...these reactions of teenagers to abusive relationships:
Teenage Girls Stand by Their Man
A lot of these girls seem to be defending Chris Brown's beating of Rihanna with the reasoning that men and women are equal and therefore equally responsible for anything that happens within a relationship. It's difficult to argue with a group who thinks its position is based in equality, but something just doesn't sit right here.
One girl's parents instruct her to strike back if she is ever hit by a man. What happens to this advice as the kids age and grow, and the men gain significant physical advantages over the women? I agree that a woman should "fight back" in that she should not put up with abuse, but to suggest that a woman should try to match a man physically could lead to more danger for the woman.
Abuse is an extremely complicated issue. People abuse others, and abusers stay with their abusers, for so many reasons. Most human behavior can be explained somehow. We can come up with psychological profiles to give us reasons for this or that action. But at a certain point, even if things are explicable, isn't there cause to intervene when the behavior is destructive? Who cares if we know why the abuse is happening, if it is clear that the abuse is harming someone?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
art school = waste of time?
I used to spend more time than I do now wondering whether my years as a graduate art student were a creative and financial waste of time. But once in a while I read something that gets those thoughts stirring in my head again.
I completed my MFA in Fine Arts in 2004, and I'm currently looking forward to paying off the loans I took out for this degree for the next 25 years or so. (Hm, hopefully not that long...c'mon lotto! Big money! No whammies!)
In the couple years after I graduated, as I slowly accepted the fact that loan repayment was to be my new constant companion, I doubted many times whether the financial investment was worth it. I rarely make (visual) art now, and I have no desire to teach art at a college level (this was the goal of many of my classmates, as the MFA is the terminal degree in the field and required for nearly any teaching position). I could not afford even to work in a (generally not monetarily awesome) field related to visual art, as it was crucial that I start making significant money immediately to pay back Uncle Sam.
Well, I'd had such thoughts clear from my head for some time, but they were just reactivated tonight by an article by Dave Hickey in the March 2009 issue of Art in America: "Revision Number Six: Addictions." (Note: I do not understand the meaning of this title - perhaps if I'd been reading Art in America regularly I'd know what the heck this title is all about?) (Also note: I've always enjoyed Dave Hickey's writing - I think he has an intelligent unique voice, and he doesn't apologize for going against the grain once in a while).
Anyhoo...in this article, Hickey argues that no school program can create an artist (you either are one or you're not) and that school can in fact damage artists.
These are arguments that I've heard, and contemplated, before. I believe there's some truth to these arguments.
On the other hand, I can also readily see some benefits of art school. The most glaring benefit, in my mind, is the opportunity to build a professional network. You could be an amazing artist, but if you don't know other artists or know people who can help get your work seen by others, what's the point?
Building a community of colleagues is also important, I think, as an emotional support system during the periods of self doubt that plague absolutely every artist I know.
It is because of the benefits of building a community of fellow artists that I am contemplating returning to school for an MFA in creative writing...but that's a topic for another post...
I completed my MFA in Fine Arts in 2004, and I'm currently looking forward to paying off the loans I took out for this degree for the next 25 years or so. (Hm, hopefully not that long...c'mon lotto! Big money! No whammies!)
In the couple years after I graduated, as I slowly accepted the fact that loan repayment was to be my new constant companion, I doubted many times whether the financial investment was worth it. I rarely make (visual) art now, and I have no desire to teach art at a college level (this was the goal of many of my classmates, as the MFA is the terminal degree in the field and required for nearly any teaching position). I could not afford even to work in a (generally not monetarily awesome) field related to visual art, as it was crucial that I start making significant money immediately to pay back Uncle Sam.
Well, I'd had such thoughts clear from my head for some time, but they were just reactivated tonight by an article by Dave Hickey in the March 2009 issue of Art in America: "Revision Number Six: Addictions." (Note: I do not understand the meaning of this title - perhaps if I'd been reading Art in America regularly I'd know what the heck this title is all about?) (Also note: I've always enjoyed Dave Hickey's writing - I think he has an intelligent unique voice, and he doesn't apologize for going against the grain once in a while).
Anyhoo...in this article, Hickey argues that no school program can create an artist (you either are one or you're not) and that school can in fact damage artists.
These are arguments that I've heard, and contemplated, before. I believe there's some truth to these arguments.
On the other hand, I can also readily see some benefits of art school. The most glaring benefit, in my mind, is the opportunity to build a professional network. You could be an amazing artist, but if you don't know other artists or know people who can help get your work seen by others, what's the point?
Building a community of colleagues is also important, I think, as an emotional support system during the periods of self doubt that plague absolutely every artist I know.
It is because of the benefits of building a community of fellow artists that I am contemplating returning to school for an MFA in creative writing...but that's a topic for another post...
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Cartooning is a beautiful art form.
Last Friday I went to a joint talk by Chris Ware and Marjane Satrapi, moderated by Françoise Mouly (New Yorker art director, wife of Art Spiegelman, etc). The talk was a free event of N.Y.U.'s Festival of New French Writing. I regret that I could not attend so many of the Festival's talks, but I am so glad I was able to catch this one at least.
I first started to become aware of Ware (har har) in 2002, when he was included in the 2002 Whitney Biennial for Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth. I was blown away by the incredible detail, and at the same time simplicity, evident in his work. The sheer number of hours that must've gone into production of this book-length comic (graphic novel?)...it was the only kind of artwork that seemed to not only engage me but give me the urge to run home and work on something myself. I love art with that effect.
As much as I find myself more and more interested in comics as an art form, I was still not aware of Satrapi, until Friday night. This despite the fact that the movie version of her book Persepolis had been nominated for an Oscar. (Certain parts of my pop culture knowledge simply have big gaping holes - I've come to accept this).
Anyway...I just wanted to say thank you to NYU for bringing Satrapi to my attention through this joint lecture series. It was such a treat to watch both her and Ware talk about their work. They're both excellent artists who work in the same genre but in totally different styles, and it was amazing to see comics taken so seriously by two such different personalities. Satrapi was full of energy and endlessly quotable, and Ware was, like the characters in his comics, endlessly apologizing for existing. Totally fascinating.
Last Friday I went to a joint talk by Chris Ware and Marjane Satrapi, moderated by Françoise Mouly (New Yorker art director, wife of Art Spiegelman, etc). The talk was a free event of N.Y.U.'s Festival of New French Writing. I regret that I could not attend so many of the Festival's talks, but I am so glad I was able to catch this one at least.
I first started to become aware of Ware (har har) in 2002, when he was included in the 2002 Whitney Biennial for Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth. I was blown away by the incredible detail, and at the same time simplicity, evident in his work. The sheer number of hours that must've gone into production of this book-length comic (graphic novel?)...it was the only kind of artwork that seemed to not only engage me but give me the urge to run home and work on something myself. I love art with that effect.
As much as I find myself more and more interested in comics as an art form, I was still not aware of Satrapi, until Friday night. This despite the fact that the movie version of her book Persepolis had been nominated for an Oscar. (Certain parts of my pop culture knowledge simply have big gaping holes - I've come to accept this).
Anyway...I just wanted to say thank you to NYU for bringing Satrapi to my attention through this joint lecture series. It was such a treat to watch both her and Ware talk about their work. They're both excellent artists who work in the same genre but in totally different styles, and it was amazing to see comics taken so seriously by two such different personalities. Satrapi was full of energy and endlessly quotable, and Ware was, like the characters in his comics, endlessly apologizing for existing. Totally fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)