This daguerreotype with an abolitionist motif
may be one of the first political buttons made
in America to incorporate a photograph. Believed
to be unique, the miniature daguerreotype shows
two hands held together, one black, one
white resting on a book assumed to be the Bible
link
7 comments:
What a beautiful, exciting even.
It is...and it must have someone special to carry such pin in a time when many people believed in enslaved workers in fields and house holds!
While I REALLY APPRECIATE the sentiment, I think the description of this image by the museum is entirely false. These are not the hands of two separate people. Look at them closely. This is a man's hands, a pair of one man's hands, holding a book (sure, a Bible perhaps). Imagine a man holding a book in front of him, his arms hanging relaxed, one hand over another comfortably.
In photography, particularly black & white photography, light sources and strengths make quite a difference (look at the color differentiation in these hands - clearly belonging to one subject: http://figitalrevolution.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/hands_schaub.jpg). Lighting here also makes these hands (from one subject) appear different "colors": http://ih2.redbubble.net/work.782458.2.flat,550x550,075,f.sculpture-of-hands.jpg. It works in color as well as seen with these caucasian hands http://www.stdavidslakeland.com/Pictures/PrayerHands.jpg.
Don't believe me? Check out this picture. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/John_Brown_daguerreotype_c1856.png With the Met's line of thinking, this is an image of two men, one black, and one white, merged into one. Works on black skin and white skin, oranges and apples, children and old people, animals, vegetables and minerals. http://rayamst312.umwblogs.org/files/2009/03/urn-3-fmuspeab.jpg
As JenPB said, it looks to me like two hands of the same person, but looks like brown skin to me. African-American hands on top of a book -- any book -- would have been quite radical and illegal at the time.
Thank you very much for your comments! And thanks JenPB for your great links!!
I actually think it is two hands of the same person...just like you do. I don't think the Mets' description is right either...but as 'Anonymous' says 'quite radical and illegal at the time' non the less, as it is the hands of an enslaved...and a very powerful image (..and pin...)
Thanks again!!!
Yes, I agree, probably the same hand, BUT and NEVERTHELESS, it is the sentiment that counts here.
Cynthia A'
Hello cynthia altoriso and welcome to my blo!
Just my words, cynthia altoriso, just my mords :O) That's the importrant thing! And importatant is it that someone wore it!
Thanks
Post a Comment