wonderfully racist?

Conrad’s novel, “Heart of Darkness” is undoubtedly one of the most beautifully written stories ever. However, I wonder, if, I was one of the reader who felt offended by this story, would this great piece of literature be as great as it was praised to be in my eyes? I wonder, also, as to what is more important here in terms of the definition of a great art. Is it the pure worth of art regardless of its theme and content, or is it more complex than that? Though it’s hard for me to come to a conclusion, I cannot deny that what Achebe stated in his article concerning Conrad’s novel is true. Even Achebe himself acknowledges that this novel is certainly a great piece of literature by saying, “I do not doubt Conrad's great talents. Even Heart of Darkness has its memorably good passages and moments…” however, he insists that as when a novel “celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race” cannot be called a great work of art. That Conrad was a racist no matter how his work has been described as “among the half dozen greatest short novels in the English language."

As Achebe himself said regarding the overall content of the book, “It was and is the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination…,” it isn’t difficult to point out as to which particular passages carried out this claim of his. As it was in, “A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms. . . .” and “What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly." Though however brief, the sense of fascination is mixed with that of dehumanization of black people here and also, though however notably recognized, it is just obvious to any readers of his book that Conrad’s writing has the racist sentiment.

I remember when a certain photograph was in controversy for its striking content. In it, there was a boy who was nearly starved to death and there around him was a bird, possibly a threatening kind, trying to literally eat him. Though the picture itself was regarded as one of the most fascinating one, people’s rage and anger toward the photographer’s action- that is, instead of saving that boy, he merely perceived that situation as a chance for him to take a picture-poured out, questioning the meaning for a great work of art.

It certainly has two sides, whether it’s of moral issue or of the artistic quality, in the question of art. Again, I still have a hard time drawing a borderline but I can say this, at least, that maybe, it comes down to who is dominant, in the field of literature, or in any, that can say what a great art work is and thus be valued as it is.