There are specific and general reasons your comments appear extremely anti-semitic. — Hanover

If what Timeline said appears extremely anti-semitic, there's not much left over for actual anti-semites to say is there? I can think of lots of examples of extreme anti-semitism, which I'd rather not repeat. Let's try to get our adverbs in order at least.

And to be clear, I didn't see the anti-semitism in the first place or the intended point (couldn't see the relevance). Until Timeline clarified. And then it should have been over and back to talking about Emmet Till. But, whatever.

It doesn't help that there are so many horrible people who deny the holocaust, but even so, does that mean that I am not allowed to say that there are also many Israelis that deny anything bad going on in Palestine too, unless I am a holocaust-denier, anti-semite? — TimeLine

I don't think this is disallowed. I think, here, it's all in the timing.

An appropriate response to the Holocaust is deferential reverence.

Similarly so to slavery and the effects of white supremacy.

Now, there are flaws we could point out about African American communities. I am uncertain to what extent they are generalizable, but I am familiar. However, the time to discuss them is not in the same conversation as one about the horrors of slavery. Not only is it off topic, but it would be an insult, and the interlocutor would be right to wonder if I am trying to downplay their suffering, even if that is not what I am trying to do, because it's something that happens so often.

I think it is, only because of the above mentioned complexity and sensitivity, but certainly it must be carefully explored. — TimeLine

We can empathize with the suffering of others. I think we should do so, actually. And that this is a good thing. But in so doing it still makes sense to be considered an outsider. People who go through experiences will often see and hear more than those who don't. It can be transferred through communication, but only that way.

It makes sense to be treated as an outsider.

As horrible as these events are I will always be outside in one very salient point: it did not target me or mine. It is appropriate to treat me like an outsider for this fact.

The reaction to the Emmet Till painting makes sense for these reasons. She is an outsider. She should be treated as one. And, what's more, often times the suffering of African American's is used as a sick form of entertainment more than a bridge -- a kind of cathartic entertainment which is meant to alleviate guilt and help us feel pure and free of racism at last.

That may not be what's going on here, but it happens often enough that the reaction makes sense. Since that is the case it really does make sense to treat people like outsiders rather than members. Our coming from different backgrounds makes it so that I am not the target of these persecutions nor do I feel their ramifications -- as such, I just won't ever be a member of the group.

I can feel compassion and empathy for people. But in so doing, at least for myself, I'd think that I'd basically have the same attitude were I in their position.

Fair enough. We needn't define every grade of anti-semitism (mild, moderate, severe, extreme, super extreme, super duper extereme...), but suffice it to say it was enough to arouse concern, but, yeah, I've seen much worse.

Whatever you.

I agree that there is something about a work of art, which draws us toward it. I wouldn't say it's the aesthetic though, because "aesthetic" already implies a judgement of beauty or ugly. So I would say that something "strikes" us, it's striking. To take your example of music, you hear something and it attracts your attention, but right away, you may have made a judgement of whether or not you like it. The judgement is based on aesthetic value, but you do not necessarily make such a judgement. You may just hear the music and think, well this is different, and I don't really know if I like it or not. Then you are struck without judging the aesthetic.

My use of the term 'aesthetic' is that of our first experience with any object, it is of what is immediately presented to us, its surface. Any judgements we might make based on this experience are aesthetic judgements. It is the surface that draws us to the object, our experience of the surface, its aesthetic/surface is pre-judgemental. It is a matter of taste (desire/feeling) which is both subjective and normative, which draws us to the work. The surface draws us to the work, but our experience of the work only begins at its surface. A good work of art drives our imagination, it enables us to see what we weren't able to see or it discloses what we already know in a unique way that provides insights that would have been absent without the work. I am not sure anyone belonging to the same culture, with similar backgrounds can be indifferent to a truly great work of art, whether they like it or not.

You seem to not be realizing the fact that good art need not "portray" anything. The artwork is a creative piece, it is made to "be" something, on its own, something stand alone, a piece of art. This is the reality of the art work. You cannot say that what it portrays is the reality, because it's not necessarily meant to portray anything, it is meant to "be" something. What it "communicates", is entirely a function of the audience, what "I get from it". That the artist intends to communicate is only true so far as the artist attempts to portray something. If the artist is attempting to portray something, then this may be, as you say derivative of the artist's society and culture. But I think it is wrong to look at any piece of art with the perspective of "what does the work portray", because the primary intention of the artist is to create something, not to portray something.

I agree with you to the extent that any work of art must communicate something, even Cage's 4'33 communicates something. From the earliest cave paintings, to the most disturbing atonal music, to the highest form of conceptual art, there is communication, an intersubjective component in every work of art. What is communicated encompasses the reality of the work. What is communicated portrays something about the world (which includes thought and matter), what the work is in itself is purposeless (pace Kant).

I assumed that the colours symbolised innocence just like the little girl in the red dress in Schindlers List. A child-like purity. But the difference is that symbol was represented in the moving image because it ameliorated the horror surrounding her symbol - that all the victims were innocent as she was - which is why paintings may be inadequate when discussing such horrors and the impact the violence has not just to the victim and his family, but to all those who belong within the social and political problem itself. It is no longer about the victim and thus more than just a mothers love in the eyes of those who claim authority.

"...which is why paintings may be inadequate when discussing such horrors and the impact the violence has not just to the victim and his family,"

No, how could you? A painting is far more complex than the reality it alludes to. The camera's glaze is inherently dumb. Give me David's Death of Marat (which not so incidentally is also idealized) over any celluloid pastiche...any day >:O

People who go through experiences will often see and hear more than those who don't. It can be transferred through communication, but only that way. — Moliere

Whilst this is understandable, what exactly happens to empathy? Are we unable to recognise and understand another person' emotional state? I have never experienced something like rape, for instance, but would that mean that I am unable to simulate the possibility and imagine my emotional state as though I were a person who has experienced it? This may be a question of aesthetics, I guess.

Our relationship with the outside world, of perceptual encounters and external relations, it all depends on empathy, for instance like feeling shock and wincing when someone is hurt etc. We would not be human otherwise. So, how does your theory correlate with that?

She is an outsider. She should be treated as one. And, what's more, often times the suffering of African American's is used as a sick form of entertainment more than a bridge -- a kind of cathartic entertainment which is meant to alleviate guilt and help us feel pure and free of racism at last. — Moliere

Again, this returns to my original problem, that somehow because of mad people who entertain horrible realities that suddenly Othering appears justifiable and unequivocally, even to those who are sincere. This is inexcusable. She is not an outsider, in fact, looking at what you wrote, conversely it is her empathy that helps us feel pure and free of racism, a united cohesion between those who are 'good' and those who are not; those who are human, and those who lack empathy. That should be the only division. In reverse, are we not being discriminatory back to her?

Since that is the case it really does make sense to treat people like outsiders rather than members. Our coming from different backgrounds makes it so that I am not the target of these persecutions nor do I feel their ramifications -- as such, I just won't ever be a member of the group. — Moliere

Perhaps outsiders to our personal emotions, but not outsiders to our experiences. If I had an extremely violent father that caused me to become afraid of men, surely you can understand that. You cannot understand how isolating the pain feels of being hurt by someone who was supposed to love you, but nevertheless it would be wrong of me to say that you are an outsider to the concept of familial violence, even if you have never experienced it. It may frustrate me to see you underestimate the pain, but if you adequately express it somehow, you should not be treated as an outsider only because you have never experienced it.

No, how could you? A painting is far more complex than the reality it alludes to. The camera's glaze is inherently dumb. Give me David's Death of Marat (which not so incidentally is also idealized) over any celluloid pastiche...any day >:O — Cavacava

How very dare you mock the cinematic medium! Give me the Seven Samurai over "Police Gazette" by Kooning anyday. On a serious note, though, I must agree since the overwhelming rubbish pouring out of hollywood only proves a painting' complexity is much more intriguing. You had to select Death of Marat, didn't you, to put me in my place! :-# I love neo-classicalism, but baroque just hits the spot for me.

I agree with you to the extent that any work of art must communicate something, even Cage's 4'33 communicates something. From the earliest cave paintings, to the most disturbing atonal music, to the highest form of conceptual art, there is communication, an intersubjective component in every work of art. What is communicated encompasses the reality of the work. What is communicated portrays something about the world (which includes thought and matter), what the work is in itself is purposeless (pace Kant). — Cavacava

But if you reduce art to a form of communication, then we must consider, first and foremost, what is intended by the artist. Because, if you believe that the piece of art is communicating something to you, but you allow that it is communicating something not intended by the artist, then you are practising self-delusion. This is like hearing voices, the artist is telling you something, but the artist is not really saying that.

It is only by removing this necessity, the necessity that the art work must communicate something, that we can really value art for what it is, and that is on the basis of how it affects us, rather than what the author intended to communicate. This is why I said we must consider that the artist creates the art work, not to portray anything, but to be something, itself. The art is made to be an existing thing, not the representation, or portrayal, of a thing. When we see the art in this way, we are not obliged to consider what the artist is trying to communicate. We are free to judge the work based on the affect which it has on us, without having to refer to what the artist is trying to communicate. Any attempt to determine what the artist is trying to communicate is nonsense, because the artist worked to create something, not to communicate.

I don't see where you and @Cavacava are necessarily disagreeing. I would think most artists would intend that the viewer openly interpret the art and not simply try to decipher the artist's thoughts about the art when he created it. That is, the artist intended to leave room for personal interpretation, so when you openly interpret, you fulfill the artist's intent (as Cavacava argues ought occur), but you don't try to figure out the specific aim of the artist (as you argue ought not occur).

That's right. there's no big disagreement, we're just discussing some finer points. The question right now is how we ought to approach the piece of art, if we are going to judge it. We have two distinct approaches, the artist is trying to communicate something to us (content), or the piece of work is a stand alone entity to be judged purely on its aesthetic qualities (form). Any piece of art though, would consist of elements of both of these, so to properly judge the art, would require that the critic determine the importance of these two primary intents, in relation to each other, in the mind of the artist. To think that the artist is trying to communicate something specific, when the individual is simply trying to produce something aesthetic, or vise versa, constitutes a gross misunderstanding of the piece.

Since a work of art is a composition of many different parts, the task is to distinguish which parts are meant to be saying something, and which parts are meant as aesthetic pieces. For example, in a song, the lyrics may be principally intended to say something, while the music is aesthetic. We can then further analyze each of these divisions, and find that the rhyming and rhythm of the lyrics is aesthetical, while certain phrases are meant to communicate something. In an abstract piece of visual art, we might find that the piece is principally aesthetic, while the title of the piece is meant to communicate something. Then if we look into the abstract art itself, bearing in mind what the title is saying, we might find little communicative pieces, supporting the title, hidden within the aesthetics.

To confuse an aesthetic aspect with a communicative aspect, or vise versa, would be to misunderstand the art. But if the artist is very good, the two will be indistinguishably blended, rendering the work impossible to understand. So this indicates that the real intent of the author is to disguise aesthetic aspects as communicative, and communicative aspects as aesthetic, creating a puzzling effect on the audience. In the case of the op, the different ways to resolve the puzzle may create controversy.

Ok, MU so getting back to the OP. How do you interpret Dana Schutz's work. She said she was prompted to create the work due to all the Black Lives Matter disturbances that we going on around the country when she did the work back in July of 2016. When she was asked to defend the fact that she is not Black and therefore could not understand the Black Experience, she said that she's is a mother, so she can imagine what losing a child would mean. Can you integrate what you're saying into an analysis of the work.

As you can probably tell, I've been trying to avoid actually interpreting the work, alluding to my belief that it is very difficult to do a proper analysis. Anyway, I'll offer a few opinions.

To begin with, I don't think that "cultural appropriation" should be made into a real issue at all. It is simply a divisive weapon, and segregation is destructive to society as a whole. It is by sharing the objects which hold significance to us, that we express love. And when we express love, we share our emotions and inner feelings. "Objects of significance" includes harmful things, and by sharing these harmful things we allow others to express their love for us, through emotions such as compassion and sympathy. To insist in any generalized way, that we should not share these objects of significance, is to say that we should not love each other. Of course this is blatantly divisive, and runs counter to what I believe is of primary importance to the artist, and that is to create an object of significance. The object created is meant to be shared, so the artistic creation is itself a loving act. To say that the artist is sharing something which should not be shared, is like you telling me I shouldn't have shared my feelings with you. I would say why, don't you love me?

On that issue, I pretty much agree with what you said was Schultz's remarks. Unless one infringes on copyright of intellectual property, cultural appropriation is a "pseudo-offence". Consider the Bob Dylan clip, where he says I took the chord progression from so and so. This might be copyright infringement, but that progression has most likely already entered the public domain, so there is no issue here. To say that it is the property of one sector of society, and not another, is rather nonsensical.

So the real issue is not whether we should share such things, but exactly how we express ourselves when we do that sharing. If you have been in a hurtful situation, and I move to express sympathy, and say the wrong thing, it might just magnify your hurt. In this situation, despite the fact that my move was a loving, compassionate move, it is not received as such. There could be many reasons for this. It might be an awkward blunder. But if you knew me well, you would overlook this and see the loving intent. It might be that you harbour a dislike for me already, so that even my approach to you would be seen as an affront. In this case there would be a high probably that what I said would be received as hurtful, so only a few, very precisely chosen words, might be acceptable as loving, and not magnifying the hurt. If I were the one who did harm to you, and realized that I must apologize, it would be an extremely difficult approach. Not only would my words need to be very precisely chosen, but my entire approach, how I could get close enough to you to express myself, would be paramount.

I can approach Schultz's painting in this way. I first assume that it is a true loving, sympathetic expression. But for the ones receiving it, it may be magnifying the hurt. So it is a bit of an awkward blunder, and there is not enough love and trust between them such that they might see the true loving intent, and so it is received as an affront. The question then, is to validate, justify, the assumption of true loving intent.

There is some use of colour in the painting which intrigues me. The border across the top, I see as a confused white, which could be significant. Behind the boy's head is a whole lot of beige, some blue thrown in, with a bit of red. I suppose the red is blood, it seems to come from the head. What do you think all that beige is there for? it's not his hair.

This type of question is crucial I believe, because an artist may abuse a situation, seeking attention, controversy, or media recognition. So we have to look very closely at the aesthetics, the form of the work, to determine whether she is expressing true compassion, or abusing the "object of significance" for other purposes, such as to attract attention to herself. In which case her expression ought to show a lack of sympathy, evidence of mistake, producing an awkward blunder rather than a true expression of sympathy.

Schutz recently responded to criticism saying:

‘I Feel Somehow That It’s an American Image’

and that explains a lot, at least for me. You asked about the white, and the beige in her painting, well I see the white as petals, hands, perhaps praying, the beige is Emmett's aura/halo, and his face is a sacred icon.

Her image of Till is that of an sacred icon.

It's interesting that Till tragic end was instigated by a lie told by a white woman, and all the current uproar is also instigated by a white woman...

I suppose the biggest question is the issue of sincerity. That's what I alluded to at the end of my last post. Does the artist have genuine feelings concerning the portrayed event, or is the artist opportunist, looking at potential controversy as a chance for notoriety and personal benefit. That would be a problem, for a white artist (or any artist for that matter) to take this "American Image", which was really a dreadful occurrence and shamelessly use it for personal advancement. Don't you agree that this would be bad taste?

We cannot really turn to the artist to ask this question, and artists are notoriously vague and obscure when describing the motivations behind their work. They prefer that we see for ourselves, what is within the work, and only tend to offer corrections if they think the critics have gone way off track. So the claim that it's an "American Image" is just an attempt to counter the charge of social appropriation, which I would agree is way off track.

But we still have the issue of the artist's sincerity, and the possibility of bad taste. We have to find hints of this within the work itself, true expressions of feeling would demonstrate that the artist is genuine. If it is true, as you say, that the image is of a sacred icon, then this would be an indication of sincerity. But I'm not sure that I see that. The beige could be an aura or halo, like you say, that makes sense, but it doesn't quite look like it to me. Is that really what the artist intended? What makes you say that it is? Why is there a straight edge and a sharp point at the top? I find the border at the top of the painting to be very interesting. I do see flowers there, as well as a white hand. What makes you think that the white hand is praying rather than preying?

I suppose the biggest question is the issue of sincerity. That's what I alluded to at the end of my last post. Does the artist have genuine feelings concerning the portrayed event, or is the artist opportunist, looking at potential controversy as a chance for notoriety and personal benefit. That would be a problem, for a white artist (or any artist for that matter) to take this "American Image", which was really a dreadful occurrence and shamelessly use it for personal advancement. Don't you agree that this would be bad taste?

Of course we cannot ask Shakespeare if he was being sincere when he wrote Hamlet. We have to wing it based on what is presented in the play. While Schutz is no Shakespeare, she is a well known and well regarded as an artist. More to the point, Emmett Till's mother asked for the casket to be left open so the world could see the evil violence that racial bigotry caused. His death was a trigger event for the social revolution that was taking place and took place over the next ten years in the United States.

Shutz's abstraction does not do justice to the reality of his violent death. Some think that by abstracting Till as Shutz has done, she has closed the casket because we don't see the essential, revolting realism. and this denies Till's mother's request.

We cannot really turn to the artist to ask this question, and artists are notoriously vague and obscure when describing the motivations behind their work. They prefer that we see for ourselves, what is within the work, and only tend to offer corrections if they think the critics have gone way off track. So the claim that it's an "American Image" is just an attempt to counter the charge of social appropriation, which I would agree is way off track.

Several levels of description are possible but if we deny authorial intent, then we cannot question Shutz's intent as the primary criticism of her work. I think that every work of art must be first and foremost understood, interpreted, criticised as a work of art, a monad, a 'universal' particular that stands for what we see in front of us and not extraneous contents. In other words, we should be able to critique the work as if we knew absolutely nothing about the real Emmett Till. It can and it is criticised on other levels as we have discussed in this thread.

But we still have the issue of the artist's sincerity, and the possibility of bad taste. We have to find hints of this within the work itself, true expressions of feeling would demonstrate that the artist is genuine. If it is true, as you say, that the image is of a sacred icon, then this would be an indication of sincerity. But I'm not sure that I see that. The beige could be an aura or halo, like you say, that makes sense, but it doesn't quite look like it to me. Is that really what the artist intended? What makes you say that it is? Why is there a straight edge and a sharp point at the top? I find the border at the top of the painting to be very interesting. I do see flowers there, as well as a white hand. What makes you think that the white hand is praying rather than preying?

I like the icon idea, it explains the work as such, and the more I look at it, the more I feel it fits (down to the tilt of the head). The painting is of a casket, and as such flowers, hands, praying are expected. What perhaps is tough to explain is why they are white...except that if you were to accept my interpretation, then it is heaven, & all those little angels that hover around saints that form the top border of the casket, hovering above Emmett.

As you stated. it is tough critique a work of art based on a photo. I understand that Schutz used cardboard to provide depth to the painting, with deep gashes, which is not readily apparent on the photos I've seen.

Shutz's abstraction does not do justice to the reality of his violent death. Some think that by abstracting Till as Shutz has done, she has closed the casket because we don't see the essential, revolting realism. and this denies Till's mother's request. — Cavacava

I don't agree with this criticism. For one thing, I think the disfiguring of the face is fairly represented. But more importantly though, it appears as if he is being portrayed as something like an angel of God, and it would be more appropriate to represent him as being at peace and satisfied in his post-death condition. The condition of his body is no longer of importance. At the time of his death, it may have been significant to his mother to demonstrate the act of violence which occurred. But the condition of his body is just a symbol representing the violence which occurred, and that violence is a symbol which represents a deeper problem, and under this, probably an even deeper problem. So Emmet Till's act, as an angel, is to bring to our attention the deeper underlying problems. The condition of his body is of very little relevance now. I feel that Shutz is justified to remove the ugliness from her image of him, because she wants to bring out the good, and represent his post-death condition, in a positive way, recognizing him as a beautiful person. The violent act leaves an ugly scar on the beautiful person, but it does not render the person as ugly. So there is no need for the artist to represent that person in an ugly way.

The painting is of a casket, and as such flowers, hands, praying are expected. What perhaps is tough to explain is why they are white...except that if you were to accept my interpretation, then it is heaven, & all those little angels that hover around saints that form the top border of the casket, hovering above Emmett. — Cavacava

I think there is very good reason why the praying hands are white. It demonstrates the sympathy and compassion of white people, that white people just as much as black people abhor this violent act. So this is Emmet's angelic act, to bring to the attention of white people, that other white people will act in such an abhorrent way, in order that these white people will condemn this behaviour. It is unproductive for one social class to condemn the actions of another, without the power to do anything about it. Such condemnation is simply dismissed as the difference between classes. Each society, or sector of society, has its own little set of rules and codes which it follows, and only according to the powers of law can one sector impose its rules on another. The black community had no power to tell the whites that certain behaviour is unacceptable to them. There were no laws to afford them this capacity. So the power of change must come from within the white community. It is necessary that white people see what other white people are doing, as wrong. Therefore the significance of Emmet's post-death condition is best represented as white hands paying respect for what has occurred. The angelic power which Emmet expresses in his post-death condition is the power to change the minds of white people, something which living black people could not do.