Amazing. Kehinde Wiley: A New Republic shows his successful 14-year-old
career. Wiley’s work is appropriation at its finest; it is refreshing and
thought provoking to question the never-ending questions concerning race and
gender through the European masters painting and sculpting techniques. There is
no doubt the exhibition is a spectacle. However, while it provokes ideas that
must be asked and answered, the exhibition falls into the trap of being another
ethnocentric representation that one cannot empathize with without the aid of specific
background and culture.
In Femme piquée par un serpent (2008), Wiley was inspired
by Auguste Clesinger. There is a notion of eroticism, naturalism, and heroism. There
are influences from diverse cultures embedded even in the textural designs of
the background. However, one would easily notice a trend in his body of work. While
I have nothing but compliments for his modern reiteration of classics, I cannot help but to point out his
exhibition was conveniently and almost coincidentally displayed along side of
Jean-Michel Basquiat. It is as if what started, as an awareness of a specific
misunderstood culture never left its home to prove a point. While I fully agree
with Wiley’s proposal that Western art is unfairly ethnocentric towards white
culture, I see no room for progress if he does the same with his own. Would he
be recognized as he is today if he was an Italian decent who painted Italians
in Little Italy? Why does the problem have to be either determined as white or
black? To tackle such global issue, Wiley needs to paint more than a single
portraiture of an Indian (which was displayed at the exhibition) to prove that
he indeed is aware that there is a world outside of Harlem.
Your review brings up a lot of issues surrounding and introduced by Wiley's works. However, your statements would be stronger if you made them more direct without qualifying language. I think it would be more compelling to use another word besides ironical--maybe explain why you think this exhibition falls into that category. I would change the 14-year-old career to "career spanning 14 years." You may have missed the video in which he explained his process. His works are actually very global in nature. At present Harlem is only one of many places and people he paints. He visits other countries and meets people there, photographs them, and paints their portraits with backgrounds that relate to their cultural context. Since you may have missed this explanation of his work, your argument fails.
ReplyDelete