As the show began I tried to focus on the stage. I turned on my subtitles and looking around I saw no one else’s subtitles turned on. They’ll turn them on later. A short while later I noticed that everyone’s subtitles were still off. I must be doing this wrong. Should I turn my subtitles off? I must be a noob at watching opera…No no no its not that their subtitles are off, their subtitles aren’t working! Wow I am the only one in this whole row with subtitles; I must have gotten a really special seat. I wonder if the others are all reading from my subtitles. It wasn’t until the break when I leaned over to my neighbors seat and realized that everyone had subtitles.

I did not enjoy sitting through those three hours. An hour into the show, I was confused and bored. I started to notice irrelevant things like the exit signs on both sides of the stage, the chipped paint on the ceiling and how uncomfortable and stiff I felt.

Most of the time I didn’t know what exactly was going on. I couldn’t tell who was singing most of the time because we were so far away. I found it annoying to look back and forth from the stage to the subtitles. I would of rather watched the opera in a movie format. Also, I don’t see the point of including the acrobats who performed before and in the middle of the show. I think the opera was longer than it had to be. I found it boring and on top of that the plot wasn’t interesting or realistic. Everything was overly romanticized and exaggerated. I think the opera had no real message or purpose other than entertainment. Moreover, I personally don’t find the sound of opera singing appealing although I am sure the performers hit all the right notes and had great voices. But I will say that stage design was interesting. I thought the rotating walls and change in scenery was pretty cool. Also I was impressed at how fast they changed the scenery.

Because of the typical cost of the tickets, operas cater to the higher class since they make up most of the audience and they are the ones who fund the operas. I think most of the viewers were older, educated adults. I don’t think that the uneducated and low classes wouldn’t be particularly drawn to operas; rather they would find something like “A Sucker Emcee” more appealing. But I don’t think it’s solely a matter of class it is also one of personal preference, as I am sure there are rich people who abhor operas and poor people who adore them.

Overall, I would not recommend the opera to anyone nor would I consider revisiting it.

Although this was my first time watching a live performance, I wasn’t looking forward to it. I expected a terrible play, after all what in the world was an “emcee” anyway? But, “A Sucker Emcee” was nothing I expected it to be.

I really liked the fact that muMs was performing his own life story, as opposed to a random actor playing his life. I think that muMs did a great job performing his life. However there were parts of the performance that I thought were unnecessary, specifically when he would go into detail about hip-hop. I felt that if the play wasn’t centered around the development of hip-hop and instead entirely on muMs’ life the performance would have been more interesting. However I thought that the performance was somewhat entertaining because of muM’s animated character.

I actually think that making the play a one-man show was a clever idea. And I think that if muMs’ life was produced into a play and acted out it wouldn’t be as interesting or personal as the performance was. I also liked the fact that the play was in the form of spoken word poetry. However, sometimes muMs spoke too fast and so I couldn’t catch what he was saying.

To some extent this performance can appeal to everyone. There were instances in the performance when muMs contemplates the meaning of his life and I think that at least at one point in everyone’s life they begin to think of what their purpose is. Also the themes, don’t give up, chase your dreams, and don’t be afraid are universal. However, I think this performance would definitely have more appeal the lower classes since they can better understand to and relate to muMs’ struggle and background.

I thought that the Q&A session was a nice touch as it cleared up some of the confusions I had (I was unsure if he was actually performing a real life story and if it was his).

All in all I found the performance to be somewhat motivational, entertaining, and interesting. The conclusion of the piece was especially good, my favorite line being “Don’t be a Sucker Emcee.”

Christopher Columbus once said, “Riches don’t make a man rich, they only make him busier.” Columbus’s quote correctly demonstrates that for most, getting money will not lead to satisfaction- it will only lead to the want of more money.

When I think of Uptown New York City, wads of cash, mansions, limousines, and snobbish people come to mind. In my head, a rich person lives extravagantly– too extravagantly. I imagine a rich New Yorker to be the kind of person who struts the streets like they own them and who always assumes superiority (and who of course throws and attends lavish parties).

Moreover, I tend to associate the wealthy with arrogance, deceit, and ruthlessness. While many receive their wealth and status from hard work, I think so many more rise to wealth as a result of under-the-table dealings, cheating, and stepping on others. There are also a good number of those who receive their share from generous inheritance.

In a dog eat dog society competitors do whatever it takes to get ahead. And I think that at a certain point, even those who have risen from hard and honest work may get so absorbed in moving forward and getting farther and farther ahead that they will do so by any means, including cheating, lying, stealing, etc. After all, so many others have done it with impunity, why can’t they? This again relates to Columbus’s quote, as the rich have the tendency to want more and more (even though they probably have more than enough money to guarantee their great-great-great-great grandkids a luxurious life).

I do not watch many films, but of the ones I have watched I think that the movie Wall Street (Stone 1987) is a great representation of my perception of Uptown New York City. The movie illustrates the story of an over ambitious stockbroker, Bud Fox. As a stockbroker, Bud works hard and honestly. However, Bud is unsatisfied with his current rank and so he becomes involved with Gordon Gekko, a dishonest multimillionaire. Due to pressure from Gekko and Bud’s unwavering determination to get to the top, Bud illegally takes part in insider trading. Bud’s compliance with Gekko shows the eagerness of the lower classes to become rich. Bud traded his moral values for money and I think a lot of people in our society have done the same. Because Bud eventually pays the price of his actions by going to jail, Oliver Stone shows that justice, even in NYC, is attainable, and although some may get away with cheating for a short while, their triumph will end eventually.

Gekko’s plan to wreck the Blue Star Airlines Company for a multimillion-dollar profit paints the rich as pitiless, greedy, and unsatisfied, a similar relation to the one I often draw. Also, not only does Stone represent rich New Yorkers through Bud and Gekko, Stone also shows Uptown NYC as the center of money and importance. In fact, there are several scenes where the busy streets and tall skyscrapers are shown with an air of grandeur.

It is interesting to note that this film is timeless- it is still relevant in today’s NYC and probably will continue to be so for the next 100 years. I think this film accurately portrays my idea of wealthy New York as it demonstrates that once you’re in the “game” it’s hard to get out and nearly impossible to be a player if you are unwilling to cheat and crush those beneath you.

Class structures are a reality- low, middle, and high classes do exist. That is the truth, and artists cannot change this fact. But what they can change or rather what they should change, is the light that each class is portrayed in. In this sense, artists have a significant ability to shape our thoughts on different ideas. After all, a person of low or middle class does not know how a person of high class lives, they can imagine what it would be like- but they would never really know (and vise versa). It is usually what they see in movies and TV shows that give these people an inside view on how the rich supposedly live and act and what it’s like to be rich (and vise versa). Artists should try to display a less rigid and defined system of class structure.

The movie Wall Street (Stone, 1987) is centered around a stockbroker’s rise and fall and through this Oliver Stone highlights the middle and high-class lifestyles in NYC. Although Oliver Stone portrays the rich as superficial and money hungry he also presents them as powerful, prestigious, and successful. And so, Wall Street is a movie that reinforces social stratification.

In Yasmina Reza’s God of Carnage we are introduced to two couples that seem to be of high class. However, Reza’s play depicts the complete abandonment of class structures. The wealthy couples try to settle a predicament in a polite manner, a manner that would suit their class, however they fail miserably. The couples show their true colors as they get drunk, argue, and fight. Reza successfully illustrates that everyone, even those of higher class act, think, and feel the same as any ordinary person.

The shows and movies we watch usually influence our thoughts, and so artists, the creators of such media, have the ability to reinforce, or try to breakdown, class structures. Now I specifically used the word “try” because artists have constantly bombarded the public with advertisements, movies, and TV shows which associate a certain lifestyle, ethnicity, or thought with different class structures. To get a clear and fair representation of different class structures, artists have to undo the stereotypes that they have embedded into our minds. For instance, Blacks and Latinos are constantly portrayed as low class criminals in films and as a result the viewers tend to associate what they see on the big screen with real life. And likewise, when the successful, rich, beautiful, heroic characters are of white ethnicity, we tend to draw these connections to real life, whether we realize it or not. When an artist chooses to reinforce the system of social hierarchy they only add to the problem. When an artist attempts to breakdown class structure through their work, they seek to amend and redefine our views on social hierarchy.

One of my favorite works of Julian Beever.

To be honest, for a long time I have associated art with what I have seen in art museums. I have always linked the term “art” with paintings and sculptures. If someone had asked me, “what is art?” I would of simply said, “the stuff you see in museums.” But now that I truly think of the question, I see that it is not an easy one to answer. The more I ponder, the more I begin to think that there is no true, definite answer to such a question. Art can have such a vast meaning because anyone and everyone can have a different view.

What I consider to be art may not be art by someone else’s standards, by someone else’s definition. I think that places like the Museum of Modern Art and the Brooklyn Museum play a big part in determining what art is. After all, many artists hope to one day have their art displayed in a museum for all to see and appreciate. And, just like I once derived my definition of art by associating the term “art” with what I saw in art museums, so too have many others. In fact, at one point during the Night at the Brooklyn Museum trip, I saw a plain chair behind glass. I pointed to it and said, “That is not art.” One member of my group looked at me and smiled and said, “Well of course it is, it’s in a museum isn’t it?” And to that I now say that a museum cannot define art. However, museums can determine what they will and will not put on display, and thus they can and do influence the public’s idea of what is art.

When I hear the word “art” many things come to mind. I think of the words “beautiful,” “interesting,” and “creative.” Vibrant colors come to mind. I think of my favorite artist, Julian Beever. I think of the photograph that hangs over my bed. I also think of some famous works of art, specifically Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, and Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. I think of my old sketchbook. To me, something becomes a work of art when it is able to convey a feeling or idea or produce a reaction. When I walk through an art museum I experience a variety of feelings and thoughts, it all depends on what I am looking at. Sometimes I laugh at the strange images and awkward poses, at other times I look at the intricate details of a sculpture with appreciation of skill, and at other times I feel confused. Now, I am not saying that an artwork that I think is uninteresting is not art, it is still art, but to someone else. To me, art is what I make it.