Sunny Days 'n Sprays

Sunny Days 'n Sprays

Well I guess going out to graffiti at three o'clock on a sunny Madison day was not the greatest idea, and it did not push us as much as a dark, moonless, would to create graffiti, but we still did something. I have started doing my own graffiti, and I found that when it's not flowers and unicorns, I usually write about the war on drugs and such. Not only have I found what I am passionate about, but while pursuing this I have also pushed my ideas forward, kind of like two things happening at once. Even though it is illegal and all, I don't think that the art I make should be, so I keep doing it. Kind of absurd how taking a run down factory and making it look better could be considered illegal.
On the other hand, there is the side that just writes profanity on sides of buildings, and I don't know how to feel about this. I use profanity when I speak, I don't think it's a big deal, but once it's written somewhere permanently, it somehow becomes unacceptable for most. I can understand private property, but on public property, shouldn't we be able to do whatever we want? Would every wall even become covered in spray paint, or would people just leave some. It would be an interesting experiment in human nature at least.

Moore, Moore, Moore

A Reinforcement of Skepticism towards Documentaries

Well the first article to be read kept throwing documentaries I'd never heard of at me, the second article was a docu-document, and the third is about Michael Moore, the workingman's filmmaker. I found it interesting that he was seen as the aggressive counterpart of John Kerry's campaign, an attack dog for his supported politician. In discussion, I raised the question of why we need someone else to speak for our representatives, and everyone seemed to be pretty surprised/angry/reactive. So the people we vote for are only the image they are trying to portray, it's true. Candidates cannot do anything remotely "socially unacceptable". It's really kind of fucked up how our "representatives" are not real people. The ones who we see on TV and the ones who are shaking our hands at rallies are created entirely by writers and political advisors. I want a president that forgets to shave on certain days, a president that doesn't always tie a perfect tie, and more than anything, a president who truly says whatever he wants; maybe I want my president to say what needs to be said. Kind of ridiculous how what we care about is whether or not our candidate is wearing a lapel pin or who Kanye West thinks we should vote for.

OK, enough of my doubts regarding politics, documentaries are what I set out to write about, and more importantly, Michael Moore. He is a subjective filmmaker, he wants to convince those who watch his movies. His methods are questionnable, but he's just making a boring subject interesting by using his tricks learned in Hollywood. He is a good example of a man using his artistic ability to push a point, for if he didn't, his documentaries would not be as captivating, wouldn't reach as many people, and would turn out to be less effective. He is a better activist because of editing, and what kind of times are we in to question his cosmetic changes?
Enough of my frustration with politics, back to documentaries.

Police and the Private

Kind of look like an army of thoughtless robots, don't they?

How ironic that the very cause for which the CAE was fighting for was also the cause that brought Steve Kurtz to be considered a terrorist. He was trying to make science easier to understand, to make it so that it's not just the intellectual elite that understands it. Sadly, this was obviously not accomplished, and the police that came to his house saw chemicals and automatically assumed that they are dangerous and that Kurtz was planning some sort of terrorist attack. Even when the FBI, an organization who one would hope has more knowledge, didn't know what to do other than trash his house.

Aside from the drama associated with the investigation, I found the idea of his Art Ensemble to be very interesting, and introduced yet another perspective I had never thought of.

• I don't know why I never considered this, but why should art be created by only one person. It is entirely possible that three people work better together than each one individually, and I'm not talking about faster or more dilligently; they would inspire each other, push each other to think more critically, and generally do more than one would ever do individually.
• After considering this idea of collectives, I realized that we do live in an extremely individualistic society. As was put in the article, if a group of artists make better art than just each one individually, they will not be accepted. The odd thing is that collectives are rejected by most. On one side, being an individual is respected; these are the people that express themselves and are generally unlike other people. The other side of the coin entails mass culture; this is the idea that people will follow what others do and say, it is a sort of collective, but unlike the ensemble that Kurtz is part of. It is kind of like we stray away from the true potential of the ensemble.

Money, Four Artists, and Angry Republicans

Can Art be Defined and Regulated?

Well the NEA sure has risen from a fledgling department of the state to a fairly large organization with the aim to fund artists in America. I guess that once anything starts receiving a moderately large sum of tax money, some Conservative politicians will start being alarmed, especially if the said program funds artists that piss them off. Furthermore, the said politicians will try digging their hands into this program and try altering the funding, but one question arises: Who can really define who should and shouldn't be funded?

• Is it whoever the majority finds pleasing? But wouldn't this be an invasion on the freedom of speech? "Sure, you can create your art, but we won't give you any of the money set aside for creating art."
• Is it whoever a small group of artists deems appropriate? But who is this small group of people to decide how to spend the taxes of 300 million Americans? "Unless your artwork meets our stringent standards, we won't give you any money."
• Or should it just be whoever creates art, completely random? The NEA has a limited budget, and there really cannot be a way to decide who receives the money. As much as we'd love to define what completely neutral art is, we just cannot. As much as Christians hate to see their beloved Jesus Christ submerged in urine, I hate seeing the manifestation of one's suburban American Dream, there will always be lovers and haters.

Although I can undertand the Conservative unrest at the NEA, there is still no reason for the aggression in protesting it. This is a situation where things should just be talked over, not where Conservative activists outright call artists heathens and Satan incarnated. We all have certain things that anger us, and these are not as easily defined as anyone would like to believe.

Bombs and Rock 'n Roll

Persepolis
A Make-up Blogpost

Well I only just realized today that the reading due tomorrow is actually supposed to be purchased and I have read the reading for the next part of the reader.
To make up for that, I'm writing about a movie I saw a while ago that could apply to this class, as this is very much activist film, and an animated one at that, an animated film that is meant for adults; it's kind of backwards for it has adult themes but children could still watch it, opposite of the current children movies which come off as childish but have some laughs for the adults. Without further adieu, here's the word:

If you have not read it, here's the summary.

• girl (Marji) grows up during a change in Iranian leadership, publicized to be a change for the better, but it actually leads to an oppressive tyranny.
  
• Marji goes off to Vienna to study, but finds herself lost culturally there, as she is not generally accepted in society
• Marji goes back home, not sure who she is, tries to deal with dual personality and growth in an uncertain direction.

Here are my thoughts on it

• the movie does kind of follow a pattern of oppression, departure, and return to origins, but this is about all that fits the said pattern.
  
• this movie is similar to past readings we've had from solo activist performers, because it deals with a lost identity, a woman trying to decide between her cultural origin and her progressive upbringing.
• I like how Marji's inner struggles are echoed by the current war going on in Iran; on one side, you have a revolution that isn't really exerting much change, a situation which is maybe supposed to indicate how Marji's struggles to find herself are ultimately futile. Also present is the Iraq-Iran war which was supported by America, a symbol of the Western world, which is trying to signify her progression out of Iran.
• Either way, Marji is unsure of who she is as a person.
• I kind of find similarities between this animated film and The Last King of Scotland. Both portray seemingly positive, revolutionary change that later turns out to be more oppressive than the past.
• About time we have a truly activist piece of film with a legitimate, heartfelt story at the middle.

So I'm going to try to read the play before class tomorrow, but I won't have a post up before it, probably after. Cheers.

Beats, Rhymes, and Life

Beats, Rhymes, and Life
Hip-Hop Progression from Activism to Sexism and Materialism

The entire genre of hip-hop brings up fond memories for me. In third grade, I was listening to Dr. Dre on cassettes, I had no idea what he was saying, it just sounded cool. Why do I have the feeling that now, the case is the same as ten years ago for me? We listen to this music because it sounds good, it gets us moving, it isn't what it used to be...enough with cynicism, hip-hop was an amazing form of activism that could not have risen from anything but the gritty, urban areas where the oppressed reside.
I think that this is the draw of hip-hop, it's the people who are oppressed who, instead of using conventional methods of political activism, created their own style of music, with the pretense of empowering these urban citizens, the purpose of setting themselves apart, but also presenting an intelligent argument. When children were told how to rhyme in school, they rhymed about their struggles and fears, during late 60s South Bronx, this was the only form of activism they could use, and look at where it is now.
In one of the articles I was reading, (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050314/hatchmiller) the author talked about the commercialization of hip-hop. Record executives decided that they would like to make money off of this new form of music, but as soon as they realized what it was about, they opted out of artists like Ice-T, Public Enemy, etc. and probably signed the artists who rapped about sex, drugs, and money, the exact opposite of their predecessors. It seems that every movement that had a large following somehow ends up in the hands of a CEO who wants to make money off of either nostalgia or common interest, rebranding the phenomenon with a corporate logo and selling it off as authentic, sick.

On an off note, I was thinking about the exclusiveness of hip-hop. Is it "socially acceptable" for a white person to listen to rap? Many people think not. I think this is a big problem, for hip-hop isn't the only medium in which minorities take an exclusive stance. Here at the university, there are groups such as Trio, or Posse, which aim to unify minority students. But by doing that, they are distancing them from the rest of campus, because they have a LABEL, and it's very hard to become friends with someone part of these groups, for they already have their own friends within their group. This campus should really make a better attempt at diversity, because as far as I can tell we are 0 for 2; remember that photoshop incident? Ok, I'm just ranting now, so let me wrap it up. I feel that hip-hop was a truly groundbreaking medium for self-expression, but it just disappoints me that it has to become a way to make money for corporations, just as previous movements that are over and obsolete, they continue living only in a corporate scheme.

Pineapple-Mango-Apple

Yes, this is a half apple, half mango, or as I'd like to call it, a Mapple.

Milk of Amnesia

• A story of the struggle it is to come back to your home country after being away for a period of time, the alienation, the rejection, and general inevitability of leaving as a tourist, not a native.
• I like the comparison to citizens of countries as pieces of fruit, it was accurate.
• "When I'm in Cuba, I am American, but when I am in America, I am Cuban." Yeah, this is exactly what it feels like. You are Romanian when you're in America, because that's what sets you apart, but while in Romania, one is not a true Romanian anymore if he's lived in the states for seven years, he is just an American tourist. It's a horrible feeling, not belonging.
• I wonder if the amnesia is real, or if it is just used to emphasize the whitewashing of being in New York for a prolonged period of time; it is a very powerful tool, because being in a Walmart for too long can make you forget where you're coming from, somewhere in that space between the beer cooler and the diapers.
• Finally, this is activist in the sense that it puts out the question of national identity; in our continuously globalized society, these lines are blurred, and being an outcast on either side of the map is not easy. Romania is my father, America is the antagonizing step-father.