During one of the best classes I have ever taken in my undergraduate career, we learned about the changes implemented in the world of journalism. As the world becomes more and more high tech and people tune into news via digital means, the way of the journalist has become not just limited to words but also to images.
Photojournalism is an art that is taking its foothold in the world of journalism. Photography has taken the world of professional journalism to a new level, moving readers by providing images that render the invisible, seemingly-irrelevant current event into a relevant image of reality.
Where would we be now without our pictures? What other media is as fluid and interchangeable as photography? One person’s hobby can become capture a picture that speaks to people thousands of miles away– photojournalism is not necessarily limited to professionals. What defines photojournalism is not that it tells about a world event in a newspaper or other news media, but photojournalism is about encapsulating one story in one picture. It’s not about the reporting of wars or governmental policies, but the reportage on the human condition often overlooked by regular news media. In its essence, journalism, in all forms, is about speaking for those who have no voice. And photojournalism is about presenting the face of those people who are not being heard.
This one design blog shows 35 great examples of photojournalism. And you’re going to find that they are not all found in newspapers or news media.
Think about it: What would our news media look like if we didn’t have pictures? This is the power of photography.
Other than writing, what can a pencil be used for? Sometimes, I attempt to use them to put up my hair… and of course it fails because I can never get the twist/grip right. Other times, I use them as bookmarks. I use them as pointers for demonstration purposes; I use them to poke people.
I wish I could use them as artwork, as Dalton Ghetti does. These minuscule sculptures carved out of pencil stubs and the graphite are amazingly intricate in their design. It is absolutely insane what he can do with one pencil.
Especially these:
They remind me of small charms. And indeed, they are tiny.
Starting from Marcel Duchamp’s notorious “Fountain“, the practice of transforming daily objects into art forms is nothing new. But it makes me wonder: what other everyday objects can be used as breathtaking pieces of artwork? Or, controversial ones, as well (to which Duchamp can attest).
All I know is, I want about a hundred of these pencils lining my desk. Perhaps it will give me more motivation to study!
Paper seems to have a life of its own. From being just the blank canvas on which artists worked to becoming life-size sculptures, paper has undergone many transformations since its origins. What is most extraordinary is how paper is now being used to understand science; in this case, specifically the genetic basis of Alzheimer’s.
Matt Shlian’s title is a Paper Engineer who folds paper sculptures. But his work isn’t like that of Peter Callesen’s, whose cannily life-like sculptures are undoubtedly ethereal works of art. For Shlian, his work is not just founded upon artistic principles and desire to create, it is also based on the curiosity and desire to utilize his skills as an artist engineer to furthering scientific knowledge. As he writes in his artist’s statement, in the way that paper folds, so does DNA, and protein mis-folding is what results in Alzheimer’s Disease. One misstep in the folding process leads to further a chain of folding mishaps which causes irregularities and disease. In order to explore the causalities and possibilities of how protein could mis-fold, Shlian creates replica of protein structures made from paper– a highly scientific yet artistic work.
Upon first hearing about this man and the phenomena which he creates, I was astounded. Here is one very great example of how art is being utilized for more than just the typically perceived reason of self-expression. Here is one awesome counterexample to those who continually say that art is merely for art’s sake and that it is irrelevant in the larger picture. Shlian’s paper folding that helps us understand the roots of Alzheimer’s shows us that art is as intertwined in this world as any other discipline; without art, we would not understand science. Without the ability to manipulate designs, to create visual representations of the scientific realm, it would be hard to comprehend the microscopic in visual terms.
In 2008, much sensation ensued at the news of Thomas Beatie, the world’s first pregnant male. A transgender and legally male, Thomas Beatie became the first male to conceive, having kept his female reproductive organs in the hopes of one day bearing children. When his wife was found to be infertile, Beatie decided to have the child (and two more) himself.                        Â
Thomas Beatie, however, is not the only pregnant male; Lee Mingwei is, too. According to the website malepregnancy.com, created in 2001, Lee Mingwei is not a transgender but male by birth who has the ability to carry children in his abdomen area. In fact, however, this entire website, with such detailed information and an entire range of evidence to support the claim of a pregnant Lee, including a documentary featuring the pregnant male is an art project conceived by artists Lee Mingwei and Virgil Wong.
It can be assumed that the basis of this project is to challenge the notion of “What does it mean to be female? What does it mean to be male?”, as Lee states several times throughout the excerpt of the featured documentary. Lee is countering the societal claims of a woman as the childbearer, challenging the idea that it is the woman’s duty to give birth and that men can do it, too. It leads one to ponder the issues presented by societal norms of gender roles, obligations, and expectations and the pressures of responding and reacting to these confined categories.
One could applaud Lee and Wong for undertaking such a controversial project that forces the viewer to reflect on these issues, yet, in watching the documentary and going through the site, I couldn’t help but think that this project, as much as it wants to challenge the viewer’s notion of norms, actually reinforces it, as well. For instance, consider the project in its simplest terms: a pregnant male. Though this sensation does shake the foundations of long accepted biological and sociological understanding, it also presents another contentious layer– that of the dominant, all capable male. In taking a strictly female ability and transferring it to the powers of a man, it undermines the woman’s uniqueness and own social importance, especially if in social terms, the ability to bear children is the defining difference between a male and a female. It lends the idea that women are no longer necessary for life and that men can have the total dominance and power not only in leading life, but creating it, as well.
In this way, Lee strengthens our ideas of what is socially acceptable by putting such an emphasis on the sensationalism of such a phenomena: a pregnant male. In constantly highlighting the uniqueness of the situation, it reminds us yet again that of course women are the childbearers. This point is especially discernible when, during a checkup with the doctor, he jokes, “Do women feel like this, too? Or is it because I’m a man?”, which yet again focuses the attention on the natural capabilities of the woman as childbearer– i.e. because woman is made by nature to carry a child, she is also made by nature to endure the hardships that go with it; thus, should a man be placed in that same position, because he lacks the natural capabilities to adjust to a pregnant lifestyle, he would have a hard time; as such, it is only natural that women are those who bear children.
As I am exposed to more things that attempt to be controversial or present things out of the norm, I keep realizing that the effect has two sides: one is the instant, reactionary effect whereupon the viewer at the moment of the encounter is shocked, awed, inspired, repulsed, etc and does come to question (although perhaps to a small degree) what we consider to be the norm; the second is the same reactionary effect of shock, awe, inspiration, repulsion, etc that does the opposite– it reinforces and strengthens our existing notions of the normal and acceptable. The latter reaction usually follows the former.
Why is this? Why is it that a work of art that is “controversial” actually reinforces our current ideals than revolutionizes or shakes the foundations of our perception of the “right?” Maybe it’s because so much emphasis is put on the uniqueness of the situation, so much sensationalism exudes from the controversial topic itself that the artwork becomes instead an embodiment of the “surreal, different, unacceptable”. Because of the deeply infused contentious nature of the subject, the art does not place itself in the world of the “normal” as being “normal” but places itself in the world of the “normal” as being “abnormal” and therefore “socially unacceptable”. But then this hypothesis poses the counter question of whether presenting something out of the norm as normal undermines its abnormality and thus, its importance in generating discussion and change. Personally, I don’t think that the latter would pose too many problems. It can go either way: either convince the viewer of the normality of the abnormal situation and change their views on what “normal” is or incur a reaction similar to that of the first hypothesis, where we perceive as being portrayed as normal yet we know it is not and thus continue to support our existing notions of the norms.
—–
Gabby Park is a triple concentrator in Communication Studies, French, and History of Art who also thinks too much while watching movies and consuming other forms of media and art.
That’s what one of my housemates said about Easter eggs painted by little children. Hahaha. I mean… it’s probably going to be true for a lot of eggs decorated by kids, but in their case, they think it’s beautiful so it’s the thought and effort on their part that counts, I guess.
We were just joking around but it made me think– what is the story behind the Easter egg? Why do we do it at all? For the Russians, the Easter egg was a huge deal and the Tsars were known for commissioning elaborate eggs created of precious metals and expensive jewels to give as presents to their family members during this Christian holiday (see picture below).
Russian easter eggs
Given Russia’s predominantly orthodox Christian tradition, I should have presumed that there was a historical, religious reasoning behind the existence of Easter eggs, but I never actually processed this line of thought to go that far. It was only when I looked it up on Wikipedia that I learned of the religious background to this timeless tradition.
In short, the egg itself was always seen as a symbol of life (given that chicks hatch from them). Zoroastrians used to paint eggs for one of their gods, and the egg was used in several other religions ceremonies as well, in Judaim, Paganism, etc. When Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, many of the cultural traditions of different people groups were combined, and hence forth existed the Easter egg.
In Christianity, the Easter egg represents the rebirth of Christ and the shape of the egg itself resembles a grave. Especially in Eastern European and Russian customs, the Easter egg was always a constant symbol for new life and was widely decorated and given out as gestures of love and friendship.
Now, the act has become, especially in America, a popular fun-time activity for children during this spring season, so that children can enjoy not only painting the eggs in beautiful (or hideous) manners, but also finding them in egg hunts.
—–
Gabby Park is a triple concentrator in Communication Studies, French, and History of Art, who particularly relishes reading up on the history of mundane practices in daily social life.
You are what you eat. You are who you hang out with. You are what you do. You are what you wear.
Which one of these are true?
Well, I’m sure most of them are relatively true. But recently, I’ve been wondering about the last one: You are what you wear. How true is this?
If we look to society, there are arguments both for and against this expression. For instance, there are so many “poseurs” out there who attempt to mimic others’ style of dress when that isn’t even their preference at all (think back to middle school when A&F was all the rage). However, in many cases, what we wear does define who we are– to a certain extent.
At masquerade balls, during Halloween, our costumes give us the advantage to be whomever we choose. We can be that silvery masked beauty who smiles mysteriously or that frolicking, bubbly princess who grins widely. Under this disguise, we are made more free to become someone we normally are not, and to do things we may not do regularly. Even in regular daywear, certain things render us more or less confident in ourselves, thus shaping our personalities for the day. Wearing a spiffy new sports jacket or a pair of sexy heels can make us more outgoing or willing to put ourselves out there. When we perhaps would not want to be noticed, that day, we do. Should we have a bad hair day or wear ill-fitting pants, we feel self-conscious and fidgety, wishing to be overlooked so as to avoid embarrassment.
With this notion in mind, then to some degree, our outward appearance does influence our own inward personality. Many times it can be a reflection of our personal traits, characteristics, or preferences. At others, it can be a reflection of society’s. Or both. For example, in the case of the hijab for Muslims, it is both a personal choice and a socio-cultural value. It is quite possible that one could wear it because of societal pressures although she may not wish to or that one would wear it in spite of cultural norms to pursue her own personal convictions.
What, then, becomes of a law that restricts the right to wear “ostentatious symbols of religion”, as such exists in France? After reading several articles and a book on this subject, I couldn’t help but wonder, who is right? Which belief holds precedence over the other? Is the desire to unify a secular country greater than the desire to express one’s religious affiliations? If an individual’s choice in clothes represents her choice in self-expression, her visible manifestation of her invisible qualities, is that a right to be protected or a privilege to be lost?
If we are what wear, then is such a law that restricts our ability to wear what we choose a law that denies our own intrinsic qualities as unique human beings?
—–
Gabby Park is a both a rationalist and an idealist, who occasionally wrestles with the understanding of deeper questions of human nature.
