Letter: Response to Robert Crumb exhibit

Fellow members of the UR community:

I'm writing you to bring your attention to Robert Crumb's exhibition at UR's Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art. Best known as 'R. Crumb', this illustrator was a founder of the underground comix movement, and at the invitation of the Modlin Center for the Arts, recently spoke at the Carpenter Theater about his latest work, "Genesis."

Although I was not present at his lecture, those students who have the opportunity to produce a senior thesis within the studio art major were required to attend. One female student came back distraught, repeating that R. Crumb had referred to every woman's "rape fantasy" to describe the content of one of his comics, and that the presentation in general was extremely offensive. Her art class later had a discussion about the lecture, during which the professor emphasized the importance of maintaining artistic honesty and integrity.

Disturbed by this information, I decided to read some more about this particular illustrator. I found that in addition to portraying women in a degrading and misogynistic manner, he has also been cited as depicting African-Americans and other minorities in racist ways. When reminded by Time Magazine's art critic Robert Hughes that he has been criticized as a racist, Crumb's response was, "Yeah well, [characters like Angelfood McSpade] were just stereotypical images of 1920s images of big-lipped black people which actually had very little to do with African Americans. They were cartoon stereotypes I was playing around with. All that stuff I did in the late 1960s was cartoon stereotypes...I dunno. It's hard to explain. It's not my job to explain it." The argument that Crumb's work is just a cartoon reflects (at they very least) an ignorance of the role of blackface in the United States, which culture critic John Strausbaugh identified as "displaying Blackness for the enjoyment and edification of white viewers." In the past, the university has commendably worked to educate its students about this particularly painful history, and I question the decision to sponsor an artist whose work displays such a flagrant disregard for the ideals the university is working to cultivate within its students.

Some may argue that protesting against Crumb's work at U of R constitutes censorship. I whole-heartedly agree that a university should foster the free exchange of ideas, but I just as whole-heartedly agree that the endorsement of Crumb on UR's campus was a poor decision. While it is true that Crumb's current work does not feature blackface, featuring and funding this artist implicitly reflects an endorsement of his past work.

As a member of the arts community, I am deeply disappointed that Modlin chose to sponsor Crumb on our campus and hope that greater sensitivity will be exercised in the future. Entertaining the idea of Robert Crumb's "artistic honesty" merely reinforces racial stereotypes and trivializes the experiences of sexual assault victims, not to mention undermines and taints the name of art. I hardly think that endorsing R. Crumb or creating class requirements to attend his lecture have in any way served the Richmond Promise to create "an authentic culture of inclusivity." Two years ago, attempts to label a black doll found hanging from a noose in Modlin as artistic expression were vehemently rejected by both the Modlin community and the university as a whole, and I feel strongly that we must also reject any justification of blackface or flippant depictions of rape as "art."

Thank you for reading, and I hope that you'll join me in sharing your ideas on the issue.

Respectfully,

Juliette Jeanfreau