graphic by me.

Museum Curator forced to resign
over “toxic white supremacist beliefs”!

Gary Garrels was the curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Art. After a presentation about the acquisition of works by artists of color, Garrels had the temerity to utter, “Don’t worry, we will definitely still continue to collect white artists.”

At an earlier panel, after the moderator had stated, “some people would say you just have to stop collecting men for a while” he offensively argued, “I just don’t agree with that. That’s an alternative, different kind of profiling.”

Still worse, he has boldly asserted, “To say that we will not collect another white artist, I absolutely do not agree with,” and callied it “reverse discrimination.”

After Garrel’s most recent case of presuming to defend white males [who need no defense, obviously] employees at the museum produced a petition demanding his immediate dismissal. It went a little something like this:

“Gary’s removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable… Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?”

and

“As Senior Curator, he represents the museum in tone and content. Through actions and words, Gary has been obtuse (at best) to the point of offense or deliberately racist (at worst) in his retorts to criticism… Amongst SFMOMA staff as well as in public view, Gary has used and continued to use white supremacist and racist language such as ‘reverse racism.'”

Its wasn’t just museum workers who were appalled by Garrel’s stunning bigotry, the director of the museum and the chief curator clarified their opposition to his statements:

“They are out of sync with the difficult and absolutely essential work that we are currently doing across the organization, and within the Curatorial Division, toward a more equitable museum.

The museum of today doesn’t just showcase the best art, its much more difficult and essential task is to create equity in the museum. Equity is distinct from equality in that the latter still hints at the discredited notion of meritocracy — with equal opportunity, which is no guarantee — whereas equity insures equal representation within the museum space. While equality could stop at not excluding anyone based on race, etc., equity goes much further by insuring that the museum features the art of the people with the desired DNA…

Additionally, when choosing art from among those who do not belong to the white majority, it is best to select artworks which promote the values of inclusivity, equity, tolerance, and anti-racism.

While Garrels may have championed the works of people of color (Kara Walker, Doris Salcedo, Kerry James Marshall, and Glenn Ligon], and sold off a Mark Rothko painting to buy the work of non-white males, this doesn’t excuse his heinous reluctance to shut out white male artists completely. Garrels apparently saw the grotesque error of his ways and apologized, especially for using the phrase “reverse discrimination”, of which there is no such thing possible.

“I want to offer my personal and sincere apology to every one of you. I realized almost as soon as I used the term ‘reverse discrimination’ that this is an offensive term and was an extremely poor choice of words on my part. I am very sorry at how upsetting these words were to many staff.”

He also wrote in a letter:

“I do not believe I have ever said that it is important to collect the art of white men. I have said that it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of white men… I believe that true diversity and the fight for real and meaningful equality is the important battle of our time. I will contribute what I can in any way that I can to reach this goal… I realize in the current climate, I can no longer effectively work at SFMOMA”

William Holman Hunt: The Scapegoat, 1854.

How dare he suggest that white male artists not be absolutely excluded from being collected by the museum! How dare he assert such a policy “discriminates” against white males, or insinuate that continuing to collect the work of their biological group is in any way, or to any degree “important”!

Garrels’s reluctance to categorically eliminate candidates due to their race, if they happen to be white, is a clear-cut case of toxic white supremacy, and some are wondering if the consequences have been too lenient.

While we can all agree that art is important in society, especially for an art museum, in our time the goal of overcoming bigotry takes precedence, and the best way to achieve that is to showcase the artwork of women and brown-skinned people, and as much as possible to minimize the presence and representation of white men in the art world.

While some may still maintain that we should judge art by what we see, looking at art is overrated when it comes to visual art, and in today’s world it is much more relevant to consider who authored the piece and the context of how it functions socially. Does the work reflect the right voice with the right sociopolitical message in line with a progressive cultural revolution? Or does it merely uphold the status quo, or is it even worse, the kind of degenerate or pernicious work white males are prone to hashing out?

We must stand up against hatred, racism, and discrimination of all kinds, directed at anyone and everyone, no matter who they are, and we must promote and empower all peoples and cultures!*


~ Ends

*with the exception of white men, "whiteness", and western culture.

Or not.

21 replies on “No Country for White Artists?

    1. I don´t understand, which human has “equal opportunity”? White and white are not equal, blacks and blacks are not equal, gays and gays are not equal, so who in the world would have the same opportunity for your so called “equal”? Not me for sure, and I don´t want to be equal to anybody I want to be me, a individual that makes the right choices to better myself and my family.
      Sorry Eric to comment in this particular subject, but I think is good to discuss things in a civil matter.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Good point. Equality and equal opportunity are impossible. And if we were all equal and had equal opportunity, we’d be clones of each other. I can understand, of course, why people want to make up for grotesque inequality, and for things to be more fair. A compassionate person would want everyone to have a good chance at a decent life, and the odds are certainly better for everyone than they were a hundred years ago. But forcing equality by cutting some people down so everyone is even is a bad idea, because than nobody can excel at anything (or fail). If it wasn’t obvious, I was being extremely sarcastic in this article. I think the pictures should make that apparent.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. I would recommend that artists who want to draw or paint, or anything along those lines, especially if they are not one of the noble, authentic, and deserving races, major in illustration and not fine art, if they are going to brave what was formerly known as college. Then they will get an abundance of skills, both analogue and digital, and there should be ample opportunities for them to make a living. Their still may be political indoctrination, but much, much less so than in contemporary fine art, where they need not apply.

      That said, if they are self-motivated they could learn everything online while working a job.

      I am quite familiar with John McWhorter. He is, along with Glenn Loury and other black intellectuals and professors, considered a traitor to the cause among the intelligentsia of the revolution.

      Daily Wire is a good antidote to the ridiculousness of the far left agenda, but as is customary with conservatives they are science deniers when it comes to COVID-19 and climate change. Both sides of the political spectrum prefer their own narratives to reality. I prefer the so-called “intellectual dark web” — includes such people Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, and Jordan Peterson — who don’t fall for either the social justice brainwashing of the left or the pandering to big business (especially oil), and catering to the 0.1% of the right. it’s the next level up of discussion. They’d probably welcome McWhorter if he’s not already a member.

      Oh, just looked it up. “Glenn Loury and John McWhorter … identified themselves as the “black wing of the Intellectual Dark Web”. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/intellectual-dark-web-members-united-views-inequality/

      I like Matt Walsh on The Daily Wire on some things — not his saying a guy who refused to wear a mask is a hero — but a couple of the other guys always telling me that I have to vote for Trump. That’s the problem with your average conservative or liberal: they are working for getting one corrupt candidate or the other into office, and have a tendency to therefor be the tool of either party. I like a little more independent thought that can go against the party line, and doesn’t need to reject science when it’s inconvenient for the bottom line of their agenda (a.k.a. ulterior motives).

      That said, The Daily Wire is leading the pack on dismantling the radical left narrative of the race of evil white troglodytes whose culture must be eradicated by any and all means necessary.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. On DW, Michael Knowles loves Trump and defends his every tweet and it makes me laugh.

        Andrew Klavan is sort of in the middle, doesn’t love Trump’s character, but thinks his brawling skills are useful.

        Ben Shapiro can hardly stand Trump and was in dismay and disbelief when he was elected President, and regularly criticizes everything he says and does. This is why I started listening to Ben Shapiro: his reaction to the 2016 election was pretty much like mine. He is also not a science denier. He has had a very nuanced taken on Covid and has generally gone with the scientific consensus when there has been one. He has also helped interpret statistics, which are regularly misused.

        Matt Walsh is a complete curmudgeon. Some days his grumpiness makes me laugh, but I don’t listen to him every day. I did love him for saying that when the pope smacked that lady’s hand, it was the first thing this pope had done that Walsh approved of. 😀

        Have a great day!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Nice breakdown, Jennifer. Yeah, I can’t watch Knwoles, and Klavan gets on my nerves. I like Matt Walsh because he has a way of being really clear in his analysis, which is less pleasant when I don’t agree with him.

          Ben, of course, talks so fast I think the video is on 1.5 speed or something, and his rapid-fire analysis is very persuasive most of the time. Didn’t know he didn’t like Trump and isn’t a science denier. I also read he’s a part of the “dark intellectual web”. Now I know why.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. My son wants to go to art school. It will be insufferable. I told him to take classes online instead. The museums are going to implode under the weight of these internal conflicts. They will end up censoring themselves until there is nothing left but tame pottery. The “art world” continues to tire me. It is best to avoid it and go your own way. That’s what the internet is for and social media.

    Like

    1. You may be right. There is still the option of majoring in illustration, which at least up until now focuses on hard skills and doesn’t subordinate art to politics and social revolution. But college is expensive. One could learn better and cheaper by taking online courses while working a job. One could even do it for free. However, it can be difficult to have the discipline to slog through all the exercises necessary to acquire a consummate level of skill, so it depends how self-motivated and disciplined one is.

      I recommend Schoolism.com for learning art cheaply. You can take any of their classes for a $30 a month subscription. If you want feedback from the instructor, then you have to pay hundreds of dollars, but you can watch all the videos and do all the tutorials for any of their classes for that flat fee. I did one of them, and I learned a lot. They are high quality taught by leading professionals. However, it’s not conceptual art. It’s drawing, painting, and digital art.

      I’m sure on the extreme end, one could even learn everything one needs to know for free, and do it using free programs. However, shelling out a little money to guarantee quality is going to make it easier. I went to art school, and while I did quite well as an undergrad, my grad school was of the radical political bent, and it destroyed my career and nearly ruined my life.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I’m all for equal opportunity and meritocracy. What seems to be happening now, in so many spheres, is disgusting. I would be embarrassed to be exhibited or employed etc. purely because of some quality of my identity rather than because of the quality of my work. People should be given opportunities to prove themselves, then it’s up to them to actually do that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Janice:

      Gary Garrels was, if we step back and look objectively, standing up for what he thought was morally right. He wasn’t willing to perpetuate an injustice in the very present in the name of combating an ostensible historical injustice. This is why people were so angry and doubled down on their accusations. This is how not being willing to completely shut out white male artists became tantamount to excluding POC entirely, hence the accusation of “toxic white supremacy”. It was anything but. A refusal to exclude a group of people entirely as undeserving, while already drastically limiting their opportunity, does not constitute elevating them to even an equal status, let alone anything approaching supremacy. It’s merely not bending over backwards 100%. It’s not enough to be totally for POC, he must be against white males, or else!

      Your idea of meritocracy is by far the easiest, most logical, and fairest solution. If we try to compensate for prior centuries by instituting bias, we create an unfair system that merely punishes a different sector of the population. Unfairness, privilege, and resentment are then encouraged as a compensatory good, and astronomically more often than not those who now get the short end of the stick never experienced getting the long end in the past. The pendulum of bias and forced inequality thus swings perpetually, and practicing true justice is something we can only get to in the distant future after “equity” is reached. Those who suffer in the interim are presumed necessary sacrifices to the good of the greater cause.

      Along with keeping bias and prejudice alive in order to achieve equity, we must also continue with biological determinism and tribalism, such that we insist on defining people by their DNA at birth, rather than by their minds, which are infinitely more important, and happen to be shapeless and colorless.

      Or we can have justice right now by ceasing to practice bias and discrimination based on biology, etc. That doesn’t mean we can’t help people who need it, out of compassion. If one has an appreciation of life, it’s intolerable to some degree to countenance that other people don’t even have a fighting chance, when that is the case. It’s the punitive measures practiced on innocent people in the name of the good that should cause cognitive dissonance.

      Judge the artist by the art, and not the other way around. Otherwise we will crush some of our best artists because of the DNA of their parents. And by all means, remove any prejudice against POC and women!

      But let’s do stop justifying prejudice and oppression as noble when used against certain people based on their biology. That’s cruel and hateful no matter who does it to who. We don’t seek to punish innocent people out of the goodness of our hearts.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I agree. It’s disturbing how being inclusive and trying to make up for lack of representation of some groups seems to be turning into exclusion, prejudice and punishment of others. As far as I am concerned merit should always be the defining factor in such matters, merit that is earned via equal opportunities. Garrels seems to have been doing that and punished for not excluding on the basis of identity, which is exactly the sort of thing efforts towards diversity and inclusion were supposed to avoid.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I had been staying quiet for quite some time in a number of contexts exactly because of this. I get the impression I am far from alone though and I don’t feel I can stand staying quiet anymore.

        It all started to get too much when I recommended a book to someone and was told they wouldn’t read it because it was by a straight white man and that I should be more interested in reading more diverse authors. By diverse they meant specifically in terms of identity rather than in terms of perspective, in fact I got the impression diversity of perspective was offensive to them, along with straight white men. I find this kind of attitude appalling, along with the suggestion that all straight white men are to be brushed aside in favour of others on the basis of nothing more than identity. I had thought that we were past that kind of bigotry as a culture, but apparently not.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That all sounds right to me. Yes, I agree, diversity means the exact same belief system and conclusions practiced by people with different bodies. Further, the notion that “identity” is determined by biology is going in reverse while flooring the gas, in which case “identity politics” is the business of sacrificing individual identity to group identity: it is “dis-identity politics” because one is robbed of one’s individuality.

          The movement is a lot like anti-art: it’s a reaction against something (white people, America, Western culture, capitalism), and it has some good points, but rather than amend that which it is criticizing, it wants to replace it wholesale. Something that is 10% true isn’t added to something that’s 90% true to make a broader, 100% vision. 10% replaces 90%.

          Everything ends up seeming backwards, because the exception is made into the rule. So, for example, if I say that all mammals give live birth, someone could point out that the platypus lays eggs. We could then say that virtually all mammals give live birth with the exception of the platypus, and have a fuller picture. But today’s postmodern, identity politics, social justice “theory” does the equivalent of saying that all mammals lay eggs!

          One way to deal with the narrative that is spreading like a cancer is to just admit it’s probably up to 15% true, The worse thing people can do is internalize this belief system, and people are being pressured into doing just that.

          Regarding your story of the person who wouldn’t read a book you recommended because she objected to the author being a white male. The author is not a white male, the author is an invisible mind and consciousness caught in a set of circumstances. To say the author is a white male is nearly as insipid as saying he’s a mustache and toenails.
          That kind of thinking divides us all by our biology. I used to be able to watch a movie or read a book and identity with a black protagonist. Now, according to them, I can only identify with white characters. It makes the human race unimaginative, and all around dull.

          On top of it, all this stuff is hyper-moralization. Everyone’s a schoolmarm boxing people’s ears for the slightest indiscretion. In my post a man loses his job and has to apologize for saying something very reasonable because it deviates from the script. We must regurgitate what is crammed down our throats!

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Tragic, and extremely dangerous – not only for the arts. The problem is, those who suppress the free speech of their enemies, and art is a form of speech, always assume -to quote – Dylan – they have God on their side.’ God being morality in this case. Not so far removed from the officers of the Inquisition or the McCarthy witchfinders, or even more recently, the Taliban. No matter how right you may believe your cause to be, your methods are lazy, counterproductive and laughably naive at best.
    As a kid, I loved doing oil pastel portraits of my favourite black soul and blues singers and musicians. I am considering doing one of John Lennon. Who do I have to apply to for permission? Just curious.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I know that song. And that’s exactly right about people believing they are the good, hence their methods are justified, even if they are bad. Anything they do that is obviously bad, they can justify as being done to the enemy, who is infinitely worse. Hence you have the notion of “by any means necessary” in order to combat the misuse of means by some other group.

      There are some wonderfully comic ideas cropping up, such as that the only way to end racism is to end whiteness.

      Can you do Lennon singing “Revolution”. The lines to that song are strangely relevant again in 2020?

      Like

  5. Another tragic, and as I see it, virtually inevitable repercussion of the censorship fever of the chic left is the license they are giving to governments to use the same weapon against all of us. Can’t do/say it, it’s offensive to group A. Remove it, it represents some past behaviour unacceptable in today’s world. Soon a certain offended group will be dragging the BLM statue into a nearby river. These myopic, politically barbaric firebrands will be demanding more prisons for ‘heretics’ and, not so long after, writing letters of protest and pleas for mercy from those very same cells.
    I’ll see what I can do with Mr. Lennon. 🙂

    Like

    1. Yes, there is a flagrant double standard concerning censorship, and it doesn’t end there.

      I have an idea that the way the radical left sees it is that it’s not free speech they are combating, but just “hate speech”, and it issues from bad people. Since they believe they are the good people, they will never have to worry about being guilty of hate speech. Similarly, that’s why anyone who says anything different to what they think is assumed to be a bad person – if you are not with the good people you must be on the side of the bad people — and thus an innocuous statement of a statistic is considered “hate speech” if it doesn’t support their set of foregone conclusions.

      Truth now doesn’t belong to the best argument with the most compelling evidence, but rather to the right people who are good and have the right story and conclusions. The good group is incapable of the evil that the bad group necessarily harbors. If you are a non – believer, you must be converted or else vanquished, especially if you are a member of the enemy group who is responsible for all that is wrong with the world.

      Everyone knows what they should say and believe, and if they don’t, there’s hell to pay.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s