MoMA to exhibit original emojis as artwork

The rapid development of the Internet—and the culture that has resulted from it—has certainly broadened the ways in which humans interact with one another. Through constant text messaging, Snapchatting and photo-sharing through Instagram and Facebook, keeping in touch has never been easier. One of the most popular new forms of communication—especially in the millennial generation—has been the use of emojis.

Initially created by the Japanese mobile provider NTT DoCoMo, emojis are used to quickly communicate an idea, to tell jokes or to liven up a text message. The use of emojis is spread among generations, from young children to teens to even older adults.

The original emojis included simple images that indicated things like weather such as an umbrella or a lightning bolt as well as numbers and other basic designs. These, however, don’t even come close to the elaborate emojis used today by iPhone and Android users. These digital images may be miniscule, but they have a widespread impact on our Internet culture and on our ability to communicate with each other in a human way.

Art has long been used to communicate within relationships, communities and even whole countries, despite any cultural or linguistic barriers. Visual arts, music, dance and performance serve to connect individuals on an intimate level without any other link but the art itself. And now, art has begun to merge with technology, prompting the world to ask the question, “Are emojis art?”

The Museum of Modern Art seems to think so. The museum recently acquired a set of the original 176 emojis through an agreement with NTT DoCoMo. The MoMa now has permission to use the emojis in any artistic way they wish. This is a bold and progressive move that allows the largely uncharted territory of digital art to be explored by artists in different mediums.

While emojis are a largely abstract section of art, the beauty of art itself is its malleability and loose definition. Throughout time, art has gradually become a way for anyone in the world to express themselves in any number of different ways. Modern art—especially performance art, which not only makes the viewer question him or herself, but also at times makes for extreme discomfort—often has the biggest impact on us.

Emojis are definitely an unconventional form of art. In fact, many may not even consider them to be art. They certainly allow for communication between humans, though, and isn’t that what constitutes the basis of art? Emojis allow people to communicate and to express themselves in new ways; they can be used as an alternate medium for budding artists living in the age of technology.

Considering the use of hieroglyphics thousands of years ago, emojis speak to a very basic aspect of human communication. Hieroglyphics was the form of communication used in ancient Egypt, but the letters we know today were replaced by simple images that could be easily understood.

Emojis work very similarly to hieroglyphics. Despite the whole slew of complex languages circulating the world today, emojis allow individuals from almost anywhere to connect through a shared recognition of symbols.

When it comes down to it, art is all about human connection and understanding in all of its forms. Emojis only further add to the diversity of modern art, allowing for a broader, more inclusive definition of artistic expression in today’s rapidly changing world.

Parker’s controversial past resurfaces in midst of directorial debut

It was during the early hours of Aug. 21, 1999 that a woman, reported as Jane Doe, was raped while unconscious by two student athletes at Pennsylvania State University. After a night out drinking, Doe’s date led her back to his room. She then woke up to her date and his roommate raping her. Her date’s name is Nate Parker.

When Parker’s film, The Birth of a Nation, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January, the credits rolled on screen to great praise. Fox Searchlight Pictures soon bought the rights for the film for $17.5 million, a record for the festival.

The movie tells the story of Nat Turner’s slave rebellion during the 19th century. Turner was an enslaved Baptist preacher on a Virginia plantation, and after witnessing the horrific treatment of his peers, decided that he could no longer be a bystander. His actions prompted one of the largest slave rebellions in Southampton County—one that was both violent and historic.

The premise of the movie and the significance of the story regarding black history drew a large amount of excitement over its reprisal on the big screen. Parker is the writer, director, producer and actor who portrays main character Turner. Coming so soon after the #OscarsSoWhite trend on Twitter and criticism over a whitewashed Hollywood landscape, Parker’s prominent role in the production of the movie generated praise and excitement in the black community and throughout the country.

Then the Penn State rape case was brought back to light, complicating matters. After Doe reported the rape to the university, a lengthy legal process ensued. At first convicted, Parker was later acquitted. His roommate Jean Celestin was also convicted, but his charges were also overturned. In November of 1999, Doe attempted to commit suicide. Years later in 2012, she was successful.

In a statement regarding the suicide, Parker insisted the sexual encounter in question was consensual. The victim was intoxicated and unconscious, however, resulting in the absence of consent. The acquittal of rape charges does not make Parker innocent, especially as earlier evidence from the court case proved that the victim was indeed raped. Parker’s acquittal only perpetuates a cycle of aggression and male privilege, and serves to undermine the worth of women.

The return of Parker’s rape allegations to the spotlight has caused many to question the morality of seeing a movie whose creator is a rapist. Interestingly enough, The Birth of a Nation features a character who is a victim of rape, played by actress Gabrielle Union—a rape victim herself. In an open letter, she tells the world, “As important and ground-breaking as this film is, I cannot take these allegations lightly. It’s very possible [Parker] thought he [got consent]. Yet by his own admission, he did not have verbal affirmation.”

While The Birth of a Nation highlights the always-important issue of racism, the film essentially supports one marginalized group at the expense of another. Rape victims need a voice, and it’s hypocritical to support a movie that gives a voice to one group of oppressed people while its main beneficiary, Parker, silenced a woman who fell victim to a culture that oppressed and faulted her.

Many people stand by the movie because it deals with such a worthy cause. But there are many other black filmmakers and creators who address important issues as well. Take, for example, Ava DuVernay, writer and director of the film Selma, or Barry Jenkins, writer and director of Medicine for Melancholy.

It is imperative to understand the importance of deconstructing rape culture in our society. Like the spirit of Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, it is never OK to be a bystander to the suffering of others.

One Direction inevitably go separate ways, pursue solo projects

More than six years ago, international pop culture was forever impacted by the formation of pop quintet One Direction. This isn’t exactly an exaggeration—since 2010, the boy band continuously topped the charts in over 30 countries, sold out four international album tours, plastered their faces and logo on every possible commodity and cultivated a wild fan base rivaled only by that of Justin Bieber. The extent to which One Direction hysteria spread across the globe led to a fairly accurate—and controversial—comparison to the popularity of The Beatles.

All good things must come to an end, but the fate of One Direction isn’t completely confirmed. Their “hiatus”—officiated in January—is a kind of ambiguously dressed letter of resignation. Now-soloist Zayn Malik left the group in March 2015, leaving the remaining four members to carry out their last album release and tour without him. The hiatus is scheduled to end after 18 months, but since Malik’s departure—and public feuds between him and member Louis Tomlinson—it finally feels like time to pull the plug.

Malik infamously took the first steps toward distancing himself from his former band mates with his solo album Mind of Mine, humorously released on the one-year anniversary of his departure from the band. Although Malik emphasizes his independence from the band—exemplified by tense, if not non-existent, interactions with the remaining four—his album wouldn’t have been as popular without dedicated One Direction fans. The album itself wasn’t enthusiastically praised by outside listeners, proving that Malik’s solo transition is still haunted by his boy band past.

Niall Horan, Harry Styles and Liam Payne have since slowly—and somewhat discreetly—followed in Malik’s footsteps while maintaining their One Direction ties. Horan was the first after Malik to release his own music with a surprise release of his stripped-down single “This Town” and an accompanying music video on Sept. 29. Styles and Payne both signed solo contracts in the summer with the promise of future music careers.

Styles seems to be having the best time out of all of the former band mates during this period of transition and mental convalescence. The singer was cast in award-winning director Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film Dunkirk, a World War II historical piece that allows Styles to explore a more creative and serious art form. And from the explosive reaction from fans about leaked on-set photos, there is no doubt the film will benefit from some revived One Direction publicity.

Tomlinson had a scandalous final year with the boyband, as the singer had a child in January with a previously unknown Los Angeles socialite.  Fans were in an uproar over rumors and conspiracy theories about the relationship. Tomlinson lucked out—Malik’s solo album eventually overshadowed the scandal. He has been able to stay out of the spotlight to work on his own independent music label during the hiatus.

It must be difficult to enjoy down time and to pursue personal interests when you’re some of the most recognizable young celebrities in the world. But public interest in One Direction will inevitably fade—if it hasn’t started to already—and the five pop stars will someday wear a B-list or C-list celebrity label.

For now, I’m ready to enjoy the sappy acoustic love songs and golf Instagram photos that have come to define this hiatus. But if all the members decide to permanently part ways, it would be for the best; pursing independent goals and dreams is exactly where they belong.

Rob Lowe’s celebrity roast becomes uncouth attack on conservative Ann Coulter

There’s nothing more satisfying than watching a powerful, rich celebrity—especially one you dislike—be humiliated by their peers in the name of harmless fun. It’s a redeeming quality to be able to make fun of yourself, and a celebrity roast tests the limit of humility on a large scale. The recent roast of actor Rob Lowe, however, left a bitter aftertaste about the nature of celebrity roasts and the intentions of those who participate in them. Celebrity roasts are not just meant to insult the star—they’re also meant to celebrate and appreciate them for their achievements, work and overall good spirit. Many “roastees” are incredibly successful or iconic individuals who contribute in some way to our society.

The Aug. 27 roast of Rob Lowe transformed these good-natured intentions when the spotlight was temporarily shifted to a different roastee—conservative political commentator, Ann Coulter. Coulter was cast as one of Lowe’s roasters—using her airtime to promote her new book about presidential candidate Donald Trump—and was later ambushed with insults from Lowe and the rest of the roasting team.

Coulter isn’t exactly a popular personality; she regularly offends and angers people from all sides of the political spectrum with her tweets, television commentary and books. Some of the insults directed at Coulter criticized her racism, Islamophobia and ties to white supremacist groups. Arguably, these roasts were based on some truth and were clever ways to shame Coulter’s offensive and rude behaviors through humor.

Comedian Jimmy Carr, however, stepped over the good-humored boundary of the roast and insulted Coulter with unequivocally inappropriate jokes. Not only did Carr used transphobic language to describe Coulter’s appearance, but blatantly told her to kill herself. Other roasters based their insults completely on Coulter’s appearance too, comparing her to a horse and a skeleton. This strategy can be seen as a lazy and cheap attack, since Coulter’s career and actions could write the jokes themselves.

Usually anything goes at a celebrity roast—including toilet humor and mean jabs at one’s appearance. But Lowe was meant to be the night’s target, not Coulter. It was uncomfortable to hear Carr throw such aggressive and ignorant insults at the latter. Carr’s unjustified roast reflects a low quality of comedic talent on his part.

But it has proven difficult to police comedy, and it’s a constant topic in art and entertainment circles. Some comedians criticize “political correctness” and believe comedy can satirize any topic, no matter how serious or offensive it may be. Usually major tragedies or traumatic disasters are off the table, yet there are always comedians out there who want to see just how far they can push those boundaries.

Smart, professional comedy shouldn’t reduce itself to racism, homophobia, transphobia and other offenses. The real test of a comedian’s talent is how cleverly they can construct anecdotes and jokes that have a collected meaning all the way up to the punch line—and not jokes that just make fun of a person for their appearance or weight.

The inclusion of a surprise roast of Coulter was definitely satisfying—but only for those who dislike her attitudes and prejudices. The fun nature of the celebrity roast should be kept lighthearted and appreciative, not become subjectively harmful to those who are watching it. The celebrity roast is a prime example of comedic discourse that struggles to understand the appropriate limits of its craft.

Netflix sci-fi series draws wide audience with outlandish plot, characters

Netflix has recently perfected the art of television binge-watching with its full-season original series releases. The popularity of “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black”—and Netflix users’ growing desire to defy physics and watch a complete series in seemingly less time than scientifically possible—have set a precedent for the streaming format. Netflix succeeds in fulfilling our binging expectations once again with its summer release of the science fiction drama “Stranger Things.” “Stranger Things,” created by brothers Matt and Ross Duffer, came at an impeccable moment. Current pop culture is nostalgic about older cult classics—seen through the recent and upcoming revivals of 90s series “The X-Files” and “Twin Peaks.” The Duffers’ series fits right in among the aesthetics of these shows with its convincing 80s setting, mood and fashion. It creates the perfect balance between retro staging and details and modern cinematic trends.

“Stranger Things” focuses on a supernatural mystery in a small, rural Indiana town. A young boy named Will—portrayed by Noah Schnapp—seems to disappear out of thin air and his imaginative young friends work together to find him. Will’s mother Joyce—played by the iconic Winona Ryder—also teams up with David Harbour’s pessimistic police chief Jim Hopper to uncover the secrets—and the ominous creature—responsible for Will’s disappearance.

The secrets behind Will’s disappearance span across dimensions and reality, and introduce the mysterious character Eleven, a child-slash-lab experiment portrayed by Millie Bobby Brown. A favorite among the show’s fans, Eleven brings drama, action and occasional comic relief to the show through her friendship with the young boys. Bobby Brown, in addition to Mike, Dustin and Lucas—portrayed by Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo and Caleb McLaughlin respectively—are great, young frontrunners and bring impressive charisma and life to the dull, eerie setting of Hawkins, Indiana.

While the talented young cast is a highlight of the show, the writing of the female characters yields mixed emotions. While some critics disliked Ryder’s dramatic portrayal of an emotional and persistent mother, it seems she skillfully performed the disappointing characterization she was given by the show’s writers.

Joyce fits the stereotype of a hysterical mother shunned by her community until a powerful man, Chief Hopper, validates her feelings and earns some credit for it. The audience is left feeling that Joyce deserves more recognition for her contribution of discovering the central mystery instead of being somewhat overshadowed by Hopper.

In another plotline, Will’s brother Jonathan—portrayed by Charlie Heaton—and Mike’s sister Nancy—portrayed by Natalia Dyer—form another team determined to face the strange, unknown things lurking in their hometown. The audience is given a first impression of Nancy as a seemingly stereotypical popular and pretty girl, but she proves to be clever and badass in the face of unbelievable danger.

It is disappointing then that her relationship with her boring and slightly annoying boyfriend Steve—portrayed by Joe Keery—is what the series’ writers continually remind us about in unnecessary and often eye-rolling moments—and in other moments, her suggestive relationship with Jonathan. Furthermore, Nancy’s friend Barbara—an unexpected fan favorite portrayed by Shannon Purser—is more of a disposable plot detail than a real person.

“Stranger Things” satisfies a craving for a smart and entertaining thriller among the often kitschy and repetitive science fiction genre. I plan to re-watch the first season multiple times to discover clues and debunk conspiracy theories, and I highly anticipate another binge-watching session when the second season is released next year.

Photo series emphasizes medicinal benefits of marijuana

Astonishing, controversial photographs of self-ordained nuns cultivating and smoking cannabis were released in March by photographers Shaughn Crawford and John DuBois of Shaughn and John Photography. A manifold of media—some commending, some critical and some objective—quickly picked up the images and background story. The fascinating pictures abetted a stimulation of necessary conversation surrounding the ethics of marijuana and its therapeutic uses. Regardless of personal opinion about the recreational use of marijuana, the photographs inspire reflection about the morality of denying an effective remedy to people who need its antidote.

Describing their mission on their website as an effort to “focus on unique stories and subcultures” and “to capture the authenticity of their subjects,” Crawford and DuBois certainly accomplished their purpose through capturing the cannabis-imbued depictions of Sister Kate and Sister Darcy.

The Sisters are not directly affiliated with the Catholic Church, but do seek to emulate the Catholic values of benevolence and humanitarian contribution, as reported by the Huffington Post. They call themselves the Sisters of the Valley and live together in their central California “abbey.”

Their goal is not to enable psychoactive recreation, but to provide healing to individuals in need. The cannabis they use in their medicinal blends actually contains little to no tetrahydrocannabinol—the element of marijuana with hallucinatory properties. Rather, it is high in cannabidiol—the medicinal element.

Marijuana’s curative property is a subject worth discussion and merit. The fact that so many people successfully use the plant as medicine—and so many medical professionals support it—begs the question: Why is there a lack of understanding, research and acceptance regarding medical marijuana use despite an abundance of testimonies regarding its curative abilities?

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are currently two Food and Drug Administration-approved, pill-form medications containing cannabinoid chemicals and there has been an increase of states legalizing the use of the plant for medical purposes. The FDA, however, does not currently recognize cannabis itself as medicine. This is because of a lack of large-scale clinical trials required for such an edict—indicatively due to widespread social indignation stemming from ignorance.

Crawford and DuBois’ intriguing photographs of Sister Kate and Sister Darcy with their plants and salves has helped bring attention to the issue. The captivating images of a union between spirituality and marijuana are distinctive and provocative for a society that, by and large, regards the plant as inviolable dope. These photographers shed light on the world of progressive medicine, obliterating stereotypes and providing an original, wholesome perspective.

Considering the sizeable population in the U.S.—and the world for that matter—that uses various forms of marijuana as a fundamental medical antidote, it’s essential that more attention be paid to the topic. When so many people are experiencing life-changing benefits from the plant, it seems horrific that society and the government denounce its use. Many individuals have praised marijuana, claiming it as the sole reason they have successfully treated illnesses as serious as epilepsy and cancer, providing healthy lifestyles they feel they never would have otherwise attained or regained.

Rousing public interest through images that challenge society’s preconceived notion of cannabis as strictly contraband is a step in the right direction. The photographs Crawford and DuBois encapsulated of women devoted both to faith and medical marijuana allow a contemplation of the morality of refusing an effective treatment to sick people.

Hopefully, such novel depictions will create openness to education about the topic, as well as expedite the development of social consciousness concerning a valid form of medicine—a medicine that warrants more positive reception, support and research.

Marvel takes step forward in minority inclusion with Black Panther

Minority representation is an undeniably critical issue in contemporary media entertainment, something that has been recently highlighted in a perhaps surprising arena: superhero fandoms. With Marvel and DC Comics cranking out blockbuster films left and right, there has been a renewed clamor among fans calling for the incorporation of more diversity into these works—both on screen and on the page. With the inclusion of the black superhero Black Panther in the upcoming Captain America: Civil War film and the release of the new Marvel comic book series Black Panther on Wednesday April 6, it seems that industry higher-ups are taking a step in the right direction.

For those unfamiliar with the character, Black Panther—or T’Challa—was the first black superhero to debut in a mainstream comic book in America in 1966. He is the protective king of the technologically advanced, fictional African country Wakanda and is, as explained by Marvel’s website, “a brilliant tactician, strategist, scientist, tracker and a master of all forms of unarmed combat.” Black Panther has enhanced physical abilities as well as a tactical, mesh suit lined with Vibranium—the same material that Captain America’s shield is made from.

While it’s awesome to see that Black Panther will get his time on the big screen—actor Chadwick Boseman currently has a five-film deal that will include 2018’s Black Panther—the stand-alone comic series is arguably more groundbreaking when considering its celebrated African American author: journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates. Coates is not only a national correspondent for The Atlantic, but is also the author of Between the World and Me, which won the 2015 National Book Award for Nonfiction for its harrowing exploration of the struggles of being black in the United States.

According to The New York Times article “Ta-Nehisi Coates Helps a New Panther Leave Its Print,” Coates became involved with the project after working at a conference hosted by The Atlantic in 2015, catching the attention of Marvel editor Tom Brevoort as Coates conducted an interview during a seminar entitled “What if Captain America were Muslim and Female?”

Brevoort asked Coates if he would be willing to write for any characters and while Coates immediately listed Spider-Man and X-Men figures as personal favorites, he was ultimately captivated at the suggestion of writing for Black Panther.

What is truly admirable about the new series is that it won’t just be strictly focused on classic superhero action; it also strives to present a thorough exploration of both the multi-faceted nature of Black Panther’s character and the kingdom that he reigns over. Coates explained that while racial issues will be addressed—commenting that, “Race is always there”—he noted that problems with gender, culture, political structures and morality will also be brought to light.

And for any fans who may be skeptical about Coates’ ability to work with the fictitious, previous Panther comics author Jonathan Hickman expressed his full confidence in Coates’ writing talent and devotion to the project.

“The thing that people should understand about Ta-Nehisi is that he’s a comic-book superfan,” he said. “He knows his stuff.”

Bringing in such an eloquent and renowned African American author to craft this new, in-depth Black Panther series is exactly the kind of minority representation and recognition that the world of superheroes desperately needs.

Beyoncé’s new single controversial, important social commentary

The iconic Beyoncé performed her new song “Formation” at Super Bowl 50 on Feb. 7. Both her performance at the halftime show and the music video—which was released a day before Beyoncé took the stage—have received mixed reviews. While some praise Beyoncé for showing visible support for the Black Lives Matter movement, others have gone so far as to protest Beyoncé. Indisputably, Beyoncé was making a political statement. At the halftime show, the backup dancers wore Black Panther berets, formed a letter X for Malcolm X and held up a homemade sign demanding “Justice for Mario Woods.” In the complex music video, Beyoncé references Black Lives Matter with graffiti slogans such as “Stop Shooting Us” and a sinking police car.

Regardless of what Beyoncé chooses to reference from the Black Lives Matter movement, she is creating a conversation that needs to be started. People’s reactions to her activism, however, have been unnerving. Demonstrations such as an anti-Beyoncé protest rally in front of the National Football League headquarters was staged on Tuesday Feb. 16; this on top of a “Boycott Beyoncé” sign-up page and “#boycottBeyoncé.”

Beyoncé rightfully took the opportunity to raise questions of civil rights to an audience of 111.9 million viewers when she took the stage at the Super Bowl. The anti-police motif in both her music video and halftime performance is nothing a person couldn’t see turning on their computer—or even their television.

“I always thought the purpose of the show at halftime was for entertainment and not for political agendas,” President of the Detectives’ Endowment Association Michael Palladino said. “[Beyoncé] incorporated the Black Panther stuff in it and Black Lives Matter. Yeah, I was surprised by the halftime show.”

Palladino inadvertently raised up a separate issue in her performance, the issue as to why people have responded in outrage over Beyoncé’s performance: people see what they want to see. A myriad of people only want to be entertained—they do not want to be politically engaged and they do not want to be involved in what doesn’t pertain to them. Ignorance is bliss.

So, when a public figure like Beyoncé is in the spotlight for generating important conversations, you have those who react negatively. “Saturday Night Live” put it best on their Saturday Feb. 13 episode where they mocked the outrage toward “Formation” with their sketch “The Day Beyoncé Turned Black.”

“It was the day it shook the whole white world,” “What about ‘Single Ladies?’” and “I don’t understand how they can be black—they’re women” are just a few of the skit’s lines that satirize the whole “crisis.”

Beyoncé is extremely sexualized for the public’s viewing pleasure—people forget that she has important things to say. It isn’t as if this is the first time Beyoncé has taken a political stand. Her and Kelly Rowland started a charity to help Hurricane Katrina survivors and she and her husband Jay-Z donate munificently to civil rights charities. The only difference is that decriers weren’t paying attention then because it wasn’t for their entertainment. Now, Beyoncé is making them pay attention.

It is as Eavan Boland states in Object Lessons: a female artist can only take the feminist approach or romantic approach when it comes to being successful. For Beyoncé, that means she can only write songs like “***Flawless”—with lyrics such as, “Why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same?” and “Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes”—or she can write songs like “Blue,” which romanticizes child-rearing.

This very notion that Boland refers to dictates what female artists can and can’t say. It is the very thing that shows why Beyoncé commenting on civil rights generated backlash. This idea, however, shouldn’t keep her—or any other female artist—from commenting on civil rights or any other issue of societal importance.

Revamped Barbies show acceptance for all body types

The evolution of Barbie is here—and it’s about time. When I was little, I always knew Barbie as the tall, skinny, blue eyed, blonde-haired plastic doll that I loved to play with. Now, Barbie is going to come with different shapes, sizes, eye colors and hair colors. Known as the Barbie Fashionistas Dolls, these Barbies will come in four different body types, seven skin tones, 22 eye colors and 24 hairstyles. Now, kids of all different body types and races will be able to relate to these dolls that they use for imaginary escape.

Playing with Barbies was like flipping through a high-fashion magazine full of gorgeous, skinny, tall models. Though I loved Barbie, I certainly could never relate to her. I was short with brown, curly hair—basically the opposite of Barbie. And even though Barbie is an inanimate object, I admired her and wanted to be—and more specifically, look—like her. But it was impossible for me to suddenly grow into a taller girl and sprout long, blonde hair.

Kids who play with Barbies will be able to relate to these Fashionista Dolls more so than kids of my generation. In an age where you read articles about young kids being ashamed of their bodies and wishing they were 10 pounds lighter, Barbie is making a critical change at an important time.

Growing up in the digital age, kids are constantly influenced by what they see in the media and sometimes it’s hard for me to even believe that kids still play with Barbies when everything has become so technology-based. Time and time again, kids are shown what is considered to be beautiful through the narrow social constructs imposed by the media and this can lead to issues with self-esteem and body shaming.

Barbie, however, is stepping away from pushing only a singular idea of beauty onto kids. It’s vital for the younger generation to recognize that beauty comes in all forms and that accepting your body type is something to be proud of. It’s sickening that toys and the media teach girls and boys to be humiliated by their bodies and that these confidence issues are being perpetuated in kids at such early ages.

Some may argue that the creation of Barbie Fashionistas Dolls is misguided and that it’s purely stemmed from Mattel’s desire for a financial boost. While this may be true, there is no harm in these new Barbies—the ends justify the means. Encouraging kids to be proud of the bodies that they were born with is something to be applauded. It’ll be intriguing to see kids’ reactions to these new Barbies and how they influence their own self-images over time.

From a young age, kids are very impressionable. They’re taking in everything around them from the toys they play with to the programs they watch on television. Barbie Fashionistas Dolls could have the power to set a precedent for other children’s toys in protecting kids from body shaming. If other toys and television shows join Barbie in the quest to show acceptance of all body types and skin colors, then perhaps this would impede the growing trend of low self-confidence.

I’m impressed with Mattel’s decision to develop these new Barbie dolls and I hope that they can inspire a real change in kids that play with them. In fact, I wish they were around when I was a kid and I’m sure many of my childhood friends would agree with this sentiment.

Children’s book backfires after depicting misconstrued slave life

Due to public backlash, Scholastic has halted publication of its controversial children’s book A Birthday Cake for George Washington, which was released on Jan. 5. The book—written by Ramin Ganeshram and illustrated by Vanessa Brantley-Newton—tells the story of George Washington’s slave Hercules, who is in the midst of baking Washington’s birthday cake. Told from the perspective of Hercules’s daughter Delia, the story has garnered criticism from its depiction of slavery. The illustrations of smiling slaves—all working for Washington—suggests that they enjoyed their work.

Ganeshram reminds readers that her book is based on real events. Hercules and his daughter Delia were, in fact, real, and Washington was their master. The book neglects to mention, however, that rather than enjoying his work, Hercules escaped from Washington’s estate on Feb. 22, 1797—Washington’s 65th birthday. Additionally, Delia and her siblings were never freed and lived the rest of their lives in slavery.

Despite criticism, some individuals continue to stand by the book. For example, vice president and executive editor for Scholastic Trade Publishing Andrea Davis Pinkney said that Hercules and Delia’s joy is not about slavery, but in “what they created through their intelligence and culinary talent.” The National Coalition Against Censorship also released a statement in which it asked critics of the book to reconsider whether its withdrawal is really a “win.”

Pinkney further noted that the book provides parents and educators with “a way in” to discuss the issue of slavery with children. “A Birthday Cake for George Washington does not take slavery’s horror for granted,” Pinkney said. “On several occasions, the book comments on slavery [and] acknowledges it.”

The book, however, fails to recognize the true brutality of slavery in the United States. The truth of slavery is a difficult thing for children to understand in the first place. With contradictory illustrations of slaves happily baking for their master, the book will only further confuse children.

Although the author and illustrator may have meant well, the book was clearly misguided in its execution. Many individuals took to the Internet to express their distaste for the book—responding with #slaverywithasmile—and helping to bring the institutional implications of A Birthday Cake for George Washington to light.

Many have criticized the children’s book for being a palatable portrayal of slavery for white children so that they don’t have to face the true reality of slavery. Others have drawn attention to other children’s books that depict “slavery with a smile”—such as A Fine Dessert by Emily Jenkins—while recommending books that show slavery as Hercules and Delia truly experienced it, such as The Invisibles: The Untold Story of African Slaves in the White House by Jesse J. Holland.

A Birthday Cake for George Washington is more than just a children’s picture book. It is yet another way in which the history of the mistreatment of black Americans has been watered-down or rewritten. Giving children a book that boils a complex and important issue down to a simple and untrue image won’t help to educate them. Instead, it continues to perpetrate false perceptions about slavery and allows continued complacent behavior in the face of the racism that is still very much present in America today.

“Making a Murderer” exposes unethical conduct within U.S. justice system

The Netflix original documentary “Making a Murderer” sparked considerable controversy after its release in December 2015. This series generated a lot of hype through both the Internet and traditional media. All over the country, people have been posting their own theories about the documentary, demanding justice for Steven Avery. “Making a Murderer” centers on Avery, a small town man from Manitowoc, Wisconsin. In 1985, Avery was wrongly convicted of sexually assaulting Penny Beerntsen, which resulted in his 18-year wrongful imprisonment. Fast-forward to 2003 when Avery is finally released from jail after new evidence led to the conviction of a different man responsible for assaulting Beerntsen; that’s where the documentary begins.

“Making a Murderer” follows Avery through a new case for which he is being tried. This time, he is accused of murdering Teresa Halbach, who disappeared after leaving Avery’s property. Watching this documentary is proof of how the United States’ justice system is riddled with corruption.

Avery is fortunate to have two incredibly honest and fair lawyers defending him in this trial, and they prove the prosecution wrong time and time again. Prosecutor Ken Kratz clearly has it out for Avery from day one. Watching Kratz speak so negatively against Avery can be frustrating at times, especially since all of the evidence that he presents to the jury is tainted. But with the entire Manitowoc County police department on his side, his confidence is steadfast throughout this case.

The drama continues when Avery’s 16-year-old nephew Brendan Dassey comes forward and confesses to accompanying Avery in murdering Halbach. Dassey is very impressionable and easily swayed by interrogators. Furthermore, Dassey struggles with learning disabilities and is only at a fourth grade reading level. It’s deplorable that the Manitowoc County neglected to take this important fact into consideration when using Dassey as a witness.

“Making a Murderer” is a fantastic representation of the supreme corruption that lies within the justice system. It’s difficult to even use the word “justice” after watching this documentary. The prosecution and the judge in Avery’s trial fail to recognize that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and Avery is never given the benefit of the doubt.

Avery’s lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting are the shining lights in this series. Their knowledge is expansive and they are true professionals. They faithfully and—more importantly—rationally defend Avery.

The Avery family comes from a very simple, rural background. As the documentary proceeds, issues within the family are uncovered. Nevertheless, like Avery’s lawyers, Avery’s parents Allan and Dolores Avery unwaveringly stick by their son.

Regardless of the fact that Steven Avery faces a troublesome life, it’s heartwarming to see his parents support him unconditionally and illustrate their tight family bond. Issues with the law tend to tear families apart and it certainly does this to members of the Avery family. Steven Avery, however, is fortunate to have his parents trust in his innocence.

This documentary is full of cliffhangers and unexpected twists that keep the audience on their toes throughout the entire series. It’s hard not to empathize with Steven Avery, even though he is accused of such a heinous crime. His defense is resilient, which provides a glimmer of hope within the U.S. justice system.

“Making a Murderer” provides a thorough look into the corruption that lies within our courtrooms. “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t necessarily prevail and this documentary serves as an important window into the ramifications of being accused of a crime you did not commit.

Found artist traces origins of trash; transforms waste into craft

Sometimes, art exists for its own sake, but art can also be activism. For Jenny Odell, it’s the latter. Odell creates found art from garbage by tracing the history of each piece and archiving it. In a culture of overwhelming wastefulness, the artistically inclined and their audiences could do a lot of good by swimming against the current. Odell’s art fuses similar creative expressions with activist awareness.

Odell’s Bureau of Suspended Objects project represents an extensively researched archive of material culture—the full dossier of the gallery of objects is a lengthy book. The artist collected and categorized discarded computers, dolls, videocassettes, toys, tennis rackets, backpacks, bottles and clocks. The statement is clear: the past—and the things that characterized it—doesn’t disappear just because trends have changed and people have moved on; it’s still there, collecting dust.

Odell is not the only waste-conscious found object artist out there. She created the Bureau of Suspended Objects through a program at Recology, an employee-owned trash collector in San Francisco whose motto is “a world without waste.” According to its website, the company has been hosting artists in residence for 25 years.

By teaming up with artists who give a new purpose to other peoples’ trash, Recology acknowledges that the process of recycling and disposing of discarded items—no matter how efficient or green it may be—is nowhere near enough to address the problem of just how much waste Americans make. Sometimes, a little more creativity is necessary to address the problem.

I have always been fascinated by found art. Sometimes, it’s just because it’s unexpected. Sometimes, garbage just looks cool when it’s spray-painted bronze and arranged to look like a flower or a person—or even just a pile of spray-painted garbage.

I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that garbage isn’t always just that and it doesn’t always belong in a landfill. Oftentimes, it ends up there because people just missed the recycling bin. Sometimes people throw out new and useful objects because they didn’t like their color.

Sometimes, garbage belongs in a museum because it is actually art. There’s a political message inherent to that statement. When that message gets lost, it represents a missed opportunity.

Found object art is a prime opportunity to spread messages about the problems of rampant consumerism and environmental destruction. When the art itself is renewable, a message of sustainability should not be too hard to tease out—either for viewers or for the artists themselves.

Of course, activism and creative expression cannot always go hand in hand; that would put a limit on creativity, which is never a good thing. When your art just happens to come from the trash, however, spreading awareness about where those objects came from and why it’s considered “trash” in the first place may be warranted.

Hopefully, more artists in the future will embrace and actively share messages of sustainability and conscious consumption—whether their medium is garbage or oil on canvas. Meanwhile, those of us with less lofty creative aspirations could stand to pay more attention to the “reuse” in “reduce, reuse, recycle.” Once it leaves our hands, our garbage isn’t going to an artist in residency; it’s just going to sit in a landfill.

German Christmas ad appears heartfelt, underlying message questionable

Now more than ever, companies have to work to garner consumers’ attention because of people’s fast-paced lifestyles and the increasing information overload from different media. German supermarket chain Edeka is no exception with their recent viral and emotionally evocative advertisement. Within its first week of being released, the commercial has received over 23 million YouTube views and accumulated a lot of criticism along the way. The commercial opens with an elderly man listening to a message from his daughter who tells him she and her family won’t be able to visit for Christmas. His granddaughter adds a cheerful, “Merry Christmas, Grandpa” to the end of the message. As the message plays, the man looks despondently outside the window at a neighbor embracing his grandchildren.

Next, it shows the man eating dinner alone on Christmas at a long, empty table. The mood shifts again when the commercial focuses on his children. Their busy lives, however, are abruptly interrupted when they learn the devastating news of their father’s passing. They travel to his home and enter the dining room to find an unexpected sight: a beautiful table complete with candlelight and place settings for dinner.

Another occurrence serves as an even more unexpected sight: their father walking into the dining room. He asks, “How else could I have brought you all together?” The final scene displays the family laughing and talking, their faces noticeably happy around a table filled with an abundance of food. The German words that appear on the screen translate to, “Time to come home,” advertising the country’s largest supermarket corporation.

Although the commercial is extremely sentimental and admittedly made me tear up, the tactic of emotional appeals became more obvious when watching it a second time. Used time and time again for persuasion, the appeal refers to using emotion as a substitution for reason. In other words, it’s a type of manipulation that replaces valid logic.

Here is how it works in Edeka’s advertisement: The commercial pulls the viewer into the storyline, making viewers wonder what will happen to the elderly man that is clearly lonely and sad with his loved ones far away. Many people, if not most, have aging grandparents or parents in their lives, allowing the commercial to be widely accessible and to resonate with a broad audience.

The commercial appears rather ironic since the holidays should be about spending time with loved ones, yet it is only using emotions to convince people to buy from the company. Therefore, the message seems to function on purchasing Edeka’s products to complete the perfect holiday dinner. Why are their products superior to other competitors? A substantive answer to this question—as in most advertisements—is disregarded.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating Edeka’s wonderfully crafted commercial. A problem exists, however, when people feel more prompted to buy their products simply because they successfully manipulated the viewer’s emotions.

With the holiday season in full swing, advertisements—even more so than usual—penetrate every facet of our lives. It’s crucial to take a step back and ask yourself how these commercials are trying to encourage you to buy their products and, more importantly, figure out if it’s worth the cost.

Halsey uses music to combat taboo for mental illness

This modern era we are living in is one of the most progressive the Western world has ever seen, but there is much growth to be had. Singer Halsey helps facilitate such development of public conscious through her music. With topics such as gay marriage, racial prejudices and women’s reproductive rights—all extraordinarily important matters—at the forefront of public awareness recently, it’s all too easy to overlook other societal tribulations such as the lack of cognizance surrounding mental illness.

Diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Halsey is familiar not only with the personal struggle of the mental illness, but also with the wider misconceptions of it and people’s reluctance to face such topics that are foreign to their individual experiences.

Through her music, Halsey expresses her unique journey and hardships. She offers listeners—whether they’re diagnosed with mental illnesses or not—an invitation to explore their own psyches and internal battles. “I’m taking a negative thing and making it art because that’s therapy for me,” Halsey said in an interview with Shelley Rome of Z100 New York on Sept. 9.

In the same interview, she discussed the larger societal fear of confronting issues like mental illness head-on. “Living in a world that’s so sensitive, that’s a scary thing for art because you find yourself censoring what you’re doing because you’re terrified of offending,” she said. “Art is meant to provoke.”

Discussing her new album Badlands—released in August—Halsey noted its symbolism in connection with mental health. “The entire thing is a metaphor for a mental state, you know? I have been living in the mental badlands for a while,” she said.

Halsey acknowledged that a vast dessert encircles the fictional world she concocts, which traps people within and keeps people out. This parallels her experiences with bipolar disorder alongside modern culture’s deficiency in recognizing mental illness as an acceptable category of disease rather than taboo.

The distinctive, intangible realm of Armageddon understood in Halsey’s Badlands album is created through the amalgamation of her lyrical imagery, vocal tones and electric instrumentals. This artificial construction of reality represents her personal psychological discord, while simultaneously providing listeners with an abstraction relatable to their own unique stories of mental distress or mental illness.

Halsey is unique in musical panache and self-presentation—she sports turquoise-colored hair and gave herself the moniker “Halsey” after a stop on the New York City L train. Her openness to generate discourse and messages addressing mental illness are integral in her musicale and lyrical style as well.

Halsey’s music helps to bring mental illness to the surface in societal sentience. Artists like Halsey are crucial to facilitating increased public mindfulness of such matters and ultimately directing our culture to a point of constructive reception and understanding in place of intolerance, hasty umbrage and preferred ignorance.

Potential music festival threatens thriving local businesses during Gov. Ball

Music festivals have been rising in popularity all over the country. With events like Lollapalooza and Bonnaroo, they’re becoming a large source of profit for both artists and the companies running the festivals. Coachella—one of the most well known festivals—is run by the Anschutz Entertainment Group—specifically, their division AEG Live. Rumors have recently circulated that the management group is considering bringing a new massive event to New York City, with “Panorama” as the tentative name. It would take place in Flushing Meadows Corona Park—the site of the 1964 World’s Fair—and it would also take place two weeks after the local Governors Ball Music Festival, held the first weekend in June.

It’s unfortunate that a huge corporation would want to run a small, local company out of business for the sake of raking in more money. Holding a proposed event around the same time as the Governors Ball will likely bring popular acts away from it, drawing crowds away from the festival.

Every year, the Governors Ball employs city residents and brings in local food caterers—a great way to contribute to the economy. It would be a shame for all of that wonderful effort to be erased by corporate-backed greed that—besides getting permission to use city-owned property—likely wouldn’t care nearly as much about giving back to the community.

I vividly remember standing in the Governors Ball crowd last June and watching The Black Keys perform their headlining set. Being able to sing along to my favorite songs—as well as listen to some that I hadn’t heard yet—was only one of the many factors that made the day as great as it was. Along with eating from the food trucks, admiring the artwork and meeting fellow Geneseo freshmen, the festival was definitely one of the most incredible experiences of my life. As I was leaving Randall’s Island to return home, I couldn’t wait to return the next year. The mere idea of having that opportunity taken away is very upsetting and I’m sure that many other Governors Ball fans would agree.

The Governors Ball has fought back against the notion of Panorama, starting a petition to ask New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to reject the event, with a possible solution of holding Panorama at a different time in the year. That way, neither event would cause a conflict with the other.

Hopefully, Governors Ball gets the signatures and support that they deserve and a larger corporation doesn’t overshadow this thrilling music festival.

Ominous theater atmosphere offers prime venue for horror flicks

As Halloween rapidly approaches, many people are reaching for their laptops to watch either classic movies or contemporary horror films. Online streaming marks a shift in the way some people view their favorite scary movies. It’s less common for people to visit movie theaters mainly due to their inconvenience and outrageous prices. Surprisingly, Forbes published “Theaters Are Wrong to Boycott Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension,” which voices disapproval toward theater chains like Regal Cinemas for refusing to screen Paramount’s Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension this October. The opposition shows that theaters still have some distinct value compared to online formats in regards to viewing horror for the genre’s avid-watchers.

According to the Forbes article, certain theater chains don’t want to play the newest film in the Paranormal Activity franchise because it will go digital only 17 days after it leaves cinemas. The standard time of release dates is between three to four months. Cinemas prefer to have films that follow this time format because they believe it is the best way for them to maintain a valuable profit. Theaters argue that Paranormal Activity will take the spot of a film that will show exclusively in theaters for several months.

People against this decision, however, argue that most films make their biggest profit on the opening weekend. Because of this, it shouldn’t matter that online streaming would be offered.

For most, scary movies are all about the experience. Suspenseful films give viewers an adrenaline rush. Paramount hopes to increase revenue through theater screenings and the digital format, which presents differing atmospheres.

The theater offers an enclosed space, mostly absent of distracting sounds such as phones ringing or cars zooming past. Surround sound fills theaters, amplifying the drama and suspense central to storylines in the genre.

Many people also favor either complete darkness or the theater’s dim lighting, which can be more difficult to replicate in a house. Watching something in the privacy of your home can provide a sense of comfort. You can curl up under mounds of blankets, vastly contrasting a single cushioned seat in a movie theater. It’s harder to find a comfortable position, which aligns with the goal of most thrillers: to cause discomfort.

Horror lovers enjoy the genre because they can experience the same visceral effects—sweaty palms, increased heart rate, tense muscles—as the movie’s characters who encounter some type of threat. When scenes are so vivid that the film feels real, the audience becomes engrossed in it.

In contrast, when people use online streaming services, there’s always a chance that poor Internet connection can disrupt a dramatic scene. Poor connection results in the unpleasantness of the entire movie’s characters suddenly stuttering before a pixelated background. Lower quality can detract from the experience a theater is able to create.

When comparing the theater and home experiences for watching thrillers, viewers have more control. They can pause, fast forward or simply stop the movie whenever they please. In contrast, people visiting the movies don’t have these options, leading to a greater immersion in a chilling environment.

While movie theaters compete with online streaming services, it’s all about personal preference when it comes to deciding how to watch a recent film.

If you appreciate the craft of horror movies, however, you should venture to a local theater to experience the unsettling and exciting effects of a darkened atmosphere with high quality sound and picture.