Tag Archives: African-Americans

Being smart about using artificial intelligence in the field of medicine

Since my August 20, 2018 post featured an opinion piece about the possibly imminent replacement of radiologists with artificial intelligence systems and the latest research about employing them for diagnosing eye diseases, it seems like a good time to examine some of the mythology embedded in the discussion about AI and medicine.

Imperfections in medical AI systems

An August 15, 2018 article for Slate.com by W. Nicholson Price II (who teaches at the University of Michigan School of Law; in addition to his law degree he has a PhD in Biological Sciences from Columbia University) begins with the peppy, optimistic view before veering into more critical territory (Note: Links have been removed),

For millions of people suffering from diabetes, new technology enabled by artificial intelligence promises to make management much easier. Medtronic’s Guardian Connect system promises to alert users 10 to 60 minutes before they hit high or low blood sugar level thresholds, thanks to IBM Watson, “the same supercomputer technology that can predict global weather patterns.” Startup Beta Bionics goes even further: In May, it received Food and Drug Administration approval to start clinical trials on what it calls a “bionic pancreas system” powered by artificial intelligence, capable of “automatically and autonomously managing blood sugar levels 24/7.”

An artificial pancreas powered by artificial intelligence represents a huge step forward for the treatment of diabetes—but getting it right will be hard. Artificial intelligence (also known in various iterations as deep learning and machine learning) promises to automatically learn from patterns in medical data to help us do everything from managing diabetes to finding tumors in an MRI to predicting how long patients will live. But the artificial intelligence techniques involved are typically opaque. We often don’t know how the algorithm makes the eventual decision. And they may change and learn from new data—indeed, that’s a big part of the promise. But when the technology is complicated, opaque, changing, and absolutely vital to the health of a patient, how do we make sure it works as promised?

Price describes how a ‘closed loop’ artificial pancreas with AI would automate insulin levels for diabetic patients, flaws in the automated system, and how companies like to maintain a competitive advantage (Note: Links have been removed),

[…] a “closed loop” artificial pancreas, where software handles the whole issue, receiving and interpreting signals from the monitor, deciding when and how much insulin is needed, and directing the insulin pump to provide the right amount. The first closed-loop system was approved in late 2016. The system should take as much of the issue off the mind of the patient as possible (though, of course, that has limits). Running a close-loop artificial pancreas is challenging. The way people respond to changing levels of carbohydrates is complicated, as is their response to insulin; it’s hard to model accurately. Making it even more complicated, each individual’s body reacts a little differently.

Here’s where artificial intelligence comes into play. Rather than trying explicitly to figure out the exact model for how bodies react to insulin and to carbohydrates, machine learning methods, given a lot of data, can find patterns and make predictions. And existing continuous glucose monitors (and insulin pumps) are excellent at generating a lot of data. The idea is to train artificial intelligence algorithms on vast amounts of data from diabetic patients, and to use the resulting trained algorithms to run a closed-loop artificial pancreas. Even more exciting, because the system will keep measuring blood glucose, it can learn from the new data and each patient’s artificial pancreas can customize itself over time as it acquires new data from that patient’s particular reactions.

Here’s the tough question: How will we know how well the system works? Diabetes software doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to accuracy. A 2015 study found that among smartphone apps for calculating insulin doses, two-thirds of the apps risked giving incorrect results, often substantially so. … And companies like to keep their algorithms proprietary for a competitive advantage, which makes it hard to know how they work and what flaws might have gone unnoticed in the development process.

There’s more,

These issues aren’t unique to diabetes care—other A.I. algorithms will also be complicated, opaque, and maybe kept secret by their developers. The potential for problems multiplies when an algorithm is learning from data from an entire hospital, or hospital system, or the collected data from an entire state or nation, not just a single patient. …

The [US Food and Drug Administraiont] FDA is working on this problem. The head of the agency has expressed his enthusiasm for bringing A.I. safely into medical practice, and the agency has a new Digital Health Innovation Action Plan to try to tackle some of these issues. But they’re not easy, and one thing making it harder is a general desire to keep the algorithmic sauce secret. The example of IBM Watson for Oncology has given the field a bit of a recent black eye—it turns out that the company knew the algorithm gave poor recommendations for cancer treatment but kept that secret for more than a year. …

While Price focuses on problems with algorithms and with developers and their business interests, he also hints at some of the body’s complexities.

Can AI systems be like people?

Susan Baxter, a medical writer with over 20 years experience, a PhD in health economics, and author of countless magazine articles and several books, offers a more person-centered approach to the discussion in her July 6, 2018 posting on susanbaxter.com,

The fascination with AI continues to irk, given that every second thing I read seems to be extolling the magic of AI and medicine and how It Will Change Everything. Which it will not, trust me. The essential issue of illness remains perennial and revolves around an individual for whom no amount of technology will solve anything without human contact. …

But in this world, or so we are told by AI proponents, radiologists will soon be obsolete. [my August 20, 2018 post] The adaptational learning capacities of AI mean that reading a scan or x-ray will soon be more ably done by machines than humans. The presupposition here is that we, the original programmers of this artificial intelligence, understand the vagaries of real life (and real disease) so wonderfully that we can deconstruct these much as we do the game of chess (where, let’s face it, Big Blue ate our lunch) and that analyzing a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional body, already problematic, can be reduced to a series of algorithms.

Attempting to extrapolate what some “shadow” on a scan might mean in a flesh and blood human isn’t really quite the same as bishop to knight seven. Never mind the false positive/negatives that are considered an acceptable risk or the very real human misery they create.

Moravec called it

It’s called Moravec’s paradox, the inability of humans to realize just how complex basic physical tasks are – and the corresponding inability of AI to mimic it. As you walk across the room, carrying a glass of water, talking to your spouse/friend/cat/child; place the glass on the counter and open the dishwasher door with your foot as you open a jar of pickles at the same time, take a moment to consider just how many concurrent tasks you are doing and just how enormous the computational power these ostensibly simple moves would require.

Researchers in Singapore taught industrial robots to assemble an Ikea chair. Essentially, screw in the legs. A person could probably do this in a minute. Maybe two. The preprogrammed robots took nearly half an hour. And I suspect programming those robots took considerably longer than that.

Ironically, even Elon Musk, who has had major production problems with the Tesla cars rolling out of his high tech factory, has conceded (in a tweet) that “Humans are underrated.”

I wouldn’t necessarily go that far given the political shenanigans of Trump & Co. but in the grand scheme of things I tend to agree. …

Is AI going the way of gene therapy?

Susan draws a parallel between the AI and medicine discussion with the discussion about genetics and medicine (Note: Links have been removed),

On a somewhat similar note – given the extent to which genetics discourse has that same linear, mechanistic  tone [as AI and medicine] – it turns out all this fine talk of using genetics to determine health risk and whatnot is based on nothing more than clever marketing, since a lot of companies are making a lot of money off our belief in DNA. Truth is half the time we don’t even know what a gene is never mind what it actually does;  geneticists still can’t agree on how many genes there are in a human genome, as this article in Nature points out.

Along the same lines, I was most amused to read about something called the Super Seniors Study, research following a group of individuals in their 80’s, 90’s and 100’s who seem to be doing really well. Launched in 2002 and headed by Angela Brooks Wilson, a geneticist at the BC [British Columbia] Cancer Agency and SFU [Simon Fraser University] Chair of biomedical physiology and kinesiology, this longitudinal work is examining possible factors involved in healthy ageing.

Turns out genes had nothing to do with it, the title of the Globe and Mail article notwithstanding. (“Could the DNA of these super seniors hold the secret to healthy aging?” The answer, a resounding “no”, well hidden at the very [end], the part most people wouldn’t even get to.) All of these individuals who were racing about exercising and working part time and living the kind of life that makes one tired just reading about it all had the same “multiple (genetic) factors linked to a high probability of disease”. You know, the gene markers they tell us are “linked” to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. But these super seniors had all those markers but none of the diseases, demonstrating (pretty strongly) that the so-called genetic links to disease are a load of bunkum. Which (she said modestly) I have been saying for more years than I care to remember. You’re welcome.

The fundamental error in this type of linear thinking is in allowing our metaphors (genes are the “blueprint” of life) and propensity towards social ideas of determinism to overtake common sense. Biological and physiological systems are not static; they respond to and change to life in its entirety, whether it’s diet and nutrition to toxic or traumatic insults. Immunity alters, endocrinology changes, – even how we think and feel affects the efficiency and effectiveness of physiology. Which explains why as we age we become increasingly dissimilar.

If you have the time, I encourage to read Susan’s comments in their entirety.

Scientific certainties

Following on with genetics, gene therapy dreams, and the complexity of biology, the June 19, 2018 Nature article by Cassandra Willyard (mentioned in Susan’s posting) highlights an aspect of scientific research not often mentioned in public,

One of the earliest attempts to estimate the number of genes in the human genome involved tipsy geneticists, a bar in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and pure guesswork.

That was in 2000, when a draft human genome sequence was still in the works; geneticists were running a sweepstake on how many genes humans have, and wagers ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Almost two decades later, scientists armed with real data still can’t agree on the number — a knowledge gap that they say hampers efforts to spot disease-related mutations.

In 2000, with the genomics community abuzz over the question of how many human genes would be found, Ewan Birney launched the GeneSweep contest. Birney, now co-director of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) in Hinxton, UK, took the first bets at a bar during an annual genetics meeting, and the contest eventually attracted more than 1,000 entries and a US$3,000 jackpot. Bets on the number of genes ranged from more than 312,000 to just under 26,000, with an average of around 40,000. These days, the span of estimates has shrunk — with most now between 19,000 and 22,000 — but there is still disagreement (See ‘Gene Tally’).

… the inconsistencies in the number of genes from database to database are problematic for researchers, Pruitt says. “People want one answer,” she [Kim Pruitt, a genome researcher at the US National Center for Biotechnology Information {NCB}] in Bethesda, Maryland] adds, “but biology is complex.”

I wanted to note that scientists do make guesses and not just with genetics. For example, Gina Mallet’s 2005 book ‘Last Chance to Eat: The Fate of Taste in a Fast Food World’ recounts the story of how good and bad levels of cholesterol were established—the experts made some guesses based on their experience. That said, Willyard’s article details the continuing effort to nail down the number of genes almost 20 years after the human genome project was completed and delves into the problems the scientists have uncovered.

Final comments

In addition to opaque processes with developers/entrepreneurs wanting to maintain their secrets for competitive advantages and in addition to our own poor understanding of the human body (how many genes are there anyway?), there are same major gaps (reflected in AI) in our understanding of various diseases. Angela Lashbrook’s August 16, 2018 article for The Atlantic highlights some issues with skin cancer and shade of your skin (Note: Links have been removed),

… While fair-skinned people are at the highest risk for contracting skin cancer, the mortality rate for African Americans is considerably higher: Their five-year survival rate is 73 percent, compared with 90 percent for white Americans, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

As the rates of melanoma for all Americans continue a 30-year climb, dermatologists have begun exploring new technologies to try to reverse this deadly trend—including artificial intelligence. There’s been a growing hope in the field that using machine-learning algorithms to diagnose skin cancers and other skin issues could make for more efficient doctor visits and increased, reliable diagnoses. The earliest results are promising—but also potentially dangerous for darker-skinned patients.

… Avery Smith, … a software engineer in Baltimore, Maryland, co-authored a paper in JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association] Dermatology that warns of the potential racial disparities that could come from relying on machine learning for skin-cancer screenings. Smith’s co-author, Adewole Adamson of the University of Texas at Austin, has conducted multiple studies on demographic imbalances in dermatology. “African Americans have the highest mortality rate [for skin cancer], and doctors aren’t trained on that particular skin type,” Smith told me over the phone. “When I came across the machine-learning software, one of the first things I thought was how it will perform on black people.”

Recently, a study that tested machine-learning software in dermatology, conducted by a group of researchers primarily out of Germany, found that “deep-learning convolutional neural networks,” or CNN, detected potentially cancerous skin lesions better than the 58 dermatologists included in the study group. The data used for the study come from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration, or ISIC, an open-source repository of skin images to be used by machine-learning algorithms. Given the rise in melanoma cases in the United States, a machine-learning algorithm that assists dermatologists in diagnosing skin cancer earlier could conceivably save thousands of lives each year.

… Chief among the prohibitive issues, according to Smith and Adamson, is that the data the CNN relies on come from primarily fair-skinned populations in the United States, Australia, and Europe. If the algorithm is basing most of its knowledge on how skin lesions appear on fair skin, then theoretically, lesions on patients of color are less likely to be diagnosed. “If you don’t teach the algorithm with a diverse set of images, then that algorithm won’t work out in the public that is diverse,” says Adamson. “So there’s risk, then, for people with skin of color to fall through the cracks.”

As Adamson and Smith’s paper points out, racial disparities in artificial intelligence and machine learning are not a new issue. Algorithms have mistaken images of black people for gorillas, misunderstood Asians to be blinking when they weren’t, and “judged” only white people to be attractive. An even more dangerous issue, according to the paper, is that decades of clinical research have focused primarily on people with light skin, leaving out marginalized communities whose symptoms may present differently.

The reasons for this exclusion are complex. According to Andrew Alexis, a dermatologist at Mount Sinai, in New York City, and the director of the Skin of Color Center, compounding factors include a lack of medical professionals from marginalized communities, inadequate information about those communities, and socioeconomic barriers to participating in research. “In the absence of a diverse study population that reflects that of the U.S. population, potential safety or efficacy considerations could be missed,” he says.

Adamson agrees, elaborating that with inadequate data, machine learning could misdiagnose people of color with nonexistent skin cancers—or miss them entirely. But he understands why the field of dermatology would surge ahead without demographically complete data. “Part of the problem is that people are in such a rush. This happens with any new tech, whether it’s a new drug or test. Folks see how it can be useful and they go full steam ahead without thinking of potential clinical consequences. …

Improving machine-learning algorithms is far from the only method to ensure that people with darker skin tones are protected against the sun and receive diagnoses earlier, when many cancers are more survivable. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 63 percent of African Americans don’t wear sunscreen; both they and many dermatologists are more likely to delay diagnosis and treatment because of the belief that dark skin is adequate protection from the sun’s harmful rays. And due to racial disparities in access to health care in America, African Americans are less likely to get treatment in time.

Happy endings

I’ll add one thing to Price’s article, Susan’s posting, and Lashbrook’s article about the issues with AI , certainty, gene therapy, and medicine—the desire for a happy ending prefaced with an easy solution. If the easy solution isn’t possible accommodations will be made but that happy ending is a must. All disease will disappear and there will be peace on earth. (Nod to Susan Baxter and her many discussions with me about disease processes and happy endings.)

The solutions, for the most part, are seen as technological despite the mountain of evidence suggesting that technology reflects our own imperfect understanding of health and disease therefore providing what is at best an imperfect solution.

Also, we tend to underestimate just how complex humans are not only in terms of disease and health but also with regard to our skills, understanding, and, perhaps not often enough, our ability to respond appropriately in the moment.

There is much to celebrate in what has been accomplished: no more black death, no more smallpox, hip replacements, pacemakers, organ transplants, and much more. Yes, we should try to improve our medicine. But, maybe alongside the celebration we can welcome AI and other technologies with a lot less hype and a lot more skepticism.

Kerry James Marshall: a ‘song’ of racism in multiple media

Racism and social justice are two themes often found in the works featured at the Rennie Museum (formerly Rennie Collection). Local real estate marketer, Bob Rennie has been showing works there from his collection since at least 2009 when I wrote my first commentary about it (December 4, 2009).

Kerry James Marshall, the latest artist to have his work featured (June 2 – November 3, 2018), carries on the tradition while making those artistic ‘themes’ his own n a breathtaking (in both its positive and negative meanings) range of styles and media.

Here’s a brief description of some of the works, from an undated Rennie Museum press release,

Rennie Museum presents a survey of works by Kerry James Marshall spanning thirty-two years of the artist’s career. Kerry James Marshall: Collected Works features pieces from the artist’s complex body of work, which interrogates the sparse historical presence of African-Americans through painting, sculpture, drawing and other media. …

The sculptural installation Untitled (Black Power Stamps) (1998) [emphasis mine], Marshall’s very first work acquired by Bob Rennie, aptly sets the tone of the exhibition. Five colossal stamps and their corresponding ink pads are dispersed over the floor of the museum’s four-story high gallery space. Inscribed on each stamp, and reiterated on the walls, are phrases of power dating back to the Civil Rights Movement: ‘Black is Beautiful’, ‘Black Power’, ‘We Shall Overcome’, ‘By Any Means Necessary’, and ‘Burn Baby Burn’. The sentiment reverberates through the three 18 feet (5.5 metre) wide paintings installed in the same room, respectively titled Untitled (Red) (2011), Untitled (Black) and Untitled (Green) (2012). Exhibited together for the first time in North America, the imposing paintings with their colours saluting the Pan African flag echo the form of Barnett Newman’s Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III (1967).

Commanding attention in the center of another room is Wake (2003-2005) [emphasis mine], a sculptural work that focuses on the collective trauma of slavery. Draped atop a blackened model sailboat is a web of medallions featuring portraits of descendants of the approximately twenty African slaves who first landed in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. Atop a polished black base evoking the deep seas, the medallions cascade over and behind the mourning vessel in a gilded procession, cast out in the boat’s wake. The work commemorates an entire lineage of people whose lives have been irrevocably affected by the traumatic history of slavery in the United States, while simultaneously celebrating the resilience and vivacity of the culture that flourished from it.

Garden Party (2004-2013) [emphasis mine] is a long-coveted painting that Marshall re-worked over the course of almost ten years. Created in a style that harkens 19th century impressionist paintings, the work depicts a scene of leisure – an array of multi-ethnic friends and neighbours casually gathered in a backyard of a social housing project. Painted on a flat canvas tarp and hung barely off the floor, the image highlights an often-overlooked perspective of the vibrant everyday life in the projects and invites its viewers to join in the gathering.

In a dimmed room is Invisible Man (1986) [emphasis mine] – a historic work and one of the first to feature Marshall’s now iconic black on black tonal painting. Referencing Ralph Ellison’s 1952 novel of the same title, Marshall’s work literalizes the premise of black invisibility. Only distinguishable by his bright-white eyes and teeth, and the subtle warmth that delineates black body from black background, Marshall’s figure, like Ellison’s protagonist, subverts his own invisibility, using colour as an emblem of power rather than of submission. The work’s presentation at Rennie Museum provides an opportunity for viewers to explore the full mastery with which Kerry James Marshall layers his various shades of black.

As always, you book a tour or claim a space on a tour (here) to see the latest exhibition and are guided through the gallery spaces. What follows is a series of pictures depicting the Marshall pieces in that first room (from the Rennie Museum’s photographic documentation for Marshall’s work), Note: There are five pages of documentation and I encourage you to look at all five,

Installation View. Courtesy:: Rennie Museum

Blot, 2014. acrylic on pvc panel 84 × 119 5/8 × 3 3/8 inches (213 × 304 × 9 cm). Courtesy: Rennie Museum

Sculpture (Ibeji), 2006. wood, fabric, beads 24 × 12 × 14 inches (61 × 30 × 36 cm) Courtesy: Rennie Museum

Heirlooms and Accessories, 2002. 3 inkjet prints on wove paper, rhinestone encrusted wooden artist’s frames each: 56 5/8 × 53 3/4 inches (144 × 137 cm) Courtesy: Rennie Museum

I’ve placed the pieces in the order in which I viewed them. Being at the opening event on June 2, 2018 meant that rather than having a tour, we were ‘invited’ to look at the pieces and ask questions of various ‘attendants’ standing nearby. The ‘Blot’, with all that colour, immediate drew my attention and not having read the title of the piece, I commented on its resemblance to a Rorschach Inkblot. It was my only successful guess of the visit and I continue to bask in it.

According to the attendant, in addition to resembling said inkblot, this piece also addresses abstract expressionism and the absence of African American visual artists from the movement. In this piece as with many others, Marshall finds a way to depict absence despite the paradox (a picture of absence) in terms.

‘Heirlooms and Accessories’ is an example of Marshall’s talent for depicting absence. At first glance the piece seems benign. There is a kind of double frame. The outermost frame is white and inside (abutting the artwork) a diamante braid has been added all around it to create a double frame. The braid is very pretty and accentuates the lockets depicted in the image. There are three white women pictured in their lockets and beneath those lockets and the white paint lay images of African Americans being lynched. The women, by the way, were complicit in the lynchings. It was deeply unsettling to learn this as my friend and I had just moments before been admiring the diamante braid.

Marshall’s work seems designed to force the viewer to look beneath the surface, which means stripping away layers, which with ‘Heirlooms’ means that you strip away the whitewashing.

As a white woman, the show is a profoundly disturbing  experience. Marshall’s range of materials and mastery are breathtaking (in the positive sense) and the way he seduces the (white) viewer into coming closer and experiencing the painting, metaphorically speaking, as a mirror rather than a picture. Marshall has flipped the viewer’s experience making it impossible (or very difficult) to blame racism on other people while failing to recognize your own sins.

The third piece in the room, the sculpture is a representation of a standard of beauty still not often seen in popular culture in North America. Weirdly, it reminded me of something from a December 21, 2017 posting on the LaineyGossip blog,

[downloaded from http://www.laineygossip.com/princess-michael-of-kent-racist-jewelry-greets-meghan/48728]

I don’t know well you can see this, but it’s an example of ‘Blackamoor jewellery’. The woman wearing it is Princess Michael of Kent and at the time the picture was taken she was on her to a Christmas 2017 lunch with the Queen of England. The lunch is where she was to meet Meghan Markle who describes herself as a woman of mixed race and is now the Duchess of Sussex and married to the Queen’s grandson, Harry. For anyone unfamiliar with ‘Blackmoor art’ here’s a July 31, 2015 essay by Anneke Rautenbach for New York University,

… Blackamoors—a trope in Italian decorative art especially common in pieces of furniture, but also appearing in paintings, jewelry, and textiles. The motif emerged as an artistic response to the European encounter with the Moors—dark-skinned Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East who came to occupy various parts of Europe during the Middle Ages. Commonly fixed in positions of servitude—as footmen or waiters, for example—the figures personify fantasies of racial conquest.

I trust Princess Michael was made to remove her brooch before entering the palace.

The contrast between Marshall’s sculpture emphasizing the dignity and beauty of the figure and the ‘jewellery’ is striking. The past, as Marshall reminds us, is always with us. From Rautenback’s July 31, 2015 essay (Note: A link has been removed),

Gaudy by nature, and uncomfortably dated—a bit like the American lawn jockey, or Aunt Jemima doll— … Blackamoors are still a thriving industry, with the United States as their no. 1 importer. (In fact, the figurines are especially popular in Texas and Connecticut—search “Blackamoor” online and you’ll find countless listings on eBay, Etsy, and elsewhere.) Unlike their American counterparts, which focus mostly on romanticizing scenes from the era of slavery, these European ornaments often depict black bodies as exotic noblemen. And not everyone considers them passé: As recently as September 2012, the Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana invited outrage when it included a caricatured black woman figurine on an earring as part of its spring/summer collection.

Encountering bias and (conscious or unconscious) racism in one’s self is both deeply  chastening and a priceless gift.  It’s one that comedienne Roseanne Barr seems determined to refuse (from a June 14, 2018 article by Marissa Martinelli for Slate.com (Note: Link have been removed),

Barr […] suggested on Thursday [June 14, 2018] that it is only “low IQ” people who would interpret describing a black woman as “Muslim Brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby” as racist. The real explanation is apparently much deeper:

Roseanne BarrVerified account @therealroseanne

Rod Serling wrote Planet of The Apes. It was about anti-semitism. That is what my tweet referred to-the anti semitism of the Iran deal. Low IQ ppl can think whatever they want.

Low IQ people and Rod Serling’s screenwriting join Ambien and Memorial Day on the growing list of entities that Barr has used to justify the racist tweet over the past two weeks. The one person whose name you will not find on that list of people responsible for what Roseanne Barr said is Roseanne Barr herself.

Even with such an obvious tweet, Barr can’t (consistently) admit to and (consistently) apologize for her comment. It may not seem like a gift to her but it is. Facing up to one’s sins and making reparation can help heal the extraordinary wounds that Marshall is making visible.

You may have noticed that I called this show ‘a song of racism’. It’s a reference to poetry which in ancient times was sometimes referred to as a song (Song of Solomon, anyone?). It was also a narrative instrument, i. e., used for storytelling for an active, participatory audience.

Marshall tells a story in allusive language (like poetry) and tricks/seduces you into participating.

On that note, I have one last story to tell and it’s about the placement of Marshall’s artworks in the first floor room. It’s my story, yours and Marshall’s might be different but he has inspired me and so …

The ‘Blot’ or Rorschach Inkblot is a test, which tells a psychologist something about you and how you apprehend the world. It’s the first piece you see when you enter the Rennie Museum space and it sets the tone for all that is to come.  What you see says much about you.

The women, in the sculpture and the lockets, provide contrast and, depending on your race, hold a mirror to you. What is ‘other’ and what is ‘you’?

There was religious imagery in much of Marshall’s work elsewhere and I was particularly struck with the hearts that appeared in some of his paintings. I was reminded of the ‘sacred heart’, a key piece of religious iconography usually associated with Roman Catholicism although other religions also use the imagery.

It is a symbol of love and compassion although I’ve always associated it more with guilt. (My mother favoured the version featuring the heart pierced with a crown of thorns.)

Getting back to “What is ‘other’ and what is ‘you’?” Marshall seems to be hinting that after guilt and suffering, forgiveness is possible.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

As for Marshall, he is a thoughtful artist asking some difficult questions. I hope you’ll get a chance to see his work at the Rennie Museum. As I write this, every tour through June is completely booked and first set of July tours is getting booked fast. You’d best keep an eagle eye on the Visit page.

ETA June18, 2018: Kerry James Marshall was in Vancouver and gave this talk about his work just prior to the show’s opening: https://vimeo.com/274179397 (It runs for roughly 1 hr. and 49 minutes.)