Great piece…so many textures, like The Greek Slave itself.

At first glance I immediately drew comparisons to the Atlantic slave trade and the Devil in the details, roller coaster emotions of the awareness of plight, uncertainty, recollection, hope, fading hope and resignation…finality. The not so obvious, that gets lost in the more conspicuous horror of the system. The getting into the mind scape of a person on the auction block. Putting a human face on a dehumanizing system. The kind of thoughts and feelings which the artist so rightly pointed out:

“According to his own description, Powers’ marble masterpiece depicted a Christian woman who “has been taken from one of the Greek Islands by the Turks, in the time of the Greek Revolution; the history of which is familiar to all. Her father and mother, and perhaps all her kindred, have been destroyed by her foes, and she alone preserved as a treasure too valuable to be thrown away.” In short, Hiram implies, she is a married woman, not a prostitute — but now a slave”.

Again: “Following her capture and enslavement, Hiram imagined, “She is now among barbarian strangers, under the pressure of a full recollection of the calamitous events which have brought her to her present state…”

Then as I read further, I could anticipate how the work could become a trope for other contrasting issues like women rights vis-a-vis the Abolitionists: moral outrage for one moral victory for the other. So ironic! A statue that at a glimpse all the viewer sees is nakedness, represents so much more…a trope for the evil and shame of slavery. I wonder if Hiram intended to speak truth to power?

I noticed too a few subtleties: Religion as a tool to not only infuriate, incite the masses — as it did in the initial stage — but also as a pacifier, turning shock and disgust into a celebration of “chastity and faith”, grace under suffering; the appreciation of one figure representing the larger tribulations bequeathed to humanity. The religious forced to look beyond nakedness to lessons for the faithful.

Something else that wasn’t lost on me was how the “subordinates” can so readily defer to the infallibility of gods. It took Victoria after all, to bring a mellow mood to the disapproving mob. Now we can see in today’s scenario how celebrities are paid huge sums to endorse products.

The work and the rejection instantly reminded me of two of Edouard Manet’s infamous pieces: Le Dejeuner sur l' herbe (Luncheon on the grass) and Olympia, turned down by the Salon in Paris; an ultra conservative jury who had to give approval before an artist’s work could go on official exhibition. Both too pornographic for selection and I suppose of no redeeming quality unlike Hiram’s work. They were just woman in unabashed nakedness; no symbolism or allegorical features to account for her nudity. Manet was that raw, unfiltered, push the envelope artist you see…just painting what he saw before him.

I’m wondering if Hiram didn’t exhibit in Paris because of these Czars that sat on the jury of the Salon. Paris was not far from the United States in terms of prudish I think. I think for them what made the difference why works like Venus could get a passing grade was that they represented some mythological or symbolic excuse for the nudity. The kind that was able to redeem The Greek Slave. It was provocative, without inhibitions on the side of the artist, but there was more than meets the eye…not naked for naked’s sake.

If the purpose of art and of the artist is to present a piece and leave it open to the many interpretations by the viewer, then this piece passes in both form and function. There is so much to see beyond what is presented. So many interpretations and if this is the social purpose of art, then Hiram must have been proud of The Greek Slave. Thanks for introducing him to me.