J. MW Turner’s “slave ship” is one of the strongest accusations of inhumane acts of human trafficking. This is how the critic John Ruskin sees it. His father portrayed him the image of slaves thrown into the sea, who were at the mercy of the elements because of the brutality of their fellow human beings. Three years ago, because the content was shocking, but most importantly, for aesthetic reasons, it was rejected at the Royal Academy.
In Ruskin’s view, Turner’s work is more proof of his immortality than any other work. But Ruskin could no longer stand the disturbing topic and decided to sell. His praise of this painting to American collectors in 1872 may be the strongest expression of true indignation against the slave trade—please note, not against slavery—”the smart people in Britain have ever felt it.”
Just don’t worship
This painting was acquired by a Boston collector who believed that culture was the most effective means of stimulating social reforms. The painting was described by progressive Christians as “a sermon against the slave trade”, inciting violent suppression of distant countries. Strongly protested. In the late 19th century, this information even became a moral reason for the United States to intervene in emerging economies.
Now, in an exhibition about Turner’s humanitarian commitment to the modern world, the “slave ship” is placed in the context of the current debate on colonialism. In the catalog introduction, Alex Farquason, director of the Tate Britain, warned against admiring Turner, because Turner took a stake in a Jamaican slave ranch in 1805. Farquharson thinks it is impossible for Turner to know that his description of the new steam engine emissions recorded the beginning of global warming, which shows that today’s categories are used to measure past trends. This observation is accompanied by condemnation. As a leading industrial power, the UK was the largest emitter of carbon dioxide at the time, which led to climate change.
A group of well-known historians chaired by Robert Tombs and David Abulafia, claiming to be “historical regained”, now wants to protect themselves from this politically motivated The influence of the past instrumentalization of the purpose. In colonial debates, the term “imperial strikes back” is often used. Now, historians have launched a concerted counterattack against the Neo-Orthodox.
