Delaware Art Museum: 19th Century American Gallery

Moving clockwise from the first gallery with colonial era portraits, you enter a room with perhaps 8 medium to larger works and a two "sculptures".  Probably, the most recognizable artist is Frederick Edwin Church with one of his voluptuous South American landscapes full of details and Hudson School artist surprises.  I think the modern popularity of I Spy books for children can find it's lineage all the way back to artists like Church.  Another gem is a portrait of Port Louis, the capitol of the island of Mauritius. No fault if you have no idea where Mauritius is (the middle of the Indian Ocean!), I have a personal connection.  For many years I taught with a gifted colleague whose parents were born on Mauritius and has many family members who still call this little drop of paradise home.

I've shared these with you before after previous visits.  This time let's look as a couple of other works found here, shall we?

The first is a work by John Rogers (1824-1904) called "Taking the Oath and Drawing Rations" from 1865.  It is a plaster cast over painted.  I think these sort of things were a poor man's entree into own a piece of "art".  My grandmother had one of a domestic scene before a hearth painted bronze.  I remember being fascinated by it.  Somewhere between her move from Maryland to my parents home in Michigan, it was lost.  I wonder if my father sold it.  I was away at college, and he had no appreciation for such things... but I digress.

The accompanying placard reads: The earliest catalogue [sic] of Rogers' work, published in 1866, described the subject of this statuette: "A Southern lady, with her little boy, compelled by hunger, is reluctantly taking the of allegiance from a Union officer, in order to draw rations."  With the Civil War just ended and the course of Reconstruction under debate, the theme was timely and the sculpture warmly received.

Where the hell do you even begin?  Only the quoted section comes from the 1866 document, the rest was the curator's interpretation.  I'm sure the work was warmly received.  She's destitute, well not according to her dress, but she is hungry, right?  And what's up with young black boy?  He's clearly the impoverished one with his torn clothes, yet he's holding the basket.  Is he still enslaved to the white lady, dependent upon her?  Or is he there to help the union soldier distribute rations?  And is this ambiguity meant to appeal to both sides?  A sort of savvy marketing ploy on the part of the artist.  A master's thesis could be written on this little plaster cast sitting in the corner of this gallery in this little regional art museum in the unassuming city of Wilmington, Delaware.  If you don't find art museums interesting, it's really on you, dude.

The second work I've chosen to highlight is by Robert Walter Weir (1803-1889), and I'll be honest with you, I don't think I've ever seen anything else this artist has ever done.  Yet, it is technically a beautifully executed painting in the genre of history paintings.  An artist I need to do more research on.
The painting is titled "Indian Captives, Massachusetts, 1650" and yes, we've just waded in another quagmire!  But let us remember, that art is not the problem.  Art is a window to a conversation about the problem, a marker, a moment in time, and catalyst for understanding, revelation, and growth.  That was my PC shpiel!  I believe it, I do.  But let begin with what's wrong.

And here we again look to the placard's description: Despite its evocative title, "Indian Captives, Massachusetts, 1650," has not been connected to a specific historic event.  The date of 1650 situates the scene within a time of unrest in New England between English, French, and Dutch settlers and Native American tribes.  During armed conflicts in this era, hundreds of Indians were taken captive and sold into slavery.  In addition, Anglo-European settlers were abducted, and tales of captivity were widely published.  The body language in this painting may indicate a negotiation in progress between the standing figure and the seated, but armed, man.

Okay.  Well, there's a lot of balance there.  But let's be honest, this NEVER HAPPENED.  It is a well orchestrated fiction meant to create a sense of "it was bad, but not that bad."   And "Europeans had the upper hand, but we weren't domineering, and we were certainly sympathetic."  As long as we keep this in mind, we are ready to look at the particulars conveyed by the artist.  Oh!  And one other curious depiction--the Native American.  It's like a white Jesus.  The guy could have come out of central casting--seems like the image was created in the mind of the artist because he'd never met a Native American.  He's not alone.  This is how stereotypes are created and perpetuated.  We all do it.

Yet, no matter how much picking away at the details of the painting we choose to make, and no matter how much grace we decide to convey upon the attempts to portray the Native Americans are dignified, human, even noble--the artist got one thing right.

Held somewhat inconspicuously in the hand of the Anglo-European solder is a key.  It's not lost on the form of the Native American--he's clearly looking at it, too.  Europeans hold the key to the survival of his people.  They held it then, and we still hold it today.

Pity the folk who find art museums boring.  They just don't look.