Racist Statue?
Discussion
I recently saw a picture of the new ‘fourth plinth’ statue on Trafalgar Square and thought bloody hell!
It looked to me like a 3D version of a Robert Crumb cartoon of a ‘typical’ black woman from the late 1960s - indeed it’s hard to see that the ‘artist’ can have been inspired by anything else.
These days such stereotyping would get a cartoonist from a UK mainstream newspaper sacked, and quite frankly if I were to see a similar image as a tourist abroad, I might be a little smug - considering that we had moved away from such things.
I was pleased to see that I am not alone in my misgivings - Charles Moore writing in The Spectator had also picked up on it.
What were the people who commissioned this thinking of?
It looked to me like a 3D version of a Robert Crumb cartoon of a ‘typical’ black woman from the late 1960s - indeed it’s hard to see that the ‘artist’ can have been inspired by anything else.
These days such stereotyping would get a cartoonist from a UK mainstream newspaper sacked, and quite frankly if I were to see a similar image as a tourist abroad, I might be a little smug - considering that we had moved away from such things.
I was pleased to see that I am not alone in my misgivings - Charles Moore writing in The Spectator had also picked up on it.
What were the people who commissioned this thinking of?
Countdown said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Definantely racist. How the hell did they get permission?
Why do you think it s racist?I don't write these rules. I like it, and I liked Golliwogs when I was a kid, that doesn't mean they are acceptable today in the UK. They aren't.
Can you explain to me why caricatures based on racial stereotypes aren't racist. I'm willing to be convinced.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 25th September 21:04
BikeBikeBIke said:
Can you explain to me why caricatures based on racial stereotypes aren't racist. I'm willing to be convinced.
Because the statue is created by someone of the race depicted, in a style rooted in those from African cultures and history. Plus Self's own artistic style of depicting women with emphasised and exaggerated sexual characteristics (presumably opening the prospect of this statue also being sexist as well as racist by those shrinking violets at The Spectator.) The golliwog was created by a white lady as a humorous toy based on a stereotypical and demeaning blackface portrayal of black people by other white people.
They are also not actually that similar and use - to my eyes at least - quite different stylised features.
This thread smacks of faux outrage and the likes of Charles Moore being tickled by the prospect of needling 'the wokes' with their own edicts.
A slightly more cerebral version of "if they can say it, why can't I?" - "Why can't a man make a statue with thick thighs and big boobs?"
2xChevrons said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Can you explain to me why caricatures based on racial stereotypes aren't racist. I'm willing to be convinced.
Because the statue is created by someone of the race depicted,Obviously trans women can produce sexuakized statues of women, yeah? Can trans men?
BikeBikeBIke said:
OK, so anyone who sees it and doesn't know the race of the artist should be offended, but they can google it and place the artist into a pigeon hole based on their skin colour (and in this case their apparent sex as well) and then it's no longer racist.
Obviously trans women can produce sexuakized statues of women, yeah? Can trans men?
If that's your take on it...I guess?Obviously trans women can produce sexuakized statues of women, yeah? Can trans men?
There's no right answer to art, especially public art and especially contemporary public art.
If you think it's racist then that's certainly an interesting take, and it's provoking discussion which is part of its purpose.
Personally I don't see many - if any - similarities between this statue and the likes of Angelfood McSpade (which was created to be deliberately, ironically offensive) beyond them both being stylised depictions of African women. The styles, influences and end result are extremely different.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 25th September 23:00
2xChevrons said:
Because the statue is created by someone of the race depicted, in a style rooted in those from African cultures and history. Plus Self's own artistic style of depicting women with emphasised and exaggerated sexual characteristics (presumably opening the prospect of this statue also being sexist as well as racist by those shrinking violets at The Spectator.)
The golliwog was created by a white lady as a humorous toy based on a stereotypical and demeaning blackface portrayal of black people by other white people.
They are also not actually that similar and use - to my eyes at least - quite different stylised features.
This thread smacks of faux outrage and the likes of Charles Moore being tickled by the prospect of needling 'the wokes' with their own edicts.
A slightly more cerebral version of "if they can say it, why can't I?" - "Why can't a man make a statue with thick thighs and big boobs?"
From your last sentence, of course men did exactly that for many thousands of years and as I pointed out in the OP the statue could have been lifted straight from the works of R Crumb - who was producing this sort of stuff until about ten years ago. Crumb was seen as an anti-establishment left-wing figure throughout his career.The golliwog was created by a white lady as a humorous toy based on a stereotypical and demeaning blackface portrayal of black people by other white people.
They are also not actually that similar and use - to my eyes at least - quite different stylised features.
This thread smacks of faux outrage and the likes of Charles Moore being tickled by the prospect of needling 'the wokes' with their own edicts.
A slightly more cerebral version of "if they can say it, why can't I?" - "Why can't a man make a statue with thick thighs and big boobs?"
Faux outrage? Of course. However the real outrage is the inherent racism and sexism that means only a black woman could now produce such an artwork without censure.
Foss62 said:
Faux outrage? Of course. However the real outrage is the inherent racism and sexism that means only a black woman could now produce such an artwork without censure.
Really? When was a man censured for making a sculpture of a curvaceous black woman?I don't think it happens as an across-the-board thing except in the minds of reactionary columnists looking to play the victim.
Okay.
To put the OP’s point in context where he referenced Robert Crumb.
Crumb (now in his eighties) came in for a lot of criticism throughout his career for the over sexualisation of women. Especially black women.
I’m not sure he doesn’t have a point in that context.
But her utilisation of it maybe ‘ironic’ or postmodern or something something..
To put the OP’s point in context where he referenced Robert Crumb.
Crumb (now in his eighties) came in for a lot of criticism throughout his career for the over sexualisation of women. Especially black women.
I’m not sure he doesn’t have a point in that context.
But her utilisation of it maybe ‘ironic’ or postmodern or something something..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff