Reflection: JAMES LUNA Jailed by Authenticity

James Luna's work explores issues faced by many contemporary Native Americans. The focus of his work is on the image America has given Native Americans throughout history. Luna's work makes me think about how we are taught about Native Americans in primary and secondary schools. When we are taught about other cultures, we usually learn about them in past tense. We discuss the Chinese and the Great Wall, Egypt and the pyramids, Native Americans teaching pilgrims how to farm, or cowboys fighting savage Indian tribes, yet we rarely talk about contemporary natives.

James Luna says that Native Americans are prisoners to authenticity. I think he means that because of how westerner's have portrayed natives, they are doomed to the stereotype the white man has placed on them. Luna opens these issues up for discussion by mixing old Native traditions with contemporary white America. For example, In Luna's piece, "Take a Photograph with a Real Indian", he first comes out on stage wearing a traditional native costume and headdress and afterwards he comes back out wearing his regular jeans and a t-shirt. He has people line up to take a photo with him while wearing the traditional costume and then again in his regular work clothes. When looking at the first photo we see white people standing with the native stereotype and the second it looks like some people standing together. In the second image, Luna doesn't stand out but blends in with the others. It's interesting when you take away his traditional clothing he almost doesn't look "Indian" anymore. Luna talks about how when Native Americans make art if it doesn't look "Indian" than it won't sell. Where many American's want to be authentic to their heritage(Irish, Italian, French), but also be known as Americans, Indian's can't escape their heritage. Unfortunately, to be Indian, to an American, means that they live on a reservation, make crafts, and take part in pow wows.

When are we going to change our history books and start to talk about how Native American's are still living today and the regular lives they live, just as any other American citizen. Let's teach our children contemporary histories of cultures that we usually place in the past. Instead of teaching cultural stereotypes and showing cultures through western media, we should start to show examples of artist in these contemporary cultures, like James Luna, or Kent Monkman, who break the stereotype and open our minds to think differently than what we have been taught in our textbooks.

This way of teaching puts a lot of responsibility on the teacher. It's important for the teacher to give many different examples so children can create their own understandings.

( One hour cultural event)I'm scared... My trip to Toys R Us.....

I haven't been inside of a Toys R Us since I was about twelve years old. After taking sociology classes and discussing how advertisers market toys for young girls and boys I knew that girls buy girl toys and boys buy boy toys. Boy and girl toys usually don't mix. The manufacturers think of every way to do this including making girl toys pink and making them about girl things like taking care of the baby, playing house, and baking. The same is done for boys.

The weird thing was that I remember the toy store being the exact same when I was a kid. I never thought about why I played with different toys than girls and why didn't they want to play with my toys. I assumed that children's environments have conditioned to choose the toys they do. Men are known to fight and do the hard labor and women are known for being bakers, caretakers, the ones who clean the house. This mentality is instilled in these children because of the toys that are marketed to them. I was thinking about this from second I walked into Toys R Us. Every toy brand has similar themes and visual elements like military, guns, and men with big muscles. In the show and tell reflection I wrote about Shana's toys that were all city workers or non-malicious action heroes, but they all looked the same as the others. In fact, I saw her toys there and they were right next to action heroes with big gun and tank accessories. It seems like all the toys are made by one big manufacturer because for the most part they all have a similar aesthetic quality.

Now they have every race of barbie dolls, but they still all resemble a western woman. Are these big toy manufacturers every going to change the shape of Barbie or G.I. Joe? Shouldn't we let children decide what they want to be and look like and not condition them to think that they should look like skinny blonde barbies. Where is tom-boy Barbie? When will they start making overweight dolls and toys? I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't or that this would change how children choose their toys, but with our every changing image of America and its people we need to start making are toys more contemporary. By this I mean lets give more options to children. Going to Toy's R Us was like going to the grocery store. They have hundreds of options but for the most part all of the product are only made by 5-6 brands. We see different colors that look like variety but everything is pretty much the same.

The Gaze

video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVLEB0lv1rw&feature=related

Have you seen advertisements for this new heart attack sandwich? Last week in class we were discussing "The Gaze". I began to think about how I gaze at advertisements and what stances I take on certain issues because of the specific gaze I have.

Before class on Monday, I had been watching television and I saw this new sandwich at KFC. It was called the "Double Down". I continued to watch and found out that they've created a sandwich that is made of two deep fried chicken breast(replacing the bun) with bacon and cheese(look at top photo). In the advertisement, there are a bunch of quick shots with men describing their dissatisfaction with regular chicken sandwiches while enjoying their new "Double Down"! After looking at the five different kinds of gazes one can have, I would argue that the men in this ad have an exhibition gaze while looking at the KFC "Double Down." The sandwich's beauty is attractive to these men and the men's gaze at the sandwich simultaneously attracts other men, outside of the ad. The ad makes the viewer have an identification gaze, where he can see himself enjoying a "Double Down" just like all the guys in the ad he just saw.

I think it's interesting that when I look at this ad I am disgusted and want to vomit. I picture myself holding one of those sandwiches and being nauseous of the smell of fryer oil, bacon and cheese. I can only imagine that the sandwich has to be dripping grease into my hands while I'm eating it which also makes me want to stay from away from it. I am definitely a spectator looking at this ad. I don't even like looking at it. There's something intriguing about the ad because I never expected to see anybody replace the bread of a sandwich with a piece of fried chicken.

After spending sometime reflecting on how different people look at KFC's "Double Down", I think its really interesting how some people crave this sandwich, while others aren't only horrified, but can't believe enough people eat this sandwich that it stays on KFC's menu. I hadn't really thought too much of it before our classroom discussion, but its very revealing to know how a person's gaze can tell you so much about someone( political views, moral/ethical views, sex/gender,etc)

(Two hours of child observation) Children playing Ninja in the park

Yesterday morning I was in Tompkin's Square park watching the children play in the jungle gym and sand. In the sand there was a group of three boys, probably between 5 and 7 years old. I had overheard these boys saying that they were playing Ninja. The kids would lightly hit and kick each other while making loud animated sounds like, " whaa, chop, shwwing," etc. The children would take out fake weapons like swords, nun-chucks, and knives to help kill their opponent.

The funny/scary part of this whole event was that none of the kids wanted to be defeated. After the fighting went on for the first minute the children would say, "You're dead." The other kid said,"No, I'm not." This is when the fighting started to become more aggressive. This all started out as a fun time, but once the kids started challenging each other, it became personal and their pushing and hitting became much more violent. The Ninja game stopped being a game. In each child's eyes I could see a genuine sense of anger, frustration, and aggression. This was not good. Before you know, it one child who was getting ganged up on by the other two, flailed his arms and hit the other kid in the eye. The kid who got hit in the eye screamed, "Mom!! Charlie hit me in the face." Charlie responds, "We were just playing Ninja." He said it like he hadn't done anything wrong. The mother responds, "If you boys can't play nice then you can't play at all."

All of these children looked about the same age, however, Charlie was bigger than the other boys. I don't think that these children had malicious intentions while playing Ninja, but what a light hit is to a larger kid might be a hard hit to a smaller child. This was the case today. Since Charlie was bigger than the other boys and played harder than the smaller kids he could be called a "bully". I don't think Charlie was a bully. He was just playing like the rest of kids.

With my experience as a past camp counselor, I would have had Charlie play with some older kids, who are more his size. This way when he hits someone his size, a soft hit is a soft hit. If Charlie is playing too hard with older boys, he'll probably find out how those smaller children felt when he hit them.

Ultimately boys need to get their energy out and playing Ninja is one of those ways. I don't think that games like this are bad, but they need to be regulated and supervised. Through games like this, boys learn real world problem solving skills that aren't found in math or science text books. I think stopping boys from playing games like Ninja is like telling boys they can't draw certain images in their sketchbooks. Children need to express themselves and if they are told not to do it, that doesn't mean that they're going to stop. Children are smart. If they were told not to play Ninja then they probably would still do it if they didn't think that they were being watched. I say let kids play these games and express their raw emotions. It's better than holding them in and letting them grow into aggressive adults.

(One hour of child observation) Can parents connect with their children through video games?

Earlier this afternoon, I was taking the subway to class and I saw a father and son both playing their Nintendo DS together. Before this I had never seen a parent playing Nintendo with their child. I had only seen parents give their kids the Nintendo to keep them entertained and to have a moment of peace. While I hadn't seen it before, this interaction made a lot of sense to me. My parents and grandparents don't play video games, however, people of my generation are now having children. Now gamers are raising gamers. For me, there was some charm to witnessing this sight. In this case, this boy wasn't being left alone in his room to play his video games. He was interacting with his father and they were having a discussion about how to successfully conquer the challenge. When the child needed help to get to the next level, his dad would show him how to win. The father wasn't just beating the levels for his son, but he was taking time to show him what buttons he needed to push to do a specific move to beat his opponent. The whole reason this amazed me is because both of them were interacting with each other while playing their games. They were not silent and the child wasn't angry that his father was talking to him. They both enjoyed each others presence.

Thinking as an educator, I wish I would have seen this father reading a book with his child or helping him play an educational video game. From observing them, I can safely say that these two weren't playing an educational game. These two were aggressively pushing their game controllers and making sounds like, "uhh, yeah, get em, shoot him, and ...get it!! That's an extra life!" These two were entertaining themselves and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Their games may be violent, but so is the media and the images that surround the world that our children live in. Part of the reason video games aren't healthy for children is because they cut children off from playing outside and socializing with others. Until now, most parents were "too old" or just not interested in playing video games. I always saw video games as something that seperated children from their parents. Nowadays, a child may just sit in the basement and play video games all day, whereas when I grew up it was normal for father and son to go outside and play some ball. What made me think to write this journal was that it really made me feel good to see these two interacting while doing something so separate from each other. I thought this was important because I had never previously acknowledged how eventually parents, grandparents, and their children will all be playing video games together and interacting as a family. That might be a bit of a stretch. Ultimately we can't stop the production of this media and video games are going to develop whether we like it or not, but what people can do is play together and find friendship in shared interests instead of isolating themselves and not being able to share their memories with anyone else.

(Three hours of child observation) Observing children in public places is more difficult than I had originally thought

It was a Sunday afternoon and I assumed there would be plenty of families hanging out in the children's section at Barnes and Noble Bookstore. I had only done two of my ten required child observations so I went down to the Barnes and Noble at Union Square and checked out what was going on in the children's section.

The first thing I noticed upon entering the children's section was a big buff security guard standing right in front of the entrance. I walked past him and through the aisles looking to see if I could find anything good. To my left I saw a father reading to his three daughters and as I continued to walk around I saw many different families huddled together reading to their children. The problem was that they weren't reading on a stage to a group of children, they were in a corner or away from others to not bother others. Unfortunately, I couldn't get close enough to hear anything without looking like a weird creeper and I didn't want to get in trouble with the big security guard. After about twenty minutes of making different attempts to better scope out the scene I decided I wasn't going to get anything rich enough to write about for an observation.

I remembered that there was a new Best Buy that just opened in Union Square, so I went there. After I walked around for a while I noticed individuals playing with the digital drum kits and people of all ages testing cameras, computers and tv's, but the only place I really saw two people or more was at the test video game section. I walked up and saw two teenagers probably between 12-15 playing a new version of donkey kong. After standing a couple feet away from them for five minutes I didn't hear a word out of either one of their mouths. I guess this showed a mental focus within each of them, but I wanted to hear some juicy bits of teen culture, but they wouldn't give it to me. After a couple more minutes of standing there the two teens started to notice me and began to look back at me more and more. I assumed they were wondering why I had been standing there watching them so long or was wondering if I was interested in playing. I figured I should walk away before they got annoyed of me being a pest hovering over them. Once again, just like at Barnes and Noble I left without any content worth writing about or making any type of critical analysis.

I was shocked. I thought this assignment would be easy as pie. I just would go out to public places where children gather and look and listen to their actions and write about their interactions. What I didn't realize is that when you're a part of this interaction it's no problem to gather info but when your standing ten feet away acting like you're not hearing what they're saying, it's actually pretty hard to get any juicy tidbits.

One of the better observations I have made happened by coincidence yesterday. In my neighborhood at Duane Reade pharmacy they have a movie vending machine. On the top half of the machine is a tv monitor playing clips of the movies they have to rent. For some reason the monitor mainly plays clips of children's shows, specifically Alvin and the Chipmunks. I can only assume they do this because kids gravitate towards the tv monitor and convince their parents to rent a movie from the machine.

The other day I was in the Duane Reade about to return my movie and there was a group of girls probably between 9-11 yrs. old who were browsing the movie machine. After they had realized that I wanted to use the machine and they knew they were just browsing, they moved to the side. However they didn't leave the scene. They literally just moved to the side and watched my every move. They continued to hum Alvin and the Chipmunks which was playing on the monitor above. As I was browsing the movie selections one of the girls said, "oh, The Proposal, that's a great movie even though it's so sad." I thought this was funny because The Proposal is a romantic comedy and why had these children seen that movie? I checked out my movie and as the next guy started to browse on the machine, the girls again started to give the man suggestions and tell him which movies they thought were good and bad. I don't know what these girls were doing or where their parents were. I assumed that their parents were shopping in the store and the video machine was more exciting than shopping.

In Linda Louis's Visual Development class we learned that in artistic development usually children between 8-10 years old fall under phase two or three. In these phases, children feel so strongly about their ideas that they need to share them to whomever will listen. This is because a child feels good/efficacious about something they have made and feel it is important enough to share and talk about to others. In this context these girls thought that because they had already seen the movie, their opinions were important enough to tell someone else. I'd be interested to see what the similarities are in general child development and visual artistic development. I'm curious to find out if these girls were so active in giving advice to each customer. Was it their age that made them so willing to share information or did they think movies were cool and by showing others that they were so knowledgeable about movies that were out of their typical age range made them even cooler? Or was it just that these girls were bored waiting for their parents and found it more entertaining to stand by the movie machine and share their thoughts with the other customers? I think it was a little bit of all that.

I thought it was funny that after I had gone to places with the purpose of observing kids and left without any good information, I found what I needed while out running a few errands.

Reflection: classroom discussion on Folk Art

After last night's discussion, I spent sometime thinking about what we had talked about. In all of the folk art I have seen, the artists make the work because they just need to. They did not make art for extrinsic purposes. They were not looking for financial success or looking for outside affirmation. They made their work with confidence and knew that it was something important enough to keep doing.

The main difference I see in outsider/folk art than trained artists is that outsider artists make art from their soul. They have skipped the intellectual analysis and know that what they're making transcends itself beyond human consciousness. I feel that today, especially in art school, professors are training art students to use their mind before their soul. This is a problem I have with contemporary art that only stimulates the brain. What does this mean? Why did they choose to do that this way? Everything is thought out to a T and the artist can tell you exactly what he did and why. When this happens I feel like the artist knows how to write and speak very articulately about their work but usually the visual component is lacking.

In folk art the work is mostly about the visual component. You usually don't have an artist statement(written by the artist) to know their original intentions, however, in folk art the personal history of the artist often plays a large role. The artists are not the ones to talk about themselves and they many times become known after they die and others feel as if they need to tell about the artists troubled life to validate their art. Personally I feel that most folk art does stand on its own without the personal narrative of the artist. After reflecting on artists through past it's not folk art only who have tied their art so closely to their personal lives. Examples are Van Gogh, Francis Bacon, and Michaelangelo.

I think that because artists and creative people tend to be eccentric, people on the outside are always trying to link personal lives of the artist to their work whether its appropriate or not. This is because art is so emotional and personal that how can you not tie it back to the creator wonder where did he get these inspirations, conceptual material and this is why people always keep folk art so tied to the artist personal history..... because its INTERESTING.

Reflection on Visual Culture Show and Tell

In our classroom show and tell, there were some toys that were interesting to hear about. Shana had brought in some toys that were visually appeared to be bulky over muscular super-heroes, but they were super people doing regular jobs. There was a city worker character, a fire fighter, a police man, etc. Each character has an accessory, but instead of being a gun or weapon the characters had a fire hose or jack hammer. It's funny because I could tell that it was a selling point that these characters were "everyday" common people, instead of Superman or Batman, but they had a very similar visual aesthetic to the traditional Marvel superhero. They were overly masculine and culturally stereotype each character. I thought it was also interesting that each character doesn't have a weapon, but each tool they had resembled a weapon. The city worker character came with a jack-hammer. I couldn't help to think that a jack-hammer is just a more urban weapon or DIY weapon. It appears very similar to a weapon and that may be why the children like it.

When the class asked if these toys followed a movie series or did they exist on their own, Shana said that there is a narrative behind these characters, but she doesn't let her children watch it because they're too young. In her case her children were creating the stories to guide their playing, but in most other cases the pre-existing story instilled the characters are guiding the kids interactions.

Suzy also brought in some toys that her children play with. These toys were quite different than Shana's toys. Suzy said that she buys her toys at a children's store in Brooklyn that makes toys designed by local artists. I thought this was a pretty cool idea. These toys weren't created by some large corporation like Mattel. All of the characters were more of a Japanese style. Each toy's sexuality was ambiguous and the toys weren't super heros or villians. They also didn't follow a character stereotype. Ultimately these toys didn't have a whole lot of personal baggage that went along with them so when played with, children could invent their own character and story. I thought that this was a good way to let children imagine and be creative in playing with their toys instead of buying transformers and having the pre-existing narrative guide the children's interaction with the toys.

I thought Suzy's toys were a good choice if you wanted to raise your children (as much as you can) without super-heros and instilling cultural stereotypes. I also thought that her toys really inspired creativity and imagination. This is important so that the children can choose what they want their toy to do and how they want to perceive it.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution

WEBSITE- http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution

This past weekend I watched the last four episodes of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. In this show, Jamie Oliver, a British celebrity chef comes to the most obese town in America, (Huntington, West Virginia) to attempts to change the public school's food system and the eating habits of the whole community.

This show is truly amazing! It identifies America's eating problem on a personal level. Jamie does not exploit these people, but shows them that he's there to really help. He really goes to know the community and it's people, and uses their stories to inspire change. For me, this show revealed how much more attention we need to pay to youth. One of Jamie's main points is that the youth today is the first generation that is said to live a shorter life than their parents. Obesity is such a major issue that it is seriously changing the life expectancy rate. In one of the episodes Jamie shows a group of 4-6 yr-olds some fresh produce. He asks the children what fruits and vegetables. Not one child could identify any of the fruits and vegetables by name. Oliver held up tomatoes and a kid guessed potato, however every child could identify a chicken nugget. This just goes to show how we need to educate our youth about food, just like history and English. If kids are taught how to eat right in school, maybe they can support positive change for the whole family.

In one episode, Jamie also goes into the local High School to find out what they're eating. The kids have their choice of food and most of them are eating french fries everyday. He wants to make his own food to see what they think of it, but he runs into trouble with the superintendent. She says that the meal doesn't have an adequate amount of veggies (even though it is a veggie stir fry) so he will have to serve it with fries so it is up to code. In the health handbook, french fries are considered a vegetable and therefore "nutritious". This is completely crazy. Everyone knows that french fries have almost no nutritional content, yet they are being fed to students.

I think Jamie is the perfect pick for hosting this show. He is young and passionate. In the high school Jamie asks for students to volunteer if they're interested in his mission. Because he is so young he can really identify with the students and it seems like they think he is really cool( not some old, mean, high school teacher.) He gets the kids together to talk about their issues and uses the students as spokespeople to rally for support and change in the community. I thought this is great way to get the community involved. Jamie really brings the issues to the people and makes it about them.

Before watching this show, I never would of guessed how hard it would be to motivate people to eat healthy. In the beginning everyone in Huntington is very adverse to someone coming in and telling them they are unhealthy and that they need to change. It is very interesting to follow their story. I think this show is one of the first to really be about helping people. There is drama and it is a reality tv show, but with all of the right interests. The drama isn't the focal point, it's about making families and communities know that eating healthy is easier than they had thought. It's educational and entertaining. I wish we'd see more of this on cable or in Hollywood. This show is on regular network television and it teaches that you don't need to go to Whole Foods or have a lot of money to eat right. Oliver's Food Revolution is exactly what American's need to see and hopefully it will really take effect and change some peoples eating habits and improve lives.

(One hour cultural event) Tim Burton at the MOMA

When most people think about art they think of Picasso, Da Vinci, and Pollock, but probably not Tim Burton. Last Tuesday, I went to go see the Tim Burton Show at MOMA. When I got off the train I saw a line over a block long trying to get into the show. It was 10:30 am and the museum had just opened. The show has been open for three months and the tickets are still sold out for the day by 1 or 2pm. Luckily because I'm a CUNY student, I could go to the information desk to get in for free. Even there it was a ten minute wait for tickets. By the time I got to the front, the next opening to see Tim Burton was 2:30pm. I couldn't believe that so many people wanted to see the show that we had to wait 3 or 4 hours to get in.

I was a bit irritated that we had to wait so long, but at the same time I was thinking how amazing it is that Tim Burton could bring so many new people to view art at the MOMA. It seemed like many people there weren't regular art museum goers. I saw a lot of young children and families. The experience was sort of like going to a rock concert. Many viewers were wearing Tim Burton memorabilia or were dressed like a Tim Burton character. It definitely wasn't the normal art viewing crowd, which I really liked. To me, it seemed that because Tim Burton isn't a Fine Artist, it was a lot less intimidating for viewers to jump right in. They didn't need to understand art history or modernism to get into Tim Burton. They could walk and see his creatures and get it. They weren't looking at something they didn't understand and felt threatened or intimidated by it. They could just laugh or be weirded out or just think that a drawing or model was "cool". Much of the show featured work that the audience was familiar with through movies which made the experience a little more like seeing celebrities in Madame Tussaud's.

When finally getting to go into the Tim Burton exhibit it was packed. I made two quick laps through to know that I saw everything, but the space was so narrow and the work was so dense that it made viewing the work very uncomfortable.

As an artist who makes a lot of drawings, I really enjoyed seeing all of his rough sketches. I felt that the show gave me a better idea of who Tim Burton is as an artist-- not just a filmmaker. In his movies, you only see the most refined version and I really enjoyed seeing the process of how characters were drawn, created and then transformed into a moving image and made into 3-d models.

Walking through the exhibit I heard multiple people say that they had never seen something like this in a museum before. I thought this was really cool and interesting. This show was getting people who weren't regular arts patrons out to the museums. This was because this is art that doesn't look like "art". I think people felt very comforted that they could relate to the work because they had seen it in movies and could understand it.

(One hour cultural event) William Kendtridge at the MOMA

William Kentridge is a good example of what I consider an all-around great artist. His work has rich form and content. Before seeing this show at the MOMA, I had only seen one video of his in a museum. I did not have a base of knowledge of what his work was about. As the title of this show was, Five Themes, I was sure I would soon find out.

The primary subjects investigated in Kentridge's work over the past 30 years have been: Soho and Felix (about a businessman and his alter ego), Ubu and the Procession (about excitement and change in post-aparteid South Africa), the artist in his studio, The Magic Flute (work inspired by set designs for Mozart's opera) and The Nose (the work inspired by his work for the Met).

As I walked around the show and watched the videos, I began to think of Kentridge as a magician of sorts. By using visual tricks (like playing the video in reverse) we are able to suspend our disbelief and just enjoy the show. He dazzles us with such interesting sights that it is easy to be drawn in by the images before you realize the themes of the work. He makes the mood complex and rich by his constant drawing and erasing and re-defining. By merging sometimes depressing or melencholy images and using triumphant, fun music, he reveals a mood mixed with hope and a long bitter cultural history. Mixing all of these formal and conceptual elements together evokes a liveliness in the work; the figures are moving, the images of the figures are changing, music is playing. In working this way, he is playing with our sense of time. There's a literal movement in time, even as we are watching the videos play.

(Two hour cultural event) Marina Abramovic at the MOMA

I want to preface this journal by saying that before this show I wasn't familiar with Marina Abramovic or her work. All I knew is that she was a feminist performance artist who did on-site performances at her exhibitions.

This was the first ever performance artist retrospective I had seen at the MOMA. Marina's first piece, where she invites us to sit and look at her, struck me with an overwhelming presence. Marina is seated in a long billowy target red dress and is staring at the participant with a gaze that is not a smile nor frown. Marina's dress was the piece of color in the white space which grabbed my eyes like a big strawberry in a cold, sterile, room. Before this, I had never seen the artist present in their own installation at a large museum like the MOMA. I couldn't stop thinking about how painful it has to be to sit for 8 hours a day for the whole duration of the show. When that thought struck me, I felt like I was starting to get an understanding of the context for her work. It is about discipline, persistance, power, control, sex, the gaze, etc. Who has the power? Who is looking at who and what does that look mean?

After seeing Abromovic's first piece went upstairs to check out the rest. My engagement was instantly activated when I saw models standing like manequins-- emotionless and some nude. Because the models had such good control and composure over themselves it encouraged me to walk up close to examine if they were "real". I moved through the space and found myself really soaking this all up. I had never seen art like this before in a museum. As art viewers, we are used to seeing nudes in paintings and sculptures, but I have never seen a live nude in a museum. This was the most engaging part of the show for me. These people were real which really added an extra wow factor. I felt like because the models had such a presence I found the videos completely unengaging. I would have really loved to see all of her performances re-performed instead of watching a documentation of her past performances. Then we would have been surrounded by art instead of documentations of past art pieces. The real deal is always way more exciting.

Abramovic's work was so successful to me for a couple of main reasons. I really enjoyed how all the models had emotionless expressions. It was like they were fake, because of how they stared right through you. This lack of expression made each viewer develop an understanding of the art through the specific position he/she was in. By taking that position (standing on the cross, sitting in a chair, etc) and letting the viewer imagine what is meant be this interaction, Abramovic inserts her own ideas, but lets each viewer form their opinion and understanding of their experience.

Ultimately Abramovic's work goes back to the "gaze." When observing how someone looks at another, they develop a stance on how they view certain worldy issues like, race, sex, gender, etc. This kind of art is so important because it helps people reflect and hopefully investigate how they feel and why they feel the way they do. Abramovic's work breaks the binary that we see so much in today's commercial society. Hopefully when people go to see this show they don't shut down and leave because they saw a nude person. I hope that people enter with an open-mind and begin to investigate what the performances means, how they challenge our insecurities and pre-conceived opinions about sex, gender, power, and control.

(Two hours child observation/One hour cultural event) Welcome to the circus in 2010...

On March 30th, I went to the Barnum's Funundrum Circus at Madison Square Garden. I haven't been to a circus since I was eight and I can't remember too much about that experience. Originally, I thought of the circus to be an old timey form of entertainment, but there was nothing old timey about this event.

When walking into MSG I was bombarded with all sorts of circus ephemera. There were light up disco balls that twirled with a circus tiger on the top, circus hats, cotton candy, popcorn, etc. When I looked around I only saw families with children, or grandparent with grandchildren. I saw no one my age and no adult by themselves. I got the idea this would be a kids show.

I went to my seat and observed what was going on around me. I saw many different ethnicities (white, Latino, Indian, African American.) However most of the families appeared to be working class people.

Before the circus got started, all over the arena you could see light up disco balls twirling around in the dark. All I could think is that each one of those twirly things cost $15. Talk about consumerism. When the circus started everyone got quiet.

As the first circus performers began the procession into the arena, I could tell this was not what I thought the circus would look like. I thought it looked like everything was very poorly made, the costumes looked cheap, and it was very gimicky. It seemed to me like everything was made well enough for a child to enjoy, but there was no care or craft put into it. Many of the costumes fit into to stereotype of the western cowboy. There were also Asian dragons, Chinese acrobats, Mongolian strong men, and the whole thing was run by a midget named Nano.

As the show went on, I kept looking at the children around me. Most of them seemed as disinterested as I was, but they had their neon spinning disco ball, nachos and an icee to keep them entertained. Every time I heard a child whine or cry there was a parent saying, "What can we get for you? Cotton candy? Nachos?"

The act that was most exciting was when 6,7,8 motorcycle riders got into a steel ball and all rode at the same time around inside of it. This was truly thrilling and dangerous. Unfortunately, many of the acts were hokey and unconvincing. In one of the events, they brought out a strong man to lift a bunch of weight. From the way he was throwing the weight bar around I could tell that the whole act was fake. This was no strong man and he didn't have to lift anything except for the fake rubber weights. This was quite dissapointing for me. At this point I fully acknowledge that I am not the intended audience for this event. When reflecting on my experience, the show was more about being funny and making kids laugh than show people doing risky stunts.

After seeing multiple acts on Broadway, the circus's quality and entertainment was not at the same caliber. The circus was like Broadway for children. They only made everything good enough for a child sitting 150ft. away from the stage. For me, a critical artist, the craft of the whole event was not up to par.

On the up-side, my ticket was only $30 and the cheapest tickets are $15, which is substantially cheaper than a Broadway show. The circus is an affordable event for the whole family, whereas a lower middle class family may not be able to afford a Broadway play. However I would like to know on average, how much does each family spend on snacks and memorabilia?

Now for the circus itself. Seeing that Barnum and Bailey's paired up with Ringlin Bros. must mean that they are financially struggling. The two biggest circus acts only have enough funds to make one act, or thats what I assume. With tv, movies, and all the other popular forms of entertainment it seems that the circus is a dying form. It only makes since with budget cuts and being in a recession that the circus would cheapen their acts and target younger children who are still thrilled by bright colors and fast movement. I understand what they have done but the circus has lost its magical charm and I can't say I'll be going back any time soon.

AFTER MIDTERM (Two hour cultural event) The world's first ever Art Handler Olympics

Last week I competed in The Art Handler Olympics on the Lower East Side. You might be asking what is an art handler and what is the art handler's olympics? Shane Caffrey, the event's organizer, said it better than I could, "Art Handlers are the unrecognized backbone of the art industry. We are the life blood of galleries, art shipping companies, museums, art storage warehouses, artist’s studios, and cultural institutions. For most of us, the hours are long, risking life and limb without health insurance or job security. There are more of us than anyone realizes and we’ve never had the chance to throw down together."

The Art Handling Olympics (AHO) is the first event of its kind. It is equal parts competition, three ring circus, and foreign TV game show. The day’s events will be rowdy, fast paced and ending with a monster party.

"The teams will compete in a series of physically and mentally excruciating events that spotlight the absurdity and seriousness of our jobs. Picture the worst install you’ve ever worked on. Now add a psychotic art director frothing at the mouth, the world’s most indecisive client, a frantic truck dispatcher, an audience, a timer, and beer. Art will be destroyed and egos shattered. There will be glory to the winners, but nothing is sacred and no one is safe from humiliation in the olympic arena."

So why have such an event? This event revealed this sub-culture of art installers in the Museum and gallery world and brought some humor and fun to what can be a very serious and stressful job. I know when I think of people behind museums and galleries I think of bitchy, pretentious front desk girls and highly educated affluent curators who are very picky and are never satisfied. I don't think of a bunch of out of shape, dirty, hairy artists hanging and installing priceless works of art.

Most art handlers are freelance workers without health benefits. Sometimes we feel that we are not respected or given the attention we deserve by the higher-ups in the museum and gallery world. It feels like our work isn't recognized as it should be. After working long hours and rehanging the same piece in ten different places, the director and curator choose to show their appreciation by giving us a box of a dozen Dunkin Donuts. Sometimes there's such a class distinction between the curators and the installers that it feels like we're being exploited. I think the curators might say, "These poor artists will appreciate anything we give 'em. Let's work 'em hard. We're paying them, right? We're running tight on budget so lets just get them some donuts instead of taking them out to lunch or something." Many times the curators just don't know what we do. They think the show just hangs itself, but there is a lot of hard work that goes into making the show look like it placed by "god". haha.

The Art Handler Olympics is to me a "fuck you" to the higher ups in the art world. Shane, the organizer, took people like us out of the shadows by making an "art" event out of our day to day jobs. This event wasn't addressed as being art or a performance, but it was held in an art gallery. When you put something in a gallery it seperates the ideas from their original context, which allows people to look at the information in a new way. By exaggerating regular daily tasks, Shane was able to show the ridiculousness of our jobs. This event showed all the effort that we put into making sure the art is safe and is treated with the highest care. Since we were not working in the museum with real art, this event created an atmosphere where we were able to laugh and joke about what we do. For our team, team Asia, the Olympics was a reason to go out and have fun with our friends.

In the end, I think the event was appreciated by everyone and it was an admission that our job can be ridiculous and silly so we might as well celebrate that. It was like a big family gathering and it was very cool to see all of these people come from out of the woodwork who all do the same thing, but aren't usually seen or acknowledge by the public. It made the handlers feel more appreciated than the doughnuts ever did. The Art Handling Olympic Champion gives a new goal and prestige to art handlers city wide and other cities like LA and London are already planning their own similar events.

If you'd like to see more... check out all the events...look at the results of this years AHO, go to....

video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AfNFC0-BM

website-arthandlingolympics.com/AHO/Welcome.html

NY Times article-http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/arts/design/23handlers.html

BEFORE MIDTERM (One hour cultural event) Michael Velliquette's ''Power Tower" at MAD

When I walked into the “Under the knife” exhibit at the Museum of Art and Design I was intantly drawn towards the “Power Tower”, by Michael Velliquette. The first thing I asked myself is, “What am I looking at.” “The Power Tower” resembled a totem or altar, but crafted in way that made me think of neo-psychedelia. The tower was made from cut paper and cut paper only. The sculpture was full of life. The colors and the way they were cut and assembled created an energy that pushed itself on the viewer. The paper was arranged in a way that made my eyes vibrate. Once I got closer to the sculpture I could see snakes neandring through object along with birds, butterflies, and other unidentifiable cycloptic, almost futuristic animals. The sculpture in itself was full of life.

As I continued to explore I asked myself, “What is the artist saying to me?” This was not an easy answer. I was making associations to different cultures and tribes. I was thinking of the pacific northwest Indians as well as Aztec and Myan mythical symbolism. I was also thinking of 1960’s psychedelia and OP-Art. I kept looking into the sculpture finding more and more little animals hiding, looking at how he had placed paper getting me to look deeper and deeper into the paper sculpure. Velliquette had created so many different images that were placed next to other patterns that I was creating new images that were created by many different singular images. He had combined enough different references that were vague enough to let me continue to make up what I wanted from the piece and by combining those cultural references it made me think about him and his viewpoints as an artist.

This created a dialogue between me and the art. He was giving me insights into viewpoints and symbolism he had set up. I was digesting what he had given me to start thinking about and I was coming to conclusions on my own. Which makes the experience of viewing this piece different for each individual. He had set up a circumstance where the more someone engaged themselves with the piece the more they would get out of it, which is very satisfying. I concluded that he was creating his own form of visual culture using universal symbols. In combining all of the symbolism into one large object he created a universal “ Power Tower.”

(One hour observation) Visual Stereotypes

Last night I was riding on the Q train back into Manhattan after class and saw two people walk in the train at canal. Both of these gentlemen looked to be latino. One man was young, 18-24 years old about 5'11", 250 pounds and creamy skin. He was wearing a NY Yankees ball cap, NY Yankees hoodie and baggy jeans. The other man was in his mid thirties about 5'8", 160 pounds and light brown, but darker than the other man. He had jelled hair combed back, wearing a red and white striped shirt with jeans and rugged cowboy boots. I inherently thought that the younger guy was probably born in the United States.

One of guys sat next to me and the other sat across from him. A couple of seconds later the younger guy asked the man sitting next to me, " Comprende espanol?" Which means do you understand spanish. The man who I thought would reply back in spanish said," No. Then he said, " uh poquito." Once the young guys across the aisle started speaking the man next to me said sorry and tried to say something in english, but the other man just shook his head not understanding.

This little event which took place for the duration of about two and half minutes, maybe not even that long, I had just changed my visual cultural preconceptions. Maybe thats what I was suppose to think? He looked like a new yorker with all the garments. Wearing the states sports memorabilia one can say they like that state, which I would think that they're probably local. That would be a good coverup for someone that's trying to fit in to the area. Just a thought.

I also wondered why the younger guy thought that the man sitting next to me would understand spanish. The young guy didn't ask anyone else on the train if they understood spanish. I looked down the train, I didn't see anyone that looked spanish either. Did the young guy support my initial suspicion as well?

(One hour of child observation) Can Hollywood make education cool again?

Yesterday observed at the Museum of Natural History. I went to observe the room of aboriginal art and the Easter Island sculpture. Last time I came to the museum I saw many children flocking towards the Easter Island Sculpture right after the movie "Night at the Museum" came out. This time I wanted to further investigate this event.

The room that the sculpture was in is a long room. A group of children walked in and saw the sculpture known in the movie as "Dum Dum" at the opposite side of the room and ran towards the sculpture. I can't emphasize enough how many times the kids repeated, " Dum dum dum dum dum." It rang from their mouths.

At first thought it was really great to see that a hollywood movvie could interest children in cultural history. I started to brainstorm how children are so interested in hollywood and celebrities that it would be great if hollywood could re-spark childrens interests with school and cultural history. Unfortunately, shortly after I established my idealist hopes I observed that the children weren't interested in the Easter Island Sculpture. They enjoyed matching the sculpture to something they thought was cool that they saw in a movie. It was like seeing a movie star on the street and matching them to the role they have played in a movie.

As I continued to watch I noticed that the children had little if no interest in the origins or history of the Easter Island Sculptures. The education was at a very surface level. The children might have known what the Easter Island sculptures are from the movie. Maybe a docent could of sparked interest with the children. I was only able to see individuals and families walk through on their own. In the end the children just saw their famed "Dum Dum", nothing more.

This hurt me a little. I wanted to know why children were so fascinated with the object just because it was in a movie. An answer came to me quite quickly," Movies and hollywood are cool and the general public is obsessed with celebrities... Ultimately "Dum Dum" is a celebrity of sorts. He just not human. "Originally I had thought I had a great a idea brainstorming that hollywood could serve an education purpose. I thought this would be a new way to bring "cool" back to school.

I think that could be an interesting project to find out if kids became more interested in history through hollywood. Unfortunately when I think about the few cases when hollywood has taken a historical story, a topic with educational content, it is always created in binaries. It's oversimplified and taken out of context. I understand why they do this, it makes it easy to understand. This is because we are lazy. As a society we watch movies generally for entertainment. We want to sit in front of the t.v. or projector and veg out.

I suggest an alternative to this norm. This isn't a new idea and is happening more and more, but big budget hollywood needs to throw us a challenge. I say give us a movie that makes us feel empowered by problems solving and strategizing. It feels good to think and all of us want to be smart, I would assume. Don't only give us one good guy and a bad guy. What about introducing people who are people and aren't just good or bad, but possess many different emotions and tendencies. Let us think, investigate and let us make up our minds about the issues presented instead of indirectly or directly telling us how we should feel.

MTA stickers or public intervention

Have you ever seen a triangle, star, or V to the upper left or right hand side of the subway doors? Next time your riding the subway take a look. Two or three months ago I first noticed a triangle sticker pasted left of the no smoking sign in the subway. I was asking myself what is this?What does it stand for/represent?At first glance, I thought this was put up by the mta, then I thought maybe this was a form of public intervention. After looking closer the stickers are the same dimension as the L5, R6 which are at the left and right of the subway doors. The stickers seem to be adhered in the same way as well.

After battling it in my head, I started to think about what makes something appear official or unofficial. I know when I see something printed instead of hand written I inherently think its more official or legitimate. I also think about the context and if the symbols appears to fit in or stand out in that environment. The sticker upon appearance seemed to fit in with the surrounding environment. The information wasn't numbers or letters though, it was symbols, which stood out. To me, they didn't seem to totally fit in. So what do these symbols mean? What does a triangle or star mean in the subway car? It's fun to think that the mta's okaying each train car by giving it a star. Could it be telling the "inside people" that there's a camera installed in the train. When it comes down to it these symbols are vague enough to be unknown to the everyday rider.

If the mta installed these they did a good job of hiding of what they mean, but why do they want to hide the information? If it was a public intervention, well they did a pretty great job of fitting in and not getting taken down. Take a look next time your out on the subways and tell me what you think these symbols represent. I look forward to hearing others opinions.

Truck Nutz Why?!?!?!

Check these out for yourself at http://www.trucknutz.com/

I am originally from kansas and I first saw these about seven or eight years ago. People who I went to high-school with would proudly wear a set of these on their rig. It was a joke, but they also took it to heart. It was like," when you see my car you better no mess with it. These were the same people doing burn-outs in their school parking lot and chewing tobacco during class. Myself being on the outside I thought this was funny, vulger, inapropriate and rude.

This is not apropriate for people of all ages . People should not have to see this unwillingly. I would think it would not be legal to drive a car around like that and after more research i found out that it is not legal in many states to have "In 2007, a proposal was made by Maryland delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to "prohibit motorists from displaying anything resembling or depicting 'anatomically correct' or 'less than completely and opaquely covered' human or animal genitals, human buttocks or female breasts".^[4] He referred to the testicles as "vulgar and immoral," and stated that his proposal was made at the request of a constituent who was offended by the accessories.^{[Now the state of delaware has banned them and in many other states the driver will be fined.}

What are the origin of truck nutz. Was some person thinking of a way to capitalize?

Ultimately why did people make these and why do people buy them? I guess that its similar to how a guy prides his big package( as the stereotype goes). In our case the truck driver is proud of his big rig(large truck) and using the male figure to represent his machismo. The people I saw having these were always a specific crowd. They were the people who were chewing tobacco and doing burn-outs in the school parking lot. I always thought there was a strange duality to the social reaction to the truck nutz. I was an outsider and from the outside the "truck nutz" people acted like it was a joke. However, they must of still liked them enough to buy them and attach them to their car. From the outside it was outrageous. The "truck nutz" weren't only a joke but because of a group of people were riding around them them, they themselves became a joke. I wonder what kinds of people drive with "truck nutz" and where do they live? I have seem women on the highway on the highway with them. Thats a different story. I wonder what else they would want me to think than the stereotype they have placed on themselves. Even though they're illegal in a couple states and in most every state drivers can receive a ticket for having these the drivers with "truck nutz" must quite loyal to the image, because when I drive back through the midwest I'm guarranteed to see a set of these on the highway.

Reflection on Shadowed Dreamer

After seeing Stephen Hart's performance "Shadowed Dreamer" I felt as though I could not critique it. It's like after someone tells you a really tramatic life changing story and then you ask them if they were telling you the truth. Stephen's story was amazing that's for sure. What a hopeful story of an abused child who made himself into a successful actor.

During his performance I couldn't help but to think about how Stephen went about writing his story. Stephen's performance seemed genuine and sincere, but it seemed like he just sat down with you and told his story. It made me think of a motivational speaker I could have had at my high school. When I considered Stephen to be acting a performance it took a different spin. To top that he was acting out his story. This was definately a new kind of performance style, but I didn't know exactly how I felt about it.

It was hard for me to think about Stephen writing this screenplay and deliberately guiding the big climactic moments. He was consciously guiding the engagement and emotions of the viewers and I didn't like having to think how he would plan which horrible story he's going to throw on us next. Also why didn't he give us the details of any triumphs like him acting on the West End of london? For me, this is where his sincerity could've potentially gotten blurred as a writer/actor.

After watching his performance he truly seemed genuine. For me I felt more comfortable calling him( in the context we saw him) a motivational speaker. When I did this all of his qualities remained I just didn't bring the skepticism into play. I didn't want to doubt his honesty, but since acting is based around mastering being someone else I can't help but question if Stephen was telling the total truth. Stephen's story was unbelievable and i thought that everyone should see it. I'm excited that he is going around to High Schools and doing his act, because He raises some real issues that most people don't want to talk about and it's important that he does.

As an educator we always need to look out for signs, but we can never really know unless the children bring it to our attention. I believe that Stephen's story will make children know that they need to talk about their issues to people. It tells us educators that we really need to pay attention to our students and be there for them when they need us. In the end I believe that we can't critique Stephen's story. We just need to embrace him promoting awareness and trying to bring a positive change to our communities by sharing his story with people who need to hear it.