Hobby Toys

These are the workers - I'm not sure which one to print with the cops.

Presidents Park

The Conciliation Project's Genocide Trail: a holocaust un-spoken

A few weeks ago I attended a play called Genocide Trail: a holocaust un-spoken. The intent of the production was to inform people about the treatment and history of Native American Indians. The key part of The Conciliation Project is the discussion segment that follows their productions - there goal is, "to promote through active and challenging dramatic work, open an honest dialogue about racism in America in order to repair its damaging legacy." A note from the director said:

Jamestown, Virginia, the first English settlement in this land just celebrated its 400 year anniversary. This monumental time was the catalyst for me to direct Genocide Trail: a holocaust un-spoken. I feel this is a necessary time for reflection on and the conciliation of the relationships between the USA and the First Nations of this land we call America. In doing this piece we, the director, cast, and crew, hope to start a conversation about stereotypes and biases, in America, as they pertain to the indigenous peoples of this land.
We do this work based on the premise that we must first speak our truths and listen to the truths of "the other" in order to build relationships and understanding and therein begin to heal the wounds caused by racism.
Stereotypes, bias, prejudice, hate...in my opinion are byproducts of living in a society that is built upon the foundations of oppression and ignorance. Race is a social construct used to justify supremacy and privilege. Racism forces us to look at the "other" as somehow less than what we are. I am personally guilty of biases that effect my relationships with those around me. Sometimes those biases are the cause of the absence of relationship all together.
The genocide of Native Americans and the lack of knowledge that we have, as a country, about the conditions by which we claimed the land on which we stand, blocks our ability to accept and celebrate difference. The conversation is a beginning... what happens after that is up to US.

Generally all my work/readings thus far have focused on relationships between blacks and whites. I have very little knowledge about the treatment of Native American Indians, nor do I know anything about them currently.
The play was very effective in re-telling the history of Native Americans along with interjecting the consequences of that treatment. Native Americans were the first slaves of Europeans in America. But they were not good workers and unable to fight European diseases. There have been some attempts made to "justify" what was done, but of course, they have not been very successful, or come close to making up for the cruel treatment of the Native American Indians. The play was very eye-opening, and revealed a lot of things about whiteness and Native Americans in a similar way that I intend to do with my project. For one - Mascots for sports teams or schools. The Redskins, Braves, Warriors, Indians, Cherokees, Chiefs, the list goes on and on. Native Americans names are are also used for other things like The Jeep Grand Cherokee, a fragrance called, "Crazy Horse," and a way of sitting that we are all familiar with, Indian Style.
I have the utmost respect for this organization because I believe in what they are doing. This is exactly what I want to do with my images - create something that is eye-opening and revealing, and then talk about it. But I had some criticisms about the production for many different reasons. 1st, the play was way too long and the discussion time way too short. For something as controversial and important as the content of play, there was not enough alloted time to talk about it. At the end of the 2 hour production, we were asked to toss out some words of how we felt after the play. Then the actors wrote down the words, and acted them out, which I thought was unnecessary. We just watched them act for 2 hours, why do we need to see their interpretations of our reactions? It did not supplement the play at all, or ease the audience into wanting to talk about it - it really had no purpose. Then we were asked to talk about the play with someone we didn't know. I ended up talking to one of the cast members, but felt that her questions were rehearsed and that she really didn't give a shit about how I felt. 5 Minutes is not enough time to actually talk to someone about whiteness and racism. Her questions for me were, "how did you feel?" "were you shocked?" "what do you think?" But we didn't have a conversation about it, she just asked me about. I was really curious about what training and learning the actors had to go through in order to be apart of this organization. I think understanding whiteness is difficult and I wanted to know how they prepared for it. Did they have to read something? Who taught them? How do they feel about acting out a role of a Native American Indian, or even being in whiteface or blackface? Does it make them uncomfortable?
Our conversation didn't last very long, and then the actors were called back on stage to facilitate a discussion with the audience. A lot of great things were said, but no one had time to react to them - if they called on someone else, that person would bring up another point, but not one related to the previous one, so nothing was ever completely addressed. I was frustrated in hearing things that I felt were worthy of discussion, but not being able to talk about it when it was finally brought up. The discussion segment of the production was about 30 minutes, definitely not enough time to address a 2 hour play. I left the production feeling strange - not feeling satisfied, frustrated, and overwhelmed about the information. But I did appreciate the intent of the play and that an organization exists solely dedicated to understand and talking about racism and whiteness.

Anderson entries and other stuff

-I did not see the e-mail in time, so I did not bring my camera to the Anderson Gallery. But I made a stop at Paul's office to show off my three lovely non-accepted sheets, and an example of one of the works I entered into the show.

-I also received my postcard and they look like shit - so I am reprinting them in hopes of having something I like.

- I am in the process of creating a new set for The Workers hobby toys - I think they will work well off of the Cops. I have recently been having a difficult time with my series - I don't think people are understanding it or receiving it well. I checked out Taryn Simon's book An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar from the library,(I wonder how much "lost" books cost?) and have considered having captions to go along with my photos as well. But at the same time I don't want to have to analyze and contextualize each image for the viewer. I think the series would loose a lot of it's intent, because a big part of it is having the viewer discover the underlying whiteness for themselves. Any thoughts?

Lecture: Alan Berliner

Alan Berliner's lecture was by far, one of the best lectures of this year. In comparison to some of the other filmmakers we've seen, like Su Friedrich, I felt it was great for Berliner to show a full length film and not just clips. I remember being frustrated with Friedrich's lecture because she talked and talked and only showed 3-5 minutes of her films. The clips were very enticing, but of course, none of her films are available to purchase, rent, or watch.
Nobody's Business was INCREDIBLE. It was hilarious and touching - I had to stop myself from laughing for too long and from crying too hard. Berliner's father is such a dynamic and interesting character, but also relatable to many people in different ways. While watching the film, I felt like I was watching a something about my own extended family.
In my documentary class, I have decided to do a project based on my family heritage, specifically focusing on my Moms side of the family and my Nana. Her parents were Jewish immigrants from Lithuania who, similarly like Berliners family, chose to raise their family in Brooklyn, N.Y. I was originally hesitant to do a documentary project so personal because of the stigma that comes with projects about family - I feel that in all cases where a student does something so personal, others have a difficult time critiquing it because they are afraid of hurting the artists feelings, and some artists have a hard time disconnecting themselves from their projects, which we have all seen many time...
Watching Nobody's Business completely justified my need to do this project about my history. I have recently been reading a book by John Demos called Past, Present, and Personal, which talks a lot about immigrants coming to America and the "central tendency" that “any immigrant to the U.S. would eventually gravitate to the center of U.S. society by adopting its culture and value.”
I believe my family is a prime example of this. When my Nana was young, her parents raised her Orthodox Jewish. My Nana chose to raise her children under a less strict faith, and my Mother even less. My immediate family does not celebrate any Jewish holidays - we, like many many other non-religious Americans, celebrate Christmas, just because that's what you do as an American.
I continually struggle with knowing that my family history contains a lot of culture and tradition that I know nothing about. My whiteness readings have given me a great understanding of what it means to be white, but at the same time, have made me feel cultureless. Whites (and I can't remember where I got this from in my readings) traditionally have a cultural history based off of the domination of others. To be white is to be privileged, powerful, and the majority. That to me, is white American culture and gives me no sense of identity or understanding of who I am. It's always a weird moment when someone asks me if I am Jewish and I say "yes?" because traditionally I am, because my mother is, but technically I'm not, because I was not raised that way.
I want to be able to relate to my Jewish roots, but at the same time not be Jewish? I am not religious by any means, and at this point in my life, do not want to attach myself to any one faith. But I think being Jewish is more than a religion, it is a culture and even sometimes considered a race. Berliner's film justified my project and made me not want to miss my opportunity to get to know my Nana better.

postcard evidence

Performance Imaging: Anderson?

Nana's house - anderson?

Clay Presidents

Anderson?

new image

here are some new versions of the cop figurines. These have not been touched up or color corrected. I also shot in film and hope to develop those soon. For some reason, I'm having a hard time focusing with the digital, and think i need to get it checked out.

The Conciliation Project

This past first Friday was Gallery5's Repress III show. The show is comprised of socially conscious works and receives a lot of attention from super liberal/ anarchist types in Richmond. For the show, Gallery5 invited a Richmond based group known as The Conciliation Project. This group, headed by VCU professor Dr. Tawnya Pettiford-Wates, is essentially a minstrel performance group. Their mission is:

"To begin the process of winning over from a state of hostility the good will of human fellowship. Intending to promote, through active and challenging dramatic work, open and honest dialogue about Racism in America in order to repair its damaging legacy. For the purpose of healing its wounds and beginning to construct inclusive relationships with vision for our future.

In so doing, we must be brave enough to face our past in order to protect, preserve and insure our future.

We expect to forge new relationships across cultural lines. Through building alliances and coalitions dedicated to "un-doing" racism from within our communities (and ultimately, in partnership with other communities) we can confront and act upon the infrastructure of institutionalized racism that permeates our society at large."

I was both shocked and supportive of the group for the angle in which they take to deal with racism today. The group had 3 performers in the Gallery set up like interactive museum pieces. The 3 performers were a woman in blackface pretending to be a slave, a woman with a white face pretending to be a Masters wife, and a man dressed like a Native American. They would stand in the Gallery in frozen forms until someone clapped in their face which would set off their 2-4 minute monologue taken from one of their longer plays. The performers were in character from the time they walked into the Gallery, to the time they left. It was incredible. And each time they had to perform, every word and gesture was exactly the same.
I was mainly shocked to see blackface in the 21st century. Though I am a huge proponent of talking about past issues of racism to try and dispel the issue today, I am still not comfortable with seeing blackface in images, let alone in the flesh! I was shocked to see that no one else was really phased by it. No one objected to the actors being there, no one seemed appalled or completely shocked. Yet, I was mesmerized by the actress in blackface - the vulgarity of her gestures and speech, the intense make-up and wide-eyed look - it was difficult to watch, made my throat tighten up, but I could not look away.
Apparently at the end of this month they will be having a performance at the theater on campus. At the end of their shows there is an open discussion about racism with the actors and the audience. I need to look into it a bit further, but I am excited to go, and will definitely make some announcements in class to encourage some students to attend.

Todd Hido Lecture

I was inspired by Todd Hido's lecture because of the formal and systematic approach to his images. He talked a lot about his images needing to stand on their own when taken out of context with the rest of the series. Though my body of work is much different, I would like to strive towards that for my series because I think it will help me chose the best image for each idea i am trying to communicate. I also appreciated Hido's consideration for the way in which the house series was displayed. Each photo was placed on the wall like a grid, similar to way real houses are placed on lots in neighborhoods.
I also liked that Hido showed his contact sheets. Generally in a lecture, the artists talk about their process, but they never show their contact sheets, either because they don't feel it is necessary, or they don't want people to see all their mistakes. I loved that Hido felt confident enough about his work to reveal that preliminary process with us, and show the slight difference between each exposure.
When talking about the way in which he works, Hido said he shoots like a documentarian and prints like a painter. His images appear to be very traditional in their compositions and in his use of film, but I think his ability to manipulate the color of the images in the darkroom allow him to evoke more emotion into the photo, and create a mood that would normally not be captured straight on.

Documentary Studies: Gender and Identity

I was really looking forward to taking this documentary class on gender and identity, and came into the class expecting to learn about contemporary issues dealing with the specified topics. But - and this has nothing to do with the teacher - well, maybe a little bit - I feel like the class is REALLY dated and uninformed. Now I'm not an expert on feminist theory at all, but the class is fortunately divided up between photographers and women's studies majors., who are up to par with their readings. I've taken the opportunity to talk to the women's studies majors about feminist theory to come and find out that what we're being taught in the class was new - 40 years ago.
I was always under the assumption that Betty Friedian, author of The Feminist Mystique, was the mother of feminism for practically defining the "thing without a name," but her writings though still taught and always referenced, are a bit behind the times. She was/is an advocate for the privileged white woman who feels useless because she is expected to be content with housewife duties, and feels that things like raising children and cleaning a house are burdensome and stopping her from living her life. But Friedians thoughts only apply to the white woman because in other cultures and races, women were expected to not only clean, cook, and raise children, but to work as well. Having a family and taking care of a house did not hold them back because children and family were not burdens, but joys and essential to life.(The Diversity of American Families- Eleanor Palo Stoller and Rose Campbell Gibson)
The professor in the class is a Betty Friedian - everything she preaches is in reference to Freidian's beliefs and the rights of a white woman. Now, this post is not meant to come off as if I'm badmouthing my teacher, because I have a lot of respect for her and I think she has good intentions. But if you are going to teach a class that is specifically gender, it would be nice to know what is needed to be taught and what has been written since Friedian times.
I also have this inkling that race is something the professor does not want to talk about, whether she feels like it has nothing to do with gender and identity, or she's just uncomfortable with it. I have a friend that took a course with her that focused on Class structure, like poor, rich, etc. and how it is defined. When race was mentioned as one obvious reason for creating class, the professor felt race was not a prevailing factor in determining class - so they were not allowed to talk about it.

For the documentary class I am taking, we are suppose to pick an issue dealing with gender that we would like to create a documentary photo series about. Sadly, at this point in the semester I still do not have a concrete idea of what I am going to do. Because I am interested in issues with race, I wanted to create a series that somehow incorporated race and gender. And when I talk to the professor about my interest in doing so - it is completely ignored.
One day in the beginning of the semester, I stayed after class to talk about my idea and discuss my concerns and hesitations about what I wanted to do. I specifically said, I don't know very much yet about gender, but I would like to somehow incorporate race into my project. Do you have any suggestions of where I could start from there?
So we sat down together - she said get out some paper and a pen, and let's brainstorm some ideas. Her first idea for me to write down was: Women and cooking. Okay. Second idea. Women and knitting? Women and reading, dressing, leisure activities, on and on. Nothing to do with race what so ever. I left more frustrated then before, and honestly still do not know where I gave off the impression that I was ever interested in doing a documentary series about knitting and cooking.
I guess the point of this rant is not very clear and concise. What I'm trying to say is that the class has revealed a lot about some issues I am trying to address in my work. First - being liberal does not mean you are anti-racist or aware of whiteness. And secondly, race/racism is still very difficult to talk about. I am still deeply frustrated with the class, and I think it's beginning to show among other students as well. Attendance is low, participation is sparse, and some students have just become blatantly rude. But even though the class is focused on gender and identity, it has become another lesson for me in my quest to understanding race and whiteness.

African American Literature

This semester I am taking African American Literature with Dr. Patricia H. Perry. Though I've enjoyed the readings and think Dr. Pat is a great professor, I have very mixed feelings about the class. First off, the class is only 50 minutes long, 3 days a week, which I think really limits the possibility for starting some great discussion. The minute we get going on a topic I'm interested on, usually something that's an aside to the readings, we have to get back on schedule because time is so limited. What is also frustrating about the class is the sensitivity of the topic we're dealing with. I think Dr. Pat has done a good job of prefacing the class with the need to respect others, both black and white students alike, and to not say anything that would insult anyone else. She wants her African American students to know they should not be ashamed of slavery, and for the white students to not feel the blame of slavery. Though everyone is generally very P.C. about their comments, Dr. Pat has been relatively open about her opinions on the government and race. For instance, we all know she's a democrat and Obama fan. She is also not religious - spiritual perhaps, but not affiliated with any particular religion. She told the class that the bible was a collection of stories which offended some religious students, but they chose not to say anything more about it. Sometimes Dr. Pat will get on a tangent about oil, the Iraq war, the Bush administration, or her frustrations with society. But the second she really gets going, she stops herself, before she gets to the point where she might offend someone.
Dr. Pat is also very open about explaining white privilege, though I don't know how many white students took it to heart and actually thought about it. She has said that slavery is not a part of whites' culture, and therefore they have the choice to learn or not learn about it. But African Americans do not have that choice - it is an essential part of their past and heritage, and give meaning to understanding the current state of our race relations. But due to white privilege, whites don't need to know about African American history and slavery. Being white does not affect them in their every day lives. Though no one, black or white, commented on this statement, I was aware of the awkwardness among some of the white students. I think I might have felt the same if I was not aware of white privilege myself, but I'm glad Dr. Pat was open enough to address it in class.
I started to realize the difficulty in addressing whiteness and white privilege. I don't think I will ever be able to persuade someone into accepting it unless they are already in some ways slightly aware of it. People who believe that being color-blind is the way to go are not wrong, because ideally that is the goal everyone is trying to reach. But what they don't understand is that whites and blacks cannot just magically become equals because 300 years of history has done otherwise. I am very much dedicated to my belief, but at the same time am discouraged by the blindness of those who cannot see it or believe it. Because learning about whiteness answered a lot of my questions and just seems to make sense to me, I thought it would be just as easy for others to accept it once they had the knowledge available to them. But that hasn't been the case, which I've seen from both senior portfolio and my African American lit. class. No matter who says it, whether it be a black professor, a white student, or many many different scholars, some people are just not willing to understand it.

William Christenberry

William Christenberry received his masters in painting at Alabama University in the 1960's. He claims to "know nothing about photography," though he clearly has an eye for it. He started to take pictures in the 1960's as a way to help him understand his southern upbringing. He would revisit his hometown of Tuscaloosa, Alabama and document the change over the years with a Brownie camera he received as a child.
I am very inspired by Christenberry's work because of its content and the method in which he works. Everything is very reactionary - He uses his images as inspiration for other works in different mediums as sculpture, painting and drawing. Each house or barn he documents is brought to life in a miniature sculpture of almost exact likeness of the building he documented. He also paints more abstract images based on the color and shapes from his images. Christenberry's method of working has made him produce over hundreds of works, all based off of his reaction to his documentation of Alabama living.

Christenberry gave a lecture at Emory University in 2007 that discussed his work and experiences with southern living. Though he told some background stories of a few images, he did not go into depth about his opinions on the South. Christenberry's images do not uplift the South, but rather show more of its downfall. He documents old buildings, many that appear to be abandoned, vacant stores, overgrown brush - all things that signify a place that is behind the times, looked over, and not worthy of anyones attention. But despite his lonesome images, Christenberry says he cherishes his Southern upbringing, and would not have asked for anything more.

I think in watching the lecture I was looking for a little more emotion behind Christenberry's words in reaction to his images and discoveries. Because I feel I am dealing with a similar content, I was interested to know how he felt about his discoveries. His work is more grounded in the past, documenting a town's demise during the Civil Rights movement to the current day. But he is still dealing with issues that are controversial and rarely addressed, and I wanted to know how he coped with exploring such a difficult topic.

In the late 60's at the height of the Civil Rights movement when Christenberry was still in school, he heard word of a KKK meeting that was to take place in Alabama and knew he had to attend. He re-tells his experience of walking up three flights of stairs in the house in which the meeting was to take place, seeing nothing until he reached the third floor. At the top of the flight of stairs, a Klan member stood decked out in his white robe and hat, remaining completely still except for the slow turning of his eyes underneath the slits of his hood. Christenberry got one good look at him and ran out as fast as he could. This experience set off his series of work known as the Klan Tableau, a room filled with GI Joes dressed as Klans men, coffins, flags, and other Klan inspired works. He has documented his small Klan members so as not to reveal the scale to make it as realistic as possible. In 1978, the Klan material was stolen out of his studio; the suspect unknown.

Missed meeting update: 2/18

These are a few images I took after the ones sent on Saturday. I'm not too crazy about them but I'm working on it.

Lecture: Massimo Vignelli

Last Monday I attended a Graphic Design lecture featuring Massimo Vignelli. Vignelli is one of the biggest names in design - he created the signage for the D.C. Metro and New York subway system, the National Park publications, American Airlines' identity, Cat and Dog books, and many other designs I was familiar with. Massimo's motto is:

"I see graphic design as the organization of information that is semantically correct, syntactically consistent, and pragmatically understandable. I like it to be visually powerful, intellectually elegant, and above all timeless."

Massimo is a hard-core Modernist - He believes in design that is systematic with structure and standards. To him music is like design; it is limited to 7 notes, but those notes can create endless combinations. Design should be treated in the same manner with guidelines and a minimal text options to provide structure and consistency. He believes the blank page is a frightening thing. Where do you start? The opportunites are endless because there is not starting point. Massimo also thinks design should not always be considered art because art poses its own problems, while design provides a solution for a problem.
I enjoyed Massimo's lecture and appreciated his work for its clean lines and timeless appeal. But regardless of how popular his designs are, there are a lot of graphic designers who believe him to be discouraging for the progression of design. Massimo was disguisted when computers became popular because they created endless options and numerous fonts to be uses without understanding of what they were for. Though I can understand that argument, I do think modernism is appropiate in some design especially for things used that appeal to the masses like the D.C. Metro system.

Recognize!

This past weekend, my Mom and I went to the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery to see a new exhibit called Recognize! a collection of hip hop and contemporary portraiture. The artists highlighted were Tim Conlon and Dave Hupp, graffiti artists, David Scheinbaum, a photographer, Kehinde Wiley, painter, Jefferson Pinder, video artist, Nikki Giovanni, poetry, and Shinique Smith, installation/collage artist. It was a great exhibition - especially since such a profound and highly respected Gallery acknowledged hip hop culture as an established art form and not just street-art. It was also the first time the Smithsonian exhibited graffiti art which I thought was a very bold and daring thing to do, seeing that it is illegal and looked down upon as a professional art form. I am not very familiar with graffiti or "street" art, but I know it to be a vital component of hip-hop culture, (other components include Mc-ing, Dj-ing, and break-dancing.) I am also very aware of the fact that it is a Richmond no-no. In AFO, we were given the run-down of the consequences of graffiti and even the simple use of spray paint.
I'm not sure how I feel about graffiti - I think it has its time and place, and can understand how it is appropiate in urban evironments where some find it difficult to express themselves and see it as the best way to appeal to the masses. But I also see the difficulty in distinguishing between graffiti art and taggers, who merely want to deface public property just because they can get away with it. It's like the walls in the elevator in my building. No one has anything of importance to say - they just want to write dirty things because no one is monitoring them and they can get away with it. I commend the Smithsonian for putting together a great show that displayed hip-hop on a new and different level to be critically disscussed in a positive light.

The Death of Postmoderism and Beyond

Good article: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm

Anthony Goicolea

Anthony Goicolea's work deals with issues in indentity and adolesence - similar themes I have touched on in some of my work. I have always been interested in my childhood and how normal events at that time seem very strange and uncomfortable to me now. It would have been interesting to have Goicolea lecture right after Justine Kurland to compare and contrast their work. The first series she showed dealt with female adolesence, but her images came off as less obtrusive as Goicolea's. His images are definitely more literal, humorous, and in your face. There is no mystery as to what is going on, specifically in the series You And What Army. Goicolea captures awkward events, that become strangly elevated due to the similarities between characters. While going through his series, I was surprised to see how sexual his work was. It seemed like he sensored his images during the lecture, because there are some images that are more provactative then others, refering heavily to childhood sexuality.
I feel like the first image I posted from the series, Dentention Center, is a clear reference to Henry Darger and his female fairies with male genitalia. Goicolea becomes a life-like version of those fairies - odd and fascinating. The minute he mentioned Darger, I could see him referenced in a lot of Goicolea's images.
What I think is both a success and failure of Goicolea's images, is that individually they can stand on their own. They do not need the other images to supplement them, there is no need to reference another photo in order to understand one of them. This is great because it means he can create a narrative within a single frame, which I find very difficult to do, but I also found myself wanting to see an image not so grand - a detail shot, a close-up of an important aspect of the narrative- something intimate and interesting. I think that is why I was so drawn to the last image I posted from the Detention Center because it was completely different from the majority of Goicolea's images. Even as a close-up I think it can stand on its on - it reveals a lot about the narrative and is visually interesting.
Overall I think Goicolea's work is amazing - each shot is carefully planned out, with lots of attention to detail. You cannot just glance over his work because there is so much to take in and engage with. Also, not one image is the same. Each one tells a different story, even if in the grand scheme of things it is telling a single story, coming from an individual series. I am also blown away by his craft, his amazing photoshop skills and the ability to print in such enormous scales.
Though I can appreciate his work, I surprisingly did not find it very inspirational. I did not leave the meeting with a new sense of hope about my work, even though I felt we shared some similar prevailing themes and work habits. I have a very difficult time just going out and shooting - I have to have something in mind, a plan of action, and a system. Though he said he gets bored with routine, I think it is difficult to create such complicated images without knowing ahead of time what you want to do. I also can appreciate when Goicolea said, "I photograph things that I am attracted to, then figure it out later." Though he is obviously very well informed about the themes he is referencing, it's still nice to know he simply photographs things he just merely likes.

I have always been a fan of Laurie Simmons work - I think some of my work has a similar aesthetic to hers. But I was surprised to come across this series entitled, Color Pictures, for various reasons. First, I had been thinking a lot about experimenting with miniature cut-outs of real people, as oppose to miniature hobby toys. I thought it would be interesting to see a small version of myself in a small scale setting, like a doll house, for instance. I was also surprised to see work by Simmons that touched on race. Each image is titled, Color Picture (Orange), Color Picture (Yellow), Color Picture (Black), and so on, refering both to the color of the room and to the person in each setting. The images are also extremely provacative and sexual. I don't know what this series is specifically about, I haven't found anything online that dicusses these images and there is nothing on her site either. I'm interesting in finding out what her intentions were for creating this body of work, and how it has been recieved by others.
I think generally it is not as visually interesting as her other works, because it is not as quirky or strange, and has less emphasis on the obscurity of size and scale that doll house things provide. The images from Color Pictures are more about the women portrayed in them, and their relationship to the color of the furniture and the walls. I do think this series is an interesting progression from her other works - it relates to her themes of feminitity, stereotypes, and false realities - but it seems to be more forward then her original doll images.