All Art Is Not Good…All Artists Are Not Noble

bankuei:

http://blog.trushots.com/2012/04/all-art-is-not-goodall-artists-are-not.html

Every few days I am confronted by terribly hateful, cruel, stereotypical, sexist, misogynist (and specifically racist misogyny—targeted specifically at Black women) words or images that the respective artist who created it and his/her audience seeks to write off as “just art” (which is code for shut up/get over it) or worse, as “helpful” to educational cultural exploration and/or social justice, despite it completely mimicking destructive art meant for an exact opposite purpose. (If this is what social justice “allies” do, I don’t need any. At all.)

People then demand that I accept these words and images, or ignore them—as if either of these recipes aren’t destructive. Acceptance means self-destruction. Ignoring only works if humans are not interconnected and words/images (and interpretations of these words/images) do not impact others and then impact me, by proxy, whether or not I personally and individually “ignored” them or not.

(cut)

Art itself is not inherently noble. Art doesn’t necessarily stop being “art” when it is vile, cruel and purposely wicked. Many people want the definition of art itself to exclude cruelty, but again, if art is not inherently noble, it can include that which is purposely designed to marginalize, stereotype, abuse and erase. Again, art itself is not inherently or automatically noble. It depends on its expression, interpretation and impact amidst the cultural climate which it is created in. Art can be transformational, but not all transformations are designed for or expressed as that for the individual or social greater good.

(via seanpadilla)