Sunday, May 13, 2007

Jackson Pollock and My Life

Who the f*** is Jackson Pollock? That’s a question I asked myself not too long ago. Last summer, I visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art and ventured into the Modern Art section. I never cared much for art, and had no idea what “modern art” was. As I walked through the section, glancing at the artwork, I kept asking myself, “what is so special about this?” One of the works, was a full wall of separate canvases, each painted solid in a different color. It was basically a giant spectrum and I just didn’t get it. Some of the paintings were neat, however, I could make no sense out of any of them. I finally came to this one huge canvas that was splattered with paint. It had black, brown, and white splatters with hints of orange and yellow throughout. It caught my attention. I read the art tag. The painting was called Autumn Rhythm and it was painted by Jackson Pollock. Little did I know how big an impact Pollock would have on my life and schoolwork.

In the fall of 2006, I took a course at Fordham University in the Mass Media and Communications Program (I’m still a student there, working on obtaining my Masters). The course was called “Theories of Communication.” One of the course’s main objectives was to define and understand “The Modern.” I was a little put off by it because after seeing Modern art and having little knowledge of Modernism, I didn’t know what to expect. But, to make a long story short, I learned that Modernism was a movement that began in the early 20th century that focused on a continuum of change. Those who took part in the Modern always wanted to push the envelope a little farther, break through new ground, continually change.

I thought about Pollock when we were learning about Modernism. I decided to make Pollock my final paper topic for that class. The assignment was to discuss modernity and its impact. After reading up on Pollock’s life, I learned that he was a manic-depressive who grew up in the West and then moved to Greenwich Village in New York to pursue a career in painting. He painted throughout the World Wars, making money as a starving artist. He married a fellow painted, Lee Krasner, and the two of them moved out of the city to the suburbs.

As an artist, Pollock experimented with many different forms--cubism, surrealism, and then he came to his home artistic movement: abstract expressionism. The Abstract Expressionists looked to create work that not only delved deep into their own psyches, but could reach into their viewers psyches. All of a sudden, Autumn Rhythm and all of the other splatter paintings Pollock created began to make sense. He painted them through his subconscious and when I looked at them, I could draw something out of them for myself. Modernism became much clearer to me and much more exciting.

In the midst of doing this project, I heard about a new film that was being made. It was a documentary called Who the F*** is Jackson Pollock. A woman by the name of Teri Horton, 74, bought a painting in a thrift shop for $5 many years ago. She intended on giving the painting, which looked like a piece of junk to her, to a friend. That never happened, so she put the painting out during a yard sale. A local art teacher came by and saw the painting and told Horton that it might be by Jackson Pollock and worth millions. Since then, Horton has been trying to prove her painting was by Pollock’s hand and become a millionaire.

I saw an interview with Horton last week on 60 Minutes. She is quite a character! She is a retired truck driver (and has the mouth to prove it). She is convinced that her painting is a Pollock after have it synthesized. Experts found a fingerprint on the painting that looks like a match to one of Pollock’s fingerprints. However, other art experts say the painting can’t be a Pollock. So, Horton is stuck.

One of Pollock’s latest found paintings was sold for $140 million. Horton thinks hers is worth $50 million and won’t give it up until she gets it. Pollock was known to throw his paintings away if he didn’t like them. They have turned up in garbage dumps around the country. Pollock’s fame took off in the late 1940s when he first created his “drip paintings” or what we call splatter paintings. He created them by laying the canvas on the floor and drizzling paint from various objects like brushes, sticks, etc. to create the drip effect. Pollock’s paintings did not become sought after until his death in 1956.

Pollock also happens to be the topic of my Masters thesis, which I will be writing this summer. My topic takes his Modern artwork and pits it against the postmodern networking website, MySpace. Please come back to my blog often, I will have more information on my thesis posted as it comes along and a poll for you to take in the new week or so! If you’d like to learn more about Pollock, I would rent the movie Pollock. The film was directed by Ed Harris. Harris also stars as Pollock. The film gives you a great idea of Pollock’s life and what contributed to his artwork. I highly recommend it!

The Modern Museum of Art dedicated an entire room to Pollock. He is certainly one of the 20th century’s most influential artists. There are a few links below if you want to see some of Pollock’s work and learn a little more about him. He is truly a great artists and a premier example of how Modernism continues to exist today, in a postmodern society.

The address to 60 Minutes and the story about Teri Horton:

Information about the film, Pollock

Wikipedia article on Jackson Pollock

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Athletic Escapes: Flaunting Crimes and Getting Paid Big Money (Part 3 of 3)


My final blog post in this series centers on athletes who have gotten away with committing crimes. Athletes are similar to celebrities (whom I discussed earlier in this blog series). We look up to athletes. These men and women are capable of performing inhuman tasks involving hand-eye coordination, strength and agility, flexibility, the list goes on. Like celebrities and politicians, however, athletes also commit crimes. How do they stand up against the other two groups (politicians and celebrities)? Let’s explore…

The one athlete crime that never seems to be exhausted in popular culture is the alleged murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman by football player, O.J. Simpson. The latest media coverage occurred this year when news media reported that Simpson was on the verge of publishing a book entitled If I Did It. The book’s production was canceled and currently the book’s rights may be held up for auction with all proceeds being given to the Goldman family to whom which Simpson owes over $30 million.

October 3, 1995 is the date in history in which Simpson, now 59 years-old, was deemed not guilty for the murders. The evidence against Simpson seemed to be enough to convict him. There was the DNA that linked Simpson to the crime scene. There were also traces of blood located in Simpson’s car, in his bedroom, and driveway. A pair of gloves also pointed to Simpson as the murderer—the left glove was found at Nicole Brown Simpson’s crime scene and the other at O.J. Simpson’s home. Other physical evidence suggests that Simpson could have committed the crime as a single-edged knife was missing (the supposed murder weapon) as well as a pair of shoes that Simpson was allegedly wearing at the time.

Some believe that all the evidence was planted against Simpson, framing him for the murders. Others believe that he was the killer. Who will ever know at this point? I must admit that the fact Simpson chose to pen a book entitled If I Did It does seem a little fishy. How did Simpson get off if all the evidence against him was so compelling? Was it simply the matter of a good attorney? Was it because there were several mistakes and miscommunications made throughout the course of the trial that negated the evidence? Or was it because O.J. was a public figure with a lot of power?

I don’t know why he got off. The O.J. Simpson trial is said to be one of the greatest of its century. It began on January 24, 1995 and lasted for 133 days. The verdict was reached on October 3, 1995 and attracted approximately half of the U.S. population to watch on Court TV. The Simpson trial was, to many, an elongated episode of Law and Order. It had all the elements to a good crime mystery/drama: murder, evidence, a popular cultural figure, and intrigue. And today, over a decade later, Simpson’s trial is still receiving media attention.



Moving on…The second athlete I’d like to bring up in this discussion is Barry Bonds. Bonds, 42, has had a successful MLB career leading the league with the highest number of walks and intentional walks. He is second in homeruns, which currently total 744 as of May 5. He is only 11 home runs away from beating Hank Aaron’s major league homerun record of 755. What a career!

Aside from Bond’s success on the baseball field, his career has had some major shadows and downfalls when it comes to steroid use. Steroids and steroid use have been a part of sports for quite a while. In 2003, Bonds was involved in a scandal when his trainer, Greg Anderson of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) was indicted by a grand jury and charged with supplying anabolic steroids to athletes. This speculation led to prosecutors to believe Bonds was a user as he was trained by Anderson since 2000.

Bonds, an extraordinary athlete, attributed his athletic buildup to a new training regimen and diet. It is important to note that testing for steroids was not a mandatory procedure for the MLB prior to Anderson’s indictment. Bonds is said to have admitted Anderson gave him suspicious supplements that might be performance-enhancing drugs. However, before any convictions could be made Anderson and another three defendants in the scandal struck deals with federal prosecutors, which banned them from revealing the names of any athletes who may have used steroids.

The book, Game of Shadows (2006) by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, is a permanent piece of popular culture that points to Bond’s usage of steroids during certain points in his career. The book also contains excerpts of the grand jury testimony, which is supposed to be kept sealed and confidential from the public view. The authors, reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle, investigated drug use in athletes, including Bonds for two years collecting data that can be considered questionable.

Bonds sued Fainaru-Wada and Williams and attempted to block the book from being published. Bonds was unsuccessful and a judge deemed the authors’ book an exercise of free speech. Bonds dropped his lawsuit in June 2006. Bond’s lawsuit may point to his guilt of using steroids, however, his career has remained unharmed.

In April 2006, federal prosecutors began to examine whether Bonds had committed perjury in the grand jury trial of 2003. Anderson refused to testify in the trial and was jailed, but released shortly after. It is said that Bond’s medical records were obtained in July 2006 by federal prosecutors. These medical records as well as testimony from several other witnesses point to Bond’s usage of steroids that possibly led to a knee injury last season and an elbow injury in 1999.

Anderson remains in jail today for contempt and the attempt to link Bonds to steroid use ensues. Fans of MLB are split, half believing that Bonds hasn’t used steroids to reach his career high success at the age of 42 while others doubt that he could have such success without using steroids. It seems that Bond’s usage of steroids is currently on the backburner of current events as he continually nears reaching an all-time homerun record.

Bonds continues to play outfield for the San Francisco Giants and is cashing in this season at $15.8 million with $4 million in additional incentives. Nevertheless, he is extremely close to breaking one of the most prestigious MLB records.

It seems that athletes aren’t much different from politicians and celebrities. It’s easy to ignore their crimes because they are public figures. We would rather celebrate their accomplishments and hold them in our memories as heroes rather than criminals. I personally believe this trend is a cultural phenomenon that is detrimental. Public figures need to be treated like the public they serve and represent. Preferential treatment should not apply to them.

I have attempted to discuss and come up with some potential answers as to why public figures (politicians, celebrities, and athletes) get away with perjury, murder, drug abuse, and a multitude of other misdemeanors. To my dismay, I have reached no conclusive answer. I can only conclude that public figures enjoy a heightened popularity and power than regular people because we allow them to. They are held in the limelight and admired for their accomplishments and those attributes that are not as flattering are swept under the rug and ignored. Why? Because society prefers it that way.

Leave the six and ten o’clock news report murders and crimes to the regular common criminals of the day and keep the public figures safe. For without model citizens, what would our society be?

I will leave the answer to that question up to you. As for me, I’m off to enjoy my weekly perusal of People and Us magazines to catch up on my politician, celebrity, and athlete gossip, which may very well indeed provide the topic for my next blog post! Cheers!

Credits: Photos are compliments of Google Image Search. See below for direct URLs to each photograph.

O.J. Simpson: http://www.pdhyman.com/blog/oj-simpson.jpg

Barry Bonds: http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/Barry%20Bonds%20SI.jpg

Celebrity Porn: Why They Get Away With It (Part 2 of 3)


As I begin my second installment of this blog series, I’d just like to inform everyone that Governor Corzine of New Jersey opted to pay the seatbelt fine after he was released from the hospital last week. It is refreshing to see a political figure own up to his mistake and approach the situation with honesty and dignity. And of course, it’s wonderful to see the Governor back on his feet!

This blog post moves away from the political sphere and delves into the world of celebrities: movie and music stars as well as other popular culture figures. Over the past few years, I’ve seen a huge increase in people’s interest to keep up with the lives of celebrities. One of my fellow classmates in the M.A. program for Communication and Media Studies at Fordham calls this phenomenon “celebrity porn.” Our culture is bordering on obsession when it comes to knowing the latest celebrity gossip like who’s breaking up with who, what the celebrities wore to the latest awards show, etc.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I find the lifestyle of celebrities attractive. I too pick up a copy of People magazine every so often to catch up on my celebrity gossip. When I flip through the pages of People or watch the Entertainment Channel, I enjoy looking at the pictures of celebrities or reading their personal stories. In a way, I feel connected to the celebrity. Therein lies the appeal to celebrity porn. We want to be closer to those who are famous. The stories that I don’t like so much in these magazines and shows are the ones about celebrities who have committed crimes and then escaped punishment.

My first celebrity victim in this blog is Britney Spears. She was a young success. I own her early records. Then, things started to go downhill in 2004 when Spears married childhood friend Jason Allen Alexander. The marriage occurred in Las Vegas and ended 2 days later. Spear’s fall began after the release of her fourth album, In the Zone, in November 2003. Only nine months after her annulment to Alexander, Spears tied the knot with Kevin Federline in September 2004. A year later, on September 14, 2005, Spears gave birth to her first child, Sean Preston Federline. Paparazzi caught Spears driving with her son in her lap in February 2006. Spears was not prosecuted for the incident, which as anyone knows, put her child in danger.

Spear’s marriage began to fall apart that year and she became pregnant a second time and gave birth to her second son, Jayden James Federline on September 12, 2006. Shortly after their second son’s birth, Spearks filed for divorce. The divorce settlement was recently reached and on March 29, 2007, Spears and Federline were officially divorced.

2007 has been a big year for Spears. She has not only been in and out of drug rehabilitation centers, but she has also shaved her head. During the time in which Spears was gallivanting with other celebrities who have misused drugs, she was never caught in possession or prosecuted although Federline filed for custody of the children in February 2007. The court trial never occurred and Spears continues to have full custody of the children. On May 1, 2007, Spears appeared at The House of Blues in San Diego, California for her first stage performance since her drug problems emerged. Is Spears on the road to success once again?

If so, then the best of luck to her. But, what about her kids? Obviously, she has had some risky behavior over the past year. It is also obvious, however, that Spears wants to recover to be a mother. She also has immense support from her family, her ex-husband Federline, and ex-boyfirend, Justin Timberlake. Spear’s mistakes and potential crimes have been turned into a human interest story like that of most celebrities. Then again, not all celebrities are so lucky…




Poor Martha Stewart. A successful, honest, non-drug using, house making spokesperson and savvy business woman was convicted for insider trading in 2004 and sentenced to prison, fined, and barred from serving as an executive in any capacity for five years. Allow me to compare and contrast: Spears puts her child’s life in danger, misuses drugs, and displays borderline behavior while Martha Stewart just tries to rescue her money?

Stewart was accused of insider trading in 2002 after selling shares of a pharmaceutical company which was said to be failing as a new drug would be denied (she supposedly saved over $45,000 in damages). Stewart’s reputation and image suffered over the course of the next three years. Her magazine subscriptions dropped and in March 2004, she was convicted on four counts of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. Steward was forced to resign her role as CEO of MSLO. She also resigned her other executive positions at Revlon and the New York Stock Exchange. Stewart said in July 2004 that, "I'm a perfectionist. But I want people to understand that I'm not, personally, perfect.”

The notion of non-perfection in the celebrity world is one that is foreign to most of us. Celebrities act as role models and to see them put in negative light is something that culture chooses to ignore. Getting back to Stewart, however, she began serving a five month prison term in September 2004, while her appeal was still pending. Stewart served her term from October 2004 to March 2005 and then was placed on house arrest for an addition five months and required to wear an ankle bracelet.

After her house arrest, Stewart began to see her success rise again and the last of her legal battles was settled in August 2006. The Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to settle. Under the settlement, Stewart, who did not admit guilt, agreed to pay a fine of about $195,000 (or three times what she avoided in selling the shares). She also agreed to a five-year bar from serving as a director of a public company.

By 2011, Stewart will be able to return to the helm as CEO of MSO, at the age of 70. Since her jail term and house arrest, Stewart has become the spokeswoman for K-Mart and had several books published as well as starred in several reality TV shows included an Apprentice series which failed.

So, the stories of Spears and Stewart are polar opposites in many ways. Spears, 25, is a young pop-star who has been caught up in the world of celebrity-hood and has been innocent over the course of her recent risky behavior and drug habits. But, I think it’s interesting to note that even Spears knows, “she’s not that innocent” when she sings her hit song, “Baby, Hit Me One More Time.” On the other side of the spectrum, Stewart, 66, has served a prison term, paid an immense fine, and resigned her role as an executive. She did not endanger anyone, she just looked out for her own well-being, a crime we are all guilty of at some point or another.

It seems that it all depends upon the celebrity whether they get punished for their crime or let off scot-free. Does age have anything to do with it? Popularity? Probably, but that’s an entirely different topic for an entirely different blog post. As public figures, celebrities like government officials need to be held to the same standards as everyday citizens.

Then again, what would be the appeal in reading an issue of People that is chock full of celebrity crimes and convictions? It probably wouldn’t be much fun, although I do enjoy seeing that Paris Hilton was just sentenced to 45 days in jail for violating her probation. She will serve her term prior to June 1 and she will have her own quarters at jail like other celebrities to avoid humiliation and angst from other inmates. People also reports, “Each day, the incarcerated are permitted outside their cells for an hour to shower, watch TV in the day room, participate in outdoor activities or talk on the phone. (Cell phones are not allowed in the jail cells.) As for food, inmates are offered three-poultry-based low-sodium meals a day. The jail's overseer calls it ‘a very nice place’,” (People.com).

Now, when and if I ever go to jail…I want that treatment!



Credits: Photos are compliments of Google Image Search

Britney Spears: http://www.baldhalloffame.com/images/__britney%20spears%2001.jpg

Martha Stewart: http://www.funmansion.com/images/MarthaStewart.gif

People Magazine: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~soules/media205/people_mag.jpg