Well of course you’re entitled to have your own opinion, did anyone say otherwise? Why the drama? And I am very much aware that these protesters aren’t the same as Nazis and Soviets, and they have very different intentions, in fact, if you read my comment you’ll see that what I said they have in common are…

who isn’t even under attack.

Huh? I am deciding on my own. And it’s my view that censorship or destruction of art (or calling for it) is far worse than anything that artwork could be expressing. If you look at history, who’s destroyed art and burned books? Nazis, Soviets, fascists... basically, totalitarians, be they left or right wing. And being…

I don’t get this at all. Why on earth should there be a campaign to blacklist this artist, in a show that has nothing to do with the controversial art work?

So you haven’t seen the painting, don’t know about the artist and are condemning her and it. Seems reasonable.

She literally stated on a small placard next to the painting that it was never and will never be offered for sale. So it seems like she’s bound to her word on this one.

She was already a highly recognized name in the art world. You just didn’t know of her because you don’t know about the art world

Lots of “offensive” “art” out there - by artists good and bad.

“She can exhibit elsewhere” seems a little shortsighted. This show doesn’t include the painting that roused the protesters, so where’s the guarantee that they won’t continue to rage every time she gets a show?

The artist herself has never offered the Till painting for sale and maintains that it never will be. Which kind of mitigates the profiteering angle.

It wasn’t removed. I saw it myself at the Whitney a few weeks after the protests petered out. It’s a moving painting and the people most offended by it seem to be ignoring that it was never offered for sale nor will it be, to paraphrase the artist.

I saw the painting of Emmett Till at the biennial, which also included a painting depicting Philando Castile’s death by a black artist (Henry Taylor), and a large instillation featuring images of “Jewish” New Yorkers affixed to pieces of baloney by another black artist (Pope.L). I think the identity of the artist can…

In a statement provided by the Whitney, Schutz insisted that she had no such intentions. “I made this painting to engage with the loss,” she said. “It was never for sale and never will be.”

I love Coco Fusco. Her work is what got me interested in performance art, and her voice carries a lot of weight. She talks the talk and walks the walk. People should definitely hear her out, because she laid the groundwork for many who critique the museum and gallery system.

*shrug* Anyone can tell any story in any medium they like.

But protestors went so far as to call for the painting to be destroyed, which drew a line in sand for many who think that censorship and destruction isn’t a productive direction for anyone.

The first work of art was pretty tone-deaf...but it’s also pretty tone-deaf to say that this is “not about censorship” when you are explicitly asking for someone to be censored and blacklisted.

This is insane. We have really crossed a dangerous line, with artist’s and academics threatened and silenced and the impermissibility of speaking scientific truths. Normal, rational people are under no obligation to acknowledge snowflake feels as objective reality.

The Emmett TILL painting was already removed. They want her other unrelated works taken down. Which is silly. I agree that the open casket piece required the protest it got, but her misstep doesn’t require permanent blacklisting of everything else she paints.

I think art should inspire and engage people to talk about it, even if they loathe it or it offends. And considering how much harder it is for women artists to be recognized in the art world, no her work shouldn’t be banned nor blacklisted. Even if it’s tone deaf, talk about why. Make it a teachable moment.