A pair of Spanish Colonial parcel-gilt, polychrome-painted and carved torchères 19th century – Sotheby’s
by pinkagendist
A stunning pair. 15 to 25K at Sotheby’s NY on Oct. 11th.
Personally I prefer the Venetian variety, like the one Mike’s mother gave us (below). They’re much more refined. But I like blackamoors in general.
Umm…. they certainly make my sneakers look pretty frugal in comparison, even with the black laces.
But I’m pretty sure they’d be uncomfortable to walk with…
“They look great, but they’re torchères on my feet.”
Beautiful art pieces. Now if someone could just donate the 25K I’d take the first pair
I like!
They’re spectacular. Certainly made by special commission to emulate the European versions. I can close my eyes and see them in of those grand colonial houses in Mérida…
Do you perchance take your coffee like your blackamoors?
I don’t take coffee, only brandy with a drop of coffee in it
Neither shaken nor stirred, I suppose?
Mmm. Er- “blackamoors”? Er,- …
That’s what they’re called
BTW isn’t ‘blackamoor’ a trifle demeaning to slaves?
Now? Are there ‘blackamoors’ in the modern world? It’s the correct art-historical term. I don’t think it relates to any particular modern ethnic group.
I agree it is the precise art history term, but that doesn’t make it okay.
Slavery didn’t end long ago and it’s negative effects are still being worked through. Black folk are discriminated against in many societies so images that reinforce these archaic relations of domination and subordination should surely be avoided.
It’s the same with ‘art’ from the Third Reich, it existed, but who would want to own it?
I’m not sure blackamoors were slavery related. They were mostly an Italian/French creation and neither of those countries had the same sense of slavery as Iberia or Britain. France only prohibited interracial marriages for a couple of decades and that was never enforced. Portugal actually encouraged interracial marriage in the colonies. Some ‘blackamoors’ are actually white
I don’t see the relevance of the marriage stuff, although it’s interesting.
What about Algeria and Libya, French and Italian colonies respectively? I don’t see much equality between whites and blacks in the histories I’ve read.
It’s about subservience – how often do you see Lords, Kings and Emperors in those poses?
The blackamoor is a historical figure. Subservience exists independent of skin colour. Upstairs/downstairs. The marriage point was simply to highlight that skin colour is perceived differently according to each culture.
I think it’s better to focus on the substance rather than on the labels. The same as the discussion on the use of the word ‘bimbette’ the other day. The use of the word doesn’t make a person any more or less feminist. That’s just an illusion created by the Anglophone PC movement. People don’t say the N word and that’s supposed to mean they’re fantastically open to other cultures. I find that rather too easy. The black woman who I spent most of my time with growing up found the term African American ridiculous. She often repeated, I’m neither African, nor American, I’m a black woman with a South American passport.
…and just as a side note, I’ve often seen the nobility portrayed as shepherds and the like. It was fashionable in the 18th century. Huet, Oudry, Les Amusements Champêtres. Let’s focus our energy where it really counts.
Shepherds are a slightly special category due to the biblical references. As an English literature student I had the (mis)fortune to read much pastoral poetry and agree that this metaphor is a fairly common motif in traditional writing.
Where we disagree is on the importance of language. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter which words we employ? I suggest you are avery competent communicator and so knew that using ‘blackamoor’ was controversial but enjoyed an intellectual frisson at playing with what is and isn’t acceptable. That is part of the fun of having a large vocabulary and it’s a choice we all make.
For me there is a real debate around which words we choose that have historical and political connotations. To accuse anyone who questions a particular usage as PC is, to use your own words, a little too easy. Would you also argue that it doesn’t matter which words we utilise as synonyms for ‘homosexual’? For me there are lots of phrases I just wouldn’t write or say because they are demeaning and offensive and encapsulate a particular POV. The struggle for a better society takes place on many fronts and lots of people see language as particularly important.
Where you (and others) get it wrong is in throwing out words that are descriptive rather than qualitative. A blackamoor torchère is a blackamoor torchère. It’s not a putto torchère, it’s not an art nouveau nymph torchère, it’s not a a baroque archangel torchère, it is a blackamoor torchère. They exist in various forms and the form I was describing was the blackamoor variety, which I happen to find the most attractive. There’s nothing demeaning about the word (or the sculptures) on their own. There is however a certain guilt in some cultures which then colours the reading of the word.
The same is true of synonyms of homosexuality. I don’t condemn the use of any of the words as long as they’re used in the correct context.
I don’t throw words away, although I gave a couple of old dictionaries to a charity shop last year
Correct context is in the mind of the user – it is debatable – which is what we’re doing now.
How can horrible terms of abuse have a correct context?
Blackamoor isn’t a term of abuse. It’s merely descriptive; But even terms that are sometimes used as abuse can have their context. ‘Queer Studies’ is a good example. If I want to describe a fundamentalist Christian’s view on homosexuality I should put the word ‘fag’ in his mouth and not let him get away with saying the more acceptable ‘gay’. When we prohibit words (dissimulate) we also hide sentiments and allow things to fester.
I now hear that Obama’s election is evidence America is no longer a racist country. That’s a perfect example of the result of political correctness. Real issues are hidden behind socio-linguistic propriety. I fell very strongly about this because I think this is the process behind which the right has been allowed to hide what they’re actually selling. They’re not pro-family, they’re anti-gay. They’re not pro-life, they’re against women’s rights. They’re not in favour of traditional values, they’re for excluding minorities.
While fully agreeing with your political analysis of the Right, I disagree with your point that modern forms of language are somehow complicit. If people hide behind words is not the fault of the words, but the users. Doesn’t this practice show how the language evolves with enlightened values while the reactionary Right does not?
BTW ‘blackamoor’ is derogatory in English – I’ve heard it used that way, and dictionaries bear this out. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blackamoor for instance,
1. (degrading) A person with dark skin, especially (but not necessarily) one from northern Africa
2. a blackamoor slave, a blackamoor servant; and hence any slave, servant, inferior, or child
I’m certainly not advocating ‘prohibiting words’ merely calling their connotative meanings into question.