Further questions and answers on the Academy's relationship with John James Audubon and his ornithological work Birds of America.

Why even have Birds of America out and on display if Audubon was so contested?

Audubon’s Birds of America was a historically important album in the field of ornithological illustration in America, and the book itself is still a valuable archival item. By putting Audubon’s work on display in this exhibit, the Academy, most importantly, aims to open the floor to thoughtful and transparent dialogue. We want to equally acknowledge our awareness of its presence as well as the ongoing conversations about John James Audubon's contested legacy to tell a more complete story.

The Academy’s choice to display this work should not be misinterpreted as support for Audubon's acts or opinions. We feel that engaging critically with a work of art is not the same thing as supporting the morality or worldview of the artist.

Does displaying Audubon’s work cast a shadow on other artists who have contributed to scientific illustration?

Through the current exhibit, we are beginning to publicly discuss our changing perspective on Audubon and his works. We are moving toward a brighter, more illuminating and just future of creating space to appreciate many other talented artists, as well as the diversity of perspectives that contribute to the field of ornithology. Like drawing, progress requires both reflection and change.

Many individuals enslaved people in the 18th century. Wasn’t Audubon just a man of his time?

Technically, slavery was still legal in America during Audubon’s lifetime; however, that does not mean it was considered universally acceptable or appropriate. Many of our country's international trading peers, such as France and England, as well as many Caribbean islands such as Haiti (where Audubon was born and raised), abolished slavery in the early 19th century before the U.S. Other countries were also actively discussing and working toward that goal during his lifetime. 

In the U.S., while some places still advocated for slavery, many did not, and there was very strong, widespread pushback to the practice. The issue dominated American public politics for decades leading up to the Civil War, with much of that debate occurring during Audubon’s time as an enslaver. These discussions led to Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and then a constitutional amendment — instated only 12 years after Audubon’s death. There were many people of their time who did not practice or approve of slavery.

Why can’t we just enjoy Audubon’s artistic and scientific works? Shouldn’t we separate the art from the artist?

Understanding, appreciating and engaging with art has always been a complicated practice. Throughout history, an artist's reputation has been measured by their perceived importance in the history of art as well as their degree of innovation and engagement with the community. As such, an artist's presentation to society as a person has remained nearly as important, and as changing, as their works.

At the turn of 20th century, however, many critics wanted to look at art through a scientific lens, so they supported a radically new idea: separating the artist from their art. This approach is just one of many methods and styles of appreciation that unfortunately often benefits flawed practitioners. Since it only requires the work and the viewer, this approach is also still frequently taught in schools — where many of us have learned it— simply for its ease of access. 

Every new generation of readers and viewers will come to understand works and their artists in different ways. When considering Audubon’s illustrations, the Academy believes it is vitally important to embrace, instead of ignoring, the complex, complicated relationship between the art and the artist, the work and its viewers, and most importantly, the past and the present.