The article I was assigned, “Censorship, Not the Painting, Must Go” addresses artists that are highly criticized for cultural appropriation. The debate is centered around “how artists and curators of all backgrounds represent collective traumas and racial injustice”, which is a sensitive subject for many because the audiences who are viewing these works are so broad. However, there are various different views on this issue, some supporting the artists and others attacking the artists. For instance, the letter written by Hannah Black (a black-identified biracial artist) to Dana Schutz (a white American), the author of “Open Casket”, addresses this issue. In the letter, she expresses that this kind of exploitation should not be considered art and therefore should not be seen by the public. She argues that by recreating this image, the artist is portraying her support for this horrible execution of a young black boy, referring to it as “white insensitivity”, and that the work should be destroyed. On the other hand, the author of the article, who provides a teacher’s point of view, disagrees with this point of view, saying that the destruction of a work of art should never take place, regardless of certain opposing viewpoints. A counterargument that the author makes is that Black does not consider the fact that many black artists have also depicted black trauma, such as enslaved bodies, lynching, and imprisonment without facing any criticism for producing these works. Overall, the article addresses the stance of someone speaking out against these works and offers an opposing view, which allows us to comprehend both sides and formulate our own opinions on the issue.
This is really interesting. I found a similar opinion in my article, however mine is more basing on how someone shouldn’t create art based on the feelings of a marginalized group. I feel like your article discusses the notion of free speech, and who has a right to create what they want, regardless of backlash.