"Behind the fabric is a large, three-panel mural titled Pursuits of Life in Mississippi depicting a white family in front of a plantation-style home and other white figures engaged in various professions. In the margins are faceless black people picking cotton, with the exception of a lone figure in the foreground who is smiling and playing a banjo. It's inconvenient art. And how to present works of art that have historical value but are sometimes painfully out of step with modern sensibilities can be an issue for communities." http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090607/NEWS/906070345/1001/newsI am strongly (rabidly) opposed to censorship of the arts, but that doesn't mean that I think anything goes at any time or any place. But neither do I want to sit in a courtroom and have to stare at a painting of the white Massa and his slaves. If i want to appreciate the historical aspects or the artistic merit, I'll go see it in a museum.
The positive change in societal attitudes doesn't mean the painting should be destroyed. We are not the barbarian hordes here, burning Alexandria. But it does mean that the public should not be forced to view offensive art due to its location in a public building.
Times change (thank goodness) and what was once perfectly acceptable visual representations of society are no longer deemed acceptable. What to do with the art?
We cannot change the past by destroying the art. In fact, isn't the art a good reminder to not repeat idiotic mistakes of the past? We cannot change the ideas of others by burning books that we find offensive. We cannot hide or lie to ourselves by toppling the sculptures and pretending we were always perfect.
But neither do we need to condone past oppressions by giving the art depicting lynchings and prejudice prominent display room in our halls of justice.
"Stanford University art historian Michael Marrinan said works of art often have suffered from changing attitudes. Heroic paintings of Napoleon were displayed for years in the Louvre, taken down when political fortunes changed and then hung again when a new regime came into power. "Anytime a work is political, it is going to have a shelf life," he said. "We may not agree with it anymore, but it is part of our heritage."
****Hear the discussion today on the Award Winning DAMage Report Radio Show - http://www.latalkradio.com at 2pm PST / 5pm EST/ 10pm GMT
3 comments:
You know, I think you offered your own most excellent solution in here: remove the mural and donate it to a museum.
Good thinking as always, darling.
We cannot change the ideas of others by burning books that we find offensive. We cannot hide or lie to ourselves by toppling the sculptures and pretending we were always perfect.
Oh yes we can!
We have, we do and we will continue to do so until the end of time.
Or at least the leaders will ensure the vast majority of the filthy masses are constantly fed the new dogma as needed.
I agree that art should never be destroyed. That said, a piece such as this that could be offensive to so many people placed in a county building seems just plain wrong and highly insensitive. Since this is located in the Bible belt, how about hanging a painting of an aborted fetus next to it and see how folks feel about that piece of art.
Post a Comment