Often there is talk about black writers being too harsh in their statements about and their characterizations of whites and others. Toni Morrison discussed this criticism, as raised by a number of her readers. Her response was that blacks have been characterized by white writers in any way those writers have cared to characterize them, and many white writers still exercise that artistic license; yet when black writers exercise the same artistic freedom in setting the artistic parameters for their characters, such characterizations are viewed as too harsh or possibly distort the white character. This is an issue that black artistic must face.

In human communications, many techniques are used to disguise what we really say and what we actually mean. The idea that black writers are too hostile to whites in their literature and art is one such disguise. Art is often used as a form of disguised rhetoric, and artists speak through their artistic voices.

Literary criticism is an interesting phenomenon that supposes the critics are attacking an artist's work, not the artist him/herself. But that is a fiction that is thinly veiled, and many cannot distinguish the difference, if there is a difference; many cannot stomach harsh literary criticism. And there is a reason for that: if our artifacts are an extension of ourselves, as some have said, isn't one's art an extension of the artist as well? Because some artists have not seen the difference, they have discontinued or reconstructed their art as a result of negative criticism received. Some white readers  attempted to curb Toni Morrison's creativity by commenting on her characterization of whites.

Being subjected to artistic criticism is the price one pays to publish. Yet, everyone knows much of what passes itself off as artistic criticism has little to do with art and more to do with personal taste, paid advertisements, and a number of other non-artistic concerns.

The issue still remains, however, that when blacks write about whites harshly they mischaracterize white or are too harsh. And it is often said that such harsh statements fan the flames of racial discord. But that charge arises more often than not when blacks are the artists depicting whites adversely. Rarely is a charge made when whites depict blacks adversely; their depictions are explained away--depicting the times, overstatements used to highlight a point, etc.

Today, creative freedom has forced others who have been controlling media images for years to see themselves through eyes that are not theirs, and that can bring an uncomfortable reality check. Once a person starts seeing him/herself as others see him/her, he/she starts realizing all the facades he/she has constructed may not be enough to change anyone's idea about who he/she is in the light of that person's actions. Media images may sway the unlearned, but hardly the swift of mind, and when they are given creative freedom, we can see if the many years of one-sidedness media freedom has actually minted believers.

To criticize the harsh characterizations made of whites by black artists is to suggest that whites do not have the thick artistic skin many demand blacks. It supposes that blacks do not have artistic license to depict adversely or favorably an object of their artistic creation. And it also supposes that whites want the right to control their image by fiat. Such premises are unacceptable to them and also to all artists.

A black artist must be free to depict a character or an object as he/she finds fitting to the artful occasion. The integrity of the art is compromised when an artist is concerned about adverse responses to his/her adverse depictions. If there is an artistic message one is attempting to convey, and the conveyance demands negative depictions, the artist is ethically bound to construct art as he/she has envisioned it. For the viewer, or reader, the whole of what an artist says should be comprehended, not just the part that is disliked.

If a black artist restricts his/her art because of white pressures to favorably characterize whites a certain way, the artist is not presenting art, but propaganda--namely, Armstrong Williams paid by the White House to print their opinions as news to blacks. We have seen enough of that in art and in news. The fiction maintained about literary criticism going to the work and not the person must also affix to black artists as the standard for their work when they characterize whites--it's not personal; it's just art. And as when whites depict blacks negatively, as they frequently do, the race card is not raised, and neither should it be when blacks depict whites as they see them artistically.*

It would be strange, unrealistic, and very unhealthy indeed if black American artists depict whites broadly favorable in their art, after years of abuse endured in America. Art is an expression of the inner man, it is the introspection of a people. And through introspection, we grapple with our inner torments, our passions, our  deep-seated emotions, our subconscious and intuitive self. It is a medium through which tranquility is brought to a people and a nation. And that is one aspect of art that is undeniably gotten from all art.

Although most whites argue artistic realism and freedom when they stereotype blacks in their art, as black artists depict whites, doing so out of an experience brutally etched into the conscience of black Americans. Our art is not about a white saving the day or the good guy always being white--that is American movies. Our art claims artistic freedom to depict our reality, our emotions, our image of the world, and our artistic depictions are about our black reality; our art is black art, but without the disguises.
4/4/05

________________
* Gibbs has had a number of troubled souls wanting to control our voice. They write, call, and proclaim us racist for the notions and issues we write about--such as this one above. These souls are not swift of thought or keen of discernment;  these souls are those who would deny us the same freedom of speech they exercise; these souls are the ones Toni Morrison responds to.

Home