Let me start off by saying that dance is some of the most intense stuff that I’ve ever seen. Literally everyone on that stage seemed like they were flexing every muscle in their body to keep a perfect form of movement consistently throughout the performance. I really enjoyed having a close seat, but I have a feeling that sitting in the balcony would’ve provided a great view all on its own because we would’ve seen the dancers’ full bodies from a higher angle. Seeing them sweat and hearing them breathe gave the evening a very personal and intimate aura, however, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

The first two small performances were interesting, and that’s just about all I can say about them. I searched and searched for some sort of story line and meaning, but couldn’t find anything. Perhaps that’s because I’m not very creative, and our professor(s) came up with a plot that the performance followed. The music was certainly classical more than anything, and my second favorite instrument is the piano, so I found the melody to be captivating. I can overlook my inability to create a plot in my mind by focusing more on the movement and the effort that I watched all the dancers put forth in their performance, which in a personal sense I admired more than anything else.

But, of course, the last part of the performance was completely thunderous and incredible. Give me saxophone solos, jazzy love songs, and some Stevie Wonder audio, and I’m ready to get up on that stage with the dancers to make a fool of myself. Those melodies revitalized about half of the sleeping class (I was a member of the awake group) and gave the rest of the audience a jolt, leading to spontaneous applause and whistling and ubiquitous “wows” that were heard nearly every thirty seconds.

La Clairvoyance by Rene Magritte was, without a doubt, my favorite painting in the MoMA exhibition. I think the first thing that stuck out to me as I walked by was the majestic bird on the canvas, and that’s where my pondering began. Why would Magritte paint a self portrait in the act of painting a bird, when he could’ve just painted the bird itself and focused on all of its delicate details?

That’s when I looked down and saw the unhatched egg on the table.
Essentially Magritte is suggesting that when he paints, he perceives
everything about the future. He is so creative and innovative that all he needs
is square 1, and he will give you squares 2-infinity. Of course, the painting
need not be a realistic representation of how Magritte would actually paint a bird, rather a pretty clear suggestion that Magritte has the element of creativity
that makes him stand out as an artist.

Magritte may be promoting the idea of clairvoyant thought. Don’t settle for a small white egg on a table; take the egg and enhance what it merely is. Even go a step further: don’t settle for something that “is”. Make that something into a prospect or a potentially miraculous image. Some might mistake Magritte’s painting as a blatant sign of arrogance, but I believe it’s quite the contrary: it’s more of a message to the audience that’s going to be viewing and criticizing his work than it is a self-righteous display of his talent. And that makes it even more fascinating; Magritte is famously known as a surrealist, but here the only surreal aspect is the fact that he is seen painting something as opposed to presenting his painting as it is traditionally supposed to be: on canvas. Instead, the focus is not actually the bird (which it would be if it was a “normal” painting) and is, instead, Magritte’s keen ability to be creative.

For some terrible reason, my phone did not save the photo I took of the little description of this painting. So I’ll take on an explorer role and analyze everything I can about it, because that’s exactly what art is all about.

To be honest, I’d been walking around for about twenty minutes prior to seeing this painting and nothing caught my eye. Everything in the MET is beautiful in its own unique sense, but I’m different in my tastes and I began realizing that as I continually struggled to find any one piece of art all that incredible. Then I saw this painting. I slowed down and began my depiction. Why is there one lone cloud in the middle of the sky? The horizon line is beautifully drawn, and every single detail of the houses is captured. There seems to be a clocktower; this might be exclusively European. Perhaps Italy, I’d say Venice? To combine a city feel with such a bustling hub of ships as the exclusive trading method puts this scene in a late 18th century, early 19th century environment for sure. Behind the most intriguing building (which somewhat resembles a mini-castle) in the middle, there is a church with a dome. Obviously this is European, now that all the details fall into place. The next thing I wondered is why a handful of the bigger ships seemed raggedy and broken down. Had a storm just hit? Was a storm imminent? To go back on my one cloud thought, I began realizing that the sky was a fair shade of grey, but there was obviously enough sunlight for the traders to see, and they didn’t seem to be going anywhere. Thus maybe a storm had just passed.

If I had the money, I’d buy this painting and frame it in one of the main rooms of my house.

Hello classmates and professors alike, this is my review of FUN HOME (it’s supposed to be capitalized, right? Everyone’s capitalizing it…)

Everyone seems to have enjoyed the performance as if it were the greatest thing they’d ever come across, but as we know, nothing is perfect, so I’ll be “that guy” who points out the elephant in the room.

1. First of all, the book was much more intense. I understand it’s difficult to make a musical into something that’s intense without adding a bit of humor or amusement, but then what’s the point of making the musical in the first place? Alison Bechdel’s message is not that her life was about breaking into song whenever things got tense; in fact, it’s probably quite the opposite. Perhaps the point of the performance was to emphasize that throughout all the confusion in her life, Bechdel managed to find happiness and beauty in “negative spaces”, but at times there was simply too much “happiness” which seemed a bit unneeded.

2. I was really perplexed as to why the youngest actress who played Alison (the one who sings “I want to play airplane”) seemed like both the childhood version and the preteen version.  Allow me to explain: the youngest version of Alison seems way too childish, even though her persona is a perfect balance between awkwardness and innocence. In the beginning of the performance, it’s obvious that she’s a total kid; however, as the plot develops, she quite clearly molds into a 13 year old who notices the oddities that surround her. I wish they had either included a fourth character or focused less on Alison’s childhood personality.

3. Also, I wish they’d given the college version of Alison more stage time. This is the critical character in the entire performance – while she’s in college, Alison discovers more about herself than ever before, and I felt like they breezed through her lines, ultimately hampering the significance that she is supposed to exemplify.

Don’t get me wrong, overall the musical was very entertaining, especially the trio of kids performing the “Bechdel Funeral Home” song (honestly my favorite part). But I chose to talk about the weaknesses and not go with the class drift.