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