Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

"White free speech" anyway. (Is this something like "bourgeois free speech"?)

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)

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.

calling for the painting to be destroyed is dumb

idk, i'm not really seeing it as appropriation either. also the painting is pretty abstract and is not particularly grotesque or exploitative

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

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

That was an xp

the opinions of what percentage of the at-risk/marginalized group?

xp I think the letter seems correct and reasonable, cosign everything in it.

i thought the most powerful group wins?

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

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.

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.

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.

artwork should only be destroyed if it is idolatrous

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.