The Ecomuseum:Incorporating the sense of purpose and identity with the pieces on display.

This week we read multiple articles dealing with the idea of the ecomuseum. In practice, an ecomuseum is a place where the pieces on display are not simply left in cases for the regular museum patron to simply peruse at their leisure while they exist solely behind their glass case separated from the context that they once existed in, devoid of their original purpose. the ecomuseum is a place where the pieces are carefully placed, instilled with plaques and sometimes even used in demonstration to give the onlooker the sense of the true social context that the piece used to, or currently exists within.

The first example that sprung into my head when thinking about examples of ecomuseums would be found in some of the museums that I was lucky enough to have visited as a child on field trips. Them being the Mashantucket Pequot Museum, and Old Sturbridge Village.

The Mashantucket Pequot Museum is known as the largest native american heritage museum. From the moment you enter the exhibits they are able to put you into the environment of what it would be like to be around the museum pieces in their past life.


From the exhibits you can see in some instances that specific pieces are taken out and put behind glass under lights in order to preserve the objects from possible harm, but to also give you an insight to the artistry behind the object. Whenever the museum does this, they make special care to provide some sort of context for the piece through writings about its significance on plaques and pictures placed beside them. Most of the exhibits are artful representations themselves attempting to recreate what life would have looked like for native people in this place in a specific time period. These exhibits I believe serve the most justice in terms of putting the visitor into an environment that would bring them to their best understanding of the cultural place that each of these pieces holds.

The second example of an ecomuseum that I was able to experience was Old Sturbridge Village. In this outdoor interactive museum actors are hired to perform the daily tasks of people in the pre-civil war era. Walking through the village alone gives the visitor a sensory likeness to what it would be like to live in that time (Not counting the touristy drawbacks, such as tour groups and schoolchildren traveling in packs). Along with displaying the tools and demonstrating the means by which the people would use these tools, the actors themselves are well versed in the goings on of the time period and can provide cultural backgrounds for the task they are performing by explaining certain significance and application within the time period.

Dystopian Novels Effects with a focus on The Hunger Games

When one thinks of media with a message, dystopian novels come to mind. Often dystopian novels are the product of the author seeing the world and envisioning what can happen in the future. Some of the more classical dystopian novels include George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley Brave New World. This could be better defined as future anxiety and often are against what occurs in the novel. In 1984, people are watched by the all-knowing Big Brother and have threats such as the thought police. In Brave New World, emotions such as love, happiness, friendship, and struggle are removed due to technology. The two of these authors had something in common, presently a lot of issues our world deals with today.

But why are dystopian novels so popular today? It’s a question I often ask myself, it’s fair to say that at least 50% of my books at home are dystopian novels. Science fiction in general is something I thoroughly enjoy, but dystopian novels are always so much more addicting. It can be argued that science fiction as a genre is merely dystopian literature, however I see the too differently. Not all science fiction seeks to warn their readers where the line between innovation and obsession ends.

The best dystopian novels are those in which there are characters who we can relate to. Their reactions are ones we feel we would have and we are fascinated when they face their obstacles. Keep this in mind when I approach my next point.

The Hunger Games faces an enemy in the Capitol and those who are simply stuck in the past. There is a point I would rather talk about such as what will happen in Mocking Jay Part 2… However that means I would be well, my next image makes the point well enough.

So I'll settle for talking about the basis theme in the novel. Rebellion, against an unjust government that uses human misery and pain as a sport. It is merely a yearly reminder to the districts to never repeat the same mistakes again. Katniss Everdeen is the figure of the rebellion, which some say started when she had her berries in her hand. They are of course wrong, it started with Rue's death. When Katniss stayed to treat the little girl's body with love and respect to not squander the second chance she had. Katniss showed the districts that they should be united and this started the slow burn that is fully felt in the second installment.

Put it simply oppressive governments will do anything to quell rebellion. They will twist it into something dark and evil  and they will punish those who do not follow their laws. They will take a message and make it into a popular song or video for the populace to enjoy for the sake of enjoying. To play it until the song has lost all it's meaning.

An example? The Hanging Tree song. 

Now listen to this:

This makes me uncomfortable. Why? Well this is exactly how the Capitol would neutralize the song. To take that message and make it meaningless. The movie is a crowdpleaser, which misses the point of its original material. The movies oversimplify the message and becomes the very thing the books cry out about.

Censorship and the term "Art"

I, at first, want to start this off by saying I thoroughly enjoyed reading different students' perspective on the concept of art and censorship. It opened me up to realizing that I constantly think about censorship, for example, on a daily basis. I watch television on an average an hour a day and I have come across not only watching my favorite show, Spongebob Squarepants but many others specifically in Disney movies that have incorporated sexual innuendos and other inappropriate references. Check here for top 10 sexually inappropriate moments in Disney. I can't ever forget the fact that my mom didn't enjoy me watching Spongebob growing up. I never really understood why because I thought it was entirely harmless. She would come into the room and make this groaning noise at a part she would think is inappropriate. As I grew older, I began to think of these innuendos as clever and even more funny than I originally thought. There are theories that the characters of Spongebob represent the 7 deadly sins. You can read that if you want, here. Spongebob was portrayed as lust whereas Squidward was portrayed as wrath. It makes total sense when you think about it. Spongebob loves everything and always has a great day. Squidward on the other hand, hates his job, his neighbors, his life, and all that goes with it. He is constantly annoyed at Spongebob's behavior because of his constant happiness. Whether it was their original intention to do this or not, it definitely opened another perspective for me to look at such a harmless innocent show in a whole new way. What I thought to be kitsch actually ended up having an avant garde twist to it because of how I looked at it.

Picture from 20 Mindblowing Messages

Things like these amaze me. How has anyone not noticed these references? For example, in the Lion King they are hailing to Hitler by performing the Nazi salute and marching collectively while chanting nonsense. As a kid, you would have never known these evil cult references are hyenas that are all just stupid and for comic relief in the movie. However beside all of the inappropriate references in these movies, there were also some hidden messages that proved they had them integrated and intertwined somehow in some way. They weren't always bad. Remember the license plate on the Pizza truck in Toy Story? That sequence "A113" is hidden somewhere in countless Disney movies. You can click here to see some of them. This is where "art by appropriation and art by intention" come into play from Carolyn Dean's Trouble with the term "Art". Their appropriation is on point by re-creating imitations of imitation by slyly incorporating something from another movie. There is also a combination of avant garde and kitsch in popular movies like the Disney collection however, it is carefully portrayed and otherwise ignored/missed. Avant garde is the abstract versions of contemporary art in which the viewer needs to exert energy and thought into whereas kitsch represents popular commercial art that is considered mindless. One primary example I have mentioned in the term A113. This represented the number of the animation classroom that was located in the California Institute of the Arts. It was exquisitely and carefully placed in each of the movies that are shown in the article mentioned above. These are abstract ways of interpreting Walt Disney's intention of integration. It definitely comes up more often than you would think when you actually sit down and watch with the intent of understanding the artist's purpose.

He portrays art by intention because some of the characters overlap such as Ryder and Flynn from the movie Tangled guest appearing in the movie Frozen. Also, a figure of Buzz Lightyear or a drawing of Sully will appear on the floor of another movie. It really is quite creative the way Disney portrays their art. The hidden messages are here.It is different in perspective, however. As a kid, you weren't concerned about the inner meanings of things nor were you probably concerned about picking out the little things in movies. You got the bigger picture and you took its value for what it was worth. As Carolyn Dean said, “calling something art reveals nothing inherent in the object to which the term is applied, rather, it reveals how much the viewer values it” (27). This is where I begin to repeat myself. It's all about perspective. There was a study that was conducted that showed the number of people entering a museum,where visitors stop, whether they talk or read, how much time they spend, etc. This proved the idea that people deemed different art important or abstract and others were effortlessly looking at the picture. In turn, it created some evaluations to be held while deciding which ones needed changes to attract more time spent/time thinking about the artwork. It gives them more of an ample opportunity to read what the artist has to say about the artwork as well as a brief description leading to their thoughts and opinions about the artists' intention.

When Greenberg discusses the terms avant garde and kitsch, it made me think about what the world is like today. What do you value in life? Time? Money? Nature? Art? Art is sometimes effortless however it also has significant meaning depending on who and what it's about. The problem that lies within artists is the fact that whether or not they want their art to be an imitation or a creation of meaning and depth. It's hard to prioritize your ultimate passions when there is so much in the way to stop you. There are a lot of artists that live with the continuous conflict within themselves to have their art be more than an object as well as being able to be sustainable. As Lewis Hyde said, how does the artist live if it is considered a gift? Do they have to be a lawyer in the summer and artist in the winter? How do they pay for their resources or their families if it's just a mere gift? Arguing that, it also appears to be a commodity within the capitalist society we live in today. With all this being said, there is actually no real definition to describe art with the intent of accommodating for many other cultures. Is the purpose of art to recognize a social purpose? Or rather, is the purpose of art to become a commodity of which is sold to gain profit? Is it simply something to just effortlessly look at? Do you need to delve into the artists' lives in order to find out their true motives of their work? Is it a metaphor that represents something of a bigger value?

"Welcome to the Future"  

There happens to be an artist that I have stumbled upon on Instagram who I have grown to be deeply interested in his work. Daniel Arsham is a young contemporary artist that has always had interests in architecture and structured space. He had a distorted way of thinking about these things because he would have walls oozing, As Greenberg said, "the nonrepresentational or ‘abstract,’ if it is to have aesthetic validity, cannot be arbitrary and accidental, but must stem from obedience to some worthy constraint or original” (3). This originality has never before been seen by the public. It is newly created to have these withering pieces as well as dimensions in the walls. He re-creates some objects such as a keyboard or a microphone to be viewed as ancient and fragile pieces from into the future. Along with that, he creates 2-D, 3-D, and even 4-D images which are so abstract to the eye. These are the types of pieces I love looking at for a long amount of time because of the motives of the changing future that are represented in these pieces of art. Here is a website about some of Daniel Arsham's pieces as well as his own website here. I have been following him on Instagram for quite some time now and I can't even begin to touch the surface of his work.

"Corner Knot" 

There is an interview between Daniel Arsham and Artsy regarding some of his upcoming milestones in his career. He will be working on projects with Pharrell and James Franco relatively soon and that should definitely play in a large role to gain more audiences to his abstract contemporary art. Here is the article. "Part of the goal that I have in Snarkitecture is to cause architecture to act in ways that it shouldn’t, and allow materials to surprise us and to perform and do things that we don’t expect. And it’s often a very subtle, quiet alteration." The picture above describes the vision Daniel Arsham has of this distorted and disintegrating society that is presented to be in the future. I think this is a great way to alter these already created pieces to be thought of in a different light. Technology is forever changing but what will eventually be of this Earth? Our materialistic objects will end up withering away at the fact that no one uses them. Foucault emphasized "normalization" in which he would "make arbitrary distinctions appear natural, logical, and above all, useful" (Dean 29). In Daniel Arsham's artwork, this is not the case. He wants society to think in future terms along with thinking out of the box and developing this alteration of structures that can't be.

I have really been thinking about the term "culture wars" as well as the opportunities some privileged artists do have. We need to be able to accommodate for everyone's diverse backgrounds and interests/beliefs. By that, we need to talk about public funding and who has access to it. African-Americans have suffered through centuries of slavery which induced psychological trauma. They never had a chance to thrive because it just keeps lingering around them constantly fucking up their lives. They had too much public neglect thus not allowing them to flourish by any means of fame or fortune. “Artists on color have always been especially dependent upon public funding such as that provided by the NEA, since they continue to lack the kind of private sector patronage that even moderately successful white artists take for granted "(Wallace 168). It has been existing especially since the era of when the television first came about. The Ed Sullivan Show was one piece of evidence that was known as a buffer for upcoming artists including those of color. Elvis Presley got censored from the waist down because of his legendary and thus "inappropriate" dance moves. The Rolling Stones had to change their lyrics to Let's Spend Some Time Together rather than Let's Spend the Night Together. There were countless chances that Ed Sullivan had to permanently kick these performing artists off for not respecting the demands of the family oriented audience. Ed Sullivan didn't care about who came on the show as long as they respected the boundaries of censorship and the importance of keeping it appropriate for the family. This was essentially the start of opening up the network to people of color as well. The article on Multiculturalism and Privilege expressed the fact that people need to be informed of the different kinds of culture that is out there and if not, they will know nothing but mainstream art. Linda Gibson said "until television presents black dance, art, salsa, jazz with the same regularity as mainstream programs, specific segments of the population won't think about it" (Haddock 147). Ed Sullivan was focused on pure talent rather than what their race or background was. From Martin Luther King Jr to Muhammad Ali to Louis Armstrong; Ed Sullivan welcomed all African-American people of their specialized talent on his show to really boost up the national ratings. There are some black and white videos on their performances and speeches here. They all had inner meanings to why they appeared on the show. Just like the Oscars performance or the Grammy Awards, someone needs to inform the public of problems such as equal pay or equal opportunity. There was always a way to preach about the positive influence these types of artists or people had on the public about what was acceptable in society.

Gifts from Birds

Several days ago, a story appeared about a girl who receives gifts from crows. This showed up on my news feed at the same time as the very disturbing footage of ISIS smashing 2,500 year old Assyrian sculpture to bits in the Mosul Museum. 

Assyrian Llamassu guardian figure (7th century BC) destroyed by ISIS last week.

The story about the girl and her relationship with the crows seemed to offer a break, an island of comfort on such a depressing day.   I shared it on the facebook page of the Material Collective (this is a group of scholars interested in art and material culture).   My friend Karen Kurczynski, who teaches modern and contemporary art, commented "It's relational aesthetics!

Leonard Baskin, Crow

Many of you in the practicum have commented in your posts that the notion of a gift economy where the artist or other creative thinkers produce outside of a market economy is impossible and unsustainable. Importantly, Bourriaud is only advocating for projects that produce social "micro utopias."

Because the grand-scale social utopias and revolutionary hopes of the 20th century have  failed (as Tatianna points out in her survey of socialist propaganda), "any 'direct' critique of society is pointless if it is based upon the illusion of a marginality that is now impossible, if not regressive" (Bourriaud, 2002). The contemporary artist, in this scenario, works to produce situations of encounter (however temporary), rather than objects:

"the goal of most relational aesthetics art is to create a social circumstance; the viewer experience of the constructed social environment becomes the art. The task of the artist is to become a conduit for this social experience. To that end, artists often create a physical space to be used for a particular (often ephemeral) social event." Hyperallergic

The televised musical moments that Tatianna and Tony have mentioned in their posts, to me, seems to also embody these shared moments of experience. I mentioned Foucault's intimations of the transitional, liminal or crisis space of the heterotopia--a place that is dreamed about, that exists both apart from and implicated in the everyday.

This small, utopian moment of solace in the story of a collection of trinkets assembled by a girl, brought in beak and on wing. On my screen I have a print of a crow by the wonderful graphic artist Leonard Baskin, and beside it, an image of the stone winged guardian figure that had coexisted with ancient civilizations and our world until last week. Solace in an encounter with wild creatures, at a time when these magnificent objects, condemned as idols, smash in a scene of dystopian chaos.


 

Songs with a Message

This past Tuesday, Tatianna brought up John Legend and Common’s song “Glory” and how artists can use their work to relay a message to society about a specific issue that needs discussion. By doing this, the artist, whoever it may be, is becoming a facilitator of a movement. At the same time however, when artists relay a social message, it can force others to follow and those that do not are left out of conversations and possible even seen as lesser of an artist. Some artists have been able to truly make a difference in society by their music and have led to social change. I thought it would be a good idea to put light onto some of the biggest and more recent artists who have done this. Many current artists have been putting forth music about those who are seen as others and different and are telling the world that you should be whoever you wish to be and not be forced into a specific role within society.

The first set of songs I would like to put out and discuss are “People Like Us” by Kelly Clarkson and “Stupid Girls” by P!nk. Both of these songs are telling the listen that you should be yourself and not be afraid to be different. In Clarkson’s song, she tells her audience that “This is the life that we choose, this is the life that we bleed/ So throw your fists in the air, come out, come out if you dare.” This specific line demonstrates that each individual is exactly that: and individual. And if you have ever been treated as less or bullied that you are not alone and that you have to fight because it is you that will come out on top. It is your life and you have to live it. In P!nk’s “Stupid Girls,” a similar message is being portrayed to the audience. This time, however, there is a stronger focus on females. In today’s society, females are supposed to be and act like they are the on the cover of Vogue or Cosmopolitan. P!nk though is telling her female followers that you do not have to be “dancing in the video next to 50 Cent” or “travel in packs of two or three/ With their itsy bitsy doggies and their teeny-weeny tees.” The lyrics along with the music video send an incredibly strong message to young girls that they should not want to grow up and be like one of these “stupid girls” but instead be true to themselves and do whatever you want. Not want society wants. P!nk also advises girls to be strong and that she wants to see “Outcasts and girls with ambition” and it is this type of girl that will be able to overcome the terrible portrayal that society has placed on females. I could spend an entire blog post on “Stupid Girls” and the music video but I’ll leave some interruption up for everyone else and continue to provide other examples moving forward.

Continuing with the message of being yourself, artists Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis and Lady Gaga have most recently presented society with songs that have helped in the movements for gay rights in this country.  In one of the verses of “Same Love,” by Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis, Mackelmore pushes the envelope about some of the problems with the word “gay” and his support of gay rights:

If I was gay, I would think hip-hop hates me

Have you read the YouTube comments lately?

"Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily

We become so numb to what we're saying

A culture founded from oppression

Yet we don't have acceptance for 'em

Call each other faggots behind the keys of a message board

A word rooted in hate, yet our genre still ignores it

Gay is synonymous with the lesser

It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion

Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment

The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins

It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!

Live on and be yourself

When I was at church they taught me something else

If you preach hate at the service those words aren't anointed

That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned

When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless

Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen

I might not be the same, but that's not important

No freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it

This verse speaks for itself. Mackelmore and Lewis put forth some of the many problems within society about the gay community and how it needs to be changed. This is exactly what Tatianna was talking about with “Glory.” A very simple song becomes the anthem of an entire social movement in order to make change and better a portion of society. I selected to show the live performance of “Same Love” at the Grammy’s during which a select few gay and lesbian couples were married during the performance in order to show the progress of their rights since the song was first released. It is truly of the most touching performance in Grammy history.

The final artist I would like to discuss briefly is perhaps the artist who has done most in recent memory for minorities and has single handedly caused movements within the LGBTQ community: Lady Gaga. Gaga is another one that an entire blog could be focused on. (Hell, an entire semester worth could be fixated on her!) Back in 2010, Lady Gaga worse the infamous Meat Dress to the MTV Video Music Awards. Although most were caught up on the actual dress and not understanding what she was doing, Gaga herself addressed the outfit by explaining that she was protesting the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and was standing up and fighting for what she believed in. For the record, when the policy was being debates, Gaga’s protests and messages were at the forefront of the issue and were some of the leading reasons as to abolish this policy. Her music has also continued to fight for the LGBTQ community, especially in what she refers to as her favorite song to perform, “Born this Way.” The entire song is telling society to be who you are and that no matter what it is okay because you were born that way and “God makes no mistakes.” She wants everyone, “No matter gay, straight or bi/ Lesbian, transgendered life/ No matter black, white or beige/ Chola or orient made” to “Rejoice and love [themselves] today” because they were born that way. 

The Anti-Artisan's Economy: Is It Too Much To Ask?

The short excerpt from Purves’ work details the nature of three important economies that intersect to create a functional society. They are the traditional or social economy, which is the village-type (it takes a village to raise a child); the command or redistributive economy, in which a state or government entity redistributes assets as necessary in accordance with its goals or policies; and the capital economy, in which resources are exchanged for money or currency. In addition to these three economies, we were introduced to the gift economy, as described by Hyde, in which goods and services are exchanged with no expectation of profit or reward. These types of economies are vastly different, and tend to work best when they are merged together to include some combination of the four. 

In relation to artists, the type of economy under which one performs is extremely important. In purely traditional economies, the artist’s role as an artist is likely to be reduced to a hobby, while the needs of the community play an extremely important role in the artist’s life. The subject of such an artist’s work tends to be practicality. This is reflected in the pieces created: bowls, utensils, tools, furniture, etc. In terms of Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics, this artist’s work does not quite fit into his stencil definition: "art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space,” but it does reflect on the important values of said society. 

The creation of tools and useful items to barter and trade reflects the idea that each individual in the social economy does his or her part to support the community. The traditional economy’s artist is an artisan, one who creates practical works of art that serve as a form of currency and as a tool for quotidian life. In addition, this artist also focuses on musical instruments which served as backdrop to the storytelling that helped to keep these communities together. Figurines that honor the gods or qualities these communities saw as valuable. Some of these types of art include: 

Mammoth Ivory Flute from The Smithsonian: Human Origins Program

Willendorf of Venus - The Smithsonian: Human Origins Program

And while this type of work is not exactly what Bourriaud was referring to, it does shed some light on the social aspects of these communities governed by traditional economies. 

Command or redistributive economy artists are those whose art reflects the desires of the "distributing regime." This artist is the stifled one, who has two choices: to conform or to hide. The art of the commanded artist is often a reflection of the myth the regime in power would like to perpetuate. Take a look at the work of celebrated artists under Socialist European nations or Nazi Germany, the art takes on the lies of the government and the ignores the harsh realities that the elites would like to dispel. For example, under Hitler, "the role of the artists was to either portray the German world as peaceful, or as drawn into a struggle for survival to defend it. Thus, art was to become one more weapon in the Nazi regime's arsenal." Take a look at the awarded works of artists who chose to conform.

Nazi Art

Arno Breker - Die Party - Taken from Artstor

Adolf Ziegler - The Four Elements - Taken from Forbes

Socialist Art

Filatov - Ship Repairers - Taken from Artstor

Kadushkin - Moscow, In Lenin's Steps: Red Square - Taken from Artstor

Savostiuk, O.M. and B.A. Uspenskii - Take Pride, Our Free Earthland - Taken from Artstor 

If these artists reflected the shiny, perfect outward appearance of these regimes, then "degenerate" artists represented the seedy underbelly. Their art, which had no overt way of gaining them positive favor, fame, or fortune, is something I think helped to define the relational aesthetic Bourriaud describes in his piece. 

Capital economy artists are the one we are the most familiar with. Their creativity is fostered amidst a latent desire for money. Is it greed? Well, in such an economy green makes the world go round, and who's to say artists shouldn't want to survive, or to thrive, even? If conforming to the money requires painting or sculpting what they like, who inhabits a place where they can rightfully call the artist a sell out? 

Shepard Fairey - Society for the Preservation of Destruction - Taken from Obey Giant

In order to be an artist who fits into Bourriaud's relational aesthetic, an artist would essentially have to dedicate their artistic integrity to challenging social, historical, cultural, political, etc. myths. Their art must question the reasons why something acts the way it does, while refraining from becoming at object to be made and sold. That's a tough role to play in an economy that is largely capital and far from Hyde's gift. The anti-artisan's economy, ie. the economy for Bourriaud's "non-makers" has not quite presented itself. And while it is important that art speak on social injustices and issues, expecting the artist bear the burden of the relational aesthetic in this current economy may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

Censorship

Excellent piece on censorship in the past year.

Censorship and some things it misses...

Last week's discussion had my mind running in about fifty directions, and my thoughts are still kind of all over the place. Our discussion about censorship got me thinking back to my high school English classes and our frequent discussions of banned books; so I'll start there. One of my authors at the time was the Ellen Hopkins, a novelist who published a series of fiction books for young adult readers. Hopkins based her books mainly off of her primary-source research (phone calls, interviews, conversations, personal experience, etc.) and each books explores the perils many teenagers and young adults face in America, horrific stories that could easily become reality when the wrong choices are made.

http://ellenhopkins.com/YoungAdult/

 

Hopkins books have been challenged (and some have been ban) since their publication, for subjects like drug use, sexually explicit content, etc. and she has been dis-invited to numerous speaking engagements when uncomfortable parents expressed their outrage to superintendents about the content of her novels. Hopkins discussed her opinion on censorship and being a banned author in her article for the Huffington Post titled, Banned Books Week 2010: An Anti-Censorship Manifesto. "According to the National Coalition Against Censorship, removing an author from an event because someone disagrees with their ideas or content in their books meets the definition of
censorship," Hopkins wrote. Her poem, Manifesto, illustrates the true fears and vulnerability behind the call for censorship, supporting our discussion of how it is in the best interest of the ruling class to uphold and distribute artifacts reflective of ruling ideology. I also couldn't help but think of Tony's closer look at the banning of Harry Potter as I read it. Take a look...

Manifesto

To you zealots and bigots and false
patriots who live in fear of discourse.
You screamers and banners and burners
who would force books
off shelves in your brand name
of greater good.

You say you're afraid for children,
innocents ripe for corruption

by perversion or sorcery on the page.
But sticks and stones do break
bones, and ignorance is no armor.
You do not speak for me,
and will not deny my kids magic
in favor of miracles.

You say you're afraid for America,
the red, white, and blue corroded
by terrorists, socialists, the sexually
confused. But we are a vast quilt
of patchwork cultures and multi-gendered
identities. You cannot speak for those
whose ancestors braved
different seas.

You say you're afraid for God,
the living word eroded by Muhammed
and Darwin and Magdalene.
But the omnipotent sculptor of heaven
and earth designed intelligence.
Surely you dare not speak
for the father, who opens
his arms to all.

A word to the unwise.
Torch every book.
Char every page.
Burn every word to ash.
Ideas are incombustible.
And therein lies your real fear.

-Ellen Hopkins

I love the simplicity of this poem. There is nothing entirely too complex about it, which is fitting in the sense that it is accessible to the young audience she targets in her novels.  Also, I agree with a lot of what Hopkins says about exposing young adults to the "dark, edgy" content of her books, because it is reality for so many of the readers and their peers.  I distinctly remember reading CRANK, PERFECT, and TRICKS in the library of my high school, thinking about my best friend Kelsey, who was struggling with a sexually abusive relationship and cutting, and Sam who was coping with coming out as a lesbian and entering into her first relationship (with turned into a mentally and emotionally abusive situation). She, and a few other close friends, struggled with eating disorders. Many of my peers were experimenting or addicted to hard drugs and marijuana. The boy who sat next to me in anatomy was always high on hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Hopkins books not only related to the life of students around me, but provided testimonial and stories of people who overcame difficulties and addictions faced by my friends. The organizations that seek to ban or censor books like Hopkins' or Rowling's want to take them off the self to prevent deviant or subcultural behavior, but I'd argue that exposure to these kinds of books provide solutions to these very things. They encourage independent thought, strong positive morals and values, and the importance of responsibility and careful thought. 

Critics and conservatives argue that the art in question (like the Abject Art exhibition) doesn't relate to the general public or the masses, and while that does hold some truth, they fail to recognize the outlet for recovery and self discovery it allows for those who it most poignantly or strongly relate to it. Controversial art evokes necessary discussions, challenges dominant cultural understandings of social structures, and affords the readers/viewers the choice to see it and respond to it or simply to ignore it. 

On a related note, just as I was scrolling through Facebook this past week, I stumbled upon a CollegeHumor article about very carefully placed sexually implicit jokes in a familiar kid's show. It also included a little poke at fine art critics from the episode where Squidward teaches Spongebob about the creation, production, and qualifiers of fine art. If you want a good laugh, take a look at this article.

I started to wonder about just how much 'explicit' or sexually implicit content was really present in the shows I watched as a child (much younger than the readers of Hopkins' books).  I found endless links to sexual, homosexual, and sensitive content in children's tv shows.  One of the most shocking: 24 Filthy Adult Jokes In Cartoons You Completely Missed As A Kid. 

There are, I'm sure, plenty of reasons why these suggestive clips are aired without issue or censorship, and why publicly funded art that is seen by far fewer people is subjected to so much scrutiny. However, I still find it hard to believe that so many mainstream books, movies, and art collections are challenged for things that I find far less offensive than the jokes and references in cartoons. Maybe it's because the books, movies, and art are created for a purpose, and include 'questionable material' for a reason; and because of that, it is suppressed and censored.

If you get the chance, please also take a look at this article by Terry McCabe from a 1990 edition of the Chicago Tribune. He poses an interesting set of arguments, some of them not necessarily align with what we spoke about in class. I don't think it's contradictory, but complimentary. Take a look at Why It`s Necessary To Fund Controversial Art, Too. 

 

If you want to read more about Hopkins and her books, see these links:

http://childrensbooks.about.com/od/censorship/a/Teen-Author-Ellen-Hopkins-On-Censorship.htm

http://ellenhopkins.com/YoungAdult/books/

The Culture Wars: Hair Peace

This week our discussion of culture wars and banned material lead to a dumping ground of outrageously banned items. One of these: hair. This seems strange and a little outrageous because how can hair, a natural, human, attribute be banned? What's interesting about the answer is the type of hair that's most commonly banned, especially in the United States. 

Dreadlocks, dreads, or locs, by definition, is a "hairstyle where the hair that one would normally combo shed locks on itself, creating replace strands. Hair is not combed during the locking process, which it what causes the strands to coil around themselves into fused units" (Black Hair). Commonly associated with the West Indies, reggae, and African-Americans, dreadlocks have been a part of black culture for years.

Disney actress, Zendaya Coleman, sported gorgeous, waist-length locs to the Oscars as a way to bring some positive association (her own relational aesthetic?) to the style. Fashion-police star, Giuliana Rancic, however, had something else to say:

   

Zendaya responded quite eloquently via Instagram and Rancic was eventually pressured to apologize. 

While this exchange is not itself an example of banned material, the sentiments expressed by Giuliana are the same ones fueling the incessant banning of dreads, afros, puffs, braids and other almost exclusively African-American hairstyles. Schools and other institutions all over (see here, here, here, here, and here) have been enacting their own rules that ban these types of hairstyles on students and staff. 

HR Morning's Dan Wisniewski, penned an article titled "Is banning dreadlocks a race bias?" about a case that examined the issue. A candidate for a position at Catastrophe Management Solutions was offered a job, as long as she cut her dreads. When the candidate refused, the position was rescinded. She then went to the EEOC, which filed a suit on her behalf. The EEOC argued that "the policy banning dreadlocks in the workplace qualified as race bias against African-American employees;" the court vehemently disagreed. "Dreadlocks aren't a sole characteristics of African-American people, so banning them in the workplace doesn't amount to race bias."  

What does this mean for the culture wars? As we discussed a few weeks ago, the avant-grade reflected the needs of the powerful, and the works which were not classified as such were often "deviant." So when those in power deny funding/accreditation to the "kitsch," and create the rules that govern all, how can this all be reconciled? 

The Fight to Preserve Culture

Tony, Carmela, and Bill all referenced different creative works that have been censored to “protect” innocence. Harry Potter because it will cause children to worship the devil and practice witchcraft, LGBTQ artwork because homosexuality is wrong, and South Park because it is inappropriate.  The reality is that these reasons aren’t held as truths for all viewers or readers. This poses a problem, obviously, because there is never a universal culture that values things equally or interprets things the same way. So, when right-winged lawmakers and funders take action to ban or censor things that they don’t agree with, they are silencing the interpretations and voices of those with whom the creative works resonate. Another book that has been banned is The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison because it has graphic sexual content and language. This has since been retained, but like I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, also banned for sexually explicit language and violence, those cited scenes are examples of gender violence against women of color. Both books address racial issues, which is really what is offensive to those fighting for the books to be banned. What is overlooked is the historic context.

Censorship is by no means something of the past. As recently as this month, lawmakers in OK are trying to ban the established AP US History course because it tarnishes the perfect picture of the US. The goal is to protect students from “misinformation” that “reduces the roles of the Founding Fathers” and instead highlight what is good and “exceptional” about the country. Similar to the right-wing objective of protecting the innocent from things that can cause our American culture to deteriorate (like homosexual art, witchcraft literature), not allowing US students to learn alternate histories keeps them from learning how to think critically about the things we’ve done and instead encourages the reinforcement of the beliefs and ideologies about the US that the conservative lawmakers hold.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/oklahoma-ap-us-history_n_6702710.html

Also, Gayle Rubin’s essay Thinking Sex talks about moral panics and censorship through legislation. This ties to what Carmela talked about with the banning and destruction of art because it showed homosexual images and explicitly sexual things. She talks about the ways legislation has been used to attack those things that are ruining the quality of culture in the US. Her point is that while obscenity laws may actually have good intentions, like protecting children from sexual exploitation, they are often overdoing it. In this example, the laws extend into material that has no intention of being offensive or obscene. She references photographer Jacqueline Livingston to talk about the “child porn panic.” Livingston was fired from her position as a photography professor at Cornell University for an exhibit which contained nude photos of her seven-year-old son reasons. 

 “At one point, Kodak confiscated some of her film, and for several months, Livingston lived with the threat of prosecution under the child pornography laws. The Tompkins Country Department of Social Services investigated her fitness as a parent. Livingston’s posters have been collected by the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, and other major museums.” (Rubin, 146-147)

These attempts to censor the work that artists, writers, filmmakers, etc. (and historians, in the case of Oklahoma) are attempts to produce a culture where the ways of thinking, expressing, and feeling are limited to one way. If carried out, it can lead to really scary consequences. 

The LGBTQ Art Prohibition

When you think about it something is always getting banned, mostly because it threatens the conservative way of life. So it comes to no surprise that there is censorship of LGBTQ Art for being obscene, vulgar, offensive, lurid, degenerate, and the list could go on and on. We talked about the Corocoran gallery and the NEA. These photos were seen as nothing better than pornographic images. “The Perfect Moment” was not a well-liked gallery and to put it shortly Helms used his political influence to bully Corcoran into cancelling the show.

It’s been this way for years; LGBTQ art is not “mainstream” and therefore is deemed to be some kind of degenerate art. Censorship didn’t stop just at banning, but people would go as far to vandalize artwork, in fact art has been destroyed even after installation. This kind of attack on anyone’s art is enough to make some artists run away. They would go back into the closet and set their own work aflame. This was in order to have some semblance of control where at least the destruction of the art was in a way to respect their pieces. However this self-censorship was perhaps even more deadly than the government enforced one. Either an artist stopped all together or they steadily avoided anything that could be perceived as homosexual subject matter.

It was argued that it wasn't censored because of the homosexual content but of the pornographic content. But artists who refused to be held back because of prohibitions were censored even if it was just sympathetically or positive art of LGBTQ people and culture. Censorship is a mostly horrible act, especially to those whose creativity is suddenly contained and ridiculed. However, in some instances there is a positive backlash to this.

Prohibition causes the object of censorship to attract wider attraction and all together encourages the censored object. The prohibition of alcohol merely led to more people getting drunk and you know the rise of organized crime. Speakeasies became a thing and moonshine was a thriving business. We have at least one popular HBO show and Lawless the movie to show just how well that one went. 

(Boardwalk Empire)

And now there is Leslie-Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art in New York City. 

They took the censorship of Mappkethrope’s art and counter it exhibiting images that were considered too obscene by conservatives. This exhibition is titled “Irreverent: A Celebration of Censorship.”

 “The exhibition draws inspiration from the innovative responses to watershed moments in the history of censoring LGBTQ art in Canada, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States," exhibition curator Jennifer Tyburczy explained in a press release. "In concept, the show is principally drawn from two events: the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe’s art in the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent withdrawal of David Wojnarowicz’s 'A Fire in My Belly' from the National Portrait Gallery in 2010. In practice, it seizes on the international fame of these controversies to delve deeper into the many ways that censorship functions in queer artistic life.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/irreverent-a-celebration-of-censorship_n_6566530.html)

Woodson, Jason, This Kid - 20 Years On - A Tribute to David Wojnarowicz' Untitled - This Kid, 2010, framed giclee print, 23.386 x 33.110 in. Collection of Jason C. Woodson

Harry Potter and the Deathly Cesnsorship

This week in class, we spoke a great amount about NEA defunding and the censorship within the art world. This, in addition to having to find something to bring into class, got me thinking about Harry Potter and how it has been censored and even banned in places all across the world. Before I get into the main points, I need to come out and say that I’m a HUGE Harry Potter fan and some of my arguments may be swayed. In class on Thursday, I mentioned that the Harry Potter series is currently the most banned series or collection of books in the entire world. Additionally, years 1-4 are the seventh most banned collection of books. The same books are within the top ten banned books across the globe! This, to me, is mind boggling.

At first, the books were well received by many stating that the series would become classics for everyone to read for years and years to come. However, everything changed with the release of the fifth year, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Not only did critics attack J. K. Rowling for her style of writing but they also attacked the entire concept that was truly beginning to emerge. This was seen as a darker and more violent Harry Potter which multiple deaths and betrayals. One critic who comes from a fundamentalist American Christian group “contends that the books promote witchcraft, Satanism, and anti-family themes. They also claim that the movies ‘subconsciously market a new belief system on the viewing public.’” (You can view this article here.) This breaks down to the idea that having a witch or magic or a class entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts” automatically makes the reader influenced by the Devil. The main ideologies that are attributed to devil worshiping are thus attached to the readers.

Additionally, in places such as Queensland, Australia began to censor and ban the series because they were violent and dangerous to the readers who happen to be small children. In New Mexico, anti-Harry Potterists (my own creation there) challenged the books because they encouraged children to lie, cheat, steal, and even injury others. The reasons go on and on about why Harry Potter should not be read and how it should be considered dangerous. 

However, what these people tend to forget are the real messages behind the most popular series of all time. For instance, Harry Potter teaches young girls that they can do whatever they want in a world that often idolizes males and puts females into a lower category. With the character Hermione, young female readers are able to see what women are capable of. Hermione is known as being the wisest witch of her time- smarter than every male. She is also seen as one of the bravest, most supportive, most powerful, and even an independent young lady. She is not the stereotypical girl that is often seen in other popular novels. She is not a fainting virgin that always needs someone else to help her out of a situation. It is quite the opposite actually. Hermione often comes to the rescue of both Harry and Ron throughout there years together at Hogwarts. Rowling is showing young women that they can be like Hermione too, even when others try to get in your way and tell you that you are not good enough- women have the same capabilities as men and thus are just as good, if not better. 

Also forgotten by anit-Harry Potterists, is the pleasure of reading Harry Potter gives to children who may be outcasts or think of themselves as less. Hogwarts is a place to escape to for all readers but it is these types of readers who get the most out of the school of witchcraft and wizardry. All principal characters are in one way or another considered outcasts by the general public, are teased, and are belittled at some point in the series. This creates a reliability for readers who have experienced the same feelings and have felt like they don’t belong. Rowling is showing that outcasts or those who are seen as different do not have to be little but instead can rise above the rest and become the hero at the end of the day.

Mining the Museum

Watching Fred Wilson speak about Mining the Museum (a work of brilliant Institutional Critique that was on view at the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore in 1992-3) in class on Thursday, I was struck by his comments about the community of viewers that entered into dialogue during the time that the exhibition was on view. He mentioned that during the duration of the show, the African-American maintenance staff and the professional curatorial staff witnessed a shift in the dynamic of their relationship that had been oriented around a margin/ center model, with authority mapped on to the (white) valorized "professional" labor of curating as opposed to the (black) maintenance labor of the staff. The long-standing conceptual importance of Ukeles' Maintenance Art project, initiated in 1969, cannot be denied.    Fred Wilson, “Metalwork 1793-1880" from Mining the Museum. And I think that here we come back to those intangible things that are produced by the public work of art that again relate to Hyde's notion of an artistic gift that maintains and sustains community connections rather than producing an artwork as a commodity. This kind of artwork can only be funded through grant money as it does not enter into commercial exchange (and isn't that a good argument for the validity of organizations like the NEA and NEH).  Since we will be looking at Relational Aesthetics this coming week, it makes sense to highlight this important connection between these ideas.  The entry on "Institutional Critique" on Oxford art Online discusses this artistic practice that "questioned the hidden assumptions, ideologies and operation of institutions such as galleries, museums, publications and private collections, their artwork serving to reveal the frameworks of classification and circulation that give art its meaning or value... Wilson’s installation ... demonstrated how Native and African American history was suppressed by the taxonomy and display systems at this and, by extension, other museums. Taking on the role of a curator–scholar Wilson rearranged the collection, manipulated lighting and sound, and rewrote labels, unveiling not only the hidden history but also how institutional policies and practices served to sustain racial discrimination. As it coincided with the annual conference of the American Association of Museums in 1992, this installation was widely influential in the US." As we discussed in class in reference to the Carolyn Dean reading, hierarchical thinking tends to favor those MAKING the hierarchies.  Wilson, working in a historical collection, as a conceptual artist, wonderfully disregards (or complicates) any previous concept  of ‘high’ and ‘low’  culture.  The ways in which this show spoke to the staff, who had never felt addressed or moved by an exhibit before could almost stand as a perfect illustration of Brecht’s definition of “popular” culture: “popular means: intelligible to the broad masses, adopting and enriching their forms of expression / assuming their standpoint, confirming and correcting it / representing the most progressive section of the people so that it can assume leadership, and therefore intelligible to other sections of the people as well / relating to traditions and developing them / communicating to that portion of the people which strives for leadership.”  Furthermore, using this example, we could argue that Institutional Critique strives for a Brechtian sense of realism: “Realistic means: discovering the causal complexes of society / unmasking the prevailing view of things as the view of those who are in power / writing from the standpoint of the class which offers the broadest solutions for the pressing difficulties in which human society is caught up..."

A change of heart - Fred Wilson's impact on museums from Victoria and Albert Museum on Vimeo.

"Every museum has scores of wounded objects that are subject to the triage of conservation, that languish in storage while awaiting restora­tive treatment. Wilson ferreted out just such a painting, and installed it "as is" in the first green room. A Henry Bebie portrait of an unknown white man, it had a large tear in the area of the head which revealed the wall behind. Visitors entered the dimly lit gallery and were startled to see a blinking eye and a dark-skinned nose projected onto this spot, giving the uncanny sensation that there was someone inside or behind the canvas. A motion-activated audio loop captivated listeners by declaring:

Nobody knows that I'm inside you, except Mamma. She lives far away. I promise that I won't expose myself to your wife. And if you move, your children will never know. But you will have to live with me constantly reminding you of what you've been missing and what you did until the day you die.

With a brilliant economy of means Wilson conveys the complexity of racial identity, suggesting the covert heritage of African-American blood in those persons society perceives as Caucasian." Judith Stein, Sins of Omission

Unrelated: Bill's post on South Park (esp the video at the end) set me off watching old SNL skits with Mike Myers' parody of German Avant-Garde tv, SPROCKETS.