"We younger Negro artists who create now intend to express our individual dark-skinned selves without fear or shame." (Hughes). In this declaration, one does not detect racial pride or bitterness, but rather, a tender plea for the right to create art without being judged by society as vulgar or threatening.
Hughes viewed negro art before the Harlem Renaissance as restricted by shame of their unique cultural features as negro, so foreign to Western art at the time, and fear of the scorn they would receive from the public and their peers if this negro culture ever were to leak out in their art. (Hughes). Because of these self-imposed restraints, negro art was missing the passionate, unself-conscious desire for self-expression which is so vital to art.
Evaluation
Locke tried too hard to define the movement. He had a strong agenda, the rehabilitation of the Negro's character that needed to be pushed, even if it had to be forced on the movement. (8). It is significant that Locke is the only one of the three spokesmen who was not himself an artist. In many ways, he was the least qualified to speak on behalf of the artists and writers of the period, most of whom were too busy writing to provide self-conscious commentary of their work and their "movement."
Schuyler, for his part, tried too hard to sterilize the movement. Although his premise, that art is art and has no categories, is certainly valid, he forgets that this is not a philosophical issue, but a social and cultural issue. In his attempt to refute the hype and cultural fetishism surrounding the movement, he is forced to deny that there is a movement altogether. This not only makes him seem detached, but also prevents him from examining elements of the movement that were not mere hype, but the product of real social circumstances.
Hughes proves to be the most credible and illuminating of...
He had less of an agenda when commenting on the movement. Hughes was not trying to explain the Harlem Renaissance to White people or even Black people. He was an artist trying to explain the movement's art to a curious audience. This could not be done without acknowledging the crucial role that the Negro condition played in molding the souls of these artists.
Although Hughes recognized that racial struggle was a condition of the movement, he never represented it as the raison d'etre of the movement. In a sense, Hughes was not advocating for negroes in his commentary, he was advocating for artists who happened to be negroes. After all, honest artists in every country have faced the sort of challenges to which Hughes alluded: social judgment, repression, and marginalization. It is the price of telling the truth.
Conclusion
The crucial question dividing spokesmen of the Harlem Renaissance is the same question which dominates American society today: whether to ignore race or confront it. Ignoring race promotes a sort of callousness to real problems, while confronting race tends to exacerbate race-consciousness, promoting division and, as a consequence, racism. Perhaps the solution, as Langston Hughes demonstrated, is to acknowledge race and experience its effects, but to not make it the reason for our existence.
Bibliography
Hughes, L. "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain" the Nation, 23 June 1926. Electronic. Available at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/360.html.
Locke, Alain L.R. The New Negro. New York: Atheneum, 1992. Print.
Schuyler, George S. The Negro Art Hokum. New York, NY: Nation Associates, 1926. Internet resource.
Kallen, Stuart. The Twentieth Century and the Harlem Renaissance: A History of Black People in America, 1880-1930. Edina, MN: Abdo, 1990. Print.
