白人艺术家应该画埃米特·蒂尔的尸体吗?
Mohit Mookim

31 March 2017

上图是Dana Schutz的一幅画，目前正在惠特尼双年展上展出。这幅画描绘的是躺在敞开的棺材里的埃米特·蒂尔，因此自然引起了争议。但丹娜·舒茨是白人有关系吗?你的种族应该限制你可以画什么吗?人们很容易听到对舒茨的这种批评，认为白人不应该创作关于尖锐的民权标志的艺术，并认为这种批评是不必要的、过度的政治正确而不屑一顾。我也有过这种冲动。

But after reading and reflecting onthisletter by artist/writer Hannah Black (co-signed by a number of other black artists), I began to reconsider. Perhaps white artists shouldn't be profitting and gaining prestige on the basis of precious symbols in the black community. While I wouldn't go so far as saying Schutz was exploiting black bodies, I do think white artists should be sensitive to these sort of concerns. Haven't white people profitted from America's racist past enough? It reminds me of Hollywood whitewashing—when Hollywood takes parts clearly made for people of color and gives them to white people. Shouldn't black artists get to profit off of and represent the cultural and historical symbols they hold most dearly?

Here's Hannah Black's letter ini-Dmagazine:

https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/black-artists-urge-the-whitney-biennial-to-remove-painting-of-murdered-black-teenager-emmett-till

Also, check out this thought-provoking response to Black's letter from interdisciplinary artist and writer Coco Fusco:

https://hyperallergic.com/368290/censorship-not-the-painting-must-go-on-dana-schutzs-image-of-emmett-till/

Comments(1)

RepoMan05's picture

RepoMan05

Sunday, October 6, 2019 -- 1:25 PM

Firstly, op doesnt know it

首先，op不知道，但op是种族主义者。

"Race" is a just a reified brirish equivocation fallacy to turn family into a competition to justify nepotism and slippery slope for aristocracy.

There is no race. No starting gun. No finish line.

"Culture" is a social construct. Social constructs do not exist. Cultures are owned by no one person. They cant be copywrited. They cant truly be stolen either; not caporially, anyway.

有人教我们迷失在现实的编纂中。这就是主观性。主体性是不存在的，是偷不走的。但很明显，它可能会被曲解。利用别人的文化赚钱，同时歪曲它，被大多数人认为是一种冒犯。但是冒犯可以在任何时候被任何不受管制的人感觉到。你选择觉得被冒犯不可能是被冒犯的理性动机。每个人自然也会对被冒犯的人感到被冒犯。感到被冒犯的自然选择不能成为判断是否发生了可信的冒犯的理性立场的基础。

It cant be illegal, but can it be immoral?
下一个是同性恋美国队长和田径明星哈利·波特!

All we can do is misrepresent. There is no perfect representation of anything without perfectly repeoducing that thing. At that point its no longer "representing," it's "reproduction."(not to be confused with biological reproduction)

All art besides "non-objective art" (coincidence) is a representation. Artists can only misrepresent and no matter how much realism they want to put to something.

但在这个抽象概念上，你会想到什么?脸被弄脏了。就像看完《指环王》录像带后照片里的人的脸一样。也许画家想说的是那家伙朝枪管下面看了看。刺杀案吗?要么是他，要么是他自己的代表?一种诅咒?

I think this piece was meant to be offensive. How could something so ugly not be? But I'd bet the guy was offensive to the artist. How could he not?

What gets attention in art and politics?

.
.
~ fhe phantom of a dropuut

Tags