This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/11/guggenheim-racism-controversy-curator-nancy-spector/671529/
Well we finally have a story about the self-destruction of the Guggenheim in the summer of 2020. Unfortunately the author seems to be lamenting that the activists didn’t try to get enough people fired by framing it as a story of people choosing a scapegoat instead of fully recognizing their privilege.
This piece appearing as a headline story in The Atlantic actually makes me pessimistic that we’re ever going to get a real examination of the hysteria during Summer 2020. The analysis is so hamstrung by the fact that any mainstream author will agree with the premises of the activists.
Also it’s worth noting that any principled opposition to Lebouvier from within the Guggenheim would have left the art world decades ago. Institutional capture was baked into the cake back then, lamenting it now just seems naïve.
I don't read her as believing that anyone should have been fired. That's probably the worst possiblle way to diversify - scapegoating and targeting someone, largely for their race is gross. Especially when there were so many better and non-racist options available. They have an obscene endowment, and in that moment, donors would likely have been all too wiling to fund even more if it was targeted toward increasing the diversity of staff, or artists whose works are collected and exhibited.
I think she's just making clear - lest she be the next one targeted - that calls for more inclusivity aren't the problem.
It does seem like the director was a little too trusting. The article does suggest that the guest curator had a "long-standing pattern of excoriating others who were interested in Defacement or Basquiat, even when they sought out her opinion." A little more due diligence probably could have avoided the situation all together. .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link