'Extremely rare' 17th-century painting of Black woman with White companion placed under export bar from UK

CNN ^ | 11 December 2021 | Sana Noor Haq, CNN

[blueplum]

A17th-century painting showing a Black woman with her White companion has been placed under a temporary export bar to reduce the risk of the artwork leaving the United Kingdom... ...Titled "Allegorical Painting of Two Ladies, English School," the painting presents a Black female sitter and her White companion as counterparts, as they sport similar clothing, hair, jewelry and makeup....

..."This anonymous painting is a great rarity in British art, as a mid-seventeenth-century work that depicts a black woman and a white woman with equal status. It is not a portrait of real people, as far as we know, but the inscription reveals that it is in fact a sternly moralising picture that condemns the use of cosmetics, and specifically elaborate beauty patches, which were in vogue at the time," ....

[SES1066]

While this 1650s painting may have features and subtext discernible to the experts, to me it appears that the unknown artist was also indulging in an exercise of reverse coloration. Looking from the bust line up and disregarding the hair, see how the pearls look and how the 'face paintings' differ. I get the feeling that this artist was using his skill to show the equivalent of a 'photo reversal'.

I also find the 1650s dating of interest as this was when Oliver Cromwell was ruling as 'Lord Protector' of England (1653-58). Given the strong Puritanism that prevailed after the regicide of Charles I in 1649, I wonder if this painting, with the gowns and pearls, was a dig against the Puritan fundamentalism that advocated simple dark clothing and decried adornment.

[Hot Tabasco]

Looks like tats were popular then also

[Does so]

Same amount of sclera in the eyes showing.

Good catch!

[sumuam]

Fake.

[dinodino]

I disagree. The two girls have different hair and features.

[alexander_busek]

Looks like tats were popular then also

Excerpt explains that those are "beauty patches" - not tattoos.

Regards,

[SES1066]

I disagree. The two girls have different hair and features.

I was not saying that it was the same woman transposed into different color. That was made obvious by the artist in the gowns alone! What I WAS REMARKING ON was his showing the pearls against the different skin color and then the identical 'face paintings' as contrasting to that skin.

Looking at this again, I wonder if this unknown artist was also pointing out that skin color was no reason for slavery. England had black slavery since Elizabeth I (1533-1603) but only by the wealthy and as 'body servants'. It was in the American Colonies where it was rampant. The British, French & Dutch sugar plantations of a century on, CONSUMED SLAVES in unbelievable working conditions. Still, as a portrait of two women, the artist is depicting them as identical except for skin!

[dinodino]

I agree with your last post—I’m inclined to believe it was a statement about colorblindness. Regardless, it’s a remarkable painting.

[SauronOfMordor]

I’ll go with a simpler explanation than most on this thread.

The artist didn’t like women disfiguring their faces with “beauty patches” and was saying that they were making themselves look like African tribeswomen.

I feel similarly about young women today disfiguring their bodies with graffiti.

[kalee]

I thought it might be Dido and Elizabeth but it’s before their time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_Elizabeth_Belle

[Sacajaweau]

Looking at the face markings...it’s a mirror image.

[Sacajaweau]

In my post #12...I called it a mirror image which is probably the same as your photo reversal.

[BobL]

To me, it shows the corruption of the capitalist system, where humans are reduced to property and only by the grace of God is one born white. Therefore Communism is required to correct this injustice.

[sauropod]

Excellent comments. I agree.

[MNDude]

BBC dramas has taught me that England was full of black kings, queens, lords and ladies during this time era. I am surprised this is rare.

[Notthereyet]

“The patterns on their faces marked “a sin of pride,” according to the statement.”
________________________________________________

“The artist didn’t like women disfiguring their faces with “beauty patches” and was saying that they were making themselves look like African tribeswomen.”
_______________________________________________

Your extremely simplistic ‘explanation’ is fraught with error. How did you manage to get your racial explanation????? The ‘Sin of Pride,’ was all the way back in the Garden Of Eden.......

Unless you’re willing to say Eve was the First black woman.....

....by the way....the genetic make-up of every single racial group *was* in Adam, hence would be in Eve..... just a thought.....

The ‘Sin of Pride,’ is in every single racial grouping, however......

[SauronOfMordor]

All we know about the painting is the title, “Allegorical Painting of Two Ladies, English School”. There was no write-up by the painter as to his intention. Thus all interpretations are speculative.

The interpretation that it was about “The sin of pride” is the opinion of the modern-day bureaucrat who wrote the statement.

I put forward an alternate possible explanation.

Have a good day.