AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I'm not saying they aren't his actual paintings. I was saying that I don't know the context of the paintings. They aren't inherently racist because they depict a black women killing a white man. I didn't want to look it up and I didn't want to ask so I didn't reply. You addressed that no one replied so I did ... I looked it up on Snopes and apparently the paintings have more to do with being provocative than racism. It's up for interpretation. But yes, he did create those paintings and yes, he probably shouldn't have made this painting (apparently though they weren't controversial until the aftermath of this painting, so it might be a genuine mistake). |
You're not gonna progressive your way out of this but I do applaud you for responding. If a white person painted the scene in reverse, you would say that it was racist and the painter is likely a racist. You are excusing actual racism. Why not just call it what it is? Non-racist people don't paint shit like that. Paintings are created to be presented as is with no extra context. It works just like that when a person buys it and puts it on display. It never comes with an essay or explanation to add context. It doesn't work the same as a quote. Sure, an artist will sometimes elaborate on the meaning of a painting but that's with abstract art with splashes of paint. These paintings are clear as day. Either way, he's not gonna rat on himself.
