Mark,
You seem very defensive, and I'm not sure why. Who said you were "part of their readership"? Why was that the implication?
My opening paragraph begins by very clearly and directly echoing your own language. You called the situation "insane" and I called it "crazy." We are and were in agreement that what happened was bad.
We may disagree on what the "more interesting questions" are. To me, the whole situation revolves around a cowardly venue unwilling to truly engage with Eastman's work, unwilling to be frank and honest with their audience, and unwilling to discuss with Leach the best way to present an intentionally provocative artist. As Nemo himself said, this has been going on with Eastman since the 1970s--there little surprise to it by itself. What strikes me as interesting more than "censorship" itself is how we navigate the issues inherent in Eastman's work, particularly as white authors and scholars. It's no surprise that the author here tries to simplify it to a discussion of "between the sense of a word and its reference" as if the audience is unaware of that--or if Eastman himself was. He knew the titles were going to make people uncomfortable, and that they would cause problems for white people--or for a white person's non-white audience hearing it.
Now, to Quillette: is it any surprise they took this piece? It's their whole agenda! And is it any surprise that the piece doesn't quote the creative director Andrew Patterson, who said that "beyond the repeated invocation of the racial slur, it is our feeling that Leach did not receive the criticisms and questions posed to her with the honour and respect they deserved." Sounds to me that this isn't just about saying the title of Eastman's works. Perhaps if you were there you might not find the issues around Leach "petty, ideologically based, [and] unimaginative," particularly since the venue has taken the blame themselves as well and has worked to keep open a dialogue with Leach, all of which this piece seems to ignore.
Again, the story Kurt Gottschalk tells makes me feel bad for Leach; because it is in Quillette, I don't trust it, though, and even if it is true it is necessarily an integral party--rather than "completely free--of the culture wars. Just because it may be right doesn't mean this isn't true. An example to make my point: if Stormfront published an entirely accurate exposé of a Jared Kushner that was seemed completely free of anti-Semitism, we would all know it's serving a different agenda. That's what's happening here, even if the story unfolded 100% as Gottschalk says.
Now I apologize for derailing this thread. Eastman's work is fantastic and Leach has worked hard to promote that. The situation--however it unfolded--is unfortunate for all: the venue, Eastman, Leach, and the audience. My only point was that this piece--as much if not more than OBEY--wears its politics on its sleeve, and that publishing in it is itself a foray into the culture wars.
|