Today I read this post on “Native American” style, titled cleverly “Feathers and Fashion: Native American is In Style,” inspired by Native Appropriations’ Tribal Fashion Roundup!. I found that after reading the authors’ opinions, followed by seemingly endless reader comments, I’ve little to suggest that wouldn’t be a summary, paraphrase, or quote of one of the others. That being said, I must begin by pointing out, like some of the commenters, that I’m not Native, and, therefore, am merely voicing my opinion as an outsider.

First and foremost, let’s take a look at the hipster headdress. Check out the examples given in “Feathers in Fashion.” We’ve got Bat for Lashes wearing three different headdresses on three separate occasions (and looking rather sickly, I might add). When I saw Devendra Banhart at the Ark, he was also wearing a headdress. And guess what the girl next to me at last May’s Animal Collective show in Royal Oak was wearing. What’s more, Adrienne at Native Appropriations posted that Ke$ha (I still don’t know who the hell she is) wore one on a TV performance recently as well. I could additionally reference a few Facebook friends, but I’ll be a champ and spare them.

There’s absolutely nothing okay about this trend. It’s not ironic, it’s not chic, and it’s certainly not cultural. The headdress is a generalized, Hollywood “Injun” stereotype – a trend, if you will, that’s lasted over fifty years. It was wrong then, and it’s still wrong now. Same goes for smearing war paint on your face and exclaiming “How!” and “Make big chief heap glad!” It’s not even so much because it’s offensive. Of course, by no means are hoards of young, hip, credit card kids armed with cheap 40’s and menthol cigarettes donning supposedly prestigious, culturally meaningful regalia likely flattering to people of Native American descent. But really – are these flakes worth getting all hot and bothered over?

My opinion is: no. Because, like the big, floppy headdress that matches perfectly with your new, Urban Outfitters sundress, ignorance is no new trend. American magazines may publish Native American-inspired garb under “global” trend sections (to which Adrienne comments “Native American trends are ‘global’ – um, you can’t get more American than the styles of the original peoples in the US..”) People may charge $185 for a dead coyote to wear on your head as a fashion statement (I love roadkill AND the Great Spirit?) Not to say some people aren’t offended – it’s definitely apparent in the posts’ feedback – but I’ve got a hunch that the hundreds of years of broken promises, stolen homelands, trails of tears, and more or less genocide at assimilative boarding schools are probably a bit more offensive than lame hipsters wearing headdresses. No, it’s cool, it’s not like your ancestors killed them all or anything-” (or your university possesses their grandparents in cardboard boxes). Choosing to wear these items out to a party leaves you looking foolish, no matter your intentions. Regardless of whether or not you’re offending someone of Native origin, you’re offending yourself.

Peace,
Molly

P.S. I’m not ordering anyone to toss their moccasins or never touch a feather again. Just leave the headdresses at home. Please.

Molly Ann Blakowski majors in English and jumps in puddles

For my last entry of the year I’ve decided to switch it up. That’s right, no more random music reviews, musings on movies, or token commentaries on university policies.  This blog post is going to be different (it will actually be about art!).  This post is going to be about one of my favorite (lesser known) painters, Thomas Chimes.

Thomas Chimes was one of the most influential artists in the greater Philadelphia area during the 20^th century. Inspired by such artists and literary figures as James Joyce, Matisse, and Vincent van Gogh, Chimes was an integral player in the Abstract Expressionist Movement. Although Chimes is probably most famously known for his portraits of 19^th/20^th poets, writers, and artists, one of his most intriguing works (at least in my opinion) was his series entitled “White Paintings.”

These paintings, fashioned by Chimes later on in his life, are said to be reflections of his own personal traumas (i.e. his separation from his wife). The images depicted are whitewashed to a point where it seems as if you are looking into the depths of human memory through a dense fog. In order to create this effect Chimes applied color pigments onto a white canvas and then wiped away the paint so a faint outline of the intended figure.

Personally, I love this portion of Chimes’ works because it is so completely different from anything else that was being produced at the time. Also, on a more practical note, looking at these images is extremely calming so definitely check them out if you are feeling stressed about finals.

Here is a link with a few sample paintings from the series: http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/2007/107.html?page=3

Hope you guys enjoy Chimes’ stuff and let me know what you think. It’s been really fun sharing my random thoughts with you guys. Good luck with finals and hope everyone has a fantastic summer 🙂

I want to introduce you all to the great Dr. McNinja. The greatest doctor ever known to man. He’s got 23 degrees, including farming, and his best friend is a clone of Ben Franklin. His hero is Batman, when ever he’s stuck on a mission such as taking care of zombies or vampires on Mars Indiana Jones style, he always asks ‘what would Batman do?’ The answer is usually to bring the action to the badie and destroy him with either your pet raptor or a motorcycle that in a previous life had been a magical unicorn. But that’s all in between seeing his patients.  Considering that his office gets attacked at least once a story and that his secretary is a gorilla named Judy, for him to even have regular patients is a great testament to his doctoring skills.

Sadly his parents do not like his career choice.  Who ever heard of a ninja who took off to be a doctor?  They’re supposed to kill pirates! And the occasional person if the job demands it.  Either way, a ninja is not supposed to heal.  His parents (especially his mother who specializes in explosions) make their displeasure known by booby-trapping the family home every time he comes for a visit.  They get pretty peeved when the traps don’t work as they should because just because he’s a doctor now does not mean that his skills are rusty.

The good doctor usually has help for the missions that he gets wrapped in.  I’ve already mentioned Judy.  She’s all muscle and even McNinja has learned to not take her hot dogs.  And then there is Gordito.  His father was part of a raptor riding gang McNinja took down, but the 12 year old boy stayed put.  He grew a fantastic mustache out of pure will; there was no way McNinja could have gotten rid of him.  Ben Franklin helps on occasion too, helping out with the sciency stuff as it appears and his family will grudgingly help out if they have no other missions lined up at the moment.  Stay away from Dad McNinja if he’s in a interninja fight.  He came to the conclusion that ninjas tend to avoid things that are on fire (must be all the light that leaves them very little shadows to hide in) and thus lights himself on fire to fight them.  I have no idea how he’s managed to survive this far.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja is an amazing web comic, which means you can read it for free.  Updates every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  I’m going to advise that you wait until after exams to starting reading however because there is no way you’ll want to stop once you start.  It’s a radical ride that keeps you on your toes with absurd plot twists and quite easily convinces you it is the best thing in the world.  Ready to start with issue one?  Click here then to start the first adventure of Dr. McNinja vs Ronald McDonald, who is not all that he seems to be.

Simply put, Dr. McNinja is the best thing out there.  Who else would save you from this?

Your ninja loving blogger,

Jenny

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.                         

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.

I had made my first traverse through the Matthaei Botanical gardens. I picked up some chamomile on the way and rubbed it in my palms until it was just dust, tiny specks that fell away on the ground as I walked, but as they left, they generously left their scent for memory’s sake. A kaleidoscope was situated in an open area, pointed at a handsome pot of purple velvet plants, whose name now escapes me. The apparatus had been set up to spin (to accommodate to our visual necessity for constant stimuli change – if our eyes don’t move, the nerves get exhausted – bored of sending their chemical signals and it disappears from our mental projections.) Not one moment had been preceded by the last – every second a fresh burst of novelty, of colors and geometry sliding in for a brief second to visit, and then conceding to the next image waiting in the wings.

I ended up leaving to go sit by a bank of a small river, wrote as I listened to the trickling of water around fallen branches that were still connected to their trunks connected to the ground. They were leaning into the water, fallen almost too dramatically, too tragically into the swirling cold. But the ebb of water desires to follow its own path (traveling south, that is, behind me relative to how I was situated); they collided into the fallen natural debris and then, realizing they had been struck, rushed around corners and rocks. Their rippling was initially almost undetectable, but as more time passed, the louder, the more excited the sound grew – I could almost see it quivering. The sound grew as organic and natural as a spear of grass piercing out of the earth.

Spring is here, and I urge you all to take a walk through some brambles, breathe in some clean air, and feel the reanimation of a million lives from slumber.

Sue majors in Neuroscience & English and tends to lurk in bookstores.

Marrying ideas of statistical analysis and museum studies, I would like to propose an experiment.  I hope to work in museum education in my future, so to get the ball rolling I will start hypothesizing now.

The present museum’s status quo of label design is an easily visible label tattooed next to the artifact.  The label usually contains roughly 300 words and articulates a particular message about the piece.  It will tell you when the artifact was made, the artist, its significance, and an interpretation of the work.  This is a pretty standard label.

What I would like to question is what if that label was removed all together?  What would happen to the exhibit?  What would be lost and/or gained?

Coming from an educational standpoint I am interested in testing the status quo in order to find new possibilities and perspectives.  On average, people spend 30 seconds or less reading a wall label.  This is not a lot of time to retain information.  I see the educational benefits for wall labels and I am not saying we should omit them from museums, but I would like to test the effects of a wall less exhibit.  What could be learned from them?

Not having conducted this test, I will make up a set of hypothesized results.  I think people will gain a sense of independence and agency while walking through the exhibit.  They will interpret, imagine, and wonder instead of being instructed.  The experience will be like entering a fantasy world.  Furthermore, individual interpretations could and very well would lead to varying perspectives, offering different vantage points and new categories for meaning.  The artifacts would enter a new realm of thought.  The possibilities are endless because the amount of traffic is such.

The modern museum has taken on the role of education and entertainment.  An exhibit surrounded by freedom of thought and interpretation would facilitate wonder and self-expressionism.  Isn’t that what art’s all about?

Have a good weekend!

Sara majors in Art History and enjoys long walks.