I do not like artistic segregation.
A few days ago I came across a Washington Post article that once again, perhaps as a result of journalistic formation, or perhaps as a result of America's love of racial/ethnic labeling, or perhaps (and most probably) unintentionally, really hit an artistic pet peeve of mine by segregating a great American artist as as "great African-American artist," and the more I read it, the more it exasperated me.
I tend to criticize the Washington Post mercilessly for their crappy fine arts coverage, and they generally deserve it - they're easily America's second most powerful newspaper and yet their coverage of the arts is pathetic.
But one constant source of light and enlightenment in their vapid fine arts coverage is the cultural writing of Jacqueline Trescott. Trescott usually writes savvy, intelligent words for the Post's precious few fine arts illuminati.
But, in my pedantic view, she really messed up in this article over a week ago. Why?
If you've read my ramblings long enough, then you know that I am not a big fan of artistic segregation.
I don't think that there should be an art museum just for women, or African-Americans, or Latino/Hispanic Americans, or any "hyphen-Americans."
I think that all art museums should be driven, guided, and encouraged to include worthy art by deserving artists, regardless of race or ethnicity, who deserve inclusion in a museum collection — and that collection should be open to all artists, not just artists of a certain geographic or ethnic presence. Not guided by percentages or demographics or numbers, but merit, and regardless and in spite of skin color, skin hues, last names, or religion.
And this is where Trescott blows it.
In the article she refers to Jacob Lawrence, one of my art school professors and influences as "one of the greatest African American artists of the 20th century."
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments