Before reading this critical essay, I saw Mr. Rochester’s actions towards Antoinette as a result of the fact that Antoinette was a woman. Upon reading this essay, I realized that Mr. Rochester might have acted his, supposed, superiority towards Antoinette due to the fact that she was a woman, creole, and also the fact that Mr. Rochester was forcing upon the English language and culture on Antoinette.

I forgot to take into account that the 19th and 20th centuries were eras of colonization and post colonization. As a result, as an English man, Mr. Rochester was naturally, either consciously or unconsciously, inclined to make Antoinette’s heritage inferior or redundant. As I can see from the novel, the first power Mr. Rochester used to “other” Antoinette’s heritage was through the fact that he kept calling her, “Bertha.” This forced upon the transformation of Antoinette’s identity as, just like Antoinette claimed, Mr. Rochester was trying to changer he personalities by giving her a different name. The efforts of trying to change Antoinette can be seen as, Antoinette who once was sane in Mr. Rochester’s eyes, started to be labelled as insane as she failed to change her identity up to the standards of Mr. Rochester. As a result, I believe that it came to a point that Antoinette was confused between her real identity, Antoinette, and the identity given to her by Mr. Rochester, Bertha.

As a result, I can see that cultural identity, especially due to the colonization and post colonization error, played a huge role in trying to define identities for others. This created the “othering” effect that led to Antoinette being labelled as insane and inferior due to her identity as a woman, creole and non-English.

Trojan Gates (1955) by Helen Frankenthaler is an oil and enamel on canvas, which I interpreted to be depicting two separate individuals whose elbows are linked, but forearms and hands are pulled back and away from each other. The elbows and arms are painted in a color which seems to be black, however from reading the description of the painting, I was informed that the artist actually thinned out her pigments using turpentine, which makes the canvas absorb the pigment much faster and creates a richer color, creating that intense “black” looking color without ever using black pigment. In the background of the painting, there seems to be some sort of gaping white hole, with its rims surrounded by color, almost like an explosion in the sky. This white space, while not in the form of a circle but a more abstract shape, is also found at the bottom of the painting but with little specks of blue, yellow and red within it. There also seems to be a ring around the spot where the elbows are linked, almost in the direct center of the artwork, as if that juncture is supposed to be the focal point of the piece.

I feel like the artwork expresses the meeting of two different worlds and the clash experienced when they converge. Each forearms represents a different world, and the explosions represent the destruction and turmoil that arise as a consequence of their union; the symbolism of the linked arms is interesting because it adds a personal touch/aspect. Perhaps it refers to the unconventional/unwelcomed union of two people, and the public outcry in response.

The concept of American democracy is arguably almost completely derived from basic Enlightenment principles. During the Age of Enlightenment, thinkers including Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau among many others, established a foundation for a new kind of society; one where progress in science and technology was celebrated, rulers were chosen by their subjects and through a just process, people were granted basic human rights, knowledge of the self was expanding, land absolute monarchs were figures of the past. These ideas, though they seemed completely foreign at the time, resonated with the masses to incite change and countless revolutionary movements, including but not limited to the American and French Revolutions. The founding fathers of America, when writing the constitution and rebelling against British rule, incorporated the principles and teachings established by Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau into the foundations of American democracy to create the political system that has survived until today (although, it is uncertain just how much longer it will last given the results of the latest election). This complex political system has served as the quintessence of democracy, for other nations around the globe to follow and model their own infrastructures after. The Enlightenment ideas discussed by thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau together, paved a “free” society and configured the concept of the “American dream.” When people think of America, many imagine a promising country in which social, economic and personal mobility is fostered and flourishes, which would not be the case had it not been for the Enlightenment thinkers and their ideas.

Colossal Statue of a Pharaoh Seated                                                     (Figure 1)

Granodiorite

Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12, reign of Amenemhat II (ca. 1919–1885 B.C.) or possibly Senwosret II (ca. 1987–1878 B.C.)

Egypt, probably Tanis (eastern Nile Delta)

This statute of pharaoh Amenemhat II was created to show the power and importance of a pharaoh. The statue is very realistic for the period of time and really shows a powerful man who was very important at the time. The composition, size, proportions, texture, pose, and mood of the statute reflect the greatness and importance of the person that was portrayed.

The dark color of this type of granite gives the statue an appearance that implies fear and greatness. If the statue was made of another type of material of another color it would not have the same effect as the granodiorite color.

The dimensions of a sculpture vary and are often connected to the importance of the statue. If a statue is made for decoration purposes it usually will be of smaller size but if the statue is made to imply power, it will be significantly of greater dimensions.

The proportions of this statue are extremely symmetrical.The symmetry implies order which is the message that a pharaoh would want to send to his people.

The way that the pharaoh is standing in this statue shows his place in the society. Obviously he is a very important person with a lot of authority.  His athletic body has broad shoulders, muscular arms, and powerful knees. With the breast proudly lifted and the abdominal musculature contracted, this ancient ruler seems to be inhaling: he is clearly ready to burst into action.

The Pharaoh looks very serious and his message is clear. He wants everybody to obey to him and take him seriously. The most important aspect of his face that portrays his seriousness is the lips. They are shaped and positioned in a way to make him look very powerful and authoritative.

In conclusion, different elements have contributed in the creation of this statue. Most importantly, in transmitting the powerful effect of the statue to the people. This was a method used in ancient times from the kings and pharaohs to show their authority. Different statues send different messages but in Ancient Egypt they are either used to imply power or they are made as a memorial to the King or Pharaoh after they die.

I visited the MOMA on Saturday May 14, after going through every floor, I chose Picasso’s oil on canvas portrait “Three Musicians”. It was painting while he was with his family in the FountainBleau in the summer of 1921. The picture depicts 3 flat abstract figured men. One playing the guitar one playing the clarinet and the other holding sheets of paper. This is a perfect depiction of Picaso’s cubist style. which is described as a very intellectual style of painting. It is very interesting how picaso makes these real life subjects into different shapes and sizes.

-Optimistic Oliver

The black party as well as scum manifesto use a very extreme radical language to let people know that everyone should be an equal. I was surprised to read that in the SCUM manifesto, women think men are pretty much the bottom of their shoe. But after further analyzation I could see why they think that, even though some men have a great deal of respect for women and their rights, there is also a whole other side, in which men have no respect for women, which is a problem. The SCUM manifesto is very informative for any woman who has ever thought these thoughts and in order for their voices to be heard, there needs to be some vulgar language to express their points. “Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit”: even though this is very untrue, it definitely gets more women on board to the feminist party, since in reality there are not many people who speak out about this cause. Since many influential black leaders have been assassinated in the past, it is also the black party’s obligation to speak out on their equality, and in my opinion both radical languages in these works, are extremely effective and one of the only ways they can be heard.

Black party and Scum Manifesto use radical language in order for other people to know about them and have their voice be heard , their main problems is that the want to be at the same level as others. Using their  own language for them is a way to show their value or personality even though it might not be appropriate to use. both parties use plural word to emphasize their unity as group and black people fighting for their rights and freedom, also the scum does the same thing because they like to show that their community are all suffering from the same problem. Both parties power is that they all in their group have the same idea which is equality and think that they are being treated different. I think that the reason why both parties use radical language is to be notice and have more attention which is true because a person speaking slowly and using regular and normal language will not get more attention than the person who use inappropriate words. For example during 2016 election the reason why our president elected Trump had more attention from the media and most people was because of his radical language, the word he used to define things and people. This to show both parties uses of such language is just to be more consider and grab more people attention. In my opinion using the radical language is not a good idea to claim a person right or demand because respect is very important and the use of words really matter and are very important especially in our society because education have become very powerful and important in order to success.

Sorry, I thought I posted this a while ago

The Black Panther Party Platforms lists demands of African Americans from society. They aren’t only demanding for their lives to be changed; they’re demanding to be given the same rights and privileges that anyone should be subject to while living in America. They don’t want to be judged for the color of their skin; The color of their skin shouldn’t limit them to what they do and do not deserve.  The demands aren’t what makes the piece radical, but the fact that they’re asking for these things in the first place, during this era of the Civil Rights Movement is what makes it so radical. The voice in SCUM Manifesto presents a different type of radicalness. It is a woman’s voice that is disciplining the male behavior. She is disciplining the man for not accepting who he is in nature; in other words, why does he want to be a female so bad? Of course, this isn’t literal; but what the writer means is that the male tries to make up for not being able to feel the compassion and intimacy that a female naturally possesses. Because he can’t be a female, he gets as close to becoming a female as he can; he starts a family with one, he even will cut off he genitals and change his clothing just to become a female. But either way, he will never have the female- like behavior; the genuine compassion that is vested in every female. This is radical because of how the male is depicted. Being that in society, males are looked at as the higher beings, she is taking a radical step in speaking against them. I think speaking radically is effective because it shows you aren’t afraid of the truth. Those who believe in the truth as well will have no problem siding with you.

The artwork that I chose to analyze t the MoMA was an untitled piece, painted on 1952. It was painted by Carmen Herrera, a Cuban who was born on 1915. The art piece is a synthetic polymer paint on canvas. It has a black and white stripes pattern that cuts across each other in zig-zag. On sight, it may get you a little dizzy, but after a few seconds of focus, you start to recognize that it’s a very nice pattern. The pattern of the painting reminds me of a Zebra’s skin pattern, but with a little twist to spice it up. According to the label of the painting, it was a “Gift of Agnes Gund and Tony Bechara” in 2005. Apart from the pattern, there is not much else to the picture, so with that said, the pattern is the focal point of the painting; it is what attracts the attention.

Manifestos use radical language to catch your attention. In order to be understood, you must first be noticed. If one is already a member of a marginalized group, one cannot simply say, “I deserve to be listened to.” and have it happen. One must take their words and use them to grab their audience by their shirt collars and shake them into understanding what is going on in their peripheral vision that they have previously ignored. The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Plan and the SCUM Manifesto both do this in different ways and to different effects. The Black Panther Party uses the outline and language of well known American documents to portray the point that they are both American and despised by Americans. It is a tactic meant to offend those who read it and feel that the documents have been appropriated, but also to remind them of the idea that “men are created equal” which we have since ignored when inconvenient. I think it is significantly more effective than the language of the SCUM Manifesto. However, both have their pros and cons. The SCUM Manifesto uses a form of radical language that I find a bit overbearing. I don’t like when organizations become so radical in their rhetoric that they begin discussing killing the oppressor. My personal preference, however, doesn’t take away from the fact that this is, indeed, an effective tactic. It allows the marginalized to assert power over their oppressor verbally and build up to a physical/political assertion of this power. The SCUM Manifesto certainly catches the attention of their audience and builds up the energy within their base.