Art as Impact and Access to Art

 In class the other day, Dylan shared his personal perspective on art:

“Art is simply for art’s sake.”

True – one of the purposes of art is to be, well, artful. Much artwork out there is merely for aesthetic, visual value and doesn’t serve much else of a purpose. Where I disagree, though (and maybe because I’m a bit of an idealist) is that art has the potential to leave resounding impact – to start conversations, change minds, and transform identities. Lofty, I know…but it’s why I’m pursuing a career as a filmmaker. I believe the medium has potential to make a difference.

I visited the Modern Museum of Art in New York for the first time this past spring break. As I was wandering through the museum, I turned a corner and unknowingly stumbled upon my favorite piece of all time: “Starry Night” by Van Gough. I had studied the piece at length in my high school Humanities course, so beyond its striking beauty, I had developed a pretty strong emotional connection to the work. The best part was, I had no idea it was at the MoMA – so my discovery was a moment of true surprise.

As I stood in awe of the painting, I couldn’t believe the vast majority of people – all buried behind their phones and tablets – that merely took photos of the piece and quickly moved on to the next exhibit. They only ever experienced Van Gough’s handiwork through the lens of their technological devices. They seemed incapable of just enjoying the art…even for art’s sake.

A common narrative throughout this semester has been the effect of technology on contemporary society, and this truth holds up when considering how we experience art. Now more than ever before, we have access to any piece of art at a moment’s notice. A quick Google image search for “Starry Night” yields thousands of photos of the famous painting. Spotify and Pandora play any song whenever for free. And movies are now streamed directly to your computer, disregarding the necessity of the theater.

It’s this last point that really resonates with me: people don’t go to the movies anymore. A recent study from Business Insider shows that 61% of Americans don’t attend their local cinema, and services like Netflix and Hulu are revolutionizing the distribution industry by providing greater selections and lower costs.

I personally believe that – with access to art being easier today than ever before – we are largely eliminating the collective experience that art is supposed to provide. If art has the potential to drive and define culture, as I will always argue it does, how can it when we experience art alone? So much of art is meant to be experienced with others…yet so often technology is reducing its potential to bring people together.

Films, in particular, are uniquely designed to be experienced with other people. The concept of putting a group of strangers in a dark room and giving them a shared experience in the form of art is absolutely unique. My favorite film of the last few years is Terrence Malick’s Oscar-nominated art film “Tree of Life.” With its stunning visuals and powerful story, Malick deconstructs the family unit and compares it in scope and scale to the founding of our universe. If you aren’t familiar with the film, you can check out the trailer here:

Now imagine watching this film on its original 35 mm print with a roomful of peers in the beautiful and haunting Michigan Theater.

Now imagine watching this film on your iPhone at the bus stop waiting for the Commuter North.

Technology is impacting the way the view art, and not always for the best.

End of the Road

We've spent the last two months talking about issues in the United States, and exposed each other to different ideas, perspectives, and belief structures. Also had a few disagreements along the way. At the end, we were asked "what did we learn?"

That's a question we're all asked at some point in our lives. Or, at least, we should be. For myself, I've learned that the issues I care about aren't the issues others care about, and the reverse also holds true. Our units about the "worth" of college degrees, marriage equality, feminism in and out of the work place, "covering," and crime and punishment simply haven't resonated with me. It's not that I don't "care" exactly; they're just issues that I can't understand as being "issues" in the first place. That said, one concern that we all seem to share is the future. It looms large, uncertain, and inexorable on the horizon.

For some of us, we see gloom and doom. Others see hope. And at least one of us sees dollar signs (here's looking at you, Arnold). I can't tell you what's coming, one way or the other. Could be great things, could be terrible things. Chances are we'll see both. Ultimately, though, it's going to come down on you, and all the others in the collegiate system. Whatever your stance on degrees, you're the ones that wind up in charge.

You're the people that go on to grad school. You're the people that go on to run businesses, become policy wonks, engineers, economists cited in political messaging, and political elites. The future, good, bad, or neither, rests in your hands, and the hands of your peers.

When you understand that, you understand that you have a choice. You have the choice to become informed. You have the choice to resist manipulation. You have the choice to influence, persuade, and inspire others. You have the choice to be worthy of  what others have given for you, worthy of leadership, worthy of rewards you believe should be conferred upon you for your hard work....or not. It's up to you.

Keep in mind, though, that there will always be others that prefer you don't have a choice in determining your future. They may or may not be evil, they may or may not be stupid, they may or may not have some of the same beliefs as you. But those people do exist, and always will.

So forget about this "Generation Screwed" crap. Forget about being held back or being held down. Be tenacious, ambitious, resilient, adaptable, and intelligent. Make yourselves unassailable, so that no one can take from you that which you haven't given, and that which they haven't earned. Don't accept the way things are if you find them unacceptable.

At the same time, keep in mind the responsibilities you've all inherited by virtue of the gifts you've already received. You're all adults now, who have had the great privilege of coming to adulthood in (in my not-so-humble opinion) the greatest country in the world. You will vote, determine outcomes of elections and policies, and therefore be responsible for the decisions that our elected bodies make. With that comes the duty to understand that our governance doesn't exist to serve you individually, but to serve the nation as a whole. That means be willing to compromise, see others' points of view, and keep in your hearts and minds the ideals we're all supposed to cherish and protect.

The future is yours. Take it.

The War on What?

As our class discussions came to a close several interesting sentiments arose, namely that some of our biggest concerns for the future are the economy, the negative or invasive potential of technology, and war (or low intensity conflict). We also recently discussed covering, and foreign policy. In pondering these seemingly disparate subjects there seems to me to a single institution/policy/phenomenon that unites them all, The War on Terror. 

As far as foreign policy is concerned the effects of the war on terror are clear. The four countries on which we spent the most money in 2011(about 20 billion on the year) are Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Pakistan; countries where we either directly blow up Muslims, or use as proxies to develop and test new technologies for blowing up Muslims. This in turn has led to some serious violations of the rights of Muslim-American citizens here at home and fed into a widespread culture of bigotry at worst, and a demand for covering at least. Judging the effects of this war on the economy is beyond the scope of this blog. I will suggest, however, that 20 bill a year is no drop in the bucket, and surely has some effect. This effect seems to largely be that the future of the social safety net is being mortgaged, while a limited group of defense and infrastructure contractor/cronies pockets are getting swollen. Finally, the governments use of technology to invade into the lives of American citizens has reached sci-fi proportions. prism, drones, warrant-less wiretaps, not to mention all the great autonomous tracking systems and new weapon designs some of the nice folk up on north campus, and other engineering schools around the country, are working on.

So while we have not discussed it directly in class, the war on terror seems to be a primary influence on the world us millennials will inherit. The question that I would like to pose is not whether this war is right or wrong, just or unjust; but why? Being an engineering student, I am at heart a bit of a numbers guy. Starting with the attacks of 9/11, on which the war is largely predicated, until today roughly 3,062 Americans have died in terror attacks at home and abroad. In that same time period 460,531 people have died in auto accidents, about 5,000,000 have died from tobacco use or exposure, in 2010 alone 69,071 people died from diabetes. Let me be clear, I do not mean in any way to marginalize any loss of life, but I think we must ask why we are allowing such huge factors in our lives to be affected by a statistically insignificant threat of terrorism. I believe the president is correct when he says that we can not have 100% security and 100% privacy, but from a numbers standpoint who cares? If saving lives (security, right?) is the primary motivation, why have we not spent nearly a hundred billion dollars addressing public health in the last decade, or funded public safety in chicago where over 6,000 homicides have occurred during the war on terror? Spending almost a hundred billion bucks; dumping on at least the first, and fourth amendments; and perhaps irrevocably changing the nature of the citizen/state relationship, seems a bit of a disproportionate response to something less dangerous than eating at McDonalds, or simply falling over. Just imagine how many lives could be saved and jobs could be created if we spent 20 billion a year building a rail system in this country.

As us millennials move forward into the world we face a rapidly changing reality, technologically and politically. Job prospects, the division between the public and private realms, covering, basically every thing we have talked about this semester, is being largely influenced by what i posit is a non-issue of a premise. The country seems to alternatively bash us for being narcissists, yet look to us to magically use technology to save the economy. I think that we probably will end up pulling the countries chestnuts out of the fire; but with the war on terror, as well as such issues as gender roles, technology, the purpose of education, etc... , we would do well to not take what we have been given at face value. It will soon be our world and we really need to ask, why are we even doing this?

Millennials, Government Spending, and Hopes

        "So what are millenials known, so far? Well, to start the obvious, we're fucked financially" Remember that time you were in middle school or high school and were introduced to the U.S. debt clock. Whether it was the total or per capita bullshit amount we owed as a nation, that amounting sum was somewhat beyond comprehension. I mean, this money is what paid through the wars the slaughtering of thousands. Sure, some of it had gone to foreign aid, domestic policy, this and that, but think of the more absurd expenses that take place in politics. That's what I hope to achieve with my final post for our PS300 course. 

       First let me point out some of the wilder 'loans' that government and political figures have together dispersed without hesitance: the ridiculous government employee bonuses, irresponsible tax cuts for corporate America, government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac high risk mortgages, and particularly of interest to me, presidential campaign spending. The issue I have is not just a contemporary one. It has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century. The graph below taken from Forbes shows us that high budget spending is not atypical of the present. 

        Why am I picking out presidential spending among all the other? First, this topic of interest is not just a contemporary one. It has been escalating since end of the nineteenth century. That long ago, can't say I know a great deal about the spending of that time. My most vivid memory of a presidential election was one between Al Gore and George W. Bush. What I remember were the many promises made by Bush which were in fact never kept during his presidencies. More recently, I remembered Obama's campaign and his stance on privacy. I wanted to check on what the president's opinion was regarding NSA policy and particularly private surveillance. I came across what I thought be a contradiction to the president's original position, one that aimed to uphold the constitutional rights of privacy.

      It may just be me who thinks this, but I don't believe that private funding of presidential campaigns should be legal. It's the equivalent to pooling money (happens in Corporate America through the sales of consumer goods and services), and choosing which of the two dominant contenders they'll sponsor. This would be alright if the individual or group sales were aligned with the corporate view, but they're not. Only the public, meaning individual citizens, should be allowed to donate to U.S. presidential elections beyond the primaries. Corporate America has a goal, and it is certainly not the same as the rest of America. Lobbying is a big business and it has very little to do with making our lives any easier. Couldn't you imagine our own funding of presidential campaigns. Perhaps in lieu of making empty promises, candidates could potentially give back the funds in creative ways that bolster our communities and local economies? It's a nice a thought. Better than to think of the two billion dollars that was never to be seen again past donation time during the 2012 elections.
   

Technology: One of The Family Members

Over the last few weeks, we have spent a good amount of time in class discussing family life and, as a class, came to the conclusion that marriage promotes stability in a child’s life. Early today, I was reading Noelle’s post “Technology: We’ve Made a Huge Mistake” (Thanks Noelle for bringing up such a thought-provoking topic.) and this prompted me to start thinking about the effect technology has on a family. Maybe we should be less concerned about the parents’ relationship with each other and more focused on what technology is doing to the home life.

To begin, there is the issue of communication between family members. I must admit that technology has allowed families to communicate much quicker, which can decrease worry and help in emergency situations.  It even keeps us closely connected to those whom we might not have been able to stay close to in the past. Cambridge University conducted a study and came up with the following information. 

"Families surveyed across all four countries universally agreed that new information and communication technology such as Facebook, Skype, instant messaging and email have improved relationships with extended family that don't live close by. Where the negative effect seems to take place is at home, with the immediate family."

Technology is a great way for families to stay connected, but with so much connecting being done over the internet, does that leave room for that ever so important face-to-face contact? With how we use technology today, we are always “plugged in”. Sure, we might be spending time with our parents and siblings, eating dinner as a family, but our phones and iPods normally tag along. Time and quality time essentially do not carry the same significance. Even our parents often bring home their work, answering business calls and responding to emails at all hours of the night. Could this be a major contributor of the work-life imbalance that we are facing today?

One of the most interesting articles ("Technology is Taking Over My Family") that I have read on this topic is one man's account of what technology has done to his family. I highly suggest reading it in full. It is a very candid view into his life at home and how technology has dominated all aspects of his family life. His daughter even texts him, while they are in the same house, to ask for a cup of tea. This type of distant communication between families brings up the issue of "silent fluency". Your family is meant to be the people who you are closest to. You are able to express a range of emotions with them, and with that, you learn how to pick up on non-verbal signs, body language, and facial expressions. The constant use of technology has led our generation, and those younger, to not be able to have suck skills. It's scary to think that if this disconnected communication happens in at home, what can we expect when these children are thrust into the workforce and must partake in face-to-face interaction?

Another cause of concern in regards to technology in the home could be the parent-child dynamic. Many of us would agree that our parents definitely do not know as much about technology as we do. Some of us can even remember the difficulty we faced when we had to teach our parents how to use their smartphones and tablets. The parent's lack of knowledge can often lead kids to feel superior, which results in a struggle of authority when a parent tries to take away or limit technologies like phones, computers, TVs, etc. 

When it comes to technology and the family, I think there are some positive aspects, but in the end I think it is detrimental to the "ideal" home life, in which when the parents and kids are all at home they interact and have meaningful conversations and interactions. What do you think about technology and family? Do you think technology has become a part of the modern family? Is that a good or bad thing?

A Perfect Pair: Detroit and Millennials

Like most of the class, I was rather unimpressed after watching Detropia this Wednesday.  With everything that’s going on in Detroit – both good and bad – I thought Detropia’s representation of the city lacked nuance and depth.  Instead of delving into the issues and offering solutions, it seemed to present the facts (but not all of them) and left me, as a viewer, feeling uninformed and honestly a bit discouraged about the city’s future.

Because we didn’t have a lot of time to discuss the movie, I thought that the class blog would be the perfect forum to do so (or to talk about Detroit in a way that might be more representative of its issues).  I think Detroit is really interesting and applicable to this course for a couple of reasons. 

A Detroit School: Then and Now (check out this album
 for more haunting before and after pictures)

Firstly, when we talk about policy solutions to issues in class, we are often faced with the difficulty of finding a policy solution that can apply to everyone/every city (especially inner city areas).  Detroit is a good example of one place in which I’d venture to say that most of our solutions in class simply wouldn’t work.  With such systemic problems, not to mention a lack of access to resources and funding, we can’t apply many policies to Michigan as a whole that would work the same way in Detroit.  That being said, I think it requires more creativity in order to come up with workable solutions.  In Detropia, Mayor Bing even talks about making a rather drastic change by consolidating the city, forcing people in Detroit’s less populated areas to relocate to the heart of the city.  What do you think of the solutions put forth in the movie? Where do you think reform on Detroit needs to begin and why?  Are there any solutions you have heard of that resonate with you?

Another reason I think Detroit is really interesting is because it is one place in particular in which youth are called upon to make change. Detropia documents a couple who moved to the city to engage in street art.  Governor Snyder has many times encouraged young professionals to move to Detroit.  Dan Gilbert (the founder and chairman of the company Quicken Loans) is working on bringing youth to Detroit over the next few years (and is trying to draw lots of other businesses to the city, too – his plan is pretty inspiring!). Young entrepreneurs and youth-driven projects are seen as critical steps in helping the city to flourish.  After reading the articles by Liu and Thompson about millennial attitudes, I can’t help but think that reenergizing Detroit is a task made for our generation.  Our supposed optimism, creative energy, and lack of emphasis on material goods might make us the perfect candidates to revitalize to the city.

From "How A Young Community of Entrepreneurs
 is Rebuilding Detroit"

Although many articles stress millennials’ helplessness to achieve a “better” life than their parents, I am still optimistic that we will.  Financially? Materialistically? Maybe not.  Nonetheless, I think that Detropia did miss some important points; I think that millennials will play a crucial role in breathing new life into Detroit, which will have huge implications for the state of Michigan as a whole.  It is questionable that we will have the material luxuries of previous generations, but I think there’s a lot of power in garnering our millennial-ness and creating tremendous social change.

This just in: Paula Deen is SO racist

I was scrolling through my twitter feed mindlessly when all of a sudden I see "Paula Deen" and "#FoodNetwork" in the trend bar. So after a quick google search, I find out that Paula Deen's contract with Food Network will not be renewed at the end of the month because (according to the Chicago Tribune), "...she has used the N-word in the past, and that she once wanted to plan a "plantation"-style wedding for her brother."

Paula Deen, 66, was born and raised in the south during an era where segregation was just a way of life. The N-Bomb was thrown around so casually that it was just another word. Since she is now a public figure on The Food Network, do you think she is covering her true self when in the public's eye? Or has her true self really changed fundamentally where the N-word is no longer a part of her vocabulary, thus no longer a part of her true self, but she just had a slip-up? She says that she only used that word when she was held up at gun point by a black man, and discussing when other black people use it. But this whole situation makes me think of the dialogue of people that I interact with, people on the internet, and Americans as a whole. Sometimes this word slips out at the wrong time and a conflict arises, like so:

Around 2007-2008, The NAACP and Barack Obama were looked upon to take some action to "Bury the N-Word," which would hopefully end the use of this word once and for all. And today it is kept somewhat out of white mainstream media(news and entertainment outlets that cater to the white demographic in the US). But is this word dead? Or do people cover and pretend that it's dead? Louis CK believes that white people have found a way to say this word, and I think he hits the nail on the head with this one (Start at 2:03 and watch until 3:00):

I think if we want to bury this word, we should stop being afraid to talk about it. And by talk about it, that partially means don't stumble around and stutter when trying to describe someone's race like "And he was bl.. er.. African American."  Also, the argument that comes from some white peoples' mouths, "black people can say it, why can't I? That's not fair!" The reality is nobody should have "permission" to use this hateful word.

It's time to talk seriously and cut the PC bull. People need to understand that their rights are not being infringed upon when they are told to not say a particular word; there just happens to be a terribly bloody and dark history behind this one particular word and when it's used, it sometime offends certain people a great deal. We should be proactive, not reactive. It seems that this word gets its publicity whenever it slips out of a celebrity's mouth and then people talk about it. Maybe we should put it all out there--get everyone's voice and opinion heard in the first place, so instead of a media frenzy/controversy/ridiculous apology tweets and videos. Let's find out who's covering and get everyone out of the dark on this issue.

Let me know what you think: do we already talk about this as a people? Do people just not care? What solution would be better?

HAGS everyone!