University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Contemporary art and "post-black" identity politics

(USC Thesis Other)

Contemporary art and "post-black" identity politics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CONTEMPORARY ART AND “POST-BLACK” IDENTITY POLITICS
by
Alaina Yvette Gibbs
________________________________________________________________________
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSKI SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF PUBLIC ART STUDIES
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Alaina Yvette Gibbs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Introduction 1
The 1993 Whitney Biennial 4

Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art 25
Freestyle 46
Beyond “post-black” Discourse 57
Bibliography 60
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis will interrogate how identity politics, particularly as it pertains to black
identity, has evolved from taking on an activist stance to a more nuanced position. By
historically tracking exhibitions that address identity politics from the 1990s to 2001, this
text will discuss and theorize the term “post-black art” and how the term is reflected in
the contemporary discussion of identity politics. This thesis explores three exhibition case
studies that each address the complexity and fragmentation of race through the lens of
contemporary visual art. By providing a historical analysis that explores art historical
legacies of specific artists’ practices, curatorial initiatives, cultural theory and the space of
the museum, this investigation seeks to locate the current discussions surrounding Black
identity and identity politics in contemporary art.
iii
INTRODUCTION
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, spirited discussions pertaining to identity
politics were prevalent in American contemporary art. Issues concerning identity were
not only explored in artists’ practices, but also through exhibition thematics. Exhibitions
such as Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art
(1994) were often overtly political and utilized the space of the museum as a site of
contestation. These 1990s exhibitions resulted in harsh criticisms and backlash that was
not only directed towards artists, but also the curators and institutions that organized
these shows. These critiques brought into question the ways in which politics should, or
as some critics argued, should not, exist within the museum.
By the turn of the century, conversations pertaining to identity politics in the
broader art community began to wane, and discussions that were at one moment
prominent became seemingly less vigorous. This is not to imply that artists were no
longer addressing issues of race and identity within their individual practices. Instead, the
broader conversation evolved from one of taking on an activist stance to a more nuanced
position characterized by an absence of overt interrogation of identity politics within
exhibition thematics. This transformation was not simply a result of autonomous
decisions made by artists, but rather, symptomatic of external market and institutional
forces, transformations in funding structures, and the backlash directed towards 1990s
exhibitions.
1
This text will examine these transformations through the lens of exhibitions. The
earliest exhibition I will explore is the 1993 Whitney Biennial, a survey show that is
emblematic of a highly politicized moment, which brought the concerns of marginalized
groups to the fore by placing the inclusion of artists of color and discourses of cultural
difference at the forefront of curatorial conceits. The second exhibition I will examine is
Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art, which also
took place at the Whitney Museum of American Art. This exhibition built off of the
growing political momentum of the 1993 Biennial, yet focused its interrogation
specifically on Black male identity as it relates to both the subjectivities of the artists and
the subject of the work. Transformations in conversations pertaining to identity politics
will be addressed through Freestyle (2001), which took place at The Studio Museum in
Harlem.
At the center of the aforementioned exhibitions is the curator Thelma Golden,
whose contribution to these exhibitions and others has resulted in a rethinking of race and
contemporary art in the American museum context. The discussion of Freestyle will not
only explore this exhibition but also the emergence of the term “post-black art,” and the
ways in which this idea has been instrumentalized and contested since the controversial
debate that arose from this seminal exhibition. The incorporation of the cultural studies
discourse within the 1980s and 1990s American art historical context is relevant to the
national discourse pertaining to identity politics. This discourse placed critical pressure
on contemporary art, reflected a global sensibility, and enabled cultural producers to draw
from a variety of academic disciplines and theoretical ideas to interrogate contemporary
2
culture. This text analyzes how the ideas put forth by cultural theorists, in both the
American and British context, postulate the evolution of political strategies utilized by
cultural producers.
3
THE 1993 WHITNEY BIENNIAL
The interrogation of identity politics in the 1990s was symptomatic of the broader
embrace of postmodernism. The postmodern discourse privileges multiplicity, and calls
for a questioning of Modernism, and the monolithic tendencies of this antiquated
ideology. In regards to art history, postmodernism sought to deconstruct the Modernist
sensibility, and challenged the linearity of this discourse. There was also a revisionist
tendency at work, which inserted the voices of marginalized groups into the art historical
narrative. This not only signified a shift towards inclusion, but also a desire to complicate
the grand narrative of the past. By bringing other voices into the fray, issues surrounding
identity were brought to the fore. In Kobena Mercer’s essay, “Welcome to the Jungle:
Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics,” the theorist discusses the urgency of
questioning identity in the 1990s:
Identity only becomes an issue when it is in crisis, when something fixed,
coherent and stable is displaced by the experience of doubt and uncertainty. From
this angle, the eagerness to talk about identity is symptomatic of the postmodern
predicament of contemporary politics.
1
The shift towards a postmodernist sensibility put identity into question by destabilizing
monolithic Modernist ideas and providing a theoretical framework which challenged the
ways in which individual and group subjectivity were understood. These transformations
were not only taken up by academic disciplines, but also embraced by contemporary art.
Although there was a concerted effort made by some institutions to include
marginalized voices, these sentiments were not embraced by all. This period, which
4
1
Kobena Mercer, “Welcome to the Jungle: Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics,” Welcome to the
Jungle: New Positions in Black Cultural Studies (Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1994), 259.
spanned the final two decades of the twentieth century, was described as the “Culture
Wars.”
2
In sociologist James Davidson Hunter’s “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define
America”, he outlines the frictions between cultural “conservatives” and “progressives”
3
:
Cultural conservatives maintain that contemporary art is primarily concerned with
the politics of individual autonomy. This is the reason why it finds such
sympathetic support among a wide range of cultural progressives and why its net
public effect is to ‘shock the traditional bourgeoisie.’ ...Progressivists and leaders
in the arts establishment immediately reply that the purposes to which their
opponents speak are themselves political in that they legitimate existing social
arrangements. The politicization of ‘expression’ in this way, then, presupposes a
relativism about the content of art and the public meaning of art, the resolution of
which is the assertion of power by one side over the other.
4

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) and the
National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH) fell victim to this power struggle, and
consequently endured funding crises that affected their ability to support exhibitions with
thematics that were deemed controversial by some. A notable example includes the
controversy sparked by, "Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment," a retrospective
organized by the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) at the University of Pennsylvania
that was granted $30,000 in funding by the NEA.
5
This exhibition was considered
repugnant by some, and criticized by conservatives for its content. This backlash not only
garnered criticism from mass media outlets, but also had political ramifications. The
Mapplethorpe controversy, along with others, were at the heart of the censorship battles
5
2
This widely used term was used to describe the controversies that took place in the 1990s. It was not
specifically intended to address art, but is applicable to this context. James D. Hunter, Culture Wars: The
Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
3
These terms are used by Hunter to describe the competing interests of these groups.
4
Hunter, 314.
5
Ibid.
spearheaded by politicians that sought to dissolve NEA funding. Vehement ethical
arguments were made against the public funding of works whose content was deemed
inappropriate. Although funding continues to be an issue for arts organizations, these
controversies are emblematic of a 1990s moment where these concerns were at the
forefront of national consciousness. The 1990s exhibitions discussed in this text will
chart the ways in which institutions provided a space for questions pertaining to identity
to play out in a public forum. These shows signify a synergy between contemporary
artists, academia, culture, politics, and the institution.
In 1993, the Whitney Museum of American Art organized a Biennial that
addressed the complexity of identity politics. This Biennial was emblematic of a moment
where concerns and theorization about identity politics entered into contemporary art and,
consequently, exhibition thematics. This exhibition was comprised of over 80 artists, and
provocatively explored issues pertaining to race, gender and sexuality. The contentious
exhibition provided a critique of these identity-based issues through visual and textual
material. Through the insertion of an exhibition thematic that addressed cultural and
community politics, there was an interest on the part of the institution to be inclusive,
while simultaneously providing a platform for marginalized groups to assert their
concerns. The desire to decenter was expressed by the exhibition’s curators in their
catalogue texts. This show not only brought the concerns of marginalized groups to the
fore, but also functioned as a platform for these concerns to be heard and interrogated.
The Whitney’s controversial Biennial received a wealth of contemptuous criticism.
Despite its reception, this 1993 exhibition ignited a pervasive discourse surrounding
6
identity politics that laid a fertile foundation for subsequent exhibitions, and resulted in
the inclusion of works that conspicuously addressed community politics.
The 1993 Biennial was organized under the direction of David Ross, then director
of the Whitney. Ross appointed Elizabeth Sussman as the chief curator of this exhibition,
and John Handhardt, Lisa Phillips and Thelma Golden functioned as co-curators. Each of
the essays included in the Biennial catalogue addressed the cultural climate of the 1990s
and the ways in which the works included in the show responded to specific community
and identity politics. In the preface of the exhibition catalogue, Ross’ essay, “Know Thy
Self (Know Your Place),” addresses the premise of the Biennial and its emphasis on the
construction of identity as well as the politics of communities:
As a museum of American art, the idea of community is literally inscribed into
our name. There is not single set of questions with more relevance at this moment,
no set of shared concerns with more resonance of this moment than those raised
by artists concerned with identity and community.
6

In Ross’ essay, he suggests that a discussion about identity politics is inherently tied to
issues of individual identity, which is informed by one’s relationship to one’s community.
In this text, he expresses the institution’s commitment to providing a critical space for
these issues to be interrogated. Ross describes the artists in the show as a group, “who
insists on re-inscribing the personal, political, and social back into the practice of art
history...there is art now being made that transcends matters of style, school class, race,
gender or generation which addresses and reflects this moment.”
7
Ross’ sentiments were
7
6
David A. Ross, “Know Thy Self (Know Your Place)”, preface to 1993 Biennial Exhibition (New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers:1993), 9.
7
Ibid.
directly reflected in the works included in the exhibition. This exhibition represented a
watershed moment where issues pertaining to identity were at the core of artists’
practices, and institutions responded to these concerns.
Upon entering the exhibition, visitors were greeted by Pam Ward Williams’, What
You Looking’ At (1992).
8
This large, mixed-media work prominently displays five
casually dressed young Black men whose gazes meet that of the viewer. This installation
spans two walls within the exhibition space, and the males’ hyperbolic proportions draw
attention to their presence within the space. The portrait is situated against a brick wall,
and is tightly cropped around their bodies. The artist does not include visual markers to
indicate location, yet Williams’ use of graffiti may suggest that the men are in an urban
locale. Although their faces are expressionless, the text, What You Looking’, which is
spray painted across the facade of the painting, provides context. This vernacular phrase
is authoritative, and unabashedly addresses those that come in contact with the work. The
inclusion of this work within the context of the 1993 Biennial may be signifying the
political nature of the exhibition. By meeting the viewers gaze, these men directly
confront audiences. They are unapologetic, and, given the size of this work, assume a
larger-than-life presence within the exhibition space. The curatorial decision to include
this work in the show sets the tone for the in-your-face politics that defined this Biennial.
Glenn Ligon’s Notes in the Margin of the Black Book (1991-1993) appropriated
Robert Mapplethorpe’s infamous Black Book photographs to complicate and interrogate
8
8
The location of this work within the exhibition was addressed by bell hooks in her criticism of the 1993
Whitney Biennial. bell hooks, “Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us,” in Art on My Mind: Visual Politics.
(New York: New Press, 1995), 104.
queer and Black identity. Ligon’s work not only brings into question notions of race and
sexuality, but also the issue of desire. The inclusion of text is integral to Ligon’s practice,
and this work is no exception. Ligon appropriated images of nude Black male bodies
from Mapplethorpe’s controversial Black Book (1988). Ligon recontextualizes this work
by including text below each photograph. The ideas expressed in these texts are not those
of Ligon, but rather, a compilation of voices and perspectives referencing Black or queer
identity. Ligon’s inclusion of text generates a discursive context around this work, and
places ideas by various individuals in dialogue with one another. Ligon’s work not only
prompts a formalist analysis of Mapplethorpe’s photographs, but more significantly, asks
viewers to consider the ways in which these images function and inform a societal
understanding of Black masculinity. Notes on the Margin: Black Book is relevant to the
1993 Biennial framework because it references the politics of Black sexuality and gender.
Although the issue of sexuality was taken in up in other works within the exhibition,
Ligon’s work references the controversy that surrounded the Mapplethorpe photographs
when they were first exhibited in the 1980s, while also applying critical pressure to these
images through the use of text.
The 1991 beating of Rodney King redefined contemporary race relations in
America. The post-Civil Rights racial tension that brewed throughout the nation erupted
when a hazy, yet lucid home video of this event permeated local and national media
outlets. This initial outrage was fueled by the eventual acquittal of the officers that
sparked this controversy. The outcome led to the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, a chaos-filled
9
72 hours, which shed light on public anger and the abhorrent state of race relations in
America.
In Gary Simmons’ Lineup, the artist creates an installation that references racial
stereotyping, and the prejudicial treatment inflicted upon minorities by sanctioned agents
of the American justice system. Simmons draws lines and numbers against a wall, which
indicate the height measurements of the invisible figures. This mixed-media work also
includes gold lacquered sneakers, which are intended to signify the racial identity of the
missing bodies. The presence of these objects in the installation also references urban and
consumer culture. Through his use of material, Simmons personifies the status of these
once mundane objects, using to the gold to signify the value of these goods within urban
culture. Lineup functions within the framework of the 1993 Biennial because it brings
attention to the plight of Black men in the American justice system. Its inclusion in this
exhibition is relevant and timely. Even though Simmons may not be commenting directly
on the Rodney King debacle, the ordeal that was at the epicenter of this exhibition, his
work brings into question the ethics of the American justice system. These events, and the
public frustration that emerged from them, were addressed not only by artists, but also by
the curators of this exhibition. Organizers cited this event as a symbolic moment in
America, and attempted to reflect and theorize the complexity of identity and race
relations throughout this exhibition.
Thelma Golden played an integral role in the racially-charged discourse that
defined the 1993 Biennial. In her catalogue essay, “What’s White…?”, the curator
discussed the complexity of race relations, racial identity, and the relationship between
10
whiteness and power. In the beginning of Golden’s essay, she defines whiteness, a theme
central to her discussion, as a “signifier of power.”
9
She aptly cites Cornel West’s seminal
text, “The New Cultural Politics of Difference.” Golden quoted West’s essay, which
assertively called for a radical paradigm shift and sought to, “trash the monolithic and
homogenous in the name of diversity.”
10
Her use of West’s text is symbolic of the
political tone set forth by this exhibition, as well as a reflection of theoretical ideas
explored within the realm of academic cultural and ethnic studies programs. The
exhibition sought to challenge normative paradigms and insert specific cultural politics, a
position which resulted in what Golden described as the conscience choice of the
Biennial to, “deconstruct and decenter the politically constructed site of whiteness and its
relations to the ever changing definition of Americanness.”
11
Golden’s investigation of
artists’ practices was more focused on the politics embedded in their work:
Artists in the nineties have begun to fully deconstruct the marginality-centrality
paradigm. Marginality, in effect, becomes the norm while the center is
increasingly undefinable and perhaps irrelevant. Although many may call this
Biennial, the ‘multicultural’ or ‘politically correct’ Biennial, it should be read as a
larger project which insists that decentralization and the embracing of the margins
have become dominate.
12

This is not to imply that the 1993 Biennial was the first time these overtly political
conversations took place within the context of the museum, or to insinuate that museums
became multicultural utopias, but rather, this is an examination of a moment where issues
11
9
Thelma Golden. “What’s White…?” in 1993 Biennial Exhibition (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Publishers:1993), 27.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., 35.
pertaining to identity identity became increasingly prevalent within American art
institutions and artists making work related to politics of identity, with institutions
responding in turn.
In the 1993 Whitney Biennial, Golden’s discussion of identity was rooted in
Cornel West’s seminal text, “The New Cultural Politics of Difference.” This text did not
facilitate a discussion or theorization of aesthetics, but rather, an assertion of why the
political is an integral component to culture. “The New Cultural Politics of Difference,”
which was the only text cited in Golden’s catalogue essay, provided a discussion about
the goals of what West describes as “a new type of cultural worker.”: In the last few years
of the twentieth century, there is emerging a significant shift in the sensibilities and
outlooks of critics and artists. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that a new kind of
cultural worker is in the making, associated with the new cultural politics of difference.
13

At the heart of the theorist’s text was a reflection of a shifting paradigm and the desire to
demystify, decolonize and decentralize normative structures. Along with, “trashing the
monolithic and homogenous in the name of diversity, multiplicity and heterogeneity,”
14

West deems the shift towards the decentralization of paradigms integral to art criticism:
These gestures are not new in the history of criticism or art, yet what makes them
novel along with the cultural politics they produce is how and what constitutes
difference, the weight and gravity it is given in representation, and the way in
12
13
Cornel West."The New Cultural Politics of Difference." in October vol. 56, (1990).93. Originally appears
in Russel Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh T. Minh- ha, and Cornel West (eds), Out There: Marginalization
and Contemporary Cultures (New York, The New Museum of Contemporary Art; and Cambridge, MIT
Press, 1990).
14
Ibid.
which highlighting issues...at this historical moment acknowledges some
discontinuity and disruption from previous forms of cultural critique.
15
This call to action, and desire to decentralize, is indicative of the political ethos of the
1980s and 1990s. At this time, there were attempts made by cultural producers to
challenge and rethink normative structures, unveiling the history and crippling effect of
these constructs. The shift towards multiplicity reflects a postmodernist sensibility. Issues
surrounding diversity and multiculturalism were being played out within the realm of
culture, and museums were no exception. “The New Cultural Politics of Difference” was
emblematic of this 1990s moment and call to action. This was not only intended to
mobilize artists, but also place critical pressure on curators, critics and institutions. In
many ways, the 1993 Whitney Biennial brought this text to life by instrumentalizing its
call to action, and inserting the political within an exhibition context. The curators of this
show functioned as “new kinds of cultural workers” (to invoke West’s language), and
brought the political concerns of marginalized groups to the fore. West defines the role of
“new kinds of cultural workers” as:
talented (usually privileged) contributors to culture who desire to align themselves
with demoralized, demobilized, depoliticized, and disorganized people in order to
empower and enable social action, and, if possible, to enlist collective insurgency
for the expansion of freedom, democracy, and individuality.
16

These curators not only privileged artists’ political positions, but also believed that
museums should function as spaces where these issues could be interrogated. The
Biennial’s focus on community, and communal identity, spoke to the curators’ interests in
13
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.,94.
providing a space and a platform for perspectives that were seldom represented within a
mainstream contemporary art context. Golden’s “What is White…?” essay not only
discusses the aesthetic strategies of artists, but also the ways in which artists were
working as new kinds of cultural workers revising and recontextualizing history in
attempt to decenter normative paradigms, while empowering the disempowered. The
roster of artists within the 1993 Whitney Biennial resulted in a chorus of concerns that
reflected the political ethos of this moment.
West outlines the intellectual, existential, and political as the primary challenges
of the new cultural politics of difference, and delineates upon these issues within his text.
In his discussion of intellectual challenges, West's delves into issues pertaining Western
history, and the Black condition within this context. His discussion historicized issues of
power and cultural hegemony. At the core of this concern is the issue of decolonization.
To elaborate upon this notion, West inserts cultural theorist Frantz Fanon’s theory of
decolonization which states:
Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is obviously a
program of complete disorder.... Decolonization is the meeting of two forces,
opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to
that sort of substantification which results from, and is nourished by, the situation
in the colonies.
17
West introduces this term to discuss the sentiments and sensibilities that incited the Civil
Rights and Black Power movements in the United States. He defines this struggle as not
only the fight for rights, but also a demand amongst marginalized groups for
14
17
West quotes Frantz Fanon. Ibid. 100.
representation. Subsequent to his discussion of historical concerns, West cites the modern
problems of Blacks as “invisibility” and “namelessness,” and states:
The modern Black Diaspora problem of invisibility and namelessness can be
understood as the condition of relative lack of Black power to present themselves
to themselves and other as complex human beings, and thereby to context the
bombardment of negative degrading stereotypes put forward by White
supremacist ideologies.
18

The discriminatory treatment inflicted upon Blacks resulted in this community’s inability
to construct and dictate the conditions of their group identity, and is at the root of their
marginalized position within society. To elaborate upon issues pertaining to
representation, West elicits ideas that are integral to the cultural studies discourse by
citing cultural theorists Stuart Hall and Kobena Mercer. He quoted Hall’s belief that
“Black is essentially a politically and culturally constructed category,” a sentiment West
cites as, “pervasive among the postmodern Black Diaspora intelligentsia.” In Hall’s essay,
“What is this ‘black’ in black popular culture,” the theorist elaborates upon West’s “The
New Cultural Politics of Difference,” and explains this text’s significance in the 1990s.
Hall delineates the transforming discussion of difference within popular culture, weaving
West’s ideas through this text:
Within culture, marginality, though it remains peripheral to the broader
mainstream, has never been such a productive space as it is now. And that is not
simply the opening within the dominant spaces that those outside it can occupy. It
is also the result of cultural politics of difference, of the struggles around
difference, of the production around new identities, of the appearance of new
subjects on the political and cultural stage.
19

15
18
Ibid.,104.
19
Stuart Hall, “What is this ‘black’ in black popular culture,” in Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural
Studies. (London, UK: Routledge,1996.), 467.
The opening of this “productive space” not only provided an opportunity for artists in
marginalized groups to enter the contemporary art discourse, but also a chance for
cultural institutions to address issues that were central to debates taking place within
popular culture. This revisionist inclination resulted in the theorization of marginalized
artists. These new theoretical models not only took into consideration art historical
traditions, but also the cultural and political moments that defined individual practices.
The insertion of the cultural studies discourse enabled these works to be understood
within a broader cultural context. Embedded in Hall’s essay is the issue of power, an idea
that is also central to “The New Cultural Politics of Difference.” Hall cites this 1990s
moment as a redefinition of power dynamics within the contemporary art discourse:
“Cultural hegemony is never about pure victory or pure domination...it is always about
shifting the balance of power in the relations of culture; it is always about changing
depositions and the configurations of cultural power.”
20

The idea of shifting power relations is indicative of the 1993 Whiney Biennial.
This exhibition not only sought to provide a survey of the political concerns of the day,
but through the insertion of these varied perspectives, challenged the homogenous
institutional structure that once ignored these marginalized groups. In “What is
White…?” Golden echoes Hall’s sentiments through a discussion of the larger political
project at work in this exhibition: “Many of the artists in the ‘1993 Whitney Biennial
Exhibition’ work consciously to deconstruct and decenter the politically constructed site
of whiteness and its relation to the ever-changing definition of Americanness.” The
16
20
Ibid., 468.
politics of the Biennial were not only inserted through the ideas put forth in individual
artistic practices, but also as a result of the politicized exhibition thematic. In Hall’s text
he discusses his interest in new strategies that take difference into consideration and
provides a space for it to exist: “Now cultural strategies that can make a difference, that’s
what I’m interested in—those that can shift the dispositions of power.”
Perhaps what was most compelling to both Hall and Golden was West’s attempt to
generate strategies for a “new kind of cultural worker” that could in fact make a
difference. These strategies not only took into consideration the historical, but also the
ways in which cultural producers could challenge and navigate institutional structures.
“The New Cultural Politics of Difference” was intended to empower cultural producers to
locate and exercise their individual politics in the name of diversity and multiplicity.
Although this Biennial was organized to bring awareness to communities whose
identities were historically ignored by institutions, the exhibition incited harsh criticism
that targeted both the artists and curators that participated in the show. In Ross’ exhibition
essay, he foreshadowed the concerns sparked by this exhibition:
Oddly, the consideration of the construction of identity, central to an
understanding of contemporary society, may seem to some inappropriate as the
framing reference to introduce an exhibition surveying the past two years of
American art. Inappropriate because the issues of self and community seem to
these critics solely political; fully outside the realm of art. Not merely outside
of art’s territory, but beyond art’s reach.
21

These sentiments are indicative of the subsequent criticisms of this exhibition, many of
which believed that the overtly political thematic was not effective as a framing device.
17
21
Ross, 9.
Many of the antagonistic reviews not only addressed the politics of this incarnation of the
Biennial, but also consisted of personal attacks. The heated responses demonstrated
adamant resistance to identity-based discourses, and revealed a conservative bigotry.
Critics from scholarly and mainstream publications weighed in on this show, and
provided a critique that not only spoke to the art within the exhibition, but also reflected
larger cultural issues, which were debated and challenged in 1990s. The Biennial
provided a stage for these artists to reclaim and define their identity through their work,
rather than having critics determine it for them. In Golden’s catalogue essay, she
describes the radical denunciation of archaic ideologies,
Artists in the nineties have begun to fully deconstruct the marginality-central
paradigm…. Although many may call this Biennial the multicultural or
‘politically correct’ Biennial, it should be read as a larger project which insist that
the decentralization and the embracing of margins have become dominate.
22
The notion of race proved to be integral to the exhibition, and a reflection of the early
1990s national anxiety in attempting to understand, and perhaps take steps to reconcile,
race relations in America.
In Robert Hughes’ scathing 1993 Time magazine review, the critic condemns the
show for its conspicuous political thematic. In “Art: The Whitney Biennial: A Fiesta of
Whining,” Hughes lucidly reveals abhorrence towards the exhibition. He refers to the
participants as: “Artists as Victims, or as Victim’s Representative[s],”
23
and expresses
skepticism towards the Whitney’s curatorial decision to frame the show around the
politics of marginalized groups. He describes the show as, “anxious to present all its
18
22
Golden, 35.
23
Robert Hughes, “Art: The Whitney Biennial: A Fiesta of Wining.” Time Magazine. Mar. 23, 1993.
artists as witnesses, just like Holliday. A witness to what? To their own feelings of
exclusion and marginalization. To a world made bad for blacks, Latinos, gays, lesbians
and women in general. It’s one big fiesta of whining agitprop”
24

Hughes’ review does not confront the specific concerns of these marginalized
communities, nor does it address why this thematic was timely in the 1990s. Instead, the
critic generalizes and trivializes the concerns of these groups. At the close of his caustic
review, he diminishes the political contributions of the artists: “Certainly nothing in this
Biennial, whose political messages contribute nothing fresh, and little of intelligence, to
America’s quarrels and complaints about gender, race and marginality.”
25
Hughes is
quick to judge the merit of these projects without delving into the ways in which they
speak to broader sociopolitical concerns. His article, which was published in a general
news magazine, reflects a conservative position that characterized the concerns of a
particular political sect.
In Roberta Smith’s New York Times review, “At the Whitney, A Biennial with a
Social Conscience,” she lauds the provocative thematic but is critical of the visual
strategies used to convey the show’s politics. Smith describes the exhibition as “not a lot
of eyes-on pleasure to be had inside, where the latest Biennial turns its back on the
razzle-dazzle of the 1980s and faces the harsher realities of the 1990s.... Nonetheless, this
Biennial is watershed.”
26
These sentiments reflect her belief in the relevancy of the show,
19
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Roberta Smith. “At the Whitney, A Biennial with a Social Conscience.” The New York Times. Mar. 5,
1993.
and its success in capturing the political sentiments of the moment. She comments on the
text-heavy nature of the exhibition, which is not only embodied in the exhibition
catalogue, but also through the wall texts and artists’ statements. Although Smith’s review
was mostly favorable, she is critical of what she believes is the show’s lack of attention to
the visual, in revealing, “it too often loses sight of the fact that art is a form of visual
communication that must exist for its own sake before it can further a cause. In the end,
this ambitious show illuminates the pitfalls of politically inclined art far more than its
triumphs.”
27
These sentiments reflect broader concerns with politically-driven organizing
principles that were not only expressed in mainstream reviews but likewise in scholarly
publications.
In autumn of 1993, a few months after the Whitney Biennial, October published
“The Politics of the Signifier: A Conversation on the Whitney Biennial.” Similar to many
of the mainstream journalists, the majority of October’ s panel—which consisted of Hal
Foster, Benjamin Buchloh, Silvia Kolbowski, Rosalind Krauss and Miwon Kwon—
criticized the curatorial content of the Biennial. Many of these respondents sought to
ground this exhibition in contemporary visual and art historical theory, a discussion
which led to a reluctance to embrace the critical framework put forth in this exhibition.
The conversation in October revolved around issues of representation and language.
Debates regarding notions of intentionality, text, and the insertion of an authoritative
curatorial voice were also interrogated during this roundtable discussion.
20
27
Ibid.
The question of political art, and its existence within contemporary art, was at the
forefront of this group’s collective consciousness. Foster begins this panel with what he
poses as,
a blunt proposition. In much of contemporary art in this country there are two
distinctive moves, two typical tropisms: a turn to a theoretical concept and/or a
political proposition as context, as the message of the work. These messages are
important and concern the most essential aspects of our identities and
communities.
28
These inaugural sentiments provided a platform that enabled critics to delve into
conversations regarding what can be interpreted as a tension between aesthetics and
politics. At the start of this text, Krauss expresses her interest in the texture of a work,
rather than the purely theoretical, discussing “the tendency of recent art critics to avoid
talking about the art itself and instead just name a set of ideas that the art invokes. I was
struck by reading the catalogue texts for the Whitney Biennial by this constant deflection
of attention from the texture of the work.”
29
These sentiments suggest a formalist analysis
of the works, rather that privileging the politics or issues at hand. Krauss continues by
stating, “I read Thelma Golden’s catalogue essay, ‘What is White…?’ and there she
presents us with one meaning of the piece…there’s no reason to privilege the intention of
the artist.”
30
The issue of artists’ own subjectivity is raised by Foster: “So there is a turn
to autobiographical identity, often in the very moment of its questioning (I see this in
21
28
Hal Foster, Benjamin Buchloh, Silvia Kolbowski, Rosalind Krauss and Miwon Kwon. “The Politics of
the Signifier: A Conversation on the Whitney Biennial.” October vol. 66, (1993), 3.
29
Hal Foster, Benjamin Buchloh, Silvia Kolbowski, Rosalind Krauss and Miwon Kwon. “The Politics of
the Signifier: A Conversation on the Whitney Biennial,”,6.
30
Ibid., 6.
critical theory too). How productive a paradox is this?”
31
Foster seems to be getting at the
inclusion of individual subjectivities, (which in this exhibition, took the form of artists’
statements), to discuss communal identity and the politics of these groups. This
exhibition sought to lend a voice to marginalized groups, so the inclusion of the
autobiographical seems relevant within this context. Ultimately, the perceived lack of
attention to the visual was criticized by this group, and considered to be the failure of this
exhibition.
In bell hooks’ “Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us,” she discusses the contentious
framework of the 1993 Biennial. One of hook’s most salient criticisms is the exhibition’s
focus on revolt: “[I]t indiscriminately framed all of the work within the context of
revolt.... In actuality, the vast majority of work in this Biennial Exhibition, particularly
pieces that were not specifically commissioned and created for the show, were not
concerned with revolt.”
32
By framing these works within the context of revolt, hooks
believes that the exhibition is empowering the notion of whiteness. The scholar’s
criticism is in direct contradiction to Golden’s notion of decentering whiteness
33
, and
hooks argues that the tone of the exhibition is counterproductive to the cause:

22
31
Ibid., 7.
32
hooks, 104.
33
This idea was at the heart of Golden’s 1993 Whitney Biennial Catalogue essay.
By situating all the works of these diverse artists as a gesture of revolt against
mainstream culture and its values, whiteness was not decentered, it was constantly
the point of departure. The center had not been disrupted. Foregrounding the work
from the ‘margins’ was not transgressive or transformative precisely because that
work was reappropriated and positioned to serve the dominate culture’s need to
see the margins as always and only in revolt.
34

hook’s analysis focuses on what she feels is an overly-determined exhibition thematic. In
her critique, hooks utilizes the word “revolt,” but perhaps at the heart of this argument is
a call to rethink the discourse surrounding the notion of difference. The 1993 Biennial,
which engaged rigorously in a discussion of communal identity and difference, relied
upon the consideration of otherness to discuss the current challenges of particular
communities. Perhaps what hooks is asking for is a discussion of communal identity
without relying so heavily upon the binary notion of them and us. In hooks’ discussion of
the exhibition, she also addresses the scathing critiques of the exhibition, in particular by
critics: “The response to the show by mainstream white culture exposed the extent to
which white supremacist biases continue to inform critical reception of work by artists
from marginalized groups, especially when that work does not directly reflect the
interests and concerns of the conservative majority.”
35

This particular Biennial was attacked for the inclusion of narratives outside of the
normative art historical discourse. In some ways, the museum became a battleground,
with this exhibition bringing to question the ways in which politics can, or should, exist
in the space of the museum. The role of critics was integral in this discussion, with many
of these individuals disqualifying the show—and, inadvertently, the works within the
23
34
hooks, 104.
35
hooks, 105.
exhibition—for their political subject matter. This may have been symptomatic of critics’
inability, or lack of desire, to grapple with the politics at hand. Instead of searching for
language to discuss both the political and the aesthetic, many critics became defensive
and, as hooks suggested, attacked the very premise of the exhibition.
At the core of the backlash surrounding the 1993 Whitney Biennial is a debate as
to where, and how, politics should exist within the art practice as well as within the space
of the museum. For some, this overtly political exhibition decontextualized individual
practices, resulting in an overly-determined thematic. Many of the criticisms rejected the
privileging of politics as an exhibition trope. There seems to be a desire to separate
politics into a realm, or school of thought, outside of the contemporary art discourse. This
desire, which perhaps demonstrates a nostalgia for a more traditional formalist analysis,
is a reflection of the conservative and antiquated paradigm that led to the formation of
this overtly political show. The works in this exhibition require a more thorough and
complex investigation than a formalist analysis can provide. The move towards a political
thematic provides context, and is reflection of the ethos of these groups. In addition, the
lens on community politics within the museum brings attention to the invisibility of these
marginalized groups within the art historical narrative. Since art history failed to address
these narratives, curators relied upon other disciplines to theorize these works and frame
the Biennial. Although the show was met with a great deal of critique, the exhibition
functioned as an intervention into both the normative art historical discourse and
exhibition thematics. Ultimately, this exhibition activated a political space within the
museum, and brought concerns of marginalized groups to the fore.
24
BLACK MALE: REPRESENTATIONS OF MASCULINITY IN
CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ART

Less than a year after the 1993 Biennial, Black Male: Representations of
Masculinity in Contemporary American Art was organized at the Whitney Museum of
American Art and represented work Golden had initiated in 1992.
36
Black Male included
works by a group of inter-generational and multi-ethnic artists, and delved into the
complexity of representation relative to Black masculinity. The show concentrated on the
power of images and the ways in which representation defined the contemporary
understanding of notions of African American identity and masculinity. Many of the
artists in the exhibition were of a post-Civil Rights generation, and tackled the
fragmentation and complexity of Black masculinity in the final decade of the twentieth
century.
Structurally, Golden divided the show into five sections, or what the curator cites
as “signposts.”
37
These categories were organized chronologically, spanned over two
decades, and represented the changing view of Black masculinity in America.
The first section in the exhibition represented the shift from the Civil Rights
generation to the Black Power movement. Golden defines its impact as the emergence of,
“codifiable images of Black masculinity. The black leather jackets, dark sunglasses, big
afros and bigger guns made visual myths of uncontrollable aggression and rampant
25
36
Thelma Golden. “The Status of Difference: Post Black Art Now.” Lecture, Tate Museum. London, UK.
37
Thelma Golden. “My Brother.” Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American
Art. (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers:1994), 20.
sexuality.”
38
The next section of the exhibition marked the emergence of blaxploitation
films, a popular genre in the 1970s that reinforced stereotypes of Blackness. These films
were popular amongst the Black audiences, even though they did not promote positive
messages. Golden describes these films as exploring Black representation in the film
industry, and believes that the emergence of this genre, “opened up a debate about
negative and positive, good and bad filmic images. They also signaled the desire of black
artists and producers to employ the ‘good’ as well as the ‘bad.’”
39
Golden also describes
transformations in the art world—in particular, the shift towards conceptualism in the
1970s—which proved to be influential to the generation of artists included in Black Male.
The third section explored what Golden described as “the endangered Black
man.”
40
This thematic highlighted the grim life-expectancy statistics for Black men, and
interrogated popular cultural imagery that demonized Black masculinity. “With the help
of print and television media, black men have become symbolic icons for the nations
ills.”
41
Golden continues by referring to specific contemporary examples of Black men
that were demonized in the popular media: “They personify rampant criminality (Willie
Horton), pervasive promiscuity (Wilt Chamberlin), sexual harassment (Clarence
Thomas), date rape (Mike Tyson), and spousal abuse (O.J. Simpson).”
42
In this section,
the curator not only cogently articulates stereotypes, but also contextualizes these notions
26
38
Ibid., 20.
39
Ibid., 20.
40
A term utilized by Golden in the exhibition catalogue. Ibid., 20.
41
Ibid., 22.
42
Ibid.
through a contemporary framework. By referring to specific individuals and national
dramas that personify these stereotypes, the curator illustrates how these ideas were
ingrained in contemporary American consciousness.
The fourth signpost marked the emergence of hip-hop, an important creative
development that began as a culturally specific movement, but soon entered the larger
American cultural industry. Golden describes what hip-hop has come to symbolize in
society: “Rap music and hip-hop have become the contemporary signifiers of black male
urban culture. At its best, rap manipulates the rich and fertile terrain of blackness,
providing and inventing image and text.”
43
The emergence of rap and hip-hop offered an
opportunity for a culturally ingrained narrative to be broadcast to the masses.
The final signpost of Black Male incorporated contemporary crises that involved
Black men. The first example Golden utilizes is the Rodney King debacle, which was an
issue that contributed to the politicization of the Whitney Biennial, and remained in the
national consciousness: “The Rodney King incident represents a real-life drama which
quickly provided a new reading to America’s relationship to race and gender. In addition,
it underscored the potency of images and their ability in contemporary culture to become
historic icons.”
44
Golden continues with a discussion about the authority of images, and
the ways that artists sought to complicate the over-simplistic binary of good and bad
imagery of Black masculinity.
27
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid., 23.
In addition to the thematic apparatus of the show, Golden also utilized a tripartite
structure, which incorporated red, black and green, colors that signify the Black
nationalist flag, into the visual system of the exhibition to further communicate the
categorization of particular ideas. In Golden’s essay, she explains the exhibition’s use of
this symbolic color palette:
[R]ed encompasses the images which challenge and transform the ‘negative’
stereotypes, real and imagined, Black includes the images of and about the black
male body and offers symbolic descriptions of the black male psyche. The green
presents work which shows expansive possibilities for depicting multiple
representations of masculinity.
45
Golden sought to represent the multiplicity of Black male identity, and addressed
stereotypes through textual and visual material. These issues were both highlighted and
complicated through their inclusion in a museum context.
Golden relied upon an analysis of popular culture and cultural studies texts to
explore works in the exhibit and the ideas set forth by the participating artists and
scholars. The exhibition catalogue includes essays by curators and academics whose texts
interrogated Black masculinity. The catalogue not only analyzed the works in Black
Male, but also cited issues that were contemporaneous to the exhibition. Golden theorized
the show primarily through a cultural studies lens by delving into the question of race and
representation. In her catalogue essay, “My Brother,” she discusses the construction of
Black male identity:
One of the greatest inventions of the twentieth century is the African-American
male—‘invented’ because black masculinity represents an amalgam of fears and
28
45
Ibid., 25.
projections in the American psyche which rarely conveys or contains the trope of
truth about the black male’s existence.
46
Golden’s sentiments expressed both the plight and complexity of Black male identity
centered on a mythologizing apparatus. The catalogue sought to create a synergy between
the scholarship being produced in the African American studies departments of American
colleges and universities, and cultural studies scholarship generated by British academies
in the 1980s and translated for an American context. This provided an increasingly
global, and arguably more holistic, approach to understanding how Black identity has
been represented both nationally and internationally.
Golden’s interest in the politics of representation was not only highlighted
through her discussion of the works in the exhibition, but also reinforced through the
iconic images that she included throughout her essay. These images of Black men
provided a visual framework for the exhibition, and grounded her discussion in seminal
moments and individuals in American history. On the first page of her catalogue text,
Golden includes an iconic 1968 image of Black sanitation workers in Memphis holding
“I AM MAN” signs.
47

Temporally, the exhibition commences in 1968, a year Golden refers to as an,
“America’s second revolution,”
48
which references the fight for Civil Rights at that time.
Rejecting a simply positivist depiction of Black male identity, she also included contested
images, such as a photograph from the preliminary hearings of the O.J. Simpson trial,
29
46
Ibid.,19.
47
Caption from exhibition catalogue. “Sanitation workers in front of Clayborn Temple, Memphis, March
28, 1968.” Image in Golden, “My Brother.” 19.
48
Ibid., 20.
which took place a few months before the exhibition opened. Her discussion of these
images was not simply to reference defining events, but, more poignantly, to discuss the
ways in which these images were disseminated and instrumentalized to construct, and
ultimately represent, the mythology of Black male identity.
The catalogue featured a number of essays from scholars that addressed issues
pertaining to black masculinity. American literary critic Henry Louis Gates drafted the
catalogue forward, which discussed the timeliness of this exhibition. In his essay, Gates
describes the contentious role of the Black male within the fraught discourse of race in
America, and the ways in which Black masculinity has historically been demonized and
demoralized within the national rhetoric. “The black male, in other words, has been
represented in Western culture as the central enigma of a humanity wrapped in the darkest
and deepest subliminal fantasies of Europe and America’s collective cultural id.”
49
Gates’
focus on representation and construction are sentiments that are reflected in Golden’s
essay, and echoed throughout the catalogue. Although the exhibition focuses on a
contemporary reflection of Black identity, the scholar grounds this thematic historically,
and explores the ways in which the residue of colonialism has been a part of the
collective consciousness for centuries. Gates’s brief essay considers the relevancy of the
Black male in a 1990s moment, “this exhibition could not be more timely, both as a
statement about dominant artistic trends at the turn of the century and as an intervention
in the politics of race and gender that so preoccupy our time.”
50
The scholar weighs in on
30
49
Henry Louis Gates. Forward in Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American
Art. (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers: 1994), 13.
50
Ibid., 14.
these complex issues, and provides a historical perspective that is not steeped in the
visual arts, but rather the legacy of racial representation, specifically in an American
context. This brief personal reflection opens the catalogue by introducing issues that were
subsequently addressed more thoroughly in theoretical texts and individual artists’
practices.
The catalogue also includes an essay titled “True Confessions,” which was co-
authored by cultural theorist Kobena Mercer and artist Isaac Julian. These collaborators
—whose theoretical framework derives from cultural studies of the 1980s Black British
context—also interrogate Black male identity, focusing specifically on a racial and sexual
politics. This essay was written in 1986, but was republished for the Black Male
exhibition.
Although Black Male took place at a museum with an American-centric focus, the
inclusion of these writers provides a glimpse into the global conversations about African
diasporic identity. Cultural studies emerged as an academic field in the late 1960s out of
the United Kingdom. This discipline sought to provide an intellectual framework to
interrogate culture and politics. Although its origins are based in the humanities, this field
of study is responding to what was perceived as a lack of attention to contemporary
cultural concerns. Culture and politics were interrogated within isolated disciplines. Prior
to critical studies, these ideologies were seldom merged and theorized within a formal
academic context. In Stuart Hall’s essay, “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the
Crisis of the Humanities,” the theorist delves into the history of this discipline:
31
No place existed at that stage, whether in the social sciences or in the humanities,
where one could find the concept of culture seriously theorized. Contemporary
culture forms did not constitute a serious object of contemplation in the academic
world. And the political questions, the relationships, complex as they are, between
culture politics, were not a matter considered proper for study.
51
Cultural studies provides an intellectual space that weaves the theoretical ideas of
humanities disciplines together in a way that facilitates a multifaceted, and more holistic,
discussion about contemporary culture. The insertion of the cultural studies discourse
within the American contemporary art context was significant, and facilitated a rigorous
theorization of the issues at stake for 1980s and 1990s artists. Cultural studies was not
only conceptually significant in individual artists’ practices, but also served to critically
frame the aforementioned exhibitions. The questioning of history, culture, and politics
was at the core of this discipline, and facilitated challenging conversations amongst
cultural producers. Cultural studies acknowledges and attempts to fill the voids generated
by the exclusionary Western art historical discourse.
Within the American context, the discussion of the racial, the political and the
aesthetic lacked a cohesive theorization. Much of the critical discourse surrounding these
issues relied upon an exploration of literary theory, which elaborated upon ideas of
history, race and popular culture, but did not provide a thorough investigation of
aesthetics. Within the realm of art history, race and politics have historically been under-
theorized, which contributes to the marginalization and underrepresentation of minority
32
51
Stuart Hall. “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities: The Humanities as
Social Technology.” October, Vol 53 (1990), 15.
perspectives within this field. Cultural studies provided a critical and discursive
framework to rigorously discuss marginalized identities in contemporary art.
The issue of representation is integral to understanding how difference is
constructed, and takes into consideration the historical as well as how representation
manifests itself within a contemporary context. Representation was at the heart the Black
Male exhibition, and facilitated a discussion about popular culture, and broader issues of
images and power. In Kobena Mercer’s “Black Art and the Burden of Representation,”
the theorist discusses the ways in which Black artists have been placed in the precarious
position of speaking for group identity. “When artists are positioned on the margins of
institutional spaces of cultural production, they are burdened with the impossible task of
speaking as ‘representatives,’ in that they are widely expected to ‘speak for’ the
marginalized communities from which the come.”
52
This burden provides little space for
a discussion of one’s individual subjectivity, and can lead to the essentializing of identity.
Mercer condemns the institutions that place this pressure on Black artists, blaming the
sparse presence of marginalized groups as the reason why this burden is inflicted: “[T]his
role has fallen on the shoulders of black artists not so much out of individual choice but
as a consequence of structures of racism that have historically marginalized their access
to the means of cultural production.”
53

In the 1993 Whitney Biennial the decentering of the center/margin paradigm came
in the form of revolt. This curatorial strategy was criticized by hooks, who believed that
33
52
Kobena Mercer. “Black Art and the Burden of Representation.” Welcome to the Jungle: New Positions in
Black Cultural Studies. (London, UK: Routledge,1996.), 235
53
Ibid., 240.
this approach reinforced the very power structure it sought to reject: “By situating all of
the work of these diverse artists as gestures of revolt against mainstream culture and its
values, whiteness was not decentered, it was constantly the point of departure.”
54
In
Mercer’s text he also discusses the critical discourse, or lack thereof, surrounding the
practices of Black artists. This discussion relates to the issue of representation because
without a rubric to critically analyze the works of Black artists, these practices remain
under-theorized and consequently ignored or misrepresented. Mercer believes that the
absence of a critical category to assess these practices results in a constant attempt to re-
theorize, “each event has to carry the burden of being ‘representative’; and what is worse,
because there is no continuity of context, we seem to be constantly reinventing the wheel
when it comes to black arts criticism.”
55
Instead of building or elaborating upon the ideas
put forth by Black artists, the lack of a cohesive theorization results in a constant
recalculation of these practices, and that does not facilitate a thorough discussion about
aesthetic and theoretical precedences. hooks also discusses the dearth of criticism of
Black artistic practices in her essay “Critical Genealogies: Writing Black Art.” hooks
attributes the under-theorization of Black artists to a lack of scholarship by Black:
“African-American art critics, both inside and outside the academy, have made few
progressive critical interventions that fundamentally change the way work by African-
American artists is critically received.”
56
She places the burden of representation (to
invoke Mercer’s language), on the Black critic, and believes that this representation of
34
54
hooks, “Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us,” 104.
55
Mercer, “Black Art and the Burden of Representation,” 236.
56
hooks, “Critical Genealogies: Writing Black Art,” 110.
Black subjectivity should be generated by Black critical agents. In many ways, hooks
echoes ideas put forth in “The New Cultural Politics of Difference,” and West’s belief
that people of color are responsible, and should serve as a catalysts for, the critical
exploration of Black cultural agents: “The new cultural politics of difference can thrive
only of there are communities, groups, organizations, institutions, subcultures, and
networks of people of color that who cultivate critical sensibilities and personal
accountability”
57
.
The Black Male exhibition sought to unpack the notion of representation. The
exhibition did not subscribe to the simple binary of good/bad, black/white or negative/
positive, but rather, complicated these issues by providing a range of perspectives that
reflected various facets of Black masculinity. This cacophony of perspectives resulted in
an exhibition that did not seek to locate a specific political position, but rather
incorporated multiple vantage points to interrogate Black males. In Golden’s catalogue
essay, “My Brother,” she reveals the exhibition’s interest in complicating the issue of
representation: “For some, there are only two extremes, good and bad.... This simplistic
binary is often the way in which images are discussed. There is no question that
representation is central to power. The real struggle is over the power to control
images.”
58
The representation of Black masculinity was central to the 1990s moment
because of the ways in which it played out in the public sphere. The dissemination of
images that portrayed, and ultimately defined Black masculinity, played into national
35
57
West, 108.
58
Golden, “My Brother,” 23.
fears, while simultaneously drawing upon bigoted sentiments of the past. Within the
context of this exhibition, many of the artists were reflecting upon the Black image in
contemporary popular culture, rather than attempting to represent their own subjectivity.
This exhibition did not subscribe to a revisionist impulse and did not endeavor to overtly
challenge popular conceptions of Black masculinity. Instead, this show provided insight
and perspective, while applying critical pressure to this category. In hooks’ essay “Art on
My Mind,” she cautions the use of binaries to discuss issue of representation,

Our capacity to value art is severely corrupted and perverted by the politics of the visual
that suggests we must limit our responses to the narrow confines of debate over good
versus bad images. How can we truly see, experience, and appreciate all that is present in
a work of art if our only concern is whether it shows us a positive or negative image?
59

Although hooks was not speaking specifically about the Black Male exhibition, this idea
directly relates to much of the criticism about this show. Much of the critique focused on
the use of negative stereotypes, and how these images reinforced popular misconceptions.
Perhaps the focus on the negative versus the positive led to a superficial reading of this
exhibition; critics became so obsessed with this binary that they did not engage with
broader notions of representation. If the critics of this exhibition were able to look
beyond the negative/positive binary, perhaps this would have led to more complex
discussions that dealt with the multiplicity, origins, and symbolic nature of these
stereotypes, rather than an indictment of their reinforcement within an art context.
To interrogate issues of representation and the construction of Black masculinity,
works in the exhibition addressed both the precarious position of Black men and the
36
59
Hooks, “Art on My Mind,” 8.
pervasive stereotypes which inform the national discourse around this group. One of the
earlier works included in this intergenerational exhibition is David Hammons’ Injustice
Case (1970). In this work, Hammons creates a black-and-white body-print utilizing
margarine, powdered pigments and American flag
60
. In this work the artist’s body is
bound to a chair, his wrists are tied together, and a thick material covers his mouth. The
print of Hammons’ Black body is juxtaposed against the white background. Although the
figure’s expression is indecipherable, the precarious position of the body suggests
struggle. The black and white body-print is mounted against an American flag, and the
title, Injustice Case, references the irony of the American justice system. This overtly
political work is relevant to the Black Male exhibition because the artist is commenting
on the injustices perpetrated against Black men in America. Hammons symbolically
utilizes the Black body as a site of struggle. Injustice Case—created in 1970, a few years
after the passing of the Civil Rights Act—is not only a timely inclusion within the
temporal frame of this exhibition, but more specifically, this work reflects upon the
continuous injustice towards Black people in America, even after the passing of this law.
The fraught position of the black body in the work signifies the precarious position of
Black men in America.
Adrian Piper’s Vanilla Nightmares #8 (1986), interrogates miscegenation and
desire. In this mixed-media work, Piper appropriates a Bloomingdale’s print
advertisement, which features a White female with an expression of ecstasy on her face.
37
60
Information about the materials drawn from Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s website. Image of
David Hammons, Injustice Case., accessed March, 1, 2011, http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/
mweb.exe?request=record;id=30972;type=101.
At the top of the page, the word “poison” is printed in a bold font. This double entendre is
not only relevant to the advertisement, but also functions within the conceptual
framework of the Piper’s work. Five garish black figures surround a White female. The
figures are rendered bald and pupilless, with monstrous appearances that are employed by
Piper to personify the fear of Black men. Their proportions are larger than that of the
female figure, and they loom above and around her. One of the figures bites into the
shoulder of the female, while another grasps her tricep. The female figure’s eyes are
closed, placing her in what can be interpreted as a vulnerable position. This work is
relevant to the Black Male exhibition because Piper not only incorporates commentary on
the fear of Black men, but also calls attention to the historically fraught relationship
between Black men and White women. The use of a print advertisement places this fear
into a contemporary context, while also referencing the ways in which popular media can
perpetuate the fear surrounding Black men. Congruous with the premise of the Black
Male exhibition, Piper focuses on stereotypes, and interrogates how Black masculinity is
constructed and represented within popular culture.
Glenn Ligon’s Mudbone (Liar) (1993) recontextualized a joke by comedian
Richard Pryor. The joke, which was first articulated in a stand-up comedy performance,
reads:
38
Niggers had the biggest dicks in the world, and they was trying to find a place
where they could have they contest. And they wasn’t no freak, they didn’t
everybody looking. So they walking around looking for a secret place. So they
walked across the Golden Gate Bridge and the nigger seen that water and made
him wanna piss. One said, Man I got to take a leak. And he pulled his thing out
and was pissing. Other nigger pulled his out, took a piss. One nigger said,
“Goddamn, this water cold!” The Other Nigger say, “Yea, and it’s deep too!
61
Ligon’s use of text recontextualized Pryor's joke by drawing attention to language, and
spatially, places what may be considered a low-brow form of entertainment into the high-
brow context of the museum. In addition, by rearticulating Pryor’s vernacular-laced joke
through the medium of painting, Ligon elevates Pryor’s voice into an art context.
Aesthetically, Ligon adopts the techniques of abstraction to render this work. When
preformed verbally, Pryor had to rely upon his tone and delivery to engage his audience.
In a written context, audiences have an opportunity to focus on Pryor’s use of language,
as well as re-read and analyze the transcribed text. In this capacity, the joke is
appropriated by Ligon, and as a result, the meaning is transformed. Within Pryor’s joke,
there are undertones of rage. Ligon’s use of red may be symbolically referencing this
emotion through color. The text, which begins by Pryor stating, “Niggers had the biggest
dicks in the world,”
62
addresses stereotypes surrounding black sexuality and masculinity.
Pryor does not dispel this idea, but rather, reiterates, and plays upon it in the context of
his joke. This multi-layered work is relevant to the Black Male exhibition because it
39
61
Transcribed from catalogue image of Ligon’s painting Mudbone (Liar), 1993. Black Male:
Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art. (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Publishers, 1994), 57.
62
Ibid.
appropriates comedy, and more broadly speaking, popular culture, to provide
commentary on Black stereotypes, rage, and sexuality.
Black Male was received with a wealth of criticism. Critics both lauded and
denigrated the exhibition for addressing the contentious topic of Black masculinity in
such a public forum. The institutional framework was brought into question by a number
of critics. At the core of these arguments was the question of the exhibition’s intentions,
and whether or not it was appropriate for the Whitney to generate a focused show that
placed a specific lens on the issue of race. The use of stereotypes was widely criticized;
many questioned the Whitney’s articulation of these popular misconceptions within the
exhibition. The Whitney has a history of generating controversial exhibitions, and Black
Male was no exception.
In a 1994 New York Times review, art critic Michael Kimmelman lauds the
provocative nature of the exhibition thematic, while expressing his disappointment in the
execution of this project. Kimmelman believes that an issue as timely as Black
masculinity should be explored by contemporary art institutions. He maintains, “One
thing the show underscores is that artists, black and white, have specifically addressed the
topic of the black male, and the amount of art devoted to it grows. It’s a rich, timely and
complex vein for a museum interested in contemporary art.”
63
Kimmelman’s critique of
the exhibition lies in the intellectual inaccessibility of some of the works, and the
articulation of stereotypes. The exhibition’s exploration of stereotypes was intended to
facilitate a more in-depth conversation about broader questions surrounding the notion of
40
63
Michael Kimmelman, “Constructing Images of the Black Male,” New York Times. November 11, 1994.
representation and social constructs. The critic felt as if this attempt fell short in the
exhibition context, and argues that the show merely reinforced stereotypes, “Thelma
Golden, the show’s curator, writes in the catalogue that ‘media fascination around black
masculinity is always concentrated in three areas: sex, crime and sports.’ But you can
come away from the exhibition dispirited by the preponderance of art that seems to define
the black man in just those terms purporting to expose and debunk stereotypes.”
64
In a
1995 article, Kimmelman once again reflected on Black Male, and continued to criticize
its racially-charged premise,
In retrospect, the show seems simply arrogant, with a destructive message that
black men are defined by their pathologies. And it was worse for being
calculatedly chic. Someone at the Schomburg symposium, at which considerable
anger was expressed over ‘Black Male,’ asked the right question about it: how
would the show look now, after the Million Man March? After hundreds of
thousands of black men gathered peacefully in Washington, wouldn't its emphasis
on images of blacks as criminals look skewed, if not downright racist?
65
Similar to many of the exhibition reviews, Kimmelman believed that the exhibition
became entangled with the notion of stereotypes, so much so, that it merely reinforced
these ideas rather that interrogated them.
Carol Dyer echoed Kimmelman’s sentiments in a 1995 Art News review. Dyer
also criticized the exhibition for its visual reiteration of stereotypes: “By concentrating
solely on negative stereotypes of the African-American man as a victim or a threat, the
exhibition, even with its intent to illuminate, perpetuated the myth.”
66
The critic did not
41
64
Ibid.
65
Michael Kimmelman, “Culture and Race: Still on America’s Mind,” New York Times. November 19,
1995.
66
Carol Dyer, “Black Male: Whitney Museum of American Art, Review,” Art News. February, 1995.
interrogate the exhibition’s use of the stereotype, or discuss the theoretical ideas that
framed the show. Her observations, appear to be reactionary to the visual content
included in the show, but do little to reflect upon the ideas and issues explored within
Black Male. Dyer also commented on the inclusion of artists within the exhibition, and
felt as if Golden’s roster was conventional: “[The exhibit] offered few surprises in terms
of art or issues. By confining her selection to the most obvious choices, curator Thelma
Golden limited the opportunity for exposure to a small circle of artists—ironic in a show
that included limited opportunity among other themes”
67
Dyer’s belief that the show
offered few surprises in terms of art or issues seems trite given the topics at hand; Black
Male’ s intent was not to offer surprises, but rather to interrogate prevalent issues. The
review did discuss the issue of audience, noting that the exhibition resulted in a more
diverse publics:
[A] significant result of this exhibition seemed to make the museum more
user-friendly.... The show indicates an intention on the part of the museum to
include more minorities in its exhibitions and acquisitions—a move that will be
especially meaningful if it extends beyond issue-oriented art.
68
Dyer’s final remarks, which snidely reference the exhibition’s focus on issue-oriented art,
get to the heart of the criticism; much of the backlash condemned what was perceived to
be the overt exploration of contemporary politics, rather than a focus on aesthetics. These
sentiments reflect much of the criticism of the 1993 Whitney Biennial. These
exhibitions’ emphasis on issues was seen as a neglect of aesthetics, and functioned
outside of a traditional art historical discourse.
42
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
In Homi Bhabha’s 1995 Artforum review, the theorist closely examines Black
Male’ s caustic critical reception. Bhabha attributes the negative reviews to a reaction
against the Whitney’s revisionist art historical discourse. The writer frames his review
around the notion of “impersonality,” and Robert Hughes’ text, The Culture of Complaint.
Impersonality refers to the Modernist impulse to judge the aesthetic, and the correlation
of tradition and value: “The notion of impersonality rests on the assumption that artistic
value is transmitted through the ‘immanence’ of tradition. Cultural judgment, in this
reading, is the self-regulated activity of a deeply ingrained core or canon that defies
time”
69
. This notion places value on the aesthetic, and does not provide a space for the
interrogation of politics and ideas. Instead, it relies upon overdetermined, and most likely
archaic, fixed systems to dictate meaning. Bhabha attributes the negative critiques of the
exhibition mainly to the desire of some to maintain the status quo, as well as a rejection
of politics being inserted into the art historical discourse: “The attempts to protect and
purify the domain of aesthetic pleasure and instruction by casting the representation of
social difference into the spheres of political theory and therapy constitute a misguided
mission”
70
Although Bhabha lauds the Whitney’s willingness to address such a
contentious topic, the writer is also critical of the use of stereotypes within the show.
Bhabha is not against the discussion of stereotypes within the context of this exhibition,
but is critical of its decision not to address identity outside the stereotype. The
exhibition’s attention to stereotypes was at times misleading, and if misunderstood, could
43
69
Homi Bhabha, “Black Male at the Whitney Museum,” Artforum, February 1995.
70
Ibid.
lead some to believe that the ability to function outside of these cultural taboos is
virtually impossible. In Bhabha’s personal account of the show, he notes the pervasive
presence of stereotypes within the exhibition:
As I walked around ‘Black Male,’ seeing so many images of isolated black men
staring fixedly at me, I felt that despite the irony and the inversions, something of
a rigor mortis of the stereotype had seeped into the show itself. Without quite
knowing it, I too had been participating in the stereotype’s danse macbre.
71
Bhabha’s self-reflexive account of his time within the exhibition speaks to some of the
broader criticisms of the show, while also attesting to the pervasive nature of stereotypes;
even a discerning viewer is susceptible to internalizing these mythologies.
By discussing Black identity thorough the use of stereotypes, this exhibition
placed viewers in direct confrontation with notions of otherness. Black Male not only
created a space for the discourse of contemporary issues within the museum, but, perhaps
more controversially, provided a self-reflexive space for visitors to contemplate their
relationships to these stereotypes. The issue of audience is also crucial to the analysis of
this show. For Black visitors, this exhibition may have functioned as a way to question
their rejection or embrace of these constructed notions. Although this show’s focus was
on Black masculinity, for some Black male viewers, the constructs explored throughout
this exhibition may have functioned outside, or in contrast to, their understanding of their
individual subjectivity. For non-Black visitors, this exhibition provided a space to reflect
upon and question the ways in which these stereotypes informed their understanding of
Black masculinity.
44
71
Ibid.
In many ways, Black Male embodied the political spirit of the 1990s, and placed
critical pressure of the very notion of representation. The focus of this exhibition was not
to dispel popular bigoted mythology, but rather to provide a much needed space to
understand the ways in which representation of Black men is a construct, and more
specifically, the ways in which constructs are made to appear real. Perhaps the downfall
of this exhibition was not its attention to stereotypes (as alluded to in many of the
exhibition reviews), but rather, its focus on theoretical ideas in the catalogue, rather than
the exhibition space. There seems to be a disconnect between the ideas put forth in the
catalogue and the ways in which these ideas were visually manifested in the show. This is
not to imply that ideas should not be contextualized and elaborated upon within the
textual space of the catalogue, but they should also have a lucid presence within the
visual iteration of the show. That said, with an exhibition thematic as timely and
contentious as Black Male, criticism seems inevitable. Regardless of the critique, the
Whitney organized a provocative show that spoke directly to the concerns of the
sociopolitical moment, while simultaneously activating and diversifying the space of the
museum.
45
FREESTYLE
In 2001, Golden became the chief curator of The Studio Museum in Harlem, an
ethinically-specific institution, after a ten-year tenure at the Whitney Museum. Freestyle
was her inaugural exhibition at this institution. In many ways it functioned as a
reconceptualization of the identity politics that defined the 1980s and 1990s. This
exhibition was organized by Golden and Christine Y . Kim. Freestyle featured a group of
twenty-eight emerging Black artists. From this exhibtion came the notion of “post-black
art,” an idea that was articulated by Golden in her catalogue essay “Post....” This term
loosely defined a new generation of Post-Civil Rights Black artists whose work reflects
the plurality and fragmentation of contemporary Black identity. Although the term “post-
black” was utilized and existed outside of the contemporary art context, this show is
symbolic of its instrumentalization in contextualizing visual art practices.
Thematically, this exhibition was not organized to address a particular politic, but
rather, functioned as a loosely themed survey show that sought to explore the diversity
embedded in the practices of emerging Black artists. This thematic was reflected in the
title, Freestyle, which referenced the loose format while also hinting towards the
culturally-specific freestyle tradition integral to improvisational jazz and subsequently,
hip-hop music
72
. Many of the participants in the exhibition were young, born in America,
and attended arts schools. Visually, the show included a broad spectrum of aesthetic
trends, including painting, sculpture, mixed-media and photography. Conceptually, many
of the artists in the exhibition created works that reflected upon issues of race, yet the
46
72
These were ideas Golden discussed as the impetus for the title of her exhibition essay.
ways in which these ideas were addressed embodied contemporary concerns and
sensibilities. Although this exhibition did not address identity in a conspicuous manner,
the engagement with this issue was undoubtedly present. These artists were aware of the
cultural history and political legacy of their predecessors, yet utilized different strategies
to address the current iteration of these discussions.
Conceptually, the most pervasive facet of Freestyle was the emergence of the term
“post-black art.” In Golden’s exhibition essay, she describes this notion as “characterized
by artists who were adamant about not being labeled as ‘black’ artists, though their work
was steeped, in fact deeply interested, in redefining complex notions of blackness.”
73
This
delineation acknowledges and embraces the cultural legacy of the past while
simultaneously complicating and evolving the ideas put forth by their predecessors. This
is not to say that these artists were not influenced by earlier generations, because they
were, but rather “post-black” is symbolic of their common interest in evolving earlier
discussions, while reflecting upon a contemporary moment.
The term “post-black art” came out of conversations between Golden and Ligon.
This term was not intended to be essentializing or totalizing, but rather was intended as a
loose framework and shorthand language to describe the artistic practices and themes
found amongst this group of young artists. The Studio Museum was formed in a time of
protest. The institution opened in 1968, and addressed the call made by the Civil Rights
generation to have a space where works made by marginalized Black artists could be
exhibited. Prior to Golden’s arrival, the Studio Museum’s exhibition history sought to re-
47
73
Thelma Golden, “Post...” Freestyle. (New York: Studio Museum in Harlem: 2001),14.
canonize the works of African American artists; many of these shows featured the work
of older artists whose practices were ignored by the broader art community due to racial
inequalities. Instead of focusing on the past, Freestyle sought to shift the institution’s
focus to the present, by incorporating artists that addressed the immediate concerns of
that sociopolitical moment. In a later discussion about “post-black,” Golden further
explained the term by stating, “there was something about these young artists that made
them feel free to completely disengage themselves from the past, but at the same time
they were obsessed with it. And the way in which we described this was to refer to them
as being post-black art.”
74
She continued this discussion be referencing the legacy of the
term, “the use of the term ‘Black art’ for us was a way to encapsulate the dialogues that
had gone on particularly in African American art over these past 40 years.”
75
This term
references the traditions of the past, while simultaneously addressing contemporary
practices and concerns. “Post-black” was not intended to be a conclusive statement, but
rather, a provocation that reopened the dialogue about Black identity in contemporary art.
Embedded in this idea is the notion of pluralism, which moves the conversation about the
practices of Black artists beyond race. This term takes into consideration a cultural
specificity that may be embedded in the works of Black artists, while simultaneously
embracing the difference which defines their individual practices.
Freestyle marked a shift away from the overtly political exhibition thematics that
defined the 1990s, and offered new language to interrogate Black identity and
48
74
Golden, “The Status of Difference: Post Black Art Now.”
75
Ibid.
contemporary art at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This evolution is embodied
in the exhibition catalogue, which focused less on collectivizing thematics, and more
specifically on individual artists’ practices. Included in these texts were descriptions of
specific works, as well as discussions about culturally-specific issues that informed the
artists. The Freestyle catalogue texts considered the ideas and traditions that influenced
the participating artists. By framing these works within the broader art historical
discourse, the writers considered the ways in which the Freestyle artists were impacted by
the broader Western narrative. By shifting their analyses of the works towards culturally-
specific discussions, the writers revealed how the Black vernacular informed artists’
practices. The layering of broader and culturally-specific influences is intrinsic to the
notion of “post-black art”.
In Rashid Johnson’s Jonathan with Hands (1998-99), the artist photographically
depicts homeless Black men, highlighting their individual subjectivities rather than
focusing on their marginalized socio-economic condition. This work, which was shot in
a studio, took the sitter outside of an urban context, allowing the artist to photograph his
subject removed from conspicuous socioeconomic signifiers. Johnson relies upon formal
photographic techniques. In Sylvia Chivaratanond’s Freestyle essay, she historicized
Johnson’s technique as, “staying true to the form of traditional portraiture in his use of
formal settings—closely cropped subjects set against a deep black background—Johnson
employs the nineteenth-century Van Dyke printing process.”
76
Chivaratanond’s essay not
only reveals how Johnson’s work is informed by the Western art historical discourse, but
49
76
Sylvia Chivaratanond, “Rashid Johnson,” Freestyle. (New York: The Studio Museum in Harlem: 2001),
49.
also situates his practice within this canon. In addition, by focusing on the impetus of this
project, Chivaratanond reveals how Johnson’s identity as a Black male shaped his
conceptualization of this work,
While Johnson employs many of the traditional attributes of photographic
portraiture, his subject matter in unconventional.... In Johnson’s photographs, the
expanded dialogue of race and representation occurs during the reciprocal process
of the tools of exchange inherent in the nature of studio portraiture.
77

The ideas expressed in Johnson’s work, and subsequently, Chivaratanond’s essay, reflect
the embrace of a traditional art historical legacy as a well as culturally-specific subject
matter. This merger of both the historical and the present cultural moment resulted in a
work that embodies the “post-black” art tradition.
Mark Bradford’s Enter and Exit the New Negro (2000) employs the formalist
language of painting and abstraction, while also referencing Black vernacular culture
through his use of materials. This white—virtually monochromatic—mixed media work
is comprised of hair end papers. This not only speaks to Bradford’s personal history (at
the time he created this work, he worked as a hairstylist)
78
but also to Black vernacular
culture. Enter and Exit the New Negro has a meditative quality, while also bringing into
question issues integral to the Western painting tradition. The methodical application of
the white hair end papers results in the faint appearance of the individual squares against
the large canvas. In Teka Selman’s essay, the writer references the art historical traditions
that Bradford’s work is in dialogue with:
50
77
Ibid.
78
This was highlighted in Selman’s essay. Teka Selman, “Mark Bradford,” Freestyle. (New York: The
Studio Museum in Harlem: 2001), 26.
[T]he plastic elements of his unstretched canvases bring to mind the intimate
immediacy of works by Harlem Renaissance photographer James Van Der Zee,
the clarity of composition, color, and form reminiscent of the Dutch Masters; and
a shimmering luminosity that echos the canvases of Agnes Martin or Ellen
Gallagher.
79

Selman’s reference to this these multi-generational artists reveals Bradford’s interest in
earlier aesthetic praxis, while also taking into consideration the ways in which his work is
informed by the present, his environment, and Black vernacular culture. Selman’s text
frames the artist’s work within the notion of “post-black art” by addressing Bradford’s
contributions to the broader art historical legacy while also revealing how—through
material—the culturally-specific is embedded in his work.
As a result of Freestyle’ s loose thematic, the reviews of this exhibition focused on
both individual artists’ practices and the notion of “post-black art.” Many of the writers
questioned the inclusion of this term, and the way in which it would redefine the
conversation about Black identity and contemporary art.
In Jerry Saltz’s Village Voice review, he lauds the exhibition for its energy and
introduction of young artists. The critic comments on the rearticulation of serious
thematics present within individual works, but believes that the loose format of the
exhibition provides a space for these ideas to play out in ways that are not over-
determined:
51
79
Ibid.
[M]any of the issues addressed in ‘Freestyle’ are familiar: social cruelty, the
bottomless confusion of the divided self, the crushing weight of being defined
from without. Nevertheless, urgency, emergency, and bitterness have been
replaced with something that could be called radical intelligence.
80
That these artists are concerned with ideas of the past but do not have the same
relationships to these issues as the previous generation has been stated earlier. Instead, the
investigation of these ideas are taken up by artists with an eye on subjectivity as it relates
to individuality rather than essentializing collectivities. Saltz’s review highlights the
demographics of this exhibition, which is indicative of the ways in which this survey
show fit into broader art world norms:
Other than the fact that all of the artists are black, the stats are typical. About a
third of the participants are women. Every artist went to art school; none to
Skowhegan, six to the Whitney Museum Independent Study Program. Half live in
New York, seven in California. Perhaps the juiciest statistic about ‘Freestyle’ is
that the average age of these artists is a young 32.
81
Saltz’s attention to demographics is a significant point. The reliance upon art world
signifiers may be referencing a dynamic at work. Although Black artists continue to be in
a marginalized position within contemporary art, the artists who contributed to this
exhibition all subscribed (albeit not necessarily consciously), to the general markers of art
world success. Although Saltz does not tease out his reference to demographics, this point
is relevant to contextualizing this group of emerging artists.
In Holland Cotter’s New York Times review, “A Full Studio Museum Show Starts
with 28 Young Artists and a Shoehorn,” the critic discusses the both the curatorial
52
80
Jerry Saltz, “Post Black,” Village Voice. May 15, 2011.
81
Ibid.
premise and the execution of Freestyle. At the start of his review, the critic rearticulates
Golden’s use of “post-black” enunciated in the exhibition catalogue. After framing this
idea, Cotter delves into a discussion of individual artworks, which consumes the bulk of
his text. The review summary provides a recap of the exhibition, which he frames in a
broader art historical discussion:
‘Freestyle’...is trying, in its laid-back, just-a-first-draft way, to kick through some
of those walls and see what happens. It suggests recasting the notion of what
‘black art’ means in a country, a neighborhood, even an art world where racial
balances are shifting. In the process, it rethinks, but does not abandon, the identity
politics that drove much of the advanced art of the past 20 years.
82
By connecting this exhibition to an historical discourse, Cotter brings to the fore
precedents that informed both the artists and the exhibition. Although Freestyle has a
flexible framework, the ideas at hand were brought into question by earlier generations,
and manifest themselves through individual practices of participating artists in this 2001
show.
In similar manner, Derek Conrad Murray’s exhibition review in the Journal of
Contemporary African Art discusses the ways in which this show fits into a broader art
historical discourse. The critic lists a selection of artists working in the 1980s and 1990s
and discusses their influence on this younger group:
[T]he Freestyle artists mark a continuation of the multicultural themes and
identity politics that dominated their elders. Nonetheless, these younger artists
represent the post-civil rights era, and ultimately confront accepted notions of
black subjectivity offering a challenging and often unsetting vision.
83
53
82
Holland Cotter, “A Full Studio Museum Show Starts with 28 Young Artists and a Shoehorn,” New York
Times. May 11, 2001.
83
Derek Conrad Murray, “Freestyle: Review,” Journal of Contemporary African Art (2001), 92.
Murray’s describes this exhibition as a passing of the torch, and a continuation of a
historical legacy. The liberation of these artists from a particular politic does not imply
that they are not engaging directly with politics. As Murray’s pointed out, there is still an
interaction with multicultural themes. However, the ways in which these artists choose to
engage, and the manifestation of this engagement both visually and conceptually, resulted
in a more subtle, yet still palpable, embrace of identity politics.
Freestyle, and more specifically, the term “post-black,” brought the generational
concerns of an emerging group of artists to the fore. A dissection of this term must first
take into consideration the use of “post” in “post-black”. In Bhabha’s essay, “Art in the
Age of Multicultural Translation,” the theorist explores the meaning of “post,” and how
this term is instrumentalized in identity-based discourse. Bhabha’s analysis of this term
focuses on the notion of “beyond,” an implied quality intrinsic to the idea of “post”:
‘Beyond’ is neither a new horizon, nor a leaving behind of the past.... Beginnings
and endings may be sustaining myths of the middle years; but the in the fin de
siecle, we find ourselves in a the moment of transit where space and time cross to
produce complex figures of difference and identity, past and present, inside and
outside, inclusion and exclusion. For, above all else, there is a sense of
disorientation, a disturbance of direction, in the ‘beyond’
84
Bhabha’s consideration of time and space is integral to the conception of “post-black.” It
is the movement of space and time that results in the transformation of protest strategies.
The 1990s generation of artists that were engaged in conspicuous political discussions
adopted the more overt political strategies utilized by the Civil Rights generation. The
younger generation of artists included in Freestyle were no doubt conscious of this
54
84
Homi K. Bhabha, “Art in the Age of Multicultural Translation” in 1993 Biennial Exhibition (New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers:1993), 62.
legacy, but adopted strategies that took into consideration, and embraced, a contemporary
space/time sensibility. Bhabha continues,
‘Beyond signifies spatial distance, marks progress, promises the future; but our
intimations of exceeding the barrier or boundary—the very act of going beyond—
are unknowable, unrepresentable, without the return of the ‘present’ which, in the
process of repetition, becomes disjunct and displaced. The imaginary spatial
distance—to live somehow beyond the border of our times—throws itself into
relief the temporal, social differences that interrupt our collusive sense of cultural
contemporaneity.
85
Instead of functioning as a departure from the past, the “post” in “post-black”
signifies a consideration of a particular cultural history while simultaneously embracing
the present moment. “Post-black” embraces pluralism, and attempts to eradicate the
essentialization of identity. The “black” in “post black” is in direct contradiction to the
antiquated sentiments that once defined what it meant to be a Black artist. These
anachronistic sentiments are most lucidly represented in the philosopher Alain Locke, and
his call for Black artists to embed cultural-specific content in their work. In his seminal
1931 text, The American Negro as Artist, Locke argued that Black artists should,
“recapture ancestral gifts and reinstate lost arts and skill.” He continued by stating that
these artists should, “recapture the race sprit and background as well as the individual
skill and temperament of the artist.”
86
This provocation reflects the time/space of the
Harlem Renaissance and puts forth a cultural politic amenable to that time. Although
Locke acknowledges the individualism of the artist, he also calls for the incorporation of
content that harkens to cultural and ancestral ties. Embedded in Locke’s articulation of
55
85
Ibid., 65.
86
Alain Locke, “The American Negro as Artist,” American Magazine of Art XXIII, Sept.1931: 211, 214.
“race spirit” is an essentialism that may have been a necessary political strategy for that
particular time/space, but the “black” in “post-black” marks a shift away from these
earlier sentiments. This term destabilizes fixed notions of collective Black identity by
lending itself to a reading of individual subjectivity. In Kobena Mercer’s essay, “Identity
and Diversity in Postmodern Politics,” he discusses the significance of group identity
through names:
It is precisely around the symbolic displacements of the ‘proper name’ that we can
see the historical formation of democratic agency. In the United States, this is
seen most clearly in the recoding of the proper name—Negro, Colored, Black
Afro-American, and more recently, African-American—each of which reinflects
the connotational value of a given vocabulary in renaming a collective
subjectivity in each historical period.
87
This sentiment may also be applicable to “post-black.” The attention given to this term
may be a reflection of people feeling as if their fixed identity was in crisis. With this
term, or what was perceived by some as a move towards re-naming, came a rethinking of
what it meant to be an artist of African descent. “Post-black” is mindful of the
marginalization of Black artists in the art historical discourse, taking into consideration
the overt, in-your-face politics of the 1990s, but instead of duplicating the political
strategies implemented by earlier generations of artists, the term “post-black” articulates
a revised set of concerns and strategies.
56
87
Kobena Mercer, “Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics.”
BEYOND “POST-BLACK” DISCOURSE
The emergence of “post-black” marked a significant shift in thinking about the
practices of Black artists. As previously mentioned, this term was not intended to be a
theoretical construct, but rather a provocation that was instrumentalized as an exhibition
thematic. The term itself functioned as a politic, and provided a framework to explore the
concerns of an emerging generation of artists.
“Post-black” functions as an extension of the 1980s and 1990s discourse
surrounding identity politics and multiculturalism, but embedded in this idea is the
emergence of new strategies and ways of thinking about the practices of Black artists.
The political took on a new form in Freestyle. Instead of instrumentalizing the in-
your-face politics that defined exhibitions in the last two decades of the twentieth century,
“post-black” offered a new way to explore political proclivities in the works of Black
artists. The generation of artists engaged in the 1990s exhibitions were perhaps more
informed by the overt modes of protest that defined the American Civil Rights era.
Although the artists involved in Freestyle were no doubt informed by this history, their
relationship with the political is perhaps more fragmented and subtle.
For older generations, the insertion of the overt politics was essential. In the
1980s and 1990s, there was a push to decenter the homogenous Western art historical
legacy, attempting to insert the perspectives of marginalized groups into the broader
discourse. Perhaps the notion of “post-black” is a reconciliation of this decentering, and
provides a politic that engages with history, but is not revisionist. “Post-black” art is no
less political than earlier generations, but the ways in which the political manifests in the
57
work, as well as institutionally, have evolved. In the case of Freestyle, the curators of the
exhibition did not shy away from the political. Instead, they shifted the lens in which they
interrogated the political.
Many of the criticisms of the 1990s shows denounced the essentialist impulse,
which was attributed to the implementation of overarching political exhibition thematics.
“Post-black” sought to eradicate the risk of essentializing by placing a lens on individual
rather than group politics. This is not to imply that there are not interconnections between
the politics of the individual and that of the group, but “post-black” privileges individual
subjectivity. “Post-black” is not a rejection of the political, but rather, a shift towards a
different type of politic. This provocation is a timely amalgamation of the political legacy
of the 1990s, yet ascribes to contemporary sensibilities.
The spirit embodied in the “The New Cultural Politics of Difference” is still alive,
and questions surrounding identity are as prevalent as ever, but the strategies used to
subvert have evolved. Cultural producers must now navigate a new cultural climate that
privileges market sensibilities. This is not to imply that politics cannot exist in this new
terrain, but they do not exist in the form that they once did. Strategies include creating
works, or exhibitions, with layered politics. Instead of the overtly political, cultural
producers have found ways to appeal to market sensibilities, while still allowing for the
embedding of cultural politics. These cultural producers embody a double consciousness
that conceptually informs their practices, and enables them to navigate the current
cultural climate.
58
As a provocation, “post-black” calls for the subversion rather than the protest of
normative paradigms. “Post-black” artists may participate in the global market system,
and be informed by the broader aesthetic discourses, but their engagement in the
historical, intellectual and existential persists. “Post-black” is an embodiment of a double
consciousness that enables contemporary Black artists to embrace the broader Western art
historical legacy, while still embodying the political dynamism that defined “The New
Cultural Politics of Difference.”
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhabha, Homi. “Art in the Age of Multicultural Translation” in 1993 Biennial
Exhibition. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1993.
Bhabha, Homi ."Black Male at the Whitney Museum." Artforum. February 1995.
Byrd, Cathy. "“Is There a ‘Post-Black’ art?”: Investigating the Legacy of the Freestyle
Show." Art Papers 26 no. 6 (2002).
Chivaratanond, Sylvia. “Rashid Johnson,” in Freestyle. New York: The Studio Museum
in Harlem, 2001.
Cotter, Holland . "On the Topic of Race the Art is Fearless." New York Times. 20 March
2008.
Cotter, Holland. "A Full Studio Museum Show Starts with 28 Young Artists and a
Shoehorn." New York Times. 11 May 2001.
English, Darby. Beyond Black Representational Space. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
Foster, Hal, Buchloh, Benjamin, Kolbowski, Silvia, Krauss, Rosalind and Kwon,
Miwon."The Politics of the Signifier: A Conversation on the Whitney Biennial." October
66 no. 102 (1993).
Gate Louis, Henry. Forward in Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in
Contemporary American Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1993.
Golden, Thelma.“What’ s White…?” in 1993 Biennial Exhibition. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1993.
Golden, Thelma. My Brother.” in Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in
Contemporary American Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc, 1994.
Golden, Thelma. “Post...” in Freestyle. New York: Studio Museum in Harlem, 2001.
Golden, Thelma. “The Status of Difference: Post Black Art Now.” Lecture, Tate Museum.
London, UK.
Hall, Stuart. "The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities."
October 53 no. 102 (1990): 11-23.
60
Hall, Stuart . Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London, UK:
Routledge, 1996.
hooks, bell. Art on My Mind: Visual Politics. New York: New Press, 1995.
Hughes, Robert . "Art: The Whitney Biennial: A Fiesta of Wining." Time Magazine. 23
March 1993.
Hunter, James. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America . New York : Basic Books,
1991.
Kimmelman, Michael. "Culture and Race: Still on America’s Mind." New York Times. 4
November 1994.
Locke, Alain. "The American Negro as Artist." American Magazine of Art XXIII.
September 1931, 211-214.
Mercer, Kobena. Welcome to the Jungle: Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics.
Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1994.
Murray, Derek Conrad. “Freestyle,” in NKA: Journal of Contemporary African Art,
Number 15, Fall/Winter 2001: 92-93.
Plagen, Peter. "Fade to White: The Whitney Biennial Gives Center Stage To Women,
Gays And Artists Of Color." Newsweek. 15 March 1993.
Ross, David. “Know Thy Self (Know Your Place)”, preface to 1993 Biennial Exhibition.
New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1993.
Saltz, Jerry. "Post Black." Village Voice. 15 May 2001.
Schjeldahl, Peter. "Missing: The Pleasure Principle." The Village Voice. 16 March 1993.
Selman, Teka.“Mark Bradford,” in Freestyle. New York: Studio Museum in Harlem,
2001.
Simon, Watson. Dissent, Difference and the Body Politic. Portland: Portland Museum of
Art, 1992.
Smith, Roberta. "At the Whitney, A Biennial with a Social Conscience." The New York
Times. 5 March 1993.
61
West, Cornel . "The New Cultural Politics of Difference." October 56 no. 102 (1990):
93-109. Originally appears in Russel Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh T. Minh- ha, and
Cornel West (eds), Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures (New York,
The New Museum of Contemporary Art; and Cambridge, MIT Press, 1990)
West, Cornel. Race Matters . Vintage Books: Random House: New York, 1993.
Ytasha, Womack. Post Black: How a New Generation is Redefining African American
Identity. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2010.
62

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Biennial rising: Prospect.1 New Orleans and the post-disaster arts movement

PDF

"Necessity knows no law": artist-run spaces & the spatial politics of Tijuana's public domain

PDF

Reflections on contemporary art and the rhetoric of community

PDF

The multivalent platforms of alternative art publications as agents of authentic cultural change

PDF

Expression of identity: Maori Ta Moko and the utilization of the internet

PDF

Lapses in memory: slavery memorials and historical amnesia in the United States

PDF

Identity crisis: redefining the other in Fred Wilson's Speak of me as I am

PDF

The kinesthetic citizen: Dance and critical art practices

PDF

Public art as liberatory pedagogy through performance methodologies

PDF

Art and cultural diplomacy in the international exhibition: documenta 1 and Prospect.1

PDF

Multiracial politics or the politics of being multiracial?: Racial theory, civic engagement, and socio-political participation in a contemporary society

PDF

Cultivating the arts in rural communities of the San Joaquin valley

PDF

Interpreting participatory art

PDF

(M)other work: feminist maternal performance art

PDF

Temporary or permanent? Considering time, memory and history in public art projects

PDF

Making art public: mobilizing public art through technology

PDF

Allen Ruppersberg: Art on the edge of visibility, 1968–1972

PDF

Four women, four public art projects, four decades: exploring socially conscious public art and social change

PDF

Public art in Houston: administrative structure analysis and artist guidebook

PDF

Two visions, two publics: the Jewish Museum and the Skirball Cultural Center

Asset Metadata

Creator Gibbs, Alaina Yvette (author)

Core Title Contemporary art and "post-black" identity politics

School School of Fine Arts

Degree Master of Public Art Studies

Degree Program Public Art Studies

Publication Date 05/12/2011

Defense Date 05/03/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African-American,art,identity politics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name Harlem (city or populated place), New York (city or populated place), New York (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Firstenberg, Lauri (committee chair), Decter, Joshua (committee member), Sirmans, Franklin (committee member)

Creator Email alaina.gibbs@gmail.com,alaina.gibbs@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3941

Unique identifier UC1412118

Identifier etd-Gibbs-4584 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-479210 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3941 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gibbs-4584.pdf

Dmrecord 479210

Document Type Thesis

Rights Gibbs, Alaina Yvette

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu