Rverse Racism
Artisticly, the Kara Walker exhibit was stunning. It jumped out at me and really delivred the point that it had set out to make. However, I think that maybe it made the point too well. The exhibiton was so stunning and so extreme that I was disgusted by it. It made me angry, but not at the subject matter of the exhibition, rather at the artist. It seemed to me that all Walker wanted to do in the exhibit is rant. It was a clear example of reverse racism. Being angry at slavery is valid, but why must we continue to hear about it. The answer is clear: that the artist belives that these issues are still a problem. However, then I ask why must it be in the context of slavery? Is it fair to make a point about todays society using the examples of nearly two centuries ago. Do white men walk around a freely rape black women? NO!
Exageration in art is a valid way to make a point, but to what extent? and in what context can this tecnique be used? Are racial issues the correct place to employ such exagerations. It is clearly a sensative issue. At least sensative enough to get Kara Walker this upset. Are these issues not sensative to whites also? Should sensativity be expected from a race that is not presented with sensativity?
Also, something that jumped put out at me, were the pictures of congressmen from Alabama from before the civil war that were defaced by Walker. Shpuld this be tolerated? Is it ok to simply deface the portraits of our historic politicians in the name of art and in my opinion racism?
I guess the question is: where is he line? what can artists do and what can they not. I personally believe that what Walker has done should be regarded as all racist propoganda is, it should be ignored. Racism is racism no matter who the victim?