Disney Princesses and the right of the insulted to decide if it is an insult

Princesses-

I am not an expert on Disney princesses, I don’t think that I have seen any of the princesses in a movie except for Cinderella (front row, second from the left). I am pretty sure that the redhead, second from the left in the top row, was originally a Pixar princess from Brave, and the princess on the far right might be Pocahontas. It is my understanding that at least some of the princesses – Cinderella and Snow White (where is she?) for sure – came from old  European fairy tales.

The European fairy tales, in turn, came from earlier folk tales that were rooted in the deep humus of the collective European past. According to Robert Bly, those classic fairy tales lay out stages of initiation into adulthood which we’ve entirely forgotten, that our ancestors apparently knew a lot about. However, the new Disney Princesses, and the fairy tales they are in, are not rooted in a deep wisdom, they are made to sell dolls or amusement park rides. Additionally, they do damage to susceptible little girls by setting an impossible standard of what a woman should look like (a Barbiesque caricature of European homogeny).

As a protest to this, an English artist, David Trumble, Disneyfied a group of women who he considered real feminist heroes. As I understand it, he thought that, by showing how the Disney treatment trivialized these very real, heroic, women, it showed how Disney trivialized all women by their depiction of Princesses. I drew this picture because I wanted to analyze how unnecessary it is to collapse a heroine into one specific mold, to give them all the same sparkly fashion, the same tiny figures, and the  same homogenized plastic smile.

David Trum Princesses

Artist-Turns-Female-Role-Models-Into-Disney-Princesses-600x450

But a funny thing happened, not everybody thought the Disneyifacation of real women was bad. Some women liked it, at Feminist Disney, one woman said Of course it’d be nice if there was more diversity (they have one less WOC than the actual disney princess lineup!), less western-centric, more modern women, and women who are not cis hetero, as well as disabled and/or fat women. But I thought it was a cool take. I am here for Princess Malala Yousafzai. One woman started complaining and then, sort of, turned around.  In an article in Women You Should Know, Marijayne Renny said, Sadly, (my daughter) was immediately drawn to the sparkly dresses, but on the flip side it made her ask questions about these women and she was genuinely excited to know each and every one of their back stories. 

I first ran into the Princesses in an article in Atlantic, Why Shouldn’t Gloria Steinem Be a Disney Princess?, whose title, more or less, is self explanatory. Disney Princesses are not something that I think about very much, but, when I do, they do seem somewhat pedophilic what with the big eyes and all. But I am not a woman and either is the artist who made these satirical images and that is the problem.

A couple of years ago, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a blog post on the backhanded apology to an insult that is actually a new insult, Oh, I’m sorry if you feel insulted by the way I said what I said, I didn’t mean to insult you. The assumption here is that the  person feeling insulted is wrong because the insulter didn’t mean to be insulting and that, somehow, that makes the insult non-op. Coates argued, and I agree, that the insulted party should have the right to feel insulted. I think that the reverse is the case here, it seems that Trumble felt women should be insulted when alot of them were not.

His drawings, designed to show how insulting Disney is, turned out to not say that to many women who don’t necessarily  regard Disney as insulting. Answering that, Trumble said, I feel like good satire shouldn’t be understood by everybody. Some people were angry at me because they thought I was reducing the women, which was obviously the point. But if it gets children interested in these real women and what they do, is it so bad? Leaving aside that I agree that good satire should be close enough to the truth that some people don’t see it as satire and it is is great if these cartoons end up making children, especially little girls, want to know the back stories of these remarkable women, a man shouldn’t be deciding if the original Princesses are objectionable.

As a postscript to this, there are now drawings and cups of the Princesses available at søciety6 for only $15.oo. They seem to me that they would make a good gift, but what do I know?

Princesses Cups--2

 

The Honda Insight, Al-Qaeda, ad hominem thinking, projection, and blogging

Honda Insight-

As I was driving down to Menlo Park the other day, I waited at a stoplight behind an old Honda Insight. This was the 2000 Insight that looked a little goofy – in the best way – got great gas mileage, and didn’t sell very well. This Insight had a bumper sticker that said Al-Qaeda hates this car and I thought, That’s wrong, Al-Qaeda loves that car. The bumper sticker was strangely annoying.

At first, it struck me that our different reactions were based on how we see Al-Qaeda sees us. That the bumper sticker indicated that Honda Harry thinks Al-Qaeda hates us because of who we are and I think that Al-Qaeda hates us because of what we do. I think that, if we all drove cars that got great mileage, if we didn’t need middle eastern oil, if we didn’t have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda would be happier.

I understand that Al-Qaeda hates us and if we pulled our troops out of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Yeman, Egypt, Libya, and – especially – Saudi Arabia, they would still hate us. We have poisoned that well. I understand that if we didn’t reflexively back Israel, they would still hate us. Still, I don’t think that they hate us for who we are, I think that they hate us for what we have done – stationing troops in Islamic countries, their countries, among other things – and that has informed what they think of us.

I also think that we all make ad hominem arguments where we argue that the person is wrong because of who they are, not what they have said that might be wrong. I get five emails a day telling me about some stupid thing a Conservative has said like Obama being wrong about Libya because he is a Muslim. Aside from the fact that Obama isn’t a Muslim, why can’t a Muslim be right about Libya? But of those five emails, usually in one or two of them, it seems to me that what the Conservative is saying, maybe inexpertly saying, is sensible. The assumption of the email is that what is being said must be wrong because the guy saying it is a Conservative.

The ad hominem argument that the bumper sticker tries to make – the guy who put it on, really – is that  My Insight is good because Al-Qaeda doesn’t like it. Of course, everything that Al-Qaeda doesn’t like is not necessarily good. A-Qaeda doesn’t like killing male babies, that doesn’t make killing male babies good. Saying Al-Qaeda hates this car is not really an  argument and looking at it angered me.

We all see ourselves in others. Sometimes we see what we know about ourselves, sometimes we see what we didn’t notice or have forgotten, often we see what we find hard to see in ourselves. I am a big believer that projection is a way to look back at the projector. Why I was angry over  Al-Qaeda hates this is, eventually, more interesting, enlightening, and – surprise – more disturbing than if the bumper sticker is accurate or why the Honda guy put the bumper sticker on in the first place.

In this case, what bothered me is the assumptive superiority of the Honda guy. The assumption that what he had to say about Al-Qaeda and his car is of interest, or, even, importance. It was much easier to see that assumptive superiority on the bumper of the Insight than in myself and turning that thought back on myself gives me the shivers. The self-reproach of that assumptive superiority makes it hard to accept it in myself and easy to be irate with the Honda guy. That is the yin.

The yang is, if I didn’t have that assumptive superiority, I wouldn’t have a blog and I probably wouldn’t even pick up a camera. That yin and yang are the struggle when doing this blog and showing my pictures. I think it is a struggle we all have.

Even with all of that, I don’t think that Al-Qaeda hates the Honda Insight, and yeah, they probably do hate the guy driving it.

Lucky in-law

Growing up with two successful artist brothers has been a fortuitous education.  I got a first hand view of how their art has evolved through the years.

I’m still amazed how they’re able to render personal views/beliefs/emotions into tangible works on canvas, paper, and stone.  My older brother, Michael, paints and draws while younger bro Bryan, sculpts marble and wood.

Bryan-Moore-in-Italy

 Bryan in his workshop in Italy 2012

Details-of-Loss-2

Michael’s art at “Making Places” in Santa Fe 2013

Then I received an “extra credit” bonus in my artistic enlightenment when Michael married Linda Fleming.

Linda Fleming and Mike Moore

She’s an incredibly talented sculptor/teacher/artist and has a CV brimming with exhibitions titled “Tangible Mind”, “Galilieo’s Daughters”, “Perishable Industry”, “Tracery”, “Parallel Universe”, “Brainstorm”, and “Modeling the Universe”.

How can anyone produce the sculpture those titles describe?

Linda has done it with ingeniously designed manifestations using a variety of materials.

Over the years those materials have evolved to the sophisticated, laser cut, powder-coated steel layered structures she now employs to translate her nature-derived art. They’re studies in organic and geometric forms that dance with color, movement, light and shadows.

In 2007 I saw “Refugium”, Linda’s mid-career retrospective in Sonoma. In July of this year I got to experience the monumental exhibition with Michael in Santa Fe, “Making Places”.  The more I see, the more I am staggered by Linda’s imagination (not to mention her uncanny ability to construct the products of that imagination).

On November 2nd I attended the opening of her newest show, “Evanescent” at the Brian Gross Gallery in San Francisco (248 Utah St. 94103). Rather that attempt to describe it, I will simply share some photos, with the caveat that they do not do justice to the art.  You should go see it in person, 11am-6pm Tues-Saturdays until December 21st.

Kirk Moore 2

Kirk Moore shot 1

IMG_0627

Lind Fleming Opening KM1

If you do go to the gallery, look through the “Refugium” Sonoma show catalog; it’s a helpful historical document to understand where Linda’s imagination is coming from. As for where it goes from here…this lucky in-law can’t wait to see.

IMG_0647

Linda and Michael with “Fieldnotes random walker” bloggers Steve and Michele.

Guest blogger

Linda Fleming Opening-0030Saturday, a week ago, Michele and I met Richard Taylor at Linda Fleming‘s Opening of Meanderings, an exhibition of sculpture and drawings at Brian Gross Fine Art. When I picked up my camera to bring it along, I realized that the battery was dead and I had forgotten to charge the batteries I had used up on the trip to Maine. Linda’s brother-in-law, Kirk Moore,  was there, fortunately, and he has generously agreed to post some of his pictures of the opening.