What to do with "racist" art from a century ago

[Dave-W]

I couldn't see it. Sorry.

me neither

 

[Mister_Al]

What do you mean "allow"?
Is this about government censorship?
Or are you saying individuals and corporations need to endorse every artistic product?

It means should we as a people, a society, a civilization "allow."

Alan

 

[durangodawood]

It means should we as a people, a society, a civilization "allow."

Alan

As in not-make-illegal?

 

[Mister_Al]

As in not-make-illegal?

???????????????????

Alan

 

[durangodawood]

???????????????????

Alan

Its a simple question. Not a trick.

 

[keith99]

I couldn't see it. Sorry.

Figured it out and attaching here and in my previous post.

 

[KitKatMatt]

If she was black would this be racist?

BTW this is current. It is part of an Email I just received from Tomatofest.com. It has the caption 'Tomatoes for me?'.

Since they gave me this timely photo I'm going to pimp them a bit. A great source for tomato seeds. They have hundreds of varieties.

EDIT: For some reason this post shows an x'd out photo. However when I hit Edit or Reply I see it. So perhaps you can see the photo that way too.

This is much different than drawing in an art style intending to demean or stereotype an entire race, and used to portray people as racist caricatures.

The whole point why the pictures in the links are offensive is not that there are tomatoes, or bare bottoms, but the style the people are portrayed in. The links go into detail of what the characteristics of these styles are and why they are racist (such as one style being based off the twisted version of a character from Uncle Tom, etc). Some of the styles also include certain foods that are now considered stereotypical (chicken, watermelon).

 

[keith99]

This is much different than drawing in an art style intending to demean or stereotype an entire race, and used to portray people as racist caricatures.

The whole point why the pictures in the links are offensive is not that there are tomatoes, or bare bottoms, but the style the people are portrayed in. The links go into detail of what the characteristics of these styles are and why they are racist (such as one style being based off the twisted version of a character from Uncle Tom, etc). Some of the styles also include certain foods that are now considered stereotypical (chicken, watermelon).

And if we go back to the original artwork wide eyes was a MAJOR part of that style.

Again, some of the artwork was racist, but more of it was not. By the criteria of the link provided the picture I posted would have been considered racist if the child was black.

If one over claims then their point is in effect self refuting.

 

[Mister_Al]

Its a simple question. Not a trick.

My original post was also simple. Maybe you can explain the point you are trying to make about it.

Alan

 

[durangodawood]

My original post was also simple. Maybe you can explain the point you are trying to make about it.

Perhaps you could provide a simple of example that expresses your idea: "Should we allow all of mankind to be denied the expression of any work of art simply because a few people don't like what it stirs up in them."

Whats a work of art that has has value, in your opinion, that might get suppressed over 'racism!' concerns?

(I'm actually interested.)

 

[Mister_Al]

I think my comment was self explanatory and in line with the discussion. I don't see any need to remark on it again.

Alan

 

[durangodawood]

I think my comment was self explanatory and in line with the discussion. I don't see any need to remark on it again.

Alan

Of course YOU dont. You know exactly what you meant.
Your stubborness regarding an explanation is just.... weird. Why so cagey?

 

[Mister_Al]

Y

Of course YOU dont. You know exactly what you meant.
Your stubborness regarding an explanation is just.... weird. Why so cagey?

I don't think you'll be satisfied with any explanation that I would give you. You're trying to get me to explain something that doesn't need it. I don't think that is weird at all, nor am I being stubborn.

Alan

 

[durangodawood]

I don't you'll be satisfied with any explanation that I would give you. You're trying to get me to explain something that doesn't need it. I don't think that is weird at all, nor am I being stubborn.

Alan

I dont know if basic conversational courtesy is supposed to exist on discussion boards, but I think it would include following up on just one request for clarification of what you meant - regardless of whether you think I should understand the original statement or not. Part of the basics of discussion, or conversation, I'd think.

 

[Mister_Al]

I think I've made it obvious that I'm not going to try to explain my post because there is no reason to. Now you've completely sidetracked this discussion trying to force me to answer your questions. My post is simple and clear, but I'm sorry it doesn't satisfy your requirements.

My post wasn't that complex so read it over again a couple of times and see if that helps. It always helps me to re-read something when I don't understand it the first time.

Alan