“A part of the importance of history is how it plays forward.”

Terri Lee Freeman, president of the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of Maryland African American History and Culture, knows their newest artwork featuring a historical icon is as much about the past as it is the future.

If you’ve walked or driven down President Street lately, there’s a good chance you’ve made eye contact with the piece: a linocut image of Frederick Douglass in a crouched, casual position wearing an all-black suit, tie and Converse with a large watch on his wrist, with the word “liberty” dripping in paint behind him.

The museum describes the enlarged print of Adam Himoff’s “Frederick Douglass/Liberty” as “a modernized reimagining of the American abolitionist, writer, orator, and statesman.”

Freeman and the entire Reginald F. Lewis Museum board saw and liked the art on a retreat in Easton, where it is displayed nearly two stories high on the side of a brick building. Amy Haines and her husband, Richard Marks, who own the building, gifted the second of the Douglass images to Freeman and the museum.

Himoff’s piece had already faced its fair share of criticism from Easton residents and others for its depiction of the historic figure. Tarence Bailey, a descendant of Douglass, wrote a letter to The Chestertown Spy voicing the family’s disproval, saying that Douglass’ posture is “typically associated with gang activity or drug dealers” and “the mural is disturbing and disrespectful to the legacy of our family.”

Freeman was willing to take on that controversy because she wants this piece to stir conversations — something she said has already been successful due to people “going a little deeper than their own initial reactions and dissecting them.”

But even she acknowledges her initial hesitation. “I’ll be totally honest,” the museum president said. “It gave me a little pause when I found out that he [Himoff] was white, but then I stopped myself and said, ‘OK, wait a minute, why are you feeling that? Does it change how you feel about the image?’ And it didn’t because I didn’t believe that it was pejorative.”

Utah artist Himoff is also aware of the pushback surrounding the image and said he’s “welcoming of all conversations.” Bailey’s criticism “makes sense to protect what was,” Himoff said, but his own intent for the piece is “to bring it into the now and explore what is possible.”

“This is a figure we know from the past, but here he is dressed like somebody would today,” he said. “It creates this moment that I think introduces questions around who would Frederick Douglass be today? How would he dress? What would be the work that he would be doing? What would be his set of goals?”

Reynaldo Anderson, an associate professor of Africology and African American studies at Temple University, doesn’t believe Himoff’s piece accomplished that goal. “There is a legacy of white Americans appropriating or misappropriating African American culture,” Anderson said in an interview with The Banner earlier this year about the reaction in Easton. “Would anyone do a mural like this of Thomas Jefferson at Monticello?”

Freeman, however, disagrees, believing the piece captures the essence Douglass was so well-known for. She said the art will help younger generations connect with the historical figure, representing him in a positive manner without “deifying” him.

“I think that when we start getting hung up on the clothes that people have on and the way in which they stand or sit, we’re becoming really subjective about things that really don’t matter,” she said. “I’m convinced that Frederick Douglass’ intellect wouldn’t change based on what clothes he wore.”

Artist and art historian Leslie King-Hammond, the founding director of the Maryland Institute College of Art’s Center for Race and Culture, said she doesn’t think Himoff “created it [the piece] to malign Douglass in any way, shape or form.”

“Every artist has the right to take the image of an iconic individual or titan and bring a sense of meaning, fulfillment and mindfulness to what that individual meant to the dynamics of this incredible nation,” she said, but noted that having conversations about race is “always extremely difficult.”

“Placing that mural on the outside of the Reginald F. Lewis Museum is doing what it intended to do, which is to open up the lines of discourse, and this adds a lot of spice, flavor and gumbo to the conversation,” said King-Hammond, who is on the board of directors for the museum. “As long as the people are moved to have this conversation in a productive, meaningful way then anything that can be done to promote this kind of engagement is important.”

Freeman said the comments she’s seen about the piece on social media have been overwhelmingly positive. Even the two comments that were “slightly negative were respectful,” she said, though she didn’t give further details.

The Reginald F. Lewis Museum recently posted a video on its Instagram account asking local residents their thoughts on the mural.

“I think it’s amazing,” said one resident. “Frederick Douglass was a great pioneer for the country and Black folk. Seeing him dripped down, he got the watch on, I think he got a ring on, it brings in today’s culture as well as who he was as a person.”

“I love it. It puts him in a modern concept,” said another.

An older gentleman wasn’t as receptive. “He could be standing up. It looks better instead of kneeling down with them tennis [shoes] on.” After noting Douglass “looks good with that suit on,” he added that the sneakers with the suit “don’t look right.”

It’s the type of conversation Freeman hoped people would have about the artwork. “We’re presenting Douglass as this bigger-than-life figure, both figuratively and literally because of the size of the banner,” she said. “This is an interpretation and that is what all art is. Art is an interpretation.”