at the extremes. From Pam Spaulding, who got it from Shakesville, who got it from Michelle Obama Watch, this story, which features Pam Spaulding doing her best Jeremiah Wright imitation:
It's the level of rationalization, excuse-making and countercharges that what we are seeing isn't racism that has been mind-boggling. It reveals the sickness that needs to be cured. We are a diseased nation.
Via Kate @ Shakesville -- Gina of What About Our Daughters launched a Michelle Obama Watch site to combat the right-wing attack machine on the future First Lady. Who knew she was going to have to feature this morally bankrupt "art" by someone named Yazmany Arboleda that, among other things, calls the two Obama daughters "nappy headed-hos."
Spaulding links to this blog post from LA Times, which in turn links to the NYT story, this article from the Sun-Sentinal (Broward County, FL), and this piece from David Segal at WaPo, which provides the most detail. However, all three of the posters seem to have gotten their information and their stance from commentary from Warren Ballentine, "The People's Attorney", who seems to have misreported the incident and places the same emphasis that Spaulding does: after noting the title, Ballentine writes:
The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong.
Sorry, but comparing Ballentine's comments with the information from the news stories, I think there's an element of misrepresentation here. I'm not going to accuse anyone of editing the news to fit a polemic. I will say, however, that we seem to have a group of bloggers who have let their ideology blind them to the reality of this particular incident. In point of fact, the so-called "racist" views (and more on that peculiar construction later) are protected. Ballentine doesn't strike me as much of a lawyer.
Another part of the exhibition was an "Assassination of Hillary Clinton" piece, which is what one of the stories comments with precipitating the police involvement, but it's got to be the title of the exhibition itself: The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama. NYPD, however, was quite explicit that the exhibition was not shut down and that the artist was not charged. The title on the street-level glass front of the building was blocked out. Assassination in relation to a presidential candidate is a legitimate concern of the authorities, and needs to be investigated to be sure there is no real threat. Spaulding, however, doesn't want to be bothered with that little detail, and wants to "step back" and bring her own agenda to the forefront:
So, the big picture is that the whole assassination thing is what deep-sixed this, as the artist learned the hard way. But stepping back from that aspect of it, should this have been shut down, or is it freedom of speech and Arboleda's work should have been seen and commented upon by the public who saw it first hand?
Given the tone of the whole post, I strongly suspect that a) Spaulding is offended, and not by the assassination piece (sure, it's offensive, no argument); therefore, everyone must be offended to the extent that the artist's head is in jeapordy; b) because the artist doesn't portray Obama with the respect Spaulding feels he deserves, he's a bad man and probably deserves whatever the police hand out (not that she comes out and says so, but read her post -- it's hard to escape that conclusion).
And, just to answer her question, under a heading borrowed from Atrios: "Short Answers to Stupid Questions": No, it should not have been shut down, not on the basis she's proposing, and it has not been shut down specifically because of the artist's First Amendment rights. And not only does he have a right to express his views, the public has a right to see them. I'd like to know who said art has to be inoffensive -- oh, wait, wasnt' that Jesse Helms or some other right wingnut who kept trying to pull funding from the NEA?
I wonder if Spaulding likes the company she's in.
I am grossly offended by the way this incident has been misrepresented. The MSM did a much better job on it (give or take the stupid blog post from NYT). Spaulding's beef is the "racist" aspect, which she can't even support except on the basis of her perception: she presents no evidence that this artist is a racist, but a tenuous and not very believable diatribe on how this country is sick and every portrayal of a black man that doesn't fit her criteria is "racist." This exhibition is quite obviously a commentary on racism and misogyny as they has appeared in the MSM coverage of the Democratic primaries. (And I might note that Spaulding has been more than happy to pile on when those subjects come up.)
There a context issue here, as well. All three bloggers have stripped the events as well as the exhibition of their original context and substituted one of their own, which is a standard tactic we've seen from the anti-gay right wing. For example, we had to learn the title of the exhibition from one of the commenters at Shakesville. That is a pretty significant omission from all the posts.
I could extend the benefit of the doubt to these posters and say perhaps they just didn't know the title. I don't think that would be justified: it's not that hard to learn (it's called "Google," people), and it's an important aspect of this exhibition. I have to conclude that they just didn't bother to find out -- someone's agenda is hanging out, and it's not pretty. I think one reason I'm so incensed about this is that we have enough problems with racism, misogyny, and homophobia in this country that we don't need to go looking for it where it doesn't exist.
And I think what amazes me the most about all three of these posts is that they just don't get it. Nor, for the most part, do their commenters. I've had a long-standing suspicion that religious fundamentalists just don't understand metaphor, which is why they need the Bible to be literal truth. And now we're seeing it among the PC fundamentalists. There are way too many comments about "targeting" little girls, when to anyone who bothers to think about it at all, that was obviously not the case. We may decide that it's good art or bad art, but if you're not going to take into consideration that it's a commentary on current events, and not an event in itself, you're really missing the point completely. (My own take, based solely on the installation photos I've seen, is "eh." Could have been a lot more subtle, and I think that way a lot more effective. One has to consider that the blatancy of the works is going to turn people off, and where's your message if no one wants to listen? On the other hand, the artist is all of 28 and probably can't be expected to know any better.) I'm not sure I like the idea of the arts in this country being an equal opportunity victim. (And of course, as I type that sentence, it occurs to me that what we have here is victim politics being milked for all it's worth.)
And after reading , you will see just what garbage the posts from Gina, Harding, and Spaulding are. Just change the labels, and you've got something worthy of Little Green Footballs or The Corner. And people wonder why the blogosphere is in such disrepute: there's a lot of information out there on this incident, and all three of them got it wrong by the simple expedient of jumping on their high horses and charging madly off in all directions without bothering to digest any of it.
And now you see why the extreme left leaves me with the same taste in my mouth as the extreme right: The term is "knee-jerk," emphasis on the second syllable.
Update:
Digby has some pointed remarkson the misogyny side of this question, which I think apply at least as well to the racism side. Maybe we would all be better served by treating the questions that Arboleda tried to address with some seriousness, and stop trying to shoot the messenger.
No comments:
Post a Comment