Response: Teen Pregnancy: Media Influence or Bad Parenting?

Here is my response to Kathleen’s post (which can be found here: http://lifeisbetterinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/2011/04/teen-pregnancy-media-influence-or-bad.html)

What a great post, Kathleen, and I think you bring up some really good points. When you see a rise in something like teen pregnancy, it is really concerning. When you consider shows like Teen Mom, you have to start wondering where the root cause lies – is it lack of information, or is it the glory of fame?

Someone mentioned in class that she had heard teens were purposefully getting pregnant so they could be on a show like Teen Mom – I don’t think I’ve heard anything in class so far that has disturbed me more. Reality television, like we’ve discussed in class before, often celebrates some of the worst aspects of humanity – fame-whoring, beat-at-all-costs for money, sexualized behaviour for 15 minutes of notoriety type behaviour. Watching it, you are often repulsed and intrigued all at the same time – it’s like a car accident – you don’t want to look, but you can’t look away. This is why I am so saddened that some young teens, watching a show like Teen Mom, are finding the lifestyle attractive instead of concerning.

I have watched Teen Mom – I’ve watched all of it. It is my guilty pleasure, but I am kind of shocked that some would find it a life to emulate. I am always kind of struck by these young women – they face insurmountable odds and had to change their whole life around in the face of this pregnancy. Their personal lives are often a mess between fighting with the partner of their child to arguments with parents, they have little money, and few opportunities to do better. Many of them seemed to have big plans for themselves pre-pregnancy, but are now faced with the prospect of putting off an education and plans of future development in order to raise a child. The message I take away from this is they have to struggle to survive against a very challenging situation. I find it troubling that other teens don’t see this in the same light.

Mother Abigail’s God...

My favourite apocalyptic movie of all time is a 4 part mini-series based on Stephen King’s novel, The Stand. What I find very interesting about it is the overarching storyline is a classic story of good against evil and there are religious undertones, but the “saved” members of society are not necessarily religious.

The movie focuses on life in the United States after a super flu (known as “Captain Trips”) kills all but a small fraction of the population. The survivors of the flu are drawn, through dreams, to either Mother Abigail (the prophet and true believer in God) or to Randall Flagg (the demon). Flagg, and the collection of “evil” people, set up shop in Las Vegas (an interesting, but expected, location considering the nickname of “sin city”). Mother Abigail brings her people to Boulder, Colorado and creates the Boulder Free Zone. A small number of the “good” people will eventually be sent to go to Las Vegas to “stand” against the evil, and this act will eliminate the “evil” from the US, and leave a society of only the good.

My favourite part of the story, however, is that the band of good people are not selected as good because they believe in God – in fact, I think initially most of them don’t. At one point, one of the characters who is asked to go to Las Vegas to “stand” even states that they will have to trust “Mother Abigail’s God” because it had brought them this far and they had survived. The people selected are all a little imperfect – there is a man who is cognitively delayed, a deaf mute, an unwed mother – but all the people are good people who want to do good things, faith aside.

In the class on apocalypse themes in pop culture, we talked about the secular becoming sacred, and the sacred becoming secular. I think this mini-series from the very outset strives to be both – there is a clear distinction of good and evil, and God’s presence is felt throughout the film, but it is not exclusive. God’s presence, through Mother Abigail, becomes the beacon for the good people to follow, and he does not ask for their unconditional acceptance of Him – instead, He accepts them into this new society, and the world restarts again as a cooperative community.

Response: Media Violence in Cartoons

You can find the original post here: http://ekhoy.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-violence-in-cartoons-yesterday-my.html

Hi Elona –

I feel this is a very interesting post for many reasons, but the one I’d like to focus on is an issue you brought to light in a roundabout way.

Where are the parents?

Like Josh, I don’t believe Eminem needs to censor his lyrics – and if he is being looked up to by a bunch of 8 year olds, he isn’t at fault. His music all clearly comes with warning labels, people who sell it are instructed to ask for photo ID for purchase to prove the person is old enough to buy it (although I don’t believe enough of them do), but even if the album makes it home, are parents so uninvolved that they aren’t aware that it is there? My parents knew what music I bought and we talked about stuff they found concerning (I remember when I was in grade 7 I wanted the Alanis Morrisette album so bad, and my parents wouldn’t let me get it until we talked about its content, and they wanted to listen to it all first before they decided if I was allowed to keep it). And my parents were really liberal and gave my brother and I a lot of space to figure ourselves out.

I spent 4 years working in the electronics department of a Zellers store, and the thing I found most concerning were the parents that didn’t seem care. I had a kid come in (I’m guessing maybe 7 years old) and he picked up the Marshall Mathers LP and brought it to my desk to check out. I informed him that he needed to be 16 to buy it, and he would need to come back with a parent to purchase it. He came back with his Mom and I explained the content of the album to her (violence, sex and all), and she just said “Well, whatever – he wants it.” This is one of MANY cases of parents not heeding the warning about content.

Eminem's album is meant for people who are old enough to get the nuance of the lyrics – those people are not 9 year olds. You are right – they are more trusting at that age and are more likely to take things at face value. They don’t get that it is a story and not fact. And as you get older, you make a choice! You either listen to it and get the nuance, the story, and what he is really talking about, or you don’t enjoy it and you listen to something else.

Media is not the babysitter, and parents should be involved in helping children make appropriate choices about what they watch and listen to. Just because little Timmy wants it, doesn’t mean it is the right time for him to have it. And if you think he is going to hear it or get it somewhere else, then the parents should talk about it. The same goes for cartoon violence – if you as the parent (or in this case cousin) find the content concerning, then talk to your cousin about it. Have him explain to you what he saw and how it makes him feel, and then talk about make believe, and violence and hitting and why it may happen in a cartoon but why we don’t do that in real life. Kids are smart enough to understand it, but we as the adults have take the time to help them put it all into context.

Cheers,
Leah

Response to “Violence is Never the Answer”

For the original post – please see her:

http://thegodingoodgrief.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/violence-is-never-the-answer/

Oh, PB – what a meaty post. You are very spot on – bullying is a complex thing to work through. And how can we handle it if we do not teach students to stand up to the bully?

But, like Gandhi (and the experts) suggesting that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I would suggest, humbly, that maybe standing up to the bully in a violent way will only beget more violence. It is a vicious cycle we see on the playgrounds today – everyone is looking to establish their place in the pecking order, and no one wants to be on the bottom. Bullies, experts have suggested, do not bully from a place of power –they bully from a place of insecurity as they try to establish firm footing for themselves. Their fear is being overpowered by another.

Now does this mean I believe students should stand idly by while this happens and accept it as a natural fact? No – not at all. For the 16 year old who stood up to the bully but had apparently been tormented for quite some time, I would ask – why didn’t anyone notice? Not just teachers (because as you suggested “ratting” someone out often just leads to more pain in the end) but other students – it should be more than just one lone student stepping in.

I think when it comes to bullying, it needs to be established by other students that this is not acceptable to the group – “We as students stand together and say – not here! This is a safe space for all of us!” This message I do believe comes from the parents and teachers – let us give students the tools and knowledge to see and respect each other as peers – and respect and cherish the things that make each of us unique. If we can do something like this, then maybe the bullying and division lines will stop – and maybe then there would be no need for violence at all on the playground.

It is a case where I’m still not sure that violence is really the answer – I think short term it may stop one thing that bothers us, but long term it continues a pattern that we shouldn’t be happy about.

Leah

But Some Do…

In the above clip, the protestor points out (as a parallel to people listening to Marilyn Manson and violent acts) that not everyone who sees a Lexus commercial buys a Lexus, but some do. This, to me, is the perfect argument against the media as an instigator for violence. You do not buy the Lexus ENTIRELY because you saw the commercial – you buy it because it fits with some part of your core values and wants. It reinforces something that you saw in yourself – it fulfills a desire. It does not create, however, the entire desire. There are many people who will see the Lexus commercial and pass on the car – really, they are Honda people.

This illustrates one of the problems with assuming a causal relationship between violence and the media. Not everyone who listens to a certain kind of music, or plays a certain kind of video will be violent – historical and societal factors will play into a pre-disposition for violent resolution to problems – and likely the historical and societal factors (such as bullying or abuse) will be more significant than something like listening to Marilyn Manson.

Still, I do not suggest that these influences are completely innocuous. Although I do not believe in blanket censorship of any kind of art, I do believe that there are appropriate ages for certain things to be introduced to any individual. Introduction to an artist like Marilyn Manson or Eminem needs to come at the right time of any youth’s life. Each child does go through a stage where they are very literal – Santa is real because they are told so, and maybe Platform 9 and 3/4s will get them to Hogwarts. But when they get older and with guidance from someone who can help them to think through what is being said and how to decode the nuance of metaphor and imagination, like Manson suggests, music like this can help them find a healthy outlet for unhappiness – the music does not judge them and they can pick the music they identify with. They can find an artist who shares an experience they identify with, and maybe it will help them work through their feelings in a healthy way.

The music is not about violence – if that is all the critics see then they are not looking deep enough. It is an outlet for anger, an outlet to express unhappiness, an outlet to work out complex feelings. I think any artists hope is that someone else will come along and listen and identify with this, and maybe it will help them feel better too – in a healthy way.

Response: The Television Embrace

Here is my response to Terrence's post (you can find the original post here: http://terrencethoughts.tumblr.com/post/3566601959/the-television-embrace)

I think Terrence brings up some interesting ideas about the necessity of television in our world today – and more than necessity, I think it is complicated to totally remove it from a child’s life – but I do tend to question some of the things he mentions as the “positives” of television.

I think television does very frequently sell destructive trends to children and adults. Television frequently provides a world where people are cookie cutter – particularly when it comes to body image. This lack of variation is difficult for a lot of young (and old) people to navigate – if you don’t fit into that size 2 world, if you aren’t a “cool” guy, if you aren’t wearing the newest trend then the message is you have no place of value in society. People who do not live “in the norm” are not valued – they are frequently shown as the “uncool” counterpart to the “cool” protagonist – I think this has a harmful effect on a lot of people. Valuing difference is important.

With that said, I think escaping television is hard. It sounds to me like Terrence's parents truly cared about him, and the media he consumed, so they probably played the most important role that he had with his television – they helped him decode the message. I think removing television from a child’s life is probably short-sighted in today’s society – if they don’t see TV at their parents’ home, they’ll see it somewhere else. This is why, I believe, the most important part of television watching for children is the conversation afterwards – helping children to think about what they saw, how it made them feel, and helping them think of why what they saw might not always be true and helpful. Decoding the message becomes the most difficult, but most valuable part of that equation, and so I don’t think TV should be totally accepted – navigating the positives and negatives can make us richer individuals, but you have to really take the time to do it.

Response: Finding Positive Pop Icon Role Models (Like Finding a Needle in a Haystack)

Here is my response to Kathleen's blog post (which can be found here: http://lifeisbetterinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/2011/03/finding-positive-pop-icon-role-models.html)

I think Kathleen makes a lot of really valuable points here – Justin Bieber is not marketed to me, and although I may not enjoy his music (and I really don’t), I would rather see someone like him as a role model for young people than someone like Lady Gaga or Ke$ha. Although someone like Lady Gaga does provide positive messaging with some of what she sings about (her current hit “Born This Way” is garnering a lot of positive response for its message of tolerance and acceptance) I do believe with any artist we have to demand a little better than that.

Part of how you are role modeling yourself to your fans is how you act and dress. She is usually photographed in almost next to nothing (her refusal to wear pants I find particularly interesting) and she has been photographed not always making fabulous decisions considering that enough of her fans are under the age of 16 (she was photographed flipping people off at a baseball game last season).

When looking at how younger people relate to musicians and icons, it is important to remember that they probably won’t always get the lyrics. I don’t think I became really lyrically aware until I was closer to 18-20. It was at that point that I really started to “listen” to the music and decipher what it meant to me. Before that, I was more aware of how the musicians I liked conducted themselves – and this was long before twitter, facebook, and the constant photo stream you can find on People.com.

In this way, Justin Bieber is a true star – he’s a nice boy who seems to make good decisions. But, he is still young. Miley Cyrus started out that way, and look at how that ended up. It is, I think, the problem of becoming a pop start so young. He hasn’t really had the chance to screw up yet, and he’s going to have to do all his growing and mistake making with the constant glare of a camera in his face. Hopefully he’ll be able to hold on to a piece of his pre-star life, because I do think that is what helps “stars” make good decisions as they grow older – they, at a very early age, have a lot of money and access – and that means they can try or do just about anything. Staving off that temptation will be the true test for him!

Athletes and the Fall from Grace

On Tuesday in class we spoke at length about the idea of sport as a religious experience for some fans. One of the characteristics that came out in class and in the reading by Bain-Selbo is the idea of sports figures as “gods” or figures to emulate and “worship”. While, with a lot of athletes, we may “worship” or desire their physical power and ability, this worship often leads to something very undesirable for both fans and athletes: the fall from grace.

Athletes are human – they will make mistakes, and we should accept this of them, but the high profile nature of their jobs often leads to very public question of their morals and values. Frequently we are bombarded with stories about sports figures that take performance enhancing drugs, cheat on their spouses, have violent altercations, or are in compromising situations, leading people to question them as role models.

Alex Rodriguez (the third basemen for the New York Yankees) was seen as one of the most talented players in baseball. He was the youngest player to hit 500 home runs and has had 14 seasons where he had over 100 runs batted in – he is a talented offensive and defensive player. In 2009 it was revealed that from 2001-2003 Rodriguez took banned substances, specifically, steroids – these were also some of his best seasons. This has led to a lot of debate within the baseball community about whether his records should stand, since for a significant portion his most productive years playing he was not playing honestly. The steroid controversy in baseball has also led to general cynicism of any player who has a great season – there are a lot of assumptions passed that any player having a break-out season must be “juicing” – and I believe a lot of this attitude stems to the fall from grace of a lot of major players.

With this also come the stories of redemption. Josh Hamilton, an outfielder for the Texas Rangers, was drafted in 1999, and was considered one of the best prospects of that year until drug and alcohol abuse derailed his career. He was in and out of rehab from 2004 to 2006 – he has been sober since 2006 (with one slip in 2009) and become very open about faith being the key to his reform. He was able to return to play in 2007, and has become a powerful and noteworthy player. Part of his story is the redemption (his teammates even celebrate with ginger-ale instead of champagne to support his efforts to stay clean), and his open address of this has allowed him to be redeemed within the baseball community.

Players are simply human, and I think sometimes fans lose sight of this. They mess up, just like everyone else, but do so in a much more public fashion. We should hold public figures to a standard of being good role models, but I think to elevate them past that will almost always leave the fans disappointed.

Secular Music and God

Religious musicians are by no means the only ones singing about God. It seems to be a question that a lot of artists grapple with – rappers, rock, soul, pop – it is everywhere. Even artists such as Green Day, who started their career with songs about masturbation, have dedicated creative energy to the subject penning an entire rock opera that explores the idea of faith in a changing world.

One of my favourite examples of this was recently used in an episode of Glee, but I remember it from long before that. Joan Osborne’s “One of Us” (which was written by Eric Bazilian) poses some really interesting questions about a person’s relationship with God – both as a concept and as an actuality.

My favourite question in the song is “If God had a face, what would it look like? And would you want to see, if seeing meant that you would have to believe in things like heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets.” I find it an interesting question because there are two sides to it – if God was in front of you, and explained to the non-believer that all of these things do exist, you would be obligated to believe – it would be a concrete actuality, rather than a leap of faith. But still, there is the moment of doubt – would you want to believe – and I think that is harder to grapple with. For some, the leap of faith is a badge of honour, and for others (like myself) the grey area of uncertainty is a little comforting. I am okay with not knowing for sure – and truthfully, I do believe if there is a God, I don’t know that anyone is truly smart enough to totally understand God or God’s plan. It is a comforting way of dealing with many different religious and spiritual influences, without negating any as false, but also not wholly accepting any as true.

The fact that these songs make it into the Billboard Top 100 and are recycled over a decade later on a popular television show is a testament to how powerful the subject is. Even those without a clear Christian or religious agenda think and meditate on this complicated subject, and grapple with how to fit it in to their own world view.

I know within my own music choices, these songs are the ones I usually find the most thought provoking.

And now, one more song that I feel speaks to a Christ figure that I quite enjoy!

A Symbol of Christianity: Father Francis John Patrick Mulcahy

In class Professor Harris asked us to think about Christians on TV, and which characters were good examples of this. One of my favourite Christians on TV is Father Mulcahy (played by William Christopher) in the television series of M*A*S*H.

He is perfectly imperfect. Mulcahy remains the constant moral compass of the show, but is so kind and gentle to those who frequently test the boundaries of decency (particularly in the first three seasons where drunkenness and woman-chasing was the recurrent activity of most of the both married and unmarried gentlemen on camp). But beyond his role as the interfaith Chaplain on camp (he himself is a Catholic, but proudly offers services to all denominations), his character is full of imperfections that make him real and accessible to the viewers – he struggles with wanting to be promoted to Captain and expresses frustration about being passed over by the promotion board, he has moments where he feels dissatisfaction that his contribution to the wounded is praying and that he does not feel more “useful” next to the doctors and nurses, he plays cash games of poker to raise money to support an orphanage, and is known for having the best left hook on camp!

Father Mulcahy seems to, at moments, struggle with his faith in the world of turmoil where he lives, but also expresses quiet resolve to the men and women around him. He is the trusted listener, his patience is beyond measure, and you feel both his deep love and gratitude to those who work at the M*A*S*H. He seems to understand the “Hell” the men and women of the M*A*S*H live, and therefore is not judgemental of their actions, but helps them to regain their footing when the doctors and nurses have lost their way.

It is for these reasons I find him a very compelling and honest portal of a Christian on TV – he is not perfect, but the way he is a work in progress can make us all strive to be a little more patient and a little more honest in our own lives.

Father Mulcahy: What an ordeal. 72 hours straight. I'm prayed out — absolutely prayed out.
Hawkeye: Don't forget, Father, God was on six days straight.
Father Mulcahy: He was a lot younger then.
- The Smell of Music (Season 6, Episode 15)

The Desire to Over-Read...

One of the dangers of study in university is we are constantly challenged to write something our professor has never read before – and for some professors who have been teaching for years, that can be quite the challenge. In a desire, then, to really think outside the box, I think this has lead many students to read something into a work (whether it is books, movies, paintings, etc.) that isn’t actually there. I am not saying that thinking outside the box is a bad thing, nor am I saying that being challenged is a bad thing, but I do think we as students need to temper the desire to be brilliant with being authentic to the work presented to us.

And with that, I get into reading Christ figures into movies. I do believe that some directors very deliberately use Christ figure motifs as part of a movie, but, as suggested by Deacy in the article we read this week, I think there is also sometimes the desire to read a Christ figure into characters where that might not have been the actual intention. Although I would assert that in some cases an artist (or in the case of movies a writer or director) creates their work and then releases it to the world to be interpreted entirely by the viewer, I do think that in watching and reflecting on most works, you do want to be somewhat cognisant of what the artist intention was, and what their history is.

The example that Deacy suggested that really stuck with me was the example of Steven Spielberg’s E.T. There is a bit of fallacy in reading E.T. as a Christ figure because Spielberg is Jewish – he would clearly not have a Christian agenda within the film. When asked if he intended the movie to be a religious parable in an interview:

Spielberg answered that he did not intend the film to be a religious parable, joking, "If I ever went to my mother and said, 'Mom, I've made this movie that's a Christian parable,' what do you think she'd say? She has a kosher restaurant on Pico and Doheny in Los Angeles." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T.#Themes)

Reading a Christ figure into the film would clearly not be letting the film stand on its own merits or being true to the artist intention. I think doing this also ignores the features associated with the Christ figure that also exist elsewhere in ancient mythology and other religions (which could serve as an inspiration). The features of resurrection, willing sacrifice and miracles are not exclusive to Christianity, and some legends with this as key features to the protagonist pre-date Christianity.

For this reason, I do think it is important to go into reading a work with an open mind (and not a clear desire to see certain elements represented), but also to be familiar with the artist, writer, or director involved to gain a deeper understanding of what they hoped to represent, and how those thoughts informed the creation of a hero character.

Do I Define the Labels, or Do the Labels Define Me?

Who am I, if I am not the things I buy? I think this is a question we started to address in class on Tuesday. Blackberry or iPhone, Windows or Mac, Playstation or Xbox. And we saw some very deep brand loyalty (particularly around Apple).

After class I was recounting the discussion from class to my partner, and we started talking about the effectiveness of marketing, and how it seems to have changed brand loyalty. We were both born in the early 1980s, and we are basically the tail end of the so-called “Gen X’ers”, or the generation too savvy for advertising. Advertising when we were growing up was a lot more straight forward (as we discussed in class) – here is a product, here are the features, now buy! This type of advertising worked with our parents, but as we (the children) became more saturated with a constant bombardment of advertising, we became the sceptics.

I think this is when brand loyalty of lower cost products began to decline. Not many people under the age of 50 are really brand loyal to things like bathroom tissue, fabric wash, or even body soap. Most go to the grocery store or pharmacy and buy what is on sale and available.

With that said, I think consumers have become more brand loyal to those things that are trendy, and the almost cult like loyalty begins to become part of their personal definition. As discussed in class, if you are a Mac person, you are REALLY a Mac person. The kind of loyalty that is shown to companies like Apple and RIM often mean if you own an iPhone or Blackberry, you’re unlikely to switch to something else, even if something else comes out that might meet your needs better. It becomes part of how you define yourself to other people.

And if your advertisement doesn’t represent who I think I am, you’ve lost me from the outset. I want to be entertained – and if you entertain me, I might buy.

Cheers,
Leah

Response to: Are the Duggars Good Christian Role Models?

Fantastic blog post by Georgina here: http://jcandpc.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-duggars-good-christian-role-models.html

And my response!

I find this a very thought provoking post, and I want to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

I am a bit of a fan of the Duggars, and I will preface this by saying I do not go to church, I would only loosely consider myself Christian, and I do not want 19 children and firmly believe in birth control and a woman's right to choose (children and everything else).

I think some of their comments about birth control and their own experience with it can be troubling if that is all you know about the family, but I also think there is a lot of good that they show in how they live their lives.

As unruly as it seems to have 19 children, they actually really seem to make it work. It could all be for show with the cameras, but the children seem happy, well fed, and all interact with their parents and siblings in a really loving way. Both Jim-Bob and Michelle seem to work hard to build bonds with all their children and develop close relationships as a family unit.

What I really enjoy about the Duggars is their attitude - I find them to be very authentic people. They live by their beliefs, but I don't think they try to push it on anyone (I have seen a behind the scenes video where the crew talks about how much they enjoy working with them, and one specifically speaks about not identifying with their faith but that the family is so welcoming and inviting to everyone, that it doesn't seem to matter.) I get the feeling that they really do believe that this was the right path for them, but it doesn't need to be the right path for everyone.

I enjoy that it is a reality television show that is not about getting drunk, or contrived drama, and that it is a family that lets you see a little of their personal life without airing all their dirty laundry for everyone.

I do not agree with everything they do, but I think something about their spirit is a refreshing change from a lot of the other reality TV families and programs out there.

Great post!

"I want an art more complicated than that"

The class discussion on the Dustin Kidd article "Harry Potter and the Function of Pop Culture" reminded me of a poem I had read for class a few years ago entitled "Jerk" by poet Jeff Derksen which was originally published in his book Transnational Muscle Cars, so I wanted to share it.

--

Jerk (from Transnational Muscle Cars) by Jeff Derksen

The sun glints off the chrome

bodies of the gondolas

of late capitalism

as they labour up the mountain.

The mountain is named

after a commodity. Art has made this

a nonalienated view. Is that what

we asked it to do? If "each day seems

like a natural fact" and if "and what we think

changes how we act" should art not

reveal ideology

rather than naturalize it?

These old idealisms, they burn me up

These old idealisms, what do they cover up?

You had a lovely critique

and you looked great, sexy

really, the way your world-market

pants might shock the bourgeoisie

into consciousness. But these days

I'm yearning not for a little outside

to call my own, although I like good

design too and do feel that the "workers"

(morphed "multitude") also live

outside of quotation marks

in this "the highest stage"--

but now I'm wanting transformation

rather than "structural adjustment"

to go with the primitive accumulation

and worn contradictions. Not more

of these natural facts ("globalization is").

But back to this "ocular centric" art

as social goggles, the artist as

ophthalmologist. I want to see

the real relations

but you've got Nikes on and I like you

so I have to try and understand. And if

that shirt's from The Gap, then one arm was sewn

in Malaysia, the other in Sri Lanka. Why then

is it hard to "see" ideology when you're

wearing it? Is it "out there"? Or deeper inside

than even desire could get? That clarity

would lead to historical consciousness

is muddied to the point

where you wouldn't even recognize

your buddies once you got there. "Hey you

Louis!" (There is history

to spontaneity, anger, irony.)

"People have opinions / where

do they come from?" My idealistic belief

is that historical consciousness may come.

My sad cognitive mapping

is that over determined contradictions

don't lead to new social relations.

I want an art

more complicated than that.

--

Can art be more complicated than it is right now? We live in an age where discussing if art is really "Art" has become part of the accepted social dialogue. You can walk into any museum anywhere, and find people gathered around a very non-traditional post-modern work, and they will be discussing why and if it should even be considered art in the first place.

Pop culture "art"  I believe does become our "ophthalmologist" and our historian (and I do stipulate that I believe that most pop culture falls into the category of art - no matter what we think of its overall value to society). Art may not look like it did 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, but it becomes our windows to the world and the reflection of our society. The subway art of Keith Haring in the 1990s promoted activism through art and gave a voice to a group of people whose needs were not being addressed due to the social stigma of their disease. This is not so different from what Michelangelo accomplished in painting the Sistine Chapel, providing a pictorial reference of the Old Testament for people to draw from and reflect on.

I think art used to be something much more comfortable for people  to define before everything moved into digital and buyable - art was found in museums or parlours, it was played in theatres and concert halls, it was written by great men and women and had an aura of sophistication.  Art now seems kind of gritty in comparison. It does not always reflect a skilled hand (although many artists, even those who produce the most crude looking art, often are very skilled in their craft), and it not always subject matter we are comfortable confronting - does this make it any less valuable?

Kidd, when considering the Harry Potter novels notes that if there is any kind of social change that will be brought about by the Harry Potter novels, maybe "...this change will effect the removal of the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate culture, such that novels like Harry Potter will be appreciated within the institutions of legitimate culture without losing their popular status." I think this would be a fantastic thing - why should we restrict what we will consider art, and why should big "A" Art only be for the elite?

My First SMC 305 Blog Post!

Hello Everyone!

As it says in the side-bar, my name is Leah and I'm really looking forward to blogging for class!

I will start with the official "class" blogging next week, but in honor of the Homer the Heretic episode of the Simpsons, I thought I'd post another Homer and God clip! (please excuse the Hulu advertisement - it was the best copy of the clip I could find.)

Enjoy!

Cheers,
Leah