The Artist Upending Photography’s Brutal Racial Legacy

kkdanamatt

kkdanamatt

Well-known
Local time
7:07 PM
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
334
"The Artist Upending Photography’s Brutal Racial"

I'm not sure I agree with the choice of words in this headline from the New York Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/m...na-lawson.html

It's a long and detailed essay about a young Black female photographer (from Rochester, NY), using her photography to illuminate the Black experience in the USA.

I don't think the NYT headline fits the essay.
 
The article is very much about photography but also about economic, social, and political issues, so this thread may devolve into a political argument, based solely on the OP's disagreement with the title of the article.
I have my thoughts about how appropriate I feel the title of the article is, but I'm keeping them to myself because there is no way to respond to the original prompt without getting political. Just sayin'.

Phil Forrest
 
Good art, serious art, is always political. It should generate passionate discussion and, yes, argument. To say that the discussion "devolves" into a political argument misses the point entirely. I say, bring on the arguments; too much is swept under the rug as "inappropriate" because it makes those in a position of power and privilege uncomfortable.
Be passionate, but be civil, and let 'er rip!
 
Consider the idea, please, that art that makes a point of not addressing political issues is nevertheless taking a political stance. I am using the word "political" in its broad sense, as pertaining to the interaction of broad social and economic forces. Ansel Adams, for example, is not generally considered a "political" artist, but his embrace of the idea of "unspoiled nature" is an expression of American expansionist ideology. Art exists in a social context, and can't escape being an expression of the artist's engagement (consciously or not) with the social currents in operation in his milieu.
Also, please, consider a more nuanced response to my thoughts than to dismiss them as "a load of crap". You do a disservice to this forum.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Good art, serious art, is always political. It should generate passionate discussion and, yes, argument. To say that the discussion "devolves" into a political argument misses the point entirely. I say, bring on the arguments; too much is swept under the rug as "inappropriate" because it makes those in a position of power and privilege uncomfortable.
Be passionate, but be civil, and let 'er rip!
Click to expand...

Unlike the others I agree with you entirely. Art never happens in a political vacuum and it's unavoidable, particularly in retrospect, to see any art without looking at it relative to the social and political context of its time. Anyone that has ever read any book on art history should be painfully aware of that.

As to the second part of your post.... I agree in principle but some arguments amongst some people just aren't worth having. Discussions are best had between disinterested parties and that's the opposite of what happens here. Every now and then I log on to take a peek at the most active threads and I'm often disgusted by what mostly seems to be petulant bickering between curmudgeons. The most disturbing bits for me have been the apologists for racism, sexism, absurd conspiracies, and god knows what else if I actually read through entire threads, some of it put up by regulars. It's sad to see much of it anywhere, and especially unsettling to know I share a hobby with some of them.

If anyone is ever wondering why this forum doesn't attract more regular younger visitors or more women, I'm afraid the posts after this one will serve as an object lesson in why not. Hope you all prove me wrong, but either way I won't be staying to find out. Godspeed.
 
I only made my comment as a warning that this thread seemed like bait for a political argument. This shouldn't be the forum for political argument, plain and simple. I've been guilty of it in the past but heated threads which become political rants serve as a bit of a black eye on an otherwise great forum.

Phil Forrest
 
Orthogonal, I appreciate you support. And Phil, your warning is well-taken and, sadly, appropriate. Is it too much to hope for passionate discussion without political rants? A rhetorical question, perhaps, and I'm afraid I know the answer in our present social climate. Nevertheless, I think it's important to try.
We are in a time when all assumptions about race, gender, etc. are being challenged, very passionately. We can photograph test charts and argue the merits of the VI or VII Summicron, but perhaps all that is a bit evasive. It has it's place, and I confess to engaging in it, but it's not what's important to me. The old questions are more important: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? I want art, and discussions about art, that engage with those questions. Art, and communication, that takes risk, that isn't safe. I do hope that there's room here for that!
 
Dogman said:
"Good art, serious art, is always political."

That, sir, is a load of crap.
Click to expand...
Now now, Retro-Grouch said 'be civil'.
So, instead of 'load of crap' one might say; That sir, is a pail of excrement, so that none may abide the odor therefrom.
 
I won’t even open the link just because of the title. I, like many am completely exhausted from being bashed over the head at every turn with something racial or political. I don’t define myself by my politics or my race and I find people who do to be quite boring. If that’s your thing, have at it. Enjoy. I’d rather take a walk and shoot some photos. And no, not all great art has to do with politics. One could make an argument that all art is being created inside of a culture and therefor a reflection of the culture, but that is not necessarily political.
 
"I, like many am completely exhausted from being bashed over the head at every turn with something racial or political."

If one is a member of a minority, particularly a person of color, one is continuously, daily, bashed over the head at every turn by a dominant culture that demands your silence and invisibility. One does not have the luxury and privilege of not being defined by ones race. If you had opened the link to Deena Lawson's work, you would have realized that she is asking for Black people to be seen as full, complex human beings, something we all want for ourselves, and which minorities all sorts are insisting upon by taking the depiction of themselves into their own hands. Hardly "bashing you over the head" in my opinion. More a request for empathy and connection.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Good art, serious art, is always political. It should generate passionate discussion and, yes, argument. To say that the discussion "devolves" into a political argument misses the point entirely. I say, bring on the arguments; too much is swept under the rug as "inappropriate" because it makes those in a position of power and privilege uncomfortable.
Be passionate, but be civil, and let 'er rip!
Click to expand...

Change "always" to "sometimes" and you have a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom