The Camera Obscura's Influence on History

It's been a while since we watched David Hockney's Secret Knowledge in visual culture class and I just realized I never blogged about it. I remember when my father brought me to the MET for the first time when I was 12. We walked through the European paintings and I could not understand what was so great. I knew that the skill level is hard skill to achieve, but I didn't make the connection between these paintings and art that offered deep/interesting communication. As I got older, I continued to appreciate the difficulty of creating a painting with such a realistic image, but never really got into that type of painting.

I really enjoyed the Secret Knowledge and its emphasis on the technique involved with traditional European painting. I knew that people used the grid technique, I knew of perspective techniques, and I even knew of the camera obscura; but I did not know about using the camera obscura for painting. This movie stuck in my mind and I don't think I will ever forget it.

For my research in Professor Jiesemfoek's class I am part of a group that will be making a presentation on technological advances affecting the ways artists use materials. We are focusing on painting. My group members are investigating aspects of tempera, oil and polymer paints. I am investigating the way photography affected painting. I am including Hockney's research, but expanding on it and taking a slightly different perspective.

One interesting finding was that Hockney was not the first to discuss this technique and there have been numerous writings analyzing paintings by Johannes Vermeer, assuming he must have used the camera obscura.

I found another finding to be even more interesting. Louis Daguerre was a set painter for the opera in Paris and often used the camera obscura for painting. His paintings were so striking that they gained the reputation of being able to stand on their own without the theater. He soon created the diorama which became theater entertainment for Parisians in the early 1800s. The diorama included large landscape paintings, with lighting effects and I think the floor moved. Daguerre wanted the image projected by the camera obscura to be permanent so that he could create dioramas quicker. He sought out the inventor, Charles Niepce, who was also interested in making the image from the camera obscura permanent. Niepce loved lithography, but had difficulty drawing and tracing the images created by the camera obscura. So, he was also motivated to make the image from the camera obscura permanent. Niepce first made the image semi-permanent using sulpher chloride and paper and after a few years of working with chemicals he created the first photograph (below). Together Daguerre and Niepce wanted to perfect the process and commercialize it. After they started working together, Niepce died suddenly and Daguerre soon created the first Daguerreotype. He eventually got the exposure time down to a minute, as compared to the 8 hour exposure of Neipce's heliograph, or sun drawing, which is what he called the first photograph.

Nicéphore Niépce's earliest surviving photograph taken with a camera obscura:

View from the Window at Le Gras. 1826

The first successful Daguerreoytpe:

L’Atelier de l'artiste. 1837 by Charles Daguerre

Curious George Saves the Day

My mother and I both grew up on Curious George children's books. We never thought much about who created them, we just enjoyed them for what they were. They were stories about a monkey who would get into trouble because it was so curious about everything. Each story was usually an adventure about the trouble he got into. As the New York Times describes, "He was a mischief maker, an innocent, born in the jungle and lured into the strange world of humans." The art was good and the stories were nice, but they weren't so phenomenal that we would consider them to be extraordinary. They were just a popular children's book series.

In fact, I didn't know that my mother read them as a child until recently when she sent me a New York Times article reviewing the exhibition of the artwork from the book. She was excited to send me the article because she knew I read them as a child, because she read them as a child and because of the life story of the authors. The authors were actually Jews in Paris during the time of the Nazi's. The New York Times article touches upon the possibility of Curious George's adventures paralleling their experiences running and hiding from the Nazis, but overall, there are no clear explicit connections. It could have been an outlet for them during hard times, but even the NY Times is unsure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/arts/design/26curious.html

Visual Culture of Gentrified Brooklyn

Brooklyn has become one of the trendiest places to live in the country and possibly the world. Brooklyn has always been something special, but it has evolved into what is special for generation x and generation y creative types and others. I guess the neighborhoods I'm referring to are Williamsburg, Park Slope, Dumbo, Carroll Gardens/Borem Hil, Forte Greene and even parts of Bed Stuy. Ditmas Park has always been really pricey with big mansions, but there are even similar cultural changes happening there also. For this post I'm going to focus on Williamsburg.

I remember living in Williamsburg, Brooklyn in 1998. Rents were cheap, but they were already going up. I was paying 800 dollars a month for a 2 bedroom basement just a few blocks from the L train which was slightly more than a friend was paying for sharing a space in a loft two years earlier (300 dollars a month). A little bit more than 10 years later the rents have about tripled and that's even after the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. In 1998, my grandmother, who came to NYC from Russia in 1910 and spent her life in Manhattan and Brooklyn, came to visit me and we went to eat on Bedford Avenue and her first reaction was, "This is Brooklyn?" Bedford Avenue was a quiet strip of low-rise buildings with a few cute shops and restaurants. Today Bedford Avenue is increasingly getting more crowded, while the shops and restaurants continue to multiply. Bedford still remains the main strip, but locals often spend their time on other main streets as well, such as Grand Street. Williamsburg has extended into Bushwick as well and real estate brokers now seem to be calling as much of the area Williamsburg as they can. My husband recently read an article that gave the statistics of the increased passengers on the subway lines that go through Williamsburg and Bushwick, the L, J, M and Z lines. The J, M, and Z lines were only inhabited by local New Yorkers in the 90s.

When you walk the streets of Williamsburg, one of the most noticeable things is the fashion. Women are often wearing dresses and both women and men either have the latest fashions or unique styles. There are numerous vintage stores in the neighborhood that have already sifted through second hand clothes to bring shoppers fashionable things to wear at decent prices. There are also numerous boutiques that sell the work of local artists and designers. A weekend market called Aritsts and Fleas is close to Bedford Avenue and anyone can rent a space to sell crafts and clothes. Local fashion sends a message that creativity is close by. Although many new inhabitants of this thriving neighborhood are young professionals that are far from the arts, artists and designers still linger. There are galleries and studios in the neighborhood, as well as music and performance art spaces. Almost the whole neighborhood is filled with middle class, mostly white, people between 20 and 45.

Well, this is all true in the gentrified world of Williamsburg. North Williamsburg still has some older people who have lived here for much longer than the mid 90's. There is also a hispanic population on the south side of Williamsburg, and further south the neighborhood is filled with Hasidic Jews. The area that borders Bushwick is very industrial and has more African-American residents. Williamsburg borders Greenpoint, which is also gentrified, but is filled with Polish immigrants. Since the boom of gentrification in Williamsburg and the banking bubble, many condos have been built around the neighborhood. These condos are in buildings with multiple units and are as expensive as houses (500,000 to over 1 million). Houses in Williamsburg are well over 1 million dollars, even after the financial crisis. Although Williamsburg had more foreclosures than all of the Bronx, people are still slowly moving in and purchasing the abundance of new homes in the neighborhood. People come here, mostly from outside New York City, and do not want to leave.

In the past few years, I've noticed that this type of gentrification is not only happening in Brooklyn, but seems to be happening in major cities throughout the world. Within the past 2 years I've traveled and noticed similar neighborhoods (young professionals, cool fashion, and condos in formerly working class or run down neighborhoods) in Paris, Barcelona and Chicago.I'm not sure about other cities, but gentrification is not very new to New York.

This was going on in the East Village/Lower East Side in the 90's when similar gentrification was taking place in that part of Manhattan. I remember seeing a show by Penny Arcade (http://www.pennyarcade.tv/biography/index.html) in which she told stories of people who were displaced due to the gentrification in the neighborhood. In fact, Williamsburg is the spill-over gentrification from the East Village in the 1990's. Last semester when I observed the art teacher in the elementary school in my neighborhood, she explained how the student population is decreasing because students' families are leaving. It's too expensive to live here. There is also an art show going on in Fort Greene until May 16, 2010 about the gentrification of Brooklyn and how it affects New Yorkers (http://www.mocada.org/).

Artists are the ones who typically start these trends of gentrification. They move into neighborhoods that are low-income and cheap. They beautify the space and it draws in young professionals who want to live a similar life. Soon, the rents, and the neighborhood prices overall, rise. This forces the original low-income residents, as well as some of the artists who have contributed to the changes, to leave. As the years pass by, I am becoming more interested in having a decent job and a stable lifestyle. I understand the issues of gentrification from one point of view; get these people to go back to where they came from and leave our neighborhood as it

was. However, there are some original residents who enjoy the beautification and increased socio-economic level of their neighborhood. There is also the point of view of the people who want somewhere to live and enjoy living in these environments. As the article below points out, it's a complex issue. I'm assuming that the talks The Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts (http://www.mocada.org/) will address these issues, but will they come up with a solution? I'm not sure, but I do know that they've created art that will add to the beautification of life that drives gentrification.

http://fort-greene.thelocal.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/artists-reflect-on-role-in-gentrification/

Fine Art vs Graphic Design

For our class with Professor Jiesemfoek, we started the semester asking each other "What is art?" It seemed to me to be a starting point to open our eyes to the vast perceptions that attempt to define art, including the parts of European history that reveals the cultural construct of the concept not found in every culture. Still, a few times opinions of what constitutes art has come up in classes at Brooklyn College.

I got my BFA in graphic design from the School of Visual Arts (SVA). Whether or not people believed it was true, there was the underlying ambiguous battle between fine art and commercial art, with the argument that fine art is useless bullshit (from the designer point of view) and the commercial arts are not art (from the fine artist point of view). In fact, one classmate in my MA program for Art Ed. at Bklyn College even said, "Graphic design is not art." Although I understand that commercial/design art consists of many mediums such as interior design, textile design, film, photography, computer art, etc. I will focused on graphic design for the argument of commercial art in this post.

Recently a friend of mine from SVA came to my apartment and I was happy to show her the work of Luba Lukova, which I didn't know prior to the NAEA conference. My friend knew her because she taught a few classes at SVA, where we graduated from. My friend pointed out a quote from an article on Luba Lukova titled "Railing Against 'The Emptiness of Fine Art', Luba Lukova Fights to give Graphic Design its Due" - http://www.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=3782

"I'm not personally inspired by contemporary fine art," she says. "To me, it has become something for spoiled people, very existential, for people who are in love with themselves. They don't think about the audience, just making something provocative for the sake of being provocative, but without saying something that means something to more people. To me, that's an empty shell, even more empty than the most superficial design. Design is something that people see every day, so why not use that?" Lukova asks in the end. "Replace the emptiness of fine art with meaning, which can be so easily in contact with the audience, using the form of the design."

I was very surprised to read this. It must have offended some people. There are lots of fine artists that are really inspiring for me and I love the work of many fine artists. However, I found her comments amusing because there some truth in what she says. One of the reasons I've loved the recent visual culture classes on outsider art and craft art is because it exists aside the art world and it's just as amazing as much of the celebrated art that we get to know when we are formally trained in institutions. In the art world it seems as though its about who you know, how much cultural capital you have, what school you went to and all of this goes back to class and your background. Rarely does an artist come from a less than privileged background. It does happen, but it's rare.

I can't say I'm passionate about arguing that graphic design is art, especially since I'm far from practicing and left that field a long time ago. I can see the point of view where graphic design is just a marketing tactic with advertising psychology behind it. It's one reason why I could not stay in that field. However, in general I think that lots of graphic design is beautiful artwork. There is such a gradient of what can be considered art that most of it, in my opinion is in the grey area. I've seen fine art in Soho that consisted of a white piece of paper with a staple in it and I've seen graphic design on PowerPoint by someone who has no interest or insight into art. It's all relative and at some points we all agree.

I think that as an art teacher, we should not disillusion aspiring fine artists, but we should not discourage them either. I think it's important to see both sides of the fine art vs. commercial/design art argument as a visual art teacher. I think teaching digital arts and preparing kids for careers is just as important as offering them experiences in the material that foster habits of mind, [therapeutic] self expression and all that traditional art materials/mediums have to offer.

I think that many people are not aware of the great work that has been created in the field of graphic design. Below are just a few examples:

David Carson - Editorial Designer

Paula Sher (illustrator turned graphic designer), Tibor Kalam and

Milton Glaser (illustrator and designer, winner of National Medal of Arts by Barack Obama)

Random Graphic Design Posters focusing on Typography

Barbara Kruger - Editorial Designer Turned Fine Artist

(poster on right - "Money can buy you love")

Undoing Whiteness in the Classroom - Reflection on Reading

Before I comment on the actual reading, I have to say that I enjoyed finding the book on Amazon.com and seeing the two existing reviews. One is a rant about how racist the book is and, therefore, the reviewer will never read it. The other review is an appreciation of the book, "An excellent text for white people searching for an antiracist identity." The dichotomy is interesting and implies that the book touches on some deep issues, possibly in new ways or with a fresh perspective.

I'm all for "undoing whiteness in the classroom", but I think that it's often easier said than done. More practical ideas are needed in this discourse. Regardless, I agree that there is a need to address this issue; as individual teachers and as a field. It's a factor within the education issues intertwined with education reform and inequality. My reflection will address quotes from the handout given in class.

When the book explains the public discourse in America, it includes these quotes "Everyone has the same start in life, with 13 years of free education... It's up to you to seize the opportunities that this country affords you"

This past Wednesday, Professor Jiesemfoek brought us to listen to the author of Teaching by Numbers, Brooklyn College Professor Peter Taubman. In his book, Professor Taubman addresses the negative results of trends in data and assessment. In his speech he included clear explanations describing the educational inequalities that exist in America. He compared Harvard University to CUNY Brooklyn College (particularly around the issues of resources) and the comparison between private schools in Manhattan compared to public schools in Manhattan. Just looking at those differences, we can see that equal educational opportunities do not exist.

I can even think back to my own teaching experiences. I taught in East New York, Brookyn, a Black and Hispanic low-income community. The kindergartners came into the school with knowledge of MLK, but not the alphabet. Their intelligence was not lower, but they exhibited real evidence that they were starting school at a different level than most middle class students whose environment provides preparation that aligns with school achievement. The way this plays out later in life can be an entire PhD dissertation... maybe even multiple dissertations!

"Often individuals are unable to see the connections between racial, class and gender discrimination and economic power because our ideology on social equality creates a climate of denial around documented inequities."

Recently at work we wrote grant proposals for Magnet schools to get funding. Magnet schools are the government's attempt at desegregation. (who knew?) They are specialized, thematic schools that are given extra funding and autonomy so that they can offer higher quality education and attract a more diverse population. It doesn't always work, but they have shown promising results. Magnet schools get about 1/4 or 1/3 of the funding of charter schools. They both have similar tactics for addressing the quality of education, but with two main differences. Charter schools are assisted with private funding, often from large corporations, and charter schools are known to enable segregation. People leading the charter school movement argue that separate can be equal and do not address the issue of segregation. Obama is a big supporter of the charter school movement, so this is not going to change anytime soon.

Many people have heard multiple times that our schools are more segregated today than they have been since before the civil rights movement. There is even a group of researchers at UCLA that publish studies within "The Civil Rights Project" aiming to fight segregation and promote desegregation - http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/. If I remember right, they (Director, Gary Orfield) were the ones to publish the findings of the current state of segregation in American schools. According to their numerous research studies, segregation does not lead to equality. Integration (racial and socioeconomic) is necessary for addressing the achievement gap. In fact, they say that White people are the most segregated group and White people who have gone to integrated schools are often advocates for desegregation and diversity. Desegregation studies show that all participants benefit from integration. Richard Kahlenberg (http://www.equaleducation.org/press.asp?staff=14), who often has his name attached to Harvard University, is another researcher working towards proving the benefits of desegregation and finds similar results. These prominent researchers have repeatedly published the benefits of desegregation. Meanwhile, there is little, or no research evidence supporting the concept that separate can be equal.

"Communication today between the privileged and economically stressed communities could not be more absent because their worldviews often derive from radically different assumptions and experiences."

When I researched desegregation at work, socioeconomic status came up a lot. It is now recognized that socioeconomic diversity is as strong, or more likely a stronger factor, regarding issues of segregation in schools. They even say that the average socio-economic status of the school is a large factor in determining success, regardless of the background of students. George Bush somehow got ahold of this point of view and outlawed decision making based on race, so that it could be replaced by socio-economic status. Why we have to have one over the other and what that's all about, I don't understand, but that's a whole other issue.

I think that class is stronger than race, although it's obviously intertwined. I just think that if someone grows up poor in America, they will have a very difficult time succeeding in achieving a comfortable socio-economic level, regardless of race. Race will hold you back even more, but it's the poverty level, that is the real detriment (along with a lack of cultural capital and lack of legacy). Unfortunately, especially in urban areas, this usually refers to people who are Black or Hispanic. I haven't studied this, so I can only speak my opinion and my personal experience.

I grew up in a working/middle class environment. My parents were educated and my father had a good job, so at home things were a little different. However, some of the people I grew up around did not value education and were skeptical of the government. My family was skeptical, but did value education. Still, we did not have a ton of money. I never thought I'd be able to go to a private college, but my grandmother helped me out. My high school friend called me a JAP (Jewish American Princess) when I went to the School of Visual Arts (SVA). She went to College of Staten Island on loans, but she did fine, especially after her cousin got her a job as an assistant casting director for commercials before she graduated college. I had another friend who also had connections to get him a job at Prudential in downtown Manhattan, so he didn't finish college... at least not on time. These were my friends from honors classes (I wish I had their connections!). My close friend who was on a lower track ended up with kids in her early 20s, not going to college and becoming a legal secretary. They all seem very happy today.

Anyway, when I went to SVA, I met people whose parents had a lot of money, whose parents were artists, who came out of high quality high schools with good art programs... I met many people and most of them had some kind of significant arts support behind them. Most of them were on a clear path to their career that they chose; something I cannot say for every 20 year old. It was a bit of culture shock for me. I spent my free time in high school hanging out with friends in parks, cemeteries and parking lots talking and drinking. I didn't do any art. I doodled/drew when I was alone and took lots of pictures, but art was not something serious. At SVA I learned a lot about class and privilege because I was always analyzing people's backgrounds and how they got to where they were. I also read about social issues in my spare time (loved belle hooks!).

I was being exposed to people who were more privileged and even though I never really struggled financially, there was a difference. At times it could have been the way our parents raised us more so than class, but class was definitely a factor. Most of the kids at SVA were white. There was some diversity, but it did not mirror the NYC population. Still, within SVA, I don't think that race determined success. However, as I mentioned before, it's definitely a factor that should not be ignored. Out of four black guys I hung out with, 3 are very successful. Out of the three of them the one from an inner city neighborhood had a tough time, where the other 2 guys from suburban areas did not, even though all three of them came into SVA with solid arts backgrounds.

I thought SVA was going to be filled with a bunch of kids taking risks to be artists and following an unsupported passion. However, most of the people I met had insight into different ways of life than I knew growing up and that I know many of the people I knew on Staten Island did not know about this either. If I knew how to prepare for SVA, how to research the field, how to network and what to expect, I might be someplace else right now. I might have known at the time that graphic design often lead to office and business jobs rather than very artsy jobs. This is not always about socio-economic status, but it often is. Class differences are often about lack of access to knowledge and experiences.

Now take my experience and imagine that there is a person who is coming from poverty, who has not been educated in a way that is relative to mainstream education in America and compare that to someone who is of such a privilege that they never struggled and easily continued on their life path that led them to an ivy league education. Many people in America believe that it's talent and hard work that lead people to such success, which is often true, but if someone was to investigate the socio-economic status of the people who go to ivy league schools, small private liberal arts colleges, or other high profile private schools, I'm sure that we would find a vast majority of privileged students coming from relatively high socio-economic backgrounds. I'm sure that if we looked at the resumes of the people in highly regarded positions we would see that they match these schools. This is true for people of various/all races. However, as I said before, race is not something to be ignored. It's very complicated, race is still an issue in America and the remnants of past racial issues are still affecting the people of our country. White people still have the power and sensitivity to other cultures is beneficial for all.

Here are a few interesting links that relate:

Gentrification and Schools in Williamsburg Brooklyn - http://www.nysun.com/new-york/unexpected-obstacle-in-plan-for-brooklyn-school/70595/

Climbing the Socio-Economic Ladder - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

Generation X Parents - http://www.edutopia.org/generation-x-parents-relationships-guide

SOUJOURN/DINNER PARTY - MUSEUM OBSERVATION*

I feel so fortunate to have such a great permanent feminist art exhibition so close to where I live, at the Brookyn Museum. When I first saw the Dinner Party installation I was excited to see what it looks like outside of photos published in books. It's existence is as much of an accomplishment as the celebration of accomplishments that it communicates. Judy Chicago put together a dinner party in the shape of a triangle, symbolizing the female sex, and each place setting is for a women who significantly influenced the history of the world. The place settings are created so intricately, each one of a kind plate is upon a uniquely stitched placemat and tablecloth. The stitching includes designs as well as the name of a woman. Each setting has the same uniquely designed flatware and wine glass. She is not only celebrating these women but she is celebrating art forms that have been traditionally created by women and traditionally undervalued. The place settings invite women from history as far back as the prehistoric Primordial Goddess, and span a long time line including Artemesia Gentileski and more contemporary women such as Sojourner Truth, who's place setting is shown above (far right) and Georgia O'Keefe.

Kiki Smith's temporary installation is adjacent to the Dinner Party. She asks viewers to walk through the Dinner Party after the first part of her show. Juxtaposing her installation with the Dinner Party insinuates an intention to illustrate what is behind the scenes of feminist art, adding to the content of her show. In this installation, Kiki Smith illustrates the development of a woman artist throughout the timeline of life. Her show includes drawings on Nepal paper that include pieces of collage that bring in other colors, textures and even glitter, but sparingly. Themes from past work reappear as main subjects, such as the crow and the figure.

When you first walk into the show you are introduced to these drawings and a figure is seated in the middle of the space. The seated figure seemed to be made of aluminum or some type of metal and had a disproportionately large head. All of the sculptures in this series had disproportionately large heads. As you walk through the first three rooms, the drawings on the wall are the most prominent visuals, enhanced by various sculptural pieces. The first room has a sculpture that is made up of silver pieces of wood, metal ornaments and a crow (below). It reminds me of a bird in a nest, although the wood does not create the traditional shape of a nest. As you walk through the rooms, sculptures include a [paper mache?] chair covered with floral paper garland and paper mache light bulbs hanging from the ceiling. The light bulbs have some glitter on them and mimicking the design of the silver pieces of wood, toothpicks hang from each. There also other metal figures, such as the one in the photo below.

Towards the end of the first part of the show, there are wooden coffins with glass long stem flowers inside. Finally her sculptures extend to the permanent exhibition of 18th century rooms. She places paper mache figures in these rooms and one on the stairs outside. She did this to connect the work to her original inspiration. She was inspired by a sewn image from the 18th century. The picture depicts a woman with a slave tending to a baby, a woman of middle age and a coffin on the other side of her; illustrating different stages of life. The sculptures in the 18th century rooms are intended to question women's roles of those times.

The entire show is intended to illustrate the development through life as a woman and as an artist. Kiki Smith is known for creating feminist installation art and the content aligns with her overarching theme. I enjoy Kiki Smith and envy her experience of growing up with a father who was a well-known sculptor. She had a very early start in developing her skills and craft. Her work is always somewhat ambiguous and rarely narrative, yet the female presence is often obvious. I really like feminist art, so a successful feminist artist is appealing to me. I think her form is the most successful part of her work.

Brooklyn Museum - CHILD OBSERVATION**

I was reminded of my trip to the Museum of Natural History when I walked into the Brooklyn Museum and saw groups of children with their teachers. Again, the younger the children are, the more closely the teachers seemed to watch them. Also like my trip to the Museum of Natural History, the shows I wanted to see the most were the ones that had no children in them. I wondered where the children went and I found teens in the African art section. Most of the 10 or so students were sitting back to back sketching what they saw. They were talking, enjoying themselves and voicing their opinions; "That one is ugly... I like that one." They were all Black students, so it was interesting to see them in the midst of art of the same African decent.

As I looked through the art that was displayed I saw masks from 19th century Congo. I could not avoid thinking about the reading from class, Kongo to Congo and .... I just imagined that these masks and wooden sculptures were probably taken from the land, possibly without permission. I wondered about the other pieces that came from different time periods and/or different parts of Africa. How did the pieces get from Africa to the Brooklyn museum? What did the students I observed think about the context of these sculptures and masks? What kind of insight do they have and are they interested?

Since the whole group was Black it made me think of the group of pre-school students I saw on the train in the morning. The preschool in my neighborhood was going on a trip. All of the students were white except for one Asian. Although they were in preschool, they felt older as if they had more awareness of their surroundings and life in general. The preschool by my apartment is called the Williamsburg Northside Preschool and it costs from $1,050 a month (2 days a week) to $2,100 a month (5 days per week), making it only available to certain New Yorkers. They have a teaching approach based on the Reggio Emilia model, offering students a very high level/high quality start to their education.

So, in Williamsburg I observed a primarily White group, at the Brooklyn Museum I observed an all Black group, on the subway ride back from the Brooklyn Museum I saw a primarily Hispanic group of children and while I was at the Museum of Natural History I saw a group of girl students with Burkas. It's interesting to see this in a time when we hear about the segregation in schools across the country.