Sunday, October 3, 2010


"The degree to which we see to it that we women are participating and developing the revolutionary struggle is the degree to which the female perspective will be dominant in our struggle and in the future society." 

-Roxanna Dunbar-Ortiz


feminist art, community, and performance in portland. 


Lauren Barret 

Ellis Burnheart

Joseph Derouselle

Allison DeWilde


Victoria Reynolds

Samantha Wall

Molly Wolfe



Jewels of the Nile

Cat fancy


Fuck Relational Aggression

a performance/ workshop/ panel discussion

led by 

Lydia Schmidt

Nadia Buyse

NOV 4th

 East End 203 se Grand Ave

 6$ all proceeds go to RNRC4G portland

Monday, September 6, 2010


Do I still have time to blog?
coming soon WHAT TO READ/READ....

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Wizard is my favorite

The newest in the puppet profiles

Friday, June 11, 2010


I've been doing some serious mental inventory these days...

There's a book that I read a long time ago by a director/performance artist by the name of Anne Bogart entitled  A Director Prepares. It was literally one of the most life changing books I've ever read. I recently re picked it up and I'm so happy I did.  The thing that makes this book so special is that Ms. Bogart writes seven different essays based on emotions and emotional acts; Memory, violence, eroticism, terror, stereotype, embarrassment and resistance. Its personal, but it's applied to her practice. 

In this day and age of politically motivated art and  social practice, I feel its a rare thing to see art that is focused on and based in the artist's personalized emotional state that is successful. These emotions have been felt and expressed time and time again. It seems sophomoric. It seems like something you should have made as an undergrad. When I go to an opening or a gallery and see that you made portraits of your ex girlfriend that I don't know, or painted a picture of your grandma who just passed away I don't care.  It doesn't effect me and I can't relate... even though I DID just break up with some one and my grandma DID just pass away. Self expression can be so ALIENATING because even though we are familiar with the emotions, were not feeling them in that moment and were not seeing our interpretations of it. Were not seeing our dead grandma or ex lover, it's some stranger. The key to successful art is making it personal for the audience, and guess what....I don't know your life, so how are images of your ex girlfriend going to relate to me?

That being said, art is a form of self expression. Everything we create is subjective, everything we make is based out of emotions and personal experiences. I like to think that, even though we are all little shining unique snowflakes, life is generic at best. We ALL went through puberty, we all work at jobs, we all poop. Some of us will get married, and some of us won't. Some of us smoke and some of us don't. The experience of life is generic and accessible to everyone. The emotions you feel people can understand and relate to, your dead grandma they cannot. Thats what makes this book so powerful. In the Essay about embarrassment she talks about how every time she's in production she feels like a sham! Like a fraud, like she's not a real artist. Anything we do in life there's always that experience of feeling like you have no clue or idea how to live your own life. Its the life experiences that we can all relate to. 
During the course of about four years now or so I've made at least fifty short videos featuring this cast of sick little puppets who all live in a closet in my apartment.* I like making puppet videos because you can create a narrative around them and, even though they do play a role, they kind of act as an empty vessel in some ways. When people are viewing narrative film they automatically identify themselves with the lead protagonist of the film and live vicariously through them. When that main character is played by a ghost puppet, the audience has a harder time accepting the narrative through his/her terms. Thus, creating their own interpretations of the narrative as it happens. I feel that this was the most successful idea I've come up with for sharing my personal emotions through accessible art.  who knows if its working though.
Like Ms. Bogart,  I've recently started cataloging my own emotions. I've been feeling really overwhelmed by them, to the point where I'm not even sure what my reality is. I have no sense of who I am or what I'm feeling and all I wanna do is detach. Sometime last week, (after getting fired from this shitty shitty job I hate and drinking heavily about it) I opened the closet and pulled out Edgar the baby puppet and instantly I knew... he and I both needed a cigarette really really bad. 
Nobody really knows the puppets, they don't have prescribed attributes and personality traits. Like I said before, they're considered empty vessels...SO what happens when I let them tell their own stories and express their own personal emotions?
The Puppet Profiles is a series (so far consisting of 2 1/2 videos ) that examines the puppets autobiographically. All videos are under five minutes and have been shot on location and also in my apartment. During the series I will use the combination of improvisational "on the street" interactions with scripted scenes. I am hoping to make a profile for every puppet i own by the end of summer. These profiles will be available on this blog and also on my youtube channel  .While their stories may be extreme, they are relatable... because we live in America and life is generic and I'll eat at McDonalds whenever I want. Thank you.

*they all used to hang from my wall but they scare the shit out of my room mate

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Pete's last night

The second of many puppet profiles. We will miss you Pete... you will live in my heart FOREVER!

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

smoking with baby

The first of hopefully many puppet profiles.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Sex in the City 2 (as in too long.)

It was SOOOOOO long.  Plus I really think they prematurely ejaculated by having Liza Minelli perform within the first thirty minutes. 

In other news, Its interesting to me that they decided to keep it going for another movie. I'm one of those people who watched ALL of sex in the city, MULTIPLE times; and while I secretly hated it I also secretly loved it too. I feel like Sex in the City is responsible for this certain kind of feminist exploitation that is not really addressed in the way it should be. I hate to generalize, but some women who have been introduced to modern feminist theory are more prone to label the main characters as being non-feminist. Ok. But then there is this population of women who are not influenced by a feminist community or educational background and a lot of these women see the main characters as (for lack of better word) role models. My evaluation is that the sentiment could be correct, but the actions speak otherwise.

Oh........... but Nadia what do you mean? well blog hear me out! 

There are some issues inherently and deliberately discussed within the films and the series through a "textbook" feminist lens, but presented completely wrong. For example, there's a scene later on in the film where Samantha is wearing a skimpy outfit in the middle of an open aired market in Abu Dhabi. During this time her Birkin purse is ripped open and out flies a bunch of condoms. The fundamentalist men take one look at the condoms and her skimpy outfit and become angered. As they start to swarm, she yells at them exclaiming that she has sex while making sexual  gestures with her body. This could be read as two different ways; one could read this as a radical statement about gender apartheid in Islam. Or someone who identifies as a feminist with perhaps a better understanding of islamic culture and practice, would see this display as offensive because it suggests a certain stereotype created by Islamists or Traditionalists of  western women. That profile being that western women are materialistic sex maniacs, thus perpetuating negative stereotypes of women created by men. 

My biggest problem with the series is that there's no responsibility taken for the narrative thats being created. I don't think it's bold for me to say that the obvious theme throughout the story is female relationships and coming into maturity. These are women who did not get married young, who are educated and living to their own devices. This is the premise of the show.... and also one of the very few shows on television of that nature (especially in the 90's). Women on film and TV are wives or love interests or mothers, the focus is rarely on their lives and aspirations other then men and procreation.... So where is the focus? expensive shoes? clothes? dating? It sucks. That sucks. You have this amazing circle of female friends and you spend your time bitching about men while making passive aggressive gestures that you're not really listening to each other?! IDIOCY! (I know I have no proof or examples, but I just get the feeling when I watch them converse Carrie is never listening as much as she's just waiting to talk.) This is sending out the wrong message. YES! your life is your focal point, you are not a decoration to a leading man. NO! If you are to remain single and childless all of your energy does not need to go into staying hot, buying clothes and dating. Its like the show creators had to make a compromise: We will let you make your show about independent women only if they seem to be desperately seeking sexual approval throughout. NOW THATS ENTERTAINING!

Oh boy... that being said. Its like smoking crack when you're watching it. I get so caught up in the story lines, bad puns and usually horrendous fashion,  that all of that other stuff isn't in the forefront of my brain. But I know it exists, I know its there and thats why Sex in the City will eternally be my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. 

Friday, May 7, 2010


I haven't seen point break in a hot minute until yesterday,  I forgot how UTTERLY ridiculous it is. I decided I wanted to remake it using scenes from the movie.... sadly though after I finished this I went out in the night and my cat jumped on my VCR destroying it and point break which was trapped inside.... life sucks.

jonny Utah

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Monday, February 15, 2010


This is a screen test for Bill Spookter.
Please feel free to leave comments

Monday, January 4, 2010


This is an essay I wrote for FAB 

(Feminist against Bush)

 I thought I would post it here, I still feel the same after all these years. Except for I have to say I CRINGE at the part where i refer to critique as a "sophomoric waste of time" .... apparently I know everything and I'm 24, great job! 

my movie: my bedroom

                           your movie: your records                        

a documentation

of student ART








DIfferences noted between genders in the history of film and composition is often left to the obvious. What is the obvious?Art movements; such as Dada and  Formalism, for starters (no girls allowed according to some ), hollywood narrative and the evil, icky Freud machine (eww sick),not to mention total control over the porn and/or sex industry. But what happens when you peel back layers, to the inner workings of the paradigm,or what, aesthetically and expressively speaking, are the real differences? To better understand one must find themselves at the root of the problem: college.  This is the place where ideas are formed, labels are made, and parameters are set. This is the place where careers are started and paths are taken. This is also the place in which I exist as a student of media.  I've noticed patterns in the aesthetic choices and critiques of my contemporaries this is what i'd like to address; Or in other words, why do "My" movies look like "my" bedroom; TORMENTED in my favorite shade of neon and politics; and why does "Your" movie look like "your" record collection, a product of how you would like the world to perceive you, Large and in charge!!! (this is who I AM MOM)? Men and women often tend to take different approaches in art, this is no surprise. This is because of two reasons:

1) art creates a space in which the imagination can be indulgent and offer the individual a chance 

to create their ideal reality. 

     2) Art is emotional (and men and women approach emotions differently, which goes without saying.) 

in personal observation i've found that women tend to rely more on the process then the product, while men are more concerned with advancement of the finished product. Women are naturally nurturing, so to be an artist  and a women it feels right to give extra care to the process. For example, women tend to journal write more then men during long term projects and spend more time researching, leaving room to develop the original idea that the project is based on. Students of media, like all student artists are very eager to get into the field and work with the mediums and equipment available to them, this can make it easy to neglect theory which is THE most important part of project development. Because of menses,I feel that women are more likely to recognize a media project as cyclic, and when one recognizes or has a greater appreciation for the cycle you tend to spend more time on pre-production then one might normally. I'm not saying that men don't do thorough research when approaching a project, I just feel that rather then appreciating the cycle, it seems that men are mostly interested in the outcome of the final cut. Once a solid theory or idea is formed the research and development of the project lies stagnant while 'male counterparts' spend their time absorbing the most prestigious of technologies to use for their videos/films. (i.e. how many female  Media workers went and received their proficiencies with the new DVX sony cameras that became available at TESC this year? (maybe one, maybe) how many men? (more then one, i'll tell you that much!)

Now here comes the emotional part, the critique process. First let's start with the language of critique. While in the critiquing space one is very likely to here phrases like "I appreciate blank" or "what is the language you are using to communicate blank?" This comes from all sides of the spectrum. (Personally, while I'm immensely smitten with the critique process,  I also think student critiques are a sophomoric waste of time. But we won't get into ALL THAT right now.) There are vernaculars that I feel are very  gender specific, for example; When a women is in the critique space she views her role as a supporter while a man would be more likely to view himself as a critic. I've heard the phrase "you're wrong" or "I disagree" countless times from the mouth of a man. While the phrases I hear the most from a women are something more along the lines of the "i appreciate..." variety. 

I also feel that because women have played such a small role within the history of the moving picture there is no room for competitiveness, which may be why the critique process is so divided. The feminist film movement was a product of the second wave and is still quite relatively new,(I mean "visual Pleasure and narrative cinema" was written in the mid seventies and that was THE breakthrough for feminist film critique.) This is the only aspect of film and media that women have been the sole pioneers of (obviously) and this happened nearly 85 years after the first film was made. So while we're still recognizing and admiring our solidarity,  men have moved beyond that point into the world of separation of ideas, and capitalization of the form. (I mean,  We're still trying to figure out whether Leni Riefenstahl was the greatest feminist filmmaker of the last century or just a fascist with an agenda; and this argument began at the very first Womens' film festival when it was discussed if her film would be shown or not.) 

In conclusion I'd just like to say that this argument is purely based on my own personal experiences with a bit of historical context. I'm not trying to argue that men are de-constructive, but what I am asking is how much does patriarchy and history effect the way artistic minds function? And what would happen if we took these elements into consideration while studying within the college institution? I'll tell you one thing, critiques would probably be at least 30% more tolerable!




Directed by Reginald Hudlin

BEST QUOTE: " I'll put my foot so far up your ass, you'll be shitting sneaker for a weak"

What most people don't know about House Party is that it's a Sundance award winning film. Reginald Hudlin, the auteur  received  the FIlmmakers trophy and the cinematography award went to Peter Deming (obviously the cinematographer). It was even nominated for a grand jury prize.  It's hard for me to imagine a time or place where anyone ever took the film at face value or considered intentionally artistic in anyway. It seems so ironic and silly to me, a blatant textual poaching of early nineties fashion and music. But then I think of my girl Jamie Babbit. 

For those of you who don't know I LOVE Jamie Babbit. She has directed a couple of films, most notable The Quiet and But I'm a cheerleader, but she has acted as director on several television shows. My favorite of which being Popular, one of the greatest and most underrated shows ever. It aired for the first time in 1999, right after the great success of Dawson's Creek's first season in '98. It sizzled out after the second season, with probably the most intense season finale I've ever witnessed. The thing that made Popular so good in my book was the political influence within the story lines; Young girls questioning their sexuality, boys dealing with issues of emasculation, class and racial tensions, etc. 

The reason I even mention Ms. Babbit is because like her, Richard Hudlin is also predominately a television director. In fact, they both directed episodes of the SAME television show (The Bernie Mac show, small world....I KNOW GIRL!) I feel that character emotional development is less nuanced when television directors do film, maybe this is because in television the viewer has less time to identify with the characters and it's important that they become attached so they'll keep watching every week.

Without going into any explanation immediately the viewer knows that Kid is the awkward sympathetic character and that Play is the cool guy best friend. These identities are solidified by the opening sequence in which Kid is getting ready for school and he has to deal with his fucked up dad while Play is determining which honey he's going to hook up with that night at his party.  And unlike other characters in teen movies where they emotionally grow and reveal more of themselves as the story line progresses (for example, Bender in Breakfast club, that guy was a total dick but we ALL identified with his sensitive side  by the end of the film) Kid and Play never really emotionally progress, but they do go to college! It really lends itself to a sequel. (no big whoop, just House Party 2)

Jamie's film characters, while they are more complex then Kid and Play, still seem  to have this basic role that is exemplified early on in the film that sticks. The character of Dot in The Quiet is immediately exposed as emotionally disconnected and alone. I think that even with her alliances formed she never really finds that connection. Or the character of Nina is presented as self involved, delicate, abused and in need of affection or "saving" and even though her emotionally void mother is arrested and her abusive dad is murdered , she never finds any resolve for these's just who she is and that won't change. At the end of The Quiet as the girls are left alone playing piano in that big empty house after everything went down I was left with this incomplete feeling, it left me wanting more. I don't usually get this from a film unless it's set up for that unfinished ending. (for example, Back to the future) It's a sensation i experience every time I get into a good TV show. 

Long story short, I don't know if I would get that same experience after the end of house party but I'm assuming yes considering House party 2 and 3. I didn't finish the film because I started to doze off after smoking too much weed and eating the sweetest cheese fries in history.