The Visual Legacy of David and Goliath

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is a fusion of art, history and religion that centers on a principal subject for each genre, King David. As he is mostly remembered and depicted for slaying the behemoth Goliath, David has become a symbol for taking a stand against oppression; for this reason he is my favorite biblical character (not just because he and I share the same name). To me, David's story resonates because of his being the ultimate "underdog" who not only has the courage to face his opposition but stands victorious over it. I see this story as a great parable for life, as we all will have to face Goliath-like enemies or problems within our lifetime and have the courage to fight against them. Thus, in the spirit of this relation, David has become a muse for generations of writers, musicians, and- here in particular- visual artists. What I find striking about artists in their depicting of David is that the timelessness of his story is not lost to them, as they bring him and Goliath into their communities and cultures.

Perhaps the best known artists' depiction of David is the larger than life statue that was sculpted by Michelangelo during the early 16th century, his face shown above. It shows the hero in preparation of battle, ready to defend his community against outsiders who wish to dominate through violence and intimidation. I think that this depiction of David is where artists begin to showcase him more realistically in regards to human emotion; it could be said that Michelangelo's David is representative of a soldier, as this is a figure who is calm and gallant yet wears on his face his worries about the level of opponent he faces as well as how and when this fight will end. This display of internal conflict makes the work more humane to its audience/viewer, as we can relate to the figure's expressiveness by recalling scenarios where we bravely fought through our fears for a greater good. As with its muse, Michelangelo's David has become something of a symbol itself as it has come to represent new vanguards for art and culture.



A little over one hundred years after Michelangelo's depiction of David readying to face Goliath, fellow Italian artist Caravaggio decides to take the more traditional route, as his painting shows the victorious young boy with his brutally slayed enemy. As the background's shrouding darkness provides more intimacy to its subject and storyline, David's wardrobe is a bit analogous, as it could be representative of either biblical times or of early 17th century peasantry. As Caravaggio's David holds the head of Goliath (a self-portrait of the artist himself), his compassion for his victim is evident; the look on David's face is somber, almost as if he is regretful that this altercation had to end in the taking of a life. This display of emotion gives a new element to the story, as we never before thought to imagine that David could be- at least slightly- saddened by the realization that he has caused a casualty through his fighting in war.



Just over a decade after Caravaggio presented a brooding David, the sculptor Bernini gives us an "action hero" inspired interpretation through marble statue. In this depiction Bernini shows us the fierce warrior in the throes of battle, as he is in the mid-swing of throwing the fatal stone. This David is by far the most theatrical, as the figure transcends from the statuesque into being physically human, as if he is an actor in a grand one man performance. Because of this effect, the "actor"'s realistic tension in his hands, body and face could make his audience almost believe they are witnessing the event for themselves. Honestly, it is because of these reasons that I believe Bernini's presentation to be, quite possibly, David's most consistently relevant depiction.

One great aspect that I have noticed about both sculptures (Michelangelo and Bernini) is that by presenting David in a grand manner by himself, they make Goliath's presence known in a more grandiose, mythic way. Supporting evidence of an ominous foe is seen in the hero's defiant and armed stance, as he looks away from from the audience but still in a concentrated stare. I perceive it to quite allegorical in that Goliath's invisibility makes him a giant, as the unseen opponent represents the problems and trepidation that individuals must confront in order to achieve goals.



And now we arrive to a more modern, more culturally diverse David versus Goliath thanks to Kadir Nelson's painting as shown above. I'll be honest with you, folks; it took me a little while to fully appreciate the visual metaphors Nelson added to the story by making it sports related, as David and Goliath go "one on one" in a basketball game as the crowd looks on. These visual metaphors include the court blacktop being the "battleground", as David has the basketball- or rather "the rock"- under his arm. Through this athletic depiction Nelson playfully makes the story more about competition rather than dominance, as they "battle" for bragging rights. However, this David appears more dominantly, courtesy of Nelson using visual perspective to depict distance. I gather that Nelson's intent for David in that perspective was to have the viewer relate to his journey in accomplishing the goals of outlasting and beating Goliath while giving the crowd a dazzling performance in the process.

As we've seen through these four depictions, the story of David and Goliath is both timely and timeless, as its different interpretations bred different perceptions and possibilities. As the hero and story serve as muses for creativity and individualism, it could be argued that David may be the most visually depicted biblical character except for maybe Christ himself. It could be a sort of "rite of passage" for most artists to present a new interpretation of this story given that it gives so much room for opportunity to think, feel and connect to a specifically human brand of heroism. As I stated earlier, David's unexpected victory, making him the symbolic underdog, causes us to believe in our total strength as we strive to be the symbolic underdog claiming victory against our behemoth occurrences. And who doesn't love an underdog?

Well, I think that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

Frederick Douglass Selling Afro Sheen!

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. For today's entry I've decided to showcase a vintage advertisement from the 1970's that speaks volumes both then and today. A few months ago, I watched on television the "Soul Train" retrospective that talked about the show's cultural significance through establishing new tastes in music, fashion and commerce. In terms of commerce, "Soul Train" creator Don Cornelius knew to market both his own production company as well as promote other black owned companies such as Johnson Hair Care products; this partnership is possibly its most remembered and lucrative, as Johnson's "Afro Sheen" products received heavy boosts in popularity and sales thanks to the commercial spots "Soul Train" would provide for them. One such commercial (which caught my eye during the airing of the retrospective) combines historic pride with common fashion sense of the day.



This commercial, which depicts the spirit of former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass promoting pride through the "proper wearing" of the natural Afro, is quite genius if you think about it. I think they picked the perfect symbol for this depiction, as Douglass was the only black leader to wear the natural Afro (as it were) in the 19th century. In the time of the 1970's the modern Afro hairstyle was at best a decade old, so finding a historic figure who wore their hair in that way further connected him to the modern black American by affirming the political and cultural meaning that the hairstyle would come to embody. It can be assumed that the creative director of this commercial picked up on this, as both Douglass and the modern teenage blacks of the 1970s had journeyed for both individualistic and societal freedom while proudly wearing this new, expressive hairstyle.



When I first saw this clip, I thought it was a bit comical at first, as I am of a generation where we hold a bit of cynicism and skepticism towards some older displays of black pride. However, I have come to have a great respect for it not just as an commercial ad but also, in a sense, as a public service announcement, as in both terms it shows that pride in ourselves, our history and our community can prove to be enriching towards financial and cultural means. Ads like these, unexpectedly targeted at specific communities more so than demographics, can cause us to investigate what determines something to be a force or value within a particular culture's way of life.



Well, that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

Our Revolutionary Braggarts: Ali vs. Pac

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. For today's entry I've decided to do a compare and contrast between two of our culture's greatest anti-heroes, my definition of that term meaning that these two are individuals whose own specific ideals, actions, and dealings with their own unique opposition helped shape the societies in which they lived. These two anti-heroes, boxing legend Muhammad Ali and hip hop icon Tupac Shakur, are a generation apart but have striking similarities as well as outstanding differences both because of their rebellious legacies. I'll take it a step further and say that Ali and Pac symbolize being what could be known as a "revolutionary braggart", as their sociopolitical upbringings gave way to their defiant stances against conformity, prejudice and even traditional masculinity.

So how exactly are Ali and Pac "revolutionary"? You could start by evaluating them in their professional fields, where their legacies have reigning influence to this day. Since Ali, the main prototype of the modern black athlete has become more dominantly focused towards winning, thus becoming more unapologetic in determining the needs and surroundings they must have in order to win. Modern day hip hop has this sort of logic also, as it is verbally "athletic" due to its known competitive sparring- a facet of the genre that Pac would further influence (i.e "Hit 'Em Up"). But Pac's greatest contribution is allowing future hip hop artists to be more limitless in their musical and personal definitions, allowing them to be more multi-faceted and diverse within themselves than before.




Ali and Pac's professional legacies, of course, tie in to how they are culturally "revolutionary", but to appreciate the fullness of this particular aspect you must look at their own upbringings, as both came from and into social movements that were bred from modern anti-heroic, vigilante schools of thought. Cassius Clay's interpretation of the world became much broader due to his joining the Nation of Islam; and although they advocated total racial separation, Clay's devotion to this group informed him that there is a higher purpose and standard that he must fulfill, and he chose to display this through his celebrity and "rebirth" as Muhammad Ali. Tupac Shakur was literally born into the struggle as his mother, a Black Panther member, carried him during a short prison term and gave birth to him one month after her release. It is through his mother and her fellow radical allies and friends that Tupac began to gain awareness of his people, their struggle and a calling to make others socially and culturally aware.




So now that we've defined Ali and Pac in the "revolutionary" sense, how exactly are they "braggarts"? I think the most obvious answer is in how they both would never tire from proving their "righteousness" in their personal yet public battles. Ali and Pac would stop at nothing to make sure their presence and opinions were known through unconventional bravado that would resonate with their audiences yet intimidate their (chosen) opponents. In this spirit their bragging thus must come from the truths that represent themselves, their agendas and even their opponents. Both figures used this truthful bragging with great ability, but is here by their own personal usage of it that they begin to diverge. As an athlete, Ali figured out that he truly would have to incite his opponents through statements and antics that could be hurtful and insulting. This tactic would thus invoke his opponent with more emotional desire towards beating him; in doing it like this, Ali would perfect the art of "challenging entertainment". Pac, however, is more emotionally charged in his battles, as he sees his opposition more as the enemy that must be destroyed at all costs. Therefore, Pac's bragging uses the truth as a weapon that must vanquish those he deems unworthy in this challenge.

In all, I think that through their revolutionary bragging Muhammad Ali and Tupac Shakur became figures who represent a new kind of "eternal youth" that coupled fresh yet radical criticizing with a sort of sage wisdom that was beyond their years. Their courageous ability to stand for their convictions thus led them to condemning convictions, as Ali's draft refusal and Pac's murder, both at age 25 when these events occurred, robbed their audiences of truly seeing them go into their prime. It is because of this that their audiences helped shape their legacies as "the greatest" in their fields, as they inspired Ali to win professional and cultural victories past that prime, and they carried Pac's words, emotions, even (in remembrance of) his mistakes into their lifestyle and lexicon. Undoubtedly, these two revolutionary braggarts changed the expectations and capabilities that we set for ourselves and our future.

Well, that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

"The Greatest Story Never Told " Video

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry isn't going to be too big, but there will be some more stuff coming soon. Instead, I decided to show a YouTube clip of a song that I've been playing for a little while now, "The Greatest Story Never Told" by the rapper Saigon. I heard it for the first time on 106th and Park a few weeks ago, and although it hasn't gotten a lot of spins on there or radio since, I've still kept with it. I actually think its a good single, as the beats and melodies are catchy (courtesy of the producer Just Blaze) and Saigon's lyrics serve the melody but also call you to actually listen his content, i.e how he says battle beefs are now the marketing tool of the executive as opposed to genuine worthy competition. But anyways, check it out for yourself, and until next time...PEACE.

Martin Luther King, Jr and the Young, Non-Southern Black Man

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. In keeping with February's great tradition of Black History Month, today's entry will be about a man who I think is the only prophet America has ever produced, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The video I posted above I found about a month ago via YouTube around the King holiday while I was searching for interviews and speeches he did, as well as documentary clips. Though the specific date of this speech is unknown, I'm assuming that he made that speech somewhere between the last two years of his life (1966-1968). When I first saw this video, I played it like it was the new single for at least two hours straight. It actually surprised me, chiefly because it was the first time I had ever heard Dr. King refer to himself and his people as "Black" as opposed to the term known to his generation, "Negro". But what I also noticed about his speech in this video is that it is a bit more outwardly radical then I had known him to be, keeping in mind that King IS a radical (you cannot accomplish goals like desegregation, voting rights, and true working pacifism unless you are radical). What makes it so "outwardly radical" is that I believe this statement must have come from his observations and the influence that the younger, "Black" generation of civil rights leaders would have on him.

Continuing my search for King information, I watched on YouTube the PBS special "Citizen King". This special focused on the last five years of his life, starting from his delivering the iconic "I Have A Dream" speech at the March on Washington and ending at his assassination and massively attended funeral. The years that primarily interested me were from 1965 to 1967- a period where he observed and experienced the life of the young, non-Southern Negro. This is the period that I believe brought King to the speech on that video. It begins with his stay in Chicago in 1966, inspired by his realization that he needed to understand the non-Southern Negro's (and underclass minorities overall) struggle with race and class disparities. This leads to his march to desegregate the Chicago suburb of Cicero where, in watching the footage of it, is easily most frightened and courageous I had seen him. The march turns into a caustic and dangerous event courtesy of its opposition, who may have been partly inspired by the counter demonstrations led by American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell. Though some marchers began to lose their cool, King maintained his, even while being hit with bricks and stones, ducking from the sounds of firecrackers meant to depict gunshots. The experience of the Cicero march indeed shook him- he would go on to unfavorably compare the experience to those he had in Mississippi and Alabama- but it also gave him a semblance to the specific level of frustration and opposition non-Southern black America faced.



I believe that the experience of Chicago began King towards that speech I found on YouTube, and the inspiration towards that speech was continued by his experience with Stokely Carmichael while continuing James Meredith's "March Against Fear" in Mississippi in 1966. Carmichael, the newly appointed chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), was the definition of the young black radical; he was a Pan-Africanist who didn't fully believe in nonviolence, sharing the view of the pre-hajj, Nation of Islam era Malcolm X in that whites couldn't really help in the fight for black and minority civil rights. During their time together leading the "March Against Fear", King and Carmichael understood that they served as diverging symbols of black leadership; King is of the generation where Negroes use nonviolent decorum to achieve their collective goal, and Carmichael represents the younger generation's ideal of "Black Power" to inspire a racially unitarian mindset. King is in fact cautious of Carmichael's "Black Power" philosophy, believing it to be a type of segregation that will lead to loneliness and destruction. However, this relationship does prove to be one of collaboration and respect, as through Carmichael King sees the non-Southern Black man in his total individual form. As "Citizen King" reports, it is also through Carmichael that King begins to interchangeably use the terms "Negro" and "Black", a fact that Carmichael would boast about to others for the rest of his life.

It is my assumption that stemming from his experiences in Chicago and with Carmichael, King now had a source of relation with the rise of the new, non-Southern black man. This newfound perspective taught him to be aware of the changes of "Black" America, as well as give him more cause to look at America as a whole nation. I think that by the time he made the speech I found on YouTube, he found a way to keep his nonviolent tactics and sensibilities yet embrace at least part of the newer generation's mantra; still not accepting the connotation of "Black Power", but ready to acknowledge that "Black is Beautiful". It is a bit ironic that King's assassination in 1968 would trigger his prophetic fears of "Black Power" to come true, as Black America would riot in major American cities in retaliation. Nevertheless, ALL of America- black, white, other colors and creeds, and even the world in general- have grown to greatly appreciate King's legacy of work in making this great land a more equal and tolerant playing field.

King's speech that I found on YouTube initially surprised me, but I also found it refreshing. Why? Because it is proven document of his forward thinking being specifically directed at his love for his people, an indication of entrusting them to make significant leaps and bounds in America's great landscape. This video makes me realize that the terminology of a people is far from just labeling, as what they call themselves dictates their future prosperity; I think that without a speech like that, a "Negro" calling himself "Black", we would have never elevated to making those superior leaps and bounds as "African Americans". King's realization couldn't have come from anywhere else but his experiences with the newer generation, as they taught him to understand them, their country, and time overall more accurately.

Well, that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.