Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Ben Schasfoort wrote:
> Carla wrote
> >By the way, last week, a young Native American student told our class
> >that we could not make dreamcatchers because we did not have to medicine
> >to do so. But, he added, we could make them using metal hoops and
> >wrapping them with yarn, because then they would just be beautiful
> >decorations, without the power to take away bad dreams. He, however,
> >could make real dreamcatchers because he had the medicine. It was a
> >wonderful learning moment, for me and for the class.
> Thanks Carla, this was a learning moment for me.
> Could we, to avoid problems of what art we may or may not make, say that art
> in nature is not art but a way of expressing visually one's relation to a
> I have read and heard and seen pictures about the holocaust, some people I
> know lost family. I am a human being, can think of cruelties and can love. I
> am not Jewish, but have Jewish friends. Am I not allowed to express myself
> visually (I am a visual artist) if someone asks me what I think about the
> holocaust? Of course I am, but my answer will be different from that of my
> neighbours who as children, suffered in Mauthausen. I have not the right to
> think that I can feel the same as the Jewish student you mentioned, but you
> were perfectly right with your statement. We are allowed to "make"
> storytelling dolls and Hmong cloths and dreamcatchers and a crucifix and
> rainsticks and Aztec sacrificial pottery and more. But the fact is, we
> don't. We only say what we know from storytelling dolls and the holocaust
> and dreamcatchers.
> Am I right?
> Ben Schasfoort
> e-mail: ben.schasfoort
> Tel. and fax: (0) 597 55 15 03