I don't know if anyone other than Justin paid attention to my post about art. Hopefully that is the case. I am fairly convinced that while sometimes art might offend, that is certainly not the most important criteria in deciding if something is art. I just thought I should post this because I have been thinking further on the subject and I am fairly convinced that the definition was simply my mouth speaking before my brain was functioning.

Aux Etats-Unis

I am starting to wonder if the best way to understand your own culture and heritage isn't just to leave it. Or, ask someone who is visiting from another.
I just read the Kite Runner which is a book about a boy's life who lived a large part of it in Afghanistan and also America. It is filled with anecdotes, customs, and the language of another culture from my own. I was fascinated. It was unlike anything I knew in America. It was also a really interesting story. (I do recommend it, but with a warning that it is difficult because it is an emotionally heavy book).
Having finished a novel set in Afghanistan and an Afghani community in America, I decided to take up a couple of novels by Americans about Americans. I reread A River Runs Through It and without reservation recommend it to anybody and everybody. I am also just about a third of the way into a book by Wendell Berry called Jayber Crow.
As I was just getting up from reading Jayber Crow, my thoughts turned back to Kite Runner. I was thinking about how fascinated I was because it was a culture unlike my own and because I was just so curious about this complete other life style I was living. I could pick out instantly what was novel and interesting. They seemed to have such a fascinating culture of proverbs, religion, heritage, music and general way of life. It was destroyed even within the course of the novel, but it was unique. I started to wonder if people from places like Afghanistan read books about America and are fascinated about it the same way I am about their cultures (by the way I love novels about cultures that are not strictly Western. I don't always like their philosophies but I love a good story). Oddly enough, my first thought was, "of course they don't think like that. There is nothing unique about your culture. Your culture is just an amalgam of other cultures. There is nothing distinctly American. America is not a heritage or an ethnicity." This is how I have always felt about being American to be honest. I jokingly allow myself to be called Jewish, but sometimes I like it because it identifies me with a long tradition and culture. Its roots go so much further back than anything I could latch onto tightly from America. My family is like most Midwestern American families. We have lots of Western European heritage and a little Native American. But, nothing as strong as say being Jewish.
I am not exactly how to define American culture and heritage. I do know that reading a book like Jayber Crow just feels like a novel, not something distinctly American. I realized how hard it is to define something that is commonplace to you. Something you have grown up seeing and knowing your whole life can't seem unique. Its what you know. Its all you know for a long time. It becomes necessary to compare what you know to other cultures to really get a sense of what is distinctly yours. It is much easier for me to find what I am not than what I am. I can look around me and point out stuff that isn't American, Midwestern, Missourian, or St. Louisan. I do it everyday. Yet, it is really difficult for me to say that is American and that is special and unique (except for McDonalds and Walmart. That is originally American but even it seems less American as it is so commonplace everywhere now.)
I guess people just like to have something to call their roots. Some greater story or family line to be a part of, at least I do. I want to know where I came from and what part I can play in where that is headed.

Art that offends

I am in living in Paris, France. Home of the Louvre, Musée D'Orsay, Centre Pompidou etc. So, I guess its only natural that I should do at least one post on art.
There are 3 main sources of this reflection.
1) I went to an exhibit of the art of Chaim Soutine
2) The idea of kitsch has been on my mind a lot after I read a book called The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera and he has an interesting section on kitsch
3) Without really thinking about it, I told someone today that "art can't be called art unless it offends someone"

Soutine was known for his part in expressionist art in Paris. He was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. He had many influences but one of the most noted at this exhibit was Rembrandt. A lot of his early expressionist pieces seem to draw some inspiration from Van Gogh. The expressionist followed after the impressionist, so it is only natural. Soutine's art it recognized because he was Jewish and crazy. Also, because it is often called grotesque (that also happens to be a title to one of his pieces). He is one of the hardest painters of the 20th centuray to understand because he suffered from depression and what he painted was often called offensive and ugly. Yet, this is what makes him so influential. This is why there is special exhibit in Paris soley dedicated to his work. Everyone who looks at it has to decide whether they think it is art, ugly, beautiful, good, bad or otherwise. (If any of you are in Paris before the end of January you need to go see it. Also, if you are in Paris and don't somehow look me up, just don't tell me).

I wonder if kitsch is simply art that isn't offensive. Dictionary.com says, "something of tawdry design, appearance, or content created to appeal to popular or undiscriminating taste." Milan Kundera says kitsch is "a categorical agreement with being." Basically, kitsch is anything simplistic and agreeable. Kitsch is art with blinders on. It cannot show you the full spectrum of life or emotion because it ignores that which is difficult or maybe "offensive." I know I have links to my photos on here and I think they might have to go under the category of kitsch. I like them and my mom likes them but basically because they capture something beautiful that I didn't create, but simply captured on film. My photography is just a catalogue of where I have been and the beautiful things I have seen. It might be nice, but no one will study it in years to come. No one will react against it or probably find anything meaningful to say about it except, "oh that's nice." This doesn't mean I will stop doing photography or posting it on this blog, but I am under no false notion that it will stir you to thought or reaction; It is not in the least "offensive." It seems that all great movements of art is a reaction against something and is received with somewhat miwed reactions. Michelangelo painted nudes. That was offensive to some. The whole Renaissance strayed from purely Christian iconography and that was offensive to some. Van Gogh didn't paint realistically, and therefore it was considered ugly and not true art. Manet painted a nude prostitute on the lawn. It was offensive because it was not only a nude but a prostitute. All these are considered great artists now, but none were received without question and without offense to some.

Andreas Serrano put a crucifix in a jar and took a picture of it and called it art. It was certainly offensive. Was my quick definition of art as anything that is offensive to quick? Probably, but why? If you have any thoughts, please I would like to hear them.

Listening

I had one of the most interesting classes today than I have had probably since I have been here. Maybe it was the most interesting for me because I made the students speak the whole time, and I kept my mouth shut and listened. (It probably also made it one of the most interesting classes for them as well.)
Usually, my classes consist of giving the students either an article from a newspaper or an advertisement from a magazine and then talking about it with them. Most of the students, for their exams, have to speak, in English, for 10 minutes about an image or a document. Then, they have to respond to questions from the examiner. So, my classes mostly consist of replicating this kind of experience, except there is a lot more time and they don't have to speak for 10 minutes in class. Usually, the kids can barely speak for 3 minutes by themselves without me asking them questions, or them asking me how to translate a word (this is good for me though because I have learned a lot French this way. Actually, its more rare for me not to know a word then for me to have to look it up. That isn't to say I understand what everybody says perfectly, but at a snails pace, I am picking it up).
So, this particular class, the document was an image of 7 students standing in front of a wall all. All the students were different races, heights, etc. There was a line at the bottom that said, "embrace diversity." There was also a quote at the bottom from Jimmy Carter that said, "America is not a melting pot, it is a beautiful mosaic..." The quote went on, but I can't remember the rest and that was the gist of it. I had the kids to the requisite description of the image, its title, and stuff like that. Then, the interesting part came. I asked them how France was different from America in terms of its racism. Most of the students agreed that France was more racist then America. Also, without even asking them, they all told me that America has a greater culture than in anywhere in Europe, because it is more culturally diverse then Europe. (I should also note that there were 6 black girls, and 1 white boy). The white boy said almost nothing the whole class. All the girls basically adored American culture and wanted to go to America. I have found, being at a school in the suburbs and more predominately black, that blacks teenagers from France, love America the most. All the students watch American television and listen to American music, but the black students are especially enthralled with America, in its totality. One of the girls pointed out that in America, people like Jimmy Carter encourage diversity and celebrate differences, whereas this is not a social objective in France. I asked the class why this was and in return I received a fascinating testimony. The testimony was from a girl who family had immigrated from Mali in North Africa. She said that she was a French citizen but in her "head" she was still from Mali. She said that most black North African immigrants to France feel this way. In America, she said that most black people talk about America like it is their home country. For her, she doesn't feel like France is her home country, so she doesn't care as much about what happens to her while she is here.
As I reflected on this, I was thinking about a lot of things. For one, I don't think that this girl has any intentions on moving back to Mali. She said she has been there but she is a French citizen. She lives in the best place in France to get a job and receiving a good education (I mean come on she has me for a teacher!) Yet, she admires American black people because they fight against racism and are outspoken about its effects. In France, this is not common because of the indifference of the people. I wondered why, if she praised this so much in American culture, why she didn't make a stand against racism in her own country? She idolizes life in America without realizing that racism still exists there. And, without realizing that it wouldn't be her home either. If I could encourage her to do anything, it would be to make a stand where she is against racism, and make it her country. Why don't these people from other cultures who live in France permanently make it their home? Or, at least, expect to be treated like what they are, French citizens? If you are not going back to Mali, and you are going to live in France, why not take a stand? I can understand wanting to keep the culture of your roots, but still France is now part of your own personal citizenship as well.
One girl pointed out that oftentimes racism exists out of fear from white people, or people of a different culture. This is almost cliche, but it instantly I recognized it in myself. It is much easier for me to resort to fear because I don't understand the culture. I made some effort growing up to get to know people from other cultures, but it is quite difficult to do so in West St. Louis County. Moreover, it is much easier to just stay put where I am comfortable than to venture out and see what exists in other areas of St. Louis and the world. This is something I would like to change in my future existence in America, or where ever it is that I live. I want to continue to seek out people who are different because there is so much that I can learn from them about the vast differences of God's creation and even about myself.
I realize this was a long one but, as selfish as this sounds, this one was important for me.

The Riots

I was glad to see that Jimmy asked me a question because, to be honest, I knew I had to write something, but I wasn't sure what. That's not say nothing has happened in the last week, but certainly nothing as thought provoking as the events of last weekend.
However, I was a little hesitant to write on the subject of the riots because I am sure it is something that my mom doesn't want to think or hear about. So, it is probably a good thing that she doesn't read the blog very often. But, she does watch the news, so I am sure that she is aware that there are riots in Paris.
To start, all the information that I have comes from sources like cnn.com, bbcnews.com and lefigaro.fr. I don't have a television that works in my room, so I don't ever watch TV. Morever, this is not a topic that many teachers talk about either.
I live south and a little bit west of Paris. The riots have been occuring in the North of Paris. So, as far as distance is concerned, I am on the complete opposite side of the city from the riots. (There was some sabotage on the TGV during the transportation strikes, but I am assuming that Jimmy was talking about the more recent Riots).
My suburb is extremely quiet and nothing happens here. That is both a good thing and a bad thing. It can be kind of boring, but it is safe. The closest we get to excitement is when I yell out angrily at the fact that I have stepped in dog poo on the sidewalks. We also have a lot of gypsies who gather at my train station, but they are not violent, just poor. Actually, they are pretty interesting because they all gather at my train station in the morning just after rush hour and plan where they will beg and just sort of have a commitee meeting about the state of begging in Paris. The kids run around, the dads smoke cigarettes, and the women talk about how difficult life in the big city is. Everybody is in good spirits, then as if struck by instant depression, they put their heads down and hold out their hands and walk quietly and dejectedly onto the trains. It is quite the unique sight to behold. I am quite convinced that gypsy begging in Paris is a form of performance arts. The women and children have it perfected. The men not so much. If you are a man between the ages of 16 and 40 you are going to have to rely on someone else to beg for you because you are not getting a dime on the train! Watching these people is one of my favorite things about waiting for the train in Massy. Enough of this digression.
This is from BBC World news and their assesment of the problem, "In the out-of-town high-rise neighbourhoods there remains a large population of young men who thanks to unemployment, poor education, destabilised family structures and racial discrimination have very little stake in French society. Some of these are happy to resort to violence against symbols of the state, and many more lend tacit support." So, a bunch of teenagers let there passions take control of them and overcome with anger and the lusts of youth, they decided to tear apart their own suburb. This was the best way in their immature, irrational, and inflammed minds to get peoples attention. It is true that they received attention, but I would venture to guess that most of the message was lost in the flames and molotov cocktails. Two of their own ended up dead, and as far as I could find, they were the only 2 who were killed.
The BBCNEWS also went on to say that they think the worst of the striking is over.