Drawn! The Illustration and Cartooning Blog

Only a portion, maybe half, of the collection went to the libraary. One piece from the same find sold through Heritage Comics Auctions lat month. They have a picture of it on their site in the archives. I believe a few others will go to auction over the next several months. I had the chance to see them in person and they're pretty damn amazing.

I love hearing about stuff like this.

Holy cow! Great scoop Johnny!

What an incredible find!

while i understand mccay's importance in the history of the form and the particular historical/cultural background in which the work originated (and, indeed, the need to preserve cultural artifacts, no matter how unpleasant they may be), a part of me finds it difficult to get too too excited that a handful of hundred-year-old racist cartoons about hapless pickaninnies in the jungle are being brought back to light.

i mean... eh. oh. whatever.

wow, that is amazing!

Steven posted that he "finds it difficult to get too too excited" about racist cartoons. I believe that whatever McCay's belief's, his artwork was in a very different context and time. So, am I to assume you (Steven) are a racist because you created a painting of someone putting on blackface, as shown on your website?

Leapin' Marmots!!!
I love McKays' work. This is exciting news.
Steven, I hold with you on the racist elements of the work; which makes this a bittersweet discovery. He seemed such a progressive and level-headed man, according to the content his daily "sermon" cartoons. I'm thankful that we aren't as complacent in the face of injustice and prejudice today as those who lived 100 years ago were.
May their bones moulder for eternity (Huzzah!).

Context is the key; McKay simply offered up a standard and accepted (though very unfortunate) image of what was considered "exotic" in his day. The blame for this should be laid at the society and age McKay lived in, not the man himself; although many before him held themselves to a higher standard. I say that whenever such images are presented to us, even with the "blackface" image on some other artists' website, we should look at ourselves and our culture, as Americans, and understand the history of such charged images. "Blackface', derived from the American Negro by white entertainers (and later utilized by Blacks to become top billing showmen themselves, how's that for irony) and the Jewish Vaudeville tradition is what gave us Broadway, after all.

First, I want to reiterate what I said before in a earlier post: I think it's more relevent to address the opinion expressed, rather than the person who expressed it or their work in a forum like this, where its so easy to remain anonymous. I think identifying yourself on here is a courtesy--lets not alienate people from the practice.

I agree that context is very much at issue in both respects: these images are no less racist today, than they were then, but back then they were done with more innocent intention. Nemo was populated by characters generated from carnivals and circuses and vaudeville, and the jungle imp was a stock character from this tradition. But this isn't Birth of a Nation--the denegration of African Americans wasn't the intent. The general proliferation of images LIKE this was definitely damaging, but lets not forget that this was invariably how African Americans were portrayed in the dominant white culture at the time.

To bring this further into context: take the work of Sullivant. Sullivant often portrayed the stereotypical Irish drunk in his cartoons, but Sullivant was Irish himself. Or George Harriman: a light skinned black man whose early work portrayed stereotypical black characters in broad slapstick. Not to say that their racial backgrounds gave them a license to be racists, but this was what American humor was at the turn of the century. Its similar to the reason that black vaudevillians would don black face--as Tony mentions-- and do Jim Crow performances--it was a popular form of expression, and in some respects, the only form of expression available to them.

So yes, we understand the social climate at the time that these images were made, but to appreciate and display these images is not an endorsement of these attitudes. Think of all the art we'd have to dismiss outright for this reason: the entire movement of Hitler's Socialist Realism and it's influence; works by Guaguin, and Daumier and Goya. So when looking at these images, it's your responsibility to bring these attitudes with you. No one needs to apologize for their existence.

This said, I love McKay's work, and this is an exciting find.

i have to say, i think there remains some danger in giving historical works a sort of blanket acceptance simply because they were made when standards of appropriate representation were different. i suppose this, for me, rests largely with the fact that there exists a very real (albeit somewhat covert) nostalgia for a certain brand of "good old days" revisionism. one need look only to the relatively recent explosion in the market for racist memorabilia (such as these cartoons, as well as mammy cookie jars, sambo figurines, "nigger banks" etc) to realize this. that does deserves some qualification, as such memorabilia is rather famously collected by a number african american celebrities, but it's perhaps more broadly collected by shoppers at flea markets across the country, where that sort of stuff (and, indeed "historical reproductions" of such) are nothing if not ubiquitous.

i understand, of course, the fact that these drawings are long lost mccay originals--in and of itself--inspires a great deal of interest in work, but the racist content is going to be a strong secondary source of interest, as well, whether that fact is acknowledged or not. i don't think it's being unreasonable or close-minded to say that one might temper his or her enthusiasm for the work by addressing the problematic content and its role in a long, ongoing tradition of cultural expropriation and ridicule. there was, i might point out, no such acknowledgement in the original post, which is the main reason i felt the need to comment.

and, "wheezer," in reference to my own work, the series of blackface self-portraits you saw on my website, that body of work, though admittedly not one-hundred percent successful for a number of reasons, was an attempt on my part to explore my own role (as a white, male cultural producer) in systems and traditions of artmaking and art criticism that, overtly or not, celebrate racist ideology while at once aping and devaluing (all) other cultures. i am sorry, though, that i don't have a statement up on the site for the work, as i'm currently in the process of rewriting it.

in the end, though, this racism thing is systemic, and i'd be lying horribly if i said i wasn't the beneficiary of white privilege (ergo. a racist of some fashion). my work (in contrast, to, say, //these cartoons//) was conceived as an exploration (and a criticism) of that privilege, however. does that mean i was right in using the blackface images? i'm probably not the one most qualified to answer that question, but i would certainly prefer that someone call bullshit on me than just say "that's cool" and appreciate the work uncritically.

In all discussions of this type, it should be remembered that not one of us can successfully predict what will be considered prejudiced or offensive 100 years from now.

That was a rather long-winded response to a point that was already moot. We're all intelligent grown-ups here and we all know and understand the cultural and historical differences between Winsor McCay's world and today. That's why the issue of race was not brought up in John's initial post—it was not necessary.

It looks to me, steven, that you've had to answer to and explain your blackface paintings on more than one occasion—and the fact that you're in the process of rewriting your statement about it definitely tells me that you'll always have to answer to it. Honestly, I find your "experiment" a simple case of shock value. There are many other ways of making your statement, but the fact that you would take photos of yourself putting on blackface and then painting said photos tells me that you just knew that that would get people's attention. Sorry to say, but others have come before you and have done a much better job of getting their point across.

I also find it interesting that you would create a debate here in regards to race when it was totally unnecessary. Could it be that you caused a stir knowing that others would take notice of your own work? Hmmm....

LOL, Dudes... I'M Black and I"M tired of this debate! Let's party!!!!

I'm with Tony. I mean the partying part.

Though, I am half Jamaican, and do have black roots, so yeah, I'm with Tony.