no I don't want to get into a discussion of "Birth of a Nation", which I find technically and historically "interesting", but hardly moving and utterly hackneyed and crude in it's representation - leaving the vile aspects aside - and therefore not a candidate for "greatness", in the sense of art that speaks across the ages.
The Birth of a Nation example is always a pretty handy go-to one, though, for separating technical and aesthetic skill and mastery from narrative skill and mastery. No matter how much you hate the film and its message, you're forced to give its director for basically inventing a type of camera shot and editing that has literally defined all motion picture media in the century-ish since. (And pretty much every film history survey course, at every level from high school to PhD, does a unit on Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, going over just that question.)
Similarly, in much of the most famous art in the Western canon, I may find much to dislike about the content if I look -- colonialism, portrayal of women, etc etc -- but I could no sooner cease to appreciate the technical skill and aesthetic sense than I could choose not to eat for a month. And I'm also forced to acknowledge that most of those painters and sculptors were just doing what their times demanded of them.
As for the Picasso... I just never liked that painting. *laugh* But I do agree wholeheartedly about Art That Endures. No matter where it comes from -- ancient Egypt, rural Japan, 16th century France -- the best of all the fine and performing arts just somehow calls to something in the human soul and therefore endures.
For the record, I think Olympia is a better film than Triumph of the Will. Say what you will about TotW, but the pacing involves many long scenes of groups marching... Zzzzzz... Olympia is like twice as long but feels half as long.
Of course this post pops up on the day I'd decided I was going to really dig into Wagner's Ring Cycle.
You know, for all of my bullshit above I have to admit that I'm partial to Beethoven and Charlie Mingus because I imagine myself relating to their emotionalism and "radical" worldview. I listen to Mingus more than I listen to Bird, and Beethoven more than Mozart. I've stayed away from Wagner because there's a smell there. Don't really know, but I've heard about it. So I guess I'm a hypocrite to say I don't care much about context, but I feel music more than the stuff I see in museums and I have no desire to immerse myself in art history or art criticism. Not sure what that means, except I do, i fact, respond to a certain amount of subjectivity and can't seperate it when it comes to stuff I really care about.
correct and to the point.....
Everything has a "contemporal context" and that context underlies the actions and works of the people living in that time. Of course Gauguin was a racist. He lived in a time when genteel and civilized men could offer their male visitors an after dinner drink, a smoke, and the "pleasures of the slave row" ("let's rape a negress, whadya say?") and not raise an eyebrow. To expect any artist to transcend the mores of their era and somehow be "different" than their societal norm is asking them to not be them and to instead be us.
We can recognize the racism, colonialism, sexism, etc. inherent in the perspective of any work of art, but one can only criticize those who are around to hear it.
Nobody's asking the dead to be anything they weren't. All I am saying is that it's a good and helpful thing to make the attempt to understand who they were.
Not to be reductionist, but isn't a "skewed perspective" and fetishism (objecification as stimulation) inherent to any true art?
Isn't anything else "just" illustration?
I don't personally go in for that kind of definition. I'm not big at all on old the art vs. illustration debate. Personally, I think it's art if you want it to be. And sometimes, even if you don't.
I think that it is worth keeping in mind that this type of 19th century European art does come from that Orientalist background. But then again while it is good to keep the historical context in mind, sometimes the deconstructivism can kind of keep us from seeing the forest for the trees. It is, after all, a work of art, not necessarily an attempt to provide a photorealistic depiction of the people and customs of non-European societies, nor necessarily a deliberate attempt at propaganda. Art is made by people with different worldviews in different ages.
Furthermore, I would argue that the truth is perhaps a little more complicated than Edward Said first imagined. After all, it turns out that 19th century Orientalist art is actually quite popular among some Middle Eastern art collectors and artists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8020421.stm
I'm an art historian and my specialty is "primitivist" modern art--i.e. Gauguin through Picasso and how they understood non-Western cultures. So I have a couple of opinions to add to this discussion.
BreakerBaker's original comments reflect the common wisdom of scholars in the 1990s, when much self-critical examination of art history was being done. Now, those of us who make a living dealing with these questions think rather differently about these questions of race, etc.
For instance, I don't find it all useful or interesting to ask whether artists from the previous century were racist. Of course they were. There was no way for them to avoid being affected by the colonial propaganda that surrounded them. Thus, judging them or their art by 21st century racial attitudes simply becomes an exercise in moral self-congratulation.
Far more interesting and challenging is investigating how these artists attempted to re-use, appropriate, redefine, take-over, subvert, or otherwise transgress the racist ideas of their time. Like Gauguin, they did this by identifying themselves with the non-Western people who were at the bottom of the social Darwinist hierarchy. In other words, Gauguin, Picasso, and others wanted to *become* like those Polynesians and Africans--in order to smash the ossified and imperialist culture of Europe. That's what primitivism means.
Of course, in order to re-define racist colonial discourse, they inevitably have to make use of it. Thus, primitivism is a double-sided strategy--it's both racist and anti-racist *at the same time*. So primitivism, as an aesthetic and political strategy, has its own original sin and is doomed to failure as an emancipatory path. As Audre Lorde put it: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
And I am fascinated by pro-colonial figures, especially ones who saw themselves as helping the colonized natives. They genuinely saw themselves as the good guys. It's far more interesting to investigate how they could see themselves that way than it is to simply condemn them as hypocrites or liars. Gauguin definitely took advantage of his colonial privileges as a Frenchman, but he saw himself as an intercessor for the Tahitians with the colonial government.
In short, there are much better ways of thinking about race and art than the original commenter indicated.
Personally, I didn't view what I was writing to TNC initially as a sweeping indictment of anybody. I did not and do not mean to offend or cause anybody to cast any artist out due to their outdated sensibilities. Well, maybe Gauguin.
At any rate, I am not sure that I voiced what I was saying initially as well as I would have had I thought it might by thrown to the top of the page. Such is life.
The one thing I will say, even though I fully accept that you know more about the primitivists than I do (you're an art historian, I am an artist with a fairly deep but by no means PhD level of knowledge of art history), I still find your formulation of the primitivists conceptualization on race and colonialism to be a bit charitable to them. More so than I am willing to go.
While I believe that their intentions were generally similar to your construction, I think the formulation of the their thoughts (as outlined by you) is quite condescending to non-Western cultures. So again, I think that's interesting. It's not an indictment. It's an observation.
Thank you for sharing your expertise, though.
sorry bb, my comment wasn't directed at you, I was anticipating the usual identity-politics replies to your posting and was trying to get a word in for seeing a painting as a painting, but it seems that I just opened Pandora's box. I have appreciated your insights on these matters, as on other things, and will try and be more specific in future replies. I hope that the name Hilary Boob Ph.D is a sign of a monty-pythonish tomfoolery but I always had a thing for the absurdists, at least the intentional ones, peace.
So was that entire comment a put-on, or just the name (and tone.)
Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.d is a character from Yellow Submarine (the Beatles animated movie).
This strikes me as a reaction to an ongoing conversation, as opposed to what was actually written.
Sorry Breaker, I didn't expect this sort of reaction. For the record:
I just hate this. I really do. Incredibly condescending.
Well, there's no reason to apologize at all. I wish I had more time today to devote to offering a better contribution to this thread. I did not.
And I wasn't offended by Boob/dmf, either. I didn't mean to leave that impression.
This is a good conversation. I appreciate it much.
There is a way that what BreakerBaker was alerting us to is not so much individual artists and their personal tastes in terms of inspiration, appropriation, subject, composition, and so forth. But I think what he is alerting us to is a kind of wider context, that is, the ways in which a piece of art serves as historical and historiographic material. It is less, perhaps, what the pieces tell us about Picasso et. all-the basis of J.H. Boob, PhD's comment; it more about an epistemological field--a way of thinking and technologies of knowledge about the Other that manifest in high art such as Picasso or low art such as in soap ads in British East Africa.
I mean, really, Dr. Boob these individuals may have seen themselves as good guys--so, too, did some slave owners who thought they were saving blacks from modernity and technology (see George Fitzhugh of the 1850s). Just because you see yourself as a "good guy" doesn't mean you don't participate in the same kind of vitriol, oppression, and exploitation of the Other of those you critique.
I think BreakerBaker is also altering us to how the kind of Orientalism practiced by Picasso et. al trickled down and away from the realm of high art. Dr. Boob critiqued the scholarship of the 1990s for its desire to call out historical figures for racism, sexism, etc. Yet, after the 1990s there was a kind of "conservative" backlash that sought to exonerate certain figures from the charges of the 1990s as much as to push back against the scholarship of the 1990s.
And while I do not find the final line of Boob, Ph.D.'s comment as condescending as TNC, to suggest that there are much better ways of thinking about race and art than BreakerBaker's original comment is specious because, really, you two are after different things. Boob, PhD is after biography (and perhaps hagiography) of artists; BreakerBaker seems to be after the insidious aftereffect, the kinds of racial and racist unconscious that under which certain approaches and gazes operate. And frankly, I find the latter more compelling.
(Also, I think that Lourde quote, which is often taken out of context, has been disproven. Ask Martin King, Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells Barnett, and A. Phillip Randolph about the master's tools. They used the quite effectively.)
I've always found that quote to be maddening. It doesn't really mean anything.
I'm sure you're right about the Audre Lorde line. I'm using it out of context, myself.
And I only meant to be a bit condescending in my last line (I'm an academic who specializes in High Art; it's practically a job requirement).
More seriously, though, I'm hearing a lot of echoes of Edward Said's Orientalism (and seeing several references to it). It was a pioneering work, but that was a long time ago (1970s). We've come a long way since. And I'm just trying to follow in the footsteps of scholars who are much smarter than me. Historians and Anthropologists, especially, have been far in advance of us art historians in rethinking race, colonialism, and culture.
TNC is right that I am responding in large part to a different conversation--one among art historians in specialist journals where I am still trying to convince people that my position (that I put forward above) is worth paying attention to.
Invisman52: That sounds a lot like a Saidian formulation that you're putting forward. Said brought our attention to the ways that colonialism (i.e. real power relations and their representation in language in culture) penetrate deeply into the culture of the colonial metropole, but the Foucauldian frame that he used (i.e. the notion of discourse, of gazes, etc) doesn't fit with his humanism. That is, for us to critique the (very real and widespread) racism of a historical period, we have to leave Foucault behind because otherwise we'll rapidly end up condemning vast number of historical artists for being linked to colonial culture.
Instead, I'm interested in what people choose to do with the culture that they inherit. You may grow up in a racist and colonial culture (and thus absorb it), but how do you position your art in relation to it? There is no way to step outside your own place and time, so your art will still use the racist terms or ideas around you. That's why I say that primitivism has its own original sin. Primitivizing or Oriental art is still racist.
But it's not only racist.
I want to see the bigger picture and the contradictions of the (flawed) humans who lived in it.
Fair enough.
@Coates,
If you are interested in these questions of metropolitan art being influenced by Colonialism/Slavery check out the work of Art Historian, David Daberdeen. He has a great documentary, "The Art of Darkness" that looks at how colonial influence pervaded art, style and sensibility among the British.
I really think an essential resource for swimming in these waters is Edward Said's Orientalism. It deals with more than just visual arts, but once you've read it questions like this just open up as clear as day.
This is a beautiful painting, and as TNC said, it's entirely possible to understand the virtues and the deficiencies of an object simultaneously. As Orientalst/colonialist-infused art goes, this one's pretty innocuous, I think--or at least not unusual. It's not unlike the vogue that gripped France for a while of having oneself painted in "Oriental" dress and surrounded by exotic objects. Turcmania, they called it.
What about this. Were these artists all racist?
But of course the whole thing started much much earlier. With the anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha due to Alexander the Great. Whenever you see a human buddha statue - you see the end of Greece and the beginning of the West and East. Ironically, I can understand Alexander's motives and to an extend even agree with them. There is so much more behind all this than can meet the eye? I therefore like it.
Here we are, in my opinion, dealing with Western speciesm (Plato and Aristotle - the first Westerners and not Socrates and Expicurus - the last Greeks). It is one of many examples of why speciesm came before racism and why it is its seed. It was after we started enslaving non-human nature that we commenced with humans as well. That is why Pythagorus and later Gandhi used the "working at the roots" argument for why they were vegetarians. We have to de-velop, meaning entangle. In order to go forward we first have to go backwards? It has been like that ever since we tasted the Tree of Knowledge?
On a racial pride note - whenever I travel through Asia and see Alexander's statue admired as Buddha - I feel slight unease. I really dig Buddha's fat or sometimes elegant grin but... stop me now or I will waste precious party time!
There's a good chance that many of them were, but I don't think the depiction of Christ as a white dude is necessarily any more indicative of racism than the depiction of him as a black dude. Since my post was the one the used the racism line, I think it's important to view that in context, and in contrast to the Christ example.
The Picasso painting which I am quoted above calling 'culturally insensitive' and only 'borderline racist' is a distorted composition of five nude European women, two of which are wearing African tribal mask, one of whom is squatting near the edge of the picture plane with legs spread.
Picasso collected African artifacts, appropriated their imagery for quite a bit of his own work. Now, is there anything wrong with this? In the context of colonialism, when the general Parisan concessus view of Africans were of cannabals, maybe, maybe not. Some will argue that he's the fine art equivalent to Joseph Conrad. I'm dubious.
On the topic of the Jesuses linked, I know the sculptor who did those silly Buddy Jesus figures for that Kevin Smith movie. I wonder if she knows she's number six in the google image file for Jesus. Six out of 42 million. Not bad Laura.
Really? You do not see difference in quantity, quality and timing either? There might be similarities but "not any more indicative" - come on Baker, you are smarter and better educated than that? How would a white Christian slave owner justify what he was doing if his own Master were black? Why did Malcolm become a Muslim?
In this context - Picasso is just an artist. But the "art" hanging in almost every Western Church... the image hanging in almost every Western mind due to the Jesus depictions and the corresponding justifications... wow. Grand grand scale. So big that one cannot even...
PS: What strikes me as interesting is that by now there are more white and black Jesuses than brown ones. Why have the small fringe groups, that look nothing like our saviour, taken over that department? 2/3+ of the world were and are brown and yet...
PS II: I really liked Laura's unique interpretation of our Lord. Never have I seen anything like it.
Yeah, the little bit that you quote from me is directly preceded by the word “necessarily.” Mind you, I am not saying these depictions existed in a vacuum. I am simply saying that the depictions themselves are not necessarily motivated by racist philosophy. This depiction is not about rejecting the idea that Christ was a Middle Eastern Jew, and probably looked like a Middle Eastern Jew. A lot of what happens in art happens out of necessity. Durer made Christ look German. Velazquez made him Spanish. Van Eyck made him Dutch. Leonardo made him Florentine. Now, were these guys racists? Perhaps. Probably? But did their racism have anything to do with why Christ ended up European? Or was Christ European because the artists themselves were European and they were surrounded by Europeans whom they were trying to reach?
I’m not arguing about whether or not it’s racist or stupid to only be willing to accept a Christ that looks like you. I’m talking only about the original depiction.
First, thanks for your thoughtful remarks on art and colonialism. I hope I didn't come across as too dismissive, above.
But I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you about Picasso and the Demoiselles d'Avignon. I've studied this painting a bit--and I studied under someone who's an expert on Picasso. So I'm more than a little biased.
Picasso did look at African sculpture. But also at Oceanic sculpture and Medieval Iberian sculpture. That is, we can't really tell what the source of those distorted faces is. Picasso put too many things together in his mind. So it's not just about Africa, nor is it about appropriation.
I'm troubled by the notion of appropriation in this context. Picasso seems to have wanted to smash the imperial culture of Europe (especially the ossified Greco-Roman tradition). He put its supposed opposite up against it in a radical gesture that his friend Apollinaire characterized with one word: Revolution.
What other choices did he have? How could he not have left himself open to the charge of appropriation by people 100 years later? What African artists were showing in European galleries back then? What African artists could he have learned from? Should he have gone to Africa and tried to fit in--the way Gauguin tried do? (See how well that worked out!)
In short, I wonder if the claim that Picasso appropriated African art is actually a conflation of Picasso with the larger history of the collection and display of non-Western art in 20th-century art galleries (a practice that has many problems; c.f. Chris Steiner and James Clifford).
Let me be clear that I'm not indicting you in all of this. I took askance to the echoes that I heard in your original comments, rather than taking askance to you.