Readings

Hey guys sorry about the delay, but I'm not good with blogger and i had some trouble. Over spring break we were supposed to have read Kindred, by Octavia Butler, which is about a African American women living in the 1970's, who keeps being called back to the 19th century to save a boys live. The boy's name is Rufus, and he is a white plantation owner, in a time when slavery was a big part of life. We see a struggle in this story, between not only two races, but also the sexes. The main character in the story, Dana, continually had to fight to try to get respect from Rufus even after she had saved his life many of times, the fact that she was black, and a women made it extremely hard for him to do that, and as for every other white character in the book from that time period they would not have a black women getting respected. In the book blacks were used and abused. All of the work that was done on the plantation was done by the slaves, and the owners rarely ever showed their appreciation for it. Slave women had it even worse, because not only were they used for work, but at anytime their owners could force them to have sex with them and it was perfectly fine. These women would be rapped, and then they would give birth to their owners children, just to watch them grow up with out a father, and become slaves as well. It just amazed me how low these people were treated in the book. One of the worst things in the book was when slave owners would break apart families to sell. Some owners did it to make money, some did it for punishment, and some did it just out of spite. The beatings that these slaves would get were ridiculous as well. I don't know how anyone could treat a human being that bad. The best part of the book was definitely the end when Dana finally had enough and took control of the situation by killing Rufus. Over all I really enjoyed reading this book and looking at this subject from a different point of view.

Readings

Ok the readings for last week were Freeland Ch. 4 and Goldbard Ch. 3 & 4. Freeland explores the connection between art and money, and how each tie into the other. She also hits on how people with money have their own "taste" than people without, and thus when they sponsor art, the type of art on display is different than is say a lower socio-economic person were to display it. This is quite interesting as it still pertains to almost anything these days. People of higher class would rather enjoy the entertainment of a Broadway show than watch Larry the Cable Guy tell jokes about his oddball redneck family. However, she also notes that there can be success by artists who don't fit the high class taste because their art provides a shocking mass appeal. She also talks about museums and how they came to be or who opened them. It was interesting to see how countries believed museums gave them class, even if the art displayed was not particularly of well-known artists. Museums were a must-have by cities that wanted to show sophistication and build an image for their country, as was the case with the National Gallery. It was those with money, however, that made these museums possible and she notes that it funding has switched from private philanthropists to corporations. This makes me ask, do corporations want to earn the same distinction of higher class by supporting these museums? And who is then in charge of choosing the art, or do they leave it to the institution they support and really only provide money as an image builder? It definitely would be weird to one day see a sigh next to a Rembrandt or Monet that says, "Sponsored by Coca-Cola" or "This art made possible by Bud Light." She also talks about how the "poor artist" is supposed to make it when artists like Van Gogh are having paintings sold for millions and millions, and that there may never be the opportunity for them to be successful unless a philanthropist or corporation is willing to invest the money on art they believe will get the most public attention. There is also some information on people who make art that cannot make money in a statement against this concept that the value of art is so astronomical, but I don't think these artists need to necessarily do that. I think that art can be valued by each person at a certain monetary amount, but everyone will give art their own value to themselves and some pieces will mean more or do more for the viewer than others, and naturally they will be worth more than any billion dollar painting or sculpture.
On the other hand, Arlene Goldbard first talks about the programs of community cultural development that serve as examples of what is an "end product." I read this after reading Freeland so I was naturally comparing this to that concept and its very different. It is much harder to measure the success of a cultural development program. With art, we have for so long done it through buying it for large amounts of money or posting it in world-renowned museums, but we can't do that with a group of students who put on a dance show about their culture every year. Or can we? What Goldbard hits on in her first chapter is that there are many different kinds of programs, some that produce shows, some that simply get a group of people together to learn more, or some that actually produce some type of product that shows a culmination of the time the group spent together and to remind them and others what they were working for and towards. Could we put these things on display? What would be the value in that? They obviously are holding these groups and events to develop culture in their own individual community, so would people in other communities value it as much, or would it lose substance if it was more wide spread? I think these are all things we have to consider before we try to make anything have a mass appeal and image that people all over can enjoy. For example, lets use music. There are many many artists out there who are what many call "local." They are the band that plays at a bar one night or maybe a small university in their home town. They pretty much know anyone who enjoys their music and are appreciative of the support that is shown by the few. Once they are discovered however, things can change. Music is marketed for certain people, and so many artists have undergone changes in the meaning of their music and have really lost touch with what they were gearing for in the first place, and I feel this could happen with cultural development programs. Instead of being a group that teaches high school students of their own individual cultural history so that they can appreciate their heritage, a mass appeal could turn the program into a big exhibition for politicians or celebrities to "show support" of today's you. If they really wanted to support the youth, why not make their own program, or better yet, really become involved. I feel that allowing individual communities to develop their own programs to teach and develop whatever aspect they want to those in their community, and by doing this we are still nurturing a sense of diversity across the globe and not a uniformity. So where does money fit in with this? Well, communities need it to develop their programs, to provide supplies or simply a snack during a long meeting. Would it be any different then to fund them with millions and millions of dollars as are traditional forms of art? I think it shouldn't, but it will.
I have said a lot so I will leave on a note that I feel the topic of any further discussion should be the future of the value of art. Monetary or not, I think all art has some value and if were to discuss further how society could foster any type of change in it, than we should. I know I did not hit at all on Chapter 4 of Goldbard. That being said, I don't feel it fits in with what I discussed. It's her formula, her ideal cultural development program that is being described and although it could help us with our own development, I think leaving groups to think for themselves, create a group, and end up being discussed by someone like Goldbard is far more influential than if multiple communities were to follow a cookie-cutter group process and become just as successful everywhere.

The description of our event

Section 05

We will be holding a concert that raises awareness against domestic violence. It will be held in the University of Maryland, College Park mall on September 1^st 2008 from 12-10pm. Our audience is aimed mainly towards college students but everyone is welcome. We are distributing flyers around campus (including metro, Rt. 1, dorms and stamp). We will also have it published in the Diamond Back and broadcasted on local radio stations. The host of our event is Ellen Degeneres, a well known comedian who has herself, suffered from abuse. In her late teens her stepfather sexually abused her. She is now speaking out about it and says "it's important for teenage girls out there to hear that there are different ways to say no. And if it ever happens to them, they should tell someone right away." She is the perfect host for this event because not only is she viewed as a strong, independent woman in society but she has suffered through the hardships of abuse in the past and is now able to “raise her voice” about it.

Our performers include:

The Spice Girls are a well known pop group, composed of 5 strong women who have constantly throughout their careers tried to empower women through donations and charity events both as a group and individually. These 5 women are all about “Girl Power!”

Christina Aguilera has a past of violence that goes back to her childhood. Growing up her father would abuse her and her mother. She speaks out about these tragedies through her music with songs such as “I’m OK” and “Oh Mother”.

Alicia Keys is very well known for giving to charities. She teams up with artists and organizations constantly for charity events. Also her lyrics in many of her songs are directed towards empowering women.

Mary J. Blige is an independent, strong woman who devotes a lot of her time to charity work. She also has songs directed towards domestic violence such as “Runaway Love”.

Le Tigre is a feminist musical group. Member Kathleen Hanna used to work for an organization for women who were victims of domestic violence and states “the main reason I was in the band was so I could talk about the program between shows”.

Lupe Fiasco is an up and coming rapper who has been dubbed “the next anti-sexist rapper”. His music is “working to engage men as allies with women to prevent men’s violence against women.”

Our speakers include:

Oprah is considered one of the most powerful women in today’s society and even she has suffered through abuse and rape. She has dedicated many of her shows to raising awareness about domestic violence. She is also a major participant in various charity organizations.

Tyra Banks has a talk show directed towards empowering woman. Many of her shows are about overcoming domestic violence. She also founded the TZONE organization which was formed to enhance female relationships and help women reach their full potential.

Hilary Clinton is currently running for President of the United States. She is a strong woman that women all across the nation can look up to. She gives other women hope and shows them that they can achieve anything. She is truly fearless when it comes to raising her voice.

Nancy Pelosi is currently the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She is the highest ranking woman in the history of the United States of America. She is working to end violence against women. She signed the Violence Against Women Act, which protects women from violence, abuse, sexual assault and sexual predators.

The Guerilla Girls are a group of anonymous women that “expose sexism and racism in politics, the art world, film and the culture at large.” They are feminist guerilla-masked avengers saving the world with provocative and humorous facts, humor and outrageous visuals.

Judith Butler is an acclaimed author and post structural theorist. In some of her work, she questions the existence and construction of gender. She is a Maxine Elliot Professor in the Department so of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkley.

On the second stage there will be an art auction, featuring Paula Rego and other various artists. All proceeds will go towards House of Ruth, National Organization for Women and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Afterwards the WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association) will sign autographs for $5, all proceeds will also go towards the charities listed above. At first people thought the WNBA were just a bunch of lesbians and prostitutes but they fought for their rights and raised their voices loud enough to turn the WNBA into one of the largest women’s sports teams in America today.

This is a feminist event because all participants are willing to speak out about domestic violence for those who are unable to. They are raising their voices to reach all the victims of domestic violence that are not yet strong enough to do it themselves.

If anyone sees any mistakes or anything they would like changed please email me to make sure I read it in time. (abradsh1@umd.edu)