visual arts

I suppose it's cool that the Blogher conference has gotten such high-profile attention from the Austin Chronicle, but I can't quite get over the fact that the editors ran with this cover.
Here Blogher is about empowering women's voices, and the spin they put on it uses cheap sex appeal, while also echoing the really bad movies of the '50s, like, um, Queen of Outer Space....

Three American astronauts are on the first manned mission to Venus, and when they arrive, they find the planet to be inhabited solely by women with high heels and short dresses. Unfortunately, they are immediately imprisoned, for the queen who rules Venus hates men... Suspecting the astronauts to be spies, she now plans to destroy the Earth. So now it's up to the three men (and some friendly Venusians) to overthrow the wicked queen and save the Earth.

Yes, that's right, get a few women together and they automatically hate men and want to take over the world. Those familiar with the genre of the times know that there were many movies like this, drawing on cultural fears of women who don't live to be in the arms of their man, much like the alien invasion movies played off of the red scare.

The final plot point of most of these movies was when the evil women finally succumbed to romantic advances by their male captives, dropped their guns and presumably rushed off to happy lives spending their nights on their backs and their days in the kitchen. Silly, uppity women, they just didn't know their place!

And this is the image the Austin Chronicle decides to run with to position Blogher in the minds of its readers.

The article itself is quite complimentary, introducing the founders of Blogher and the stuff they're talking about in panels at the SXSW festival.

"Women who write about family are 'mommybloggers,' while men who write about family are 'personal bloggers,' incorporating personal elements into their blogs," Des Jardins says. "It's so easy to call someone a 'mommyblogger,' to say that they write 'just' about family."

"As though so much of our great literature and art isn't about family relationships," Camahort points out. "When Arthur Miller wrote All My Sons, nobody said, 'Oh, he's just a 'daddy playwright.' Nobody calls him a 'male playwright.' I think that's why women are rightfully apprehensive."

Fellow BlogHers Stone and Casino – who Stone describes as an "unashamed, unabashed feminist blogger" – will continue the talk about marginalization, identity, and their implications in "Public Square or Private Club: Does Exclusivity Strengthen or Dilute?"

A serious enough take, and it's presented without any snark or sarcasm.

So what's with the overtly sexist cover? I've never been to Austin, but I hear tell it's a liberal town, so maybe they will all "get it." But really, this seems like a rather cheap shot to me. Imagine an African American blogger's conference with a Sambo-like caricature on the cover, or an Anti-Defamation League conference with a caricature of an "evil Jew" with a long hook nose. This cover says that women empowered want to emasculate men (note the three women seemingly doing just that) while lounging around as objects of desire.

If that's the political climate we have in liberal areas, no wonder ERA never passed and forced pregnancy is the political fad du jour.

[My Blogrolling account has lapsed. A new arts blogroll is to come.]

BRAVO!! to Chavez:

[AFP photo]

The Venezuelan government has given a Christian missionary group from the US until Sunday to leave the country.

President Hugo Chavez has repeatedly called for the expulsion of the New Tribes Mission, saying they are American imperialists.

He has called them spies of the CIA and colonialists.

Most of the 160 evangelical preachers and their families have already gone back to the US, after he asked them to leave last October.

Only 30 New Tribes missionaries are still in Venezuela.

For the past 60 years, the New Tribes Mission, which has its world headquarters in Florida, has been trying to convert indigenous groups in Venezuela to Christianity.

It is a non-denominational Christian society which says it is only funded by private individuals, not by the US government.

Indigenous groups

The missionaries live and work in the remotest areas of the country, including the Amazon rainforest.

Their goal is find tribes untouched by so-called "civilisation" in order to convert them to Christianity.[...]

In return for agreeing to adopt the Christian faith, the indigenous people receive basic health care and literacy classes.

Yes send them home. Tho it sounds like "home" is the funding purse of some hard right evangelical religionists in America.

And, in the meantime, America and Venezuela and whomever else can cartoon caricature the church groups (and Jesus, God the Father, the Blessed Holy Virgin AND the Holy Ghost) and Imperial Invasive America in any way they wish.

Part of politics (and war) is harsh, often nasty and mean propaganda by depiction. And religion is part of power and politics. Part of geo political war as well.

If the right wing Danish press cannot caricature the prophet Mohammed (and if there was NO truth in some of those cartoons you have not been reading along for years) then the ME press had best stop with the all too familiar anti-Israel / anti-occupier cartoons.

I say, let it all rip.

The last thing on earth that should be sacrosanct is religion. Anybody's religion.

What a fetid sacred cow.

One benefit from the holidays for me is having the time to just sit and read. I always skim through The New Yorker, plowing through Talk of the Town and and soaking in one or two articles and/or reviews that catch my interest. But it's usually a semi-distracted affair on my part, so I rarely even notice the ads.

I had time to start into this week's issue with some leisure, though, and that afforded me the pleasure of seeing a multi-page ad for Iconoclasts, a miniseries on Sundance Channel celebrating "innovators, ground shakers and rule breakers."

I couldn't help but notice that, out of the 12 iconoclastic movers and shakers profiled, only two are women -- actress Renée Zellweger and CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour.

Meanwhile, the male Iconoclasts featured are:

• Robert Reford (actor)
• Paul Newman (actor)
• Samuel L. Jackson (actor)
• Bill Russell (sports star)
• Tom Ford (fashion designer)
• Jeff Koons (artist)
• Brian Grazer (film producer)
• Sumner Redstone (CEO)
• Mario Batali (chef)
• Michael Stipe (rock star)

To be sure, many of these people have done much more than what they're known for. But let's face it, they're known for being actors and designers and so on.

So why aren't there more women? Yes, we live in a patriarchy and yes men dominate the arts, fashion and entertainment industries, but women account for 53% of the population and, in the creative arts industries, there certainly is not a dearth of female iconoclasts, is there? (Need I post a list?)

Are women deserving of only 16.67% of the honors? (Are Hispanics and Asians so undeserving of any mention? And what is Sumner Redstone doing in this show at all?)

If this were a Fox or NBC product, this kind of bias would hardly be remarkable -- in fact, it would be expected and insisted upon. But this is Sundance, which supposedly is about empowering disempowered voices and supporting progressive causes. With Iconoclasts, Sundance gets a failing grade.

Click on the image to read the whole thing.