Damsels and Vixens and Ladies, Oh My!

Having studied art for some years myself, I was struck by Hannah Gadsby's representation of the role of women in art and throughout history. Of course, it's not a new discovery, the role of women in art has always been a point of contention but it was interesting to me as I just recently finished a semester course in Victorian Literature with Dr. H. and in that class we studied some paintings from the Victorian period, examining the different ways that women were portrayed in artwork during that time and what that implied about the state of society as a whole.

This part of Gadsby's show caught my attention and intrigued me and she's right to bring up the objectification of women's bodies in art, as it continues to this day. If you're not aware, you don't have to go to a museum or take a class anymore (although you should!) to gain some general knowledge about Victorian art. A simple google search will provide a plethora of damsels in distress, over-sexualized vixens and lounging ladies with nothing to do but lie around waiting for... why, a man of course!

"Why is she like that?" - random eight year old kid's question

In fact, according to Gadsby, there are two types of women in art - the virgin and the whore. This is apparent in paintings not only by artists such as John Everett Millais and Dante Gabriel Rossetti but also by women such as Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale and Henrietta Rae. All portrayed women as either objects of desire or pitiful, lonely and lifeless, like these:

 Fortescue-Brickdale

Rossetti

Millais

Oh and I almost forgot this one!

Because why would one not want the only guy that made it to the watering hole that day?

It's clear that the roles of women within Victorian art were intended to appeal to the male gender and although I applaud Gadsby's reference to the subject during her stand up, bringing awareness and countering the patriarchy, as a noble effort to encourage women to take control of our own destiny and reclaim our bodies, I also have faith and recognize the strength that women have as the main consumers within present-day society to do exactly that. Just as Gadsby points out, art, power and money have always been connected and although it may seem impossible to fully change the mainstream idea of what women ought to be, with regard to how we are viewed as people, we have come a long way since Victorian ideals had hold of our identity and it's important to stay the course, continually taking progressive steps into the future.

Unit Five Blog Post

            For this blog post, I want to talk about “Revising,” which is chapter five of Joseph Harris’s book, Rewriting, How to Do Things with Text. In this chapter, Harris writes about how rare it is that first drafts are instantly readable, despite media depictions of it. Harris states, “[t]his one-draft view of writing is reinforced by most movie and TV depictions of writers at work, as we watch them quickly type perfectly balanced and sequenced sentences until, with a sigh of satisfaction, they pound out THE END or press SEND” (100). Harris is correct that this rarely happens. This is why I think that the fifth response paper is a good exercise for this class. Nobody is a writing wizard right off the bat. Unless of course, you are actually a wizard. By the way, let’s give a big shout to wizards! Literature, legends, Renaissance festivals, and online computer customer service would be much boring places without them.

            There is a well-known real-life exception to Harris’s comments about the one draft writing style shown in media. Famously, Jack Kerouac’s iconic novel On the Road was typed on a massive scroll. Here are some pictures of this below.

And here is a recreation of what it was like when it was first unfolded.

Even through the scroll of On the Road is legendary in literature, Kerouac did do some revisions to it for the final completion of On the Road. Even Kerouac knew about the power of editing. Here is a link about the scroll below:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2008/scroll/

       Harris writes about how important revising, editing, proofreading is to achieve the creation of a polished text. Harris’s discussion about the importance of these things in literature reminded me of the literary centered hashtag #ThanksForTyping. Bruce Holsinger, a professor at the University of Virginia, noticed how many acknowledgment pages in books had mentions of the author’s wives typing, transcribing, proofreading, and editing the books. Many times, the authors would just thank their wives without even stating their names! So Holsinger went to Google Books, took screenshots of these acknowledgments and posted them to Twitter under the hashtag # ThanksForTyping. Here is the link to it: 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ThanksForTyping?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E845643268046106625&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2017%2F03%2F30%2F521931310%2F-thanksfortyping-spotlights-unnamed-women-in-literary-acknowledgements

So why is #ThanksForTyping important? Well, because it shows that many women (mostly wives) in their editing, transcribing, and proofreading of materials, have helped shaped and refine some of the greatest works of literature while being underrated or even uncredited entirely. It’s about finally giving these women their due. Here is an article about how the literary oeuvres of Tolstoy, Eliot, Nabokov, Wordsworth, Fitzgerald, etc, were helped by the women in their lives. Here is the link to article:https://theconversation.com/thanksfortyping-the-women-behind-famous-male-writers-75770

           Wait, there more! I actually have my own list of underrated female literary contributors.

         1.     Sylvia Beach

Beach published one of the most acclaimed books of the 20^th century, James Joyce’s Ulysses. Here is a link about this:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/books-and-their-makers-sylvia-beach-and-james-joyce

Beach’s bookstore, Shakespeare & Company is still in business in Paris, France. The current owner of Shakespeare & Company, Sylvia Whitman, gave a tour of the bookstore to the comedian Craig Ferguson, back in 2011. The tour of the bookstore begins at the 2:34 mark. Here is the link to the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2zRBCyuDCY

    2.    Eileen Blair

Blair was the wife of George Orwell. Her family members have stated that she was a contributor to his works. She might also be a pioneer of dystopian fiction through her poetry. Here are the links below:

https://unbound.com/books/eileen/updates/three-orwell-family-members-speak-out-about-the-importance-of-eileen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Blair

    3. Alma Reville

Alfred Hitchcock is justly remembered as the one of greatest directors of time. His wife Alma, a writer and editor, was a constant contributor to his body of cinematic works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Reville

   4. 1.      Margaret Warrington

Warrington was Stanley Kubrick’s secretary. I’m giving Warrington a mention here for a reason. You know the “all work and no play makes jack a dull boy” segment in Kubrick’s The Shining?

             Well, Warrington typed the phrase out…on 500 pages.

https://www.ranker.com/list/weird-facts-about-the-shining/anncasano?page=4

So I leave you with some questions. What do think about #ThanksForTyping? What do you think about On the Road or any of the other literature that is mentioned in this blog post? Let’s get talking!

Unit Four: How We Discover Songs and Their Covers

I think it’s cool how we can stumble upon music in different ways. Often times, we hear it on the radio, YouTube, or someone suggests you listen to it. Now, I am a movie fanatic. It’s one of the many things I enjoy doing in my free time. One of the things I appreciate with movies is the soundtrack. Personally, this is how I find a great deal of music. Although, the songs may be old, they are new in terms of discovery.

I wrote my reflection paper on the meaning of the song “The Sound of Silence” by Simon and Garfunkel and the cover by the band Disturbed. Although, growing up I always heard people utter the line, “Hello darkness, my old friend”. However, I never knew the origin to that phrase. I did not make the connection until I finally watched the movie, The Graduate. I know that’s terrible.  

I have never watched the movie, Trolls, but apparently, they sing "The Sound of Silence" too! I think it's fascinating how producers decide which songs to incorporate in a movie. 

Another example of this is Elvis Presley’s song “Can’t Help Falling in Love”. I did not hear this song until I watched the popular Extra Gum commercial with the cover performed by Haley Reinhart: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLpDiIVX0Wo

The song was also performed by Kina Grannis in the movie Crazy, Rich Asians. Which I have also

not watched, but it's on my list. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HucEJEbAP3s&t=43s

I think covers have the power to alter how we interpret the meaning. It's also interesting how there are so many ways to discover these songs. Through these various outlets, you can stumble across a songs origin and it can lead to covers. There are countless other songs that are featured in movies that each have covers. 

Have you ever made a connection or discovery to a song through a movie, show, commercial, ect? 

Unit 5%

I’ll just start by saying “Nanette” blew me away. It reminded me of Mike Birbiglia’s special “My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend.” In his special he talks about near death experiences and loosing the woman he wanted to marry. It’s more of a one-man-show than a stand up special although Birgiglia is a stand up comedian. In his show he talks about his existentialist journey to his incapability to accept the ending of a relationship he cherished.

Gadsby’s special was sort of like that. She tells a story about what it’s like to be her and struggle with her identity of a “different” kind of person. Through her differences she manages to develop a sense of what makes sense and what doesn’t. Gadsby can detach herself from conventional ideology because she doesn’t let it rule her life. She doesn’t let it rule her life because she is a “gender-not-normal-lesbian.” In her special, she tackles such subjects as the gendering of color and the propping up of men’s legend’s that denigrate women. She talks about Picasso and how he slept with an underage girl “in her prime.” As if the only way a girl could be in her prime is sexually or physically. Gadsby rightly attacks these ideas and provides evidence against them.

Gladsy also flawlessly informs the audience of the role of tension and truth in comedy. Gadsby chooses to leave the audience with tension instead of laughter. Gadsby says, “The tension is yours, I’m not helping you anymore, because you need to know what this feels like.” I think what she’s referencing is the story she’s just told the audience. She tells her heartfelt story of coming to understand that comedy can only get you so far. She talks about how stories have a beginning middle and end, whereas comedy only has a beginning and a middle. She can get more and give more by telling a story than trying to get her audience’s ribs to crack.

Gadsby story is one of resilience and perseverance. Gadsby writes, “to be rendered powerless does not destroy your humanity, your resilience is your humanity, to yield and not break, that is resilience.” Gadsby is referencing how difficult her life has been. She even mentions she’s damaged and “will never flourish.” Maybe Gadsby is internally in a state of great disrepair and depression that cannot be fixed, but her special (I refrain from saying stand up special) is heartfelt and true to the emotional toil any troubled/unfairly treated person of different orientation might go through. Gadsby stands before the audience because she is stronger than the rest of her audience. After hearing her story, her audience might think about where they’d end up if they were her. I know I’d be dead somewhere. It takes a special kind of person to weather a storm and come out capable and strong like Gadsby. At the end I wanted more. I still want more. I want more comedians to pop my bubbles of ignorance so I can see more clearly. Seems like I’ve been wearing glasses for a while now, but at least in one respect thanks to Gadsby, I’ve received some laser eye surgery when it comes to understanding the nuances of Picasso, gender, identity, and sexual orientation.   

500 × 296

Unit Four - Marginalized Groups in Media

A small warning: This blog post contains spoilers for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you haven't seen the show and are worried about decades-old spoilers, well, I'd be surprised, but I thought I should warn you anyway.

We’ve talked a lot about self-deprecating humor this semester. Regina Barreca writes that "it's okay to be funny if you're a woman as long as the only thing you're laughing at is yourself—or other women" (24), demonstrating how that kind of humor can only put women down. Hannah Gadsby tells her audience, "I have built a career out of self-deprecating humor. [...] And... I don't want to do that anymore" (17:40–17:50). She tells us how self-deprecation from people who are marginalized can be harmful to them, saying, "It's not humility. It's humiliation" (18:00–18:05). Moving away from the comedy for a bit, Gadsby's discussion of marginalized communities, and especially the way they can internalize the hatred others show towards them, made me think of the first lesbian characters I was ever exposed to in media.

Their names are Willow and Tara, from the T.V. show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and aside from being a cute couple, they're also two powerful witches.

Willow, portrayed by Alyson Hannigan, on the left. Tara, portrayed by Amber Benson. Source: "Once More with Feeling." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 6, episode 7, Mutant Enemy, 2002.

Both women are wonderful (the actresses and the characters), but the person Gadsby reminded me of was Tara. Tara Maclay was introduced largely to be a love interest for the character Willow Rosenberg, and while her character was developed more fully later on, in the early episodes, she was a timid woman ashamed of her identity.

A lot of her identity issues actually stemmed from her being led to believe she was a demon, but the metaphor is still there. Source: "Hush." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 4, episode 10, Mutant Enemy 1999.

Tara and Willow were on my mind as I watched Hannah Gadsby's Nanette, because immediately before the comedy special, I had rewatched the episode where Willow comes out and reveals her relationship with Tara. The episode focuses on Willow and her confliction as her ex-boyfriend Oz returns to town wanting to reignite their relationship, just when Willow was beginning to move on with Tara. Tara's reaction to the news, however, is heartbreaking.

Source: "New Moon Rising." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 4, episode 19, Mutant Enemy 1999.

With the arrival of Oz, Tara's automatic assumption is that Willow will naturally go back to be with him. At this point in the series, everybody knew her as only a "friend" of Willow's, and while still wanting to be Willow's friend, Tara was comfortable with being cast aside as soon as Oz returned. Her self-esteem was so low that she never expected anything better.

Source: "New Moon Rising." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 4, episode 19, Mutant Enemy 1999.

This episode aired in 1999, and while Buffy the Vampire Slayer was relatively progressive for its time, homosexuality was, as it still is, an awkward subject for people. Part of Tara's reaction to this situation is related to her backstory, but for the most part, it's very telling about the vulnerable position homosexuals were in during that time period. Women were less in the spotlight than men, as Gadsby said, "in all the debate about... homosexuality... no one ever really talked about the lesbians" (04:50–05:05), which is perhaps why Joss Whedon felt comfortable with having a lesbian couple on the show rather than a gay one, but episodes like this show that having an "easier" time doesn't mean having an "easy" time. The main conflict of the episode, after all, is Willow's ex-boyfriend getting captured after he turns into a werewolf... triggered by a fit of rage at discovering that Tara is Willow's lover.

Oz on the left, portrayed by Seth Green. Gotta love those late '90s special effects. Source: "New Moon Rising." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 4, episode 19, Mutant Enemy 1999.

The episode highlights the delicate situation Tara is in, and even without context for her character, it's easy to understand why she would have such a hard time believing in her relationship when, at that point, even Willow was still hiding it from everyone. Tara was afraid, had grown up in an oppressive environment that taught her she had no worth, and thought it was only natural that Willow would leave Tara once Oz came back. Luckily for Tara, she was wrong.

Source: "New Moon Rising." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 4, episode 19, Mutant Enemy 1999.

Tara and Willow will always be one of the most iconic lesbian relationships in my mind. It took a long time, but eventually, together with Willow, Tara began to see her own value.

People familiar with the show probably know how this relationship goes, but I'm just going to focus on the good episodes. Shhh. Source: "Once More with Feeling." Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, season 6, episode 7, Mutant Enemy, 2002.

Like any relationship, Tara and Willow go through their ups and downs, but they supported each other. When Tara was at her most vulnerable, she found she had a group of friends to fall back on. As we start the month of June, I hope we can all do our best to support the LGBTQ people in our lives—including ourselves, for those whom that applies to.

Tara and Willow are always going to be iconic for me, but who was the first LGBTQ character you saw in media? Do you think they were a good representation?

Unit Four Post: Is the First Cut Really the Deepest? An Exploration of Cover Culture

There are a lot of people who claim to love ALL music. I'd like to think I'm one of the ones who really does. 

Growing up, I listened to a lot of what most people would probably call oldies - music from before 1980. Back in the era of physical discs, my parents had tons of records, cassettes and CDs. On any given day, there might be Bob Dylan playing at my parents' house, or The White Album or The Pretenders or maybe even my late Aunt, who had a beautiful voice and used to send us cassettes she recorded of herself, singing hymns. Apart from simply listening to music, I tried my hand at making it as well, training in the Suzuki violin school starting at three, playing Irish fiddle, and singing. Always singing. 

Amidst all of this musical wonder, it was my mom who introduced me to Rod Stewart. She would put on "The First Cut is the Deepest" in the car and we would rock it out together. Knowing musical history is being cultured, mom would say. There's probably a lot of people out there who don't think that Rod Stewart is culture, but I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. 

I first fell in love with music because of the sound, the melodies. Later, I fell in love with the stories that music has to tell, and the stories of the musicians who I came to love so deeply. Their stories inspired me. As it turns out, that song my mom and I loved to jam to, "The First Cut is the Deepest", has a pretty great story behind it. 

In the mid sixties, a young man who dreamed about making music wrote a song that would become an international hit for many artists. Being shy himself however, he sold the initial rights to the song to a singer named P.P. Arnold (you can check out her version of the song here). That man's name is Cat Stevens. You probably already guessed what that song is. 

Here is Cat Steven's recording of "The First Cut is the Deepest."

And here he is in all of his youthful glory. 

Eventually Cat (thankfully!) realized he wasn't just a songwriter, he was a performer. He included the song on his album New Masters in 1967. It was a hit.

Many other artists went on to cover "First Cut." After P.P. Arnold, Norma Fraser and Keith Hampshire, Rod Stewart recorded the song in 1976 on his album A Night on the Town. It became a huge hit for him as well. 

However, most people nowadays probably aren't familiar with the version of "First Cut" by either Cat Stevens or Rod Stewart. Today, most people are probably familiar with the Sheryl Crow version, Sheryl Crow of the cowboy boots and swingy blonde hair. Oh, and that amazing voice. Here she is singing her version. 

I used to think that the Rod Stewart version was superior, because that's what I grew up with. Now, I'm not so sure. I've been pondering how many things an artist brings to a song they cover - not just their voice or way of playing music, but also their personality, their background, even (as you see in these music videos) their fashion sense. I think that's true of anything that's covered, whether it's writing or music or visual art.

Although I do have some strong opinions about music, and I'd like to think I'm a bit knowledgable about some areas of it, music is never something that people should be condescending about. Music is an art form of the people. And that's why I think the cover is a great thing.  

In listening to all of these covers I think I'm beginning to understand what Harris meant when he wrote about "taking an approach." When I listen to "The First Cut is the Deepest" as recorded by Rod Stewart or Sheryl Crow, I see their unique stylings come through, but I also see Cat Stevens, a shy young man who just knew he had some musical magic in him. And I love that. 

And in case you're maybe having a bad day, or you just have too many forum posts left to write for this Unit... Take a listen to this, and you might just decide you love Cat Stevens the way I do. 

And by the way, let me know if you have a favorite cover of "First Cut" (or another song!). You might not convince me, but I always enjoy talking music. 

Unit Four Blog Post

            For this week’s blog post, I want to talk about two topics that were Hannah Gadsby brought up in her fantastic Netflix special, Nanette.

1.      Cubism and Female Artists

Gadsby had some fiery and hilarious commentary on Pablo Picasso. She punctuated her commentary with “…but Cubism,” which she used as both a punchline and an imaginary counterpoint. Historically, Gadsby’s imaginary counterpoint would be inaccurate because although Picasso was the most famous Cubist artist, he wasn’t the only game in the art world town. For instance, Georges Braque was doing Cubist art around the same time as Picasso. In fact, many cubist artists were women. Here is a list of some amazing female cubists and other underrated female artists who made some great art.

1.      Leonora Carrington

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonora_Carrington

2.      Sonia Delaunay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Delaunay

3.      Corita Kent

https://hyperallergic.com/179863/the-beautiful-mercy-of-corita-kents-screenprints/

4.      Hilda Af Klint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilma_af_Klint

5.      Tamara de Lempicka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamara_de_Lempicka

6.      Dora Maar

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-voraciousness-and-oddity-of-dora-maars-pictures

7.      Rose O’ Neill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_O%27Neill

8.      Lyubov Popova

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyubov_Popova

9.      Bridget Riley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Riley

10.  Alma Thomas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Thomas

1.      Gendered Colors

In one of her monologues, Gadsby talks about societal gender norms. Gadsby states: 

You know what’s weird? Pink headbands on bald babies! That’s weird. I mean, seriously, would you put a bangle on a potato? No, that’s organic. I paid a lot for that potato. Of course I understand why parents do it. Clearly they’re sick and tired… of their beautiful baby girl… being mistaken for a boy baby because of the no hair situation. I understand that. But the thing is, I don’t assume bald babies are boys. I assume they’re angry feminists, and I treat them with respect. How about this? How about we stop separating the children into opposing teams from day dot? How about we give them, I dunno, seven to ten years to consider themselves… on the same side?

Although this monologue is funny on its own, it’s even funnier when you learn that the designation of the color pink for girls and the color blue for boys is historically, a relatively recent phenomenon. An article from Smithsonian, (a longtime favorite of mine) discusses the history of gendered colors. An article from The Atlantic discusses it as well, but there are some good tidbits about the cultural connotations of the color pink in works of literature, such as The Great Gatsby and Little Women. The articles are below:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/08/pink-wasnt-always-girly/278535/

             Gadsby’s discussion about gendering babies and the articles about the history of gendering colors got me curious about what baby toys are currently like in comparison to the baby toys in the past. I scrolled through Pinterest at some vintage baby toys. There isn’t really a predominant color in the collection of toys (maybe pastels?) It appears a recurring theme in the vintage toys are terrifying anthropomorphic animals with oversized pupils. Back then, toy makers wanted babies to equally have the best and finest nightmare fuel. Here is the link below:

https://www.pinterest.com/abbyglassenberg/vintage-baby-toys/

              Later, I googled “baby toys for girls.” Unsurprisingly, the color scheme for the toys are predominantly pink. The toys were representations of makeup vanities, kitchen appliances, purses, castles, unicorns etc. Here is the link below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+toys+for+girls&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS840US840&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih3-apicviAhWQTd8KHRbsBGoQ_AUIESgC&biw=1366&bih=657

             Later, I googled “baby toys for boys.” The color scheme for the boy’s toys has more variety based in primary colors than the baby toys for girls. The toys are automobiles, blocks, musical instruments, books, magnetic letters, globes, tools, etc. The toys for boys seem to more noise centric, (I didn’t really see many rattles or musical instruments that were advertised for baby girls.) The boy’s toys are described as being ‘learning toys,” “educational,” “cool,” “inspiring,” “eco-friendly” and “developmental.” The girl’s toys were advertised with less adjectives (the most common adjective was “cute.”) There are also way more toys based on Montessori teaching that are advertised in the boy’s toys than there are being advertised in the girl’s toys. There are more toys that focus on kicking and crawling for boys than for girls. Here is the link below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+toys+for+boys&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS840US840&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD2vG5icviAhVIn-AKHcWdDPMQ_AUIESgC&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=_
So, what do you think about these differences? Do you think that these differences between the toys state something about gender norms and standards in society? Maybe you think “they’re just toys, you’re overthinking this.” I’m open to your thoughts to engage in a conversation. Including ones about scary toys!

Citations:

Gadsby, Hannah. Nanette, Netflix, 2018.