AngryLittleAlchemist said:
"progressive" my way out of it? Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions a bit? I'm not even "that" progressive ... I'm not excusing racism. They could be racist and if they are, then that's a bad thing and people should respond as such. If they aren't racist then the artist still probably isn't the best selection for a Presidential portrait, but it at least takes him out of the racist category. All I've communicated thus far is that I'm not sure of the context in which these were created. It's hard because, with any kind of art that requires some nuance (think of "Rape Me" by Nirvana, or for a very interesting example the genitalia of females in the work "In the Realms of the Unreal") to accept it's value, you're always going to have counter arguments that could easily ruin any positive interpretation of that piece. If I told you for example that the paintings meant to depict racism through death were actually takes on the already morbid paintings of Judith beheading Holofernes ... your response would probably be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just an excuse to depict racism!" Well, how am I supposed to say that point is true or false when so much of art is based on your interpretation? I don't know if setting up these pictures as modern takes on such paintings is just an excuse to promote racism, and I could never know because I'm not the artist. Based on what I know, i'm not comfortable making an assumption either way. Here's what we know about Kehinde Wiley's frame of mind while making these paintings, according to him. We know that he is a provocateur by nature. He is quoted as saying "I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations". Whether or not you agree, it is a dangerous standard to completely attack this idea as it's the basis of so much art out there. We also know the story of Holofernes beheading is revolved around the fact that he was trying to destroy the city where Judith lived. She pretended to be on Holofernes side, seduced him, and then killed him in his sleep. This is very interesting when you think, for even a second, about the context of white superiority throughout history. In these paintings, the beheading is of white women and it is because it has to do with the standard of beauty throughout historical paintings, as well as the stereotypes regarding black women. According to him of course. From his viewpoint, I imagine that in order to get his point across he wanted to be as provocative as possible. You can even find quotes that are so, so easy to use in order to make him look racist. He even admits that it's "sort of a play on the 'kill whitey' thing". But is that provocation or racism? I'm not sure, and it's easy to interpret it either way. What I do know is that people are saying false things such as "He is mostly known for" or "He mostly does" - paintings of black people beheading white people. That is completely untrue though. Only two paintings in his extensive collection even have such a theme. He was mostly known for doing paintings similar to the one in the OP of black males (he started to incorporate more black females as time went on). Here is his website with his works. These specific paintings are suddenly important though outside of the art community because he must be racist ... Originally the reason I didn't respond to you was exactly because I didn't have the context for the paintings, which is why I find it ironic that you immediately accuse me of hypocrisy. "If a white person painted the scene in reverse, you would say that it was racist and the painter is likely a racist." No I wouldn't. Why would I? If I don't know who the subjects in the painting are, why would I automatically assume that it's racist because the victim is black and the perpetrator is white? What if the painting was of Bill Cosby being decapitated by one of his victims? You have no way of knowing this and it's odd that you made this claim because I don't even contribute to political threads much at all, so I don't know why you automatically assumed I'm a racist liberal... Do I think the art is in bad taste? ... Kind of. I've never really been a fan politically of the idea that people under systemic racism or whatever you want to call it, should push back by representing ideas that are brutal and vulgar. But it's an art piece, and as an art piece it is interesting. I can't say I agree with it, I can't say it isn't racist, it could be. I can't even say I understand it 100%. But it is up for debate and it isn't a fact he's a racist. And really, does it matter when the painting in this thread is about something completely different? No. Maybe they should have thought this one through a bit more but I don't see the President hiding a kill all whitey's sign behind the bushes. I don't even care that much, the only reason I've responded with such detail is because I can't stand that you have to jump to conclusions, stereotype people, and try to dumb this down into a discussion over party lines when it has nothing to do with that ... racist are racists. If you're accusing me of being a damn dirty liberal defending racism, then call me a racist right now. By the way, you say the paintings aren't given with context but both paintings are literally named, you guessed it, "Judith and Holofernes". |
I never accused you of being racist but you're making excuses and doing alot of mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that those paintings are racist. You're giving this guy alot of undue leniency. That's what I mean by trying to progressive your way out of this. I mean you brought up Nirvana's "Rape me" and paintings of vaginas as something comparative to these paintings.
I bet that some of the recent posters will have a similar response as you, go thru the same mental gymnastics as you and won't call this shit for what it is or unlike you, they just ignore it. There's no positive interpretation of this kind of shit. An artistic license doesn't excuse racist behavior. There's alot of songs, adverts and artwork that doesn't get any leeway like this because it's art.
If Trump hired a white artist to do a presidential portrait of him and his wife then it turns out that the artist painted paintings of white women with a cocky look on their face while holding a knife and the severed head of a black woman, how do you think that would realistically play out?
Obama should have looked into this asshat beyond his skin color and that he can do a fairly decent portrait of black people before hiring him.
