BLACK BODIES WHITE CUBES
My first response to the article written by Aldridge was congruent with her opinion and take on the installation. I felt disgusted by the nature in which the piece was contextualized and I felt an overt sense of disconnection between what the art world is meant to be versus what it has come to be. Soon, I realized that my response was in fact, partially crafted by the writer. The use of contrast with words like “wealthy” and “grotesque” had inadvertently projected a base of opinion of which I had to overcome to really synthesize art in the context of social awareness. I find myself questioning the forwardness of a piece, whether being quite harsh and specific in its being is hurtful to the subject matter it is depicting or if it is simply polarizing and hence successful in conveying the seriousness of the issue. In lesser terms, is this what it takes to wake a group of people up?
I found there to be much hesitation on my part to criticize the financial or social gain by responding to a social movement because like most mediums of communication, art is multifaceted and one outcome is not necessarily universal. This is where my opinion had a greater difference to that of Aldridge. In the piece, it is questioned whether one had to “recognize the financial and critical benefits that go along with creating work around these subjects.” I think there can be a fundamental difference between recognizing financial benefit from art and criticizing it. I strongly believe that if an independent artist had reached amateur success and it gave them a better means to life, then it is simply unfair to blanket financial benefit in the art world as being incentive to make work unrelated to yourself. It would be irresponsible to say that only some artists should benefit from creating, however i’m not certain this is the argument being made by Aldridge.
For Aldridge, the issue boils down to context– specifically the Black Lives Matter Movement. The question arose, whether or not one is able to contribute or support a movement if their personal narrative is not necessarily one with the movement. Here, I find another point of contention with the opinion within the piece. My perspective on this once again returns to art being a means of communication and a vehicle for ideas. Not all art supports that of which is good and not all art is meant to serve only certain groups
of people. If art is simply a vehicle, can we question who is allowed to use it and for what? If someone does not agree with what one is saying, are we allowed to tell them to not use language? I do, however agree with there being a lack of authenticity within the
medium when it comes to addressing many issues but I also believe that awareness is important and whether or not someone benefits through reputation or finance, the service has been done to some extent. I think of this with celebrities mostly, we see celebrities like Beyonce and Lady Gaga financially and artistically contribute to the
Black Lives Matter movement and I find there to be a lack of criticism when artists who are popular and beloved commit acts of service through the means of art and finance. My opinion on this is shaped more based on a beneficial gain by the artist rather than
there belonging to the group, from which they are gaining inspiration for the work.
A point of view presented by the author that is explored is the exploitation of the “black experience,” in order to project unauthentic empathy for personal gain. I agree that there is a portion of people, perhaps even a large portion of people that do
purposely support political and social issues in order to boost or greater their own personal exposure, however I continue to question whether art is exempt from this particular limitation. It is mentioned in the article that the artist, Moore did not sell the sculpture in question, however other pieces in the collection were sold. This to me begs the question of whether this would be accepted if a black artist had created the work in a space, who’s audience are privileged and fluent caucasian clients. This line of
question began to resemble a circle, as I find it is almost impossible, in this context, to speak about ones right to portray an idea in the context of art without addressing the issue of benefits that might ensue after creation. The reason I raise this question is because the issue here seems to not only be that perhaps a specific experience is
being communicated by one who has not lived it, but that the experience is being exploited in a setting where it is being fetishized rather than being thought upon. As a person of color, I do often find there to be a limitation on those who are not people of color, to explore our culture and with this I proceed in trying to process the article further.
Aldridge regards the piece as being a form of “cultural appropriation,” in that it is exploiting a black cultural figure in order to reap benefit from it. With this notion, I find myself disagreeing with Aldridge on the basis of, once again, art being a vehicle for an idea. Art often acts as an abstract, conceptualized vehicle for ideologies, thoughts emotions and rarely blatantly or specifically spells out its meaning to the viewer. In essence, Art is subjective and as a result should be treated as such. I think that
although the subject matter is highly sensitive and it can be seen that this piece is particularly raw and perhaps unnecessary or zoned off from the creator, that it is important we pay all forms of Art a level of subjectivity. In my opinion, just from looking
at the piece, I think that it is a meta-commentary on cultural appropriation in America– by using someone who is considered an iconic American character (Fat Albert) who is black, is saying that for years and years America has utilized and participated in black
culture and that lack of support for the community in a time of racial unrest is hypocritical. However, what I have just said is a perspective, an opinion and just my point of view, which is what everyone has when viewing art. So is it fair to say Art is appropriating a culture when it can be subjected to multiple viewings from different kinds of people who have different points of view?
Additionally, I do agree with the authors references to artists such as Leigh, where the idea of addressing black subjectivity over black bodies is addressed. I think this is a valid statement that justifies the idea that there is a way to convey the issue through an additional, differing viewpoint that doesn't necessarily employ the element of
shock. However, even though I believe this point to be valid, I am still question whether, when looking at the frame of Art, that it is acceptable to suggest that there is essentially a right and a wrong way of communicating an idea through it? I believe that there can
be a good and a bad idea, but I do not agree that there is a right way and a wrong way for any idea to be expressed through Art, given that Art is a vehicle for ideas and not the idea itself.
I find that my criticism of the piece is not necessarily in regards to the idea of owned experience, rather the way in which art is penalized out of the idea of “responsibility.” I believe that many important and true points are made here with regards to culture and the sharing of information and collective experience, however I
do find due to the platform of the website being an Art news site, it would be unfair to suggest that there is a right and wrong way to interpret or view or even create Art.