This is probably the hardest blog I’ve had to write this semester (now that’s saying something). Because, this is one of those questions that don’t really have a definite answer, has so many parts, and has been debated many times over. Not only does it question the validity of artistry today, but the way that people interpret its purpose. Is the work being created today really mean something or is it just people trying to hit it big and make money? Are they selling out?

I remember hearing a discussion between two of my classmates about the meaning of ‘selling out’, one explained to the other it was when artists make things because they want to be famous they don’t really care what it means. They just want their few minutes of fame. Now for whatever strange reason what this brought to my mind was the singer, Miley Cyrus. In the media today whenever people mention her you know you’re going to hear about some crazy, sexual thing she did. I was reading an article the other day where the writer in a way rationalized what Miley was doing by comparing it to her character of Hannah Montana. They explained that just how her character was Hannah on stage but Miley at home maybe that’s what was happening now. On the outside she’s being promiscuous, because let’s face it sex sells, however when she gets home maybe she’s normal. This for me was interesting because some say that she’s changed and this is who she is. However, what if she’s doing this because she knows this is what the public wants. To sum up my confusing rant, maybe that’s just not who she really is but who she has to be, in order to be famous. Then again maybe she is just like that.

Another thing that comes to mind when thinking of selling out would be Beyoncé’s latest self-titled album. As someone who knows a lot of her music to me this album was certainly different from any of her previous music, it was much (much) more sexual. Some people wonder why she took such a different turn in her artistry, especially as a role model to many young women to be singing about these things. They question the purpose of it. Beyoncé however defends herself by saying she’s singing about liberation and ‘demonstrating sexuality as a power women should have’. She says the purpose is to empower women. I honestly don’t know what to think of it, any of it, really. I mean, there are so many examples of this, where artists create things a certain way that either might not be a reflection of their beliefs or just gets interpreted the wrong way.

However when you really think about it, is it that the artists are selling out, or have they just given in to what they deem society wants? I mean, you can talk about Miley Cyrus, Beyoncé, and even Kim Kardashian all you want but at the end of the day they’re making money and are famous. Especially Kim Kardashian, as a woman who came into the public eye the way she did and her photos for Paper Magazine, they’re both controversial however she’s very famous. Her wedding photo was the most liked Instagram picture of 2014 and she was the most searched celebrity on Google. Trust me all this free publicity is doing her wonders. Not to even mention the fact that Keeping Up with the Kardashians is in its ninth season. Nowadays TV networks are struggling to get shows past mid-season. Maybe we shouldn’t be questioning the artists but ourselves as a society, about the things we choose to glorify and accept as the norm. Maybe the art that served a purpose and meant something, doesn’t anymore because we simply don’t care.

Throughout these few weeks I had the task of watching several films, all telling different stories in different ways. Some had uplifting screenplays to leave the audience feeling warm and fuzzy, others had grittier tones with an underlying social message. To be truly honest, none of these films really made me look at my life, environment and change or question my views. I guess it’s just that what the filmmakers were trying to say were things I already knew.

The first film, Wall Street tells the story of a young stockbroker who wishes he could rub shoulders with the NYC elite. Through the film he loses his morality only to see that his actions hurt his family and friends, so he changes to save them. It told us that being rich wasn’t everything, that the rich were purely selfish and greedy. On the other end of the spectrum we watched, Moonstruck. This film was a romantic comedy centered on an Italian-American family in New York. Cher plays a widow, who is getting married again, only to fall in love with her fiancée’s brother. Meanwhile her father is cheating on her mother, secrets come out and trouble ensues but in the end all is well. The plot was rather hard to swallow but still left you feeling happy on the inside.

Some of the other films didn’t have such tight, happy endings but ran along the same lines of light hearted or gloominess. Reading some of my classmates’ blogs I can’t help but notice their opinions about NYC. Many of them chose the darker films of the semester as impactful because they thought they were true representations of the city. The nicer films, Moonstruck, The Muppets Take Manhattan, to them were just movies with overblown ideas of love and life. Which quite frankly puzzled me, did people really believe that NYC wasn’t all of the things it is claimed to be? A concrete jungle where dreams are made, a city that never sleeps, the capital of the world? Because for me it kind of is but then again it kind of isn’t.

This is was what I meant when saying the movies were just showing me things I already knew. I have a certain view of the world that I apply when talking about New York City. The world will never be purely good or purely evil. It will always be stuck in the middle. In one corner people will be struggling due to their circumstances and the wrongs of others. In the other corner, you will find people living happy lives with their families and friends. That is just how it is. There is suffering and there is happiness, they can’t exist without each other.

For me, this is what NYC is, a place where both of these are found, just like any other place in the world. Spike Lee taught me about the prevalence of racism and stereotypes in the city which I totally agree with. Yet at the same time movies like The Muppets Take Manhattan (I swear this was the only movie with a good opinion about the city that we watched) show us that New York is a place of opportunity where dreams can be achieved, which at least to me, is also true.

Now at the end of this blog I still feel that the movies didn’t really impact me but they did reinforce the opinion I have about New York City. It has its good parts as well as its bad parts, and it always will.

When hearing the word opera, for some people what immediately comes to mind is three hours of mind numbing pain and boredom. I on the other mind was actually really excited to see the performance of Carmen at the Metropolitan Opera House. Especially so because to me the opera always seemed like something that was expensive, that only the wealthy had the privilege to enjoy. However, after experiencing it myself that view changed.

Walking into the MET one of the things I was really excited for was the orchestra. The only prior knowledge I had of the play was performing “Habanera” in the 11^th grade. The one thing I can say is I’ll probably never play it as well as they did. The music was just amazing. The crescendos in the music to show the rise of emotion in the actors as they were signing, as well the decrescendos to pianissimo as the play takes an emotional turn were all just fantastic. Some people don’t realize how important the music is in media, and that idea for me was only reinforced at the opera. For the first half of the play I sat in the orchestra section, all the way at that back because I had arrived a few minutes late. Even though I couldn’t see well and didn’t put my subtitles on (I didn’t know how), I could tell what was going on because of the music. When the dynamics changed I knew to pay close attention because something was going to happen, the storyline was going to shift in a new direction. I knew when the music was fast paced and loud the scene was a happy one and thankfully no one would die. The opposite could have been said in the climax where Carmen is killed, all wavering thoughts of whether Don Jose would really do it were squashed, the music told it all.

One of my favorite pieces of the show had to be “Toreador”, because the music was so lively and entertaining. I also must mention the amazing performance by Ildar Abdrazakov as Escamillo, his voice was perfect for the character. He wasn’t overly loud or annoying, it fit because his character is one of a matador that the village people love and respect, which I got from his performance. That’s probably why it surprised me at the end when some of my classmates booed when he took a bow. Whatever, people are free to their opinions. An interesting thing I found out about the show when I got home was that there are actually two singers playing the titular role of Carmen. After seeing some of the other, I was happy that I got to see Anita Rachvelishvili because her performance was so commanding and convincing as Carmen. It was easy to see how her character had such an effect on Don Jose and Escamillo. Compared to the other actress,(videos of both below) Elina Garanca, Anita’s voice just has more emotion that made it seem less like an act and more realistic.

After I got home that night and was in my room I couldn’t help but notice that when telling my mother about it I told her that maybe we should go together one day, and that she’d really like it. Then I thought how crazy it was that just a few days ago I was so excited to get the chance to see something students my age (and class) normally wouldn’t be able to. Now I was all. let’s go, it’s not even that expensive! I think people have this preconceived notion that the opera is such an expensive thing when it really isn’t. That to go you need a good seat which can cost from 155 to 340 dollars. I for one didn’t really care that I was sitting in the family circle. Once the show started I just focused on enjoying myself. That for me changed the way I saw the opera and any other art performances like it. The actors and crew members aren’t doing it so they can look at the crowd and say, oh there are the rich people and there all the others at the top with the cheap seats. No, it is not about that, it is about presenting something to the general public that they can enjoy. For me, if the opera was truly a selective thing where only the rich and wealthy could go, then maybe the MET wouldn’t offer things such as the family circle and 30 dollar tickets. Now I know that the good seats are expensive now, but trust me, an art performance isn’t exactly a free business either. Those actors and cast members need money just as much as we do.

What I’m trying to say in all this garble is that the opera is something that anyone can enjoy it if they are willing to let go of social differences and pay attention to what is really important; a few hours away from our tough lives to immerse ourselves in art that is truly entertaining.