Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

I guess if you see everything as a zero sum power game between factional identity groups, this ["profiting" off the suffering of others] would be a plausible way to look at works of art that deal with subjects outside the artist's own personal experience. It's pretty bleak though.

...I don't have an issue with people seeing this particular painting as tasteless or opportunistic -- a failed work of art. But this notion that people need to "stay in their lane" becomes incredibly problematic when taken as a general principle.

― Treeship, Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:41 PM (yesterday)

two good posts stitched impertinently as one. situational detailing aside, the ground contested is the ability to control the discourse, at least where certain subjects are concerned. i prickle when such muscles are flexed, but no matter how proudly i fluff my noble principles, i know deep down that my reaction can't be cleanly separated from my position in the structural equation. if i stood to gain from the recentering of power, i might see things differently. this admission in turn suggests that some really do have something to gain here, and generally speaking, i'd at least like to think i stood with them (most of the time, anyway). oh, but still those time-honored, status-quo-maintaining principles, jamming their virtuous little elbows in under my ribs. wypipo problems...

I guess if you see everything as a zero sum power game between factional identity groups, this ["profiting" off the suffering of others] would be a plausible way to look at works of art that deal with subjects outside the artist's own personal experience.

I think this makes some sense in the context of the art world--since there's literally limited space in high profile institutional exhibitions, and the artists chosen can make a leap in fame and asking price. Choosing a piece like the Till one by a white artist pretty much meant that a similarly-themed piece by an artist of color was not going to make it into the exhibition.

Good, well intentioned artists can still profit from US racial dynamics in ways that are unfair and indicative of larger problems

When the dynamics of the entire society you live in are inherently unfair, that unfairness is unavoidable by any means available to the individual. iow, asking the artist to solve the structural unfairness of society before allowing themselves to live that society and make a living is asking the impossible.

However, if an artist is going to mess around with imagery that directly derives from the most extreme aspects of that unfairness, it would seem reasonable to ask the artist to confront that issue vigorously and unmistakably. If this was the best the artist could do, then it was the best she could do, but her best was a failure and the Whitney judges also failed, by not recognizing that. The letter that ignited the brouhaha may not have been the best possible analysis of the problem, but the anger that motivated it seems well justified.

I agree that individual artists cannot solve structural inequality but the only way that structural inequality gets to be discussed in mainstream discourse is through examples; a letter decrying it as an abstract concept would gain little to no traction. So it's about keeping a larger debate happening.

Analysing how "vigorously and unmistakably" the artist tackled the issue imo reduces things to personal taste again, which is imo an unfortunate tendency that I've seen in a lot of discussions about these kinds of issues - both via people getting defensive that something they enjoy might not be pure and blameless, and (probably even worse) people only bringing up "cultural appropriation" when it's something they didn't like to begin with.

Cultural appropriation done well is great tho

Daniel's post is why I think this could have been scripted because the cultural provocation and response is almost too neat and tidy, the painting doesn't accomplish anything by itself but the painting plus the letter has created a vibrant conversation.

I mean aesthetically sure tons of stuff I love is cultural appropriation. But if you buy into the concept, I think it's then inconsistent to distinguish between artists who are "good" or "bad" at it. It doesn't make any difference to the economic realities.

These people are Stalinist authoritarians, cultural appropriation does not exist, if you don't like mixing of cultures, you're a segregationist. Most of the time the term cultural appro isn't even accurate, it's often today used in place of the even more base and shallow "skin color appropriation".

True, if Bukharin had been able to push through a return to the NEP we wouldn't be having this whole conversation.

Where do the authoritarians draw there "appropriation" lines? Who in their narrow world is allowed to say anything about anybody? Is it purely down to something as trivial skin color? What about people who have done things people consider are bad. Is a Chinese person allowed to comment on the atrocities of Hitler? Can an African dare mention Vikings? Can a Turk play didgeridoo with aboriginal australians if one racist aboriginal doesn't like it, but the rest of his aboriginal community want the Turk to play the digeridoo with them?

Can an Alpha comment on the plight of the Beta male?

it's like you can't even dress up like a red indian any more

say what you like about authoritarians, but they're very sensitive to cultural power imbalances

Aren't traditions just commodities at heart?

everything's a commodity if you think about it

trads are community and family bonding rituals

http://www.yorkshireentertainment.co.uk/images/gaslight06.jpg

in art school they one of the big things they drill into your head is to make your art socially aware and to foster dialogues and all that crap when i just want to paint trippy lancscapes

I suppose what I meant was that we should be resisting such commodification. One of the annoying things about people who say they are 'of the Left' but rail against 'PC culture', and so on, is that they completely accept the Right's framing of the discussion.

One of the annoying things is that the Right's framing of "PC Culture" has made liberal criticism of lefty dogma seem suspect.

If you say 'PC Culture' with a straight face, your position on the left is pretty much garbage anyway.

yeah, but you can always just pick better words

what is more embarrassing - using the term PC Culture with a straight face or worrying about your "position on the left"?

Using the term 'PC culture'.

we have to respect all cultures now, pc culture and un-pc culture, pc culture said so

Who in their narrow world is allowed to say anything about anybody?

― orientmammal, Friday, March 24, 2017 7:34 AM (two hours ago)

this isn't always communicated well, but complaints about cultural appropriation depend on larger critiques of oppressive power imbalances. no one thinks that simply taking influence from other cultures is bad in itself. cultural appropriation becomes a real problem, however, when a dominant culture simultaneously exploits, distorts and silences the cultural traditions & expressions of an oppressed minority. less dramatically, there are questions of taste that factor in, the appropriateness of this or that appropriation, given the historical context, punching up vs. punching down, etc.

Ah it doesn't really tho

Anyway - I'm essentially agnostic on this. I don't really understand what's going on, not do I feel qualified to pronounce on it. I really enjoy reading the discussions about it here, though. So thanks for that.

Also, I don't understand the (new?) resistance to the idea of punching up/down. It's an old idea - there are texts for centuries where the servant is making jokes at the expense of the master, it's evident in the idea of the court jester. Chaplin didn't choose to play a tramp rather than a captain of industry because his clothes were better suited to the former. I'm not saying anyone here questions it, but it seems to be fashionable amongst the young Right to pooh-pooh the idea of punching up/down.

Who in their narrow world is allowed to say anything about anybody?

― orientmammal, Friday, March 24, 2017 7:34 AM (two hours ago)

this isn't always communicated well, but complaints about cultural appropriation depend on larger critiques of oppressive power imbalances. no one thinks that simply taking influence from other cultures is bad in itself. cultural appropriation becomes a real problem, however, when a dominant culture simultaneously exploits, distorts and silences the cultural traditions & expressions of an oppressed minority. less dramatically, there are questions of taste that factor in, the appropriateness of this or that appropriation, given the historical context, punching up vs. punching down, etc.

― Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Friday, March 24, 2017 4:46 PM (fourteen minutes ago)

This is patently not true though, as the cultural appropriation authaarrataans use it in simply every single case of cultural appro, whether it's wearing a Japan kimono, India sari, dreadlocks, whereever and whatever is going. This is the quite hilarious and telling thing about it - no one in say Japan thinks they are being oppressed by anyone. Or China. They laugh at this idea. And they believe it shows that deep down these cultural appro people actually believe they are superior to everyone in the world while on the outside trying to show the opposite.It is actually a projection of their sense of superiority and self centeredness, to truly think that everyone in the world is being oppressed by you. There is no issue of "dominant culture" it's just again this leftist thing of speaking on behalf of people who don't want and didn't ask you to speak for them.

Also, a fact: American Nigerians, Ghanaians, and Asians have a higher average income than white Americans. Where's the so called "systemic" oppression 'of color' there?

This is still a racist country -- economic success of some immigrant groups doesn't undo that -- but otherwise you're on the right track. "Cultural appropriation" is a well intentioned critical concept, designed to cultivate mindfulness of inequality, but in practice it often encourages white condescension, not respect. Sometimes, 'maybe, there is a financial issue woth appropriation, like Elvis being famous instead of Chuck Berry, and that's an issue, but in a general sense a white guy having dreadlocks isn't hurting anyone.

interesting pts by orientmammal

i had to check the last factoid s/he posted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

v rough *median* figures (bc they don't acct for household size) but it's the best i found after a quick google search

nigerian ams and ghanian ams nowhere near the top, but taiwanese ams are

"european" ams place 6th

Like with this painting, I agree with the part that it was a less valuable piece than something a black person would habe made on that same subject and it shouldn't have been picked for the biennalle, but there is nothing offensive about it in itself.

There is no issue of "dominant culture" it's just again this leftist thing of speaking on behalf of people who don't want and didn't ask you to speak for them.

right, that's what the painting was, and that's what the letter was critical of - did you have a point?

also lol @ cultural appropriation having no affect on natives, really? Stephen Colbert doesn't offend folks living in the PRC? Herp derp

sometimes a troll is just a troll, folks

a fact: American Nigerians, Ghanaians, and Asians have a higher average income than white Americans.

The specificity of "nigerians, ghanaians" makes this an obvious example of carefully cherry-picking one's facts, because the preponderance of facts do not support one's argument.

I agree with the part that it was a less valuable piece than something a black person would have made on that same subject

How can you possibly say this without a counterexample? News flash: black people are perfectly capable of making shitty political art.

Like with this painting, I agree with the part that it was a less valuable piece than something a black person would habe made on that same subject and it shouldn't have been picked for the biennalle, but there is nothing offensive about it in itself.

i believe that all attempts in this thread to locate the 'problem' in the painting (here, briefly, and more from aimless above) entirely constitute an attempt to reconcile the unambiguous inoffensiveness of the actual piece of art w/ the claims made against it (as opposed to an authentic response to the work). if this controversy hadn't arisen, or it had been made by a POC, surely we could find ways to praise it for its inventive +brave re-contextualization of an important photograph in american history. people are full of shit and are so quick to abrogate their own critical facilities in order to not face an obvious truth - the color of your skin does not give your opinion validity.

A seemingly poorly executed artistic statement in racism by someone who has experienced it might be worth more time than one by someone looking at this issue "from the outside."

Xp phil

Wow @ Indian Americans.

Seems like a pretty different story in Canada, based on "median income" figures here.

This made the most convincing case I've read for a problem with the painting itself, although "most convincing" != "I am convinced".

Most Indians emigrate to the US as grad students or highly skilled professionals, don't they? Canada has a different emigration pattern (they even let my fam in).

i notice lately when i sneeze it sounds like "PC bullshitttt"

I knew there was some difference, just not that it was this stark. This does go some way to helping me understand why no one seemed too bothered by Apu.

the unambiguous inoffensiveness of the actual piece of art

it was not a portrayal of a basket of fruit.

right, that's what the painting was, and that's what the letter was critical of - did you have a point?

― Not the real Tombot (El Tomboto), Friday, March 24, 2017 10:44 AM (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the letter is written by a non-african american woman

The issue shouldn't be the painting; artists should not be told to self-censor as tastelessness, "missing the mark" is always a risk when one undertakes a creative project; if there is a critique to be made at all it would have to do with the institution of the whitney and which pieces they are picking and why. If their selection committee has a pattern of ignoring black artists, that's a problem. Would have nothing to do with these convoluted,narrowly prescriptive conversations about cultural appropriation though