The gallery has a multicultural agenda which I respect, but the execution of it has stirred up all sorts of irritating things to the surface of my mind.( Read more... )
It's the "let's do something Native American, doesn't that involve feathers?" sort of thing that gets me.
I used to hate that in high school -- my mom in particular tended to be like that (especially with Native American stuff), and I thought exactly that -- what a superficial, almost demeaning thing to do. But it's interesting -- it's not just our culture that does this, and it's not just now. Many cultures pick and choose what they like from various other cultures and leave behind what they don't (I don't see anyone wanting to recreate the way some Native American tribes treated women). This kind of shallow appropriation happens in Africa, as I've been learning in my African Ethnographies class; it happens in Asia with Western artifacts; and arguably it could well happen, at least to some degree, whenever two disparate-enough cultures come into contact with one another. One or the other (or both) will say, "oh, that looks kind of fun -- let's do that too!" In the case of Native American cultural tchotchkes, though, my annoyance
( ... )
I don't mind adopting ideas, stories, symbols, etc. if they are approached with a little more depth and attempt at understanding. I don't mind discarding the negative if you have some understanding/respect for the whole thing.
The ignorant but well-meaning trinket-thing does get me though. I think it's the cheapening aspect.
The case for so-called black filmmakers is a bit different. Sure, it's easy to rail against constraining labels (especially as a white woman), but I think there's also ample evidence that unless such steps are taken, non-European histories become invisible -- Europeanness is already the default in many ways (much like heteronormativity), which is why we feel like "white" (meaning of European or Slavic descent) is not a culture even though it absolutely is. It's just invisible to us because it's so much the norm. Having a sense of heritage isn't important to everybody, but it is very important to some -- from your posts, it seems like you're certainly one who finds stories of where your ancestors came from and what they were like interesting. Remember you're lucky for having cultural access to those kinds of stories. Franz Boas, father of American anthropology, fought for the recognition of a sense of African heritage that was worth learning about and being proud of one hundred years ago, and the battle is still being fought today. And
( ... )
yes. There's a hippy-new-age racial crossover thing where "ethnic" music (and attached cultural stuff)and "ethinic music" + electronic is acceptable, but Rap would be right out.
I'm all about celebrating culture and exploring history- it's the "you look like this you should id with this" thing.
I've been trying to remember the name of a black writer who lived for a while in France and found more freedom there. He was constantly pressured from all sides (not just with grant ops) to be a Black writer. In France he found that he could simply be a Writer, but in the US it was a constant struggle. No one wanted to hear his reflections on Modernism and society- just about being Black (40's-60's I think). My friend/brother had the same frustration. He really didn't feel like he had that freedom to not discuss "Black".
I agree about the invisible/norm thing. I'd just like the invisible norm to be inclusive rather than "white", just as it has come to be inclusive of Irish (who used to get paid less than freed slaves in the north), Polish, German, etc.. Those people can still get into their cultural heritage, but it doesn't need to be separated off anymore
( ... )
One of the frustrations I have observed in artist/writer/filmmaker friends is this: you're black, you're expected to be a Black Filmmaker. Not a filmmmaker who happens to be black, who has artist vision and ideas of their own, but someone who is expected from inside the Black community to speak to a certain agenda (or any one of many within a certain range) and from outside to represent it.This reminds me of a story I ran across while I was working on my book, in a paper about female professors who are also racial minorities. A Black woman, then a grad student in English, found that when she searched for an academic job she had lots of offers, but all the universities wanted her to come teach/study "African-American literature." She is, as I recall, a Shakespearean scholar. The universities wanted her to fit in this neat little box; of course a Black woman is going to study Black authors, what are you doing with that dead white guy? So this sort of thing happens not only to the artists themselves but those who interact with and study
( ... )
Interesting point, and not at all surprising- yes, exactly the sort of thing that irritates. Shakespeare's a great example too- someone who has managed to reach everyone.
Maya Angelou spoke about her own identification with his work. Shakespearean English was the same as the King James Bible that she grew up with and presented no linguistic boundaries, and the stories- human stories reached her like nothing else had.
Jerk! Jerk! (Part 1)fallen_scholarOctober 18 2007, 20:09:44 UTC
Just kidding.
I have mixed feelings about certain takes...
Agreed, though I'm a little different on what the source of the problem is. Our modern ethos is one of a cobbled together sort of identity, where that piecemeal method is supposed to be all there is. There's no center to hold to, or no center that anyone wants to recognize. So there's no way for things to be adopted and adapted: adopted as relative to what?
...you're black, you're expected to be a Black Filmmaker...
This one hits a certain roadblock. A Black Filmmaker is a filmmaker who happens to be Black, unto the point that she wants to be a Black Filmmaker. With alarming frequency I see this argument made. It occasionally shifts to the profit of the speaker, and I generally the shifts aren't for rhetoric but for convenience
...pressure to emphasize a seperatness that many people want to shed.I don't know if you'd get wholescale adherence to that. I'd imagine that it would split down the middle, between people trying to do art as art, and people who think that ____ is
( ... )
Re: Jerk! Jerk! (Part 1)threadwalkerOctober 18 2007, 21:01:07 UTC
This one hits a certain roadblock. A Black Filmmaker is a filmmaker who happens to be Black, unto the point that she wants to be a Black Filmmaker.
I have a problem with this one, because yes, context and the voice is important, but IDing as a Black Filmmaker isn't generally a choice. You can choose to cash in, but you get pressure and prejudice (positive and negative) from every possible direction to be a Black filmmaker (speaking from the Black perspective about Black things) as opposed to a Filmmaker who is into say martial arts or a writer who is into modernist theory and also happens to be black.
7th generation Americans of African descent to identify with Africa is a strange thing- somewhat forced and artificial.
You mean there's a logical ethic identity? That there's something more to it for anyone other than pick-and-choose tribalism? LOL exactly. The perversity of it either way... yes culture and identity are much more messy and they are created by what we think- absolutely. No. It's the pressure to id with some
( ... )
Re: Jerk! Jerk! (Part 1)fallen_scholarOctober 18 2007, 21:33:51 UTC
IDing as a Black Filmmaker isn't generally a choice.
In my personal experience, and, for posterity, let's note that "Black Filmmaker" is used here as total shorthand, I've more often ran into instances where it is not fostered upon the artist (though I've seen that too), but it is picked up by the artist...and I have trouble finishing that sentence as to the context of how and when. I mean, so often it's in the context of justifying a work, that either is strong enough to stand on its own or so weak the fact doesn't change a damn thing.
The intricacies of the concept of "white" in relation to history- especially in the Americas is fascinating to me.
Totally fascinating, doubly so in that whole "good ministers only appear when the state is corrupt" business. The identity had to be created out of nothing from the fear of external threat, and then people had to sort of what it was they actually invented.
Re: Jerk! Jerk! (Part 1)threadwalkerOctober 18 2007, 22:16:11 UTC
The identity had to be created out of nothing from the fear of external threat, and then people had to sort of what it was they actually invented.
Yes.
And yes with the artists or even professionals of various groups taking up the label either with real purpose or simply to cash in. But frustrating for those who just want to be artists or professionals and get the constant label applied, pushed, thrown, etc. Anger if you're a black filmaker and not talking about Black issues, etc.
Jerk! Jerk! (Part 2)fallen_scholarOctober 18 2007, 20:10:07 UTC
Artificial culture becoming real culture. Artificial boundaries becoming real boundaries.
Ah, right, you hit to this, so we end up in the same place. But if we take it that any such boundary is artificial (but some do have better pedigrees or logics), what does that mean? Is it a goal to establish a whole new identity, or is it to somehow redeem or sift through the identities that are there? I'll blither on it more at some point. I'd also like to get fullnhollow into the discussion. She'd have a lot to say on this topic, I know.
I like Jazz. A music that belonged to everyone.I see what you're getting at, but I'm curious. Is it that any art can work like that? Is it a factor of the specific time period it was in? (I'm unsure of that, but I think I could sketch out an argument that it had more to do with technology, history, and economy rather than tolerance or the lack thereof
( ... )
Re: Jerk! Jerk! (Part 2)threadwalkerOctober 18 2007, 21:18:21 UTC
jazz- you can argu that it was partially the "be a bad boy, be primal" response to Prohibition that helped- thank the mafia for Jazz folks.
but I also think it was a climate where the music was breaking into something entirely new- that some fusion of cultures had come to a boil in the US- like tapdancing coming from a combo of Irish and African dance- because there were a Irish indentured servants working with the black slaves and they traded dances. Jazz came from so many sources, and it was hot and new and everyone wanted a piece and records came out- where you could hear the sound and not see the face. Maybe when the music grabbed you that came first, and if you were a musician you wanted to know how that man did the thing with the trumpet whoever he was.
Re: Jerk! Jerk! (Part 2)fallen_scholarOctober 18 2007, 21:48:50 UTC
that some fusion of cultures had come to a boil in the US
What I'm tentatively arguing is that such a conceptualization is far too limited. Or, let's spin it Burke, finding something that doesn't represent a melange of cultures is the exception, not the norm, even in terms of history.
I don't know where to scratch with the situation of Jazz. I guess where I'm leaning with it is that, for each beautiful blend, you can find the (apropos of tolerance) scenarios where things were dubious at best, or harder to spin pretty.
Comments 41
I used to hate that in high school -- my mom in particular tended to be like that (especially with Native American stuff), and I thought exactly that -- what a superficial, almost demeaning thing to do. But it's interesting -- it's not just our culture that does this, and it's not just now. Many cultures pick and choose what they like from various other cultures and leave behind what they don't (I don't see anyone wanting to recreate the way some Native American tribes treated women). This kind of shallow appropriation happens in Africa, as I've been learning in my African Ethnographies class; it happens in Asia with Western artifacts; and arguably it could well happen, at least to some degree, whenever two disparate-enough cultures come into contact with one another. One or the other (or both) will say, "oh, that looks kind of fun -- let's do that too!" In the case of Native American cultural tchotchkes, though, my annoyance ( ... )
Reply
The ignorant but well-meaning trinket-thing does get me though. I think it's the cheapening aspect.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I've been trying to remember the name of a black writer who lived for a while in France and found more freedom there. He was constantly pressured from all sides (not just with grant ops) to be a Black writer. In France he found that he could simply be a Writer, but in the US it was a constant struggle. No one wanted to hear his reflections on Modernism and society- just about being Black (40's-60's I think). My friend/brother had the same frustration. He really didn't feel like he had that freedom to not discuss "Black".
I agree about the invisible/norm thing. I'd just like the invisible norm to be inclusive rather than "white", just as it has come to be inclusive of Irish (who used to get paid less than freed slaves in the north), Polish, German, etc.. Those people can still get into their cultural heritage, but it doesn't need to be separated off anymore ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Maya Angelou spoke about her own identification with his work. Shakespearean English was the same as the King James Bible that she grew up with and presented no linguistic boundaries, and the stories- human stories reached her like nothing else had.
Reply
I have mixed feelings about certain takes...
Agreed, though I'm a little different on what the source of the problem is. Our modern ethos is one of a cobbled together sort of identity, where that piecemeal method is supposed to be all there is. There's no center to hold to, or no center that anyone wants to recognize. So there's no way for things to be adopted and adapted: adopted as relative to what?
...you're black, you're expected to be a Black Filmmaker...
This one hits a certain roadblock. A Black Filmmaker is a filmmaker who happens to be Black, unto the point that she wants to be a Black Filmmaker. With alarming frequency I see this argument made. It occasionally shifts to the profit of the speaker, and I generally the shifts aren't for rhetoric but for convenience
...pressure to emphasize a seperatness that many people want to shed.I don't know if you'd get wholescale adherence to that. I'd imagine that it would split down the middle, between people trying to do art as art, and people who think that ____ is ( ... )
Reply
I have a problem with this one, because yes, context and the voice is important, but IDing as a Black Filmmaker isn't generally a choice. You can choose to cash in, but you get pressure and prejudice (positive and negative) from every possible direction to be a Black filmmaker (speaking from the Black perspective about Black things) as opposed to a Filmmaker who is into say martial arts or a writer who is into modernist theory and also happens to be black.
7th generation Americans of African descent to identify with Africa is a strange thing- somewhat forced and artificial.
You mean there's a logical ethic identity? That there's something more to it for anyone other than pick-and-choose tribalism? LOL exactly. The perversity of it either way... yes culture and identity are much more messy and they are created by what we think- absolutely. No. It's the pressure to id with some ( ... )
Reply
In my personal experience, and, for posterity, let's note that "Black Filmmaker" is used here as total shorthand, I've more often ran into instances where it is not fostered upon the artist (though I've seen that too), but it is picked up by the artist...and I have trouble finishing that sentence as to the context of how and when. I mean, so often it's in the context of justifying a work, that either is strong enough to stand on its own or so weak the fact doesn't change a damn thing.
The intricacies of the concept of "white" in relation to history- especially in the Americas is fascinating to me.
Totally fascinating, doubly so in that whole "good ministers only appear when the state is corrupt" business. The identity had to be created out of nothing from the fear of external threat, and then people had to sort of what it was they actually invented.
Reply
Yes.
And yes with the artists or even professionals of various groups taking up the label either with real purpose or simply to cash in. But frustrating for those who just want to be artists or professionals and get the constant label applied, pushed, thrown, etc. Anger if you're a black filmaker and not talking about Black issues, etc.
Reply
Artificial culture becoming real culture. Artificial boundaries becoming real boundaries.
Ah, right, you hit to this, so we end up in the same place. But if we take it that any such boundary is artificial (but some do have better pedigrees or logics), what does that mean? Is it a goal to establish a whole new identity, or is it to somehow redeem or sift through the identities that are there? I'll blither on it more at some point. I'd also like to get fullnhollow into the discussion. She'd have a lot to say on this topic, I know.
I like Jazz. A music that belonged to everyone.I see what you're getting at, but I'm curious. Is it that any art can work like that? Is it a factor of the specific time period it was in? (I'm unsure of that, but I think I could sketch out an argument that it had more to do with technology, history, and economy rather than tolerance or the lack thereof ( ... )
Reply
but I also think it was a climate where the music was breaking into something entirely new- that some fusion of cultures had come to a boil in the US- like tapdancing coming from a combo of Irish and African dance- because there were a Irish indentured servants working with the black slaves and they traded dances. Jazz came from so many sources, and it was hot and new and everyone wanted a piece and records came out- where you could hear the sound and not see the face. Maybe when the music grabbed you that came first, and if you were a musician you wanted to know how that man did the thing with the trumpet whoever he was.
Reply
What I'm tentatively arguing is that such a conceptualization is far too limited. Or, let's spin it Burke, finding something that doesn't represent a melange of cultures is the exception, not the norm, even in terms of history.
I don't know where to scratch with the situation of Jazz. I guess where I'm leaning with it is that, for each beautiful blend, you can find the (apropos of tolerance) scenarios where things were dubious at best, or harder to spin pretty.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment