My goals

My primary goal in life, is to live out my duties here in on earth as a Christian. Secondary goal is basically, being a hardworking man who takes good care of himself and family. The third and final goal on the list, is being as wise as possible; there are things that go on in the world that I have no knowledge about,that affects me and those around me, and my goal is to search and find no matter the situation; it could be vast or small. What influenced my line of thinking in this manner, is none other than the Bible, and getting closer with God. I also have my caring parents to thank, for the morals they instilled in me. I grew up with my mother and father, stressing to me how important college is, and how vital education is in the work force. Going to different schools throughout my childhood, really opened my eyes, to see how convenient it is to know exactly what you want out of life. There' s a famous saying, " sky's the limit", and most of us are use to saying this, but not really taking the statement seriously. I believe this statement is true, and it applies to me in several ways, but I'll only go in detail with one aspect. I only know so much, about what's going to happen in my life; which is why I cant say exactly how it will turn out. One thing I would say, is that the goals that I have set, is something that I will achieve, but the course of action all depends upon God's plan for my life.

Pg 186, Q 2

i totally forgot about the blog. sorry.

I have a number of goals in my life at this point. They range from grandiose to dull. I want to make a documentary film (many) and I want to pay off student loans. The means I have to attain the first said goal is my current major which is documentary film making and a school that makes it possible to learn how to do that with teachers who have done it before. The second goal is not really a goal because I don't want to do that, I have to or else I will get in big trouble and possibly ruin my life. My answer about how to attain that goal is to just get a job. Doing that depends on my experience and such. Of course, I want a job that will let me pay those loans while living comfortably and therein lies the challenge.

My aspiration to make a documentary film comes from an innate desire to inform people of goings on that are not right, oftentimes not ethically right. Also, I want to be able to do it in a "non-downer" fashion. The film medium can reach a lot of people almost instantly.
Paying off school debt comes from a nagging feeling inside that makes me shudder with anxiety and paralyzes me with fear oftentimes so much so that I find it almost fruitless to continue on but I realize that I am literally quite trapped at this point having already buried myself in three years worth of school debt. Phew. This topic would actually make for an excellent documentary film. I say that because a lot of people (banks) tend to take advantage of students (loan rates, etc.) and of all the people in the world (not that anyone should be taken advantage of) they are the ones that should not be. Loans and their obscene interest rates do not encourage learning growth, and, creativity they promote fear, inability, anxiousness, and paranoia about the future. I find that it is certainly unnatural to do nothing but fear graduating. It's supposed to be a happy, exciting, and propelling time but I think it will be the worst day of my life. So, I will jump right into grad school. Always a procrastinator. HAH. Anyway...I digress...
My goals out of reach? Well, that solely depends on me and my work ethic -- which is nothing to brag about. I don't really completely follow the "personal responsibility" way of life but it is necessary to keep oneself in good situations as opposed to bad ones. I try hard not to put myself two steps back but sometimes it's hard to follow through.
Why "out of reach" at some points?
Well, I suppose a natural lean toward hedonistic pursuits.

goals.

I haven't really set specific goals for myself when it comes to my life and my future- maybe that's a bad thing, but setting long term goals hasn't really been something that I consider that important. Although I haven't really written anything down or consider myself to have thought about what I want to have happen in my life, there are definitely things that would be nice to accomplish.
I guess I really just want to be doing something I love- which is why I chose to go to art school instead of pursuing a nursing degree like every other woman in my family. I don't have dreams of being filthy rich and being able to buy ridiculous "luxuries" or drive 10 cars, I just want to live comfortably and if that means just getting by with a little extra spending money- that's fine with me, as long as I'm doing something creative and artistic. I think that these aspirations come from seeing a lot of my relatives who are miserable with their jobs- who, when they found out I was going to art school, decided to say anything and everything they could to try to change my mind. I suppose I want to prove to them and myself that the amount of money someone has doesn't have to affect their happiness.

...angela...

The goals in my life are simple. I wish to be successful in my music career. That doesn't mean I need to get wealthy off of it but I do wish to make a fairly decent living off of it. I want a wife and kids. I think my goals are obtainable. I mean as far as music is concerned my means is my creativity and my computer. I think that with those tools I can get partially there. I don't really believe things are out of reach. People need to learn how to hustle with what they have to get what they don't. Everyone needs some sort of hustle. It's the best way, in my opinion, to move from point A to point B.

TT p. 186 #1

It's not hard to discern the high end ads from the Old Navys and Targets. Prada and Versace rely on little more than their own name and muted pictures of their newest line while the lower end creates graphically stimulating pages with bright colors and snappy phrases. The customers of Gucci and the like buy these items because, well...that's what you do if you have the means: you buy what Armani puts out because how else are you to display your wealth? Besides, you don't have many options. There are only a handful of companies that can compete with Mercedez-Benz so your choices are limited. But the myriad companies that serve the middle class must elbow and squeeze their way into the spotlight with catchy ad campaigns and eye-popping illustrations of what it is you can get at their store. That brings us to another difference--the higher end ads are selling brands while the lower end ads are trying to get you to come to their store. Yes, Burberry has stores, but it is the only brand you can buy there while J.C. Penney wants you to come to their store so you can spot that Xhiliration tee that your niece might love when you actually went to pick up a new Nine West purse.
Women are treated differently in the ads, as well. You will never find a mother portrayed in a Prada ad--all the women are young, single and slightly bored looking. Women in Target ads are either young with a boy on their arm or a mother figure (best prices on diapers and you can pick up a new little black dress). Upper class women are meant to be independent and confident, while in the lower class they easily fall into the category of wife and mother.
The higher ends are very good at knowing what class they are targeting, as well. It is very, very rare to see an African or Asian American in a Dolce and Gabbana ad, but the Gap uses all sorts of races in their ads because high class is still defined as skinny, rich and white.

Goals

When it comes to the goals in my life, I have kept them pretty simple: be happy, succeed at what I do, and be successful in life. When I say be successful that doesn't mean I have to be rich and greedy, but in order to obtain my goals to the highest degree I must be greedy. I don't want to sound like all greed is good, because it is not, it destroys people and families. 

I am happy right now, I am having a great time living my life, but it can always be better. I can always do better in school, play harder in sports, and enjoy life even more. Now that I sound like a "life coach" there are some things that I will, could never achieve. One thing that is out of reach for me is say, becoming the president. Theoretically I could become the president, but because I don't want to, I would never have the goal to become the president, so I would never put out my best effort to do so.

All of my goals come from one place, my experiences. I've seen things, either on the streets or in the movies that I would want to achieve. This is how I have created my goals, I see other people that have either failed to achieve them, achieved them, or people that have never set out to achieve any goals; this is what inspires me to do better.

Pg. 186 Question #2

Now that I'm really thinking about it, I think that a lot of the goals that I have in my life have so much to do with my upbringing. A lot of my goals are cliche I guess but I really want to get married, have babies, have a good job, and live a long life. My parents have been married for 27 years and they've always reinforced to my brothers and I how important sharing your life is with someone. I know that makes most people want to throw up in their mouth but that's perhaps why I've been with my boyfriend for seven years. Talk about shutting doors. I've always thought that marrying your high school sweetheart is too fairytale-esque.
I have three brothers two of which are slightly older than me and when we were young, my dad used to take a lot of pictures of us. My family is from Poland so my brothers and I all have completely round faces and light blonde hair and we all used to look similar as kids so it made for some interesting photos. Almost everyday my dad would set up his hasselblad and photograph us and he used to give us little disposable cameras to take pictures with. It's interesting to see what little kids take pictures of because of their short angles and weird composition. Because my dad did this, I've always wanted to be a photographer. More of a fashion photographer than anything. I've always been taking pictures and I came to Columbia being a photo major and I lost the love of it because of the $300 a month and 15 hours a week in the darkroom, so I switched to a cultural studies major. Yay! But my point is, all of my aspirations came from my upbringing and it's funny how my brothers and I all ended up in art schools. My goal to be a fashion photographer is "out of reach" mainly because the fashion world doesn't know and doesn't care that I exist, photography is very competitive and I have no desire to sell myself, and Chicago is a bad place to be for fashion.
Most of my goals are not attainable. I want to live to be 300, I want to get married and move to Paris, I want to have five kids none of which are girls, I want to go to the moon, I want to be Richard Avedon, and I want to be a magicians assistant in the early 1900s. I have no means to attain these so I will just what happens to me. I hate goals.

Reading Ads in Teen Vogue

Teen Vogue, as a note of clarification, is the "little sister" magazine of fashion bible, Vogue.
"reading" ads in Vogue is a lesson in high culture society all in of itself. Most of it's readers hail from the upper east side of New York City or the west side of LA and for years it has been the magazine that designers of high fashion-Versace, Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana, Chanel, marc jacobs, etc.- have chosen to run their ads first (often up to 6 pages).
Simply Vogue is high culture. Their isn't another fashion magazine that tops it.
As Vogue tops Glamour or Cosmopolitan in stature, Teen Vogue tops Cosmo Girl or Seventeen, certainly more then, J14.
Teen Vogue is a magazine for girls with money, fashion sense and "class" and it shows, not just in the magazine's ad but in it's set-up as well. Their are no sections on how to improve your love life, frivolous "embarassing" moment stories, or weight loss tips. This isn't a lifestyle magazine, it's a fashion magazine. period. The closest Teen Vogue gets to that is that in each issue, their's an "issue" that teen girls deal with (this month it's drinking diaries, but only of the upper east side set of teens) and a inspiring, true story-type of article.
That being said the ads, for the most part, are the same as regular Vogue (only smaller because the magazines' smaller and slimmer by comparison). Mostly the ads feature the same skinny white models but also includes ads for "Roca Wear" and "Lot 20", which are more "urban" if you will. Notably, they all follow the Teen Vogue way of fashion (that is high fashion) and are maybe are even more strict then Vogue in this respect (they don't run ads for walmart but do run ads for Target's designer collection). While the ads don't take up as much space (they rarely allow for 6 page spreads), the ads are supposed to have an artistic, not strictly commercial, appeal. That goes for the actual spreads in Teen Vogue themseles. If you want to know a celebrties thoughts, feelings and about their "normal" lives, look it up on wikipedia. Mostly the "articles" are to display their fashion sense. They're even choosy about the people on the cover. So far stars such as Natalie Portman, Rihanna, Anne Hataway, Mischa Barton, Australian supermodel Gemma Ward and Beyonce have all made apperances but not stars like Jessica Alba. That'd be too trashy and common.
In comparison to other magazines, even better then Vogue, Teen Vogue has gotten away from using just white models. Often articles and spreads feature Asian, black, hispanic and, even, mixed models and celbrites. Teen Vogue is vocal about being about "the global fashion community" as they put it and it's magazine shows such.
In conclusion, Teen Vogue is a teen high fashion magazine. It serves as a stepping stone for girls who they hope will grow up and read regular Vogue.
no one really picks up Teen Vogue (or regular Vogue for that matter) for the articles, in fact one does not "read" Vogue or Teen Vogue, you LOOK. You look at the ads and the spreads for INSPIRATION. The point isn't necesarily even to buy expensive designer clothes, really but to take from this and translate that sense of style back into something less expensive. So what Teen Vogue is selling isn't even desinger clothes but high fashion sense.

I want a picket fence

I don't understand how my mothers computer 500 miles away from my apartment logged me into this blog automatically without me ever once logging into it. Strange. Anyway....

Goals. What a tricky word...question..thought.....When I think about what goals I have and would like to achieve, I can't help but get confused. Most people, when they think of goals (or set them), they have something to do with graduating, having a career they love, a family, ...etc. Maybe not all of them, but generally, when asked the question, "What goals do you have?" it seems people jump to security. Everyone loves security though.... who wouldn't? And yes, there are goals that I think about and set but.... My main goals in my life are to be happy, to learn, to grow and to discover myself. Without having and doing those four things, I'd be too indecisive to set and fulfill other goals. Yes, I want to graduate. Yes, I want a career. Yes, I want a family. But I want to be happy, learn and grow, in order to discover who I am so I can do those things with a positive outlook in life.

I started a new journal about a month ago and the first entry talks about how I want to look at things on the brighter side from now on.


Where did these ideas of being happy as my main goal in life come from? Probably a large collection of things happening throughout my life time and family.... Coming back home for Thanksgiving and my birthday made my goal to be happy grow larger than it ever has been.

Enough said. My goal is to be happy.
and to see my mom happy... and my dad
and my sisters...and nephews..
and to master the guitar.
and to master the harp.
and to write a book, or two or three or four...
:)

Ch. 10 p. 186 q. 1

How do I think high-end ads use space? In Teen Vogue, this Louis Vuitton ad takes up two pages. It speaks importance. As a double-spread, it is hard to miss. How do I think ads use color, imagery, text and others? It is a photograph of Scarlett Johansson (****celebrity) wearing a sexy red leather dress, lying on her stomach with the purse dangling from her hand, and one of her flawless legs up in the air behind her. I see a few different things, one of course being the sex-appeal of this ad, making women want to be like this attractive celebrity by using their product. I also think it says something about leisure- do women really lie around on benches everyday lookin' good with their purses? As for text, all these people needed to do is slap on the title "Louis Vuitton" and any woman would start drooling. 

As for ads "for people with a little less pocket change," what I see in ads for companies like American Eagle and Old Navy are teenagers or "normal-looking" people in everyday settings- at home, at work, out with friends. These ads always seem to be more realistic. When you look at these ads, you know what kind of audience these ads are targeting. American Eagle shoots for the younger middle class people- i think it is the more accessible alternative. Anyone could wear these clothes. With the Louis Vuitton ad, you know that the young, rich, possibly famous, and beautiful are being targeted- the people who can afford to spend hundreds of dollars on a purse. I think that says a lot about the types of lifestyles these different audiences lead as well. Thinking about it though, this high-end ad is in a teen magazine, where you'd expect to see more of those middle-class ads. Maybe it is targeting more of a richer young audience. Obviously teens can't afford really expensive things on their own.

I think classes are configured racially, but at the same time, I don't. There are the people that lump one "race" into the lower-classes and another to the higher-classes. But it never is quite as black and white as that though.  It is difficult to say because there are different races in all these classes, but at the same time, you still see certain races dominating certain classes. As much as it sucks to say that, it is just true in some places.

Goals pg. 186

The goals that I’ve set for myself in this lifetime are an accumulation of my upbringing along with personal aspirations that will make life more fulfilling as a whole. Having a parent that was deeply involved in the education field, a strong emphasis was put on higher education and achievement in a future profession. When I became restless in high school with the humdrum boring curriculum I focused all of my energy into photographing and printing in the darkroom. Having parents that worked in careers that required little if any creativity, they saw photography as a hobby only.
I continued to pursue this career and lifetime goal of actually going to school and producing photographs for a living in part because of my uncle. His support and enthusiasm for my growing interest and determination in the photo field gave me much needed assurance in the long run. His generosity of purchasing camera equipment, helping me mat and display my work, and most importantly genuinely supporting me has helped immensely. Without his support in my chosen career field, and my parents strong emphasis on higher education, my determination in reaching my goals would certainly not be the same as it is today.
Last year one of my teachers asked everyone in the class to raise their hands if they would be in $20,000 or more debt after graduating from college. All but three of us in the class raised their hands, which surprised me at first and made me realize how fortunate I am. If my mother wasn’t such a strong advocate of education and had the means to fund my college education I would be up to my ears in debt and eating ramen noodles every day of the week. For this I am eternally grateful for being given such opportunities, I only hope in the future college would not be such a financial burden, allowing everyone who wants one the means to a college education.
Kaiti

Blog pg 186 #2

throughout my highschool years and beginning of college, i learned that my career goals always change, which is the main center of how i want my life to be. i changed my major so many times, each time, learning something very new about what was right for me and not right for me. but as time goes on, i think i will grow to learn what it is that i want to do in life, and i actually think that i am in tune with my carreer goals far more concentrated then ever before. this ties into my life, my goals are to be as happy as i can and do good in everything that i do with a possitive attitude. its taken me a while to cope with family things and school and work things, i ive realized the person that i am and am confortable in my own shoes and i truely beleive that knowing this of my self will help me in what ever i do in life thats possitive and give an understanding to myself and well as all the people that enter my life. in the end i want to be successful in what ever i do in my life and be possitive about the outcomes taking everything in and learning as i grow. those are my basic goals

p. 186 #2

My goals are nothing special. I want a simple life in a simple dwelling with a cute dog and maybe a cute boy who will cook with me. It took going to art school 800 miles away from home to figure this out. I just want total simplicity and invisibility. I just want a mediocre job. I want to be able to go to the doctor when I am sick. If I ever have kids (and I probably won’t), I don’t want to build the foundations of their diet on 7-11 hotdogs and McDonalds fries.

I think my goals are shaped by the way my parents live. I’ve grown up watching them migrate from job to job, but always self-employed. They didn’t have the same education opportunities, so they try to cling onto whatever they can that makes money and pays the bills. This also means when times are tough and you are sick, there are no options except to tough it out unless you are peeing blood or your foot is twice its everyday size. When I broke my foot in 5th grade, my dad told me to walk it off. I don’t want to just walk it off anymore. I’d like to know that things will be okay.

I don’t consider my goals to be out of reach. A lot of people have achieved them (even though many aren’t satisfied). I don’t think I am aiming too high or anything like that, I don’t want to be known or recognized. My goals don’t require any great ambition or talent.

Blog #12 - Gender

I accidently did the question for this week, last week. So I will do the question we had to do last week this week. I hope this is okay! Sorry.

Page 170

I've taken a good fifteen to twenty minutes just staring at these pictures and I know something is there, I just don't think I am smart enough to see it. I suppose we can take a look at the pictures first then look at what each is saying. There is the picture of the volcano blowing up, something blowing up is something that is usually thought of as masculine, since us guys normally like when things get destroyed. THen there is the picture that says "You make history when you do business" Normally business is looked at as a man's world and it is the deals that men make through business that have shaped certain aspects of the more recent world. There are news stories all the time of which old white man is making millions or selling his portion to another rich white man, and this is the history that is being made. I don't know if Kruger is out right challenging men, she may well be but I might be too manly to notice, but she is most definitely pointing out the trivialness of such action points that our masculinity has.

-Corte

Articles for Tuesday

Again, I'm not requiring this reading, but I am making it available. I think it will give you some interesting perspectives on the differences issues we'll be talking about in class.

Where Does One Begin? A discussion of structural racism's effects on discussions of racism.

The Big Penny Pussy Sale An examination of the "pimp" character, taking both gender and race into the readings of how we've appropriated this figure in popular culture.

Race, Class and Bicycling Take something as simple as bicycle recylcing programs and see how even these can offer reflections on our notions of race and class. *Written by my peer here at Columbia, the ever-fabulous Zack Furness.

All of these come courtesy of a more recent issue of Bad Subjects, from the Race & Culture issue.

Pg. 170

I think the one think that stands out the post towards genered identities, is the context and medium chosen for the two peices. I think a lot of times these two things are what is focused on when advertising something to a certain audience. The two photos are very clear cut and clean. This is directed towards men because of that i think. Men are seen as wanting things simple and direct, and thats what is shown on the two photos. The top one has a man's arm obviously because of the strength in it and the lettering is very clean. The second one is about science and an explotion behind it, things very hard and strong. These are all ideas that are drained into peoples head in our society since youth, so certain images that are seen can easily be represented in certain way to males or females, or others. This makes it hard for people who want to be different or can't help but to be different. And our ideas may be different from another cultures where they can take these two photos and think of something totally different or identitfy them in different ways.

The Potrayal of Masculinity

I believe, Kruger is challenging the ideology surrounding Masculinity. On the first picture, the statement is made, about the military. It says, that when you go into the army, all of these promises are made. Those who tell you about the success, don't let you know about half of the consequences that comes behind this. The challenges of staying alive, is a hard process, but the thought of being a hero seems to linger in the mind. Yeah, a person could reap the benefits of just being a hero, but is it worth putting your life a .risk? The second picture, is nothing more than a representation of disaster, and a process of figuring out the cause. When hurricane Katrina hit, I'm pretty sure there were scientists, giving different theories on the tragic event. It seems to be a crown of authority, once you discover something tragic, and not only discovering the event, but the cause of it all. The third really brings, a certain thing in my mind called prosperity. It has been said that, some people would rather die trying to become rich, that live in poverty. A masculinity things is seeking success by any means. These are all of these, different theories that fall under these pictures

TT p. 170

Barbara Kruger's images tie together discourses that (seemingly) have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Instances of elation are far from trenches and bombs, and the only scientific thing about manias would be the study of them. But by connecting these opposite ideas we are forced to look at the possible similarities between them, and also the differences that set them so far apart and what they might possibly mean. The muscular arm carrying the torch is a masculine symbol of strength and victory, but it is placed on top of a feminine heart. Men and women both experience joy and are both affected by war, so why these distinct gender assignments? Maybe women are more attuned to their emotions and will truly appreciate a moment of joy more than a man? But I have too many male friends that I share moments of elation with to believe that. And while the military may be a male-dominated world, women all over are concise and precise and would run their lives with military precision if it were possible.
Kruger forces the viewers of her work to examine the genders we give certain phenomena and look at why we think they are this or that, and what difference it really makes that science is considered masculine, that mania is considered feminine, and what it means when we read a statement like "your manias become science" on top of a smoking volcano.

p170

Kruger's photographs say much more than the obvious about the discourse of masculinaty. Beyond this, they do give insight on how the wolrd views and creates their own geder identities. The male gender, often seen as the dominant by the proprietors and the objectors of it, has had interesting lnks with its own history. This dominance has a lot to do with what weve associated with with masculinity so long. these imgaes, in truth, are fairly simple and are not directly related to gender identtiy when yu break them down to simple asthetics. howver, they do represent the discourses of masculinity with their connotations, symbolisims, and ideologies. they represent what we have attributed to specific genders and their relationships with their own histories. this is not to say that hisotry, outcomes, and simple facts have leaned twords the male race in terms of superiority, it simply says that that is how many things have been percieved and treated.

p. 170

These three paintings by artist Barbara Kruger say to the viewer that men are in control and women are the total opposite of men. Men are stronger, smarter and make history. Women are reduced to second place and are given less than equal importance. Scientists and people who make history such as presidents, policemen, doctors etc. are mostly comprised of men. Women stay at home and are subject to men. Science, history and even math is excelled by males. Females take care of men and are not considered history makers. I think Kruger is challenging males or masculine men because these art works show that men are the cause of the problems of the world. Women do not get enough reward for the work they do. Masculine women are judged differently than women. They try to become as powerful as a man, but lacks the feminine touch. Women do the housework and men will never know the work women do.

Differences

I had a very hard time understanding what these images actually were about. When I first looked at them I wasn't sure if Kruger was talking to males of females. The more I actually looked at the images, I then made the connection that the images were being directed towards males.

In the first image the first thing that should pop out at you is the text. In the real image it would be white lettering on a red background, and the rest of it would be black and white. The text leads me to think that, men are very predictable. It also kind of alludes to men's love of violence; when it says "precision of military strategy" I think that men are predictable, but it also gives me the thought of a military strategy. The are precise, but they are also violent and destructive. The image shows a chiseled arm holding a torch in front of an image of a heart. When I saw this I think of the Olympics, sure there are almost the same amount of women's sports during the games, but when it first comes to mind, I think of the greatest competition for men. The torch also represents victory, and holding above all else, it also goes in colalition with the image of the heart. It all comes together to show man's love of victory and "domination over their opponents."

In the second image, the meaning seems obvious, "man" has always strived for knowlege, and this "mania" has cause many conflicts and deaths over the years. It is not shown as a mania, but as a quest for science. A great example of this mania would be the NASA program; we spend billions of dollars into NASA each year. Our achievements could be considered pointless when you compare to the lost of life.

When looking at these images you can't help but think that Kruger is making the generalization that all men are predictable and that they let there dreams over see reality. As much of a generalization as that may be, I seem to think that is a true statement. I personally am part of wanting to be masculine. That is what history and science has taught me. In order to achieve my goals I must be masculine.

Pg. 170

All of the images are very masculine and not only because there is physically a male in them, but the text as well. "Your moments of joy have the precision of military strategy" is a perfect quote because I think it sums up the male ideal perfectly. It shows that everything in life can be controlled (by a strong man) and if you take control over your life and dedicate yourself to the outcome of your future, you know that in the end the reason you are happy is because you made yourself happy. No one else played a roll in the outcome of your life because you did it all yourself.
Science, history, and math have always been seen as more of a masculine thing. It was never "cool" in high school to have girls know more answers in the math room and it was never "cool" to have girls take over during the pig fetus disection and have the boys squirm instead. Those areas have always been geared towards men and I like these images because they touch on that. The differences in the world that experts in science and math have made have always been men, maybe because women can't handle such complex thought (kidding. I'm a gir.) It's weird though how I can only think of two women off the top of my head that have made a contribution to science: Curry and Henrietta Leavitt.
I believe that Kruger is challenging the norms and not so much the men themselves. It's like that one list that for women that says "25 reasons why shoes are better than men". She's plaing with the ideals that men are supposed to have when they are being socialized. They are taught to be little machismos and that men being or doing anything feminine is seen as a sign of weakness. They are supposed to be the opposite of what every female attribute is. It's funny because that fits in right with the images in the book.

Slam it to your left

Masculinity is always shown in history. There is man. There is woman. One obviously better than the other...(sarcasm) and that one, can show their strength and must show their strength. What I find funny about this is that masculinity is shown off, yes, but if it was a very masculine woman, we know damn well that she'd probably be avoided. These pictures show history and science with masculinity. Why? Because the world tries to avoid femininity as a power. Where are the damn Spice Girls when you need them? Science, history and the Military would not want to have a feminine ruling in them. Masculinity has been dominant and, (but hopefully not) will remain that way. I am curious though if these pictures are serious or meant as a joke? Maybe I'm just reading them the wrong way.

p170

The seemingly objective discourses of science and history are bound up with masculinity because it is masculine entities that dominate the discourse. The manias of those characterized as masculine become science because it is generally the masculine who are scientists and therefore what they are personally interested in is what gets looked into. Military strategy is usually guided by masculine figures, and the first image assumes that precision is a masculine trait and that everything from joy to military strategy is carefully calculated, and in the case of joy, the calculations may exist to avoid showing emotion, because emotions are associated with the feminine.

KrugersDifferences

Barbara Kruger’s photographs have an unbelievably uncanny way of turning gender identity into a much more complex discussion of how we construct our own identities, and challenging us to reexamine our gender specific roles. The first photograph displays an iconic image of someone holding up the torch, with a heart shaped object in the background. The text which is equally as important as the image says, “Your moments of joy have the precision of military strategy”. This sentence combined with the visual imagery made me think of how women’s routine practices of baking Thanksgiving dinner, executing the “perfect” plan to find the “perfect” husband, or simply putting together a fashionable outfit with matching hair and makeup, ultimately become a series of strategic steps within a formulated plan. The ritual practices of a housewife in the fifties were all about keeping a tidy home with everything in its right place, making sure the children were bathed and ready for bed, while keeping up appearances to please your husband with a satisfying dinner and late night romp in between the sheets. The text in Kruger’s image ridicules perfectly the joy of being a housewife. With so many mundane yet arduous tasks to conquer, a woman’s joy/pride can be looked at as being similar to military strategic planning. In order to get to everything there must be a plan of execution, a target goal of things to be accomplished, and finally a victorious outcome.The message means that even though as a woman you may not be flying fighter jets nor dropping bombs on the enemy, the simple tasks of an everyday house wife becomes arduous, involving meticulous planning.
In the second photograph, Kruger has juxtaposed an image of explosives going off with the words, “Your manias become science”. This points directly to existing male domination in the fields of math and science and beyond. Young boys like to blow shit up, destroying or deconstructing whatever they can get their hands on. The seemingly innocent gender roles that they take on at an early age continue through adulthood, motivating them to continue their curiosity and exploration through prospective career fields. Their “manias” of mayhem that were inconsequential at age five are heightened when given the opportunity and power to produce results. This image shows the patriarchal pedestal males are put on, reinforcing the fact that math and science fields have been largely dominated by men throughout history, which in turn has given them power over women. Their gender specific role of being the hero, the great warrior, the one who saves us in a time of crisis has become a means to justify violence as a way of protection and security.
kaitig

pg. 170

When I look at the images I think of alot of things- I think of greece, rage , strength, industrialization, hardwork, etc.-In the cononated sense anyway, their words that are often used to descibe "masculinity".
But when I look at the pictures more carefully and read the headlines i'm not so sure if this is a commentary so much on male privilege so much as it's a critque about the ways males are taught to think of themselves ("the male myth" if you will).
For instance in the first image, it reminds me of that saying "boys don't cry", it's as if the artist is making a mockery of the idea that men have very planned out feelings and when their going to feel them. The second one seems to suggest that instead of seeing "manias" as serious mental problems their viewed as progress (I also think it's intresting that this volcano also envokes a picture of a bomb exploding, another "miracle" of science) and the third seems to sugges that every little thing that a man does is history-worthy.
The pictures seem to play with this concept of the "natural facts" of how males act, feel and live.
It's odd that you'd look at this objective pictures and see signs of mascuilnity, seeing as they shouldn't envoke anything except what they actually are-a torch, volcano and farmer hands- but it is the way that culture has conotated the images to mean something about men-rugged, touch, aggresive, explosives, wrathful, not subtle, hardworking, etc.- into the way we interpert these images. The headlines on the photos simply draw out and question what that may actually be.
Perhaps, even further, this images say something about science and history as they could definately be conotated that way also. Does History or science have an masculine slant? So that these things we think about as "male" also apply to "history" and "science" also? If that's so then where do the women fall with these conotated images? Does it seem to suggest that women DON'T fit into these conotated images and neither do men who don't live up to these standards?
Atleast that's the way I saw it.

Blog #11 - Differences

Question #2

I hate questions like these, but I don't have any magazines that question one asked to look through around my place so I am forced to answer this one. It's just so broad, "What goals do I have in my life?" I dunno, what goals to we all have in our lives; to be successful in what we do. Whatever that may be, we all just want to succeed. It can be at anything, as long as we have that feeling of success or accomplishment, then we have satisfied said goal. I'm not saying that is the end all, above all goal we have, justing saying most things can be clumped into this catagory of succeeding. Becoming wealthy, winning some sort of awards, marrying a hot wife, becoming a happy person, these can all be looked at as ways of succeeding in life. That is, of course you look at these things as good things and take the word success as it is used in its conventional way. The things I just listed here may or may not be what you or someone else thinks as succeeding.

In using the most conventional use of the word, I suppose I would want all those things. Who wouldn't. Are they important things? Depends who you ask. But I think it is just human nature to want to be successful at anything. Whether that is being the next Spike Lee, or the next Christopher McCandless, everyone eants to succeed in their vision in what life is all about. By their standards and by their standards alone. This is the reason why I disagree when people say others have failed. It's okay to say it and their is no stopping anyone from thinking that, but to me, with the standards of what succeeding can mean to different people, only that person can say they failed. These aspirations come from what inspire us and intrigue us about life, and if life has taught us anything, it's that nothing is out of reach.

-Corte

Signs of Masculinity

When looking at these pictures a lot of ideas come to mind. The symbolism are the ideas that jump out at me first. In the first picture, the burning torch reminds of ancient Greece, the gods, perfectly chiseled torsos, the Olympics, perspiration, and the drive to win. I think of men the typical, "man power," when I see the burning torch. In the picture, the arm that is reaching out, holding the torch in the air seems to be a man's arm. I can't tell what this first image is trying to communicate. Is it an ad? Is it a political statement, or just a work of art? Joy and military strategy. I can't seem to really make a connection. When I think of military strategy, images jump into my head of Douglas MacArthur, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, images of masculinity at work if I may say so. In my mind, the military, and military service directly relate to masculine norms of learning about growing up and protecting the homeland. I can't really see how this is a challenge to the male norms. If this art was geared to a more female audience I could see how a lack of interest and questioning about why this art/ad, was projected onto a female audience. The art itself seems to be not of this generation, because of the kind of text used in the picture, the photographs used, and the overall mood that they set. The second picture confuses me even more than the first one did, in that I can't make sense of what the text is trying to say, and how it is trying to say it. I don't understand their direct connection to masculinity and femininity. Maybe this is because I am somewhat out of the loop, however I showed these images to a few friends, and they didn't seem able to make any real connections either. The discourse of science and history, our two most essential discourses have always been bound up with masculinity, because around the world, the power of business, hence economic, social, and political power also lies with men. This has been true throughout history, continuing on through industrialization and beyond. Maybe woman really do have more raw power than I think. I don't really understand the political influence that woman have. I would like to research this more. The signs of masculinity are all around us, and I know that I am likely so involved in being a guy, that I certainly don't, and can't identify these signs as they are. I think that in the future there will be more of a balance of power, as woman continue to succeed in school, and new places of work, in business, and in science. History will begin to be redefined.

Differences Part 1

At first glance, I thought the first picture meant that even when a man is in his least-masculine state of joy, he still does it with an amazingly precise masculinity. After thinking about it during work today, I think it was playing with the seemingly "natural fact" that men have this exact way of being. The torch to me had a connotation of the Olympics, which is a huge display of talent and physical ableness; the two of which seem to have been ascribed to the male role since the beginning of time.
The second picture reminded me of something the book talked about- a good chunk of the great American novels being written by men, and these novels being about seemingly "universal themes" when in all actuality, they are masculine themes. It seemed to me that "your manias become science" means that a man's masculine, material attributes (manias) become grouped with the naturalness of simply having a penis (science). Science is important, isn't it? We all have to believe in science, right? How often do we question the way a man should be? If he isn't your average molded manly-man, he's a queer, isn't he?
I felt like the last question was well grouped with the last image. Male hands are clutching a bar of soap and a scrub- doing something domestic which is normally attributed with women. The text says "You make history when you do business." So is it safe to say domestic business? Things men don't normally do? I feel like this could be a challenge for men to go against the grain. You will make history, things could change. That would be the difference.


PS. I'll miss you guys this week! (I'm going home early) Have a good thanksgiving.

Differences

I believe the first picture is describing how the feelings of men are not only predictable, but also that a man’s response to an event is almost completely controlled by the rules of masculinity. Kruger was showing us that men’s emotions, much like the military with it’s “standard issue” weapons, boots, morals, and procedures, have their own regulations and expectations to “fall in” with the rest of the group (in this case other men).

The second picture illustrates, what I believe is to be credited to Foucault, man’s “will to knowledge”. The idea is that man is obsessed with trying to understand things, to figure out the truths of life. Foucault describes this as one of man’s strongest desires. The use of the word mania ascribes a negative connotation to this desire, possibly showing that some of the things we explore are frivolous.

Science and history are masculine discourses because a majority of the works written are from the male perspective. The very procedures and rules that are used within the discourses were developed before women began working in them. If the fundamentals, or the bedrock of a discourse is made by males, then one could assume they were made in a way that men could easy use. This can be a problem because women and men think differently.

Looking at these two images, you cant help but think about rage. Pictures and media could be very misleading. Misleading in the sense that because they captured that moment on camera, that is the moment that they judge the whole controversy on. In society today many people from different countries have different perspectives on different cultures. For example, many people from different countries look at America as this wealthy, perfect nation. Which is not the case at all. Today society puts a sterotypes almost every race possible. For example when somebody says Arab, the first thing that pops into an Americans head is terrorist and disrespect. They think this because this is what the American Media has put them out to represent for a long time, especially after the events of 9/11. Yes, there are a lot of things that support this sterotype, however people fail to consider that not all arabs are terrorist and that they are normal human beings just like us. Not only do they expose arabs as these 2 sterotypes in news media, they also expose arabs in this manner in television and movie media which are two of the main things that Americans enjoy watching. In T.V. shows and movies that have Arabs, the arabs are usually terrorist or the enemy that is always wanting to start a war. I belive that in our society today we fail to look into other racial perspectives which is why we are so bias about almost everything we do.

Lawrence of Arabia and Raiders of the Lost Ark

When I look at these two images, they really seem to resemble a group of savages. There are several misrepresentations, that we could get from certain pictures shown , by the media with an agenda. It seems that many things that are shown, throughout the media about America...is positive. I've often heard people who were once foreigners say, that I though before coming to America; that the streets were made of gold. An exaggerated opinion, but based on the representation given, what choice do you have to get this type of assumption? As time go along, I believe the representation of Arabs differs; depending on the situation. Since a certain group of people, who are terrorist may be Arabian, society often put them in this boiling pot, and categorize them in this exact order. The men and women of the middle east, seem to be like zombies. When I look at films that represent, any type of lively hood from this culture, it always seems to be lifeless. Whether or not, this situations change, it really depends on whomever is involved with displaying this. Depending on who, is going to represent the culture, there needs to be a deep level of understanding, rather than being blatantly bias.

Posts Pg.150

The movies “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” were made within two decades of each other, both depicting the stereotypical misrepresentation of people of Middle Eastern descent. They both portray the Arab culture with negative connotations, serving us a one-sided character that serves one purpose, to entertain. While Hollywood has continually planted a seed of fear, disdain, and disgust for those of Middle Eastern descent, they have rarely if at all showed them in an accurate and positive way. Hollywood films are controlled by a small group of Jewish white males, which have utilized a constructed ideology surrounding the Middle East, propagating a stream of racism. Movies are mainly presented with the white male as the hero and someone of color as the villain. This has been exacerbated by almost every film that have Arab characters, showing them as greedy, womanizing, terrorists, who are “dangerously” different from those in the Western World. When this portrayal of those of Middle Eastern descent is repeated over and over again in Hollywood films, how can the public not harbor a racist attitude? Movies constantly depict Arab’s as drastically different from those in the West, making us feel little connection with the character and ultimately dehumanizing the way we feel about the Middle East.
I can remember watching “Aladdin” an animated Disney film for kids, and looking back now the stereotypical Arab characters within the film maintained what we think of Middle Eastern culture. The film offered up many wacky, villainous, deviant characters all serving to entertain and make the viewer laugh. One has to wonder though why such negative depictions of Arab’s would be found in a children’s film. If the media is already at work constructing our ideas of other cultures at age five, how biased will our minds be by the time we reach adulthood?
Seeing how films can negatively represent those of an entire nationality/ethnicity makes me wonder about the motives behind such plot lines. Could Hollywood execs simply be taking cues from the political stances of our government? Long running conflicts surrounding the U.S. with many countries of the Middle East has had considerable influence on the way the media and films depict Arab’s. Due to the negative portrayal of this culture, our mass media has controlled and manipulated our perceptions, forming racist thoughts and preconceived notions of what the Middle East is and is not.
After 9-11 our president formulated the Patriot Act, saying that in order keep America safe, the government must be able to have reign over phone lines to monitor conversations, and question whoever they deem a “suspected terrorist”. This meant barging into peoples homes without warrant, detaining innocent American citizens, and even holding those being questioned in jail for months at a time. The racial profiling of a distinct race has caused almost everyone of us to make assumptions or harbor fear from those of Middle Eastern descent. This whole trail of thought wouldn’t have been so successful if it wasn’t for the American movies that have demonized and dishonestly portrayed Arab’s.




Kaitig,

TT p. 150

In both of these films, Arabs are portrayed as savage and violent. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones is ready to fight a wildly fierce Arab, his face mysteriously hidden. Arabs are seen as mystical yet feral, believing in ridiculous things because they know nothing else. In Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs are only introduced to "culture" when Laurence Olivia graces him with their presence, and the few Arabs in the still either leer or stare dumbly. 10 years ago, we had a much better grasp on what Middle Eastern society was--simply a different culture, like that of Southeast Asians or Inuits. And while we still held our head high and would like to introduce them to our culture, we didn't necessarily see them as inferior. But after 9/11, the idea of an Arab changed drastically in American society. All of a sudden they were mongrels, violently adhering to some ridiculous dogma that taught them to kill innocents in the name of their ludicrous god. It looks as if we're back to square 1.

Blog

After comparing these two images I don't see too much of a difference other then one looks like it's in more of a palace like structure from the chair and the pillar in the back while the other is outside with the common folk. I guess the representation of middle eastern people in film is not something I pay attention to. I'm usually more focused on African and African American representation. Whenever I see comparisons like this I always think of what possible pictures they could have used for us (African Americans) and our representation in Hollywood. I believe that the Hollywood lense is very narrow in general in dealing with "others". It would be interesting for someone to collect a bunch of images of different groups of people as represented in Hollywood.

Blog Q: p.150

These stills suggest that Arabs follow a similar dress code. Every man and woman cover themselves with white or black clothing. Each man wears a turban on his head and a cloak on his body. Most of the common people wear white to support conformity. The upper class wear highly decorated and fancy clothing made from expensive materials. So the lower class lives in poverty while the upper class lives like royalty. The women cover most of their body including their face with black clothing. The women are few in public because they are at home doing chores for their husband. If they are out in public, they are supposed to be with a man who can be a boyfriend, husband or father. The representations of their image change over time because of the changing times. Their face, clothing, culture, etc are more or less depicted of what the movie makers are going for. As time passes stereotypes are seen on screen from generation to generation. Men and women are depicted as people who wear similar clothing. The men including boys wear white while the women wear black. The clothing covers them head to toe. The style of their clothing depicted on film reflects their religious background, politics, culture and economics. The coverings is a respect for God. Their status is represented by what they wear. Everyone who wears the same type of clothing is part of a culture. The value of their worth is shown by their cloths. Their clothing has more meaning than what you see at a first glance.

well..

Myself as well, does not know much about the Arab culture. But, I do think that peoples views and thoughts have not changed too much, by comparing the two pictures. In the first picture, they are all dressed in white, it's plain and boring. They are outside... and the guy in the middle getting ready to fight is in all black. In the bottom picture, they are inside a palace, all decked out in different colors and forms. Both are similar and different. It seems that the newest picture, it's obvious that Hollywood knew (a little) more about the Arab Culture than they did twenty years ago. Something that I find quite interesting, is that there are NO women in either picture. (Maybe there is in the top one with them dressed in all white, but I highly doubt it, and I know I looked rather closely.) Why is it that the two pictures are still so similar though.... with a twenty year difference? If you took a picture from twenty years ago from a movie that took place in America, and then one twenty years after from a movie that took place in America, they would look completely different. Is it because we just do not know? Or because their culture has not changed? OR because we want to believe that their culture does not change? I believe that depends on who has actually put it all together. We are out of their context. We do not know exactly, except for what we can read about or watch about. AND, Corte's blog...his idea on stereotypes pretty much sums up it as well. We only know what is different to us...

Post

Comparing both images from Lawrence of Arabia and Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Hollywood vision of the Middle East has stayed the same. Both show the "Arabians" as dressing in either black or white cloths, that are typically one piece. They are also shown as always having a head garment on. In the Raiders of the Lost Ark still it shows the perfect comparison of the identities. It shows the Western European identity as "well dressed" and having a newer technology, his revolver. The Arab identity is shown as dressing in the traditional fashion while wielding a old fashion weapon. If you compare the two pictures as Western European views of the Middle East, it would show that after 20 years the view of the Middle East has changed from a lavish and wealthy place to one that is stuck in the 19th century.

Today it could be said that Hollywood shows men and women of the Middle East as either terrorist, tyrannical fascists, or impoverished freedom loving citizens.

blog

It's kind of sad that if someone were to ask me what I thought Arabia looked like, something like these images would pop into my head. But it's not my fault. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia are all the exposure that I have ever to it. Like that one painting from a long time ago where there are a bunch of men sitting around a beautiful Middle-eastern women wearing a lacey next-to-nothing outfit doing a belly dance, or a lot of the covers of National Geographic show the women too. They are always very colorful and look sad trying to show how terrible it is to be a woman there.
I'd hate to say it though, but we would be much more stupid if the generalizations of the world got taken away. It touches on something that we would have no idea about otherwise. If you signed up for a feminism class and thought that the room would be full of humor and both genders, you'd probably be wrong. It's also easy for people to make generalizations about art school. People think art school isn't school at all, but rather we sit around and smoke weed all day and sit outside with our guitars and occasionally get up to play frisbee.
In the movies however of the Middle-east, they are always so dark and mysterious. I'm sure that's not it at all. But until the day that I go over there, this is all I have to go off of. This and The Jungle Book. I don't think we should just get rid of The Jungle Book just because it generalizes and depicts that culture through an American lense, I would just hope that people wouldn't take it to heart, so to say. Like what we talked about in class, if people over there were given tapes of Leave it to Beaver and Saved by the Bell, what would they think about us?

p. 150

Both of the stills represent something foreign. When I step outside onto the street, the majority of the people I see are not wearing turbans and robes and keffiyehs and etc. The biggest difference I notice between the stills is that the Arab world in the still from Lawrence of Arabia appears more formal and regal with the intricate detail on the wall in the background and on the chair and the various fabrics and patterns draping the Arab men. In the still from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the variation in dress is replaced by a sea of white, the palace is instead outside in the bare desert, with a plain boring building in the background. In 20 years, the representations of "Arabia" went from being fancy and respectable, an (almost) equal to the western world, to being dirty and "primitive," ultimately much inferior.

In Hollywood today, the representations of the Arab world aren't palaces. They are bare, villages in deserts disconnected from the rest of the country and other villages. The western world only connects with the Arab world for tourism, and war. The people are portrayed as if they were so different that they are not even from the same species. This representation plays perfectly to justify the right wing's (though sort of wobbly) stance on war, despite always hearing that the entertainment industry is run by "liberal nutjobs" (the quotation marks indicate that that phrase is a quote, and even though I do not know who to accredit this to, I am sure it has been spoken at some point by Bill O'Reilly or my father, or someone similar).

Blog #10 - Postcolonialism

I do not know much about the Arab culture, only from what I see in films such as these still in our textbook. From these interruptions, I can only see that the culture from that of Holloywoods eyes has not changed much in the last 20 years. Now I am not a believer at all when it comes to the rendisions of cultures of people by Holloywood, so this is not how I veiw to be the lifestyle or look of an Arab. From just looking from the photos, however, the culture looks vastly different from the ways I am used to. In these two particular films Arabs are portrayed as the bad guys, the one who are stepping in the way of Indiana Jones getting to the girl who has been taken by even worse guys... Nazis. I really do not see how this portraying of Arabs is legitimate, it seems to have been formed by a stereotype that was formed a long time agao. The only thing I can look for to argue in its favor is that at one point or another, all stereotypes were based on some sort of the truth, at least to the truth at the eyes of the people writing truths down. Is it right to make any sort of people the bad guys for some sort of real life portrayal as such, of course not. But who the hell else is going to play them, and if someone else did would we believe that world? Who knows... but until then, we are just going to stick picking on those look different from us.

-Corte

Differences

I believe the first picture is describing how the feelings of men are not only predictable, but also that a man’s response to an event is almost completely controlled by the rules of masculinity. Kruger was showing us that men’s emotions, much like the military with it’s “standard issue” weapons, boots, morals, and procedures, have their own regulations and expectations to “fall in” with the rest of the group (in this case other men).

The second picture illustrates, what I believe is to be credited to Foucault, man’s “will to knowledge”. The idea is that man is obsessed with trying to understand things, to figure out the truths of life. Foucault describes this as one of man’s strongest desires. The use of the word mania ascribes a negative connotation to this desire, possibly showing that some of the things we explore are frivolous.

Science and history are masculine discourses because a majority of the works written are from the male perspective. The very procedures and rules that are used within the discourses were developed before women began working in them. If the fundamentals, or the bedrock of a discourse is made by males, then one could assume they were made in a way that men could easy use. This can be a problem because women and men think differently.

Arabs in Hollywood

It's no secrect that hollywood frequently gets things wrong when it comes to depticting the world at large. For instance, much of arab/middle-east histroy suggests a rich culture where civilization originated (if you look at the bible as a historical document). But much of this rich history is overshadowed by the many problems that have recently plagued that area (well...not recently per se many of those issues are deep-seeded and long running but you get what I mean).
Traditional Hollywood as depicted the middle-east as an "exotic", "mystical", "strange", non-westernized, not white, violent, unstable and all other types of adjectives to describe "other" . Always it's the "white man who rides in on a white horse" who comes and saves the day, maybe with the help of an arab companion to help him "navigate" this strange land that he can't possibly comprehend by himself.
Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.
Obviously this view is stilted and bias in many ways. Has it changed? Yes and no. In the old studio-era hollywood pictures of the '30s and '40s, for instance "The Sheik" arabs are depcited as this grizzly beasts who are always wearing turbans and robes and hawking and spitting. Arab women are either "exotic" brazen beauties or defenseless, dominated by the overprotected men in their lives. Naturally, they are always the villians. These images are meant to terrify then-america, which had no excess to other types of information like the internet or intergration in social situations-in other words the world was "larger" back then.
In more recent depictions arabs have been depcited as terrorists (pick a film, any film) or the targets of terrorist activites (think "Stealth"), so they're STILL the bad guys or often times, may be even worse, their depcited as feeble or somehow unable to bring about peace by themselves (therefore the noble, brave, smart americans must come in and "save" them).
So, yes,it has changed.
Is it any better? no.
Why? Why this particular depiction of Arabs versus others. Well, simply put, it's the way of Hollywood. No one "gets out" of being stereotyped (there are 400, 500, page books about the stereotypes placed on black people and a number of other miniorites) this is simply Hollywood is overun with white men with little or no knowledge of the people they are making films about.
Plus, the arabs have the other disadvantage of us currently being at war with a middle-eastern country making "good" representations of them even more difficult. Although this is something of a recprical relationship, we potray them as being "odd" or "other" in some way and the arab filmakers potray americans as being overcaffinated, rich, fat, idiots. Everyone gets these stereotypes stuck in their heads as a "refrence" of sorts and the ability to overcome these stealted views is wholly negated.
Is it because that we are always taught a format of history, based heavily on colonists-view of the world, which revires eurpean and american history but alienates other histories such as middle-eastern, african, asian, etc.? If we taught a history that viewed both as cultrually rich and valued, would things be diffrent? Probably, but how would we go about this? Very few are willing to "rewrite" their jilted view of the world on their own even though the information is there for the taking so it would obviously have to be taught when they have no choice in the matter (i.e. School)
But the problem with that is that it would, in a sense, "ruin" the american moral. History isn't patriotic. In fact, when you go in search of it often times it shows us as being greedy, selfish and stupid above all. It's better to just keep things the way.
Change is costly.

Arab Identity

I feel a little awkward speaking about Arab identity. What does Arab mean? And what does it mean to be of Arab decent? I likely don't even known all of the countries and nationalities or other identifications "Arab" symbolizes. I guess the word Arab is derived from Arabic. Wikipedia was of little help to me in this case of research, as it said, "The definition of Arab is defined independently of religious identity. " If I'm not mistaken I think that Arabic is the language that the Qur'an was written in. However this definition still threw me for a loop, because I always associated the word "Arab," with the word "Islam." For this blog we will just take the Genealogical definition of an Arab person, someone who can trace his ancestry back to the tribes of Arabia, the original habitants of the Arabian Peninsula. In looking at this picture now we can see two very different interpretations of these supposedly "Arab" people. However I see one immediate answer that will help describe many differences in these two pictures. I have seen neither movie, so lets assume that in both pictures we are looking at "normal" Arabs. Lets say they are just middle of the road in every aspect of life. Lawrence of Arabia was released in 1962. At this point in time, I believe that the major middle eastern countries had not begun taking advantages of their oil resources available in their nations. This oil was/is the biggest money maker that middle east has going for them. When middle eastern countries began nationalizing their oil fields, taking control of production away from the Americans and British, they began to sell at more of their own discretion, which meant much larger profits for middle eastern oil companies, and a definite change in lifestyle for many investors and high class people in the middle east. I don't know enough about the middle east to talk about class economics, but I would assume with oil, comes great wealth, at least to the upper class that controls the production and distribution. As we look at the second picture, from 1981, the middle east at that time was in a period of oil dominance, as US oil production within the homeland peaked in 1970. The upper class in Saudi Arabia was likely basking in the glory of being the biggest source of raw natural energy in the world. This I hope can help describe the economic context out of which these photos emerge. Returning to the ideas of political and cultural contexts, there is not much that I can truly say about the differences in these pictures. I feel as if I have been too brainwashed in our post 9/11 world with constant associations of terrorism, middle east, and Islam to really describe to you the political and cultural contexts of true Arab representation in our media, today, or at anytime. I would love to continue researching this, and I hope to far into the future, as it is of much relevance today in our ever changing political and economic landscape.

Courtesy of Bailey Kelley

Postmodernism is not the elite movement that only the (upper class white) few can "get". It is not so full of itself that it defies explanation and interpretation. Yes, it is rather sarcastic and will "poke fun" at society whenever it gets the chance, but it is because it loves that society and is a part of it. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David didn't write Seinfeld because they hated sitcoms and wanted to make fun of the utter absurdity of making shows upon shows about nothing. They were intrigued by it, it was part of their life--they commented on sitcoms because they loved sitcoms. Postmodernism relies on its viewers' reactions as part of the artwork. Postmodern artists like Lawrence Weiner put so much emphasis on their viewers that their artwork becomes almost solely public reaction and viewer involvement. But at the same time, postmodernism is not afraid to (blatantly) point out the flaws of current society, shove it in their viewers' faces and force change, or at least recognition of a problem. I would go so far as to say that most postmodern work has some sort of emphasis on change.

The biggest difference between Van Gogh's and Warhol's representation of shoes is the idea of who's shoes they are presenting. Van Gogh paints a peasant's shoes, attempting to beautify the often dreary and obsolete existence of a peasant with his luscious strokes and muted yet beautiful colors. But Warhol is depicting the shoes of the rich, the fashionable, and the all-around elite. While their lives may not be the Utopia many believe, it is common knowledge that the shoes mean completely different things. The peasant's shoes represent hard work, toil, and a life of constant repetitiveness, while Warhol's shoes come and go, represent fashion and money, and Warhol does nothing to change what they mean. Warhol is commenting on society, while Van Gogh is attempting to skew a view of these shoes.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a term that I feel people do not quite fully understand unless they find themselves interested in it, however it is a term that is thrown around a lot lately. Personally, i am very interested in postmodernism. I feel that it is a beautiful and different way that people could express themselves., and deliver messages indirectly Postmodernism is something that a lot of people tend to take forgranted and not really notice, however it is a very important term. It is so important because postmodernism art is the art that contain such stong messages behind it. It is basically everything that is around us which makes postmodernism so fascinating.

Postmodernism versus Modernism

I often like to compare and contrast; a basic structure for a deep discussion, but hey... at least its a contribution. The first term Modernism, a definition for this would be anything in the nineteenth century up to this era. When we apply the term to art, the differences varies from different views of artistictic expression. What I love about it, is the organization of each piece presented. For example, a movie that is modern has a lot to do with this generation, more than likely. It always have some type of professionalism that attracts me, because that was embedded in me. It seems society teaches that modernism, has a lot to do with transmitting. It gives a large amount out to us, but it doesn't leave enough room for interpretation. While on the other hand, Post modernism, or should I say theories behind the term, usually states that it leaves room for complexity, and different views for the viewer, reader, observer etc. This is basically what our modern culture excepts as popular, but is that also constructed. What these two terms have in common is basically standards set by society. There are certain expectations met, to make anything Modernism or Post modernism. This links back to our category analysis, once this becomes a category it's hard to say that its any more authentic than its opposite. In this case Post modernism seem different from modernism, but what if they are one in the same? This is just a question that aroused in my mind, while writing this in my blog, I'll let whoever reads this answer that.

Postmodernism

Postmodern art does get my reaction most of the time. It's usually a comment on cultural phenomenon and I am always interested in hearing it -- well, seeing, reading, and experiencing it, too. It's important to pay attention to anything even if it is not standard and doesn't seem "worthy." That is how art movements happen -- and if you're not paying attention then you miss out and get stuck in the period before. I think it's also okay to "smirk knowingly" too. If the art gives you a feeling that you don't want to take too seriously then perhaps that is what its intention was in the first place.
I think that it is a combination of reactionary and progressiveness. It absolutely is. It's a new form that evokes a certain kind of feeling that may or may not be passionate. It does both for me. It almost subtly pokes fun and I like that.
Do I consider the paintings and discuss them in class with everyone?

Posts

In the post modern art world it seems as though reactionary is by far the best word that describes the artist’s basic intentions. In this highly criticized, often over looked way of producing art, the viewer is confronted with material and processes that are not the norm, which in the final outcome of a piece forces the audience to attempt to think audience the box and challenge what they originally thought was “good” art. The artist is attempting to provoke an initial response in the viewer, causing us to respond and react immediately to whatever we’ve just seen. At first whatever were confronted with often times hasn’t been done before, and frequently contains subject matter or material that isn’t up to par in the art worlds accepted normalcy. So of course we smirk, roll our eyes, and whisper over to our friend what a bunch of bologna this so called artist is trying to get us to understand. Our heads may not be running through a series of questions as to what this piece means, but after we digest the artwork and appreciate it for arts sake then we can start asking ourselves what the true intentions or the reasons for whatever our reactions were at first glance.
This past month a conceptual piece performed by a couple started by gathering everyone into a gallery space, alluding the audience ever so carefully because they did not know exactly what it was they were about to view nor who the artists were. As the room became bustling with people the young couple started making out like they were playing seven minutes in heaven and progressively got even racier as time went on. The act itself provoked looks of disgust, the closing children’s eyes, and a few gasps here and there. At first I laughed when we found out what was actually going down but as soon as a got home I started to wonder how has society gotten to the point where simple acts of love and affection are frowned upon in a public arena, shouldn’t we have all cheered for the love birds who were so engrossed in one another they didn’t look up for ten minutes?? This is when postmodern ultimately turns to the viewers reactionary response and questions come streaming out of me.
Van Gogh’s peasant shoes have many modernistic elements that start from the very organization that peasant shoes put one into. If you wear these shoes you are known for hard working labor, bottom of the barrel wages, and a tough life. They are shown in a scene that identifies what social class the owner of the shoes belong to and can pretty much comment on a series of predestined circumstances someone would be born into during this era. In Warhol’s Diamond Shoes were shown a solarized photograph which is highly stylized, illuminating the shapes of the shoes, and unique form the shoes take on when they the are disguised under photo trickery. The viewer isn’t so much looking at four pairs of shoes, rather what other shapes and formations they take on when there not just plain old shoes. We can imagine many people for different walks of life strolling around in these, opening the work many interpretations. Whereas Van Gogh gives us an obvious view into the daily life of a peasant, Warhol opens us up to different avenues to envision his piece.

kaitig

Postmodernism

Postmodern art does pose questions that demand the viewer's response. It is definitely a reactionary phenomenon. Postmodern art is defined as art which goes against modern art. It can be related to traditional, classical or it can be drastically different than art of today. Postmodern art makes you think hard of what's it about rather than giving you all the information. It also can make a statement of today's culture.
Andy Warhol is an excellent example of postmodernism. He is probably the most famous figure of postmodern art. Warhol made his art to comment on modern culture. He took photos of celebrities and distorted or changed the picture and made it into art. Warhol's art made a statement that poked fun at whatever was happening at the time. Andy Warhol wanted the viewer to question whatever or not his artwork had meaning and what kind of meaning he had displayed.
Postmodernism makes the viewer react to what is made or shown. The art in question is different to what we are accustomed to. It has to strike the viewer in the face. The picture can be of a soup can and nothing else. What does this picture say? You have to think real hard if you have no clue. People in today's culture would have a hard time guessing because it is not relevant anymore. It still makes you question its purpose though.

postmod

Isn't art intended for each individual reaction and interpretation? I think that there is more to any type of art than just to smirk and nod your head that you "get it". PostModernism does grab out to you and ask you to study it. It is just another title given to a different type of art. Art wants you to react. I can see why some people would think that PostModernism is for the ''in crowd'' and does not try to get you to think. It's there, it seems like it has no meaning, and that there is not enough for you to actually unscramble. It seems like it's simple, yet confusing, yet amazing. And, that is what causes PostModernism to be so interesting. It does have meaning. But, like I said, all Art has meaning. Otherwise, why would people do it? PostModernism is a reactionary phenomenon, just like all art. It wants you to react... whether it is subtle or a punch in your face, it's there, waiting for you.. not for the smirk on your face.

Post-Modernism :)

Post-Modernism, or the dicussion of it, is one of those things that boggles my mine so much that it makes me want to take a really long hot shower, drink some hot chocolate, pop in a classic movie and put my head down. So while I finish my hot chocolate and The Killers is on the main DVD menu, let's talk about post-modernism.
The book askes the question is Post-modernism a reaction or a progresssion.
What's the diffrence?
In terms of art, art like every "movement" is a reaction to what came before it. So one could think of Van Gogh's Peasant Shoes as a "painting of something", definate, there, you see it and you know what it is, the title of the painting tells you what it is. Though it is a fine painting, there's not much mystery to it. Then look at Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes. Yes, it's shoes but the shoes are not neatly laid out like in the deparment store, there are shadows and ambiguity there that, unlike the Van Gogh painting, the title can't tell you. Even though you see very clearly what is, you're not sure what it is, what it's supposed to be.
Is it a progression? maybe, it's ripping away the structure and familiarity and giving you something comepletely new to experince (for better or worse) and opening up form. Certainly, this is a progression of Van Gogh's more solid effort but it's it also a reaction to that solid effort? or at least didn't it start out there?
Switch to another example, think about the wacky yet extremely violent works of Quentin Tarantino versus the more solid James Bond movies.
James Bond is the "modern" example here. He is cool under fire, handsome, always gets the lady, rich, full of gadgets and so forth. While the "heroes" of Quentin Tarantino films are the oppiside tbey aren't always attractive-physically and otherwise, their exceedingly violent, poltically incorrect, and seem to toss the rules of film (like telling the story in a linear-style) but also they seem to mix thigs that shouldn't be in an action/gangster/violent film, most notably the comedy.
Is Tarantino a progression? Possibly, it's getting away from the slickness of Bond films but it's also a reaction to those films by making them less "glamourized".
In conclusion, you can't have post-modernism without modernism first. What may be viewed by those who are "in" on the joke as a progression, a breaking away from the norm, but it can't be that way without first reacting to what's currently there.

Posts Modernism

This chapter made me think a lot about the media ans things that are so repeditive and show how crazy some things can be and why they are there. If this is what postmodernism is trying to say. I dont think that postmodernism pokes fun at the "in" and "now", but its more like a feedback in visual form of whats in society thats concidered hot. The now and happening is given out in a different form than just lived. Showing the people whats popular through media. Its how we progress in a way, learning what is concidered good or cool, and turning it into whatever the person wants it to be interpreted as. Some cases, poking fun can happen depending on the creater or the artist that tries to prove a point or what context its in. For example, reality tv shows like, "Who loves New York" can be looked at as post modern because it easily protrays the craziness and typical love reality tv show and obviously shows a sort of unreallness and hilarity to it. Where as Survivor might be taken differently. To me it doesnt show a progressive phenomenom because its only showing what is already concidered popular and taking to a different level of repditiveness. This doesnt grow and progrress into new ideas of things we see already but it does open the door to see what is already done and shown and becommming old to different and more diverse ideasa dncreativity. For example, like the rediculous, meaningless reality tv, theres only so far it can go with all these crazy ideas for shows before they begin to loose popularity except for the ones that are loong time and been around for years and haev meaning to people.

bloop. post-modernismsmsmmm.

So this question is difficult for me to answer because I can definitely see both sides to the story.
I can say that I definitely cannot agree with the saying "Anything can be art." Even as artist I can definitely say I've seen pieces that cause me to think "why the hell is this hanging up in a gallery?" However, I will also admit that I have thought this about certain pieces then also changed my mind after learning the thought or meaning behind it.
Anywho, so I think that post-modernism is a progressive phenomenon because since "everything has been done" it definitely has a lot to do with the process because the product doesn't have much to show. To take Andy Warhol for example, I think that his color choices and the repetition that he uses in his works create a great visual effect, but as far as a "work of art"- it's almost the equivalent of someone using a photoshop on a picture of their dog and calling it art.
But then again, how often do people do/create things without wanting some kind of reaction from someone? Therefore I can see how post-modernism is a very reactionary phenomenon. Then looking at the two images from Theory Toolbox- Van Gogh's Peasant Shoes and Warhol's Diamont Dust shoes, it even more- for me- shows the reactionary side of post-modernism.
Peasant Shoes- Looking at Van Gogh's painting does not really urk any kind of reaction in me- because it's a still life and "it is what it is." I don't find myself trying to interpret what the painting might mean, if there is even any meaning there.
However, with Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes (and now I'm just contradicting what I said earlier) the colors and the framing of the piece make me think, "Why these colors? Why this placement? What is he trying to say?"

bah. maybe after answering the question I can now say that I agree more with the statement that post-modernism is reactionary.

-angela-

Posts

Postmodern art is much more than just an inside joke, it breaks boundaries and changes the way art is view. It is obvious though that postmodern art might not have meaning for most people, when Andy Warhol creates art such as "Campbell's Soup", but to some people that painting has meaning, to others the painting is just a sad joke at an attempt at art. When Seinfeld first came out sitcoms were booming, but during Seinfeld's rein, there became fewer and fewer sitcoms. Now after Seinfeld is finished sitcoms are returning. Obviously Seinfeld had an impact on viewers, because of the fact that Seinfeld made fun of other sitcoms by itself being the mother of all sitcoms. Some people might have looked at Seinfeld as just another funny show on television, but many people viewed it as a revolutionary show, and caused some viewers to stop watching other sitcoms. It all depends on what the viewer gets meaning from, some people can look at a painting such as Picasso's "Guernica" and can only see poorly drawn shapes, where as others can see the true meaning. The whole joke behind postmodernism is the fact that Andy Warhol is call postmodern art, but he has been dead for 20 years, so obviously his art can no longer be even considered modern art. It is true that thru his paintings he was able to create a whole new vision of what art is, and successfully cause the medium to change, but because of his success his work should no longer be considered postmodern.

posts

It's hard for me to think that postmodern art demands a reaction. I don't take it very seriously. I'm probably going to be putting my foot in my mouth when I say this, but my photo teacher told me something that I agree with which is in art, everything has been done already and everything you do is just a response to what happened before you. It's a little offensive but I believe it. I do believe all it takes is the smirk to "get it" when you look at the art. Postmodernism, I believe, is a reactionary phenomenon because of what the artist's intentions were. But then there are the artists that will go into it with progressive intentions with the mindset that "This is what I got and I have to work with it." That's an interesting question and now i don't know how to answer it. Maybe I have a problem because I just take art very lightly and I don't get why art has to have meaning all the time.

Ch. 9 Pt. 1 Postmodernism

Postmodern art definitely doesn't isn't an inside joke- the whole purpose behind it so far is uncertainty and an open-endedness. So standing there, looking at a piece of this art, you're right to wonder, "What in the world does this mean?" I think it is definitely more interesting because it allows for those unknown possibilities of meaning. It is almost haunting, especially since there is no present concrete, right answer. Postmodernism is a progressive phenomenon because it is changing this modern process. Modernism is probably the more reactionary beast, because it continues to demand results, and resists nonrestrictive processes.
In these two pictures, both are that of shoes. Van Gogh's shoes are a worn out pair of probably a farmer's shoes in the center of the canvas. There is one central focal point, there are plenty of details, and the lights and darks are well shown. Warhol's shoes are many- there several pairs of women's shoes taking up the entire picture, almost like a pattern. The photo kind of looks like a negative. Could this photo be a depiction of shoes at the factory of which they are made? Could it be about women with shopping addictions? Could it be sending a message about young girls trying to look older than they are these days?