Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Glenn Beckwatch: The Comedy Tour | Split Dick »

Monday, April 13, 2009

Visual Art Titus Kaphar, Pushing His Own Damn Boat

Posted by Jen Graves on Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Titus Kaphar is a black artist who doctors history paintings so they're not so damn racist anymore. He takes this, for instance,

and turns it into this.

The original Thomas Eakins oil painting, Rail Shooting on the Delaware from 1876, is part of the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: American Art from the Yale University Art Gallery exhibition visiting Seattle Art Museum right now. (It's often cited as an example of a good, relatively equitable relationship between a black man and a white man, which Kaphar finds impossible to fathom.)

Kaphar made his response, Push Yuh Own Damn Boat, especially for the occasion of his simultaneous show down the hall at SAM.

The frisson of the direct response is powerfully specific, and its presence in the museum at the same time as the Yale show cracks open some of the under-explored issues in the history exhibition simply by inserting the doubt of an alternative perspective. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is richer because it shares a space with Kaphar, the history-painting explorer.

Kaphar is the first recipient of SAM's biennial Gwendolyn Knight Lawrence and Jacob Lawrence Fellowship, which is devoted to supporting black artists.

But it would be a mistake to see his work as limited to the context of race. Every cut he makes into one of his paintings—copies and interpretations of old European and American paintings—is different. He might cut out a woman to release her from the man she's standing next to; he might slice away a warrior and lay him on a pedestal in order to give the man some deserved rest; he might turn some figures toward the wall and others out into the room in order to engage with the basic questions of modernism in painting. He also uses tar to redact entire areas of a painting.

^{"I still don't know how it ended like this, but it began when one of the older women called her blackness into question" (2007)}

How does Kaphar think about his own work, and how does he feel about being celebrated as a black artist? The entire podcast is here, or you can just listen to the first few minutes.

Comments (29) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

"being black" is like some kind of fucking religion for lots of black people

Posted by black this black that black everything on April 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Well, it is kind of part of their PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL BEING. You can't exactly get much closer to something than that.

Anyhow...I was at the SAM last weekend and saw his exhibit. I found some of the paintings pretty interesting and the revisions were excellently done in some of the cases, particularly the one with the boat and the oar. The explanations of the paintings were pretty crucial for myself, though, not knowing much about the original works.

Posted by Arsenic7 on April 13, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I found the tar paintings almost as interesting as the bits of historical deconstruction. I guess they are histoorical in a sense - of finding an alternative medium that rivals layered oil paints when it come to rendering black faces. But they are also very direct and compelling just as portraits.

Posted by kinaidos on April 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM

One of the tar paintings, of 4 woman in fine dress and of mixed race but varying complexions, was pretty interesting. The tarred out woman apparently was able to pass for white and had rejected her family...if I remember correctly.

Posted by Arsenic7 on April 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM

ummm... the angle of the black guy changes the meaning how?

Posted by Not getting it probably means I'm a bigot on April 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM

@ 5 - I think it means the black guy is about to attack the white guy from behind. Therefore, somehow, it is not racist, at least to white seattle liberals.

Posted by makes too much sense on April 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Thinking you'll be accused of being a bigot for not getting it is actually the thing that makes you a bigot. In case you were in need of knowing the precise nature of the what distinguishes you as a bigot.

Posted by elenchos on April 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM

All hail elenchos, professional seattle blog blowhard!

It knows if you are a bigot or not due to its deep and unimpeachable understanding of human nature.

Posted by elenchos is an "it" on April 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM

hey elenchos, pussy, you pussy, pussy pussy yer a pussy puss pussy poo poo pussy!

Posted by good liberal elenchos loves the word pussy so I will oblige on April 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Wow, this thread has become weird fast. I thought this was obvious, but basically my take on it is that the black guy picking up his stick has two possible meanings in terms of straight-up narrative. One is that he's simply not rowing anymore. Stick out of water. Do your own rowing. The other is that he could be meditating an attack on the white guy. On another level, he has also been literally lifted out of his labor by the physical cutting, and the white on the wall behind him is a white shadow of slavery, a reverse-shadow.

Posted by Jen Graves on April 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM

The paintings aren't just about making the original painting less racist. They are about experimenting and playing with the racial tone of the paintings.

I actually liked the rowboat painting because he changed something that was very straight forward, a black servant rowing for a white man in his boat, into something ambiguous. He could very well still be rowing the boat, or he could be ready to attack, or perhaps he's just thinking about how much he resents the man in front of him, or something else.

Posted by Arsenic7 on April 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM

How racist for that white man to employ that black man! He should have hired a white guy instead!

Posted by Jobs are Racist on April 13, 2009 at 4:26 PM

What a contrarian little prick you are.

Posted by Arsenic7 on April 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Wow the racist stupidity just drips in this thread.

Mr Kaphar's work fills an important space in the realm of the visual arts. In essence he's taking on the role of an artistic time traveler and through his interpretations of works from long ago he's seeking to give a voice to those who didn't have one in those times. It's like now they're telling their own stories or their aspirations. One of my favorites is his reconfiguration of Jean Baptiste Belley in which he seeks to free a slave boy from another painting (James Drummond, 2nd titular Duke of Perth) and gives him back his humanity by giving him an image (Belley) that he can truly both aspire to and be proud of. Thank you Mr Kaphar.

Posted by Loveschild on April 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM

thank you for writing this article
seriously thank you.
-grace

Posted by grace on April 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM

This artist has it all wrong. These two men are obviously in an interracial gay relationship. Leave them alone!!!

Posted by just 2 guys off in a boat on April 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Thanks for calling my attention to this artist, Jen. His work reminds me a little of Kara Walker's, but in many ways more interesting.

Posted by D in Boston on April 13, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Thirty years ago this work might have been interesting.

Posted by dale on April 13, 2009 at 5:54 PM

I don't get how the reworked painting made this better. It just looks like he's getting ready to konk the guy over the head w/ that stick. And then if I were black, I'd be like "hey thanks for making us all out to be violent assholes." Befuddling.

Posted by Art is hard on April 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

@10 one of my guesses was that the new position is less "lazy" and more aggressive, so i guess we're on the same tack.

elenchos, i already knew i was a bigot - so are you, so is mudede, so is everybody.

Posted by Not getting it means I'm a bigot on April 13, 2009 at 6:50 PM

I just want to point out that Loveschild's entire contribution to this thread thus far has been pleasant and, indeed, even informative.

Carry on.

Posted by Big Sven on April 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM

@21: The fact that Loveschild likes the artist and can speak cogently on the subject almost makes me change my mind about wanting to see the exhibit.

Posted by Aislinn on April 13, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Hm.

It appears I've made someone very, very angry. Gotten far under their skin, as it were. When I leave and am doing various tasks and enjoying this or that entertainment, someone is still here, still thinking about me. They're hard at work on Slog, feeding their obsession with me. What a world.

Posted by elenchos on April 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM

As much as you post, I really doubt you go that many places.

Posted by rutabaga pie on April 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM

elenchos is a hipster

Posted by ha ha you are a hipster! on April 14, 2009 at 7:53 AM

What a load of crap.
The stuff that passes for art gags.
My kid in kindergarten take a pair of sissors and cuts pictures from magazines and does the same thing.

Posted by you can't spell Fart without art on April 14, 2009 at 8:31 AM

"Art" that only a wimpy white-guilt Seattle liberal or a professional-complainer "being black is my religion" whiny black person could like.

Posted by you suck, kill yourself on April 14, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Is my interpretation too childlike? I seriously thought he was just in the process of climbing out of the painting. Literally, "'Push yuh own damn boat;' here's your stick, see ya, peace out, bye."

Posted by delurked on April 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I don't see any difference in the paintings that would make me say anything other than, "Huh? WTF is this supposed to mean?" Maybe it's just something that doesn't translate well to 3" X 5" reproduction on the SLOG.

Posted by ...you pro'bly hadda be there, eh... on April 15, 2009 at 11:39 PM