Art Museum

I went to the Art Institute of Chicago for my visit, I've been there before and I remembered there were a lot of paintings so there was also a lot to talk about. I first noticed throughout the art the focus on the female body, through sculpture or painting. Before there was an emphasis on bigger women because it showed that you were rich and you would eat plentifully. Then you notice the focus shifts to a much slimmer body image. I thought that it was weird how you go from such drastic sides from large to small. I also considered what could have made that change. Who made the decision that caused that switch and why did it seem to happen within a very small time period? It’s also important to note the general presence of women in the art. Women seem to be a popular subject to paint along with landscapes and bowls of fruit. But I digress, a long time ago women used to be equal to men and that might be the focus of some of the early sculptures. The newer art might have to do with the idea of beauty and femininity. It could be argued that women are only in art because they look good. You can look at Frida Kahlo who broke that barrier though, she also painted not only accurate self-portraits, she also seemed to paint about things society should care about. 

"The Politics of Putting down other women"

I don’t mean to devote too much attention to what seems to be a minor quibble amongst celebrities, but I did see this article on Yahoo’s main page and found it kind of interesting. Basically the article is about how the artist Lorde dissed Selena Gomez’s song “Come and Get it” and said that she felt that it was regressive for feminism because it paints the picture of a woman who is at the disposal of a man, and whose soul goal is to please him. Gomez attacked back, stating that true feminism does not involve the putting-down of other women. While this is a minor incident, I think that it is exemplary of one of the most prominent divides in the feminist community “Can feminism be feminism when it is used to put down other women?” This is a sticky issue, but I would argue yes. I do not mean literature or publicity meant for the particular purpose of putting women down, but as I have learned through this course, women can often be the instruments of their own oppression. The rallying cry of feminism should not be “girls rule, boys drool.” This is what separates third-wave feminism from early versions of feminism; feminism is for everyone, and no one in particular. Feminism is not about supporting the specific actions of specific women, but rather about establishing a line between what is promoting equality and empowerment of the oppressed, and what is actually counter-productive.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1717083/selena-gomez-lorde-response/

An open letter from Cho Chang

I especially appreciated this spoken word poem “An open letter from Cho Chang to J.K. Rowling.” I think it was not only clever and entertaining, but also that it draws attention to a lesser discussed issue. The issue of the presence of minorities in movies, books, and tv shows today (or lack-there-of) is a hotly discussed topic today. J.K. Rowling likely added in minorities characters in an effort to be inclusive and to avoid this sort of scrutiny, but the poet in the video does make the valid point that simply having people of color in the story is not enough, it is also important to pay special attention to the ways in which they are portrayed. She makes the point that the names “Cho” and “Chang” are both Korean last names, which indicates a lack of background research on Rowling’s part. Also, more importantly she brings up the point that Cho ultimately served as yet another representation of an Asian woman fawning over a white man, erratic, emotional, and ultimately unsuccessful. I think that this shines a light on the importance of how minority characters are portrayed, especially when one Cho Chang represents the whole of the far-east Asian population in the Wizarding World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPWwx96Kew