Dancing Against the Odds

Since we were talking about minority artists in class, I wanted to blog about Katherine Dunham because of her determination to do what she loves. Being an African-American as well as a woman, she had odds stacked against her to become successful. This did not stop her in the slightest. Not only did she complete her doctorate in anthropology, she also toured the world with her own dance company. She went above and beyond to get her inspiration. The book says she went to all kinds of places like Jamaica, Trinidad, Martinique, and Haiti to research dance. Katherine Dunham gives hope to people to be successful no matter what social standing they are in. Here is an example of one of the dances she performed:

This is actually from the film Stormy Weather that Katherine Dunham and her troupe performed in, but as you can see, this kind of dancing is much different than the choregraphy that we have discussed so far in class. Unlike Nijinsky's The Rite of Spring, the dancing and movement in this performance is much more smooth and flowing like the music. Katherine's dancing had a happier tone to it and was just altogether easier on the eyes in my opinion.

One of her most famous performances is Tropical Revue in which she really incorporates what she has learned from studying African religious dances into her routine. Even the costumes, designed by Katherine's husband John Pratt, truly represent the essence of African dance.

Throughout her career, she choreographed more than 90 individual dances and she maintained her dance company for over 30 years, which was the only African-American lead group during that time.

Thank You Edward Hopper

It was such a breath of fresh air to see Nighthawks in the book after flipping through all those pages of those crazy Abstract Expressionists. Personally, I cannot find meaning in those random paint-splattered artworks, but I can find meaning in a realistic painting like this one. You know an artist is talented when he can take a snapshot of urban everyday life and make it into a masterpiece.

This particular snapshot is of a small all-night diner somewhere in New York. The painting seems to give off feelings of gloominess and loneliness as the people in the diner seem to all be lost in their own thoughts. No one is interacting with each other even though there isn't much space between them. In my opinion, the atmosphere of the painting is peaceful, calm, and quiet. A few night owls are just taking it easy late at night enjoying their dinner. However, I doubt that Hopper intended to invoke that kind of thinking, but it is just my personal thoughts.

I do believe that Hopper was thinking more along the lines of anxiety and restlessness. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the fact that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was around this time and I've also heard that Hopper started this painting right after the horrifying incident. You can just tell that during the quiet night, everyone in the diner has their mind preoccupied with seemingly worrying thoughts.

I was just happy to finally see a painting in the book that was easy on the eyes and invoked some genuine  thoughts and feelings from me.
Nighthawks is considered to be one of the most recognizable pieces in American art and is referenced countless times in popular culture. Here is a prime example:

Existentialism

Existentialism was a philosophical movement of the early twentieth century. Although the father of existentialism is a Danish philosopher named Soren Kierkegaard, it became popular through the efforts of Jean-Paul Satre of France. Satre was also known for being a playwright, novelist, journalist, and literary critic.

Existentialism is a philosophy centered on the individual and one of Satre's most famous quotes, "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself" supports this notion. According to existentialism, everyone forms their own nature by what choices they make throughout their life. "We are what we choose to be" is Satre's view on the topic. So in other words, a person is only defined based on the sum of all the decisions and actions he or she makes and nothing else. If I understand this correctly, then intent has nothing to do with who you are according to this philosophy. This means that if someone performs some kind of deed that appeared good to everyone on the outside, but the intentions of the deed were actually evil, it doesn't matter and that person is still a "good" person. I guess an example of this could be something like being friendly to the smartest kid in the class only so that you can use him to help you on homework. The deed seems good to everyone, but the intent is actually a selfish one.

 This idea probably contradicts with a lot of different religions out there, but it definitely contradicts with Christianity. In Christianity, God sees the intent behind all your actions and judges you based on the true goodness in your heart, not what is on the outside. You can make all the best choices in the world, but if your heart isn't in the right place, then you could be judged harshly for it in the end.

Another important part of existentialism is the idea that every choice that is made by an individual affects all of humankind. However, existentialism also says that every individual is responsible for their own actions and an individual's nature is solely based on their own decisions like I already mentioned. These ideas contradict because if my choices shape all of humankind, then wouldn't they affect everyone else's nature, thus affecting the decisions they make throughout their life even though Satre said that you are responsible for your own actions.

My last thought on the subject is if people form their own natures based on the decisions they make that are their own responsibilities, then why should society even try to teach people of good morals and parents try to teach their children manners. It seems like it is up to the individual to form their own nature whether it is good or bad without the responsibility of any one else except themselves according to existentialism.