Hit & Run : Reason.com: Students at the University at Buffalo were outraged about the sudden appearance of “White Only” and “Black Only” signs above certain bathroom doors in the College of Arts and Sciences building. But outrage was largely the point, since the signs were part of a black student’s visual arts project.
11 comments:
Art can be shocking, but I think that this grad student portrayed her art the wrong way. The article seems to say that she took her point too far by portraying the signs in a place that seems to get a lot of foot traffic and without approval from the university. The artist would have had just as much impact placing these signs in public around park benches near an accompanying plaque explaining the exhibit and why it is important. If the message of the art is so important, there needs to be a context for it other than the art itself. Sometimes people are better able to be objective if there is a certain level of critical distance from the topic, and a simple plaque could have done that. On the other side of the issue, the student body took their complaints too far. The artist’s point and message are entirely valid, and I fail to see how terrorism comes into the matter at all. In the case of fear, I think it is valid for people to walk away from a piece of art afraid and sad. It is this emotion that will impact change.
This girl just doesn’t seem very smart. She clearly did not think this instillation through although it would have been interesting if the article had more about Ms. Powell’s defense for putting the signs up. Also, just some food for thought, if you were about to do something pretty controversial for the sake of art and you really cared about the exhibit lasting, wouldn’t you make sure to have all of your administrative bases covered? This girl clearly is either lazy, thought her work was beyond asking for clearance (get over yourself lady), or really just didn’t think this all the way through. In this period in American history those signs are still threatening and no one can be blamed for getting upset by them. Cruel pasts are not so far in the past and the battle for racial equality in this country is sadly still going on.
ng this an act of terrorism is ridiculous. Although this article does a poor job of explaining Powell’s motives, thesis, or reasoning, if I am assuming these things correctly I think her piece might have been effective. Art should remind people about the horrors of the past, no one should be allowed to forget about when these signs were a reality, which was just fifty-one years ago. In addition to a reminder, it is important that the students of the University at Buffalo are able to recognize this as a hate crime. Not the art project, but the meaning behind the signs themselves. This could hopefully create a mindset within the student population about being able to spot these instances of racism that are still so prevalent today, and if they were so hurt by an art installation then they should definitely be active in combating real systematic inequalities.
However on Powell's side the signs themselves are not art. She needed to go deeper, attach any sort of meaning, come out with something other than just these symbols of segregation.
This week brings about plenty of articles about race, and with those, come plenty of controversy even with the amount of years that has passed since something like this happened. I do think this would be an intriguing art piece to come through. It is more of a major turning point in our history that race was a big issue. We haven’t grown up with the type of segregation that happened to our ancestors. In some areas around the country it was a bit more profound than others, but it still had a way of cutting deep to the heart that provoked emotions and frustrations that you probably wouldn’t be able to evoke elsewhere. I’ve always been a big fan of history, the rough times and the good. It is times when we are able to stand up united as one that makes me proud of where I live. To do so, you have to remember the past. So the student should have probably gotten permission first, but it just goes to show how easy it might be to forget.
I’m intrigued by the “Black/White” installation that Ashley Powell put up. I defend her and her opinion on how her installation is a work of art that comments on a very powerful and sensitive topic of the past. Inciting outrage was part of Powell’s point and it’s a good thing that it hit so close to home (and especially at a time where so many race-related issues are taking place across America) because it reminded people that racism is still very much alive and real. Although my generation has never lived through the Civil Rights Movement and life prior to that, it’s still a very touchy subject. As much as one would like to say America is progressing in terms of racial tendencies, we are also moving backwards. It blows my mind that there are some parts of America still that fly the Confederate flag and racism is part of normal everyday life for everybody involved. Sometimes I take growing up in New York (a blue state) for granted and forget that the rest of the country isn’t as open minded and diverse as NYC. As for Powell asking for permission for the installation, she would’ve been shut down real fast. I admire the fact that she knew that but decided to go through with it anyway. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
Simply posting the black/white only signs seems to be more bringing up the hate of the past than being an actual art piece because, as far as this article says, she didn’t do anything more to the signs than put them up. However, this article does not talk about what Powell’s thesis was to the project or why should thought this would be the best way to do it. I’m all about making art that will be shocking, but this doesn’t seem like it was the best way to do it. Calling it an act of terrorism is going to far I think. From what I can get about the article is that Powell wanted to incite conversation about racism, but she just went about it all wrong. The first thing you should do if you want your art to last is make sure you are cleared with the administration. Maybe she thought it would be taken down anyway and didn't want to be rejected before she could make her statement. But if you're already thinking that way, you might want to rethink your idea first. There’s a reason why these signs strike home for so many people; for many it was their grandparents who were alive during the intense racism of the beginning, and for everyone else they are still feeling the effects today.
Even though I’m not entirely sure if this is the best way to achieve what Powell is aiming to do, I do think it worked. Certain mistakes in history shouldn’t be forgotten or avoided. Powell directly confronts history and allows the new generation to actually feel what it was like and see how racism still exists today. However, I do think Powell could’ve done much more to make this her own art. Anyone can put up these signs and call it art. There could be so much more meaning to it.
This so-called artist is a total idiot. I don't know how she could imagine her project ending in anything other than outrage, justified or not. And from a practical perspective, she should have at least managed upwards by getting her signage approved and authorized by the appropriate powers to at least have a little CYA given the provocative nature of her work. I for one certainly would not want my work being called an act of terrorism without some approval process to back me up.That being said, I don't know if putting up offensive signage is a police matter or an act of terrorism, but it certainly isn't appropriate. It is true that people like to be offended by things that are not actually that offensive, but I do think an argument can be made here that people have the right to walk down the halls without seeing a sign that says Blacks or Whites only. Even for me, I certainly would find such a sign to be disconcerting at the very least!
Although Powell certainly should have gotten the project approved before installation, and the fact that she didn't shows a blatant disregard of care for her work, I think the type of project at large can be extremely effective in its purpose. Our generation, as the article's author says, has not been exposed to the pain and horror of slavery, and thus found themselves shocked when slapped in the face with such a reality. Imagine the effects of more projects like this, that force students and professors and people to rethink the air they breathe and the discrimination they think they've fixed. Is this not the point of art, to make people think and rethink? Do we not do something similar with our line and form projects when we craft string and wire and paint to tell Purnell "here we are, the freshmen have arrived!" The objective is artist to audience interaction, and students in Buffalo certainly had quite an interaction with Powell's piece. No, she did not go about it in the right way, and now she has very little grounds on which to defend her actions because of this. But to have gone about it in the right way and found a more successful result could have had an entirely different effect. This incident is, if nothing else, an argument for consistent approval by DR. But it is also an argument for art, and how it can effect and interact with those who do not expect it.
The fact of the matter here is that art made within the lines of regulation actually changes the art itself. For Powell, it'd be fascinating to hear her speak on her reasons for doing this piece without seeking approval, as the artistic statement then adds defiance and individuality and actual societal constructs as a part of the conversation. There is also something to be said for the now national conversation over the piece, which never would have happened if she had worked within the regulation.
Now, the question is whether or not the law should be able to prosecute her for the piece. As an artist who believes that art is of the utmost importance, and the most significant thing that can bring change to our world, I believe that the law should protect the artist. However, this is an extremely easy point to make with a piece like Powell's, and the pieces of my artists peers at CMU, but when a law such as that could be used by people to spread hate or lies or propaganda, I cannot say that I would support it. Therefore, we have to take what comes, and acknowledge that the art we're creating and the conversations that we're starting is more important than the legal trouble we would run into. This is also easy for me to say, sitting behind a computer screen.
I understand the use of art as making a statement to make people question and think about the world around them, but I have to agree with the general body that the student messed up big time by not contacting the administration first. By the student making the deliberate choice to not get permission from the administration they turned their assignment into vandalism. I don’t see how someone could view this as an act of Terrorism. I understand that within our society today we are still very much hurt that segregation was once an acceptable part of life. I also recognize that the thought that segregation really was all that long ago is still finds the thought unsettling in itself. The point that needs to be made is that the student was just trying to make a statement rather than thinking though there project to know that it would really hurt people. I have always defined terrorism to be an act done with the intention of hurting the innocent. The student clearly just wanted to provoke thoughts and certain feelings of uneasiness. For this reason alone I think it more important that the student be reprimanded for not getting administration approval but use the art piece as a starting off point for further dialogue that clearly needs to be addressed within the student body at the school.
Post a Comment