At best: careful and proper contextualization. At worst: a tasteful and respectful distance between “the transgression” and display for the sake of historical and educational review with possibly decades and dozens of people fighting acrimonious legal fights over absurd minutia to arrive at such decisions— or to never arrive at any at all.
The proper curation of anything can be very difficult. When it comes to controversial works, it can be almost impossible to get right sometimes, but it makes it so much worse when there are those determined to get it wrong.
I feel like there should be a line of intention. The artist described in the article was essentially racist by ignorance. She didn’t really know any Black folks, and fetishized them from afar. Doesn’t excuse her offense entirely, but perhaps ignorance mitigates her offense somewhat.
I was pleasantly surprised that Professor Appiah’s take was so nuanced.
At best: careful and proper contextualization. At worst: a tasteful and respectful distance between “the transgression” and display for the sake of historical and educational review with possibly decades and dozens of people fighting acrimonious legal fights over absurd minutia to arrive at such decisions— or to never arrive at any at all.
The proper curation of anything can be very difficult. When it comes to controversial works, it can be almost impossible to get right sometimes, but it makes it so much worse when there are those determined to get it wrong.
I feel like there should be a line of intention. The artist described in the article was essentially racist by ignorance. She didn’t really know any Black folks, and fetishized them from afar. Doesn’t excuse her offense entirely, but perhaps ignorance mitigates her offense somewhat.
I was pleasantly surprised that Professor Appiah’s take was so nuanced.