Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Visual art + language-- "Pretty"

I have an annoyance, i guess a pet peeve, with how people call images "pretty." I was thinking about this in the shower & came up with a web of things related to this.

I'm not sure if it can be explained with "we're just so inundated with images that we've begun to write them off," though i think that could be a reason. But personally, i've noticed that writing & the various performing arts, as well as cinema, seem to get more thoughtful responses than most of visual art, especially online. It seems more likely to me that people will consider, dissect, & speak at length about a movie, an actor's performance, or how a song makes them feel & what they think about it/what it's about. But a lot of the time, especially on a site like Tumblr, when it comes to images, you get a lot of single-word responses, & quite a few times you just get "pretty."

I feel kind of conflicted about this word, actually, i've come to realize. Kind of like "cute"-- with both, my gut reactions are somewhere along the lines of "UUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH," but then i feel bad. I feel bad about being mean about a word. If you can get past that, the kind of connotations that "pretty" immediately conjures are more along the lines of superficiality, shallowness, childishness, even frilliness. It feels like, on the whole, it lacks substance, that it's a poor way of communicating. (And then i feel bad for saying that.) It doesn't go in depth; in a way, in its feeling of being a passing comment, it feels almost dismissive. And i think that visual art gets this a lot more than something like a piece of writing. You don't often happen across someone presenting something written with the simple comment of "pretty" on it. I'm not saying it hasn't been done to the other arts, i'm just saying that i've noticed it seems way more prevalent with visual art. Other one-word responses kind of annoy me, too, but i do feel that "beautiful" has a connotation of being "deeper" & maybe more thoughtful than "pretty."

There's an Art:21 episode where one of the featured artists is James Turrell, & at one point he says that when you're reading a book, you can get so engrossed into it that you don't even notice people walking by. You come into the world that the author has created. The problem with contemporary art-- & i would expand it to all visual art, personally-- is that "people look at it"-- they don't actually enter into it, the way they do with a book, a movie, a play, a musical piece. Which could also be another explanation as to why, then, the reaction is different, because the experience (of a piece) isn't there, & so then how are you supposed to really speak of any sort of reaction?

I also have noticed that people seem to really like to treat images with disregard. Recently, i ranted online about a photo of three skinny white adults wearing Native American paraphernalia, including the war bonnet, which is just intensely disrespectful. First the photographer decided to tell me to "grow up" & it was a photoshoot; someone else said "Does everything offend you?"; someone else asked me why i was so mad & when i told them i had explained previously, they replied with, "It's just a picture?" And it's like, you really can't talk to these people. Or maybe you can, if you're good with words, rhetoric, & have insane amounts of patience (YOU USED UP MY PATIENCE QUOTA FOR THE DAY).

But really, i can't understand that people don't get the fact that an image is very rarely ever "just" a picture. There are so many layers of meaning: not just the meaning that the artist or imagemaker has considered, but also the meaning that the viewer perceives, based on what they bring to the table: their own perceptions & experiences. (Obviously, the person who photographed the aforementioned picture obviously knows nothing of history & the levels of disrespect inherent in their image, so there's that, too.) It seems to me that people are much more willing to do this with respect to, especially, the written word. You always have discussions in English classes about "what does the author mean". Well, unless said author wrote anything explicitly stating what they meant, you have to realize that "what does the author mean" may very well truly be "what you think the author means"-- you analyze & interpret the work based on your own filters. The author had their own ideas & intentions, their own symbolism & meaning & reasons for doing what they did, & while it can be disheartening when people don't pick up on your meaning ("Oh great i can never communicate anything ever well fuck"), you also have to leave things open for interpretation. The same goes for songs. It's actually kind of ridiculous to have arguments over "this is what this means!!!" because what you think something means is most likely going to differ from someone else's view-- & that's as it ought to be. It's also another great example of Why You Shouldn't Read YouTube Comments.

So people will do this for writing. For songs. For plays, for actors, for movies. But it seems very rare that people will do the same thing for visual art. Which personally doesn't make sense to me, because if you can interpret & analyze all those other things, i feel like you should be able to do the same for a sculpture or painting or installation (&c). But a lot of people seem to be content to just stop at "pretty." They even use it negatively; i saw something on Tumblr once where the person claimed "Tumblr is where the written word comes to die" & they spoke of "pretty pictures"-- which made the negativity pretty blatant, to me. Why is it okay to talk about images like this? Since when has there been a hierarchy of the arts (& i am including writing in this)? I also noticed this when people posted an image of an altered book & started railing against it, basically saying how whoever had made it was essentially a terrible person & don't they know there are people who would be grateful for that book & how dare they deface it! They didn't seem to consider the more positive possibilities &/or the more conceptual ones (like, i don't know: the question of what is a book? is this a book anymore? has it transcended any boundaries? what are the implications of altering a printed book?). And it seemed to me that it derided visual art in favor of the written word; the book as something precious & almost downright holy. How dare you touch it so!

And i'm not saying that some things aren't meant to be "pretty" or beautiful or "nice" or calming, or any of those things (or funny or the like). I'm not saying that they're not legitimate or bad because they're meant to be "pretty" or "nice". Like the pieces of music that you listen to because they're calming & you don't feel too compelled to go into them too deep conceptually, but they're nice & they give you nice feelings. Like images of things that you like-- like (personally) blue things, water, stars, trees-- that are around because you like them & they're nice & they give you nice feelings. I'm also not saying that i don't understand the feeling of looking at something (or even reading/listening/etc. to something) & feeling like you can't respond to it for whatever reason, & if you do, all you can manage is something like, "wow." And with visual art, this seems really applicable to me, because i consider it to be meant as a form of communication that can (& should?) be largely conveyed without words. That's the whole point, i feel, of it being visual; you can't express it in words, so you're going another route. So when the experience leaves you feeling inarticulate, i think that's understandable, too.

Ultimately, i'm talking about my opinion, based on my feelings & experiences. And so i'm talking about how it seems that people don't, for whatever reason, give the same thought to visual art that they do to the other arts. And by extension, how people seem okay with talking down to visual art, or about it, as though other forms of expression are more important or more valid.





And i think i've covered the points that i can think of, & it's 3:08 a.m. now & i'm exhausted & my shoulders & back muscles are so tight that it is very painful. Which is pretty normal, but still unpleasant. And my right hand & wrist have started to hurt a bit, & i can now actually stretch my hand & wrist, & things will start clicking. It's obvious i'm using the laptop too much, but it's like i can't tear myself away from it, which is... pretty bad, obviously. And since my right hand is my dominant hand, if it & the wrist start to hurt, writing & drawing & the like become uncomfortable, too.

So yeah, i wanted to comment/reply to people online & stuff, but i'm so tired & stuff like that right now that it's just time to turn this sucker off & faceplant into a pillow & roll into a blanket & sleep.

Friday, December 19, 2008

lalala

Seven years ago...

This is the best day in forever, right now. (Deutsch final may wreck it.) I caved & had a latte or w/e from Starbucks this morning, reading through old captions on Council of Elrond, reviving the Barrow-Downs' "Crazy Captions" thread, watching Annelli's vlog, &&& TVN has streaming video of them out tracking winter weather! Plus, it's pretty funny when one is watching Destroyed in Seconds & they do a bit about tornadoes, & you know it's Reed Timmer & co. before they say a thing because they're capering about with glee.

Not much has changed, then, since 2003. "BACK UP!!!!!!!!!" XD

Bad thing, though; really can't concentrate for some reason on practicing for Deutsch. Das ist nicht toll. Also not getting snow. I mean, Las Vegas got snow. I mean, rain is all well & good, but when the temperature is pushing the upper 40s in December... meh.

Pouring rain!

Two hours until going to go fail Deutsch final; yatta. But i did somehow manage to get an 80 on the Kapitel 3 test, so who knows. Maybe i'll have retained something. But the problem is 1) i can't take 102 next semester because it doesn't fit, & 2) i don't think things are really sinking in, because of the grammar jargon & lack of time, because the semesters are short. It's more just regurgitating information than being able to recognize what to use in a certain situation. It's not like really thinking about how to use the language, which makes me sad, especially since i've got a plump, happy elephant looking at me from my textbook, saying, "Ich mag Kinder." とてもういです. :( I want to be able to be multilingual, but begin to wonder if i really have the brain for it. Especially right now, not being able to concentrate. Stupid, stupid.

...and no more streaming video from TVN. かなしそうなかお--> :[ かなしい--.

(Oi, what is the difference between using うい & かなしい? Typical, using Japanese when i'm supposed to be concentrating on verb-noun & verb-verb combinations. (It's 1:32.))

Maggie should be coming over to get her presents. I wrapped everybody's stuff last night, & have one more card to do & mail, that i managed to completely forget about. (Stupid!)

Mm, not so good day.

Friday, October 17, 2008

The discussion concerning Los Angeles on last night's (Thursday's) new episode of Ace of Cakes worries me. Don't leave Bmore, guys...

I swear, if Food Network ships them out in the middle of the night in a Mayflower truck... HA HA. Not. :|

Towson's theatre company is doing The Crucible. Hopefully Kayleigh & i are going, & will stifle our giggles from every single inside joke ever spawned from that play. "Come down, Mary!" "You're raising up a whore!" And Kate said she did all the bonnets, as well as Ann Putnam's dress.

Was absolutely spacy in Japanese yesterday, & was horrific in German Wednesday. I think i'm worse at German than i ever was at Italian, which is saying a lot. Speaking of Italian, lost my "Ciao!" pin from senior year. No idea where; if it was Philadelphia or the Walters on Sunday. It makes me really sad. Damn pins falling off all the time.

Also went over to the Center for the Arts to look at shows. Stupid me for not going to the Korean one until the third to last day of its showing. Wanjin Kim's work is really, really brilliant; think it's assemblage. She uses a lot of antique things, like antique Korean rice cake stamps. I got close enough to sniff one, which sounds odd, but it smelled really good. In the vein of smells, the smell of Maggie's house followed me all day, i swear. I think it was my pants, which sounds horrifically wrong & laughable, but i couldn't really trace it, even then.

Anyway. I don't think she's on the internet, though, which is the annoying thing about nearly all the shows in the CFA: you see something that makes you essentially go "omg," & then the cards don't have it on them & it's not on the internet anywhere. So yeah. No real way i can show her work, since she has no website. If you put her name into Google, you get someone's Facebook account; if you go to images, it's just pictures of other people with a similar name.

The MFA thesis show & the one in the "Art gallery" (that's its name) changed, & i don't know when that happened, so missed their openings, obviously. The MFA one now is interesting. The one upstairs in the art gallery runs till November 8th; should go see it. It's called Particularities and Abstractions, & features the work of three artists. They're really very amazing.

And, wonder of wonders, at least one of the artists has a website: Christine Gray. Look at Oracle Four; it's amazing. Though moreso in real life. It's so shiny & smooth, probably half because it's on wood & probably half due to whatever medium she used. But seriously, if you can get to the actual show, you should. I kind of stared at all of them. Meanwhile, the girl watchung the gallery was in an argument with someone on the phone concerning the Presidential debate. Forget politics! Look at the smooth art. The other artists, besides Gray, are: WC Richardson, Erling Sjovold (amazing color), & Fiona Ross.

This video & its song keep getting stuck in my head, but they're both really awesome. Does anyone have the song that i could download, maybe? Or Snow Patrol's "Chasing Cars"? Maybe? But yeah, now i keep drawing people with their faces obscured by their hair floating/flying around it. It's just brilliant; wonder how they did it. It gets firmly lodged in my head, like during History when i was falling asleep.

So tagged along with the parents because i needed to buy a new wallet. Have been using an old one from when i was little, with an Asian (Korean?) theme to it, but the wear & tear is really taking its toll. The amount of coins already ripped the zip compartment for them, & now, the outside-- think it's silk?-- is really beginning to fade. So i went to Five Below & got a cheap Gryffindor wallet that just barely holds all those coins. Also got a pack of mechanical pencils, just in case. The cashier didn't pay attention to me; the two of them were discussing her new cell phone.

Had gotten a Best Buy gift card in the mail for filling out a quick little survey ($25), so then went there, since it was right next door, & ended up getting two CDs. Saw In This Moment's new CD ("Dream," i think?), & kind of guilted myself into getting it? Also got Beach House's "Devotion." So i have sixty-something cents left... i'm horrible. Consumer.

So, haven't truly listened to "Dream," but... it feels different from their first CD, & i kind of don't like it. Their first one felt like Metal, & Maria (i think that's her name. Cannot remember names) went back & forth between singing smoothly & grating, gutteral, growling singing, as well as screaming that wasn't shrill, but still growling. On this CD, it feels too light, not as heavy. I skipped through song after song, & finally, on the third to last, found a song with the growling. I was alone in the car, so i went, "Yes!"

I mean, granted, i've yet to listen to it all the way through, but... it just doesn't feel like it has the same "oomph" that the first CD had. I really liked Maria's ability to switch between smooth & gutteral, which seems to not be showcased as much on the newest CD. Just a lot of smooth singing. And the instruments sound lighter, not as Metal-like.

As for the Beach House album, keep listening to the entire thing over & over, now that i've ripped it. They're a Baltimore-based band, so that doubled my interest. They're classified as "Alternative," & maybe one could draw parallels to other bands/singers/&c., or similarities. They make slow, quiet, realxed-sounding music with a airy, soft vocals. Slightly akin to Private Eleanor? A tiny bit like Regina Spektor or Tori Amos at times, vocal-wise? I know it's undesireable to list such parallels, but figure i may as well get there before anyone else does, & says it in a negative way. (Maybe a bit like Cat Power? Almost got one of her CDs, too; don't know why i didn't. Oh well.)

But it's really very nice. It has a nice feel to it, which is reinforced by the art & design of the CD & tiny pamphlet. Kind of reminds me of her work.

Have been keeping DB waiting; very bad of me.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

random thoughts

I don't even know what i was thinking of, when my brain wandered over to two rude/raunchy/naughty/whatever words: "dick" & "pussy," as used as insults. And i realized that their usage typifies gender stereotypes.

When you call someone a "dick," you're generally meaning that they're an asshole, that they're rude or mean somehow; when you call someone a "pussy," you're implying that they're weak, wimpy, & pathetic.

Then think of how certain genders are seen. The stereotypical male is generally brash, thoughtless, loud, prone to getting in fights. The stereotypical female is seen as weak, meek. It's society's double standards. A big difference is, though, that the stereotype of the male is generally more acceptable. With females, one can't win. You're reminded of centuries of being seen as wrong & bad somehow.

I was looking through the reader for my History 101 class, & what the Greeks thought of women is extremely venomous. Generally, people look at the ancient Greeks & only look at the better points. The art, for one example. For someone who champions gay/lesbian equality, they might like the fact that ancient Greek males were encouraged to take male lovers. Civilization (whatever that may be) can, apparently, owe a lot to Greece.

But when one looks at the attitudes towards women, this becomes more worrisome. Women in ancient Greece were seen as almost livestock. They were seen as baby machines. While their husband went off with his lover, who he may have loved over her, she was expected to bear children & take care of the house. They believed that the first woman was made by the gods to plague men, & they had all sorts of horrific things to say about women, who were seen as no better than a plague. It becomes confusing, really, when one takes into account the religion & art. They had goddesses; the female form was depicted in their art quite a lot. The Muses are pretty much always depicted as female. It doesn't make any sense.

It's really disturbing how most societies do this sort of thing. People like to base their societies & countries & things off of ancient ones, using their ideas & the like. Unfortunately, it seems that double standards are another thing inherited from most ancient cultures. Anyone who tries to deny that it continues today is blind. I mean, such phrases as, "you throw like a girl" & "scream like a girl" are used to imply that someone is weak & cowardly. They are unmanly, they are not staunch, they don't have what it takes. If someone said, "you throw like a boy," it wouldn't be taken the same way. People talk about "becoming a man" & "take it like a man." No one talks about "becoming a woman," & if no one says "take it like a woman," & if they did, it wouldn't have the same meaning. Women still seem to be seen as inferior & weak. Most creepy males don't think a girl will fight or snap back.

It bleeds over into art. There are times when a female nude isn't as artistic as one tries to make it seem. Such works were often bought by men to show their male friends when they came to visit. They were for their viewing pleasure, porn masquerading under the guise of being "artistic." Hence the idea in modern women's art of challenging the "male gaze."

This doesn't mean that there aren't double standards everywhere, on both sides. It's not as clear cut. The best illustration would be Scott G.'s senior show. A small group of us had stayed behind at school, waiting for the time that the shows were supposed to officially be open, but for some reason we decided to go down to the lobby, where Scott was setting up his show. His work all featured nudes, both male & female. Whatever, right? It's an art high school, & there's Figure classes already; who's going to care?

Mr. G, one of the painting teachers, told Scott that the paintings of the male nudes would either have to be censored or removed. This wasn't Mr. G's personal opinion, this was because of the school being a public county school, & apparently, this means one can show breasts, but no penises. (Random question: why not "peni"?) earlier in the year, a guy named Zach had done female & male sexual parts as a "differences" kind of assignment, & people had acted so immature about it he was forced to take them off the wall. He had seemed more dazed & quiet than anything else when the discussion came up in Studio. Not so with Scott. He fought & fought to keep his paintings up & unmolested by censorship, to the point where, if he wasn't crying, he was close to it. Mr. G just shook his head sadly & said he was sorry, but those were his only options. Scott made the very good point that, by censoring the penises, it would only make it more obvious, but in the end, he opted for the censorship, so they would stay up. I felt so bad for him; he was so upset.

This, therefore, begs the question: Why? Why do you have to censor a nude male but not a nude female? Is it because of the "male gaze," that the nude female should remain so because then people can look at her & objectify her? To make the male seem more restrained by his lack of nudity, and make the female seem sinful, lustful, & unable to control her urges? Or does it imply, in a bizarre twist of society's usual workings, that the male nude is more dirty & wrong than that of the female? (Usually it's the other way around.)

It also doesn't seem to matter how a woman acts. She can act demure & princessy if she likes or act rebellious &, as one would put it, "one of the guys" (because certain traits & actions are linked to males in this culture), & no matter what, she'll still get dumped on. I once caught something on Metal late at night on either MTV or VH1 (my God, they were actually showing something about music, imagine that!), & they had a bit where they talked about women in Metal. They talked to the lead singer of Arch Enemy, whose name i forget, but she is brilliant. She absolutely growls when she sings, so it was odd to hear her speaking in her usual voice. But if i remember aright, she mentioned how, even she has had people calling to her from the audience such things as, "Take your shirt off!" Here she is, a rough & tumble-seeming kind of woman, who can growl with the best of them, & she still gets comments like these. Why? Why is this seen as acceptable?

A girl can't even have her body do what it does every month without getting flak for it. Many cultures & religions see one's menstrual period as being dirty & unclean. Aside from the obvious fact that blood is messy; it's more of the "spiritual" idea, i suppose. For some reason, what your body does naturally makes you dirty & unclean in the eyes of your society & chosen god/s. One may then say, "Well then, why would a god have made someone that could be dirty & prohibited from temples & the like," but that's forgetting people like the ancient Greeks, who thought women were a plague, & those who want to blame Eve for all the world's ills (as if Adam hadn't taken a bite too), & that Lilith was bad & evil because she wanted to be Adam's equal. I was on IM once with an online friend, & she found a Feminist writing that said if males had periods, it would all be the exact opposite: It would be "manly" & ok & not a taboo subject.

Sure, there are a few peoples who have ceremonies for a girl's first period. The ones i know of generally involve chanting & possibly being buried halfway in the ground. Contrast that to the Muslim boy's circumcision day, where he is treated "like a prince" for the day & given presents. Maybe it depends on one's culture, religion, society, values, etc., but really, which option sounds more appealing to most people?

Have there ever really been any societies that have seen the woman as an equal, as being on equal footing? I can only think of people like the Celts, & Anglo-Saxon women had quite a few rights. One's mind immediately goes to Boudicca, who was a warrior queen if ever there was one. The Romans whipped her & raped her daughters; she literally fought back, gathering many people to her cause & wrecking many Roman cities in Britain. They scoffed at her because she was a woman, & the Romans had about as much respect, it sounds like, as the Greeks. Unfortunately, she did end up losing because of Roman battle tactics, & no one knows what her fate was. But she was relentless & unforgiving in her anger, & her people tarried around her. They didn't look at her & say, "Oh, she's a woman; what does she know?"

Then, something i read in a book about the Celts: A woman was kidnapped & raped by a Roman. For some reason, somehow or another, he returned her to her home. She then beheaded him. The woman's husband remarked on this, & she said something to the effect of, "Better only one man who has slept with me."

Of course, double standards are everywhere. If a man doesn't act "manly," then there's something wrong with him. But even that seems to point back to the feminine, back to such derogatory words as "pussy." (And when did slang for genitals become derogatory?) It all goes back to the idea that male=good & female=bad somehow. You're looked down upon if you act girly, you're looked down upon if you act more rough (maybe even seen as either a "fake girl" or "fake boy"?). You can't win. Years of sufferage & feminism still don't seem to have changed much at all. How can such ridiculous ideas be gotten rid of? Will the ever be gotten rid of? As long as there are people who consider women inferior & wrong, & as long as that mentality is passed down to the next generation, nothing will change.

Even my male cousins, who i spent my childhood playing with (as my girl cousins are all fairly older than me), are not immune. At an emergency gathering this past May, i felt the overwhelming desire to kill two of my cousins. They think of sex in such a cavalier fashion; the one said, "I probably have a bunch of kids that I don't know about!" And he laughed. The older of the two of them turned to me & said, "Don't listen to him, he's a bad man." Like i am a child. Inferior. Stupid. I regret not having something to fire back, i regret not snapping & telling them what i fucking thought of their demeaning, misogynistic words & thoughts. I thought that being raised by single mothers would have instilled some sort of respect in them, but i obviously was wrong, as they so stunningly illustrated. I also thought their mother's religiousness would have played into it, but if it did, it was in the way that people suppose Catholic school kids will turn out to be hypersexual from being repressed. But, then: i have absolutely no respect for them; i get so angry that i seriously wish them ill. They absolutely disgust me.

How is it that a male can fuck around & somehow be considered manly, but if a female does the same, she's a slut? How is it that males think they can do things like force themselves on a woman, or that she somehow deserves it because of how she dresses? Why is it ok for a male to oogle a woman? Just because she's wearing a short skirt doesn't mean that she was "asking for it." How come male sexuality is seen as this manly, good thing, but female sexuality is seen as bad, wrong, sinful, lustful, dirty, slutty, desperate? Why are women expected to be meek & demure & submissive; why are assertive, aggressive women seen as negative, when the same traits in males are seen as positive? Why? It makes me so unbelieveably angry. There are supposedly decent guys out there, but sometimes it doesn't seem like it at all.

In other news, it is fifty degrees (F), last i checked. I'll be glad when the daytime gets as cool as this.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Uffa

Non mi piacciono i cretini. La lingua stranieri non uguale illegale. Uffa. Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire.


Tired.