Very few artists give their works names. When a painter has just put the last touch to a masterpiece, she does not stand back and wonder
what to call it.
Titles are almost always given later by the public, writers,
art historians or museums. They don’t necessarily have any connection with the
This is why I can’t join the chorus of disapproval
criticising Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum for changing titles in its collection that
it deems “offensive”. The museum is removing words such as
“negro” and “Mohammedan” and replacing them with more
neutral descriptions. Thus a painting by Simon Maris once called Young Negro
Girl has become Young Girl Holding a Fan.
It is just one of 132 paintings whose caption have had the
word “negro” removed. Another work by Margaretha van Raephorst that
was described as depicting “a negro servant” is now said to portray
“a young black servant”.
Images of black people are very common in Dutch paintings of
the 17th-century Golden Age. One example is a 1687 work by Michiel van Musscher
which features a “negro” servant (slave is probably more accurate)
and is currently awaiting a new title. But the museum is also wondering what to
do with other terms now judged offensive, such as “Eskimo”. And what
about all those paintings of “dwarves”?
It’s political correctness gone mad. The angry old men of
art history have been summoned from their pre-Christmas port to splutter that
we have every right to refer to Muslims by an archaic Victorian word if we
like. As for “negro”, it’s history: “Why are these curators
messing with our old names for people of colour?”
Even Sir Nicholas Serota has weighed in to say Tate has no
intention of going down this trendy road. But I disagree with Serota. The Rijksmuseum is right.
Amsterdam’s great art gallery, the home of Rembrandt’s Night Watch (he never
called it that, by the way) is not betraying history. It is simply making a
reasonable, rational change to titles that are, and always have been, shifting
Naive about art history
It is the Rijksmuseum’s critics who are being naive about
art history. They apparently share the popular misconception that paintings
have names given by the artist that tell us something important about the work.
Most of the time, they are not meaningful; they are simply
nicknames. The title Las Meninas – “The Maids of Honour” – tells us
absolutely nothing about Velazquez’s complex masterpiece, in which the court of
Spain is portrayed with such grave unease. We call Michelangelo’s David by a
name his contemporaries would not have recognised – they simply called it
Literary works have titles that are inseparable from what
they are. It doesn’t matter how offensive modern tastes may find a name like
The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’ – that’s what Joseph Conrad called his story, and
we’re stuck with it. But the meanings of visual art inhere in how they look,
not what they happen to be called. If an old-fashioned title gets in the way
for modern audiences, it can and should be changed.
The portrait by Maris is a case in point. This work by a
minor modern artist is scarcely one of the greatest works in the Rijksmuseum.
But look closer. Stripped of its old name Young Negro Girl, it seems a
sensitive portrait. The new name allows its humanity and lack of prejudice to
be seen – and makes it more accessible, to more people, from more places.
Besides, anyone who is nostalgic about the word
“negro” really is on the wrong side of history. – (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd, 2015