Don’t really feel like it’s my place to say.
I don’t know the answer either.
But the protests and letter will all likely serve that the painting survives and will be exhibited in the future.
was after a discussion, not a poll
It’s how things are done around here
sad but true
Remember, contemporary art is a fundamentally white supremacist institution despite all our nice friends, so most of what happens in it is politically meaningless. But the painting should still be destroyed, tho.
I feel uncomfortable about destroying bad art tbh but I would probably say it should be given over to Hannah Black to do what she likes with it.
This is like @andyvine and that church all over again!
Edit: have just read the article and should probably not be making light of this. Cheers.
Probably, sounds terrible.
It shouldn’t be destroyed but I also don’t think it should be exhibited.
watched that edit in realtime, saved me from replying with ->
It’s like “Entartete Kunst” never happened …
Why should it be given to Hannah Black?
not quite the same though is it?
or is it? Is there no difference here?
As a white heterosexual male,
So she can decide how and where to destroy it and control the destruction. E.g. she may not want it to be a public thing as that is sort of adding to the point she’s making, maybe?
Absolutely nothing like that. You can’t compare minority groups fighting the power with the government crushing minority artists?
The background and reasoning in this case are completely different, but book burning and destruction of art are almost always associated with narrow minded views, censorship and totalitarian regimes.
I think maybe you’re confused
The artist who painted the picture is Dana Schutz - a white, female artist from Michigan who lives in New York & works with Contemporary Fine Arts Berlin
Hannah Black is a black female artist from Manchester who also work in Berlin
Hannah Black is leading a protests of artists but has no other connection to or ownership over the painting as far as I’m aware