As I’ve mentioned before, we live in an era with a surprising amount of non-abstract statuary of various heroes being put up in public: sports stars, entertainers, and, especially, African-American historical figures.
A few years ago, a white sculptor named Wesley Wofford received a private commission to make a huge heroic statue of Harriet Tubman, celebrated heroine of the Underground Railroad. Pictures of his statue online were so popular that he sent it on a tour of 17 cities. It was especially popular in Philadelphia, a city where Tubman lived for awhile. So, the government of Philadelphia attempted to buy it, but Wofford was obligated to deliver it to the original commissioner. They then offered him $500,000 to do another statue of Tubman.
And then all health broke loose as black artists denounced Philadelphia for paying money to a white sculptor to create a statue of a black heroine just because he has a track record of doing one that the public really liked.
So, Philadelphia cancelled Wofford and picked 5 blacks as finalists for the Tubman sculpture.
OK, that’s what you’d expect these days.
What’s interesting is that New York Times commenters were overwhelming outraged at this display of anti-white racist discrimination:
Philadelphia Asks if Race of Tubman Sculptor Matters
A white artist was invited to design a statue of Harriet Tubman. After complaints, the city held an open call for submissions.
By Christopher Kuo
Aug. 30, 2023
Here are the most popular of 754 comments in the New York Times:
This is horrible. Doesn’t discriminating against the artist based on race betray Tubman’s mission of freedom and equality? This has to stop.
9 Replies 998 Recommend
This idea that art can only be created by an individual who precisely mirrors the subject is ridiculous.
It is offensive to the very nature of art.
971 Recommend
Based on Philadelphia’s logic, the musical Hamilton should have showcased white actors. What a loss that would have been. Art should help dissolve barriers within our society not reinforce them.
9 Replies 872 Recommend
the message that comes through based an these examples is “racism is ok as long as its against white people”.
3 Replies 693 Recommended
When Harriet Tubman’s relatives do not agree with this, that ought to tell you something. Instead, we get this:
“We know the depth and value of our stories,” said Vinnie Bagwell, a 65-year-old artist from New York who is one of the five Black semifinalists for the Tubman statue. “It’s personal for us.”
That’s fine, but by the same token, is he alright with Black artists being excluded from projects involving White, Asian, or Hispanic historical figures? You can’t have it both ways.
2 Replies 658 Recommend
Wofford’s Tubman is clearly the best. It’s stunning, contemporary and powerful. Too bad the statues weren’t judged by not knowing the color of the artist.
1 Reply 564 Recommended
i am a sculptor. I think Wofford’s sculpture is arguably the best of the lot.
2 Replies 528 Recommended
I’m always struck by the fact that POC always defend, or demand, access to roles in the theater, opera or movies that were written for white persons or placed in white cultures, but refuse to accommodate the same for people who identify as white or are from other cultures. What’s good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.
13 Replies 446 Recommended
Guess this means only Japanese can sing Butterfly, no Black man can play Hamlet (only Danes need apply) and no author can write any novel that includes either a person of a different ethnicity or sex? This is insanity personified, and based on a totally fictional construct that there’s such a thing, biologically speaking, as race.
2 Replies 439 Recommend
This is the stuff they will lose us elections.
Some folks seem think that history belongs to a subset of the population only. All have benefitted from Tubman’s life, and anyone should be permitted to express that through art—not just those who are deemed appropriate.
It does not always have to be about race.
And they go on and on like this, almost unanimously against canceling the white sculptor’s popular Harriet Tubman sculpture just because he’s white. I presume that the bulk of people who comment on New York Times articles tend to be aging white liberals.
In general, NYT subscribers don’t think much of racial preferences. But I’m guessing that comments on this story are so close to unanimous because there’s a named white victim of bias that they can identify with, whereas in most discussions of affirmative action, the precise victims are left unknown. Many people don’t really believe in the math that say that if you are going to discriminate in favor of blacks, you must discriminate against non-blacks. Or, sure, in the abstract I guess that might be true, but I don’t see any pictures of any victims, so I’m not going to think about it.
Also, the victim is a Good White, an artist, a liberal who created an impressive sculpture of a black heroine.
Third, this isn’t pseudoscience like IQ, this is objective aesthetic judgment: the white guy’s statue is better than any of the black finalists’ replacements.
