In Donald Trump’s Black History Month remarks — so rambling that McSweeney’s published them unedited as humor — the President seemed to have an only vague idea of Frederick Douglass as a person. “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed,” he said, suggesting that he thought Douglass, who died in 1895, may still be alive. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, when asked for clarification on this comment, said: “Well I think there was contributions. I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made and I think that through a lot of the actions and statements that he is going to make, I think that the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more.”
So the administration’s grasp of abolitionist history is hazy at best. Yet in a country with an elected leader who is so obsessed with his self-image as portrayed by media (see the unnecessarily drawn out denialist preening about his inauguration crowd photographs), considering Douglass’s thoughts on the public perception of images and the truth of photography are as relevant as ever. As explored in the current exhibition Picturing Frederick Douglass: The Most Photographed American of the 19th Century at the Museum of African American History in Boston, which follows the 2015 book Picturing Frederick Douglass: An Illustrated Biography of the Nineteenth Century’s Most Photographed American, Douglass was photographed in the 1800s more than any other American. There are 160 known photographs of Douglass, from just after he escaped from slavery in Maryland in 1838, to his death bed in 1895. (Abraham Lincoln, in comparison, has 126 known photographs.)
“The humblest servant girl may now possess a picture of herself such as the wealth of kings could not purchase 50 years ago,” Douglass once noted. Why was photography so important to Douglass, that he sat for studio portrait after studio portrait when the technology was still so new? And each image, whether daguerreotype or ambrotype, as the medium progressed, was almost identical: Douglass in a suit with a white collar, eyes facing the camera, rarely smiling, with none of the zany Victorian backdrops and tricks that were popular at the time. Abigail Cain wrote for Artsy last week that with every photograph “he could present America with an additional image of blackness that contradicted the prevailing racist stereotypes.”
In other words, he would not be the caricature of a black man that pervaded American visual culture, with its 19th-century minstrels and “happy slaves.” Despite his belief that the camera could inspire a public recognition of his humanity, with its “moral and social influence,” he also understood photography’s objectivity, writing about it far earlier than many theorists. He stated, “Negroes can never have impartial portraits at the hands of white artists. It seems to us next to impossible for white men to take likenesses of black men, without most grossly exaggerating their distinctive features.”
The photographs of Douglass remain striking, with his solemn, open eyes, later framed by graying and then white hair. Douglass was an incredible orator and author; here, in these images, is a quiet defiance that speaks as loud as his words.
As much as I appreciate the collective’s culture jamming initiatives, I don’t know that their putative premise ever bears meaningful fruit.
The banana’s dominance and ubiquity has had serious and far-reaching implications for the region, engendering exploitative labor systems, climate change, and migration.
The first lecture is on the relationship between early portrait photography and diverse notions of US identity during the Gilded Age. Register to attend on January 25.
Charles Dellheim’s study tells the tale of a small group of Jewish art dealers and collectors who played a key role in the changing art world of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The 18-month fellowship aims to provide artists with “as much access as possible” to the club’s facilities and networks “at a time and place convenient to artists.”
Part of the university’s Artists on the Future series pairing renowned artists with cultural thought leaders, this online event is free and open to the public.
A coalition of investors raised funds to purchase the film’s storyboard and announced they would “make the book public.”
A new project, “Emoji to Scale,” orders every mini-object by their real-world dimensions.
Although Khedoori does not depict living beings, their presence is evoked in the traces they leave behind.
The Bronx Museum’s fifth biennial continues to focus its programming on individual identity, eliding the ever-divergent interests of the art market and local communities.
While it may be strange to think of food insecurity as a basis for art, the works in Food Justice reveal barriers and injustices in food access.