When the Painting Is Provocative but the Museum Is Cautious

Jul 16, 2018 · 55 comments
Wanda (Houston )
I've had the good fortune to both see this painting and have the artist critique my work. The painting is massive -- it took the entire long wall of a Houston gallery. Several artist friends and I viewed it together and were all immediately struck by it. By using black and white paint and to depict the KKK in hoods, it first strikes you as a very impactful historical painting. Then you notice the hooded baby, this disturbs you, hate teaching hate to the children. Then you notice the cell phone and it takes your breathe away- you almost feel the hate still happening in our midst. I'm glad a museum has purchased this powerful piece because it should be viewed by many.
mr.d (Illinois )
I'm wondering whether Mr. Linder of the local NAACP, being upset regarding the so-called lack of courtesy of not being told of the painting, had thoughts regarding Mr. Valdez's series "The Strangest Fruit" depicting lynched Mexican-American men, especially some recognition that the Klan targeted and killed others in addition to African-Americans.
SLD (California)
I think it's a very powerful painting that truly reflects the world we live in. The Klan IS still around, stirring up hate and bigotry. I lived in Austin for years and though UT, Blanton and many other people and organizations are liberal, the state of Texas on the whole is still stuck in the past and chooses to be very conservative. The way the museum ignored the Black community's input is very indicative of the racism that still exists in that state.
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
Art imitates life, not vice versa.
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
Evil spirits, Boogie Men, they exist in all manner of visage.Some to frighten small children, others to terrify grown adults. Would you prohibit Hitler or Mussolini from being displayed touring piles of corpses? Or a tree with a noose around a shadowed body hanging from it in the distance surrounded by burning crosses? In Seduction of the Innocent comics were banned from such morbidity which ironically thrives ever more so in today;s comics. Many not rated appropriately as well as in video games. So why ban what your own children are seeing? Therein lies the basis for contention.
Alyson Reed (Washington, DC)
According to the curator, "It would be as if we had acquired it for a political statement, or the artist had painted it for a political statement,” Ms. Wicha explained. How could the painting or purchase of this work NOT be a political statement?
Matthew (New Jersey)
All art is political. It is entirely unavoidable. It reflects us and matters that are relevant in some way or other. Even that seemingly innocent painting of flowers in a vase.
barbara jackson (adrian mi)
@Alyson Reed I'd be more inclined to call it a warning . . .it doesn't go away because you bury it, but it would more likely die in the sunshine.
nancy (vancouver bc)
Looking at the painting brought up feelings of horror and revulsion. So it certainly works.
Dr--Bob (Pittsburgh, PA)
The painful reality of contemporary America.
Jeff P (Washington)
It is really difficult, actually impossible, to fully realize this painting without seeing it in person. Reproductions, especially online, are only approximations of the real thing. Nevertheless, I formed a reaction based on the computer screen image and it is not sympathetic to the artist's stated interpretation. Rather, I see the hooded figures depicted as being victimized, hunted like deer being spotlighted. Their dark shallow eye sockets seem to be crying: why us? The one figure holding the baby reinforces the idea that they are only trying to protect their own... a notion that all people of feeling, endorse. The meaning of a work of art must be left to the individual. That concept is at the heart of what constitutes something to be called art. The efforts of the museum to guide the viewer are actually counter to the institution's purpose. They can enable discussions, certainly, but once displayed a work is open for interpretation. And no one's opinion, including that of the artist, supersedes that of another. That said, I really hope that if I were to view this painting myself, in person, my reaction would be different. Because I believe that the KKK is an immoral group and idea that has no place in America. Any justification of it's presence here is equally immoral and wrong.
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
@Jeff P Well said. Fear itself too, is in the eyes of the beholder. Each picture really can tell a different story depending on the viewer.
Rick (NY)
The museum did not contact the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People until the display was already set. That hardly seems like a casual oversight. They wanted a controversial exhibit. At least be honest about it.
JVG (San Rafael)
This shows the power of art. I think many of us are shocked by how widespread racial hatred is in the US. The election of Barack Obama and then Donald Trump unmasked it. Vincent Valdez provided us a way to look it squarely in the face. We have a lot of work to do. Thank you to him and the museum for making this masterful artwork available to a wide audience.
Barbara Kunkel (Harrington, ME)
Very captivating. I would love to see this artwork close up. It seems the shorter figure in the front center, with a tiny wrist, sadly, might be a woman.
ChesBay (Maryland)
Put a sign on it, naming it "Perverted Halloween," OR nail it to a wooden cross, and set it on fire.
Thomas Nagano (Los Angeles)
Should be installed with Kienholz's "Five Car Stud." Now that would be a statement. TK
David (Joysee)
Running an institution, it is easy to see how communication can be muffed. I don't know entirety of Mr. Linder's comments, but as presented in story it sounded like he completely overlooked that Mr. Valdez is also addressing lynching of Mexicans. I'm perfectly happy to have a Mexican American artist representing cruel white perfidy, which is embarrassing, but consequential stupidity. I wasn't consulted but i don't mind. Artists live in this world and should only ask permission if they are commissioned.
Cone (Maryland)
This painting fits right into our confused political world by coming on the heels of our first Black President and into a world in which, should one of the hooded clansmen be unmasked, we would fine the face of Trump.
CTgal (CT)
I think it might be helpful to title the painting something like "A Gathering of Evil". instead of “The City I,” Thus people would know the intent of the artist and not see it as an idealized tribute.
AG (Mass)
Do you think Picasso asked for all the groups to give their comments before he painted Guernica. If he had he would never have painted it.
James Moore (Toronto, ONT, Canada)
It would have been gracious of the Artist to invite the N.A.A.C.P to view the painting, but I'm thankful that Picasso didn't have to submit "Guernica" for review by committee prior to displaying. Strong possibility it might have disturbed as it was meant to do. I see a similar dynamic here.
SLD (California)
@James Moore Once the museum purchased this painting, it is out of the artist's control
Jamie Bronstein (Las Cruces NM)
Nobody can control how anyone will react to any piece of art. That's not a reason for censoring it.
dolly patterson (silicon valley)
I hope some of Texas's fundamentalists and Evangelicals see this painting!
sm (new york)
As usual , Americans over think the meaning of a piece of art . Have we become too sensitized to offend or glorification of the subject matter ? It is a piece of art that portrays what still exists , the KKK still meets outside of Houston and other areas , or shall we deny a fact . Those who would be offended then should not go view it .
Vuor (.)
Times: "Staff members consulted with more than 100 individuals and organizations, ..." Valdez: "There are people in the United States of America who refuse to acknowledge that entities like the Klan exist". AFAICT, no one from the Klan was "consulted", so Valdez is right. The Times and the Blanton "refuse to acknowledge that entities like the Klan exist".
manfred marcus (Bolivia)
Although several interpretations may be possible, it is important to keep reminding us the dangers, and stupidity, of a 'hate group'. They ought not have a place in any society; not now, not ever. And their depiction in "The City I" shall do that, hopefully.
John MD (NJ)
The figures seem to be timid and cowardly. Huddling together for support as if the were aware of the ignorance and vileness of their belief, awaiting the crush of society's distain. Would that it were so.
MarathonRunner (US)
Would Christians have the same reaction of a painting of the suffering/crucifixion of Jesus? They would probably be in awe of the event and understand that it's an artistic rendering of a historical event.
David (Austin, Texas)
I agree with an earlier post: "The evil is displayed." I think the evil is displayed and is not glorified. With proper contextualizing materials (comments from the artist looping on a video and printed comments from the curator), I think it is a worthwhile display, which should send a shudder down anyone's spine. There is evil in the world. We need to fear it and to starve it to death. Eventually we will. In the end, Good wins. I also agree that, of course, leaders of the African American community should have been consulted from the beginning. That they were not, is shameful.
Son Of Liberty (nyc)
My only objection to the this painting is that it should be called "Trump's fine people," since that's what we all know it's about.
Norbert (Ohio)
Both technically and conceptually, this particular painting isn't really noteworthy historically. It breaks no new ground, reads like a comic novel, and is only impressive in terms of its heroic scale. Why was it painted so large? To what end does the scale serve to arouse such emotion? Would it be noteworthy to UT if it were 18" x 24" for instance. The subject matter is everyday ness of hate, and it is handled rather in a rather banal, grissaile-like underpainting. This painting is neither arousing nor a masterwork. It is large. If it were small in size I think its impact would be even flatter than it is now. What we saw in Charlottesville was un varnished and better serves Mr. Valdez's point. I'm afraid the Blanton missed the mark here. This is no Guernica, no 3rd of May. Yawn.
ponchgal (LA)
Have you stood in its presence? Just askin'.
Andrew Porter (Brooklyn Heights)
@Norbert So it should be smaller? How much smaller? From your comment, I think you would only be happy if it was the size of a postage stamp. Think on the size of most famous paintings. They are often life-size or even larger, emphasizing their impact on the viewer.
Nancy (Great Neck)
I would avoid a museum that displayed such a painting. Even the photograph in this article is too frightening for me and I would never want a child to see such a photograph or painting.
Ambroisine (New York)
I appreciate your wanting to shield yourself and any children in your care. But what do watch at the movies, on TV? If this painting needs to come with a label that warns viewers that it may elicit strong emotions, shouldn't museums that display paintings of the Crucifixion issue the same warnings? Let alone Saint Catherine at the Wheel, and Saint Sebastian? Shouldn't Madame Tussauds. There are false standards at work here, I think.
David (Joysee)
@Ambroisine...I would prefer it if arts organizations warned me the work did not provoke strong emotions so I can save my time and money
Sally Eckhoff (Philadelphia, PA)
@Nancy Then you'd better clean out the library in your kid's school. In my second-grade classroom, a book containing a photograph of a partially-unwrapped mummy seized my imagination. His face was permanently clamped in the rictus of death—a silent scream. Many kids understand that there is a dark side to life, and they appreciate the truth.
Vuor (.)
'... Mr. Valdez said he hoped his painting, titled “The City I,” would remind viewers that the Klan cannot be safely relegated to the past.' 'Edmund T. Gordon ... “That’s not how I see it, and that’s not how the Blanton is trying to have it be understood.”' Those statements perpetuate the myth that art must be "explained" and that there is a "correct" interpretation. Gordon is a bit more nuanced, but he seems to be trying to discredit the "glorification of the Klan" interpretation. With a higher resolution image of the painting, it might be possible to debate that based on what is *actually on the canvas*. The Blanton should put a high resolution image of the painting online. The Blanton web site has images, but they are nowhere near high resolution. The image viewer is horrible. It doesn't allow zooming, and a block of text pops up whenever the pointer is moved over the image. There is no way to display a full screen image of the painting.
Greg (Long Island)
We do need a reminder that this horror still does exist. Art shocks and awakens us. This work achieves that goal. Kudos to the Blanton.
Kate (Vancouver)
Completely agree!
ChesBay (Maryland)
Greg--You have a point.
Hedd Wynn (Heaven)
You mean securities new blue blazers did not quell the NAACP? I am shocked, yes SHOCKED. I see nothing in the painting a klan member would object to, except perhaps the make of the pickup truck. Personally, I would invite Laszlo Toth to the exhibit.
Vuor (.)
"... except perhaps the make of the pickup truck." Why would they object to "the make of the pickup truck"?
Hedd Wynn (Heaven)
@Vuor Oh they love Ford over Chevy? Dodge over all else?
Mike (Middle Coast)
Subtle but effective. Love it!
James Conner (Northwestern Montana)
As a university student in Houston in the sixties, I had to cross a KKK picket line (no white sheets, just large signs hiding their faces) to attend a lecture on campus. Mr. Valedez's painting not only reminds me of that day a half century ago, it sends chills down my spine. It does not glorify the KKK. Rather, it reveals the KKK's evil with eye-jolting clarity.
Vuor (.)
"... I had to cross a KKK picket line ..." You left out some important details. Why were they picketing and what happened when you crossed their "line"?
Jason Owens (Denver)
“Something like this, not to call the N.A.A.C.P. is fairly ridiculous,” Mr. Linder said. “Out of courtesy, they should have let us take a look at it.” ... This is the statement of someone who desires the power to censor art.
Alistair (VA)
It's a painting....albeit one I think is in bad taste. I would not go to see it and think the Blanton's money would have been better spent elsewhere than building a gallery to house this one work. Open the doors, let people see it if they want to. I'm a liberal who firmly believes we should embrace the right to free speech; I also embrace the right to not go to see this or listen to those who are going to scream their indigence.
Vuor (.)
"... one I think is in bad taste." Why is it "in bad taste"? What art would be in good taste?
Jean (Vancouver)
@Alistair ?? "... those who are going to scream their indigence''. Why do you expect the poor to be screaming about this?
Matthew (New Jersey)
Why bad taste? Can you elaborate on that? Can you write a few sentences and explain in detail so we can understand your thoughts? Please?
Radical Inquiry (World Government)
This is funny. What happened to freedom of speech and the respect for what people do, short of crime? This coddling of people for whom getting offended is their "schtick" (if I have spelled that Yiddish word correctly, and I don't think I have) is exactly the wrong approach. Live and let live. Do your thing. If you don't like something, don't participate. This is not complicated. If the NAACP head would have painted differently, why, give him/her a brush! A painter is not responsible for how people react to a painting. Take responsibility for your own reactions! OMG. And, think for yourself?