African-Americans in the Lincoln movie

Recently I saw the movie Lincoln, which I particularly liked for its unromantic view of 19th century life. People, sans blow-dried hair, inhabited dimly lit, dusty interiors. The realistic, if not heroic, picture of Lincoln as a backroom politician as well as an inspiring orator created a balanced view. The tumult in the Congress provided a welcome antidote to some current commentary that we have somehow "lost" the civil politics of yesteryear. The moviegoer was reminded of the horror of war.

However, there seemed to be a false note in the depiction of blacks. They were prominently displayed in top hats and dress coats at Lincoln's second inaugural. Yet in the picture above of that event, all distinguishable faces are white. 

 

Likewise blacks were depicted in formal dress in Congressional galleries, which seems unlikely, although photography rarely depicted the dimly-lit 19th century interiors.

 

 

Soldiers of both races often fought in makeshift uniforms. The movie showed complete uniforms of the kind worn in photographic studios. The picture at right probably presents a more realistic view of black troops.

 

 Even in current usage, minority servers in households and institutions are addressed by their first names while those served are often addressed as Mr. or Mrs. It seemed false to me that the Lincolns were depicted addressing black household servants with titles, rather than their first names.

Does it dishonor everybody to provide a realistic depiction of 19th century whites, while sugar-coating the depiction of blacks?

Art as Religion

It has become common place to observe that art has replaced religion among educated secular people. Philanthropists and civil governments enable architects to erect landmark buildings that impress as churches once did. Visiting, appreciating and collecting art are regarded as superior, almost moral activities. Art is an important element of my own life and yet I often find myself irritated when a religious aura surrounds it. I ask myself why.

It is wonderful that art provides aesthetic pleasure, emotional significance and mental stimulation to people. An impulse toward aesthetics seems to be a basic human trait as is an impulse toward religion. In most cultures, the two combine. In our culture we have separated them.

 However, art advocates sometimes claim the right to denigrate others' beliefs as religions have done historically and still do in some cases. I think the claim to moral superiority if an object is labeled "art" is the source of my irritation.

 Art that denigrates religious symbols brings the conflict into focus. An example some years ago was an image of the Virgin Mary daubed with elephant dung that was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum and incensed then mayor Rudy Giuliani. I came across an interesting commentary on this issue in the Jewish World Review reminding readers that denigrating others' religious symbols is bigotry and asking how they would react if a Star of David had been treated similarly. In effect, the author was asking whether anti-Christianity is more acceptable than antisemitism.

The other aspect of the controversy was that taxpayers, undoubtedly including some whose religious symbols were being denigrated, paid to support the exhibit. Is this an argument against public support of the arts, in which case the issue only would have been one of free expression? Or is it an argument against public support of art that consciously denigrates a segment of the culture?

Is this conflict something that adheres to the visual arts? Literature and music also provide aesthetic pleasure, emotional significance and mental stimulation, but does novel reading attain the moral status attached to visual art? It might be argued that classical music and opera do attain that status.

Dear readers, how do you feel about these issues?