Today, I looked into the eyes of a young teenage girl who has been living in incredible amounts of fear. She has fear of teenage boys and fear of her father.  Add the normal fear of peers at that age, and fear of adults not understanding her. This fear was so great that it was affecting all areas of her life. The only solution she could imagine was causing her self pain. This young girl recently crossed over from middle school age to high school age. 

It was so sad to hear how she was used by these older boys she knew took advantage of her physically, sexually and mentally. This happened a couple of years ago and she is just now coming forward to tell someone because of naïveté, lack of who she can trust, and fear of being in trouble, or even physically disciplined by her father, for what these boys did to her. She was unaware of what it was exactly that was happening to her just a couple of years ago, but has reached a point of understanding the seriousness and intensity of this incident that happened to her.

At the Sally Mann exhibit, I remember mentioning that this artist’s photographs were sensuous of her children, but not blatantly sexual. However, I cannot argue the eeriness and somewhat disturbing feel that the photographs posses. I also remember bringing up how it really challenges my thinking about at what age it is deemed “okay” and acceptable, or even expecting for one to be “sexual”.  Innocence seems to not be a valuable quality in our current culture. Once on is a “certain age” innocence is dismissed as a prude or unworthy virtue. So teenagers go to a staggering number of experiences through which they get rid of or “lose” it. The alarming thing is some lose this against their will!

I finally arrived at an answer for when one loses innocence. I cannot help but make the analogy of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden when they ate the apple from the tree of knowledge. It was then that it states, “his and her eyes were opened.” They were aware that there is good and evil, wrong and right, positive and negative. With this knowledge they were afraid and ran.  This concept of good and evil is not limited to Christianity. Most religions I am aware of are based on the constant search of good and evil and knowledge between those two forces. And the struggle and conflict that occurs to try to understand them.

Relating this back to a teenager, I feel that that story hold the answer to my question. It is when children are making that transition from childhood into adulthood, from innocent to aware. As a teenager, that is why it is so gosh darn awkward and scary. One now knows that there is good and bad, but they are trying to figure out what that means. What is right and what is wrong? Who are they? They are now trying to redefine not only themselves, but also life altogether and how they fit in it.

This poor girl is now realizing that what these boys did to her is not good, and it is not okay. She has lost her innocence because someone threatened her into thinking that she needs to do certain thing for guys in order to be desirable. What is even worse, she thinks it is still her fault and that this is “normal.”

Is there recognition that people can be sexual beings with out being sexual objects? That a person can be sexual and moral at the same time? Heck why is innocence frowned upon so much after that certain age? And most importantly, how are we raising children? Adults should not raise children they should raise adults.

While this young girl’s story is not my own, I do feel as though I can relate to her because I have unfortunately watched things like this happen to me friends and family. I feel in a lot of ways that I am very naive for my age sometimes. Not unwise, unintelligent, not stupid, but in an innocent nature. I feel that recent life events have proved to me that older people, namely men, have and can take advantage of me because of that quality. But it is looked upon as inexperienced. I find it sick that my life hard ships are what build my resume in credibility. The fact that I am measured by the number of and type of bad experience I have been through, is awful. My first impression that seems to be read is that I am innocent, which means people are very choosy of their language, conversation topics, and almost juvenile in their social interaction. But once I have shared a tough time, then it is suddenly okay to talk about other, more explicit topics.  Sure, there is no denying the relatabaility of experiences, but not all life experience has to be so negative in order to be valuable.  

The very fact that people preach about Sally Mann’s photographs being offensive, but people practically wish an extreme traumatic experience on their youth is absolutely unsettling to me. The fact that one needs to “grow thick skin” if they want to make it in this world, is sickening. This is one very strong reason that I would not want to have kids today, because I do not want my child lead by, or even in company of, the people who I have experienced (first hand or second hand through loved ones). 

what is the new black?

Last week I discussed two thoughts. One involved technology and the other roles for women. I have further thought about these topics this week because I have been more in tune to them while I have been out.

            I must first bring up the show that we went to as a class at the Hagedorn Foundation Gallery, titled A New Photograph. I know I shared a bit at the gallery, but I always feel that I am unable to clearly communicate my thoughts or reactions verbally. I think that I am making a point, but I do not really know if others are hearing that intended point. 

Upon previewing the exhibit, and reading Susan Sontag’s book for class, I just began thinking about painting and its history, its validity as an art form, and how it functions in today’s society.  Then I did the same for photography. It is interesting to me the way Sontag talks about painting. I feel that I can hear animosity in her words as she discusses the rivalry and distinct differences between the two forms of art. Without listing a list of pros and cons of each one, I just wanted to point out the obvious change of roles.

When painting began, it was heavily driven by the importance of documenting events, people and stories of land and culture. There was a need for it to look real. To replicate what the eye can actually see. It was needed to tell the story of the people and culture of the time so it could be remembered. After photography came along, this major role of painting became unimportant. The technological advancement for this time, the photograph, took away that need for a person to replicate the ‘real’. Photographic process made it quicker and more accurately ‘real’. 

            After this, painting became abstract and about feelings, thoughts, and concepts, etc. freeing a painting to become more in depth than just a study. In present day, (my impression of people I have met) painting seems to be in a state of confusion, having an identity crisis of sorts with what its function is today accompanied by fear that the art may have reached the dreaded, dead state. Losing its throne of ‘high art’ to not a relevant art form at all.

            Photography came along not only as technology, but also as an art form. Granted, it did struggle for a bit in time to reach a level at which it was taken seriously.  I found it equally as interesting in the book Looking at Photographs that photography as a process was solely for the inventor to operate.  The technician, scientist himself was the one to operate his invention. Today, I feel that a “photographer” has the demands to be a great technician, inventor, and artist all at the same time. Talk about roles.

            This leads me to my point that connects all this background knowledge together. Where are the boundaries between art forms? Dare I suggest that the contemporary view of painting has made way into the technological realm and that paintings can be made with computers and/or machines? Is photography the new painting? Is design the new drawing?  Is architecture the new sculpture?

How do line, color, composition work differently to be able to have all these subcategories of  ‘art’. What makes one higher than the other?

acquisition and observation

This week, there are many things I could blog about, mid term critiques, the opening show of "Sex Drive" at the Atlanta Contemporary Art Center and open studios Friday night which our professor, Forest, was part of. But I will continue with my theme of acquisition and observation.  There was one statement in particular that Forest mentioned during the first couple of class periods that has stuck with me and I have continued to ponder. We were talking about the blogs for class and personal websites. Then Forest mentioned someone he knows that will not consider anyone's work or look at their portfolio if they did not have their own personal website; Because if they did not have their own site, then they do no take themselves or their career seriously, so why should he. I do not want to misquote but this is the essence of the statement that stuck with me. To me, I thought that was not a fair accusation. Why should I be forced to participate in this technology ------ in order to be taken seriously? To me there is a lot more that goes into being "professional" than a silly site that all I do is sit on by lazy butt and update the world (who really doesn't care about me), about myself, my day, my pretty pictures, blah blah blah. Now, I realize that this statement seems really 'old' coming from somebody my age. I mean really, I am in my twenties, young, and consumed by social media....well, should be.But I feel that social media is what it is ...social...it should be social....optional....
Today, I feel the pressure to not only have multiple talents, roles, abilities, but to have them in many different places. I feel constantly burdened by upholding facades for me, my family, the live public, and also now this alternate reality, webspace. The pictures I show of my self have to be of upmost quality, showing all my best attributes. The images and texts need to be flawlessly exhibited to show my education and competence. When I am out amongst live people, the clothes I wear, my language, my body language all have to be in tip top shape. I have to "look" good in the eyes of all who see me, live or online. 
      I know this sounds 'old fashioned' for a late twenty somethings to talk about. But it just adds to my personal confusion of roles and more specifically, my roles in life. My grandpappy taught me when I was very young the difference between vanity and taking pride in ones appearance. When you take pride in your appearance, one is taking pride in themselves. When one becomes vain, then one is so focused on themselves to the point of obsession. 
     I wonder if this online identity is pride or vanity in oneself?


     I realized that this is related to my work theme. From my point of view, there is the constant pressure on (young people in general) to move away from where you grew up and become 'successful' and 'educated' and make everyone 'proud'.  Now from my female perspective things get even more complicated. I could aspire to become 'successful' by living a high paced 'business' type work life, making money, wearing expensive clothes, and enjoying life in the city. Or I could find the love of my life, get married, move away, have children, be a mother, stay at home, take them to activities, etc. 
     I have noticed that this is a major debate on current talk shows. the polar debate of whether women should be working or stay at home. Both sides of the debate get pretty heated. 
     I do not know why I thought that I would be some magical exception to this issue. That I would be able to just live gloriously in the middle ground of these lifestyles, please all parties, and be happy. Maybe I was extremely naive or just plain clueless. I genuinely thought that I would be able to find what is is that I want to do, do it well, and it would make me happy in return. 
    Instead, I am realizing a lot of different interests that are all so vastly different, ones that do not seemingly fit together in one person's life. I have some people that try to talk me down from seemingly 'far fetched' dreams to more 'practical' and 'sensible' choices.  then I have other parties scolding me for my low standard work ethic, and want to push me to do MORE with my life. 
    Where is this happy medium that I was so certain I would not only find, but create?
     What is a girl to do?
     I have seen the patterns over history and generations ago of "the ideal woman." Granted I, like everyone, have very unique filters through which I have learned about and been taught to behave, act, dress, appear, etc. But because they are so deeply ingrained in me, those measuring standards are hard to let go of. Instead, the "ideal" standards are added to. There is the older standard that women such as Cindy Sherman and women of her time faced to change to the 'new woman'. The 'new woman' has now evolved into 'the modern woman'.   The Modern Woman seems to be able to live her life in balance of family, work, friends, social, pleasure, etc. And in that order. But who exactly is the role model for this? When women become too 'successful', she is scolded for not being a good mom, or wife. So we are still contradicting our own societal standards! Not just changing, contradicting! 
      My mother is an example of a woman who has lived through decades of evolving women. Born in the 50’s she has seen the ‘Mrs. Cleaver’ woman, ‘That Girl’, ‘Mary-Tyler Moore’, fast forward to now. Which reiterates the question, who is the modern woman?
     For me, both in real life and in my quarter's work, the challenge I feel is which standards of ideal woman do I hold on to, and which ones do I let evolve into the modern woman?

 

   

chicago weekend

This weekend, I went to Chicago for my best friend’s wedding. It was absolutely gorgeous weather, nearly 80 degrees the whole weekend. Saturday, I went into the city with my husband to celebrate my birthday! Woo! It was very busy. Crowds everywhere.  My husband took me out to dinner at the Signature Room on the 95^th. This is a very nice restaurant located in the Hancock building where you can sit in the dining room, or the lounge and overlook the city of Chicago. Lake Superior is right outside as well. The view is spectacular!  It was a good evening.

            When I mention that I am from Illinois, people normally have this programmed response, “Chicago!!! Oh I love Chicago!”  Then I have to go back and wordily clarify that I was raised in southern Illinois, not Chicago, and that they are very different. Where I come from there is coal, tire factories, corn, soybeans, farmland, bon fires, four seasons to the year, etc. But then smile and simply say, “But yes, Chicago is a fun city.” All the while not understanding all the hype. EVERYONE LOVES CHICAGO. What is it about this city that seems to get a unanimous vote of approval? It is very cold and windy in the wintertime, which never seems to bother people who desire to visit or live in this city.

            After leaving the small, horticulture rich, mid-western town I grew up in, I wanted to head to the “big city”. I chose Atlanta for a variety of reasons.  The first set of reasons involves family ties.  I was born in Albany Georgia, where my mother moved after being born and raised in Jacksonville Florida; where her parent (my grandparents) still reside.  My mother’s brother and his family live in Savannah, Georgia. I knew I wanted to live young and independently like my mom did. The south made sense to me. The warm weather accompanied by blue skies is a perk. The vague idealized thought in my mind of being a part of busy activity, being successful, living at a fast pace, was always exciting for me. I knew the school I wanted to attend (SCAD). So Atlanta made the most sense.  However, Atlanta, doesn’t receive the same raving reviews as Chicago does.  Not even from me.

            What is this likability? Even after visiting Chicago prior to this weekend, I never grasped what it was that everyone so raved about. But this time, I realized that one afternoon/evening was not even enough.  The city is so big!! It is impressive; breathtaking…literally with the wind….and it is beautiful. It is how a city should feel. Now I am not a world traveler, and I speak only from ideals in my own mind, but Chicago is in fact a fantastic city. But then I question if that is a lasting fact, an acquired fact, or a true fact.  Do the people who live in Chicago see the city as intriguing as the visiting tourists?  Is the Chicago love a lasting love, or does its charm fade over time?           

             These two worlds that I have in my life are ones that I would like to include in my work right now. The vast differences between rural and urban; country and city; nature and industry; my roots and my future. There seems to be an internal battle between this little country girl and the sophisticated city gal. Both of these roles are ones that I think should both share a part of who I am. But how do they fit together, and where?

FLUX 2011

      This weekend was the Flux event down in the Castleberry district.  This year I really cued in to the question, who is my audience when I do work? I realized that FLUX brings a different crowd than does the gallery or museum. I have always envisioned my work to be in a gallery. This is not to say that I am against the atmosphere that FLUX and the like events bring to art scene, it is just a different one. But for whatever reason, it clicked for me that this is another option for work to exist...or is it?
     My husband asked me if gallery owners came to events like Flux to look for artists and their work to show in their spaces...and I did not know for sure. Is FLUX strictly for the atmosphere and/ or the experience? Or, is it a place where artists become discovered or known? Is the art there good work? Or is it just the popular culture version of the art scene. (Like music has).
    This question made me remember contemporary art history class and how this was asked several decades ago when the "pop artists" were reinventing the face of art and how it is known.
      But what makes something a work of "art"?  Is it the work itself?
     To be specific, the acrobats at FLUX that were working the silk and other apparatuses.  I enjoyed their performances; they require much skill, precision, practice, and physical fitness. I know this because I am a gymnast. I have been since I was young.
     For a while, I wanted to use this background in gymnastics as subject in my work in painting. But I struggled because I was unclear of a few things. I wanted to use gymnastics as an influence....so I used paint to document my movement, both on my body and with my body. The results were colorful, active paintings.      But I think that gymnastics itself, when being performed in a gymnasium is art. The way the body moves, the energy that is created, the way the body contorts to make beautiful lines and shapes is incredibly moving to me. I love performing in that way. So similar "art" forms of movement also interest me. In this case, the acrobatics act at FLUX.   But these routines are the same ones performed in a circus environment....not an art gallery. So is this circus "act" now considered "art" simply because we took it out of a tent and placed it in the art event outside? Does it maintain credibility to the audience outside of its usual context? Does it gain it?
If I was to bring gymnastics to a gallery, or a SCAD critique, would that count as art? Or can it be esteemed as "art" in it's conditioned setting?
     I am simply going by stream of consciousness here, but these questions are ones I have been thinking on since Friday evening. What is "Art"?  Can "art" have multiple settings?  Who is my audience?