Anti-War Lecture

Last night, I attended the 7:30 anti-war lecture at Hendricks Chapel. Since I did not attend the march that preceded it, I had no idea what these organizations were about. I have been to a few different protests and anti-war rallies before, however, so I didn't think anything would be too surprising. Upon entering, however, I was greeted by a caricature of Uncle Sam holding up anti-war signs, a blind congressman holding bags of money, and an injured veteran sitting in a wheelchair in uniform.
As I entered the chapel and sat down, the crowd, was entertained by two women playing acoustic guitars performing anti-war music. This gave me a completely different impression of what was to come than what actually did. I was worried what I had gotten myself into, thinking that this would be followed by hippie upon hippie boring me with cliches like "make love, not war." However, when Dahlia Wasfi, Jim Massey, and Scott Ritter began their speeches, I was very much relieved to discover that this would not be the case.
Dahlia Wasfi, who lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule, and Jim Massey, a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, talked mostly about the Petreaus report. They pointed out that Iraq was better off before our occupation, and the fact that the report does not mention US occupation.
What really interested me, however, was Scott Ritter's speech. Scott Ritter, a pro-soldier, anti-war activist, as well as a veteran, was involved in the shooting of innocent Iraqi's. At the time, the order was to shoot first and ask questions later. The fact that even troops in Iraq are against the war really says something. Being a veteran, and speaking out against the war, Scott has been able to sway the thoughts of many people on the issue.
During his speech, Mr. Ritter discussed his plan for what Americans should do to help fix the situation. Although the following six points are easier said than done, the plan that he discusses sounds like the only solution for remedying the quagmire America has gotten itself into. The six point plan consists of: 1. withdrawing the troops, 2. turning over responsibility to Iraq, 3. paying for the damage we have caused, 4. recognizing the war court, and turning over all who are responsible for starting the war, 5. giving back profits corporations have made, and 6. voting out of office every congressman who supported the war. Despite some of this being pie in the sky thinking, it seemed to be the only way to effectively alleviate the situation.
The night concluded with some Q&A with the audience. Overall, I felt that the event was well done, and a good experience.

Photosynthesizing War

The Binh Danh exhibit at the Light Work gallery was very haunting. Had Danh printed the pictures on a more formal medium, their impact would have decreased severely. Something about the faces of the victims of war trapped in leaves and grass brings the effects of war home. It brings the observer directly into the setting, despite the years that have passed. It serves as a testimony about the Viet Nam war in this way, by also showing that the jungle itself still holds the effects of this war. This theme of remembering the dead and the atrocities of war also reflects our current times and the war we face today.
I thought that this exhibit was very successful, by making use of the leaves and grass. By doing so, Danh seemed to take the emphasis off of the picture itself, and more onto the medium. This brought about a new sensation while viewing the exhibit. Sontag claims that "photographs are a way of imprisoning reality" and that "one can't possess reality, one can possess (and be possessed by) images." These photographs of the soldiers, whose souls' are forever "imprisoned" in the jungles in which they fought, eerily possess us and make us aware of the effects of war.

After struggling to understand de Duve's thoughts on art, I have adopted the idea that art is everything that people deem art. One of my most memorable experiences I have had with an art work happened very recently. Over the summer, I visited Mass MoCA (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art) with my dad. Their entire first floor was an exhibit by Spencer Finch, called "What time is it on the sun?" Clearly by the title, all of his art works centered around perspective. Although I found all of his works interesting, one really struck me as the epitome of his exhibit. Finch had taken large pieces of paper, and painted a little colorful blob in the corner, or off to the side on each piece. The blobs somewhat resembled butterflies. He painted them after looking at pictures of butterflies, but only viewing them in his peripherals. So if the viewer were to stare at the center of the paper, rather than at the blob itself, he or she would see the butterfly like blob in their peripherals as he saw the actual picture. It is hard to explain without actually showing an example, but the concept of perception was strong in this exhibit. It made me think about how all art can be perceived differently, and should be viewed in more than one way before forming an opinion about it. This butterfly piece was successful in making the viewer realize the different views one could take on each piece of "art."

de Duve's numerous points of view on art, varying from a Martian's, to your own, seem to stress one important fact; art has no one definition. Art means something different to each individual, because each person brings to the table their own personal experiences, and professional views. Personally, I believe art is something that should make one think, and perhaps draw on their own experiences and ultimately create a new emotional experience, or realization. Even that probably isn't sufficient. Art is always changing, and thus the definition of art should never be a constant. As art changes, and the people who view, and create art, changes, and society, and experiences within the society change, so should the definition of art.