I love locs in general, I love my locs, and my cousin, who is the picture, loves her locs, yet some people just have a problem when it comes to seeing people with dreadlocks. It is one of the most controversial and misunderstood of natural hair styles (probably as bad as the afro) and it seems that no matter how many times one tries to dispel the myths and rumors about dreadlocks, some people refuse to listen. People tend to group all dreadlocks as the same — dirty, nasty, gross, smelly, matted, worn by weed smokers, Rastafarian hair, low maintenance, non-washable, faddish, extreme, militant, distracting, has bugs, lice and dirt in them, hippyish, punkish, only for people of African descent, homeless or low-class people wear them, musicians wear them, unprofessional, and the list goes on. When I read or hear those words, I think there are some really ignorant, prejudiced people who just hears things and repeats or generalize based on seeing only a few people with them (people who obviously do not know how to take care of locs) without getting the facts straight.

Dreadlocks are like any other hairstyle with different sub-styles of various lengths and widths. Some people wear it well and some people do not, some people maintain them well and some people do not. DUH! Whether someone’s hair is straight, wavy, curly or kinky, there is a difference between a hairstyle and just simply having no hygiene. A person’s hair can be just as dirty and nasty with straight hair. I wash my hair every week and if I had an active week, I wash it more often. Moreover, my hair does not stink because I wash it so often (don’t believe me, come and smell it!). Thus, I do not have dirt, lice, dust, bugs or any other disgusting objects in my hair. It is possible to keep dreadlocks neat, which requires more maintenance than people think. If they are not as neat, usually it is because some are growing them in freeform, and some organically (letting them lock by itself). If it is gross looking and feels gross, it is due to some who think that their hair will not lock as well (those with straight, wavy or looser curls) and so use sticky, messy products (like honey, toothpaste, wax) to lock it, do not wash it and do all of this without consulting a professional. Those people make it worse for people like me! One’s hair will lock no matter what as long as it is not combed! Why do you think your hair has knots in it when it is not combed?

Now to address personality stereotypes of people who wear dreadlocks. Having dreadlocks is not the same as being a Rastafarian. Yes, the belief/movement made the hairstyle popular, but Rastafarians are not the only ones who wore locks. Jews, Indians, Hindus, Celts, Vikings, Africans, Dominicans (called Dreads in Dominica) and others in the past wore locs. Even today, people of all races wear locs, from White to Japanese. Also, I am a Christian and there are many Christians who wear this hairstyle. So, stop calling it (as my mother sometimes absentmindedly says) Rasta hair. Second, just because I have locs does not mean I smoke weed. Yes, some dreadlocked folks smoke weed, especially Rastafarians, but not all people with dreadlocks smoke weed! If a person is homeless and has dreadlocks that are messy, obviously he or she does not have the means to keep their locs neat, they are homeless! In addition to that, I am ruling out that one has to be a hippy (although I do sometimes act hippyish), a punk, a musician, or any other category that one likes to put people with my hairstyle in.

That leads me into the professional world. How can dreadlocks in themselves be distracting, faddish, extreme or militant? As long as they are neat, maintained well and in a suitable style (hello, medium size locks and microlocks), it should not be a problem. Yes, some variety of locs are extreme or distracting, but that does not mean locs in general are. I feel that is another way to discriminate someone based on their natural hair. I am tired of hearing cases in which people are fired, not promoted or forced to cut their locs because people found them intimidating, threatening or distracting. Why? Lawyers, doctors, CEOs and other people in high class position have had locs and so having this hairstyle does not make one low-class, a bad person or any less capable of doing high level work.

Finally, if you do not think locs are beautiful and sexy and instead you think they are ugly and gross, here are some examples to prove you wrong:

Although many people might disagree with this next statement, I am going to say it anyway: we do not live in a vacuum and many of the decisions we make are in some way influenced by society. Someone can say that “the choices I made was me being me” or “that is who I am” or “I did not do this to look like or be like someone else”, but our choices are a conscious or subconscious manifestation of what we experience and what we observe from the media, school, church, parents, friends and other social mediums from the time we were young. This includes even the choices we make with our hair and one of the most debated issues among black people, especially women, is their hair.

Since the days that black people were brought here on slave ships, we have been made to feel less then and that includes in beauty. We have been told that our noses are too big, our lips are too big, our skins is too dark and our hair is too kinky. We have heard it so much that we started to believe it ourselves and did everything we could to look like the white standard of beauty. From fat grease to lye (which was also used to wash clothes and as a skin lightening wash!) to ironing just to have straighten our hair and that coiled, curly, kinky hair became “bad hair.” The way our hair was styled became as significant to us as how dark our skin was. Our first black millionaire, Madame CJ Walker, made her money on hair. However, like many other females at that time, she also felt the need to straighten our hair through the use of the hot comb. At that time, it was for survival, but one would think that after slavery and Jim Crow was over and the Civil Rights movement began that we could go back completely to our natural roots. But no, our natural hair was reduced to a style, a fashion, a trend that was relegated to the late 60s and 70s. Just another style like a weave, a wig, a permed hair, the jheri curl (I still do not get that one!). As soon as the black power, black panther, Blaxploitation, Funk music era was over, it was back to the relaxers and the hot comb.

Madame CJ Walker created her hair care business because she wanted black women to be able to care of their hair and promoting hair growth. However, there is a difference between taking care of your hair and conforming to what mainstream society wants you to look like. The best way to take care of your hair is to take care of it when it is natural. Yes, I understand that we did not have the tools (e.g. wide tooth comb) to take care of our hair in the past, but today, especially with globalization and information technology, that is no longer an excuse. The idea that we have to relax our hair or straighten our hair because we need to and we do not want the “naps to be showing” shows us that as black people we still have low self-esteem. Not only is it having an effect on us in loving ourselves the way we are, but also a generational effect on our children.

Remember when you were a young girl and you had to get your hair relaxed or pressed. Oh, the memories! Having to sit there while your mother took out the “Just For Me” package, put on the gloves and stirred the relaxer mix. Then sitting there while your mother put the petroleum on your head to lessen the burning (but it still did anyway) and after that harrowing experience of feeling like your scalp is on fire, you had straight hair. Next, the hairdryer and the hot comb (or curler), from which you had to put your ears down to prevent getting nicks on them. After a while, I had to go to the hairdresser every month to get a “touch-up” or get my “hair done” (for those who do not know, that are the terms for getting a relaxer). I have been through it all. I also went through hating my hair — having it breaking all the time, feeling the damaged patches at the side and the back, feeling like the bob hairstyle I had was the most boring thing ever and getting frustrated that it never grew past my neck area. But I kept doing and why; it was because I felt I had to and it was what I felt everyone else wanted. Growing up I barely had a choice; my mom never told me about having my hair natural (she relaxed her hair too and still does it) and I saw very few examples in media to show me any different. Being straight was the way to go. Until one day my hair was so damaged that my hairdresser said it needed to be cut and that’s when I realized “why am I doing this to myself.” I saw my cousin with her locs and I said I could do that. So, I did and I never looked back.

Yes, at first I was freaking out because I did not know how to handle my own natural hair and it took time to get use to. After almost 11 years of relaxing my hair, natural hair was foreign to me. Barely anyone teaches us how to do our hair the way it naturally comes out of our heads (not to mention some people of other races who do not know what our real hair looks like) . Moreover, there are few salons and beautician schools that actually can or teach students how to do natural black hair. So, over time I had to learn and as the months went by, my hair got longer and better and now I cannot stop touching it and I look better. I am proud of my hair because it is unique in its texture and no other race has my type of hair. What some black women do not realize is that when you go natural, it is not a style, it is not “political hair” as some call it (again with the whole 70s Black power movement), it is a statement of love, love for oneself the way I am. I see so many black women with their hair looking weak, brittle, and messed-up and have the possibility to look good natural, but they still want to keep perming and putting in the weaves because going natural is too scary or too hard to do. It is a shame that being natural can be so unnatural for black women. Why is it that being natural is considered a sub-culture, deviant, rebellious, but as a black women having my hair relaxed is the norm?

The media, and the corporations and people in charge of the media do not help either. Have you ever seen a TV show for kids in which the lead person was black and had natural kinky hair (not loose curls as some characters have, e.g. Sister Sister’s Tia and Tamera Mowry, although they are beautiful too). On Tyra’s show “Good Hair Vs. Bad Hair,” the little girl with the bubbles in her hair made me cry because she hated her hair and wanted to wear the blonde wig from Hannah Montana. That was all she saw on TV and so she felt that she herself was ugly. Commercials for natural hair products rarely appear, but commercials for relaxer kits like “Just For Me” and “Dr. Miracles” are all over the place. In music videos, do you see the natural sisters or the permed and weaved hair sisters? At the office, why is it my hair, which naturally comes from my head, is considered “unprofessional.” I would not tell a white girl with straight hair to get a perm to look more “professional.” Certain hairstyles are, yes, not professional, but the way that God made my hair is not a style, it is my hair!

About a year ago, there was a degrading illustration on the New Yorker portraying Barack Obama as a terrorist, but what was also insulting but very few people noticed was that Michelle was in military combat with an afro on her head. Why is it if a black women is portrayed as rebellious or militant, she has to be wearing an afro or locs. She could be just as militant with straight hair! Also, do you see the black women in high places supporting natural hair looks often — Tyra, Oprah, Beyonce, Michelle Obama (although she does not use relaxers, why can’t she change up the look and wear curls), Condoleezza Rice, Gabrielle Union — ? No, often it is put on the alternative acts, like Neo-soul, including Angie Stone, Jill Scott, Erykah Badu, India Arie, Amanda Diva, Janelle Monae, Lauryn Hill. What about black models with natural hair? Getting the picture. I am not saying that wearing your hair natural all the time is a must because other races change their texture too, but there has to be a balance. We need more natural hair role models for the future generations of this country or we will have a perpetuation of feeling that as black people we need to change ourselves to look good or love ourselves.

Now finally, let’s talk about the health and economic reasons to not use a relaxer. I do not care what you say about “as long as my hair is healthy I can put a relaxer in my hair” because you are still putting those chemicals in your hair. Your hair may look healthy, but with a closer look, it is weak on the inside because all of the proteins in your hair are killed off to make it straight. Doesn’t matter if it has lye or no lye, it is still hydroxide (main ingredient) being placed in your hair. It is equivalent to bleach and draino being placed in your hair. I doubt you would want to drink that, but you put it in your hair. Also, unless you forgot, your scalp has pores in it, meaning anything liquid can easily seep through. Why do you think they put the petroleum on your scalp and at the sides before hand and why do you think it burns? I wonder how a person can be careful about what they put on their skin, but not their hair? Then when their hair starts falling out (as with my mom), black women are reduced to putting weaves in their hair, wigs on their head and using re-growth formulas instead of stopping the use the “creamy crack.” And I did call it that because if someone feels the need to have to consistently use a dangerous chemical and heating to make sure her hair looks “good” and put weaves and wigs on (which sometimes looks fake and jacked-up), she is ADDICTED! It is more like a “straight-jacket” than a freeing agent. Economically, it is just as bad. Black women are known to spend the most money on our hair, from relaxer kits to hairdressers to shampoos to products to grow our weak and brittle hair to weaves to wigs and the list goes on. On the other hand, I barely spend $30 dollars in four weeks on my hair (shampoo, olive oil, hair conditioner [glycerol and yes it is natural] and WATER!) and it looks good! Despite what anyone says it is not low-class to have natural hair, it saves money and do you see people telling any other race that their hair, the way it comes out of their heads, is lower class. Nope!

So what was my point in this rant on natural hair. Basically, to love yourself the way God made you. Living in America does not mean that you have to conform to a certain standard, it is about choices and the choice to be yourself and the only way to gain respect is to respect yourself. When you take off the makeup, the fancy clothes, the fake hair (or cut off the perm), the fake nails, or whatever is artificial on you, can you look in the mirror and still say I am a beautiful person inside and out. Changing your look is okay, but the real you is just as wonderful whether you were born with straight as a bone hair or kinky as a slinky hair. My other point is to refer back to beginning and to tell you to question the decisions you make and why you make them; do not just go with the flow (and that include hair). As Marcus Garvey said, ““Do not remove the kinks from your hair–remove them from your brain.” So, to everyone, whatever you call it, I am nappy, natty, kinky, coiled, curly and I like it! Peace and Love.

The matrix of domination is the union of different social factors, including gender, race and ethnicity, sexuality, age, social class, disability, handedness (I am left-handed), religion, and citizenship status, that have a large impact on a person’s social status in a society. Three of the most prominent ones are racism, sexism and homophobia. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to others and the others are naturally inferior. Sexism is the belief, mostly by males, that one sex is superior to the other. Last, homophobia is the fear or prejudice against homosexuals. All of these are the product of a straight, male, youth-oriented, capitalistic, and WASP (white Anglo-Saxon protestant) dominated society in which we live. Every factor in which we are not the dominant in gives us less choices and opportunities, and affects our social interaction with others.

Both Espiritu and hooks describe parts of this matrix in their articles “The Racial Construction of Asian American Women and Men” and “Gangsta Culture-Sexism, Misogyny: Who Will Take the Rap,” respectively. In Espiritu’s article, she discusses the different stereotypes of Asian American women and men, and how it affects our view of Asian Americans and how they view themselves. Through these “controlling images,” as Patricia Hill Collins calls them, the dominant group is able to validate economic exploitation and social oppression, creating a group of low social class (Espiritu, Page 83). These images naturalize racism, sexism, poverty and homophobia. “As indicated by these stereotypes, representations of gender and sexuality figure strongly in the articulation of racism. These racist stereotypes collapse gender and sexuality: Asian men have been constructed as hypermasculine in the image of the “Yellow Peril,” but also as effeminate, in the image of the “model minority,” and Asian women have been depicted as superfeminine, in the image of the “China Doll,” but also as castrating, in the image of the “Dragon Lady”” (Espiritu, Pages 83-84). This gender polarization and “gendering of ethnicity” (Espiritu, Page 84) makes Asian women and men become characterized as both genders and at the same time no gender at all. In result, Asians as a whole can be seen a dangerous threat to white Americans or a subservient, weaker group for their benefit, which justifies white male’s domination because both threaten and offend their masculinity.

Even further, since Asian women were often excluded from America and there were anti-miscegenation laws, Asian men formed bachelor societies, which turned the view of their masculinity from “hypersexual” to “asexual” and homosexual. The asexual and homosexual views made Asian men more effeminate, weaker and more passive, furthering dominant white culture and increasing discrimination against Asian men socially and economically. An Asian man can be either the homosexual villain (Fu Manchu type) or the sexless sidekick (Charlie Chan, Mr. Miyagi from Karate Kid, and Kato in the Green Hornet), thus continuing the image of the Asian man who is always frail or submissive. On the other hand, Asian women are seen as only sexual and exotic, but untrustworthy, through the images of the “servile Lotus Blossom Baby, “ geisha girl, or “China Doll,” and the “Dragon Lady.” Asian women are sexualized and at the same time criticized for their sexuality. Once again, sexuality is used to prove white man’s power and leaving women very little economic and social mobility.

Bell hooks’ “Gangsta Culture—Sexism, Misogyny: Who Will Take the Rap?” is about how the African-American gangsta culture is a product of the larger white, male dominated society. The criticism against gangsta culture is a way to degrade black youth culture and neglect the similar behaviors of White dominant culture. Black people, especially black males, are viewed as a threat to society and behaviors that are misogynistic, like rape or abuse, are seen as a black male behaviors. However, the misogynistic views in gangsta rap reflect the misogynistic culture in America that keeps males in power. For example, it was only a little over 100 years ago that domestic abuse was declared illegal. In addition to that, gangsta rap hypersexualizes black males, so they can appear more tough in order not be seen as homosexual, reproducing the homophobic attitudes. Has anyone ever heard of a gay rapper? Black women are also hypersexualized and seen only as sex objects through words like “hoes.” Moreover, it is usually white males who are the head of the labels, pay these rappers, market these albums, tell them the type of songs to produce and buy the songs. Also, the gangster films, like Scarface and the Godfather, made by white culture, usually inspire these rappers. Black males are willing to produce the songs and black women are willing to degrade themselves in the videos and album covers as long as there are material rewards for them. Race, gender and social class are reflected in the whole gangsta culture.

Both of the articles have the same dominant group tactic of blaming the victim, especially with the women. Male culture has over-sexualized women, for example Freud calling us sex objects, and then turning it around to criticize us for being over-sexual. In “Gangsta Culture,” hooks speaks about her interview with Ice Cube and how there should be respect towards women, but he also justified anti-woman lyrics saying that some women carry themselves in a way that determines how they will be treated. What do you expect from a male dominates society that treats women as sex objects in general no matter how they dress and gives women fewer options than to dress like that. Usually, non-White women are criticized more for their “hypersexuality” than White women, which is a way for dominant culture to make both their race and gender inferior. Rappers, like Snoop Dogg, and even Rock stars still put half-naked or naked women on albums and videos, but black rappers get more criticism for it. Pornography featuring Asian “China Doll” women and bathhouses with Asian women are still promoted and sold. This tactic of blaming the victim is what keeps the males dominant over females because whatever they do in regards to females can easily be put as a responsibility for females to deal with. Also, it makes it harder for the reverse; there are no “Guys Gone Wild” videos or very little videos and albums with guys who are half-naked or naked along with the women.

However, both articles differ when it comes to the stereotypes of African-American and Asian American men. Black men are often seen as these big, dark, and intimidating figures that threaten White women. Their stereotype has to do with hyper-masculinity and looking dangerous. They are often seen as the rapists, murderers and drug dealers. On the other hand, Asian men can be seen as hyper-masculine or effeminate. Asian men are either a threat to white women or passive men who cannot please or protect any women. Bruce Lee or Jet Li have been labeled as the hyper-masculine types, while monks, Mr. Miyagi from Karate Kid, and more extreme Yoda from Star Wars are labeled as passive, asexual types. Both groups are stereotyped based on exaggerated views of actual physical features of African American and Asian American men. African-American men are darker and usually taller and more muscular in appearance than Asian American men, so they are seen as more aggressive and frightening. Still, the stereotypes of both male groups are used to keep White men as the “normal” ones.

No matter what how it is discussed, none of the parts of the matrix of domination can be discussed alone. They do not live in a singular vacuum by themselves and they all have an effect on each other. Just imagine if you were considered the inferior of all the parts, life would be to say the least, extremely difficult. Despite what others may say, the matrix also affects our daily lives from the decisions we make to behaviors to the way we look (come back later for my post on how racism affected black women’s hair choices). The only way to overcome the matrix is to stop hiding it and open it up for discussion. As James Baldwin said, “not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

For my first fieldnotes assignment, I decided to observe the E train, which I take everyday to go to school and home. My observation times were mid-morning on Tuesday (9:00-10:00), the afternoon on Tuesday (3:30-4:30) and the morning on Wednesday (7:00-8:00). I thought the E train would be the best place to observe because I could spend up to two hours on the E train each school day and I realized that the subway is a very unusual environment. Since it is enclosed space that includes two rows of seats facing each other and empty space in the middle with poles, it causes people to act in a strange manner. A strong presence of authority is not in the subway; so formal rules are often not followed. However, due to the cars often being cramped with many people, there are several informal rules. These informal rules show how the subway in itself has a social structure.

As a result of the economy and MTA budget problems, many of the people who worked in the Subway stations were laid off. At several stops there are no MTA employees around. This has caused a change in riders following the formal rules in the station. The formal rules are no smoking, no littering, no loud music, do not lean on doors, do not hold doors open, do not go through the back door while train is in motion and do not open emergency exit until an attendant is contacted. Only the no smoking and no loud music rule have been strictly followed. All the others are broken everyday. Although litter can cause fire on the train tracks, I still find litter, like cups, bottles, and paper all on the floor. MTA reacted by hiring janitors to clean the subway cars at the last stops. The rules involving the doors have been a result of overcrowding and the rush for the train. Overcrowding in the train is another consequence of high gas prices. As gas prices went up, more people stopped driving their cars and took the train to work. So, the lack of space on train makes it hard to find things to hold onto and instead riders just lean on the door for support. Also, the morning and afternoon rush hour pushes certain people to put themselves in danger by putting their hand(s) through the doors in order to get on the train. The cost of losing a limb, getting dragged by the train or putting the train out of service is less than the cost of being late for work. Using the back doors while the train is in motion and using the emergency exit is the similar result of the rush.

On the other hand, there are several informal rules within cars that riders automatically follow because it does involve so many people within a confined space. Some are no staring, no leaning on someone while sleeping, no loud talking, no putting bags on seats, no eating, no inappropriate touching, give up you seat for a disabled, pregnant or with infant person and basically trying to avoid bringing unwanted attention to yourself. Somehow these rules give the riders a sense of personal space and also provide more space for more people to fit in the train. However, some people unintentionally break these rules, most likely because they are not aware of it. For example, I had two incidents of someone leaning on me while they were sleeping. The first person was aware that he was leaning and constantly pulling himself up, but the second person leaned on me the entire ride. I did not want to cause a disturbance and bring attention to myself, so I waited until I was able to leave. Other riders tend to speak louder when they are in a group with others. In addition to that, some riders, especially during the morning, eat because they did not have time to eat, even though these people may annoy other riders either due to the smell or that the riders want to eat themselves.

Other behaviors I noticed was that the riders tend to listen to their MP3 players, to sleep and to read books or newspapers. Once again, riders do this to create their own sense of personal space; basically those things form a distraction from other people and give us something to do while on the train. Also, the cramped space seems to cause people on train to be a little bit more rude than usual. Getting off the train, riders often knock and sometimes push other riders in a rush. In a regular situation, a fight would probably start or the other person would get angry, but on the subway it is expected because there is no room on the cars. It also goes for the rush for seats when the doors open in which people almost push each other just to get a seat. The idea of “every man for himself” rule applies. Furthermore, when the train starts to become empty, people move apart immediately. Like the behavior of electrons, the riders try to be as far apart as possible until they have to be near each other due to lack of room. However, the riders are willing to be near each other near the poles, since most people do not like the bars on top, either because of height or pain of holding hands up. Last, I noticed that most people have casual clothing on, such as jeans. Most likely the riders go to a school with no school uniform (I see people with book-bags), do not have school or work, or have jobs that do not require business attire.

As a participant observer, it was awkward watching the other riders. Mainly, I had to pretend that I was not staring and look discreet. I would frequently look up quickly, scan my surroundings closely and then look down. Other than that, I looked like a normal subway rider, even though I felt a little uncomfortable. Even more, I recognized that many of the actions other riders do I do myself. Studying closely what goes on in the subway cars instead of closing my eyes and listening to music helped me to realize how strange the subway environment is and how we as riders become so indifferent to it all. My observations have increased my interest in “subway life.” In the future, I might continue observing other train lines to see if they are similar to the E train line and also interview in depth people who ride the subway and find out how they feel about riding it.

Here is something my friend wrote, which I thought was very poetic:

I have always regretted the times when I said too little or nothing at all, so I’ve been trying to make up for it. But with my efforts and sometimes not-so ambiguous results, I’ve been left to wonder if I say too much…maybe it’s your callousness and not mine, maybe it’s your ignorance and not mine, maybe it’s your prejudice and not mine…Well, I refuse to live in your confines. It’s time to do me, no more insecurity.

Photography unlike paintings has the ability to capture reality and look more authentic. This group of pictures depicted everything from the human figure to social problems to the glitz and glam of Hollywood and the Jazz culture. Most of the photos were in black and white, which moved the concentration to the content within the photographs, not how colorful they had in them. Some of the first photographs were of nude women, human torsos, and human body parts, such as The Hand in Doorway. Others included pictures of regular, everyday people, such as a tenant farmer’s wife, a piano player, people at Venice beach and other places, etc.

However, the pictures that stood out to me were the ones that showed an image in a unique way, tried to convey a unique message or depicted well-known people. The first was of photograph of a statue of a man holding a bow and arrow pointing directly at a man walking down a long hallway. The second was of a female mannequin looking outside the window at a woman passing by the window. Both photographs show a strange interaction between inanimate human figures and real humans. The photographs of famous people included Jean Cocteau, Joan Crawford, Edward Steichen (self-portrait), Pablo Picasso, Cab Calloway, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, Billie Holiday, Pearl Bailey, Count Basie and the cast of The Misfits (Marilyn Monroe). These photographs either showed these Hollywood and Jazz greats in normal everyday life or doing what they do best, acting and performing.

The last set of the photographs had a serious impact on me. They were photographs of African refugees and child soldiers. The first photograph was of Rwandan refugees. Standing around in a group in the photograph, they all looked lost, without a home. The second was a picture of the chest of a girl from Sierra Leone. She was a child soldier who had the initials R.U.F. branded on her chest. This picture saddened me because it was as if she was being treated like an animal or piece of meat that belonged to others. The gallery really conveyed the broad views and aspects of human life.

Everyone knows Vincent Van Gogh as the depressed guy who cut off his ear, painted himself with the cut-off ear and later committed suicide. However, he is much more than that and much more than his famous painting, Starry Night. There is a reason why that was one of his most famous works; the night defined Van Gogh. He said, “I often think that the night is more alive and more richly colored than the day.” There was definitely an eeriness and a spirituality to the night that Van Gogh saw.

Van Gogh started his career at 27 and his obsession with the night and the dark. Beginning with paintings using sunsets, he wanted to create an effets de soir, or evening effects. He also developed his style of rhythmic brushstrokes and mixes of bright and dark colors, which created a sense of fluidity and vibrancy to his paintings. His obsession with the night also had to do with the lights within the night, such as the stars, moon and even artificial light from lamps or fireplaces. The themes of his paintings had everything to do with nightlife, from the effects of light on night sky and landscapes, peasant life and rural life (sun setting after a hard day’s work) and night cafes.

Two of his first works, En Route and Before the Hearth, which are pencil drawings, show people at night with light. The first is a man walking alone during winter with a lantern and the second is a man trying to get warm by the fireplace, both of which depict the importance of light at night. Not only did Van Gogh depict the night, he appreciated nature, like in the painting Lane of Poplars, which had an earthly quality using trees. This explained why he used peasants in many of his paintings. He believed peasants were closer to nature and the cycles of life. The peasants were shown in intimate family settings at night as in The Potato Eaters or at the end of a workday as in The Sower paintings.

Van Gogh also liked to depict the sinister nature of night with paintings of dance halls and cafes. The Dance Hall at Arles and The Night Café are tow of his most famous. He also observed how the artificial light in these places gave a look of a hellish furnace unlike the halo glow of his starry night paintings, such as the Starry Night Over the Rhone.

Before I went to the Dali Exhibit, Salvador Dali was already one of my favorite painters. However, I learned so much more about Dali at the exhibit and I appreciate him as an artist so much more now. Not only was Dali a surrealist, but he also had a fascination with film. He believed that films were the extension of the dream world because of the reality versus illusion idea. So, many of his paintings used the film techniques and camera effects. The most interesting information about his life was that he was actually involved in the making of several short films and has had an influence on the filmmaking process. His surrealist ideas have affected many films since his time.

One of his first films was Un Chien Andalou, which he created with Luis Bunuell. Since Dali wrote the script, a lot of his ideas from his paintings were expressed through the film, especially the illusory images using a variety of film techniques. Scenes portraying disappearing mouths, ants appearing in hands, dismembered hands, illusion of nakedness, doors leading into other places and one actor playing to characters at the same time showed the ability of using film to create images that could never happen in real life. One of the most shocking scenes was the opening one in which the husband takes a razor and cuts into his wife’s eye. But it is done using a close-up to create the illusion that it is her eye, but it was actually a cow’s eye.

Dali also had an influence on other artists and performers, such as Andy Warhol, Alfred Hitchcock, The Marx Brothers and surprisingly even Walt Disney. He believed that Disney was one of the great surrealists. Dali actually worked on a short animated film with Disney in 1945, called Destino, which was not completed until 2003. Destino, which was about a mortal girl falling in love with the god, Kronos, used many of his paintings and drawings, such as the paranoiac-critical (optical illusion style created by Dali) image of Kronos, the melting clocks, the eyes and the ants. Dali also painted scenes for movies, such as the ballroom scene and dream sequence in Hitchcock’s Spellbound with Gregory Peck. The scenes also included some of Dali’s famous symbols, like eyes, twisted landscapes, and faceless figures. The lead character (Peck) also is seeing a psychiatrist, relating to Dali’s obsession with Freud and dreams.

Dali had a great influence on film, greater than I even knew about. His part in the avant-garde movement inspired filmmakers to think outside the box and create images that could only be see in the dream world not real life. Dali believed in pure cinema, which is film without a story, but instead evoking fantasies. Many movies and shows use dream sequences because of Dali. He also influenced independent films, horror films, psychedelic films and music videos, because of their non-traditional ideas in filmmaking. For example, I doubt Missy Elliot would make half the videos that she does now if it wasn’t for people like Dali. Dali definitely believe “Life is like a dream.”

Even fictional films can have an ounce of reality in them. In Andrea Arnold’s Wasp, a creatively engrossing, direct cinema-styled short drama about an impoverished mother’s conflict between her desire and her responsibility, reality almost hits you in the face.

Nathalie Press plays Zoe, a mother who is tying to deal with wanting to be with her ex-flame Dave (Danny Dyer) and taking care of her three young daughters and infant son while hiding them from Dave. All of that and she has to deal with living in poverty without enough food to feed herself and her family. Added together, this all makes a recipe for a lot of stress and a compelling film.

Press’s portrayal of a white-trash mother is so realistic and she is able to show well Zoe’s contrasting characteristics. She is sassy yet troubled, hopeful yet desperate, and caring yet selfish and juvenile. The contradictions shown in her character just enforces that she is human like all of us.

Dyer’s portrayal of Danny and the children in this film help hold the film together as supports for Press’s Zoe. Danny, by the end of the film, proves to be more than just a horny guy by showing compassion to Zoe when he finds out about her children.

The more typical route would be to have Danny as Zoe’s “knight in shining armor” riding on his white horse, but instead he is shown as human, too. He still lives with his mom and has an amusingly hard time starting his car.

The girls in this film also have a maturity beyond their years, especially the oldest one, who is more like the mother, taking care of her siblings and her own mother. They were great in portraying the children’s conflict in loving a mother who can barely take care of them, let alone herself.

As a short film, Wasp excels because of its realism and fast-paced movement. Compared to other short films, like the Savior, The Wraith of Cobble Hill and I Don’t Feel Like Dancing, Wasp moved with a sense of urgency as if it was speeding into a crash that you could not look away from.

This could be immediately seen in the first scene in which Zoe is rushing downstairs with her four children (her baby doesn’t even have a diaper on) to exchange blows with a neighbor over their daughters.

Also, the use of the up-tempo and catchy songs, such as “Hey Baby (If You’ll Be My Girl)” by DJ Otzi, gave the film a silliness and youthfulness that the others did not have. The scene outside the bar when Zoe is dancing to the song with her children radiates that innocence and child-like nature of her character. The audience comes to realize that Zoe is a kid herself with four kids of her own.

Andrea Arnold’s use of Docudrama style is an important element in Wasp that makes the film more authentic and full of anxiety. The hand-held camera creates a grittiness that is similar to other direct cinema or “reality fiction” films, like Woodstock, that have a grainy visual quality to the film. The lighting and shakiness of the film produced an action sequence affect, similar to the ones found in Cops, but with a storyline.

Arnold’s main theme in this film is the universal conflict of desire vs. duty. Everyone in their lifetime has to deal with choosing between what they want to do and what they have to do. For example, people may choose a career they don’t like in order to support their family. Arnold made it realistic enough for people to sympathize with Zoe because we all had that self-centered moment of wanting to give up all responsibilities and go after what we want for once.

Other ideas that the filmmaker emphasizes are the trouble of single mothers to find a man who will accept them and their kids, and extreme afflictions of poverty. Zoe, in the scene when Danny asks her out, feels pressured to tell him that her own kids belong to someone else and she is babysitting. She can barely afford to buy food for her family, feeding them sugar or chips and cola from the bar.

The reoccurring symbol of the wasp in the film brought out a few themes in the film. In one of the first scenes, a wasp is trapped inside the apartment in which Zoe lives resembling the feeling of imprisonment in her situation.

Later in the film, the wasp not only represented a sense of danger when it went into her baby’s mouth, but it was like a leash to tug Zoe back to reality and the need for her to take care of her children (besides letting the cat out of the bag to Danny that she has children).

Even though it is easy to criticize Press’s character in this film, it is more beneficial to watch this film with an understanding of how it can be a mirror into our lives. One of the reasons why this film feels so real and works is that it has themes that we all on a certain level relate to. Sometimes one of the hardest things to do is see the truth in ourselves from what we watch on screen.

Edward Steichen’s Joan Crawford (1932) uses few elements, such as an emphasis on contrast, to convey a deeper message. The focal point of the gelatin silver print (11” by 14”) photograph is Joan Crawford. It is a sharp photograph with high contrast of blacks, whites and few grays. In the foreground, Joan Crawford is dressed in a black robe and she has a white rose on the left side of her chest. Her robe puffs out onto the floor, which is made of wooden planks that have spots. Both of her hands with painted nails are on her left hip and her right arm crosses over her midsection. Joan’s face is in low-key lighting, which means it is half in shadow and half in light. Also, her eyes are downward, her lips pouted and one eyebrow is up. Her short hair is straight, but cascades into curls. To the right of her is a large, square cushioned seat, which she is leaning on, and has a white top and a dark gray bottom with a sewed line in the middle. In the background, there is a plain white wall that is dark at the top, but light at the bottom with shadows of her arms. At the right of the wall, there is a wide, black cloth and a slight shadow behind it.

The photograph itself gave a sense of tension and suppressed feelings within its simplicity. Joan’s half lit face presented a sense of uncertainty or conflict. Her raised eyebrow suggested a condescending look, as if she was trying to be strong or hide her feelings. But her pout, downward eyes and single presence gave off a feeling of sadness and loneliness. Also, she is leaning against the seat and holding her hips, and I felt that she was trying to hold herself up. I could relate to that emotion of trying to be strong and feeling as if no one is around to catch me when I fall.

Billie Holiday’s song, “Sophisticated Lady”, complements Joan Crawford because it conveys that sense of gracefulness yet loneliness portrayed in the photograph. It is a slow blues song that uses only piano, guitar and drums with a trumpet solo and resembles the simplistic nature of the photograph. The song’s title communicates the poised appearance of Joan Crawford. The two lyrics that reminds me of the photograph are “…with disillusion in your eyes” and “…and when nobody is nigh, you cry.” Joan Crawford’s eyes showed disappointment and she was alone like in the two lyrics. “Sophisticated Lady” matches the feeling of isolation that I saw in the photograph.

My choice of Steichen’s photograph shows that I am a minimalist when it comes to visual art. I was immediately drawn to picture because there was so little happening in the photograph. The simplicity enhanced its intensity and forced me to decipher the subtleties within it.