What these students don't realize is that a lot of the so-called art depicting black people in the US are CARICATURES which are not intended to depict any sort of reality about black people at all. Many white artists have been so affected by PAST depictions of black people (such as "blackface" and "minstrel art") and for them and in their eyes, THIS is what black people look like. As a black woman, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and these murals depict the opinion of a white artist who was clearly influenced by garbage like THIS
But, the ugly mural SHOULD NOT BE COVERED UP. A BETTER way to protest the downright ugly depictions would be for any student artists on campus to create their own mural depicting the DIGNITY of the black people using the Underground Railroad and insist that THAT mural also be hung, or find dignified art similar to THIS
and get prints or request the original art's temporary display next to the bad art at the college to show the DIGNITY of those assisted by the Underground Railroad AND the dignity of those assisting them. The contrast would make this so-called "art" by Kerson look even worse than it does.
You always fight wrong speech with GOOD SPEECH; and you fight bad art with GOOD ART.
"The white male's gaze simply cannot be trusted at the unconscious psychological level" Hmmmm. So by that logic, every work of art by a black male artist depicting a woman should be censored or destroyed as well.
"There is nothing as worthless as bad art. As Oscar Wilde said, art is quite useless. You can’t eat it, drive it, or live in it. Its uselessness, however, is what allows it to be a pure vehicle for human value. Great art has something we cherish very highly, but history tells us that very little of the huge quantity of art that gets made does what art is supposed to do."
I think at the end of the day the problem with Sam Kerson is that he's white (perhaps that should have been noted above btw), and that the general sentiment among bipoc students at VLS is that a white artist should not have his non-realist depiction of African Americans prominently displayed in such a quasi-public institutional setting, because (and however well-intentioned the intent) the subjective racialized biases of a white male of a certain historically-defined age are simply not unconsciously trustworthy or, more pointedly, are all but unavoidably unconsciously suspect. The white male's gaze simply cannot be trusted at the unconscious psychological level, and a psychologically racially aggressive and offensive (particularly to African Americans) white gaze may be attempting to sneak through under the radar under the pretext of non-realististically expressive art. In other words, ostensibly progressive pro-Black art may nevertheless be infirmly psychologically parasitized by the very racism it was ostensibly designed to protest as a result of the white psychological subjective racist milieu to which the white artist of a certain advanced age was irresistibly exposed. In such a potential case, it is ultimately the prerogative of the historically and presently victimized racial groups to be the arbiters of latent unconscious racist aggression contained within artwork to which they may reasonably be expected to be repeatedly exposed and thereby further victimized and aggrieved. In short, like in the case of (statistically overwhelmingly female) victims of sexual assault, it is incumbent on society and especially institutions entrusted with the public good to reflexively trust the perceptions, including aesthetic intuitions, of historically and presently still victimized racial groups, particularly when the trauma in question entails the still quite poorly understood transhistorical psychological evil contained within the historical evil of slavery as a whole.
No, it is not the "the prerogative of the historically and presently victimized racial groups to be the arbiters" of all art, policy, and conversation everywhere in society by claiming victim status. But this is the de facto nature of progressive efforts right now, but it's more about power than justice.
And you are wrong - American blacks in 2022 are among the least victimized people in the world.
The degree to which the effects of slavery are "transhistorical" in a way that requires our daily attention depends on whether or not sociologists, reporters, politicians and society in general decide to become serious people and take on the challenge of actual 21st century problems rather than endlessly re-fight easy moral battles against bad people who lived 55 or 150 years ago - we are fighting ghosts, or else trying to manufacture resistance by taking the fight to such absurd extremes. I agree and admit that past actions had awful repercussions for blacks which American society in general must take responsibility, but (a) we largely have done so and (b) we need to deal with the lingering repercussions in a clear-eyed, honest way.
To put it simply, many white people view black people as all of the stereotypes they learned about when they were children. It is not to say that people have no personal agency. I am saying that people will and do believe the biases, prejudices and lies that they are taught about others from childhood. THAT is why problems with this persist.
To this very day, many white folks think that MOST BLACK MEN are criminals, sex addicts and drug dealers who were fatherless children and are lazy, dirty and have never worked for a living; and MOST BLACK WOMEN are prostitutes, have fatherless children on a regular basis, are lazy, dirty and do not work for a living.
These lies, from the times of slavery and Jim Crow are handed down from one generation to another as facts. There can be NO other story for the "Other People" except the one hatched by the majority. This is exactly what the right-wing pearl-clutching about CRT and "Woke" is all about. As the facts of history come out, they must be squelched so that the traditional "story line" can continue. And so many white people see black people as complainers about NOTHING AT ALL, or believe that they deserve all of the mistreatment they get. They also see black people as inherently UGLY, and the immutable features of black folks, for them, are akin to those of monkeys or apes. That is why many white artists, such as Kerson, depict blacks with huge derrieres, distended bellies, flabby breasts, odd skin tones and distorted faces.
All of these things, artifacts of slavery and Jim Crow, have affected certain artists' depictions of us. But THAT'S OKAY with me.
Just because certain people SEE ME a certain way does not make their vision my reality. For every Kerson Mural there is art showing the dignity of black people. This is why GOOD depictions must be used to fight bad ones. Shining a light of that which is the opposite of what certain people believe about others renders all generalizations as lies.
I love your dedication to free speech (and artistic freedom) even when you find it objectionable. I agree with you that bad ideas are best fought with good ideas, not censorship.
But I think "many white folks" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement, especially given the heaviness of the list that follows it - I think too often we think of bigotry as a binary thing, either non-existent or an all-consuming evil. I think it's often milder and more nuanced - and does not live in the bones of the average person, but is more a casual thing to which they are less committed than we realize. I think it takes a lot of forms, some - to be frank - are hardly worth our time addressing. I like to think I'm generally a good dad, self-aware and trying to do the right thing, with bad moments that I'm not proud of, after which I try to do better. I like to think I'm almost never bigoted, self-aware and trying to do the right thing, with bad moments after which I try to do better. I am 100% certain I need more dialing in as a dad than as a prejudice free human.
Exaggerating features (regardless of race) is a common artistic choice - from New Yorker caricatures to street cartoonists to whoever did that Marvin Gaye album cover or the Good Times TV show opening. It feels like these students were a solution looking for a problem - it's a matter of proportion and where society and people choose to spend their energy.
This is an interesting, round about way to say some humans have no individual agency. People did argue this in ‘30s and ‘40s. From history class, my recollection is it worked out poorly (catastrophically even), but I’ll double check. Maybe I’m misremembering.
Simple case.
"Artists" have no special privilege.
The University is free to show their work or not, as it pleases.
And to those who make this about the race of the artist, I say that you are the true racists.
But you already know that.
What these students don't realize is that a lot of the so-called art depicting black people in the US are CARICATURES which are not intended to depict any sort of reality about black people at all. Many white artists have been so affected by PAST depictions of black people (such as "blackface" and "minstrel art") and for them and in their eyes, THIS is what black people look like. As a black woman, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and these murals depict the opinion of a white artist who was clearly influenced by garbage like THIS
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/coon/coon-character-gallery-01.htm
But, the ugly mural SHOULD NOT BE COVERED UP. A BETTER way to protest the downright ugly depictions would be for any student artists on campus to create their own mural depicting the DIGNITY of the black people using the Underground Railroad and insist that THAT mural also be hung, or find dignified art similar to THIS
https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/underground-railroad-mural-study-dolgeville-new-york-post-office-18323
or THIS
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-underground-railroad/cwGRLw8raEDwOg?hl=en
and get prints or request the original art's temporary display next to the bad art at the college to show the DIGNITY of those assisted by the Underground Railroad AND the dignity of those assisting them. The contrast would make this so-called "art" by Kerson look even worse than it does.
You always fight wrong speech with GOOD SPEECH; and you fight bad art with GOOD ART.
"The white male's gaze simply cannot be trusted at the unconscious psychological level" Hmmmm. So by that logic, every work of art by a black male artist depicting a woman should be censored or destroyed as well.
"There is nothing as worthless as bad art. As Oscar Wilde said, art is quite useless. You can’t eat it, drive it, or live in it. Its uselessness, however, is what allows it to be a pure vehicle for human value. Great art has something we cherish very highly, but history tells us that very little of the huge quantity of art that gets made does what art is supposed to do."
—Walter Darby Bannard
I think at the end of the day the problem with Sam Kerson is that he's white (perhaps that should have been noted above btw), and that the general sentiment among bipoc students at VLS is that a white artist should not have his non-realist depiction of African Americans prominently displayed in such a quasi-public institutional setting, because (and however well-intentioned the intent) the subjective racialized biases of a white male of a certain historically-defined age are simply not unconsciously trustworthy or, more pointedly, are all but unavoidably unconsciously suspect. The white male's gaze simply cannot be trusted at the unconscious psychological level, and a psychologically racially aggressive and offensive (particularly to African Americans) white gaze may be attempting to sneak through under the radar under the pretext of non-realististically expressive art. In other words, ostensibly progressive pro-Black art may nevertheless be infirmly psychologically parasitized by the very racism it was ostensibly designed to protest as a result of the white psychological subjective racist milieu to which the white artist of a certain advanced age was irresistibly exposed. In such a potential case, it is ultimately the prerogative of the historically and presently victimized racial groups to be the arbiters of latent unconscious racist aggression contained within artwork to which they may reasonably be expected to be repeatedly exposed and thereby further victimized and aggrieved. In short, like in the case of (statistically overwhelmingly female) victims of sexual assault, it is incumbent on society and especially institutions entrusted with the public good to reflexively trust the perceptions, including aesthetic intuitions, of historically and presently still victimized racial groups, particularly when the trauma in question entails the still quite poorly understood transhistorical psychological evil contained within the historical evil of slavery as a whole.
Imagine going thru life writing like this.
Got any soup with that word salad?
No, it is not the "the prerogative of the historically and presently victimized racial groups to be the arbiters" of all art, policy, and conversation everywhere in society by claiming victim status. But this is the de facto nature of progressive efforts right now, but it's more about power than justice.
And you are wrong - American blacks in 2022 are among the least victimized people in the world.
The degree to which the effects of slavery are "transhistorical" in a way that requires our daily attention depends on whether or not sociologists, reporters, politicians and society in general decide to become serious people and take on the challenge of actual 21st century problems rather than endlessly re-fight easy moral battles against bad people who lived 55 or 150 years ago - we are fighting ghosts, or else trying to manufacture resistance by taking the fight to such absurd extremes. I agree and admit that past actions had awful repercussions for blacks which American society in general must take responsibility, but (a) we largely have done so and (b) we need to deal with the lingering repercussions in a clear-eyed, honest way.
To put it simply, many white people view black people as all of the stereotypes they learned about when they were children. It is not to say that people have no personal agency. I am saying that people will and do believe the biases, prejudices and lies that they are taught about others from childhood. THAT is why problems with this persist.
To this very day, many white folks think that MOST BLACK MEN are criminals, sex addicts and drug dealers who were fatherless children and are lazy, dirty and have never worked for a living; and MOST BLACK WOMEN are prostitutes, have fatherless children on a regular basis, are lazy, dirty and do not work for a living.
These lies, from the times of slavery and Jim Crow are handed down from one generation to another as facts. There can be NO other story for the "Other People" except the one hatched by the majority. This is exactly what the right-wing pearl-clutching about CRT and "Woke" is all about. As the facts of history come out, they must be squelched so that the traditional "story line" can continue. And so many white people see black people as complainers about NOTHING AT ALL, or believe that they deserve all of the mistreatment they get. They also see black people as inherently UGLY, and the immutable features of black folks, for them, are akin to those of monkeys or apes. That is why many white artists, such as Kerson, depict blacks with huge derrieres, distended bellies, flabby breasts, odd skin tones and distorted faces.
All of these things, artifacts of slavery and Jim Crow, have affected certain artists' depictions of us. But THAT'S OKAY with me.
Just because certain people SEE ME a certain way does not make their vision my reality. For every Kerson Mural there is art showing the dignity of black people. This is why GOOD depictions must be used to fight bad ones. Shining a light of that which is the opposite of what certain people believe about others renders all generalizations as lies.
I love your dedication to free speech (and artistic freedom) even when you find it objectionable. I agree with you that bad ideas are best fought with good ideas, not censorship.
But I think "many white folks" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement, especially given the heaviness of the list that follows it - I think too often we think of bigotry as a binary thing, either non-existent or an all-consuming evil. I think it's often milder and more nuanced - and does not live in the bones of the average person, but is more a casual thing to which they are less committed than we realize. I think it takes a lot of forms, some - to be frank - are hardly worth our time addressing. I like to think I'm generally a good dad, self-aware and trying to do the right thing, with bad moments that I'm not proud of, after which I try to do better. I like to think I'm almost never bigoted, self-aware and trying to do the right thing, with bad moments after which I try to do better. I am 100% certain I need more dialing in as a dad than as a prejudice free human.
Exaggerating features (regardless of race) is a common artistic choice - from New Yorker caricatures to street cartoonists to whoever did that Marvin Gaye album cover or the Good Times TV show opening. It feels like these students were a solution looking for a problem - it's a matter of proportion and where society and people choose to spend their energy.
This is an interesting, round about way to say some humans have no individual agency. People did argue this in ‘30s and ‘40s. From history class, my recollection is it worked out poorly (catastrophically even), but I’ll double check. Maybe I’m misremembering.