[montblanc]

i understand it tbh

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

It's not really meant to be a sign though, isn't it meant to be a piece of art? If that's the case I don't really see the problem with it tbh? I think the point behind it's message is valid (i'm assuming 'whiteness' in terms of a power structure) and I think it's good for people to talk about that stuff. I suppose like Dezzy said they could have worded it differently to appease people, but in the context that I'm assuming it was meant, I don't really get why it's so offensive.

I think the largest issue with this "artwork", that I can see, is that it's reinforcing the increasing proclivity for the young to hate themselves and others on the basis of their white skin. It promotes self-hate. It's relying on the activation of tribalism, to support it's "thesis", while conveniently using contemporary art as a cheap cover to seep into the mainstream. It's teaching young college folk to self-ingrain the message that white == badThingsHappen(); because some of us made the "unfortunate" mistake of being born that particular skin color... nothing else drives this piece.

Racism should be stopped at every doorway. But for whatever reason, the university doors open to those who spread the above, but close it for others who would otherwise oppose (i.e. conservative, libertarian speakers, etc)... racism is still acceptable in our mainstream, as long as it's towards the group that it deems acceptable... that has still not changed... is what this work actually reinforces.

Youtube video

Also, to critique it's artistic credibility.. if you need an accompanying word document to delicately explain it's meaning and actual interpretation because it can't be understood in the original work, then this piece is a failure. There is almost no innovation to a sign. At best, it's Graphic Design... but it's artistic value is down to it's "shock value"... which actually doesn't shock anything, it stealthily reintroduces racist rhetoric onto campuses. If this piece were from a Neo-Nazi or some other non-negotiable political entity, then we would not be debating it's artistic and cultural merits. (Edit) In fact, it would fall under hate speech laws in certain jurisdictions and we would be deconstructing it's narrative and questioning it's actual underlining motives. I truly dislike when contemporary art in this way used as a propaganda tool to fluff up a concept to be more "mysterious" and "content heavy" than it actually is... it's very poorly thought through.

TLDR: Young kids can get away with these faux paux because we all assume because they're young, they're "entitled" to stupidity and it is treated as them simply "expressing themselves". There used to be a higher standard in collegiate environments. I do feel the educational and intellectual standard has been eroded to a large degree from where it used to be, partially so that this type of propaganda and intellectual "dissent" can easily filter through without any opposing proposition or narrative... who better to use as an ideological weapon than a university student. They can get away with a great deal of many things without negative consequences that us average folk across society just couldn't do without risking our job or their livelihood... and that's where the contention here lies.


Anyway, I don't mean to target your post specifically, Jamie, but you bring up an excellent question and it was a good spring board for my thoughts... what could be the problem with art stretching beyond our cultural boundaries? Great question. I think in this case, a vehicle decal or bumper sticker has more intrinsic creative value than this particular piece... whoever came up with this failed massively to promote any kind of meaningful narrative with their work. It only reinforces what both sides already believe... whether they are for or against the narrative of "white privilege"... but discourse on campus (hence the piece saying "off our campus")... is generally accepted when it is one direction only, so I'm not hopeful that it will generate a new kind of meaningful interest or dialogue.

*Edit - A point I forgot to bring into my post earlier.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Indeed.This ‘whiteness’ is in much the same vain as the lefts antisemitism.The idea of the jews holding all the power,Rothschilds and Jewish bankers controling everything.It’s an excuse for racism.This sign is racist and wouldn’t be permitted if it said ‘Blackness’ with a load of stereotypes listed under.
Racism shouldn’t be tolerated from anyone.You don’t get a free pass cos you’re black or ‘progessive’.

Well no but people don't claim that white people are oppressed by black people so I don't think it's really an equal comparison. Black isn't the opposite of white in this context
And if addressing racism from a specific perspective (from white people as a class towards non white people) is a racist thing to do, then wouldn't addressing antisemitism be as well, since that would also exclude other forms of racism from the conversation? If someone put a mural up saying 'dismantle antisemitism' would that be as bad as this one since it doesn't include all types of racism? And the mural also refers to 'misogyny' rather than 'sexism', is that sexist of them because it excludes the sexism that might be directed from women towards men? People don't seem to have taken issue with that aspect of it.
The whole thing is about power structure/class systems, and whether you believe they exist or not is open to debate, but what I don't get personally is why the debate happening in the first place is such an terrible thing. I don't find it racist just to want to address that stuff, or even address it in a way that doesn't include all types of racism/sexism etc - looking at it from a specific perspective doesn't mean that people have to deny other perspectives exist.

Originally Posted by Maru

I think the largest issue with this "artwork", that I can see, is that it's reinforcing the increasing proclivity for the young to hate themselves and others on the basis of their white skin. It promotes self-hate. It's relying on the activation of tribalism, to support it's "thesis", while conveniently using contemporary art as a cheap cover to seep into the mainstream. It's teaching young college folk to self-ingrain the message that white == badThingsHappen(); because some of us made the "unfortunate" mistake of being born that particular skin color... nothing else drives this piece.

Racism should be stopped at every doorway. But for whatever reason, the university doors open to those who spread the above, but close it for others who would otherwise oppose (i.e. conservative, libertarian speakers, etc)... racism is still acceptable in our mainstream, as long as it's towards the group that it deems acceptable... that has still not changed... is what this work actually reinforces.

Youtube video

Also, to critique it's artistic credibility.. if you need an accompanying word document to delicately explain it's meaning and actual interpretation because it can't be understood in the original work, then this piece is a failure. There is almost no innovation to a sign. At best, it's Graphic Design... but it's artistic value is down to it's "shock value"... which actually doesn't shock anything, it stealthily reintroduces racist rhetoric onto campuses. If this piece were from a Neo-Nazi or some other non-negotiable political entity, then we would not be debating it's artistic and cultural merits. (Edit) In fact, it would fall under hate speech laws in certain jurisdictions and we would be deconstructing it's narrative and questioning it's actual underlining motives. I truly dislike when contemporary art in this way used as a propaganda tool to fluff up a concept to be more "mysterious" and "content heavy" than it actually is... it's very poorly thought through.

TLDR: Young kids can get away with these faux paux because we all assume because they're young, they're "entitled" to stupidity and it is treated as them simply "expressing themselves". There used to be a higher standard in collegiate environments. I do feel the educational and intellectual standard has been eroded to a large degree from where it used to be, partially so that this type of propaganda and intellectual "dissent" can easily filter through without any opposing proposition or narrative... who better to use as an ideological weapon than a university student. They can get away with a great deal of many things without negative consequences that us average folk across society just couldn't do without risking our job or their livelihood... and that's where the contention here lies.


Anyway, I don't mean to target your post specifically, Jamie, but you bring up an excellent question and it was a good spring board for my thoughts... what could be the problem with art stretching beyond our cultural boundaries? Great question. I think in this case, a vehicle decal or bumper sticker has more intrinsic creative value than this particular piece... whoever came up with this failed massively to promote any kind of meaningful narrative with their work. It only reinforces what both sides already believe... whether they are for or against the narrative of "white privilege"... but discourse on campus (hence the piece saying "off our campus")... is generally accepted when it is one direction only, so I'm not hopeful that it will generate a new kind of meaningful interest or dialogue.

*Edit - A point I forgot to bring into my post earlier.

Great post Maru, and I think I address some of my thoughts on what you're saying in my post to NM so I won't repeat myself. But on promoting self hate, I don't see that this piece is doing that. I can definitely see why it could be perceived as being in the same general realm as something like the video you posted, but I think there's a line and this mural stays within it whereas that video is at the more extreme end of it, and is pointing towards people being racist as individuals. I don't think the mural suggests literally that all white people are racist, any more than them including the word 'misogyny' in the mural suggests that all men are sexist. If to question the idea that some forms or racism tend to be directed from white people as a class is racist against white people, then is it sexist against men to question the existence of misogyny? And the key word in all of this for me is 'questioning', just provoking discussion and thought on the topic.

Artistic merit I suppose is very subjective. Personally I like their choice of the word 'dismantle'. Something like 'End Whiteness' for example wouldn't look great but dismantle to me is more about analysing it, looking at the structure of it and how it's been built etc, which I think fits with what they're claiming the purpose to be.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Great post Maru, and I think I address some of my thoughts on what you're saying in my post to NM so I won't repeat myself. But on promoting self hate, I don't see that this piece is doing that. I can definitely see why it could be perceived as being in the same general realm as something like the video you posted, but I think there's a line and this mural stays within it whereas that video is at the more extreme end of it, and is pointing towards people being racist as individuals. I don't think the mural suggests literally that all white people are racist, any more than them including the word 'misogyny' in the mural suggests that all men are sexist. If to question the idea that some forms or racism tend to be directed from white people as a class is racist against white people, then is it sexist against men to question the existence of misogyny? And the key word in all of this for me is 'questioning', just provoking discussion and thought on the topic.

Artistic merit I suppose is very subjective. Personally I like their choice of the word 'dismantle'. Something like 'End Whiteness' for example wouldn't look great but dismantle to me is more about analysing it, looking at the structure of it and how it's been built etc, which I think fits with what they're claiming the purpose to be.

Yeah, my issue is that the artwork's core message is poorly muddled. Admittedly, I don't have the most positive view of the discourse that typically surrounds the topics of white privilege. I feel much of that discourse was always meant to be provocative, to ruffle feathers as younguns will sometimes do (aka "disruptors"). I think the progressive movement has done a terrible job of nailing home where exactly white privilege fits into the context of the average American citizen and their lives for example. Because this creative statement is so vague, it will without a doubt encourage certain political motives and ethnocentric beliefs (not necessarily racist) elements to bubble to the surface... and I have a problem with this type of laziness as a creative person in general, particularly because it is concentrating on social issues and instructing a narrative.. Moreover, I'm staunchly pro-individualist in my belief structure and so I won't defer to the group for my worldview... I have to be convinced with evidence that I can correlate with my own background (as a minority in my case)... and I think many Americans share a similar value system, which runs directly counter to mainstream culture atm.

I understand the university allowing it to be displayed. I wouldn't protest it if it were a latter group. But my "history" teacher had us fill up a glass display case full of our trash at home with cheesy marker drawings in order to "teach" environmentalism... I do think that's too banal for university. We should be enforcing a higher intellectual standard when it comes to our works/contributes in the college setting... filling up a display box with trash, going to pick weeds out in the field, running around angrily chanting pro- this /anti-this when many of the students are holding signs they themselves have not made, much less understand... that's not what the university setting used to be. Those are things that we do in elementary/middle school, create project boards with one-liners to show their class they understand virtue signaling (which is appropriate here) and how it can positively motivate people to think a little bit harder about those things. But in the university setting, all that should go by the wayside and it should be grueling in terms of pushing your ability to critical think and force young people to challenge their predispositions... but of course, should and are are two totally different things.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by montblanc

i understand it tbh

same