Bearden, Romare. "The Negro Artist and Modern Art." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 138-41. Print.
Bearden hits the nail on the head in this little essay. He all but says that the blacks in the Renaissance that are creating art are not representative of their race, and he suggests (a bit timidly) that the art that is being produced is merely a shallow reflection of what white people expect to see. Although he isn’t as scathing as other writers have been, as well as myself, he manages to get the same message across without the hostility. The message he is conveying comes back to the idea that the people we remember from the Harlem Renaissance were merely white-ified blacks that in no way represented black culture as a whole. This may be an extreme position, for surely they represented some aspects of black society, but isn’t far from the mark.
The lack of depth that Bearden speaks of is apparent not just in artists of the Renaissance that he speaks of, but in artists in general. Today it is easy for any nobody to grab a laptop and begin writing, only to produce a horrible novel that, because it is watered down and generic, gets published. The Twilight books are a perfect example of this: the writer, Stephanie Meyer, has absolutely no advanced composition skills, nor can she weave a coherent story. Yet she is famous and rich for her books. Generic dime-a-dozen bands release albums that no one will remember in five years, while paintings and artwork are splayed across the internet so thickly it is difficult to retrieve any of the worth from the depths of mediocrity. And the reason for this? There is an unguided believe in the world today that anybody can be an artist. I do not believe this to be true. Art requires a level of introspectiveness and pessimism that many people simply do not possess (as well as a degree of intelligence that, too, many are void of), which is why there are so many worthless pieces of art and literature floating around clogging up the art scene.
What Bearden is saying, and what I’m arguing, is that people need to leave art to those that have something to say. Rather than recreate what is popular, create something new. Rather than give art a bad name, step back and let those who know what they are doing perform their work. The Harlem Renaissance had a lot of junk produced, some of which we’ve read for this class, others of which are mentioned very directly by Aaron Douglas, which, perhaps, weakened aspects of art that should have been taken more seriously. Of course, it had a lot of worth created as well, and much of that is what we remember today. I suppose, really, the things that deserve to be remembered end up being written into history, while the rest pass by.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Negro Takes His Place in American Art
Locke, Alain. "The Negro Takes His Place in American Art." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 134-37. Print.
Apparently, according to this pompous writer, being black and an artist necessitates being an artist that deals with black themes. Obviously, because color is so ultimate and important to the lives of everyone in the world, one must always adhere to the clichéd norm demanded by their race. The young black artist Locke mentions who wanted to be known as an artist rather than a black artist was completely in the wrong – no one should ever be expected to break the repetitious mold of the obvious. My God, what if that young man had actually gone on to produce works of art indistinguishable from white, red, and yellow artists? It would be detrimental to the cause of black artists all over the world! Thank Christ, though, that Locke was sympathetic enough to suggest that the young man’s views were (perhaps!) pardonable, for if he hadn’t allowed such a horrible deviance, surely the entirety of black culture would have been ruined.
I am, of course, being sarcastic. Obviously, Alain Locke is an obnoxious egotist who cannot see outside of his own very narrow realm of art. He is the kind of moron who, because he has been so privileged and so elevated within his field by the public, believes himself to be the end-all to artistic merit. He is an idiot, and exactly the kind of man who would have promoted the racial divide rather than blend whites and blacks. Thank God there are people like the young man he referenced that are willing to get over themselves.
Apparently, according to this pompous writer, being black and an artist necessitates being an artist that deals with black themes. Obviously, because color is so ultimate and important to the lives of everyone in the world, one must always adhere to the clichéd norm demanded by their race. The young black artist Locke mentions who wanted to be known as an artist rather than a black artist was completely in the wrong – no one should ever be expected to break the repetitious mold of the obvious. My God, what if that young man had actually gone on to produce works of art indistinguishable from white, red, and yellow artists? It would be detrimental to the cause of black artists all over the world! Thank Christ, though, that Locke was sympathetic enough to suggest that the young man’s views were (perhaps!) pardonable, for if he hadn’t allowed such a horrible deviance, surely the entirety of black culture would have been ruined.
I am, of course, being sarcastic. Obviously, Alain Locke is an obnoxious egotist who cannot see outside of his own very narrow realm of art. He is the kind of moron who, because he has been so privileged and so elevated within his field by the public, believes himself to be the end-all to artistic merit. He is an idiot, and exactly the kind of man who would have promoted the racial divide rather than blend whites and blacks. Thank God there are people like the young man he referenced that are willing to get over themselves.
Negro Art and America
Barnes, Albert C. "Negro Art and America." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 128-33. Print.
This essay goes out of its way to homogenize the black race, and in doing so makes itself a pathetic waste of paper. The artists and great minds of the Harlem Renaissance do not, implicitly, represent black culture as a whole. They were a select few who, through riches or contacts, managed to rise above the rest in order to live whiter lives. I do not in any way see how these deviants represent all black people, but rather represent how a few people in every society get lucky once in a while. It is like George Carlin preaching about the evils of wealthy white men when he himself was one of the wealthiest white comedians in the world (as a disclaimer, Carlin is one of my all-time heroes and favorite performers): it’s a caricature, or a low-budget television reenactment, of the horrors and woes of a suppressed race.
The line that struck me the hardest was Barnes’ claim that America’s only great music was black spirituals. A very simple, honest response to this is: no, it isn’t. I do agree that spirituals, particularly blues and jazz, hold a special place in American art and are very exemplary forms of music, but they are not the only American music that is worth something. For example, several contemporaries of the Harlem Renaissance are considered the voices of America to this day: Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copland, and Leonard Bernstein.
I’ve noticed this attitude in other essays that we’ve read for this class, and every time it comes up I have to scoff. Claiming that black culture is important doesn’t bother me, but claiming that is it the only importance America has ever had is ignorant and childish, like a young teenager convinced that their band is the “best ever period”. It isn’t. Putting things into perspective, such as referencing black culture against American culture as a whole, would make essays like this a bit less frustrating and, perhaps, a bit more meaningful.
This essay goes out of its way to homogenize the black race, and in doing so makes itself a pathetic waste of paper. The artists and great minds of the Harlem Renaissance do not, implicitly, represent black culture as a whole. They were a select few who, through riches or contacts, managed to rise above the rest in order to live whiter lives. I do not in any way see how these deviants represent all black people, but rather represent how a few people in every society get lucky once in a while. It is like George Carlin preaching about the evils of wealthy white men when he himself was one of the wealthiest white comedians in the world (as a disclaimer, Carlin is one of my all-time heroes and favorite performers): it’s a caricature, or a low-budget television reenactment, of the horrors and woes of a suppressed race.
The line that struck me the hardest was Barnes’ claim that America’s only great music was black spirituals. A very simple, honest response to this is: no, it isn’t. I do agree that spirituals, particularly blues and jazz, hold a special place in American art and are very exemplary forms of music, but they are not the only American music that is worth something. For example, several contemporaries of the Harlem Renaissance are considered the voices of America to this day: Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copland, and Leonard Bernstein.
I’ve noticed this attitude in other essays that we’ve read for this class, and every time it comes up I have to scoff. Claiming that black culture is important doesn’t bother me, but claiming that is it the only importance America has ever had is ignorant and childish, like a young teenager convinced that their band is the “best ever period”. It isn’t. Putting things into perspective, such as referencing black culture against American culture as a whole, would make essays like this a bit less frustrating and, perhaps, a bit more meaningful.
Aaron Douglas Chats about the Harlem Renaissance
Douglas, Aaron. "Aaron Douglas Chats about the Harlem Renaissance." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 1118-27. Print.
It’s interesting to get a glimpse of what someone involved in the Renaissance felt and thought during their time producing art and literature therein. I hadn’t really considered the notion that many people of the Renaissance weren’t particularly aware of the Renaissance as we are today. Obviously, now that it has been mentioned, the effect is obvious; much like with World War I, which was not known as such until much later, many of those involved had no idea that the war they were fighting was to be a “World” war. The association that I’ve made subconsciously throughout this class of the Harlem Renaissance is one of a university or profession: it is easy to define where and what you are when you belong to organized institutions, such as saying “I am a teacher and such an such school in such a such district,” but the institution (or organization) of the Renaissance did not really become a construct until after the fact.
Douglass’ reflections on his time during the Renaissance make the whole thing a bit more humble. He was just a guy getting by and trying to make a name for himself, much as many others do every day. He took jobs that appealed to his artistic desires as well as ones that paid well, and just sort of did his thing unaware of his contributing to what would later be known as the Harlem Renaissance. I suppose my last few posts have been somewhat negative, suggesting that many of those in the Renaissance were selfish and did not represent black Americans but rather a select few. I still hold this to be true, but rather than for the selfish reasons I had stated earlier, I now believe that the individuals in the Renaissance were just doing what they did naturally and, through no real fault of their own, later became associated with the progressive movement.
It’s interesting to get a glimpse of what someone involved in the Renaissance felt and thought during their time producing art and literature therein. I hadn’t really considered the notion that many people of the Renaissance weren’t particularly aware of the Renaissance as we are today. Obviously, now that it has been mentioned, the effect is obvious; much like with World War I, which was not known as such until much later, many of those involved had no idea that the war they were fighting was to be a “World” war. The association that I’ve made subconsciously throughout this class of the Harlem Renaissance is one of a university or profession: it is easy to define where and what you are when you belong to organized institutions, such as saying “I am a teacher and such an such school in such a such district,” but the institution (or organization) of the Renaissance did not really become a construct until after the fact.
Douglass’ reflections on his time during the Renaissance make the whole thing a bit more humble. He was just a guy getting by and trying to make a name for himself, much as many others do every day. He took jobs that appealed to his artistic desires as well as ones that paid well, and just sort of did his thing unaware of his contributing to what would later be known as the Harlem Renaissance. I suppose my last few posts have been somewhat negative, suggesting that many of those in the Renaissance were selfish and did not represent black Americans but rather a select few. I still hold this to be true, but rather than for the selfish reasons I had stated earlier, I now believe that the individuals in the Renaissance were just doing what they did naturally and, through no real fault of their own, later became associated with the progressive movement.
Monday, December 7, 2009
A Long Way from Home
McKay, Claude. "A Long Way From Home." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 157-72. Print.
Perhaps it is because I am reading these essays and excerpts one after another without any breaks, but they’ve all begun to flow into one big stream of the same stuff. McKay is saying much the same in these excerpts that Johnson and Wright said in their essays, and further affirm my growing dislike of Du Bois. I wonder if this inner-circle fighting and back talking is part of what led to the downfall of the Renaissance – it certainly is growing old in my mind. It is funny, too, that the equality and unification that all of the players of the Harlem Renaissance preach so fluently about is only an illusion to their social group.
I can’t help but shake the feeling that the talented tenth/literati/whatever were really just a group of friends who liked to play favorites and pat themselves and each other on the back. The more we read these articles, the more I see the authors talking less and less about the racial problems and more and more about how they feel and relate to other famous people. It is almost becoming a game of “who can name the most famous names,” and it is stupid, like a high school clique. It is no wonder, then, that the Renaissance failed so completely and that it did almost nothing for the betterment of black society. My guess is that most blacks outside of the clique did not much care for these people, and I don’t think that I do now either.
Perhaps it is because I am reading these essays and excerpts one after another without any breaks, but they’ve all begun to flow into one big stream of the same stuff. McKay is saying much the same in these excerpts that Johnson and Wright said in their essays, and further affirm my growing dislike of Du Bois. I wonder if this inner-circle fighting and back talking is part of what led to the downfall of the Renaissance – it certainly is growing old in my mind. It is funny, too, that the equality and unification that all of the players of the Harlem Renaissance preach so fluently about is only an illusion to their social group.
I can’t help but shake the feeling that the talented tenth/literati/whatever were really just a group of friends who liked to play favorites and pat themselves and each other on the back. The more we read these articles, the more I see the authors talking less and less about the racial problems and more and more about how they feel and relate to other famous people. It is almost becoming a game of “who can name the most famous names,” and it is stupid, like a high school clique. It is no wonder, then, that the Renaissance failed so completely and that it did almost nothing for the betterment of black society. My guess is that most blacks outside of the clique did not much care for these people, and I don’t think that I do now either.
Black No More
Schuyler, George. "Black No More." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 655-66. Print.
Three references came to mind when reading this excerpt: Catch-22, the third X-Men movie, and the Dr. Seuss book where the creatures have machines to give them stars on their bellies. The second two references are obvious, and Catch-22 comes to mind simply because of the overtly sarcastic satire. I really enjoyed reading this except, and I plan on getting the full novel soon. My favorite satirical image in it is the Marcus Garvey character (who would have thought), with the Du Bois reference coming in a close second. Schuyler really hits the nail on the head in his depictions of the NAACP consisting of white and mostly white men who are trying to aid and assist blacks that they have no contact with. The readings for this week have been leading to this kind of realization, and I have to agree that much of the work done during the Renaissance was a load of hot air. My previous post goes into a lot of detail about how I feel about this. I’m curious to learn more about how whites and black reacted to this novel, and particularly how the Harlem literati reacted to the caricatures of themselves.
Three references came to mind when reading this excerpt: Catch-22, the third X-Men movie, and the Dr. Seuss book where the creatures have machines to give them stars on their bellies. The second two references are obvious, and Catch-22 comes to mind simply because of the overtly sarcastic satire. I really enjoyed reading this except, and I plan on getting the full novel soon. My favorite satirical image in it is the Marcus Garvey character (who would have thought), with the Du Bois reference coming in a close second. Schuyler really hits the nail on the head in his depictions of the NAACP consisting of white and mostly white men who are trying to aid and assist blacks that they have no contact with. The readings for this week have been leading to this kind of realization, and I have to agree that much of the work done during the Renaissance was a load of hot air. My previous post goes into a lot of detail about how I feel about this. I’m curious to learn more about how whites and black reacted to this novel, and particularly how the Harlem literati reacted to the caricatures of themselves.
The Negro Renaissance and Its Significance
Johnson, Charles S. "The Negro Renaissance and Its Significance." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 206-18. Print.
This article makes me wonder about the actual relevance the Harlem Renaissance had on furthering black society in America. Rather than discuss the impact of the Renaissance or how average Joe Black viewed the writings and artwork of those famous for the Renaissance, Johnson discusses the careers and lives of the select few who are notable during this time period. While this was obviously his case on the outset of this essay, it still brings up the question of impact. Was the Renaissance really about black society uprising, or was it more about the 20 or so people who are now remembered as playing a part in it? As we finish this class, I sadly am beginning to think it is more of the latter. This is particularly evident as we read some of the later essays by Du Bois, Washington and even McKay that deal almost solely with themselves and their opinions rather than the facts of action and life of blacks in America. Although the literati did a good job of maintaining the ostensible role of voices for societal change, I think that they sold out fairly early on in the Renaissance. This is probably why the Renaissance died out before it probably should have, and why there was not a lot of change in society until Rosa Parks and her lot began to actually do something about segregation thirty and forty years later.
The last part of this essay discusses briefly the books of black writers, and it brought me on a bit of a quest to find one black author in today’s world who does not write about black this and that. I read a lot of science fiction, thrillers, and drama, and not one of the authors I am familiar with is black. Interestingly, only one of the 20 or so authors that I religiously follow is anything other than a white man – women seem to be just as ostracized in popular fiction. A Google search for any black science fiction writers resulted in only one name that I am familiar with, Octavia Butler, who I consider to be a disastrously bad writer. I read Kindred by her (a horrible, head-ache inducing experience marked by the fiery desire to see all of her one-dimensional, pointless and hateable characters burn in Hell), and while it barely qualifies as science fiction (I would judge it to be more of a dark fantasy), it still is entirely about black society and culture. Indeed, I could not find one single black writer of science fiction whose novels do not in some way deal with racial issues. So I wonder, then, how far have we really come with regards to integration of the races? If a black man had written Foundation, would it have been taken as seriously as it had since Asimov wrote it? I honestly do not have an answer, and that is somewhat depressing.
This article makes me wonder about the actual relevance the Harlem Renaissance had on furthering black society in America. Rather than discuss the impact of the Renaissance or how average Joe Black viewed the writings and artwork of those famous for the Renaissance, Johnson discusses the careers and lives of the select few who are notable during this time period. While this was obviously his case on the outset of this essay, it still brings up the question of impact. Was the Renaissance really about black society uprising, or was it more about the 20 or so people who are now remembered as playing a part in it? As we finish this class, I sadly am beginning to think it is more of the latter. This is particularly evident as we read some of the later essays by Du Bois, Washington and even McKay that deal almost solely with themselves and their opinions rather than the facts of action and life of blacks in America. Although the literati did a good job of maintaining the ostensible role of voices for societal change, I think that they sold out fairly early on in the Renaissance. This is probably why the Renaissance died out before it probably should have, and why there was not a lot of change in society until Rosa Parks and her lot began to actually do something about segregation thirty and forty years later.
The last part of this essay discusses briefly the books of black writers, and it brought me on a bit of a quest to find one black author in today’s world who does not write about black this and that. I read a lot of science fiction, thrillers, and drama, and not one of the authors I am familiar with is black. Interestingly, only one of the 20 or so authors that I religiously follow is anything other than a white man – women seem to be just as ostracized in popular fiction. A Google search for any black science fiction writers resulted in only one name that I am familiar with, Octavia Butler, who I consider to be a disastrously bad writer. I read Kindred by her (a horrible, head-ache inducing experience marked by the fiery desire to see all of her one-dimensional, pointless and hateable characters burn in Hell), and while it barely qualifies as science fiction (I would judge it to be more of a dark fantasy), it still is entirely about black society and culture. Indeed, I could not find one single black writer of science fiction whose novels do not in some way deal with racial issues. So I wonder, then, how far have we really come with regards to integration of the races? If a black man had written Foundation, would it have been taken as seriously as it had since Asimov wrote it? I honestly do not have an answer, and that is somewhat depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
