We see a lot of art here at IN THE AIR, but little has unsettled us more than the oeuvre of Margaret Bowland, a North Carolina-born artist who specializes in painting young African-American girls in whiteface. Bowland is currently suing the Smithsonian, the National Portrait Gallery, and — wait for it — the United States of America for wrongfully handing her painting to a collector after it was exhibited at the Washington museum, according to Courthouse News.
The disputed painting, “Portrait of Kenyetta and Brianna,” depicts three figures in white makeup, each dressed in a style that can best be described as Rococo bride meets flower girl meets geisha. We’re not sure what’s more shocking here: that the painting in question was exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery, that it won the People’s Choice Award in the museum’s 2010 Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition, or that someone actually purchased it.
The whole sordid tale dates back to 2008, when the Portrait Gallery selected Bowland’s painting for the competition. Bowland lent the artwork to the museum from her personal collection on the condition that it would be returned to her after the contest ended, according to court papers. But rather than return it to her, Bowland says the museum shipped the painting to a collector, David Naylor, who purchased it from her gallerist, Santa Fe’s Klaudia Marr. Marr, alleges Bowland, never had the right to sell the painting in the first place. For some reason, however, Bowland names only the Smithsonian, the Portrait Gallery, and the USA as defendants in the suit, not the collector who bought the work or the dealer who sold it. She’s asking for $100,000 for breach of contract and negligence.
On the wall label at the Portrait Gallery, Bowland explained that the girls in the painting “became…images requesting acceptance and protection through ritual purification….True, tradition covers them in white, but who they are shines through as their eyes meet ours.” Check out Google Images if you can stomach any more of Bowland’s work. She’s currently a painting instructor at the New York Academy of Art.
— Julia Halperin
Tags: Margaret Bowland, National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian, United States of America, WTF
Tags: 
The language used in this article seems better suited for a celebrity gossip column rather than discussing the artwork of a professional and intellectual such as Margaret Bowland. i am saddened that such an un-informed, un-insightful and narrow minded article would even be posted on a reputable site such as Art Info.The title of this article is misleading and completely un-informed, I believe that the courthouse write up is more honest, neutral read on the situation… http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/24/43274.htm
The work of Margaret Bowland is a beautiful example of an artist who uses contemporary social issues such as racism and its affects on women….she conveys her passion through paint to confront the viewer with the uncomfortable reality we live in, and the reality that the subject lives in. i believe this work is honest, passionate, and thought provoking and successful, how else would it have won “peoples choice”?
Who cares if you don’t like the artwork, Julia Halperin? Artists deserve support and praise when they demand to be treated justly. The arts are not supported enough as it is; we don’t need people like you injecting ill-informed opinions into a news report. Shame on you.
Dear Julia,
You must lead an incredibly sheltered life if M. Bowland’s sobering and enchanting images of female repression can unsettle you to such a point as to strike you dumb. Which I guess they must have done, since you don’t seem to understand one iota of the symbolism used in her work or her intention.
Instead of creating a sensational gossip column regarding Bowland’s unfortunate situation, perhaps you could spend a little more time looking at the work, instead of fanning the flame that you’ve lit under your ass.
Warmly,
Cara
The author of this article is unsettling, not Ms Bowland’s work.
It is a shame that so many people will waste so much time reading what can only be called an article because it is published on a blog. This is nothing more than a slanderous remark scrawled on a bathroom mirror and should be treated as such.
I wish I could call this “un-informed, un-insightful and narrow minded article,” as an earlier reader commented, but unfortunately this gossipy sputum has so little content that it cannot even be called those things. Its just unabashedly hateful without out actually offering any sort of opinion.
Where are your editors, ArtInfo?
Julia Halperin = idiot. It’s a travesty that an esteemed periodical such as Artinfo would print this hideous diatribe about Ms. Bowland. I wish I had Miss Halperin’email address so I could tell her where to stick her pompous and ignorant rantings. For the readers that are not familiar with Margaret Bowlands work – they are stupendous! They belong in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I don’t know of a more brave painter than Miss Bowland. Her paintings are breathtaking and inimitable. SHAME ON HALPERIN for writing this filth about something she clearly knows nothing about : art.
TO: Andrew Goldstein Executive Editor, Artinfo.com
Dear Mr. Goldstein, I would like to call for the immediate resignation and firing of Julia Halperin, your assistant Editor. The article (trash) that Ms Halperin wrote about Margaret Bowland, American painter, belongs on Page 6 of the Post, not on such an esteemed periodical as Artinfo. Her piece is slanderous; it’s also an uncalled for diatribe about Ms Bowlands EXTRAORDINARY portraits. If Ms Halperin ever took the time to meet Ms Bowland or see her work she would be writing Ms Bowland a retraction and an apology as we speak. Few painters today are brave or courageous to tackle difficult issues – Damien Hirst is a sham! But Ms Bowlands paintings are raw and real and they address so many issues that it would be pointless to list them all here. Ms Halperin has no place being associated with Artinfo. Shame on her and shame on you for printing her article. Carolyn Kramer Brooklyn NY
The title at the top of the page does read, Art and Auctions “gossip” collum….
I’m less perturbed by the fact that the our writer seems to find Ms. Bowlands work offensive, than the fact that Halperin offers up such an opinion withouth any argument whatsoever.
In most publications, making claims without putting forward any argument or evidence will get you fired…
But I believe in Redemption for you Ms. Halperin! Grow a pair and adress the racial elephant in the room that seems to have you so offended that you dare nor even mention it! Give us a juicy article on why a white woman painting black girls in white face is so objectional, and ye shall keep your job!
Sincerley,
Cory Dixon
The writer strikes me as being really insincere and dishonest. I think Ms. Halperin has an agenda she is not telling us about. The author starts by describing the legal situation but then takes unnecessary swipes at the subject matter and the artist. Why was that done?
This work is visually powerful and emotionally unsettling. The people in the painting seem to have more self esteem and dignity than Ms. Halperin does
The writer of this article seems entirely closed minded and uninformed. How about you discuss the un-professional practice of releasing someone’s property to another individual without the written consent of the owner?
This is easily one of the most offensive pieces of drive-by, personal attack writing that I have ever read, and I am not only shocked at what I have read here, but surprised that the author’s editor did not see the disturbing consequences of taking unnecessary and brutal personal attacks on the artist.
This is also lazy writing at its worst, as just a little bit of research into Ms. Bowland’s work would have informed the author a little more about what drives this artist’s work, and how critics and the public react to it and she might have discovered that the stolen painting earned “The People’s Choice Award” by visitors to the exhibition.
I too add my voice to those who call for an apology to Ms. Bowland for this piece of offensive, uninformed writing.
This article is utter schlock! Margaret Bowland is one of the best painters working today in America. If you’d spend a bit of time looking at her paintings in person rather than on google images you might have a greater appreciation for the mastery of skill this remarkable artist possesses. Your article proves anyone can publish anything online.
Richie Fine
The article above is a clear example of the written word gone awry.
Margaret Bowland is a true artist who paints with courage. She is not afraid to make the difficult parts of ourselves beautiful, nor does she shy from the kind of beauty that is difficult for us to accept.
While the suit may qualify as ‘gossip’, your assessment of her work, while critical, displays a lack of critical thinking. This article is a tepid attempt to try her in a court of ‘public’ opinion. Though your opinion is the opposite of the public’s (see: People’s Choice Award), and your perspective on her work’s social import is one-dimensional to the point of being petty.
P.S. Now I’m published too!
.”every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other”
Julie Halperin,Its unfortunate that you cannot handle the content of the paintings, and you do not have the patience to absorb the uncomfortable reality of the work. You say this work is unsettling? I say the best art is.
Shouldn’t we be talking about injustice against artists happening all over the US? how we still don’t receive royalties for sales on our work? and how arts education is being cut in universities? you should be standing up for the justice that Margaret Bowland deserves! Artists,writers,creative thinkers have to support each other, and come together and say….we wont be treated this way! the way Margaret Bowland has been swindled and stolen from.
The author should be speaking about the importance of standing up for a fellow artists. Shouldn’t she be drawing attention to the fact that this artist has been mistreated by the system? No, the author resorts to petty high school girl on girl bashing with misleading titles, and no argument…she is victimizing her fellow woman, and forgetting what is really important….support for the arts on a local and national level where fellow artists stand up for each other,galleries keep their promises, and government organizations respect the people responsible for stimulating the creative economy.
How unfortunate that Ms. Halperin is given a position of importance and knows nothing. Her article and opinions on art read more as a comedy sketch. Is this what the hipsters call “ironic”?
Seriously. Has this organization ever heard of the artist Kara Walker? Colin Quashie? Basquiat? This is comedy gold. Perhaps Julie Halperin would consider joining the current republican debates. With her ignorance, lack of self awareness, and eagerness to make a spectacle of herself, she would fit right in. Really. I’m not kidding. Comedy. Gold.
I can’t believe the level of ignorance and the cultural putrefaction and the personal poison in this writer’s words.
Where is her editor?
Add my voice to those calling for an apology.
The author observes that the painting in question “depicts three figures in white makeup”. It appears to me that only 2 of the 3 figures are wearing white makeup. There is a lot to see in this painting (even in online images of it). I would like to see the real thing now.
I do not understand the fuss. I have seen the google images of M. Bowland and I can clearly understand the point Julia makes when she finds M Bowland’s work unsettling. Many things come to my mind: exploitation of the subject to fit the artist agenda, by trying to denounce something the artist is actually victimizing her subject, objectifying those black girls to the point of not making the point she is trying to make and instead making me ungry that a probably well-intentioned white artist is, once again, not getting it. Would my reaction be the same if I the artist is black like her subjects? probably not. I can’t imagine Kara Walker’s work being done by a white artist, how can someone be entitle to that???
Let’s change the picture a little for everyone to understand, I am a good looking slender woman artist who choses to use fat women as my subject, through images I communicate my support to their condition of not conforming to the idea of beauty. I want to portrait their suffering (because I assume they are suffering) but also empowering them through my representations . My statement justifies my work because I have good intentions. They are fat, i am the opposite but I care.
In her web page, M. Bowland explains her work and to her, she is just another artist choosing a subject, creating a well intentioned concept behind that makes reference to beauty, race and other post-modern preoccupations. The unsettling piece of her work is not the quality of her paintings, she surely is very talented and knows her medium, but the conceptual part of her work. The responsibility of an artist among many others are: to research, go deep into a subject matter, question assumptions then support the findings with whatever visual medium we want but trying to be responsible of how we will enter the discussion.
Yes, good critical theory courses help.
I am not saying she can’t use other races as her subject because she is white but if she does, she has to be more careful and informed of how her work would be read/viewed by the informed.
I think the problem here is that Julia is not giving explanations as to why she finds Margaret Bowland’s work unsettling. I do find her work unsettling too but that could be the subject of another discussion. It is about representation of images, and not so much about the artist’s problems with the NPG.
At first blush, it does seem odd that the gallerist who, if memory serves, engineered this fraud managed to escape this law suit. Perhaps there is another suit, criminal or civil, aimed in that direction in the offing.
The above headline reads ‘…Blackface Artist…”, yet the last word of the first sentence is ‘whiteface.’ Which shall it be Ms. Halperin? One set on art criticism is generally expected to know white from black.
OK, headlines are often written by someone other than the journalist writing the story. So maybe Ms. Halperin didn’t pen that bit, maybe. Whomever did was trafficking in tabloid tricks pulling out the racists blackface tag. Especially when one considers that Bowland’s work turns such historically racist notions on their collective head, and ponders the question of why black girls would feel the need to adopt the pigmentation of a different race in order to feel beautiful. If Ms. Halperin finds such notions disturbing, maybe she needs to be disturbed some more.
In the future, should Ms. Halperin encounter art that agitates her gastrointestinal system, it may well serve to recall the following. To paraphrase Twain, “The reported divorce of ’shocking’ and ‘art’ has been greatly exaggerated.”
We all look forward to Ms. Halperin regaling us with future renditions of ‘art she knows when she sees it.’
This is a request to communicate with Eva, one of the contributors to this exchange. I am intrigued by your response, eloquently expressed. I would love the chance to speak with you. I am writing a new “statement” to address what I agree is a side stepping of the race issue. So important to me were the feminist questions that I did not fully understand the need for the race discussion to be separate. I am grateful to you for the consideration you gave my work and for your response. My email address is margaret.bowland@gmail.com if you would like to continue the conversation.
best,
margaret bowland