Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

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

Also anybody who feels threatened by the letter is kind of full of shit since obviously the Whitney is not yet or anytime soon going to get into the business of burning paintings on behalf of black folks feelings, which is the other part of the point I spent most of the day trying to articulate and failing at.

oh it should be made clear that any objection to any sentiments/arguments gleaned (wrongly quite possibly) from the letter have to be put in perspective. this kind of speech and this kind of thinking is extremely marginal, poses no actual threat to liberty of expression or freedom of speech. getting worked up about such a letter is the equivalent of being a shithead like jonathan chait and being obsessed with political correctness on campus. i find it ok to ruminate, or be bemused, at such content but let's not actually act like it's a worrying trend or will in anyway badly affect anyone

well sure. but it's (again) reductive to dismiss the critique of a widely circulated, intentionally public argument as the expression of a threat response. like, maybe it's just a bad argument badly made.

more paintings ought to be destroyed tbh, a lot of paintings are bad

A lot of bad people too.

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.

Uh...yes? Yes, exactly. In what way would it be humane or kind or would it help to build bridges between people who have and do experience injustice, to put my principles above their well-being? If I'm hurting someone that I claim to want to support, even if I'm "right" by some definition, I'm valuing my satisfaction against their point of view and I'm saying that I'm more important. Soooooo yes. I wouldn't END there and give up, if I think my principles are crucial to achieving something, but I would definitely pull back and stop trying to speak over ppl and be acknowledged as right. This is exactly what is meant by ally-ship, solidarity, anti-racism practice, etc.

Acting like that's SO WEIRD is just weird.

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

"profiting" may be an absurdly reductive description of art's function, whatever that may be, but it seems quite fitting in reference to the artist and the museum itself for reasons already discussed above. they were both receiving favorable press up until Black's letter, and favorable reviews in the art world often translates into actual profit but if u prefer a white woman artist ~raising her profile~ off of a black boy's death, i think the point still stands.

In what way would it be humane or kind or would it help to build bridges between people who have and do experience injustice, to put my principles above their well-being?

no matter how open-minded we attempt to be, we all ultimately have to decide - to judge - for ourselves where the truth lies, what things mean, which voices are worth heeding, and which are not. listening to knowledgeable others can aid in that, but we still must process, interpret, take the good and discard the bad. our principles and values can aid in this.

in fact, if you're unwilling to let your principles override/overrule the expressed ideas & wishes of those around you - even those who might seem to have some significant claim to righteous authority - then i think you're failing in your most fundamental responsibility as a human being. this isn't, i don't think, in any way at odds with a meaningful commitment to intersectionality.

Also this may sound kerazy but people with lots of kinds of privilege don't really need to have an opinion about EVERYTHING. It's okay to just be like, okay, that doesn't concern me, I neither agree or disagree. I am not even going to devote any mental capacity to that issue because it's so far outside of my business; that fact or thing can just exist without me, even secretly, thinking it's right or wrong.

Like idk this is a softball but people reclaiming derogatory terms (or really using them at all even if they're not, like, INTENTIONALLY reclaiming them). Okay. That is a thing that is none of my business. I think people should do what they want with the words that have been used to marginalize the group/s that they belong to. I don't even want to argue FOR it, because I'm not saying it's always an overall Good (although it could be!). I'm saying it's none of my business. Cool.

Could also apply to a bunch of difft issues in that letter imo.

Wasn't someone just saying yesterday "hey where did all the sjw peeps go??" Yo this shit is exhausting and also I hear outright racism and bigotry and xenophobia enough at my job so at home I like to chill and try to rebuild my shattered faith in humanity.

if u prefer a white woman artist ~raising her profile~ off of a black boy's death, i think the point still stands

i guess i'd like to think that there's - at least sometimes - more involved in the making of art than the profit motive and self-advancement (insert angelic glissando & birdies atwitter). but if you want to be all cold transactional about it, then fine. schutz and black both seem to have profited and advanced their relative social stations. everybody wins.

Lynching: Everybody wins.

Like wtf don't be a shithead.

Just think past the axe you're trying to grind for ONE SECOND and think about other people who are trying to tell you how they feel.

oh ffs. my point was that the knee-jerk reduction of other people's motives to pure self-interest isn't a good look.

and i get the feeling. i respect the feeling. but shouldn't always be the end of the discussion.

Also this may sound kerazy but people with lots of kinds of privilege don't really need to have an opinion about EVERYTHING

Dude, have you met a) ILX and b) contenderizer?

I am on team io here, but it's an odd venue and opponent, is all.

the knee-jerk reduction of other people's motives to pure self-interest isn't a good look

that seems like a simple enough point to make, maybe you should have said that the first time

would be great to have someone to help comb through the dozens of posts on here to find which person trying to explain Hannah Black's sentiments said that it should be "the end of the discussion" - maybe we can add their posts up and then add up the ones that pointed out that her argument NO MAEK SNESE and see if anybody comes out on top