Hugely interesting! It seems almost certain that the black servant was painted over for racist reasons. However, in my own, white family, there exists an old photo of a young man and his sweetheart seated on a bench, and a strange looking "bush" that almost seems to sit on the bench, too. Turns out that the "bush" was really an old relative seated next to them, but this was the only picture of the two sweethearts before they were married, and they had the old relative "disappear inside a bush" so they could have a picture of just the two of them together. Anyway. When I looked at the three white children in the picture where the black boy had been removed, my initial thought was that I wondered what had happened to them. Did they have a good life? No, it turns out they all died at a very young age. I found that moving, and it's a reminder of how uncertain life was even for the rich ones in the mid 19th century. As for the black boy, he outlived the white children, but nothing is known about what eventually happened to him. I hope he managed to make his way to a state where there was no slavery!
It’s really amazing with all of the new technologies, we are finding that a lot of famous paintings have earlier paintings underneath. For example recently we found that Van Goghs “Head of a Peasant Woman” has an earlier Van Gogh self portrait underneath. It’s sort of like archeology but for a painting. Very awesome to finally bring this handsome young man ‘back to life’. A shame to have him covered over and hidden for so long.
What a fascinating story! I’m truly hoping that it wasn’t purely racism that motivated the covering up of Balazar but a matter of the relatives having no idea of who he was and only wanting a painting of the three children who were their family’s members. Perhaps they were embarrassed by their past members slave ownership? Not all Southerner’s were pro Slavery and because of the tensions flaring around 1900, they may have thought it a prudent thing socially, (or morally) to have poor Balazar painted over.
Children were often bought to take care of a master's child. Fredrick Douglas did that when he was younger. Sometimes there were only a few yrs difference.
The three sawed off young tree branches to the left foretold the demise of the 3 children. The mixed race ( stronger progeny ) young man is set apart, somewhat separately from the 3 children of the massa yet valued enough to be a part of the portrait. Was he perhaps the son of he who begat from the black woman ?
It is more than probable he was killed during the civil war since thats when his trail stops. Since he was of black decent his death at that time unremarkable and in the midst of war just covered somewhere in an unmarked grave. Therefore unfortunately never able to obtain freedom sadly.
That slave was a half brother of those children. He looks just like them.
Agreed
That makes sense. Why else would the painting be commissioned that way?
"I can only draw similar faces" - Jacques Guillaume Lucien Amans
The widow probably couldn't wait to get rid of him when her husband passed.
Bro it's a painting not a photograph that's why.
Hugely interesting! It seems almost certain that the black servant was painted over for racist reasons. However, in my own, white family, there exists an old photo of a young man and his sweetheart seated on a bench, and a strange looking "bush" that almost seems to sit on the bench, too. Turns out that the "bush" was really an old relative seated next to them, but this was the only picture of the two sweethearts before they were married, and they had the old relative "disappear inside a bush" so they could have a picture of just the two of them together. Anyway. When I looked at the three white children in the picture where the black boy had been removed, my initial thought was that I wondered what had happened to them. Did they have a good life? No, it turns out they all died at a very young age. I found that moving, and it's a reminder of how uncertain life was even for the rich ones in the mid 19th century. As for the black boy, he outlived the white children, but nothing is known about what eventually happened to him. I hope he managed to make his way to a state where there was no slavery!
This is really neat thank you for sharing! Now I wonder how often things get painted over
It’s really amazing with all of the new technologies, we are finding that a lot of famous paintings have earlier paintings underneath. For example recently we found that Van Goghs “Head of a Peasant Woman” has an earlier Van Gogh self portrait underneath. It’s sort of like archeology but for a painting. Very awesome to finally bring this handsome young man ‘back to life’. A shame to have him covered over and hidden for so long.
What a fascinating story! I’m truly hoping that it wasn’t purely racism that motivated the covering up of Balazar but a matter of the relatives having no idea of who he was and only wanting a painting of the three children who were their family’s members. Perhaps they were embarrassed by their past members slave ownership? Not all Southerner’s were pro Slavery and because of the tensions flaring around 1900, they may have thought it a prudent thing socially, (or morally) to have poor Balazar painted over.
Children were often bought to take care of a master's child. Fredrick Douglas did that when he was younger. Sometimes there were only a few yrs difference.
I bet he the masters son.
The three sawed off young tree branches to the left foretold the demise of the 3 children. The mixed race ( stronger progeny ) young man is set apart, somewhat separately from the 3 children of the massa yet valued enough to be a part of the portrait. Was he perhaps the son of he who begat from the black woman ?
It is more than probable he was killed during the civil war since thats when his trail stops. Since he was of black decent his death at that time unremarkable and in the midst of war just covered somewhere in an unmarked grave. Therefore unfortunately never able to obtain freedom sadly.