Can art amend history? | Titus Kaphar 

cap. History is not always told by the winners perspective. Clearly after the south lost the civil war, they quickly made changes in education to fit the agenda of the south at the time. So no history is not always told from the winners perspective.

Ah yes. Definitely not erasing.

Ah yes. Definitely not erasing.

They watched. They just didn't like what they saw.

painting was not made for TV ! and titus kaphar is making master pieces!

you seem smart lmao, i have hw abt this but idk what it means to amend art history. please help :(

@Kevin ひ I think what I was meaning was to broaden our perceived knowledge of Art History by viewing it through different "gazes." For example, let's look at 'the Bering Strait Landbridge Theory'. Most people still think that this was THE migratory path Indigenous Peoples took because the theory is so well-known. Sometimes, for reasons I can only fathom, Western Science (as with Western Art) slowly this theory has been whittled down by each of the older & older ages of Human remains living in villages thousands of miles from the Landbridge site. The science & scientists even extended the time period one could've accessed the frozen 'bridge' thousands of years past what the scientific consensus was. Turning a scientific theory into scientific dogma. Meanwhile, Indigenous peoples across the world who've lived in the same area for millennia & managed the land for long enough to begin to gain knowledge about the land. Most Indigenous people Knowledge is passed down, but not in a constant stream like in the Western World. It's only starting to be studied in academia to help those whose Scientific Knowledge is exclusively Western-based. Yes, the Enlightenment Era brought reason & rational thought, but it was still the seventeenth century so there's a whole lot of Biblical fiction is built into Western Scientific Knowledge. As an example, Western Science still views man's existence in "the wild" as always a net negative. This is where religious dogma is inserted into the knowledge. You see, the Bible says that God created the earth for humans & therefore humans are viewed outside or above the natural world. The circle of life that all other fauna & Flora experience excludes us, but a little hubris comes from learning through Indigenous knowledge that we are most certainly a part of the web of life & our existence can & does include positive outcomes. If not for people willing to admit that Western Civilization isn't superior to others gained knowledge. Looking through a different lens can help better interpret pre-language periods of art! I'm thinking about Lascaux's Cave Paintings, specifically the scene of a bison herd & interpreting their portrayal. For a long time, the upside-down bison were interpreted as dead. Until a person familiar with herds of various cattle pointed out that bison take dirt baths like Chinchilla. There are always new ways of understanding & in a way amend history.

@@6ndr3s lol im working on that right now

Goodatthis it's like some people didn't listen to the talk at all, and was just angry about the title. Glad you're highlighting his point for the comment section

Call it what ever you want but if you change depictions of history your are infact erasing history.

Again it's not changing the depiction of history, it's about seeing history from a different perspective...

Why then did he ERASE all the others in the picture

@@nandersenaustin He's not painting over the original Hals painting, it's a copy. He created a new interpretation of the older work to add a new way of seeing the same history.

There were no black people in Europe at the time of that painting - including blacks is to erase history of white Europe.

White people didn't like to portray non-white people, which is why native american culture is being forgotten, for one. Also, most African Americans have little to no understanding of the African culture they came from. That's the difference.

How much Africa art depicts white people ?

RUIN T there is hardly a single youtube channel with over 3 million subscribers with a video that has 0 dislikes. People can have different opinions.

John Lacy even though I disagree to certain extent, great comment nonetheless

pauline you nailed it, Pauline. Thoughtful comment by Jon; but he is going off on his own idea- and I understand it, but you have listened to Titus and you are replying thougtlhtfully acknowledging that you understand his Ted talk. Perfect.

He demonstrated the destruction, just for drama then, since it went against his message

but isn't that entire flawed perspective the key takeaway from studying that history through art? "black people in American art depicted like the one you see on the screen, behind the white people, a step away from falling into the greenery in the background, invisible, unheard" if all of sudden we bring the black person to the foreground, and start caring about "his hopes and dreams", isn't that altering/erasing the history? if the black are no longer seen as in the background in paintings from that time, doesn't that message, that lesson we should learn from our past flaws, fail to get through?

@@fluffy695 Nope, bringing that black subject to the foreground isn't erasing history since it's merely adding on to history, adding a new perspective. There's an infinite space for any type of art to exist. It will be each individuals and societies choice on whether or not to remove that light or importance to one, the other, or both.

Racist. People are racist. It's not hard to understand...

Dayne Smith I’m thinking that the people that disliked hit thinks The speaker Titis is another guy who is talking about race issues and they don’t like race issue related stuff so they disliked not hearing his artistic point.

@@dayne3smith110 He's black

Yeah you see the "race card" they say we like to pull out, doesn't exist. People are just racist. Period

History is biased.

If we'll stuck looking in the past we'll never see the future.

денис дроздов no the past is the only hint of what the future will be like.

денис дроздов learn from the past and if it's holding you back stop looking at it.

anyone got anymore proverbs?

Ann Nguyen if a fish crosses a forest it doesn't make a sound...

EANTY Crown exactly

Goodatthis, my statement is short and i see how it can lead to missunderstanding, so let me elaborate a bit. what i meant is not that the talk demands that we change our records, but rather that it worries me that, to use his own words, "focusing" on the past in this way can lead us to normalize certain ways to act. In other words if we focus on the opressed people of the past, we forget about what is in my opinion the most important, the actions of the opressors. And as a result of that we can have a society that tries to compensate for past offenses but looses focus for the future. but you are right, reading it now its clear how my original comment in imprecise

"I don't want you to think that this is about eradication. It's not...What I want to show you, is to shift your gaze. Just momantarily... We can't erase this history. It's real. We have to know it...I want to make sculptures that are honest."

and i agree that its not about forgetting the events, but it is about focusing on only one side of them, that can have as a ressult that we forget how and why things happened the way they did, as i said in my other comment

Yeah it's still bullshit though. As someone who actually studied history I can tell you that you *have* to focus. History is fundamentally still just a story. A massive story based on facts and evidence, but still just a story and when telling a story there will *inevitably* be parts you leave out or skip or overlook. That is just how the world works. And really, we are in no way close to forgetting the actions of the oppressors. How could we? They, by their nature, shape the narrative. We have however for centuries forgotten to tell the story from the view of the oppressed. Especially when the oppressed have been of a different skin colour. And not telling their story, allowing misconception and dehumanizing myths to linger, is fatal to a society. History shapes our worldview, it shapes how we perceive humanity and ourselves. Do you really want that worldview to be shaped by racism? Do you really want racists to tell our story? To define our identity? Without reflection? It’s important we see things from different perspectives, realize that what we consider normal or natural, doesn't necessarily have to be that way. History is an opportunity to learn from our mistakes. That is, if we manage to see past the ones telling the story and also see the story of the people who didn’t get a voice. And trust me, that will make for far more accurate and nuanced story telling then just focusing on the oppressors. It will make us all better people to remember that those we consider to be just a footnote, are also human and have their own story to tell.

Picard Guy Your not the type of person I'm trying to speak to here. You didn't "jump", you watched the video and made a decision based on your conclusion.

You're assuming if they actually listen they will accept the premise. Maybe they listened and just dont agree ?

same

you 'respect' the history that you're used to, and resent the idea of hearing about parts of history that make you wildly uncomfortable. If you really understood his point, you would see his idea as a way to build up as opposed to tearing down.

he changed the painting for the sake of art & perspective. the original painting still exists as it always did, but he painted the black man in the painting in a more realistic & respectful manner rather than the way he originally is shown in the artwork as more of a caricature. he's literally just trying to emphasize the point that enslaved people were always just human beings with life & experiences & hopes & dreams. they are human beings. & you can have your paintings that are depicting slaves in a belittling & mocking way, because they had no respect & they didn't even see them as people. jesus christ, you people who are so proud of your history as slave owners are so goddamn dense that you can't even handle when someone tells you that slaves were HUMANS who deserve HUMAN respect. it's not interesting that white slave owners treated their slaves like objects. it's fucking disgusting. there's nothing to be learned from that. we need to remember the people they treated like garbage & have some goddamn sympathy. people have died not knowing a single ounce of freedom that we know today

HER-ITAGE

BUT-TOCKS

IIIII47IIIII I did not say I agree with him. I a merely an observer of his own art and expressions. I like his boldness and although I don't agree with his view I would still prefer a black colour instead of a white one. That is my remark as an observer.

IIIII47IIIII but probably white is a better colour to reveal his discontent with this sort of art. So possibly white was chosen because it made his anger more present. Interesting

Paulo Monteiro all you are attempting to do is regurgitate what you learned in college. You, sir, seem to struggle manifesting an original opinion.

Drevial Zerathustra by background is in engineering. I am a layman in art as you probably noticed. You have a cool name BTW! ;)

Paulo Monteiro Black may have been bolder but wouldn't have carried the subtext associated with whiteness. He was literally whitewashing the white figures, a reversal of what the original painting is doing by casting a black figure into shaded obscurity beside the wealthy whites and the dark tree line. The difference is that his whitewashing tries to be transparent. He thus "amends" the art with this technique because it calls attention to historic injustices. What's so uncomfortable about the whole thing is imagining him doing that to the original painting. Instead he stages his point with a recreation, combining fine art and performance art. So it's a wonderful commentary on the artistic process, art's relationship to its period, how to respond to art that doesn't age well, etc.

I totally want to know more about the original painting now.

Don't fool yourself, this painting was about THE WHITE PEOPLE. No racism commentary, there was no such term. The black boy was as the gold necklace, something they owned and were showing off in their family portrait. From the museum, "Here, the couple are holding hands-an allusion to faithfulness as one of the virtues of marriage-while the dog at the girl’s side symbolises loyalty." As Mr. Kaphar said, you will find more info on the lace than a mention of the child's role in this photo.

It's already distorted. The majority of art representing the past was made by racists depicting their values. POC art was actually often disposed of, leaving only stolen paintings to exist. What he means by "alter" is not changing old works, just not displaying them in public parks, incorporating modern pieces that show our values today.

​@@stayfuckingpathetic but if we don't display the old works, aren't we erasing that history whereas we could've used it as a caveat? just like how we don't just discard 'false science' like the earth is flat but rather use it as evidence for our flawed methodology of research. I think we should display these works as they are to show that the traditional art history perspective is biased.

@@stayfuckingpathetic that is a stretch to call someone a racist that are dead and we never met them in person. Its not our modern role to erase, or hide history, but to teach it.

@@retrophyx It's a stretch? It's this easy to look a piece of art, someone's background, the laws at the time, the culture, and deem racist. Why are you trying so hard to hide what you preach to depict. Never did I say erase, stop putting words in my mouth and reread my comment

@@stayfuckingpathetic yes its a huge stretch. you're glossing over human history as racists based on your emotions. you cant just gloss over history with a large gloss over, you have to look at case by case examples. but even then you want to focus on the points you want to make which is the dramatic narrative over the positive narrative. I bet you don't think all poc art is suffering do you? I bet you know that theres more than one side you're making but you only want to focus on racisit examples. also i didnt accuse you of erasing. i simply stated my point.

Disrespectful to the artist? Most of these artists are racist, who tf cares about disrespecting them. And you completely missed his point. He covered them with paint that turns transparent, it wasn't even his piece, just a replica. SO dumb..