I’ve been a New Yorker my whole life. If there is one thing that I have learned about the city, it’s that you can’t define it, or really even describe all it offers.

The city really has so many different “zones” to it. In Manhattan, you may feel the effects of rigid social class structures like the ones depicted in “Wall Street”, but if you come to Queens, you will probably experience something different.

Manhattan:

Queens:

My point is that I don’t think that there really is any one piece of artwork that is “most truthful” in displaying New York City. This city is one that you just can’t describe- and that is what makes it so unique.

Think about it. The fact that we are able to find so many films, plays, and other works of art about New York City just goes to show that there is so much more that meets the eye when it comes to the city. In Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver”, Scorsese showcased the “underworld” of New York City, one that was filled with crime. Adversely, Blake Edwards’ “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” depicts a more materialistic New York City that is filled with glitz and glamour.

So which film had it right? Neither. At least, not fully.

But still, we can’t discredit the films that try and show what NYC is. Everyone has their own opinions. But is it really possible for a director to accurately capture all that NYC has to offer? How could you depict life on Park Ave, when half of it resembles the exorbitantly rich and the other half represents the poor in the Bronx? And in that same token, not forget to depict life in Queens ranging from the bustling Jackson Heights to the laid-back, residential Bayside? Kudos the director who could do this, but I have yet to see a film about New York City depicted in this fashion. I can’t blame them either! When people want to watch a film about the city, they want to hear about the city that “never sleeps”, which is usually just Manhattan.

Even though it’s clear that artwork depicting the city is somewhat exclusionary, I can’t help but be thankful for that. I live in Queens, which in my opinion is the best borough in the city. Thankfully, it is also a “hidden treasure”, meaning all the hipsters and tourist haven’t yet discovered how cool Queens is. But much to my dismay, Lonely Planet ranked Queens the #1 place to visit in 2015, citing the fact that it truly is just an overall awesome place. I can only hope that Queens stays as it is, without the hipsters and tourists for as long as possible. It would be horrible for Queens to be a victim of gentrification. But I can almost guarantee that if it did, there would be a lot more films and artwork about it. (Mini-rant over, sorry.)

I have to say my favorite work of the semester was Yasmina Reza’s “God of Carnage”. I loved this play mainly because it did not seek to characterize New York City itself, but rather the people in it. New Yorkers are a breed of people all their own, and I believe that the play depicted this well. No matter how much class or status anyone in the city may have, I think we all possess a certain “kind of crazy” and are not afraid to get downright rude. I mean what other cities do you keep your head down when you walk in an attempt to avoid eye contact and not talk to anyone? Where else can you find people who can talk on the phone, eat breakfast, jaywalk, and hail a taxi cab at the same time? I’m pretty sure that you will only find that in the city, and this is what I believe artists should try and capture.

Overall, I believe that New York City is so unique because of its inhabitants, who all share commonalities while still making up the most ethnically and culturally diverse city in the world.

Lonely Planet’s Rankings:

http://www.weather.com/travel/news/lonely-planet-top-american-destinations

Are the masses really the asses?

Some people may think so. But what does this mean for artists?

In a society where artwork is valued less and less, do artists have to “water down” their work? Is this selling out?

I don’t necessarily think so. Sometimes artists just want to make their artwork more marketable to a wider range of people (and make something more financially successful). Let’s face it, Birds with Skymirrors would never be as successful as the Muppets Take Manhattan. Each has their own artistic vision. It just so happens that one appeals to a wider audience, whereas the other is a bit of an acquired taste (to say the least). But I don’t think that we should discredit works of art where this is the case.

Let’s look at The Muppets Take Manhattan. Back in its heyday, it was a successful blockbuster. Were the artists involved in the production “selling out”? I guess the answer to that would be completely relative. If one of the puppet designers went from designing puppets in a play that was aimed at highlighting racial inequalities to a kids flick, maybe they would think they were “selling out”. But as a young adult analyzing the film, I appreciate the film for its puppetry and downright catchy musical numbers. To a younger audience, it inspires a message of hope and perseverance which I think is a valuable lesson.

The Muppets Take Manhattan is a commercially successful work that isn’t example of an artist “selling out” in my eyes. But I have to say that Martin Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York” totally felt like he was “selling out” to me. In all honestly I think I disliked the movie because of the fact that it didn’t feel authentic to what I had come to believe was Martin Scorsese’s artistic vision as a director. After watching Taxi Driver, I appreciated the gritty, dark aura the movie gave. It was honest and unapologetic. I can’t say the same thing about Gangs of New York. To me it seemed oozing with hollywood influence and lacked the authenticity that Taxi Driver had. I do acknowledge the fact that Gangs of New York did have a purpose however. It depicted the political atmosphere of a New York that is long gone, which I could see as valuable to some people. However I do think that the overdramatization and hollywood-esque scenes took away from this aspect of the film and made it painfully obvious he was trying to spread his audience pool as far as possible.

Overall, I think that selling out is when an artist strays from their artistic vision. Naturally this vision is fluid, and artists change over time just like anyone else. But in reality, I believe that the audience can really tell when an artist is being true to their artwork or just striving to make something more commercially successful.

On the one hand, an artist can choose to remain true to their visions, or let some of them go to produce work that is more commercially successful. It’s truly a catch-22 for today’s artists.

New York City is a melting pot. Everyone knows that, right? As a native New Yorker, I can say that this is certainly true. Everywhere you look in NYC you see people of all nationalities.

But even though we may all live harmoniously together (for the most part), there is a lot of stereotyping and prejudice alive and well in the city. Spike Lee shows this in his film Do The Right Thing by highlighting the tension between the black and white community in the Bed-stuy neighborhood where the film takes place.

Spike Lee initially takes a comical approach to showing the absurdity of the stereotypes of ethnic groups in the city. For me, this aspect of the film really captured the madness of stereotyping people based on what they look like. In the city, it seems like everyone has something to say about someone else without really thinking about how silly it is to characterize someone based on your prejudgments about them. NYC may be a melting pot, but there is definitely a lot of stereotyping and prejudice that goes on in the city.

Another  main reason why the film  affected me so much was because of how accurately it depicted racial tensions in the city. Even before the shocking death of Radio Raheem at the end of the film, Lee began generating instances of tension between the black and white community. In one of these instances, a white man is badgered by Buggin Out and his crew for scuffing his sneakers and moving into their “all black” neighborhood. In another, a group of black kids playing with a water hydrant wet the car of an Italian man.

In both of these instances, Spike Lee really demonstrated the tension in NYC neighborhoods. While watching the film you are made to feel as though at any moment things could explode, and the tension brewing comes to a violent head. Today, this feeling still persists, although not at the same level as depicted in the movie.

Towards the end of the film, all of the tension that Spike Lee carefully created finally erupted on a sweltering day in Bed-Stuy. The death of Radio Raheem was eerily similar to the death of Eric Garner this summer. When I watched the film, I thought it was crazy that something made 25 years ago about race relations could still be relevant in 2014. Police brutality is a constant topic in the news, and over the past few years issues of racial violence splashes the headlines way too frequently.

 
Just watching the film made me wonder where we are as a society, considering the film actually depicted the same type of mentality that is prevalent in the city today. In our city especially, we have been battling racial tension for so long, that it seems like it will never end! To an outsider, it may seem crazy that in a NYC could be so afflicted by these issues. But Spike Lee does an incredible job showing the racial tension between the black community and the white community. Even though we all live together, it’s clear that we don’t always get along.

Carmen was the first opera that I have ever seen.

And honestly, it won’t be the last.

I have to admit that my expectations for seeing Carmen were not very high. From what I had heard about the opera, it was only for the wealthy, and young folks had no business going. But I can say that after watching the performance, I truly felt as though the opera was something that I could one day come to love.

Sitting in my seat in the “family circle”, I was not immediately impressed. It was hard to see without binoculars, which I thankfully rented, and there was a particularly grumpy old lady sitting behind me with sharp fingernails. However, once the actual opera began I was very impressed. I could not believe that such powerful and beautiful voices were coming from real people. If I looked away for a second I could have sworn that the whole thing just wasn’t real. It wasn’t until I fixed my binoculars on the singers that once again I realized that I was sitting in the MET, watching some extremely talented people perform right in front of me (ok, maybe a little farther than that…).

But that’s not to say that I completely enjoyed my experience.

I think what I most enjoyed about the opera was what it could have been for me. Even though I loved the singing, I would have enjoyed to be close enough to appreciate the acting and set more. I couldn’t quite make out some facial expressions, and I’m certain some details of the backdrop were left unnoticed by me. Because of this, I often found myself wandering into thought.

Gazing around the theater, I couldn’t help but notice it’s design. I noticed the spackling on the wall closest to the top of the “family circle” and wondered silently if anyone would be fixing that soon. Looking at the sides of the theater, I noticed the grand tier boxes, and looked on as a mother and her child hopped away to the exit from their seats. I couldn’t help feel a twinge of jealousy, that they were there and I was all the way at the top of the theater, so distant from the action and so aware of my seemingly “plebeian” status. I mean really, who was I fooling in my black gown and silver pumps? Surely I should have dressed in jeans and a shirt to at least demonstrate my understanding of the social atmosphere.

But I didn’t, and I won’t. When I do return to the opera, whether I am sitting in the family circle, the orchestra,or the grand tier, I will surely play dress-up again and appreciate what the “high life” has to offer.