"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" Thanks for your interest in Kalkine Media's content! To continue reading, please log in to your account or create your free account with us.President-elect Trump wants to again rename North America's tallest peak
axiebet88 free 78
。
Women more likely to need walking aids but less likely to use them – study
In an era when information travels at breakneck speed across vast digital networks, the very act of trying to hide certain data often paradoxically ensures its broader dissemination. This ironic dynamic, known as the “Streisand effect,” encapsulates a critical tension at the heart of contemporary media ecosystems: attempts to suppress or censor information frequently result in that information being shared more widely and gaining even greater cultural resonance. Conceptually, the Streisand effect aligns with a set of interrelated theories from communication studies, media ethics, political science, and sociology that explore how power, secrecy, and transparency collide in the digital sphere. The naming of this effect traces back to a high-profile incident involving the American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, who sought to remove an innocuous aerial photograph of her home from a public online archive. Her attempt at legal action not only failed to conceal the image but also propelled it into public consciousness, transforming an obscure photo into a widely recognized symbol of the futility of certain censorship efforts. In the years since, the Streisand effect has been invoked to describe countless scenarios in which a suppression attempt has had precisely the opposite outcome, inadvertently amplifying the visibility of the contested information. The Streisand effect has long-since moved beyond a cultural anecdote into a conceptual lens through which we can examine the interplay between censorship, digital activism, and networked people. It resonates with theoretical frameworks in media studies and cyberlaw that explain how information—once digitized—does not simply vanish at the behest of a single authority figure. Instead, the attempt to stifle speech often triggers counterforces that intensify attention and circulation. More than a curiosity or quirk of the internet age, the Streisand effect raises profound questions about control, audience psychology, viral mechanisms, trust in authoritative institutions, and the ethics of public communication. The Streisand effect sits at the intersection of several core ideas in the study of media and communication. On one side, classical theories of censorship and propaganda have long held that efforts to control what the public sees, hears, and reads run the risk of sparking resistance and curiosity. J.S. Mill’s philosophical arguments about the importance of free speech and John Milton’s “Areopagitica” both highlight that suppressing ideas can inadvertently make them more appealing. Even a five-year-old child interacting with their parents embodies that. While these thinkers operated in pre-digital worlds, their observations resonate powerfully in an internet-driven context. In the digital era, communication occurs within a decentralized web of platforms, forums, and social media channels, allowing information to ricochet from one node to countless others at lightning speed. This distributed network structure makes it inherently more difficult to control narratives. Here, the Streisand effect can be seen as a manifestation of network theory principles, where attempts to remove content from a node can trigger attention from multiple connected nodes. Information becomes replicated and mirrored, spreading like wildfire, often beyond the jurisdictional reach of the initial censor. Conceptually, the effect is in dialogue with ideas about “forbidden fruit” and psychological reactance: when individuals perceive that certain knowledge is being withheld from them, their desire to access and disseminate it intensifies. The cognitive interplay between scarcity, curiosity, and the innate human impetus to resist perceived control fosters conditions ripe for the Streisand effect. Likewise, within political communication and digital activism, the effect dovetails with notions of “information cascades,” wherein social proof and the bandwagon effect drive people to share content precisely because it is being suppressed. In 2003, environmental photographer Kenneth Adelman took thousands of aerial images of the California coastline for the California Coastal Records Project, a public initiative to document coastal erosion. Among these images was a photograph of Barbra Streisand’s home. Although the image was not initially singled out or widely circulated, Streisand’s attempt to sue Adelman and the associated website for $50 million to have the photograph removed brought widespread media attention to it. Before the lawsuit, the image had been downloaded only a handful of times; in the aftermath, its visibility soared as global news outlets covered the story and internet users flocked to view what Streisand wanted hidden. The Streisand effect quickly transcended its origin story. Since then, it has been referenced in relation to a host of incidents spanning entertainment, politics, corporate branding, social justice campaigns, and beyond. WikiLeaks, for example, became a lightning rod for the Streisand effect: when governments and corporations attempted to block access to leaked documents, supporters and activists replicated and redistributed those files across mirror sites, magnifying their reach. Similarly, efforts by authoritarian regimes to tamp down dissenting voices often trigger widespread international attention, human rights reporting, and solidarity campaigns that amplify the suppressed message. More recently, attempts by political figures to remove incriminating tweets or videos have ignited the Streisand effect. The internet’s permanent memory—embodied in archiving tools like the Wayback Machine—thwarts erasure. Efforts to edit history, conceal past statements, or disappear embarrassing content often lead to journalists and activists spotlighting these very attempts at suppression. The effect has even extended into celebrity culture: attempts by public relations teams to quash rumors or scandalous images can inadvertently accelerate their spread, turning minor gossip into major controversy. Moreover, as social media algorithms privilege engagement—likes, shares, and comments—censorship attempts can become their own form of viral currency. The more a piece of content is framed as “secret” or “forbidden,” the more likely users are to engage with it, share it, and comment on its significance. In this environment, trying to stifle discourse can resemble tossing gasoline onto a smoldering fire. Human psychology lies at the heart of the Streisand effect. One key ingredient is the principle of psychological reactance, identified by psychologist Jack Brehm in the 1960s. Reactance posits that when individuals perceive their freedom of choice or access to information is threatened, they experience an emotional drive to restore that freedom. Attempts at censorship, particularly in open societies accustomed to broad speech protections, often ignite a collective reactance. Audiences do not merely consume information passively; they become motivated participants seeking to undermine the censors and affirm their autonomy. Another psychological dimension is the “forbidden fruit” phenomenon, where information labeled as suppressed or secretively removed attains a heightened allure. Social beings are drawn to that which is hidden, as uncovering secrets promises insider knowledge, prestige, or the thrill of rebellion. This dynamic is supercharged in digital spaces, where communities form around discovery, investigation, and sharing. The democratization of communication tools means anyone can become a whistleblower, archivist, or curator of hidden truths. These psychological drivers interact with group identities and in-group/out-group dynamics. When people identify as part of an information community—be it Reddit sleuths, political dissidents, or fandom collectors—they take collective pride in outsmarting suppression efforts. The Streisand effect can thus catalyze a sense of camaraderie and mission. The very networks that censorship attempts aim to disrupt become even tighter-knit and more determined to keep the contested information in circulation. The digital architecture underlying modern communication amplifies the Streisand effect. Unlike traditional, top-down broadcast models, digital platforms function as decentralized, user-driven networks. The spread of information is often organic, fueled by peer-to-peer sharing. However, it is also algorithmically orchestrated, as platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube use recommendation engines designed to boost user engagement. When content is “forbidden,” engagement often skyrockets. Users rush to view, share, and debate it. The algorithms notice this surge and respond by pushing it into more feeds, magnifying its visibility. Each attempt to remove or block the content may prompt a new wave of re-uploads, mirrors, and commentary, ensuring that it remains accessible through a variety of back channels. The Streisand effect also intersects with the darker realms of information warfare. State actors, intelligence agencies, and strategically motivated hackers might plant controversial documents or misinformation online precisely to lure their targets into attempts at suppression. By prompting heavy-handed takedowns, they trigger a wave of viral attention and inadvertently legitimize the content’s significance. In this sense, the Streisand effect can be weaponized as a strategic tool: provoking an opponent into censorial overreach that backfires spectacularly. Through this lens, controlling the narrative in digital spaces becomes an intricate game of psychological manipulation, platform maneuvering, and memetic spread. Corporate entities are increasingly aware of the Streisand effect’s implications. In attempts to manage reputational crises, companies sometimes try to remove negative reviews, unflattering images, or damaging press. Ironically, these efforts can escalate minor issues into public-relations catastrophes. The brand, which intended to appear protective of its image and values, comes across as secretive, manipulative, or untrustworthy. In contrast, some brands have learned to embrace transparent communication policies. Rather than hiding criticism, they publicly address concerns, provide context, and invite dialogue. By doing so, they can transform potential scandals into opportunities for authenticity and trust-building. When customers see that a company is not trying to suppress information, they are more likely to view that company as accountable and honest. The Streisand effect, in this sense, serves as a cautionary tale: attempting censorship in the age of digital empowerment can do more harm than good. Politically, the Streisand effect often plays out when authoritarian regimes try to silence dissent or democratic leaders attempt to manage controversies behind closed doors. For instance, efforts to censor media outlets or online platforms to hide state-sanctioned abuses, leaked corruption files, or embarrassing diplomatic cables can unleash a torrent of attention from international media, human rights organizations, and activist networks. The result is often the opposite of what the censor intended: global scrutiny, condemnation, and sustained coverage of the originally suppressed information. After the French government tried to remove Wikipedia's article on the military radio station Pierre-sur-Haute, the article rocketed to the top of French Wikipedia (attribution: S. RIMBAUD). The Streisand effect is not solely the domain of corporate or political players. Grassroots social justice movements and marginalized communities sometimes leverage the effect to draw attention to issues that powerful actors attempt to hide. When police departments try to suppress video evidence of misconduct, activists seize upon the censorship attempt to highlight systemic issues, circulate the suppressed evidence more widely, and mobilize public outrage. The initial attempt at concealing wrongdoing ironically strengthens the movement’s moral leverage, showing how even clumsy censorship can serve as a catalyst for greater awareness and calls for reform. Social justice campaigns can thus find tactical advantage in understanding how the Streisand effect functions. It encourages a strategic approach: activists anticipate censorship, set traps for attempted suppression, and design their messaging so that any blocking attempt backfires into broader coverage. Here, the effect aligns with the broader ecology of digital activism, where information asymmetries and suppressive tactics often energize rather than deter reformist energies. Academics and thought leaders in communications, cyberlaw, and sociology have helped frame and elaborate the Streisand effect in more formal theoretical terms. Scholars like Ethan Zuckerman have discussed how digital networks facilitate the rapid spread of information in unexpected ways, highlighting the “cute cats” theory of internet content—meaning that platforms designed for innocuous sharing can become powerful tools for political mobilization once censorship attempts occur. Legal theorists such as Lawrence Lessig have pointed to how intellectual property law and content takedown notices can trigger counterproductive amplification. Sociologist Manuel Castells’ theory of networked society also provides a framework for understanding the decentralized power dynamics that foster the Streisand effect. Critical voices in media ethics have explored how content moderation efforts on large platforms can backfire. They emphasize that while some moderation is necessary, overly secretive or draconian measures can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and erode public trust. Meanwhile, journalists and media watchdogs document case studies that illustrate the Streisand effect’s ubiquity. By cataloging these instances, they contribute to a growing body of evidence that suppression attempts often yield unintended consequences. At its core, the Streisand effect raises pressing moral questions about communication in the digital age. Should all information be freely accessible, regardless of its context or harm potential? What responsibilities do individuals, platforms, and institutions have in shaping the knowledge landscape? On one hand, the effect underscores the value of transparency and openness. It discourages paternalistic attempts to manage public discourse behind closed doors. When the public learns that certain truths are being hidden, trust in those concealing the truth erodes, and skepticism toward authority grows. This dynamic serves as a check on corporate and governmental overreach, potentially strengthening democratic ideals. On the other hand, not all information is innocuous. Certain data might infringe on privacy, promote hate, or endanger vulnerable populations. Complex moral dilemmas arise when preventing the spread of harmful content unintentionally boosts its profile. The Streisand effect forces communicators and regulators to navigate a precarious tightrope, balancing the public’s right to know with the moral imperative to avoid spreading damaging or false information. It also implicates the role of technology platforms, which must decide how to respond to takedown requests without unintentionally fanning the flames of controversy. These moral dimensions invite a reevaluation of censorship policies. If attempts at suppression often fail or backfire, perhaps a more nuanced approach—founded on contextualization, critical literacy, and open debate—is necessary. The Streisand effect nudges us toward transparency as a virtue, but transparency alone is not a panacea. An informed public must be equipped with the media literacy skills to analyze and contextualize the information they encounter. The reality of the Streisand effect means institutions and individuals must be prepared to engage with it. This means: Transparent Communication Policies: Institutions should adopt policies that favor openness and clarity over secrecy. When confronted with unflattering facts, addressing them head-on rather than attempting concealment can build trust. For corporations facing a scandal, a prompt and honest statement acknowledging mistakes and outlining remediation steps is often more effective than a covert takedown strategy. Contextualizing Controversial Content: Instead of deleting or blocking information, communicators can provide context, fact-checking, and expert commentary. By reframing potentially damaging material within a broader narrative, they reduce its allure as “forbidden knowledge.” This approach empowers audiences to engage critically rather than sensationalizing the hidden. Media Literacy Education: An informed public is less susceptible to knee-jerk reactions and the allure of secrecy. By equipping citizens with the tools to evaluate sources, understand media ecosystems, and recognize disinformation tactics, media literacy education can minimize the effectiveness of both censorship and the counterproductive effects of censorship attempts. Proactive Crisis Management: Anticipating controversies before they arise and having a roadmap for ethical, transparent responses can help organizations avoid overreactions. Strategists can rehearse crisis scenarios, developing responses that reduce panic and minimize the temptation to suppress information in the heat of the moment. Critical Discourse Forums: Encouraging open discussion and debate in moderated forums allows contentious topics to be aired without resorting to deletion. By fostering respectful dialogue, platforms and organizations create a public sphere where misinformation can be challenged, and harmful content can be contextualized or debunked. Leveraging the Effect for Good: Activists and social justice groups, aware of the Streisand effect, can leverage suppression attempts to draw attention to critical issues. By documenting censorship attempts and highlighting them as evidence of wrongdoing, they can rally public support and galvanize meaningful change. The Streisand effect also symbolizes a broader cultural shift in how power operates in networked publics. Traditional gatekeepers—governments, mainstream media outlets, powerful companies—no longer enjoy uncontested control over narratives. Instead, networked citizens possess a heightened ability to counter attempts at censorship. The Streisand effect emphasizes that information is not a single, discrete commodity that can be centrally managed. It is a fluid, replicable, crowd-driven phenomenon. The Streisand effect is more than an internet curiosity. It stands as a crucial case study in understanding the unpredictability, interconnectedness, and evolving power relations of the global information landscape. From its origin in a legal battle over a single photograph, this phenomenon has grown into a robust conceptual framework for examining how efforts to silence information can result in louder, more widespread conversation. The effect bridges multiple disciplines—communications theory, psychology, sociology, cyberlaw, political science—and resonates with thinkers who have long warned about the unintended consequences of censorship. In a world where information flows at unprecedented volumes and speeds, attempts to control that flow are often counterproductive. Instead, the Streisand effect encourages a pivot toward transparency, dialogue, and critical engagement. As we navigate a future rife with challenges—misinformation wars, authoritarian clampdowns, corporate PR disasters, and the struggle for digital rights—the Streisand effect remains instructive. It teaches us that the networks we have built thrive on the interplay of curiosity, resistance, and shared identity. Censorship often triggers rebellion, and secrecy can breed discovery. The moral imperative is not merely to acknowledge the effect but to engage thoughtfully with what it implies about power, ethics, and the responsibilities of all communicators, from individual citizens to multinational platforms. The Streisand effect is, at its core, a reminder that information ecosystems have personalities and patterns of their own. Attempts to shape these ecosystems through force or concealment frequently backfire. The more you try to hide something in the digital age, the more it demands to be found. And once found, it spreads uncontrollably, carried along by human curiosity, algorithmic affinities, and the moral heartbeat of a public that will not be kept in the dark. Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.
Texans WR Nico Collins says he was fined for tossing TD ball to kid"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" Thanks for your interest in Kalkine Media's content! To continue reading, please log in to your account or create your free account with us.Membership Of UK's Anti-immigration Reform Party Surpasses Conservatives
The New York Yankees and St. Louis Cardinals are headed in opposite directions. Will that facilitate a major trade this winter? On one side, the Yankees are in full-on desperation mode. They just lost the World Series in embarrassing fashion, they're mired in an uncharacteristic 15-year title drought, and they're fighting for their lives to keep superstar outfielder Juan Soto. Meanwhile, the Cardinals look to be entering a mini-rebuild. They have some talented pieces, but their roster slowly started aging out of contender status, and several of their expensive veterans flat-out failed to perform in 2024. All the ingredients are there for the two sides to make a deal. But one recent proposed blockbuster would make the entire Major League Baseball community drop their jaws in unison. Recently, Matt Musico of Newsweek proposed that the Yankees could acquire 10-time Gold Glove third baseman Nolan Arenado, on-base expert outfielder Lars Nootbaar, and reliever Ryan Fernandez in exchange for their longtime top prospect, outfielder Jasson Domínguez. "Dominguez brings top prospect pedigree, but the soon-to-be 22-year-old is far from a sure thing and shaky defensively. (Trent) Grisham is better as a fourth outfielder and as Judge continues aging, it would be better if he didn't spend most of his playing time in center field," Musico said. "Arenado has a no-trade clause in his eight-year, $260 million contract, but his name has been churning through the rumor mill as the Cardinals mull a reset... Nootbar is a primary center fielder, which would allow Judge to move to a corner to preserve his body better." To Musico's credit, it's an intriguing move that would make the Yankees scarier in 2025, regardless of whether or not they land Soto, while giving the Cardinals a potential new superstar. But there are also some red flags. Giving up Domínguez has been something of a cursed suggestion in Yankees circles, so it's possible the deal is a non-starter from that perspective alone. Plus, the Cardinals giving up three quality big-leaguers in exchange for one unestablished one is a tough sell when they're looking to restock the roster. Crazier things have certainly happened, but it feels as though the likelier deal for both sides would involve just Arenado from the Cardinals' side, and keep Domínguez in pinstripes. More MLB: Yankees predicted to sign Diamondbacks $65M slugger after striking out on Juan Soto
UTICA — The intriguing exhibition “Modern Women | Modern Vision: Photographs from the Bank of America Collection,” is on view through Sunday, Jan. 12 at the Munson Museum of Art, 310 Genesee St. “Modern Women | Modern Vision” highlights the bank’s renowned collection of more than 80 images created exclusively by women artists spanning much of the last century to the present. The exhibition has been well received by museum visitors, receiving comments including “fabulous collection,” “informative and impactful,” and “left me wanting more!” This exhibition has been loaned through the Bank of America Art in our Communities program. Diverse in style, tone, and subject, these legendary images range from spontaneous to composed as well as monumental to intimate in scale. “Modern Women” reveals the bold and dynamic ways women artists have contributed to the development and evolution of photography in the face of discrimination by critics and consumers alike. “I am delighted the Museum of Art was able to share this meaningful exhibition with our visitors,” said Mary Murray, curator of modern and contemporary art at Munson. “It has been the best balance between familiar — even iconic — images by pioneers of photography and thought-provoking, beautiful work by the generations who followed.” “Art and cultural institutions like Munson play a vital role in fostering connection and creativity in Central New York,” said Michael Brunner, president of the Bank of America Central New York. “We look forward to continuing to partner with local museums and cultural institutions as we create new experiences and share important works of art through the Art in Our Communities program.” Female photographers have played a vital role in framing the modern experience through the lens of the camera. They have embraced the art form from its introduction in 1839 through the technological developments of the early 1900s and have used their perspective to produce extraordinary views of the world around them. Women have negotiated waves of social, political, and economic change, increasingly leveraging the camera as a means of creativity, financial independence, and personal freedom. “In this exhibition, there are portraits of people from all walks of life that enable us to see and understand humanity,” Murray said. “Landscapes are framed to underscore our footprint on the earth. Several artists have staged images to unveil the creative artifice of the medium and to reveal how biases are shaped because of photography.” Disrupting the longstanding constraints placed on women’s social behavior and gender roles, early trailblazers helped establish photography as a vital form of creative expression. They also laid the groundwork and served as role models for subsequent generations of artists. The exhibition unfolds through a closer look at six themes within the collection: Modernist Innovators; Documentary Photography and the New Deal; The Photo League; Modern Masters; Exploring the Environment; and The Global Contemporary Lens. Familiar works by Margaret Bourke-White, Imogen Cunningham, Cindy Sherman, and Carrie Mae Weems, as well as iconic portraits by Dorothea Lange and Diane Arbus; street photography by Ruth Orkin and Helen Levitt; and edgy appropriation photo-collages by Barbara Kruger combine to tell a dynamic story of the 20th century in a display rich in history, beauty, poignancy, and power.
OTTAWA - Peter Anholt tried to keep things light as he emerged from one of the elevators at Canada’s hotel. The temperature had been turned way up on the veteran hockey executive and the country’s under-20 program after a stunning upset some 12 hours earlier. “You only want to talk to me when things are bad, eh?” Anholt joked to reporters Saturday morning. “Is that how this works?” That is indeed what happens when a powerhouse with a record 20 gold medals expected to roll over an opponent suffers one of its worst all-time defeats at the tournament. Canada was embarrassed on home soil 3-2 by Latvia — a country it had thumped by a combined 41-4 score across four previous meetings — in a shocking shootout Friday. Coming off a disastrous fifth-place finish last year in Sweden and having talked a lot about upping their compete level and preparation, the Canadians looked disjointed for long stretches against the plucky, hard-working Latvians. The power play finally clicked late in the third period, but stands at 1-for-7 through two games, while the top line of Easton Cowan, Calum Ritchie and Bradly Nadeau has yet to translate its pre-tournament chemistry into success in the spotlight. “We’re certainly trying to problem solve, but not throw the baby out with the bath water,” said Anholt, who heads the world junior setup. “We’ve got to be really careful.” Canada, which picked up a solid 4-0 victory over Finland to open its tournament Thursday, had plenty of offensive zone time and directed 57 shots at Latvian goaltender Linards Feldbergs. Included in that total, however, were far too many one-and-done efforts from the perimeter with little traffic in front. There were, of course, desperate spurts — especially late in regulation and in 3-on-3 overtime — but not nearly enough for a roster peppered with first-round NHL draft picks and top prospects. “We played really, really hard,” Anholt said in defending his players. “We controlled the puck lots. We created some chances. Their goalie was really good and they defended really good ... 99 times out of 100 we win that game.” Hoping for a big response Sunday against Germany before meeting the United States on New Year’s Eve to tie a bow on round-robin action in Group A, Canada will have to push ahead minus one of its best players. Star defenceman Matthew Schaefer was injured Friday and is done for the tournament after he slammed into Latvia’s net and skated off favouring his left shoulder area. “Tough blow for the kid,” Anholt said. “The way he plays the game, he plays it at such a high speed.” Cowan, a Toronto Maple Leafs first-round selection, said Canada remains confident despite Friday’s ugly result in the nation’s capital. “We’re good,” said the 19-year-old from Mount Brydges, Ont. “Everyone’s lost a hockey game before.” But not like that — or to that opponent on that stage. “Bit of a (crappy) feeling,” said Nadeau, a Carolina Hurricanes prospect from St-Francois-de-Madawaska, N.B. “We all know what this group is capable of. Losing that game is not our standard. “We’ll bounce back.” Some corners of social media exploded following the Latvian debacle, with heavy criticism directed at head coach Dave Cameron and the team’s overall roster construction. “We’re not really worried about it,” defenceman and Ottawa native Oliver Book, who like Cowan is back from last year’s team, said of the outside noise. “We know we didn’t play well.” Canada appears poised to mix things up against the Germans. Vancouver Canucks prospect Sawyer Mynio of Kamloops, B.C., is set draw in for Schaefer, while Anholt indicated there’s a good chance forward Carson Rehkopf will get his first crack at the 2025 tournament as a returnee. The 19-year-old Seattle Kraken second-round pick from Vaughan, Ont., has scored a combined 78 goals over his last 97 regular-season and playoff games in the Ontario Hockey League. “Great player,” Cowan said. “He finds ways.” Anholt said taking a big-picture approach is key in challenging moments. “Let’s not panic,” he said. “The world hasn’t fallen in. It’s hard, but we’ll learn from it.” It’s something Canada will have to do under intense scrutiny. “People are gonna love you and people are gonna hate you,” said Cowan, who has a goal an assist through two games. “Gotta keep doing you.” Anholt, who was also at the helm 12 months ago when Canada never got in gear, isn’t getting 2024 vibes from this year’s group. “Not even in any way, shape or form,” he said. “We’ve just got to take care of business.” They get a first shot at redemption Sunday. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 28, 2024.
ubet88
axiebet88 casino
88bet ph