What caused the shift from serious opera to comic opera? Was there a turning point in history that fueled this shift in art form?
I love the fact that this article connects two different aspects to creation, that of engineering and that that of art (pg 12). How do you think this affects your thoughts about what constitutes art?
What aspects of a structure like the Eiffel Tower inspires different artists?
What aspects of Shakespeare’s life played a role in his writing? Was there a personal part of him that he put into his characters (i.e. Antonio loving Sebastian)?
About the play specifically, what attributes worked well for each actor, giving their characters a personality that one cannot just interpret from reading the book?
I have to agree with Lawrenzo in that the visit to the Chelsea Galleries were a bit disappointing. Many of the art pieces did not particularly speak to me and they were difficult to understand because they lacked any form of explanation or background. There was, however, one piece in the Matthew Marks Gallery that I understood and could relate to.
This small exhibit of a Dorm Room was in the center room which was dark except for the lights in the furniture. I took a particular interest in this piece because I went to boarding school for three years, so I know how it feels to live in a dorm ( I also live on campus at QC so its still fresh on my mind). I had the opportunity to speak to our tour guide about how the author went to boarding school in Germany and this exhibit evoked a sense of emptiness. Moving in with people you hardly know can be a lonely experience no matter how many roommates you have, so I felt like I had that bit of a connection with the artist. The other galleries did not evoke this sense of connection for me although I do feel like if our tour guide knew more about the artists and their pieces of art, that would have been a lot more helpful. However, I thought her knowledge about the Chelsea neighborhood itself was very interesting.
The Chelsea neighborhood was an amazing and fun art form in itself. Maybe it’s because I find street art more interesting with its ability to capture audiences anywhere and in any stage of life, but walking around the neighborhood evoked much more emotion, excitement and thought then the galleries themselves. The two pictures below were two of my favorite pieces in the street. The portrait on the wall is beautiful and thoughtful, and the gas station is clever and humorous. Even without knowing the purpose or background of these two pieces, we all stopped to look at them and talk about them, something we did not always do in the galleries. To me, this is what art does, it stops people mid sentence, in any part of a neighborhood, and makes them think about something greater, not simply wonder what the artist was trying to get at.
From my understanding, Jonathan Galassi is widely known for his publishing and translating of Italian poetry (I did read additional information and found that he is a poet himself). Although many people compliment his ability to translate poetry well, I wonder if there is anything that is “lost in translation”? Often times there are things that do not translate to English directly, and poetry is so heavily dependent on structure and form, are there moments when what the original author intended is lost in the English translation, such as emotion, tone or even message?
In discussing a dancers performance and the audiences response the author says, “I clearly remember the embarrassment I felt as an audience member in a discomfiting mismatch of choreographic intentions and audience perception of technique” (189). Does this mean that the messages and story of a dance can get lost in a performance too full of “tricks”? Why, as an audience, are we so used to looking for fun rather than more in depth meanings in dance, and even other art forms? This also brings up the question, what is more important, the artist’s (in this case dancer/choreographer) intentions, or the audiences interpretation?
First of all, I am truly confused as to what Saltz is defining as “bad art”. I understand that many people are asking the same question, but with the amount of focus that he puts on this idea of bad art, it’s hard to avoid this idea. Secondly, Saltz states that “…something that is often overlooked and quite underappreciated is that bad art tells you as much as good art.” I find this to be extremely interesting, because then wouldn’t that make it good art because it has a message/narrative and contains a learning experience?
Note/discussion worthy quote: “The artworld is continually spawning huge amounts of art so that a minuscule portion will survive. You begin to see art as a life force unto itself, seeking to guarantee its survival. An art scene can only be an art scene if it’s big and diverse enough to support this high ratio of bad shows.”
