Inside Higher Ed: Almost three months after a racially charged art project stirred controversy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, administrators, faculty members and students are still deliberating whether to adopt guidelines for public art on campus.
At the root of the debate is a series of signs reading “White Only” and “Black Only” that appeared mysteriously and suddenly around campus in September, eliciting fear and shock from students. After it became clear a graduate art student named Ashley Powell had posted the signs as part of a project for her Urban Spaces class, the whole episode took on a new dimension.
12 comments:
The line between politicism and artistic inconsideration isn’t always very clear. I think this entire SUNY Buffalo incident is made even more complex by the fact that it was perceived in such a myriad of ways by the student body, and that the artist herself is black. That being said, personally, (and I think my opinion is shared by most), the signs crossed the line into making certain students feel uncomfortable and unsafe, and that made it unacceptable to be classified as “artistic expression”. While I am someone who is fully in support of experimental and politicized art pieces (how do we expect to change current events and the state of our world without commenting on them?), I do think that viewer safety and emotional reaction should be prioritized. I’m glad that the school is taking action to make sure that something like this doesn’t happen again. While the idea of having to label something as “art” in order to display it on campus feels like a ridiculous idea, I think it makes sense in the context of this situation. However, would having labeled the “whites only” sign as “art” have made a difference? Personally, I don’t think so. I also don’t think that it’s very conducive to an artistically liberated environment for students to have to ask for permission before installing one of their pieces. This is a tricky situation that I hope will be further discussed and explored.
I can see why this is such a controversial topic, and it is a very odd concept to think about. Art is supposed to get a message across, which Powell’s piece obviously does, but to a lot of people this is such a sensitive subject. I appreciate the fact that she tackled it upfront, and are forcing people to take a look at the fact that racism still exists and is rampant throughout America. But I can also empathize with the faculty in trying to make their college a safe environment for all students.
I disagree with their way of solving this issue. Censoring art is not the way to do this. I would set a date that Powell must take down her installation piece, and then have an open meeting to discuss why it was so powerful, and hopefully make people start talking about the subject with less sensitivity and hesitation.
You also have to realize that these students and faculty are voluntarily going along with the signs, and they can just walk into any of the rooms without any consequences. There is no law promoting racism anymore. It’s just a sign, and nothing will happen to them.
Though I think this art piece makes an important statement, and could be powerful under the right context, I think just putting up the signs was a bad idea. First of all, viewers would have no idea who put up the signs or what motivated the signs. In this case, it was a statement about feelings related to race, but it could just as easily be an act of racism. Out of context, the viewer is left to assume, and quite frankly, I would’ve assumed it was a distasteful joke at best. The second problem is that this is a very emotionally charged piece, and I don’t think it is fair to shove it in people’s faces when they are just going about their lives. Maybe it brings emotions to the surface, but that doesn’t mean the audience is okay with that being brought up with no warning. It almost feels a bit like a psychology experiment with no consent. Seeing how people will respond to these signs, but them not getting say in whether or not they want their response to be tested.
However, all of that has to do with why I personally don’t think this art piece was well executed, which is a separate matter from whether or not it should be allowed. I think the idea of mandating that it be marked as art makes a lot of sense, though I could see the artist saying that putting that label would ruin the piece, and she’d be right. If those signs were labeled as an art piece, they would not have had the same effect on the viewer. And the very nature of the art being targeted to an unprepared public is an aspect of it I dislike, but also integral to the art form. So should it be allowed? There was no threat made, which in my mind would mean it should unambiguously be banned, though I could see people being nervous using the bathrooms if they felt like someone had put up those signs with an intent to enforce it themself.
So in conclusion, I think this art piece was an interesting concept but poorly executed, but I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to say it shouldn’t have been allowed.
So what is the difference between a hateful racist sign and an art piece that perfectly emulates a hateful racist sign. Frankly, I see no difference. So if the logic follows that we should not be allowed to put one up, then why should the other one stand? Yes, I get it, I'm in Art School. Art should be allowed to be thought provoking, meaningful, powerful, whatever. But a public art installation is different. Your audience does not get to choose whether they would like to experience your exhibit. In a sense, you have a captive audience. And I believe when the artist/audience interaction occurs under this framing, that a certain amount of respect and sensitivity is required. Maybe the artist jumps for joy and counts it a success when an "audience member" is negatively emotionally impacted by this seemingly racist sign, but frankly, some members of the public just want to go to the bathroom without event. This installation artist, through this exhibit, has thoroughly shown her selfishness and general lack of thoughtfulness.
I thinks its an interesting conundrum that universities have to face when it comes to art installations in on campus spaces. technically with out permission or prior warning its vandalism and the university has every right to take the works down, but also when trying to create an environment where art students can feel both heard and protected the university must be willing to make certain concessions in the name of art. They can't just put up a list of rules, "no race, gender or sex topics", "nothing that will make people sad or angry", "nothing about current events", because everyone reacts differently to art. Its all about the individual and there is no getting around that. Labeling something as "art" takes away from its impact, so they are correct in that not working. The registry I think is going to be the most helpful tool in this case. The university will reserve the right to make a notification that a controversial piece is going up, which is a form of labeling, but less so.
I think this is a very blurry area to navigate. This type of art is unlike anything that’s ever been produced or created, at least in terms of content. However, the concept of presenting very provocative art is not that new. Parts of this story ring very similar tones to the backlash and outrage that was accompanied with “Piss Christ” back in the late 80’s. The artist, Andres Serrano, had taken a photograph of a submerged plastic crucifix of Jesus in a jar of his own urine. In and of itself, the piece of art was very provocative and controversial. What made even more people outraged was that the photograph was part of an exhibit that had been funded through the National Endowment for the Arts. Immediately, the debate of what ‘Art is’ became a national debate with every Tom, Dick and Harry adding their two cents to the conversation. I think Art is very often controversial and subject to public analysis and ridicule. This instance at SUNY Buffalo just adds another dimension to that conversation. I’m sure that if the signs had been in an Art Museum, the uproar would be much less significant, less impactful. In today’s world, Artists are no longer confining themselves to Art institutions and are now claiming public spaces as their own galleries. Personally, I think something of this controversial magnitude and on this topic is long over due. I will say that I am both relieved and excited that the artist was African-American. Had this Art been done by someone of a privileged/Caucasian class the meaning and the conversation would have taken on an entirely different tone. Then again, why does the artist’s race matter at all? The work is meant to be provocative and probably intended to illicit some inner response and contemplation by the viewer. To me, the question of whether an artists’ race should be figured into the art, seems to be a much more interesting question to grapple with.
I often joke that this or that piece of scrap or occasional disaster I have created is “art”, this installation however highlights a much more serious discussion on the topic. I think it is fascinating how effective the piece is at starting a conversation if nothing else. I would absolutely feel very uncomfortable if I saw such signs up in my school but it raises important questions about the racism which still exists today. It is far less blatant than the signs of the past but it is no less real. When considering the censorship of art, we need to understand that there is a line here too. On one side we could censor art that could really provoke thought and change in the world but on the other we could risk making people feel unsafe and exclude them even unintentionally. I think regardless of how SUNY chooses to side on this issue we must take the conversations about the censorship of art and of race very seriously.
I can see why this type of art is highly controversial and politically charged, but that being said, I do not necessarily think that this is was art. This sounds more like a social experiment meant to evoke a reaction; art meant to evoke the same reaction would have been those signs posted with a full exhibit around them, describing them as a point of reference in history. This sounds much more like someone from the Sociology department wanted to see group dynamics as the signs inevitably offended people, and they did. To me, art explores by having the viewer question his or her own opinions of the world we live in, looking at it from a new perspective.
That aside, I am glad that the school is having people register art exhibits. This seems like a step in the right direction toward ensuring a sake environment for the entire student body while still allowing for artistic expression. I think they should take this process one step further by having it be an application process rather than a registering process.
I remember reading an article about this earlier in the school year, and I'm glad to see a follow up of the issue. I think DeWitt Godfrey's comment ("People can feel quite affronted by the fact that their participation in the artwork is involuntary. I think you have to preserve the student's right to be provocative, or in this case, I think, offensive") is definitely a valid way to draw the line. I know that the artist has good intentions, but she lacked sensitivity and consideration, both especially crucial here regarding the subject matter that she is dealing with. Just like how us DPs have to place the actors/actresses' safety (and that they feel safe) before our own design choices, artists should consider their audience the same way too. I understand that the purpose of this "art" is that it is confrontational, but these audiences did not voluntarily participate or get any cue telling them that this is a piece of art. The audience are not uncomfortable because of the piece of art, but because they didn't even know that this is art. However, the subject itself (of both the piece of art and the topic of discrimination) should be discussed and confronted regardless.
The issue this campus faces is a tricky one. Many universities very well will probably look toward them on how to handle issues like this in the future. I for one see that while the student’s art was offensive and caused a strong reaction, you can’t not give credit to the artist of being able to successful reach their goals. Unfortunately rather than having the art piece lead to a healthy discussion about discrimination in this country it has led to how to safely limit art. I understand the argument the article made about college is meant to be a safe place for all students and they shouldn’t be afraid to enter class. At the same time sending the message of creating boundaries on art to avoid hurting people is just one of the biggest issues we as a culture have today about always wanting to be hyper politically correct in hopes it will solve all our discrimination issues. I don’t know what the right answer is but I wish there could be more of a middle ground in the solutions the university moves forward with.
This is one of those issues where I’m not sure where I stand. Anyone who’s had a conversation with me for more than a minute knows exactly how passionate I can get about artistic freedom, and what I believe art’s role in society is. I think art is supposed to be surprising, and unexpected, and a little bit gritty. It should be invade your thoughts and make you question, make you feel uncomfortable. And that part of me says the Powell had every right to post those signs and allow the campus to think about racism and how it exists today. But I also feel very empathetic to students on campus who felt unsafe due to the signs. Because while a sign itself may not be hurtful, it can suggest things about the people on campus. And with the increased racial tensions across college campuses this past year (and the occasional KKK presence), I can definitely understand the fear. At what point does discomfort turn into fear really? And where should the line be drawn when it comes to art? I honestly don’t think I have an answer to that question. I do believe that art is something you don’t necessarily have to consent to. Art forces its way into people’s lives all of the time (architecture, sculpture, etc) and no one complains that they are forced to view that art. So then why does art that makes you uncomfortable get different treatment? I think in this case the level of discomfort of the art is what needs to be addressed. Did the students feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or completely triggered? Because “White only” and “Black Only” signs are object most often associated with the 50’s and 60’s, and aren’t tools actively used in modern racism, I can see why the artist may have found this project more acceptable than say, the KKK robes, which are still an active symbol of racism. But I can also see why these signs could bring students beyond uncomfortable and into unsafe. I don’t know how to feel about this whole situation, but as a white person, it isn’t my place in the slightest to say what reminders of racism are acceptable or unacceptable. I feel bad for the university since they are in such a tough position, and I hope a good compromise can be found.
I understand there are two sides to this story, but I personally feel it is the artists responsibility to predict and be willing to contend to the publics reaction to that art. The project definitely accomplished its original goal to ellicit strong responses, but the artist aboviously needed to know what kinds of reactions the piece would get. I often get annoyed when art is criticized and the artist stands behind a wall of "It's art, so it doesn't matter. It's not ACTUALLY offensive." Guess what, if something offended someone, you have to make an effort to understand why. You may still not agree afterwards, and you're entitled to that opinion, but being close minded about your own work is not a good response. "They just don't understand" isn't the point of art. Art should be made to HELP people understand a certain issue.
Post a Comment