Skin Deep, Etc

I don't remember the exact date, because I did not record it as a good blogger would, but some few days ago, I went to the Art Museum with the 7th grade. The Anti-Defamation League hosts a tour, "Concepts of Beauty." The 7th grade can be a wild class, but they are small enough that when well-managed and on top behavior, they can be a decent bunch of kids.

Thoroughly motivated by a promise of the chance to earn a Valentine's Day party, the 7th graders departed with their teacher and me, only slightly late due to a broken down bus. We were greeted by a tour guide from the Anti-Defamation League and a pair of docents, who whisked us off onto a fascinating tour.

The docent led us first to a "Bust of a Black Man." She held up two boxes, one a credit-card sized brown jewelry box, the other a smaller, square, glittering passage. She asked how many people would choose each, if given the choice to have one or the other. She looked surprised when so many of the students picked the brown box. Their logic : it's bigger. I think she was going for the sparkly one to win because it looked nicer. My sociologist ears immediately perked, and I wondered if this difference came from our particular demographic. The point of the activity, unsurprisingly, was not to judge a person's inside based on their outside.

She next turned to the bust behind her, explaining it was created in the 1600s in Italy. She then said that no one knows the identity of the model and solicited ideas. Unanimously, the class decided he had been a slave. Their main reason : the color of his skin. Of course, I disagreed. His clothing, even from the little we could see, was too fine. The docent shocked the 7th grade by explaining that Italy, in the 1600s, did not have race-based slavery. He was likely a sailor or a merchant.

We next moved to two portraits of women. One sat at her dressing table, reminiscent of Pope's Belinda as she styles her hair in the mirror. Sadly, I was the only one thinking of The Rape of the Lock. The girls in the class pointed out that she was rich and had nice stuff; they also taught us a new word. Boojy (as far as I can tell, both on spelling and meaning) refers to the quality of someone who has nice stuff and wants everyone to know, letting it get to his or her head. The docent explored why the girls had thought this and eventually acquitted the woman of such a quality, since the painting didn't tell us.

The other woman sat sober-faced in black, dressed much more austerely. The students assumed that she was poor, until their teacher pointed out that she had on nice jewelry. The docent explained the religious (Calvinist) reason for her way of dressing and asked for reasons that the students dressed as they did. A dialogue debating the relationship of fashion, personal decision, and celebrity/culture influences ensued. I loved it and wanted to leave it complex and unresolved, though the docent wanted the tidy answer that culture forms ideas of fashion.

After these women, we found a statue of a young dancer. The model had danced at the Paris Opera House, a position low in society. We learned that she had led a rough childhood and her adult life was no better. We used her to explore female ideas of beauty. Three questions went to three groups. I hung out with the group discussing what the girl would want for her body as she grew older, if she were a 14 year old girl today. Hips and chest and butt, they answer. They attract people, the girls answered me. What kind of people? They fumbled around before finally realizing I wanted them to say the obvious answer : boys! Once again, the docent did not seem prepared for their answer. She had been looking for "skinny," not "having curves."

We found a picture of Indians and discussed the treatment of Native American subjects; then a gender-ambiguous Buddhist god (I am confused, having been under the impression that Buddhism has no gods) to discuss gender stereotypes. The Native Americans did not capture their minds the way that the other pieces did; and the girls did NOT think that "in control" or "tough" belong exclusively to boys. "Ain't no man in control of me!" Good for you, ladies!

After lunch, the Anti-Defamation League guide debriefed by discussing identity with them. While it worked as a discussion, I'm not sure how much they connected the ideas that race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, historical background, etc. all play into identity. However, they definitely got the idea of each person as a unique individual composed of personality traits.

I know that they gave many of what they sensed as "right" answers, rather than honest ones, and I know that one trip to an art museum cannot possibly fully open minds that have been brought up closed, but it's a start. I keep telling myself that they are hearing this at least once, and what we have to do is repeat it until it becomes truth for some of them