Snack_Bolshevik

slight disclaimer: I am a bit of an outsider to the subject I am about to present so forgive me if everything isn't correct but I do think that there is at least some interesting discussion to be had

Recently fashion designer Tremaine Emory left the creative director position at the brand Supreme because of systematic racism in the company and more specifically the cancellation of a collaboration with artist Arthur Jafa. This would have featured depictions of black men being hanged and of slaves with lashes on their back.

Some background on the parties involved:
-Tremaine Emory is a black American designer who has worked with brands and artists like Off-White and Frank Ocean. In his own clothing line he has featured black cultural aesthetics

-Supreme is a company founded by James Jebbia that produces streetwear culture products aimed at skateboarding and hip hop subcultures. They have also been involved in controversy in depicting edgy/distasteful subject matter and copyright/trademark messes. Also worth noting that they were bought out by VF Corporation which owns several other large clothing companies.

-Arthur Jafa is a black American artist whose work depicts the wide variety of the black experience in the U.S. primarily through video and film

Now, I bring this all up because I have seen people defend and condemn Supreme for cancelling this project. Some defenders of the cancellation have said that it is gross for company like Supreme (that is majority operated by white people and whose largest market is also majority white) to profit off the depiction of black pain/trauma. Some of those condemning have said that Supreme is being unfair since they have not shied away from similar edgy depictions in the past and that they specifically hired a creative director whose previous work was in a similar vein. Of course most this discourse is being had by people who may not have the same understanding of how capitalism and history works compared to people on this forum.

On one hand, my initial thoughts were that yeah Supreme shouldn't do this project since it is just a further commodification of black trauma. I feel that further normalizing these depictions of violence in consumer spaces rather than education spaces does more harm than good usually. On the other hand, corporations shouldn't be able to control the way artists want to present their work. I do see that the artists are in quite a bind here. One of the only ways for an artist of a marginalized group to reach the masses of people who may be interested in their work is to work with companies who actually have the resources to distribute on a large scale. Without knowing their ideological stances, it is impossible to know if these people understand that for art to reach the masses under capitalism it is ultimately going to be diluted and subsumed into reproducing the status quo.

There are so many trains of thought to follow from here. Like what is the place for the art of marginalized groups under capitalism? How should outsiders engage with the art of marginalized groups outside of consumerism? Was there a way for Supreme to present this art without being disrespectful? Should artists always expect the dilution of their art when trying to reach a mass audience?

Y'all's thoughts? I'm especially interested if anyone has any reading material related to the topics above

slight disclaimer: I am a bit of an outsider to the subject I am about to present so forgive me if everything isn't correct but I do think that there is at least some interesting discussion to be had

Recently fashion designer Tremaine Emory left the creative director position at the brand Supreme because of systematic racism in the company and more specifically the cancellation of a collaboration with artist Arthur Jafa. This would have featured depictions of black men being hanged and of slaves with lashes on their back.

Some background on the parties involved:
-Tremaine Emory is a black American designer who has worked with brands and artists like Off-White and Frank Ocean. In his own clothing line he has prominently featured black cultural aesthetics

-Supreme is a company founded by James Jebbia that produces streetwear culture products aimed at skateboarding and hip hop subcultures. They have also been involved in controversy in depicting edgy/distasteful subject matter and copyright/trademark messes. Also worth noting that they were bought out by VF Corporation which owns several other large clothing companies.

-Arthur Jafa is a black American artist whose work depicts the wide variety of the black experience in the U.S. primarily through video and film

Now, I bring this all up because I have seen people defend and condemn Supreme for cancelling this project. Some defenders of the cancellation have said that it is gross for a company like Supreme (that is majority operated by white people and whose largest market is also majority white) to profit off the depiction of black pain/trauma. Some of those condemning have said that Supreme is being unfair since they have not shied away from similar edgy depictions in the past and that they specifically hired a creative director whose previous work was in a similar vein. Of course most of this discourse is being had by people who may not have the same understanding of how capitalism and history works compared to people on this forum.

On one hand, my initial thoughts were that yeah Supreme shouldn't do this project since it is just a further commodification of black trauma. I feel that further normalizing these depictions of violence in consumer spaces rather than education spaces does more harm than good usually. On the other hand, corporations shouldn't be able to control the way artists want to present their work. I do see that the artists are in quite a bind here. One of the only ways for an artist of a marginalized group to reach the masses of people who may be interested in their work is to work with companies who actually have the resources to distribute on a large scale. Without knowing their ideological stances, it is impossible to know if these people understand that for art to reach the masses under capitalism it is ultimately going to be diluted and subsumed into reproducing the status quo.

There are so many trains of thought to follow from here. Like what is the place for the art of marginalized groups under capitalism? How should outsiders engage with the art of marginalized groups outside of consumerism? Was there a way for Supreme to present this art without being disrespectful? Should artists always expect the dilution of their art when trying to reach a mass audience?

Y'all's thoughts? I'm especially interested if anyone has any reading material related to the topics above