The artist’s pursuit to challenge and transform the status quo rests on Bell Hook’s compelling argument for the transgressive image. According to Hook, the real work begins with “creating alternatives, asking ourselves questions about what types of images subvert, pose critical alternatives and transform our worldviews and move us away from dualistic thinking about good and bad.” Representation comes from an understanding of collective history and the perspective from which we create. This is timely, as I’ve read through a multitude of reactions to the recent unveiling of President Obama’s and First Lady Michelle Obama’s portraits. I am particularly interested in Baltimore painter Amy Sherald’s representation of Michelle Obama and her decision to paint the First Lady’s skin in grey tones. Skin color, a traditional form of race identification, was completely excluded (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-mystery-of-amy-sheralds-portrait-of-michelle-obama). In terms of the Hook reading, I wonder what this says about the political perspective from which the artist paints. In my interpretation, by devaluing skin color and ultimately stripping away the racial charge, it renders the “white” narrative powerless. Sherald still taps into the collective black past, however, in other ways such as the geometric shapes on Michelle Obama’s dress that remind the artist of quilt making artisans in Alabama.
I’m not sure if there are transformational representations of undocumented migrant youth at this point but the readings this week have opened the avenue for exploration. Thus far, the perspective largely communicates a narrative of the oppressed laborer (i.e. Alto Arizona Art Campaign Poster) or the law-breaking, wall-hopping runner (i.e. Michael Wells, Collaborating Photographer of The Land of Open Graves). This is important for me to look at this critically because young adults in my project may need to select images to be the descriptors of their experience and identity. Do the available images retell the same oppressed narrative or are we forced to create the alternative image?
Lauren:
I am thinking about what a transgressive image of migrants might look like. Are the drawings your students make transgressive? Maybe, in the sense that they humanize an experience that is demeaning though they are probably not the images of self that the artists love (or are they?). What it would it be like to actually transform existing images of migrants into transgressive images.
The poster you included in your post seemed more symbolic (literal, making a political statement) than evocative. Can such a poster be transgressive? The image below it was more evocative, but it was very ambiguous and without context difficult to feel or interpret. The title, “The Land of Open Graves” is very evocative for me, and visual; is that a book we should read?
I’ve been thinking about the term “migrant” and how dehumanizing it is. It represents the idea that human beings don’t have the right to move to where they can be free and live well, that land actually can be owned by someone who can forbid you from entering it. It represents a way of looking at the world and at existence (an ontology) that legitimizes frontiers and borders. Also, like the term “slave,” it turns a human into a thing of less value.
The picture of Michelle Obama is transgressive in that it forces you to look twice and thus to think twice, hopefully to rethink. It contests the common image and conception of Obama. It represents “counter visuality” in that it challenges dominant conceptions. Could one do something similar with the images of men, women and children forced to flee, to seek better lives, and to live always vulnerable?
Lauren, your reflections were very interesting. It made me think about how with new images we give rise to new identities grounded in new narratives. Image, identity, narrative, action it’s all connected.