Seeking Beauty and Intelligence

A while back a publication called The Art Newspaper published an article titled "What Should We Do About Paintings with Racist Titles?" The subject of this less than inspiring thought-piece was the painting you see to the left, titled Portrait of a Negress. This work was painted in 1800 by a woman named Marie-Guillemine Benoist. It is now owned by the Louvre. I bring this up because I remember seeing this beautiful painting at the Philadelphia Museum of Art a few years ago, as part of a travelling art exhibition called Black Victorians: Black People in British Art 1800-1900. And here begins our story...

    Understanding that art is a very subjective thing, I find this painting to be beautiful. An elegantly seated black woman in a beautiful white turban and gown, semi-naked from the waist up. Reaching back to my art appreciation course in college, it seems obvious, even to an art dope like me, that we are intended to admire her beauty, as we should and do. Even more so, the artist could hardly have made it plainer that we are to admire her intelligence, as well. "So how does this make the pages of From The Golf Room," you ask? That's a great question.

    As mentioned above, the title of this piece is Portrait of a Negress. There is absolutely nothing demeaning in that title. The term “negress” was not, in and of itself, insulting or demeaning at the time (nor should it be now, but that's a subject I've already opined on, in this space). Art galleries all over the world are full of portraits that don't name their subjects but just refer to the piece of art itself or a characteristic or characteristics of the piece, like Woman Walking Through The Forest, or Man Fishing by the River, or Dogs Playing Poker. You see what I mean? It doesn't demean or dehumanize the subject, and no sensible person would take such a title to mean that the characteristic chosen for it - peasant, servant, soldier, dog, whatever - is defining that subject completely. As a famous artist once said, "Portraiture is not character," and just because the subject is left nameless implies no disrespect (and I'm tired of that word, too), let alone contempt or even hatred! You really think all the dogs of the world got angry and started yelping because the dogs playing poker weren't given names? C'mon...

    So here we are. The anger over the portrait's title is proof (as if we needed more) that strength of emotion cannot and should not by itself justify moral outrage. Here's our duty: We shouldn't offend others without good reason, but we also have a duty NOT to be offended by others without good reason.

    Thanks to the article in that publication mentioned above, the painting is now considered racist and has been retitled Portrait of Madeline. The author of the article writes: "In reclaiming her name - however contentiously it was bestowed on her - the subject was to regain some measure of her humanity." Huh? Really? How do these people get professional writing jobs? This is so frighteningly unclear and proof of a lack of thinking and logic that it's scary. But it is also proof of a determination to FIND something offensive, where clear and intelligent minds know that there is none. I mean, why was the original title offensive and the subsequent giving of a name two centuries later not offensive? It is unclear whether "Madeline" is the subjects' actual name...but it really doesn't matter. Does the essayist from The Art Newspaper not know that to bestow just a first name instead of a whole name was considered in many circles at the time to be even more demeaning than not to be given any name at all? To be known only by a first name was often a sign of social subordination.

    So now, because I'm a dork and I remembered something from my art appreciation class from way back when, I went over to the book that exhibitions like these have so that visitors can leave comments. I figure the vast majority of visitors are actual art people and maybe I can learn a thing or two. Well, this particular time was even more eye-opening...but in hindsight, not too surprising. On one particular page there were two comments by women who described themselves as black. The first wrote that she considered the exhibition a disgraceful exercise in racial stereotyping that should not have been permitted, while the second wrote that she was grateful to God that he had allowed her to live long enough to see an exhibition that showed black people in all their beauty. 

    Mind you, these two women had seen the exact same pieces of art, and yet their responses couldn't be further apart. I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to you that I sided with the second woman as opposed to the first. My admittedly non-expertise when it comes to art told me that all of these works in the exhibition were first-class, and done with sympathy and respect for their subjects. There was no suggestion that the people in the paintings were lesser human beings. To be completely honest, many of the pictures were clearly admiring of the people that were represented. 

    I assumed that the two women were vastly different in age. I also assumed that the woman who invoked her thanks to her God was much older than the woman who had no problem using the word 'racist' like she was popping M&Ms. The first woman was, no doubt, intelligently old-fashioned. She showed gratitude, which is not common from younger people today. In fact, most young people today would consider the older woman's words and thoughts almost retrograde and morally reprehensible. Because for these people, anger and injustice are the only morally respectable attitudes to have in today's social and political climate. Which is, of course, much more conducive to personal misery and social conflict.

    Where the righting of injustice is seen as the highest, possibly the only, moral duty, it is natural that people should see it lurking everywhere...even in the title of a beautiful and respectful portrait. Here endeth the lesson.

Write to Peter: magtour@icloud.com