Maïmouna Patrizia Guerresi
As a photographer, sculptor, and installation artist, ‘Maïmouna’ Patrizia Guerresi reveals unique and authentic sensibilities in her narration of the beauty and subtleties of racial diversity and multiculturalism. Over an established career, she has developed her own symbolism, which combines cosmological and ancestral traditions belonging to various European, African, and Asian cultures. Her personal commitment to Baifall Sufism has led her to produce an aesthetic that is able to bridge time, space and civilisations, as well as figuration and abstraction.
The human body is seen as the nucleus and temple of the soul, a place that houses a delicate, higher awareness; the very conduit for encompassing natural and cosmic forces. More about mysticism than any singular religion, her work is visionary in that it restores those elusive qualities of sacredness and unity in our frequently dehumanising and fragmented contemporary visual world. Her classic iconographic style explores the universality of human experience and reclaims the often hidden nurturing powers of feminine energy. Presented as a kind of free flowing epic, the viewer is left to read the significance of her imagery and quietly meditate on its potential to personally engage with its audience. As if her figures were speaking directly to each one of us.
From her earliest experiments with the physicality and archetypal imprinting of the psyche, through to her latest, evermore metaphoric ‘inner constellations’, Maïmouna insists on a cross-cultural discourse and an expansion of the boundaries that normally dictate our individual attitudes. She invites us to see further and to look deeper – past skin colour, preconceptions, and ethnic landscapes – into the wider paradigm of inclusion. She leads us through apparently simple notions of dimensionality into the exquisite, mystical and fragile complexities of life from within. - Rosa Maria Falvo,
Casa Caracol is the most unique house on Isla Mujeres, and one of the most artistic home in the world. It consists of two houses: The Baby Shell and The Shell House.
"I’m not necessarily “Queer” in Cherokee contexts, because differences are not seen in the same light as they are in Euroamerican contexts. I’m not necessarily “Transgender” in Cherokee contexts, because I’m simply the gender I am. I’m not necessarily “Gay,” because that word rests on the concept of men-loving-men, and ignores the complexity of my gender identity. It is only within the rigid gender regimes of white America that I become Trans or Queer."
Qwo-Li Driskill: “Stolen From Out Bodies: First Nations Two-Spirits/Queers and the Journey to a Sovereign Erotic” (via livelaughawesome)
Not a TWoC, but the point is very much relevant to our struggle within white-centric society.
"The ego hurts you like this: you become obsessed with the one person who does not love you, blind to the rest who do."
"Shortly thereafter, in the 1920s, fashion-designer Coco Chanel accidentally got sunburnt while visiting the French Riviera. When she arrived home, she arrived with a suntan and her fans apparently liked the look and started to adopt darker skin tones themselves. Tanned skin became a trend partly because of Coco’s status and the longing for her lifestyle by other members of society. In addition, Parisians fell in love with Josephine Baker, a “caramel-skinned” singer in Paris, and idolised her dark skin"
I wanted to look up where the origins of tanning for beauty come from
and, surprise, it’s stems from idolizing a Nazi sympathizer and fetishsizing a black woman.
So let’s be clear: Tanning is a WEALTH STATUS SYMBOL for white women.
While skin bleaching is done specifically to lighten the dark skin, which in turn is a SURE FIRE SOCIAL MOBILITY APPARATUS since LIGHT SKINNED POC GET TREATED BETTER INTERNATIONALLY.
White feminists can kiss my brown ass if they think that these two things are the same on ANY level.
So I saw a post on how American Apparel markets unisex clothing, but I couldn’t actually find a unisex section on their website. I did however notice this. The sweatshirts one is particularly illuminating.
Selling men’s clothes to men, and selling women’s bodies to… ?
American Apparel is really fucking horrible for many, many reasons, but here’s another example.
American Apparel’s advertising is a PERFECT example of the way that we sell products to men through advertisements and sell women’s bodies to men even though they’re being used in advertisements for women’s products. It’s a fantastic example of how the female body is treated differently than the male body, how it’s seen as intrinsically sexual, and how this is totally normalized within our culture. To be clear: i’m not saying there’s anything wrong with women’s bodies being sexual, or women being seen as sexual beings. We are sexual beings! What I am saying is that there’s something deeply problematic when that sexualizing is only happening for women, and when that sexuality turns into objectification through a male gaze. To illustrate, here’s a screencap from the AA homepage right now:
because a picture of a woman’s ass that she is spreading with her fingers and the slogan ‘get wet’ is not an objectification of women’s bodies for the male gaze AT ALL, and we would totally see these types of images and ads for male swimsuits too! -________-
Yeah, if you’re still spending your money there, stop.
people always want to fight me over this but they are terrible for 500 different reasons..
Just wanted to say that while I agree AA’s marketing is terrible and sexist and body shaming, they are also really great to their employees that manufacture their products. They are definitely a flawed company, but I would rather choose clothing from a sexist company that doesn’t use sweatshops than a (slightly) less sexist company that does use sweatshops.
Right, they’re really such great fucking employers, aren’t they?
Dov Charney doesn’t give a flying fuck about consent, and that’s among the many many grievances that have been publicly aired against the company and it’s CEO.
Personally, I’d rather choose clothing from a company that neither exploits nor abuses it’s employees (or anyone, for that matter). It is not okay that we are complacent with choosing the lesser of two evils rather than working toward eliminating the evils for better, non-abusive & non-exploitative, options.
The way Dov Charney operates may not employ sweatshops, but that does not make when he and his company do acceptable.