In this response paper, I will highlight controversial perspectives of contemporary museology and appropriation issues surrounding Dana Schutz’ work. Authors Calvin Tomkins, Katha Pollitt, and James Panero discussed in this analysis question the purpose, the rights, and the mere existence of the painting the Open Casket by Dana Schutz. This response paper explores the various connections between present museology—particularly the 2017 Whitney Museum exhibition—and the responses of various artists featured in r the collection of case studies, narrative essays, analyses, and research. The conclusion of this reading response values the cultural, and social integration within 21st century museums; however, 21st century museums need to have a globally-conscious stance that puts an emphasis on educating, decolonization, and inclusion— rather than evoking an emotion from the viewer.
Art critic Calvin Tomkins’ (2017) article Troubling Pictures brings to light the controversial painting of Emmett Till’s open casket portrait created Brooklyn-based painter, Dana Schutz. In 1955, Emmett Till was a fourteen year old African American boy from Chicago that was brutally beaten to death after allegedly flirting with a White woman in a grocery store. Although Dana Schutz had no interaction or connections to Emmett Till and/or the family of Emmett Till, the artists wanted to create a piece that retold history through the painting of a photograph. According to Tomkins (2017) Schutz’ painting was “based on a widely reproduced photograph of Till’s mutilated corpse in his coffin, the painting was dominated on one side by a mostly abstract, thickly painted head in shades of dark brown and black, and on the other side by his white dress shirt” (p. 31). Schutz’ presents a fragmental narrative in which the spectators are unknowingly receiving a limited, biased, and often stereotypical experience of the Open Casket.
The multi-faceted effects of historic institutional and societal discrimination are on full display in Katha Pollitt’s (2017) The Right to Make Art article. Referencing the Emmett Till tragedy, Hannah Black pierces through the normative construction of the art community as she describes the subjugation of African American pain. For example, Blacks posits that “through his mother’s courage, Till was made available to Black people as an inspiration and warning. Non-Black people must accept that they will never embody and cannot understand this gesture” (Pollitt, 2017, p. 6). After outlining the real concerns of writers such as Hannah Black, Pollitt then notes an equivalency between the commonality of discrimination experienced by women and all people of color in the art community. According to Pollitt (2017), “the cold reality is that artists of color, like women artists of any race, have far too little space in our culture: They get less work, less attention, less money, and less fame, and they are put into identity boxes while white people, especially white men, get free range” (p. 8).
According to Panero (2017) article The Whitney’s identity problem, “the organizers of the 2017 Whitney Biennial know how to shuffle the deck of their political messaging” through the displays of works such as: Dana Schutz’ Open Casket; Jordan Wolfson’s Real Violence; Pope. L’s Claim; and Frances Stark’s Censorship Now. “Yet you do not have to be a Biennial truther to see the false flags of an exhibition so concerned with its own aggrandizement, with an entire range of work geared for its provocative and thereby publicizing potential: a controversy in search of a cause” (Panero, 2017, p. 50). The 2017 Biennial exhibition displayed pieces that raised questions in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, and censorship— questioning whether the Whitney’s avant-garde and radical exhibits had crossed the line.
The articles of Tomkins, Panero, and Pollitt left me questioning the best practices for the 21st century museology and the art field—in regards to establishing an inclusive, decolonized, and a non-stereotypical experienced. The Whitney Museum’s 2017 Biennial exhibition enraged many artists, art historians, politically active individuals, and a diverse crowd of people. The exhibit not only had pieces that appropriated the African American pain; it also displayed anti-sematic art pieces, violent art works, and many highly offensive works. Through the readings, I struggled with instilling a type of censorship and the concept of freedom of speech. Pollitt argues that the “concept of racist of colonial appropriation can be used to attack any kind of borrowing or syncretizing” from of art, style, or fashion. However, I do believe that there is a time and place. I believe that as an artist, Dana Schutz should not be restricted as to what she paints; however, it is the responsibility of the Whitney Museum to understand and be sensitive to cultural appropriation and opt to not display the body of work. Museums need to have a diverse set of individuals on the board to decide whether a work is appropriately being displayed and void of cultural appropriation.
21st century museology is the virtual conduit that strives to connect geographically disparate populations to provide a museum experience with the instantaneous ability to communicate, disseminate information, collaborate, and experience a variety of emotions through both cultural and social integration. However, the averse implications that providing experiential museum experience has both a cultural and social impact on the audience that may not be worth the experience at the risk of creating a falsified experience. 21st century museums need to have a globally-conscious stance that puts an emphasis on educating, decolonization, and inclusion— rather than evoking an emotion from the viewer.
References
Panero, J. (2017). The Whitney’s identity problem. The New Criterion, 49-51.
Pollitt, K. (2017). The Right to Make Art. The Nation, 6-8.
Tomkins, C. (2017). Troubling Pictures. The New Yorker, 30-35.
Comments