oh nm i missed the link above the intersectionality link
yeah, that's the stuff i'm boggling at, students mashed with cars, flung from hoods, bloodthirsty packs roaming the night in search of kill
― The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Saturday, 18 March 2017 01:29 (seven years ago) link
That student account felt pretty disingenuous--the car was being pushed from side to side by someone. The fascist security staff could somehow not stop clear a path for the car move through the peaceful crowd
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Saturday, 18 March 2017 19:51 (seven years ago) link
http://blackcontemporaryart.tumblr.com/post/158661755087/submission-please-read-share-hannah-blacks
apparently, there's been a small furor over a painting included in this year's whitney biennial. it's an abstract representation of emmett till's corpse created by dana schutz, a successful white artist. the piece linked is an open letter by writer/artist hannah black in which she recommends that "the painting be destroyed and not entered into any market or museum." black's letter also contain's the following argument, relevant to this thread:
The subject matter is not Schutz’s; white free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights.
― The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 00:49 (seven years ago) link
Surely this will mend race relations in America
― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 01:35 (seven years ago) link
Not interesting iirc
― The night before all about day (darraghmac), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 02:10 (seven years ago) link
off to bed then
― The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 02:24 (seven years ago) link
Having your (pretty terrible?) work displayed in a prominent privately run art gallery is not protected speech
Belongs on race thread imo
― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 12:01 (seven years ago) link
apparently, there's been a small furor over a painting included in this year's whitney biennial.
at first read that as- ah, you're ahead of me
― why labour 'foot problems' since 2015? (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 12:14 (seven years ago) link
Same
― The night before all about day (darraghmac), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 12:25 (seven years ago) link
yeah, but destroying said work as the author wants done hits up against some free speech issues i think
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 12:36 (seven years ago) link
The author is entitled to demand this and everyone else is entitled to not do that i don't see the free speech issue tbh
― The night before all about day (darraghmac), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 13:27 (seven years ago) link
Oh I don't disagree her argument/statement is all passion and clearly aimed at her own peers rather than the gallerists or the artist
Any valid points worth discussing in the open letter are about race and "lived experience" as the ultimate arbiter. I don't care so much that she felt it was important to include destroying the painting as a stretch goal
― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 13:33 (seven years ago) link
I mean, if nothing else, she explicitly challenges the right to free speech in the text of the letter.
― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 16:32 (seven years ago) link
"White free speech" anyway. (Is this something like "bourgeois free speech"?)
― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 16:33 (seven years ago) link
Having your (pretty terrible?) work displayed in a prominent privately run art gallery is not protected speech― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:36 AM (four hours ago)
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:36 AM (four hours ago)
sure, but black explicitly negates free speech (or "white free speech", at least) in the brief passage i quoted. her argument on that point isn't fleshed out, but i gather that it's somewhere in the ballpark of: the oppressor has no "natural right" to exploit the image/identity/experience of the oppressed.
agree that the painting seems kind of awful.
― Balðy Dodders (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:08 (seven years ago) link
calling for the painting to be destroyed is dumb
― marcos, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:17 (seven years ago) link
idk, i'm not really seeing it as appropriation either. also the painting is pretty abstract and is not particularly grotesque or exploitative
― marcos, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:18 (seven years ago) link
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the parts of the letter that are arguing for censorship are dumb, I think they're performative and poorly argued, so if there's anything worth discussing in that letter it's not that. But I don't feel like reading it again so oh well
― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:32 (seven years ago) link
Okay well how about 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 fyi icyww
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:34 (seven years ago) link
That was an xp
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:35 (seven years ago) link
the opinions of what percentage of the at-risk/marginalized group?
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:40 (seven years ago) link
xp I think the letter seems correct and reasonable, cosign everything in it.
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:42 (seven years ago) link
i thought the most powerful group wins?
― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:43 (seven years ago) link
In brief: the painting should not be acceptable to anyone who cares or pretends to care about Black people because it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun, though the practice has been normalized for a long time
is it accurate to say that schutz painted this "for fun?" the work also isn't being sold iirc
― marcos, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:45 (seven years ago) link
I was responding directly to marcos' comment that he doesn't find the painting grotesque or exploitative. I don't know how marcos necessarily identifies but just on the fly I don't remember him self-identifying as a Black American with roots in slavery who might be said to be the at-risk group with the most direct inheritance of moral legitimacy to opine on Emmet Till's death AND receive fame and/or profit from using it as source material.
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:46 (seven years ago) link
i don't think this incident triggers nearly the same vehemence if not for the suggestion that the piece be destroyed, so I guess if the goal was to bring attention, kudos for adding that bit. as a genuine suggestion though it's idiotic. i can't think of any justifiable rationale for seriously destroying an artwork unless it constituted true hate speech and I don't see how this even comes close to that.
― evol j, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:48 (seven years ago) link
unless it constituted true hate speech
I would probably oppose destroying the artwork (without the creator's or owner's consent) even in this case.
― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:51 (seven years ago) link
artwork should only be destroyed if it is idolatrous
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:52 (seven years ago) link
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.
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:55 (seven years ago) link
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
― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:57 (seven years ago) link
eating the pain of a group they don't belong to and spitting it back out in their own context
this is moronic
― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 17:59 (seven years ago) link
Oh okay
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:12 (seven years ago) link
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.
― Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:16 (seven years ago) link
This says more about how you feel than what I said.
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:24 (seven years ago) link
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.
― marcos, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:24 (seven years ago) link
:) :)
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:27 (seven years ago) link
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.
― Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:29 (seven years ago) link
in orbit thank you for doing a good job of talking about the parts I thought were worth talking about
― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 19:00 (seven years ago) link
"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"?
― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 19:04 (seven years ago) link
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).
― the world's little sunbeam (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 19:52 (seven years ago) link
you could say the same about an essay calling for all of bell hooks' books to be thrown into a furnace.
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:03 (seven years ago) link
also every right that we think we have was founded in an unequal system, so her point is meaningless
― duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:04 (seven years ago) link
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
― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:09 (seven years ago) link
(he was ironizing and not making a critique)
― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:10 (seven years ago) link
intersectional lurkers
― soref, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:11 (seven years ago) link
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.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:14 (seven years ago) link
well, it's not really an aesthetic theory
― Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:16 (seven years ago) link
no it isn't, is it
― Mordy, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:20 (seven years ago) link
This is the painting?: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/dana-schutz-painting-emmett-till-whitney-biennial-protest-897929
― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:22 (seven years ago) link
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.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:27 (seven years ago) link