58) Henry, Joseph. “Sources of Harm: Notes on the Alternative Artworld.” Hyperallergic, September 23, 2014.
59) Henry, Joseph. “Sources of Harm: Notes on the Alternative Artworld.”
60) Glueck, Grace. “'Racism' Protest Slated Over Title of Art Show.” The New York Times, April 14, 1979.
61) Glueck, Grace. “'Racism' Protest Slated Over Title of Art Show.”
62) Henry, Joseph. “Sources of Harm: Notes on the Alternative Artworld.”
BY 开伦
Donald Newman - Untitled, Charcoal Triptych in the Nigger Drawings Exhibition, 1979.
In 1979, an exhibition was held at the nonprofit gallery, Artists Space, showing the work of Donald Newman, who is white. The controversy, in the case, did not result from the content of Newman’s work, but from the title of the exhibition, Nigger Drawings. The drawings themselves made no direct reference to race beyond their title, and the only line critics seemed able to draw between the exhibition’s name and its content was between the color of the charcoal drawings and "different kinds of blackness." The critic, Roberta Smith, insisted “the images are not racist, but — with their visionary charcoal motifs and blurred, coarse-screened black and white photographs, both of which often suggest or allude to night skies, swirling smoke, or infinite darkness — the drawings are clearly about different kinds of blackness, visual, material and metaphorical.” 58 The fact that the images themselves were not inherently racist notwithstanding, the title sparked protests by an ad hoc group of artists, curators, and historians calling itself the “Emergency Coalition” who accused the gallery of racism and misuse of public funds for allowing such an exhibition to take place.
Like the trial in Cincinnati concerning the X Portfolio, the reception of Nigger Drawings again illustrates the disconnect between the social realities and critical discourse at the time. On one hand, we have a group of protestors who organized themselves around their mutual offense of the seemingly careless use of the word, “nigger.” On the other, we have critics like Smith and others who attempted to divorce the racist associations with the word from the aesthetic qualities of the art as a justification for the offensive title. The critic Douglas Crimp stated in defense of Newman:
“It is, of course, the context of words and images that determines their meaning, and I would like to ask the [Emergency Coalition] in this case to explain in what way Newman’s drawings might provide their title with the context that could be construed as racist, or in any other way offensive.”59
This statement is a perfect example of those within the insular world of professional art using aesthetic arguments to object to the resulting political problems that, for the most part, exist outside their immediate frame of reference. It is a failure to connect with a broader, more empathetic idea of offense. Today, such a disengaged response seems disconnected from the reality of racial tension. Nigger Drawings was exhibited over forty years ago. The Perfect Moment, over twenty. When examining the contemporary discourse concerning offense, however, they are illustrative of the way in which mentalities have shifted.
Crimp’s statement is important because it serves as a dividing line between essentialist interpretations of the postmodern idea that it is “the context of words and images that determines their meaning.” In an effort to defend the work of Mapplethorpe and Newman, the context was proclaimed to be contained in the work itself. In the cases of Schutz and Valdez, the prescribed context was not just the greater political circumstances in which the works were made, but the very skin color of the artists who made them. The pendulum has swung from dogmatic aestheticism to a censorial form of sociopolitical correctness. Now, the context of one’s identity is inescapable, no matter the artist’s intention. Surely, there is a reasonable medium between these two extremes.
In regards to Newman’s intention in using such a charged and potentially hurtful word in his exhibition title, no sufficient explanation was offered. When asked why he chose the word, “nigger,” specifically, Newman stated that his reasons were “complex and contradictory,” but that he considered the word to be a “hateful and prejudicial term that would make the viewer wonder why an artist would title a work like that and what it refers to.” He went on to say that none of his black friends had a problem with the title, and that he had “never imagined that a segment of the art community would object to it.”60 Beyond the fallacy of the “I have black friends” excuse, Newman seems incapable or unwilling to elaborate on what exactly the title of his exhibition refers to. As far as the gallery was concerned, it acknowledged its insensitivity, stating, “greater and different consideration should have been given to the title in this case.” while simultaneously respecting the artist’s right to “present his work unedited.”
According to Newman’s explanation, it is not at all clear that the individual or his work was trying to draw attention to any social issue related to race, but rather used a “hateful and prejudicial term” to call attention to his own artwork. In the case of Open Casket and Nigger Drawings, both were exhibited in public spaces, both caused offense, and both were protested. However, unlike Schutz, Newman had no positive goal of expressing solidarity that the work did not attain. There was no intention of goodwill with which one could propose a justification. The protestors of Nigger Drawings had no cause to misattribute intention because there does not seem to have been one to begin with.
On the contrary, a group of critics and artists issued a response to the Emergency Coalition’s protest, stating in an open letter that the coalition was “exploiting this sensitive issue as a means of attracting attention.”62 In a reversal of the protestors of Open Casket misrepresenting the intention of the artist, it was the protestors of Nigger Drawings that had their intentions misrepresented. In either case, arguments that disqualify artists or protestors on the basis of misrepresentation are clearly insufficient to arrive at anything approaching a just resolution. Comparing these two controversies is worthwhile to the extent that it shows the lack of nuance that is now applied to the concept of offense. Schutz and Newman would appear to occupy different locations on an ethical spectrum, based on both the offense in question and the intent behind the offense, yet this nuance was not applied to the way the respective controversies were handled. If essentialist ideas of offense are to be avoided, intention must be taken into account when it comes to determining the consequences for the offender.
Still, despite the blatant insensitivity of its title, the exhibition of Nigger Drawings did have positive outcomes. Artists Space promised to consult minority communities from that point on, and later that year, ostensibly in response to the whole affair, the National Endowment for the Arts organized a commission on minority artists in Washington D.C.62 But this is not to say that the offense, in this case, was justified. Just as the protestors of Open Casket based their unreasonable argument for the destruction of the piece on their own sentiment of feeling offended, it would also be unreasonable to attempt to defend the actions of Newman and Artists Space with the positive outcomes that resulted. Both arguments err on the side of domineering consequentialism. These outcomes do not annul the fact that the racially charged title hurt people, nor that the artist and institution had no justifiable intention for naming it so. To attribute these positive outcomes to the exhibition of Nigger Drawings is to ignore the effort and advocacy of the protestors.
However, arguing that Newman’s intention did not justify the title of his work is not to argue that his work or its title should have been censored or that the word “nigger” is too offensive to be used, even by white artists, in the right context. As was the case for the exhibition of Open Casket at the Whitney, the exhibition of Nigger Drawings and the resulting protest was indicative of critical political issues concerning race and representation in the art world, and in the western world, more broadly. Issues which, it is safe to say, are unresolved. Even if the offense that Nigger Drawings caused could not be justified by its creator, this should not be used as a reason to censor the work, as to do so would be to suppress art’s function as an indicator of the political issues of the time and an unintended catalyst of positive change.