Blogs

The information I learnt through the readings, movie and discussion primarily drove home to me how lucky I am to be able to see these art pieces. The paper I wrote about my visit to the Barnes was almost exclusively about my observations on Henri Rousseau’s “Scout Attacked By a Tiger”; the information I learnt about Barnes does not affect what I saw in that painting. However, if I rewrote the paper to focus more on the Foundation, the information I learnt would be used to discuss the differences between how the art was originally shown and how it is shown now, and how those differences might affect my interpretation of the art.

Because I wasn’t in class on Tuesday, I feel a bit behind, especially considering how many people have reflected on what we discussed in class. I can, however, reflect on how my opinion changed based on the readings and the movie. And, to be completely honest, my opinion didn’t really change! I already knew that the Barnes Foundation moved, and that it is now much more public. I think that that is great, because just being there for a few hours, I saw so many masterpieces artistically organized on the walls. Making a treasure like that more open and available is an important step when looking at the progression of society.

If I were to redo my Barnes experience, I don’t know what I’d do differently. I’d hopefully go on a day when I don’t feel as sick as I did when I previously went.  It was pretty bad timing, but I think I made the best of it, and found the experience to be stimulating and exciting!

I am confused after reading the articles that explain the original function of this museum. When I see a picture, I prefer to read the stories after it. I’m interested in who is the character in the picture, why painters choose the character and the meaning of the picture. Actually I am not used to enjoying a picture by noticing its lines, colors or structures. However, Barnes hopes visitors can enjoy the picture without those backgrounds. Although I do not have the background information, I still try to find such information by staying with the picture for a long time. The museum changes its position. Luckily, they did not change the arrangement of artworks here. I don’t think it is a large problem to change the museum’s position. Compared to this problem, the existence of audio tour works more against the original idea of Barnes. It makes Barnes Foundation a real commercial museum instead of an educational place. I will re-write my paper and focus more on the picture itself but not the story of it.

I don't think I really look at my experience at the Barnes differently after watching the movie and reading the article. I already knew it had been moved, but I was happy that it was, or at least indifferent on the conflict over moving it, because I know I probably wouldn't have gotten the same chance to visit it as I did. I think it's good that the Foundation is more open to the public, but I also think it was fine before it was public. Similarly, the class discussion did not really change my view on the painting I analyzed. I'd like to look at it again, just to see if I notice anything else, but I do not think I would really have a dramatic change of heart regarding my opinion or reading of it.

When spending my thirty minutes at The Barnes with Peter Paul Ruben’s The Incarnation as Fulfillment of All the Prophecies, a lot of material covered in my art history class came flooding back.  I found myself spending a great time analyzing the piece based on preconceived notions and facts on classical artwork rather than having my own natural experience with it.  If given the option to relive my Barnes trip, I would have chosen a work of art different than the religious and fairly familiar piece chosen.  When visiting, I was also attached to Van Gogh’s Postman, which I may have had more success writing about as I know little about his style.

So I read this article to my family over the break and it provided a very interesting dicussion.  My family didn't understand the reasoning behind the point of using different pronouns instead of just using he/she pronouns. I attempted to give them a gender studies lecture and explain the reasoning behind it. Also I found the comments on this article to be interesting as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html

I had an interesting experience over my Thanksgiving break. I've had the same phone for several years now and was due for an upgrade, so while I was home I went to the store to get a new phone. I am not well versed on what new phones are out and which ones are best, so naturally I asked someone at the store to help me out and give me an idea of what phones I should look at based on some preconceived ideas I had of what I wanted. The guy who helped me was very friendly, but at one point, he began telling me about a phone in the store that "girls really love." He kept telling me that "girls love this phone because it's very thin so they can fit it in their supertight jeans." Now if this salesman had known anything about me, he would have known that was the quickest way to piss me off and lose that sale. He repeated that statement to me about 3 or 4 times as I was looking around at other phones, and it made me super uncomfortable. First of all, I was pissed that he was stereotyping young women and me (though I wasn't even wearing tight jeans at the time so okay...). Secondly, I was pissed that he saw me as a female customer and assumed that because of that, I didn't care much about the technology, I just cared about the aesthetics of the phone, because of course no woman in her right mind would be interested in technological details!

While I understand the point Butler was trying to make, that everyone dies at some point and that we are all equal through that (I can't help but think of Gavroche from Les Miserables: "Here's the thing about equality - everyone's equal when they're dead!"), I'm not entirely sure I agree. We constantly try to quantify the weight of a death based on proximity, how they died, how old or young they were. We may all be equal once we are dead, but death in itself is hardly an equalizing platform. Determining any level of sensitivity is to turn death into something measurable and quantifiable, something affected by gender and race and class. While, in theory, Butler should be correct in that death should be the one thing that makes every human equal and should be the basis for relationships, death is soiled by contexts and legacies that do inevitably lead us to question the value placed on certain deaths over others.

I went to the Barnes Foundation without any previous knowledge about its background, and I'm gratified that I didn't watch the movie or read the articles about its "move" before I went there. Because then I wouldn't be ablt to enjoy any of it with a pure mind, since there would be so many conflicts going on in my head. Reading the background materials entirely changed my way of seeing Barnes Foundation. I felt a little guilty about going there, but I'm also glad that it was moved there so that I could visit. The sacred feeling it gave me originally about the building and the collection was crushed. From my perspective, it used to be a fabulous place for amazing artworks, but now it seems like a scandalous conspiracy. It surprised me that additional information could alter one's opinion so much and reminded me of the power of knowledge and education. I was also given a clearer outlook regarding Barnes and his collection, which is not only valuable financially, but also in terms of its original goal to educate.

I thought it was interesting that Judith Butler strongly emphasized a person’s concept of “self” as being connected to different relationships that are cultivated.  This is why I found Butler’s text the most accessible of the theoretical texts that we have read thus far.  I have found that most of my relationships have played a huge role in defining and discovering who I am as a person.  There are many people who would argue that too much interdependence can be dangerous. That being independent is the only way to move forward in life. 

One of my favorite singers, Sara Bareilles, recently released an album called The Blessed Unrest and one of the tracks is called “Islands.”  Whenever I listened to this song, I interpreted the message to mean that human beings are all islands and that becoming dependent on one another is dangerous and problematic.  Today I went back and listened to this song with Judith Butler and interdependence in mind.  To me, the song seems to have a different meaning now.  I think the message could be interpreted as a call to humans, or islands, to become more dependent on other islands to survive.  It seems that every time I listen to this sing it means something else but right now it feels like a call social dependence as a means of creating a “self.”      

Here is a link to listen to the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPOhGIpZjKU