The Harms of the Overbroad Interpretation of Section 230
Lauren Newton
Professor Abah
JOUR 301
20 November 2020
The Harms of the Overbroad Interpretation of Section 230
Introduction
Over 20 years ago, the landscape of the internet was changed profoundly following the implementation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In 1996, the internet was at its infancy and its imminent power was not yet known; at the time, the legislation’s priority was ensuring free growth of the internet for users and service providers alike. Section 230 was created by Congress to facilitate the future digital world while accommodating competing values -- protection for children, regulating harmful content, and encouraging Good Samaritan actions online (Dickinson, 864). However, the language of Section 230 is often found overbroad, and the courts have interpreted the statute with far broader immunity than the authors intended. Immeasurable websites providing helpful tools to users have flourished as a result of Section 230, however “bad actors” hosting malicious content have prospered as well. Although the world of the internet has evolved drastically over the past few decades, Section 230 has not.
This paper will evaluate the destructive consequences of the overbroad interpretation of Section 230. The statute is providing sweeping immunity to internet service providers (ISPs), even when varying levels of liability are undoubtedly warranted. Platforms have been given immunity even when they actively induce malicious content, encourage users to post illegal content, or knowingly host harmful content yet make no attempts to remove it (Ciltron, 460). I hypothesize that if Section 230 is amended to hold ISPs accountable for the inducement of malicious content and to reflect the difference between “good” and “bad” actors online, the Internet will evolve into a safer, less oppressive environment to internet users across the country. To prove this hypothesis, the paper will analyze the initial intent of Section 230,
past court decisions, and opinions from scholarly articles and relevant judicial characters.
Origins of Section 230
For over two decades, courts have struggled to match their interpretations of the language of Section 230 with the statute’s original intent. §230 was implemented with two primary objectives: firstly, Congress sought to promote and encourage freedom on the Internet. Secondly, Congress desired to protect children from obscenities and harmful content online (Dickinson, 864-865). However, judicial precedent has placed a far greater emphasis on §230’s first goal and allowed ISPs very broad immunity.
Section 230 was primarily enacted in response to the perplexing Supreme Court of New York’s 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc v Prodigy Services Co. In the case, Stratton Oakmont, an investment-banking firm, sued Prodigy, an online platform, for libel for comments posted by users in its online bulletin board. Prodigy had exercised editorial control over some postings they considered inappropriate or harmful (Leary, 560). The court found that because Prodigy had an active role in screening objectionable content online, the website would be considered a publisher rather than a mere distributor of third-party content. Being labeled a publisher, Prodigy was thus responsible for the material it published, and the court ruled in favor of Stratton Oakmont (561).
This decision established that any level of editorial control over content opened ISP’s to liability, implying that ISPs who do not regulate content at all have greater immunity. This interpretation thus disincentivized ISPs from regulating content online at all, even if they were monitoring harmful and objectionable content on a good faith basis (Bolson, 5). To alleviate these concerns and provide protection for “good actors,” just one year later Congress drafted and adopted the Communications Decency Act.
Language and Interpretation of Section 230
Section 230 functions straightforwardly: ISPs and websites are given immunity from defamation liability for content created by third-parties in order to encourage free speech and protect children online. The actual text and language of Section 230 is brief, and the heading reads “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.” Sections 230(a) and (b) outline Congress’s preliminary findings, including the importance and rapid development of the internet and five policy aims targeting removing disincentives to monitoring content and encouraging technological advancement (Quisf, 282-283).
Section 230(c) is arguably the most important and referenced text of the legislation, and it is divided into two parts. Section 230(c)(1), titled “Treatment of publisher or speaker,” details that “no user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the speaker of any information provided by another information provider.” Section 230(c)(2), titled “Civil liability,” explains that “no provider or user of an interactive service shall be held liable on account of” their “Good Samaritan” attempts to monitor and restrict objectionable or obscene content online (Quisf, 283).
The language of Section 230 directly reversed the ruling of Stratton Oakmont, allowing ISPs to regulate content online without fear of liability. Internet companies would now be able to flourish without the fear of crippling regulation (Bolson, 10). Although the goals to incentivize ISPs to police their websites and to limit access to obscene material require balancing, it is apparent from both the text and the legislative history of Section 230 that the intention was never to provide absolute immunity for any and every action taken by ISPs (Leary, 564).
IV. Application and Implications of Section 230
Courts have interpreted a broad view of Section 230 immunity since the beginning of its application. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was the first court to interpret the statute in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc, their decision beginning a string of broad interpretations. In the case, an anonymous user created a heinous Internet hoax against a man named Kenneth Zeran on American Online’s “bulletin board”. The user impersonated Zeran online and provided his telephone number in connection with advertisements for shirts that glorified a bombing in Oklahoma City (Bolson, 9-10). Zeran argued that AOL was aware of the malicious content but failed to remove it in a timely manner, and was therefore liable under traditional notions of distributor liability. The Fourth Circuit sided with AOL, concluding that Section 230 blocked all causes of action that would hold “service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user.” (Leary, 574). In other words, the court held that so long as the ISP is not the direct author of content published on their platforms, it cannot be held liable, regardless of the motivation behind or levels of its editorial control.
With the court ruling in favor of AOL, Mr. Zeran was left with no recourse for the harm inflicted upon him. He couldn’t track down the poster of the libelous content, couldn’t prevent other users from posting similar defamatory content, and couldn’t sue AOL. The precedent set in Zeran has left countless victims in identical, helpless situations and prioritized freedom of internet expression over all other goals, even the goal of protecting children. In the case of Doe v. America Online, the plaintiff accused AOL of knowingly permitting and distributing advertisements for child pornography. Despite the fact that the case involved serious allegations of child harm and illegal activity, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, quoted Zeran extensively, and perpetuated the broad interpretation of Section 230 (Leary, 575).
Websites created for the sole purpose of defaming and harming others are scrutinized just as lightly as websites that act in good faith. The site “Dirty.com,” for example, was created with the sole purpose to spread harmful rumors and gossip. The site’s founder, Nik Richie, encourages users to submit their best “dirt” and chooses his favorite submissions to post online. These posts have led to a torrent of abuse and describe topics including sexually transmitted diseases, mental illnesses, and financial problems. Richie is clearly a bad actor, and even admitted to “ruin[ing] people sometimes out of fun” (Ciltron, 454).
Litigation against websites like Dirty.com have rarely resulted in justice for victims of online harassment. Sarah Jones, a former high school teacher, sued Dirty.com after the website refused to remove defamatory content regarding her personal and professional life. The posts falsely stated that her husband had a sexually transmitted disease, that she had slept with an entire football team, and that she had had sex at the school where she taught (Jones v. Dirty Records Entertainment Recordings). Despite the fact that Jones repeatedly begged site editor Richie to remove the content and the fact that Richie did intentionally encourage the objectionable content, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Dirty.com. The court of Jones v. Dirty Records Entertainment Recordings, LLC stated that the selecting of which posts to publish and the refusal to remove content do not qualify as material contributions (Jones v. Dirty Records Entertainment Recordings). Jones had no other legal options to fight these incredibly harmful and libelous postings, despite the fact that they could irreparably damage her reputation.
V. Judicial Movement toward Limited Immunity
Although courts remain constricted by the Zeran ruling, there is a growing judicial movement to limit Section 230’s immunity. The first ruling to offer hope for harassment victims and consider a more limited immunity to ISPs occurred in 2008 in the case of Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com. The plaintiffs alleged that Roommates.com was responsible for violating housing discrimination regulations by requiring its users to detail discriminatory information about themselves through a drop-down question feature. The plaintiffs argued that because the drop down questions were required and directly prompted discriminatory answers, Roommates.com should be considered a content provider. The court agreed, and the notion that an internet service provider could simultaneously be a content-provider was born (Bolson, 13-14).
Roommates was one of the few cases to find potential liability for a website. The court acknowledged that Roommates.com drop-down questions were the direct cause of illegal material being displayed, so the website should not have blanket immunity. The ruling created an alternative path of interpreting Section 230, a path more in line with the original text and purpose of the statute (Leary, 576). However, this decision doesn’t affect all Section 230 circumstances, namely when websites are “passive transmitters of information,” and websites hosting harmful content continue to receive sweeping immunity (Bolson, 14).
VI. Overarching Problems with Section 230
The internet has evolved into a ubiquitous part of society, a place that should welcome the marketplace of ideas and encourage passionate discussion and community growth. However, it cannot function as an open, accepting forum so long as so many users are subjected to unthinkable harassment and victimization. According to a Pew Research Center Report, around 73% of adult internet users have witnessed online harassment of others and 40% have personally experienced harassment (Bolson, 11). The open and free environment of the internet has been shadowed by its growingly oppressive nature, discouraging users from participating online altogether. Online abuse inevitably chills the speech of users unwilling to subject themselves to further victimization, and cyber harassment is “profoundly damaging to the free speech and privacy rights of the people targeted” (Ciltron, 472).
The internet is no longer at its infancy, and no longer needs to be coddled and protected to ensure growth. The immunity granted in Section 230 is massively inconsistent with nearly all other statutes involving distributor or publisher liability; for example, a magazine whose sole purpose is to publish user-submitted malicious content about nonpublic figures would be subjected to a storm of lawsuits (Ciltron, 455).
The courts have interpreted Section 230 with immunity far broader than the authors of the statute intended. In Justice Thomas’s recent statement suggesting that immunities granted ot ISPs could be narrowed in future court proceedings, he emphasized that “both provisions in §230(c) most naturally read to protect companies when they unknowingly decline to exercise editorial functions to edit or remove third-party content… and when they decide to exercise those editorial functions in good faith” (Malwarebytes v. Enigma Software Group). However, companies are not only knowingly declining to exercise editorial control over malicious content, but they are also encouraging and facilitating in the dissemination of the content. The “Good Samaritan” provision of §230(c)(1) has been virtually negated by the courts’ granting of sweeping immunity, allowing “bad actors” to thrive; lower courts have ironically interpreted §230, which holds the title “protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material,” to protect sites designed with the sole purpose to spread offensive material (Ciltron, 455).
This overbroad application of §230 has allowed platforms a “free pass” to ignore harmful activities, to induce and encourage unlawful activities, and to deliberately repost illegal material (Ciltron, 465). Bad actors -- Nik Richie, for example -- continue encouraging destructive materials on their platforms, knowing well they cannot be sued for their roles in abuse. Sweeping immunity incentivizes injurious behavior, including creating sites for the sole purpose of imposing severe humiliation, destruction, and emotional distress on others.
VII. Recommendation
I propose a statutory amendment to §230 that would prevent “bad actors” from sweeping immunity and create a distinction between Good Samaritans and Bad Samaritans. Platforms who deliberately host harmful materials and encourage users to post harmful materials should not be granted immunity. Provisions must be in place to incentivize good behavior and to hold irresponsible behavior accountable.
The current test adapted from §230 is three-pronged and determines if the CDA provides an ISP defendant immunity. The test is as follows. First, the defendant must be a provider or user of an interactive computer service. Second, the plaintiff’s cause of action must view the defendant as the “publisher” or “speaker” of a harmful statement. Third, the harmful information was provided by another information content provider, other than the defendant. I propose that three additional prongs be added to the test, as follows. First, whether the primary purpose of the websites is constructive and practical. Second, whether a reasonable person would be highly offended by the content and efforts put forth by the platform. Third, whether the ISP had an active or passive role in receiving and dispersing third-party information.
I believe assessing the primary purpose of a website would provide far vaster accountability for websites such as Dirty.com, whose sole purpose is to harm and defame others. This prong, in addition to the second that addresses the degree of offensiveness of platforms, would effectively distinguish between Good and Bad Samaritans and would incentivize good behavior online, as the statute originally intended. Additionally, in accordance with the third new prong, to statutorily emphasize the difference between an active and passive role in distribution online would provide a legal framework to continue rulings similar to that of Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com: an ISP can simultaneously be a content-provider. Assessing the level of involvement the ISP displayed is crucial in determining the level of liability that is just.
This statutory change would have no effect on websites that operate in good faith. Similarly, it would not create liability for platforms that unknowingly host malicious content or that are logistically unable to monitor all content online. The sole actors this change would affect are those with bad intentions who encourage and facilitate in distributing malicious, harmful, illegal, and destructive content.
As Justice Thomas said in his statement, “paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into §230 would not necessarily render defendants liable for online misconduct. It would simply give plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place,” (Malwarebytes v. Enigma Software Group). Victims of online harassment and abuse deserve recourse and options to pursue justice. The amendments I’m proposing would give victims a platform in court, because currently, so many cases are discarded due to §230 immunity before they are even tried.
Section 230 has allowed expression and innovation far beyond the imagination of online operators in 1996. But, the judicial interpretation has left victims of online abuse with no leverage against sites whose model encompasses abuse and destruction. The internet operates as a zone of public discourse, and all members of the community should feel safe to participate rather than fearful to be subjected to abuse.
Works Cited
Bolson, Andrew P. “Flawed but Fixable: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act at
20.” Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, June 2016, pp. 1–18. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com.
Ciltron, Danielle K. “The Problem Isn't Just Backpage: Revising Section 230 Immunity.”
Georgetown Law Technology Review, vol. 2.2, 2008, pp. 453–473., doi:https://scholarship.law.bu.edu.
Dickinson, Gregory M. “An Interpretive Framework for Narrower Immunity under Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 33, no. 2, Spring 2010, pp. 863–883. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com
LEARY, MARY GRAW. “The Indecency and Injustice of Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring 2018, pp. 553–622. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com
New York Supreme Court. Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services Co. 24 May 1995.
Supreme Court of the United States. Malwarebytes, Inc v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC. 13
Oct. 2020.
Quisf, Mark D. “‘Plumbing the Depths’ of the Cda: Weighing the Competing Fourth and Seventh
Circuit Standards of Isp Immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” George Mason Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, Fall 2012, pp. 275–309. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.comU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Zeran v. American Online, Inc. 12 Nov. 1997.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jones v. Dirty Records Entertainment Recordings, LLC. 16
June 2014.
My Last Shot at Georgetown
Fall 2017
My Senior Year of High School
draft 1
At age 5, I was a princess living in a castle. Well, I was actually just a normal kid in my normal house, but the castle and magic felt real to me while holding a green crayon. I felt like I was a real princess as I drew my King Daddy and Queen Mom together looking over their kingdom. My mom came alive on the page as I drew her fierce curls underneath her crown, as I drew her smile and imagined her fearlessness. 5 minutes later, upon completing this drawing, I found myself in a jungle and then on a boat. All I had to do was pick up a crayon and I could transport to a different world. I couldn’t ever seem to put the crayon down and travel back home.
Twelve years later, I grip my pencils with the same intensity and fall into my subjects' worlds with the same passion and oblivion. That first pencil stroke on an untouched sheet of paper still draws me in. That blank paper still transports me to a new and exciting world. The subjects of my drawings still become alive. I imagine the feelings and context of when the photograph was taken, and I still instantly travel out and away from my room. I decide that the little boy was bribed with candy to pose for the shot or that the smiling woman had just seen her grandchildren again. Doing this, I find myself in an impenetrable concentration. Once I finally break it, it’s as if the world begins to move again. Like it had been completely frozen for the hours I spent in silence with a pencil in hand. I notice that some of my senses become heightened after putting down my pencil; the loud volume of the clock ticking and air conditioning running startle me. I realize that the more focus and passion I put into my subjects and their worlds, the more oblivious I am to my own.
I didn’t start my art business intentionally. As a fourteen year old that just drew for fun, I had no idea what it would become. After watching me draw in my room, on planes, in cars, and on my kitchen table, my mom proposed a trade. She told me she would help provide some art supplies if I drew myself and my two brothers for her. I had no idea those drawings would be the first of hundreds. To support me and the unofficial beginning of my business, other relatives began to commission me. Relatives led to friends, friends led to mutual friends, and mutual friends led to strangers I had never met or heard of. Within a year, I was mailing commissions out to people in California and in Connecticut. Now, 4 years and 163 commissions later, I can’t imagine what I would do if my mother had not ___.
Sammie died before her second birthday. Her 13 year old sister, Savannah, contacted me weeks after her death. She commissioned three drawings: one of Sammie and her brother, one with her grandmother, and one with her whole family. This request has resonated with me ever since. I was asked to help memorialize a two year old girl through a piece of paper. I realized at that moment that everything I had been working for and all of the hours spent alone with a pencil could impact lives besides my own. The years of concentration and focus were put to use to help a grieving family. As it turns out, my art is not just about creating something I’m proud of and passionate about; it is also about creating lasting memories for people I’ve never even met.
Art is with me in every aspect of every day, regardless of if I am holding a pencil. I started drawing to find personal refuge, but I have now found myself a participant in the lives of every one of my subjects. I am present for all moments of joy, pride, innocence, and grief. Regardless of if I know the subjects, I am there with them at their graduations, weddings, birthdays, ______. For this reason, I see the world as my subject. I am inspired by the story of chalk covered boy in Nicaragua or the seamstress woman in Spain. I can’t help but turn our encounter into a lifelong, tangible memory through a pencil.
Days Without Social Media
Lauren Newton
JOUR 220-01
Professor Coddington
September 11, 2020
Days Without Social Media Essay
As a Gen Z-er who downloaded Instagram and Snapchat at the dawn of their existence and at the onset of my young adulthood, I have always used social media as second nature. Since entering college, I’ve undervalued how present and intertwined these apps are in my life: I’ve believed my Instagram usage is normal when compared to how frequently I used it as a middle schooler. I’ve believed my Snapchat usage is minimal compared to many people around me. I’ve believed my Facebook usage is basic compared to that of my extended family. However, because I was so young when the age of social media began its transformative sweep, I’ve neglected to compare my usage to a time when there was no social media at all. A time not so distant in the past, a time I briefly experienced in my two days without it.
Upon reflecting on my Instagram use today, I realized that I use the app for far different reasons than I did before college. I thought back to middle and high school when my primary purpose of scrolling through Instagram was to obsess, compare, and gossip. My entire feed was friends, mutual friends, and those I didn’t know at all but found their lives captivating (let’s call them my ‘stalkees’). I recalled a time in sixth grade where I thought to myself, Lauren, you have a problem, after noticing I refreshed my feed every two minutes and began sweating if I hadn’t. When I thought of my feed today, I felt as if I didn't see photos of friends or stalkees at all. Instead, I saw memes, politics, brands, and movements. Clearly, a large part of this shift is who I choose to follow. However, I realized that those friends, mutual friends, and stalkees are still there in my feed; I simply don’t place the same value on their content as I once did. My mind has adapted and, hopefully, matured to the point where I don’t need or care to know what the stalkees are up to. I don’t grow envious of their clothes, posts, or lives like I once did; instead, I scroll right past them to get to the memes. It was comforting to discover that the twelve-year-old girl who needed to know desperately what her stalkees had for an afternoon snack is no longer there; she was replaced by the twenty-one-year-old who uses Instagram to read the news and to have something to do when bored.
Before beginning the two days without social media, I assumed my biggest challenge would be figuring out how to fill my free time and satisfy my boredom: those minutes in between classes, the breaks during homework, the time before bed. While I did find those times to be especially difficult, I realized I’ve become accustomed to using social media during time that’s not free at all. I was shocked to discover how I feel the need to multitask by mindlessly scrolling, regardless of boredom or spare time. I felt Instagram’s absence the most when walking through a crowded campus alone. I felt a confusing and, quite frankly, embarrassing level of vulnerability passing classmates without using my phone. I realized mindless scrolling serves as a shield, protecting against true interactions. There was something about being fully present while others were engaged in their phones that made me feel quite awkward and lonely. If I’m on my phone, it looks like I’m talking to my trillions of friends, and that I am just so popular that I don’t have the time to put it down! Though I knew the random classmates passing weren’t actually thinking twice about me on my stroll, their imaginary thoughts kept nagging: I’m on my phone talking to all of my friends, does she not have any? This concept is laughably illogical and I was fully aware of that, yet the discomfort persisted. I realized I struggle with being alone in the presence of others, and my phone keeps me tied to friends -- or at least gives me the appearance of having friends!
Though to a lesser extent, I found that I feel that same urge to scroll through my phone when around friends. I was surprised how often my fingers instinctively opened Instagram to mindlessly scroll when I was fully engaged in conversation. Again, I found myself wanting to use my phone because I was feeling vulnerable and awkward without it. This was especially true when my friends were all on their phones: I realized the amount that I use and need my phone changes based on how often those around me use theirs. Although I’m sure my friends are scrolling as mindlessly as I would be, whenever they’re on their phones and I’m not, I feel like I’m missing something.
After realizing how short my attention span is even in conversation with friends, it wasn’t surprising to find that I desperately needed the distraction of social media to break up my homework. I check my phone constantly in between work, even just to look at the home screen to see what notifications I’ve missed. More often than not, I haven’t missed much in the few minutes since I last checked. But, I’ve internalized this idea that I will miss something huge and timely if I don’t have my phone with me. I’ll realize I’ve been reading for an hour without a phone break, congratulate myself, and attempt to continue working. Then, a tiny idea manifests that I missed something important. My logic fights with this feeling as I tell myself, if something was that important, they could have called you. In the end, logic loses because the conversation with myself distracts me for longer than checking my phone would have. I look at my phone, see nothing there, and can begin to work again until I feel that idea emerging once again. Though I am aware of how absurd the idea is in theory, I cannot break the habit and the fear of missing out. It’s not that I need social media and my texts to brighten my day, it’s that I think the one hour I put it down, the world will burn down around me and I won’t have a clue. It’s when I know I shouldn’t be on my phone that I feel I’m missing the most.
Before the days without social media, I knew a strange adjustment would be my nighttime routine. I’ve always had trouble falling asleep and have incorporated extensive and mindless social media scrolling to the routine as a necessity. Though I’m sure it has the opposite effect, I’ve convinced myself that using my phone is necessary to winding down before bed. I scroll through almost my whole Instagram feed, check Snapchat stories, group Snapchats, and depending on how restless I am, Facebook, and TikTok. I think that checking all of the platforms gives me peace of mind when falling asleep: there’s nothing I’ve missed, nothing urgent happening of which I’m unaware, I know what my friends and family have been doing. Again, that illogical, subconscious fear that something is happening of which I’m unaware persists. On the two nights without social media, I found myself lying awake in bed feeling that my day was incomplete and that I wouldn’t be able to fall asleep without it.
Even after learning of the odd habits and mental dilemmas I’ve formed because of social media, I still feel that I don’t use or rely on it as heavily as those around me. Though I need my phone to feel connected, text messages are more than sufficient. I didn’t miss the content of Instagram during the day, just the idea of it in between classes or walking through campus. I mostly missed having something to occupy myself with, but that subsided once I realized my fingers could get the same satisfaction from mindlessly scrolling through the news or through my camera roll. My largest takeaways from the days without social media are that I need to be more comfortable being present around others and that I shouldn’t hop to my phone anytime I feel a lol or a sense of discomfort. In the past week, I’ve been trying to walk through campus detached from my phone. I’ve been trying to become aware of when I reach for it and why I reach for it because understanding the logic behind my habit has taught me the pointlessness of the habit altogether.
Mrs. Pollock
W&L Art History
Winter 2022
JACKSON POLLOCK: ‘THE GREATEST LIVING PAINTER IN THE UNITED STATES,’ OR IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME?
Jackson Pollock, a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement, is considered one of the most famous artists of all time; some believe he was the best American painter to ever live. Though Pollock’s fame was substantial, his success was largely due to his wife’s connections and art critics’ influences. His tragic death shed light on his deeper struggles - alcoholism, and depression - and I can’t help but think his fleeting fame exacerbated his mental pain. Regardless, Pollock’s ‘original’ style was carefully curated by and a product of the elitist art culture. Though he may have been considered the greatest living artist in the United States at one point in time, his failure to continue creating before his untimely death diminshed his strength as an artist.
Though Pollock’s stardom elevated with each gallery, he wouldn’t have been able to showcase his art to such large audiences without the help of his wife. A notable artist herself, Lee Krasner married Pollock in 1945 and also introduced him to relevant members of the art community, including gallerist Peggy Guggenheim. Pollock’s success quickly overshadowed Krasner’s artistry, and she became known for being his wife. Had Krasner not essentially sacrificed her own career to elevate that of her husband’s, then perhaps Pollock’s paintings wouldn’t be as famous as they are today.
Although there’s nothing wrong with using connections, I would appreciate Pollock’s art more had he grown to fame rather than being tossed into it. Pollock’s status was elevated by art critics quickly; he was practically unheard of in 1943 when he signed a contract with Guggheineim and debuted his first solo exhibition. Clement Greenburg, “possibly the most renowned art critic in American history,” reviewed the exhibition. He wrote, “there is both surprise and fulfillment in Jackson Pollock’s not so abstract abstractions. He is the first painter I know of to have got something positive from the muddiness of color that so profoundly characterizes a great deal of American painting.” His review obviously brought attention to Pollock, and in a sense, kick-started his career.
Pollock’s rapid rise to fame not only lessens my opinion of him but also, proves the elitist art culture’s absurd control over the industry. Had he risen to fame organically - without connections and mentorship from Greenburg - perhaps his paintings would’ve better reflected his emotional distress and been a better outlet for his pain. Instead, Pollock rose to fame quickly and likely felt pressure to continue creating perfection. Society pigeon-holed him to his distinct and expressionistic style, which no doubt stifled his creativity. He neglected to create in his last years of life, overcome with depression and falling deeper into alcoholism. His inability to paint reflects a deeper pain because creating is an essential outlet for any artist.
As Allan Kaprow states in “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock,” the world appreciated Pollock for his uniqueness in an “ecstatic blindness.” I think the true legacy of Pollock shouldn’t be his artistic mastery, but rather his deep-rooted struggles. His audience’s blindness to his mental health struggles proved to be detrimental for him; an artist once overcome with inspiration was sentenced to misery.
I believe true, great art is created by the artist for the artist. After debuting his first exhibition, Pollock created works intended to be reached by a massive audience. As an artist who began selling works at a young age, I relate to the pressures of upholding a reputation and can imagine how depleted he must have felt. In my experience, considering art as a profession rather than a passion destroys creativity and removes the joy.
Though I sympathize heavily for Pollock, I cannot agree that he was the ‘greatest living painter in the United States.’ To say his artwork was impactful is an understatement, however, Pollock’s true effectiveness lied in his fame and ability to reach mass audiences. Were it not for the help of his wife, Pollock wouldn’t have rose to fame in the first place. There was a desperate need for authentic American art post World War II, and Pollock’s expressionistic style satisfied that need. He was both blessed and cursed by his circumstances because the culture that elevated him proved to be shallow and empty. He died tragically at 44, only thirteen years after his first solo exhibition.
Pollock’s methodic rise and devastating downfall revealed just how subjective the art world can be - they adored him for his originality, framed him as a star, and were left baffled by his tragic death. Pollock wasn’t the greatest living painter, but was merely a vessel for Greenburg, among others, to impose their artistic ideals to American culture.
Self Portrait by Jan Levinson
W&L Creative Writing
Winter 2022
OCTOBER 20, 2018
Hello, hello, hello! It is your FAVORITE critic of The Office, Pat MacCarther, here to review yet another episode! Thanks to all of my loyal readers, your humor and support is what makes this blog so amazing!
I know you’ve all been asking for a review of my favorite episode, so I’m giving you what you want: “Dinner Party,” season 4 episode 9 of the greatest show to be created, the Office.
For those of you who haven’t seen this episode, watch it. But, I’ll give the brief breakdown of what we have going on here. The crazy manager of Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, Michael Scott, is a few months into his relationship with Jan Levinson, his former boss. Jan got fired from her position a few episodes back for, essentially, going off the rails. She and Michael broke up a few months before, but she won him back by doing something she knew without a shadow of a doubt would break him: got a MASSIVE boob job. Everyone thinks the two of them are insane, and nobody wants to spend time with them. Michael basically dupes two of his workers Jim Halpert and his girlfriend, receptionist Pam Beesley, to attend a dinner party at his condo by making sure they had no plans, therefore no excuses to say no, by creating a fake overtime assignment on a Friday night. Yep, he’s that desperate to get them over.
Jim and Pam head over to his condo after work, accompanied by salesman Andy and his girlfriend Angela. Jan reveals that dinner will take an additional three hours to be served, so the three couples engage in a bunch of ice breaker games. The quirky salesman Dwight Shrute ends up crashing the dinner with his sixty year old babysitter, because Michael had told him he wasn’t allowed to come because he didn’t have a date. Once dinner is served, Michael and Jan get into huge fights that lead to a broken TV, the cops showing up, and the termination of Michael and Jan’s relationship for good.
The true star of this episode is Jan Levinson. My husband Frank and I quite literally were on the floor with her antics. Through bits both subtle and huge, the episode reveals how crazy and abusive she really is. When they give a tour of their bedroom, Jan scolds Michael for not putting away the camera and tripod pointing directly at their bed. If you remember from season 3 episode 21, Michael tells the ladies of the office how Jan films them having sex, makes him watch it back to improve his game, and also watches their sex tapes with her therapist. Clearly, judging by the camera still in the room, she hasn’t changed as much as she told Michael she would when she got the boob job!
Jan goes on to play a CD by her former assistant, the sexy 20-year-old named Hunter. Michael had always been a bit jealous: in Season 3 episode 18, he meets Hunter and asks Jan “Who’s the boy toy? Were you going to tell me you hired James Vanderbeak?” Well, the infamous Hunter returns again as Jan plays his song for the group. The song is essentially detailing an older woman having sex with him and turning him into a man. The words “So wrong, so right, all night, all right, ohhh yeaaah” blast as Jan dances sensually. Michael’s too thick to realize the song is literally detailing him being cheated on, but the rest of the group shares uncomfortable glances. Check out the song, it’s hilarious. Frank memorized the whole thing and serenades me with it whenever I’m upset. Works like a charm.
One of the funniest side plots reveals itself when Jan insinuates to Pam that Pam and Michael used to date. When talking about how messy his bathroom is, Jan says, “I don’t have to tell you. He couldn’t have changed that much since you two were together.” Pam is clearly dumbfounded, as Michael is the most repulsive, annoying, inconsiderate, un sexy person she’s ever met. She has never thought of him even remotely romanticly, so she frantically tries to express that to an unlistening Jan. As the episode progresses, whenever Michael and Pam interact, you see Jan staring daggers with an emotionless smile at the two. When the food is served, Michael whispers that it might be poisoned. Pam says to the camera: “I know the food isn’t poisoned, I know that. But, if she were trying to poison someone, wouldn’t it be me? Michael’s former ‘lover’?” Ha! Classic moment. Jan’s insanity is better revealed through the words of the dinner party guests.
The climax of the episode is a Michael and Jan yelling at each other from across the table. Long story short, Jan gets angry with Michael so she starts loudly playing Hunter’s album yet again. There’s more yelling, which leads to Michael insulting her candle company and the fact that she’s tried to take advantage of his “rich friends” by getting them to invest. The argument digresses like this:
Michael: God, I would love to burn one of your candles.
Jan: You burn it, you buy it!
Michael: Oh good, I’d be your first customer!
Jan: You’re hardly my first!
Michael: THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!
Jan then proceeds to throw a trophy at Michael’s tiny “plasma screen TV,” breaking it.
I know she’s just a character, but God, it’s almost as infuriating as hilarious. I cannot even fathom being so angry that I destroy something of Frank’s. They should have left that relationship a LONG time ago! There’s no respect, no communication. Michael should have dumped her ass long ago. This is, in my opinion, the largest flaw of the episode. It’s difficult to balance absurdity and humor with reality, and I think the writers have flown the coop. Even though Michael is a dumbass and Jan is hot, I think he would have left that relationship earlier. Sure, he’s scared, he likes the security, his ideal life involves a wife and kids. Which leads me to my biggest point…
Michael revealed in this episode that Jan does not want kids! That tiny detail is not given enough attention. Michael reveals that he has had not one, not two, but three vasectomies because Jan has changed her mind so many times about children. “SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP! You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies has on a person!” he yells, which I think is one of the best moments. The more I thought about it, though, the more it sat wrong with me. Michael’s one goal in life is to have children. That is a dealbreaker for him. Even if Jan were the perfect girlfriend, he would ditch her in a second if she meant he wouldn’t have a condo full of children! Her abuse is enough to make him want to leave, so it dumbfounds me that the two of those combined hasn’t pushed him out the door. Sure, you could say that Michael is truly that superficial that he would choose fake boobs over the life he’s always dreamed of. But, I think you and I both know that’s not true. I don’t think what we’re dealing with is the superficiality of Michael; that’s not a message the producers want to send. I think what we’re dealing with is a good old fashion plot-hole. I’m a bit disappointed that an episode filled with such comedic gold had such a, in my opinion, earth shattering fault. Frank wants me to add “no fake boobs are done well enough to make a man sacrifice that much.” How many fake boobs have you seen, Frank?! Haha!
Anyway, all in all, fantastic episode. I wouldn’t be a critic if I didn’t point out the mistakes! It’s hard enough to find a flaw in a show so perfect. What should I review next?!
Keep coming back and reading! Yours truly, Pat MacCarther (and her lovely husband Frank rooting from the sidelines).
COMMENTS:
HereComesTrebble: lol Jan is psycho, you killed that. Best and worst character of the show!
HereComesTrebble: my wife and I love watching the show together too! How long have you and Frank been together? Great review.
JanMacCarther: @HereComesTrebble, we’ve been married for
just over two years! It definitely makes the show more fun. I’m glad you liked the review!
AsstRegionlManger: I totally agree. It’s almost too absurd for the show… I know it has to be funny, but at a certain point, their relationship just is not believable!
BrocoliRob: lol. Funny stuff. Done it again, Jane!
JanMacCarther: Thanks, @BrocoliRob!
------------------------------
DECEMBER 29, 2019
Hello, hello, hello! Pat MacCarther here with another review. I’ve decided to do something a bit different today. I’m going to re review an episode! I rewatched the series another time, and honestly, my review of “Dinner Party” is pretty unfair. I was being hard on Jan.
I mean, yes, she is crazy. I am not denying that! But, certain little things can build up to push someone toward a breakdown like that. It could happen to any of us.
Firstly, I jumped to judge her relationship with Hunter a bit too quickly. I’m not saying it’s downright okay to have an affair with the man, but here’s where I’m coming from: she feels trapped in her job. She had to have some sort of inkling that she was going to be fired, and who is to say that Hunter wasn’t her saving grace at the office? Someone she could relate to, and honestly, trust deeply because he was her assistant, after all. I imagine she saw him as her closest friend. Michael was by no means the perfect boyfriend: he is annoying, stupid, and over the top. The two could not be more different. Sometimes, it’s healthy to rant to someone you’re close to about your relationship. Don’t even tell me you’ve never said a bad word to a friend about your husband or boyfriend? You know you have! Hunter just happens to be a boy. I have to assume that the two got closer than they expected to, and what the hell are you supposed to do? Just stop talking to him all together just because your boyfriend is threatened by him? You should not have to make yourself less happy than you could be just because someone feels uncomfortable. If we’re meant to be, it’ll work out.
Also, I know this will be unpopular, but how can we possibly know that Jan and Hunter had an affair? I don’t know why everyone assumes that just because two attractive people work together that they have to get together. All we know is that Hunter wrote a song about a woman making him a man. Who knows if it’s Jan? I think everyone is jumping to far too many conclusions by assuming they had an affair.
I just had to play devils advocate a bit here. Let me know what you think in the comments. You can play tie breaker for a little dispute Frank and I have been having. A dispute about the Office, of course. Can two people not be friends without everyone assuming its an affair?
COMMENTS:
MoMoneyMoProblems: have to admit, you lost me here a little...
Sprinkles: Honey. Jan cheated on him with a 20 year old. No justifications for that.
FrankMacCarther: I thought you were going to let me add my opinion! I think I have proof that Jan and Hunter had an affair, not that I need any because it’s so obvious. Here’s my theory, bear with me. Jan is very pregnant not even ten episodes later when we see her again in “Goodbye Toby.” Though the baby was clearly conceived during their relationship, Jan tells Michael it’s not his. She also tells him she didn’t cheat on him; that she went to a sperm bank when they were dating. While that is a hilarious moment and I believed it at first, when Pat and I got in this ‘debate,’ I started thinking about it more. Jan does not want children, bottom line. She never has, that’s a huge part of her character. I know it’s a leap, but I feel almost positive that the child is Hunter’s. Why would she go to a sperm bank to get pregnant with a child she doesn’t even want? We know the child can’t be Michael’s because she makes him wear two condoms. I also know, in my heart, that Jan Levinson has too much class to go to the same sperm bank that Kevin donates his stuff to. It’s not Michaels, it’s not the sperm bank’s. I can’t rule out Hunter, and that is ALL I am saying.
JanMaCarther: Oh, come on, Frank.
TheBusinessBitch: Haha, funny theory, man! @JanMaCarther, listen to your husband on this one. I’d like to see more theories from you, Frank!
ALittleStitious: don’t read into it so much. Funny is funny.
-------------------------------
FEBRUARY 12, 2019
Hello again! Pat Mccarther here. I dropped the whole Jan Hunter topic for a few weeks because I got quite a bit of backlash. Not just from my readers.
I feel pretty passionately about the topic, so I’m going to bring it back up again. Read it or don’t read it.
I think Michael has a lot more to do with Jan’s ‘insanity’ than we’re all realizing. But, it’s so, so much deeper than him provoking her to make her crazy. I think that Jan is thinking realistically, even though her reaction might be extreme.
Let me paint a scene for you: you are so helplessly obsessed with your partner that your deepest insecurities come out. This idea is not original to The Office. It’s common. Insecurities arise when you’re so passionate about someone. Jan just decided to indulge on those insecurities, as many of you have done before.
Let’s enter into Jan’s mind. Michael thrives in his office. He’s constantly laughing, working hard to build relationships with people, and working even harder to make the office feel like a home. Why, though, is he still searching for such approval when he has the approval of Jan at home? What is missing from their relationship that he has to bend over backwards to make others happy? Has he bent over backwards for her? Maybe he has. The thing is, it’s impossible to know if he does the same for her. It’s impossible for her to know, as well. All she has to go off is a gut feeling; something missing. All she can do is sit around and wonder.
No WONDER in Jan assumes Michael and Pam have a thing for one another in
“Dinner Party.” She sees how great Michael is, and not only that, she feels that Michael is giving his all to those he works with. If she were to fall for Michael in a normal setting, she can’t even imagine how hard someone could fall for him when they see him thrive in his work environment, where he feels at home.
The thing is, at their dinner party, they are at their home. Yet, he is more excited to have guests than he is to be alone with her. How can you feel secure in your relationship when you know the other person is happier elsewhere?
All of this may just be a little peek into the mind of Jan; there could be ten million other insecurities eating away at her. The dinner party was just a time where they all perfectly aligned. That’s why she went off the rails. She is not insane, nothing is wrong with her. She’s simply an emotionally damaged woman trying the only way she knows how to love someone. Why do you keep asking for more of her? Why won’t you just accept that and work harder to make it work?
ScottsTotts: are you delusional?! Michael hardly thrives in his office. They all hate him, lol! You’re losing me, girl. What?!
ZippityZoppity:… WHAAT?! LMAO! You could not be further off. Michael and Jan don’t work because they are HORRIBLE for one another! Why do you think he’s so much happier at work?! It has nothing to do with her ‘insecurities,’ babe. They aren’t meant to be. She’s looney, Michael’s an idiot, the two make a hilarious episode. End of story.
JanMacCarther: I’m sorry that I’m so cynical that I think
Life isn’t so black and white. People aren’t just ‘meant
To be.’ Relationships are formed from hard work and
Dedication, it’s not all flowers and candy! You have to
Work hard to make something work in the real world.
FrankMacCarther: How hard is too hard?
JanMacCarther: so you can’t answer my calls but
You can comment hate on my blog? Grow up.
JamaicanSunPrincess: Pat, you’ve lost me. Stick to what you’re good at. Reviewing funny episodes. I’ll read one more of these then I’m finding my office content elsewhere.
RyanStartedTheFire: Hey @jamaicansunprincess, chill. Pat,
I like what you’ve been doing. It’s nice to read about the
office but also be Challenged by different perspectives.
------------------------------
FEBRUARY 24, 2019
Hi. Pat here.
I do appreciate most of your comments. I try to not take the nasty ones to heart, so thank you to everyone who is still supporting my blog through these random tangents. Sorry I haven’t written much more this month.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what some of you said. Maybe Michael and Jan just aren’t meant to be. Maybe the problems they’ve encountered are irrelevant to that large detail. I don’t know. It just pains me to see so many people make such a bold statement about the relationship when very few people have seen it up close. Maybe I should just listen to everyone.
HollyGram: Oh, honey. Are you okay? Don’t let everyone’s comments get to you. It’s just a TV show!
BearsBeatsBattlestargallactica: You don’t know shit about the office. Stop putting this trash online because nobody wants to read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 8, 2019
Hi all.
I haven’t gotten on the blog for a while. Personal reasons.
I wanted to say fuck you! To all of you who trash my blog and give me hate. Fuck you all.
The thing is, though, I don’t really care what you think of me! I’ll take one out of Jan’s playbook. Nothing that happened with her and Michael is her fault. Nothing.
She TRIED! Is that not more than you can say? Let’s go to the beginning. She knew it was wrong for her and Michael to be together: she was embarrassed by him, thought he was immature, KNEW she was out of his league. But, despite all of this, she decided to give him a chance. THAT is where she went wrong: giving him a first chance. You can’t just go around being vulnerable with people like that, Jan. I think we all learn that the hard way.
So, she gets with him and he draws her in. Think about it. Jan Levinson was such a badass before she started dating Michael. She was a corporate badass. Thrived in her job and everyone respected the hell out of her, even if they feared her. She was calm and collected and clearly brilliant. She made the mistake of falling for someone who stripped her of everything.
Michael is the common denominator here. She was fired not long after she and Michael got back together for behaving erratically. One of her erratic behaviors? Getting a boob job and flaunting it. She only got a boob job for Michael. She never would have done that on her own, especially considering in the episode “Money” she talks about how horrible her mood swings have been with all of the painkillers. Michael has her under some kind of fuckboy spell that MAKES her get a boob job. She had no control over it. She also had no control over the fact that Michael’s mind games made her distracted at work, thus getting her fired.
If you’re saying this isn’t Michael’s fault, you’re essentially saying the writers of the office suck. Why else would they create the character Jan as this intimidating, no nonsense badass at the beginning of the show? Then change her into this ‘crazy’ monster? Do you think they just changed their minds mid write and were like, ‘nah, lets make this bitch crazy for no reason! That would be funny.’ NO, they didn’t! Because they are brilliant. Jan turned crazy as a result of Michael. She was not crazy at the beginning. Now she is.
And, of course, society and EVERYONE watching blames Jan. Blaming the hysterical woman always seems like the easiest option, doesn’t it?! Well, here I am to stand up for her. And, to stand up for all women like her, for that matter. We are NOT crazy! We were sucked into the idea of a perfect man and fell for that idea so blindly that we didn’t realize everything we were losing. All men are like Michael. All men are the same. I’m tired of everyone blaming Jan for how things went down. Relationships are two sided, and if someone is ‘crazy,’ they were made that way. End of story.
Go ahead, hate on me in the comments. I won’t read them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 3, 2020
Hi everyone. Been almost a year!
I’ve been working up the courage to write for this blog again over the past couple of months. And I feel better.
Now that I have perspective, I’d like to take back what I’d said the last few posts.
Michael and Jan were not meant to be together. Everyone knew this except Jan. Everyone could see how much crazier the relationship was making her except Jan. Everyone expected Jan to have a complete mental breakdown, except Jan.
Although I probably will never love him the same, I do remember why I loved Michael Scott so much at the beginning. He is a great man, just not the man for me.
Jan was crazy.
Frank, I’m sorry.
Vienna
Winter 2018
“...Vienna waits for you…” It hit me hard, just at the right moment. It was the end of my junior year, and the pressure and expectations seemed to fall on me all at once. I had spread myself too thin; suddenly, all of my goals seemed impossible. During this low point, I stumbled upon the song Vienna, by Billy Joel. It was written for me. The lyrics describe a maturing child who places impossible pressures on herself in an attempt to orchestrate her entire future. Billy mockingly asks the subject why she doubts herself if she appears to be so smart, and why she’s trying to fit an entire lifetime of experience in the few short years prior to adulthood. He wonders when the child will realize that the rest of her life, Vienna, waits for her. Upon hearing the song, I grew defensive. It seemed critical towards a student like myself. I then began to think further about its message: one bad test doesn’t reflect who I am. I don’t have to have the rest of life mapped out in high school; it is okay to be unsure.
While I still push myself academically and extracurricularly to the same degree, Vienna has challenged me to view my responsibilities and ambitions in a different light. I realized that the only person inflicting those impossible standards and pressure upon myself was me. I now understand and accept my imperfections, rather than fearing and attempting to suppress them. I now know that the uncertainty of my future is inevitable, and that the less pressure I mentally impose, the more balanced my life becomes.
A Quick Trip
Lauren Newton
Spring 2022
People turn to drugs for a variety of reasons: to escape reality, to tap into an expanded reality, to experience something extraordinary. Psychedelic drugs have a specific ability to distort reality and even create new realities in the form of visual and auditory hallucinations. Pop culture depictions of psychedelic trips involve vivid colors, appearances from random figures or apparitions, and an overwhelming sense of discovery. Many psychedelic users report discovering a “deep secret of the universe” after their trips, revealing that drugs have the ability to tap into inner truths and help one reach a better understanding of the self[1]. Surrealists embark on a similar journey, hoping to find truths in deep layers of the unconscious and having an ability to see the world through a unique, marvelous lens. Surrealist painters distort physical realities and expectations, from Dali’s deformed human-like figure in “The Great Masturbater” to Magritte’s bird caged torso in “Therapist.” While Surrealists attempt to tap into the unconscious, psychedelic users experiment with an altered state of consciousness. Both endeavors result in bizarre perceptions of reality, and each trip is unique to the individual just as each dream is unique to the dreamer. Taking hallucinogenic drugs induces a trance-like state that produces similar conclusions to Surrealist practices and products – the sense of the uncanny, unnatural, and strange is present in both. However, many characteristics of psychedelic drugs differ greatly from the Surrealist experience.
Perhaps the most popular hallucinogen, LSD, was synthesized in 1938 and popularized in the 1950s and 60s, decades after the Surrealist movement’s peak. Toward the end of the 1960s, LSD became popular for recreational and spiritual use and began what was known as the “psychedelic movement.” This hallucinogenic drug is absorbed in the digestive tract and the effects reach their peak after about two hours, and the half-life of the drug is 175 minutes. LSD significantly alters the state of consciousness, leading to an enhanced capacity for introspection, feelings of euphoria, and a psychological functioning similar to that of dreams.[2] LSD users experience sensory alterations, including pseudo-hallucination, intensification of color perception, and metamorphosis-like changes in objects and faces. Additionally, users experience more imaginative thought and broader and unusual associations. However, not all LSD trips are enjoyable, and the term “bad trip” has been coined to describe undesirable effects. The most common unpleasant reaction is massive spurts of anxiety and panic and even a fear of death – this paranoid ideation may ensue for a few days following the trip.
The “magic mushroom” is a popularized hallucinogen that contains two psychedelic compounds: psilocybin and psilocin. The effects of psilocybin are similar to that of LSD: an altered state of consciousness with a greater ability for introspection. Illusions and alteration of thought are common, and the effects last about three to six hours.[3] Surrealist artist Salvadore Dali had a special interest in the magic mushroom, as it was the crux of his film “Impressions of Upper Magnolia.” In the film, fearful music and imagery are juxtaposed with calm scenes as the characters embark on a journey to Upper Magnolia to find the pure white mushroom that has hallucinogenic effects like that of LSD. Dali’s interest in the oriental culture shines through in the film, and godlike chants and rhythms are played throughout the hour-long piece. The film posits that the hallucinogenic mushroom “truly, inescapably determine[s] al the styles of the Dali figures,” suggesting that hallucinogenic drugs may give clarity to the disorder of much of Dali’s work.
Another drug, mescaline, is found in a Peyote cactus and is one of the oldest known hallucinogens. Popularized in religious rituals, North American natives used the drug as far as 5700 years ago. Mescaline produces feelings of euphoria by increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain. Compared to LSD and psilocybin, mescaline is the least potent however has the longest duration of effects, lasting over ten hours. However, Aldous Huxley describes that mescaline changes the quality of consciousness more profoundly than any other substance while remaining less toxic.[4] Upon consumption of mescaline, users observe hallucinations, hypersensitivity to touch and sounds, and intensification of light and color. Additionally, there’s an altered sense of time and self-awareness. Objects can appear distorted and flattened with the “geometrization” of three-dimensional objects, appearing almost like a Cubist painting. It is also common that the user feels like he is communicating with God and thus is used by Native Americans for divine and sacred ceremonies[5].
The first use of Peyote dates back to the 1600s and was introduced to Mexican tribes for ceremonial purposes. They believed that the drug-induced visions were spiritual messages and that they could expand their consciousness under its influence, healing physical, mental, and spiritual imbalances. Users claim to have revelations that lead to new morals and ethical ways of living in addition to spiritual awakenings.[6] A prominent member of the Surrealist group, Antonin Artaud, struggled with drug addiction and depression his whole life and took a particular interest in Peyote. He traveled to Mexico, given a grant from the Mexican government, initially drawn to the post-revolutionary modern art that populated the country. Additionally, he felt that the Mexican society was closer to the earth and the “real creation.”[7] He partook in the tradition of the “peyote rite” with Mexican natives, a ritual that is used to increase the body’s bond with creative forces and vital nature. He believed the ritual allowed him to speak the repressed language of the unconscious and insists that universal, esoteric forces were at play during the experience. Artaud said “I felt, therefore, that I should go back to the source and expand my pre-consciousness to the point where I would see myself evolve and desire. And Peyote led me to this point.”[8] Furthermore, he claimed that experiencing Peyote created a new consciousness and an alternative view of life.
Although Artaud described his Peyote trip as “the happiest three days of [his] existence, he was struggling heavily when he embarked his journey to Mexico[9]. He was overcoming a horrid heroine addiction and experiencing painful symptoms of withdrawal. Though he paused heroine consumption while in Mexico, Artaud continued his use after returning home and said he felt heroine was an important extension of his body. He claimed it was a legitimate way to lessen his internal pain and disgust with the French society. [10] Artaud struggled heavily with mental illness, being diagnosed with nervous and depressive personality as a child. He believed that drugs calmed his consciousness, but nontheless spent a large portion of his life in sanatoriams, receiving electroshock therapy among other treatments. [11]
Not all the members of the Surrealist group agreed with Artaud’s opinion of drugs – in fact, the group’s leader, Andre Breton, looked down on Artaud for his use of drugs. Breton felt that hallucinogens were completely unnecessary, stating that the “basic metaphor of Surrealism evokes intoxication,” positing that one could feel the same results from Surrealist practices as drugs. Breton argued for a state of “natural intoxication,” which could be found through dreams and automatic writing.[12] Additionally, Breton argued that accounts of drug trips put their emphasis on visions rather than process of attainment, which was the most important factor in his opinion. Anna Balakian states that rather than an interest in the poppy seed, Breton had an interest in the poppy field, the fertility of that field, and its inner space occupied by the immortal soul.
Though Breton argues that a natural intoxication can occur through dreams, accounts of psychedelic trips reveal the experience is similar to that of dreaming. Psychedelic drugs combine the normal waking imagination with daydreaming and there’s a freedom of altered conscious similar to that of dreaming.[13] Surrealists have a particular interest in the dreams, believing that they reveal hidden meanings and messages about the person and deserve to be analyzed. Unlike in dreams, when one undergoes a psychedelic trip, he is able to remember details with far more clarity. Should Surrealists be interested in understanding the meaning of dreams, they may be interested in hallucinogenic’s unique ability to concern the mind solely with “being and meaning.”[14] They should be equally interested in analyzing occurrences in a drug-altered state as in a dream state - the images come from within and are perhaps more complete than those in dreams.
One large effect of hallucinogenic drugs is the confusion and distortion of time. One user reported that he “seemed ot have lived for 70 to 100 years in one night,” unable to follow time regularly[15]. Many users feel fearful that the trip would last forever, one user detailing “I realized I could not tell how long this had been going on. Had I been like this for months? Would it ever end?” [16] Perhaps Dali’s most famous painting, “The Persistence of Memory,” emphasizes this theme of fluidity of time. In the piece, there are several clocks that melt across objects, similar to that of Camembert cheese. Time, what is a stable and unequivocal notion, becomes everchanging and unreliable. Similarly, Aldous Huxley notes that his watch was in a “different universe” and that under mescaline, he had a complete indifference to time.
Dr. Sigmond Freud posits that human beings and their personalities are made up of three parts, which play a role in creative life: the id, the supergo, and the ego. The id is the subconscious instinct and represents our most personal desires. Freud wrote “the core of our being then, is formed by the obscure id.”[17] Freud explains that the id appears through our emotions and we navigate through it in pleasure and repulsion. The superego is our conscience and judgement of what is morally right. It is created by cultural norms and can be attributed to inherited values from parents and adults. The ego is the negotiator internally that tells us what to do. [18] It is the agency most “intimately connected with consciousness.”[19] It lies just below the consciousness in a state Freud calls “preconscious,” and controls the relationship between the inner and outer reality, balancing the id and superego. [20]
Just as Freud believed there were hidden layers of the “self” that one could unlock and communicate with, many argue that drugs allow one to connect with a deeper subconscious. Users of psychedelics proclaim that after the drugs “melt apparent surfaces away,” they reveal the “infinite which was hid.”[21] Additionally, they argue that a “wild being” reveals itself under the influence of psychedelics, a layer that is normally hidden in the state of consciousness. This “wild being” may be similar to the id – drugs may reveal our more basic human impulses without deliberation, or our inner id being locked inside of sobriety.
However, not all Surrealist paintings share visual commonality with the visions psychedelic users report to experience. Take Rene Magritte’s “Les Amantes” (Figure 1). Two figures, a man and a woman, are shrouded in a sheet and appearing to kiss through the fabric. They are enclosed in dark blue and red walls, the man in black and the woman in red. This piece is by no means characterized by its vibrance, but instead its mysterious quality and unambiguous statement, Surrealist qualities. However, a large feature of psychedelic trips is the immense vibrance of colors. Users report having a heightened aesthetic appreciation and vivid coloration.[22] Additionally, synesthesia, which is when one is able to hear colors or can experience one sense through another, is reported by some psychedelic users, proving that vision and color is a key part of hallucinogenic trips.[23]
Just as Surrealist paintings and psychedelic drugs don’t elicit similar images, they also don’t elicit similar emotions. LSD users report that the drug induces bliss and increased feelings of trust, openness, and closeness with others.[24] However, many Surrealist paintings evoke feelings of darkness, paranoia, and confusion. In Magritte’s “Double Secret,” for example, a man’s face is cut in half, revealing dak bulbs and branch-like textures within him (Figure 2). The background is murky, and it appears to be a treacherous day on the ocean. This painting evokes a bit of fear and darkness, where LSD trips are characterized by bliss.
Though psychedelic trips are characterized by bizarre and unnatural occurrences, similar to Surrealist paintings, there are some differences between a drug induced state and Surrealist trance-like state. Both trances have an emphasis on discovery and untapping into an unknown, often that unknown being a deeper state of consciousness. Hallucinogenic drugs do induce a dreamlike state, however the abundance of bright colors and feelings of euphoria don’t necessarily relate to Surrealist principles. Beyond drugs’ abilities to present the unknown, they also have a healing effect, which is why many, including Antonin Artaud, turned to drugs to mask inner pain. Regardless of the purpose of use, psychedelic users are open to experience something unique, uncanny, and bizarre, just like what members of the Surrealist groups have been searching for.
Photoshopping Reality
Photoshopping Reality: The Effects of Photoshopping in a Digitalized World
Lauren Newton
December 2021
Photoshopping Reality: The Effects of Photoshopping in a Digitalized World
Since social media took storm over the past decades, a reliance on its interconnectivity has grown among adolescents and young adults alike. It’s become so ubiquitous that many use online interactions as an extension of their real lives (Huang et al., 2018). Social media serves as an arena for personal expression, however, when users aren’t secure in their identities or lack confidence in themselves, they often seek validation from their online communities (McLean et al., 2015). Furthermore, when individuals use social media to heighten their sense of self or create a false sense of happiness or success, a disconnect between real emotions and online facades emerges. Those who remain true to themselves online often maintain stability offline, while those who are inauthentic struggle to find fulfillment (Yang et al., 2017). While social media users of all demographics have reported negative effects of overuse of social media, early adolescents are especially susceptible to its harms: they are less secure in their identities, so they tend to experiment with their online presence far more than young adults (Yang et al., 2017).
In an app like Instagram, where photos are the means of communicating, individuals, especially women, feel a pressure to showcase their best selves (Huang et al., 2018). Largely due to societal expectations, women face pressure to post photos that emphasize their physical beauty and objectify their bodies (Sabik et al., 2020). Already overcome with higher levels of body-dissatisfaction than men, women often fall victim to a cycle of comparison and self-deprecation online (Lonergan et al., 2019). When comparing photos to friends and strangers, this inevitably leads to a preoccupation with the self image and the body image (Mclean et al. 2015). As a result of this online self-scrutiny, research has found high associations between women’s social media use and depressive symptoms (Barthorpe et al., 2020).
The media has traditionally been a guide to what’s considered ideal beauty, and early research primarily focused on the impact of advertisement models on young adolescents’ self-esteem (Kleemans et al., 2018). With advanced photoshopping and editing techniques, advertisers have presented unnatural depictions of women for decades. However, research has found peers dictate ideal standards more strongly than models, because peers are perceived to be more relatable (Kleemans et al., 2018). Unfortunately, photoshopping technologies are becoming available to the average online user, so much so that girls begin learning about them before they’re even teens (Kiefner-Burmeister & Musher-Eizenman, 2018). A cycle of editing abuse is easy to fall victim to – those dissatisfied with their appearances are more likely to photoshop their photos, however, those who do photoshop their photos report higher levels of dissatisfaction as a result (Lonergan et al., 2019). The growing use of photoshop also creates a hostile online environment for all users – research has found that girls’ body images decline as a direct result of viewing photoshopped photos (Kleemans et al., 2018). This study aims to discover what individual and social factors lead girls to photoshop their photos and what impact photoshopping has on their well-being.
Self Presentation and Identity Reconstruction
Young adults have always felt a pressure to form an identity true to themselves and respected by others, and this desire has only been amplified by social media and an age of comparison. One’s identity can be defined as the combination of the most defining characteristics of a person, or what distinguishes one person from another (Huang et al., 2018). When communicating that identity to others, people can tweak and adjust the way they present themselves depending on the circumstance. This is true in both the physical world and online world. However, in the physical world, there are restraints to this so-called identity reconstruction: when speaking face to face, it’s difficult to hide one’s personality, and certainly difficult to change one’s physical attributes (Huang et al., 2018). Unable to interact with physical cues, online users are given the freedom to completely construct their identities online. With the ability to do so, users often present only favorable characteristics and neglect to share perceived imperfections (Huang et al., 2018).
Self presentation involves adjusting oneself during social interactions in order to create a more desirable impression on one’s audience (Mills et al., 2018). Jang et al. (2021) distinguish the “true-self,” who people feel they truly are, and the “positive self”, the online personas many cultivate to seem more desirable. Strategic self-presentation describes the act of intentionally placing more desirable images online - in other words, not presenting followers with the fuller picture (Jang et al., 2021). Research shows that the majority of postings online are positive in nature because individuals have the tendency to process negative events privately (Cingel & Olson, 2018). Furthermore, online users tend to over represent their positive life events and exaggerate their positive emotional responses to those events online (Wertz et al., 2018). As a result of viewing idealized, positive images, online users tend to underestimate how often others experience negative emotions, which often makes their lives seem worse in comparison (Cingel & Olson, 2018).
Though this theory emphasizes posting positive images, research has found that individuals often experience negative consequences as a result of self-presentation. This can be explained through the self-discrepancy theory, which posits that individuals have multiple viewpoints about themselves: the “actual self,” the “ideal self,” and the “ought self” (Kim, 2021). Inconsistency with the actual self and the ideal self results in detrimental emotional effects, including psychological anxiety. With social media, there’s ample opportunity to compare the “ideal” self to the “actual” self because people’s idealized lives are tangible and concrete in the form of posts (Kim, 2021). Cingel & Olson (2018) note that self-presentation often backfires: though users hope representing positive events will boost their own self image, this isn’t always the case. Those with low self-esteem are better able to note the difference between their online personas and their real lives, creating vast identity confusion (Cingel & Olson, 2018).
Strategic self-presentation is not only problematic for individuals employing it; it also creates a hostile and unrealistic atmosphere online for all users. It becomes problematic when an entire community of users are presenting their ‘best’ self because the norm becomes an unnatural and unrealistic representation of life (Mills et al., 2018).
Social Comparison
Social comparison can be defined as the “process of thinking about information about one or more people in relation to the self” (Olivos et al., 2021). Social comparison is asymmetrical in nature because individuals can either compare upward or downward, meaning they can compare themselves to either ‘better’ or ‘lesser’ individuals. For example, users unhappy with their lives may compare themselves to those less fortunate to them. In that case, downward self-comparison can lead to gratitude, relief, or satisfaction; however, studies show that most people engage in both upward and downward comparison (Olivos et al., 2021). Furthermore, Kim et al. (2021) suggest that most social media users are more likely to solely engage in upward comparison. Though it can lead to self enhancement and motivation, in most cases, upward comparison fosters envy or resentment (Kim et al., 2021).
As mentioned, individuals have a tendency to post images online that are positive and paint themselves in the best light. Therefore, simply scrolling through social media gives users exposure to unrealistic, or even impossible, beauty standards (Mills et al., 2018). Though there’s been bountiful research about the negative impact of exposure to idealized images in advertisements for young girls, research has found that people more often compare themselves to peers because they’re perceived to be more relatable (Kleemans et al., 2018). Research has shown that peer comparison may have graver effects than celebrity comparison, and Kim et al. (2021) suggest that upward social comparison has a positive association with worsened health, both mental and physical.
Social Media Practices, Self Esteem, and Body Image
Research has found that individuals who spend more time on social media are more likely to engage in social comparison (Cingel & Olson, 2018). Though social comparison isn’t limited to the online world, it’s far easier to escalate online because of how readily available comparison information is on social media. Online users can “monitor the other viewers’ collective reactions” with ease (Kim, 2021).
The time spent on social media is not the only factor contributing to social media’s negative effects; the frequency and type of content people post contribute as well. Research found that girls who regularly post selfies have higher body dissatisfaction, suggesting that seeking for validation online merely worsens existing esteem issues (McLean et al., 2015). Furthermore, the way users approach posting is influenced by their self-esteem: users with higher self-esteem draw attention to their positive features, while users with lower self-esteem report using social media to hide their flaws (Cingel & Olsen, 2018).
Self esteem, one’s feeling of self-worth, can be based on many aspects, including feeling “attractive, loved, competent, powerful, and virtuous” (Sabik et al., 2020). Valkenburg et al. (2021) describe that self-esteem can fluctuate significantly for some individuals – those reliant on social approval to maintain self-worth appear to have unstable senses of self, and their self-esteem wavers heavily (Sabik et al., 2020).
Research has indicated that self-esteem is both an independent and dependent variable of social media abuse. People with already lower self esteems may be more likely to use social media to search for validation (Sabik et al., 2020). Kim et al. (2021) found that those with depression and impulsivity are more likely to develop an addiction to social media. However, the more they use social media in hopes to improve morale, the more depressed they may feel (Kim et al., 2021). Valkenburg et al. (2021) found that adolescents who spend more time on social media reported lower self-esteem than those who spend less time online. Furthermore, the way users approach posting is influenced by their self-esteem: users with higher self-esteem draw attention to their positive features, while users with lower self-esteem report using social media to hide their flaws (Cingel & Olsen, 2018). Research has also revealed that time spent on social media is positively associated with an increased risk of self-harm, particularly for females (Barthorpe et. al., 2020).
Not surprisingly, users with higher self-esteem are less likely to fall victim to the negative effects of social media. One study found that users with greater purpose in life place less importance on the amount of likes they get on each photo (Burrow & Ranoine, 2017). Similarly, studies show that individuals with higher self esteem don’t feel the need to devote time and energy to social media because they’re less vulnerable to identity threats (Cingel & Olson, 2018).
Body image is a multidimensional concept that can be categorized by individuals’ perceptions and attitudes about their bodies as well as their preoccupation with their physical appearance (Rajagopalan, 2020). Research indicates that adolescents often perceive their bodies differently than they appear in reality, and this discrepancy generally results in higher body dissatisfaction (Rajagopalan, 2020). Though both genders struggle with maintaining positive body images, women face harsher pressures: largely due to societal expectations, women more frequently post photos that emphasize their physical beauty and objectify their bodies, inevitably leading to a preoccupation with the body (Sabik et al., 2020).
The impact of media on body image can be explained by two factors: the internalization of an ideal depicted online and social comparison with one’s own body (Kim, 2021). Research has found that women who internalize the thin ideal body type reported high levels of social comparison online, which consequently led to decreased body satisfaction and worsened moods (Sabik et al., 2020). Additionally, McLean et al. (2015) reveal that appearance-focused social media use is positively associated with high body-related and eating concerns. This can be explained by the negative contrast theory, which posits that when females compare themselves to idealized, thin bodies online, it consequently leads to higher body dissatisfaction (Kleemans et. al, 2018). High levels of comparison are especially problematic because it is a risk factor for eating disorders and is correlated with depression (Mills et al., 2018).
Photoshop
Not only are social media users constantly surrounded by idealized images of peers and celebrities, but now, due to advances in editing technologies, images are often unnatural or even impossible. Photo manipulation describes altering the appearance of one’s photo, including people’s features, prior to sharing, through means such as photoshopping (McLean et al. 2015). Photo manipulation has become increasingly accessible for individuals, and research shows that young girls begin learning about photoshopping techniques by the age of 12-13 (Kiefner-Burmeister & Musher-Eizenman, 2018). Because people use social media to seek validation from their peers, those dissatisfied with their appearances are more likely to manipulate their photos online (Lonergan et al. 2019). McLean et al. 2015 found that girls with pre-existing body-related and eating concerns are more likely to photoshop their photos in efforts to present the most ideal version of themselves.
However, photoshopping a photo doesn’t necessarily increase that individuals’ self-perceptions; in fact, it usually has the opposite effect. Lonergan et al. (2019) found that those who reported to photoshop their images consequently reported higher levels of body dissatisfaction. This can be explained by the aforementioned self-discrepancy theory — users who photoshop their photos are likely aware of the disparities between their online personas and real life appearances (Kim 2021). Research from McLean et al. 2015 suggests that there are large correlations between photo manipulation and self-esteem, revealing that those who use photoshop hope to improve self-image, but instead, hurt it drastically. This phenomenon is especially problematic because as photoshopping becomes a norm, girls feel even less comfortable with their true-selves: Mills et al. (2018) found that girls unable to digitally alter their photos before posting had significant increases in anxiety.
Not only does photoshopping have negative effects on those who manipulate their own photos, but also, it negatively impacts the social media environment in general. Kleemans et al. (2018) found that exposure to manipulated images online directly led to lower body images, and that this was especially true for individuals with high social comparison tendencies. Additionally, Kiefner-Burmeister & Musher-Eizenman (2018) found that college age females’ body images decreased after exposure to digitally edited images. Though many are familiar with photoshopping techniques, manipulated photos are nonetheless hard to detect. Research reveals that girls are usually unable to distinguish between real and photoshopped images and are said to have found manipulated images “realistic” (Kleemans et al., 2018).
Research Questions and Hypothesis
RQ1: Are those who use photoshop more satisfied with their online persona as a result of photoshopping?
RQ2: Do girls who photoshop do so to improve their own self-image or to improve others’ perceptions of them?
H1: Girls who photoshop their photos are more likely to have low body image.
H2: Girls who photoshop their photos are more likely to feel unsatisfied in their social lives.
H3: There will be a negative relationship between the extent to which girls photoshop and their self-esteem.
Methods
To test these hypotheses, this study will survey adolescent girls aged 12-18 in the United States. Participants will be recruited through their school systems through information from their teachers. This survey will reach out to fifty middle and high schools across the United States, and after the teachers are briefed on the purpose of the research, their students will bring home a consent form for which their parents are to sign. Following parental consent, the teachers will administer the surveys during class time online. To incentivize teachers to administer the surveys, each class that completes the survey will be eligible to win a $100 Amazon gift card to be used for classroom supplies.
Because this study is interested in how self-esteem influences photoshopping practices, self-esteem will be measured and considered as both an independent and dependent variable. Self-esteem is a multidimensional variable that will be measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (RSES). RSES is a widely used measure (Hawi & Samaha et al. 2017) that’s found correlations with social media use and self-esteem, however it hasn’t been used to determine the relationship with self-esteem and photoshop. Though normally scored on a Likert-scale of four options, the RSES in this study will contain seven options to represent a broader array of emotion. Additionally, this study will add questions determining participants’ self-esteem levels following photoshopping photos, through likert-scale prompts such as “I feel better about myself after posting a photoshopped photo.”
Similarly, body image will be evaluated as an independent variable influencing participants’ photoshopping practices. To measure participants’ body images, this study devised a series of questions on a Likert-scale addressing levels of body satisfaction, including “I wish I could lose a little weight” and “I’m satisfied with my physical appearance.” To measure H2, this study proposes questions on the nature of participants’ friend groups and friendships, posing questions on a likert-scale such as “I feel well-liked by my friends” and “I consider myself to be popular.”
Photoshop levels will be evaluated as a dependent variable, influenced by self-esteem and body image, as well as an independent variable that influences participants’ feelings of social acceptance and self-esteem. The extent to which adolescents photoshop will be measured through Likert-scale survey questions designed by this research team, including questions like “I often use editing apps to smooth my skin before posting” and “I would feel uncomfortable posting an unedited photo on my account.” This study will measure how participants feel their photoshopping practices affect their relationships through Likert-scale questions such as “ I think photoshopping my photos increases my social standing with my friends.”
Because research has found that women are more susceptible to the negative consequences of social media (Huang et al. 2018), this study will control for gender by merely sampling girls. Additionally, social media use will be a control variable, and participants who do not use social media will be asked to skip the photoshopping questions. Similarly, those who do not photoshop their photos will be asked to skip the photoshop questions.
References
Professor Mark Coddington
Barthorpe, A., Winstone, L., Mars, B., & Moran, P. (2020). Is social media screen time really associated with poor adolescent mental health? A time use diary study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274, 864–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.106
Burrow, A. L., & Rainone, N. (2017). How many likes did I get?: Purpose moderates links between positive social media feedback and self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 232–236. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.005
Cingel, D. P., & Olsen, M. K. (2018). Getting Over the Hump: Examining Curvilinear Relationships between Adolescent Self-Esteem and Facebook Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1451860
Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2017). The Relations Among Social Media Addiction, Self-Esteem, and Life Satisfaction in University Students. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 576–586. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1177/0894439316660340
Huang, J., Kumar, S., & Hu, C. (2018). Gender Differences in Motivations for Identity Reconstruction on Social Network Sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(7), 591–602. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1080/10447318.2017.1383061
Jang, W. E., Chun, J. W., Kim, J. J., & Bucy, E. (2021). Effects of Self-Presentation Strategy and Tie Strength on Facebook Users’ Happiness and Subjective Vitality. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(7), 2961–2979. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1007/s10902-020-00348-z
Kim, H.M. (2021). What do others’ reactions to body posting on Instagram tell us? The effects of social media comments on viewers’ body image perception. New Media & Society, 23(12), 3448-3465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820956368
Kim, H., Schlicht, R., Schardt, M., & Florack, A. (2021). The contributions of social comparison to social network site addiction. PLoS ONE, 16(10), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257795
Kiefner-Buemeister, A. & Musher-Eizenman, D. (2018). The Benefits and Trajectory of Digital Editing-Based Media Literacy Among Girls. Mass Communication and Society, 21(5). 631-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1465097
Kleemans, M., Daalmans, S., Carbaat, I., & Anschutz, D. (2018). Picture Perfect: The Direct Effect of Manipulated Instagram Photos on Body Image in Adolescent Girls. Media Psychology, 21(1), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1257392
Lazard, L., & Capdevila, R. (2021). She’s so vain? A Q study of selfies and the curation of an online self. New Media & Society, 23(6), 1642–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820919335
Lonergan, A. R., Bussey, K., Mond, J., Brown, O., Griffiths, S., Murray, S. B., & Mitchison, D. (2019). Me, my selfie, and I: The relationship between editing and posting selfies and body dissatisfaction in men and women. Body Image, Vol.(28), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.001
Mills, J. S., Musto, S., Williams, L., & Tiggermann, M. (2018). “Selfie” harm: Effects on Mood and Body Image in Young Women. Body Image, Vol.(27), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007.
McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., & Masters, J. (2015). Photoshopping the Selfie: Self Photo Editing and Photo Investment are Associated with Body Dissatisfaction in Adolescent Girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(8), 1132–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22449
Olivos, F., Olivos-Jara, P., & Browne, M. (2021). Asymmetric Social Comparison and Life Satisfaction in Social Networks. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(1), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00234-8
Rajagopalan, J. (2020). Attitudinal and Perceptual Dimensions of Body Image in Adolescents. Journal of Indian Association for Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 16(4), 142–163.
Sabik, N. J., Falat, J., & Magagnos, J. (2020). When Self-Worth Depends on Social Media Feedback: Associations with Psychological Well-Being. Sex Roles, 82(7/8), 411–421. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1007/s11199-019-01062-8
Valkenburg, P., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., Driel, I. I. van, & Keijsers, L. (2021). Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem: Heading for a Person-Specific Media Effects Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa039
Wirtz, D., Tucker, A., Briggs, C., & Schoemann, A. M. (2021). How and Why Social Media Affect Subjective Well-Being: Multi-Site Use and Social Comparison as Predictors of Change Across Time. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(4), 1673–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00291-z
Yang, C., Holden, S. M., & Carter, M. D. K. (2017). Emerging adults’ social media self-presentation and identity development at college transition: Mindfulness as a moderator. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52, 212–221. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.006
Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art
Lauren Newton
Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art
W&L Art History, Winter 2022
Jean Dubuffet painted my least favorite painting I’ve studied thus far. “Will to Power,” an immature rendering of a nude man, is distasteful and hideous. After understanding the context of the painting, I appreciate its anti-Nazi sentiment; however, I detest the painting. Normally, after reading the words of an artist, I’m able to appreciate his work more. This was not the case with Dubuffet. Although I agree that artists should paint from their “inner being[s],” I’m opposed to much that Dubuffet posits in “Crude Art vs Cultural Art.” As an intellect himself, Dubuffet stinks of hypocrisy when arguing against the value of formal training and knowledge. I do agree that the value of a painting is diminished when an artist incorporates too many ideas; however, I value artists’ emotions, personal stories, and artistic visions when viewing art.
An artist’s touch, and through that her personal story, can make a painting all the more moving. Dubuffet argues that “art is a person in love with anonymity,” but I couldn’t disagree more. I find value in connecting with an artwork, and do that by imagining the artist and artistic process. Artists don’t have to be famous to create exceptional art, and art shouldn’t be judged based on the fame of its creator. Dubuffet argues that “no one recognizes” a real artist because “everyone decieves themselves” by appreciating “false” art. I enjoy the notion that art is everywhere, not just the places where elites deem it present. However, I completely disagree that context ruins a piece, or in Dubuffet’s words, “breaks the spell immediately”. I can appreciate well-executed art regardless of context, but my experience as a viewer is enriched drastically when I’m aware of the artists’ creative processes and inspirations.
Artists shouldn’t grow overly comfortable in their mastery; however, they certainly shouldn’t be penalized for a desire to immerse themselves in artistic culture. If Dubuffet believes an artist loses power once she becomes well-known, then I can’t understand why he so enthusiastically inserted himself into the art culture. His critique of intellectuals has no grounds. Just because an artist has been trained does not mean that artist lacks creativity or vision. I concede that vision can be “blinded” when applying formal practices, but I think any artist with true creativity has the ability to think beyond her formal training. An education isn’t a hindrance nor is it essential for success.
Unfortunately, after reading into Dubuffet’s process of creating “Will to Power,” my opinion on the piece only shrunk. I find it hard to believe he was “guided by [his] own impulses”. He blatantly states that he takes inspiration from psychiatric hospitals. Though I appreciate the elevation of asylum art, I’m left baffled. How can this painting be untouched by outside inspiration when its admittedly derivative of asylum art? A psychiatric patient may be able to tap into rawer, more vulnerable emotions, warranting Dubuffet’s praise. However, when emulating the style of those patients, Dubuffet defeats the purpose of Crude Art and destroys his own argument. He uses his formal training to create derivative, abhorrent art yet argues against training’s validity.
Of all of the statements in Dubuffet’s text, I disagree the most with the notion that art becomes “oxidized and worthless” when mixed with ideas. Ideas are the inspiration and purpose behind all artwork, whether or not the ideas are concrete. I agree that a painting can become overly complicated when an artist tries to encompass too many ideas because it could be difficult for the viewers to digest. But, I think artists should barely, if at all, consider their paintings’ impacts on their viewers. If an artist’s ideas involve potential audience reception or perceived correct practices of painting, her work is less genuine. Furthermore, I’d argue that Dubuffet did consider his audience’s reception whe creating “Will to Power” and assumed it would be controversial, which, again, defeats the purpose of his argument.
Although I’m biased against Crude Art because I find it obnoxious, unnecessary, and nauseating, I’m unable to respect Dubuffet as an artist nor as an intellectual. He should not be encouraging a culture of ignorance in “Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art” by castigating intellectuals. Whether or not an artist has been trained should be irrelevant, and artists who express raw emotions and vulnerability create the most compelling pieces. I prefer art that is simplistic in nature and intricate in symbolism and details. I enjoy works that challenge me and make me reconsider my gut reaction, especially when I’ve heard their backstories. With that being said, artwork that is “deliberately degenerate” is distasteful, and I will never appreciate a painting that looks like it was painted with shit.
A Woman’s Legacy Built by Men
“I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron’s point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it.” -Teresa of Avila
The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa: A Woman’s Legacy Built by Men
“I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron’s point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it.” -Teresa of Avila
Lauren Newton
ARTH 102: Survey of Western Art
April 5, 2021
On my honor, I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this paper. Lauren Newton
When Cardinal Federico Cornaro commissioned Gianlorenzo Bernini to sculpt The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa in January of 1647, the Roman Catholic Church had been facing the rise of Protestantism and battling criticism following Martin Luther’s purification effort. Despite the fact that her writings were somewhat controversial, Saint Teresa was deemed the perfect subject for propaganda in the church’s battle against the reformers. Because Saint Teresa became canonized as a saint in 1622, not even 30 years prior, Bernini was largely responsible for shaping her legacy. Additionally, because Bernini chose one of the most memorable and emotional scenes from Saint Teresa’s writings, those familiar with the sculpture no doubt conflate the statue with Teresa herself. Although reactions to the sculpture were positive when it was revealed, criticism proliferated as the Baroque period concluded, and many viewed the statue as indecorous and highly erotic1. Because of The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa’s extravagance in appearance and ambiguous implications, Saint Teresa’s true messages are often overlooked, and her legacy is overshadowed by Bernini’s artistic bias. Countless critics and viewers have formulated vastly different opinions on its significance because, since the statue was unveiled in summer of 1652, each generation of viewer’s interpretations have been shaped by their own preconceptions and biases, including gender and cultural context.
The illustrious sculpture is situated in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome. Though the church’s exterior is modest and even plain in design, this simplicity is juxtaposed by the sumptuous display inside . An exuberate combination of architecture, sculpture, and paintings, the interior of the chapel reflects a bell composto of sublime beauty, and The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is situated as the centerpiece commissioned Bernini in January 1647, and after five years of work, the statue was revealed, and Cornaro and the church alike boasted of its widespread acclaim.
Facing the growing Protestant movement and the purification effort spurred by Martin Luther’s “Ninety-five Theses” of 1517, the Roman Catholic Church was looking to counteract the allegations of Catholic corruption and garner support for the Catholic faith. The desire to reevaluate liturgical practices and standardize Roman Catholic doctrines lead to the Council of Trent, the 19th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church held between 1545 and 1563. The council also re-evaluated the church’s policies on artwork, including appropriate subject matter and style, because the idolatry and ornateness of Catholic artwork was condemned by many Reformers.
Given the Roman Catholic Church’s desire to “re-indoctrinate” the masses in its fight against Protestantism and the recent artistic scrutiny, Cardinal Federico Cornaro searched for a commission subject that would inspire piety. He believed Saint Teresa’s story would serve as useful propaganda and that her exemplary life story would inspire devoutness among Catholics. Because Saint Teresa had so recently lived, died, and been canonized, her story could be viewed as proof of God’s continual approval of the Roman Catholic Church; the tradition of canonizing people whose lives were marked by miraculous occurrences demonstrates God’s “election”6. Additionally, her writings were well-known and popular, leading her to have followers in many parts of the world. Not only did her life prove the continuing miracles of God, but also, it posed a unique potential threat to the church, so Cornaro was especially motivated to control her narrative. Because her writings were unconventional, the church believed that, if read incorrectly, they could contradict the very principles of the Counter-Reformation.
Although Teresa of Avila eventually became a saint, her life and writings were not always admired. In fact, Teresa lived a somewhat controversial life: she was even summoned by the Inquisition in 1576 for possible heresy9. A Spanish noblewoman born in 1515, Teresa’s status as a mystic, a woman, and a possible conversa -- a Jew that converted to Roman Catholicism -- deemed her problematic in the eyes of many Spaniards. Mystics were accused of promoting anti-Catholic sentiments because their belief that one can interact directly with God contradicted the Church’s emphasis on the role of clergy. In one of Saint Teresa’s most famous writings -- the scene Bernini depicted -- she describes interacting directly and physically with God through the means of an angel10. This scenario is emblematic of why the church considered her writings to be dangerous; Teresa was even chastised by the guardians of the patriarchy* for insisting her visions were genuine encounters with God, not illusions or exaggerations.
Despite the fact that her writings were controversial, Bernini depicted her message carefully, framing and morphing it to conform to the church’s agenda. If correctly executed, the mystics’ emphasis on ecstasies would correlate perfectly with the Counter-Reformation’s desire to use emotion and fervor to inspire faith. Bernini hoped to use Saint Teresa’s message to capture the religious zeal that the church strived for while simultaneously rendering an uncontroversial and unthreatening figure. However, because Bernini was the first artist depicting Teresa’s legacy to this magnitude, he was also tasked with accurately epitomizing her legacy.
Many critics of The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa argued that Bernini’s work is a too “literal” depiction of Teresa’s passage13. Because of the exuberance of the statue, this rendition arouses a viewer's tendency to understand Teresa through the eyes of Bernini instead of through her own writings. Especially as centuries have passed, viewers have a propensity to conflate the statue with Saint Teresa herself, which is problematic because Bernini’s rendition was heavily influenced by his own biases, whether or not it was intentional. Initial discussion of the statue in conjunction with her actual writings ignored the disparities between the two, setting an inaccurate framework for future interpretations.
One artistic inaccuracy stemmed from Bernini’s desire to ground Teresa’s writings in the corporeal and earthly rather than the spiritual. However, this attachment to corporeality contradicts Teresa’s lifelong dissatisfaction with materiality. As reflected in her writings, Teresa longed for her soul to escape to a more spiritual, heavenly realm. Additionally, she denies experiencing any physical pain, thus highlighting the importance of spirit over body. This paradoxical pull of heaven vs earth inspired Bernini’s statue. However, instead of reflecting that Teresa constantly battled the prison of her own body, Bernini manipulated her ambiguity to create the illusion of control and exuberance that the church desired. The excessive materiality of her massive clothing and the rocky, solid appearance of the cloud weighs Saint Teresa down, keeping her anchored to earth and the body. In other words, she appears to be rising toward the heavens, but the magnitude of the cloud and her clothes simultaneously drags her down to earth. Although these details helped satisfy the Counter-Reformation agenda, they threaten the mystical ideals by contradicting the notion of connecting directly with the divine.
Although the statue received massive Roman acclaim upon its unveiling, The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa has become one of the most controversial and discussed artworks of its century because of its erotic undertones. Many critics argue it is a sacrilegious depiction of Teresa’s visions because they believe she is depicted mid orgasm. However, because the many of the erotic implications of an ecstasy didn’t emerge until years later, Bernini saw no moral issue in his subject matter and the Roman public opinion was very positive.
Regardless of Bernini’s intention, art historians have found what they believe to be direct evidence of sexual undertones in the details of the sculpture. Saint Teresa of Avila assumes the position of a reclining nude, a posture that historically implies sexual submissiveness and passivity17. Her eyelids are relaxed, her eyes roll to the back of her head, her nostrils are flared, her mouth gapes, and her arm hangs limply at her side; all movements are spastic and characteristic of the female orgasm18. Many critics, such as Jaques Lacan, judged the expression perhaps too quickly by asserting she’s orgasming with minimal evidence. However, scholars and doctors studying orgasmology agree that the sexual undertones are glaring. French Neurologist Guillaume-Benjamin Duchenne, for example, studied facial expressions during the female orgasm using electrotherapy, and found evidence of specific muscles that indicate orgasm. He argued that Bernini, among other artists, fails to distinguish between the “ecstatic expression of celestial love and that of terrestrial love,” and that many saints and virgins, “whose features should always exude innocence and purity, too often have the expression of sensual pleasure.”
In The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, Teresa’s posture and facial expressions are not the only erotic cues. Although her extravagant clothes prove Bernini’s understanding for Teresa’s work -- the clothing shows a backward movement, revealing she had already been plunged in the heart in the ecstatic pain of transverberation -- they also reveal lascivious undertones20. The thick folds of cloth look like endless vaginal orifices, and this display reflects a level of vulnerability and accessibility. Additionally, the angel depicted reveals the same action potential because his drapery flows in a backward movement. However, his mischievous and knowing grin implies a level of seduction -- although he respects Teresa as a saint, the angel nonetheless enjoys being the “master of her desire”. Furthermore, the angel plays a crucial role in the interpretation of the statue because he is the purveyor of the gaze -- in other words, viewers should use how the angel views Teresa as a framework for their own viewing. So, since the angel appears to be viewing Teresa in a sexual light, viewers are inclined to do so as well.
Most art historians have acknowledged the statue’s erotic ambiguity throughout the centuries, however many debate the extent of the ambiguity’s affect on the statue’s artistic excellence and value. Because opinions are shaped by personal biases, many critics’ responses to the statue are characteristic of the cultural contexts in which they were given. For example, much of the criticism for The Statue of Saint Teresa emerged in the late 18th century as the Baroque period concluded and the Neoclassical era began. As this very traditional and classical style took center stage, the entire Baroque period was vilified as an “aesthetic aberration”. Categorizing the Baroque era as excessive and corrupt, many Neoclassicists believed Bernini’s excessive artistic mastery overpowered, and even negated, the statue’s sacred value. In 1855, for example, influential Swiss art historian Jacob Burckhardt published his opinions on the statue, stating “Here we clearly forget all simple questions of style, owing to the outrageous degradation of the supernatural”.
Perhaps the most well known response to The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is that of Jacques Lacan. Forty years after visiting Santa Maria della Vittoria for the first time in 1934, Lacan publicly revealed his opinion on the piece. In a seminar riddled with dissatisfaction and sexist ideals, Lacan’s most famous quote reads “You need but go to Rome and see the statue by Bernini to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it. What is she getting off on?”. Lacan argued that Teresa’s emphasis of the spiritual and degradation of the physical actually increases the emphasis on the orgasm. He discussed what he calls the “phallic function,” which argues that, in a discourse between two individuals, one must assume either the masculine or feminine position. One must have the phallus -- the abstract symbol of power -- and the other must be the phallus. Because he believed most men were “situated on the side of the phallic function,” Lacan associated men with spiritual love and women with physical love, praising the former and degrading the latter. He essentially argued that because Teresa is experiencing “jouissance” -- a French word roughly translating to ‘ecstacy,’ ‘pleasure,’ or ‘orgasm’ -- and there is not a phallic presence, she is not “getting off” on God, and that because she’s a woman, she can’t truly feel ecstasy and pleasure like a man. Although Lacan’s seminar was shaped by his personal bias as a man in the 20th century, Christian cultures actually adhere to the principles behind the “phallic function,” proving that cultural and religious biases heavily influence interpretations of the statue.
Lacan’s response to The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa has been criticized heavily for its masculine bias and “phallocentricity”27. Luce Irigaray, a Belgian-born feminist, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist, argued that Lacan completely disregarded the crucial fact that the statue was sculpted by a man. Because this statue emblematizes a woman but was also created through the lens of a man, Irigaray argues that Lacan’s criticism of Saint Teresa’s ecstasies were premature: one cannot judge her message accurately if he is merely conflating them with a biased rendition of her writings. Additionally, she argues that both Lacan and Bernini were deployers of the “phallic gaze,” meaning they look at women as objects or bodies to possess. Because of the phallic gaze, Bernini approached the sculpture with an inevitable male bias; Lacan did the same.
Since The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa was unveiled nearly four centuries ago, a myriad of viewers representing a myriad of cultures and identities have stood before and formed opinions on the sumptuous sculpture. Whether they defend the initial positive response to the work or join the many critics in anger against the ‘sacrilegious depiction’ depends on their personal and cultural biases. And, because Teresa’s message is viewed through the eyes of Bernini, critics must consider the statue as a mere rendition, not a perfect representation. Art historians may never agree on the impact and intention of Bernini’s renowned work, but the statue has unquestionably perpetuated the legacy of Saint Teresa of Avila and will continue to rouse discussion for centuries to come.
Bibliography
Call, Michael J. "Boxing Teresa: The Counter-Reformation and Bernini's Cornaro Chapel." Woman's Art Journal 18, no. 1 (1997): 34-39.
Farmer, Julia. “‘You Need But Go To Rome’: Teresa of Avila and The Text/Image Power Play.” Women’s Studies 42, no. 4 (June 2013): 390–407.
Hayes, Tom. "A Jouissance Beyond the Phallus: Juno, Saint Teresa, Bernini, Lacan." American Imago 56, no. 4 (1999): 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1353/1999.0018.
Jagose, Annamarie. “Face Off: Artistic and Medico- Sexological Visualizations of Orgasm.” In Orgasmology, (New York: Duke University Press, 2020), 135–174.
Nobus, Dany.“The Sculptural Iconography of Feminine Jouissance: Lacan’s Reading of Bernini’s Saint Teresa in Ecstasy.” The Comparatist 39 (2015): 22–46.
Warma, Susanne. "Ecstasy and Vision: Two Concepts Connected with Bernini's Teresa." The Art Bulletin 66, no. 3 (1984): 508-11.
The Trends and Imbalances of W&L Majors
As a liberal arts school, Washington and Lee University offers 40 different majors. Yet, half of the student body is concentrated into four majors alone.
As a liberal arts school, Washington and Lee University offers 40 different majors. Yet, half of the student body is concentrated into four majors alone.
The Washington and Lee undergraduate departments are divided into two schools: the College and the Williams School of Commerce. The former offers courses ranging from sciences and humanities to languages and fine arts. The latter offers four majors: Business Administration, Accounting, Politics, and Economics. Although 90 percent of W&L’s offered majors are in the College, almost half of the student body chooses a major within the Williams School, also called the C-School.
“I think some of it has to do with the fact that many of our students come to W&L interested in real world problems and how to solve them,” Head of the Economics Department Professor Linda Hooks said. “Many of the C-School’s majors address that kind of thing.”
Many faculty in the College are aware of the large concentration of students in the C-School. Business Administration, the most popular major in the Williams School, accounts for around 18 percent of the student body. The English major only accounts for about four percent.
“I wish there were administrative pressure to level that particular playing field,” English Professor Lesley Wheeler said. “Lower enrollments translate to reduced resources, which translate to lower staffing, which translates to fewer introductory courses, which translates to fewer opportunities for students to see how terrific and fruitful College majors are.”
Many students in the College acknowledge the overwhelming popularity of the Williams School.
“I often feel as if I’m a minority,” sophomore Hal Fant, a Neuroscience major, said. “In my pledge class of 20, I’m one of three people not in the Williams School.”
Because many students enter W&L undecided on a major, the popularity of C-School can be a deciding factor. Sophomore Shannon Wright did not plan to major in Business Administration initially, but the atmosphere surrounding the C-School was a deciding factor.
“I think the amount of people majoring in Business Administration at W&L probably did sway me a bit,” Wright said.
Many students turn also to the Williams School because they feel it offers “safer majors,” Professor Hooks said. Wright said that students often think that a Business major might lead them along a straighter path to success post graduation; it’s more of a “sure thing.”
Because so many students are interested in the C-School, class registration is tricky. At times, it’s difficult to fit all of the students into the classes offered, Professor Hooks said. Declared majors and seniors are usually given priority, so first-years and sophomores often struggle.
“Registration is so hard. Picking out classes is so difficult because they fill up so fast,” Wright said. “My advisor warned me I might not even get into any business classes my sophomore year. I know seniors need to take the classes, but sophomores need to be on the track, especially if they’re double majoring.”
Although the Williams School and the College offer very different courses, specific majors within each are more popular with specific genders. The Williams School itself is nearly 60 percent male, but many students and faculty are unsure why the gap exists.
“Why the proportion of women who major in economics is lower than the average is a puzzle to us,”
Professor Hooks said.
“The faculty spend a lot of time thinking about that.”
Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, a major closely aligned with Psychology, is among the courses in the College that draws one gender far more than the other: it is 86 percent female. But, as one of the 11 men in the major, senior Graham Pergande is unbothered by the gap.
“I wasn’t aware of it much when I declared, but I don’t think it would have had a big influence on my decision either,” he said. “Within the classes, it is predominantly female, but I guess I never notice or pay attention to that.”
It’s possible that women gravitate more heavily toward Psychology because it is traditionally seen as a “helping profession.” Societally, helping roles are considered more feminine, Pergande said.
Societal standards and norms may account for the large female majority in the English Department as well, Professor Wheeler said. About 74 percent of W&L’s English majors are female.
“I’m not sure why national gender ratios skew the way they do,” Professor Wheeler said. “Several cultural prejudices are probably at work among students and their parents, although I’m not saying they’re rooted in truth: that women are more verbal, that they should be under less pressure to earn high salaries, that English degrees lead to less lucrative jobs.”
Despite the wide range of classes and career paths that W&L students choose to pursue, many students are happy with their own choices and support and respect the choices of others.
“At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s the major that truly matters, it’s the experiences that you gain throughout your college career that shape you into the person you are years after graduating college,” Fant said. “I am confident that every student who graduates from W&L grows both intellectually and individually, and is equipped with the tools and knowledge to excel in whatever it is they choose to do.”
Seniors Spend Quarantine in Lexington to Preserve Last Months of College
“My first thought was, wow, this is like a different planet,” Director of Student Activities Kelsey Goodwin said. “Time to board the spaceship and launch to a different planet.”.
As college campuses across the nation are closing due to COVID-19, the students of the tight-knit Washington & Lee community are trying their best to cope with the changes without being in the environment they know and love.
“My first thought was, wow, this is like a different planet,” Director of Student Activities Kelsey Goodwin said. “Time to board the spaceship and launch to a different planet.”
A month and a half ago, students were informed that the W&L campus would be closing, those living on campus would have to vacate, and classes would resume online. Just months shy of graduation, seniors said goodbye to their last moments as students on campus. While many students stay connected from home and across the country via Zoom video chat, over 100 seniors stay in Lexington.
“My heart really goes out for the senior class. I mean, we were some distance from graduation,” Goodwin said. “They missed a lot: your last opportunity for Fancy Dress, spring break. Just a lot of things that come with wrapping up the W&L experience.”
Seniors took the news especially hard because their time as college students on campus came to an end in a matter of seconds.
“I would say the initial feeling that Friday evening for our senior class was, if it could be described in one word, probably denial,” said Hugh Crump, who graduated in December 2019 but has been living off campus.
Many seniors spent the next few days saying goodbye to underclassmen. To their knowledge, they may not be seeing their younger friends until Alumni Weekend next fall, Crump said.
“What I felt when I heard the news was, ‘this is probably the last time me and all of my friends are going to be together and my last time with the younger grades,’ so that was probably the biggest bummer of all time,” Senior Marshall Dike said.
When the news was announced, many students expected to carry on a social life similar to their time at W&L, Crump said.
“I think most of us kind of imagined still having that Wednesday, Friday, Saturday night routine,” Crump said. “Even sitting around a fire, even if there’s just a couple dozen of us here.”
However, as the gravity of the virus became apparent, students’ expectations weren’t fully met.
The Lexington Police have reached out to the Campus Community Coalition, an organization that helps communication between W&L campus and the community, and informed them that they will be strictly enforcing social distancing, Crump said.
“They didn’t want to see a fire by Windfall at night and 50 people sitting around it, or they didn’t want to see 100 people over by the Poles hanging out,” Crump said. “I would say the restrictions have kind of limited what everybody was expecting.”
Though social interaction like before is now limited, students in Lexington are taking advantage of the beautiful nature in Rockbridge County and finding new ways to stay occupied.
“There are a lot of things on my bucket list, like hiking House Mountain, long kayaks in the maury, and things like that that I haven’t done and am going to be able to do now that I’ve stayed here,” Crump said. “This lockdown has provided the perfect opportunity to do all those things.”
Senior Roby Mize gets a hair cut on his front porch. The barber gave 15 haircuts in the neighborhood.
Students have been creating new and fun activities to pass the time with friends. The Windfall dance floor is now a dining room, the Pumptown dance floor is now a movie theatre, and porches have become makeshift barber shops, Crump said.
“There are a lot of things on my bucket list, like hiking House Mountain, long kayaks in the maury, and things like that that I haven’t done and am going to be able to do now that I’ve stayed here,”
Crump said.
“This lockdown has provided the perfect opportunity to do all those things.”.
We’ll do painting together, do some random activity together, which we didn’t really do before,” said Sara Spain, a senior still living off campus in Lexington. “We’ve really been more intentional about hanging out.”
Although the seniors are among friends, Lexington is not the same.
“When we go on walks and things the streets are just deserted. It’s like a ghost town,” Spain said. “There’s too much free time I think, and so it gets kind of depressing.”
Many student-favorite restaurants in Lexington have closed as well. Others remain open for take out and even delivery.
“Palms and Blue Sky are probably the two biggest disappointments because they are completely closed, Crump said.
“They arent even doing a takeout option.”
Hugh Crump ‘24
Kelsey Goodwin is trying to keep students connected and in the spirit of W&L without being in Lexington.
“It’s so antithetical in a lot of ways. With the small liberal arts experience that you get at W&L, it was hard to imagine what W&L would look like online,” Goodwin said. “We tend to have such personal relationships with faculty here, and it’s such a big part of the W&L community.
Because a large part of Goodwin’s role on campus is keeping students engaged, happy, and healthy, she has experimented with ways to keep students involved while they’re across the country. She’s created a virtual book club, a pen pal program, and zoom hang outs so students can bring W&L spirit back into their lives at home, she said.
“We’ve been throwing things against the wall to see if they stick,” Goodwin said. “I think there’s something to be said for what I see students doing on social media and all the other ways they connect, is really being more intentional about trying to send out messages of positivity, trying to connect with classmates online, in a way that feels like, ‘we’re all here for each other.’”
The W&L community has been showing support for seniors as best they can, but it’s hard to make up for the time being lost, Goodwin said. Since graduation has been postponed, there isn’t currently an opportunity to honor the seniors.
“I don’t know if there’s ever going to be much closure. I feel like it was an abrupt ending, and I don’t even know how to figure that out,” Dike said. “Usually graduation is the kind of closure, and you have a couple of months to prepare for that closure.”
The whole W&L community will grieve the absence of seniors and remember the impact their class had on campus life.
“The whole week leading up to [commencement] is just really meaningful and emotional to those of us who have gotten to bond with you guys for four years, and all of it got kind of taken away,” Goodwin said. “I feel bad for them, and I feel selfishly sorry for myself because I missed those opportunities to honor students and celebrate students.
Dike said he hopes that W&L announces a plan for graduation soon so he knows he’ll see everyone in Lexington one last time.
“I assure you that we will find an occasion to mark this milestone properly here in Lexington when it is once again safe to do so,” W&L President Will Dudley said in an email to all students.
The Pink Eye Epidemic
Emery Wright was walking through the Washington & Lee campus on a beautiful fall day, unable to enjoy the changing leaves or wave to a friend. That’s because her right eye was crusted shut and swollen for the third time in the past three weeks.
Emery Wright was walking through the Washington & Lee campus on a beautiful fall day, unable to enjoy the changing leaves or wave to a friend. That’s because her right eye was crusted shut and swollen for the third time in the past three weeks.
Wright, a sophomore, is one of dozens of students affected by the worst school-wide pink eye epidemic in years. Dr. Jane Horton, director of Student Health and Counseling Services, has seen between 50 and 100 cases in the last two months alone.
This pink eye epidemic is so contagious because the majority of the cases are viral, not bacterial.
“The viruses get transmitted in the environment very easily, more easily than bacterial,” Dr. Horton said. “It can come with a cold and spread quickly.”
Bacterial pink eye is only spread by contact with a contaminated individual or a certain bacteria. Viral pink eye, on the other hand, is an airborne virus and can be spread by sneezing and coughing.
The most common symptoms of pink eye, also referred to as conjunctivitis, are redness, swelling, and itchiness of the eyes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although highly contagious, most viral cases clear up in a week or two without treatment.
“The last time it was this extreme was over ten years ago,” Horton said. “The nurse and I had to go down the line as students were waiting for graduation and put drops in all of their eyes because it was that bad.”
Wright is constantly scared she’ll get pink eye again. The paranoia may be worse than the pink eye itself. She feels sure she’ll get pink eye a fourth time.
“Falling asleep terrifies me,” Wright said. “I don’t know if I’m going to wake up blind with my eyes sealed shut.”
Along with eye-drops, the doctors advised her to stay clean by washing her hands and wiping down surfaces. Wright has taken sanitation to a whole new level.
“I went through three rolls of Clorox wipes in under a month,” she said. “My hands were so dry and cracked from constant disinfecting that they looked like alligator skin.”
Germs are spread easily through touching doorknobs and sharing bathrooms, especially at a small school, Dr. Horton said.
She’s not surprised that illnesses are spreading quickly throughout dorms. Everyone lives in such close quarters, she said.
First-years tend to take sickness harder because they’re still adjusting to college and haven’t truly cared for themselves before.
Virginia Harrison, a first-year student, tried to avoid pink eye when over half of her hall in the Graham-Lees dorm became infected. “I’m a clean freak,” she said. “I did everything possible to not get it. But what do you know? I did.”
She woke up one morning with one eye sealed shut, which made her look like a “cyclops,” she said.
The next morning, it had spread to her other eye as well.
Harrison had not been prepared for any illnesses and didn’t know how to handle it. She skipped several classes in fear that she would spread it, leaving her very behind in schoolwork.
Three weeks after she had finally recovered from pink eye, Harrison’s hall became infected again.
“It was like a constant circle of pink eye. I couldn’t escape,” she said.
“It was like a constant circle of pink eye. I couldn’t escape.”
Ayo Ehindero, a junior, gained some insight as to why first-years take illnesses so harshly during her time as a Resident Advisor. RAs live in a first-year hall and serve as a liaison between administration and first-year students while supporting them through their college experience.
“Freshman year is like being put in preschool. You’re in close quarters, everything’s new, everyone’s trying to figure everything out. It’s inevitable that you’re going to share germs,” she said. “Freshmen don’t have the best hygiene, either. I used to walk through the hall spraying Lysol wherever I went.”
Harrison had never had pink eye before and was desperate to get rid of it.
“I went to the Health Center and they didn’t prescribe me any eye-drops. I didn’t know what to do,” she said.
Many students get frustrated and turn to Urgent Care if the Health Center doesn’t immediately prescribe medication, Dr. Horton said.
The Health Center doesn’t hand out prescriptions easily because if students take medication every time they develop an illness, it does them more harm than good, Dr. Horton said. Tolerances develop quickly, so if students take medication often, it may no longer be effective when they really need it.
“One thing we accomplish is helping students take care of themselves,” Dr. Horton said. “Hopefully, by the time they’re seniors, they won’t be coming in for a routine cold that just needs over the counter medication. This round of pink eye can be treated easily with over the counter drops. The most important thing, though, is hygiene.”
Some students don’t go to the Health Center at all because they are too impatient.
“If a student calls and we tell them there are no more appointments today but they can come tomorrow, they likely go to Urgent Care because they don’t want to wait,” Dr. Horton said.
Sophomore Amanda Pinckney was so desperate for immediate care when she got pink eye that she drove herself to the nearest CVS while visually impaired.
“Friday night I drove myself to CVS to get medication, and I have no idea how I even got there,” Pinckney said. “With all of the stuff in my eyes, everything was a blur. It was clear and sunny out, but it all looked like fog.”
The pharmacy at CVS prescribed Pinckney with eye drops, but even that didn’t seem to help. “It kept getting exponentially worse. It looked like I was crying. Well, I probably was crying it hurt so bad,” she said.
“[Pink eye]’s been steady for the last few weeks and hasn’t declined. I’m hoping Thanksgiving break will start to put an end to it,” Horton said. “At least it’s better than the nausea and diarrhea bug.”