Black Student ‘Lynches’ Two White Guys, Calls It Art

An African-American student at Sacramento State University is under fire for her recent work of art – which consisted of “lynching” two white men from a tree on the northern California campus.

Here we go with a black student “lynching” two white men and where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton protesting this so called art work. How could anyone in their right mind consider this art? There was a time in US history when such things were done to black people by white people but I don't believe it was considered art.

“The purpose of this performance was to bring to light social injustices and the issue of inequality that impacts me and my community as a whole,” Edwards said.

Social injustices abound globally and personally I cannot see where a "lynching" brings this to light.

University President Alexander Gonzalez released this statement saying, in part: “The university did not approve the display, and I want to assure everyone that I am working to address the multiple issues raised by this incident.”

Looks like the university doesn't see it Christina Edwards way either.

What say you ATS?

Source

Mods if already posted please delete.

nm

She killed two men and called it art?

ETA: Okay, I'm a little miffed by the fact that you chose to quote every part of the article EXCEPT the part that made it clear the guys were unharmed and simply assistants in the demonstration. You made it sound as though she actually killed them by omitting the one section that stated the opposite. Yellow journalism much? This is why we avoid FOX, man.

You won't be seeing Al Sharpton speak out about this either. We can all just save time by not looking for it.

Things like this keep racism alive and well on ALL sides of the fence. It's just never allowed to die a silent death. Something is constantly done (on both sides) to keep the pot stirred and near to boiling at all times.

"A House Divided Can Not Stand" and that means we are our own worst enemy when it comes to being the change we want to see in the world today. If we stop poking one side with a stick and stop reacting to being poked with the same stick we might actually get somewhere.

I do think the campus should have made the artist remove her "art" because it would not have been allowed to stand if it had been any other race besides "white". They allowed their campus to promote racial shiiite stirring plain and simple. The rules should be the same for everyone. It was definitely done in bad taste but she has been recognized for it when the media should have let it wither and die.

From your link:

Edwards says she chose to illustrate this time in history by using race reversal, in an effort to shine new light on an old but standing matter.

"standing matter"? Is there a lot of lynching going on today?

I am not sure of her age, but I think she didn't live through a period of American history where lynchings of people did occur.

Her work is meant to be incendiary, she shouldn't have done it.

AfterInfinity
She killed two men and called it art?

From the link in the OP:

The men were reportedly actors and were in no real danger during the project, which took place during the day in early December while students were on campus. The men were hung from a tree with a thick rope.

No one was harmed... physically.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


No, the men were not killed. They were actors and it was staged. Which does not matter, you don't even stage a lynching let alone call it art.

Sorry, but too many people have died for his right to do this. To me, it's as simple as that. Plus, it obviously has given him the attention that he desires.

Issues of race rarely get my attention except when it comes to a negative level. Years ago, I might have stated that this artist may be trying to induce some sort of violence, but now, I'm thinking his work might just be an introspective piece.

You must have to be American to be outraged by this coz to me it seems harmless.

I think its safe to assume it wasnt a genuine lynching and the 2 white guys were willing participants.
People do all sorts of crazy crap and call it art.
I think its just PC BS to get upset about it.

Just my 2 cents, no lynching necessary

reply to post by pstrron

It's a bit lacking in originality, but it is art. Often art is provocative and the fact that we're talking about it proves that artist knew how to strike a chord.

LoL! I find most performance art to be nonsensical, over-dramatic and often offensive ...so what else is new under the sun? And posting it far and wide on the web only furthers the spectacle...why feed it?

It must be art because we don't get it.
In other news: most art in modern arts is near-incomprehensible.

Arts one and only job: to produce curiosity. This worked out. I don't like it, either, but see - that just doesn't matter.

That's "art" to us.

kosmicjack
LoL! I find most performance art to be nonsensical, over-dramatic and often offensive ...so what else is new under the sun? And posting it far and wide on the web only furthers the spectacle...why feed it?

I agree entirely.

Making a huge stink about it, only increases the size of it's profile, both online and RL.

It's very tasteless, but I don't consider it racist or anything like that, it is just art, somebody's interpretation of it anyway.

~Tenth

So if he really would have lynched two white guys what would the total of black folks lynched vs white folks lynched be now? Poor white people you are so victimized.

reply to post by pstrron


I don't see the artists point I guess. White people were hung all the time back in the day. From the Salem witch trials to whites that sympathized the blacks in the 1800's. Any white helping with the underground rail road or anybody that was just a nuisance. Yeah white people hung black people and white people hung white people. Placerville California is named Hangtown from its history during the wild west. California Penal System on more than one occasion has reported blacks hanging whites. To me it's just somebody expressing something that might bug them more than most. The past is the past, let it be.

This person is a racist, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with inequality and everything to do with her racist agenda.

One of the qualities of art—and what makes art art—is that it is provocative. Not all art, of course, because there are different types of art, but art challenges what we hold dear, sacred, our social and cultural norms, and it seeks to disrupt, to shake people into a different way of thinking, and to turn things around.

If this was done purely as a shock piece, that's one thing (and still not unacceptable), but if it was done to consciously show the mirror image of racism, to swap the victim in order to create a desired effect to people who might not otherwise see or feel such a thing, I don't have a problem with it, nor am I offended.

Tasteless? Meh, well, people find a lot of things tasteless, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

And that's what some art does (and is meant to do): challenges, provokes, disrupts. Turns things around.

What about the cross in the jar of urine?

Would it be offensive for art to show a gas chamber with a star of David on it, or a pile of naked bodies next to a furnace...

And for the record, lynching is not restricted to just hanging. It involves killing in whichever method.

ManFromEurope
It must be art because we don't get it.
In other news: most art in modern arts is near-incomprehensible.

Arts one and only job: to produce curiosity. This worked out. I don't like it, either, but see - that just doesn't matter.

That's "art" to us.

That's a $140 million dollar Jackson Pollock and to me it kinda looks like the mat under the paint mixer at the local hardware store to me

dupe post

reply to post by pstrron


No wonder the internet makes me depressed.