MAY
2024
Embedded Files
May
Harlem on My Mind The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Last month's share highlighted the ongoing exhibition at the Met - The Harlem Renaissance and Transatlantic Modernism
Some reviewers call the current show an "institutional correction." Here's why:
In 1969, the Met mounted an exhibition, Harlem on My Mind, intended to "plumb the secret of Harlem, of its unique achievements and contributions to American life, its energy, genius, and spirit. ...Our hope for the exhibition is that it communicate a sense of place and a way of living. That it engender an appreciation of the tragedies and triumphs of Black Harlem. That it make us realize that we must begin to look to the great Negro past for our understanding of the American experience, and look to it as well for whatever common hope we have for the future. " (Thomas Hoving, Director of the Met)
The Black community, initially encouraged, became enraged, and for good reason.
The Context
The background painting is "Die" by Faith Ringgold 1967 MOMA
1969 What's Going On?
The movement for civil rights, underway since the late 50s, intensified during the 60s.
Murders, assassinations, and lynchings were in the news (e.g. Emmet Till, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, MLK,RFK ...).
The war in Vietnam was ongoing. The Tet Offensive, with heavy losses, took place in 1968.
Black defiance made its presence known at the 1968 Olympics.
The draft --white college students were on edge and disproportionate numbers of African Americans were on the front lines.
There was a struggle for control of local schools, especially in Brooklyn's Ocean Hill/ Brownsville district, an outgrowth of longtime struggles for equal educational opportunities. The controversy disrupted the alliance between Blacks and Jews that had emerged during the civil rights movement.
The 'radical chic' phenomenon had affected New York City elites; high society parties, where Black activists were invited for fundraising, were misguided at best.
Neighborhood friction between police and Black residents was reaching a boiling point --- exploding, in 1967, into riots across the country.
The Nixon campaign ramped up stereotypes through his 'war on drugs', push for 'law and order' and images of violence in Black neighborhoods.
The Kerner Report issued its findings in March of 1968, pointing a finger at institutional racism. It was one of the first times an official governmental group admitted that its own systems were to blame. Many significant recommendations were made.
President Johnson never formally accepted the report.
Coincidentally, PBS is broadcasting this month the new American Experience documentary film, "The Riot Report"
May 21 on GBH2 at 9:00 PM (Replay on GBH 44, 5/24 and 5/28)
View the trailer (2:20) below:
NOTE 5/22: This documentary is excellent! If you missed it on May 21st, please take a look at one of the replays on GBH 44 or view it on PBS Passport!
"The urgency of the report’s message was further underscored mere weeks after its publication when Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated and the nation’s inner cities erupted once more. Yet, according to a poll later that same month, a majority of white Americans rejected the commission’s conclusions and its recommendations. By the time Richard Nixon’s law-and-order campaign won him the presidency that fall, the Kerner Commission had been swept from national consciousness."
Harlem World April 9, 2024
The Exhibition
Harlem on My Mind: Cultural Capital of Black America, 1900-1968
"To me Harlem on My Mind is a discussion. It is a confrontation. It is an education. It is a dialogue. And today we better have these things. Today there is a growing gap between people, and particularly between black people and white people. And this despite the efforts to do otherwise. There is little communication. Harlem on My Mind will change that."
Thomas P. Hoving, Director of the Met , Preface to the Original Exhibition Catalog, 1969
The New York Times January 15, 1969
There Were Missteps
The selection of a white curator who lacked knowledge of the Black community and Black culture and who unwaveringly insisted on his original plan for the exhibition.
Choosing to organize the exhibition without the voices of Harlem residents and ignoring the recommendations of a select group of Black advisors.
Poor treatment of Harlem artists who requested that their work be included, giving the impression that there was no Black art worthy of the Met.
The decision to present photographs, sound, and video exclusively, rather than what was generally accepted as "art." Many felt that an ethnological museum would have been a more appropriate venue.
Creating an unmediated and insufficiently explained exhibition, leaving understanding to the viewer.
Generating criticisms such as "culturally patronizing," "art exhibition as entertainment aimed at pulling traffic through the door," and a poor attempt to make the museum culturally relevant.
Creating an exhibition catalogue with many controversial elements, among them:
A preface by the Met Director, Thomas Hoving, revealing his elite upbringing and
An Introduction from a 17-year old high school student's term paper containing what were considered anti-Semitic slurs.
On January 21, 1969, shortly after the exhibition opened, Thomas Hoving delivered the following statement, outlining what he believed went wrong:
Hoving Statement.pdfExhibition Press
Mostly Contemporaneous
Cathy Aldridge, reporter for the New York Amsterdam News:
"The subtle staging of the show created this boxed-in feeling—its stark white walls, its crisp black and white photographs most of which are life-sized. The few illustrious figures who were created as famous men and women in entertainment, jazz, and a few other fields do little to soften the effect. Without softness to alleviate the stark black and whiteness of the show, the exhibit remains a stark semblance of a white man’s view of a black section of the city which was created out of color prejudice . . . It is a shame that such an opportunity did not create something of which all of New York can be proud. True, the photographs portray truth, but there are other truths which are missing from this exhibit."
"Harlem on My Mind: A Boxed-In Feeling" February 1, 1969
New York Times art critic John Canaday:
Canaday explained that the exhibition "presents a subject vastly complicated, easily subject to distortion, and just now so highly charged emotionally that to evaluate the show objectively is going to be impossible for most people."
"Getting Harlem Off My Mind" January 12, 1969
New York Times art critic, Grace Glueck:
"To this viewer, there is something terribly American about "Harlem." Ir panders to our penchant for instant history, packaged culture, the kind of photojournalistic "experience" that puts us at a distance from the experience itself. Instead of the full, rich, Harlem brew, it presents a freeze-dried Harlem that does not even hint at flavor."
"Harlem on My Mind' in Slides, Tapes and Photos"
January 17, 1969
To read the entire review, click HERE
In a symposium sponsored by the Met, titled The Black Artist in America," artist William T. Williams stated his thoughts about the exclusion of artwork from Harlem on My Mind:
"One of the things that's happening is that every show that concerns black artists is really a sociological show. The Harlem on My Mind show is a pointing example of total rejection on the part of the establishment, of saying 'Well, you're really not doing art,' or of not dealing with the artists that may exist or do exist in Harlem. These shows deal with the sociolgical aspects of community, a historical thing."
The Harvard Crimson
By Gregg J. Kilday
February 5, 1969
If you'd like more engaging detail about the exhibition, you should read this essay:
"Black Artists and Activism: Harlem on My Mind, 1969" American Studies, 48:I (Spring 2007)
The second reprinting of the Harlem on My Mind catalog (1995) inspired this look back. Michael Kimmelman laments that not much had changed since 1969.
Where Was the Black "Art" in 1969?
Not at the Met
It is interesting to note, that
all but one of the works included in the current Met exhibition's catalog were created before 1969, most from the 1920s - 1940s,
and could have been a part of "Harlem on My Mind"
Black artists have continued to struggle for recognition within the mainstream of American art. The exceptional artist, Faith Ringgold, who died last month, is a perfect example. After years of being passed over as a pre-imminent American artist, she was finally being recognized near the end of her life. See her obituary on the right and click HERE to learn more about her life and work.
The Legacy
While the original expectations for the exhibition may not have been realized at the time, there were unexpected long-lasting outcomes:
Many individuals thought it was wonderful and there were record numbers of Black viewers.
Artists such as James Van Der Zee and Gordon Parks were introduced to a wide audience and the art world began seeing photography as art.
A critical outcome noted by scholar and art historian Bridget R. Cooks was "...the increasingly powerful role of oppressed communities to organize their voices against blatant omissions, disrespectful treatment, and cultural misrepresentations by art museums in the United States."
Eyes were opened to more innovative ways of presenting art and ideas (multimedia, audio, video).
As suggested by Print Magazine in 2015, "Whatever its flaws, it was an exhibition that polarized people while shedding light on racial attitudes. Today it is a building block in cultural history and its curator deserves a cheer for having made a major mark." (HERE)
The show was transformative for some!
Meet Dawoud Bey
To learn more about Dawoud Bey and to see some of his work, click HERE.
"Long after the initial impact of Harlem on My Mind, its historical signifigance continues to resonate ...the record of the exhibition mostly lived on though its catalog -- all four editions. Initially published in 1968 to accompany the exhibition, the catalog was reprinted with modifications in 1979, 1995, and 2007. That the catalog is still in print speaks to the continued relevance of the power of photography and the politics of black self-representation."
"The many lives of a contested exhibition catalog" Bridget R. Cooks, Aperture, February 2, 2016.
Gordon Parks, one of photography’s immortals who was significantly represented in the exhibition and catalogue, wrote: “In Harlem On My Mind one witnesses it all – the joys, sorrows, and triumphs of black achievement … It is an important contribution, not only to the history of Harlem but to the history of America as well.”
Note: If you are interested in seeing the catalogue, the Maynard Public Library (2007) and the Regis College Library (1995) each have a copy, available via the Minuteman Network. Copies of various editions may also be purchased online.
“Harlem on My Mind represents months and years of research that would be impossible to duplicate today. It should be considered a history of the times; it is important for the present generation and coming generations... No household, school, or library should be without it.”
James Van Der Zee
When the third edition of the Harlem On My Mind book appeared in 1995, the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture organized a conference to commemorate that event. In his Introduction to that edition, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote: “This catalogue remains, even a quarter century later, one of the richest and most comprehensive records of the history of the African-American in the twentieth century.”
"Harlem" is still on our minds
Holland Cotter's, for example...
Holland Cotter, longtime art critic for the New York Times, shares his 55-year relationship with Harlem on My Mind
1969 As a college student, visited the exhibition
2015 As an established art critic for the Times, reflected on what he missed in 1969
2024 In his review of The Harlem Renaissance and Transatlantic Modernism
Contrasting Cotter’s articles from 2015 and 2024 reveals his growth as an art critic and offers a path to understand the 1969 exhibition whose banner was unfurled 55 years ago - an exhibition that remains on our minds and in particular the minds of the art world. Referencing the current exhibition establishes places for both as integral parts in the American art world.
In his 2015 NYT article, Cotter confesses his confusion upon viewing “Harlem on My Mind” during a weekend visit to NYC as a college undergrad in 1969. His scant knowledge of Black history did not prepare him to enter the culture of African Americans or understand its relevance. So impactful was the experience that it remained on his mind, taking decades of reflection to understand “what was this about” - how it had effected him and many others who were there in 1969. He was not only clueless that others were as confused as he, but also about how the exhibition was such an insult to Black artists.
After four decades of rumination, Cotter acknowledged, in his 2015 article, how ‘life-changing’ what he had seen and ‘experienced’ in 1969. That it took him so many years to realize the significance of the exhibition attests to its enduring power its continuing influence on art and society. Personally and professionally, It taught Cotter a universal lesson: that when viewing art “pay close attention to what you are seeing and even closer attention to what you may be missing.”
In his February 19, 2024 review of the current exhibition at the Met, one sees how Cotter uses the lesson to see what is there, what is not there, and why. He understands that the Harlem Renaissance is not, nor ever was, an exhibition in the usual sense but an invitation to a conversation, a conversation that Hoving had courageously initiated in 1969 and hoped would continue. But the social turmoil of the times got in the way.
The Harlem Renaissance, as Cotter says in 2024, was not a thing to be exhibited. It was a direction, a ‘vibe’ in racial pride, a conversation. It needs to be understood as an integral part of American culture that blends a new cosmopolitan Black aesthetic with Western classicism, African art and Black folk art culture. An understanding long past due.
The current exhibition is not an institutional correction,
but rather it is an institutional evolution!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse