By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hannah Black Leftist Painter Calls For Emmett Till Painting To Be destroyed

shikamaru317 said:
Ugh. Leftists make me cringe more and more every day.

The vast majority of leftists do not promote the destruction of art. However, leftists are not going away anytime soon, and you're just going to have to...



Around the Network
binary solo said:
I'll start worrying when social institutions start calling for destruction of artistic, historic and cultural items. When it's an individual expressing an extreme political view, well we get those on a daily basis.

It is a dangerous idea that people from the historically oppressor race can't enter into discourse in sympathy and solidarity with the historically oppressed race, including through artistic expression. That sort of exclusion would tend to perpetuate racial separation and isolation.

Hollywood has profited a great deal from the misery and oppression caused by slavery and post slavery segregation and legalised racism. The beneficiaries of those profits have not all been African Americans, in fact most of the financial beneficiaries have probably been white people - studio execs and shareholders. But if those white people hadn't been financial beneficiaries would those stories have been told and got exposure to a wide audience?

So if the beneficiaries of the sufferings of slavery and segregation inflicted on blacks were other blacks, that would make it okay?



leave the destruction of art to isis.... it does not celebrate what had happened... it preserved it on a different medium



 

John2290 said:
The_Yoda said:

I very much agree. I hope this outcry isn't well backed.  The article had more Twitter posts backing the artist than slamming her.  I hope those that are protesting are a very tiny vocal minority and in the end truly understand the ramifications of what they are asking for.

Well with videos like this, i'm not certain of that common sense will prevail.  

Are you actually using mark Dice? 

 

Geez, I thought people wouldn't be dumb enough to use Dice, Infowars, Buzzfeed, or any other shit like that.



Normchacho said:
Holy Christ guys it was one artist and some dickheads on Twitter which were resoundingly told to get stuffed by the rest of the art community. Are we just looking for things to get upset about now?

When it comes to idiots, they constantly need to bash dem evil liberals or the hillbilly conservatives. 

That's how it works- there's no inbetween for people who have the mental capacity of a potato. To some people, you can either be 100% conservative or 100% liberal.

A shame really. It'd be nice if we pointed out the hypocrisy within ourselves and learned to diversify our viewpoints.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
binary solo said:
I'll start worrying when social institutions start calling for destruction of artistic, historic and cultural items. When it's an individual expressing an extreme political view, well we get those on a daily basis.

It is a dangerous idea that people from the historically oppressor race can't enter into discourse in sympathy and solidarity with the historically oppressed race, including through artistic expression. That sort of exclusion would tend to perpetuate racial separation and isolation.

Hollywood has profited a great deal from the misery and oppression caused by slavery and post slavery segregation and legalised racism. The beneficiaries of those profits have not all been African Americans, in fact most of the financial beneficiaries have probably been white people - studio execs and shareholders. But if those white people hadn't been financial beneficiaries would those stories have been told and got exposure to a wide audience?

So if the beneficiaries of the sufferings of slavery and segregation inflicted on blacks were other blacks, that would make it okay?

The OK-ness of people profiting from historical misery inflicted on a whole population of people all depends on context. It's more likely to be morally OK if it's African Americans profiting because they are likely the decendants of those who actually suffered, so there is some poetic justice in the decendants of slaves profiting off the story of their forebears. But in general, it's kind of dodgy to be profiting off anyone's misery, be it contemporaneous or historic.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

I dislike how every article regarding it says "Leftists HATE this!!!". Those people hating it are the .003% of Liberals who go way overboard. Conservatives and Liberals like to pick out the craziest from each side and yell "see look how dumb that party is!" The political party system has created so many issues that I can't look at this article with legitimacy because it slapped an entire party onto it's namesake when a majority of liberals would find solace in that painting rather than anger. However ranting aside, The idiots saying she shouldn't be allowed to paint it are morons. She is sympathizing with black culture and struggles, not profiting. (This is, if not already understood, coming from a pretty extreme Liberal)



I also object to this use of "leftist". It seems like a poor way of making some political point and create some fake ideological separation where none exists.

"leftist" people aren't in agreement that censuring art in any form is correct. Actually, if you want to go into ideology, its usually the conservative people who historically fight to censor artistic expression. Especially in topics regarding sex and sexual liberation.

So how about removing this "leftist" bullshit from the topic and then we can all unite and agree no art should be destroyed or censored, no matter how distasteful it may be to anyone



I rather like the painting, it portrays the tragedy very well.

Get the heck over it people.



binary solo said:
KLAMarine said:

So if the beneficiaries of the sufferings of slavery and segregation inflicted on blacks were other blacks, that would make it okay?

The OK-ness of people profiting from historical misery inflicted on a whole population of people all depends on context. It's more likely to be morally OK if it's African Americans profiting because they are likely the decendants of those who actually suffered, so there is some poetic justice in the decendants of slaves profiting off the story of their forebears. But in general, it's kind of dodgy to be profiting off anyone's misery, be it contemporaneous or historic.

I don't think it's right for someone to profit from someone else's suffering without permission, regardless of skin color.