humanrightswatch

micdotcom:

Potent minimalist art sends a strong message about police and vigilante brutality in America

Journalist and artist Shirin Barghi has created a gripping, thought-provoking series of graphics that not only examines racial prejudice in today’s America, but also captures the sense of humanity that often gets lost in news coverage. Titled “Last Words,” the graphics illustrate the last recorded words by Brown and other young black people — Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant and others — who have been killed by police in recent years.

Let us not forget their voices

On gratitude

For my mother; 

Who gave me her lion’s mane and sailor’s tongue.  

Tucked me in under afghans to read Blake and Byron

but  made sure I knew the sisters Brontë too. 

For my mother 

Who sewed thousands of rose ribbons to thousands of ballet slippers, 

Gave me a garden for my birthday instead of a T.V.

and told me to knock out the teeth of any boy who touched me when I said no.

Who made sure I didn’t look down on that which I didn’t understand

and wouldn’t fear what was different from my wave of the world. 

Whom I call Theresa because she’s a Queen

(mom is simply too empty and dull for someone as divine as her). 

Who never let me think that anyone could ever know it all

and showed me how beautiful that truly is - to be an infinite learner. 

For my mother

Who stirred my appetite for literature and nights spent with the blues,

painted the wonder of quality over quantity into my understanding

and glows more radiantly than the moon with each passing decade. 

For my mother- this universe could never be a sliver as mesmerizing as you. 

     Dove has come under a good amount of scrutiny for their “Real Beauty” Campaign. You may have seen the video of the forensic sketch artist who drew women describing themselves and then women describing other women. The video went viral earlier this year. Dove also conducted a placebo experiment where women wore a “beauty” patch for an amount of time and documented how they felt about their appearance after applying this patch. When the study was over they learned that there was nothing in the patch.

     It seems that there is never a “good” message that everyone can rally around. There is always something negative that comes out of Dove’s attempts to get women to appreciate themselves. For the sketches, women are still concentrating on outer beauty, focusing on looks. For the patches, women are gullible and seem to come off as oblivious. Always scrutiny.

     Recently, Dove came out with a new video. Dove: Legacy.

     This project asked women to write down parts of their body that they weren’t happy with. They discussed them in front of a camera and then the same task was asked of their daughters.

     Most lists, both mothers and daughters, were identical.

     My mom always jokes that when a child has any sort of problems, “It’s always the mothers fault. Never the fathers.” I completely understand her point of view. It seems that the media makes out that there is really nothing a mother can do right and that shows like Criminal Minds emphasize that mothers neglect or mothers protectiveness are the causes of horrible, atrocious behaviors their child develops. There is nothing she can do right.

     But, she sent me a link to a video. It was Dove: Legacy.  The only text said: This I believe.

     Not all children turn out to be serial killers, it’s an exaggerated stereotype that mothers are the cause of troubled children. There are so many other factors.

     But, there are smaller –though no less significant- problems that arise in children when their parents are not confident in themselves and their abilities.

     Your mother, your father, are your first and foremost role models for gender. Young girls observe and mimic their mothers, young boys their fathers.

     Is it really so surprising that their insecurities rub off on their young and incredibly malleable young ones?

     Doves message in this Legacy campaign is much deeper then focusing on outer beauty than maybe their previous campaigns. This highlights a deeper emotional aspect. It highlights the root of a problem.

For more on Dove’s campaign look here

For the original video and more from Dove look here

myscriptisahorcrux
Though Mean Girls was rated PG-13 for “sexual content, language, and some teen partying,” that was a rating Paramount had to fight for, says Waters. “We had lots of battles with the ratings board on the movie. There was the line, ‘Amber D’Lessio gave a blow job to a hot dog,’ which eventually became ‘Amber D’Lessio made out with a hot dog.’ Which is somehow weirder! That’s the thing we found: When you’re trying to make a joke obey the rules and not use any bad words, it can actually become seamier, even.” Still, there were some things that Waters simply refused to change. “The line in the sand that I drew was the joke about the wide-set vagina. The ratings board said, ‘We can’t give you a PG-13 unless you cut that line.’ We ended up playing the card that the ratings board was sexist, because Anchorman had just come out, and Ron Burgundy had an erection in one scene, and that was PG-13. We told them, ‘You’re only saying this because it’s a girl, and she’s talking about a part of her anatomy. There’s no sexual context whatsoever, and to say this is restrictive to an audience of girls is demeaning to all women.’ And they eventually had to back down.”
don’t fuck with tina fey (via brokenclocksrighttwiceaday)

The Film Industry and Why It Sucks

     I was a film student when I first got to Columbia College. I had plans to be a screenwriter and work on big blockbuster films (this was an unusual ambition for a film student, I came to learn –blockbusters meant selling out and no one here wants to do that). After a year of that, I couldn’t take it anymore and promptly switched majors.

     But, before I changed departments, the fact that film is a predominantly male industry was not lost on me. It seemed that for every woman in my class, there were three men determined to direct the next greatest “indie” film or documentary.

     That’s fine. If dudes wanna work in the film industry –more power to ‘em.

     The problem is that the film industry is male run and caters to only males, when most people forget that women like to watch movies as well. Let me tell you what this means:

     This means a lot of boobs.

     An uncomfortable amount of boobs.

     Boobs everywhere.

     It means more than boobs, obviously. It means glorified misogyny and the fact that there’s always a strong male savior of a lost and pitiful dame. It means portrayals of ridiculously unattainable masculinity that damages young males self-esteem.

     But it also –the most obvious aspect –means a hell of a lot of boobs.

     Apparently, the only way that we can truly understand that the actress on screen is a woman is by showing the audience that she has breasts. How could we possibly know otherwise?

     Now, I understand that there are a lot more complicated problems within the industry but this problem particularly irritates me.

     Me, my mom and dad all sitting around watching a movie –maybe a horror film or maybe an action film –BOOM!

     Boob!

     “What the hell was that?!” I yell, throwing popcorn at the screen, “They were just in a car chase and then they cut to some perky co-ed we’ve never seen before!”

     Embarrassment is had by all and the movie is ruined.

     What amazes me is the fact that once you’ve seen one boob –you’ve pretty much seen them all. What is the point of continually shoving them in our face if they aren’t even interesting? They just look like the same ones on the last actress because all of the actresses cast in anything ever have a nice full chest. 

     It was incredibly reassuring to come across and article written by Kristina Marie on Thought Catalog that dealt with the same issue. In Why The Film Industry Caters To Men (And How To Stop It) Marie goes into explain her own observations and theories as to why this is a phenomenon and even better: how to stop it.

Terracotta Daughters

It seems that a preference for boys is one that crosses many cultures, countries and continents. While some countries, like in the United States, this notion is somewhat muted or something that no one wants to talk about, in some countries, this is a very big deal.

     Most notably, China.

     With China’s One Child Policy, for any family that has more than one child without a “birth permit” there are incredibly high fines the family must pay.

     China has always had a preference for boy children and this One Child Policy solidified that preference even more. Families that gave birth to girls often abandoned the child so they could have a boy without paying more fines, or many times aborted the pregnancy after finding out the gender.

     How does one combat such a cultural phenomenon?

     Prune Nourry is building an army.

     The original Terracotta Army, were a collection of sculptures that depicted the army of Qin Shi Huang –the first emperor of China. This army was a bunch of horses and men. These sculptures were unearthed accidentally by farmers in 1974 and if you haven’t heard of them, you’ve probably been under a rock.

     Artist, Nourry, is reconstructing this army and sculpting girl soldiers. The results are amazing to see.

     Her goal is to make 108 sculptures and bury them in China to be “found” again in 2030. Every sculpture is unique.

     The craftsmen of these sculptures were hesitant at first –not believing girl soldiers to be “proper.” But, as this article from the Huffington Post says, the artists and craftsmen grew more and more fond of the project as they worked on each individual girl.

For more on the artists look here

For the original post look here

liberatingreality

Anonymous asked:

Any advice for someone who has become bored and generally annoyed with their partner?

liberatingreality answered:

You do not owe it to anyone to endure the oppression of whatever you have perceived as “annoying”, nor should you feel compelled to justify stagnancy with them, “relationship” or not.

At the same time, you also cannot truly justify expectations that have yielded these condemnatory accusations, or rely on whatever assumption you had for security at the consideration of your significant other.

We are attracted to the empowering lifestyles that others exhibit, and upon entering these relationships of romanticized co-dependency, tear one another down, until there’s ironically nothing left to actually be attracted to.

 One of the fascinating folds of art in the 21st century is that the canonical conversation has been shifted from “what is art” [with the accepted definition that its highly subjective and the potentiality is virtually limitless (thanks, Duchamp)] to “what should art do?” The signified of ‘Should’ fulcrums on the notion of a moral or ethical compass and is inherently endowed with phantoms of responsibilities (albeit political or aesthetic), rules or missions. If anything can be art and art can be anything, than what obligations does such a robust arena contribute to the role of art? 
 On October 1st the Dutch conceptual artist Dries Verhoeven awoke horror with his Berlin located conceptual performance piece “Wanna Play? (Love in the time of Grindr),” which has provoked a tidal wave of reactions on the abundance of power art making garners and ethical boundaries. *
 “Wanna Play?” consists of massive, high resolutions live-feed projections of Verhoeven’s private Grindr* confabulations (including text & images/media) with men whom where unaware of the final destination and manifestation(s) of these exchanges. “Wanna Play?” is in collaboration with the Berlin based art collective “Hebbel am Ufer (HAU).”** The artist planned to pursue these conversations throughout a 15 day period where he would also live in the space the feed was projecting (a 14 meter glass shipping container) located on Kreuzberg’s hyper crowded streets ‘Mariannenstraße’ and ‘Oranienstraße.’  The series demanded reaction on the roles of the public  versus the private spheres and questioned how ownership oscillates betwixt the binary - posing that perhaps there is no divide.
 Art critic Alexander Forbes wrote a premier review for the performance’s launch and predicted “Verhoeven has conceded that he may see little response from a privacy-minded city like Berlin and one with a relatively low adoption rate of technology. Twitter and other social media platforms have seen  meager response from the German populace compared to other similarly-developed economies; Grindr has about half the penetration rate in Berlin as it does in London, relative to population.” ***
 Low and behold, the capricious occurred and this Berlin based art was not hunky dory with the public. Critics, artists, audiences were deeply opposed and the piece left an uncomfortable taste in the mouth of nearly everyone who witnessed/participated and chose to write about it.  Artist Parker Tilghman, unwitting subject of this series, declared “What you are doing is unethical. It is digital rape.” An largely ubiquitous intersectional feminist critique is that it speaks to the larger issue that the majority of the trajectory of Western art exploits unwilling participants (colonized indigenous artifacts and/or female bodies) as subjects/objects for their own authorship, within the repertoire of representations. 
 Curator and director for Haus der Kulturen der Welt (translation: House of World Cultures) fumed  “This is not only unsound research, but sloppy artistic practice, showing a deep disrespect and an offensive exploitation for the individuals you manage to entrap in this action…Your work here offers no discursive possibility in its public mockery of live human subjects.”
In addition to the mass coverage the art piece has received****,  mirroring the media (digital-to-digital public forum) audiences have taken to voicing their perspectives on the artist’s Facebook page.*****
 On Sunday October 5th (one third of the way through the proposed duration of the piece) HAU announced that the performance would no longer continue due to public complaints. 
 Although the reactions to the performance seemed unanimously against it, oddly its early conclusions has harbored ambivalent responses. Some view it as a moment of revelry for the gay community receiving proper cultural protection, while other parties contest that to close the show before its intended duration is a violent propagation of censorship against artistic expression. 
 One German based blog stated ““What Verhoeven shows us is how delicate and fragile the illusion of privacy on the Internet actually is.” (“Was Verhoeven uns zeigt, ist wie delikat und zerbrechlich die Illusion von Privatsphäre im Internet eigentlich ist.”)******
 This speaks to a Lacanian interpretation of our conceptualization of “the real” and its presence/ absence in the simulacrum of mediated experiences, such as the internet. ********
 Even if the art piece was riddled with immoral manipulations, it did create a mercurial agora on our expectations and desires for privacy within the overwhelming digital abyss the contemporary occupies, which are vitally important qualms and curiosities to be critically engaging with.********

 
* http://grindr.com/learn-more 

** http://www.hebbel-am-ufer.de/programm/spielplan/verhoeven-wanna-play/

*** http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-uses-grindr-to-make-pancakes-119841 

**** http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article132795332/Vom-kuenstlerischen-Missbrauch-einer-Sex-Dating-App.html

***** https://www.facebook.com/driesverhoevencie?fref=nf

****** http://wolfauftausendplateaus.de/2014/10/wanna-play-liebe-in-zeiten-von-grindr-ein-kommentar.html

******* http://www.driesverhoeven.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wanna_play_love_in_the_time_of_grindreng_0.pdf

******** This statement is in no way meant to be a dismissal of the lack of empathy or abuse of trust perpetrated by the artist. 

 One of the fascinating folds of art in the 21st century is that the canonical conversation has been shifted from “what is art” [with the accepted definition that its highly subjective and the potentiality is virtually limitless (thanks, Duchamp)] to “what should art do?” The signified of ‘Should’ fulcrums on the notion of a moral or ethical compass and is inherently endowed with phantoms of responsibilities (albeit political or aesthetic), rules or missions. If anything can be art and art can be anything, than what obligations does such a robust arena contribute to the role of art? 

 On October 1st the Dutch conceptual artist Dries Verhoeven awoke horror with his Berlin located conceptual performance piece “Wanna Play? (Love in the time of Grindr),” which has provoked a tidal wave of reactions on the abundance of power art making garners and ethical boundaries. *

 “Wanna Play?” consists of massive, high resolutions live-feed projections of Verhoeven’s private Grindr* confabulations (including text & images/media) with men whom where unaware of the final destination and manifestation(s) of these exchanges. “Wanna Play?” is in collaboration with the Berlin based art collective “Hebbel am Ufer (HAU).”** The artist planned to pursue these conversations throughout a 15 day period where he would also live in the space the feed was projecting (a 14 meter glass shipping container) located on Kreuzberg’s hyper crowded streets ‘Mariannenstraße’ and ‘Oranienstraße.’  The series demanded reaction on the roles of the public  versus the private spheres and questioned how ownership oscillates betwixt the binary - posing that perhaps there is no divide.

 Art critic Alexander Forbes wrote a premier review for the performance’s launch and predicted “Verhoeven has conceded that he may see little response from a privacy-minded city like Berlin and one with a relatively low adoption rate of technology. Twitter and other social media platforms have seen  meager response from the German populace compared to other similarly-developed economies; Grindr has about half the penetration rate in Berlin as it does in London, relative to population.” ***

 Low and behold, the capricious occurred and this Berlin based art was not hunky dory with the public. Critics, artists, audiences were deeply opposed and the piece left an uncomfortable taste in the mouth of nearly everyone who witnessed/participated and chose to write about it.  Artist Parker Tilghman, unwitting subject of this series, declared “What you are doing is unethical. It is digital rape.” An largely ubiquitous intersectional feminist critique is that it speaks to the larger issue that the majority of the trajectory of Western art exploits unwilling participants (colonized indigenous artifacts and/or female bodies) as subjects/objects for their own authorship, within the repertoire of representations. 

 Curator and director for Haus der Kulturen der Welt (translation: House of World Cultures) fumed  “This is not only unsound research, but sloppy artistic practice, showing a deep disrespect and an offensive exploitation for the individuals you manage to entrap in this action…Your work here offers no discursive possibility in its public mockery of live human subjects.”

In addition to the mass coverage the art piece has received****,  mirroring the media (digital-to-digital public forum) audiences have taken to voicing their perspectives on the artist’s Facebook page.*****

 On Sunday October 5th (one third of the way through the proposed duration of the piece) HAU announced that the performance would no longer continue due to public complaints. 

 Although the reactions to the performance seemed unanimously against it, oddly its early conclusions has harbored ambivalent responses. Some view it as a moment of revelry for the gay community receiving proper cultural protection, while other parties contest that to close the show before its intended duration is a violent propagation of censorship against artistic expression. 

 One German based blog stated ““What Verhoeven shows us is how delicate and fragile the illusion of privacy on the Internet actually is.” (“Was Verhoeven uns zeigt, ist wie delikat und zerbrechlich die Illusion von Privatsphäre im Internet eigentlich ist.”)******

 This speaks to a Lacanian interpretation of our conceptualization of “the real” and its presence/ absence in the simulacrum of mediated experiences, such as the internet. ********

 Even if the art piece was riddled with immoral manipulations, it did create a mercurial agora on our expectations and desires for privacy within the overwhelming digital abyss the contemporary occupies, which are vitally important qualms and curiosities to be critically engaging with.********

 

http://grindr.com/learn-more 

** http://www.hebbel-am-ufer.de/programm/spielplan/verhoeven-wanna-play/

*** http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-uses-grindr-to-make-pancakes-119841 

**** http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article132795332/Vom-kuenstlerischen-Missbrauch-einer-Sex-Dating-App.html

***** https://www.facebook.com/driesverhoevencie?fref=nf

****** http://wolfauftausendplateaus.de/2014/10/wanna-play-liebe-in-zeiten-von-grindr-ein-kommentar.html

******* http://www.driesverhoeven.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wanna_play_love_in_the_time_of_grindreng_0.pdf

******** This statement is in no way meant to be a dismissal of the lack of empathy or abuse of trust perpetrated by the artist.