'Racist Cake' Controversy

[Agent Gibbs]

It makes no sense; the people who are performing female circumcision are African themselves, and would never characterise themselves like that. It would be acceptable if the ridiculous representation actually had a point, but it doesn't; it's racist.

 

Well if the "offending" is because they aren't African (disregarding skin colour as the Artist is black, but blacked up) then it isn't racist, its prejudiced/Xenophobic as the predigest/ignorance is relating to country of origin not skin colour

[The Bard]

I think it's a little disingenuous to call something racist simply because you don't understand the point it's making.

 

I think there's something in the jovial nature with which pieces of cake are being parcelled out, in contrast to the agonising protest. I haven't read up on the piece or anything, but I don't think it has anything to do with female genital mutilation (of course, that's the problem with performance art - you can never be sure that your audience isn't going to cut a cake in a place that would roughly equate to where the female genitals are located), but just how black labourers were exploited, bodily, in every way you can imagine, they were caracaturised, their humanity reduced, and their protests ignored because there was another buck to rinse from their forced bondage.

 

It requires a bit of induction, but it seems to be fairly obv.

 

It's not grand or sophisticated, but it's still interesting.

 

I don't find this racist due to what Bard said - P.S. I love Ghost World:heart:)? It just seems...not extreme enough for the message the artist is trying to get across. The facepaint looks too comedic/like a Chain Chomp.

 

I looove Ghost World .

 

Also, the comedic effect of the paint - is that not part of the point?

[chairdriver]

I think it's a little disingenuous to call something racist simply because you don't understand the point it's making.

 

I think there's something in the jovial nature with which pieces of cake are being parcelled out, in contrast to the agonising protest. I haven't read up on the piece or anything, but I don't think it has anything to do with female genital mutilation (of course, that's the problem with performance art - you can never be sure that your audience isn't going to cut a cake in a place that would roughly equate to where the female genitals are located), but just how black labourers were exploited, bodily, in every way you can imagine, they were caracaturised, their humanity reduced, and their protests ignored because there was another buck to rinse from their forced bondage.

 

It requires a bit of induction, but it seems to be fairly obv.

 

 

I read from a different source that stated that the piece was about female genital mutilation, so I assumed it was an unambiguous thing.

[The Bard]

Of course, in that case, if authorial intent has been established, is it not simply a poorly executed piece of art than something deliberately racist?

 

Also, I assume that source was operating on its own assumptions and interpretations, which speaks to their own thought process, but I, personally, doubt that was the comment trying to be made.

[Frank]

I thought it looked pretty graphic, particularly the red inside spewing out. Of course, after reading all I see is a Chain-Chomp too. Damn you, Eddie! I don't see the rascism in the piece. It's shocked / upset people & began a conversation --that is good art

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Yeah, all I could see from the beginning was the Chain Chomp as well.

 

I can't see how this can be racist in any way. The racial stereotype is being used for the exact opposite purpose, to blatantly create disapproval, so if anything I'd say it's actually antiracist.

[Jimbob]

I suppose it could be classed as racist, if dressed as a gollywog.

[Emasher]

Its a little sad that people are spending so much time talking about whether or not the artist is racist, instead of talking about the issue that the artist meant to highlight in the first place.

[chairdriver]

Its a little sad that people are spending so much time talking about whether or not the artist is racist, instead of talking about the issue that the artist meant to highlight in the first place.

 

There's really not much that can be said/done though, everyone knows colonialism is disgusting and that the western world should be eternally disgraced at itself for building its wealth out of the exploitation and despair of Africa. And no one's endorsing female genital mutilation.

 

I'd argue it is valuable to discuss what racism is / does and what constitutes racism.

[Emasher]

There's really not much that can be said/done though, everyone knows colonialism is disgusting and that the western world should be eternally disgraced at itself for building its wealth out of the exploitation and despair of Africa. And no one's endorsing female genital mutilation.

 

I'd argue it is valuable to discuss what racism is / does and what constitutes racism.

 

I thought this was mostly about genital mutilation. None of the articles I read even mentioned colonialism. Genital mutilation in general is a very serious issue, and certainly has room for discussion, although, admittedly, there probably is very little that can be done about it in Africa.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

While the artist obviously knows how controversial the use of the stereotype is, I do think he'd be a bit annoyed at the fact that most people seem to want to discuss whether he's being racist.

[ReZourceman]

Crumbs, what a curious art piece. I found it to be very thought provoking.

 

This big debate is just the icing on the cake.

 

[Jonnas]

A man makes a statement about genital mutilation, which takes place in Africa, while utilising disturbing imagery...and the main sources of controversy are the presence of a white person nearby, and a blackface.

 

This is a texbook case of shallow political correctness. Not often is it this clear.

[ipaul]

It's not racist.

 

I'd explain my argument further but come on people, it just fucking isn't

[Dan_Dare]

'nontroversy'