About.......Contact.......Society.....................

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Are Black Americans Serious About Separation?

I think not. I think they just want the best of all worlds: a place which they can call their country, but which will have the perennial benefits of a white America. But they will keep rumbling on, making all kinds of demands, using a stealthy weapon of discrimination to get their way, since to be racist (well, to be called racist) is now one of the deadly sins.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting that the standards for art remain Western. We have tried Chinioserie, Japonism, Orientalism, Primitivism, and many more non-Western "inlfluences" on Western art. I put influences in quotes because the trajectory is more Western art picking up styles from the non-Western world and applying it in a new way to Western art.

Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife writes about the celebration of African-American History Month here:
As the annual observance of African-American History Month comes to a close, it is worth noting one of the most compelling reasons why African-Americans, or blacks, should have their own nation in North America: Blacks view themselves as a separate nation — a nation with its own distinctive history, its own heroes, its own literature, its own folklore, its own popular culture.

There is no Irish-American History Month, Italian-American History Month or German-American History Month. There is no White History Month. The Irish, the Italians and the Germans are not clamoring for these observances. That’s because they do not view themselves as separate to the same extent. They are not a separate nation. Look at the uniformity with which blacks approach politics. Almost all blacks vote the same way. No group in America has such a strong collective identity.
Here are her posts and the ensuing discussions:
- A Black Nation in America
- A Healthy Black Nationalism and its Benefits for Blacks

I went to the African-American History Month website that Laura directed us to, and looked up the link provided for African-American artists' collections at the National Gallery of Art. As I went through the collections' highlights, it became clear that these were works which emulated, if not mimicked, Western art standards, and even the "black" references could not disguise these origins.

The one that stood out for me was the African Nude by James Lesesne Wells. It was clearly after Henri Matisse's odalisques (of which there are dozens), which Matisse got from Ingres' Grande Odalisque, which itself was influenced by several centuries of Western artists, as well as Greek and Roman art. The leaf-like shapes in the background are also from Matisse's well-known leaf-like cut-outs he did much later in life when he could no longer paint.

Other resemblences are the "flattened surface" which Matisse explored and experimented with throughout his life: "Matisse used his curvilinear forms and bold decorative patterns to emphasize the flatness of the canvas surface." [Source]

Matisse worked with various print-making techniques, partly to get this "flattened surface" that he finally perfected with his cut-outs.

And Wells' African Nude is a the printing technique linocut, which is a variation of a woodcut.


James Lesesne Wells
American, 1902 - 1993
African Nude, 1980
Color linocut on Japan paper


The National Gallery of Art, where this painting is exhibited, says this about Wells:
James Lesesne Wells was born in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1902 and received BS and MS degrees from Columbia University, New York. He had a long career in printmaking, first participating in the Federal Arts Project, which encouraged the development of the art in the United States during the Great Depression, and then teaching at Howard University in Washington, DC, for almost four decades. Wells was active in the civil rights movement and often depicted the struggles of African-Americans in his work. African Nude, which Wells created late in life, reflects his printmaking skill, interest in traditional African aesthetics, and commitment to representing African-American history and experiences.
And this about his African Nude:
The woman in African Nude, wearing only a large necklace, reclines on an overstuffed settee. Her alluring position is similar to the pose found in classic images of odalisques—female slaves in the Ottoman Empire whose identities became sexualized and popularized during the nineteenth century. Yet unlike the seductive odalisque seen in Western art, whose gaze challenges by staring directly at the viewer, the nude in Wells' work, with eyes downcast, appears unhappily submissive and ill at ease amidst the oversize lush plants and gala colors of the background. The viewer is thus left unsettled, as if unwelcome despite the outwardly inviting scene.
I cannot leave this biography without commenting on the National Gallery of Art's description of African Nude.

I like the modesty with which Wells portrayed his image. But I think it is as much a commentary on modesty as on submissiveness. This leads me to the question: "Why is this black nude 'modest' while the Arab or white odalisques are so confident? Is Wells telling us not of submission but of the oppression of blacks? As is often the case with black American art, the language revolves around race conflict, and blacks always come out "losing."

Here is a 1990 New York Times article where the commentary says something similar to my point above, and written with the usual "aggrieved blacks" angle.

Below are odalisques by Matisse and Ingres.


Henri Matisse
Odalisque à la culotte rouge, 1924-1925
Oil Painting
50 x 61 cm
Musée de l'Orangerie, Paris



Henri Matisse
French, 1869–1954
Reclining Odalisque, 1926
Oil on canvas
15 1/8 x 21 5/8 in.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York



Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
French, 1780 - 1867
La Grande Odalisque, 1814
Oil on canvas
91 x 162 cm
Louvre, Paris


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, all decisions, especially in the media world, count. Why did the website African-American History Month chose to use a .gov as its domain (http://www.africanamericanhistorymonth.gov), rather than the much more common .com?

As with the politicized black artists, everything is race-relations with black Americans, i.e. the politics of the oppressed.

The domain name .gov is:
derived from government, indicating its restricted use by government entities in the United States. The gov domain is administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), an independent agency of the United States federal government. [Source]
As Laura wrote:
There is no Irish-American History Month, Italian-American History Month or German-American History Month. There is no White History Month. The Irish, the Italians and the Germans are not clamoring for these observances. That’s because they do not view themselves as separate to the same extent. They are not a separate nation. Look at the uniformity with which blacks approach politics. Almost all blacks vote the same way. No group in America has such a strong collective identity.
And she asks:
Can Americans ever amicably come to the conclusion that blacks should have their own nation and make this happen in a peaceable way?
It seems that blacks have already decided, no matter what everyone else thinks, or does. And I saw it in the simple suffix to the website African-American History Month, which is used for website's address andtitled, as though the whole of black American life is subsumed by that one month of "identity."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat