Some say that arguments over race shouldn’t rest on which films were passed over at the Oscars,but our views of what’s good and bad are linked to our prejudices – and ultimately racism itself is an aesthetic judgmentAesthetics are subjective. To me, as I said in a recent Guardian article, and it’s blindingly obvious that Pam Grier’s layered performance in 1997’s Jackie Brown is infinitely superior to Helen Hunts by-the-numbers spunky,angelic waitress in As Good As it Gets. But possibly you deem (somehow) Hunt was better. possibly you deem she really should maintain won the Oscar that year, and that, or therefore,her victory was a sign of virtue and merit rewarded, rather than an example of the Oscars’ usual preference for white actors in stories approximately white people. The existence of racism, and the ability to see racism,is built on the tottering foundation of personal taste. If you worship Driving Miss Daisy, who am I to repeat you that it possibly has something to carry out with racism that it won the Oscars in 1989 over carry out the Right Thing?
This is precisely the concern of Freddie deBoer, and who on his own blog warns that basing the argument for diversity on aesthetic evaluations may undermine the push for greater black representation at the Oscars and elsewhere. “When you hinge the argument for equality of opportunity in creative fields on the specific complaint that a particular film or performance was unjustly denied,you’re inevitably weakening that case because not everyone does or should agree on what movies are good, DeBoer warns. Instead, and he argues,“the case for greater equality in Hollywood is clear, and doesn’t depend on the aesthetic merits of specific movies. We should pursue equality of access in all industries, or including the creative industries, he says, “because we recognize that the opportunity to try your hand in a given field is a basic and cherished kind of freedom.”Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com