Exploration 6: Teaching

“Divers”ifying My Curriculum
Exploring Diversity Assumptions, Bringing Awareness,
Breaking down Barriers, and Empowering Change
in Art History Instruction

Stereotypes, Lorna Simpson

“The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe. We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves. Our vision is continually active, continually moving, continually holding things in a circle around itself, constituting what is present to us as we are.”

– John Berger, Ways of Seeing (1973)

Bringing diversity awareness into my virtual classroom requires an acknowledgement and understanding of these statements by John Berger. The act of seeing (which precedes spoken language) “establishes our place in the surrounding world” and it is this visual acuity that leads to further exploration of that world, encourages us to ask questions and explore the possibilities of what we are seeing on a deeper plane.  Just as we can only see what we look at, we can only begin to make sense of what we see through the lens of our own experiences. Providing the appropriate platform and encouraging students to approach the art we study and “see” it through this lens of personal experience, enables a dialogue to ensue that reveals belief systems and “start[s] a process of questioning” (Berger 1973, p 5) these accepted systems. Rather than creating a “unit” on diversity to teach in my class, Exploration 6 is an assessment of the content of my course for opportunities to bring diversity awareness into the discussion and examination of methods by which to establish interactions that promote the fleshing out of the belief systems students bring to their interpretative viewing experiences.

Survey of Art I & II are courses that emphasize a Western and Eurocentric perspective of art history. The images selected for the course were created within that perspective and while the art of the course exhibits influence from cultures all around the globe (i.e. Matisse and Picasso shared a fascination for African tribal art, just as Whistler was enamored with the Orient), the predominant lens through which the art is interpreted is Western. The selection of paintings offers a “comprehensive” overview of the history of art. However, within this overview, several groups are under represented based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and ability. Often those who do appear in the text are omitted in the actual teaching of the course due to time and “importance.” Of the images, I have selected for consideration in this exploration many were not included in the course content although they appear in the required text.  I have selected images that are created by and “representative” of different genders, sexual orientations, race, ethnicity, ability, socioeconomic status, and bodies.

The primary objectives in these courses assert that upon completion students will be able to

•       Identify significant artworks, their artists, locations and the historical periods to which they belong.

•       Define important terms related to art and art history.

•       Analyze works of art stylistically and relate them to the society in which they developed.

•       Recognize stylistic changes in art by comparing and contrasting artworks from different historical periods.

The current means by which students are to accomplish these objectives include listening to lectures on the subjects, reading the text, participating in discussion boards that expand and challenge a student’s thinking on the subject, writing comparative essays and taking assessments of the material. 

Many of my students never really look at the art we are studying. They simply interact with it in terms of title, artist, medium, period, and significance. The more interesting or seductive the piece, the more likely they are to remember or engage with it. However, this way of looking and seeing is temporary and offers little incentive to engage with other pieces of art outside of this course. This practice also denies them the opportunity to evaluate themselves and their own ways of thinking in their viewing experience.  Berger asks the questions: “to whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those who can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists?” (Berger, 32).  Berger is referring to how the (mass) reproduction of images and their availability to people operating outside of the “art world” influences how meaning is formed around a piece of art. Taking a closer look at the “meanings” that are derived from looking is the center of this exploration.

In their work on engaging visual culture, Karen Keifer-Boyd and Jane Maitland-Gholson discuss images as “cultural meaning systems” (Keifer-Boyd and Gholson 2007, xvii).  Their research reveals three critical observations of these systems:

·      Meanings derived from images are built on both past and current interpretations of images.

·      Meanings absorbed from images are part of the present, since they refer to what we know at this moment.

·      Meanings we make from visual information are foundational to future understandings.  (Keifer-Boyd & Gholson 2007, xvii)

Although works of art (or visual culture) can articulate time, place, space, culture, and intent to the viewer, they are mute objects that require interpretation from the viewer. However, a viewer lacking knowledge of the piece, its history or the culture within which it was created can only draw from her own knowledge to draw meaning within the piece. As students explore art, utilizing both their personal experiences and the inherent information offered by a piece, they begin to discover the cultural, social, political, and personal context within which their meanings are shaped. The responses generated from this looking process illustrate how “meanings of objects are derived from a continuum of memories” (Boyd, Amburgy, & Knight 2007, p. 20) and support the idea that “memory is never objective and fixed; rather it is subjective and fluid” (Boyd, Amburgy, & Knight 2007, p. 20).

“The significance of visual culture for art education rests not so much in the object or image but in the processes or practices used to investigate how images are situated in social contexts of power and privilege.”

(Keifer-Boyd & Gholson 2007, xviii)

In order to begin a dialogue that illuminates these preconceived ideas and “assumed truths,” I will engage students in cooperative conversations about each of the selected pieces prior to discussing the work or works “in class.” Although the discussions will take place (ideally) before the image in introduced within the course context this is not necessary. Students will be encouraged toward personal interpretation outside of a factual or popular interpretive/historical narrative. Through the act of questioning and listening, I will look for assumptions about gender, race, ability, sexual orientation, etc. and will revisit the discussions to decode language and look for missed readings of the work to inform further discussion. The initial questions are derived from the VTS (Visual Thinking Strategies) approach to viewing art. These questions include simple open-ended questions such as: “What is going on in this piece?” “What do you see that makes you say that?” “What else do you see?” While these probes seem simple, they are meant to allow the discussion to flow from the viewer’s own viewing style rather than a traditional art historical perspective. Students are exploring and filling in the gaps themselves, rather than looking to the instructor for meaning. Follow up questions will follow the lead of those participating in the discussion and attempt to decode the assumptions behind the responses from the students. Some of these may include: “Imagine this was a [white, black, homosexual, disabled, able bodied,] [man, woman, transgender]. How (do you think you) would respond to this piece? What (do you think) makes you say that?” 

Below are a few of the selected images that will be used to explore difference and start the conversation of diversity. “Difference” exists in many forms: gender, race, age, intellect, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, physical appearance, character traits, professions, cultures, and personal preferences. Each of these differences denotes a way in which we are like or not like another person. People use these differences to assess themselves and others, as well as determine what is valuable and desirable and what is not. Unfortunately, these ideas of difference are cultural constructions rather than natural progressions of the process of the examination of self and other (Jhally 2009). As in most cultures attempting to assign categories for understanding various groups within and without, these constructions assign an image of “normal” that both alienates and deprives those who do not fit within these categories.

Venus de Milo (Aphrodite of Milos)  & Alison Lapper (Pregnant), by Marc Quinn

George Washington, by Jean-Antoine Houdon & Jean-Baptiste Belley by Girodet-Trioson

Satan Devouring one of his children, Francisco de Goya & Ophelia, Millais
Two Fridas, Frida Kahlo & Insane Woman, Gericault

Branded, Jenny Saville & Nude Self-Portrait, Egon Schiele
Self-Portrait, Robert Mapplethorpe & Self-Portrait, Modersohn-Becker

Witches Sabbath, Hans Baldung Grien & Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Picasso

In the TedTalk Inclusion, Exclusion, Illusion and Collusion, Helen Turnbull discusses the "blindspots" or unconscious biases that we have when we view those around us. Dr. Marylin Sanders Mobley supports the need to identify these biases with her declaration that "what we cannot acknowledge, we cannot address." Identification of these biases can occur through this process of looking and decoding the language we use toward certain images and how that language changes if aspects of the image change (gender, race, etc). As students articulate their interpretations of the images, they reveal codes of thinking, ideologies, and beliefs about themselves, individuals, and groups of people, both like them and unlike them. As they identify or distance themselves from the image (i.e. using language such as "they" or "us" to distinguish between inclusion and exclusion from a group), they imply what they know in that moment of looking. The questioning process evokes thought, reflection and opens up dialogue for change. Likewise, this form of conversation provides students with a platform to defend and challenge their existing belief system as they continue the process of self discovery.

 “Before a society can change its behaviors, beliefs must evolve through a self-reflective process. Looking at and articulating beliefs about the visual images that surround them can help students to develop explicit processes for thinking through beliefs and the behaviors that rise from those beliefs” (Keifer-Boyd & Gholson 2007, xviii).

"There is no such things as the innocent eye. We are not always seeing as clearly as we think we are. The brain distorts the reflection and if it's distorting the reflection of ourselves, what is it doing in terms of your reflections or patterns of other people?"

 - Helen Turnbull, Inclusion, Exclusion, Illusion and Collusion, 2013

Resources: 

Berger, J. (1973). Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting.

Burnham, R., & Kee, E. (2011). Teaching in the art museum: Interpretation as experience. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.

Keifer-Boyd, K., Amburgy, P., & Knight, W. (2007). Unpacking Privilege: Memory, Culture, Gender, Race, and Power in Visual Culture. Art Education, 60(3), 19-24

Keifer-Boyd, K., & Gholson, J. (2007). Engaging visual culture. Worchester, Mass.: Davis Publications.

Perkins, D. (1994). The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Rice, D., & Yenawine, P. (n.d.). A Conversation On Object-Centered Learning In Art Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 289-301.

Dr. Marylin Sanders Mobley, The Paradox of Diversity, 2013

Helen Turnbull, Inclusion, Exclusion, Illusion and Collusion, 2013

The Codes of Gender: Identity and Performance in Pop Culture 2009, 73 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41623

List of Works Selected from the course selected to

Explore Diversity Assumptions, Bring Awareness, Breakdown Barriers, and Empower Change:

Introduction//Module 1:

Venus de Milo

Alison Lapper, Pregnant, Mike Quinn

Module 2: Art of the Northern Renaissance

Arnolfini Portrait, Jan van Eyck

Deposition, Rogier van der Weyden

Virgin and Child, Jean Fouquet

Module 3: Art of the Early Renaissance (Italy)

Donatello, David

Boticelli, Birth of Venus

Module 4: Art of the High Renaissance and Mannerism

Michelangelo, David

*Bologna, Abduction of the Sabine Women

Module 5: Art of 16th Century Northern Europe and Spain

*Hans Baldung Grien, Witches Sabbath

*Levina Teerlinc, Elizabeth I as a Princess

Module 6: Art of the Southern Baroque

Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Slaying Hologernes

Diego Valazquez, Las Mininas

Module 7: Art of the Northern Baroque

Judith Lester, Self-Portrait

*Louis Le Nain, Family of Country People

Module 8: Art of the Rococo and Neoclassicism

Jean Honore Fragonard, The Swing

*Adelaide Labille-Guiard, Self-Portrait with Two Pupils

Jean-Antoine Houdon, George Washington

*Horatio Greenough, George Washington

Module 9: Art of the 19^th Century I

*Girodet-Trioson, Jean-Baptiste Belley

Ingres, Grande Odalisque

Gericault, Insane Woman

Goya, The Third of May & Satan Devouring One of His Children

Courbet, The Stone Breakers

Eakins, The Gross Clinic

*Henry Ossawa Tanner, The Thankful Poor

John Everett Millais, Ophelia

Module 10: Art of the 19^th Century II

Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere

Mary Cassatt, The Bath

Gaughin, Where do we come from? What are we? Where are We Going?

Rousseau, Sleeping Gypsy

Munch, The Scream

Rodin, Walking Man

Module 11: Art of the Early 20^th Century

Derain, The Dance

Nolde, Saint Mary of Egypt Among Sinners

*Egon Schiele, Nude Self-Portrait

*Modersohn-Becker, Self-Portrait

Picasso, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon

*Frida Kahlo, The Two Fridas

Module 12: Art Since 1945

Willem de Kooning, Woman I

Roy Lichtenstein,  Hopeless

Audrey Flack, Marilyn

Duane Hansen, Supermarket Shopper

Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Still #35

Lorna Simpson, Stereotypes

*Robert Mapplethorpe, Self-Portrait

*Jenny Saville, Branded

*Leon Golub, Mercenaries IV

Exploration 5: Empower

"We have more up here...shall we say...than filmmakers think and I think that they need to look at themselves in the mirror...and think like, okay, what if it was me being represented in this part " -participant, Code of Freaks

This image is from an article on Bullying Among Youth with Disabilities from the NCHPAD Blog

As I watched the videos, read transcripts, and the articles in the section, this statement kept returning to my thoughts. It was along a similar line of thinking that I began my own journey of self reflection many years ago. One of the most memorable books I read as an adolescent was Flowers for Algernon. Reading this book, about a intellectually handicap man who is given an experimental drug that temporarily reverses his condition, was an enlightening moment for me, both in how I viewed and interacted with people who were different from me. (For those of you who have not read the book, as Charlie becomes smarter-his intellectual handicap was pretty severe-he realizes that all of the people who he thought were his friends, were in fact making fun of him, laughing at him. This is the moment that still weighs on me to this day.) My educational career began in elementary and special education with an emphasis on the arts and a specialty in autism (ABA therapy). Since then life has moved me all around and my career has shifted (somewhat dramatically) and, while I have always remained in the arts, I am finally moving along a path leading back to my initial training.

When reflecting on how I have enabled, empowered, or made possible the inclusion of difference, I think of my oldest child. While she has no disability, she is extremely sensitive to the people she comes in contact with, how they are different from her, how they are similar, and the explanations behind these inquiries. Children are naturally curious about other people; however, they are not naturally inclined to discriminate against those who are different from them. This behavior is modeled by those in their life and the over-arching cultural to which they are exposed. Channeling her observations of difference into a belief that "we are empowered through difference"(Keifer-Boyd, Empower notes), enables her to be a vessel for change. When my husband and I parent her, I feel that we have a responsibility to provide a positive appropriate example for interacting with all people. In doing so, we do not merely discuss people who are different from our family, we seek out and interact with people who are different in a multitude of ways. Dr. Carrie Sandahl discusses how she is "building [a] disability culture" (The American with Disabilities Act and the Arts: A Celebration of Inclusion. [Or Unreasonable Accommodations]) in her work. We are seeking to build an inclusive culture within our family that celebrates differences in race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.,. In doing so, we are teaching our children that we are one body with many parts that are all important and have much to contribute on a local and global level. 

One of the ways in which we have enabled her is in the selection of her school. Her preschool program is heavily involved with the special needs program within the school (i.e. taking joint field trips, collaborating on projects together, etc). As a four year old she is "researching" and engaging in conversations with and about her friends with conditions such as hydrocephalus and cerebral palsy and who have different modes of transportation (i.e. walkers, wheel chairs). These constructive conversations are equipping her to openly and sincerely embrace those who are different from her. Two weekends ago, we were shopping and she encountered a lady in a wheel chair. With confidence, she walked up to the woman and struck up a conversation about her mode of transportation. For several minutes, the two discussed the wheel chair and its uses and why the lady needed it. Over the past few weeks, I have thought often of this encounter and wish I could have seen the situation from the perspective of the lady and/or my daughter. I am sure that this woman's experience shopping that day was not all pleasant and this inclusive. She wasn't not able to manipulate the wheel chair herself and relied upon her son to move her throughout the outdoor shopping area. In fact saw her several times as we shopped. However, I suspect that both parties shined a ray of sunshine into the lives of one another. Rather than turning to me to ask "what's wrong with her, mommy" my four-year old challenged the normal reaction to people who are physically different from her. Her reaction echoes Jon Novick's challenge in Don't Look Down on Me:

"I don’t want to tell anyone what to do or what to think or how to feel. But instead, what I’ll do is I’ll ask. I’ll ask that the next time you see someone who is different than you, think about what their day might be like. Think about all of the events of their life leading up to that point. Then think about their day, and think about what part of their day do you want to be."

My hope is that my child will always celebrate those around her for their inner and outer beauty (not perfection or normalcy). Just as Sandahl talks of disabilities as the real normal, we continue to question what is "normal" and what underlying cultural assumptions have crafted our existing belief system. 

Resources: 

2011 Illinois Arts Alliance presentation by Dr. Carrie Sandahl titled, The American with Disabilities Act and the Arts: A Celebration of Inclusion. [Or Unreasonable Accommodations]

Codes of the Freaks (18:09 min., 2011) at  http://codeofthefreaks.blogspot.com/

Don't Look Down on Me athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD_PWU6K514 by Jonathan Novak (2014, 6:18 min.)

Exploration 4: Diversity

As I ponder the meaning, depth, and fluidity of culturally relevant pedagogy, I cannot help but think of (current) trends in education, trends that almost completely remove the student as the axis of learning and seek to educate a homogenous group of children. Trends that “[add] some books about people of color, [have] a classroom Kwanzaa celebration, or [post] ‘diverse’ images [to make] one ‘culturally relevant’” (Ladson-Billings, 82). The “voyeuristic culture-vultures that consider [insert form of pop culture] to be the next trendy thing that can be used to hook students, only to draw them back into the same old hegemonic, hierarchical structures” (Ladson-Billings 82).

In her introduction to TDPC, Judy Chicago discusses her reaction to an interpretation of The Dinner Party. “Although I knew the teacher had not intended to offend, this interpretation of The Dinner Party deeply disturbed me. While there is nothing wrong with doing autobiographies on plates, it is a mistake to claim that such a project has anything to do with The Dinner Party, which is about women’s achievements in history” (Chicago, from Introduction to TDPC).  Chicago’s statement addressing an instance in which her work was utilized for educational purposes but completely out of context echoes Ladson-Billings concerns over the meaning of “culturally relevant pedagogy” once it was introduced to “the marketplace of ideas”: misuse, misinterpretation and, even, a “distortion and corruption of the central ideas” (Ladson-Billings 2014, p. 82).

As educators, some of our best intentions can be misguided and overlook the value found in the diversity of our students. Sometimes we just miss the point.  One of the central ideas of culturally relevant pedagogy is viewing “students as subjects rather than objects” (Ladson-Billings, 77).  By repositioning the students as subject, they can be valued as “sources and resources of knowledge” (Ladson-Billings, 79) rather than mere recipients. This idea pushes students to engage with material that challenges their personal experiences and pre-conceived notions. By drawing from their own personal experiences, students make meaning that is relevant and valuable to them. In the study guide for Killing Us Softly 4, students are asked to use dialogue, collaborative projects, and journals to “think critically and independently about this material from a number of different perspectives, and to develop and defend their own point of view on the issues at stake.” Culturally relevant (sustaining) pedagogy also challenges the way we as educators view our students. Are we among those trying to fit our students into a formula? Do we have pre-conceived  notions of our own? Or are we exploring the individuality of our students, meeting them where they are and appreciating them for what they bring to the table?

Resources: 

Ladson-Billings, Gloria (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.

Exploration #3: Difference

“[Ads] create an environment – an environment that we all swim in, as fish swim in water. And just as it’s difficult to be healthy in a toxic physical environment, if we’re breathing poisoned air for example, or drinking polluted water. So it’s difficult to be healthy in what I call a ‘toxic cultural environment’ – an environment that surrounds us with unhealthy images….”

- Jean Kilbourne, Killing Us Softly 4

“Difference” exists in many forms: gender, race, age, intellect, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, physical appearance, character traits, professions, cultures, and personal preferences. Each of these differences denotes a way in which we are like or not like another person. People use these differences to assess themselves and others, as well as determine what is valuable and desirable and what is not. Unfortunately, these ideas of difference are cultural constructions rather than natural progressions of the process of the examination of self and other (Jhally 2009). As in most cultures attempting to assign categories for understanding various groups within and without, these constructions assign an image of “normal” that both alienates and deprives those who do not fit within these categories.

One group that continues to struggle with stereotypes, gender assumptions and expectations and harmful attacks on body image is the female athlete. Female athletes are a commodity, both in their gender and their ability to perform and entertain. Female athletes are objectified and criticized based on unfair and unrealistic constructions of gender. Too thin, too tall, too heavy, too short, too fat, too bitchy, too masculine, too muscular, too butch. These criticisms reinforce one of the most common stereotypes of female athletes: lesbian. Our culture encourages us to be uncomfortable with anyone who cannot fit into the socially prescribed categories of male and female. The "natural" (or rather trained) response of female athletes is to conform to social norms of femininity by over-feminizing themselves. They have learned how to "send out the correct codes"(Jhally 2009) to be accepted.

Below are two sets of images depicting female athletes: the desirables and the un-desirables.

The Desirables. The first set is a collage of images of women whose bodies are physically fit, celebrated, powerful and sexualized. A yogi, a runner, an athletic supermodel, an athletic professional, a skier, a dancer, and a swimmer. Each exudes strength, agility, healthiness, flexibility, stamina, intensity, endurance, and excellence. They are also highly sexualized in their poses, glances and expressions toward the audience (Jhally 2009), and their attire that accentuates each woman's incredible physique. These are desirable, healthy, sexy women. Women that are strong and powerful. Together they exhibit an ideal female athlete by current cultural constructions: feminine, beautiful, but non-threatening. These women are images from current magazines.

These same women now have been overlayed onto an advertisement (that I manipulated) that depicts how culture has been taught to view them: meat, an object for consumption with a price tag to be bought and sold at the whim and fancy of the consumer, the viewer, the audience. Although the group is much more intimidating than the singular images would be, as individuals they reinforce cultural ideas about women as submissive and subordinate (Jhally 2009). Four of the women are looking directly at us. Two have hidden faces. One is in profile. The women looking at us do so with what Jhally and Goffmann identify as a "licensed withdrawal." Their eyes appear to be looking in our direction but they are not paying attention to the world in which they have been assigned or the viewer enjoying that world. The women who are not looking at us are allowing us to look without the commitment of engagement, but rather simply to admire what is before us. The placement of hands and poses of their bodies indicate vulnerability as they serve no utilitarian function and the poses are unnatural and (in some cases) distorted. Although these women are confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be dissected like cuts of meat.(in some cases) distorted. Although these women are confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be dissected like cuts of meat.

Lastly, these same athletic women are displayed with an array of fresh, organic produce, the "natural choice." While their poses, expressions, and engagement with the viewer does not change. What we interpret and associate with the image does. These women are healthy and athletic. Motivation and  choice have shaped their figures. The positive connotations of the background call to mind clean living and diets, in a time when it is popular, trendy, and (fortunately) possible to easily live health conscious lives.

The Un-Desirables. The second group is a lesser known group of female athletes. These women do not appear in popular magazines. Their beauty, physique, and femininity are not used to sell products. The poses in which they appear do not render them vulnerable or sexualized. They are the undesirables. U.S. Olympic weight lifter Sarah Robles (first woman) and Holley Mangold were the the strongest women in the America in 2012. Robles could barely afford to compete in the London Olympics due to lack of funds. Her physical appearance deterred organizations/companies from offering her sponsorships. Despite their overwhelming qualifications, the women below  were denied sponsorships, media coverage and equitable treatment due to their body types and the misconception that "thin = fit and healthy." 

The reading of this image is very different the first "meat" image. The athletes are still a commodity. Superimposed over the image of meat, these women are subjected to the harsh stereotypes assigned to large women, women are appear to be unfit, or women whose body type isn't "perfect." Regardless of the fact that all four of these women are world class athletes that compete on the Olympic level, they are objectified not for their beauty and femininity but for their lack of.  

Are these women our "natural choice"? They are real, unedited, nonconforming to the cultural expectations, healthy women. Motivated by ambition, love of the sport, positive choices, these women refuse to allow the perceived ideas of their bodies hinder or deter them from what they want. 

In the Codes of Gender, Sut Jhally states “there is nothing natural or biological about gender or gender identity.” Women, just like men, are "athletes." The term "female" should not be relevant in their ability to perform and excel. What does a "female athlete" look like? All of these women. All women. Thin, tall, heavy, short, large, small, muscular, short hair, long hair... Appearance does not determine ability and skill anymore than biology determines gender.

Kilbourne challenges “get involved in whatever moves [you] to change not just these ads but these attitudes that run so deep in our culture and that affect each one of us so deeply, whether we’re conscious of it or not. The changes have to be profound and global and they’ll depend upon an aware, active, and educated public—a public that thinks of itself primarily as citizens rather than primarily as consumers.”

Resources:
The Codes of Gender: Identity and Performance in Pop Culture 2009, 73 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41623

Dietrich, L. (2012, August 10). Criticism of Female Olympians' Bodies Harms Athletes. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.aauw.org/2012/08/10/criticism-of-female-olympians-bodies-harms-athletes/

Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's Image of Women 2010, 46 min.
http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41635
Michael Kimmel: On Gender 2008, 55 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41507

Saner, E. (2008, July 28). The gender trap. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender

Exploration #2: Cultural Artifacts

iPhone 6

In selecting my cultural artifact, I began with an object so ingrained in our everyday lives it seems to have become an extension of our very bodies.  The iPhone. What are some contemporary and personal meanings encoded in this object? A connection to everything needed throughout the day. For me, it is my husband, my school-aged child, my sister, my mother, my students, my calendar, the News, my interests, my momentary musings. This device is my repository of pictures, videos, contacts, data, budgets, most frequented online shopping spots, ideas, and music. It is my navigation system both physically and emotionally. The iPhone has become an extension of my person, my hand, my fingers. I turn to it during my leisure time, down time. It serves as a welcome distraction, an escape. I never leave home without it.

Smart phones, particularly the iPhone, represent connectivity. These devices break down the barriers of time and space, language and culture. iPhones speak a global language and open the lines of communication and exploration between groups that otherwise would remain isolated. While they come in a beautiful slick non-gendered package, each owner seeks to express herself by personalizing the exterior and interior with skins, protective cases, wallpapers, screens, apps and keyboards. 

iPhones are so embedded in our culture that imagining life without them is as foreign as looking to the Encyclopedia Britannica as the primary source of information on any given topic. Although, my personal investigations started with the iPhone, I chose an older, but related, artifact to continue my discussion.

This rotary phone is an old version with the "guts" removed for my children's use. 

The rotary phone. This image of an “antique” phone (as one of my high school students described it) represents a simplified idea of how a phone functions today. It marks a moment in the technological evolution of the telephone. It is neither the beginning nor the end, but rather somewhere in between. At the time of its popularity, this object was used to communicate, personally and professionally with people in close proximity, cross-continentally, or internationally.

The year 1919 marked the beginning of the rotary phone era. After WWII, Henry Dreyfuss created the shape in the image above that would dominate the visual form of the rotary form for most of its lifetime. Rotary phones (and phones in general) initially appeared only in the homes of the wealthy and installation of one into the home was a sign of status. As their popularity spread, cities and suburbs began to see phones in homes. Rural areas were often excluded due to a lack of infrastructure. In the beginning, phones all shared a similar appearance to the original black model. However, as phones became more accessible, the styles became more individualized. Such an example is the princess phone that was popular among women.

This is an image depicting a "French Phone" like the one my grandmother gave me as a teenager. This image is part of my personal experience with the rotary phone and part of my reason for selecting this image.  

Unfortunately, the 1960s mark the beginning of the end for rotary phones as they were slowly replaced by newer touch-tone technology (Roberts). However, these phones can still be found in homes of "hold outs" today (my grandparents included).

The subjects asked to respond to this image were forced to look back at their own memories or the memories of others in order to interpret the meaning of the object. I asked eleven people to respond to the images, 5 male and 6 female, ranging in age from 18 to 72 of mixed socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. The responses gathered from this exercise illustrate how “meanings of objects are derived from a continuum of memories” (Boyd, Amburgy, and Knight, 2007 p 20) and support the idea that “memory is never objective and fixed; rather it is subjective and fluid” (Boyd, Amburgy, and Knight, 2007 p. 20). One respondent, a 29 year old Vietnamese woman, replied “I associate communication, advancement, connectedness, relationship and help with this image. I also associate a period of time with it that seems a little more simple and probably a little magical because we weren’t part of it.” She credited her “personal interaction with phones, history class, [her] background and classes in communication studies, museums, books and personal observation and reflection” as the sources for such a statement. Her “magical” experience was evoked by movies, readings about the periods in which this older technology was popular and a general since of “wonder and curiosity” for things of old. Several of those I asked recalled seeing these types of phones used as props in period piece movies and television shows. One women noted the sexuality found in a beautifully manicured hand dialing on a rotary phone from a popular television show. 

One older gentleman reflected on moments of “sitting and talking, devoting time to speaking with another…in kitchen nooks.” Another recalled it as his primary connection to his distant grandmother and noted the large amount of time spent in conversation with her on such a phone.The women in these memories are 1950s housewives, pictures of domesticity with the latest technology dangling from their ear. These memories evoke an image of white middle class American women gossiping away on their phones.

The sense of nostalgia and familiarity this object evokes is telling of both the primary user of the phone as well as the marketing of the telephone at this time to women in the home. Of course, the phone was transformative for businesses as it increased the numbers of persons that could be accessed on any given day. However, the most widely associated person (from an image search and those I showed the image to) is the housewife, mother, grandmother, a female figure. Memories from my own childhood include my mother talking on the phone "for hours." 

However, the domestic housewife was not (and is not) the only subject of these images. My search revealed working class women and even pin-ups talking on these phones. In her article "Shaping the American Women: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s," Christina Catalona calls attention to a group of feminists that identify "the 1950s as the pinnacle of gender inequality"(Catalona 2002, 45) claiming that "mass media especially advertising in women's magazines, perpetuated the denigration of women" (Catalona 45). While women in this era are portrayed in a variety of other occupations, the primary usage for the phone image appears to be the home and the switchboard or secretarial position. However, in both, women are presented as prim and proper objects of beauty to be looked upon and appreciated for their aesthetics. 

A younger female noted the irony of this image as she confessed to feeling connected to this phone with a cord whose purpose was to remain stationary. She states “I felt more freedom when I used a phone like this than my fancy smart phone that remains with me wherever I go.” Pondering this image, she journeyed back to a “time when I used to run around the lawn in a t-shirt and no shoes playing in the mud and getting dirty. We didn’t watch TV or play video games. We played outside and hunted for lost treasure in the creek behind my parents’ house. We didn’t worry about what so and so said about us to hurt our feelings or whether they were our friend on facebook. We had each other that’s what mattered most.” Her connection to these images are not necessarily gendered but rather class related. Growing up in a poor rural area, these memories of a time gone by are ideals. They are memories shaped by what she knows today and what she thinks she remembers about yesterday. A time when she was too young recognize class divides. Or that the phone in her home was not the newest technology. 

A male subject, age 30, reminisced of using “one at my grandmother’s house as a child” and noted “the competence it takes to use one would probably be lost on current children.” Searching for current readings of this image and illustrations of the out-dated technology, I uncovered an interaction between children of varying ages, gender and ethnicities interacting with a rotary phone. What is revealed is both amusing and indicative of the culturally obsolete quality of the device as well as a dying telephone jargon. 

Another male also associated the image with his grandparents as “they were the only ones to have this still in their home and in use” even today. His response was that the technology was “outdated” just as grandparents are often considered “outdated members of society.” 

One respondent noted the “form signifies its function” or lack there of as he mused on the roles that phones play in our lives today. Phones today are our connections with the world. They are keep us connected with our friends, family, activities, and information. Phones allow us to know and understand the world around us on a global level. 

Just in case you did not already know, here is a "how to" for the telephone...not to be confused with a cellphone.... 

Resources: 

Catalano, Christina (2002) "Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s," Constructing the Past: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 6.

Keifer-Boyd, K., Amburgy, P. M., & Knight, W. B. (2007). Unpacking privilege: Memory, culture, gender, race, and power in visual culture. Art Education, 60(3), 19–24.

Martin, D. (1994, January 10). Rotary Pay Phones Return, This Time to Foil Drug Deals. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/10/nyregion/rotary-pay-phones-return-this-time-to-foil-drug-deals.html

Roberts, William Lee. “Western Electric A look at the evolution of the Dial Telephone.” http://www.arctos.com/dial/

Rotary phones ring true for few. (n.d.). Sacramento Business Journal. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/12/focus3.html

This Attention Deficit World: Frantic, Free, and Out of Control. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2014, from http://www.enotalone.com/health/5651.html