Messy Thoughts of Obligation
After our most recent readings in class, something I've been thinking about recently is the perceived obligation of black writers/artists to make work centered around and exploring racial issues. In "The World and the Jug," Ellison says that Howe thinks "unrelieved suffering is the only 'real' Negro experience, and that the true Negro writer must be ferocious." Ellison views this as ignorant and short-sighted, and says that the ability to "deflect racial provocation and to master and contain pain" is also part of being an African American. Howe is a white man, and speaks on the black experience like he has authority over what is and isn't adequately black. As critics ourselves, we immediately view this action as ignorant in the same way that Ellison does. At the same time, when similar arguments are provided by black writers/artists, they are given much more room for contemplative thought. For example, the poem "To the Pale Poets" is a confrontation to other poets who's work's subject matter is deemed unimportant by Ray Durem. Durem says "You deal with finer feelings, very subtle--an autumn leaf hanging from a tree--I see a body!" I view this as a callout, basically saying "look at the atrocities going on around you, how could you write of anything else?" In my opinion, Durem and Howe are remarkably similar. While Howe's whiteness makes him less qualified to speak on the matter, and thus more abrasive, both writers are aggravating to me. I've heard views like these, that black work needs to be about black pain, in my personal life from some of my own mentor figures for a long time, and it has always been frustrating to hear. This view is limiting, and arguably ignorant in some cases. To require all black work to be centered around black pain is to remove all space in the creative world for black joy, or even black indifference, both deserve the space to exist. Beyond this, to require all black work to deal with blackness in any sense is limiting. I was once told that as a black artist, anything I produce will be "black work," and this frustrated me. Why couldn't my creations be just that, simply "work" without the label, without the box? I understand the argument of "if you have a platform, use it," and while I wholeheartedly agree, I think that black writers/artists/dancers/etc should be given the space to just create, and have their work be viewed with the same blank slate as white creators' work without the label of "black" plastered all over it beforehand.
Now, I realize that what I'm describing is a freedom that white creators get because of their privilege, and that part of the reason these limitations are made is because we are oppressed, and until that oppression ends, the label can never be fully lifted. That being said, I think the writers/artists that choose to deal with themes of oppression should have the freedom to do so however they choose, and the writers/artists who don't should have the freedom to choose not to. I've personally started seeing those themes as more compelling than non-related ones, and I think anyone dealing with similar forms of oppression should feel the same, though by no means do I view it as an obligation that should be forced upon them.
I like that in your blog, you connect a personal experience to the topic you're talking about - the expression of black art. I think that by inserting yourself in your blog, you allow the reader to understand the point you are trying to get across even better. As it relates to your own experience, I do agree with the fact that there's more to black people than hate and anger. I don't know how to respond to your frustration of your work being automatically labelled as black. Moreso, I don't understand your frustration...
ReplyDeleteYou're right that Durem in his poem is making a very similar argument to Howe's, suggesting that a Black artist has a direct responsibility to respond to the atrocities of racism and to "protest" through their art, and a number of the poems we've looked at this semester seem to reflect this sense of responsibility. Ellison is in a very strong position when he smacks down Howe in his response, and he clearly seems to be enjoying himself as he takes exception to this white critic telling him his writing is not "angry enough." But similar critiques were made of Ellison's work in the 1960s by Amiri Baraka and other members of the Black Arts Movement, and indeed Ellison did not take part publicly in civil-rights protests, saying that anyone who'd read his work would know where he stands. And yet it is odd for Ellison to become a poster-boy for politically disengaged, racially neutral art, as _Invisible Man_ is obsessed with race and identity on virtually every one of its 581 pages. There is "anger" in this portrait, but also a range of other responses to the absurdities created by the American racial regime--ironic humor among them. And it does conclude with the narrator seeming to advocate "dropping out" of society, refusing to engage in politics and racial conflict and protest and instead focusing on the personal search for identity *apart from* these political contexts. You can see how this individual focus might have seemed out of step with the black-power consciousness of the late 1960s and 1970s.
ReplyDelete