Blog Post #10

            This week we watched the film, “Boys Don’t Cry.” The film was very engaging and emotional. It focused on a transgender individual named Brandon; Brandon is actually a woman whose real name is Teena Brandon. In the beginning of the film, we see Brandon as a character that continually gets in trouble with the law. Once he arrives in Falls City, Brandon is portrayed as one of the guys. He easily makes friends with John and Tom through an act of violence at the bar, and after this incident, the boys continually drink, cuss, smoke and bumper ski together. However, as the film progresses, Brandon is portrayed as a generous, sensitive, emotional and caring individual. The viewer is able to discover all of these qualities through his relationship with Lana. When viewing the sex scene, it becomes apparent how in love the two are. The extreme passion for one another is evident. At this point, Brandon believes he’s at a perfect place in his life- he’s in a relationship with a woman and he has close friends that love him. However, when Tom and John discover Brandon’s secret, they’re furious. They rape, shoot and stab Brandon due to this extreme secret. Since Nebraska is such a small town, homosexuals, transgenders etc., are not accepted in this town. Tom and John believe that Brandon is not normal and doesn’t embody a true man. However, the one person that accepts Brandon for his true self is Lana. She claims that she doesn’t care “what” Brandon is, because she will love him anyway. This film really opened my eyes to the many issues relating to identity crises in our society. It’s a shame, but many do not accept others for who they truly are because they believe that it’s “weird” or “wrong” or “not normal.” The film also allowed me to witness the constant struggle that these individuals face on a daily basis. No one should be raped or killed because others don’t accept them for who they really are. We are all different and members in society need to become accepting of this fact.

            One of this week’s articles, written by Anderson, focuses on the documentary titled, “The Brandon Teena Story,” and the film, “Boys Don’t Cry.” The one concept that really stuck out to me and was continually repeated in this article was the male heterosexual identity. Anderson says, “Yet what is really in ‘crisis’ as Muska and Olafsdottir suggest, is not Brandon’s sexual identity but the male, heterosexual identity inhabited by people like John Lotter and Tom Nissen- an identity so fragile that, when threatened by Brandon’s ‘masquerade’ of masculinity- knows no other response but violence.” In other words, the issue is not Brandon’s sexual identity crisis, but it’s Tom and John’s masculine identity crisis. When thinking back to the film, Tom and John use violence on numerous occasions, but most notably after they find out that Brandon is actually Teena. The rape and murder scenes specifically represent this use of violence. Towards the conclusion of the article, Anderson states, “Peirce’s direction in this scene (the rape scene) emphasizes the rabid pathology present in John and Tom’s conception of masculinity, one which assumes that committing acts of violence is their natural birthright.” Our society’s view on masculinity is absurd. Just because one is a man doesn’t mean one needs to resort to violence. This concept goes back to previous lessons about the differences between the perceptions of men and women in our society. Society views men as powerful, strong and violent, while women are viewed as sensitive, weak and powerless.

            The other article this week, written by Judith Halberstam, focused on the background of being a transgender and what the term actually means. However, it was very interesting to see different theorists’ views on the term. This article really proved to me that the term is extremely hard to define. Despite this fact, it’s evident that all people are different. Society needs to realize this and accept it.  

Blog Post #9

            Attending the museum last week was very beneficial to understanding this week’s main concepts. While exploring the museum, I was able to notice a wide variety of artwork; the pieces were all very different and expressed different emotions, concepts, stories etc. Depending on the individual, some pieces may be considered offensive or inappropriate. I personally was not offended by any of the artwork, but others may have been. Who gets to judge what really is appropriate? What’s offensive to some, isn’t necessarily offensive to others.

            The lecture focused a lot on the politics of art. In the case of the NEA Four, Holly Hughes, Karen Finley, Tim Miller and John Fleck were targeted by Congress because their work was considered to be offensive, inappropriate, against one’s religion etc. However, I believe that these artists should have the freedom to express whatever they want to. The artists explored topics such as homosexuality, hyper-female sexuality and so on. These topics are very controversial in society but that does not mean that artists shouldn’t be able to express their feelings and opinions about these specific topics. I think the main issue is that the opinions of these artists are not necessarily the same as the majority of society. Because the views being expressed were different than their own, Congress members became offended. The debate was about whether Congress could intervene when the NEA funded work that offensive and so on. However, this technically violates the artist’s First Amendment rights. This weeks reading includes, “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’”  The reading then states, “Artwork is generally considered speech.” Since artwork is technically considered speech, the artists have the freedom to “say” whatever they want to. The reading clarifies that motion pictures, radio broadcasts, live entertainment, dramatic works etc. all “fall within the First Amendment guarantee,” meaning the artists work does as well.

            I now want to focus on censorship. Censorship ultimately shelters individuals from the truth. One quiz question focused on censorship in high schools and college. In general, I do not believe that anything should be censored. Our society is a diverse society and I believe that students need to understand different viewpoints in order to become a well-rounded individual. For example, instead of being taught that homosexuality is “not normal,” or not being taught about homosexuality at all, students should be able to experience different opinions on the topic and formulate their own ideas. In 2012, the Tuscon school district banned its Mexican-American Studies program. I believe that this is censorship and I believe that it’s wrong. The video we watched expressed the racism involved in this policy. The program was banned because it focused on topics such as violence. Can we really not teach high schoolers and college students about violence even though it’s a part of history? Does this mean we can’t teach students about wars because they are violent? If we don’t give students accurate descriptions then will they be blind to the truth forever? If we ignore facts, we are ignoring important people, places and events that took place in the past. We need to discuss the past and the mistakes that were made in order to strive for a better future. 

Blog Post #8

Attending the National Museum of Women in the Arts was extremely beneficial in expanding my appreciation for the Women’s Studies class. Prior to examining the exhibits in the museum, I assumed that every painting would represent feminist ideas. However, after exploring the museum and upon reflection, I realized that the goal of the museum is to highlight women artists, their extreme talent and their influence on art.  In discussion with the volunteers at the gallery, they mentioned that although female artists’ works are displayed in other galleries, unfortunately, women artists are rarely recognized and represented in the mainstream art world. One of the volunteers referred to the Guerrila Girls project and pointed out that women are more typically displayed in museum pieces because they’re the models in paintings, photographs, sculptures, etc., and not because of the artwork they create. However, after looking at the artwork displayed at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, I became aware of the talent, creativity and imagination that these many artists possess.

            Before analyzing specific paintings I selected, I think it’s important to focus on the actual museum itself. When I walked into the building, I was amazed by the true beauty and elegance of the interior on the ground and mezzanine levels. These floors have columns, decorative wall coverings, gilded accents, chandeliers and a marble floor. The paintings on these floors fit in with the décor of these two levels; the works were portraits of the wealthy and the royals. The paintings were very realistic with rich colors and detailed with images of wealth. I also noted that the paintings on the ground level were created in the16th and 17^th centuries. As I progressed through the floors of the museum, the works became more recent. The decor of the building changed as well.  While the ground and mezzanine levels were opulent, the second and third levels were more bland; basic carpet and walls that were painted with neutral colors.  The paintings on the second and third levels became the decorations for those floors and really made the paintings the focal point.   

The second floor contained the special exhibit titled, “A World Apart: Anna Ancher and the Skagen Art Colony.” This section displayed the landscape of the Danish colony, as well as the people inhabiting the colony, and suggested the differences in gender roles. The first section mainly contained portraits of Ancher’s family members and the activities in which they participated. Since females were not encouraged as artists, she used her family as models. As I moved through the exhibit, I became aware of the different roles assumed by each gender prevailing at the time. In the paintings, women were usually shown cooking, sewing, knitting, taking care of the children and in other domestic activities, whereas men were shown hunting, fishing, farming and other “manly” pursuits.  It was apparent that Ancher favored light and color and there were a few paintings where the subject of the work was secondary to the light’s reflection.  The overall feel of the paintings other than the portraits in the first collection was light and airy.

 Lastly, the third floor contained the Museum’s permanent collection. The first area again mainly displayed portraits, many of them of the artists themselves, although other self-portraits were throughout the exhibit including a famous one of Frida Kahlo. As I continued on, I could see a trend towards modernism, with bolder patterns and colors and using various materials in the composition. This level also consisted of a room with sculptures. The sculptures seemed very contemporary, also using a variety of materials including tires, wax and burlap. 

The permanent collection painting that I focused on was titled "To Kiss the Spirits- Now This is What it is Really Like,” painted by Hollis Sigler. The central element of the painting was the golden staircase ascending presumably to heaven and the angel-like figures on or near the staircase.  At the bottom of the staircase, women in dresses were displayed, but as they progressed up the stairs, they developed wings and became angels. The women figures also started out painted in a darker pink and became a lighter and even lighter shade as the staircase progressed. The bottom of the painting also included houses, while the top depicted the sky and heaven. The darkness of the sky contrasted with the pink angels, and they really stood out to me. I was also able to see the brush strokes in the stars, which made them very vibrant and noticeable. After reading the plaque, I discovered Sigler’s family history of breast cancer. Many of her family members died of breast cancer and she later did as well. I believe Sigler’s use of pink in the frame and the figures represents the battle against breast cancer. Her use of airy angles and a staircase, however, expressed hope that the spirit would go on and that heaven was inhabited by the strong spirits of loved ones.  I believe she was trying to show that death was not as dark as people imagine, and that struggles will come your way, but it’s important to rise above these struggles and never lose hope. This piece was extremely spiritual as well as inspiring.

            The painting that I examined on the second level was titled, “A Stroll on the Beach,” and it was painted by Anna Ancher’s husband, Michael. Similar to Anna, Michael focused on the importance of light and color, as well as the beauty of the landscape in the Skagen Colony. This painting displayed the sunshine as well as beautiful blues, pinks and yellows. The painting portrayed women leisurely strolling along the beach.  When I examined the other paintings in the room, I realized that most of them depicted strong men working hard and fishing at the beach. By putting Michael’s painting in context, I could see the juxtaposition of men vs. women and gender roles at the time. 

This led me to think back to the painting that I examined on the third floor titled, “Lockheed Worker Working on the Fuselage of a P-38," by Edna Reindel. I was attuned to the acute differences between this painting and Ancher’s beach painting. The central figure in the Lockheed painting was “Rosie the Riveter.” She was represented as a powerful women working in a factory during World War II while most men were off at war.  She also appeared to be working with both men and women.  While Riveter looked strong, powerful and determined at her workplace, the women in Ancher’s beach scene were not working at all. The techniques used also seemed to have a purpose.  The Lockheed painting appeared to have shaper shapes and the central figure more in focus, whereas the beach painting was more hazy and airy.   Through the comparison, I became aware of the significance of the different paintings and the different messages communicated by each.

Overall, I enjoyed my experience at the museum. I think the main difference between the classroom and the museum is that you’re able to look at each art piece in three dimensions rather than focusing on a website, slide show screen or other one-dimensional view.  It’s easier to see the colors, the shading, and the play of the brushstrokes in person, making the painting or sculpture seem to come alive.   It was also very helpful to see each piece of artwork in relation to the others so as to get a context of what the artist or museum was trying to say.  Comparisons and contrasts as well as discovering thematic ideas became possible.  In all, I was able to grasp a deeper understanding of each work of art.