Latest liberal outrage - protests against Emmett Till artwork by white artist

[whichphilosophy]

They are protesting because the artist is white.

Well, that's not the entire point of all of the protests. Some are worried that the art is trying to downplay the outrage this person's death should be evoking. Those people would be protesting if the artist was white, black, red, purple or plaid.

My understanding is:

An African-American artist, Parker Bright, has conducted peaceful protests in front of the painting since Friday, positioning himself, sometimes with a few other protesters, in front of the work to partly block its view. He has engaged museum visitors in discussions about the painting while wearing a T-shirt with the words “Black Death Spectacle” on the back. Another protester, Hannah Black, a British-born black artist and writer working in Berlin, has written a letter to the biennial’s curators, Mia Locks and Christopher Y. Lew, urging that the painting be not only removed from the show but also destroyed.

“The subject matter is not Schutz’s,” Ms. Black wrote in a Facebook message that has been signed by more than 30 other artists she identifies as nonwhite. “White free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights. The painting must go.” She added that “contemporary art is a fundamentally white supremacist institution despite all our nice friends.”

 

[dismal]

They are protesting because the artist is white.

Well, that's not the entire point of all of the protests. Some are worried that the art is trying to downplay the outrage this person's death should be evoking. Those people would be protesting if the artist was white, black, red, purple or plaid.

It's kind of hard to separate whether they are legitimately protesting the aesthetics of the art from whether it is a product of their race-hate given all their anti-white hate speech.

Anyway, who protests the aesthetics of art? Art is meant to provoke.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that's not the entire point of all of the protests. Some are worried that the art is trying to downplay the outrage this person's death should be evoking. Those people would be protesting if the artist was white, black, red, purple or plaid.

It's kind of hard to separate whether they are legitimately protesting the aesthetics of the art from whether it is a product of their race-hate given all their anti-white hate speech.

Anyway, who protests the aesthetics of art? Art is meant to provoke.

Well, it's not actually difficult to separate it because they're very clear about their rationales for doing it and those are based on race.

 

[dismal]

It's kind of hard to separate whether they are legitimately protesting the aesthetics of the art from whether it is a product of their race-hate given all their anti-white hate speech.

Anyway, who protests the aesthetics of art? Art is meant to provoke.

Well, it's not actually difficult to separate it because they're very clear about their rationales for doing it and those are based on race.

So, if someone says: "I really hate those disgusting filthy Asian people, and also Yu Darvish is an aesthetically poor pitcher" you would be inclined to believe the second opinion had nothing to do with the first?

ETA: I reread your comment and see I should not have directed it at you, but if you read the article there are some white-haters who also expressed aesthetic problems with the art.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, that's not the entire point of all of the protests. Some are worried that the art is trying to downplay the outrage this person's death should be evoking. Those people would be protesting if the artist was white, black, red, purple or plaid.

My understanding is:

An African-American artist, Parker Bright, has conducted peaceful protests in front of the painting since Friday, positioning himself, sometimes with a few other protesters, in front of the work to partly block its view. He has engaged museum visitors in discussions about the painting while wearing a T-shirt with the words “Black Death Spectacle” on the back. Another protester, Hannah Black, a British-born black artist and writer working in Berlin, has written a letter to the biennial’s curators, Mia Locks and Christopher Y. Lew, urging that the painting be not only removed from the show but also destroyed.

“The subject matter is not Schutz’s,” Ms. Black wrote in a Facebook message that has been signed by more than 30 other artists she identifies as nonwhite. “White free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights. The painting must go.” She added that “contemporary art is a fundamentally white supremacist institution despite all our nice friends.”

And my understanding is that Ms. Black removed her post from Facebook as a result of the outrage directed toward her post from liberals. Seems like if we are going to paint this as a problem with liberals, that we should also recognize that the problem was self corrected.

For the rest of the right wing SJW snowflakes crying about censorship in this thread, this is not an example of censorship, it is an example of attempted censorship, which failed due to more reasonable people speaking out.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How is this a liberal thing again?
Seriously.

___________________

This is what I read:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...-till-at-whitney-biennial-draws-protests.html


Not one man and a handful of others engaging others in a discussion! (Or are they extra scary because they are African American?)

Also
There has also been a facebook group where 30 people wrote about this.
And there was some twitter traffic.

Pretty meager stuff. Not sure how this fits in with most liberals.

They are protesting because the artist is white.

That doesn't make them liberal.

They want to destroy the painting.

That doesn't make them liberal.

From an artistic point of view it's garbage but from a political point of view it's racist. That is to say the definition of racist where whites censor blacks is the same as blacks censoring whites.

This doesn't make them liberal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My understanding is:

An African-American artist, Parker Bright, has conducted peaceful protests in front of the painting since Friday, positioning himself, sometimes with a few other protesters, in front of the work to partly block its view. He has engaged museum visitors in discussions about the painting while wearing a T-shirt with the words “Black Death Spectacle” on the back. Another protester, Hannah Black, a British-born black artist and writer working in Berlin, has written a letter to the biennial’s curators, Mia Locks and Christopher Y. Lew, urging that the painting be not only removed from the show but also destroyed.

“The subject matter is not Schutz’s,” Ms. Black wrote in a Facebook message that has been signed by more than 30 other artists she identifies as nonwhite. “White free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights. The painting must go.” She added that “contemporary art is a fundamentally white supremacist institution despite all our nice friends.”

And my understanding is that Ms. Black removed her post from Facebook as a result of the outrage directed toward her post from liberals. Seems like if we are going to paint this as a problem with liberals, that we should also recognize that the problem was self corrected.

For the rest of the right wing SJW snowflakes crying about censorship in this thread, this is not an example of censorship, it is an example of attempted censorship, which failed due to more reasonable people speaking out.

Yeah... this.

 

[ronburgundy]

I am not sure that the op makes any sense at all.

What is the Right now complaining about?

Hannah Black has already removed her radical post from Facebook, just like they wanted her to do.

They've won by censoring this rare, creative, but wrong opinion that most liberals were against.

Nobody censored Hannah Black's speech in which she called for the censorship of others. And there is certainly nothing rare or creative about opinions like hers rooted in racism, calling for censorship, and the destruction of politically unacceptable art.

She pulled her open letter from Facebook on her own, perhaps and hopefully out of shame once the idiocy, anti-liberal, and anti-art nature of her demands and ideas were attacked by so many in the artist community, including fellow leftist political artists who also deal with racial identity, like Coco Fusco. Fusco notes that another artist in the same show also has a painting of the shooting of Philandro Castile (a black man shot by a white cop last July). Yet Hannah Black and her supporters ignore this, proving (though her own words already do so) that their outrage is rooted in racism and any other arguments they are offering for their outrage is pretense.

Also, as Fusco and other artists have correctly pointed out, the notion that the painting shouldn't exist because it trivializes the event is an attack on all art that has socially and politically important events or ideas as its subject matter. This is so irrefutable that perhaps this reality is what led Hannah Black to pull her post and retreat from the discussion without further comment over the last 10 days while other idiots still argue on her behalf.

 

[ronburgundy]

it is an example of attempted censorship, which failed due to more reasonable people speaking out.

This is true, but it is not some isolated incident in which some leftists have called for censorship based upon their application (whether valid or not) of leftist assumptions and pseudo-feminist theories.

the problem was self corrected.

Well, this particular instance of the growing phenomena of anti-liberal leftism was pushed back by actual liberals. That is great, but it is just one manifestation of "the problem" being dealt with rather than the larger problem being corrected. Luckily, the speech in this case was a modernist painting (a medium with little appeal to the political right wing) within the context of a show of mostly non-white or female artists displaying works with obviously more liberal/leftist politics and specifically created to emphasize "racial tensions, economic inequities, and polarizing politics. Throughout the exhibition, artists challenge us to consider how these realities affect our senses of self and community. "

IOW, Hannah Black was demanding censorship of the expression of sentiments shared by the political left in a medium largely disdained by the right, simply because of the skin color of the artist. That is why this manifestation of illiberal leftism failed while others have gotten far more support from the mostly youthful segment of the left and not been "corrected" by enough reasonable liberal voices.

 

[Playball40]

I'm trying to understand Ms. Black's perspective as I'm not sure I really 'get it'. That said, my 13 year old daughter is striving to be an artist. Right now her favorite show is Hamilton. Below is her depiction of Thomas Jefferson upon hearing that Aaron Burr killed Hamilton.



Is her picture inappropriate or racist? Below also is a 3d project they had done for school.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is true

Thanks for acknowledging the veracity of my point, it's a shame you didn't stop there.

but it is not some isolated incident in which some leftists have called for censorship based upon their application (whether valid or not) of leftist assumptions and pseudo-feminist theories.

It is an isolated incident. The last time I remember any issue like this surfacing was in relation to Pisschrist, and that attempt at censorship came from the right. We don't even know the political leanings of the man who had a problem with this piece of art, we only know he is black. You made the leap that "black = liberal". Your bias is showing. And what is the bullshit about this having something to do with "pseudo-feminist theories"? Whatever the fuck that means.

the problem was self corrected.

Well, this particular instance of the growing phenomena of anti-liberal leftism was pushed back by actual liberals.

Please provide evidence that Mr. Bright is a liberal. Otherwise, this is simply a case of attempted censorship being pushed back by liberals. BTW, you're welcome.

That is great, but it is just one manifestation of "the problem" being dealt with rather than the larger problem being corrected.

So, let me get this straight, and for the sake of argument I will accept that Mr. Bright is a liberal. This single incident is an example of a big problem with liberal thought, but the fact that it was corrected by liberals is not an example of that larger problem being corrected? Maybe you can spot the flaw in that reasoning.

 

[dismal]

Below is her depiction of Thomas Jefferson upon hearing that Aaron Burr killed Hamilton.

If this were the NFL the outrage of a white person drawing black people from the cast of Hamilton would be offset by the outrage of black people portraying white people in Hamilton and they'd replay the down.

But here the outrage is increased +2.

"This subject matter that we took from your subject matter is not your subject matter"!

 

[ronburgundy]

Thanks for acknowledging the veracity of my point, it's a shame you didn't stop there.

but it is not some isolated incident in which some leftists have called for censorship based upon their application (whether valid or not) of leftist assumptions and pseudo-feminist theories.

It is an isolated incident. The last time I remember any issue like this surfacing was in relation to Pisschrist, and that attempt at censorship came from the right.

Censorship of modern art does usually come from the right, but they also used to be true of all censorship. This might be among the first instance of attempts to censor modern art by leftists, but it just an extension of their growing efforts to censor other speech, and survey evidence showing a majority of millennial age leftists favor government censorship of speech that minority groups find offensive. (Warning: you'll need to do some reasoning with math because they report % by age and politics separate).

We don't even know the political leanings of the man who had a problem with this piece of art, we only know he is black.
You made the leap that "black = liberal". Your bias is showing.

I made no such leap. It is your lack or basic reading and reasoning skills that are showing. It was not "a man" but many people, and it was a woman who wrote the letter (and got 50 other artists to sign it) demanding the art be destroyed. She has plenty of works and writings that make her strong leftist views very clear to any honest person, and her complaint is just of form of a "cultural appropriation" accusation, which is a decidedly leftist (and moronic) concept.
Her words in both this case and her prior works are the epitome of extreme leftism which disregards free speech, promotes racism in the form of racial identity politics and asserting cultural ownership of ideas and feeling based on skin color. In fact, I made it clear she isn't a liberal, but rather a leftist and like so many leftist has values and views that are anti-thetical to liberalism (e.g., a respect for human liberty).

the problem was self corrected.

Well, this particular instance of the growing phenomena of anti-liberal leftism was pushed back by actual liberals.

Please provide evidence that Mr. Bright is a liberal. Otherwise, this is simply a case of attempted censorship being pushed back by liberals.

Again, neither Bright nor Hannagh Black (the woman who called for the art's destruction) nor their supporters are "liberals", they are fascistic leftist like virtually all who think that having a skin color similar to those with the most power limits what one is allowed to say, eat, wear, or do (aka, "cultural appropriation").

BTW, you're welcome.

You and other illiberal leftist extremists get no credit. It is you who owe gratitude to actual liberals like myself that value free speech, and are trying to push back on the dangerous creeping fascism of you and your leftist comrades.

That is great, but it is just one manifestation of "the problem" being dealt with rather than the larger problem being corrected.

So, let me get this straight, and for the sake of argument I will accept that Mr. Bright is a liberal. This single incident is an example of a big problem with liberal thought, but the fact that it was corrected by liberals is not an example of that larger problem being corrected? Maybe you can spot the flaw in that reasoning.

The flaw is with you ignorant conflation of liberalism and the kind of anti-liberal leftism that you actually embrace and justify. The problem is with leftist thought that has no regard for personal liberty and seeks authoritarian fascistic solutions to the problem of group level inequalities. Actual liberals like me whose core value is that individuals be viewed and treated as individuals are the main one's pushing back on this growing and worsening (not corrected) danger and problem from the left. This instance only resolved without you and most other leftist fascists supporting their cause because the target of the censorship was so obviously sympathetic to the racial problems you also care about.

 

[KeepTalking]

Thanks for acknowledging the veracity of my point, it's a shame you didn't stop there.



It is an isolated incident. The last time I remember any issue like this surfacing was in relation to Pisschrist, and that attempt at censorship came from the right.

Censorship of modern art does usually come from the right, but they also used to be true of all censorship. This might be among the first instance of attempts to censor modern art by leftists, but it just an extension of their growing efforts to censor other speech, and survey evidence showing a majority of millennial age leftists favor government censorship of speech that minority groups find offensive. (Warning: you'll need to do some reasoning with math because they report % by age and politics separate).

We don't even know the political leanings of the man who had a problem with this piece of art, we only know he is black.
You made the leap that "black = liberal". Your bias is showing.

I made no such leap. It is your lack or basic reading and reasoning skills that are showing. It was not "a man" but many people, and it was a woman who wrote the letter (and got 50 other artists to sign it) demanding the art be destroyed. She has plenty of works and writings that make her strong leftist views very clear to any honest person, and her complaint is just of form of a "cultural appropriation" accusation, which is a decidedly leftist (and moronic) concept.
Her words in both this case and her prior works are the epitome of extreme leftism which disregards free speech, promotes racism in the form of racial identity politics and asserting cultural ownership of ideas and feeling based on skin color. In fact, I made it clear she isn't a liberal, but rather a leftist and like so many leftist has values and views that are anti-thetical to liberalism (e.g., a respect for human liberty).

the problem was self corrected.

Well, this particular instance of the growing phenomena of anti-liberal leftism was pushed back by actual liberals.

Please provide evidence that Mr. Bright is a liberal. Otherwise, this is simply a case of attempted censorship being pushed back by liberals.

Again, neither Bright nor Hannagh Black (the woman who called for the art's destruction) nor their supporters are "liberals", they are fascistic leftist like virtually all who think that having a skin color similar to those with the most power limits what one is allowed to say, eat, wear, or do (aka, "cultural appropriation").

BTW, you're welcome.

You and other illiberal leftist extremists get no credit. It is you who owe gratitude to actual liberals like myself that value free speech, and are trying to push back on the dangerous creeping fascism of you and your leftist comrades.

That is great, but it is just one manifestation of "the problem" being dealt with rather than the larger problem being corrected.

So, let me get this straight, and for the sake of argument I will accept that Mr. Bright is a liberal. This single incident is an example of a big problem with liberal thought, but the fact that it was corrected by liberals is not an example of that larger problem being corrected? Maybe you can spot the flaw in that reasoning.

The flaw is with you ignorant conflation of liberalism and the kind of anti-liberal leftism that you actually embrace and justify. The problem is with leftist thought that has no regard for personal liberty and seeks authoritarian fascistic solutions to the problem of group level inequalities. Actual liberals like me whose core value is that individuals be viewed and treated as individuals are the main one's pushing back on this growing and worsening (not corrected) danger and problem from the left. This instance only resolved without you and most other leftist fascists supporting their cause because the target of the censorship was so obviously sympathetic to the racial problems you also care about.

While you made some good points that I might have addressed otherwise, your attempts to label me as an "illiberal leftist" and "ignorant" have pissed me right off, and the only response I can provide you with at this time is: go fuck yourself.