CUNY Macaulay Honors College at Baruch College/Professor Bernstein

For as long as I can remember my Dad has been trying to get me to experience “culture.” Every time my birthday or Christmas roles around, the first question that pops out of his mouth is, “Do you want to see a Broadway play?” I always respond by trying to explain how movies are better and cheaper in every possible way, and once bought on DVD, Blu-ray, or digitally, can be watched as many times as one pleases. At least once a month he asks if I want to go into Manhattan and visit a museum. I tell him that there is nothing in Manhattan that interests me, especially since everything in Queens is just as good, if not better.

Ever since I had an opinion on the subject I have always tried to resist high culture, mostly because I have the feeling that it is being used as a shield or an alternative to resist advances in mainstream culture, and seems to clutch onto old ideas as if they are superior to new ones. The exclusivity of high culture events, like the opera, and Broadway plays seems to contradict the movement towards a more equal society, in which everyone can have access to the same entertainment. I also thought it was mostly really boring stuff. High culture usually rejects easy interpretations, often feeling distant and cold. For example the opera has both a language and a historical barrier; same with Shakespeare and ballet. Even more modern forms of high culture are too abstract and actively resist interpretation and the “mainstream.” This is even worse than the opera in some ways, one is just a language or historical barrier, while the other actively tries to shock and frighten normal people. These works do not serve the public; they serve a small elitist sub-culture that honestly feels their intellectual and abstract way of viewing things makes them better than the rest of us. It is as if they actively support class division, not by wealth, but by entertainment.

When I first got accepted into Macaulay I knew about the cultural passport and this class. I was hesitant, but willing to learn and see first hand high culture. I wanted it to justify its existence to me in a way that it never did before. This will probably be my last cultural encounter and to mark the occasion I am going to explain how being exposed to high culture over the last four months has impacted my feelings about it.

After seeing Fall For Dance, and the opera my overall perception of high culture did not stray too far from what it already was. It was not until we started studying photography that I started to see art through a new perspective. A lot of the photography we studied were taken for newspapers, or commissioned by the government during the great depression. This was a clear example of art being used for the public good, something that everyone could enjoy. The Scottsboro Boys, while not exactly affordable for the average New Yorker was approachable and could easily be enjoyed by anyone. It also taught an audience about an important event, without preaching to them. It had never fully formed in my mind that art could be used to teach people. Seeing the art at the MOMA was an experience. I enjoyed some of the modern simplicity of the art, but this art was created for the sake of art, something that I could not understand or appreciate.

In a way, this course has shaken my perceptions about high culture to some extent. I no longer feel that I am knowledgeable or wise enough to form a clear opinion on culture, whether it is mainstream or more refined. I am still wary about high culture as a way to divide the population into the elites and the masses, but I also feel that the line between the two is often blurred, something I learned while we were studying photography. I am still forming an opinion and I am always open to constructive debate.

The first photograph Sara Krulwich showed us was one of herself as a college student, standing on a football field with a huge camera in hand. In the background she is surrounded by the amused grins of the men in the marching band. Krulwich is on the football field of the University of Michigan, a place which at that time was forbidden to women and dogs. This moment marked the start of Krulwich’s struggle as a photographer. She is now one of the foremost photographers for the theatre section of the New York Times, but her struggle is not over. Photographing performances, such as Broadway and operas, seems like a relatively easy task however Sara is constantly fighting for the rights to photograph these shows. The producers want to convey a certain image with the pictures they release and are therefore very cautious about having anyone from outside their control photographing performances.

One thing Sara Krulwich constantly emphasized was the importance of getting close to one’s subject when photographing. She mentioned our street photography projects and how they could have been strengthened with the inclusion of close-ups on people. She also acknowledged that getting close is one of the major difficulties in being a photographer. I personally experienced this during my street photography project, as it felt extremely awkward to take pictures of people. I was afraid of angering them or simply looking like a creep. Sara Krulwich’s presentation made me realize that there is so much more to photography than just taking pictures and it gave me an even greater appreciation for this art form.

“No women, children or dogs allowed on the field,” read the press passes for the University of Michigan in 1968. A year later, dogs are permitted onto the field, but what about women? Sara Krulwich takes a risk as the first woman photographer in the photo department at The Michigan Daily and steps foot onto the football field. Threatened to be dragged off the field, she stands her ground, becoming the first woman to stay on the field during a football game at the University of Michigan.

Sara Krulwich has truly changed the protocol at the University of Michigan after her public display as a woman photographer on the football field. Ten years later, she visits the university and sees that there are “women cheerleaders, women in the band, women in the security force, women physical therapists and a woman photographer who happened to be the photo editor at The Michigan Daily” (NY Times).

Krulwich faced hardships finding jobs at local newspapers, but she landed a position at the New York Times as the first female photographer working there. Thirty years later, she has found her niche in working for the New York Times as a photographer for the theater department. Taking unique photographs that in the past were prohibited from being displayed to the public, Krulwich has opened another door to the possibilities for photographers, male or female. For three years she struggled to obtain permission to take photographs at operas and theaters due to the fact that these photographs could not be seen until publication; however, she managed to pull through and now is one of the main photographers capturing the essence of so many works on Broadway.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/essay-first-woman-on-the-field/

When I your first walked into the Museum of Modern Art you are immediately greeted with a piece of art. Although, at first it may not be apparent, the soil and flowers that were encapsulated represent art. The definition of art is wide and almost anything can be perceived as art as long as it represents our surroundings shown in an interpretive form. The plants in the capsules were forms of art because nature is a form of art itself. In nature nothing is symmetrical and everything from the soil to the trees is a unique art form. Different shapes and forms are formed in nature that the human mind is unable to create. This lack of form creates a sense of abstractness that is present in nature.

As you actually begin entering the exhibits the first thing you are presented with two fans blowing at each other and two pieces of circular tape dangling in the air. This was an unusual form of art, but it was art nevertheless. The dangling pieces of tape were effective ways of showing off the power of the mind. It represented a new way of thinking that was not present in current art. This piece defies all standard works of art because this work of art is not a still piece of drawing or sculpture but actually something that was alive and moving. It was very innovative and I definitely would classify that as unconventional art.

As I moved onto the fourth floor I saw a piece of so-called art by Barnett Newman. It is a long vertical piece of wood about one-and-a-half inches wide and that is all it is, just a piece of wood. I do not understand why this “sculpture” was put up as a work of art; it may be natural but it lacks any abstractness nor does it create any unique shape. To call the piece of wood a work of art is like calling the chair I am sitting on a piece of art as well. However, I soon found sculpture that was art. David Smith created “Cubi X” which was a stainless steel sculpture that depicted a human figure. Smith chooses to use something as still as geometric form to create the human form, which is very hard to duplicate. What was most astonishing was the way the steel reflected the lighting of the room further intensifying his work of art.

Finally on the last floor I saw the “On Line” exhibit. People have said that these works of art are controversial, but I saw nothing controversial about it at all. The first thing I saw was a series of strings lined up in the sky. It created something that looked like the night sky. This was the ultimate form of art because the artist took something man made and duplicated nature. There was no stillness in the strings because it created a unique shape. As I walked into the exhibit there were even more strings, each of which created their own shape and took up their own space. Everything on this floor looked like art, until I saw a video. The video was of a naked woman painting the wall by twisting her body in grotesque ways and hanging on a latch. This cannot be art at all, what she made was just a bunch of lines and the way she created her “art” was unconventional. She did nothing too special with her body and simply wormed her way around.

My visit to the Museum of Modern Art was very enlightening and it opened my mind to the creative abilities of many artists. It also made me think about the definition of art. What constituted a piece of art? Was it the message it was trying to send or the way it was made? I believe that the way it was made and the shape of the work counts the most.

Last week my relatives visited from China and they were eager to adjust to American customs. I explained to them many of the customs we have in America, such as how it is almost necessary to tip whenever you go out to eat. In China tipping was a very foreign custom and it was unnecessary. It was only a few days ago when my cousins contacted me and sounded very excited on the phone. They claimed that they have acclimated to America very well and have been tipping wherever they ate. Naturally I felt very proud of them because of their quick adjustment and I was soon to ask them where they went to eat. They said they found a McDonalds near by and had decided to eat there. At that point I immediately knew what happened. My cousins went on to explain how they ordered a meal and then left a three-dollar tip on the table along with the trash. I quickly burst into laughter over their well meant but hilarious decision. I explained to them that in fast food restaurants, such as McDonalds, tipping was not required and that most likely their money was gone and the trash likely to be still sitting there. I found it very amusing to see how two cultures just cannot mix well. My cousins’ misunderstood American culture and their eagerness just lost them three-dollars.

A text message pops up on my phone: “Hurry up and get to class, the professor needs you!” I assume it’s a technical issue, and my suspicions are confirmed as soon as I walk through the door. I see this photograph on the screen:
Professor Bernstein and the guest speaker, Sara Krulwich, ask me to fix the projector, and after fiddling around with the brightness and contrast controls, this comes into view:

The Michigan Daily – Jay Cassidy

I take a moment to understand what I am looking at: A crowd exclusively of men, and one female news reporter wearing an enormous hat. What an extraordinary way to stand out!

Standing out was something Sara Krulwich has been doing in her entire life, and she is rather successful at it. A combination of courage, skill, and determination propel her to take pictures of people 10 inches away from their face, force her way into a men-only football stadium, and perform the many other difficult tasks that a photographer encounters on a daily basis. Clearly, this woman had a passion for her art, and it vibrated throughout the room intensely as she spoke about her life and career as a photographer.

Sara Krulwich currently works for the New York Times as a theatrical photographer, and we were lucky to have her as a guest speaker in our class. Her photography and stories captivated our class and she did not cease to astound us with big numbers: Number of years as a photographer, number of pictures taken per performance, and ratio of men to women in that football stadium. However, the most valuable piece of knowledge that Krulwich conveyed to us about had nothing to do with her alone, but rather with us. This message was not spoken, but rather conveyed emotionally through her presentation: do what you love, and. in turn, people will love whatever it is that you are doing.

The Michigan Daily - Jay Cassidy

It is 1969. Sara Krulwich is about to push down the social boundaries built by the sexist society of her time. School officials remove the ban against dogs on the football field for the team mascot, but refuse to make an exception for any woman. The men insist, “The sign says no women on the field,” but Sara has a job to do. She must get to her subject, capture the action and document the event. She gets on the field, ignores the protests, and accomplishes much more than photographing the game. Ultimately, she makes her dent on history.

Nowadays, Sara photographs scenes that are of a much deeper interest to her: theater and opera. The road to this position, however was not easy either. Like her early years as a photographer, there were obstacles keeping her from a close view of the action. Of course, she did not allow these hurdles to stop her. For three years, she worked towards getting permission to photograph the performers on stage. Through her unrelenting efforts, she now has countless photographs published in the New York Times.

Although Sara Krulwich’s main feats show her success as a photographer, I find her to be a bit more than just a woman behind the camera. She is a go-getter. She is a mother. She is an activist. She is a learner. She is driven. Through her short time speaking, she showed that having focus and determination could be enough to cut through red tape and incite change. Perhaps her intended message to the class was to get close to the subject when taking photographs, but the ways she has been able to get to her subjects demonstrates a much larger lesson.

The Broadway production of The Scottsboro Boys combines piercing social commentary with all the style and pizzazz of an old-fashioned musical. Instead of relying on a straightforward, and what was surely to be a heavy handed narrative of the real life Scottsboro boys, this musical interrupts its more serious subject matter with comedic elements and upbeat musical numbers. Scottsboro takes comedic relief to new heights, but at times it feels like its own unique style overwhelms the very substance of the story. The cast is almost entirely made up of African American men, some who play white and female roles. This is where the play takes the opportunity to turn the minstrel tradition on its head. The opportunity to see a play about thirteen black men unjustly convicted of raping two white women, while at the same time being treated to the visual shock of men dressed in drag and cotton candy musical numbers is a once in a lifetime experience, even if its parts do not satisfy as whole.

The plot of the musical follows nine African Americans who are unjustly accused of raping two white women. The story is a sad and true one and even though The Scottsboro Boys is full of comedic moments the dramatic roles are overwhelmed. Scottsboro Boys turns the minstrel tradition on its head in order to show how irrational things were back when racism and the Jim Crow plagued the southern United States. The prisoners are the only ones played without exaggeration. This makes these nine young men, who are the ones locked in prison, the only rational characters in the entire play. Aptly played by the entire ensemble, these dramatic roles shine through with importance and sincerity, allowing the audience to see how hopeless their situation actually was.

Even though the dramatic parts can stand on their own, it is really the musical numbers and minstrel tradition, which make the Scottsboro Boys, for whatever reasons, such an intriguing and controversial production. The musical numbers scattered throughout the play are a mix of cynicism and irony. The music, dance, and lighting evoke the joy and wonder found in old-fashioned musicals, but the subject matter would suggest the contrary. A particularly disturbing dream sequence has the youngest prisoner, only twelve years old, dancing around electric chairs and facing electrocution.  Sometimes these types of scenes can distract too much from the story, and on a couple of occasions they even turned me off from a moral standpoint.

That raises the question, which has been raised countless times about this play, whether or not The Scottsboro Boys is all in good taste, or if it indeed goes too far? I am hardly qualified to answer that question and would suggest that if you have not seen it that you should not form an opinion until you see it. But, Scottsboro Boys does tread a fine line between telling the audience what really happened to those nine souls and turning their story into comedic fodder, even if the comedy is geared towards the boy’s captors and not the boys themselves.

On a technical level The Scottsboro Boys is near perfect. The lighting, music, and sounds are all used to convey the mood of each scene in a way that clearly shows a lot of time had been put into getting the details perfect. The dancing and stage direction is also phenomenal, with a few memorable dance sequences. The use of stackable, metal chairs, as part of the set throughout the entire play is ingenious and sets a swift pace for a production, which has no intermission. The plain and boring costumes of the nine prisoners juxtapose well with the exaggerated costumes worn by the guards, sheriff, and other characters with comedic roles.

Overall it is hard to say whether or not The Scottsboro Boys is a great musical, but it is worth seeing and is definitely very good. There are a few problems and controversies, but that should not spoil what is otherwise a powerful, memorable and well-performed production.

My cultural encounter came last night in the form of an article. Dana Farber researchers discovered a way to reverse the aging process in mice. I think this is a fascinating discovery that may eventually lead to reversing human aging. There is a cultural dimension to this scientific development because the cycle of life and death, although historically inevitable, are understood in different contexts across an array of cultures. Many religions believe in an afterlife, hinting that the life we are living now is just a pre-cursor to the afterlife that lies ahead. Death has always been fabled to be an inevitable occurrence that cannot be avoided, no matter how much money, friends, or power you have. Here science and culture clash, simultaneously testing the religious tolerance and cultural tradition. Will people separate themselves from traditional livelihood as individuals for an indefinite period of time, or will they revere pious doctrines?

http://www.massdevice.com/news/dana-farber-researchers-reverse-aging-mice