Hendricks Chapel Anti War Panel

Hendricks Chapel was full of emotion and a sense of togetherness as the girl duo, Emma, took the stage. Their guitars shook the chapel, as their soft voices sang of freedom, war and motherhood. Anti war buttons were being sold and money was being collected to support future demonstrations. Soon after Emma excited the crowd, the panel took the stage.

Dahlia Wasfi spoke first explaining her views on the General Patreas report and the status of Iraq now, compared to the country’s status before American occupation. Wasfi opened her remarks by mentioning that she was half Arabic and half Jewish and has many relatives in Iraq. She eloquently stated that the general’s report was “a load of crap” and post American occupation; Iraq now has AIDs and a horrible job market. She discussed September 11 and how it affected her, personally. She was working at Georgetown University’s Hospital and after the attacks she had to endure racist comments from her co-workers, including one doctor who believed that “we should just nuke them”. The ridicule eventually became too much and she quit her job. Wasfi has taken countless trips to Iraq and has seen first hand the damage that this war has caused.

Scott Ritter spoke second. He was the United Nations chief weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Ritter, expanding on Wasfi’s discussion, grabbed the audience’s attention by explaining that just because he is anti war, that in no way means that he is anti the troops. He made this clearer by using a firemen analogy. No one likes fire, but people support the firemen who fight the fires. Ritter, then discussed the importance of America leaving Iraq. His argument went beyond America’s departure, as he believes that America needs to take care of the soldiers and help out with the financial burden that we have caused in the Middle East.

Last to speak was Jimmy Massey, who had the young men and women who have served in Iraq stand up. They received a standing ovation from the crowd. He referred to them as his brothers and sisters, as Massey explained his own experiences serving in the military. He explained that soldiers are given the order to “shoot now and ask questions later”, which he vehemently disapproves. Massey went on to give his “wish list” for the future course of the war. He, as the other panel members expressed before him, believes in the abdication of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Although Massey pointed out that his last wish is extremely unlikely, he wishes that every member of congress who was pro war would be forced out of office. It is congress’ responsibility to monitor the executive branch and protect America from partaking in wars such that this.

I knew I was in my element as soon as I entered Hendricks Chapel. My father and I have attended many anti war protests and I always enjoy standing up for something I believe in. I thought all of the speakers were very well spoken and appealed to their audience. The ten to fifteen minute speeches were long enough to get the panels’ point across and short enough to hold the audience’s attention. Their evidence was clearly presented and by the nodding heads and clapping hands of the audience, I could tell that everyone was extremely engaged in the speeches. I was surprised that the majority of the audience was older. I had hoped that there would be a good number of students attending the panel, in order to educate themselves on the politics of our country. Whether you are pro or against the Iraq war, I believe that you have to educate yourself in order to fully take advantage of everything our country has to offer. I find it very sad that so many young adults, my age do not care about politics or the future of their country. I was extremely moved by the veterans who attended the protest and the panel, many of whom were young men and women who served in Iraq. I love that people were voicing their opinions and standing up for what they believe in. I wish more people cared about the status of our country as much as they care about Britney Spears’ weight and ill fated comeback.

Work Cited:

Since my footnotes did not transfer when copying and pasting from word to my blog, I reprinted my blog with page numbers from my sources. Sorry for the mixup!:

Binh Danh’s exhibit showcases the eternal consequences of war. Although the Vietnam War ended in 1975, Binh Danh’s pictures allow the viewer to transcend time and evoke a sense of reality and thought that otherwise might have been ignored. Binh Danh goes beyond the standard, yearbook style of printing photographs of war casualties by imprinting images of the lost lives onto foliage. These imprinted images are “symbolic of the jungle itself, bearing witness to scars of war that remain in the landscape” (Guth, Laura. Assistant Director of Lightwork). Binh Danh’s work displays the scars embedded not only in the landscape, but also in the hearts and minds of all those affected by the war and ultimately all those who come to view his work. These scars force the viewer to question ones own ideas about the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq. Personally, I am vehemently opposed to both, the Vietnam War and, the present War in Iraq. Thus, Binh Danh’s exhibit reinforced my own anti war sentiments. Allowing me to view the images of real people, induced my own sense of actuality, “Such images are indeed able to usurp reality because first of all a photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask” (Sontag, 350). As Susan Sontag explains, photographs are a piece of the real. Binh Danh’s pictures are traces of lives lost, “Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or history. And one photograph, unlike one painting, implies that there will be others” (Sontag,358). Looking at these photos, one is forced to grasp the enormity of what they represent. These were everyday people, such as you or I, who were killed in the jungle of war, and whose eternal souls are now on display for others to view. Although Binh Danh’s exhibit is meant to be impartial about the war, it invokes thought and strong opinions of both sides of the spectrum.

Binh Danh's Exhibit

Binh Danh’s exhibit showcases the eternal consequences of war. Although the Vietnam War ended in 1975, Binh Danh’s pictures allow the viewer to transcend time and evoke a sense of reality and thought that otherwise might have been ignored. Binh Danh goes beyond the standard, yearbook style of printing photographs of war casualties by imprinting images of the lost lives onto foliage. These imprinted images are “symbolic of the jungle itself, bearing witness to scars of war that remain in the landscape” . Binh Danh’s work displays the scars embedded not only in the landscape, but also in the hearts and minds of all those affected by the war and ultimately all those who come to view his work. These scars force the viewer to question ones own ideas about the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq. Personally, I am vehemently opposed to both, the Vietnam War and, the present War in Iraq. Thus, Binh Danh’s exhibit reinforced my own anti war sentiments. Allowing me to view the images of real people, induced my own sense of actuality, “Such images are indeed able to usurp reality because first of all a photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask” . As Susan Sontag explains, photographs are a piece of the real. Binh Danh’s pictures are traces of lives lost, “Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or history. And one photograph, unlike one painting, implies that there will be others”. Looking at these photos, one is forced to grasp the enormity of what they represent. These were everyday people, such as you or I, who were killed in the jungle of war, and whose eternal souls are now on display for others to view. Although Binh Danh’s exhibit is meant to be impartial about the war, it invokes thought and strong opinions of both sides of the spectrum.

My Definition of Art

Art is a culmination of what we, as humans and as individuals, believe art to be. My third grade class took a bus into the inner city of Detroit to view the Heidelberg Project. I would later realize that this short-lived fieldtrip provided me with my most memorable experience with an artwork. This incredibly creative political protest is a series of houses painted with bright colors and covered in recycled garbage. Although, I was only able to spend about an hour, on a bus, viewing these incredible works of art, I have since gone back and spent more time analyzing and contemplating the genius of gluing trash on an abandoned house and turning it into art. I would describe these houses as brightly colored, extremely out of place and wonderfully different. Even in third grade, I knew these houses profoundly affected me. I could not take my eyes off of them and each time I’ve been back since, I continue to spot new and creative aspects of the houses. I tried to penetrate the artists mind and have constantly asked myself what would motivate someone to turn abandoned homes into artwork using garbage? My best guess is that the artist, Tyree Guyton, was looking for something beautiful and different, in an area that had been deteriorating since the Detroit Riots of 1967. I also believe that Guyton desired a reaction that would force people travel out of their comfort zones, into his neighborhood and show the vast economic problems that plague Detroit. I believe that Guyton’s work was successful in producing a huge following and reaction. On two occasions, aspects of Guyton’s work were torn down. After much uproar from Heidelberg Project admirers, and much to the disappointment of political leaders, a court ruled that Guyton’s work is protected by the First Amendment and is no longer allowed to be destroyed or demolished.

Although I found de Duve’s essay to be extremely long and somewhat repetitive, I agree with a lot of his points. I believe that his essay could have been much more succinct by simply stating, art is too difficult and ambiguous to define. As humans, we vary immensely, from our various professions, to what foods we like and dislike. Art is very similar to humans, in that it is too vast to explain using one definition. One may profess to be an art historian, but that does not need to limit one’s taste to that of artworks from the past. Personally, I cannot define my taste in art. Sure, my most memorable art experience was that of the avant-garde, but I also enjoy historically famous artists, such as, Monet and De Vince. I cannot categorize myself as liking only a certain type of art. By becoming an extraterrestrial trying to understand art, Duve proves that art is too complex to define.