Coco Fusco in “Censonship, Not the Painting, Must Go: On Dana Schutz’s Image of Emmet Till,” brings about many of her arguments that critique the stance expressed by Hannah Black’s letter. Fusco dissects the letter and addresses it piece by piece. Essentially, Black’s claims revolve around who understands black pain and suffering and who is able to depict it, who profits off of what has been produced, and calls for censorship and destruction of something that has been created by someone who is a stranger to the black pain and suffering. As a response, Fusco reiterates that art brings about reactions, emotions, and other symbolic gestures but brings about important questions to keep in mind when analyzing them. Who makes the gestures symbolic? Does it directly recognize the intention versus the perception of the work produced? Regardless of the audience or perception, nothing is deemed as enough to demand censorship and the destruction of the Dana Schutz image of Emmet till, a white artist depicting a black body. Fusco meticulously points out Black’s failure to recognize the monumental significance of the work by Dana Schutz due to her narrow minded focus on the “cultural producers and consumers on the basis of race.” The context and evolution of the depiction of black bodies have come a long way and the image produced in 2016 only proves this point further. Fusco makes sure to provide that historical context that has played such a crucial role in the acknowledgment and validation of black bodies whether the creator were to be black or white.

“However, it is reductive and inaccurate to claim that all treatment of black suffering by white cultural producers is driven by commercial interests and sadistic voyeurism. Black overlooks an important history of white people making anti-racist art, often commissioned by Civil Rights activists.”

Fusco strives to center around the potential works like the one produced by Schutz has in our society. In her eyes, these works strive for “interracial cooperation, mutual understanding, or universal anti-racist consciousness.” This is something that is needed and furthered by works with no true malicious intention. Fusco also points out that “her [Black’s] use of offense as a rationalization for censorship reinforce elitist and formalist views that ethical considerations don’t belong in the aesthetic interpretation of art.” There is an emphasis on work depicting black bodies needing realism and most of all approval of some sort to be granted by the culture  before being evaluated aesthetically, according to Fusco.

Although, Fusco does critique Schutz and her work due to the failure of recognize the connection explicitly present between the past and the present we live regarding the language and actions that still surround black bodies today, works like the one produced by Schutz have stirred dialogue about the minimal changes that have taken place in our society regarding black bodies. Having Open Casket, based on something that took place in 1955 beside THE TIMES THAY AINT A CHANGING, FAST ENOUGH!, something that took place in 2016 only reiterates very loudly the violence and pain that remains present faced by black bodies.

Overall, Fusco’s last paragraph distinctly speaks to the importance of Open Casket.

“Whether or not we like the painting or consider it her greatest work — I do not, but think it still has value — Schutz’s decision to refract an iconic photograph through the language of abstraction has forced the art world out of its usual complacency and complicated the biennial’s uniformly celebratory reviews. She has, perhaps inadvertently, blown the lid off of a biennial that features an almost too perfect blend of messy painting, which appeals to conservatives, and socially engaged art, which appeals to the more politically minded. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not such a bad thing, given the ghastly state of American political culture at this moment.”