"For example: in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., there hangs a quilt unlike any other in the world. In fanciful, inspired, and yet simple and identifiable figures, it portrays the story of the Crucifixion. It is considered rare, beyond price. Though it follows no known pattern of quiltmaking, and though it is made of bits and pieces of worthless rags, it is obviously the work of a person of powerful imagination and deep spiritual feeling. Below this quilt I saw a note that says it was made by "an anonymous Black woman in Alabama, a hundred years ago."Even now labelling exists which is just like this. There are a number of British paintings which cannot be attributed for whatever reason, and in that context, this example feels wrong. I hope that after the article the Smithsonian relabelled the piece. The main issue in this case is the naming of the artist an anonymous 'black' woman -- if it had been someone white would that factoid have been included? In this context it is a way of penning it away from 'our' society -- singling 'them' out as 'different'. British paintings tend to be listed as 'unatributed' or 'anonymous' or even 'British School'. Not 'anonymous white man from Britain'. In this case, 'Alabama School' for example feels much cleaner and also fits the piece within a more fitting context.
There is a broad connection I suppose with Halle Berry's win at The Oscars. It's staggering that in 2002, that she was the first black woman ever to win, and that this was an issue at all. Also, too many times we heard that it was the accademy making a kind of political decision in support of black actors (with the Washington and Poitier awards). It really shouldn't have been that way. The Oscars should be in support of creatives in general no matter their so-called origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment