In April I wrote a bit about the painting below, “Open Casket”, which depicts the body of Emmett Till, a black youth who was murdered on a visit to Mississippi in 1955. He supposedly whistled at a white woman, which turned out to be a lie, but for that he was tortured and killed by two white men, who were tried and acquitted. He was just 14.
Till’s mother had his body brought back to Chicago, where he lived, and insisted on an open-casket funeral so people could see how brutally his body had been battered. You can see a link to one photo in my earlier post, which was published in the black magazine Jet. It is a sad and horrible tale that helped galvanize the Civil Rights movement.

I find the painting moving, but it turned out that the artist, Dana Schutz, made a big mistake: she was born white. She was demonized for taking on a sensitive and “iconic” black subject, for profiting from the pain of black people (she’s not selling the painting), and for being guilty of cultural appropriation and even racism. There were protests at the Whitney Biennial Exhibition when “Open Casket” was shown.
The painting stayed at the Whitney’s exhibit, and the attacks on Schutz, which included people standing in front of the painting wearing tee shirts with slogans on the back, continued. One black artist, Hannah Black, said this:
… it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun, though the practice has been normalized for a long time. Although Schutz’s intention may be to present white shame, this shame is not correctly represented as a painting of a dead Black boy by a white artist — those non-Black artists who sincerely wish to highlight the shameful nature of white violence should first of all stop treating Black pain as raw material. The subject matter is not Schutz’s; white free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights. The painting must go.
Schutz responded civilly but forcefully:
“I don’t know what it is like to be black in America, but I do know what it is like to be a mother. Emmett was Mamie Till’s only son. The thought of anything happening to your child is beyond comprehension. […] It is easy for artists to self-censor. To convince yourself to not make something before you even try. There were many reasons why I could not, should not, make this painting … (but) art can be a space for empathy, a vehicle for connection.”
As I said in my post, I have no patience with people who criticized Schutz for this painting, or for those who say that only black people can artistically depict black misery. If you follow that line of thinking, it leads to balkanization of the arts as well as politics. . . and madness.
The squabble over Schutz’s “right” to even paint this subject continued, and now have reached the boiling point again. As The Daily Beast reports (see their earlier account here, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston has planned a solo exhibition by Schutz, which includes 17 paintings and 4 drawings—but not “Open Casket” (there’s to be a placard discussing the painting). And black activists, who are still incensed, are trying to get the show canceled.
The protestors met for three hours with the exhibition’s curator, Eva Respini, and other members of the ICA, and then wrote an open letter airing their grievances against Schutz. You can read the letter at the link, but here are a few excerpts. Its main goal is to get the ICA to cancel the show and then admit guilt, effectively punishing Schutz (and the ICA) for “transgression” (emphases from the letter):
We were hoping to hear the ICA resist the narrative that Black people can be sacrificed for the greater good. The exhibition going up as described at the meeting would continue the historical narrative that it is worth the suffering of communites most afflicted by continued state and culturally sanctioned racialized violence.
. . .While you spoke to cultural responsibility, we find the planned steps to address the painting to be lacking and in fact justifying the exhibition and thereby minimizing the implications of grave, cultural harm. We understand that the painting itself will not be shown and its exclusion is to be addressed as a wall label. We don’t find this sufficient. Indeed, it is clear the institution stands to gain by virtue of its absence. Even though the painting will not be shown, even in its absence, backing its artist without accountability nor transparency about proceeds from the exhibition, the institution will be participating in condoning the coopting of Black pain and showing the art world and beyond that people can co‐opt sacred imagery rooted in oppression and face little consequence, contributing to and perpetuating centuries‐old racist iconography that ultimately justifies state and socially sanctioned violence on Black people.
and (it’s much longer than this):
The ICA did not acknowledge how such culturally sanctioned violent iconography condones, offers impunity to, and escalates anti‐Black and racialized violence. You told us that you look at your artists as a community you serve and are accountable to. This begins to immunize the artist from accountability by institutional sanction. It tries to equate the responsibility institutions have to a (tax‐paying) public versus one to promote an artist to make mutually beneficial profit. It is a position that denies that the institution can enforce measures to have the artist be accountable. It chooses the artist over the communities the institution serves. Just as a bank would withdraw its credit when clients cannot keep to their original contract, a cultural institution has more power than the ICA is willing to concede. This denial of power and subsequent impunity from accountability sets a dangerous precedent in our contemporary world ‐ one that continues in the tradition of applying cultural power to protect offending white femmes who perpetrate violence against Black communities. [JAC: Last sentence has my emphasis.]
I find this bullying, offensive, and racist. It accuses Schutz, whose intentions were good, of being an “offending white femme who perpetrates violence against black communities”, and the painting of causing “grave cultural harm”and “coopting Black pain.”
Much as I try to see what truth lies in these accusations, I can’t find any—except that the protestors are offended that a white “femme” would portray a black subject that was a horrible tragedy and painful to African Americans. Well, Schutz has explained her reasons, and they’re convincing. Still, the protestors would like, as Regressives are wont to do, for Schutz to be demonized, boycotted, and vilified for her entire life for making that painting.
At the end of the letter, the protestors make four demands, including a public apology by the ICA and an accusatory on-site “discussion” at which the curator and artist Schutz must be present to get yelled at. (Shades of the Cultural Revolution!) And, finally, there’s the usual claim that this isn’t about censorship, even though the censorship they really do want applies to a painting that isn’t even there:
Please pull the show. This is not about censorship. This is about institutional accountability, as the institutions working with the artist are even now not acknowledging that this nation is not an even playing field. During this violent climate, to show true accountability, we need institutions to go bold. We need them to move from side panels to action. We need them to channel the courage of the editors of Jet Magazine in publishing the photos on September 15, 1955, as Mrs. Mamey Till Mobley asked of them. We need them to go bold and not back down from fear of losing funders and enraging the fury of the current executive administration against arts funding. When institutions take action, they allow other insƟtuƟons to take action. You are not alone. The people will stand with you.
The ICA has caved in some ways to the demonstrators’ demands, and I think they were a bit cowardly in their response (see the Daily Beast article). But the show will go on, and Schutz continues to be civil. As the Daily Beast reported:
Schutz said that while she knew her depiction of Till might stir up controversy, she didn’t anticipate calls for it to be destroyed or removed from the Whitney Biennial. Asked if art should ever be censored, Schutz said no. But she encourages debate over works like hers. “People have a right to their outrage,” she said. “Public discussion and argument is important and essential for art.”
Yes, the protestors have a right to protest, though I don’t think they have a right to disrupt the ICA exhibition. But I find this fracas unbelievable—more unbelievable than the original protest, for the offending painting isn’t on view. But never mind. Schutz has proven herself ideologically impure, and for that she must suffer for the rest of her life.
I keep thinking what Martin Luther King Jr. would have to say about all this, and my feeling is he’d say that what counts is the content of the painting, not the color of the artist’s skin. But of course King’s philosophy has long ceased to be a part of civil rights activism.
h/t: BJ