"We are (Not) the World"

In chapter 6 in the Art of Protest, I found it interesting that the author does not believe that the songs are written for the people they were meant to reach. This part of the chapter reminded me of one of the first class meetings when we talked about Pink and that benefit concert. A lot of people had the same opinion as T.V. Reed. I do not agree with the comment on Jerry Lewis because I love that telethon and believe that it does help people. I also believe that celebrities want to help people and that is why they do benefit concerts. People have to remember that celebrities are people too and all people can be naive and that includes celebrities. All of these examples of musicians coming together to make these cds to make a point is an example of pooling their resources to make a little bit of a difference by providing awareness for other people. Recently, or in the past few years a bunch of bands got together and made a cd called Rock Against Bush. This was to make a statement about president Bush and make people aware of their opinion of the president. All of these cds are just exercising their right of freedom of speech. While it would be nice to donate money sometimes its more effective to become involved in situations physically. If a singer can sing, then why not sing for a cause?

Art of Protest Ch. 4 and Daniel Joseph Martinez

Daniel Joseph Martinez's work is very interesting because it gets very political. It ties in very well with chapter 4 of The Art of Protest. In the Art of Protest the Chicano movement artists' use murals to convey their messages. Martinez uses site-specific installation to show his work but i am sure that a lot of the murals that were completed in Chicano movement were site specific as well. In a lot of cases they only fit in the spots they were placed and they were put there for a reason, especially the murals that were done on walls. Martinez's piece of museum tags is almost a reaction to the culture clash of American-Mexicans and white-Americans. I found it interesting that the murals could cause such a stir and change in thinking. Art can speak so much and things can be interpreted in many different ways. I liked how on pg 126 they point out the word community. I believe that there are many different ways to use this word. A community can be almost any type of close encountered people. People who have something in common. Whether it's money, race, religion, etc. I personally feel that having a sense of community where you live is very important. I think that most of these movements revolve around that sense of community and how people feel that all communities should be created equal. That can go for anyone and any cause.

Shirin Neshat

I was reading In the Making, Shirin Neshat. I found it very interesting that her art is all about diversity and how we are reading about this while attending the most diverse university in the country. It seems very appropriate to be more understanding. The art work Rapture is very interesting and ties in with the Art of Protest because we are reading about the women's movement. Rapture points out how there are different standards in different cultures. If men can be modernized, why not women? It is the question that has been asked in so many different situations. I found this work to be the most interesting because I don't understand how all of these women can be alright with dressing traditionally while the men can dress however they please. It reminded me of a sect of the jewish religion. The Chassid jews are very traditional and wear a shmatteh on their heads if they are married and they wear these long skirts all the time. I am jewish but not this sect. I could never put my rights to the side. This piece definitely said a lot to me.

Arnaldo Morales

I think Morales' experience as a human being is just profound. His familiarity with violence is unbelievable. What was most surprising about this reading was the reactions and behaviors of people to Morales and to his work. When living in a violent neighborhood in Puerto Rico, people actually respected him. When doing "dangerous" artwork, people actually got pleasure from it.
I liked that he wanted more of a connection with his audience. When he was in school he hated that his only relationship he had with anyone was "You really know how to draw".
I could also relate to another statement he made about being an art student, "I tried to do everything so fast because I also felt like I was late for everything. In the beginning this was good but it didn't finish well. As an artist you need to be as calm as possible." I love that quote!
Back to his work, the viewer's reaction to his work was most interesting; but even more it's funny that viewers of art tend to believe "all art is virtualized" and that themes are only represented conceptually. I don't like this assumption from viewers; hence the reason I felt his work was so successful. It was literal and proved them wrong.

Black Panthers

My initial understanding of the Black Panthers was a very vague one. Actually it had a lot to do with its downfall rather than its influence. I had no idea that theatricality and drama were elements vital to this movement. I was initially doubtful of this connection at the top of page 42. I thought it was just the author's theory to glorify the Black Panthers.
I was convinced of this connection after reading that the Black Panthers were not only political, but culturally empowered. They had their own soul music group, the Lumpens; borrowed from the ideas of Amiri Baraka's theater performances---all while realizing that a return to African culture would not be enough and that a different identity was necessary for the times. Using cultural tactics of theater and drama however, did make their movement successful in reclaiming the 'black power' after years of internalized abuse.
It was interesting reading about Malcom X's metaphor about "house Negros" and "field Negros" only because when you think of the black power movement, you automatically assume everyone is on the same page, fighting hand by hand for the same cause.
It was disappointing to read that Baraka's work was misogynist, sexist, homophobic, antiSemetic, etc. That was truly one of the most artistic parts of this chapter--especially useful in trying to understand the origins of theatricality. It was completely hypocritical and different from Arnaldo Morales--in the sense that he believed if he "hurt someone his work would not be art; it would just be dangerous".
It was interesting learning that the Panthers would follow police officials around; reversing the "gaze of surveillance".
I liked the imagery the author used when talking about the impact/decline of the Panther's on the wider black community: "from activism to despair to gangstar culture that for many was all that was left after radical resistance was supressed".
Lastly, I enjoyed learning that Huey Newton took a strong stand against homophobia in the black community; he also supported the gay liberation movement. To me it's movements that incorporate one another that are truly the most effective.

Art of Protest

I found it interesting that initially the chapter started about by saying that although Martin Luther King Jr. was a great orator and leader, the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t just limited to him. He did have “high public vitality" but this "obscured the extent to which the movement worked from a model of collective leadership and was driven by thousands of ordinary citizens.” This was a constant theme in this chapter—a theme about the astounding power of large numbers of people, large amounts of time, depth and patience; as well as minor incidents which led to a great thing. It was about “local, group centered leadership rather than a central hierarchical national organization.” Most importantly to me it was often a “woman-led movement” which forced people to look at a deeply racist society. It was the women, the college students, the freedom rides, boycotts and other institutions which made up this movement. I went to Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school, so you can imagine as a child these important elements were not emphasized in my learning.
The contrast of instances leading up to Movement—the American society pressuring blacks to hold internalized racism while fighting Nazi racism—was quite astounding. I never comprehended the international views on Southern apartheid as an international embarrassment. Additionally, I would have loved to have these kinds of contrasts when learning about the Movement earlier in my life, but I guess that what makes this a great book. It blatantly points out things like, “Perhaps it is the way to look at white people who had the luxury of not paying much attention to black struggle.”
Falling back on the importance of locality and ordinary people; one of the things that made freedom songs and “liberation musicology” so effective was that it became a tool used by the everyday black person. Music being a key tool in the Civil Rights Movement (which started years before the 1950s-60s) was so ingenious and reflective of a group of people who organized in a slow, emerging process. The power of the length and flow of a freedom song like “We Shall Overcome” is an analogy to the length and flow of the black struggle. It’s all a little clearer now.

Chris Ofili

After reading about Chris Ofili I started to think about rap music and how he said that he portrayed his version of the Virgin Mary as a black woman in a rap song. It was interesting to me to think about how negatively these women are portrayed. It was also interesting to me to think about how he could use such an important figure in catholicism and turn it into something almost derogatory. I understood the meaning he was trying to convey by using something so shocking to get his point across. While reading about Chris Ofili, I thought his work was about making a statement but at the end of the reading, he says his work is about critique, religion and confusion of situations. Then I thought isn't being confused good sometimes if you question the confusion and want to learn more about something. There is not always one way to look at something and not everything is so black and white as wrong or right. There is always gray.

Cradle to Cradle, Chapter 5 & 6

There were many concepts I found to be interesting in the book, Cradle to Cradle, chapter 5. One was the idea that the world was created a certain way and that it has a certain framework, nature's design has a certain type of framework, a flowering diverity and of abundance. And that for most humans, the response to this is to have the thought or theory that as the book calls it, "attack of the one size-fits-all." The book to me, is basically stating that humans use anything land to try to conquer. If they want to build something, nothing will get in the way of that, no jungle, no desert, or coastal marsh. Concrete can and will go wherever it is needed so that industrialists can keep building up the society they live in. I think this is true in part. I think that most people do not truly care where or what they destroy as long as what they want to accomplish is done. To me, this is such a sad, cavalier outlook on the world. What happens when there is no more place or space to build? And not to mention, the side effects that come with distroying all this land. The less trees, the less it can combat the massive amounts of C02 in the atmosphere.

To me this part really speaks to me. I want to try to make a difference and know that that can really only come from me. It starts with one person. The thing here about attacking the one size thing, is that, it is true what the book states. In today's society and the way the economy is, it is important to build more and more, and to push out things that were once there. The trees, the pretty landscape, I mean, who cares, really? You always have your house to go back home to at the end of the day, knowing no one is destroying the place you live. I just don't think it is fair to have this happen. Animals, the ecosystems are being destroyed, because we as a society want to keep expanding. These animals don't have a place to go home to, because they don't have a home after all the destruction that comes with expanding. What if there were another way to go about this? I like that this book tries to go into different ways to go about things in life. Too bad not many people share in on this idea. Because I think one day, the more destruction that is done, will one day, impact where we live, too.

Catie

Cradle to Cradle: Chapters 3 and 4

One of the big themes I noticed in this reading was the idea of imitating nature, rather than trying to conquer it. This idea seems to make so much sense that I almost wonder why "conquering" nature is so inherent to humanity's own nature...like it is a way of proving our power. I mean, we have so much in the way of technology and we have gained so much scientific knowledge in the past decade alone, I feel that we should be evolving past the point of trying to "tame" Mother Nature. Cradle to Cradle is a perfect example of our capability to work WITH nature instead of against it...and if we have the capability, why aren't we utilizing it? Actually, it reminds me of a disturbing-but-hilarious movie I saw recently, called Idiocracy. It takes place 500 years in the future, where all Americans (coined "Uhhhmericans") have evolved to be ever cruder and stupider instead of more civilized and intelligent, to the point where they have forgotten basic knowledge. Knowledge such as water makes plants grow, so they feed all their crops the futuristic equivalent of Gatorade. Naturally, all their crops die, people are starving, a giant dustbowl is created where farmland used to be, and the country is in shambles. Now, I don't know that the human race could actually be that stupid, but there were some very cynical truths in the film regardless--like if we refuse to advance as a nation torwards more intelligent ways of living, we could very well be left behind.

Anyway, I got a little off-track, but also, worth mentioning: apparently the Sundance Channel is featuring a block of interesting programming focused on green living. I caught the show "Big Ideas for a Small Planet" this past weekend, and coincidentally it was all about green housing and the transition to more sustainable living/working environments. I was thinking about Chapter 3 especially as I watched it--particularly with the "cherry tree" analogy that kept popping up. Mostly, it's because one of the featured groups of architects in the show had designed a LIVING tree house; what they called "The Fab Tree Hab". I could be a totally nerding out here, but I think this concept is freaking amazing. Here's a couple links which provides a little more information:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/06/12/grow-your-own-treehouse/#more-929
http://www.inhabitat.com/2005/09/18/fab-tree-hab/#more-646

Betsy Damon

While reading about Betsy Damon I could not help but think how you can compare what she does with what so many people would love to do. She was able to quit her "stable" life/career. She was able to actually do what she wanted to do and try to make a difference. There are so many people living life and working at jobs that they do not like or do not do to the fullest because they are unhappy. Betsy Damon was able to break the mold and do something good for herself and do something for the environment. Luckily, she was positively percepted and therefore could continue with a career that she enjoyed.

Blog

I found it really interesting to compare an Inconvenient Truth with Cradle to Cradle. It just seems like in chapter one of the book, they explain why Al Gore had to make the documentary. To me, these two things go hand in hand.
It is hard to coexist with big business because there is a triangle that has economically sound on the bottom as the biggest part, then legal, followed by ethical and finally philanthropic. Many business' just do not care as much about the smallest part of the triangle. They care about the profit that they are going to make.

C2C/Yukinori Yanagi

I was familiar with Cradle to Cradle before enrolling in this class, but I had never read it, let alone held it in my hands. The synthetic ‘paper’ developed by Charles Melcher, which can be broken down and circulated infinitely in industrial cycles (pg 5) was fun to hold while reading. It was almost cool to the touch, soothing in a way.

My book didn’t come in time, so I had to go to the library; I began to think of how many books are damaged on a daily basis. Wouldn’t it be awesome if libraries didn’t have to worry about the durability and replacement of damaged books?

Some things the stood out to me in the Intro(we weren’t required to read, but hey I paid for the book didn’t I?):

Michael Braungart mentioned that after becoming the director of the EPEA, he discovered the so-called nutrient flows of distant cultures such as the Yanomamo in Brazil, who cremated their dead, put the ashes in a banana soup, and fed to the tribe at a celebratory feast. The Yanomamo believed in karma and reincarnation, or the ‘upcycling’ of the soul(pg 13). The reason I loved reading about this was because 1) it seems as if tribal communities, even throughout history, have always had a veneration for nature 2) this discovery really fits the waste= food mentality; like the ‘upcycling’ of the soul, we as consumers should try to ‘upcycle’ our habits for generations to come, if that makes sense. To further sum up this point, the third quote in the beginning of the book by the faith keeper of the Onondaga really touched me: “What you call your natural resources, our people call their relatives.”

Here’s their website: http://onondaganation.org/

I forgot to mention the haunting paragraph on page 16 starting with “Consider this...” was so incredibly unsettling to me.

Being a woman’s study minor, what I found on in Chapter 1 (page 25) angered me the most. The authors make a crucial and intelligent point that in the 19th century, nature was perceived as ‘mother Earth’ (still is) who would absorb all things and continue to grow. Many people believed their would always be an expanse that would always remain untouched and innocent. To me this is ironic when considering the treatment of women during those times. Women are similarly thought of and desired to reamin untouched and innocent. These parallels between environmentalism and social inequality were most troubling. Additionally humans perceived natural forces as hostile, which had to be controlled. It bothers me that ‘mother’ nature is still looked upon as something cruel, something to blame, something we have nothing to do with-when in fact it’s just the opposite.

In the beginning of Chapter 2, the reference to Malthus was most fitting considering out topic of overpopulation for our project due Tuesday. "The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for men that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."
On that note I find sexual education (contraception) to be so important. There are still cultures around the world that don't believe or aren't familiar with contraception and continue to procreate based on myths and fables. Some tribes in Africa believe that having sex with a virgin will cure one of AIDS. This type of mentality encourages overpopulation which encourages habits that lead to the depletion of the Earth. It's sad that no one listened to Malthus, when he had the right idea to begin with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yanagi's deeper message that his people, like ants, lived inside a constructed social system full of illusions(pg 243), reminded me of our discussions of Inconvenient Truth last class.

Many of us were unable to look past our social constructs, our political views, specifically our views of Al Gore; rather than look at what we were suppose to look at--our responsibility for our planet. I don't remember talking about the issues as much as we talked about politics! If we can get past constructs maybe we can finally establish a healthier identity.

Climate Report/Green Museum

It's unbelievable that the annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last ten years, the same with methane and nitrous oxide. I was watching Bill Maher last week night and he had the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, come on and talk about how methane was such a huge issue. She said it was literally the gas emitted from cows and pigs. Normally I'd say that this is a funny cop-out, but in a society where McDonald's hamburgers are sold for what $1? I can understand why she would be a guest on Maher's show. This report was a bit lengthy and down-right depressing; but perhaps it will come in handy for our "Inconvienent" project.
As far as greenmuseum.org goes, I looked at Michele Brody's work and really loved the delicacy of the illuminated skirt structures. To me it represented human mortality the most. This inspires me to do something emphemeral if not with the group projects, with my own art.

blog-o-rama~

Hey everyone:

I started off posting this in the comments section of Michele's post, but I realized it was way too long and that I just have way too much to say! Okay, starting off with In the Making:

For some reason, I found Kim Jones' "Mudman" to be fascinating. I totally agree with Michele, Catie and Stacy in the fact that Jones is taking art to a newer, deeper level. However, I do have to mention that Jones himself said that the mudman was not "an alter-ego" (page 212, paragraph 2). He says, "I am Kim Jones when I am Mudman and after I take a shower." I only mention that because, to me, that makes his creation even more interesting--because he is acknowledging that his creation is something that is a part of him, and that a part of him goes into his creation. They both are allowed to co-exist.

This concept is also important depth of the message Jones attempts to deliver. He isn't just walking around heaving a giant scrap metal backpack--all his life experiences have culminated up until this point, and become the Mudman. To compare, I find the opposite is true with Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harajuku_Girls ). The Harajuku girls are essentially four Japanese girls that Stefani hired to be her back-up dancers--but also part of her 'posse'. They are always each dolled up in exaggerated Japanese street fashion, and she often brings them with her to events. They are even present with her in some interviews (although they are forbidden to speak). In one sense, we can see how both the Mudman and Stefani's Harajuku Girls might be seen as artistic statements; they are both brilliant examples of living sculpture. However, a chief difference is the coexistance of creation and creator in what is essentially the same body. Unlike the Mudman, who is both the artist and the artwork, the HG are Stefani's brainchild come to life through the four girls who play them. While the Mudman will speak to whomever approached him, the HG are not allowed to speak due to Stefani's creative direction (if an interviewer asks one of them a question, Stefani will state that they cannot answer questions because they are "figments of her imagination" and therefore cannot be seen by anyone but her).

Basically, the HG are not allowed to coexist with their own real and actual lives, and their experiences are not permitted to contribute the creation they portray. I think this offers an important distinction in when art becomes relevant, or simply contrived theatrics. The idea lends itself to a topic we talked about in our last class discussion, in questioning what exactly art is, and what role artists themselves play. Is the fact that the Mudman is "relevant" whereas the HG are "contrived", mean that one is art while the other is not? For me, I find the Harajuku Girls to be a gimmicky crock, but I don't necessarily believe that negates its value as art. In my eyes, as long as at least one person sees something as art (whether it's the creator or not), it IS art. So when we listened to that P!nk song in class, and the consensus revealed that it was more than likely a ploy perpetrated by her record company--it might be, but it's still art.

I think questioning what role artists play in all this is even trickier. Is P!nk, as at least a partial creator of the song we listened to, held to any higher responsibilities? Is she expected to act on the message she delivers? Or is she simply allowed to be a messenger? Right now, this is question on which I am truly stuck...and hopefully I'll be able to find an answer (or at least clarify) as the class continues.

Okay, this was way longer than I had originally intended, so I'll stop now. Thanks for reading! :]

In the Making Reading

Kim Jones has a very interesting outlook on sculpture. The fact that he can transform into an alter ego is not something that you see/hear everyday. I thought that it was interesting that he uses mud from wherever he is. Mudman takes sculpture to the next level. It makes himself the art work which is a very intense thing to do. I thought it was crazy that he walked around from sunrise to sunset in this costume. It was probably very hot at times and very uncomfortable to carry around 150 pounds all day long. Jones says "...this is the way the world usually works: first it is my turn to eat something and kill something, then it is someone else's turn to eat me and kill m. I have my individual experiences. They seep out of my art." While this statement is very interesting it is also very creepy. I think that it is a very morbid way of looking at the food chain. In turn, its probably just a blunt and bold statement.


Michele