Y U MAD AT..Justin Combs?

Yesterday Essence online reported that Justin Combs, son of mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs (unsure who he is? google Ciroc, Bad Boy or J.lo’s green dress) would be accepting a full athletic scholarship to attend UCLA. The post commended the young man on his stellar performance both on the football field and in the classroom. Some readers were not interested in furthering the congratulatory tone of the article. One commenter expressed their outrage that Combs would accept a scholarship considering the wealth of his father stating that the money should go to “someone who needs it”. While others felt there was absolutely nothing wrong with the young man and his 3.75 GPA being rewarded for a lifetime of discipline and hard work the majority of the comments insisted that it was Sean Combs responsibility to bless someone else with a full scholarship because his son had been blessed as a way of “paying it forward”. The inference that it was anyone should be required to atone for their blessings baffled me. The concept of paying it forward is beautiful, uplifting, and inspirational it is not however mandatory. If someone wants to build up some good karma that is their business and if they want to count their millions in a recently discontinued Maybach instead well that is too. The time and energy spent in barber shops, living rooms, and online forums mandating what someone else “should” do with their money could be better spent working to reform financial aid and scholarship programs across the country. Scholarships and economic assistance for students should be awarded on a case by case basis. The fact that they are not is a tragedy that keeps thousands of deserving students from attending college every year. But that is a flaw of the system not the individuals who benefit from it. Justin Combs met the criteria for receiving that scholarship so if you're inclined to judge him or his family consider whether or not you know anyone who would turn down a free education. And then ask yourself Y U MAD?

Teacher Knows Best (?)

 The venture to question the authority of professors is one that not nearly enough college students are willing to take. Even as full grown adults students often allow fear of retribution from their instructors to affect the quality of their education. In order to prevent total chaos from taking place it is the responsibility of teachers to enforce rules and organization.  I understand this I even encourage it. But I am not of the belief that educators should be gifted with some sort of mystical absolute authority over their students. It both confounds and concerns me that no matter what the situation students are blindly encouraged to “listen to the teacher”. And that any questioning of the teacher’s knowledge or authority regarding a subject is seen as disrespectful and unruly behavior.

The idealizing of this social role is not only potentially dangerous it is unjust. It does a disservice to all students because while they are formally educated and (usually) well versed in the subjects they are teaching teachers are not without the ability to be incorrect.

 We are repeatedly told “grades are not given they are earned” yet it is seen as bad form to risk pissing off the teacher. This attitude seems to be particularly applicable in humanities courses where educators often fashion their own definitions of terms and concepts. Here students are marked incorrect when their answer does not meet the confinements of their teacher’s definition despite the fact that the instructor’s definition may not be altogether accurate. Recently in my music survey course my professor stated quite confidently that “unless you know how to use an instrument you cannot call yourself a musical artist” completely eschewing song writers and producers. When I asked by whose definition she was defining the word artist she replied “the world’s” denoting that her narrow minded view of artistry was the only one that existed and significantly impairing her students’ learning experience.

 Now I don’t doubt that the qualifications for musicianship are regarded as interchangeable with that of an artist in many circles in the world. But to declare that these circles have absolute global authority with reckless abandon, especially in an academic setting, is just plain irresponsible. Yet teachers do this every day because acknowledging this irresponsibility, as I choose to do, is frowned upon and will continue to be until students begin demand that our educators stop hiding their personal agendas in the material they are supposed to teaching.  The opinions of instructors do have a place in scholarship. They help to present a more well-rounded view on any topic and frankly have the potential to make a boring in class discussion far more interesting. But the next time that your professor makes a sweeping statement that doesn't ring quite true to you don't be afraid to question whether or not your teacher actually does know best. Because it is imperative that in classrooms and lecture halls the line be clearly drawn between fact and fiction, even when the person delivering that fiction has a Ph.d.

McQueen Romances Nonbelievers

            For years fashion has been considered to be something frivolous. In what could arguably be called Martin Scorsese’s greatest masterpiece-it impossible for me to decide on a favorite The Departed was amazing but the man did direct Casino –a stellar adaptation of Edith’s Wharton’s novel The Age of Innocence the concept of fashion is mocked mercilessly. A dashing Daniel Day-Lewis as society lawyer Newland Archer remarks to Countess Olenska (played by a younger but no less enchanting Michelle Pfeiffer) that fashion is a serious consideration only “among those who have nothing more serious to consider”. While other forms of art such as paintings, literature, and sculptures have been praised as culturally significant the art produced by the fashion industry has been met with a sort of snobbery from mainstream culture.  



1/2 the line from the met steps



            But on Sunday August 7^th it seemed as if the rest of the world had caught on to what those with an innate interest in the fashion industry have known all along –Fashion is a viable form of art that can not only adorn starlets and faux-cialites but also have a profound impact on society. The proof of this was found in “Savage Beauty” an exhibition of the work of the late Alexander McQueen that showcased his substantial contributions to the fashion industry. A budgetary fashionista myself I’ve never been lucky enough to see the work of the designer anyplace other than the pages of Vogue, Elle, and Harper’s Bazaar so the second I heard I could be in the presence of this man’s genius for just a $12 donation and a 6 hour wait I headed to the train station. I had no idea what I was in for. The wait, more like four and a half hours thanks to all those people who weren’t committed enough to endure the especially potent sun with the rest of us on a line that spanned more than three blocks, was worth every minute.



jackets shown as a part of the exhibit



            On line I struck up a conversation with two New York natives who were cool enough to invite me to view the exhibit alongside them and as we observed the one hundred ensembles and seventy accessories presented by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute we viewed and overheard the stunned reactions of fellow museum goers. Some were design students who sketched furiously overwhelmed with inspiration; some were fashion aficionados dressed for the occasion in sexy sandals and chic maxi dresses that couldn’t stop staring at the Philip Treacy for Alexander McQueen head pieces, some were just curious tourists who had a desire to see what all the fuss was about but all were affected by the work produced by the self-proclaimed “romantic schizophrenic”. The walls of the exhibit gave McQueen a chance to try and explain his work to those unfamiliar with his complex concepts and the intricate manner in which he interpreted them his own words infusing his presence into the viewer’s experience.




quote from McQueen shown in exhibit

 



Hayek-Pinault



            McQueen, who was once head designer of the legendary fashion house Givenchy where he told the press his contract was “restraining his creativity”, stated that “You’ve got to know the rules to break them. That’s what I’m here for, to demolish the rules but to keep the tradition “and he did so with his combination of both the ethereal and the austere. The holographic image of a ghostly Kate Moss held an entrancing beauty that one would never think possible of a model in a gown spinning around. And the strength of the animal print dress from his spring 2010 collection that was actually worn by Salma Hayek Pinault on the cover of last June’s InStyle magazine stood out prominently against other garments from that season’s collection. It was fitting Pinault be photographed in this dress since not only is her husband C.E.O. of the company that owns half of the McQueen brand through one of its subsidiaries the actress herself is a fan of McQueen’s work she was also spotted wearing a similar garment to a Vanity Fair party that March. The garments were each paired by a pair of armadillo heels beneath them to complete the look.

the infamous heels

The severe style of shoes made famous by Lady Gaga, was met with gasps by those who had never seen or heard of them before. An elderly woman behind us stated that she flat out refused to believe that anyone was ever able to walk in those.  Images of the artist’s extremely ambitious runway shows were displayed on monitors throughout the exhibit and included a model partially restrained by metal poles sporting a frightening alluring expression and gesturing to onlookers vividly with her fingers and a model walking stoically into a puddle of waiting water. McQueen didn’t present romance in the clichéd terms that most have come to associate with the words but his romantic ideals were conveyed through his enticing silhouettes and rich color choices. He asked for the minds and hearts of those who were given the opportunity to view his work by attempting to transport them to a particular place and time period and it was clear at this exhibit that he was granted that. As the restraints of the literal and the expected melted away and were replaced with the possibility that there could indeed be multiple definitions of both the romantic and the beautiful people who quite possibly may never have the chance to attend a runway show were able to appreciate the passion that is placed into the work displayed there. By viewing this violent and purposeful assortment of genius it was clear to all that the loss of such a brilliant mind is blow not only to the fashion industry but the world. And despite the sadness that accompanies losing a man who was so inept at, in his own words dealing with “a dark side of personality” there is hope to be found that all different types of people with various ideals and values can recognize the impact made by his art.



image at entrance WSJ compared to the experince of waiting in line to see the exhibit  "heaven and hell"



Special Thanks to the lovely ladies nice enough to keep me company

DISCLAIMER: The photograph of the line is the only one i took myself the rest are from the met's website  Paris Breakfast and of course Instyle.com all credit due to them because i was NOT getting kicked out : )

Guiding Light: Scott takes a fresh route to reach memory lane

I’ll admit when I first saw the promotional material for Jill Scott’s new album I was a bit worried. Despite the fact that I’m a longtime fan of Scott’s I was concerned that the majority of the buzz seemed to center around her fairly recent divorce, significant weight loss, and controversial comments instead of the music- rarely a good sign. On the day of the album’s release I pressed play with trepidation. But with the first hint of the fresh hip hop beats and piercingly straight forward lyrics Jill Scott’s newest album Light of The Sun revisits the world first introduced to listeners with her Grammy nominated debut  “Who is Jill Scott Words and Sounds Volume One” and makes it clear that despite the mixed press Scott is  all about the music. But while listeners are given a taste of where it all began for the thirty-nine year old songstress there is something refreshingly different about this album where Scott’s lyrics and voice radiate a confidence that is as substantial as it is buoyant. “Le boom vent suite” wields this confidence like a sword the lyrics coasting haughtily over the track produced by JR Hutson and Scott herself. “All Cried Out Redux” not only features the legendary hip-hop artist Doug E. Fresh but a  savory self-indulgent air from Scott that adds a wonderfully light hearted element to her work.  On “Hear My Call” the Philly girl who cast a spell over the hip-hop and R&B community returns with a beautifully vulnerable performance. And she effortlessly delivers a ballad that is both downhearted and sensual with “Missing You” also produced by Hutson. The poem performed by Scott at an event celebrating American Poetry by the President and First Lady entitled “Womanifesto” appears under its original title although slightly modified and doesn’t fail to remind fans that Scott has earned her title a published poet as well as a songwriter and recording artist with its spirited message of self-validation. She steps fearlessly out of her comfort zone by collaborating with southern hip hop artist Paul wall on the sexy track “So Gone [what my mind says] in a totally unexpected manner. It is here that Scott brings a cool edge to her trademark neo soul style. And while the collaboration seems ill fitting it is a testament to Scott’s growth as an artist as well as her potential to break out of the often marginalized neo-soul genre. The album’s crown jewel is most her collaboration with fellow Philadelphia native rapper EVE on the triumphant and fun single “Shame”. It is this song that embodies the overall direction of the album. Instead of dragging Scott off course this shift in direction boasts a splendidly even distribution between the old and the new Jill, fusing together the very best of what she has to offer to create something masterful. And now that this balance has been struck there’s no telling what new and thrilling territories Scott will explore next now that she’s got the light of the sun leading the way.

Artists: Entertainers or Baby Sitters?

Today it seems as if parents have never had more ways to protect their children from influences they deem undesirable. With passwords available to block everything from wireless routers to cable channels, cell phone services that alert parents when their child is late getting home from school and a host of other tools even the busiest parent can now manage nearly every aspect of their child's life. But according to the http://www.parentstv.org/ they still need a little help raising their little angels. Recently the organization, combining efforts with http://www.industryears.com/ and the http://www.enoughisenoughcampaign.com/ campaign, has publicly criticized popular pop singer Rihanna for what them deem to be unnecessary violence in her video for her latest single “Man Down”. Premiering on BET on Tuesday May 31, 2011 the video addresses topics that aren't usually talked about on the network's popular video countdown show 106 & Park where it aired for the first time. In the opening scene of the nearly six minute clip a bewildered Rihanna is seen murdering a man at a nearby train station with a single gunshot to the head. The video then takes viewers back to the previous day where a happy Rihanna spends what looks to be a typical fun filled day in Jamaica before meeting dancing with and finally being sexual assaulted by the man she later murders. Outrage has been expressed by the Parents Television Council and other organizations who share their values at the level of violence in the music video, specifically the image of the singer taking justice into her own hands in order to get revenge against her assailant. Industry Ears stated that they felt the video was a waste of “a golden opportunity for the singer to send an important message to female victims of rape and domestic violence” and expressed their dismay that in their understanding “Rihanna released a music video that gives retaliation in the form of premeditated murder the imprimatur of acceptability.”In response to the backlash concerning her latest video Rihanna, who is no stranger to controversy (The clip for her single "S&M" was banned in several countries for its sexual connotations and her performance of the song with Britney Spears at the Billboard Music awards caused an uproar with conservatives who found it to be too provocative for network television), took to twitter to defend herself. The self proclaimed “twenty three year old rock star with no kids” raised a potent question to critics who felt as if she had abandoned her alleged “responsibility” to be an example of how to cope with abuse properly for her fans “What’s up with everyone wantin’ me to be a parent?” The struggle between pop artists and parents of their fans is not a new one. Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, and other celebrities with younger fans have fell victim to attacks from groups thinking they should alter their work and even personal lives to ensure that they set an example to the children that watch them. Rihanna is one of the first to publicly reject her unsolicited place as a pseudo-parent reminding everyone that she is an artist and reminding parents that it’s their jobs to “make sure” (their kids) “don’t turn out like us”. Whether you think Rihanna’s video was a brilliant and brave political statement in service to her fans and victims of sexual abuse everywhere or you find it to be an irresponsible and appalling display of gratuitous violence you can’t deny that the question she raises is a valid one. Should parents expect that the entertainment industry with provide their child with a daily dose of morality or should they monitor their children more closely and accept that in the words of Rihanna “the music industry isn’t exactly Parents R US”?

Armed and Intelligent and.... over extended

With finals and summer courses and college apps I've been completely overwhelemed but I promise my loyal readers (all five of you guys) I WILL be posting more often.
xoxo, k3k3_n

What about our choice?

In my first post I mentioned that the catalyst that compelled me to stop procrastinating and launch this blog was coming across a post on the blog http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/ entitled “Kanye West Lynches Women in Latest Video- A Desperate and Sick Display.” It stated that the video for Kanye West’s single “Monster” featuring Rick Ross, Jay-z, and Nicki Minaj was not “art” but an example of the “self-destructive and predatory behavior” the author feels West has been exhibiting since the unfortunate passing of his mother in November of 2007. The author of the post, who is also blog mother of the site, Gina refers to these hip-hop artists as “vile creatures” and states that “We all know that an essential ingredient to ‘artistic expression’ in hip hop is violence against women.”

Gina makes no effort to consider the context of the work or imagine what it may symbolize, because she does not care about the intention behind the work. She never points out the woman that Nicki Minaj is torturing in the video is her rap alter ego “Barbie” and could possibly represent the pain she is putting herself through by becoming such a public figure and how empowering it is to her to be able to control that. She also does not mention the fact that Kanye, Jay-Z and Ross are hounded daily by thousands of professional groupies who live for nothing but the prestige and privilege that comes along with being associated with a rap star. This may have influenced the use of the dead models in the clip. Or maybe it was intended to contrast the live scantily clad women in other music videos such as Robin Thicke’s “Sex Therapy” or even in Minaj’s own video for her single “Massive Attack”?

Despite her misleading title, Gina fails to mention that there is never a sequence in which West, Jay-z, or Ross commits violence against a woman. All the models are deceased at the start of the video with the exception of those attempting to attack Kanye West. This may be the musicians’ way of pointing out that those who are dead inside flock to their ugliness. But then again it may not be. Whatever the case is, the fact remains the only form of violence committed against a woman shown is a female whipping herself.

I am not going to presume that I understand the work in such a manner that I can adequately defend its meaning. I’ve been a diehard Jay-Z fan ever since I was about ten years old. And even I didn’t have a complete understanding of one of my favorite tracks "Lucifer"until he explained it himself in his recently released book Decoded So I know how complex hip-hop can be. There are many hidden meanings beneath what can seem to be a very simple and straight forward track. I will however, wholeheartedly defend the right of these artists to present the world with their work.

Gina's narrow-mindedness about this video astounds me. Because these images offend her it is her opinion that the images must be trite and unnecessary. The video is not art because to Gina art would never be violent or disturbing. On the contrary Gina feels art can only pleasant and pretty. Like kittens, rainbows and her beloved Taylor Swift, whom she unsurprisingly inserts a pointless reference to. After all what would a Kanye bashing session be without a reminder of the 2009 VMAs?

While I was not there while Gina viewed this video and therefore cannot say for sure, I think it’s safe to assume that Mr. West himself did not enlist the help of Ross, Jay-Z and Nicki Minaj in holding her down to a chair to watch this video. Just as she had a choice in her refusal to post the video itself on her site, instead opting to post carefully selected stills clearly intended to provoke the indignation she was so desperately seeking from her readers, she had a choice in watching the video. At anytime she was more than welcome to turn it off and end her unpleasant viewing experience. But she did not.

What she did do is attempt to discredit the talent of those presenting the work through her post. She condescendingly refers to Kanye and his work implying that he is trying to fulfill the cliché of the “tortured soul” that artists are so often associated with. She also refers to Jay-z as “Beyonce’s drug dealing husband” in an attempt to make whatever he has to say seem unimportant. It was this that caused me to be truly outraged. To imply that whatever Shawn Carter has to say is irrelevant because he used to be a drug dealer is to imply that thousand of voices are irrelevant to our society. This is a petty and ignorant remark conveying the sentiment many artists, like Jay-z, have had to fight against their entire careers. And just in case these comments were not enough she tries to frighten her readers by implying Kanye West himself is a potential murderer stating “…somebody is going to end up dead. Most likely a woman. This is not ‘art’”

The meaning behind any work of art, whether it’s a music video, novel or a painting is always able to be debated about. What one person may find offensive, another may find comforting, redemptive, and beautiful. But the choice to view that art is always there. The reaction and fear invoked by Gina’s viewing of this work is valid. It is also her own. She repeatedly insinuates that this video is misogynistic in an effort to force her female readers to see themselves as victims of Mr. West. But in reality Gina is victimizing them herself by interpreting the video for them as if they do not have eyes and ears of their own.

Armed and Intelligent

I would be remiss if I did not use my inaugural blog post to tell my future readers (hopefully there'll be more than one) how 'armed and intelligent' came to be about and what I hope to accomplish with it. For at least two years friends, family, and coworkers have encouraged me to start a blog. As a writer, a lover of fashion, art, and pop culture and an extremely opinionated human being I always wanted to pursue it but between work & school I always felt as if I didn't have the time or energy to put forth the effort it required. Then yesterday while checking one of my favorite entertainment blogs found here. I found a link to a story that I found extremely offensive. The blog What About Our Daughters which claims to be “unapologetic, uncompromising, and unbowed in defense of black women and girls” seemed to have no qualms about speaking FOR them interpreting the work of Kanye West, Jay-z who the author of this post condescending refers to as "Beyonce's drug dealing husband" -yea cause that makes his contributions to society on a musical and philanthropic level irrelevant right?- and newcomer Nicki Minaj telling black women and girls what it should mean to them and detailing why they should be outraged by it. As an artist and a young black woman I was infuriated by her sweeping proclamations. My inner voice screamed out I'm not outraged! I don't feel this way! And I could not shake the words from the blogs tag line out of my head "in defense of" something the blogmother must have felt was needed because let's face it too many black women and girls have no desire or opportunity to defend ourselves and our viewpoints. But this young black woman does. I am armed with a mind and I can and will use it to speak for myself. This blog will not only entail reviews of films, books, and general social commentary it will also feature rebuttals of articles that presume to speak for an entire demographic like the individuals that make up that demographic personal viewpoints do not matter. This is not a blog for young black women it is a blog written by a young black women about the world around her and her interpretation of it. All are welcome to read and comment on those interpretations whether you agree with them or not. Thanks for reading... k3k3_n.