#especially for exhibiting a performance of hierarchy

[shallowseeker]

“Talking the talk,” is a bonding/masking tool in hostile environments.

[serendipitysparks]

Viktor Nikiforov – The Duality of Self and Narcissism: Viktor’s journey reflects themes of self-actualization and narcissism. Initially, Viktor’s personality showcases traits of grandiosity and idealization, which align with the narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) traits as defined in the DSM-5, particularly his inflated self-image, charm, and need for admiration. However, beneath this exterior lies a more complex psyche, influenced by his self-object need for validation and attention, an extension of self-psychology (Heinz Kohut).

The shift in Viktor’s behavior when mentoring Yuri Katsuki suggests a subtle, yet profound, psychological evolution. Viktor’s decision to mentor Yuri symbolizes an effort toward self-differentiation, as he distances himself from his own need for perpetual external validation and seeks meaningful connection. This transformation demonstrates self-actualization in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as Viktor attempts to transcend his previous ego-driven existence.

His relationship with Yuri represents a balancing act between object relations theory (Melanie Klein) and interpersonal neurobiology (Dan Siegel), wherein Viktor begins to integrate the parts of himself that were previously fragmented by his pursuit of fame. The mentor-mentee dynamic reveals a desire for attachment, yet also a fear of dependency, indicative of unresolved attachment trauma.

Yuri Katsuki – The Development of Identity through the Lens of Existential Psychology: Yuri Katsuki’s character arc is a poignant exploration of existential self-concept and identity formation within the context of athletic competition. Initially, Yuri's self-worth is contingent on external validation, particularly from Viktor. His deep-rooted social comparison theory (Leon Festinger) keeps him tethered to the perceptions of others. Yuri's anxiety, depression, and intense self-doubt are symptoms of a fragile ego, which fits with Erik Erikson’s psychosocial crisis of identity versus role confusion, central to adolescence but extending into early adulthood. Yuri’s psychological trajectory is marked by his movement from external locus of control to an internal locus of control, as he slowly comes to terms with his sense of self beyond his relationships with others. This aligns with Carl Rogers’ theory of self-concept and congruence, where his genuine identity begins to emerge when he accepts vulnerability and imperfections. Yuri’s initial inability to reconcile his inner self with external expectations mirrors the cognitive dissonance theory, where the tension between his internal desires and external pressures creates psychological conflict.

Additionally, Yuri's experience of performance anxiety (in the realm of sports psychology) is informed by Yerkes-Dodson law, which explains the relationship between arousal and performance. His struggle with anxiety reaches a tipping point where his optimal performance occurs only when he breaks free from external pressures and embraces his passion for skating.

The Theme of Love and Intimacy – Attachment Theory and Emotional Regulation: The relationship between Yuri and Viktor represents an evolving emotional bond that progresses from transference to a more secure attachment. Their evolving dynamic can be analyzed through the lens of attachment theory (John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth). Initially, Yuri’s attachment to Viktor is characterized by anxious-preoccupation, where Yuri’s self-esteem is dependent on Viktor’s approval and attention. However, as the series progresses, the relationship evolves into one of interdependence, where both characters gradually exhibit more secure attachment behaviors, transitioning into a secure attachment style characterized by mutual trust, emotional regulation, and empathy.

In addition, Viktor’s role as both a mentor and lover introduces an intricate interplay of self-disclosure and emotional intimacy. Viktor’s vulnerability, especially when he confronts his own fears and doubts about his purpose in life post-competition, allows for a reciprocal process of empathic attunement in their relationship. This emotional attunement strengthens their bond and facilitates mutual growth, fostering the co-regulation of emotions.

Yuri Plisetsky – Adolescence, Ego Ideal, and the Development of Autonomy: Yuri Plisetsky, in contrast to his namesake, serves as a psychological study in the development of adolescent individuation and the striving toward ego-ideal fulfillment. His personality reflects narcissistic defenses and splitting, a defense mechanism identified by Melanie Klein, where he initially idolizes Viktor as a source of admiration but simultaneously feels the need to differentiate himself from others, especially Yuri Katsuki.

Yuri Plisetsky’s relationship with Viktor and his competition with Yuri Katsuki reflect rivalrous narcissism and a battle for supremacy, indicative of a fragile ego ideal constructed on winning and recognition. His constant striving for autonomy is framed by identity diffusion (Erikson) and ego formation, wherein he attempts to establish his own identity through the process of psychic integration.

Over the course of the series, Yuri’s emotional development is marked by a gradual movement away from the adolescent ego toward an integrated self that encompasses both his competitive drive and his vulnerability, as evidenced by his moments of connection with his coach and peers.

[kenyaamzee]

Between Credit and Consequence: Observations on the Audience, Quiet Hierarchies, and the Subtle Pitfalls of Monopolising Collective Memory

Something curious is happening. On the surface, a dispute of names, exhibitions, images and intent. A tangle of creativity, memory, and misrecognition. Beneath that, however, it begins to resemble something else. A mirror reflecting an older, deeper conversation. 

I’ve been closely observing the public responses to a recent moment in the creative world involving the Woza Sisi Collective and Trevor Stuurman. The perspectives shared by artists, audiences, and institutions alike have highlighted an overdue conversation. One that extends beyond the specifics of this case, while still being shaped by it. What the collective has surfaced bravely and with clarity, gestures toward something far older, far more embedded: the quiet mechanics of power in creative spaces, the subtle influence of language and the uneasy question of how easily harm can be reframed or dismissed, especially when it leaves no visible trace depending, of course, on who is doing the looking.

Public sympathy often follows charm, profile, or reputation. This is why it is worth asking who is believed, and why? Who is protected, even when no one explicitly defends them? Who is allowed to speak candidly, without fear that the act of voicing discomfort will cost them more than it reveals?

As our nation becomes increasingly litigious, many significant and legitimate cases are overshadowed by sensationalism, gossip, or the phenomenon of 'trial by social media'. In this case, we desperately need to remain focused and remember that to name influence is not to accuse. Seeking context is not a threat. Nonetheless, the arts are rarely neutral territory. Even within liberatory language, there are unspoken rules. Who may critique whom, who can express harm and still be invited back in? This moment, then, isn’t solely about one artist. It speaks to broader conditions. To how unease is so easily repositioned as aggression and how precarious it is to hold both admiration and disappointment in the same hand.

The archive is often treated as sacred, a home for memory. Yet archives are also constructed through power. Some people are remembered, cited and entered. Others are left out. Across time, Black women and queer bodies have curated, documented, imagined, and preserved. Often, their work enters the world unaccompanied by their names. Their titles, frameworks, and aesthetics become detached, reused not as homage, but as raw material. This may not always be ill-intentioned. Still, it leaves the work unanchored.

Creative labour (especially when it comes from Black women, collectives and queer bodies) is often seen as ambient. It is not always recognised as authored or proprietary. When a boundary is drawn, the response is rarely equal. Others can be questioned and still emerge intact. Their reputations survive. Their careers continue. In a field where harm is only recognised when named by the powerful, staying silent can become a form of protection. The term ‘Collaboration’, can so often be used but by the time we realise it was instead exploitation, too much has been lost in translation. You risk falling into a sort of “career limbo” if you choose to raise your concerns. 

This moment does not ask for cancellation. Instead for a different kind of presence. One that is slower, more deliberate and grounded in care rather than performance. True accountability means remaining in the room when discomfort arises. It means saying, “I see you. I hear you. Let’s talk.”.

We are often drawn towards binaries: inspiration or theft, intention or impact, love or harm. The truth often resides in quieter places. It lives in the dissonance of recognising harm without villainy. Good intentions do not always soften difficult outcomes.

When something deeply personal is echoed elsewhere without your name- It is the ache of erasure dressed as coincidence, the slow burn of navigating spaces where credit is optional and silence is expected. What lingers is not just exclusion, but what happens when Black women voice unease and are met with dismissal rather than curiosity. As if naming harm is more disruptive than causing it.

Still, we speak.

Some of us remain one sentence away from being forgotten. Others are never asked to explain. Somewhere in between, the art keeps moving. Sometimes with us. Sometimes without us.

[ahamkara-apologist]

Not to be insane in your inbox but I simply MUST hear more of your Uluran specbio headcanons. They keep me sane.

Okay yeah I'm just gonna post this now- been fiddling with it for several weeks and keep getting distracted by cool reproductive biology facts (like the complexities of rhino cervixes and why it makes conservation efforts via artificial insemimation so difficult) so here ya go. Most of this is reproductive biology bc I'm studying to be an evolutionary geneticist for conservation purposes, so be aware of that- all that good stuff is under a readmore

*Note: I started using the terms ‘bulls’ for male Uluru and ‘sows’ for female Uluru midway through this bc I got tired of writing ‘male/female’ over and over again, as this doc also contains Eliksni and Hive biology musings. It helps distinguish the Uluran section from the others a bit. I also use Uluru/Uluran interchangeably, with ‘Uluru’ being the notation for individuals and ‘Uluran’ being the notation for a group/the species as a whole.

General:

-The exposed upper gumline we see in almost all Uluru faces isn't how their lips normally rest; baring the teeth and upper gum is an expression of superiority/confidence in their strength. The reason we almost always see their faces in this position is because the Uluran almost universally view humans as weaker, and even those like Caiatl (who has seen otherwise) does it on instinct because they cannot fathom how much smaller we are

-Which, to be fair, doesn't say a lot; an Uluru with a relaxed mouth typically only occurs in private, when around their mate or equals. When an expression can mean both 'I am greater than you' as well as 'I am confident in myself and my abilities', and the whole society they live in is based around being the best of your class, then it's going to be a very common facial expression

-(On a side note: their growth hormones being triggered by a sense of pride isn't actually all that outlandish. House Sparrows exhibit a similar occurrance in real life, where winning dominance battles against other males increases the size of their bib, a black patch on their chest that indicates where they are placed in their social hierarchy. The more fights they win, the bigger their bib)

-Uluran fat distribution is mostly internal, and is focused around the organs to act as shock barriers when fighting; their muscles typically layer over the fat bands. The one exception to this is around the throat/jowl area, where fat layers over the thick muscle pads to help protect the vulnerable area from being gored by tusks during fighting

-Unlike in human society, hitting on a married individual is not socially unacceptable, especially if the individual doing the flirting believes that the pairing is an unfit match for one another and they can do better. It's considered romantic and marriage-affirming for the partner who's being shamed in this situation to chase the other suitor off. This weighed especially heavily on the sows bc of the vulnerable mate-guarding lactation period post-pregnancy

-(However it should be noted that Uluran gender roles are less restrictive in some ways than humans bc they’re based more on the strength of the individual than their ability to perform preset social rules, and that in modern times this is more for show)

-Historically, reverse-harem groups were a common sign of status, with one particularly fit sow mating with three or four bulls and/or having ‘lesser’ males that she did not mate with (or stole from other sows) nursing her calves. In some extremely traditionalist groups/among gladiators, this still occurs, but most mating groups max out at three individuals because the posturing required to keep people interested is just…a lot. Its a lot of mutual impressing to do

Reproductive biology:

-Much like hyenas, sows have a pseudopenis that is a result of increased androgens, and big pseudopenises on sows are seen as a mark of great status/strength. Tusk size/growth rates is also sometimes correlated with pseudopenis size, since the amount of androgens in the blood stream are correlated with both tusk growth rates and penis size

-Unlike hyena pseudopenises, however, the urinary tract does run through the shaft of the clitorus, while the birth canal essentially opens halfway down the shaft, creating a pouchlike vaginal opening. Arousal is required for this pouch to unfold; if not, penetration cannot occur, and in an unaroused state, it collapses in on itself into the base of the shaft, which then folds into the sheath for total protection. This evolved to keep the genital area clean, but has been co-opted to prevent mating until the female is ready, much like hyenas

-Yes, in less civilized times the pseudopenis was also used for dominance displays. During the breeding season, sows would evert their hemipenes in a half-erect state to essentially show off their fitness, which would greatly influence male mate choice. Tusk size = general status, penis size = reproductive status

-Bulls only receive a spike in androgens after the sows actively courting them go into an estrus cycle, which triggers increased sperm production and makes their testicles swell in size to what would be normal on a mammal (inspired by how bird testicles increase in size during mating season) and skyrockets their seminal viability 200% above average, specifically for the purpose of fertilizing a female in estrus. After fertilization occurs, they have to be around a pregnant sow for an extended period of time to a.) drop them back to a normal, non-breeding state and b.) induce lactation for the arriving calves, which is typically when mate guarding begins to occur in earnest. Both hormone cycle mechanisms are pheromonally regulated, but may have a 'ghost cycle' occurrence where the hormone fluxes occur on a very minor level

-As a consequence: very humanly 'masculine' bulls are typically less traditionally attractive compared to bulls with what we might consider more 'feminine' traits. Bulls with too much testosterone will have tusks on par with sows, larger penises, and testes that are noticeably descended from the abdominal cavity. While they are typically more capable of fertilizing sows, they are incapable of producing milk or are subpar at it, which means they cannot gestate the resulting calves effectively, so that increased fertility is essentially useless

-(However, it is important to note again that Uluran gender roles do not correlate to human ones, and high-testosterone bulls will still be considered very valuable fighters, warriors, and champions. They're just not considered suitable mate material, and are laughed or scoffed at if they ever want to have a family of their own. Ghaul was an example of a high-testosterone bull)

-[OOPS I ACCIDENTALLY WROTE THIS TWICE BUT DONT WANNA DELETE IT] Fertilization is internal and requires cooperation of both parties to occur. The female vaginal opening itself is composed of erectile tissue, and directly connected to the base of the pseudopenis; when aroused, it everts from the body cavity in an unfurling motion (as the outer labia are composed of thick skin that tuck inwards for protection) and sticks out a bit for ease of penetration.

-The male penis does much the same, but is long, thin, and semiprehensile, allowing it to easily curve under the curve of the abdomen and slip into the vagina via touch alone. The head flares after ejaculation to scrape out the sperm of opposing males, but isn’t terribly effective at it, as it is composed of soft, spongy tissue to be able to exit the tighter vaginal opening. Because bulls typically pick only one sow to mate with, the effect is not terribly drastic compared to, say, the Eliksni (who are much more promiscuous)

-Vanilla sex is typically done standing, with abdomens pressed together and reciprocal stimulation occurring in a slow rocking motion until orgasm is obtained. Casually reclining is another option, but the evolutionary default was to mate while standing bc it allowed for quicker reaction timing if a threat approached

-Uluran have 5 nipples, placed under the main abdominal fat pad and covered with their pouch, which is a flap of tough hide with very elastic skin around its edges that can be torn away if a certain pattern of muscle contractions occur (much like lizard caudal autonomy). Both bulls and sows have a pouch that can be opened, but it is vastly reduced to a mere fold of skin on sows. The pouch typically only opens when stimulated by the birth of calves (triggered by the scent of newborn calves), or when stimulated from within. The skin that seals it shut has no pain receptors, and calf ejection has to be voluntarily triggered in order to occur- the default pathway is 'closed'.

-Births are a private affair, limited only to one's mate; a midwife and their apprentice may come stay on the property, but typically only come in if something is wrong. Even though Uluran calves are born underdeveloped, much like marsupials, they also suffer from the same evolutionary blows dealt to humans in that an upright stance and larger brains made birth more difficult. Pair that with the fact that they're coming out of a narrow birth canal, and yeah, first-time births are often quite painful; Uluran culture typically see birth as a battle, and first births (where tearing of the vaginal canal almost always occurs in some capacity) as a blood rite.

-If possible, the calves are born onto the bulls's abdomen as he guards/monitors his mate, which is all the help that they are traditionally allowed to get as they crawl into his pouch and latch onto a tear to complete development. Any that fail to reach the pouch are left to die

-Up to five calves can be born at a time, but 2 is typically much more common. Of a five-calf litter, only four will ever be healthy; the fifth will always be a runt, and almost never survive. Six is practically unheard of, and always leads to the litter dying because all of the other calves are too underdeveloped to have been carried to term

-Calves are roughly palm-sized when born, and are a stoutly compact, rectangular pink blob of flesh. They're essentially fetus potatos, with the only developed part of them being their crawling limbs. Their skin is transparent, thin, and heavily vascularized, especially along their bellies, as the interior of a bull's pouch is also highly vascularized, and oxygen exchange occurs through cross-current exchange across the skin. Once they find and latch to a nipple, the babies will essentially fuse belly-first to their father's pouch + teat, and will stick there until they're developed enough to leave the pouch and start breathing on their own (the thick hide on their bellies is the last thing to develop before leaving the pouch). This also means that calf ejection is almost always fatal, as it involves the tearing of that oxygen-exchange patch

-Uluru milk consists almost entirely of protein, with the remaining content being mostly fats. There's very little sugar in it, and just enough water to give it the consistancy of something slightly thinner than heavy cream. It's basically an antibody-packed protein shake, and allows the calves to grow at tremendous speeds once born. They're capable of tripling their weight in the first week alone

-(Coincidentally, how fat a baby is when they leave the pouch is deemed a way to tell how fit the male is to be a father. The fatter the baby is, the sexier the male, as that means he's fit enough to be producing very high-quality milk at very little cost to himself)

-(Yes this means that Calus was peak dilf material in Uluran terms. Deal with it)

[f8foretold]

ELVES / MAGES: the ruling class & family systems

The mage/elven kingdom is currently ruled by 400 year old elven king named Arlen Aregia. The elven king has only one child, a 250 year old daughter named Bedalia Aregia. Although it is considered normal for royalty and retire at 400, the current king has showed little to no interest in passing his power to his daughter anytime soon. The king is hardened warrior who has fought in both international and civil wars. Despite his advanced age, due to his rigorous training and exercise he is agile, moving with the fluidity of a middle aged/300 year old elf.

Although there are 9 noble blooded families in the mage kingdom, only the king is the king and the rest of the nobility acts as local lords that must ultimately report the king.

ROYAL FAMILY LIST & HIERARCHY

The Aregia family. Descendants of The First Mother's chosen. Most powerful family in the whole elven kingdom. They tend to exhibit immense skill in diplomacy, arcane weaponry, offensive/war magic, and the study/understanding of elven history.

2. The Brynaraok family. Descendants of The First Father's chosen. Considered second in command to the Aregia Family.

3. The Cheyyrth family. Descendants of Water's chosen. Third most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in elemental magic, especially water magic. They help ensure water sources are available and clear, nurture farms/gardens, and help with farming and hunting. Their work is vital to elven society & survival. Historically they have allied with Delzarian family to prevent other houses from stealing their coveted positions.

4. The Delzarian family. Descendants of Dawn's chosen. Fourth most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in light, healing and defensive magic. Their work is vital to elven society & survival.

5. The Elidyaar family. Descendants of Dusk's chosen. Fifth most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in shadow and conjuration magic.

6. The Fliyardin family. Descendants of Earth's chosen. Sixth most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in elemental magic, especially Earth magic. They perform similar duties to the Cheyyrth as well as helping construct roads and cities.

7. The Gilvia family. Descendants of Air's chosen. Seventh most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in elemental magic, especially Air magic. They perform similar duties to the Cheyyrth family & the Fliyardin family.

8. The Halueve family. Descendants of Fire's chosen. Eight most powerful family. They tend to exhibit immense skill in elemental magic, especially Fire magic. Historically they have initiated a lot of the civil wars, with this family extremely dissatisfied in their place in the social hierarchy.

9. The Iithirya family. Descendants of the Fate Caller's chosen. Ninth most powerful family. They are a jack of all trades, showing skills in more than one type of magic. However most of the members of this family are only masters at minor levels of magic (see magic post for more info).

*Please note that when it comes to surnames only the royal families are allowed to have their surnames start with the first 9 letters of the alphabet. Letters 10-13 (J, K, L, M,) are used by rich/upper class elves who are NOT of royal blood. Middle and lower classes use the later 13 letters of the alphabet to start their surnames.

RELEVANT & HELPFUL POSTS

Important locations & overview of gods here

Elves vs humans

Types of magic

FAMILY SYSTEMS / STRUCTURES (see under the cut)

Elven society is one that highly values family. And with them living up to 500 years old, they can old a grudge like nobody's business. Enemies and allies tend to remain somewhat stable/predictable for multiple generations.

Although elves respect all genders, because the ruling king is a descendant of the First Mother, femme members of families tend to take up head of household positions.

Heads of Household tend to be either the oldest of the family or a member of marrying age (elves typically get married in the 100-200 age range). Marriages help maintain alliances and help with a transition of power, with those most recently married gaining the choice to become Head of Household.

Royal Heads of Households serve on a diplomatic counsel, helping advice the king on both national and international matters. During times of war they act of Heads of Household.

Even non-royal families & poor families have Head of Households. For the middle and lower classes Head of Households are responsible for paying taxes and donating goods to their superiors as well as maintaining peace and order. If a family member breaks a law, the Head of Household is responsible for paying fines/bail as well as acting as the family lawyer in the court of law.

Wealthy families can elevate their status by marrying into a royal/noble family. They can demote their status by marrying a person of middle or lower class.

Royal/noble families can elevate their status by marrying into a noble family above theirs. They can demote their status by marrying a middle or lower class person.

Middle and lower classes can earn respect and elevate their status outside of marriage by being skills scholars, mages, and/or warriors.

[bloggedanon]

So... alright, I'm officially lost. There's a real probability that I'm just missing several somethings here, so I'm gonna try to bullet point where I'm tripping because there's a lot to unpack here, and I have exactly one braincell bouncing around like a DVD screensaver up in this. (fjwmdlsls)

- Humans, as a social species, generally benefit from sharing stuff that they've made, and / or communicating in general. This could be as simple as the joy of a friend who drew picture for another friend and wanted to show them, or something as insidious as having people fall for a smear campaign. I'd argue only one of these is the establishment of a hierarchy. If an artist or something posts their art, and gets some encouragement because x arbitrary number of people approved of it, I just can't see the serotonin derived from these randos' approval inherently constituting hierarchy or abuse.

- How do you prevent people from liking or following you (because x arbitrary number of people liking or following someone's content is abuse by these standards)... without either blocking them or deliberately pissing people off to repel them away from you? Both would constitute abuse by the ideas you'be posited. Growing an audience is abusive, and shrinking it is abusive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

- There is no inherent difference in behaviour between posting a thing that one person stumbles upon vs posting something that a few thousand manage to find. The poster is performing the same action. The morality of the action isn't tied to how many people stumble on it. All it does is affect how great the impact on a societal scale (not an individual one) it would have. If you post something, obviously it's gonna make a bigger footprint the more people are exposed to it. Whether one person or 1,000 see it, that is entirely unlinked to the creation of the thing itself. Exposure is morally neutral, especially if it cant be controlled. It can very easily be weaponized to be abusive or manipulative, but weaponization isn't mutually inclusive to the SCALE of exposure, nor to the acts of creation or sharing.

- If morality is based on the scale of your exposure, rather than the behaviour you exhibit or the material being shared (i.e. if exposure isn't morally neutral), then the only true way to not "abuse" anyone (by the logical conclusion of the standards provided) is to completely isolate yourself from humanity, lest you influence ("control") someone by interacting with or being exposed to them in any way. Which... sucks.

┐⁠(⁠‘⁠～⁠`⁠;⁠)⁠┌?

is this… satire?

[lesbianfeminists]

How Women Suffering from Endometriosis Disclose about their Disorder at Work

“Feminist approaches to organizational communication theorizing enabled investigation of issues impacting women and minority groups (Buzzanell, 1994). Across domains, research has examined the relationship between labor participation and women’s health, including childbearing, mental and physical health (Glynn et al., 2009; Grice et al., 2007; Repetti et al., 1989). However, minimal attention has been paid to the relationship between employment and women’s reproductive health (Chau et al., 2014), especially as it pertains to stigmatized topics, such as endometriosis.

Disclosure of endometriosis

Extant research examining women’s disclosure of endometriosis has mainly focused on family, friends, and healthcare providers, finding that women suffering from endometriosis downplay their symptoms and are reluctant to share. First, women tend to downplay the severity of their symptoms due to fear of negative appraisal. For example, Grogan et al. (2018) found women hid or downplayed their symptoms out of fear of being labeled a “hypochondriac.” Furthermore, Young et al. (2014) identified that women’s reluctance to disclose and discuss their symptoms resulted from dismissive responses from friends, family, and healthcare providers (Young et al., 2014). Second, women are also hesitant to disclose due to “menstruation etiquette” (Laws, 1991) – or the practice of strategically concealing menstruation from others. For instance, Seear (2009) found disclosure of symptoms was characterized as a “discrediting attribute,” one whose presence contributes to stigmatization of an individual (Goffman, 1963).

While limited, some research has examined disclosure of endometriosis in the workplace specifically. As with friends, family, and healthcare providers, women are hesitant to disclose their endometriosis symptoms to their employers and colleagues due to (a) the gender-specific nature of the disorder, (b) fear of being pressured into discontinuing work, and (c) fear of being seen as using their symptoms as an excuse to “get out of things.” For one, women find it difficult to discuss their symptoms with males due to preconceived notions about the taboo of discussing reproductive matters around men (Young et al., 2014). Yet additionally, although many of these women view their disorder as inherently private, gastrointestinal maladies make functioning at work difficult and mark conversation topics that generally seem difficult to discuss (Grogan et al., 2018). Indeed, Soliman et al. (2018) found women coping with endometriosis symptoms lost between one and five hours of weekly productivity due to either presenteeism (i.e., working without productivity) or absenteeism (i.e., missing work). In an attempt to address productivity loss, oftentimes, women spend their leisure time recovering from endometriosis symptoms in order to perform functionally during working hours (Grogan et al., 2018). Furthermore, many organizations do not provide accommodations for employees, and as a result these women are forced to exit the labor market (Gilmour et al., 2008).

...

While gender did not always necessitate differing approaches to disclosure, the majority of participants expressed feeling more comfortable discussing the disorder with female conversational partners. Yet, participants considered their female conversational partners as either relatable or dismissive. Some female conversational partners were viewed as relatable because they had some “basic understanding” of menstruation-related struggles. As Vicky (30-year-old who is currently in-between employment positions) put it, “I am obviously going to feel more comfortable being open and honest with a female as she can relate more to what we go through.” Whereas other female colleagues were perceived to be dismissive of the severity of endometriosis symptoms due to “survivorship bias,” or the logical error in which people tend to focus on things that passed some selection process and overlook those things that didn’t (Jorion & Goetzmann, 1999), in this case overlooking the severity of endometriosis symptoms because their own experience with menstruation had not been as severe. For instance, Star (a 32-year-old with a master’s degree and currently employed in a managerial role) stated, “I feel like females think they know what you’re talking about because they think that their pain is the same as endo pain. They also tend to think you’re being dramatic about the pain and issues caused by it.”

In contrast, participants considered most of their male conversational partners as either familiar or avoidant, which created great discomfort in disclosing endometriosis to them. Sunrain (a 32-year-old currently working full time as a manager) explained, “My boss is male, and I feel mortified. Like it would tar his view of me.” Other participants tried to talk about endometriosis at work but perceived their male colleagues and supervisors to be avoidant toward the conversations. As Bee (a 28-year-old working in a non-managerial role) put it, “… the male colleagues tend to know less about it and exhibit discomfort when I disclose it, so I avoid talking about it with them.” In these cases, participants reported disclosing vaguely and less frequently. At the same time, there were a few participants who reported that some male colleagues and supervisors were sympathetic and understanding, but that this was due to their being already familiar with endometriosis as a disorder. Liz (a 31-year-old manager) explained, “[Disclosing] was hard because my manager is a male, but his wife had similar issues, so he is understanding.”

Hierarchy

In addition to gender, the position in the corporate hierarchy of the conversational partner impacted women’s disclosure. First, participants reported that disclosing endometriosis to supervisors was more difficult than disclosing to colleagues. Anxiety due to fears of losing opportunities to advance, being seen as incompetent and in some cases, being terminated led employees with endometriosis to approach disclosing to supervisors with more trepidation. For many respondents, disclosure was undesirable but necessary. For example, Mississippi (a 31-year-old working in a non-managerial role) said, “I am extremely uncomfortable discussing it with my supervisors. I don’t want to be seen as a hypochondriac or appear to be trying to get out of duties or get sympathy.” They continued, “My supervisors are also male, and I worry about how sympathetic they would be to women’s health issues.” While choosing to disclose to supervisors resulted from need, disclosing to colleagues was guided by relationship closeness. As one participant put it, “If it’s a close colleague that’s more like a friend, I talk about it more freely. With supervisors, I generally try to explain why I will be needing to miss work in a more professional manner.

...

Participants who worked in male-dominated industries (e.g., construction, finance, engineering) felt it was a significant risk to disclose. They feared that their male employers and colleagues would not understand or care to hear about “female issues” and ultimately view them as weak or incompetent. Grace (a 25-year-old PhD working in a non-managerial role) explained, “Men take this less seriously, and I feel I’m more likely to be perceived as overdramatic and weak by a male than a female.”

Moreover, some participants expressed having difficulty remaining competitive with male colleagues due to the disorder. For instance, one participant, Ariel (a 25-year-old employed in a non-managerial role) shared,

As a female in an already male-dominated field (IT analytics), endometriosis causes a strain on my relationships with coworkers daily. Because they already do not see me as an equal to the males in my field, when I am missing work or leaving meetings early because I am having period pain, I am then having to work even harder to prove my knowledge and worth in the workplace.

Finally, the culture of a workplace, particularly workplaces with negative cultural attributes, also impacted women’s disclosure. Participants explained how their workplaces looked down on taking personal time off, sick leave, and even working from home, which made it even more challenging to disclose their disorder. As one participant, Mississippi (a 31-year-old employed in a non-managerial role), put it, “the expectation to be superwoman�� made it difficult to open up about the way this chronic illness hampers her experiences at work. Another participant, Aholla (a 35-year-old who is currently self-employed) explained a situation in which her supervisor did not take her situation seriously. “My producer brushed it off by saying women of color have fibroids all the time and work through it. My fibroids were just one part of my issues,” she explained. Yet another participant, Alexa (a 21-year-old employed in a non-managerial capacity) listed “bad attitude(s) toward employees who take time off or leave early” as an added impediment to disclosing. Another impediment was lack of privacy for disclosing endometriosis in the workplace. Participants shared that many of their workplaces had open-floor offices, which made it difficult to discuss a private matter. When asked what things made disclosing endometriosis at work challenging, a participant named Syd (a 32-year-old employed in a non-managerial role) said, “An open office plan. If I’m talking about a sensitive symptom there’s really nowhere I can discuss it privately.” Last, in some cases, participants reported a lack of HR policies for dealing with the disorder. Kris (a 43-year-old participant who herself works in a managerial role) explained that “Male coworkers and an HR director who feels no one should ever share about themselves,” made disclosing her endometriosis challenging. Liz, 2 (a 32-year-old manager) echoed these sentiments by explaining her workplace had “no clear policy to request accommodations (such as work from home or flexible schedule). No privacy – HR staff regularly gossip about what they’re told.”

[dwellordream]

“If girls’ private schools encouraged an intimate atmosphere of nurture, sociability, and fun, much coeducational public schooling retained its competitive practices and was more challenging. Opponents of coeducation argued that the presence of girls feminized and compromised the secondary curriculum. But evidence suggests the contrary: that expectations of male achievement raised the stakes and the competition for girls.

As it was put in an 1841 article in Ladies’ Repository, in many young ladies’ seminaries ‘‘the girl is excused of strict scholarship. . . . She works to disadvantage. The mind itself has not been educated.’’ In contrast to girls educated at such ‘‘finishing schools,’’ the author argued, ‘‘see here and there is one who, we may say, has been educated—who has studied like a boy’’ and you will see ‘‘equality of attainment with any male youth of like years and pursuit.’’ 

Encouraging a girl to study ‘‘like a boy’’ was seldom the goal of the citizens who sponsored secondary schools; coeducational secondary schools which taught ostensibly parallel classes for boys and girls did not always deliver classes of like intensity to both. And sometimes, especially in the earlier days, there were different requirements for girls and boys. …Public schools sometimes attempted to soften lessons for girls so as to address the concerns raised by the debate over emulation.

Nonetheless, in comparison, the point seems indisputable. Girls studying in coeducational secondary schools were more likely to participate in a competitive and meritocratic form of schooling which rewarded and encouraged individual achievement among both girls and boys. Such schools published class rank and scheduled public exhibitions. Evidence from the few coeducational private boarding schools suggests that this might have been the case for both public and private, day and boarding schools. 

Coeducation in practice in the nineteenth century included various arrangements governing the schooling of girls and boys together and apart. The word itself was of American origin and set up an implicit contrast with the tradition of same-sex schooling in Great Britain and in many parts of the American Northeast and South. Common grammar schools united boys and girls in the same classes under the same roofs, and many secondary schools adopted a similar model. Yet the ‘‘coeducating’’ of boys and girls in secondary schools, and sometimes even in grammar schools, generally involved some separation of boys and girls, by administrative order. 

As we have seen, some high schools, particularly in the Northeast, went so far as to conduct parallel classes for girls and boys, using gender as a principle for dividing students into different sections for as long as they could. Gradually, however, throughout the country, school districts bowed to economic realities and chose to educate their boys and girls together, offering a common curriculum and a common standard for success. For those attending the new public high schools, which became increasingly common in the Northeast at midcentury, coeducational schooling meant attending schools which enrolled more girls than boys. 

The actual ratio varied from school to school. Where the public high school served as a college preparatory school for the affluent native-born, the numbers of boys tended to increase. In less affluent or immigrant communities, boys instead would leave school to take jobs, and high schools would sometimes graduate two or even three girls for every boy. The underattendance of boys at high schools was a cause of regular lament by all, including girl students who were left without escorts after school social functions. Yet it presents the historian of gender with some interesting questions. Some of them are simply statistical. Did girls excel and win honors proportionate to their greater attendance at high school? Did they excel at greater rates than the statistics might predict? And if so, why? 

Girls and boys attending public high schools shared a liberal curriculum, competition, and grades. Unlike female seminaries and convent schools, which taught ornamental and domestic arts alongside more traditional liberal studies, the public high school at midcentury and after did not offer a gendered curriculum. Instead, it taught a classical or liberal curriculum, rich in history, moral philosophy, mathematics, Latin, Greek, and French. Botany, chemistry, and physical sciences were also often taught. Girls and boys took these classes either together or in separate tracks, a significant commonality in a world otherwise stratified by gender. 

Increasingly toward the end of the century, citizens and educators came to question the usefulness of this classical learning to boys and girls attempting to make their way in the working world. And when high schools responded, they brought the gender segmentation of the workforce into school. Commercial subjects supplemented liberal studies, and educators provided manual training and home economics to prepare boys and girls for the future. Even then, though, high schools retained an important core of liberal studies, which established common ground between boys and girls, as well as across classes. In high schools, girls and boys studied together and competed to master abstract subject matter which neither sex could lay special claim to. 

In studying North Carolina’s African-American community in the 1890s, Glenda Gilmore has noted the significance of its leaders’ dissent from the Tuskegee program of agricultural education and manual training advanced by Booker T. Washington. She sees their defense of a classical curriculum for the children and grandchildren of slaves as significant resistance to attempts to create a separate caste in this country under Jim Crow.

Classical education was similarly important for girls, for it offered a common ground on which to compete and succeed beyond the hierarchy of gender. The practice of recitation, saying one’s lessons orally, was not initially designed as a competitive practice. It was simply the most convenient way to test rote memory, the common style of teaching and learning in most grammar schools in the nineteenth century. Yet recitation meant that all would know when a student succeeded, and when one failed. 

More deliberate was the spelling bee, a competition that was both a game and a pedagogy. Some schools held public examinations, which elevated the pressure to ‘‘know one’s lessons’’ to a higher degree. Almost all schools scheduled exhibition days in which students read or recited pieces to the general public and received awards. (In fact, the decision of the cloistered convent schools to bar the public from the awarding of prizes in the mid–nineteenth century was a cause of conflict with parents.) The consequences of such a system for teenage girl students, as for boy students, were that strong students thrived while weak ones foundered. This is an obvious result, of course. Yet in the world of Victorian gender relations, what is significant is that girls and boys were playing fundamentally the same game, both competing in the rough meritocracy that such competition encouraged. 

At least initially and sometimes later as well, they were not equally comfortable with that competition: domestic culture discouraged self-promotion in girls, and successful girls were sometimes abashed and embarrassed. Sometimes, too, parents did not notice, honor, or encourage girls’ school accomplishments. …But within the universe of the schoolroom and at schoolwide ceremonies (neither insignificant for a peer based social world), girl scholars were encouraged and rewarded for achievement—for scoring high, for spelling well, for accomplishments of both mind and habit. They felt the sweet rewards of victory in conquering rivals, earning respect, and taking as prizes a seat at the front of the room. 

These school rules made the institution unique within a woman’s life as it extended from cradle to grave. Not in the family or the workplace or the halls of government did females and males share so similar an experience. Even within the church, where souls were ungendered, women did not preach, sit as deacons, or otherwise live out their identities as equal competitors for eternity. 

Coeducational grammar and secondary schools made all kinds of distinctions, and even those who encouraged girls to compete might in the same breath warn against it. Yet medals were awarded and reputations made in coeducational high schools. Of all the unequal institutions, such schools were the least unequal, and thus must stand as both an important harbinger of the future and a transformer, gradually, of their present.

Girls outnumbered boys in school. Barring other factors skewing accomplishments, girls could thus be expected to outnumber boys on the honor rolls. All things being equal, girls should have been salutatorians and valedictorians and honor-roll students in percentages similar to their representation in the class. In fact, though, girls tended to do better proportionately than boys. Statistics on one school, the high school of Milford, Massachusetts, reveal that between 1884 and 1900 girls represented 64 percent of graduates, a ratio of nearly two to one. But girls accounted for nearly three-quarters of those graduating in the top ten places during the late century.

When valedictorians and salutatorians were designated, beginning in 1889, 86 percent of those so honored through the next decade were girls. Girls’ tendency to dominate the academic ratings was an accepted part of the school’s culture and can undoubtedly be explained in part by Milford’s policy, probably followed by many other schools as well, of granting honors on the basis of scholarship and deportment together. 

Deportment grades measured decorum and tractability; both by socialization and reputation, girls could be counted on to turn in higher performances. Usually there were a few male standouts, but sometimes it was a clean sweep. In the class of 1887 at Milford, for example, boys were completely eclipsed. The class began with an equal number of boys and girls, thirty-one each. By the end of the four year span, though, the numbers had been dramatically reduced to twelve girls and five boys.

The student newspaper announced: ‘‘The girls claim the first ten in scholarship and deportment. In attendance three girls are perfect and in deportment eight; of these, two have the honor of being perfect in both.’’ The article ended by noting, ‘‘These are facts of which they may well feel proud.’’ The reference here is a bit unclear. Perhaps it was referring to the individual girls who had triumphed, each of whom should feel proud. But a more plausible reference is to girls of the class as a group, all of whom, the article suggests, might take pride in their sex’s collective sweep of graduation honors. 

How much of girls’ success can be attributed to their greater skill at achieving perfect conduct? For girls, for whom ‘‘being good’’ was a high priority, school offered any number of ways to fulfill that mandate. If being ‘‘perfect’’ simply required getting to school every day, or behaving once in school, it was certainly doable—a gratifyingly concrete measure for an otherwise elusive moral status.

Almyra Hubbard, a schoolgirl diarist in Hayesville, New Hampshire, wrote in 1859 of her discovery of this back door to school achievement. She knew that she worked hard; her journal, a school assignment itself written faithfully in a careful hand, indicates as much. Yet she did not get top grades and did not seem to be one of the handful of students she mentioned in February who would need to draw to see who got the first seat in the class. She could, however, make sure she got to class—a trip that took her an hour and a half when she walked it—and she seized upon this route to class honor. 

One day, she wrote in her journal, ‘‘There are but few scholars here this afternoon. The room is quite still.’’ The quietness was not just a result of how many were there, but who was there: ‘‘As a general thing the noisy ones do not venture out in unpleasant weather.’’ Almyra Hubbard was both quiet and present, even when her classmates were fair-weather scholars.

When she attended her great uncle’s funeral in April, it was the first time she had missed school in a year and a half. In May the school principal adopted a new rule which advantaged Hubbard, ‘‘by which any one who is absent cannot make up her lessons.’’ She imagined, ‘‘It will cause some of the girls to be a little more regular in their attendance at school.’’ One key component of school success, as Almyra Hubbard had discovered early, was simply the ability to meet school demands for the regular habits of industrial discipline. 

Girls outdid boys in this arena so regularly that when the Milford paper in 1890 reported on two students with perfect attendance throughout their high school careers, it featured what was newsworthy: ‘‘Wonderful to relate, one is a boy!’’ Not all girls had stellar grades in deportment. A consistent problem for boy and girl students both was ‘‘communication.’’ Students in many schools were forbidden to talk among themselves between classes and expected to be quiet most other times, an expectation which few could meet. The entire first-year class at Milford High School in 1865 was called to the teacher’s desk and scolded so that they nearly all cried, Annie Roberts Godfrey reported. 

Godfrey was in the second-year class, and was also called up, where she ‘‘acknowledged that I had communicated but would try to improve. I did not cry.’’ The next year, though, Godfrey’s problems with communication meant that her deportment grade was very low—‘‘only 78, lowest in school, I fear.’’ We have no records for how Godfrey fared at graduation, but clearly convent schools were not alone in attempting to impose serious constraints on student sociability during school itself. It was an innovation in 1894 when Salem High School instituted a ‘‘whispering recess,’’ which allowed students to talk softly between classes. 

- Jane H. Hunter, “Competitive Practices: Sentiment and Scholarship in Secondary Schools.” in How Young Ladies Became Girls: The Victorian Origins of American Girlhood

[archiveofprolbems]

Digital Art NFTs: The Marriage Of Art & Money by Julia Friedman & David Hawkes

Over half a century ago, Marshall McLuhan identified a ‘moral panic’ that continues to roil Western culture today. In his now-canonical Understanding Media (1964), McLuhan discussed the mixture of fear and snobbery exhibited by ‘many highly literate people’ in response to the dramatic rise of ‘electric technology’— the telephone, the radio and above all, the dreaded television.

Since these new media ‘seem[ed] to favor the inclusive and participational spoken word over the specialist written word,’ McLuhan argued that they posed a threat to established hierarchies of culture and class. As he pointed out, elitist systems of cultural knowledge and power extend all the way back to ancient ‘temple bureaucracies’ and ‘priestly monopolies,’ and the cultural elites have always worked to keep their domains exclusive.

A strikingly McLuhanesque spasm of outrage followed Christie’s’ procured sale of a digital art non-fungible token, or NFT. Everydays: The First 5000 Days, an NFT created by the savvy operator known as Beeple, fetched an eye-watering $69 million at a recent auction. That kind of money always guarantees mainstream media attention which, of course, is part of the point. Another part is the furiously hostile response to that kind of money being splurged on such a radically innovative art form: so innovative that a large part of the cultural elite questioned its status as art in the first place.

It doesn’t help that Beeple’s content is resolutely demotic: puerile cartoons, defaced logos, ironic emojis, frat-boy fantasies. Writing in Spike magazine, Dean Kissick remarks that ‘the old gatekeepers have been losing their power for a while now,’ and he counts the entrance of NFTs into the artworld among the costs, denigrating Beeple’s ‘triumphant procession of popular things’ as a violation of art’s privileged autonomy. In the ‘collective-hallucinatory firmament’ of postmodern hyper-reality, artists no longer express ideas but rather present empty ‘images of images,’ which Kissick defiantly dismisses as ‘tired art, recycled pop, bad taste, political spectacle, and hyper-speculation.’ As J.J. Charlesworth observes in ArtReview: ‘What really seems to disconcert ‘our’ current artworld is the sense that a form of largely unregulated, DIY mass culture has spawned beyond the reach or control of cultural gatekeepers.’

The twentieth century was replete with artists questioning the relationship between art and money. Their difference from Beeple was that they were looking for ways to uncouple the pair, rather than fuse them.

Beeple (b. 1981), EVERYDAYS: THE FIRST 5000 DAYS. Minted on 16 February 2021. non-fungible token (jpg). 21,069 x 21,069 pixels (319,168,313 bytes). This work is unique.

It is tempting to see the cultural gatekeepers’ protests against digital art NFTs as the grousing of a critical establishment at its own loss of influence. The snobbery of the self-appointed elect was challenged decades ago by Marcel Duchamp, in what looks like a premonitory contribution to the current NFT discourse. In his 1957 paper ‘The Creative Act,’ Duchamp rejects the elitist exclusion of ‘bad’ art: ‘art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.’ Yet Duchamp also rejected the idea of equity in artistic value: ‘Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity.’ Three conclusions follow for our own day: (1) Everydays is indeed an artwork, (2) it has passed the approval of the spectators (buyers) by garnering such a high bid, (3) only posterity will determine its ultimate aesthetic value. Nowhere does Duchamp mention professional critics.

This omission is especially glaring since the late 1950s were the apex of critical influence on contemporary art. These were the years when a pair of New York critics—Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg—wielded an almost dictatorial influence. Such critics did not just evaluate already-existing art; their pronouncements determined the forms of future works. Because the relationship between artwork and art criticism has been mutually determining for most of the twentieth century, one of Beeple’s many transgressions is his deconstruction of the polarity between the two. The media response that his oeuvre evokes is not something external to it, but one of its most vital components. The outrage increases the price, and the price is not an addition to the art but its very essence. In the form of the NFT, the ancient opposition between art and money is finally abolished. So perhaps the consequent eruption of indignation and disbelief throughout the artworld is more than defensive elitism, and there are reasons other than snobbery to be suspicious of the NFT’s fusion of aesthetics with economics.

NFTs also represent the ultimate aestheticization of exchange-value—a process on which artists and art critics have meditated for most of the last century.

Marcel Duchamp, Henri-Pierre Roché, and Beatrice Wood, The Blind Man No. 2, 1917, “The Richard Mutt Case.”

Before the twentieth century it was a simple matter to own a piece of art. One simply bought it, took possession of it and, if one chose, locked it away in one’s cellar. Ownership gave exclusive rights to access the artwork (albeit not to its copyright). That changed in the age of mechanical reproduction, and by the twentieth century anyone could view the same image as the artwork’s owner photographed in a book or magazine. What ownership brought was now access to the original, the bearer of the mysterious, pseudo-scarce ‘aura’ described by Walter Benjamin.

The relationship between art and money has always been symbiotic. It has been equally true with papal patronage in sixteenth century, and with the interwar European avant-garde whose fortunes, according to Greenberg, were inexorably linked to the market ‘by an umbilical cord of gold.’ After all, art and money are basically similar phenomena: both are valuable and significant systems of symbols. The twentieth century was replete with artists questioning the relationship between art and money. Their difference from Beeple was that they were looking for ways to uncouple the pair, rather than fuse them. As early as 1914, Duchamp’s revolutionary concept of the ‘readymade’ had undermined the process of commodification that had engulfed the artworld. Along with his Dadaist allies, Duchamp succeeded in redefining the fine arts, moving away from the given of physical painting and sculpture and towards serialized, de-commodified, temporary or even traceless performances and manifestos.

By insisting that a fictitious ‘R. Mutt’ had the right to anoint a urinal as art because ‘whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it,’ Duchamp initiated what the late David Graeber called the ‘aesthetic validation of managerialism.’ A lowly plumbing fixture can be art, as long as someone (who did not even create it) calls it art. The task of validation, and the creation of value, later devolved from artists to curators, who could throw ordinary objects into the mix along with bona fide artworks, confident that no one could legitimately object. Today this function falls to auction houses which, in Graeber’s words, use ‘money as a sacral grace that baptizes ordinary objects magically, turning them into a higher value.’ That is exactly what happened to Beeple’s opus on March 11, 2021 when the sale closed at $69,346,250.

Subsequent movements like Fluxus and Conceptual Art continued Duchamp’s efforts to separate art from money. Their methods included relying on performance instead of painting or drawing, and using DIY kits instead of traditional cast or carved sculpture. They documented events with sets of instructions or certificates of authenticity, and these took the place of paintings and sculpture as the physical manifestations of art that was otherwise disembodied. The remarkable Piero Manzoni created works such as Merda d’artista (Artist’s Shit, 1961), and advertised his ‘product’ by standing in a toilet with a tiny tin in his right hand and a coy smile on his face. Manzoni commented on the relations between art and money in Sculture vivendi (Living Sculptures, 1961), which consisted of living people ‘authenticated’ with different colored ink stamps designating various body parts, or the entire person, as an artwork. He incorporated cheeky pricing systems into his artworks: the price of the shit-tins corresponded to the price of gold, the color stamps on the living sculpture were priced by body part and so on. Manzoni documented his works with photographs, making the record part of the process, and proving their uniqueness, just as the blockchain records the uniqueness of the NFT today.

If aesthetics and economics are not merely analogous but actually identical, we must bid farewell to aesthetic experience itself.

Piero Manzoni (1933-1963), Merda d'artista, 1961. Tin can, printed paper and excrement, 48 × 65 × 65 mm, 0.1 kg.

Yves Klein (1928–1962), Performance Transfer of a "Zone of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility" to Michael Blankfort, Pont au Double, Paris, February10, 1962. Photo : © Giancarlo Botti. © The Estate of Yves Klein c/o ADAGP, Paris

At around the same time, Yves Klein was inventing, performing and documenting his transgressive classic Zone of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility. Performed on February 10th, 1962, it involved Klein throwing half of his payment into the river Seine. The work’s buyer then burned the receipt for the transaction. This performance presaged the NFT in several respects. The artwork included the physical destruction of the artist’s remuneration, provocatively suggesting an equivalence between the two processes. As Klein gnomically explained: ‘For each zone the exact weight of pure gold which is the material value correspondent to the immaterial acquired.’ To be authentic the event had to be witnessed—Klein specified by ‘an Art Museum Director, or an Art Gallery Expert, or an Art Critic’­— in a manner that anticipates the authentication provided by an NFT’s imprint in a blockchain. Klein even included a provision to prevent resale: ‘The zone[s] having been transferred in this way are not any more transferable by their owner.’

Klein had first made his point about the arbitrary value of art in 1957, when he placed eleven identical paintings in Milan’s Galleria Apollinaire. These were to be purchased at various prices, according to what the buyer felt each was worth. Thirty-five years later, the British duo K Foundation performed an artwork by burning banknotes to the value of a million pounds sterling. By the twenty-first century, when Banksy’s $1.4 million Girl with Balloon dramatically shredded itself to pieces in front of a stunned audience at Sotheby’s, and Maurizio Cattelan taped a perishable fruit to the wall at Art Basel, the venerable system of exchanging enduring artworks for money had been thoroughly and irretrievably deconstructed in theory. It continued to flourish in practice, however, and it blooms anew in the parodic form of the NFT.

The confusion and scorn with which the general public has responded to the sale is no mere backwoods Luddism. It may be true, as the influential dealer and gallery owner Stefan Simchowitz recently pointed out in a Clubhouse chatroom, that NFTs are just another commercial platform based on a new technology. But they also represent the ultimate aestheticization of exchange-value—a process on which artists and art critics have meditated for most of the last century. NFTs are the apotheosis of the tendency described in Guy Debord’s 1967 book The Society of the Spectacle, whereby alienated human labor-power attains an autonomous, performative force by taking a symbolic form. Debord had nothing but scorn for the society of the spectacle, but it would surely be rash to dismiss his prophetic diatribe as cultural elitism.

The real ethical objection to the rise of NFTs involves the elimination of aesthetics itself as a discrete sphere of human experience.

NFTs’ dramatic entrance into the art market announces another stage in this process. It is not access to the artwork that has been sold: anyone with an internet connection can view the content, which has in any case been dismissed by Beeple himself as ‘trash.’ And there is no ‘original’ to which the owner might enjoy exclusive access. What the NFT’s purchaser has bought is not the image itself, or even the copyright to the image, but ownership of the image. Furthermore, this ownership is entirely conceptual or, if you prefer, financial. It does not consist in exclusive rights to view the image; it consists in exclusive rights to sell the image. Ownership of art has become identical with art per se, just as an artwork’s price has become part of its essence. Art has become money, it has turned into currency. The real ethical objection to the rise of NFTs involves the elimination of aesthetics itself as a discrete sphere of human experience.

This erosion of the border between aesthetics and economics is also visible in the financial sphere, where most value now takes the form of ‘derivatives,’ a hyper-symbolic mode of representation whose manipulation for profit looks more like artistic than economic activity as traditionally understood. Meanwhile, artists like Beeple assimilate the market dynamics which give their work value into their art itself. He is a true heir of Kaws, whose current retrospective at the Brooklyn museum was characterized by the New Yorker’s Peter Schjeldahl as ‘a cheeky, infectious dumbing-down of taste’ where ‘blandness reigns.’ The content of Beeple’s work is unimportant. Its images are self-consciously banal, proudly lowbrow, deliberately jejune. But it is not images that Beeple is selling. They’re not even what he’s creating. What he’s creating, what he’s selling, is ownership: financial value. The advent of the NFT renders the distinction between art and money obsolete.

Does McLuhan’s dismissal of the mid-century cultural elite and their suspicion of the new media as a ‘moral panic’ apply to the widespread critical suspicion of NFTs in our own day? There is surely an element of elitism, and even envy, behind the cultural gatekeepers’ dismay at Beeple’s success. But that does not mean there are no reasonable or ethical objections to the NFT’s forced union of art and money. If aesthetics and economics are not merely analogous but actually identical, we must bid farewell to aesthetic experience itself. Art will no longer be even theoretically autonomous of the market. There will be no sphere of experience that can meaningfully be separated from finance. The prospect of Beeple’s $69 million will undoubtedly encourage many to tie the knot (as evidenced by the upcoming Sotheby’s and Phillips auctions entirely dedicated to digital art NFTs), but the marriage of art and money may well turn out to be fraught, fractious and ultimately unfeasible. And divorce is always expensive.

Source: https://athenaeumreview.org/essay/digital-art-nfts-the-marriage-of-art-money

[sablelab]

Covert Operations - Chapter 111

SYNOPSIS: As Sun Yee Lok waits for his daughter’s arrival, he contemplates the outcomes of his interviews with Jonathon Randall and Wang Yu.  Meanwhile Murtagh is distressed at Claire’s condition but she is only worried about Jamie.

Chapter 110 and all other chapters can be found at … https://sablelab.tumblr.com/covertoperations

THANK YOU all for reading my story and I hope that it provides some enjoyment during this time. Stay safe everyone.

CHAPTER 111

  Sun Yee Lok sat back in his chair waiting for his daughter Karen to come and speak to him. As he waited for her arrival, he contemplated the outcomes of his interviews with Jonathon Randall and Wang Yu. Their responses had been most enlightening. The triad leader was certainly not disappointed with the information about what had happened at the monastery when he’d interviewed the two men earlier this morning. His daughter Karen was yet to have her conference and her meeting had been scheduled for late this afternoon. Looking at the clock on the wall he noted that she wasn’t due for another hour. Sun Yee Lok needed some fresh air after spending the last couple of hours in interviews with the two men. The triad leader got to his feet and walked to the open French doors that lead onto the large tiled terrace. Negotiating the steps that led from his office he walked out onto the terrace and felt the warmth of the late afternoon sun on his face. With much on his mind to think about, he exhaled a sigh, then stared out at the dense woodlands that lay beyond the property line. Both men had praised Karen’s part in events at the monastery stating that his only daughter had performed with level headedness and composure even in the face of adversity. She’d taken risks and taken control of the situation at the monastery. Her leadership capabilities had been sorely tested but Karen had come through with flying colours. It was she who had been the instigator to trapping Jamie and Claire when they tried to escape, although it was Jonathon who had been the one responsible for interrogating, torturing and killing the prisoners. As a consequence of her leadership, Karen had been responsible for turning the triad’s fortune around. The Rising Dragons' mantra had finally been fulfilled and because of her, the triad had sought its retribution at long last. Their enemy had been eliminated, the unsolved mysteries with their hierarchy had been resolved and now the Rising Dragons would once again reform and regroup better than ever before. They could only go from strength to strength. Wang had confirmed that his daughter had the situation at the monastery well in hand, was steadfast and unflinching in her decisions and had shown little emotion in the face of her own grief when Andy Ma was killed. Making his way back to his office Sun Yee Lok poured himself a drink from the crystal decanter then relaxed back into the comfort of his chair. His thoughts once again turned to the time Jonathon Randall and Wang Yu had spent with him one on one. He couldn’t help but mull over in his mind what had transpired with the two men at the monastery with Karen. Their responses had been most informative and he was extremely satisfied with the triad members’ reports. They had delivered excellent news. More than that though, he was pleased ... very pleased with the results they’d achieved for the good of the Rising Dragons. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Jonathon Randall had carried out his leader’s orders with diligence and achieved the result that the triad needed and wanted. Sun Yee Lok had nothing but praise for the way he had handled the torture of the two captives, James Fraser and Claire Beauchamp. Vengeance really was sweet but nothing was as sweet as the death of the two people who had caused his triad such grief. By all reports the two adversaries had put up an impressive fight and were defiant to the very end. The qualities Fraser and Claire Beauchamp had exhibited had shown they truly were worthy opponents. Nevertheless, the two were doomed from the beginning. No one was capable of bettering the might of the Rising Dragons … many had tried but failed in the past and had only met their demise at the hand of the triad’s enforcer Tony Wong. If this had been a test of Jonathon’s suitability for advancement, he would have passed with flying colours. At long last Sun Yee Lok knew he may have found a good man in Jonathon Randall to fill the place of his deceased extortionist. On a personal level, Jonathon had also managed to have retribution for the atrocities at his nightclub. Although the blame for the firebombing had been laid at the feet of the Black Panthers and Red Lanterns’ triads that had managed to infiltrate his birthday festivities that night, many of the actual fatalities had been at the hands of Claire Beauchamp and her consort. Having the two people responsible for the loss of life of his men and triad members eliminated had seen his honour avenged. Furthermore, Jonathon’s cover as a legitimate businessman in Hong Kong was still intact which bode well for the plans Sun Yee Lok had in mind for him. Jonathon Randall had spoken to his leader of his planned vacation time in Macau. This could prove beneficial. Once he was rested the triad leader saw a perfect opening for Jonathon in his master plans for the triad. Although he wanted to rebuild his nightclub in Hong Kong, with worthwhile incentives, Sun Yee Lok was sure that Jonathon could be persuaded to expand his business ventures elsewhere … preferably where the triad leader saw the greater benefits to the Rising Dragons. Macau would prove to be more lucrative and could be a far better proposition than reconstruction on the mainland especially if his plans for Karen were taken into consideration.  Jonathon could be instrumental in what he had in mind.  Not only that, but as an extra inducement, his reward for a job well done would be an honourable position within the triad befitting his expertise and worth. Having sown the seed of interest, Sun Yee Lok had achieved the result he’d wanted by putting this proposition to him. On the other hand, Jonathon had been most enthusiastic to hear what his leader had in mind. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Sun Yee Lok’s interview with Wang Yu had been on a completely different level. The triad leader was more interested in hearing his comments about his daughter Karen. As a result of what he’d said, the triad leader had taken pride in what Wang had said about her. Like Jonathon Randall, he had also been most insightful about his observations of Karen’s performance at the monastery. He’d followed his orders explicitly and although his brief had been to watch over and protect Karen, this apparently had not been necessary. She had proven to be more than capable of looking after herself. He’d also sought Wang’s opinion in matters that had perplexed him about what had taken place at the monastery. Sun Yee Lok had sought the counsel of his wise perception and his faith in his old friend was rewarded. Wang Yu had been able to shed some light on the question that had puzzled his leader for some considerable time. How had these two people … James Fraser and Claire Beauchamp … been able to inflict so much grief on the Rising Dragons and its members? Unexplained and suspicious deaths had resulted in turmoil within its organisation and hostilities with other triad groups had impacted on the authority and influence of the triad. However, knowing where the two protagonists had come from explained a lot. The triad leader was now wiser.  Section One and its two operatives had been responsible for nearly bringing the Rising Dragons to its knees, but since their elimination this threat had come to an end. Finally, the triad could regroup and return to the stability they had enjoyed before. The triad had taken revenge and triumphed over its adversaries. It was stronger and wiser because of it; hence Sun Yee Lok saw no problems in payback from Section One in the future. It would take some time for Section to regroup with people of the same calibre as Jamie and Claire … and even if it did, then he was confident that the triad would be more resilient to withstand any assault. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Thus, with matters brought to closure with the two triad men, Sun Yee Lok’s mind became consumed with thoughts of his daughter Ka-lin. It was a heavy weight that the triad leader intended to lay on her shoulders, but given what he had learnt about her efforts at the monastery thus far from the two men, he was definitely swayed that his decision was the right one. Wang Yu’s and Jonathon’s words of praise about Karen’s capabilities under pressure were most pleasing. Their summations only further cemented in his thoughts that Karen would be pivotal to what he had in mind. As the Rising Dragon’s leader, but also as her father, he had specific plans for her future and that of the triad. Karen undeniably possessed the intellect required to continue his life's work and the triad’s expansion clearly lay in her capable hands. This was her heritage … the future for which she was destined. Karen was young, but he couldn't deny that she showed strength of character … perhaps too much at times. However, although Sun Yee Lok had all but made up his mind, he would still need to asses Karen’s merits for his plans when he spoke to her. Looking at the clock in the room, he realised that it was nearing the time for his interview with her and he was fully prepared for what he would say to Karen. 

A change was definitely coming for the Rising Dragons.

Meanwhile back at Medical …

Returning to stand at Claire’s bedside, Murtagh swallowed a lump in his throat at the sight of his Sugar. Evidence of Claire’s torture was clearly prominent as she lay beneath the glare of the stark fluorescent lights that Bóinne had switched on. His eyes travelled over her then up to the IV-line shooting fluid into her body to aid her recovery. Everything that could have been done had been done. The two friends stood in silence for a few moments. Fergus was lost for things to say and just stood by Claire’s bedside in quiet support. He cast a quick glance over to Murtagh for inspiration, but he merely shrugged his shoulders also not knowing what to do. In mutual agreement they came to the same conclusion … sometimes silence was the best option. Claire was in good care, nevertheless his voice still caught when he finally spoke to his buddy. Sounding like a concerned father he asked, “Any change?” Fergus looked at him; he could see the worry in Murtagh’s face. “No … She’s been asleep ever since I came in. I didn’t have the heart to wake her.” Leaning down Murtagh smoothed the hair back from Claire's forehead and softly whispered her name. “Claire.” He took hold of her hand and gently cradled it within his old wizened one. His thumb absentmindedly glided back and forth over her skin; his eyes were focused on her alone. She didn’t respond, so he said her name once more.

“Claire?” Suddenly she stirred and slowly opened her unwilling eyes. Awakening from her slumber she felt woozy from the effects of the drugs she’d been given. A little confused, her surroundings blurred before her eyes. Not realising just where she was, she tilted her head back on the pillow. Then slowly looking up, she found a face gazing down at her with fatherly concern. When Claire saw who was standing next to her bed, she focused her eyes on her friend.

“Hey!” Her breathy response was followed by a tentative smile. Murtagh smiled in return, the corners of his eyes creasing in pleasure at seeing her awake. “It's alright, Sugar. Try not to move.” Fergus spoke to her as well. “It's nice to have you back. How are you feeling?” Claire moved restlessly on the bed. She turned her head in the direction of his voice, looked at Fergus then turned her head away again. Suddenly a bolt of pain shot through her body. She sucked her breath in with an audible hiss and shut her eyes tightly. An unexpected rush of thoughts of what had happened to her and Jamie at the monastery with Jonathon Randall entered her mind. Tears suddenly beaded on her cheeks and rolled down her face. Seeing her reaction to Fergus’s innocuous question Murtagh chipped in with his own request for information. “Are you okay, Sugar?” Claire nodded her head in silent reply. Noticing her tears he gently brushed them away. “It's okay...the pain and memories will be gone soon.” He fluffed her pillows to make her more comfortable so as for her not to see the concern in his eyes. Claire was thankful for her friend’s kindness and the few seconds to compose herself. “Oh, I’ll live,” she finally replied adjusting her position and gingerly sitting up a little more in the bed. She gave them both a little smile. “Jonathon Randall didn’t get a chance to do any real damage.” Unaware of Claire’s distress, Fergus standing on the other side of the bed stated candidly, “I don’t know about that. You were in a pretty bad way.” Section’s training had taught Claire to suppress her discomfort and pain. Drawing on that training she didn’t want to alarm the young man. Lightly running her fingers over her split lip, she turned to look at him and responded dismissively. “I’ve been in worse situations.” “Yeah? ... Name one!” Murtagh blurted out. “I’m fine Murtagh ... I’ll heal.” ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Although Claire’s two best friends stood by her bedside, she may as well have been alone. Thoughts of Jamie filled her mind as she wondered about his wellbeing. Even though Murtagh and Fergus hadn’t said anything to the contrary, she didn’t even know if he was alive or dead. Surely, they would have said something to her if he was dead … but then again, they might think it too distressing to tell her straight away.

All of a sudden Claire shook her head as new tears unexpectedly crept down her cheeks. Less concerned with her own condition she looked up at Murtagh. He watched as his Sugar bit down on her bruised bottom lip. Her eyes held his in anticipation. He could see that she was struggling not to say Jamie’s name while at the same time desperate to ask the questions that were on the tip of her tongue. How’s Jamie? Did he pull through? Is he alive?  Suddenly she grabbed Murtagh’s hand; she squeezed it tightly as her eyes searched his intently looking him square in the eye. She laid her heart on her sleeve. With her voice raspy and soft, Claire asked the probing question she ached to know the answer for.

“Have you seen Jamie yet?” Seeing the concern and vulnerability etched on Claire’s face he smiled at her in an effort to try and assuage her concerns. “No not yet ... but I’m sure he’s doing fine.” “Are you sure?” she appealed hoping that he would give her the answer she longed to hear. “He didn’t seem to be okay when we were rushed to Medical? You wouldn’t lie to me Murtagh ... would you?” Murtagh tried to hide the unease he had for Jamie’s safety from her.

He wanted to protect Claire for she had her own recovery to worry about. There was no need to make her distressed about Jamie unless it was unavoidable. He couldn’t tell her that there may be a problem with his blood supply and that Dr Foster had confided this in him last night. It would only worry her more if she knew. He would only tell her if and when he needed to, but at the moment until he saw Jamie for himself there was nothing more he could say. “Trust me Sugar ... I’m sure Jamie is going to be okay.” Claire nodded at his answer then raised her eyes once more. “When can I see him? I want ...” she hesitated catching her breath. Soulful eyes implored his in entreaty. “… I need to see for myself that he’s okay.” “You’re not strong enough yet, but as soon as you’re given the all clear, I’m sure they’ll let you see each other ... but I’ll see what I can do to speed things up.” Her eyes locked on his as she spoke. “I need to know how he is. Could you check for me please?” “Sure. I can do that. No problem.” Claire closed her eyes and sank back into the pillows. “Thanks, Murtagh.” Fergus and Murtagh shared a look. The one thing they wanted above all else was that Claire would pull through and be okay. They still had the added problem of Jamie’s health too but until they saw Dr Foster they would have to sit tight. He concluded that Fergus wouldn’t be here unless he had made some headway into solving the mystery of Jamie’s blood type. He obviously had things well in hand ready to activate his plan if needed. They would bide their time then seize the moment. Even if the Intel wasn’t required, they might still access Jamie’s file just to protect him if such an occasion ever arose again. That would also appease Murtagh’s stickybeak curiosity at the same time. As they were talking, Bóinne returned to the room to check that Murtagh and Fergus were not overstaying their time. “Sorry boys but I think you should leave now. Dr Foster will be making his rounds again soon and Madeline is expected before too long. You don’t want to be here when she arrives.” Murtagh motioned to Fergus that they needed to leave Claire to convalesce. Taking the hint to leave Fergus said his goodbyes. “Take care Claire.” He then left his friend alone with her. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fergus headed towards the exit where the female medic stopped him as he was leaving. Although he’d been at Claire’s bedside when she’d gone on duty she hadn’t really spoken to Fergus. Consequently, she thought it appropriate to formally introduce herself to Murtagh’s best friend.

“Ah, you must be Fergus Claudel.  Murtagh’s told me all about you. ” They shook hands. “Really? Everyone calls me Fergus.” “I’m Bóinne, Bóinne Rivière.” “Nice to meet you.” She smiled at him. “I haven’t made it to Comm. yet, but I hope when I do, you have some time to show me around.” “Sure ... anytime.” Fergus replied suddenly enamoured with the woman whose kind eyes grinned at him. “As you must know we’ve been kinda busy here in Medical ….” ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ While Bóinne and Fergus were talking Murtagh stood at Claire’s bedside by himself. He smiled benevolently down at her, his eyes radiating with concern and love for his special friend. “Now try and get some rest and see if you can get back to sleep, okay? Leave the worrying to me, hmm?” Gently he patted her hand in compassion. “We’ll come back again soon,” was his promised reply. “Okay.” Claire shifted on the bed and buried her face in the pillow trying to get comfortable ... but sleep was the furthest thing from her mind. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Her softly spoken reply echoed in Murtagh’s head as he made his way over to the medical station where the nurse was quietly talking to Fergus. “Hey Bóinne.” “Murtagh.” She smiled evocatively at him then turned to face Fergus. Despite some palatable sexual tension between them, he’d held her gaze to the very last second. When she looked away a guttural sound nearly echoed in his throat. However, suppressing it, he composed himself and looked at his friend too. Unbeknownst to him, when he turned around Murtagh had a silly expression on his face. “So you’ve met Fergus?” “Yeah … we are just getting properly acquainted.” The young techie glanced from one to the other realising that there was an obvious connection between the two. Was Murtagh flirting with her? Fergus suddenly felt like the third wheel. “Well ... I better get back to Systems. I’ll see you both later.” “Sure.” He turned to the medical nurse, “Nice meeting you Bóinne. Take good care of Claire.” “Yes ... I will ... Bye,” she replied acknowledging his retreating statements. Once he’d turned away, the flirting between his buddy and Bóinne continued as Fergus walked towards the way out. He was nearly at the exit when Murtagh called out after him. “Hey wait up a minute Fergus!” Facing the cute medic, he gave Bóinne one last cheeky grin before hurrying to catch up with his friend. With one last look back at the patient, the two friends then quietly slipped out of the room leaving Claire to rest. They both knew that she would need all her strength for when Madeline paid her a visit. Plans to check on Jamie however, needed to be put on hold until after Madeline had left Medical. In the meantime, Murtagh wanted to see if Fergus had come up with any Intel concerning Jamie’s medical records and while Madeline was occupied with Dr Foster may be the perfect time for them to go searching.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ to be continued on Friday 3rd April

[brooklynmuseum]

A Call for Cultural Courage

Dear Friends,

On opening night of the TED2017 conference, just before headliner Pope Francis took the spotlight, artist Titus Kaphar walked to center stage declaring, "I love museums." Standing in front of a large-scale replica of Dutch master Frans Hals’s seventeenth-century painting entitled Family Group in a Landscape, which depicts a European family and a Black servant set against a country landscape, Kaphar began his talk with a story. It went like this: While Kaphar and his two young sons were on an outing to the American Museum of Natural History, the boys were confronted with the 1939 Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the museum’s entrance. The sculpture depicts Roosevelt on a horse flanked by two men, one Native American and one of African descent. The boys questioned why one man got to ride the horse while the others had to walk. To the children, this seemed unfair. For Kaphar, it was a seminal moment that stopped him in his tracks—the question reminded him of the portrayals of white-dominated hierarchies that pervade our culture.

Kaphar then posed a question for the TED2017 audience: “Can art amend history?” As he asked the question, he dipped a wide household paintbrush in white paint and began to cover his own painting until all the figures, except the young Black boy in the background, were obscured. The audience collectively gasped as Kaphar forced them to consider the focus of their gaze—and whose histories are seen or made invisible. Kaphar concluded his talk by sharing his desire to create art that "wrestles with the struggles of our past" and, in the process, models how art can contribute to shaping history.

If artists and art can wrestle with the past and amend history, so too can museums. And we must. Museums like the Brooklyn Museum were founded on the fundamental belief that the sharing of world cultures would lead to greater understanding and empathy, thereby advancing civilization. Many of us in the museum field still value this glorious ideal. However, we recognize that museums have also privileged Western white narratives while often diminishing the histories of others. This is important to understand because, for better or worse, museums contribute to the narratives that shape our society, and our society is in great need of more empathy and respect.

At this time of social unrest, people around the globe are using protest to call upon their museums to do better. We can debate the accuracy of information and the effectiveness of the strategy, but like it or not, we shouldn't be surprised by protest. As the President of the Ford Foundation, Darren Walker, recently shared museums are in crisis because America is in crisis. In his recent op-ed in The New York Times, Walker urged museums to do better. Why? Because museums are fundamental pillars of our American democracy and among the few truly public spaces for people to come together, learn, share ideas, and debate; because art has the capacity to inspire empathy; and because people count on museums to confront difficult and important issues with understanding and respect.

So how are we at the Brooklyn Museum striving to do better? 

Lots of ways. First, doing better means understanding that the stories we tell matter. We have therefore made it an institutional priority to present special exhibitions that shine a spotlight on cultural histories that have long been suppressed. For example, we have highlighted issues of systemic racism and have drawn attention to important African American and Latinx artists with exhibitions such as We Wanted a Revolution: Black Radical Women, 1965–85 (2017), The Legacy of Lynching: Confronting Racial Terror in America (2017), Soul of a Nation: Art in the Age of Black Power (2018), and Radical Women: Latin American Art, 1960–1985 (2018). We have looked at issues of gender equity across time in A Woman’s Afterlife: Gender Transformation in Ancient Egypt (ongoing) and Roots of “The Dinner Party”: History in the Making (2017). With David Bowie is (2018), we examined the artist’s liberating embrace of gender and sexual orientation. And with our current exhibition Nobody Promised You Tomorrow: Art 50 Years After Stonewall, we have taken a contemporary look at LGBTQ+ issues. In Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving (2019), we focused on disability and its impact on the artist’s identity and practice.

In addition to our special exhibitions, we present works from our historical collections in context and in mutual dialogue with the communities they come from. In 2016, we reinstalled our American Art galleries to celebrate our nation’s rich history of immigration. And earlier this year, in the collection installation One: Egúngún, a masterwork from our Arts of Africa collection was displayed alongside extensive new research by the curator of the presentation, who consulted with Yorùbá communities in both Brooklyn and Nigeria to better contextualize the object’s meanings and origins. When possible, we also connect our exhibitions and collection installations to civic organizations devoted to advancing positive societal change that impacts our communities, for example, by partnering with organizations that combat mass incarceration and support the rights of immigrants.

Doing better means becoming Brooklyn’s largest arts classroom by supporting the education of our youth, especially those in our most under-resourced communities. For example, thanks to a grant from the Kenan Foundation, we have partnered with some of Brooklyn’s most financially challenged schools to provide in-school art classes where there were none. Our education programs are also expanding the number of young people who visit the Museum every year with their schools, caregivers, and camps. We have grown our programming for teens, especially LGBTQ+ teens and teens of color. And doing better means supporting creative learning with teacher training and resources to bring the Museum into school classrooms throughout the City.

Doing better means challenging the historical insularity of museums by broadening partnerships with our communities to provide services that are relevant and that have an impact. Today, the Brooklyn Museum works with hundreds of community organizations each year. We invite local artists, artisans, and community service organizations into the Museum to connect with our hundreds of thousands of annual visitors through public programs, workshops, and other events. We host public school graduations, serve as an election polling site, support funding drives for communities that have suffered from natural disasters, and lend our space to local organizations for meetings. We seek the advice of community members on the presentation of specific exhibitions. For more than 50 years, over Labor Day weekend, we have hosted the City’s single largest celebration of Caribbean culture, organized in partnership with the West Indian American Day Carnival Association, in our parking lot and culminating in a magnificent parade that ends at our front plaza. You can expect more as we work to grow these commitments.

Doing better means being financially accessible to all, which means remaining affordable despite the very real challenges of funding a major non-profit cultural institution outside of Manhattan. We are proud to be one of the only major art museums in the City with suggested admission, making it possible for many of our audiences to visit our world-class collections for free. We are also proud that on the first Saturday of every month we offer free programming, musical performances, art classes, and other events from 5 to 11 pm, when the Museum is packed and buzzing with thousands of excited visitors.

Doing better also means looking at ourselves and our operations with the goal of advancing our longstanding institutional commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion among our ranks. Through the guidance of our new DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Plan we are working to recruit more staff from communities historically underrepresented in museums, including disabled, gender-nonconforming, and transgender people; people of color; and those from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. Thanks to Citibank, we actively support pipelines for jobs in our field by partnering with colleges and universities with diverse student bodies (such as CUNY and HBCUs) to recruit interns. Doing better means working toward greater wage transparency and fairness. And it means continuing our efforts to cultivate diversity on our Board in terms of race, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, and professional background—from artists and scholars to community members and business leaders—who share a passion for our mission. We don’t have all the answers, and our work is not without contradictions, but we push ahead as we always have, because our work matters.

Art—and museums—can amend history. And at such a pivotal moment, shouldn’t that be a priority? Indeed, it’s a priority for us at the Brooklyn Museum. So, today Kaphar’s painting is displayed in the very first gallery of the Brooklyn Museum, setting the tone for our audience's journey as we consider who creates historical narratives and how those narratives serve us. It’s a reminder that great cultural institutions must do their best to contribute to a more equitable and empathetic world.

Anne Pasternak Shelby White and Leon Levy Director Brooklyn Museum

Barbara M. Vogelstein Chairman, Board of Trustees Brooklyn Museum

[lightningstruckitselfrp]

CREATURES

Below the cut you can find essential information on the creatures available in play. The alignments written underneath the creature categories are how this creature is generally perceived by the wider wixen world and are not necessarily indicative of that creature’s personal alignment. 

Faery - chaotic evil / chaotic neutral

The fairies that remain are a mere shade of their former power and glory. They reside in small villages hidden by magic and accessible only through portals in fairy forts, fairy rings, and hawthorne trees. With their connection to their homeland has been severed, the fairies have lost their dominion over life and death, which means that they have also lost their immortality. A natural-born fairy lives an average of five-hundred years before crumbling to dust and scattering to the wind. However, this number seems to decrease with every passing generation. 

Instead, some have mastered a darker and more nefarious way of living indefinite lifespans. Through ancient and mysterious ritualistic magic, fairies are able to move between different living hosts. They do not have a concept of “good” or “bad,” and believe in taking what they believe belongs to them and spreading their goodwill for a price.

Part-Faery - chaotic neutral, neutral evil

The children of fairies and humans are rarely born out of love. Instead, they are born with purpose. For generations, fairies have used their part-fairy children as hosts for themselves in order to expand their lifespan past the natural expiry. This means that, despite being able to live for one to two hundred years, many only live to their early twenties before they are made hosts. 

However, this is not the only fate for part-fairy children. Some live out the extent of their lives without interruption or loss of self. This can be for a number of reasons: the death of the fairy parent, a part-fairy child taking control of a fairy parent via silver, the successful escape from a fairy parent, or simply because they were one of the few part-fairy children born out of love or favoured by their fairy parent. 

Ghost - varied alignment

A ghost is a timeless imprint of the dead; a visible but transparent, silvery specter resembling the wix who has died. The “lifespan” of a ghost is indeterminate, but it is often reflective of the strength of their connection to certain locations, people and objects, to their fear of the afterlife, or to the trauma of their death. Muggles cannot become ghosts. 

Many ghosts will cease to exist if their “unfinished business” is resolved, albeit not all spirits have this luxury (or this desire): Some spirits are more fractured than others, with these apparitions existing as only a warped, partial reflection of their former selves. Others are simply too afraid to part with what little life they have left. It is rumored that some ghosts have been ‘recruited’ by the Department of Mysteries for experimentation. Ghosts are able to fly and produce ectoplasm, but are unable to perform magic. 

Part-Giant - neutral evil

The rare progeny of one human parent and one Giant parent, part-Giants are humanoid in appearance, if considerably taller than most humans, and have slightly longer lifespans than the average wix. Giant ancestry confers on half- and part-Giants a robust constitution, including denser bone structure and greater resistance to most diseases and poisons, as well as marginally heightened hearing, vision, and smell. Occasionally, part-Giants will also inherit other physical features from their Giant parent, such as pronounced or sharp teeth, additional body hair, or literal thick skin. 

Contrary to popular belief, part-Giants are not inherently unintelligent or evil, though they do often experience the intense instinctual aggression of their ancestors. As it is nearly impossible to acclimate to life within a Giant family or clan, most part-Giants are raised within the wizarding community, where ostracization from their peers may lead to challenges completing education and finding employment. Like many creatures faced with disenfranchisement, oftentimes part-Giants find their livelihoods off-the-beaten-path: in the realms of private security, prize fighting and dueling, wilderness expertise, and dangerous creature handling, as well as other forms of magical labour. 

Vampire - neutral evil / lawful evil

Vampires are nocturnal creatures belonging to the ranks of the Living Dead. They are humanoid in appearance, with deathly skin, gaunt features, and pronounced, pointed incisors resembling animal fangs. Parasitic in nature, they subsist entirely on the blood of the living; this renders them effectively immortal, with many vampires living for hundreds if not thousands of years. 

In addition to possessing heightened senses (hearing the beat of a fly’s wings, smelling the edge of rot in a strawberry just before it turns), vampires are immune to disease and poison; most are also able to learn to transform into bats or temporary mists. Vampires are also capable of feats of extrahuman strength and speeds faster than the human eye can track, but this action leaves them exhausted and vulnerable, and is thus used sparingly.

Part-Vampire - lawful neutral / lawful evil

The rare progeny of vampires and humans, part-vampires may be of wixen or muggle blood. Predominantly human in appearance, part-vampires take on the deathly pall of their vampire parent and have noticeably longer incisors than the average person. They are mortal save for their extended lifespan, which may last as long as several hundred years, and causes slowed aging. Unlike full vampires, part-vampires do not need to consume blood to survive, although the lack of it renders the part-vampire effectively human.

For those part-vampires who do choose to consume blood as part of their diet, they are afforded a lesser degree of the supernatural powers their parent exhibits. They will rarely fall ill, and are immune to most poisons. They may possess heightened senses and the capacity for enormous strength and speed, but these require a large intake of blood and leave the part-vampire prone for days after the fact.

Veela -   neutral evil

Veela (or vila) are a type of supernatural being with origins in the slavic nations. The veela, characterised by their otherworldly and terrifying beauty and are known for their spite. Like vampires, true veela are created instead of born, however, unlike vampires, their lifespans are not indefinite.

The transformation is ritualistic in nature, however, unlike vampires and werewolves, does not require a bite of any sort. The veela have the ability to transform into a hideous and ravenous creature with talons, a mouthful of sharp fangs, and sprouted black oil-slicked feathers.Veelas age at an extremely slow-rate from the time that they are transformed, living two to three hundred years longer than your average wixen individual. Due to glamour magic, no aging is seen, leading to the incorrect rumour that they do not age.

Part-Veela -   true neutral

Since the veela’s introduction to wixen society, it has become more common to see the progeny of a veela and a human. Veelas can mate with wixen and non-wixen alike, however, non-wixen progeny will only inherit their veela parent’s famed beauty and ability to partially transform. This ability to transform can only be inherited by half-veelas. 

Half-veelas outlive your typical wixen individual by fifty to one hundred years. Part-veelas (the children of half-veela) do not typically inherit these prolonged lifecycles. 

Werewolves - chaotic neutral / chaotic evil

Werewolves are those persons afflicted with the condition of lycanthropy: an unstoppable transformation from human into a monstrous, wolf-like creature. The only way to become a werewolf is to be bitten by one and survive; both muggles and wix can be turned into werewolves. Governed by the moon, werewolves transform once a month, when the moon is full. A werewolf’s wolf form is distinct from normal wolves: considerably larger and more humanoid, with slightly thinner fur, and a wider range of mobility of limbs. In addition to the physical tax of transformation, werewolves are especially vulnerable to burns and poisoning by silver and vampire blood. The Wolfsbane Potion has not yet been invented; therefore, werewolves are presently incapable of maintaining their human minds during transformation.

 The most robust werewolf packs in the U.K. are known as Pack Máni, Pack Vargr, and Pack Úlfar, which are largely codependent, providing one another with key resources. Nearly all werewolves live outside of the artificial hierarchy of alpha/beta/omega observed in wolves in captivity, instead using majority consensus and the wisdom of more experienced werewolves to guide decision-making. One notable exception is Pack Úlfar, which has recently adopted this structure as a reflection of Voldemort’s upper echelon of supporters. Generally speaking, most packs are presumed to be aligned with Voldemort and his supporters — though this stance is increasingly contentious.

[kitmcroninillustration]

‘An introduction to Sociological Art theories’ (2018)

ARTHUR DANTO - the idea of an art world

Danto (1924-2013) addressed the concept of an 'art world' in 1964 because he was looking for a way to understand the conceptual and abstract art of the 1950s and 1960s. What is the distinction between an everyday object and an art object of Marcel Duchamp? What is represented in pure abstract art? The changes that took place in art aesthetics made him realize more clearly than ever that "to see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry - an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an art world" (Danto 1964: 577).  An art world, for Danto, was literally that which makes it possible to define and view something as a work of art, focusing predominately on the visual arts. This ideology "deliberately aimed to shift the attention of art historians, critics and other professionals from the tradition idea that artworks have intrinsic value and typical features that make them art, to the view that works become art on the basis of their position in the (historical) context", i.e. position in the art world (Van Maanen 2009: 19). Danto's idea of an 'Art world' has since been replaced by the notion that "works can be identified as artworks because of their specific values and functions" (Van Maanen 2009: 9). This idea of value and function and the resulting 'art world' scheme can then, in theory, be applied to any art form.

 GEORGE DICKIE - the institutional approach

While Danto was concerned primarily with what an artwork represents, George Dickie (b. 1926) is concerned with the "space between art and not-art" (Van Maanen 2009: 21). He explored this between 1964-1989 as institutional theory: "an attempt to sketch an account of the specific institutional structure within which works have their being" (Dickie 1984: 27). Dickie did not believe that what art works were 'about' determined their definition as an 'artwork'. And he believed that art could be defined by more than its intrinsic properties. He became determined to distinguish between 'art' (i.e. "this is art") and a 'work of art', or 'art work', and classifying the meaning of 'art work' became the entire basis of institutional theory.

The importance of 'artifactual' art was paramount for Dickie, defining an artwork to be the product of human activity, and generating this heavily used definition: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the art world) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation" (Dickie 1971: 101). Dickie considered that the art work, presence of an art world, and the general 'receiving' public all part of his institutional approach. This framework, and the rules for those occupying it, clarified the "significance of conventions in making the art world system operate" (Van Maanen 2009: 28). He was also one of the first to place the public within his system. Dickie acknowledged that his institutional approach does give room to theorize about what artworks do. Furthermore, his theory does not make suggestions about how art functions in society, nor how the art world produce art. What Dickie did, however, provide a theoretical definition of art that removed considerations of essence, value and function, separating the institutional and functional approaches.

MONROE BEARDSLEY- the essentialist

While Van Maanen only refers to Beardsley (1915-1985) in relation to the other theorists, I did want to add him to this list, briefly, because I feel that his philosophies on aesthetics are important to the development sociological art theory. His 1956 Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism is universally acknowledged by philosophers as one of the most important books in the 20th century addressing analytic aesthetics. Aesthetics focuses on literature, music and art, and Beardsley was quite interested in distinguishing between various forms an 'art work': an artifact, its production, a particular performance and a particular presentation (this perspective applies best to performing arts like dance, theater, and music). While he avoided defining art in Aesthetics, especially avoiding the term 'art work', in The Aesthetic Point of View, he said that art is “either an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character or (incidentally) an arrangement belonging to a class or type of arrangements that is typically intended to have this capacity” (1982: 299). Unlike Dickie, Beardsley was concerned more with what the arts do, not what they are: "there is a function that is essential to human culture (...) and that work of art fulfill, or at least aspire or purport to fulfill" (1976: 209). Beardsley was also one of the first to write against intentionalism; he did not believe that art was defined (or its aesthetic function was defined) by what an artist intended, nor did he believe that the artists intention is relevant to its interpretation. 

HOWARD BECKER - the interactional approach

Sociologist Howard Becker (b. 1928) only addressed art in one book, Art Worlds (1982), and yet he has come to be viewed as a leading voice in the development of art sociology. It seems to me that Becker felt the institutional approaches of Dickie and Danto were 'first steps', from which he tried to expand and explain the 'art world' system using sociological analysis, rather than aesthetic theory, seeking a theorized system that answered questions 'who', 'what', 'how much' and 'how many'. He understood the art world to be a cooperation of participants, even if consensus amongst participants is impossible. Becker came from the 'Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism', which was a school of social psychology that was concerned with how humans exist/struggle/react to the existing social structures in which they live. This thinking motivated Becker to look at the relationship between participants and the institutions of the art world.

By art world, Becker means "the network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joined knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of art works that art world is noted for" (Becker 1982: X). This means, first, that there are multiple art worlds, depending on the 'kind of art work' produced therein. Becker established what he called collective activity, which drew together seven activities that Becker found necessary for making art: developing an idea, executing the idea, manufacturing the materials needed for execution, distributing, supporting activities, reception and response, and "creating and maintaining the rationale", of which there is no hierarchy (Van Maanen 2009: 35). Not only are artists not independent, but all participants are equally important for creating and sustaining the art world. Further, this means that artistic product is dependent on domains of distribution and reception: "artists make what distribution institutions can assimilate and what audiences appreciate" (Van Maanen 2009: 38). Becker proposes an economic model for the art world system:

(1) [E]ffective demand is generated by people who will spend money for art. (2) What they demand is what they have learned to enjoy and want, and that is a result of their education and experience. (3) Price varies with demand and quality. (4) The works the system handles are those it can distribute effectively enough to stay in operation. (5) Enough artistic will produce works the system can effectively distribute that it can continue to operate. (6) Artists whose work the distribution systems cannot or will not handle find other means of distribution; alternatively, their work achieves minimal or no distribution. (1982: 107)

While this seems very capitalist, very 'supply and demand', there is always the option for artists (true artists, according to Becker) to avoid this conventional system of distribution, either through self support, patronage, or a state subsidy (government support). The result, though, of being 'too' experimental/outside the norm, will be that the work will not be staged, published or exhibited (Van Maanen 2009: 40). And no matter what, Becker says, "artworks always bear the marks of the system which distributes them" (1982: 94). I, myself, wonder what this means for a field like contemporary music. While I do not believe in as cut and dry a system as Becker outlines, with only true artists breaking conventions but never being received, I wonder if its possible to quantify institutional effects on an artwork. There is a lot of new music, in Finland and in the US, which is created within the institution of academia, and it would be interesting to see if differences exist between 'academic' new music and independent new music (or if there is such thing as 'independent music'...).

While Becker provides a great deal more analytic tools than Dickie and Danto, without attempting inclusion of any sort of aesthetic theory, it proves impossible for him to explain further the who, what, why, etc., of art itself. He also cannot rectify his sense that artist have a higher place within the art world (importance, prestige, etc) within the system he has proposed. He also believes that true artists break conventions, which is not compatible in a system that excludes aesthetic value from the artistic world, and also one that views the art world as a fixed system within society (Van Maanen 2009: 42). 

 PAUL DIMAGGIO - new institutionalism

Paul DiMaggio (b. 1951) is categorized as a 'new institutionalist', because he, with Walter Powell, co wrote that "institutions begin as conventions, which, because they are based on coincidence of interest, are vulnerable to defection, renegotiation, and free riding" (DiMaggio and Powell 1991: 24).  Institutions have the power to form and sustain social relationships, but they also are subject to change with peoples' interests. DiMaggio is included here because he applied his new institutionalist theories to the art world, and in a quite analytic way. His well known study, "Why Do Some theatres Innovate More than Others. An Empirical Analysis" (Poetics 1985), co written with Kristen Stenberg, concluded that "artistic innovation depends on the behavior of formal organizations" and in order to "understand art, we must understand the dynamics of such organizations and the principals that govern their relationship to their economic and social environment" (1985: 121). DiMaggio and Stenberg thought that too often artists are viewed as the sole innovators, when really, the institutions/fields/organizations within which they work control, to a greater extent, the level of innovativeness.  This notion is especially relevant to my research, in particular the orchestra reports, which reveal trends of orchestral programming and show the amount of contemporary music orchestras play (which is often considered a benchmark for innovation).  

The second important point of the 1985 study was the move away from Max Weber's "Iron Cage" metaphor (humanity is imprisoned in an iron cage of bureaucracy and rational order) and to the view that bureaucracy and rational order are actually the result of 'organizational fields' (formerly identified as institutions). Unlike Becker, who was concerned with interactions between the people in a given 'field', DiMaggio and Stenberg examined the field as a whole and how the field acted upon its members. They did, however, use more traditional institutionalizing methods to define their fields, with a process of four steps based on DiMaggio, 1983: 1) "an increase in the extent of interaction among organizations", 2) "The emergence of inter organizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition", 3) "An increase in the information load with which organizations in a field must contend", and 4) "the development of mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a common enterprise" (Van Maanen 2009: 47). These steps will be useful in comparison to Bourdieu's steps below. Further, DiMaggio and Powell identified twelve factors that determine the processes within and structure of a field, two of which are particularly important for art study (1983: 76-77):

The greater the extent to which an organizational field is dependent upon a single (or several similar) source(s) of support for vital resources, the higher the level of isomorphism.

The greater the extent to which organizations in a field transact with agencies of the state, the greater the extent of isomorphism in the field as a whole.

This can be applied to a contemporary music study, not only to use the 4-step processes to determine the relationship between the contemporary music and classical music fields, but also how financial support sources, and whether they are through state agencies, shape the structure of the contemporary music field, and similarities between different contemporary music fields.

PIERRE BOURDIEU - field theory

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) is the most well-known and influential art sociologist of the late twentieth century and his work focused predominantly on the dynamics of power within a society, particularly on cultural, social and symbolic forms of power. For the purposes of his study, Van Maanen focuses on Bourdieu's development of field theory, which was in many ways a direct rebuttal to Howard Becker's 'art world'. Rather than understanding works of art as the result of all the interacting activities of an 'art world', Bourdieu tried "to build a theoretical construct of concepts through which the working of a field can be analyzed" (Van Maanen 2009: 55). His result was -

An artistic field is a structure of relations between positions, which, with the help of several forms of capital, on the one hand, and based on joint illusio and their own doxa, on the other, struggle for specific symbolic capital (prestige). The positions are occupied by agents, who take these positions on the basis of their habitus. (Van Maanen 2009: 55)

To explain further, Bourdieu's position is one that is tied to the type of art produced, or artistic genre. These genres can be quite specific (21st century American musical theater or 1960s krautrock), or more general.  There is also a presumed hierarchy between agents in a given field, and even between the positions themselves within the field, as determined by the division of capital.  Like DiMaggio, Bourdieu establishes a set of 'laws', four defining how fields function and three which address how a field can be identified (Van Maanen 2009: 61-62):

 Newcomers have to buy a      right of admittance in the form of recognition of the value of the game and      in the form of knowledge of the working principles of it.

 One of the factors that      protect a game from a total revolution, is the very investment in time      and effort necessary to enter the game.

This lists bears resemblance to both the work of DiMaggio and Danto. The identification qualifications are surprisingly specific, and I wonder how they might be applied to contemporary music study. First, how can contemporary music be subdivided into subfields, for comparison sake. Can they be divided geographically, for instance a Finnish contemporary music field and an American music contemporary field? A Finnish contemporary music field would probably be possible, with this criteria, but I think an American contemporary music field would be much more difficult to identify and define.

Bourdieu also discusses cultural capital, derived strongly from Marx's theory of value, as a value that is the result of accumulated labor, no different than economic and social capital.  Symbolic in nature, both social and cultural capital can only function if they are not explicitly recognized as capital (the way economic capital is). For cultural capital, this means it exists "as a form of knowledge that equips the social gent with appreciation for or competence in deciphering cultural relations and artefacts", and it is symbolic because the act of acquiring it is mostly invisible (Van Maanen 2009: 59). According to Bourdieu, cultural capital can be turned into material objects, which can then be transferred as economic goods (i.e., a painting), but this is only part of 'the story'. Cultural capital exists in three forms, embodied/incorporated (cultural knowledge acquired by the agent), objectified (material goods), or institutionalized. In this third form, cultural capital is confirmed by some sort of institution (university, government, artistic organization, etc), meaning that a persons cultural capital is both confirmed officially, regardless of a persons embodiment of cultural capital at any given moment, and also the official certification carries with it an economic value, guaranteeing perhaps a higher paid position within the field. Bourdieu says that these states of cultural capital, in conjunction with social capital, create hierarchy and competition between artists within an artistic field. 

In The Rules of Art (1996), Bourdieu discusses at length the relationships between different fields and different types of capital. Lack of economic capital with more cultural capital results with in more autonomy (for example, small scale production and avant-garde art forms), while economic capital without (or with less) cultural capital creates the more heteronomous art (like musicals and Hollywood cinema). Van Maanen argues that aspects of Bourdieu's model do not necessarily hold for all art fields across all periods of time. For instance, the state has played an increasing role in providing economic support that is separate from Bourdieu/Marxist capitalist economic capital. And it is possible for autonomous art fields to attract economic capital (though no example is provided). What came to my mind is that most artistic production is quite economically demanding, therefore there must be some (likely more than some) economic capital present to produce art, especially avant-garde art. It would be interesting to try and apply Bourdieu's field theory and make an actual field map for aspects of my project, like American academic contemporary art, or Finnish contemporary music 1975-1990. While his writings do not define art aesthetically, and come off quite cynically, his analysis of cultural capital especially in relation to economic and political fields warrant further discussion (in another post...).

https://www.lucyabrams.net/news/2018/5/28/an-introduction-to-sociological-art-theory

[independent-fictional-mbti]

The Order of the Stick: The Linear Guild MBTI

Nale ENTJ (The Executive)

The ENTJ has a tremendous amount of personal power and presence which will work for them as a force towards achieving their goals. However, this personal power is also an agent of alienation and self-aggrandizement, which the ENTJ would do well to avoid.

ENTJs are very forceful, decisive individuals. They make decisions quickly, and are quick to verbalize their opinions and decisions to the rest of the world. The ENTJ who has not developed their Intuition will make decisions too hastily, without understanding all of the issues and possible solutions. On the other hand, an ENTJ who has not developed their Thinking side will have difficulty applying logic to their insights, and will often make poor decisions. In that case, they may have brilliant ideas and insight into situations, but they may have little skill at determining how to act upon their understanding, or their actions may be inconsistent. (Personality Page)

Sabine ESFP (The Energiser)

ESFP is definitely a spontaneous, optimistic individual. They love to have fun. If the ESFP has not developed their Thinking side by giving consideration to rational thought processing, they tend to become over-indulgent, and place more importance on immediate sensation and gratification than on their duties and obligations. They may also avoid looking at long-term consequences of their actions.

For the ESFP, the entire world is a stage. They love to be the center of attention and perform for people. They're constantly putting on a show for others to entertain them and make them happy. They enjoy stimulating other people's senses, and are extremely good at it. They would love nothing more than for life to be a continual party, in which they play the role of the fun-loving host. (Personality Page)

Thog ESFP (The Energiser)

ESFPs live in the moment, enjoying what life has to offer. They are especially tuned into their senses and take pleasure in the sights, sounds, smells, and textures around them. ESFPs like to keep busy, filling their lives with hobbies, sports, activities, and friends. Because they'd rather live spontaneously than plan ahead, they can become overextended when there are too many exciting things to do. An ESFP hates nothing more than missing out on the fun. (Truity)

Zz’dtri ISTJ (The Inspector)

ISTJs are very loyal, faithful, and dependable. They place great importance on honesty and integrity. They are "good citizens" who can be depended on to do the right thing for their families and communities. While they generally take things very seriously, they also usually have an offbeat sense of humor and can be a lot of fun - especially at family or work-related gatherings.

ISTJs tend to believe in laws and traditions, and expect the same from others. They're not comfortable with breaking laws or going against the rules. If they are able to see a good reason for stepping outside of the established mode of doing things, the ISTJ will support that effort. However, ISTJs more often tend to believe that things should be done according to procedures and plans. If an ISTJ has not developed their Intuitive side sufficiently, they may become overly obsessed with structure, and insist on doing everything "by the book".

The ISTJ is extremely dependable on following through with things which he or she has promised. (Personality Page)

Yik-Yik ISTP (The Surveyor)

STPs avoid making judgments based on personal values - they feel that judgments and decisions should be made impartially, based on the fact. They are not naturally tuned in to how they are affecting others. They do not pay attention to their own feelings, and even distrust them and try to ignore them, because they have difficulty distinguishing between emotional reactions and value judgments. This may be a problem area for many ISTPs. An ISTP who is over-stressed may exhibit rash emotional outbursts of anger, or on the other extreme may be overwhelmed by emotions and feelings which they feel compelled to share with people (often inappropriately). An ISTP who is down on themself will foray into the world of value judgments - a place which is not natural for the ISTP - and judge themself by their inability to perform some task. They will then approach the task in a grim emotional state, expecting the worst. (Personality Page)

Yok-Yok ISTP (The Surveyor)

ISTPs have an adventuresome spirit. They thrive on action, and are usually fearless. ISTPs are fiercely independent, needing to have the space to make their own decisions about their next step. They do not believe in or follow rules and regulations, as this would prohibit their ability to “do their own thing”. Their sense of adventure and desire for constant action makes ISTPs prone to becoming bored rather quickly. ISTPs are loyal to their causes and beliefs, and are firm believers that people should be treated with equity and fairness. Although they do not respect the rules of the “System”, they follow their own rules and guidelines for behavior faithfully. They will not take part in something which violates their personal laws. ISTPs are extremely loyal and faithful to their ��brothers”.  (Personality Page)

Qarr ESTJ (The Co-ordinator)

ESTJs are often involved in institutions: clubs, associations, societies, and churches, where they usually take a leadership role. They typically connect with others through sharing ritual and routine. Social interaction for ESTJs often means following an established tradition to engage with others in a structured way. ESTJs tend to respect and seek out hierarchy. They want to know who’s in charge, and will assign levels of responsibility if none exist. Once a structure is in place, ESTJs typically trust authority figures and expect obedience from people of lower rank. (Truity)

General Tarquin ESTJ (The Co-ordinator)

The ESTJ needs to watch out for the tendency to be too rigid, and to become overly detail-oriented. Since they put a lot of weight in their own beliefs, it's important that they remember to value other people's input and opinions. If they neglect their Feeling side, they may have a problem with fulfilling other's needs for intimacy, and may unknowingly hurt people's feelings by applying logic and reason to situations which demand more emotional sensitivity.

When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others. They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and communicating them to others. (Personality Page)

Malack  INFJ (The Guide)

But the INFJ is as genuinely warm as they are complex. INFJs hold a special place in the heart of people who they are close to, who are able to see their special gifts and depth of caring. INFJs are concerned for people's feelings, and try to be gentle to avoid hurting anyone. They are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well. Situations which are charged with conflict may drive the normally peaceful INFJ into a state of agitation or charged anger. They may tend to internalize conflict into their bodies, and experience health problems when under a lot of stress.

Because the INFJ has such strong intuitive capabilities, they trust their own instincts above all else. This may result in an INFJ stubborness and tendency to ignore other people's opinions. They believe that they're right. (Personality Page)

KilKil ISTJ (The Inspector)

ISTJs are responsible organizers, driven to create and enforce order within systems and institutions. They are neat and orderly, inside and out, and tend to have a procedure for everything they do. Reliable and dutiful, ISTJs want to uphold tradition and follow regulations.

ISTJs are steady, productive contributors. Although they are Introverted, ISTJs are rarely isolated; typical ISTJs know just where they belong in life, and want to understand how they can participate in established organizations and systems. They concern themselves with maintaining the social order and making sure that standards are met. (Truity)

[janiedean]

Benedict Cumberbatch is also disliked on this site NOT for being ugly but because of racist, homophobic, and anti-autistic comments at the height of his fame when the people liked him for playing a gay man as autistic coded (a real gay man! Who was probably not autistic!). People call him ugly because he’s the only man in the world who looks the way he does.

good fucking lord

let me find that post where I about DISPROVED 99% OF THOSE STATEMENTS, hm?

okay, HAVE ALL THE REASONS WHY EVERYTHING Y’ALL THINK ABOUT CUMBERBATCH IS WRONG EXCEPT FOR THE AUTISM COMMENTS AND EVEN THOSE WERE LESS BAD THAN WHAT YOU THINK.

also, since you can’t go on wikipedia:

Cumberbatch is a straight ally and in July 2013 officiated at the same-sex marriage of friends. For International Women’s Day 2014, he was a signatory of Amnesty International’s letter to the Prime Minister David Cameron for women’s rights in Afghanistan. Cumberbatch identifies as a feminist.

In 2014, Cumberbatch publicly backed “Hacked Off” and its campaign for UK press self-regulation by “safeguarding the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable.”

In a November 2014 cover story for Out promoting The Imitation Game, Cumberbatch opened up about sexual experimentation during his time in boarding schools stating, “While there was experimentation, it had never occurred to me as, ‘Oh, this is that!’ It was just boys and their penises, the same way with girls and vaginas and boobs. It wasn’t out of desire.” LGBTgroup Stonewall released a statement praising Cumberbatch’s comments, saying, “Seeing someone in the public eye – especially somebody as influential as Benedict – talking positively around gay issues, is powerful for young lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It is often difficult for those growing up to find role models who demonstrate that it is equally okay to be gay or straight.”

Cumberbatch is a founding member of the “Save Soho” campaign which aims “to protect and nurture iconic music and performing arts venues in Soho.” In an open letter published in The Guardian on 31 January 2015, Cumberbatch, amongst others, asked for pardons of all gay and bisexual men who were convicted under the same now-defunct “indecency” laws as Alan Turing was (whom Cumberbatch portrayed in The Imitation Game).

also:

Cumberbatch is an ambassador for The Prince’s Trust.

He is a supporter and patron of organisations focused on using the arts to help disadvantaged young people including Odd Arts, Anno’s Africa and Dramatic Need.

Since portraying Stephen Hawking in 2004, he has been an ambassador, and in 2015 patron, for the Motor Neurone Disease Association and in 2014 did the Ice Bucket Challengefor the organisation.

He also set up a recovery fund for the benefit of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association.

Cumberbatch has donated artworks for charities and fundraisers including the Willow Foundation, and Thomas Coram Foundation for Children.

In 2003, Cumberbatch joined the Stop the War Coalitionprotest in London against the Iraq War.

He addressed activists in a 2010 protest sponsored by the Trade Union Congress in Westminster on the suggested risks to the arts due to spending cuts expected in the Spending Review.

In 2013, he protested against what he perceived were civil liberties violations by the UK Government.

Together with Prince Philip, Cumberbatch presented 85 young people with the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award at St James’s Palace on 19 March 2014. “Our ambition is to extend this opportunity to hundreds of thousands across the UK”, Cumberbatch said on behalf of the youth awards programme.

In May 2014, he joined Prince William and Ralph Lauren at Windsor Castle for a cancer awareness and fundraising gala for the benefit of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Cumberbatch stated, “Cancer isn’t a disease that needs much awareness, but it does need continued funding for research.”In September 2014, he participated in a video campaign for Stand Up To Cancer.

Cumberbatch posed for photographer Jason Bell for an exhibition at Pall Mall, London from 16–20 September 2014 to mark 10 years of the “Give Up Clothes For Good” charity campaign, which has raised £17 million for Cancer Research UK.

In September 2015, Cumberbatch condemned the UK government’s response to the migrant crisis in a speech to theatregoers during a curtain call at a performance of Hamlet, for which he stars.

He also fronted a video campaign to help the charity Save The Children in its mission to aid young Syrian refugees.

He was one of the signatories of an open letter, published in The Guardian, criticising the government for its actions regarding the refugee problem.

He also gave nightly speeches after his curtain call as Hamletat the Barbican in London, asking for donations to help Syrian refugees. At the end of the run, the audience contributed more than £150,000 for Save the Children.

Cumberbatch was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2015 Birthday Honours for services to the performing arts and to charity.

ah, yeah, he said a few ignorant things plus a bunch of stuff TUMBLR decided was racist when EVERY DAMNED BLACK ACTOR IN THE BRITISH INDUSTRY THOUGHT DIFFERENT, what a piece of shit, he totally hasn’t done more for charity on his own than all of tumblr put together.

like, fuck’s sake, y’all can go get a life and actually research the bullshit you read? because guess what I was here since 2011 and I was here for the rise and fall of cumberbatch in the tumblr hierarchy and I can 100% assure you I remember ALL of the reasons why ppl hate him.

and 99% of them AREN’T EVEN TRUE. also can it with this dumbass bullshit that he’s homophobic when HE HAS OFFICIATED MARRIAGES OF HIS GAY FRIENDS ffs. y’all aren’t funny. and if turing’s portrayal wasn’t correct complain to the writers and not to HIM who was acting, not writing the damned script.

ps: I’M NOT EVEN INTO THIS GUY but the fact that I know this shit and 99% of tumblr doesn’t while still bashing him just says everything there is to say.

can. 

it.

[ottermeat]

REPOSTED WITH TL;DR COMMENTARY - THE RABBIT HOLE IS DEEP

Dolly’s Master Class in Diva-ing

Kacey Musgraves comes out dressed like a back-up singer on Hee Haw.  Musgraves is a talented and awarded singer/songwriter but she’s deep in the Nashville Machine and must survey the landscape around her and see the trail of discarded talented and awarded singer/songwriter women and know that the clock is ticking. She’s trying to get on the Faith Hill train and not the Shania train. There is no Willie Nelson train for women in Nashville. Dressing like a back-up singer might not have been the smartest move for a Diva audition. The song is “Here You Come Again” off the platinum album of the same name. The song is a million years old (1977) but it was on Dolly’s 20th solo album which means she released 19 solo albums before she turned 30. The tune is at the lower end of Musgraves range and she handles it well but without remark.

Some bigger lady in a gaudy country clown suit takes the next line.  It’s Katy Perry. Of all the women on this stage, her country credentials are the most dubious. She’s a pop star who is on the decline. She’s making her case for cross-over appeal (necessary for any Diva) but the fact that she’s relegated to an opening duet speaks volumes especially when we find out who comes out next. After Musgraves’ delivery, Perry decides that it’s time to “Katy Perry this gig up.” That her country credentials are suspect is immediately apparent and she stays in her comfort zone for her line - guttural tremolos. Perry is trying too hard but her people in the crowd cheer.

Musgraves’ next line is in in the sweet spot for her range and she steps on Perry’s outro. She doesn’t try to outdo Perry. That’s not her job. Musgraves is a country music professional and she does what she’s asked to do. You don’t color out of the lines and make it in Nashville.

Perry, thinking, “look, bitch, this hair cut was a mistake and nobody bought my last album because of it so I’m sticking to this over-act because I’m desperate - I can feel it all slipping away from me,” appears to have the  audience on her side until we realize that they are cheering because Parton has arrived on stage.

Parton (or the Dolly robotron stand-in (hard to tell on playback)), is 73 and flubs her first note but it’s her night and we’re not going to linger on that. She separates the two who probably would not have made it through the verse without coming to blows. Parton finishes the abbreviated version of the song, trading lines with both singers and Musgraves clearly relishes the fact that she got to sing last.

Next up is Miley Cyrus. We don’t like Miley because she had the misfortune of growing up a millionaire in front of our eyes. If I was in my 20s, on tv, had a million dollars, and had never heard the word no, you would not like me either. The difference between Cyrus and the hypothetically intolerable me is that she is enormously talented. Of all the women on the stage during this 10-minute performance, Cyrus is probably the only one who will matriculate to full Diva-status.  

She is clearly pleased that, by virtue of her position in the line up and the fact that she gets time alone on stage with Parton, she has vanquished the fading Perry. She arrives with swagger and does that tongue thing that’s probably not going away. She sings “Jolene” with Parton, a song that Cyrus performs regularly but it’s a whole different ball game when you’re singing it with the legend who wrote it. Cyrus is working hard. We see her working hard. There are some bumps. They don’t nail it but Cyrus’ alto blends well with Parton’s tight-throated soprano. What Cyrus will learn in the coming decades is that, to be a Diva, you have to make it look effortless.  

Parton and Cyrus are joined on stage by the tiny Maren Morris. We do not know who Maren Morris is but she is another enormously successful country singer/songwriter from the Nashville Machine who dutifully knows that her job is to sing a fourth above Parton and not get in her way. She accomplishes this with grace.  Parton’s body language favors Morris over Cyrus. The three sing Neil Young’s “After the Gold Rush”. Cyrus is working very hard. It’s earnest and the slightest bit charming but a notable contrast to Morris who, like any good bridesmaid, knows that nobody is looking at her and that it’s not her show. That’s Nashville for you. Hierarchy and seniority matter. Adhere and conform. Cyrus oversteps her role with her final notes and tries to cover up with some banter. Exit stage left.

Four white people join Parton on stage. We do not know who these people are and as of this writing, we do not care. Perhaps they are the Mandrell Sisters. Perhaps they are leftovers from the Lawrence Welk show. Is one Richard Branson?  Are the two women Divas-in-Training? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that Parton sings a new song that may be her best song ever. Top three without hyperbole. Who does that at age 73? It’s co-written with Linda Perry who runs popular music now and is also on stage leading the band behind Parton.  

Parton wraps it up with “9 to 5”, her most recognizable song. All the minor league, B-List tryout Divas come back on stage. The producers make sure Perry and Cyrus are on opposite sides of the stage. We are happy because we know the song well.  

Dolly has sacrificed much to be our Diva. We’re all fairly certain nobody knows who she is or what she looks like when she’s not on stage. A legion of surgeons and fashion consultants have trained their knives and an elaborate system of straps, braces, and pulleys to maintain at least the broad outlines of the Dolly we knew forty years ago. But that comes with the Diva territory. Women who last in the music business don’t get to be Keith Richards. Not all men do either (Exhibit A: see Smokey Robinson singing along in the Grammy audience.) Diva is an act, a projection, just like all entertainment. You audition and you audition and you audition but it never becomes natural. It’s always a job, a role played for an audience that needs a queen. To win the part, it has to look like it comes naturally. Even though it never does.