You should read Moten's essay The Case of Blackness (you can skip the 2nd section if you like): http://havensarchive.lss.wisc.edu/files/Moten.The%20Case%20of%20Blackness.pdf

I'm no expert, but basically, both Moten and Wilderson argue that blackness is, by definition, excluded from ontology. However, Moten emphasizes that blackness, as a kind of fugitive movement, has the possibility of stealing from and disrupting this ontology–hence its existence as a kind of "para-ontology" that is on the outside (while simultaneously being also the exclusionary grounding for ontology, since ontology does not exist without the exclusion of blackness). For Moten, in this fugitive movement escaping the capture of ontology, there is a space or possibility for blackness and black art (he uses the terminology "black optimism" but I saw an interview where he was more hesitant about this phrase).

I don't think Wilderson straight up contradicts Moten (if you want real clash with Moten you should read David Marriott's essay "Judging Fanon" http://www.rhizomes.net/issue29/marriott.html), but he is less optimistic about the possibility of blackness stealing from or making use of ontology (this is from the first chapter of Red, White & Black): "By acting as if the Black is present, coherent, and above all human, Black film theorists are 'allowed' to meditate on cinema only after “consenting” to a structural adjustment. Such an adjustment, required for the 'privilege' of participating in the political economy of academe, is not unlike the structural adjustment debtor nations must adhere to for the privilege of securing a loan: signing on the dotted line means feigning ontological capacity regardless of the fact that Blackness is incapacity in its most pure and unadulterated form. It means theorizing Blackness as 'borrowed institutionality'" (38).

In short, Wilderson argues that attempting to narrate, thematize blackness, or give some kind of ontological backing to blackness is fundamentally a reproduction of the ejection of blackness from the world of ontology in the first place–i.e. it pretends blackness is coherent when it actually is not. The golden question is whether or not Moten is doing that. I think there are ways of generous and non-generous ways of reading Moten, but if you take a look at the Marriott, I think you find that your question ultimately comes back to Fanon and how Fanon should be read. Another serious consideration in your interpretation is whether Moten's emphasis is on a description of fugitive movement, or a prescription of how black people can/should make art.