Seminar 1: The Arts in NYC

Prof. Laura Kolb, Baruch College

Category: Blog Posts (Page 3 of 15)

The Need for Empathy

December 6, 2018 / / 1 Comment

On December 5, 2018, our IDC class went to see “The Jungle” a play based on true events about a city built entirely by refugees. They built the Jungle to be a temporary living situation because they believed and hoped that one day, it would be a good day, and they would come to the UK so they can live happily, and safely. This play was an incredible experience, possibly the most important things I have ever watched in my life. I just wish there could have been a warning. I know about the life of emigrants too well. My parents had to survive through so much to get to this country, to make sure that when they have children they will be safe and they will have everything they need. Watching this play reminded me of all the intergeneration trauma that I have to battle through every day. I know the story of refugees too well. My job as an activist is to listen to the traumas of others and then make sure their stories are being included; I can still remember the first time someone told me that they were raped. I can still remember the first time a mother came to me and told me the story of her daughter, and how she got shot the day before Mother’s Day. and how my activism gives her hope. And now after watching this play, I hold the stories of the people of the Jungle.

I spent most of the play crying; I couldn’t stop myself from shaking because this is happening to my people as we speak. At the southern border of the United States, mothers and children are being tear-gassed. At the southern border, a boy got shot in the head because he was throwing rocks. At the southern border, people who are begging for asylum (a completely legal action) are being treated like animals. They aren’t considered humans, they are between worlds where they can see the doors of “freedom” and they have come so far and they are so close but they can’t get in.

The part that scared me the most was between two moments when they began to lift the roof and the part when one of the young boys in the Jungle shot the firearm. The part where the roof was being lifted was an experience I will never forget. The smoke and the police officers made me scared for my own life. I was completely aware that it was all a play, but my body had a physical reaction to this image of terror and destruction. I imagined how it must have felt to be there in the present; where there was no audience, only violence, and destruction. I imagined how this must have been similar to the way they destroyed civilizations in the Western hemisphere. When the colonizers came and destroyed everything they could see for their own greed—and they didn’t care who died in the process, they just wanted to show power over an innocent group of people. The gun going off in the play also made my body react in a negative way. I felt my spine shaking and I couldn’t breathe. That’s a sound I will never get used to. I am a gun violence prevention activist so sounds like that are incredibly traumatic for me. I remember that I instinctively I grabbed the nearest person and tried to protect them as I covered my own head. I didn’t think it was going to make such a realistic noise. I began to cry almost instantly and I am grateful that I was with friends who were there to comfort me.

The lack of a trigger warning was concerning but at the same time, I believe that we can’t censor images like these. Empathy is what is needed to actually create change. Being apathetic to human suffering will never solve anything and I believe that this is what people need to see, they need to see the reality of situations in their face, where they are unable to turn away because, in reality, the majority of the people in the room at that show contributed to the problem. Although they may not have directly committed a genocide, and they may not have actually taken a gun and murdered an innocent person, someone they know or maybe even themselves, contributed to the problem by electing officials that depend on a power imbalance.

I am happy that so many people went to this show, but the fact of the matter is that I cannot stand to see any more people saying that they hate the current administration while letting people die. My activism is based on love and empathy but I have no sympathy for the people who can sit and watch people die and only post something on Facebook. I am a firm believer that if we are not all free, then none of us are free and that if you stay silent the situations of injustice, you chose to defend the side of the oppressor. Silence comes in many forms, but the one that is most dangerous is when you don’t hold others accountable for their actions and their words. It is up to each of us individually to talk to our friends and family about what we need to do as a community to create equity between all people. We need to talk about the stories of the people who died at the hands of a police officer, we need to talk about the stories of the refugees, we need to talk about the young man who was lynched only 2 months ago in the United States, we need to talk about starving children in Yemen.

Empathy is so crucial at this moment, we need to see each other as our siblings and our people, and I think that was the goal of play “The Jungle”, to show how people create communities especially when there’s so much chaos around you. I am so grateful for this experience. Although I spent a lot of the play crying and not breathing, I have learned that turning pain into empowerment is the most important thing you can possibly do for you and your community.

Impaled

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge by El Lissitzky

El Lissitsky’s print of Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge served as a controversial piece of work during the Russian civil war because of the message it sent out to the public. Firstly, Lissitsky uses more constructed geometric shaped for his print, this is a new and unusual for artists at his time but he uses the geometric shapes to compliment his ideas about the political situation in Russia at the time. Another way Lissitsky’s print is avant-garde because it uses minimal ideas, to express his idea. Even in the painting regardless of the meaning, one could see Lissitsky utilized single Russian words which pushes the idea that Lissitkey wanted to use the least of visual stimuli to get a concept across.

Lissitskys work pushes boundaries of representation. His work is described as an example of an agitprop or Soviet political propaganda which seems ironic because political propaganda usually has a phrase or a limerick to make sure the person viewing it could remember the stance of the argument, but in Lissitskys work he simply writes the Russian words for what the viewer is seeing. Although his work could be classified as a mimesis in the sense that it represents the idea of a revolution which is something that occurs often in real life, I personally do believe his work is more abstract. The fact that Lissitsky uses colors like red and white and presents them with the connotation of winner and loser is somewhat interesting. In addition to the usage of color, Lissitsky’s choice of shapes to represent the two forces in the civil war is interesting as well. The wedge serves as the winning force because of its penetrative shape. At an immediate glance, one can think that the red wedge is infiltrating the white and when one looks at the shape of the wedge and the narrowness of the shape it looks as if it is impaling the white circle. In addition to impaling the circle, it seems as if the wedge reaches the exact center of the white circle, which for me means that the Russians have infiltrated the root of the Anti- Bolshevik forces. The political statement behind the art is described as the reds winning since the reds represent the Russian forces while the white is Anti- Bolshevicks. I think that in terms of style Lissitsky experimented with shapes and color more so than other artists that did during the century, the fact that the shapes and color were there for a symbolic purpose which was different from other painters who often manipulated the contents of their paintings for more emotional purposes.

67

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

The work that I chose is titled “Anywhere out of the World”, painted by Marc Chagall from 1915 to 1919. In the description of the painting, it is said that this “may be a self-portrait.” More commonly, self-portrait art is depicted as a rather complete depiction (or imitation), but different in degree, depending on the artist in context. Why this work is experimental as art, is because in the art world, the general axiom is that art imitates life; the painting in context at first glance does not imitate life, since the painting depicts a man with his head split into two pieces, given that the pieces are depicted with two different colors, blue and purple… why?

Given the description next to the portrait, we can read that the pictorial strategy (method of illustration) “could be a rendition of the ‘luftmensch’, a Yiddish term used to describe a person who is concerned with intellectual pursuits rather than with the practicalities of life.” Historically, the time period we are dealing with is the early 20th century in Russia. During 1917, Russia had undergone the Russian Revolution, which had brought about major changes to not only Russian society, but also to Russian politics, and to the entire Russian economy. Surely, there was change in the region where Chagall worked as an artist. Politically, the message in Chagall’s painting was dissimilation: stepping out of the normal practicalities of life. Essentially, Chagall dealt with philosophical thought rather than the thoughts fed to him by the society around him. It is interesting to see how the changes that the time period in which Chagall lived are depicted in his painting.

Even at first glance, where the painting seems more abstract than a well-depicted imitation, looking deeper we eventually see how the painting indeed depicts the exact political situation of Russia, the country that Marc Chagall resides in during the Russian Revolution. It is obvious that this is depicted by Chagall through not only splitting the top portion of the figure’s (in the painting) head from the rest of the body leaving a “blank space there”, but also through the illustration of color, where the cool, calm, collective blue ways of society remains below, attached to the whole of the collective, while the intellectual, creative, pondering purple part of the collective, where massive change occurs from, is separated as the top part of the head. The intertwined intellectual, artistic and abstract ideas presented in the painting show how the work’s experimental style is indeed linked to its political message.

“As above the macrocosm bends, so below the microcosm corresponds.”

Point & Shoot

December 4, 2018 / / 0 Comments

*

Jewish museum

*Television static* During Eid prayer in the capital city of Kabul two car bombings were detonated killing four people and injuring twelve.

These are the images of Afghanistan the media presents to me: Bombing here, terrorist there, U.S. troops everywhere. I can only dream for a day, when I might be see the nation of my parents with my own eyes. For now, I can only view the images of horror on my 4k plasma screen television from safety of living room couch. Martha Rosler understand the hypocrisy of being outraged by images of war while still partaking in consumerism that caused them.

The medium the artist choose was a photographic collage. In total there are three photos overlapped on each other, the Iraqi street, a women and child, and some women in a white gown. Each picture carries their own meaning. In the image of the Iraqi street, The US troops are armed; they are covered in head to toe in full combat gear holding semi-automatic rifles standing atop a tank. This would be fine if they were in the middle of a war zone, however they are just in the city streets of Iraq. There are no enemies with rifles pointed back at the troops only little boys with rainbow covered kites. The streets are filled with freighted pedestrians holding their breaths on what the troops might do.  This leads into the second image of the women and child. The positioning of this picture right in the line of fire of the tank and rifles shows the aggressiveness of the troops. They are not facing criminals only old women and children; the colors of the child and women are muted perhaps indicting some poor fate they might be subjected to. Both of these photos combined take and anti-war stance. The artist herself has proclaimed her as an activist against the US’s position in Iraq and Afghanistan. Point and shoot refers to the troops holding rifles, but as well as the third image of a tall blond women holding a camera. Her camera can take pictures of this conflict and bring it home for all to view. The women herself is an idealization of the 1960’s American sociality expectations on women: blond, tall, pin rolled hair, thin, elegant dressed, with a calm demeanor. Martha Rosler hopes to convey that we, the American public, are equitable to those out in the middle east actively creating violence by our passiveness as witness who do not take action against these war crimes. The economic and political imperialism that has to the violence in this conflict is prolonged just as much as our consumerism and complacency to not take action as anything else.

 

The medium nor the content of the image is avant garde. For an artistic piece to be avant garde it must be pushing the forefront, creating a style that has never been seen or used before. However unfortunately for this artist, Photocollages have been around as long as there has been photography. As well, political commentary on the horrors of war through the medium photography have been used since the Vietnam war. Commentary on consumerism can been seen in Andy Warhol as well as the communist manifesto. Although none of these ideas are new, doesn’t mean this piece cannot be influential. The medium used shows real word events and horrors, which wake up the public from their complacency and desensitization by the media. Hopefully it wakes us up enough to take action and not allow Martha Rosler’s work go to waste.

 

Free the Nipple Before it Burns!!

December 4, 2018 / / 2 Comments

The Jewish Museum was nothing like I expected. Foolishly, I expected the Jewish Museum to be a large exhibit showcasing artifacts from the Holocaust and remnants from the places where Jews were held in captivity and murdered those many decades ago. However, this museum was delightfully the opposite. Featuring artwork from various artists, the Martha Rosler show was the most dynamic by far.

Martha Rosler, an American artist born in 1943, is most known for illustrating the world through various mediums, including photography, video, sculpture, performance, and more more. She tends to highlight the woman’s experience and does not shy away from expressing her political standpoint on various issues such as gender roles, war, inequality, gentrification, etc.

Martha Rosler’s exhibit at the Jewish Museum was full of art of all shapes, sizes, and kinds; all unique and with their own message. In a small dark room, accompanied by a video screening of what appeared to be a woman having a gynecology consultation by a doctor and a host of nurses/observers taking notes, were a few photomontages of female body parts pasted onto everyday appliances. The picture that caught my attention the most was the image called “Hot Meat”. In this image, we see a side profile of a naked woman’s breast area plastered on to a stove/oven. In this series of photos (entitled Body Beautiful, or Beauty Knows No Pain), Rosler uses female body parts placed on everyday items to depict the role of women in society at the time and domesticity. Women during this time were seen as only staying in the home to cook, clean, and care for her family. They were not seen as independent beings outside of their marriages or households and were not respected as much as their male counterparts. Since the woman is naked, this adds an extra layer of vulnerability to the woman, as well as calls out the men in society. Men often objectify women and this is the perfect example of that. This asks him to rethink how he looks at a woman.

In placing these body parts on things that we would normally not see them nor associate them with, it forces the viewer to reconsider how we view women in society and their respective roles. Rosler wanted to change the way in which we see women on an everyday basis, and alter our socially constructed preconceptions on gender as a whole. This picture was created in the late 60s, and yet we still have a long way to go when it comes to seeing women as equals.

Body Beautiful or Beauty Knows No Pain, Hot Meat by Martha Rosler

GOOOOD MORNING VIETNAM

December 3, 2018 / / 2 Comments

In this exhibit, Martha Rosler takes 5 pictures that Americans would have considered to be normal or very ordinary. It is visible that there are portions of the pieces that are in color and other portions that are in black and white. Rosler’s first piece is titled “Cleaning the Drapes” and it depicts a woman cleaning her drapes with a vacuum and the woman, drapes, and vacuum are all in color, however what is outside the window is in black and white. This is very experimental because it combines two types of photography within the same medium: black and white vs color. This experimentation is purposely attracting attention to the differences between the two styles of photographs. In the second photo it is easier to see because it shows a kitchen with countertop and regular household necessities such as bowls, cups, and dishes. All of the kitchen objects are pictured in bright colors such as white and red and in the background there is even a red and white stripe across the wall. However, upon further investigation, there are two men depicted in dark colors such as green and grey, suggesting that they do not belong. This is shown in the next three photos as well where there are people in settings of a regular American household, however it is a combination of normal and abnormal. In most of Rosler’s pieces, the “regular” American life is depicted in color while the background depicts a darker image that obviously doesn’t belong. This is how Rosler’s exhibit of “House Beautiful” is considered experimental and avant-garde.

Martha Rosler’s collection of “House Beautiful” was compiled over 6 years and used as propaganda to influence Americans’ views against the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was considered the “first living-room war” because there were reporters and journalists and video cameras in Vietnam reporting back to the home front. This is important because it gave the American people a direct look into what was happening overseas and allow them to think they were apart of the war themselves. Rosler takes this idea and amplifies it by taking uncensored images of soldiers and natives in Vietnam. In the first photo, a woman is cleaning her drapes, but outside the window, there are men stationed in barracks made of sandbags and armed with guns. The second photo shows two men searching for something in the background of a kitchen, and suggests that they are searching for hidden bombs or landmines. In the third photo, two parents are playing with their kid on a bed but the walls around them are destroyed and the windows are boarded up from what was assumed to be an explosion. The fourth and fifth photos in the exhibit might be the most disturbing. In the fourth photo, it shows a woman in yellow in her very colorful and luxurious living room however, in a picture frame above the fire place, there seems to be a young woman in a great deal of pain. It even seems as if she was hurt multiple times in her torso either from a knife or from gunshots. In the fifth and final photo, Rosler takes a different view than from her previous photos. Instead of having a distinct colorful forefront and then the disturbing image in the background, she flips the idea. The forefront has a Vietnamese man holding his baby, who is injured and has blood dripping from its neck. It is obvious that these 5 photographs are purposely political against the Vietnam War because Rosler is placing serious and disturbing images in pictures that Americans believe to be “safe”. By combining these two pictures, Rosler creates medium that challenges the support of the Vietnam War.

 

House Beautiful c. 1967-72 Artist- Martha Rosler

War in My Back Garden

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

 

American artist, Martha Rosler, examined social issues of gender, war, and injustice throughout her career, as her artwork criticized the ill-conceived Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the early 2000’s. Rosler’s photomontages from her House Beautiful: Bringing the War Home, New Series, is able to stir emotions of discomfort and comfort, and experiment with the fine line between facade and reality.

In 2004, Rosler’s avant-garde Back Garden, had placed images of war into the American backyard quite literally. Photographs of soldiers standing over slaughtered bodies, muslim women (from what I assume to be from American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) fleeing in terror, all while an American assembly line of fashion models strut down the back garden towards the viewer, are depicted within the work. Taking Rosler’s criticism of war into consideration, her conglomeration of photos is extremely political, and exudes a harsh contrast between the war torn individuals, and the stone faced runway models. This odd and uncomfortable combination, forces a sense of realization and guilt, as one begins to compare the life created at home, and the life created abroad in wars that Americans have started. By specifically choosing images of war and images of runway models (individuals that are highly portrayed within the media), Rosler asks viewers to pay attention to what is happening in the world, even if it is not occurring within our own environments; she also demands the world consider the role that the media possesses in controlling how we perceive world events.

Although, Back Garden is nearly an accurate mimesis of people through photos, the piece itself is avant-garde as these depictions of people are not normally sized or put together in this way in real life. Normally, when an object is up close it is larger to the human eye, and when it is far away it is smaller. But within Back Garden, Rosler intentionally sized the runway models in an unconventional and unrealistic way. Although, physically they are bigger than the American soldier, dead bodies, and fleeing women in the background, the runway models appear to be much smaller than what real life would depict. Their size is odd and slightly uncomfortable especially as you go down the line. The fleeing women and American soldier standing over dead bodies are more realistically sized compared to their counterparts within the front of the back garden. This experimental choice in sizing, and the emotion this strategy employs, ultimately makes this piece avant-garde.

Back Garden pushes the boundaries not only within the artwork, but within the controversial message and feelings it conveys. Rosler makes the viewer uncomfortable by bringing a war, usually out of sight and out of mind, into their serene back garden. She makes the viewer uncomfortable by comparing a life of attention focused almost irrelevant matters like high fashion, with lives of war, murder, and terror. She then deepens our discomfort by unrealistically sizing her subjects, in a way that the human eye is not accustomed to. This feeling of discomfort helps Rosler bring conversations of war into light, making it both an avant-garde and highly political piece of work.

 

War Is Closer Than You Think.

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

Martha Rosler-Irrespective- House Beautiful- Bringing the War Home

This particular piece was displayed in the Martha Rosler exhibit in the Jewish Museum. This was the first piece that really grabbed my attention. As we’ve been learning, art is usually an imitation of something, usually of life. However this piece goes beyond just an imitation. It is avant-garde in its sense of subject and the juxtaposition of the subjects. in the work we can clearly see a right and a left. On the right is evidence of a beautiful, modernly built home and two beautiful women who are seeming to be focused on what they are seeing in their technology and expressing a look of fake shock, and on the left are dead children, fires, soldiers, and obvious scenes of war. it is very unusual to juxtapose horrific scenes of war with a beautiful orderly home and people who don’t seem to be caring about the war at all. This work pushes the boundaries of ignorance to war, it truly shoes how the war was going on directly behind people backs and they still chose to only focus on what was in from of them. As well, this piece juxtaposes the scenes of a beautiful home and beautiful women with the horrific and destructive scenes of war, showing two very opposite perspectives. It introduces the use of two different sides of life, one of war, and one of order to show the different experiences of people, some people paying attention to themselves and some ending up dead because of the war and its events. It also shows us how close things can be to us and we still will choose to look beyond them. This piece is abstract in the sense that for one, a house with the war so close would not look so orderly and also because, it juxtaposes order and chaos, death and life, self-centeredness and selflessness, all completely opposing view points in one image with clear sides.

Here, the image, at least for me forces you to look at the women first and then see the scenes of war as a background to show that even though it is so close to you, the most horrific events are just still background thoughts. That’s what makes this piece so political, it shows by means of vision and attention the issue of distraction in our lives. The politics of this work deals with distraction and war and how even if something so horrific, devastating, and chaotic, is outside our doors, we still will be forced by the means of nature and the things around us, to focus on something else, something much more appealing and orderly. This piece is trying to force people to realize that horrific events tend to take the backseat in our minds due to the distractions that are very present in our daily lives. Through realizing this, it is trying to make us more aware of our thoughts and thus make us realize the things that we should be thinking about rather than being distraction.

The avant-garde aspect of this art in regards to the juxtaposition of the two completely opposite views is related to the political aspect of this piece because the political aspect of this piece is designed for us to change our train of thought or rather to change the sides of that are thoughts are on, going back to the right and left of the piece. The message of the piece is meant to encourage us to put the important things in the front and the distractions in the back, in this case distractions to the left, important events on the right. The clear division of sides used in this picture encourages us to visualize the sides of our thoughts and where we put the things we choose to focus on, or rather for this case, not focus on.

“Over Vitebsk”

December 2, 2018 / / 2 Comments

Over Vitebsk-Marc Chagall

This painting was made by Marc Chagall in 1915-20. It is an oil painting on canvas. It’s hung in The Jewish Museum on 92nd Street and 5th Ave. The painting is both abstract and carries a political message. Chagall was a Hasidic Jew who grew up in Russia. He moved out of Russia for a while, but returned to bring his remaining belongings and his wife to Paris, where he had been living. He ended up getting stuck in Russia due to the Revolution, but he remained because he was finally granted rights and full citizenship. Chagall did not always have rights like he did after the Revolution, and this can be depicted in his painting. The name of the painting is “Over Vitebsk.” Featured in the painting is a Hasidic Jew flying over what seems to be Chagall’s hometown in Russia. The painting represents the idea of the  “Wandering Jew,” lost without a homeland. The Jew in the picture is depicting the thousands of Jews who had left Russia and Eastern Europe in the days of Chagall’s childhood. Although this painting is abstract and may not be so clear, when I first saw it I knew right away that it had a message. After a few additional minutes of observing it, and reading the placard next to the painting, I was able to see what the message was. Before entering The Jewish Museum I read a brief article about Chagall, “An Art School Started by Marc Chagall that Became a Modernist Wasteland.” From this I knew that life in Eastern Europe was hard for Jews in Chagall’s early years. This helped me create an inference about what the painting was trying to say. I felt that the painting was trying to show how the Jews in Eastern Europe felt, like they didn’t belong. The Jews weren’t always granted equal citizenship, and the painting displays this. The image of the Hasidic Jew fleeing Russia shows that they felt like they didn’t have a place to live; they didn’t have a home. This work is very experimental, because it is sending a major message. It is addressing the issue of the way Jews were being treated in Eastern Europe. I feel that this painting is both a mimesis and abstract. It’s a mimesis in the way that it depicts the Hasidic Jew. I was able to tell right away that the floating figure was a Jew, and I was able to understand what the Jew was representing. Although the painting is a mimesis, it is also abstract because the land is painted in a way that isn’t so clear. I was able infer that the land was Chagall’s hometown in Russia because of the knowledge I had read before, but one wouldn’t be able to tell right away that area the Jew is flying over is in Russia. For me, this painting evoked a lot of emotion. I was able to see that the Hasidic Jew took all of his belongings, got up, and was leaving the place that he grew up in, leaving his home with no destination in mind. I felt upset, sad, and angry that this happens so often in the world. People are constantly being kicked out of their homes, and are being forced to move. This painting was able to send a clear, strong message. I really enjoyed the museum and this piece.

 

The Power of Revolutionary Art

December 2, 2018 / / 3 Comments

Art is incredibly vital to any political movement. It is used to motivate people to join a cause and it is used to show the reasons for a revolution. At the Jewish Museum, we saw two different exhibits showing revolutionary art; art criticizing government and art that moved people emotionally to take part in a revolution. In the exhibit regarding Russian Avant-Garde from 1918 to 1922, I found a piece by David Yakerson named “Red Guards”. It grabbed my attention because it reminded me of the art that my peers create and put on signs when it comes time to organize our communities. It was a simple piece of art. There were 3 basic colors on it, red, blue and yellow, but that is all you need to capture someone’s attention. The foreground of the painting is very symmetrical and repetitive, and the background shows an image of a factory.
I was very intrigued by this art that I even went home to learn more afterward, but it was difficult to find out more, there were not many articles about it and there was only 1 photo of the piece online when you typed the title and artist name into the search engine—I have never had this happen before. It was painted in 1918 and it was designed to be on a banner for the first anniversary of the October revolution according to the blurb alongside the painting. Marc Chagall approved of this painting and even wrote on the back how many copies he needed and how large they had to be.
This art is considered experimental for various reasons. The minimalism of the art is interesting, it isn’t clear as to what is going on—all you know is that there’s a factory along with red soldiers carrying guns. It took a bit more research to understand that art of red army soldiers were common symbols of the revolution and was intended to reflect the issue of class struggle. It is a mimesis of the revolution—people arming themselves and fighting back is a common theme in any movement that demands action from the people. The art is minimalist, there is not a lot of details but it is enough to catch your attention and somehow it also is able to evoke emotion without seeing many details.
This painting is demanding your attention without overworking your senses. It is remembering the October revolution with life and passion. The way that the soldiers march together and are a reflection of each other show the unity of the people who want change; they could not remain silent in a situation where they are unequal. This type of art greatly influenced the political banners and posters of today. As I am writing this post, I look up at my bedroom wall and see all the posters I have used at protests and see the resemblance. Although they are not the same, Yakerson’s work and the work of other revolutionary artists have helped pave the way for artists use their art to demand liberation.

« Older posts Newer posts »

Authors

© 2024 Seminar 1: The Arts in NYC

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑