Hello everyone, my name is Noah Marcus Hernandez and my preferred pronouns are he, him, his. I am a Political Science major with a concentration in race, ethnicity, and politics. I am a third-year and a proud first-generation college student. Currently, I am not involved with any research programs here at UCLA but I do have an interest in researching why the Central Valley of California which is where I am from, is subjected to extreme low-income rates, high crime rates, and is seen as a place where motivation in youths to aspire to become financially wealthy and stable is scarce.
In the Central Valley of California in cities like Modesto, Manteca, and Stockton a large percent of the demographics of these cities are composed of Chicanos/Chicanos. And already from the reading, it has discussed that Chicanas (more specifically Chicana artists) have been subjected to social institutions that perpetuate systematical oppression against Chicanas. So, already this class that focuses on Chicana art and artists has already correlated with my area of interest in research because maybe these social institutions that perpetuate systematical oppression deprive minority youths (which include Chicanas) of motivation to succeed.
I do have a question that stems from this week's reading. My question comes from the reading article titled "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?". Part of this article essentially states that it is naive to think that art is the direct, personal expression of individual emotional experience. So if art is not a translation of personal life into visual terms, why do we see various pieces of famous art pieces that speak to various emotions? Doesn't art have some sort of emotion implemented with it? Overall, I am excited to take this course and to expand my knowledge on this topic!
No comments:
Post a Comment