Interpreting Indigenous Culture in Art: A History

Interpreting Indigenous Culture in Art: A History Mahealani Subad Abstract Art has been a historical connection for many cultures, such as Indigenous culture, as they protect the history of communities and allows for the new generation of the community to learn of their past through artwork and documentaries. However, due to misrepresentations from artwork such as paintings, sculptures, films, Indigenous identity can be represented by stereotypes created by non-Indigenous artists who interpreted indigenous culture into their own artworks, which they presented to society. Although with the misrepresentations are still present in todays society, modern indigenous artists have emerged, for which they presented Indigenous art that represents Indigenous identity where the art is themed based on Indigenous cultural values, such as family, and the realities Indigenous people face within society. Within this research paper, it will discuss how modern indigenous artist can diminish the stereotypes that have been produced by non-Indigenous artists through their inter pretation of Indigenous culture. Introduction Throughout history, art has been a historical connection in many cultures as it allows for those in the community to protect their cultural identity within history and to create a connection between the old and new generation to learn about their heritage. However, Indigenous art has been known to show misinterpretations of Indigenous people made by non-Indigenous artists who presented their perspectives of Indigenous culture and shown it to society without any prior knowledge of Indigenous culture. Now, within modern day society, Indigenous art still holds a fascination with Western culture, but presents Indigenous art in a new perspective as Indigenous artists are emerging representing their culture to society. These modern contemporary Indigenous art pieces are based on Indigenous cultural themes and values such as family, connections to their land territory, and to present the realities Indigenous people confront with in todays society. Within this research paper, it will discuss the differences of Indigenous artwork throughout history, for which it will answer the question of how modern contemporary Indigenous artwork, such as paintings and films, has diminished the stereotypes of Indigenous people which had been produced through Indigenous artwork done by non-Indigenous people. Examples, such as Emily Carr who was mostly known for her work in Group of Seven, was one of the artists that had been inspired by Indigenous culture and produced indigenous art to display to society with the belief that indigenous culture was vanishing (Morra, 2005). With perspectives of Indigenous culture such as Emily Carrs many indigenous artworks that were produced in the past may have contributed to the stereotypes that many see in society today. Background Indigenous culture has always been a fascination between Western culture throughout history, for which many artists looked upon Indigenous communities as inspiration for their artwork. Non-Indigenous artists, such as Emily Carr, have been known for their Indigenous artwork within Canada as they created their art pieces within Indigenous communities to recreate authentic representations of Indigenous culture. Famous for her work in the Canadian artist group, Group of Seven, Emily Carr focused on landscape artwork throughout the duration of her career. Although known for her work in the Group of Seven, Emily Carr was also known for her Indigenous artwork that focused on Indigenous material culture (Morra, 2005). Upon working on her indigenous art pieces, Carr often focused her inspirations on native villages, totem poles, and poetry (Halkes, 2006). As Carr took inspiration of Indigenous culture for her art work, she believed that her work served as a purpose to preserve Indigenous cult ure through her work (Morra, 2005). While visiting indigenous communities to capture their culture through her work, Carr had the belief that by showcasing Indigenous material within her art it would bring awareness to Western society that Indigenous communities that were vanishing (Morra, 2005). Although Carr had the notion that by documenting Indigenous culture through her artwork, Hollywood films began to emerge, but with a dominant culture portraying as the heroes (Stoddard, Marcus, Hicks, 2014, p.9). In case study, it analyzed two Indigenous films that were prominently made by non-Indigenous filmmakers, in which, they found both used white male characters to narrate the film and the main target audience for the films are white and middle-class (Stoddard, Marcus, Hicks, 2014, p.15-16). Majority of these films cater to these audiences as Hollywood films choose to represent those who are apart of Western society, which they present them as the dominant society within these films (Stoddard, Marcus, Hicks, 2014, p.17). Nonetheless, with Indigenous films made by non-Indigenous filmmakers are prone to cater to white audiences with a white male character as the main role, this also presents itself to younger generations such as students, where they may be subjected into belie ving that the representation of Indigenous people within the films are realistic, therefore adding on to the stereotyping Indigenous identity through films. Comparison to Emily Carrs work, modern contemporary Indigenous art work creates a more prominent view of Indigenous cultures as it expands to different sources of media such ass paintings, sculptures, and films. At the National Gallery of Canada, they hosted an exhibition called Sakahan, International Indigenous Art which showcased Indigenous artwork done by Indigenous artists from around the world (Davidge, 2013, p.83). With the art exhibition being the first exhibition devoted indigenous contemporary art from around the world, it attempts to broaden the views of Indigenous culture as it seeks to expand the meaning of indigenous, setting indigenous culture into a global perspective, and to demonstrate that the Indigenous artists are among the leading contemporary artists in the world (Davidge, 2013, p.83). Along with the Sakahan exhibit, Kristen Dowell (2006) discusses the intake of modern Indigenous arts as indigenous filmmakers are receiving recognition for their work. In 2005, th e leading art galleries in the U.S hosted several international indigenous filmmakers to present their work to highlight international cinemas (Dowell, 2006, p.376). The productions that indigenous filmmakers present feature documentation of indigenous cultural traditions and opposing of misrepresentation of Indigenous people (Dowell. 2006, p.376). Indigenous films such as Smoke Signals (Eyre et al. 1998), opposed the misrepresentations of Indigenous people as it comically follows the family life within an indigenous reserve focusing the father and son relationship within the film (Dowell, 2006, p.378). Discussion The differences between the time periods of Indigenous art, such as of Emily Carrs time and of modern day society, they are dependent on the artists interpretation and the perspective of Indigenous culture. During Emily Carrs time period, majority of society had not been exposed to Indigenous culture, for which made the culture very appealing to artists such as Emily Carr, who chose to look at Indigenous communities as a rarity due to colonialism. Carr viewed indigenous communities and the artefacts she found as a formal art of intense ritualistic formalism, (Stacton, 1950, p.500). With Carr observing Indigenous culture with only the perspective of the formal art they have created, Carrs art does not portray a credible representation of how Indigenous communities live. By having a non-Indigenous artist present art work that is inspired by Indigenous culture to a society who has no knowledge of Indigenous communities, it promotes a stereotype to society that is maintained today due to these types of art pieces as the majority of society are not educated or aware about Indigenous culture. This notion that without prior knowledge of indigenous culture creates indigenous stereotypes is also inclusive with Indigenous films made by non-Indigenous filmmakers as the majority of their target audiences is toward a white and middle-class audiences (Stoddard, Marcus, Hicks, 2014, p.15-16). With producing a film that misrepresents Indigenous people and their culture, it reflects a persona that society will identify Indigenous culture with as majority of the films present this type of representation frequently. As for modern contemporary indigenous art, it can be seen as a revelation as more indigenous artists are gaining the recognition by various art organizations for their work. Majority of Indigenous artwork has been done by Indigenous people as the film, Smoke Signals (Eyre et al., 1998), was the first film to feature an all Indigenous cast and crew, in which, Indigenous people wrote, directed, and starred in the film (Dowell, 2006). It is also noted that the Sakahan exhibit that was held in the National Gallery of Canada was the first exhibition to be devoted to contemporary art created by indigenous people from around the world (Davidge, 2013). Todays modern contemporary artists allow for indigenous representation to be reliable as the artwork portrays the artists culture, for which many of the indigenous filmmakers include themes within their work that represent indigeneity such as family values, traditional stories, the realities indigenous people face within society, and the conne ction of land and territories for indigenous communities (Dowell, 2006, p.377). Although many misrepresentations of Indigenous people are still active today, modern Indigenous artists, make attempts to diminish the stereotypes of Indigenous people made by those in the past who were attempting to share Indigenous culture with society during that time period. During that period, modern Indigenous artists have made progress on establishing Indigenous identity within society as many have created artwork such as films, painting, and sculptures, to showcase Indigenous culture or to bring awareness to realities indigenous people face within todays society. Conclusion With the initial question of trying to answer if modern indigenous artists diminish the stereotypes of Indigenous people, which was formed by previous indigenous art work done in the past, it can be considered that modern Indigenous artist have made progress with trying to diminish the stereotype, but more needs to be done to gain a true representation of indigenous culture and identity. Although there has been progressed made to diminish the stereotypes of Indigenous identity, many non-indigenous filmmakers are still producing misrepresentations of Indigenous culture. In trying to prevent the misrepresentation of Indigenous culture, prior to filming or starting an art project, the consultation of Indigenous people must be included when creating a project or film inspired or based on Indigenous culture to respectful of indigenous communities they are basing their artworks on. References Davidge, M. (2013). Sakahà  n, international indigenous art. Border Crossings,32 (4), 83-85 Dowell, K. (2006). Indigenous media gone global: Strengthening indigenous identity onà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and offscreen at the First Nations/first features film showcase. American Anthropologist, 108 (2), 376-384. Eyre, C. (Director), Eyre, C., Alexie, S., Rosenfelt, S., Estes, L., Skinner, D., Bressler, C., . . . Bornia, C. (Producers), Alexie, S., Capener, B., Berdan, B., Smith, B., Otis, R., Brown, R., . . . OSullivan, P. (Writers). (1998). Smoke signals [Video file]. Halkes, P. (2006). Emily Carr. Border Crossings, 25 (4), 91-93 Morra, L. (2005). Canadian art according to Emily Carr: The search for indigenous expression. Canadian Literature, (185), 43 Stacton, D.D. (1950). The art of Emily Carr. Queens Quarterly,57, 499-509. Stoddard, J., Marcus, A., Hicks, D. (2014), The burden of historical representation: The case of/for indigenous film. History Teacher, 48(1), 9-36

Portrayed in film Essay

The sociological issue, to be researched is, the representation of the physically challenged in the mass media, concentrating on popular films. I’ve decided to use four main stereotypes, which are most common in the media. After reading into â€Å"Media and Mental illness† by The Glasgow Media Group, I became intrigued and started to reflect on the images portrayed. As I have a physical disability, I thought that I would have a better understanding of my research, and a good empathy for people who are being portrayed badly. After researching on the Internet, based on the research I developed my hypothesis: There will be no physically challenged people portrayed in â€Å"normal† roles, instead they will fit into one of the four stereotypes. Contexts and concepts The Broadcasting complaints Commission study showed that in television programmes 7% of persons were disabled. They showed that disabled people were mostly in broadcast films, drama and soap operas. Langmore (1987) Studied on the different forms of representations of disabled persons, and how the audience reacts to seeing a disabled person on the television as a pose to an able bodied person. The results show that people generally feel a lot more sympathetic, pitiful and patronizing towards disabled people. Sheridan in â€Å"A physical challenge for the media: The effects of portrayals of wheel chair users. He says that whilst there are many images of wheelchair users, they are not always accurate or helpful to the disabled community. To portray a wheel chair user in a film is so that they can be used as a dramatic and provocative tool. He states that it is possible to categorise portrayals into four main stereotypes, the pitiful handicapped, the bitter cripple, the inspirational hero and the set dresser. These are the four stereotypes that I have decided look into. This introduces the concept of stereotypes. A stereotype is a one sided, exaggerated and usually prejudicial view of a group. One myth about physically challenged people is that people with disabilities have a poor standard of life, this is not the case. The stereotypes may have some factual basis, but in most cases are incongruent with reality. Sheridan raises the question that because these portrayals are prevalent, are they an accurate account of what goes on in real life situations. He answered, as there is much diversity as there is commonality in the wheelchair community. There is no consensus as to what is accurate. He offers no solution but says that there are advances in advertising, as people in wheelchairs are not seen as disabled but as consumers. He thinks advertisers will continue to add positively to the way society perceives wheelchair users, and that maybe one day we will change our perception from archaic stereotypes to more realistic portrayals. This brings me onto the concept of identity. To acquire a sense of self identity and an image of your self is through socialization. If some body is labelled a specific type of person, it can be said that a social identity has been added to your self. Your social identity will then be seen as a label to show what kind of person you are. Resulting from the label you have now been given, you might start to think you are that type of person.

Nuclear warfare

Introduction.John Hersey’s article entitled Hiroshima was an account of six residents in the city of the same name who survived the bombing on August 6, 1945. The six survivors consisted of a physician, a personnel clerk, three small children and their mother, a young surgeon, a pastor and a missionary priest.Compared to other accounts of the Hiroshima bombing, Hersey’s account dryly described the experiences of the survivors, beginning from the time they woke up until the time the bomb went off. While it made considerable noise within and without the publishing world, Hersey’s account was not intentionally written as a call to action, nor did it eventually give rise to a mass action. Rather, it was intended to be a mere impassive report of the impact made by the bomb on the lives of many.Ethical Theories.There are many reasons for the opinion that nuclear warfare is not morally justified, the most familiar and popular of which is the opinion that nuclear warfare involves an intention to use nuclear weapons, where such use would be immoral (McMahan, 1985).  Moral philosophy has several positions on the issue of nuclear warfare. One such position falls within the deontological position (McMahan, 1985). This position consists of three claims, the first of which is that the use of nuclear weapons is not morally justified (McMahan, 1985).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   This first argument is rationalized by the theory that use of nuclear weapons would lead to a violation of at least one criterion of the traditional â€Å"just war† theory (McMahan, 1985).The just war theory refers to justice in war or moral support for war (Moseley, 2006). This theory has two aspects, namely, the theoretical and historical traditions (Moseley, 2006). The former discusses the justifications and reasons for engaging in war; while the latter focuses attention on the body of rules and agreements entered into by international bodies that are supposed to be applied in t imes of war (Moseley, 2006).The just war theory has two criteria, namely, the criterion of proportionality and the criterion of discrimination (McMahan, 1985). The first one mandates that â€Å"the level of force employed must be proportional to the good it is intended to achieve (McMahan, 1985).† On the other hand, the latter criterion provides that â€Å"force should be used in a way which respects the distinction between combatants and noncombatants (McMahan, 1985).Applying the two criteria, one can arrive at an opinion as to whether the dropping of the bomb in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was justified. The first criterion demands that an act be justified by the good consequences achieved by the act be able to outweigh the negative consequences it may have caused (McMahan, 1985). Moreover, there must be a direct proportion between the degree of force used and the positive consequences produced (McMahan, 1985).Considering that both bomb attacks had caused the loss of numer ous lives, mostly those of innocent citizens, there is no way that they could have been justified by any positive consequences. Whichever motivation led to the decision to set off the attacks, it could never be enough to justify the killing of countless innocent lives. The brutality of the acts involved in both bombings negate any argument that there is a direct proportion between the act committed or the degree of force used and the consequences it produced.The second criterion cannot also be used to justify the bombings, since it forbids the killing of noncombatants in war (McMahan, 1985). A distinction should be made between people who are combatants and not (McMahan, 1985). However, based on numerous accounts on the effects of the bombings, including that written by Hersey, it is apparent that many people who were noncombatants died during the attacks. This is a clear violation of the second criterion of the just war theory (McMahan, 1985).Again applying the deontological tradit ion, any future use of nuclear weapons in war cannot be justified. The use of that kind of weapons is a deliberate choice made by those who lead the war. They know that such use necessarily involves the killing of man innocent people.As argued by one study, deaths occurring in nuclear attacks are neither incidental nor unintentional results of lawful military action (McMahan, 1985). Rather, such deaths are deliberate aims made by those who chose to act using nuclear weapons (McMahan, 1985).Thus, the same argument would negate any justification that would be put forward by a country that intends to retaliate using nuclear weapons. Retaliation can be exercised in various forms and it is recognized under international law to be valid means of protecting a country’s interests and sovereignty. Nevertheless, even through a good reason exists for retaliation, doing the same through nuclear weapon still cannot be justified because of the consequences involved in such action, which wo uld cost thousands, if not millions, of lives. Indeed, nuclear warfare is no room for the ancient adage â€Å"an eye for an eye.† Other means of retaliation, like demanding reparation or using economic measures, should instead be used rather than resorting to nuclear warfare.Conclusion.Nuclear warfare cannot be justified under any circumstance. The deliberate use of nuclear weapons is equivalent to deliberate killing of numerous innocent people. Such an act cannot be considered proportionate to the aim involved; nor would such act discriminate between people who engaged in war or not. These consequences obviously violate criteria of the just war theory, which negates any morality in the acts.ReferencesHersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. The New Yorker.McMahan, J. (1985). Deterrence and Deontology. Ethics 95(3) Special Issue: Symposium on Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence, 517-536. Moseley, A. (2006). Just War Theory. Retrieved October 31, 2007, fromhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ Nuclear warfare Introduction.John Hersey’s article entitled Hiroshima was an account of six residents in the city of the same name who survived the bombing on August 6, 1945. The six survivors consisted of a physician, a personnel clerk, three small children and their mother, a young surgeon, a pastor and a missionary priest.Compared to other accounts of the Hiroshima bombing, Hersey’s account dryly described the experiences of the survivors, beginning from the time they woke up until the time the bomb went off. While it made considerable noise within and without the publishing world, Hersey’s account was not intentionally written as a call to action, nor did it eventually give rise to a mass action. Rather, it was intended to be a mere impassive report of the impact made by the bomb on the lives of many.Ethical Theories.There are many reasons for the opinion that nuclear warfare is not morally justified, the most familiar and popular of which is the opinion that nuclear warfare involves an intention to use nuclear weapons, where such use would be immoral (McMahan, 1985).Moral philosophy has several positions on the issue of nuclear warfare. One such position falls within the deontological position (McMahan, 1985). This position consists of three claims, the first of which is that the use of nuclear weapons is not morally justified (McMahan, 1985). This first argument is rationalized by the theory that use of nuclear weapons would lead to a violation of at least one criterion of the traditional â€Å"just war† theory (McMahan, 1985).The just war theory refers to justice in war or moral support for war (Moseley, 2006). This theory has two aspects, namely, the theoretical and historical traditions (Moseley, 2006). The former discusses the justifications and reasons for engaging in war; while the latter focuses attention on the body of rules and agreements entered into by international bodies that are supposed to be applied in times of war (Moseley, 20 06).The just war theory has two criteria, namely, the criterion of proportionality and the criterion of discrimination (McMahan, 1985). The first one mandates that â€Å"the level of force employed must be proportional to the good it is intended to achieve (McMahan, 1985).† On the other hand, the latter criterion provides that â€Å"force should be used in a way which respects the distinction between combatants and noncombatants (McMahan, 1985).Applying the two criteria, one can arrive at an opinion as to whether the dropping of the bomb in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was justified. The first criterion demands that an act be justified by the good consequences achieved by the act be able to outweigh the negative consequences it may have caused (McMahan, 1985). Moreover, there must be a direct proportion between the degree of force used and the positive consequences produced (McMahan, 1985).Considering that both bomb attacks had caused the loss of numerous lives, mostly those of innocent citizens, there is no way that they could have been justified by any positive consequences. Whichever motivation led to the decision to set off the attacks, it could never be enough to justify the killing of countless innocent lives. The brutality of the acts involved in both bombings negate any argument that there is a direct proportion between the act committed or the degree of force used and the consequences it produced.The second criterion cannot also be used to justify the bombings, since it forbids the killing of noncombatants in war (McMahan, 1985). A distinction should be made between people who are combatants and not (McMahan, 1985). However, based on numerous accounts on the effects of the bombings, including that written by Hersey, it is apparent that many people who were noncombatants died during the attacks. This is a clear violation of the second criterion of the just war theory (McMahan, 1985).Again applying the deontological tradition, any future use of n uclear weapons in war cannot be justified. The use of that kind of weapons is a deliberate choice made by those who lead the war. They know that such use necessarily involves the killing of man innocent people.As argued by one study, deaths occurring in nuclear attacks are neither incidental nor unintentional results of lawful military action (McMahan, 1985). Rather, such deaths are deliberate aims made by those who chose to act using nuclear weapons (McMahan, 1985).Thus, the same argument would negate any justification that would be put forward by a country that intends to retaliate using nuclear weapons. Retaliation can be exercised in various forms and it is recognized under international law to be valid means of protecting a country’s interests and sovereignty. Nevertheless, even through a good reason exists for retaliation, doing the same through nuclear weapon still cannot be justified because of the consequences involved in such action, which would cost thousands, if n ot millions, of lives. Indeed, nuclear warfare is no room for the ancient adage â€Å"an eye for an eye.† Other means of retaliation, like demanding reparation or using economic measures, should instead be used rather than resorting to nuclear warfare.Conclusion.Nuclear warfare cannot be justified under any circumstance. The deliberate use of nuclear weapons is equivalent to deliberate killing of numerous innocent people. Such an act cannot be considered proportionate to the aim involved; nor would such act discriminate between people who engaged in war or not. These consequences obviously violate criteria of the just war theory, which negates any morality in the acts.ReferencesHersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. The New Yorker.McMahan, J. (1985). Deterrence and Deontology. Ethics 95(3) Special Issue: Symposium on Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence, 517-536.Moseley, A. (2006).Just War Theory. Retrieved October 31, 2007, fromhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

4-Mat Review Nouwen - 1296 Words

4-MAT Book Review Esther Gooding Liberty University Table of Contents Summary of book ------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Concrete Responses -----------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Reflection -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Application ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Reference ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Grading rubric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Summary Reaching Out was published by Doubleday Dell†¦show more content†¦The host he indicated must remember that every guest has a gift to offer. The guests may first have been strangers but through interaction and engaging in the lives of the stranger, they are soon recognized as guests. The book identified three specific types of hosts: parents, teacher, and helping professionals. The hosts now have different thoughts and feeling about their guests (Nouwen, 1986). Parents view their children as the most precious gift, teachers now realizes that their students have great potential, and helping professional are able to provide a safe environment for their patients (Nouwen, 1986). The third movement is from illusion to prayer. Nouwen (1986) indicated that most people live their lives in an illusion that they will never die. They believe that they hold the key to all that happens in their lives. They do not put God first in their lives and they do not realize that God is in control of every aspect of their lives. There are three essentials elements to a fulfilling prayer life; the Bible, silence, and spiritual guide (Nouwen, 1986). Reading the Bible, and being silence as we mediate on the word of God. We gain understanding through the power of the Holy Spirit. These spiritual references are able to help us work through the challenges we may encounter. The conclusion of the book mentions the importance of spiritual guidance, and the importance of prayer. Prayer is not only to be done is solitude, but