Artist Asks That Painting Be Destroyed

Absolutely not. It's doing exactly what it was meant to do... provoke discourse. And if blacks think that whites can't be concerned and sympathetic to their plight, I've been barking up the wrong tree for decades. I think most blacks wouldn't agree with the extremism of the ones complaining, and I personally will never agree with anyone who wants to destroy art (read: burn books) no matter how controversial.

Btw, your title is a misnomer. The supposed request by the artist to destroy the painting was a fraud.

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

I don't believe I can comment on this without violating the rules.

To destroy the painting would be a kind of censorship like burning books.Cultural appropriation has to go all ways or not at all. As David said I cannot comment any more because of the rules.

It's an emotive issue. Like many, I prefer art to be provocative and stimulating, and I think the term "offended" is over used in many places by many people to inarticulately describe a gamut of other emotions. The question in my mind is, what was her intent when she created it? I assume it was not to belittle the tragic event, but rather bring it to our attention half a century or more later and keep it alive at a time when we are still embroiled in infuriatingly stupid hatred and bigotry. I have no issue with the painting but then I am unable to walk in another (wo)man's shoes.

Ultimately, it is up to the owner of the painting to decide its fate. That's the right that ownership confers. Perhaps that's another discussion thread for you, Danl ;-)

Perhaps burning it could be a performance piece, although in the modern world the art will never truly be lost as it has been reproduced millions of times already on the internet....

~Richard
http://www.reevephotos.com

Outrage has become de rigueur, not sure if I have time for this one; so many others to attend to.

-YoPedro
Twitter@YoPedro

Ditto what Susan is saying.

I see the human condition not "their" condition.

I do think the stroke of genius though is not selling the image. It makes everything else she paints worth more.

Dave

I personally find any subject to be fair-game. If people are offended, so be it. If people don't like viewing a pile of dead decaying bodies...don't look.

The suggestion to destroy the painting was a hoax.

No art should be destroyed (by ISIS, The Taliban, Europeans, Americans etc). Art provokes discussion of issues. Destroying art does not make those issues disappear.

Artnet has an article on the painter being a hot button discussion currently on SM. She is getting far more than her 15 minutes of fame. Her career is made. I wonder how her other work is.

Need to google.

Dave

Dave----"Her career is made"

It not always takes good or great art to make an artist known....a few moments of sensationalism is often better than years of creating in the dark.

It's a good thing someone explained to me what the painting was about - otherwise - I'd have no clue.

deleted due to user error ;-)

Wow, I took a look at her other art. Ahem. You'll know what I mean when you see it, lol. I really like her style of painting, and she certainly doesn't paint easy subjects! Thought-provoking, to say the least. Not sure I'd want them on my wall. Good job with Emmett Till. May we never forget.

Everyone should get over it (themselves)...

Susan is right that art does what art does... art is more than being decorative, art should provoke and stimulate thought and dialogue.

Till's Mother, in 1955 displayed her brutally murdered son's body in an open casket so the world could see the horror of hatred and racism... it seems the world needs to be constantly be reminded of our ability to do such horrific acts, and be jarred/shocked into acting with the better part of our nature. The painting has opened a dialogue, now its up to us to not to diminish the power of such images and keep the dialogue on track in order to grow individually if not collectively to be more tolerant and acceptant of other people regardless the cultural and minute genetic differences...


"Till’s mother’s decision to leave the casket open at her son’s funeral left the world with the jarring image of her son’s body, which was hardly recognizable; Ms. Till wanted the world to see the vicious attack that happened to her son.

Later, Ms. Till would say that she realized her son’s death helped the Civil Rights Movement rise to prominence. Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and several other powerful Black figures would reference Till’s savage murder."

https://face2faceafrica.com/article/emmett-till-story

No, her art is fabulous and should not be destroyed.

Ultimately, it is up to the owner of the painting to decide its fate. That's the right that ownership confers.

- that's capitalism, folks...

~Richard
reevephotos.com

Don't care for the work personally. Everything else is just political unrest. Normal for the day we live in. If the owner wants to destroy it or re-sell it, it's their call.

Seems she has been well know/read famous in museum circles for years.

Dave

"- that's capitalism, folks... "

Umm...no, that's freedom, freedom to do whatever you want with your own personal property.

Guys,

She is not selling it. She refuses to sell it. That has been her response to the criticism.

Thing is her cache goes up in value because she is not selling the piece.

Dave

So what's the implication? That an artist can't portray injustice that they haven't experienced? So I can't portray a war I haven't been in? That doesn't work.

Doug,

MIGHT be that some in the public worried the artist was doing this to profit. That would be disrespectful, but within her rights.

She is taking the high road and not selling the image after the outcry. It helps her to not sell it anyway.

Dave

That beautiful young black man, Emmett Till, was murdered by white men after a white woman lied about him flirting with her. So I...can kind of understand the outrage from some over the artist's choice of subject matter, and why her race provoked the outcry, although of course she meant no harm.

And the real-life image of Emmett Till in his coffin -an image I have seen - is nothing to be trifled with. Believe me. The artist's Picasso-like approach to rendering that dreadful image was in poor taste, though doubtless unintended. It made it even worse somehow. I recoiled when I saw it.

I wish the artist well. She simply made a mistake, and I hope the people who are angry with her will come to realize that.

"It made it even worse somehow. I recoiled when I saw it. "

I think that was probably the idea, the art has a lot of people talking about it too, that was probably the intent as well. I don't care for art being used for these kinds of purposes but I'd say she succeeded.

Paintings (displayed in museums) throughout history depict gruesome scenes....The Walking Dead comes right into your home with gruesome scenes. Videos of people being beheaded generate a lot of interest on the internet. This painting is mild in comparison.

"The Walking Dead comes right into your home with gruesome scenes. "

I watched that show once, I lasted about 5 minutes...yuck! I can't understand the popularity of that kind of thing.

The painting was no mistake.

Dave

It would be interesting to see how many FAA artists add a few mutilated bodies in their next landscape painting....just for the recognition.

Danl,

I was thinking WW II reenactments. But with American ketchup.

Dave

She paints subjects to recoil from, because that's what she does. At least she is consistent. Maybe she exorcises her inner demons that way. I'm sure she's not the first.

So I guess those people who criticized her are dead wrong? 'Kay.

Silly me, I don't care for art that hurts people who have already been badly hurt.

"Do you agree that this painting should be destroyed? Or is it just a publicity stunt?"

Well, it's getting extra publicity here so I guess that bit is true, Danl, at least in part.
As for whether she wants to destroy it or not, I really don't care. It doesn't belong to me or the public so she can do as she pleases.

~Richard
reevephotos.com

This sadistic crime against an innocent person is a very painful thing to contemplate.

For some people art is therapy.

It's how they deal with pain, through expressing it in art. It's not ok to insist that a person has no right feel pain from an act of violence -- because s/he is of the wrong race to do so, it's not ok to say a person can't express that pain through art -- because s/he is of the wrong race to do so. Pain caused by injustice is universal, it's not unique to any one race.

That's the point of fighting injustice, of speaking out against it - of publicly displaying a painting that is a reaction to the pain of this crime. Refusing to be silent, refusing to turn your face away from the forces of evil in whatever form they take. Fundamentally, it isn't about race. It's about whether or not anyone has the right to silence one who attempts to speak out against injustice.

I don't understand why it is that some people, to me it seems deliberately, go out of their way to misunderstand and mischaracterize in order to further their own agendas, or to gain attention for themselves, or whatever it is they think intentional misinterpretation will gain them. It's such an insidiously destructive thing to do.

Justice. Justice for all.
All means everyone. All people. No compromise, no exceptions.

Cheryl...

Very well stated.

FWIW, I don't think the painting should be destroyed. I wouldn't give a wooden nickel for it, but maybe the artist can sell it to someone or donate it or something.

So, if Tiger Woods doesn't want his face on a box of Wheaties because it exploits his image for profit, how is this image any different?

Wheaties is not meant as a matter of social awareness.

Till's mother had an open casket for social awareness and caring.

This artist is not selling the work.

Dave

David...."Till's mother had an open casket for social awareness and caring."

Till's mother used the open casket to exploit...allowing others to exploit and that is exactly what this artist accomplished. It was not about a loving and caring mother to put her son to rest in peace.

The artist is selling themselves! This is a stunt! The exploitation of a tragedy.

Drew....."This is a stunt"

The mother provided the impetus to carry out the "stunt" so others could profit from it.