Our library days have been touch and go for the last while, with too many things taking precedent. We've been managing to get back into them again. Eldest in particular has been going more often, as it's where Raider King's bus stop is, and he's as much a bibliophile as she is. :-D
So here's a look at some of the stuff we've got right now (though Eldest did return a bunch of stuff today while picking up her holds).
Film & Video Budgets: Eldest got this one, as she and Raider King are planning to make a video.
Semantic Antics - How and Why Words Change Meaning: One of Eldest's choices, and quite interestings food for discussion. Did you know, for example, that the word "meat" used to mean all foods, not just animal flesh?
Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis: one of many dvd's Eldest has been taking out and watching with Raider King.
Argumentaion - The Study of Effective Reasoning: This is one of those course lectures on cd. Another she just returned was Creating Humans - Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide. This is what Eldest listens to while playing WoW in the mornings.
Damp Squid - The English Language Laid Bare
Seeing Salvation: images of Christ in Art
The Arts of China
The above three are also Eldest's choices, though I don't know that she's have much chance to look at them yet. Some more recent additions to her pile are:
Leonardo's Lost Robots
Maybe I'm Dreaming (cd)
Ocean Eyes (cd)
Castle in the Sky (dvd)
Princess Mononoke (dvd)
Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (dvd)
Paprika (dvd)
Them (dvd)
Fallen Angels (cd)
Robinson Crusoe on Mars (dvd)
The History of the English Language (cd set of lectures, part 1)
Youngest has finally started to take more stuff out again, mostly with dvds. Here are her current selections.
books:
The Annotated Brothers Grimm : She's taken this one out a few times now.
The Saga of the Volsungs - The Norse Epic of Sigurd the Dragon Slayer
Sundays With Vlad - from Pennsylvania to Transylvania, One Man's Quest to Live in the World of the Undead (we've actually taken that one out several times)
dvds:
The Professionals
Nothing to Lose
Midsomer Murders - set twelve
Get Carter
Agatha Christie, Miss Marple, Series 4 Volumes 1 (Pocket Full of Rye) and 2 (Murder is Easy)
As for myself, I got tired of going through the craft section and only seeing books I've taken out several times already. Instead, I went searching and put a bunch of stuff on hold. This is what's come in so far.
Sexy Little Knits - Chic Designs to Knit and Crochet: I'm afraid we got this more for amusement then anything else. Like the fuzzy underpants with caterpillar thingies on the butt.
Party Crochet - 24 Hot Designs to get you in the Party Mood: This one I've actually taken out before, but quite a long time ago. I wanted to revisit it. There isn't much I'd actually make in there, but I do like almost all of the designs.
Lost Crafts - Rediscovering Traditional Skills. I'm actually kind of disappointed with this one. I'm always on the look out for new crafts to learn, and picking up older, traditional crafts greatly interests me. The title is a bit of a misnomer. I'd never thought of "farming" as a craft before, nor did I expect things like stone walls. It's interesting, but you're not going to actually learn how to do many of the crafts and skills from it. Not enough information, I found.
Glorious Crocheted Sweaters. This one was a pleasant surprise! While I'm not to keen on some of the patterns and colours, it's got more to do with my personal preference for solids and textures over multi-colours in funky shapes and patterns.
The Simple Art of Japanese Temari - 45 Traditional and Contemporary Designs. There aren't a lot of temari books in the library system, so I was glad to find this slender book. I'm thinking I need to start doing temari again. It's quite fun.
The French Chef 2. I actually found this one by accident. I've recently read Julie Child's My Life in France and really enjoyed it. Of course, I've heard plenty about her show, but had never actually seen it before. What a hoot! It would never make it on the air today, and that's a shame. We could use more geese trussed with knitting needles, suckling pigs closed up with 2 inch finishing nails, giant hunks of swordfish below a mallet, cleaver and hacksaw wielding Julie Child, and demonstrations on how to flay a duck and using the skin to make a pate. Gosh, what fun to watch! I think I'm going to renew it, as I've yet to watch the 3rd disc. Then I want to find out how many other sets are in the series and put them on hold.
Scared Sacred - Unwrap the Darkness, Reveal the Light. This one piqued my interest when the description talked about how people turn sites of mass tragedy into sacred spaces. It was filmed over 5 years, in the middle of which 9/11 happened. Considering recent controversies about the "Ground Zero Mosque" and people mocking those who oppose it for considering the space sacred, I thought it worth checking out. I watched about half of it before I had to stop it to do something else, and I've got no desire to go back to it. The topic is interesting, but the narration of the guy who did it was driving me nuts. The video wasn't about the any of these sacred places and the horrors that happened there. It was all about him and his personal, self-indulgent journey. I didn't want to hear how these places make *him* feel or what *he* thinks about them. What little he covered about these places and the people affected by them still managed to be more about him then about them. Totally self-aborbed and annoying.
Well, I think I've got most of what we have right now listed. I'm pretty sure I've missed a few things, though.
Oh, well. Tomorrow is library day. It's probably all going to change, anyhow.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
A quick catch up
It's been a while since I've updated here, but it's not for lack of activity. Unfortunately, I've only got about a 20 minute window to write. I figure I'd better do it now, because I don't know when I'll get 20 uninterrupted minutes again next. LOL
The biggest change for us lately is that Eldest's best friend, the Raider King, has moved back to our city. He's 18 now and can live where he wants, and this is where he's chosen to be. He's living with another friend while he looks for a job. Eldest is job hunting with him. At the same time, they've been taking every chance they can to spend time together. As I write this, they are exploring our river valley, where Eldest is taking still photos that will be used for a stop motion movie she's working on. She has to get them done before the seasons change too far. They've also put together the post-apocalyptic costumes they've been working on for the past (three?) years and gone out in public. It's been a hoot. The reactions have been interesting. Mostly, it's people avoiding looking at them at all. The reactions from children have been overwhelmingly positive. One guy driving by in a car yelled out "nice mask, fa***t" at Raider King (who's costume includes a real gas mask), then actually turned his car around so he could drive by and yell the same thing again.
Perhaps most amusing of all is the number of people approaching them for mundane things, like asking directions, or striking up conversations. Totally unexpected.
With the new school year kicking in, we need to put together an education plan for the girls. For Eldest, this is going to involve preparing her for independent living; putting together a resume, applying for jobs, and eventually getting her own apartment (she and Raider King plan to share an apartment to cut costs), and all the things that she'll need to know to live on her own and support herself. *sigh* This will be on top of her usual studies, which she is in complete control of. The variety of subject matter and the depth of her research is far greater than anything I would have come up with, so I just let her do her thing in those regards.
Youngest is getting restless. She wants to go into mechanics of some kind, but I don't know how to facilitate that yet. We're also going to be looking at riding lessons for her, but that'll just be one month of lessons, not the whole year. We're also looking into the possibility of her taking one of the online courses available through our school board, on one of her favorite topics, Fables and Fairy tales. I still need to look into that.
However, my 20 minutes is up. Time to let Youngest have the computer while I start on supper.
The biggest change for us lately is that Eldest's best friend, the Raider King, has moved back to our city. He's 18 now and can live where he wants, and this is where he's chosen to be. He's living with another friend while he looks for a job. Eldest is job hunting with him. At the same time, they've been taking every chance they can to spend time together. As I write this, they are exploring our river valley, where Eldest is taking still photos that will be used for a stop motion movie she's working on. She has to get them done before the seasons change too far. They've also put together the post-apocalyptic costumes they've been working on for the past (three?) years and gone out in public. It's been a hoot. The reactions have been interesting. Mostly, it's people avoiding looking at them at all. The reactions from children have been overwhelmingly positive. One guy driving by in a car yelled out "nice mask, fa***t" at Raider King (who's costume includes a real gas mask), then actually turned his car around so he could drive by and yell the same thing again.
Perhaps most amusing of all is the number of people approaching them for mundane things, like asking directions, or striking up conversations. Totally unexpected.
With the new school year kicking in, we need to put together an education plan for the girls. For Eldest, this is going to involve preparing her for independent living; putting together a resume, applying for jobs, and eventually getting her own apartment (she and Raider King plan to share an apartment to cut costs), and all the things that she'll need to know to live on her own and support herself. *sigh* This will be on top of her usual studies, which she is in complete control of. The variety of subject matter and the depth of her research is far greater than anything I would have come up with, so I just let her do her thing in those regards.
Youngest is getting restless. She wants to go into mechanics of some kind, but I don't know how to facilitate that yet. We're also going to be looking at riding lessons for her, but that'll just be one month of lessons, not the whole year. We're also looking into the possibility of her taking one of the online courses available through our school board, on one of her favorite topics, Fables and Fairy tales. I still need to look into that.
However, my 20 minutes is up. Time to let Youngest have the computer while I start on supper.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
(Not) Back to School
Well, it's official. At least it is for most of the local schools. The kiddies are back in school - just in time for the long weekend. Actually, at least one local school started their year over a week before anyone else.
For us, it was our annual Not Back to School Picnic. While other kids were getting up early, backing their bags and heading for the classroom, we headed out to a park, pita wedges and hummus in tow (both store bought), where we met up with a whole bunch of other families. Everyone brought snacks to share; store bought cookies and home made, fresh fruit and raw veggie trays to brownies and peanut butter squares, and plenty more. The kids ran around, climbing trees, using the play structures and checking out the huge jackrabbit that paid us a visit. The ground hog seems to be done, though, the opening to its den now blocked by a burdock plant.
My own kids were among those visiting the riverbank and came back with thoroughly muddy boots. Youngest got mud up to her knees. Today she spent her time scraping off the dried mud, washing, the spit shining her boots. Both my kids enjoy polishing their boots, but Eldest is keeping hers muddy for now, in keeping with a costume she's working on.
Our focus for this year is going to be different than any other. Eldest's best friend has moved back to the city, and they've been having a blast. They're both working on costumes and plan to do a film. They're also both job hunting, and eventually plan to share an apartment, since that's about the only way anyone just starting out can afford one out here. *sigh*
Youngest wants to go into mechanics this year, but I'm at a loss as to how to go about that. Hopefully we can find something for her. Meanwhile, if her goal to be a mechanic doesn't pan out, there's still her back up plan of becoming a singer. She's still got a few years to work things out, though.
It should be interesting to see how things work out this year.
For us, it was our annual Not Back to School Picnic. While other kids were getting up early, backing their bags and heading for the classroom, we headed out to a park, pita wedges and hummus in tow (both store bought), where we met up with a whole bunch of other families. Everyone brought snacks to share; store bought cookies and home made, fresh fruit and raw veggie trays to brownies and peanut butter squares, and plenty more. The kids ran around, climbing trees, using the play structures and checking out the huge jackrabbit that paid us a visit. The ground hog seems to be done, though, the opening to its den now blocked by a burdock plant.
My own kids were among those visiting the riverbank and came back with thoroughly muddy boots. Youngest got mud up to her knees. Today she spent her time scraping off the dried mud, washing, the spit shining her boots. Both my kids enjoy polishing their boots, but Eldest is keeping hers muddy for now, in keeping with a costume she's working on.
Our focus for this year is going to be different than any other. Eldest's best friend has moved back to the city, and they've been having a blast. They're both working on costumes and plan to do a film. They're also both job hunting, and eventually plan to share an apartment, since that's about the only way anyone just starting out can afford one out here. *sigh*
Youngest wants to go into mechanics this year, but I'm at a loss as to how to go about that. Hopefully we can find something for her. Meanwhile, if her goal to be a mechanic doesn't pan out, there's still her back up plan of becoming a singer. She's still got a few years to work things out, though.
It should be interesting to see how things work out this year.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
In the Eye of the Beholder
Y'know, I have a real love/hate thing when it comes to art.
Okay. Hate may be too strong of a word. How 'bout irritation? Frustration? Exasperation?
I enjoy art. I appreciate art. One of the things I love about our city is the large amounts of public art scattered all over the place, sometimes in unexpected places. I may not actually like an individual piece, but I like that it's there. I think art is a vital part of culture, and that it's a good thing for everyone, even the "non-artistic" to dabble in the sheer creativity of making art. Art can be fun, thoughtful, lively, morose, silly, deep, and a whole bunch of other things. Two people can look at the same piece of art and perceive it in totally different ways. Ten people can look at the same piece of art and perceive it in as many different ways. In many ways, art is very subjective.
What, however, makes art good? Sometimes the better question is, "is this art at all?" In a country that spends billions of federal dollars on art, on top of the money spent by provincial and municipal governments, I think that's a valid question. If someone creates a piece of art and can find someone to buy it, more power to them, but if the art in question is being pair for with our tax dollars, I think the definition needs to be a bit more limited. Finding out that some guy calling vials of his own semen "art" was given a grant to do it - essentially being paid taxpayers' money to wank off into containers - bothers more than a few people.
There's the rub that I have with the art community. It sometimes seems as if the less likely the general public would like it, the more likely it's being marketed as being "artistic" (as if art was something we plebeians are just too low to be able to get), the artists more "daring," and therefore they must be supported by grants. Lord knows, they wouldn't be able to make a living off their work any other way.
A couple of days ago, Youngest and I took in the local art gallery. Usually, we enjoy the many small (often free) galleries and displays around our city featuring local artists, but this is THE art gallery for our city. The first time we went to it, it was just before the building was mostly demolished and rebuilt (the city insisted part of the building be kept and "recycled," even though doing so was actually more expensive and wasteful... but hey, no one asks the demolitions and construction crews their opinion on the subject). They had an open free for all, where local artists were invited to send in their work for display, which was then made available to the public for viewing for free. Eldest had some of her early work in there, as did a friend of hers. It was pretty fantastic, actually. Some pieces did seem to be made by people who thought they had more skill or talent then they actually had, but the vast majority of art was really excellent. We live in a city full of talent.
The gallery is open again and has one free admissions day a month, so we went to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, when we got there, we discovered the free admission was only during the last 3 hours of their day. So we paid, and I found that the admission rate was quite a bit higher than before they rebuilt. Oh, well. The new building might look like a giant potato chip, but it's a very lovely potato chip. ;-) I think they got their money's worth.
Anyhow. Off we went. There were quite a number of galleries on several floors. One consisted of mostly oil paintings of landscapes, many in tacky, ornate frames. At least we're told some of them were landscapes. Some of them were... pretty abstract, to say the least. Without a sign telling me, I would never have thought that that's what they were.
Here's where things got rather amusing. As we wandered around, we'd come upon some paintings and be rather perplexed as to why it was there. They looked like paint-by-number pieces, or finger paintings done by children. Then we'd read the plaque and discover they were actually Group of Seven. I admit that oil is not my favorite medium when it comes to art, but I can still appreciate skill and talent when I see it. At least I thought I could. These didn't seem to display either, but they're considered high art and the epitome of Canadian art in particular. Exploring why that is would make for an interesting discussion. Another less than stellar example of art turned out to be an Emily Carr piece. Having lived on the West Coast for so long, I knew who she was, but I can't say I like her work all that much. Each to their own. This sort of thing is a matter of personal taste, but the pieces are still clearly art.
Then is was off to a different gallery. The next one we visited was an M. C. Escher display. Now that's art I really enjoy! Not only are the subjects fascinating to look at and the skill required to produce them amazing, they required a fantastic mind just to conceive of these pieces, then plan and execute those ideas to produce images that look like they should exist, but can't. I look at those and, not only am I impressed by the art itself, but I find a strong desire to get to know the mind behind it.
While we were in this gallery, however, we caught up with a guided tour. It was a very small group, and the facilitator was trying to engage them at least somewhat interactively. I don't remember the exact words she used as she spoke, but several times she's say something that had Youngest and I looking at each other in amazement. Not because she'd revealed some spectacular piece of information about any particular piece, but because of the "dumbed down" language and phrasing she used. In trying to get people to talk, she asked what should have been a simple question ("why do you think Escher used colour in this piece?") that got no response. Had we been in the group, we wouldn't have responded, either. I would have been too busy wondering if it was a trick question or something. Was there some sort of symbolism I was missing? Some deeper meaning that we hadn't grasped? Nope. The answer was, "so you could see it [the details] better."
Hmmm.
More wandering around. The new building itself is a work of art, with the potato chip shapes continued inside. Quite striking, really.
Along the way, there were a number of sculptural pieces and some... others. As we approached one piece, Youngest commented that the shapes hanging from the ceiling and knotted on the floor looked like intestines. Intestines made out of someones drapes. Which turned out to be pretty much exactly what they were, except it was upholstery fabric, not drapes. It was a huge piece, too. Another consisted of a long wooden pole with wooden handles hammered into it, like some sort of hedgehog. Two other displayed consisted of glass rods that looked like those bamboo garden stakes at the hardware store, in bundles and leaning against the wall.
A couple of displays were behind black out curtains. One was supposedly a recreation, of sorts, of the artist's bedroom, except it was an almost empty room with some sheets and pillows on the floor, and their weird two-headed creature covered in black flowers coming through a pair of blackout curtains that made up one of the walls. Off to the side was an opening that was supposed to be a closet with some long underwear hanging in it. The write up claimed the long underwear (hand made by the artist) could be viewed as any number of things, including sacred robes.
Uhm... no. There was nothing robe like about them. They looked like somebody's full-body undies.
There was one display behind a blackout curtain we skipped. A video presentation, a quick glance through the curtain at the screen had me dropping it and continuing on my way. I'm rather open with my kids about sexual themes, but some things I'm not about to drag my daughter through. The mom with a 5 or 6 yr old caught a bit of a view through the curtain as I looked, too, and she was quick to steer her daughter away, too. Funny thing is, I'm not even sure exactly what I saw, other than it involved the sex act. At least I hope that's what I saw.
One piece had us standing and staring for a while. We must have looked pretty confused or something, as one of the security staff came over and gave me a brochure describing the displays. The images being projected onto the wall that make me think of my old Spirograph game turned out to be imagery of the brains of the 2 artists who made it, taken while they were sitting still, thinking, but not speaking. I was actually more impressed when I thought it was some sort of interactive lights display. The idea of medical technology being used to record the brains to two guys just sitting there seems so... pretentious to me.
Actually, that's a word that comes up an awful lot when I think of the "art community." Pretentious. If a piece is so confusing and obscure it has to be explained to the viewer, is it really art? When you're standing there, wondering if something is actually one of the gallery pieces, or if someone forgot their lunch on the counter, is it art? Is throwing in images or phrases that are insulting to Christianity enough to make something art? Are a bunch of photographs of different versions covering an entire wall art?
Some art is instantly recognisable as such, whether it's a bunch of metal pieces welded together, an eclectic variety of objects piled onto a shelf or an exquisite rendition of something that can't possibly exist in the real world. One doesn't have to actually like it to recognize it as art.
Other pieces, I just don't know if I'd be willing to call art. I recall one display I saw with the kids years ago. It was made up of shopping carts full of garbage. It was apparently some sort of commentary against consumerism and waste. Except it was still just a bunch of garbage in shopping carts. Other infamous displays I've heard of but, thankfully, have never seen include blenders with goldfish in them. Viewers were welcome to turn the blenders on and kill the fish inside. Another artist got in trouble because his "art" involved putting rats between two pieces of canvas, then dropping something from above to squish them flat. The artist claimed it was okay because the rats were instantly killed, but the animal rights folks were up in arms over it. The artist probably got more of a name for himself from the controversy than he ever got from his actual art.
So the question remains: what is art? Is it just stuff that we can hang on a wall or set on a pedestal? Or is it crucifixes in urine or squished rats? Is it just the pretty and safe things, or dehydrated fetuses turned into earrings? (gosh, that one was so long ago, I'd forgotten about it completely until now!) At what point does something cross the line from being art to being junk?
This is where the art community starts to irritate me. How does an artist or art critic get to a point where they don't consider something "art" unless it's obscure, offensive, bizarre or incomprehensible? I swear, some of these "artists" must just throw things together, make pretty speeches about how it "evokes" this and "represents" that, while in private they're just taking the grant money and laughing over what fools they're making of the hoity-toity set oohing and ahhing over their "work."
I do want to support local art and artists. I do appreciate the hard work and effort that can go into any individual piece.
But sometimes, I just wanna throw up my hands in exasperation over some of the things being passed as "art."
Okay. Hate may be too strong of a word. How 'bout irritation? Frustration? Exasperation?
I enjoy art. I appreciate art. One of the things I love about our city is the large amounts of public art scattered all over the place, sometimes in unexpected places. I may not actually like an individual piece, but I like that it's there. I think art is a vital part of culture, and that it's a good thing for everyone, even the "non-artistic" to dabble in the sheer creativity of making art. Art can be fun, thoughtful, lively, morose, silly, deep, and a whole bunch of other things. Two people can look at the same piece of art and perceive it in totally different ways. Ten people can look at the same piece of art and perceive it in as many different ways. In many ways, art is very subjective.
What, however, makes art good? Sometimes the better question is, "is this art at all?" In a country that spends billions of federal dollars on art, on top of the money spent by provincial and municipal governments, I think that's a valid question. If someone creates a piece of art and can find someone to buy it, more power to them, but if the art in question is being pair for with our tax dollars, I think the definition needs to be a bit more limited. Finding out that some guy calling vials of his own semen "art" was given a grant to do it - essentially being paid taxpayers' money to wank off into containers - bothers more than a few people.
There's the rub that I have with the art community. It sometimes seems as if the less likely the general public would like it, the more likely it's being marketed as being "artistic" (as if art was something we plebeians are just too low to be able to get), the artists more "daring," and therefore they must be supported by grants. Lord knows, they wouldn't be able to make a living off their work any other way.
A couple of days ago, Youngest and I took in the local art gallery. Usually, we enjoy the many small (often free) galleries and displays around our city featuring local artists, but this is THE art gallery for our city. The first time we went to it, it was just before the building was mostly demolished and rebuilt (the city insisted part of the building be kept and "recycled," even though doing so was actually more expensive and wasteful... but hey, no one asks the demolitions and construction crews their opinion on the subject). They had an open free for all, where local artists were invited to send in their work for display, which was then made available to the public for viewing for free. Eldest had some of her early work in there, as did a friend of hers. It was pretty fantastic, actually. Some pieces did seem to be made by people who thought they had more skill or talent then they actually had, but the vast majority of art was really excellent. We live in a city full of talent.
The gallery is open again and has one free admissions day a month, so we went to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, when we got there, we discovered the free admission was only during the last 3 hours of their day. So we paid, and I found that the admission rate was quite a bit higher than before they rebuilt. Oh, well. The new building might look like a giant potato chip, but it's a very lovely potato chip. ;-) I think they got their money's worth.
Anyhow. Off we went. There were quite a number of galleries on several floors. One consisted of mostly oil paintings of landscapes, many in tacky, ornate frames. At least we're told some of them were landscapes. Some of them were... pretty abstract, to say the least. Without a sign telling me, I would never have thought that that's what they were.
Here's where things got rather amusing. As we wandered around, we'd come upon some paintings and be rather perplexed as to why it was there. They looked like paint-by-number pieces, or finger paintings done by children. Then we'd read the plaque and discover they were actually Group of Seven. I admit that oil is not my favorite medium when it comes to art, but I can still appreciate skill and talent when I see it. At least I thought I could. These didn't seem to display either, but they're considered high art and the epitome of Canadian art in particular. Exploring why that is would make for an interesting discussion. Another less than stellar example of art turned out to be an Emily Carr piece. Having lived on the West Coast for so long, I knew who she was, but I can't say I like her work all that much. Each to their own. This sort of thing is a matter of personal taste, but the pieces are still clearly art.
Then is was off to a different gallery. The next one we visited was an M. C. Escher display. Now that's art I really enjoy! Not only are the subjects fascinating to look at and the skill required to produce them amazing, they required a fantastic mind just to conceive of these pieces, then plan and execute those ideas to produce images that look like they should exist, but can't. I look at those and, not only am I impressed by the art itself, but I find a strong desire to get to know the mind behind it.
While we were in this gallery, however, we caught up with a guided tour. It was a very small group, and the facilitator was trying to engage them at least somewhat interactively. I don't remember the exact words she used as she spoke, but several times she's say something that had Youngest and I looking at each other in amazement. Not because she'd revealed some spectacular piece of information about any particular piece, but because of the "dumbed down" language and phrasing she used. In trying to get people to talk, she asked what should have been a simple question ("why do you think Escher used colour in this piece?") that got no response. Had we been in the group, we wouldn't have responded, either. I would have been too busy wondering if it was a trick question or something. Was there some sort of symbolism I was missing? Some deeper meaning that we hadn't grasped? Nope. The answer was, "so you could see it [the details] better."
Hmmm.
More wandering around. The new building itself is a work of art, with the potato chip shapes continued inside. Quite striking, really.
Along the way, there were a number of sculptural pieces and some... others. As we approached one piece, Youngest commented that the shapes hanging from the ceiling and knotted on the floor looked like intestines. Intestines made out of someones drapes. Which turned out to be pretty much exactly what they were, except it was upholstery fabric, not drapes. It was a huge piece, too. Another consisted of a long wooden pole with wooden handles hammered into it, like some sort of hedgehog. Two other displayed consisted of glass rods that looked like those bamboo garden stakes at the hardware store, in bundles and leaning against the wall.
A couple of displays were behind black out curtains. One was supposedly a recreation, of sorts, of the artist's bedroom, except it was an almost empty room with some sheets and pillows on the floor, and their weird two-headed creature covered in black flowers coming through a pair of blackout curtains that made up one of the walls. Off to the side was an opening that was supposed to be a closet with some long underwear hanging in it. The write up claimed the long underwear (hand made by the artist) could be viewed as any number of things, including sacred robes.
Uhm... no. There was nothing robe like about them. They looked like somebody's full-body undies.
There was one display behind a blackout curtain we skipped. A video presentation, a quick glance through the curtain at the screen had me dropping it and continuing on my way. I'm rather open with my kids about sexual themes, but some things I'm not about to drag my daughter through. The mom with a 5 or 6 yr old caught a bit of a view through the curtain as I looked, too, and she was quick to steer her daughter away, too. Funny thing is, I'm not even sure exactly what I saw, other than it involved the sex act. At least I hope that's what I saw.
One piece had us standing and staring for a while. We must have looked pretty confused or something, as one of the security staff came over and gave me a brochure describing the displays. The images being projected onto the wall that make me think of my old Spirograph game turned out to be imagery of the brains of the 2 artists who made it, taken while they were sitting still, thinking, but not speaking. I was actually more impressed when I thought it was some sort of interactive lights display. The idea of medical technology being used to record the brains to two guys just sitting there seems so... pretentious to me.
Actually, that's a word that comes up an awful lot when I think of the "art community." Pretentious. If a piece is so confusing and obscure it has to be explained to the viewer, is it really art? When you're standing there, wondering if something is actually one of the gallery pieces, or if someone forgot their lunch on the counter, is it art? Is throwing in images or phrases that are insulting to Christianity enough to make something art? Are a bunch of photographs of different versions covering an entire wall art?
Some art is instantly recognisable as such, whether it's a bunch of metal pieces welded together, an eclectic variety of objects piled onto a shelf or an exquisite rendition of something that can't possibly exist in the real world. One doesn't have to actually like it to recognize it as art.
Other pieces, I just don't know if I'd be willing to call art. I recall one display I saw with the kids years ago. It was made up of shopping carts full of garbage. It was apparently some sort of commentary against consumerism and waste. Except it was still just a bunch of garbage in shopping carts. Other infamous displays I've heard of but, thankfully, have never seen include blenders with goldfish in them. Viewers were welcome to turn the blenders on and kill the fish inside. Another artist got in trouble because his "art" involved putting rats between two pieces of canvas, then dropping something from above to squish them flat. The artist claimed it was okay because the rats were instantly killed, but the animal rights folks were up in arms over it. The artist probably got more of a name for himself from the controversy than he ever got from his actual art.
So the question remains: what is art? Is it just stuff that we can hang on a wall or set on a pedestal? Or is it crucifixes in urine or squished rats? Is it just the pretty and safe things, or dehydrated fetuses turned into earrings? (gosh, that one was so long ago, I'd forgotten about it completely until now!) At what point does something cross the line from being art to being junk?
This is where the art community starts to irritate me. How does an artist or art critic get to a point where they don't consider something "art" unless it's obscure, offensive, bizarre or incomprehensible? I swear, some of these "artists" must just throw things together, make pretty speeches about how it "evokes" this and "represents" that, while in private they're just taking the grant money and laughing over what fools they're making of the hoity-toity set oohing and ahhing over their "work."
I do want to support local art and artists. I do appreciate the hard work and effort that can go into any individual piece.
But sometimes, I just wanna throw up my hands in exasperation over some of the things being passed as "art."
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Princess MeMeMe!
I say an interesting article in the news about "princess culture." I thought it worth passing on, with a few of my own thoughts on the subject. Here's the link to the article.
Princess culture turning girls into overspending narcissists.
The article starts with a mom who is concerned about her 4 yr old daughter's obsession with princesses. She laments;
Excuse my confusion here. Her 4 yr old daughter knows all about Belle's fashion and hair styles, but doesn't know the story. This is identified as a problem and... Mom goes off to study princess culture? I don't know, but to me, the obvious solution would be to tell her 4 yr old the story. It could be the Disney version. It could be the watered down modern versions. It could be one of the many older versions, though those might be a bit frightening for a 4 yr old.
Well, maybe she's getting paid for it. Fair enough.
The article goes on to talk about how increasing numbers of little girls are growing up believing they really are princesses - or that they should be treated like fairytale princesses (real princesses have duties and obligations, and while they might have a lot of material wealth, there usually isn't a whole lot of freedom). It seems there are adult women who still think of themselves as princesses, manipulating the people around them, going into debt, and generally being royal pains to maintain the lifestyle they believe they are entitled to. So many, in fact, that there's going to be a TV show about them, Princess, on Slice Network.
The article examines some of the reasons for this. Of course, Disney figures largely in this, having heavily marketed their Princess line since 2000. The wedding of Lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles is also viewed as a contributing factor. Finally, Disney is again brought into the picture with their boutique aimed at girls aged 3 and up.
I actually encountered someone who's daughter apparently was convinced she was a real princess. She'd shown up at one of our home school group park days. We'd started talking about helping our children have a healthy self esteem when she described how it was possible to go overboard. They had always told her daughter she had a lovely singing voice, but in reality, she had a terrible voice. Because they always told her her voice was beautiful, their daughter had no idea she was actually a terrible singer. Hmmm... Then she said that they'd always called their daughter a princess. They didn't realize this had become a problem until she started preschool. She started telling everyone that she was a princess - a real princess - and no one could convince her otherwise. I wasn't sure what to make of the conversation. On the one hand, the mother was acknowledging that this was probably not a good thing, but on the other, she seemed to me to be rather proud and amused by the whole thing. I don't know what came of it, as she didn't continue to go to the park days. This was a few years ago. I wonder how it worked out.
One thing I don't think this mother did was overindulge her daughter as described in the article. The money spent on parties, clothing and accessories, even furniture, by the parents of these princesses is pretty staggering. The money these adult princesses are spending is also staggering. One woman is described as having US$25,000 worth of shoes and handbags (which I found interesting, considering this recent post on Sociological Images), while also being $25,000 in debt. Another woman is described as planning on dumping her $20,000 in debt on her fiance. One of my nephews had a fiance that tried to do that to him - and it was just a car payment. He broke off the engagement. Wise young man that he is, he clued in that if she was willing to do that before they were married, chances were she'd be willing to do far worse after they were married. One of the primary reasons given for divorce is financial problems.
Anyhow. Back to the article.
Four factors are identified as contributing to narcissistic princess behaviour. Overindulgent parents, a culture of celebrity, the Internet and easy credit. To me, these factors would certainly be enough to create Princess MeMeMe - but I also see them as being easily countered. The parenting... well, maybe not. If a parent doesn't really know any better, they wouldn't know that what they're doing is a problem. Our culture has a significant lack of parenting role models, as we no longer have the extended families and close knit communities that used to be the source of parenting knowledge. Now, people are more likely to get their parenting advice from their doctors, books, magazines and TV shows. :-P
I've found it rather easy to ignore our culture of celebrity. I have little patience for it. I think it's easier for me because I never really grew up with it in the first place - one of the side benefits of growing up on a farm two sticks ahead of the stone ages. The Internet? That's neutral. It's how one chooses to use it that can be the issue. Easy credit? Yeah, that can be a problem. Lord knows, it screwed us up back when we were younger, and we were far from being big spenders!
The mother at the beginning of the article is brought up again...
Confusion again. Why try to ban princesses entirely? Why would she even want to go to that extreme? If she recognises that this separation of the image from the stories is such a problem, how is banning the image going to solve the problem? Why doesn't she, as the parent, tell her daughter the stories? My kids watched princess movies, too. They even had Barbie dolls and princess dress up stuff. I let them put on make up (though I did insist on it being real make up, not that disgusting crap being marketed for children as dress-up stuff). I also read them the stories. We had the Disney versions. We had other versions. What has developed over the years is an interest in fairy tales, and discovering the earlier versions, or finding that there are several different versions. That led to them exploring other stories, then delving into mythology, and searching out stories from other cultures. One of Eldest's favorites is a book of fairy tales where all the heroes were elderly. Youngest has developed a love for Irish folklore. All of this grew out of watching Disney's princess movies.
Shuler is then quoted;
Uhm... yeah. Banning them would certainly be viewed as killjoy behaviour, and she's back on missing the story. I'm still not getting her. She recognises the lack of context as a problem. The solution is pretty obvious. Quit "studying" the problem and tell your kid the flippin' stories already!
As the article continues, it's at least acknowledged that the marketing is taking advantage of an already existing potential market. The corporations didn't create the princess niche, they just filled it.
I found this part rather odd.
First, there's the idea that a 2 yr old has "princess ambitions" and that they need to be stomped on. Then we're apparently supposed to view having a 3 1/2 yr old compliment us by saying we look like a princess as being a bad thing. Why couldn't that just be viewed as a delightful comment from a very young child? Personally, I would have found that rather sweet.
The article goes on to talk about the upcoming show and some of the women that will be on it. There are media comparisons, such as a character in Sex and the City - a show I've only ever seen one episode of and could never understand how it became popular. The article ends with three things to blame for the Princess MeMeMe culture.
1) the marriage of Lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles.
2) Disney's massively marketed princess line.
3) Disney opening its Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutiques, marketed at females aged 3 and up, from make overs and hair styles to wedding dresses.
I can somewhat agree with the first one. The royal wedding was a worldwide event, in a way no other royal wedding had ever been before. Lady Diana was almost a commoner (she was still a Lady, after all, but not royalty). She caught the eye of a prince and became a real princess and was expected to someday become queen. It was the fairy tale come true, complete with horse drawn carriage and all the glamour a princess wannabe could imagine. I can see that the young girls who watched this fantasy turned reality (even though the fairy tale ending was far from Happily Ever After) would grow up to have little girls they'd want to treat like the princesses they imagined themselves to be. I don't think it's quite enough, though.
As for the other two, I think blaming Disney is far too simplistic. Yes, their Princess line is being marketed to death, but as was briefly mentioned earlier in the article, they didn't create the market, they just took advantage of it. Blaming their boutiques, however, is even more of a stretch. Just how many people live near one of these boutiques? I'd never even heard of them until I read this article. Looking it up, I see that there are only two of them, and they are part of the the theme parks. They even have a "Cool Dudes" package - gel hair and confetti! To me, that makes it even more of a stretch, since the theme parks are all about the fantasy. These are highly localized services, not available all over the place the way the merchandise is. It would make more sense to me to blame the creepy child beauty pageants or helicopter parenting.
I don't know. My family is so far out of the mainstream, I have a hard time imagining the combination of things that would create a Princess MeMeMe. How is parents playing along with the Princess fantasy any worse than playing along with the Easter Bunny fantasy or Santa Clause fantasy? At what point does it cross the line?
Where is the line?
Princess culture turning girls into overspending narcissists.
The article starts with a mom who is concerned about her 4 yr old daughter's obsession with princesses. She laments;
"I have a four-year-old who is completely into princesses, but she doesn't know their stories. She knows what Belle's hair looks like and what her dress looks like, but she doesn't know the story," Shuler says.So what does she do about it?
A communications professor at Creighton University in Nebraska, Shuler decided to take a sabbatical to study what academics are starting to call "princess culture:" young girls inundated by films, books, toys, clothes, and enabled by friends and family who encourage them to see themselves as bona fide blue-bloods.
Excuse my confusion here. Her 4 yr old daughter knows all about Belle's fashion and hair styles, but doesn't know the story. This is identified as a problem and... Mom goes off to study princess culture? I don't know, but to me, the obvious solution would be to tell her 4 yr old the story. It could be the Disney version. It could be the watered down modern versions. It could be one of the many older versions, though those might be a bit frightening for a 4 yr old.
Well, maybe she's getting paid for it. Fair enough.
The article goes on to talk about how increasing numbers of little girls are growing up believing they really are princesses - or that they should be treated like fairytale princesses (real princesses have duties and obligations, and while they might have a lot of material wealth, there usually isn't a whole lot of freedom). It seems there are adult women who still think of themselves as princesses, manipulating the people around them, going into debt, and generally being royal pains to maintain the lifestyle they believe they are entitled to. So many, in fact, that there's going to be a TV show about them, Princess, on Slice Network.
The article examines some of the reasons for this. Of course, Disney figures largely in this, having heavily marketed their Princess line since 2000. The wedding of Lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles is also viewed as a contributing factor. Finally, Disney is again brought into the picture with their boutique aimed at girls aged 3 and up.
I actually encountered someone who's daughter apparently was convinced she was a real princess. She'd shown up at one of our home school group park days. We'd started talking about helping our children have a healthy self esteem when she described how it was possible to go overboard. They had always told her daughter she had a lovely singing voice, but in reality, she had a terrible voice. Because they always told her her voice was beautiful, their daughter had no idea she was actually a terrible singer. Hmmm... Then she said that they'd always called their daughter a princess. They didn't realize this had become a problem until she started preschool. She started telling everyone that she was a princess - a real princess - and no one could convince her otherwise. I wasn't sure what to make of the conversation. On the one hand, the mother was acknowledging that this was probably not a good thing, but on the other, she seemed to me to be rather proud and amused by the whole thing. I don't know what came of it, as she didn't continue to go to the park days. This was a few years ago. I wonder how it worked out.
One thing I don't think this mother did was overindulge her daughter as described in the article. The money spent on parties, clothing and accessories, even furniture, by the parents of these princesses is pretty staggering. The money these adult princesses are spending is also staggering. One woman is described as having US$25,000 worth of shoes and handbags (which I found interesting, considering this recent post on Sociological Images), while also being $25,000 in debt. Another woman is described as planning on dumping her $20,000 in debt on her fiance. One of my nephews had a fiance that tried to do that to him - and it was just a car payment. He broke off the engagement. Wise young man that he is, he clued in that if she was willing to do that before they were married, chances were she'd be willing to do far worse after they were married. One of the primary reasons given for divorce is financial problems.
Anyhow. Back to the article.
Four factors are identified as contributing to narcissistic princess behaviour. Overindulgent parents, a culture of celebrity, the Internet and easy credit. To me, these factors would certainly be enough to create Princess MeMeMe - but I also see them as being easily countered. The parenting... well, maybe not. If a parent doesn't really know any better, they wouldn't know that what they're doing is a problem. Our culture has a significant lack of parenting role models, as we no longer have the extended families and close knit communities that used to be the source of parenting knowledge. Now, people are more likely to get their parenting advice from their doctors, books, magazines and TV shows. :-P
I've found it rather easy to ignore our culture of celebrity. I have little patience for it. I think it's easier for me because I never really grew up with it in the first place - one of the side benefits of growing up on a farm two sticks ahead of the stone ages. The Internet? That's neutral. It's how one chooses to use it that can be the issue. Easy credit? Yeah, that can be a problem. Lord knows, it screwed us up back when we were younger, and we were far from being big spenders!
The mother at the beginning of the article is brought up again...
Shuler has never been successful in entirely banning princesses from her daughter's life. She believes the biggest danger to little girls is that princess images are separated from the stories of smart, resilient young women.
Confusion again. Why try to ban princesses entirely? Why would she even want to go to that extreme? If she recognises that this separation of the image from the stories is such a problem, how is banning the image going to solve the problem? Why doesn't she, as the parent, tell her daughter the stories? My kids watched princess movies, too. They even had Barbie dolls and princess dress up stuff. I let them put on make up (though I did insist on it being real make up, not that disgusting crap being marketed for children as dress-up stuff). I also read them the stories. We had the Disney versions. We had other versions. What has developed over the years is an interest in fairy tales, and discovering the earlier versions, or finding that there are several different versions. That led to them exploring other stories, then delving into mythology, and searching out stories from other cultures. One of Eldest's favorites is a book of fairy tales where all the heroes were elderly. Youngest has developed a love for Irish folklore. All of this grew out of watching Disney's princess movies.
Shuler is then quoted;
"I don't think these images are inherently harmful. When they're drained of context, that's the harmful thing. When we strip princesses out of the story, we miss many of the potential good lessons.
"It's all about how to navigate it with our values without being killjoys."
Uhm... yeah. Banning them would certainly be viewed as killjoy behaviour, and she's back on missing the story. I'm still not getting her. She recognises the lack of context as a problem. The solution is pretty obvious. Quit "studying" the problem and tell your kid the flippin' stories already!
As the article continues, it's at least acknowledged that the marketing is taking advantage of an already existing potential market. The corporations didn't create the princess niche, they just filled it.
I found this part rather odd.
Twenge herself has had limited success in stomping on her own daughter's princess ambitions.
"When she was two, she said, `I'm a princess.' I said, `No, you're not.' So she went on eating her breakfast," says Twenge.
More than a year later, at the age of three-and-a-half, her daughter admired her mother in a dress and offered what she thought was the ultimate compliment.
"You look like a princess."
First, there's the idea that a 2 yr old has "princess ambitions" and that they need to be stomped on. Then we're apparently supposed to view having a 3 1/2 yr old compliment us by saying we look like a princess as being a bad thing. Why couldn't that just be viewed as a delightful comment from a very young child? Personally, I would have found that rather sweet.
The article goes on to talk about the upcoming show and some of the women that will be on it. There are media comparisons, such as a character in Sex and the City - a show I've only ever seen one episode of and could never understand how it became popular. The article ends with three things to blame for the Princess MeMeMe culture.
1) the marriage of Lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles.
2) Disney's massively marketed princess line.
3) Disney opening its Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutiques, marketed at females aged 3 and up, from make overs and hair styles to wedding dresses.
I can somewhat agree with the first one. The royal wedding was a worldwide event, in a way no other royal wedding had ever been before. Lady Diana was almost a commoner (she was still a Lady, after all, but not royalty). She caught the eye of a prince and became a real princess and was expected to someday become queen. It was the fairy tale come true, complete with horse drawn carriage and all the glamour a princess wannabe could imagine. I can see that the young girls who watched this fantasy turned reality (even though the fairy tale ending was far from Happily Ever After) would grow up to have little girls they'd want to treat like the princesses they imagined themselves to be. I don't think it's quite enough, though.
As for the other two, I think blaming Disney is far too simplistic. Yes, their Princess line is being marketed to death, but as was briefly mentioned earlier in the article, they didn't create the market, they just took advantage of it. Blaming their boutiques, however, is even more of a stretch. Just how many people live near one of these boutiques? I'd never even heard of them until I read this article. Looking it up, I see that there are only two of them, and they are part of the the theme parks. They even have a "Cool Dudes" package - gel hair and confetti! To me, that makes it even more of a stretch, since the theme parks are all about the fantasy. These are highly localized services, not available all over the place the way the merchandise is. It would make more sense to me to blame the creepy child beauty pageants or helicopter parenting.
I don't know. My family is so far out of the mainstream, I have a hard time imagining the combination of things that would create a Princess MeMeMe. How is parents playing along with the Princess fantasy any worse than playing along with the Easter Bunny fantasy or Santa Clause fantasy? At what point does it cross the line?
Where is the line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)