Raiford: Raiford tracks how the Black Panther Party for Self Defense has engaged the “struggle over the relations of representation” and in particular how they worked to redefine what images should be considered “positive” depictions of black people. Through these depictions they not only helped redefine and negotiate black representation, but they critiqued the often uninterrogated images of the hegemonic state.

Jones: During the migration of black artists to L.A. in the 1950s-1960s, black art and artists flourished in black own businesses, art galleries, and community spaces like Black churches and community centers. Although their artwork gained success outside of these spaces, the community of black arists produced work that was inseparable from conversations around black politics at the time, and often directly critiqued racial oppression and violence against Black and Brown communities.

Johnson: Johnson discusses the paradox that emerges when Black artists appropriate assemblage, an art form developed by white artists, in order to express a politics of black empowerment and solidarity.

The Raiford piece made me think of Professor Greer’s lecture she just gave for Black History month about the representations of MLK and Rosa Parks as brands and asking what happens when images are appropriated to create monolithic identities. Her answer was that it damages the potential scope of political possibility for black politics. I was thinking about this conversation in relation to representations of The BPP for Self Defense and the Raiford piece. Reading through the Raiford piece I was thinking about the modern day implications for photographs of the BPP for Self Defense that were popularized at that time. Their image was appropriated back then, and is still appropriated even now. The relationship between “the Black image and Black politics” is extremely important as the history of Black Americans in this country has been a very graphic, complex, visual history. There is no doubt a a link between visuals and what we remember so what do we lose when we rely and trust these images to narrate history to us? I suppose I have less commentary and more just questions about what it means when Professor Greer shows a picture of the Black Panther Party and it immediately registers in people’s minds (or at least the mind of a woman in the audience) as a representation of violence even though they are not shown in photographs as using their guns, even though they believed themselves to be acting in self defense of a violent police, even though the Black Panther party was armed with “guns, cameras, AND lawbooks”). How do we discuss how the Black Panther Party redefined and reconstructed images of the black body while also critiquing the way that these photos were used and how they served to aggravate the eventual political fissures in the party.

“ Now Dig This!: Art and Black Los Angeles” by art critic Ken Johnson explores the influence and presence of Black visual artists in Southern California during a time of tense race relations. Artists played a key role in expressing the sentiments of oppressed African-Americans and their struggles in their art. These artists had the talent to summarize complex issues and emotions in concise and simple ways in comparison to their counterparts in academia. The most salient points from the article include topics of African –American artists struggling, with in the White-dominated art world, to have their art be accepted and recognized as legitimate art. African –American art is criticized for not having the ability to permeate into a broader market and illicit a broader audience.

My understanding of the article is art created by White artists is perceived as superior because it is thought of as having the capacity to reach a broader audience. My reaction to this concept is both the Black and White artists create art from their own perspective influenced by their culture, life experiences, and ethnic backgrounds. When white artists create from their perspective is it broad but when black artists create from their perspective it is considered too narrow. This widely accepted perception of understanding art by categorizing it based on the racialization of the artists perplexes me. Why are minority audiences forced to consider art created by White artists acceptable, but if white audiences consider minority art acceptable they are consider to be deviating from the norm? Why can’t art just be valued for its artistic worth and not by the color of the artists?

Johnson: As he runs through the varying pieces of the Now Dig This shoe, Johnson tangentially sets out to dismiss any possible inference that Black artists invented artistic assemblage and that our gratitude is better attributed to “White artists like…”

Raiford: While in pursuit of protection and liberation for African-Americans in the 1960s, the Black Panther Party struggled to maintain control of their image which became a site of contestation from its inception to contemporary times.

Jones: Kellie Jones offers us a panoramic snapshot of the revolutionary African American artists and their artworks as they increasingly gained visibility in the U.S art scene of the 1960s.

I was completely disturbed after reading Johnson’s NY Times article. It read as an irrelevant piece of commentary on the Kellie Jones’ Now Dig This collection. Johnson   begins this piece by identifying the intention of the show to illustrate the inability of the high-end art world to acknowledge and celebrate the art of Black artists. However he finishes the piece in a hurry to discredit not just the works of many pioneering Black artists but the artists themselves. This is the same triple negation that Adrien Piper has faced as a colored women artist. The insecurities of Johnson throughout this piece are manifold, however it seems that the biggest fear is the recognition that the production of “high-end” art is not exclusive to the the higher tiers of society.

Johnson: Ken Johnson contends that Now Dig This intends to craft a sense of solidarity and thus alienates much of its audience.

Raiford: The BPP attempted to self-fashion a national perception through the instrumental use of photography, but was largely construed as a militant group of violent vigilantes by the American media and government.

Jones: Now Dig This represented the culmination of the Los Angeles art scene as an exhibition of contemporary art with the intention of uprooting ‘institutional discrimination, white repression, and racism.’ (Now Dig This, 15)

Throughout these readings, I am struck by the dialogue that images provoke. Leigh Raiford’s complex history of the Black Panther Party analyzes the ways in which the group self-fashioned iconic imagery of their missions, and in turn, engaged in a national artistic, media and political dialogue. The images countered the public conception of the BPP as a militant, violent and dangerous group and now represent the iconic imagery of the historical past.

In a very similar fashion, the reception of Now Dig This created a public and tumultuous discourse regarding the role of  “social solidarity” within art and exhibition. (“Forged from the Fires,” 2) Now Dig This, as Kellie Jones articulates, aimed to “tame institutional discrimination, white repression, and racism.” (Now Dig This, 15) This project, however, was loudly countered by Ken Johnson, who freely undermined the appropriation of assemblages by black artists and argued that the promotion of solidarity throughout the body of works fundamentally excludes much of its audience. By claiming that the postmodern art world is “allergic to overt assertions of any kind,” Johnson claims that the only approach to discussing the weighty issues of racism and institutional exclusion of black artists is in the complication of prejudice and stereotype. (“Forged from the Fires,” 3) In an increasingly frustrating manner, Johnson highlights this effective approach by claiming “you don’t have to be black to feel that.” (“Forged from the Fires,” 3) Problematic and endlessly frustrating, this NYT article embodies the notion of artistic dialogue and represents a scathing counter to the works.

Readings:

Kellie Jones, “Now Dig This: An Introduction,” Now Dig This: Art and Black Los Angeles 1960-1980, (Munich: Delmonico Prestal, 2-12) pp. 15-27. On view at MoMA: PS1.

Ken Johnson, “Forged From the Fires of the 1960s,” New York Times (October 25, 2012)

Leigh Raiford, Imprisoned in a Luminous Glare.

Raiford: Throughout its duration, the Black Panther Party struggled with their media representation, wanting to overturn the image of the compliant Black but encourage a sympathetic following and a questioning of ‘racial seeing’.

Jones: Kellie Jones introduces artists exhibiting in “Now Dig This!”, showcasing the essential role of African American artists in Southern California.

Johnson: Ken Johnson in his harsh review of “Now Dig This!” critiques Black artists’ use of assemblage, seeking to promote their own solidarity and (re)presentation of Black history, as stemming from white artists like Marcel Duchamp.

Response

The image of the Black Panther superseded its message that the group was desperate to convey to the American public. The outfit, hair, and sunglasses became iconic and displayed an “unapproachable cool” and  an alluring romance for an anti-establishment subculture. Their images were dangerous to white America, their message hushed by mainstream media and the FBI, who were concerned that the Black Panthers’ were sympathizing with Communists in China and Cuba. Even representations of the Black Panthers were skewed towards children. I thought it was especially provoking that the FBI would make a children’s book “advocating violence towards white establishments” to exacerbate rivalries and guarantee the extremism of the BPP. This shows that the American government was forceful in sustaining its image as the Righteous and place of the American Dream. Even today, the history and true message of the BPP as American patriots fighting for equal rights, overcoming the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and turning propaganda on its head, is hidden from American education and portrayed as cool, suave gangsters, intent on violence and destruction of democracy. The visual identity of a violent black male is often encouraged to the detriment of female occupation. I thought it was interesting that female leaders of the Black Panthers are often ignored, opting for images of men with guns and sunglasses instead; and that incarceration and assassination of BPP leaders only perpetuated their cause and image further in the press. Even the image of the fist, abstracted and black, is void of other context besides breaking, violence, race, power, and uprising, rarely resulting in self questioning, and questioning of the mainstream historical narrative that has been presented to us in textbooks.