Dana Schutz & "Open Casket"

10/30

I was astonished today to see that the controversy surrounding Dana Schutz’s “Open Casket” has not abated. As I was going through Facebook postings it popped up, (I haven’t been able to find it since). At first I thought it was new article on ArtNet but then I checked and it was an article from July 28 but the postings were from a just few hours ago. 

In the postings the same arguments were made being when Schutz’s entry into the Whitney Biennial after the first outcry. My response to most of the allegations again the artist follow:

That Dana Schutz painted the picture to promote herself. Wrong. Schutz had already gained a reputation in the art world for her work and is well respected. She had already placed her name among the best of contemporary artists.

That she wished to profit from the painting. Wrong. According to the artist the painting was not for sale and never will be.

That ICA, Boston rewarded her for painting “Open Casket” which some claim is a violent artifact. Wrong. Dana Schutz’ show at the ICA was well in the works before the piece was created. What a “violent artifact” is I am not sure. I could not find a definition for violent artifact. An artifact has to have historical significance and other than “Open Casket” referring to a historic moment I don’t see it as an artifact.

Was the painting a misstep; perhaps.

The painting itself is clumsy and not up to Schutz’ standard


For you own part Schutz has always claimed that she painted “Open Casket” to show sympathy and empathy with Emmett Till’s mother and others that have lost children to violence. But her critics say she cannot understand African American pain and in fact no white person can. But if people keep slapping away hands that attempt offer understanding then the divide between black and white will be healed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Greatest Security Threat

A New Word

What Some Get Wrong About Sexual Harassment