Racism?

[brtmchl]

My town of Elgin is making news the past couple of days for a five year old mural that somebody recently noticed contains exact similarities to a 1930"s lynching that took place in Indiana.

Obviously the artist chose to omit the horrible background of the
moment that the actual picture was about. In the article below the artist seems to take a political stance, but why wait five years to speak out? Only when confronted.

I can't speak to what the artist's intentions originally were. Was the artist hoping for an eventual political statement? The funny thing about art is that meanings are in the eye of the beholder. The mural, which looks to depict a diverse crowd seems fitting for this town. Now, in the wake of the picture that was the artist's muse, it appears to me that the artist chose to paint the surrounding people more diversely in a possible attempt to show that we have come far as a nation or at least a town. That this horrible moment in time no longer exists. Replaced by a sense of harmony and acceptance.

If not, I am not an advocate of white washing history. Horrible things have happened and it's important to remember those moments so we don't repeat them. This mural could be a teaching tool about a dark moment in history.

History that I have learned about the incident:

The men that were lynched in the actual photograph were guilty of rape and murder. There was a potential third victim in the actual lynching. A black man also, who was spared because he apparently didn't commit the act, he was present but didn't participate but still charged as an accessory. If this was solely a racially motivated lynching would he have been spared? The woman who was allegedly raped changed her story later.
History is full of "mob justice." That doesn't condone the actions of these violent, vigilante, emotional and possibly racist towns folk. But is it possible that this vigilante mob act could have still played out had these men been white? This photo was from the 30's I read somewhere. That is not so far removed from town posse's.
I think this is a horrible picture and the first thing that springs to mind is the awful acts committed upon blacks during slavery, reconstruction and the Jim Crowe era all the way through Selma. But there are also dark moments that may not be solely based upon skin color.
I for one would like to know more about the history of this act and the artist before I judge and demand the ruination of a peace of art. There has already been vandalism attempts and a council meeting to be held in June to discuss the piece.

If this was your town, would you want this mural taken down? Do you feel that the city should have asked for more information as to the content of mural that would be on display in a public forum? Should the city have been more concerned about an artists background of making political motivated art that will display on city property? Do you feel that to remove this piece would be an injustice?



http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/el...story.html

[Gene C]

We have a series of murals on our floodwall downtown at the river. They depict scenes from the past. Very nicely done.
I am not aware of anything in our community history such as a mob lynching, but if we did, I don't think a public mural is the place to remember the act.

IMO, a public mural or art work should not display criminal events. Here is a short 2 minute video with scenes from our flood wall.
(yes, it has actually held back flood waters of the Ohio River from our downtown)

http://www.paducahwalltowall.com/

[Gene C]

A newspaper article below indicated the photo the mural is based on is from a lynching in Marion, Indiana, which is about 200 miles away from Elgin. Seems to me that some folks, including the newspaper are just trying to stir things up.

To answer your question, if it were my town I would want it taken down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/el...story.html

[J. Beckert]

I like Morgan Freeman's spin on this whole mess. And he's said it more than once.

The more pandering and coddling that's done, the worse it gets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ

[L Verge]

(05-20-2016 11:28 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I like Morgan Freeman's spin on this whole mess. And he's said it more than once.

The more pandering and coddling that's done, the worse it gets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ

Morgan Freeman is a very wise gentleman.

This mural in question raised more questions for me: Why did the artist feel the need to portray a historical event that happened 200 miles away in a different state (other than to try and say that hatred is universal)? If I were a resident of Elgin, I would resent being painted with the brush of another area's fault.

Why did it take ten years for the mural to raise people's hackles? Did the press pick up on it any earlier? Did they need to fill space that day, or are their sales slumping so they have to reach for something controversial? As many of you know, I am not a fan of the media moguls (either nationally or locally).

The article answered one of my questions - actually the first one that popped into my head (too many museum exhibits in my past). Where was accompanying text (labels or signs) to explain the concept of the art work? Obviously, the artist couldn't stand beside the mural 24/7 to explain his work.

The article on the furor answered that one: “The mural was created as part of a program in which a lead artist was assisted by university students in creating artwork. It was not intended to be a permanent display, but just a part of Elgin’s extensive cultural arts offerings, which may be why signage was never created to provide context,” Rogowski said. In my opinion, many of the controversies that continue to swirl around the world today keep on going because no one stops to examine the historical/artistic/social context.

[brtmchl]

The Elgin Mural was taken down and moved.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/el...story.html

I would hate to see the destruction of any piece of art. I do think this was the right decision. It should be placed in an exhibition where people can chose to see it. I don't believe that it should be viewed in a way that people are forced to see it. I can see both sides of the argument, but if something is actually hurtful I do not believe it should be on public display.