Let's not forget; history as we know it is history told from the 'winners' perspective. He's not calling for destruction of history, he's asking for all of history. The uncomfortable and the painful, the beautiful and forgotten, all of it.
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.
"The editor cuts a line and someone's face fades; the editor says two hundred words or less, and suddenly a whole family goes missing. The spotlight isn't about the light, it's how it makes everything around it dark" - Dylan Garity This is what Kaphar is saying. He's not saying erase history. He's saying parts of it have been neglected and purposefully removed. It's time to shift the focus. Give another perspective some time in the light.
I just had to watch this talk for a class at my college and I thought I'd provide my insight on it. Kaphar's main point is that we need to not just look at the big picture of art and history but also the small details of it. He is saying that it's important to focus on the parts of history that were forgotten and/or removed. Kaphar is challenging society to change our focus using our ability as visual learners to critically think about the history of art and how we can amend it. He says "Painting is a language" in the sense that there are reasons and meanings to the why and how a painting was made. By looking at a painting's visual elements and form, we can start to see how the painting was made and what the artist was trying to tell us. In this TED Talk, Kaphar asks us to rearrange our focus, just for a little bit, to the smaller details of history in the paintings and images we see. The small details and figures in a painting matter just as much as the bigger picture. For if there were no details, then the painting would have very little meaning. This talk will definitely help me in finding those details in an image, big or small. It will help me critically think about the form, elements, and semiotics of a painting to successfully analyze and interpret what the artist was trying to say.
This is such an underrated, amazing Ted Talk and so many of the people who disliked the video and are in the comments leaving dense comments didn't even watch it! So annoying!
For those that might no have watched the entire video as the though it looked like he was arguing to change history to make it more fair, that actually would be the complete opposite of his argument. He doesn't want to change the art to hide what was old, but add some kind of new art tell help explain the history behind the original art so one could understand why that art is like that.
This speaks my truth!!! As a Native Artist, I've experienced the same hand-wringing from reticent Professors who didn't want to "waste time" on subjects they felt were likely to be controversial and would be meet with broad debate and divisive arguments rooted in preconceived notions. So, instead of discussing the topics that could've been life changing to a minority (of minorities) and offer a chance to better understand our history, the subject might make the majority feel uncomfortable so we ended up only discussing art through the Western World view. That myopic world view proliferates distorted, often completely false narratives of our history. Western Civilization's view shouldn't dominate art history or any other history. This is why race relations are still dysfunctional and are noticeable getting worse. I truly don't see any change happening until Americans have the courage to acknowledge and reckon with the ugly sides of of our history. American Exceptionalism is a lie we tell ourselves and our children for the sole purpose of not having to think about the realities of those who are still living with the effects of our truthful history. That way of thinking is untenable for those of us that are tired of dealing with those effects and view it as another burden we have to deal with to placate those who can't handle the truth. This also highlights the "Postcolonial Gaze" theory that has been a major part of better understanding my ancestry and seeing it through our eyes for a change. It illustrates how Western Civilization has always felt that those not of Western Civilization to be beneath them in some ways, but Postcolonial Gaze theory makes it clear that what they viewed as beneath them was actually just different cultural traditions and norms. I only wish I didn't have to spend my life learning these things on my own.
@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.
Since many people clearly did not watch the video, I'll give you the most important excerpt from the transcript: "What I'm trying to do, what I'm trying to show you, is how to shift your gaze just slightly, just momentarily, just momentarily, to ask yourself the question, why do some have to walk? What is the impact of these kinds of sculptures at museums? What is the impact of these kinds of paintings on some of our most vulnerable in society, seeing these kinds of depictions of themselves all the time? I'm not saying erase it. We can't erase this history. It's real. We have to know it. (...) You remember old-school cameras, where when you took a picture, you actually had to focus. Right? You'd put the camera up, and if I wanted you in focus, I would move the lens a little to the left and you would come forward. I could move the lens a little to the right, and you would go back and the folks in the background would come out. I'm just trying to do that here. I'm trying to give you that opportunity. I'm trying to answer that question that my son had. I want to make paintings, I want to make sculptures that are honest, that wrestle with the struggles of our past but speak to the diversity and the advances of our present. And we can't do that by taking an eraser and getting rid of stuff. That's just not going to work. I think that we should do it in the same way the American Constitution works. When we have a situation where we want to change a law in the American Constitution, we don't erase the other one. Alongside that is an amendment, something that says, "This is where we were, but this is where we are right now." I figure if we can do that, then that will help us understand a little bit about where we're going." It's not about erasure, it's about the exact opposite. It's about bringing to light the people who were in the background.
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
@@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.
Something I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about in the comments: when he paints over the people in the picture, he's not contradicting himself. He's not saying that we should change history. He's challenging us to temporarily change our focus (recall that he said the paint he used to block them out has a linseed oil base; it would turn transparent within a few days and the painting would look as it did before) and bring to the foreground a perspective that is often neglected. Such a visual representation was needed to really get through to his audience. His words were effective, but seeing what he was talking about brought to life like that was powerful. It stopped people in their tracks. It made them take notice. That was the point.
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.
Currently watching this for my Art History course; THIS is the mind we need today. This ideaology could be so effective if the majority of people were able to listen and act on more than just face value. This gave me chills.
I believe the speaker said multiple times that he is NOT trying to delete history (by him using a white paint that would become transparent over time), but to shift the focus (when he used the analogy of the camera focus). He emphasized this multiple times. How does the conversation STILL largely concentrate on that? No one is trying to erase history, just honour the ones of those that have been ignored.
This is a profound statement about why art is so important. It can show inclusivity and bias to help us learn to improve our society. A diverse society is stronger than a homogeneous one.
Titus, I enjoyed your lecture at the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown regarding our new exhibit Forgotten Soldier, and I love that we have your sculpture, in our exhibit, "Shifting Your Gaze" it's remarkable! Such a talent!
Oh man, that was amazing. I heard about your work at NPR Ted Hour Podcast and looked for you speech, but what I found was much more profund. I am finally getting why art is so important. Thanks a lot
Part of the challenge of studying history is the struggle of accepting it for what it is. Isn't relevant to modern idealisms. It isn't even relevant to the idealisms of its own era. Societies and nations are a lot like people. Has anyone that's ever lived never done anything they were ashamed of later? If anyone told me that they've never been ashamed of anything they've ever done, I would know that they are in denial and aren't honest with themselves. When you've done something wrong you don't spend the rest of your life beating yourself up over it. You don't pretend it never happened. You don't glorify it. You simply learn to learn and look to the future. Life is not fair. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't done a very good job of studying history. Some will walk. As long as there is freedom it must be fueled by the entropy of class and competition. Freedom will not run on anything else. I'm not saying we should oppress, but at a point it boils down to individual accomplishment, not group success, or failure. There will always be improvements that can be made in society. Society will never be ideal for everyone. That is reality, regardless of your political/idiological/civic preference. In our modern era any individual can thrive in the western world, but they can't bring their entire group with them. This is the freest period in human history for every person in the western world. Sanitizing history is a crime against humanity and a defeat of the individual.
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.
This Man has a good and honest viewpoint on the Artworks of History, but I can see his Emotional Flaws into this practice. I raise a glass to you because of the Heart and hard work you're putting into this Endeavor of yours, but you need Bolder Strokes. Create, do not Destroy. I can Feel where you're coming from sir
Painting is a language. Painting is a visual language where everything in the painting is meaningful, is important and is coded, but sometimes because of its composition of construction and because of its composition of hierarchy, it is hard to see other things.
I got his message totally. I thought it was excellent. It's wonderful to see insight. Yes, and I also like the idea of amending depictions of history. As the sculpture Titus was depicting, amended (add) another sculpture to show the growth of equality (and equality of women) too.
reese weatherspoons Instagram post brought me here. This is an engaging and amazing TED talk. Now is the time to shift your gaze. We all have to take responsibility to learn about black culture and their struggles.
Roosevelt was an amazing person historically speaking who also happened to be a president of the United States. You could of told your son that was why he was depicted above the others in that way lol
For me, art can influence history by reflecting and shaping the ideas and values of a society, transmitting political and social messages, impacting public opinion, and serving as a historical record that preserves cultural identity throughout history. weather. It is both a mirror of history and a force that contributes to its evolution.
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.
For people who actually study art history like myself I totally agree with Titus and the message he had within his TED talk. To add on some stuff to what he said. Art was normalized by Europe through their royalty, they in a sense made it normal for it to be a job and a hobby because they would contract people to paint portraits of them. The issue is that painting was only limited to white men, art academies formed and white men were taught on how to paint realistic portraits ( it's what was considered as art then). Women were only allowed to paint sceneries and people of color couldn't even touch a brush and paint. Around that time museums were created and realistic portraits were only seen there, hence why you can visit a museum today and see how almost all of the art work seen there is of white men. This is also why historically speaking there is few black artists and the art that depicts black people is from a white person's perspective. This is why you see 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. For the people who say racism and discrimination isn't a big deal, it is a big deal and this TED talk shows how it is. Racism and discrimination within our society is so normalized we can't even see what's wrong with the painting we see on the screen, Titus is trying to show us that point of view we as a society lack.
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.
Bravo, makes a great case for our negligence of not recognizing we are ALL HUMAN BEINGS with same hopes, dreams aspirations and rights to live peacefully in grace.
Pretty cool perspective!! Kanye west was amazing artist aswell and i'm not talking just music! We need more art diversity! I was watching fake or fortune recently and their was this amazing painting of two black children, one with a book in her hand. Top notch work too!! Unknown artist at first but turned out to be by a female artist named emma jones. Historical records were hard to find at first. Female artists at that time were few. That painting Titus would enjoy and could prob do something interesting with it. Keep painting man! God bless!!
He didn't changed the picture he tried to show you his perspective and,as he said many times, he wats you to focus on this one person. It's not about Changing or 'fixing' history, it's about questioning some parts of it.
Instead of changing artwork we should change perception of it. If we destroy history someone will always re-create it, but if we as a society say it's wrong then the future generation won't believe it.
Why did no one understand the point of this video? the video is about focusing in on the subject and then focusing back out to the full painting. not only did he paint the painting himself, he also used paint that would soon become clear, returning the painting to its original state. This video is not about erasing history, it's about focusing in on the overlooked parts!
I am happy it was your painting and not the original one, presentation almost came across as what the radical left and BLM were doing recently in destroying monuments, paintings and etc (because that is basically what you did in destroying their faces Titus) regardless I agree with the message, teach about the other side, their perspective and etc, its very beautiful. I must state however, if you actually do study history, as I have given I am a history and CJ dual Major, history is not to be toyed with and one also realizes through time that life is not fair. There has always been an oppressor and an oppressed people through out time. People today label white people as evil when during the medieval ages, Africa was the most thriving continent on earth and Europeans were living under a feudal system. Most Celtic and Slavic tribes/people across Europe are descendants of slaves over 1500 years ago.
Please change the thumbnail picture, it’s a spoiler to the moment that the audiences’ implicit biases are revealed. It takes away from the moment of reveal.
Rather than deleting the history that black people experienced in the past, his idea was conveyed very well by modifying the picture depicting black people at the time, comparing the original with the modified version and knowing where to move forward.
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.
I wanted to simply comment "if you want to amend history you will not have history but comfortable lies" and hit the dislike button but after finishing the video its easy to see he doesnt want to do that, theres more nuance to his point than that. I think the idea he presents is a good one but leaves many potentialy extremely controversial points of it on the air and presents the idea on a not so proper way. Knowing about the emotional reactions art can produce he should know (for example) that defacing a painting like that gives an impression contrary to his core message and for thr short attention span mayority having that image on the thumbnail sets off an automatic red flag. What a shame, its was a good message.
I wonder what Titus would say about the current events surrounding the removal of confederate monuments from several cities in the nation. I get the feeling that he does not feel good about it in concept, but I would like to hear his words regarding it. Would he replace the statues? If so, with what?
A lot of people seem to think this man is whiting out "history" (erasing the some contextual inheritance) ; yet, worry not for the individual in red who had his whole life literally whited out with servitude and dissassoction.
I agree with him but partially. His point about the teddy Roosevelt statue wasn't strong. Just because the past doesn't look good from your perspective doesn't make it less true. The painting with the black child in the background is a painting where the artist decided to highlight whatever he wanted to. He was not obliged to represent black people at all. It's his art. But, I am totally for his freedom to express his anger on those topics. His argument about amending art makes sense. It is not at all wrong to place a MLK statue right next to the Roosevelt statue. The people who are against the addition of extra material should understand that he has as much right to demand black statues in a public place as you have to have a confederate flag if you want it. I don't agree with the output he desires but I support his right to ask for it.
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.
Would have been better if when we painted the picture he made the mom or dad black, that way it would have been their black son instead of a slave. He literally covered up and removed the family from the painting. Good talk, but Titus got distracted by trying to look cool with that microphone drop of the paint brush. This was a contradiction to the talk, nobody else noticed that?
To modify old art, or history, to serve an ideology, any ideology, is wrong. If a group of people want to gain respect and have their art in prominent places, do so by making new art and working for the greater good. MLK has a statue (and a federal holiday). Rosa Parks has a statue too. They earned it, just like Roosevelt did. Granted, I don't see why Roosevelt had to have an Indian and a black man walking by him, when his statue would have been perfectly fine alone. The statues of MLK and Parks stand alone too. And yes, I've seen the whole video. Yes, I understood his point. I'm not just an angry white guy here to stir trouble. I'm a concerned white guy who respects history, the good bits, the bad bits, and the forgotten bits too. So I must disagree with Titus. If he really wanted to make his point well, he could have made an entirely new painting that builds on Hals' theme, but isn't a replica of it.
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
I think he's really playing a losing game. A person from today is trying to amend events that have already passed. Out of all this, his aim is to support more laws that highlight black art more in society. Which will never happen because of the US freedom of expression: if a private place has more white paintings than black, its their choice. if a black owned museum placed more black paintings than white its their choice. The real problem is racism, this whole feud of white vs black representation is just silly. And its the one topic that americans cant get over with. Has there been bad history in the US with the slave trade? Yes. Is it the only highlight of black people in human history? No. But the US viewpoints always depict black people in the eyes of american slavery. Like no, dude, there are black painters, black writers, all that in world history. It just doesnt matter in the scope of all people. Racisim is a crutch on people's mind, like money.
Kaphar has a point. Blacks WERE under-represented and looked over. That was then. The roles they had and could aspire to were very limited. That was the way things were. It wasn't right but that's the way it was. Nobody is served by trying to make it something else. In fairness to Kaphar, skipping over what blacks managed to accomplish anyway is just as problematic. I'm not willing to go along with defacing past art in the name of present politics. If we're talking about making new art that shifts the paradigm, it's all good. Knock yourself out. If you want a black guy on a hose next to Teddy Roosevelt, make one worth exhibiting in the Museum of Natural History. There *were* black Rough Riders, right? One has to realize Kaphar used white paint intentionally to cover up white people. What does that say? The danger is racially segregated history. That this history of "dead white guys" is irrelevant to blacks.
Sorry but just how exactly do you "amend" a history? you can't change the past or the artwork itself. he keeps saying don't erase or alter history, but isn't that exactly what he's doing, painting over that artwork? whether he likes it or not the black person being in the background is a part of that history. it's flawed, but it's human history. acknowledge it, fine, put in some words about it in research, but trying to shift the visual perspective, to distort how the world was, how the black were seen back then, is overdoing it. it's disrespectful.
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.
@@peacefusion 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.
Well as an artist you are supposed to be bold. He was quite so. The interpretation of art is subjective. The most famous painting in the world is of a brunette white woman, which is small representation of our population. I guess his social background, upbringings and current social context makes a different interpretation of a statue or a painting. In Africa or Asia, you might have a similar context (statue,photograph or painting) portraying power, wealth and slavery possibly even between the same race, which does not make his initial question less pertinent. Why do we have a fascination by power, wealth and self proclamation? Which is ultimately what both the statue and the painting all about. I do not think we should erase history through art. I think he and the world have a blank canvas... Go nuts with it! I liked when he painted them in white? But why not use a bolder colour like black, where the background elements (including the black butler) would become more notorious.
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 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.
Where's the outrage that Europeans and others aren't portrayed in African art?! Every culture has their own aesthetic and we shouldn't apologize for everything in the past. Why not create new forms of art? We don't need White-Washing or Black-Washing in America we need to unite in our country around shared values. Thanks 👍❤😎🇺🇸💪🗽⭐🦅E Pluribus Unum God Bless America 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
He was on a horse because he was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. So in current times, should I be allowed to fly Airforce 1 instead of Delta economy?
omg. people are so stupid. changing history is different from amending history. you're trying to make something better. provide another point of view. he isn't trying to change the history of what happened - it happened but the narrative that has been passed down for generations is biased, skewed, probably incorrect too. he's telling ya'll to look from a different perspective man jesus christ read the damn title it's 'amend' not 'change' oh my god. you people are missing the point completely man.
Let's not forget; history as we know it is history told from the 'winners' perspective. He's not calling for destruction of history, he's asking for all of history. The uncomfortable and the painful, the beautiful and forgotten, all of it.
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.
It's beautiful because he made the point of amending, not erasing or altering- simply bringing the focus to the forgotten or neglect history.
Ah yes. Definitely not erasing.
Ah yes. Definitely not erasing.
"The editor cuts a line and someone's face fades;
the editor says two hundred words or less, and suddenly
a whole family goes missing.
The spotlight isn't about the light, it's how
it makes everything around it dark" - Dylan Garity
This is what Kaphar is saying. He's not saying erase history. He's saying parts of it have been neglected and purposefully removed. It's time to shift the focus. Give another perspective some time in the light.
I just had to watch this talk for a class at my college and I thought I'd provide my insight on it.
Kaphar's main point is that we need to not just look at the big picture of art and history but also the small details of it. He is saying that it's important to focus on the parts of history that were forgotten and/or removed.
Kaphar is challenging society to change our focus using our ability as visual learners to critically think about the history of art and how we can amend it. He says "Painting is a language" in the sense that there are reasons and meanings to the why and how a painting was made. By looking at a painting's visual elements and form, we can start to see how the painting was made and what the artist was trying to tell us.
In this TED Talk, Kaphar asks us to rearrange our focus, just for a little bit, to the smaller details of history in the paintings and images we see. The small details and figures in a painting matter just as much as the bigger picture. For if there were no details, then the painting would have very little meaning. This talk will definitely help me in finding those details in an image, big or small. It will help me critically think about the form, elements, and semiotics of a painting to successfully analyze and interpret what the artist was trying to say.
This is such an underrated, amazing Ted Talk and so many of the people who disliked the video and are in the comments leaving dense comments didn't even watch it! So annoying!
They watched. They just didn't like what they saw.
painting was not made for TV ! and titus kaphar is making master pieces!
This talk was genius. He deserves all of the accolades he's receiving right now.
For those that might no have watched the entire video as the though it looked like he was arguing to change history to make it more fair, that actually would be the complete opposite of his argument. He doesn't want to change the art to hide what was old, but add some kind of new art tell help explain the history behind the original art so one could understand why that art is like that.
One of the best ted talks. In my opinion total attention to his moved words and timing.
This speaks my truth!!! As a Native Artist, I've experienced the same hand-wringing from reticent Professors who didn't want to "waste time" on subjects they felt were likely to be controversial and would be meet with broad debate and divisive arguments rooted in preconceived notions. So, instead of discussing the topics that could've been life changing to a minority (of minorities) and offer a chance to better understand our history, the subject might make the majority feel uncomfortable so we ended up only discussing art through the Western World view. That myopic world view proliferates distorted, often completely false narratives of our history.
Western Civilization's view shouldn't dominate art history or any other history. This is why race relations are still dysfunctional and are noticeable getting worse. I truly don't see any change happening until Americans have the courage to acknowledge and reckon with the ugly sides of of our history. American Exceptionalism is a lie we tell ourselves and our children for the sole purpose of not having to think about the realities of those who are still living with the effects of our truthful history. That way of thinking is untenable for those of us that are tired of dealing with those effects and view it as another burden we have to deal with to placate those who can't handle the truth.
This also highlights the "Postcolonial Gaze" theory that has been a major part of better understanding my ancestry and seeing it through our eyes for a change. It illustrates how Western Civilization has always felt that those not of Western Civilization to be beneath them in some ways, but Postcolonial Gaze theory makes it clear that what they viewed as beneath them was actually just different cultural traditions and norms. I only wish I didn't have to spend my life learning these things on my own.
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.
@@f30.vengeance lol im working on that right now
Never has a TED talk been ever so relevant before. Keep it up, Titus!
Since many people clearly did not watch the video, I'll give you the most important excerpt from the transcript:
"What I'm trying to do, what I'm trying to show you, is how to shift your gaze just slightly, just momentarily, just momentarily, to ask yourself the question, why do some have to walk? What is the impact of these kinds of sculptures at museums? What is the impact of these kinds of paintings on some of our most vulnerable in society, seeing these kinds of depictions of themselves all the time? I'm not saying erase it. We can't erase this history. It's real. We have to know it. (...) You remember old-school cameras, where when you took a picture, you actually had to focus. Right? You'd put the camera up, and if I wanted you in focus, I would move the lens a little to the left and you would come forward. I could move the lens a little to the right, and you would go back and the folks in the background would come out. I'm just trying to do that here. I'm trying to give you that opportunity. I'm trying to answer that question that my son had. I want to make paintings, I want to make sculptures that are honest, that wrestle with the struggles of our past but speak to the diversity and the advances of our present. And we can't do that by taking an eraser and getting rid of stuff. That's just not going to work. I think that we should do it in the same way the American Constitution works. When we have a situation where we want to change a law in the American Constitution, we don't erase the other one. Alongside that is an amendment, something that says, "This is where we were, but this is where we are right now." I figure if we can do that, then that will help us understand a little bit about where we're going."
It's not about erasure, it's about the exact opposite. It's about bringing to light the people who were in the background.
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.
Meaningful tansformation, not destruction. I'm all for this.
Watching tht man put those first strokes on them made my heart start racing. Super powerful
Something I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about in the comments: when he paints over the people in the picture, he's not contradicting himself. He's not saying that we should change history. He's challenging us to temporarily change our focus (recall that he said the paint he used to block them out has a linseed oil base; it would turn transparent within a few days and the painting would look as it did before) and bring to the foreground a perspective that is often neglected. Such a visual representation was needed to really get through to his audience. His words were effective, but seeing what he was talking about brought to life like that was powerful. It stopped people in their tracks. It made them take notice. That was the point.
I love this video! Titus Kaphar could not have put it in a better way!!
The point of the video isn't to change history. The point is to complete the picture. To restore a lost history. Watch the video first.
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 ?
Currently watching this for my Art History course; THIS is the mind we need today. This ideaology could be so effective if the majority of people were able to listen and act on more than just face value. This gave me chills.
I believe the speaker said multiple times that he is NOT trying to delete history (by him using a white paint that would become transparent over time), but to shift the focus (when he used the analogy of the camera focus). He emphasized this multiple times. How does the conversation STILL largely concentrate on that?
No one is trying to erase history, just honour the ones of those that have been ignored.
There were no black people in Europe at the time of that painting - including blacks is to erase history of white Europe.
He never once said all of the historical art should be destroyed. It's almost as if most of you didn't even watch the video.
He demonstrated the destruction, just for drama then, since it went against his message
This is a profound statement about why art is so important. It can show inclusivity and bias to help us learn to improve our society. A diverse society is stronger than a homogeneous one.
Why wasn't this video longer? this is such an important discussion in many ways. Wow!
Great video. Make sure you watch the whole video.
Titus, I enjoyed your lecture at the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown regarding our new exhibit Forgotten Soldier, and I love that we have your sculpture, in our exhibit, "Shifting Your Gaze" it's remarkable! Such a talent!
Oh man, that was amazing. I heard about your work at NPR Ted Hour Podcast and looked for you speech, but what I found was much more profund. I am finally getting why art is so important. Thanks a lot
Part of the challenge of studying history is the struggle of accepting it for what it is. Isn't relevant to modern idealisms. It isn't even relevant to the idealisms of its own era.
Societies and nations are a lot like people. Has anyone that's ever lived never done anything they were ashamed of later? If anyone told me that they've never been ashamed of anything they've ever done, I would know that they are in denial and aren't honest with themselves.
When you've done something wrong you don't spend the rest of your life beating yourself up over it. You don't pretend it never happened. You don't glorify it. You simply learn to learn and look to the future.
Life is not fair. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't done a very good job of studying history. Some will walk. As long as there is freedom it must be fueled by the entropy of class and competition. Freedom will not run on anything else. I'm not saying we should oppress, but at a point it boils down to individual accomplishment, not group success, or failure.
There will always be improvements that can be made in society. Society will never be ideal for everyone. That is reality, regardless of your political/idiological/civic preference.
In our modern era any individual can thrive in the western world, but they can't bring their entire group with them.
This is the freest period in human history for every person in the western world. Sanitizing history is a crime against humanity and a defeat of the individual.
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.
絵画の黒人の少年を見つめる彼の目には、悲哀と慈愛、悔しさが滲んでいる😢 辛さに立ち向かう姿勢に優しさがあって、心に信念からくる鋼を感じました🌿
I love his final painting and the signature equivalent of mic-drop!! This is so powerful, it's geting some folks irked!
Omg so many dislikes for such a nice message I guess some people will never get it
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.
This Man has a good and honest viewpoint on the Artworks of History, but I can see his Emotional Flaws into this practice. I raise a glass to you because of the Heart and hard work you're putting into this Endeavor of yours, but you need Bolder Strokes. Create, do not Destroy. I can Feel where you're coming from sir
What a great talk.
Painting is a language.
Painting is a visual language where everything in the painting is meaningful, is important and is coded, but sometimes because of its composition of construction and because of its composition of hierarchy, it is hard to see other things.
I love the concept of restoring lost history
I got his message totally. I thought it was excellent. It's wonderful to see insight. Yes, and I also like the idea of amending depictions of history. As the sculpture Titus was depicting, amended (add) another sculpture to show the growth of equality (and equality of women) too.
reese weatherspoons Instagram post brought me here. This is an engaging and amazing TED talk. Now is the time to shift your gaze. We all have to take responsibility to learn about black culture and their struggles.
Most people couldn’t just watch before assuming and jumping into conclusions. I am converted Titus! 🖤💪🏿
it's about going back to the museum with a different perspective! not about trying to change anything.
Roosevelt was an amazing person historically speaking who also happened to be a president of the United States. You could of told your son that was why he was depicted above the others in that way lol
To Titus: Juli and I love ya from the Vineyard at Blackfort HS.. we are amazed by you !
🙏
For me, art can influence history by reflecting and shaping the ideas and values of a society, transmitting political and social messages, impacting public opinion, and serving as a historical record that preserves cultural identity throughout history. weather. It is both a mirror of history and a force that contributes to its evolution.
I love his work!
Amazing Ted Talk.
Definitely food for thought!
I love his deep and interesting perspectives.
I don't understand the dislikes. This man seems well-spoken and explains his opinion well.
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
This was beautiful and has a beautiful message behind it thank you
Can we talk about everyone complaining about the video without even paying attention to what he said. SMH.
For people who actually study art history like myself I totally agree with Titus and the message he had within his TED talk. To add on some stuff to what he said. Art was normalized by Europe through their royalty, they in a sense made it normal for it to be a job and a hobby because they would contract people to paint portraits of them. The issue is that painting was only limited to white men, art academies formed and white men were taught on how to paint realistic portraits ( it's what was considered as art then). Women were only allowed to paint sceneries and people of color couldn't even touch a brush and paint. Around that time museums were created and realistic portraits were only seen there, hence why you can visit a museum today and see how almost all of the art work seen there is of white men. This is also why historically speaking there is few black artists and the art that depicts black people is from a white person's perspective. This is why you see 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. For the people who say racism and discrimination isn't a big deal, it is a big deal and this TED talk shows how it is. Racism and discrimination within our society is so normalized we can't even see what's wrong with the painting we see on the screen, Titus is trying to show us that point of view we as a society lack.
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.
This is so important
I think his presence tells us where we are right now.
Bravo, makes a great case for our negligence of not recognizing we are ALL HUMAN BEINGS with same hopes, dreams aspirations and rights to live peacefully in grace.
Interesting. His 13 minutes leaves a lot of potential nuance to address, but interesting to think about.
The speaker is so awsome
Pretty cool perspective!! Kanye west was amazing artist aswell and i'm not talking just music! We need more art diversity! I was watching fake or fortune recently and their was this amazing painting of two black children, one with a book in her hand. Top notch work too!! Unknown artist at first but turned out to be by a female artist named emma jones. Historical records were hard to find at first. Female artists at that time were few. That painting Titus would enjoy and could prob do something interesting with it. Keep painting man! God bless!!
This isn't about changing history. It's about telling the whole story and understanding it.
He didn't changed the picture he tried to show you his perspective and,as he said many times, he wats you to focus on this one person. It's not about Changing or 'fixing' history, it's about questioning some parts of it.
Notice that the little boy is the only one looking at the viewers
Instead of changing artwork we should change perception of it. If we destroy history someone will always re-create it, but if we as a society say it's wrong then the future generation won't believe it.
What a great talk!
this was really amazing wow,,
Kinda weird that his wife was 19 when they met and he was 15. But the video was really nice
saw ur work in a museum somewhere . Incredible. loved it then love it now. I fucking love you man.
Why did no one understand the point of this video? the video is about focusing in on the subject and then focusing back out to the full painting. not only did he paint the painting himself, he also used paint that would soon become clear, returning the painting to its original state. This video is not about erasing history, it's about focusing in on the overlooked parts!
This is fucking brilliant
powerful.
I am happy it was your painting and not the original one, presentation almost came across as what the radical left and BLM were doing recently in destroying monuments, paintings and etc (because that is basically what you did in destroying their faces Titus) regardless I agree with the message, teach about the other side, their perspective and etc, its very beautiful. I must state however, if you actually do study history, as I have given I am a history and CJ dual Major, history is not to be toyed with and one also realizes through time that life is not fair. There has always been an oppressor and an oppressed people through out time. People today label white people as evil when during the medieval ages, Africa was the most thriving continent on earth and Europeans were living under a feudal system. Most Celtic and Slavic tribes/people across Europe are descendants of slaves over 1500 years ago.
Please change the thumbnail picture, it’s a spoiler to the moment that the audiences’ implicit biases are revealed. It takes away from the moment of reveal.
6:50
to 10:37
Rather than deleting the history that black people experienced in the past, his idea was conveyed very well by modifying the picture depicting black people at the time, comparing the original with the modified version and knowing where to move forward.
This was incredible
Beautiful!!
This is the most thing ever done
Very well put!
If some people just listen to the video, and not jump on the dislike jump wagon.
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 ?
I wanted to simply comment "if you want to amend history you will not have history but comfortable lies" and hit the dislike button but after finishing the video its easy to see he doesnt want to do that, theres more nuance to his point than that. I think the idea he presents is a good one but leaves many potentialy extremely controversial points of it on the air and presents the idea on a not so proper way. Knowing about the emotional reactions art can produce he should know (for example) that defacing a painting like that gives an impression contrary to his core message and for thr short attention span mayority having that image on the thumbnail sets off an automatic red flag. What a shame, its was a good message.
Apparently not bronze art in the south
Museums must make every attempt to present unbiased history.
History is biased.
I wonder what Titus would say about the current events surrounding the removal of confederate monuments from several cities in the nation. I get the feeling that he does not feel good about it in concept, but I would like to hear his words regarding it. Would he replace the statues? If so, with what?
If we dont remember history it will repeat itself.
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...
A lot of people seem to think this man is whiting out "history" (erasing the some contextual inheritance) ; yet, worry not for the individual in red who had his whole life literally whited out with servitude and dissassoction.
I agree with him but partially. His point about the teddy Roosevelt statue wasn't strong. Just because the past doesn't look good from your perspective doesn't make it less true. The painting with the black child in the background is a painting where the artist decided to highlight whatever he wanted to. He was not obliged to represent black people at all. It's his art.
But, I am totally for his freedom to express his anger on those topics. His argument about amending art makes sense.
It is not at all wrong to place a MLK statue right next to the Roosevelt statue. The people who are against the addition of extra material should understand that he has as much right to demand black statues in a public place as you have to have a confederate flag if you want it. I don't agree with the output he desires but I support his right to ask for it.
trying to "fix" history will only make you forget it, if you truly want to avoid the future to be like the grimm past, remember it
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.
Anybody know the name of the piece he showed in the video?
Powerful, powerful speech! Excellent
Would have been better if when we painted the picture he made the mom or dad black, that way it would have been their black son instead of a slave. He literally covered up and removed the family from the painting. Good talk, but Titus got distracted by trying to look cool with that microphone drop of the paint brush. This was a contradiction to the talk, nobody else noticed that?
To modify old art, or history, to serve an ideology, any ideology, is wrong. If a group of people want to gain respect and have their art in prominent places, do so by making new art and working for the greater good. MLK has a statue (and a federal holiday). Rosa Parks has a statue too. They earned it, just like Roosevelt did. Granted, I don't see why Roosevelt had to have an Indian and a black man walking by him, when his statue would have been perfectly fine alone. The statues of MLK and Parks stand alone too.
And yes, I've seen the whole video. Yes, I understood his point. I'm not just an angry white guy here to stir trouble. I'm a concerned white guy who respects history, the good bits, the bad bits, and the forgotten bits too. So I must disagree with Titus. If he really wanted to make his point well, he could have made an entirely new painting that builds on Hals' theme, but isn't a replica of it.
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
What about the guns that the Black and Native-American are holding in the statue? Is that an irrelevant detail?
The guy on the horse was the President.
This is obvious.
Good art doesn't need an explanation, and definitely doesn't need a ted talk to make it good.
I think he's really playing a losing game.
A person from today is trying to amend events that have already passed.
Out of all this, his aim is to support more laws that highlight black art more in society.
Which will never happen because of the US freedom of expression:
if a private place has more white paintings than black, its their choice.
if a black owned museum placed more black paintings than white its their choice.
The real problem is racism, this whole feud of white vs black representation is just silly.
And its the one topic that americans cant get over with.
Has there been bad history in the US with the slave trade? Yes.
Is it the only highlight of black people in human history? No.
But the US viewpoints always depict black people in the eyes of american slavery.
Like no, dude, there are black painters, black writers, all that in world history.
It just doesnt matter in the scope of all people. Racisim is a crutch on people's mind, like money.
"how to shift your gaze just slightly, just momentarily, to ask yourself the question, why do some have to walk?"
This is an amazing video!
Davii
nice waves
Kaphar has a point. Blacks WERE under-represented and looked over. That was then. The roles they had and could aspire to were very limited. That was the way things were. It wasn't right but that's the way it was. Nobody is served by trying to make it something else.
In fairness to Kaphar, skipping over what blacks managed to accomplish anyway is just as problematic.
I'm not willing to go along with defacing past art in the name of present politics. If we're talking about making new art that shifts the paradigm, it's all good. Knock yourself out. If you want a black guy on a hose next to Teddy Roosevelt, make one worth exhibiting in the Museum of Natural History. There *were* black Rough Riders, right?
One has to realize Kaphar used white paint intentionally to cover up white people. What does that say? The danger is racially segregated history. That this history of "dead white guys" is irrelevant to blacks.
Sorry but just how exactly do you "amend" a history? you can't change the past or the artwork itself. he keeps saying don't erase or alter history, but isn't that exactly what he's doing, painting over that artwork? whether he likes it or not the black person being in the background is a part of that history. it's flawed, but it's human history. acknowledge it, fine, put in some words about it in research, but trying to shift the visual perspective, to distort how the world was, how the black were seen back then, is overdoing it. it's disrespectful.
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.
@@peacefusion 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.
🔥
It's a great talk
its great talk about being idiot
Well as an artist you are supposed to be bold. He was quite so. The interpretation of art is subjective. The most famous painting in the world is of a brunette white woman, which is small representation of our population. I guess his social background, upbringings and current social context makes a different interpretation of a statue or a painting. In Africa or Asia, you might have a similar context (statue,photograph or painting) portraying power, wealth and slavery possibly even between the same race, which does not make his initial question less pertinent. Why do we have a fascination by power, wealth and self proclamation? Which is ultimately what both the statue and the painting all about.
I do not think we should erase history through art. I think he and the world have a blank canvas... Go nuts with it! I liked when he painted them in white? But why not use a bolder colour like black, where the background elements (including the black butler) would become more notorious.
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.
Where's the outrage that Europeans and others aren't portrayed in African art?! Every culture has their own aesthetic and we shouldn't apologize for everything in the past. Why not create new forms of art? We don't need White-Washing or Black-Washing in America we need to unite in our country around shared values. Thanks 👍❤😎🇺🇸💪🗽⭐🦅E Pluribus Unum God Bless America 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
He was on a horse because he was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. So in current times, should I be allowed to fly Airforce 1 instead of Delta economy?
Mike Suscello so you didn’t watch the whole video is what I’m getting from this comment
Funny,entertaining yet inspirational.
omg. people are so stupid. changing history is different from amending history. you're trying to make something better. provide another point of view. he isn't trying to change the history of what happened - it happened but the narrative that has been passed down for generations is biased, skewed, probably incorrect too. he's telling ya'll to look from a different perspective man jesus christ read the damn title it's 'amend' not 'change' oh my god. you people are missing the point completely man.
preach!