Ghetto Tarot Art Project

Barleywine

I think I'll bow out now. I liked the idea and execution of it, regardless of the cultural baggage.
 

trzes

Curious dispute. Here we go again...

Curious dispute indeed. That was my friendly way of putting it.

Okay I see. Well, naively I believed (looking at this deck), that it was the creation of the people that we can see on the cards.
It's indeed a bit misleading.

Well, Alice Smeets, that white european woman who initiated the deck, had lived in Haiti for quite a while. The tarot project was a joint effort together with the native people depicted in the deck. We don't know who contributed exactly what amount of ideas to the deck, but surely the deck is at least partially a creation of the people we can see on the cards indeed.

For some people the involvement of a white European in this project still counts as "cultural appropriation". You don't like that, you don't buy the deck. Easy.

I for myself find it curious to judge artwork by anything but the artwork itself. But maybe that's just me. Of cource others may judge artwork the way they want to, and they may express their dislike, even in the most dismissive way.

But to publicly question the legitimacy of other people to create the artwork they want to (as well as to call it what they want to), as it has happend in some posts in the other thread (maybe the ones that got deleted straight away), this is more than just an oddity. It is an attack against freedom of art, freedom of speech, and freedom per se.

Ok, sorry, I am not talking to anyone in particular here, I am only trying to explain to G6 why "curious dispute" was rather a euphemism.
 

banbha

Curious dispute indeed. That was my friendly way of putting it.



Well, Alice Smeets, that white european woman who initiated the deck, had lived in Haiti for quite a while. The tarot project was a joint effort together with the native people depicted in the deck. We don't know who contributed exactly what amount of ideas to the deck, but surely the deck is at least partially a creation of the people we can see on the cards indeed.

For some people the involvement of a white European in this project still counts as "cultural appropriation". You don't like that, you don't buy the deck. Easy.

I for myself find it curious to judge artwork by anything but the artwork itself. But maybe that's just me. Of cource others may judge artwork the way they want to, and they may express their dislike, even in the most dismissive way.

But to publicly question the legitimacy of other people to create the artwork they want to (as well as to call it what they want to), as it has happend in some posts in the other thread (maybe the ones that got deleted straight away), this is more than just an oddity. It is an attack against freedom of art, freedom of speech, and freedom per se.

Ok, sorry, I am not talking to anyone in particular here, I am only trying to explain to G6 why "curious dispute" was rather a euphemism.

To publicly question the name of this deck is not an attack against freedom of speech, it is free speech itself. Plain and simple.


It's simple for me. I already know how I feel; but also I would not purchase a deck that would possibly make my friends feel uncomfortable or annoyed and for no good reason. This is only the second time I've thought this after seeing (I don't know how) many recently produced decks over the past two decades.

And yes, I know there are Ghettos in Haiti. I've been there (albeit as a child). My cousin lived there, working under a grant for National Geographic for many years. I have lived in and around what some people call ghettos, I shop in them, I walk in them, I travel through them, I adopted my kitten in one...I don't use the word here, it's another NYC neighborhood.

:livelong:
 

G6

Curious dispute indeed. That was my friendly way of putting it.



Well, Alice Smeets, that white european woman who initiated the deck, had lived in Haiti for quite a while. The tarot project was a joint effort together with the native people depicted in the deck. We don't know who contributed exactly what amount of ideas to the deck, but surely the deck is at least partially a creation of the people we can see on the cards indeed.

For some people the involvement of a white European in this project still counts as "cultural appropriation". You don't like that, you don't buy the deck. Easy.

I for myself find it curious to judge artwork by anything but the artwork itself. But maybe that's just me. Of cource others may judge artwork the way they want to, and they may express their dislike, even in the most dismissive way.

But to publicly question the legitimacy of other people to create the artwork they want to (as well as to call it what they want to), as it has happend in some posts in the other thread (maybe the ones that got deleted straight away), this is more than just an oddity. It is an attack against freedom of art, freedom of speech, and freedom per se.

Ok, sorry, I am not talking to anyone in particular here, I am only trying to explain to G6 why "curious dispute" was rather a euphemism.

I'm white and I'm making a deck using all lower income people of color as models for the imagery. I'm calling my deck, The Jigaboo Tarot. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Curious dispute, really.
 

trzes

To publicly question the name of this deck is not an attack against freedom of speech, it is free speech itself. Plain and simple.

Publicly questioning the name of this deck is a legitimate expression of free speech. Correct. Not my point though.

Publicly questioning the legitimacy of the artist naming her deck whatever she wants to, is something completely different. People in the other thread claimed that Alice Smeets "doesn't have the right" do to what she was doing. How should I understand this other than as a request to restrict freedom of art?

I'm white and I'm making a deck using all lower income people of color as models for the imagery. I'm calling my deck, The Jigaboo Tarot. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Curious dispute, really.

You don't like the deck, you don't buy it. What's the big deal, really? You express your disdain for the deck, that's also fine (by me at least). Except that your jigaboo example doesn't reflect the situation with the Ghetto tarot for several reasons that have been discussed in the other thread.

Someone attacks the artist and questions her legitimacy: "Curious dispute" will be the euphemism for ME making a big fuss about it.
 

Barleywine

Hmm. The word "ghetto" apparently originated in Venice and referred to a restricted enclave of Jews. It has become a racial flash-point for moderns (especially Americans) who are hypersensitive to political correctness. In Haiti, whites and mulattos combined constitute only 5% of the population, which suggests that the segregation in Port-Au-Prince is economic, not racial. The Haitian residents who participated seemed proud of their work, and it didn't come across as exploitation to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto
 

gregory

My view exactly, Barley - thanks. I have it and I really like it.
 

banbha

Publicly questioning the name of this deck is a legitimate expression of free speech. Correct. Not my point though.

Publicly questioning the legitimacy of the artist naming her deck whatever she wants to, is something completely different. People in the other thread claimed that Alice Smeets "doesn't have the right" do to what she was doing. How should I understand this other than as a request to restrict freedom of art?

Okay, fair enough, I didn't read through the older thread. But "claiming she doesn't have the right" to do what she's doing is not the same as them having the power to enforce her rights not to do it. They're still just expressing an opinion about it.

I agree she has the right to create her art as I have the right to critique it.
 

trzes

As a German with some Polish ancestors I cannot not think of the Warsaw Ghetto when I hear the word "ghetto".

Hmm. The word "ghetto" apparently originated in Venice and referred to a restricted enclave of Jews. It has become a racial flash-point for moderns (especially Americans) who are hypersensitive to political correctness. In Haiti, whites and mulattos combined constitute only 5% of the population, which suggests that the segregation in Port-Au-Prince is economic, not racial. The Haitian residents who participated seemed proud of their work, and it didn't come across as exploitation to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto

That actually summarizes the outcome of the other thread quite neatly. If anything matters when not wanting to hurt other people's feelings, then it is the Haitian's own understanding of "ghetto".
 

barefootlife

It's fine to take umbrage with the name of the deck, but it's also important to read all the information about it - the acting troupe who appears in the images were an active part of the naming and scene creation process, were paid for their work, and are receiving part of the profits from sales of the deck. A problem with the name is a personal comfort thing, but jumping from the word 'ghetto' to an assumption of exploitation or appropriation because the photographer is white seems like a large leap to me when she didn't make these decisions without the input of people who have every right to choose how that word is or isn't used. I was pretty wtf about it until I read all of the information on the page about the creation process.