A True Portrait

Archibald Motley once said, "It is my earnest desire and ambition to express the American Negro honestly and sincerely, neither to add nor detract, and to bring about a more sincere and brotherly understanding, between me and my white brethren." Saying this, Motley believed that his paintings could influence white viewers to better understand his black heritage. The Harlem Renaissance of the 1920’s encouraged many African Americans to develop an artistic interest, which later would gain support that long, had been ignored and discouraged due to prejudice. Not only did Motley want to paint the truth surrounding the stereotypes perceived by society, but also he wanted to honestly portray the “negro,” hoping, that whites and blacks would interact more positively than they had before.

As a way to clear the misconceptions that labeled Africans for years, Motley used formal devices in order to represent the dignity and the lives of the African American women and men. One of Motleys works, “Mending Socks,” uses everyday household objects to stress the important morals embedded in his grandmother’s life. Her age, home and the objects observed tells her history, life and the values that she as well as the Creole people value. Motley’s Creole grandmother Emily exemplifies many lives as Motley’s character placement and object complements the overall effect. While Motley intended his works as a way to illuminate the misconceptions regarding African Americans, Dennis Raverty claims otherwise. Despite Motley’s ability to use his techniques as to beautify his work, Raverty feels that meanings and themes are not as effective because of Motley lack of cultural connection.

Seeing the painting for the first time, one sees the main attraction of the work, Emily Motley. Her old age and life experiences clearly show her hardships and tribulations. Baggy lines and the gloomy, yet prideful expression on her face also tells how hard it must have been to live during her time. In addition, a picture of a white woman hangs on the wall over the table. This woman, the grandmother’s mistress, freed Emily Motley giving her the portrait with her emancipation. On the table, a bowl of what appears to be plastic fruit gives the impression that the old woman has inherited some type of wealth. The plastic fruit makes it seem like the woman lives comfortably and does not have to worry about real fruit spoiling. Two worn book on the table, one being a bible, relates to Emily Motley's ability to have an education.

According to an article from the Wilson library, Emily, unlike many other people, had the opportunity to learn. Being taught to read and write with her mistress's children meant a rare privilege for a slave girl. Underneath all of the table objects lies the blue and white tablecloth. Embedded onto the cloth there was a delicately designed American Indian table spread representing her Native American husband.

If one looks closely, one can see a dark medium drawn down the center of Motley’s painting. The dark line down the middle of the wall seems to separate the grandmother’s spiritual part of her life from her everyday chores and habits. Above her head, a crucifix hangs representing her strong religious beliefs, which may have played an important role during her enslavement giving her hope for her freedom. Cloaked in an orange-checkered brooch, Emily appears to have a portrait of a young woman inside of a tiny pin, which happens to be her only daughter. Several mounds of socks on the table with the scissors lying on top of them symbolize Emily Motley's motherly duties and obligations. The plethora of socks on the table seems to say that she does this a lot in order to provide for her family. These icons show the sacred and ritual events important in her life.

While according to Burton Emmett Collection , Motley wanted to get in touch with his people and create a greater understanding, Dennis Raverty argues that Motley does not do a good job connecting with his culture. Instead of including himself when he speaks of African Americans, Raverty claims that Motley detaches himself from his own culture by referring to African Americans not as "us" but "them.” Motley adds: I was trying to get their [black people's] interest in art.” While his intentions of studying their ways were through attendance of daily activities and rituals, Motley failed to include himself and realize his own background. Because he was light, and well educated, he was considered and outsider and not part of his own community; therefore, one may argue that his portrayal of his grandmother was inaccurate. Trying to fit in two worlds, Raverty acclaims that Motley’s artistic expression was driven by his search for his own identity.

As opposed to the realistic image portrayed by Motley the mammy character was created on little truth and larger lies. In the mammy character created by white society during the Jim Crow laws to say that blacks were happy as slaves when it was quite the opposite. The mammy image served the political, social, and economic interests of mainstream white America. Her wide grin as opposed to the melancholic structure of Emily’s joins with laughter, and servitude to support institution of slavery. She had no black friends; the white family was her entire world. Obviously, the mammy caricature was “more myth than accurate portrayal.” Unlike the evident fallacy of mammy, Motley delineates more of a realistic image of someone who experienced slavery.

As proclaimed by Raverty, Motley’s art was only a struggle to come to terms with his "race”. Whether Motley was able to make sense of his heritage or not is a question unknown; however, his works nevertheless seem to show that he either does a good job using his imagination of the Creole people, or Motley actually has a Creole experience to tell about. Either way, his paintings tend to reveal a truth, giving enlightenment to a confused society unaware of the reality of African Americans.

Works Cited:

http://www.ackland.org/art/collection/contemporary/58.1.2801.html

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;jsessionid=5RJWMTKB1CQILQA3DIMSFF4ADUNGMIV0

http://www.ackland.org/tours/classes/motley.html
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/homepage.htm

Cultural Reconciliation Through Art

At first glance, an old woman knitting socks in a rocking chair is anything but extraordinary. This is the scene I came across in my visit to the Ackland Art Museum. Unlike much of the 20^th century art on display, this painting caught my eye as more than just paint splashed on a canvas. I recognize the talent that all artists possess; however, I am extremely picky about art I like. I really enjoy renaissance artwork and generally dislike more modern art because it seems to require a much more detailed analysis, which is completely arbitrary. I really appreciated the painting “Mending Socks” by the artist Archibald J. Motley, Jr. This painting exemplifies culture and racism in the early 20^th century. It appears that Motley painted this still life to demonstrate that African American culture and values were more similar to those of whites than many whites would have believed during that time.

The museums web site describes and analyzes, “Mending Socks” which is a portrayal of Motley’s grandmother, Emily Motley. The painting shows Motley performing her daily duty of mending the family’s socks. The painting’s most significant aspects are the crucifix, the books, and the depiction of Emily Motley. Each item is symbolic of Emily Motley’s culture and life. The books are clearly symbolic of her education. Although many African American women of her age, during that time, would have been illiterate, Emily Motley possessed a formal education and could read. Having that basic education, shows that Motley is more equal than people would believe, to the woman in the painting. The website describes the woman in the painting as Motley’s former mistress. Motley, no doubt, kept the painting of her former mistress on display to remind her of her past as a slave. The crucifix, which hangs on the wall, is symbolic of Motley’s deep religious convictions. Her religious beliefs are also confirmed due to the fact that one of the books on the table is the Bible, according to the museum’s website. These items, possibly more than anything else in the painting, demonstrate the similarities, rather than the differences, between whites and blacks. Like most women, regardless of color, in the south Emily Motley was a devout Christian.

Many of the items in the painting are characteristic of a still life. Just about every object in the painting is an example of still life. The bowl of fruit, the lamp, and the books are several examples of inanimate objects represented in this painting. Also, the socks which the title of the painting refers to are examples of still life. Motley uses this still life technique to convey the meaning of the painting. He intended the painting to show African Americans in a true example. If the painting had not contained any of these objects, the viewers would have very little insight as to who Emily Motley was. By painting his grandmother, a religious and educated woman, with her “defining possessions” Motley is promoting a greater understanding between blacks and white, stressing their similarities over their differences.

Motley chose to paint his grandmother because she definitely did not fit into the “Mammy” or “Jezebel” stereotypes that existed for African American women during the time. The “Mammy” stereotype portrayed African American as a loud, obese, jovial, motherly figure who was often “completely desexualized”. This image also portrayed the women as being happy with the institution of slavery; they were said to have “great love for their white family, but often treated [their] own family with disdain.” Looking at the painting, Emily Motley clearly does not fit into this stereotype. She is by no means overweight, and she does not appear happy in the painting. Her facial expression is definitely not one of happiness because she is not smiling; rather, she has a neutral or even an unhappy facial expression. Furthermore, Emily Motley in no way upholds the “Jezebel” stereotype, which interestingly conflicts with the “Mammy” stereotype. The “Jezebel” stereotype portrayed African American women “as innately promiscuous, even predatory”. Although this portrayal of African American women differed very much so from the more gentle and motherly “Mammy” stereotype, it was still an unfortunate reality many black women were forced to deal with during the early 20^th century. It is reasonable to conclude that Emily Motley in no way upholds the “Jezebel” stereotype because of her conservative dress and her religious beliefs. Thus, Emily Motley served a great model for how black women actually were in the 1920s, instead of the racial stereotypes imposed on them by whites.

While I believe that “Mending Socks” was intended to break down racial differences and give white viewers a greater insight into African American culture, others do not believe this is the case. In an art history paper, Holly Spain offers another possible analysis of the painting shows a sharp contrast between the left and the right sides of the painting. On the left side of the painting, the painting of Emily Motley’s former mistress shows the mistress wearing a black dress. The dark color of the dress suggests the evil which surrounded Emily Motley’s past as a slave to the woman in the painting. On the right side of the painting, the door is painted white, a color associated with goodness. This idea of goodness is reinforced with the crucifix hanging on the wall. Perhaps the door and the crucifix are symbolic of a better life for Emily Motley, one where she is free from slavery. Even more interesting is the fact that Motley painted a grey line down the middle of the wall in the painting. This line could be symbolic of the differences between blacks and whites, or, it could represent the segregation between the two that existed during the time. This idea of segregation can be seen in the painting, not only in the grey line, but also in the facial expression of Emily Motley. In the painting Motley chose not to paint his grandmother with a cheerful facial expression; rather, she appears rather sullen and gloomy. One of the most interesting insights Spain offers is the fact that the painting of the mistress is not seen in its entirety. Spain believes that this represents the “slipping away of white control” which will lead to the eventual freedom of African Americans.

According to the gallery’s website, Motley painted “Mending Socks” in order to “express the American Negro honestly and sincerely, neither to add nor detract, and to bring about a more sincere and brotherly understanding, between him and his white brethren.” If this is the case, I cannot imagine that the overall message of the painting is a dark as Spain believes. Rather, if the goal of the painting is to promote understanding, I think that Motley would have wanted to show the similarities between the two cultures, not the differences. Spain seems to conclude that the painting conveys a message of segregation. Although segregation was a very real occurrence during Motley’s time, it does not seem like focusing on this negative would be the best way to promote understanding between blacks and whites during the early 20^th century. Instead of stressing segregation, Motley painted his grandmother with her “defining possessions” to demonstrate, to both white and black viewers, a true example of how African Americans lived. The painting of Emily Motley’s former mistress serves to remind viewers of the reality of Emily Motley’s past as a slave.

Pilgrim, David. "Jezebel Stereotype." Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia.

October 2000. Ferris State University. 17 Apr 2007 http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/jezebel/

Pilgrim, David. "The Mammy Caricature." Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia.

October 2000. Ferris State University. 17 Apr 2007 http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/.

Spain , Holly. "Blues and Mending Socks: Capturing the Harlem Renaissance." 05

December 1999. 22 Apr 2007 http://www.unc.edu/~hspain/artpaper.htm.

I Love this Old Woman

Initially, one might overlook the social significance of an elderly African-American woman mending socks, but the social relevance confined within Mending Socks by Archibald J. Motley, Jr. appears utterly clear. Motley’s 1924 painting portrays Southern black society as cultured and affluent, two adjectives frequently absent in many other period portrayals of African-American life. Motley, himself an African-American, wanted to portray his positive view of African-American, one that was often overlooked in American society when paralleled with the general stereotypes found in “black-face” movies as well as specific stereotypes such as the “mammy” character that is seen in “Imitation of Life.” Through a certain painting style as well as including certain symbols, Motley was able to express his views about African-Americans.

As one examines the painting, one is immediately drawn to the woman. She is the centerpiece of the work. Her defining characteristic is her age. The crease lines in her forehead, the bags under her eyes as well as the loose skin under her chin tell of a long and hard life. Naturally, elderly people will have these characteristics, and whether she had a hard life as a slave or not is not certain. Regardless, life for many people, White or Black, during this time was rough and her skin qualities show it.

The second thing one notices is that she is dressed well. Typical of Motley’s style, the woman appears to be financially stable and could probably be considered a middle class citizen. Her shiny blouse indicates a silky material, which would lead one to believe that she is at least financially stable. Never do we consider the woman poor due to her clothing.

As one’s eyes scan the painting, one notices certain symbols that clearly indicate the woman’s sophistication and class. First, the cloth that is covering the table appears to be of a thick and durable material. Similar to the dress, this fabric indicates the woman’s financially stability. One would not expect to find the same material covering a farm-hand’s table. In fact, someone of a considerably lower societal status may have a poorly sewn cotton cloth or probably nothing at all. The tablecloth’s color as well as the intricate designs illustrate that time was a factor in creating the cloth. This was not some cloth that was hastily made, but a cloth made with an artistic purpose.

On the table, we see a sterling container with different kinds of fruits. Bananas are rarely grown in America, and the bananas in the container tell us that the woman is able to afford outside luxuries. People of a lower class would probably not have the extra money to spend on imported bananas, let a lone a nice sterling container. The large grapes and peaches also look exceptionally nice, and this illustrates that this woman is a woman of class. She is not someone who relies on her garden outside to provide her food.

Next to the fruit are big books, an indicator that this woman is educated. Perhaps a sign of her true education, or perhaps a symbol of her higher status (you can be sure that big books don’t necessarily equate to a big intellect), the books place her in a part of society that valued education. Also, the fact that the woman has time to read the two huge books indicates that she has a lot of spare time, a luxury that many poorer people did not have during this time. The daily routines of poorer people during this period consisted of surviving, whether on a farm, in a factory or in the streets. This clearly did not leave much time for reading big books. The books also illustrate the woman’s achievement within the Black community, as equal education (access) and equal rights were not often offered to the Black community during this time.

To woman’s left, we see a crucifix. This is an obvious symbol of her Christian faith, which was and continues to be a staple of Black society in America. The cross may be just that, a symbol directly referencing her piety, or it could be a reminder of what Jesus promised his followers: a pain-free life in Heaven, regardless of the trials faced on earth. Not knowing whether this woman specifically faced rough times during her life, we can be sure that the majority of African-Americans during her time did. This crucifix could represent an overarching sense of hope within the Black community, maybe for a hopeful future in the afterlife, maybe for a hopeful future in America. Either way, the crucifix is an important part of the woman’s life, considering its proximity to her sewing area. Whether reading books, or sewing socks from the large pile of fabric, we can be certain that the elderly woman spends a lot of time at this table. She even has food on the table in case she gets hungry.

One odd marker of this piece is the portrait hanging in the top left part of the painting. Initially, it’s hard to tell who this portrait may represent, but Motley frequently depicted woman of mixed-ethnicity, as he was a Creole himself. This portrait may be meant to parallel the woman and to remind the viewer of the mixed heritage of many of the people living in the Louisiana area. Another suggestion is that the portrait represents someone who the woman worked for when she was younger. For some reason, the woman may accept her past as a part of her life and regardless of the pain she probably went through as a slave, she may not want to forget about that part of her life, but learn from it and move on. The portrait would surely be a reminder of her past in this sense.

I’m not entirely sure of any claims that could be argued to refute what I have said about the intention of the artist to illustrate Black society. All symbols as well as the appearance of the woman seem to indicate a life of struggle, tradition and hope. The only argument, in my opinion, that could be waged against my interpretation is in the historical context of the woman’s life. Other than that, the symbols are so blatant, that I am unable to conjure up a counter argument. This piece does not seem to be one created for controversial and abstract interpretation.

I believe that Motley did an exceptional job of representing his view of Black culture in the painting. So often did stereotypes permeate throughout artistic expressions of Blacks by Whites that certain images such as the “mammy” stereotype became ingrained in the minds of average White citizens. By portraying this woman as classy, educated, religious and humble, Motley was showing Whites that their cultural values and religious traditions are very similar to the Blacks against whom many discriminated.

"Mending Socks." Ackland Museum website. Accessed from http://www.ackland.org/tours/motley.html.

Sadness on Canvas

"I think personally our black citizens should get over [slavery]… by golly we're living in 2007," claimed Virginia Republican Delegate Frank Hargrove, debunking the very essence of artwork like “The Dutchman” by Moyo Okediji, painted in 1995 though still focusing on the lasting effects of slavery on today’s African Americans. When we usually see a painting, we first notice the medium, the space, the color choice, and the contrast within the painting and not the real meanings. These elements not only dictate our sensual perceptions but also our minds about what the artist tried to accomplish by using certain techniques. It should be no different when we view “The Dutchman.” This image not only evokes certain emotions about its historical content, namely the slave trade, but also challenges our senses with the line curvature and the coloring, not to mention its sheer size. Even without knowing what the objects in the painting represent, one can still decipher a deeper social meaning, based solely on its formal qualities, that screams of the injustices done to in the African slave trade that still endure today.

The ground medium, canvas, sends a definitive statement about the artwork. Canvas is not just use for painting, but also serves as the sails of some ships. This versatile material forces us to examine why the artist chose canvas over other mediums like wood or glass. The canvas represents the slave trade itself, binding the characters to the medium that depicts many scenes but just one instance of the suffering of the African Slave Trade. The canvas confines the subjects as the ships confined their human cargo. Canvas is a representative material of slavery because if it weren’t for canvas, the ships would not have been able to sail and this artwork would not have been painted. By choosing canvas as the medium to paint on, Okediji not only recognizes the significance canvas to the slave trade but also recognizes the finality of the moment he painted and how canvas truly locks the moment in time.

The paint media is also noteworthy. Okediji uses acrylic, which reflects the light. The acrylic paint could be symbolic of the shining light that the Americans saw slavery as. When looking directly at the painting, it appears glossy and somewhat fantastic because it is so shiny. Yet the glossy reflection gives the illusion of a happy scene, just as those Americans who owned slaves put on an air of contentment, while their slaves were miserable in their laborious lives. The texture is indicative of the false perceptions that surrounded the African slave trade. Everyone believed it was good, such as a glossy image might appear, but if one really looks at it, it is a horrible depiction of the plight of a people kidnapped and imprisoned in a foreign country. Looking at the texture alone, a somewhat cheerful scene appears. Once the real content of the painting is inspected, a despicable image emerges and dispels all illusory effects of the acrylic gleam.

Space, as a formal quality of “The Dutchman,” epitomizes the situation that the slaves dealt with on their voyage away from their home. All of the different scenes in the painting are combined into just one image, just as all the slaves packed into one ship like cargo. Each individual scene becomes indistinguishable as the image as a whole forms, so the viewer has to look hard to decipher one story from another. Okediji places a whole story inside of one painting and lets the space in between the scenes speak volumes about the compact trip that slaves endured. Though a ship ride from Africa to the Americas would have taken a couple of weeks or more, the trip for the Africans became one blur of hysterics that begins and ends brutally and quickly, leaving them dazed, just as the viewers of this painting may be if they take the painting as a whole instead of various scenes. Space remains pivotal in this painting simply because it emphasizes the confined living area the slaves encountered in each individual scene in the painting. If Okediji had chosen to paint just one particular scene from the ones he chose, the effect would not have been the same because there would have been too much space and the viewer would not get a complete idea of the restrictions forced on slaves while they were in transit.

The color choice, as noted in the online description of the painting, influences the interpretation and the social message of Okediji’s work. The colors, bright and vibrant, serve to explain the vivacity of life the slaves had before they left their native land. For a painting that uses very intricate shapes and designs, there are a limited number of colors. The limited color scheme, like the spacing, serves as a metaphor for the restrictions placed on Africans and later African Americans. Okediji sends a social commentary that can only be achieved through the intense yet limited colors he chose; the commentary being that the Africans maintained a resilient, vivid culture that the slave traders tried to inhibit. Okediji also used many shades of blue, indicative of the Atlantic and “the pain at the root of African American blues music.” The blue coloring brings about a sense of calm in most artwork, yet the color here represents the despair that slaves felt as they traversed the ocean. The water presented a constant threat to the slaves because they could drown or be thrown over. Now the color blue can be representative of the blues music genre that captures the intense pain still suffered by African Americans because of the blue ocean that took their ancestors from their rightful home. The use of the blue complements Okediji’s motivation behind this piece of artwork in that it suggests the plight of the Africans, not only in the past but also in the present.

Contrast plays an important role in this artwork. Looking at it from the left to the right, a story unfolds. The contrasting imagery employs several “elements of design to hold the viewer's attention and to guide the viewer's eye through the artwork.” The viewer looks at the contrast and is forced to follow the painting from the beginning of the slaves’ voyage to their sale. The contrasting imagery still maintains a cohesiveness that allows the painting to flow even though the shapes and subjects vary. Not a single scene pops out from the others, and yet they remain dissimilar because they have different subjects, be it drowning slaves or a Dutchman with his face turned. This cohesiveness in the face of the diverse scenes indicates the strength of the African people despite their toils. Okediji, with this contrast, states that his people will remain united though divided in different stages of life; in this case, each group of Africans undergoes a different stage of the Middle Passage between Africa and the Americas. No matter what happens to individual, contrasting Africans or African Americans, the spirit lives on.

Some may argue that Okediji’s painting simply manifests a shameful period of time from the perspective of a modern African American man and that it places too much blame on the Dutchman. Others may state that the painting overdoes the sorrow of the Africans who encountered the slave trade and that since slavery is over, no one should hold it against white people, namely the Dutch. Still others make some interesting assertions about slavery and how it never even existed; however reliable these sources seem is up for interpretation. With people like Delegate Hargrove, it is hard to say that everyone believes African Americans still have a right to the effects still felt from slavery. These arguments, though valid to some extent, do not fully encapsulate the effect that slavery had on Africans as a formerly culturally isolated group. Okediji, as an African American artist, still encountered prejudice and other feelings that linger from slavery and he wanted to make a statement about his experience as an African and that the effects from slavery surpass time.

Okediji’s painting incorporates many formal qualities that speak volumes about the history of his ancestors. He, like many modern African Americans, still feel the plight of their history and can never fully overcome the strife inflicted upon them by the Dutch and the Americans. This painting represents his feelings about the persistence of slavery-related notions and the emotions that effect people of today.

slow down freight train

Slow Down Freight Train by Rose Piper instantly snatches your attention with the abstracted despair of the subject portrayed. The contrasting colors of red and green add to the intensity of emotion by creating visual conflict within the work and eliciting the emotions of the subject from the viewer as well as representing the torn social, political, and emotional consequences of the time period.

According to Ackland’s class-study webpage on Slow Down Freight Train Rose Piper was inspired by a song called “Freight Train Blues,” a lamenting blues tune from the 1920s. The webpage also gives much historical background to the painting about a phenomenon in American history that I was not aware of known as The Great Migration.

The curving lines of the figure contrast against the very linear background to add to the fluidity of motion that the figure seems to be experiencing and allows the motion to be expressed in stark contrast to the swift-moving train that he is riding. By making the only curved lines in the entire piece form the figure it shows him as an outsider and a person who belongs somewhere else instead of riding far away from his loved ones. The artist of the piece describes the man as “the abstraction of the human figure...aris[ing] out of a single moment of heightened expression. The attenuated form suggests the essence of longing." By making the figure red against a background comprised of entirely green shades and by making every line that the figure consists of curved in contrast with the straight lines of the scene that he is sitting in makes him stick out from the painting entirely. The emotion conveyed by his crying mouth suggests that he is yelling, perhaps calling in despair for the loved ones that he has left behind.

The Great Migration of the 1920s was when many African-American males from the Southern states began to move North to work in the Chicago meat market or the Detroit automobile industry. The main catch was that they couldn’t bring their loved ones and often left behind their mothers, wives, children, and girlfriends. “Freight Train Blues,” the song which inspired Rose Piper to paint Slow Down Freight Train has a chugging, lamenting back music which makes the song drag along full of the emotion of loss. Piper uses the colors and lines to draw the eye to the man’s sorrowful face which lacks any real features except his wide crying mouth. This lack of facial features represents how, by moving up north away from his family, he is growing further away from his roots and essentially losing his identity. Piper only leaves him enough of himself to express his anguish at leaving his homeland. The expression on his face, and his exaggerated posture suggest that his soul is longing for home, his body is pointing in the direction that the train is moving away from and the shout leaving his throat seems like it is trying to reach back to the family that he left people.

Rose Piper says that the name of the painting Slow Down Freight Train is a woman telling the train to slow down so that she can catch it and go along with her man. This is an obvious reference to the song “Freight Train Blues” which is the lament of a woman whose man has gone up north to work in these brutal industries. The name of the painting as well as the song that inspired it adds an extra dimension to the work as if the lamenting figure is hearing the call of his woman back home. The interesting thing about this added dimension of the painting is that the focus and subject matter of the work itself is entirely masculine yet the inspiration, title, and even the artist are all feminine. This separation of the sexes in reality yet mixture in theory is also representative of a human soul and the longing that the subject himself and the speaker of the title have for one another.

The monotony and strangeness of the world that the figure is traveling through is represented in the very linear and parallel lines of the background. The lines of the horizon, the boards of the train, and the power lines off in the distance are all so stark and in such contrast with the fluid soulful figure that it alienates him. He appears to be in a world that he entirely does not belong to as if the further from his home that he goes the more the world around him changes into a frightening and very bleak, linear place to live. The soulful, curvy figure of the man seems as if he is suffering to death simply because his surroundings are absolutely opposite of his being.

The lines coloring and focus of the painting along with the title and cultural context all combine to make Slow Down Freight Train a very sorrowful and emotion-filled painting. The features (or lack thereof) of the figure and the contrasting colors make him even more of an outsider in the world that he is traveling to and suggest that he has left his soul behind him with his family and loved ones.

The Mona Lisa is Happy

In Cracking the Mona Lisa Smile, Elizabeth Millard demonstrates how technology is currently playing a role in the analysis of artwork. Personally, I think technology should not be used when analyzing art work, especially when so little is know about the work. The role of technology in artwork should be an informative role, which it is for the most part.

Millard references an experiment conducted by Sebe and Huang, who developed emotion-recognition software and applied it to the Mona Lisa. Using the software, the two University of Amsterdam and University of Illinois researchers quantified the Mona Lisa’s facial emotion. The use of “algorithms that quantify facial expressions” and “face tracking software that determines several major emotions in expression” allowed the researchers to quantify the painting. The researchers obtained their experimental data by determining the displacements in the Mona Lisa when compared to a “neutral, Caucasian female face”. The experiment determined that the Mona Lisa is 82.67 percent happy, 9.17 percent disgust, 5.81 percent fearful and 2.19 percent angry.

The two researchers admitted that the experiment was conducted for their own amusement and claim that they will not be examining any further works of art. Their main purpose was to highlight the “value and potential of emotion-recognition software.” While there is no doubt validity in their experiment, it should not be used as a means of analysis. If anyone were to use the results of this experiment to make an analysis of the Mona Lisa, they would be completely erroneous. The software may very well be dead on in the Mona Lisa being 82.67 percent happy; however, the Mona Lisa is a painting, not a real person. That means that, even though the facial expression is one of happiness, Da Vinici may not have intended it that way. The identity of the Mona Lisa is not known for sure. Some believe that she was “Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a Florentine cloth merchant”, while there are those that believe that she was not even based on a real person, but rather a composite of models. Dr. Lillian Schwartz, from Bell Labs even concluded that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait of Da Vinci through a technological comparison of the Mona Lisa to a known self-portrait by Da Vinci. When she used a computer to compare the two images “the features of the face (aligned) perfectly.” (Mona Lisa). Many art historians do not agree with Schwartz’s experiment. They claim that Da Vinci, as a great artist, would have spent a great deal of his time practicing drawing the human face. The historians claim that Da Vinci likely used his own face to practice drawing; therefore, there are many similarities between the Mona Lisa’s face and Da Vinci’s own face (Mona Lisa). Given that we know so little about the identity of the Mona Lisa, the data from Sebe and Huang’s experiment should not be used to make inferences about the painting. Technology will never be able to confirm what Da Vinci was actually thinking and feeling when he painted the Mona Lisa.

Technology can, however, serve more useful roles in art. According to Millard, technology is playing a major role in the discussion of art. Today, technology can unite artists and their audiences via the internet. The article notes the growing use of blogs to discuss a particular work of art. The article also notes that technology is now used for art databases. These databases store prices for artwork and are a great idea because the freedom of information on the internet prevents art galleries from taking advantage of potential customers. Perhaps the most useful application of technology is the use of it to verify the authenticity of artwork.

Millard, Elizabeth. " Cracking the Mona Lisa Smile." NewsFactor Network. 03 February

2006. 08 Apr 2007. http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41276&page=1

"Mona Lisa." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 10 Apr 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_lisa

.

Enlightening Vermeer's Light

Being a film buff who particularly loves costume pieces, naturally I was drawn to looking at Vermeer paintings for at least one of these assignments. Reading through the article “The Strangeness of Vermeer” by Svetlana Alpers in Art in America (an article written in 1996) I was stricken with just how many of the technical aspects of Vermeer’s work that Tracy Chevalier wove into her novel Girl With a Pearl Earring. What is truly interesting about the article is that it was written in reflection after going to an exposition of over two-thirds of Vermeer’s paintings. The article is not so much an examination of his techniques or the interpretations of specific paintings, but more the appreciation of all of his works put together and how, as a whole, the body of work can be interpreted.

There main argument of the article involves both Vermeer’s portrayal of women (as well as the few men in his paintings) and the way that the paintings are much more a small window into the ideal world than a reflection of it. Alpers claims that the portrayal of Vermeer’s women is not so much to represent them as women but that they become this overarching representation of humanity itself. The work that the article is most concerned with as a singular piece is Lady Writing a Letter With Her Maid. Personally, my favorite aspect of Vermeer’s paintings (and from what I can tell, most critical acclaim) is his realistic and innovative use of lighting. Alper’s particular fascination seems to be with the lighting of the Lady’s bodice, as on one shoulder it’s a deep grayish tone and on the shoulder closer to the light source it has become entirely bleached white. The page of an art criticism teacher explains to me numerous pieces of symbolism in the painting that I never even picked up on, such as the large painting in the background being a famous rendition of Moses “indicating that somebody must be rescued and cherished” and that on the window there is the sign of Temperance.

The thing that really catches my attention when I look at the painting is that the maid in the background seems to be presiding over the action, as well as being idle. The Lady may be in the foreground, yet she is occupied and her face is hidden. The painting projects that while the maid may not have all the liberty and wealth in the world, she elevates herself above petty things in the letter (there is even a letter crumpled up on the floor suggesting that the Lady was not satisfied with a previous draft). The maid also has the freedom to dream, suggested by the fact that she stares wistfully out of the window, and though she wears a poor person’s dress, her body remains untouched by any table, finery, or task. I also like the way that both women look in completely opposite directions, leading one to think that perhaps two worlds are portrayed here even in this tiny corner of the room.

Granted, I may have slightly romantic notions as to Vermeer’s works because of the novel Girl With a Pearl Earring, yet even in the novel as well as the movie the “strangeness” (as Alpers calls it) of Vermeer’s work comes through. They portray his detachedness of his work that Alpers put best: “in Vermeer's practice the painter crafting an image on the canvas is as humanly detached as if he himself were light making an image on a camera obscura screen.”

An Abstract Dance

During the 1930’s and 40’s and the outbreak of World War II, surrealists fled from Europe and eventually settled in New York. Soon, their interest in unmediated expression influenced a younger generation of painters to find a voice for American art, one of these painters being abstract expressionist, Karen Davie. The European pioneers of abstraction heavily influenced the new movement, which later became known as Abstract Expressionism. The movement “abstract” gets its name because it incorporates emotion and is a rebellion from the norm. Unlike the “hands off” approach that Jackson Pollock used with drip paint, Karen’s technique uses thick blocks of color and light to create the “busy” feeling. As opposed to the style of Jackson Pollock, Davie’s stoke of her brush tip never leaves the canvas. With abstract expressionism being somewhat of an emotion, many have their opinions as to whether Davie’s creations are considered art when trying to interpret her work. While Deven Golden praises Davie for the original aesthetics, tools and techniques that intensify her work, Roberta Smith claims that her work is a joke resembling that of a fun house as opposed to a piece of work.

Creating art as pure emotion and creativity, the idea of expressionism itself said, “what was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event". This all-over approach used every aspect of the canvas and treated the entire space the same so that the eye can make its own meaning. According to Deven Golden, the way that the lines veer from the canvas symbolizes a losing control as both the viewer and the artist. Using darker colors mixed in with a host of bright sunny ones, Golden credits Davie’s clever use of dark colors to liven up the brighter ones. The longer one looks at the paintings, the more interpretations and ideas a person draws. In no way however, she adds, that even though the lines appear sad and droopy, Davies works are not depressing because her brush strokes are too erratic and difficult to consider depressing. Because Davie’s paintings require all of her body, she has to concentrate heavily on her task, as she performs her “dance” she worked so hard to choreograph.

At the time, few scholarly art critics could interpret the ideas and meanings in works such as Jackson’s and Karen’s because they lacked literary knowledge. Some could not and did not understand the political references and the beauty behind the rebellious attitudes of the era. Roberta Smith of the New York Times presents her thoughts addressing Karen’s works. Unable to make connections to the strokes that was ineptly explained by Deven Golden, Roberta only seems to mock the works of Davie. One of Davie’s works entitled “Pushed, Pulled, Depleted, & Duplicate looks like several of her other paintings.

However, the color and strokes of the brush in each suggest a different emotion. Smith incoherently adds that her works are similar to the stripes in a fun-house mirror. She further goes on insulting Davie’s usage of tools as being “inextricably fused” making her work seem more and more a blob of nothing, concluding that her works resembles toothpaste from a tube. Sarcastically, Smith mocks the mixed colors that Davie blends saying that the colors make nothing but curves that look like candy-stripes. Understandably, there clearly must have been something else going through the artist’s mind. Its art for crying out loud, a chance to express feelings, emotions and freeness.

At the most, I am able to say that I understand how the colors and forms of the paintings created by Davie are abstract. I believe that Roberta needs to find a little more research on what exactly abstract expressionism is because she clearly is confused. Who are we to say that someone’s work is not abstract when we were obviously not in their minds while they were painting? It is not modernism in clown makeup Smith mocked, but rather a choreographed movement to relay her emotions. We don’t know if those white and red, and blue colors show her pride in her country, or if the landscape of the portrait shows Davie’s anger and discontent with the politics in the country. This may be her way of showing her dissatisfaction with the way things are rather than using picket signs like normal people. As complicated as art may be, Davie’s simplistic yet complex style, has so much to say, if only we knew where it began.


Work Cited:
http://the-artists.org/MovementView.cfm?id=8A01EE83%2DBBCF%2D11D4%2DA93500D0B7069B40

Golden, Deven. “Notes on…Karin Davie.” http://www.artcritical.com/golden/DGDavie.htm

Smith, Roberta. “Art in Review”. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DD103AF930A15757C0A96F958260

Van Gogh Loved to Sew

Sewing is an archaic way of making clothes. Even when Vincent van Gogh was around, in the 19th century, sewing machines were used as a practical way of manufacturing items to be worn. With this in mind, Lauren Soth, in her article “Van Gogh’s Images of Women Sowing” still asserts that van Gogh painted women manually sewing because he had values that “led him to choose such traditional subjects as seemed illustrative of them.” Who really knows what van Gogh’s values were? Using just some of van Gogh’s common motifs in his paintings and his love life as evidence of his distain for the mechanical world is founded in some ways, but not in others. Focusing, instead, on his own words about life will lead the viewer to a clearer perception of the artist, his ideals, and the reasons behind his choice of subject.



“To me it is as clear as day that one must feel what one draws.” Because van Gogh depicted his life with his artwork, Soth uses van Gogh's quote saying that his works consisted of manual labor and nothing technological. Yet the lack of technological labor becomes questionable especially when his work evolved around the Industrial Revolution. His negligence of technological innovations confused many educated individuals. Surely van Gogh encountered technical mechanisms; therefore, one cannot assume that he ignored the sewing machines near him. Van Gogh painted things relevant to life such as women sewing clothes evident in his piece entitle "Women Sewing". However, one cannot assert that he detested sewing machines and valued traditions, when instead he just liked the image of a seamstress. Van Gogh just drew as he felt, not truly as he believed. To believe and to feel two evoke two dissimilar emotions.


Van Gogh, like Soth points out, did try to paint in the likeness of his life, but it was not his true life and instead what he wished it to be. In the “Woman Sewing,” the subject most probably being his lover and also prostitute called Sien, Soth determines that this woman must have sewn his clothes by hand; however, given the time period, that idea cannot be. The clothing style of this period () was much more likely to have been sewn mechanically because of the invention of the sewing machine. The garbs were intricately woven and fashioned, something a simple seamstress would be incapable of doing by hand. Soth goes on to quote van Gogh as saying, in regards to Sien, “she is incapable of doing what she ought to do,” as a clear indication that van Gogh believed she should be at home sewing instead of whoring herself out, which could be the case. But, in the context, Soth asserts van Gogh proclaimed that women should sew and do nothing to earn their wages. He did end up leaving her, but not because of her wage earning power, but because she was indeed a prostitute. His painting reflected not his life, but some sort of ideal that did not directly correlate with his surroundings. In particular, “Woman Sewing,” van Gogh is determined to paint the seamstress “as a dark silhouette against the window” which could be indicative of a longing for escape from manual labor that a sewing machine and other industries might provide if the seamstress ventures into the light of the outdoors. If interpreted this way, the seamstress and van Gogh himself are rejecting traditional ways and instead yearn for change.


When van Gogh left Holland, he no longer painted with the seamstress motif. Soth believes it was because of his emotional ties to Sien and the seaming world, which is valid given the eventual departure of Sien and the fact that his family rejected the promiscuous life of Sien, pleading with him to abandon her. Yet it is also plausible to assume he found other things to paint. Van Gogh simply realized it was idealistic to believe that women would solely sew his clothes and do nothing else, therefore he stopped painting this image once he left Holland, where perhaps more women were willing to sew. The fact that he never returned to Holland meant he was no longer concerning himself with the manufacturing of clothing in a homely sense and instead focused on broader issues, such as farming and real every day life that was not just his ideal.

Religious Undertones In Rembrandt's Latter Paintings

In an article from ArtNet.com, critic N. F. Karlins discusses Rembrandt’s concluding works and how these works seem to address Rembrandt’s inner struggles through religious subject matter. During Rembrandt’s later years, he was faced with economic problems as he was, at that point, “yesterday’s news.” Not only was he troubled financially, but he was also brought before a court by a woman who claimed he had fallen back on a promise to marry her (tough legal system). To make matters worse, Rembrandt was forced to live out his days with a sullied reputation after having an illegitimate child with the lucky Hendrickje Stoffels.

The series of paintings, perhaps an intentional series, perhaps not, represents inner struggle. Each painting is characterized by “lined brows, putty-like hands and drooping eyelids,” a fact that illustrates the inner drama and emotional struggles faced by each figure. One notices the deep struggle over, presumably, religious questions in the majority of the paintings. Religion is the presumed topic of contemplation by the characters considering a number of characteristics found in many of the works. These characteristics include the subject matter itself (saints, evangelists, Christ, the Sorrowful Virgin, possibly a monk), signs of martyrdom (knives, swords) as well as numerous props such as religious dress and bibles. At least one character, the apostle Paul, is represented in more than one painting.

Rembrandt’s spiritual history during the time these paintings were created leads one to believe that the paintings relate to the struggles one faces as life comes to an end coupled with the ensuing questions and uncertainties. Rembrandt, religious or not, must have been looking for answers to the struggles facing his life and as was natural for him, he expressed his pains and questions through art. This last set of paintings was by no means his only attempt to represent Christianity. Religiously themed paintings can be found throughout Rembrandt’s career. The painting illustrating the mother of his illegitimate child, Hendrickje Stoffels, may have been painted to show the agony of not only the social stigmas placed on someone in the situation, but also the perceived scorn from God after having a child out of wedlock. The focus of the painting, as is the case with the others in the set, is on Stoffels' face. With a pursed mouth and face that looks away from the painter, the painting seems to indicate embarrassment and contemplation over how and why the subject became involved in such a socially and religiously unacceptable act.

One oddity concerning The Apostle Bartholomew is that Rembrandt paints him in traditional European clothing. Considering Bartholomew lived in the first century, he lacked the luxury of a nice comb-over haircut or chic European duds. He does carry a knife that represents his religious martyrdom, but Rembrandt gets the viewer thinking by portraying Bartholomew as his contemporary. This painting was probably supposed to parallel a more realistic representation of Bartholomew that Rembrandt painted about a half decade earlier and can be seen by clicking on the earlier link.

Rembrandt’s last paintings are something to marvel over. Not only are they aesthetically appealing, but they allow the viewer to dive into Rembrandt’s past through a significant amount of imagery. Upon learning of Rembrandt's life history during the time of his latter works, one is able to realize where he was coming from and what influenced his paintings. In terms of social and religious questions, Rembrandt probably had a lot of them during this time. Perhaps he wasn’t struggling with religious questions, but only decided to illustrate his emotional uncertainty through subject matter that was familiar to him.

Robinson: From Protégés to Mentor

Theodore Robinson was an American impressionist who was greatly influenced by the French impressionist Claude Monet. In two articles about Robinson, the relationship Robinson developed with Monet is clear and defined. There is no one who would argue that Monet did not have a significant impact on Robinson; however, the first article claims that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself when he returned to America. The second article, however, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor even though the second article is based on Robinson’s own diary. There are most definitely differences in the tow articles; however, it seams that the second article irresponsibly ignores the fact that Robinson went on to become a mentor himself.

According to the article Lessons Learned: Monet’s Influence on Robinson by Stephen May, there were nearly 60 paintings at a traveling art show that showed the similarities between the two artists. This article focuses on the fact that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself as a result of his relationship with Monet. During his six visits to Germany, Robinson developed a friendship in which they frequently dined together and critiqued each other’s work. Stephen May notes that this was an unusual friendship because Monet did not usually associate with the many American artists who sought his advice. As their friendship developed, Monet asked Robinson to critique his early paintings in the Rouen Cathedral series. This series had such a great impact on Robinson that he decided to paint three landscapes known as the Valley of the Seine. Monet called this series the best landscape he’d seen out of Robinson. One of the most important influences Monet had over Robinson was convincing Robinson to find subjects in America and “devote (his) efforts to immortalizing them.”

After Robinson last saw Monet in 1892, he became a mentor to an artist named Jacques Busbee. The article justifies the relationship between Robinson and Busbee by citing a passage from Robinson’s diary where Busbee is mentioned. Passing on Monet’s advice, Robinson advised Busbee to focus on the wide-ranging picture rather than obsessing over the details. Robinson also stressed the importance of drawing as a foundation for painting. He advised Busbee to focus on making sketches with charcoal, pencil, or crayon before attempting to paint. This he said, “…is necessary for all art-even the most evanescent or amusing, vivacious, or non-serious.” Like Monet, Robinson above all stressed the importance of paining subjects that are of interest and not to make work a “grind”. It is not clear from the article what the extent of Robinson’s relationship with Busbee was. Nevertheless, this author of this article thought their relationship was worth mentioning, most likely because it demonstrates how Monet’s style was spread to great American artists.

Another article, The Diary of Theodore Robinson, an American Impressionist by Sona Johnston summarizes the relationship between Robinson and Monet by making use of Robinson’s diary as its primary source. Unlike the first article, this article does not imply that Monet was not very receptive to American artists. Robinson said that he was “most cordially received” during their first encounter. This article also implies that their relationship was in fact very intimate. Their relationship must have been intimate because Robinson was a guest at Monet’s wedding. Like the first article, this article makes it very clear that Robinson was greatly influenced by Monet’s impressionist style. The two artists were so similar that people claimed they both left their paintings unfinished. The most striking feature about this article is the fact that it makes no mention of Robinson being a mentor to the artist Jacques Busbee. While the first article stresses that Robinson took Monet’s teaching back to American and became a mentor himself, this article makes no mention of Robinson’s relationships with any protégées he may or may not have had. Seeing as how this article is based on his diary, it would be safe to assume that the important aspects of his life were addressed in this article. Perhaps that article chose not to address Robinson’s influence on other artists, or perhaps Robinson did not consider himself to be a mentor. Given the tone of the first article, that is not likely. The first article made it very clear that the relationship between Robinson and Busbee was that of a mentor and a protégés.

After reading each article, there is no question that Robinson developed a serious relationship with Monet. Furthermore, it is clear that Monet’s advice followed Robinson back to America where Robinson attempted to find beauty in his American subjects. In the first article, it is implied that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself, in the same way that Monet was a mentor to him. The second article, which relies on a first hand account of Robinson’s life, his diary, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor himself.

Heads Rembrandt, Tails Lievens

Art. I generally have no passion for the traditional sense of the word. When a monkey can take a paint brush, make a few lines on a canvas and sell it for thousands of dollars, I just have to question the whole movement. However, there is one style of art that I really enjoy and one artist that really strikes me as having some serious skill. Rembrandt. The guy could paint and the Dutch Golden Age of the 17^th century is really something.

There are many critics, both adoring and critical, of Rembrandt’s work. Naturally, as one of the world’s most revered artists, an opinion of every kind will be had with respect to his work. One area of debate concerns the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with his contemporary, Jan Lievens. Because of the infancy of historical documenting methods during the day, truly knowing the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with Lievens will probably never be known, nevertheless, a number of art scholars have debated the issue.

Within art history circles, there is a developing belief that a number of drawings attributed to Rembrandt were actually drawn by Lievens. Roelof van Straten argues that at least two paintings attributed to Rembrandt (Circumcision, Rest on the Flight into Egypt) were actually painted by Lievens. He also argues that Rembrandt didn’t even begin making prints, as these two drawings are, until 1628, until at least three years after these drawings were created. In his essay, Straten does acknowledge that the two artists were trained in similar styles in relative close proximity, leading one to believe that the similarities between each painter’s creations are a result of this training, however, he notes that the similarities in style between many of Lievens’ drawings and the two mentioned earlier are so similar that there is little chance that Lievens did not draw them. He references the cross-hatchings in the clothing and the tilting of heads as important similarities. Straten sums up his argument by saying “there is no reason to believe that the styles of Rembrandt and Lievens were so close that their hands could possibly be confused” meaning that each artist has certain idiosyncrasies that even a similar stylistic training would overrule.

Straten also addresses the fact that Rembrandt’s name was etched on a number of paintings that he considers someone else’s. He notes that at least once, Rembrandt’s name was misspelled causing one to ask: Why would Rembrandt misspell his own name? He also notes that throughout Rembrandt’s career, dealers/artists would place Rembrandt’s name on their paintings in order to make money off of his fame. Also, the name of a buyer visited by Lievens (historically documented) finds itself on a questionable painting. Straten concludes that Lievens initially took his painting to Berendrecht, was initially rejected, but later the dealer Berendrecht in Haarlem retained the printing plate for the piece, and began printing the piece with Rembrandt’s name on it to cash in on Rembrandt’s fame.

While it is becoming more accepted that some of the drawings attributed to Rembrandt are Lievens’, there is still insufficient evidence to definitively say who really drew them. While Schatborn’s article does agree with Straten’s on some accounts, it is not a full endorsement of Straten’s “evidence” by any means. The thesis is hard to find in this article, but it can be summed up by saying that the evidence does not conclusively attribute Rembrandt’s drawings as Lievens’.

Schatborn relies on the training of the two men to explain why each could have drawn so similarly that the drawings attributed to Rembrandt could actually be his. Because each was closely trained under Amsterdam artist Pieter Lastman, there would have been elements of both artists’ work that would look the same, especially in their earlier drawings when their own idiosyncrasies would not yet have matured. The drawings in question are those of the artists’ earlier careers, so questions will arise more often here than in their later works. Schatborn’s main evidence is in this time difference, in that even though later works by Lievens and Rembrandt resemble one another, certain stylistic differences are apparent. But because these earlier style differences were not obvious, it is hard to assume that the attributed Rembrandt drawings are Lievens’.

Personally, I believe that the argument attributing some of Lievens’ drawings to Rembrandt is entirely possible, if not probable. Both articles reference the fact that art historians are increasingly suspicious of the early Rembrandt drawings and that they are probably Lievens’. Also, the ability for these critics and historians to accurately pick out small peculiarities between each man makes me believe that they know what they are saying. Although the evidence is not conclusive; I think the argument is a strong one, considering the practice of printers to put Rembrandt’s name on works that were not his in order to sell them.

Artibus et Historiae

Master Drawings

Double Identities, Who Are We?

It is habitual for people to stereotype people based on characteristics and ideas associated with race. Some stereotypes label people in ways that lead them to think that something is wrong with the way they are; when it turns out that is not the case at all. Some misconceptions include the thought that Asians are smart in mathematics and can play the piano well. Alternatively, that African Americans love chicken and collard greens and need to be watched closely when they enter into a store. These stereotypes have developed in western society over several years of fallacies. No matter what background, people label someone who looks different from them based on what they have been taught by ones parent or by society in general. Sometimes, the labels that are associated with different categories of people create a sense of double consciousness, for both African Americans and women.


African Americans’ sense of selfhood has always been dominated by the white “gaze.” This mainstream has long been dominated by the western culture leading minorities to think that their only way of being was “incoherent and fractured.” The fact that people are aware of how others view and judge them causes them to view themselves in an entirely different way. According to feminist and postmodern artist Emma Amos, in the same way people are able to make judgments of through a visual, people can make connections and interpret the different stereotypes of race through art. It is easy to determine that art has long been marginalized for male artists. In Emma Amos works, she fixes herself to identify with not only the offended of her culture but that of women as well. Being able to look at herself through someone else’s eyes shows her the racism that has been excluding both blacks and women. As a feminist, she sardonically criticizes the norm by saying that she wants to be a white male artist. However, Amos refuses to accept that art is painted in the medium of a white, male perspective claiming that gender differences in art also need to be acknowledged. Women, she argues has been under the shadow of the male gaze for too long and should viewed as an equal to men in any area.


Involved in politics of culture and feminism, Emma Amos challenges her audiences to think about how these ideas about race, sex and identity are “constructed and disseminated through images.” While art has normally been gendered around a white male perspective, Amos chooses to paint of historical and political ideas that focus around both race and gender. Whether it is etching, monoprints, silk collagrpahs, photography or painting in general, Amos paints of opportunity for women and blacks. In one particular piece tightrope, Amos easily shows how someone tries to balance himself or herself in a demanding society biased upon women and people of color. The American flag leotard shows the woman confidently overcoming all of the demands and negativity associated with her being herself.


However, aside from the creativity of showing the humorous, playful possibility of a double identity, one argues that Amos has failed to realize the dangerous consequences of loosing one’s self in impersonation of art as foreseen by Du Bois. He acknowledges that the two-ness of being American and a Negro does little to contradict the fallacies that have been known to define race. Not only is it a misrepresentation of the truth, but it also leads to internal conflict for African Americans. During the first wave feminist, impersonation was only used to exploit the results of conforming. These false interpretations of different cultures result in a negative outcome for these people in what W.E.B. Du Bois terms as double consciousness. Dividing someone’s identity into several aspects as with stereotypes may cause people to try to conform or change their identity to fit the likings of others. Although the warnings perceived by Du Bois were silenced by the creativity of Amos’ work, some continue to say that the “two-ness” forms of impersonation and identity still punish those who are unsure of their well-beings in society.


Although Du Bois calls for black people to create their own definition of their culture, Emma Amos has found a way to cleverly make Du Bois’ fear of conforming to identity less serious while at the same time realizing that identities in her work is important for herself as well as others. She has used her paintings to show cultural meaning accounts for the generations that have been biased of women and colored artists. Her arguments against the norm in aesthetics and society gives a more colorful look on the multiple views society can have for a person.

Emma Amos. 4 April 2007.
http://www.the-artists.org/ArtistView.cfm?id=EDD13C83%2D95FA%2DCC76%2DFF9F9EC3D7FD9C5A

Gupta, A. Houston. “Double Consciousness: Black Conceptual Art Since 1970.” Art
Papers v.29 no.4. July 2005. 4 April 2007. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml:jsessionid=FSXMUJTKYKU2XQA3DILCFF4ADUNGMIV0
Patton, Sharon F. “Thinking Paint.” 4 April 2007.
http://www2kenyon.edu/ArtGallery/exhibitions/0001/amos/amos.htm
Percent for Art in NYC. 4 April 2007. Picture.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/panyc/amos.shtml
Titus, Catherine Wilcox. “The Perils and Pleasures of Double Consciousness: Strategies
of Impersonation in the Artwork of Emma Amos and Sherrie Levine.” Southeastern College Art Conference Review. 4 April 2007. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;jsessionid=GPY3HOFDVDUF1QA3DILSFGGADUNFMIV0

The "Stenographic Figure" is a stenographer... whodathunk?

Jackson Pollock’s Stenographic Figure is confusing. All you have to do is take one look at it. So it comes as no surprise to me that there has been ongoing debate about what is even portrayed in the painting let alone what the content may mean. Since the painting was unveiled in 1943 there have been so many theories about the number of figures, the position of the figures, the significance of all the numerical scribblings… pretty much there’s a controversy about anything there could be.

In the article “The Artist in the Analyst” from American Art, the author Sue Taylor, spends the first section detailing many of the arguments of the most prominent art critiques and how they’ve influenced one another. The first sentence of the second section is Taylor’s actual thesis where she details what she herself will be arguing and then how she’s going to refute the arguments of the more prominent and historically important art critiques that she is building on. The thesis reads thus: “Though Lanhorne's reading of Stenographic Figure remains problematic, I believe she is correct in asserting that the painting contains a pair of figures, male and female; I am also convinced that the numbers, letters, and other notations Pollock deploys across the surface of the canvas carry a greater significance than the merely visual interest Rubin ascribes to them.” After reading through the five pages of introductory material that essentially summarized all scholarly analysis of Stenographic Figure to date, I felt it would be helpful to actually put the author’s thesis in her own words. Taylor then launches into a long and in depth examination of two of Pollock’s works (Stenographic Figure and Male and Female) from a Jungian point of view. She quotes extensively from the notes and studies that his two psychoanalysts (both of whom were disciples of the Jungian philosophy) left of him, to show what she believes to be the correct reading of the symbols and shapes as a female stenographer and a man giving dictation. This compelling evidence from Pollock’s own life that she supplies in support of her argument makes it a believable interpretation of a painting that is otherwise one confused jumble of color, shape, and scribbles. (The “Jungian Philosophy,” by the way, believes in the collective unconscious of humanity and the extreme importance of both conscious and unconscious symbols). She also quotes from Pollock’s own scribblings on his influences and the art shows and museums that he was frequenting at the time to glean what she can from the themes and subject matter of the paintings that he was viewing. I enjoyed that Pollock was described as an “extremely inhibited patient” who was nearly impossible to work with and who hardly ever talked or helped the psychoanalyst. He created both paintings when he was just coming out of his years of being analyzed and had Jungian gobbledy-gook exploding out of his ears.

The interesting thing about the contradictory “article” that I’ve found to contrast with Taylor’s interpretations is that it directly references Taylor. It is actually in a section on “art history” one someone’s personal website which makes it a far from credible source given that the people who own and run the site are just your everyday bumpkin with a general interest in the subject, who happens to have taken one or two classes on art history. What is promising about their website is that it has an extensive bibliography to accompany their otherwise amateur articles giving the impression that perhaps they wrote these miniature essays for class. The argument given as to the interpretation of stenographic figure is a compelling one. Whoever on earth has written this article claims that to give a strict reading of Stenographic Figure according to a Jungian model would leave at issue the fact that many of the symbols in the painting were consciously created by Pollock. They claim that the true meaning behind the symbols in Pollock’s painting is that you cannot read too deeply into the symbols. Personally, I find this interpretation so witty that it’s easy to be won over by it, simply from the sheer brazenness attributed to Pollock by creating such an ambiguous painting and allowing art critiques to puzzle over it for decades. Sheer genius.