MoMA Visit

James Negri

Image, Identity and Culture

02/21/2020

As I walked into the exhibit “Private Lives, Public Spaces” at the MoMA last Friday night, I immediately felt as though I was intruding into the lives of so many different people. It reminded me of back when I was a child and home movies on VHS were still a thing. People would gather around the television and watch a video depicting their experience of a certain event. It was a way to intimately look back with those you desired to look back with. This is what I felt when watching these videos.

I think the biggest aspect of what Howard wrote about in her paper, that reflected what I saw in the movies I chose was the notion of identities across time. In one of the videos created by Edit deAk called Beyond Genre, there were multiple small movies of the person recording catching random moments in an individual's life. In one we saw a man with roller skates on, no shirt, and plastic wrap around his head, sitting in an empty loft with a revolver in his hand. He was smoking a cigarette and talking to his dog. There was no context for this, and no dialogue, but it seemed as though it was just some guy having fun a new a new apartment. There were other odd clips like this, of just people caught in their weirdest moments, moments that would only be shared by someone close to them. They were confusing and weird to someone in my shoes. The one thing I constantly thought though was, who are they now? This happened with many of these videos I stumbled across. According to what Howard said, many people’s identities shift over time, and I would assume that these people’s did as well. I found myself wondering how they had changed, and what they would think watching these videos now.

Another aspect of Howard’s writing that I saw in the movies was that of social identities in regards to a social struggle. In Howard Guttenplan’s Tompkins Square Park, we saw a group of people that looked like what we would call hippies. They were all together in this park singing and dancing, and enjoying each other’s company. They wore similar clothing, and had similar reactions to different stimuli around them. It was obviously a group of people engulfed in a similar movement, a movement that they had constructed their identity around. They had built it based on those around them, and because they were similar in ways that they could visualize, they were brought closer and accepted by those around them. They were what many would call odd, and this gathering must have been a way to combat that definition of odd. A way for them to find like minded people and fight whatever boundaries were being forced upon them. 

The final video I chose wasn’t really one focused on identity, it was more something that I found eerie and beautiful. Joseph Szkodzinski’s film Miscellaneous Reels was a mix of videos. The ones that really stood out to me were shots of the New York skyline on a gray and foggy day. There was no sound, and not much happening, but the shakiness of the camera and the atmosphere of the shots made me feel uncomfortable. This person recording was mostly alone, albeit for the few people around him who were shooting off firecrackers. They seemed like a group of young adults just enjoying life. However, I believe that we can see this movie through Howard’s lenses. In her paper, Howard talks about identity and space. According to Howard, people’s identities can change based on the space they are in. I wonder if the person recording this felt a change of identity by being in this lonely and distant atmosphere. Perhaps their shots when recording reflected their identity at that moment. 

As I said at the beginning of this paper, I felt as though I was watching aspects of people’s lives that no one other than a few people were ever meant to witness. I don’t believe that these people ever thought they would end up in an art exhibition at one of the world’s most well known galleries. Many times people have an identity that is only shared among those close to them. It’s something that isn’t often displayed in public. This gallery was a window to this quirky side of many people. For me it was a reminder that my weird and goofy side I share with those around me is a side that I share with many people. In the end it was an odd moment where I was able to witness someone’s private side in a public space.

MOMA

Aamna Rao

Image, Identity and Culture

02/21/2020

                                                            MOMA Identity

            Judith Howard has described the concept of identity by using theories such as social cognition and symbolic interaction that defines identity in a traditional manner. In early ages, identities were assigned but in the present age, identities are selected or adopted instead. Howard has used the word “schema” a mental framework that organize information together that let us form a judgment quickly. Self-schema is a structure of self-knowledge based on past experiences that organizes and processes information that provides point of view with reality e.g. Who am I? How I relate to the world? Group schemas are based on social positions such as gender, race, age, class. Group schemas have a stronger impact on our selves as the social positions we occupy have an immediate consequence on our sense of selves. Judith claims that identity is neither something that completely snatches an individual from social universe nor it is a concept of imprisonment as sociology defines it.

            A home film “Marvin family – Mr. Marvin’s wedding 1914”. The home film clearly portrays an atmosphere of a wedding where bride and groom walk formally towards the crowd. After the vows are said, the bride and the groom kiss each other and then each individual kiss another individual. Men are dressed in suits and women are dressed in gowns. They begin to dance although each man dances with a woman. The film does not depict a woman dancing with another woman or a man dancing with another man unlike today it is found common in many weddings since gay marriages have become legal. There is a sense of aristocracy in this film. The camera does not shift to another place. It is kept at a very rigid angle. The camera is stuck at a point and the people in the film are moving. Social identities are visible in this video. There is sense of gender roles in the film although the individual part of the identity is somehow invisible. It is there but yet hidden. Marriage itself is a private concern rater it was held among a priest, relatives or in a gathering that clearly reflects the theme “private life public spaces”.

            An American film named as “Andy Rees based on fashion portrait, 1957-1987.” The film is based on fashion show performance, young individuals in an apartment and a designer boutique. In comparison to the Marvin film, the camera is not kept at the same angle and yet it moves and shifts from place to place providing a very realistic touch. There is a fashion show and a dance performance in glittery clothes by three women and some men as well in a different scene. The scene immediately shifts from fashion show to an apartment on a cat and then slightly the camera holder looks himself in a mirror. A man receives a pizza delivery and woman holds the pizza with him. Three men are seen sitting in a room of an apartment building and watching television and drinking tea. The camera shifts to a naked man in a bathtub. The camera immediately shifts to a boutique or a studio where a woman is talking on a phone (old phone) and there are some un stitched dresses on the table and are kept on the mannequins. It reflects the culture of New York where some youngsters live together in apartments who struggles in their professions. There is some sort of boldness in this film. The identities are clearly seen in public spheres such as the dance show and later their private lives can be seen in the apartment. There is a sense of dilemma and restlessness in this film. The film covers private as well as public sense of identities. The public sphere is when the artists perform on the stage. It reflects their talent but at the same time does not reflect anything deeper until the apartment scenes are depicted when their private identities or inner self are represented. The gap between the present age and this film is not quite huge since the apartment life reflects a lot of personal things in a similar way as social media does often and the stage performance acts as a social media platform as it some part of their personal identity as social media does in modern age, it idolizes rather than depicts reality.

            The last film is shot in India where the women are dressed in sarees wearing heavy jewelry, men dressed in dhoti and a kurta, some kids are seen naked. Labors are working with their hands rather than machines. Among all the brown people there is one white woman. The woman is welcomed by the brown family. The take pictures with her. They seem to feel quite adventurous with the idea of taking a picture with a white woman. There is a sense of respect for the woman but also a sense of inequality where she is treated as a fascinating superior being and not as equal. A lot of individuals walk up to a temple. The white woman tries to adjust to her environment by wearing saree. The film has broadened the boundary of identity from American borders by reflecting Indian culture.

           

Interactionism/MoMa/Judith Howard

Identity is something that’s thought to be assigned at birth.  Whether male or female, black or white, physical characteristics pre-determine identities.  Author Judith Howard wrote an article, “Social Psychology of Identities” in which she analyzes how identity can be created in other than biologically.   One of Howard’s methods is through the process of interactionism.   According to her article, interactionism is “the basic premise of symbolic interaction is that people attach symbolic meaning to objects, behaviors, themselves, and other people, and they develop and transmit these meanings through interaction” (Howard).  On February 14, 2020, I visited the Museum of Modern Art in New York City with Colloquium class.  The exhibit we attended was name “Private Lives, Public Spaces.”  Home videos, made from different video cameras, were prevalent and on display in the exhibit. After reading Howard’s article and visiting the MoMA, I concluded that interactionism played a huge role in three of the home videos I viewed in the exhibit.

Before I examine the three videos I witness at the exhibit, I must first analyze the name of the exhibit itself. “Private Lives, Public Spaces,” gives a huge insight about what is being represented.  Home videos are very personal and sometimes private mementos that most family create to capture those precious moments that they can one day look back in the future to reminisce or just nostalgic pleasure.  The public spaces could be interpreted as the location in which the videos are film such as park or outdoors wedding.  It could also be interpreted as the museum in which visitors come to view the exhibit.  A museum is a public space.

The home videos in the exhibit, that I saw, seemed to be genuinely authentic.  People in the videos were carefree and at times acted if there were no camera present at all.   The people themselves were authentic and natural.  Their true identities are revealed in watching how they interact with other in their private lives. 

The first home video that I watched was titled the Jarret family.  The home movies were filmed between 1958 to 1967. The film used to for digital preservation was standard 8mm film.  The video shows up a glimpse of an African American family enjoying themselves in the privacy of a family members home.  Howard’s theory of interactionism is on full display. The family engaged in through interaction with one another mostly through dance.  Dancing has culturally been a way in which black families have used as form of communication to show togetherness.  The home videos highlight a female family member doing the Twist, a popular dance of the early 1960’s.  The family also exposes the interactionism by card playing.  Playing cards is another cultural form of interaction when black families come together in a celebratory event. 

The second home video that I was watched was titled “My Dream Trip.”  The video was made in 1977 with digital preservation of a Super 8mm camera.   In this video, the people on film seem to be from different families or different walks of life.  They are visiting the Grand Canyon and are enjoying sightseeing.   The tourist interaction is seeming to be a little distant because they may not be related. However, tourist seem to share similar thoughts by their reactions to certain aspects of the Grand Canyon.  For example, in two different scenes of the video, two different people have a horrified expression to being close to the edge of a cliff that had no protective barriers.  The person who does the filming of the home video is unknown which also makes the status of the others as being a family unknown as well.

The final home video in which I watched at the exhibit was called “Manhattan Moods” by Charles L. Turner.  The video was made in 1942 with a digital preservation of 16mm film.   The footage seems to capture the essence of life in New York City during World War II.  It displays interactionalism and the mood of the social atmosphere during this tumultuous period in time.  While American soldiers fought overseas in defending democracy, it was business as usual back in New York.  The video follows the normal day to day life of New Yorkers who seem to be unaffected by the war.  A woman is shown interacting with her baby in which she is strolling through what looks like Central Park.  A man is walking his dog and the dog is featured in a closeup camera shot.  The city’s infrastructure is highlighted with many shots of its skyline, skyscrapers, and rail service.  Interaction seems to be more intimate yet limited because it is New York City were people tend to isolate themselves from strangers in public places.

In conclusion, I feel that all three home videos from the exhibit share a commonality in interactionalism.   Togetherness is what draws people together and develops individual identity outside of the biological realm.  Interaction with others shape our identities.  The home videos were all filmed during simpler eras in American history in which have long been replaced by newer technologies and social media of today.    Today’s form of interactionism has become more complex because of it.

Private lives, public spaces

In the “Private lives, public spaces” exhibition many personalities, cultures, and concepts spread across different screens. Considering the fact that viewers never met the characters displayed, they are invited to construct an identity for them based on what they see. As these were originally home movies and not intended for the public, what is perceived may not be what was. Judith Howard explores the sociology behind the construction of identities and the symbolic interaction of it in her essay ‘Social psychology of identities’, some of which can be connected to these films.

Howard starts off by mentioning that “at earlier historical moments, identity was not so much an issue; when societies were more stable, identity was to a great extent assigned, rather than selected or adopted.” Since the home videos were made in these times it is evident that women and men had specific roles. There is a specific video where a mom and baby are seen in the screen as she encourages him to take some steps. I can only assume that the father is not seen because it was mainly the mother’s job to cater to the children. It can also be concluded that he might be behind the camera since the newspaper Ad featured also shows the father holding the camera as the mom caters to the child. This Ad in itself, already establishes what role each parent will play in the making of their home video.

According to Howard, one way we identify ourselves is through cognitive structures, one being a group schema. She says,

“The central tenet of social identity theory is that individuals define their identities along         

   two dimensions: social, defined by membership in various social groups; and personal,

   the idiosyncratic attributes that distinguish an individual from others”

There is a specific video that starts with a seemingly native young woman performing the hula and then switches to a child, seemingly, mimicking her dance moves. If I was to connect this video to what Howard is saying, I would conclude that the boy identifies with this group of people and as a result his identity is influenced by the culture. The two individuals can be from two different parts of the world and have different cultures. However, as a viewer I can only assume that their identities were borne from membership of a group.

            Another way Howard says we may identify ourselves is through Interactionism. This is where the symbolic meaning people attach to things and others is developed and transmitted through interaction. As a result, language is important. One central thing within most of the home videos is interaction. If I was to look at these videos with Howard’s words in mind, then I would have to assume that each character displayed a part of their identity through the way they spoke or what they spoke about. However, since no one audio is heard from the actual footage, as a viewer, I was missing out on a huge part of their identities. As Howard mentions, “at the most basic level, the point is simply that people actively produce identity through their talk.” You may not be able to tell everything about someone after overhearing or having a conversation with them, but at the least, you would be able to say where they were from or get a sense of their beliefs.

            Thirdly, Howard goes on to say that we also identify ourselves through Ethnic identities. I think the first thing anyone thinks about who we are is who we look like. You can get an idea of one’s identity through their ethnicity, whether its about their background, possible views, and even how they are perceived in the world. I think it’s important to note that the home videos \ feature mainly Caucasian families. Howard mentions some articles that “assume that identity development is particularly complicated for those belonging to ethnic and racial minority groups, owing to negative societal stereotypes and discrimination.” I’ll have to admit that the moment I saw predominantly white families, I immediately concluded that they couldn’t afford to make the home videos, although it was a fact at the time. Then again, it is because of those stereotypes and discrimination that those black families were not able to make home videos.

In conclusion, I believe to ‘construct an identity’ is to accumulate what is around you, whether it be culture, beliefs, and sometimes even opinions and decide which you want to identify with. I believe that the people in the home videos were expecting to be seen as their perfect selves. I believe it was a way for them to document their lives but mainly the parts they wanted to remember. This also leads me to believe their intended audiences were their themselves and families. If anything, I believe they wanted to remind themselves of their good memories as well as have a tangible way in showing others their happiness. It’s because of this that I believe the museum called the exhibition ‘Private lives, public spaces’ because they knew that the way some people display their private lives in public spaces might not reflect how their life truly was.

MOMA Essay

Identity Through Interactionism

The identity of a person can be formed in many ways and through many interactions. These interactions can prove to be critical in how a person grows in society. In Judith Howard’s article “Social Psychology of Identities,” she examines the different ways a person can form his/her identity while also building relationships with other people in the process. One of the forms that Howard discusses in her article is “Interactionism.” Howard describes interactionism as “The premise of symbolic interaction is that people attach symbolic meaning to objects, behaviors, themselves, and other people, and they develop and transmit these meanings through interaction.” Based off of the three videos that I chose, they are all connected through the use of interaction with others and forming a bond, either with the person or the activity taking place. With all three movies being linked to interactionism, the people in the movie all have their own different ways of showing interaction among themselves. 

The first home movie that I view through the lense of interactionism is “Unidentified New Orleans Family.” Regarding the content that is in the video, one of the main activities that I noticed taking place was the baseball game. The young boys on the baseball team were all participating and interacting with each other to accomplish a goal on the field, which was to win the game. Their ability to do this shows that part of the identity that they are constructing has to deal with professionalism, based off of the footage that is given to the viewer. The boys further solidify how professional they are because of the family members that are there to see them. Thus, showing that helps to broadcast how mature they are at a young age to the crowd, a trait that is greatly needed in the sports industry. With all of this, it is very clear that the audience in this home movie are those who enjoy the game of baseball or sports in general. This also relates to why this movie is in the “Private Lives, Public Spaces” exhibit. In this case, the “private lives” can range from the parents coming to see their children playing baseball, the coaches shouting instructions to their players, and/or the boys playing baseball, all while in a public space. The next home movie also shows signs of interactionism, with a similar goal at hand.

The second home movie, “American,” by Andy Rees is a film that shows interactionism based off of fashion and dancing. In this example, we can apply Howards insight on interactionism by focusing on the group of dancers that is shown in the middle of the home movie. Similar to the baseball example, all the dancers have to work together in order to have a successful show. However, in addition to professionalism, those dancers are passionate in the activity that they’re doing at hand, and that is shown through their facial expressions. Those people are constructing their identity through expression of art in the form of dance. With the interaction between the dancers, it only strengthens the identity that each dancer is trying to create within themselves. The dancers want to be seen as passionate about what they love because they are performing in front of a crowd that has some type of interest in art, and the various forms it can be expressed in. In reference to why this home movie is in this exhibit, it can be assumed that dancing is a part of the private lives for the performers and that they do this in a public space for people to see those talents displayed. The last home movie is surrounded by the thought of interactionism, but unlike the other two there is no clear objective at hand.

The “Hunting Home Movie” by an unidentified filmmaker stands out the most out of the three movies because of the way interactionism is used here. The home movie displays a family hunting as a form of bonding between them. Part of interactionism is bringing meaning into the task at hand. That meaning in this example revolves around the concept of love and is showing the viewer that the people in the film are constructing their identities through interaction with family members. For them, that meaning is solidified through family bonding activities such as hunting and enjoying time in nature. The people in this home movie expect to be seen as a family who is interested in peace and quiet away from noisy distractions, which was shown mostly throughout the whole film. Regarding this film, it is very cohesive with the phrase “Private Lives, Public Spaces” because it demonstrates how the family is enjoying their private lives by hunting while taking advantage of a public space in the woods.

Throughout all these home movies, interactionism has played a huge role. In the first movie, we see identity being formed through professionalism and interacting with others for a common goal in the baseball boys. Interactionism is shown in the second film with the dancers creating their identities through their passion for dancing while being in a space where others share that same love. Lastly, with no real motive in mind, the sole interaction with one's family can aid in forming an identity and bringing more meaning to any task that’s taking place, which in this case is hunting. Overall, being able to form one's identity can come from multiple experiences and activities. However, interacting in a group can assist in cementing who that person can become in the future.   

Moma Assignment

The class last week took a field trip to MOMA (the museum of modern art). There we saw an exhibition called Private Lives, Public Spaces. The exhibit showed us old home movies of people and their families from the last century with only cameras.  Watching these home movies, we saw people in the past living their lives with each person`s being different from the last. It’s like being able to watch your parents explain their childhood through footage of the family history. Home movies are made by the family for the family to come back to at a future time to enjoy with everyone.  Home movies during the time they were shot were the preemie social media.  Back in the day the home movies gave a glimpse into the lives of what people did with their families. Just like with any our popular social media platforms today we can learn about each other through things like these home movies. How do we define and explain “Construct an identity”, through the lenses of values, beliefs, practices, discourses, and knowledge; which call get influenced both by cultural systems and by individual actions.

 The first home movie that I saw was a film called Manhattan Moods by Charles L. Turner American 1915-2005. The filmmaker showed in the cinematic in Manhattan in 1942 America. It’s like looking into a history book and seeing the photos come to life. Seeing Manhattan in the past was awe inspiring and very interesting, the footage defiantly shows but it was a very cool experience. Seeing the progress of our construction since then to present was very cool and put a lot into perspective.

The second movie was Wise Family also by Charles L. Turner. In the film we witnessed six men hanging out while looking at the camera, seeming to enjoy themselves. It’s unclear what the men were doing at the time, but from how the men were dressed you could tell that they were farmers or something close to that. The film was labeled to be from the year 1926. The people in the film seem to enjoying their activity of smoking cigarettes. How does the Wise Family deal with identity? From what Judith Howard says in her article on the Social Psychology of Identities, Class Identities – identities referring to what class you’re in America: Upper, Middle, and Lower. So, for the home film Wise Family, to identify the men in the film to be low class (poor). The reason behind the film being named wise men is an easy way to say that the men were wise beside the point of their income. The men may not enjoy the amount of money they have but they choose to live a life that is meaning surrounded by friends doing the things they love to do.

The third movie is Snow, made in 1973 by Fred Hatt American, born in 1958.  The film is about children having a fun time playing in the snow. With more detail, two children whom we can assume are friends are having a snowball war with one child while throwing snowballs at the other child.  One child fell on the snow and proceeded to ran over the kid over with his sled.  So, to think that the people in the films are expecting to be seen in a particular way by others is a little farfetched. For the audience, No, the people from the films weren’t expected to be seen by others in a certain way because the idea of acting on a home film is a little to narcissistic for the people in the film. Why would a person see anything different? Who is the audience for these films? The audience is someone probably close to the family like other family members or friends who might ask them how their time was at this particular place. The who exhibit just showed us films of people enjoying the fact that they can create memories with an object that can be replayed over and over again. The joy of watching them in the exhibit is to experience the novelty of seeing other families do the same as you. Why do you think the Museum calls this exhibit” Private Lives, Public Spaces?” Simple we are seeing the inner private lives of these people and there families in a public space as a form of artwork. 

Moma Assignment

“Private Lives, Public Spaces” is an exhibit that allows different perspectives on home movies.
Three home movies I chose were a video about a child playing with toy houses, cherry
blossoms, and a family dancing at a party. Through Judith Howard’s lenses of identity, I view
these movies in a different light. 

One of Howard’s ways of constructing identity is through group schemas, which is related to
stereotypes. This includes information about gender, race, age, or class. I used this to define
an identity for the video about a child playing with the toy houses, as well as the family
dancing at a party.

In both videos, race, class, and age came to mind. For the child, he had white skin and
seemed to be about six-years-old. Because the boy had toy houses, it is possible that he
was the son of a very successful family, or at least comfortably living. Judging by how
the child was wearing his clothes, the video seemed to be made in a generation-long
before mine so the child must have definitely been wealthy. The same concept is made
with the family dancing at a party. They were all caucasian but they were all different ages.
There were people in their twenties, forties, and possibly even sixties. In the video with
the cherry blossoms, there were no people but there was a dog that appeared.
It had dark brown fur. 

While I was able to identify the two videos using basic information, according to Howard,
this can be a problem because it leaves out potentially valuable information. This kind
of info can include the child’s parents. What do his parents do? Did the child get his
toys honorably? Did he steal the toys? These are questions that I am unable to answer,
but it can help to construct an identity to the child in the video. With the family at the
party, what was the party for? What kind of music were they dancing to at the party?
There are many unanswered questions that would have helped to create an identity
for the people in the video. The dog in the cherry blossom video, there are many
questions to construct an identity, so the only identity that can be made is that the dog
had dark brown fur and the type of breed it was, but I didn't know what breed it was. 

Howard also explained another way to construct identity is that people attach
symbolic meanings to objects. This way can apply to the video with the child because
he was playing with houses. The child could be playing with houses because he wanted
to create a different life than the one he has. His family could be problematic and the
child wanted to imagine a different life through the means of playing with houses. 

The exhibit was probably called “Private Lives, Public Spaces” because the videos were all
related to people in their everyday lives but were probably filmed in public spaces. It is also
possible that the videos can be interpreted as viewing people, or the world, from the
perspective of a stranger, a stalker, or another dark concept. I think that’s also how the
exhibit wanted people to view the home movies.