Art, Freedom, and the Politics of Social Justice

June 1, 2018

Introduction

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Coalition Against Censorship

NCAC's mission is to promote freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and to oppose censorship in all its forms.

Over the past few years, artworks that touch upon painful histories have sparked heated controversies. While the artists behind such works have invariably had a social purpose and sought to tackle the political issues plaguing our present, the works themselves have elicited charges of insensitivity, cultural appropriation, and racism. Many discussions surrounding these works have questioned whether an artist from a dominant racial group has the right to make artworks about a story of core importance to a racial or ethnic group to which they do not belong, or to make use of images, ideas, or characters belonging to the traditions of culturally marginalized groups.

The outrage over such artworks—from South African artist Brett Bailey’s Barbican show “Exhibit B” to Dana Schutz’s painting “Open Casket” at the 2017 Whitney Biennial and Sam Durant’s “Scaffold” at the Walker Art Center—has contributed to a tense climate in the art world.

Worse than being outsiders, protesters claim, white artists belong to a dominant racial group that continues to structurally privilege itself at the expense of people of color. As such, racially charged artwork produced by white artists is suspect at best; at worst, it perpetuates racism and oppression. Whereas artists have the freedom to produce whatever they wish, the institutions that display such works are held to a different standard of responsibility: one that extends beyond the artist, the artwork and the principles of creative freedom to encompass the community and audiences these institutions serve, as well as the ideals of social justice.

While they welcome protest and critique, free speech advocates draw a line at the removal or destruction of artworks. While they may admit that platforms for speech reflect social inequalities, and that words and images help perpetuate social divisions and racist attitudes, their solution to these problems lies in supporting more speech rather than less. In line with this general principle, in recent controversies involving offense and trauma, free speech advocates have called on institutions to host dialogue and conversation. While they recognize the multiple responsibilities of art institutions, they privilege the open exchange of ideas over any specific social program.

The National Coalition Against Censorship’s Arts Advocacy Program invited artists, curators, and writers to think across disagreements and share their thoughts on the current debate over cultural appropriation. We asked the respondents to be as direct and uncensored as possible.


This roundtable is conceived as an ongoing conversation. We will be publishing commissioned responses to the five initial contributions on a rolling basis over the summer. To be advised of future contributions, subscribe to ArtsEverywhere’s bi-weekly newsletter. If you would like to make a substantive and thoughtful contribution to this conversation, please enter it in the comments section at the bottom of this roundtable. We will be publishing selected comments. We reserve the right to edit any published comments for clarity and length.

RESPONSES

Sam Durant

Talking About History

There are many factors contributing to the current climate of tribalism and polarization in North American culture today, most of them a result of long-term historical developments, of social and cultural oppression and violence. Pankaj Mishra’s Age of Anger: A History of the Present and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment both offer convincing arguments for how and why we are where we are today; both of them base these arguments in history.

One contemporary response to the injustices of the past—with significant consequences in the art world—is the turn towards a politics of identity and the claims to ownership of certain cultural expressions. Both are based on personal experience, with an emphasis on the historical trauma affecting the group to which an individual belongs.

View Full Response

Noelle Garcia

The Feeling: The Freedom to Offend/ The Freedom to Say You Hurt Me/ The Hope You Hear Me

I’m an Indigenous woman, I’m well educated, I’m a mother, I have a good job and people listen to me. Even better, I teach teachers, so there are layers of people that listen to me. I’m just one of many Indigenous people that are being heard.

I wonder why we are being heard now. Not just heard, sometimes supported. When Sam Durant erected “Scaffold” there was an outcry. The Indigenous community was pained because it referenced the gallows used to hang 38 Dakota warriors. Eventually, Durant transferred the intellectual property rights of the work to the Dakota Nation. This act gave the impression that Durant sincerely heard and reacted to the voices of the Indigenous community. A community expressed pain and the artist responded, transforming the art into something different.

View Full Response

Hou Hanru

Ten Theses Against the Activism of “Good Morals”

4. All complexity, contradiction, uncertainty, imagination, and enigma—or all that renders ART meaningful, beautiful, and powerful, and also “useful”—are reduced and even erased in favor of the spectacular and hence the speculative: that which is easy to identify, “understand,” consume, and become eventually profitable. For “difficult art” it becomes even more difficult to survive, since the institutions and media tend to—or are forced to—embrace the logic of the comfortable, the safe, or the tokenistic, in order to be more popular.

View Full Response

Alan Michelson

Subject Matters

The recent controversy over the exhibitions by American art institutions of works by white artists depicting traumatic events in the histories of non-whites, during which people of color have stepped forward to register the offensiveness of these representations to their communities, is part of a larger political landscape that includes Idle No More, Black Lives Matter, Standing Rock, Decolonize This Place, and other grassroots challenges to entrenched power. As a contemporary Mohawk artist, what surprises me most about the controversy is the fact that as recently as 2017 it came as such a surprise to the artists, curators, and institutions involved. And also that, in some quarters, the challenges were received as threatening calls for censorship, when in fact they were more the opposite—calls for voices against the insidious forms of censorship practiced by white-dominated art institutions on non-white groups. White supremacy, no matter how passively or unwittingly sheltered, is suppression—the silencing of voices and the erasure of presence. Shamefully, the art world is one of its preserves.

View Full Response

Vanessa Place

The Artist is a Trout

In 1873, Courbet painted La truite (The Trout). The eponymous trout is hooked, on the line and on the rocks, mouth open, eye fixed, bleeding from the gills. It’s dying, which means it’s alive. The Trout was painted between Courbet’s release from prison, where he spent six months for his participation in the 1871 Commune, and his self-exile to Switzerland, where he died of drink in 1877, one day before the first yearly payment of a 33-year fine was due in Paris. It is a portrait of the artist as subject to the judiciary.

I am interested in the position of the trout. Who owns the trout? And does the ownership of the trout depend on what the trout is? Is the trout an image of the trout, the artist, or the fisherman who catches and is thereby also caught up with the fish? For that matter, should art ever be a matter of ownership?

View Full Response

2 thoughts on “Art, Freedom, and the Politics of Social Justice

  1. Disheartening to see responses that only attempt to justify censorship on the part of people who claim that only they can speak about certain subjects. Charges that “society” is racist, sexist, homophobic (as if nothing has changed in 50 years), the cry to “dismantle” “white supremacy” and “patriarchy” (as if nothing has changed in 50 years), and the call for reparations (which are never going to happen) is just the kind of rhetoric with which white artists love to flagellate themselves. (White artists? Well, yes: when was the last time an intersectional artist was criticized for speaking about a subject?)

    Is this really the National Coalition Against Censorship? The participants in the roundtable weren’t censored, but obviously feel more than justified on ideological grounds to exercise dominion over the thoughts (yes, thoughts) and expressions of others.

  2. Since NCAC has been the rare group to actually protest one of my many censored murals, you have a special place in my heart. But a “thoughtful” discussion on cultural appropriation? Good luck on that!

    Culture and art is produced socially by millions of people over thousands of years. The idea that any self-appointed group has a right to claim domain over art is an attack on artistic and intellectual freedom.

    I say this as the most censored artist in the world, who remains as invisible to the Art World as the workers for whom I proudly paint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.