A Synopsis of Maulana Karenga's Black Art: Mute Matter Given Force and Function

Introduction

The central argument of Maulana Karenga’s discourse is that for black art to be considered valid, it must reflect and support “the black revolution.” Karenga argues that “black art” that does not contribute to the black revolution is summarily invalid. He maintains that black art must respond aggressively to the battle for the mind of black America, and that what is needed is a "black aesthetic"—a standard for assessing the validity and/or beauty of a work of art, that is based on the black American experience. He explains that there are two levels on which art can be judged, but his discourse concerns itself with the social (rather than the artistic) level of appraisal, as the artistic level, “involve[s] a consideration of form and feelings, two things which obviously involve more technical consideration and terminology than we have space, time or will to develop adequately…”

Karenga proffered three characteristics of black art, which he advised that, “we should…use…as the foundation for a rational construction to meet our present day needs.” In Karenga’s estimation, black art must be functional, collective, and committing.

Characteristic 1: The Functional

According to Karenga, for black art to be valid, it must be functional; it must articulate black America’s desire for positive change; and it must contribute to "the black revolution." In Karenga’s view, there is no such thing as “art for art’s sake.” He explains that the phrase is an excuse for black art that do not satisfy the criterion of being functional. Artists create their works for others in that they attempt to communicate a message through their works (and communication implies an audience). Artists bear a need for their audiences’ appraisal of their works, and naturally desire a favorable one. However, the audience's evaluation cannot be favorable if the work is not functional, utilitarian, and instrumental. This, Karenga argues, ought to be the impetus for black artists to create functional art.

What then does black art need to do in order to be valid?

1. Black art must expose the enemy. It must argue vehemently against everything that is antagonistic to the advancement of black America;

2. Black art must praise the people. It must celebrate blackness, and the resilience which has ensured that black people are still relevant in the American sociopolitical landscape;

3. Black art must support “the revolution.” It must clearly, categorically, and unequivocally express its displeasure with the status quo, as well as a deep-rooted desire for change. As Karenga sees it, “All work is mute until the artist gives it a message, and that message must be one of revolution.”

Therefore, the real function of black art is to support “the revolution,” that is, to argue for economic, social, and political change.

Characteristic 2: The Collective

According to Karenga, for black art to be valid, it must be collective; that is, it must derive from the people, and be returned to the people refined. It must derive from the strivings, yearnings, and aspirations of the people, and return to them in a form that is more beautiful and artistic than it is in real life. In Karenga's estimation, art is “everyday life given more form and color.”

Karenga explains that the collectivity of art raises four questions:

1. That of popularization versus elevation: Should art be lowered to the level of the people, or the people be raised to the level of art?

   To this Karenga answers that if art is from the people and for the people, then both art and the people are inextricable intertwined, and exist, by necessity, on the same level. Therefore, there should be no question of lowering art or raising people. Art and people develop simultaneously.

2. That of personality versus individuality: How much does the emphasis on collective art destroy the individuality of the artist?

   To this Karenga answers that there is no such thing as “individuality” in the first place, since no person transcends the context to which he or she owes his or her existence. Karenga defines “individuality” as “‘me’ in spite of everyone,” and “personality” as “‘me’ in relation to everyone.” To answer the question, Karenga calls individuality a “useless isolation or false independence in which there is no virtue,” and calls personality an “important involvement or real interdependence in which there is value.”

3. That of unity versus diversity: Does unity preclude diversity?

   To this Karenga renders an emphatic no. According to him, there can be unity in diversity and there can be diversity in unity. He assures that “what one seeks is not a standardization of every move or creation, but a framework in which [black artists can work]…”

4. That of freedom to versus freedom from: How much freedom of expression does the artist have?

   To this Karenga answers that an artist has all the freedom to express himself as long as he does not infringe on the freedom of other people to be protected from images, words, and sounds that are detrimental to their life and development. With this, Karenga argues the case for the limitation to the freedom of expression in the arts.

Characteristic 3: The Committing (or Committed)

According to Karenga, for black art to be valid, it must be committing (or committed); that is, it must commit black people to revolution and change, and it must commit them to all that is theirs—their memories of a bitter yesterday, their struggles of today, and their hopes for a better tomorrow. Therefore, black art must contribute to the revolutionary change by being committing (or committed), or else they are invalid.

Originally written for an assignment in an African American History course at Harold Washington College in Fall 2001.