Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Whether or not the artist is selling it at this time is splitting hairs. The artist was selected for inclusion at the Whitney, receiving fame and critical recognition. The museum will profit from showing it, along with the rest of their catalog. Everyone involved will be capitalizing on any perceived controversy and/or recognition for being socially conscious, even when they're doing so by eating the pain of a group they don't belong to and spitting it back out in their own context. I have no idea who the artist is or what moved her to make this, and I wouldn't guess that ANY of it was done purposefully, but it's bad...idk...historical conscience? uhhh bad social-emotional housekeeping...bad analysis? I don't know how to describe it. It's not a good idea.

i am currently burning copies of the time they are a-changin' because of the tracks only a pawn in their game and the lonesome death of hattie carroll

eating the pain of a group they don't belong to and spitting it back out in their own context

this is moronic

Oh okay

the opinions of ppl who don't belong to the at-risk/marginalized group can take a back seat those of ppl who do. That is kinda the point of intersectionality

this view makes sense when intersectional principles are applied from within: "i/we should stop talking/defending in order to better understand the situation of this other person/group."

but it's a destructive obstacle to communication & understanding when imposed externally: "you're obviously not qualified to speak, so stfu."

in fact, i think the latter is fundamentally anti-intersectional, in that it's concerned with negating, rather than accommodating, divergent points of view.

but it's a destructive obstacle to communication & understanding when imposed externally: "you're obviously not qualified to speak, so stfu."

This says more about how you feel than what I said.

hey in orbit I think you are right and I was being unnecessarily dismissive. It was also shitty of me to act as if I have any kind of moral legitimacy to claim assertively that the work is not "grotesque or exploitative", it is easy to see after a second of thinking about it that someone could view it as grotesque. I just thought arguments calling for it to be destroyed are excessive. There are certainly arguments to be made about whether the work should be a part of his exhibition or whether the artists motives should be questioned. Fwiw though I don't think that events of black suffering should be uniformly off limits as subject matter for a white artist.

:) :)

This says more about how you feel than what I said.

i didn't mean to accuse you of saying anything so aggressive. i got caught up in typing and lost track of the finer points. i should have said "it can become a destructive obstacle". kind of a worst-case scenario.

in orbit thank you for doing a good job of talking about the parts I thought were worth talking about

"you're obviously not qualified to speak, so stfu."

I don't think this is too much of a strawman wrt the position in the letter.

Tbc, in orbit, when you typed "cosign everything in [the letter]", were you including the call for the painting to be destroyed and the statement that "white free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights"?

I don't have a problem either either one of those points. Although I read "should be destroyed" as "should never have been created but since it was it should be unmade" which I think is a point of its own and not a call for "censorship" (which even if it was that wouldn't be censorship).

you could say the same about an essay calling for all of bell hooks' books to be thrown into a furnace.

also every right that we think we have was founded in an unequal system, so her point is meaningless

can't help but feel that the intersectional stuff that's like let's level everything by abrogating the rights of people who have not been historically oppressed is not really going to catch on as a political tactic

always remember a max post - or maybe tweet - when he said that the logical conclusion of agreeing with, as a white, cis, het, etc. man, a radical intersectional theory of political representation and communication the logical conclusion is not to say anything about anything

(he was ironizing and not making a critique)

intersectional lurkers

i looked at the painting and i don't believe that if it were made by a POC anyone would be calling it in poor taste and if that's so you have to wonder about an aesthetic theory so heavily invested in the color of the skin of the person making the artwork.

well, it's not really an aesthetic theory

no it isn't, is it

This is the painting?: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/dana-schutz-painting-emmett-till-whitney-biennial-protest-897929

I think the author of the letter may misunderstand "natural rights" as a concept. A natural right is natural because it arises automatically in a state of nature, not because it is granted automatically by society. Societies are notorious for ignoring or suppressing rights. It's a constant battle and one that's often lost.

If whites have more agency than POC to freely deploy their speech, this is due to social constraints, as she notes, not because this disparity exists in nature. But challenging the existence of a "natural right" to freedom of expression is not the path to gaining more freedom of expression for POC. Just the opposite.

UK-born, Berlin-based artist Hannah Black

So wait - she's not even American? Fuck her then.

(N.B., I am being sarcastic)

I think the author of the letter may misunderstand "natural rights" as a concept.

in black's defense, i'm not sure this is true. perhaps her point is that the assumed ability of white people to comment on anything in any way without concern for consequence is not a natural right. that this simplistic view of free speech depends on the institutional silencing of other voices.

...and if that's the case, i see her point. she phrased it in a rather misleading & inflammatory manner, though.

It’s not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun.

This is her main point, afics. It's more powerful and persuasive to me than her remarks on free speech. It's obvious where the profit enters into it. I think I see what she means by 'fun'. The color palette used is abnormally cheerful for what is an extremely somber subject. Personally, I don't detect the image actively making fun of Emmett Till, his suffering or his death, but the image does tend to devalue it rather than enhance or heighten it. This makes it bad art and the Whitney showed poor judgement in hanging it.

in black's defense, i'm not sure this is true. perhaps her point is that the assumed ability of white people to comment on anything in any way without concern for consequence is not a natural right. that this simplistic view of free speech depends on the institutional silencing of other voices.

Yes.

Some of you seem to have a lot of ideas about how Black people should get free though. Have you thought about writing a book?

no but like a youtube channel maybe?

Waiting for a good contract

>>It’s not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun.

This is her main point, afics. It's more powerful and persuasive to me than her remarks on free speech.

Well, where is the line, even with this part of it? Do the Bob Dylan songs mentioned upthread not do this, or are they acceptable because they are less fun?

i think the current view is that there are no principles, only situations involving actors. that is, the bob dylan songs are okay until challenged.

no principles no masters

Really? This sounds like a statement of principle:

It’s not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun.

Guys it is beyond trivial to pick the letter apart, it seems obvious the goal wasn't to craft a logically impeccable argument. The sentiment is all very real as in orbit has helped make clear and I guess my challenge with it is from the same place as max's joke that was mentioned above, but for real. I think figuring out a better way to be intersectional and congregate and express ourselves is a worthwhile conversation to have. I am not super concerned about one open letter that could be interpreted to mean that the author and her friends don't want to have the conversation because come on it's provocative, fight fire with fire stuff.

there's certainly something trivial here but i don't think it's criticisms of the letter

Really? This sounds like a statement of principle:

i was overreaching. i wouldn't say contemporary activist discourse completely erases principle. i mean, everyone at least claims to operate from noble principles, even trump...

but i've noticed a semi-recent tendency among ardent progressives to treat conflicts arising from conflicting principles as a distraction. as though supposedly-good principles are only as valid as their ability to aid in the attainment of unambiguously-good ends.

black's end-run around objections based in the freedom of artistic expression strikes me as an argument of this sort. it seems more strategic than principled.

Some of you seem to have a lot of ideas about how Black people should get free though.

Ideas are a frequent byproduct of thinking about things. If your point is that we shouldn't trouble ourselves to think about this subject, then I disagree. But I suspect you also have ideas in regard to this subject and similar ones. As we share our ideas and investigate even further ideas from other sources, perhaps we may eventually get better ideas. I'm open to that.

Bob Dylan is shit, btw.

xp At some point, if the ideas get far enough, a black person may even be involved.

I think figuring out a better way to be intersectional and congregate and express ourselves is a worthwhile conversation to have.

absolutely! it's not only worthwhile, but necessary. even so, i'm leery of the idea that certain events & ideas are the sole property of this or that demographic group. the suggestion bothers me not because it steps on the freedom-seeking toes of amply-privileged whites, but because because it undermines the philosophical structures that at least attempt to grant equal rights to all. it seems profoundly counterproductive.

there's certainly something trivial here but i don't think it's criticisms of the letter

If you think anybody picking on her argument from a logical standpoint seems smart or wise then I have some college freshmen you should meet they're all GENIUSES

Hey guys if I extrapolate her sentences to Bob Dylan then I have to get rid of some albums I bought! Lol wtf crazy

xp At some point, if the ideas get far enough, a black person may even be involved.

I doubt it.

I'm white btw the thread

If you think anybody picking on her argument from a logical standpoint seems smart or wise then I have some college freshmen you should meet they're all GENIUSES

rueful chortle of self-recognition

If you think anybody picking on her argument from a logical standpoint seems smart or wise

i agree 100% that trying to approach this letter w/ logic is neither smart nor wise

(in my defense, i was missing ilx 2014)

What that when we sorted this out? I may have been on a break.

regarding max's conundrum, it's not that the white, cis, hetero man should say nothing per se, but rather that he (hi) should listen, center, and cede ground to the voices of those whose intersectional oppressions he materially benefits from. the work then would be to destruct the various systems of oppression from within his own communities in order that all can be free. or at least that's my understanding.

as to the matter at hand, i think a white woman artist profiting off of a black boy's death is gross and exploitative, and i have zero problem with Hannah Black's letter. white folks shouldn't feel so comfortable re-creating black death, imo.

i think a white woman artist profiting off of a black boy's death

"profiting" seems an absurdly reductive description of art's function, but what i know