Tenth Blog

            In my opinion, the movie we watched this week, Boys Don’t Cry, had a very powerful message especially considering it is based off of a true story.  Brandon Teena, the main character, faces many hardships and struggles because of his transgender identity.  In the beginning of the film, he is running around to different bars and meeting new girls by pretending to be a male.  By the end of the film he is in love with only one girl, Lana.  In “Brandon Teena, Billy Tipton, and Transgender Biography,” Judith Halbertstam discusses background information on transgender individuals.  She says, “For instance, you may find that a transgender male is a female-born subject who has had no sex reassignment surgery… and lives mostly “as a man” but is recognized by his community as a transgendered man.” (Halbertstam) This sentence relates to Brandon Teena because he did not have surgery although he wanted it, because he could not afford to have the procedure done.

            I’m sure this film had a wide variety of opinions and views on Brandon’s character because he is transgender.  I feel as though those who opposed his character in the beginning of the film may have had a different perspective by the end of the film because of the harsh circumstances Brandon goes through.  Not only is he raped by two of the other main characters, John and Tom; he is killed at the end in front of Lana.  Brandon and Lana had been planning out their life together just before John shoots Brandon. 

Our society seems to become less anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, but there are still many people who are very much against those specific individuals.  In addition, I think that if this film were created before 1999, you would find more people siding against Brandon’s character.  John and Tom were both characters in the film who were against Brandon and his transgender identity. 

I think our society’s views will change even more in the future.  Hopefully no more terrible incidents, like Brandon Teena’s, will occur ever again.  The way John and Tom handled the situation was very horrifying and shouldn’t have happened, whether they were upset with Brandon’s decisions or not.  Brandon’s life has sparked attention in many different ways.  Judith Halbertstam notes later on in her piece of writing, “I will allude here to a few of the multiple narratives that collect around the name Brandon Teena and lay out some of the battles about gender identity, regionality, class, sexuality, and violence that have been produced by this incident.” (Halbertstam) All of the themes that Judith Halbertstam listed in the quote are themes I believe we need to improve on in our society.

Ninth Blog

            This week’s lecture and reading focused a lot on politics and its relation to art.  In the PowerPoint from this week titled “Culture Wars,” we learned that art and politics are connected through the flow of money.  It is apparent that artists may have different ways of being funded for their artwork.  For example, “Los Hilos de la Vilda,” which we examined a few weeks ago, is funded through Head Start and Urban Bush Women, which we also learned about recently, is funded from private, corporate and government sponsors including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).  Art and politics are also connected because artists often reflect on politics and can sometimes critique our society.

            The subject of politics and art and the series of debates over them are now referred to as “Culture Wars.”  Right wing politicians believe that public money should not be used to fund and support art that is considered to be offensive, pornographic, or against their religion.  On the other hand, artists argue that this is considered censorship.  In my opinion, art is supposed to be expressive of a person’s opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but at some point it does need to be regulated.  I don’t think it has to be denied grants for funds like John Frohnmayer did to artists such as Holly Hughes, Karen Finley, Tim Miller, and John Fleck in 1990.  I am a little torn between which side I completely agree with but I do feel that anyone should have the freedom to express themselves and their thoughts, while at the same time, I do understand if certain art is extremely offensive towards a group of people, why it should be regulated in some way.

            This week’s reading by Neil C. Patten discusses the same topic that was focused on in the lecture, which is politics and art.  In the beginning of the text, Patten compares and contrasts both politics and art.  I find it intriguing when he says, “If there is a difference then, this is it: all art is political, but not all political expression is artistic.”  It is an interesting quote because I would think that this would be the opposite.  The reading also discusses the subject of censorship and its relation to the First Amendment freedom of speech rights.  When first learning about this subject, I thought of the First Amendment and what it stands for.  In addition, I thought of other ways of self-expression, such as music and dancing.  I feel as though a lot of people who partake in both music and dancing are able to get away with much more, rather than “offensive” artwork, shown in paintings and drawings.  I wonder if censorship with art and politics will change in the future.  In my opinion, I feel as though they will change depending on how our society changes from here on.  Lastly, I think that more people will be less conservative, but at the same time the artwork can also change with the time period and be less about religion and other things that are considered to be offensive.

Eighth Blog

           This past week my peer and I took a trip to the National Museum of Women in the Arts.  I found it really interesting to experience going to a museum, rather than viewing artwork in the classroom.  I liked being able to go with a peer so I could discuss each painting we viewed.  Before going to the museum, I thought that the paintings I was going to be viewing would be very feminine, just like the pictures we viewed in class the week prior by feminist artists such as Judy Chicago.

            As we made our way through the museum, we passed artworks that are considered the permanent exhibit.  One particular painting caught my attention right away.  It’s called “Portrait of a Young Boy” by Elisabeth Louise Vigée-Lebrun and was painted in 1817.  It was a very simple painting, yet it seemed to have a lot of meaning behind it.  Im this painting, there is a picture of a very young looking boy who is holding a big gun.  As soon as I spotted this painting, I was instantly reminded of the article we read a few weeks ago called, “Why Won’t We Talk About Violence and Masculinity in America?” by Soraya Chemaly.  In this article, the author discusses how tragic uses of guns here in the United States are by unstable males.  Soraya Chemaly says, “There is, sadly, nothing unique about men with guns in this country killing people everyday.” (Chemaly)  This is a sad thought because it means our society, as a whole, associates males with acts of violence and hate.

            The next piece of artwork I viewed was a piece by Anna Ancher that was apart of the A World Apart exhibit.  In the painting, "Women Plucking Chickens" Anna Ancher incorporates women in her painting.  The title of the painting pretty much describes the scenario of the three women in the painting.  This is not the only painting that incorporates women doing labor.  “Harvesters” also by Anna Ancher relates to “Women Plucking Chickens.”  The difference is that in "Harvesters" the women are being led by a man in the field.  In "Women Plucking Chickens" females are the only gender represented in the painting and are the ones doing the labor.  I enjoyed analyzing both of these paintings.  Each painting in this exhibit seem to reflect the lives of both Anna and Michael Ancher.

            The wall plaques next to each painting and the brochures I was given before my tour of the museum definitely changed my initial interpretation of each piece of art.  For example, "A-E-I-O-U (and Sometimes Y) by Mickalene Thomas caught my attention because it was hot pink and sparkling.  When I read the description, the artist was into exploring traditional notions of female identity and beauty through African American women.  This piece of art recalls Andy Warhol's photobooth portraits.  In addition, according to the museum's wall plaque description, the title plays homage to a dance club and MTV hit in 1983.

            I haven’t been to many art museums in my life.  My overall experience at this museum was very pleasant and I would recommend it to anyone who was interested.