In Seminar on Wednesday, we discussed the evolution in 19^th century literature from Romanticism to Realism. While we typically associate the term “romanticism” with romance, this is not the case in literature. People during this time period had more leisure time available to them and wanted literature to read. Some of the great writers of that time included Henry James, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, Mary Shelley and Robert Louis Stevenson.

The era of Realism came when people started questioning things such as the meaning of life and who they were in the world. These questions provoked writers to create stories that mimic reality instead of fiction. Most stories did not have a happy ending. This introduced the dark side of humanity to literature. Characters like the mad woman from Jane Eyre, who had a mental disability, and the dual personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde exposed the dark side, which really had never been portrayed in literature before.

For the second half of the class, we dissected and dug into Walt Whitman’s poem, “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry.” In the first section of the poem, the speaker seems to be addressing two people, sometimes individually and sometimes simultaneously. At first, he is addressing the person that is physically in front of him, seeming to have a full on discussion. He talks about the people around him and the hustle and bustle on the boat. Second, the speaker seems to be addressing the sunset and the “clouds of the west,” speaking past the physical boat. He is trying to relate the person that is in front of him to the people and things that are way beyond his physical body, such as the landscape. During this conversation with the landscape, there is a constant repetition of “I see you face to face…,” almost as if the speaker is trying to create a relationship between himself and the clouds. In addition, the constant use of the pronoun “you” makes this “relationship” seem personal.

In the second section, the speaker starts describing and commenting on what he sees in the harbor. He describes the bridges, the island and the ships, as well as the movement of the water. However, there is more focus on trying to relate the man made creations, such as the boats and bridges%

My first Broadway play. Wow, what an experience! Since this was my first Broadway experience, I really didn’t know what to expect. The theater was beautifully designed. Even though we were pretty far back in the theater, the view of the stage was relatively good. Once I got into my seat, I couldn’t wait for the play to start.

In the opening act, we were introduced to the main characters. Right off the bat, I knew I was going to like the cast. Jessica Chastain, in my opinion, was a great choice to play Catherine. I like how she switched personalities from minute to minute. When Morris was around, she acted awkward and shy, yet, when she was alone, she was lively and witty. David Strathairn, who played Dr. Austin Sloper, also did a fantastic job. I would not have thought of David Strathairn to play Austin, but after seeing him on stage, I would reconsider. I was not really impressed with the character Morris, played by Dan Stevens. Stevens is a good actor, but I do not think that he fit the character. He seemed to be a little too charming. The character of Morris was intended to be a jerk, uncaring about Catherine and caring more about her money. It appeared that Morris actually developed feelings for Catherine in his actions and words, contrary to the plot and back story.

As for the plot, I feel that the playwright and directors took a few too many liberties from the original novel, for better or for worse. For example, Morris is introduced to Catherine by Marian, rather than Mrs. Penniman. That changes the course of the plot because the whole story is centered on the fact that Mrs. Penniman forces Morris onto Catherine instead of allowing her to develop her own feelings. In the play, it seems that Catherine genuinely falls for Morris, without the help of the other characters. In addition, Catherine does not live to please her father in the play as much as in the book. She played a more oppositional role on the stage. For instance, she fought with her father about writing her out of his will. She even agreed to help him write her out.

Finally, the ending. I absolutely loved it! I thought it was a lot more dramatic and theatrical than the ending in the novel. In the last act, Morris was at the house with Mrs. Penniman when the family returns home early. Austin, who was very sick, dies soon after. Morris and Catherine plan to elope, but Morris doesn’t come back that night for her. It turns out that he has chosen to go to Louisiana and California without her. He returns a year later, asking to escape again. Catherine bizarrely agrees, and Morris runs home to pack. While he is gone, Catherine turns to Mrs. Penniman and says something to the effect of, “He wanted my money, and now he wants my heart too.” From the way she said that, it appeared that she might in fact kill him. However, as a plot twist, Catherine closes the windows shades, turns off most of the lights and has the maid lock and bolt the door when Morris arrives. Morris proceeds to bang and scream at the door. After a few seconds, she kills the lights and quietly walks upstairs to her room, leaving him out in the cold. Curtain drops. Amazing!

In seminar class on Wednesday, we discussed our thoughts from the opera. Several people brought up the singing and the set design, however, no one brought up anything about the music that was played. Professor Kahan explained that subconsciously, we associate certain groupings of musical notes, called intervals, to certain cultures. For example, a “fourth interval” is commonly associated with the Oriental culture, as it sounds the closest to Chinese music. Throughout the opera Turandot, Puccini used a lot of fourths in the melody of Liu’s pieces. This is an example of using music to invoke different perceptions.

For the second half of class, Professor Sirotta came in to discuss his piece, which will be premiered by the Staten Island Philharmonic on Sunday. To begin his lecture, he asked us to think of the first piece of music we heard when we were children. For him, it was a song called “Oyfn Pripetshik.” He heard his grandfather sing this song when he was a child as his grandfather cleaned the eggs to be delivered. This song resurfaced in Professor Sirotta’s life a couple of years ago when he was asked by the JCC to teach a musical program for seniors. He wanted to find an old folk song with musical value that would resonate with the seniors.

“Oyfn Pripetshik” is a Yiddish folk song composed by Mark Warshowsky in the late 1800’s. Warshowsky was a lawyer in the Ukraine who had an affinity for his language. The song begins with a rabbi teaching young children the Hebrew alphabet around a fire. Later in the song, the rabbi tells the children, in a rough translation, “When you grow older children, you will know all too well of the tears that lie in every letter, more than time will tell. When you children will bear the exile and bravery is exhausted, may you derive strength from these letters, look at them again.” The strong heritage and history in this song makes it one of the most popular Jewish folk songs. It is often called the Second Jewish National Anthem.

Professor Sirotta then explained that composers enshrine the works of famous composers by taking an old piece of music and writing a new tune, creating a different variation of the same piece. Professor Kahan chimed in and said that this would often be a test of performers and composers ability, to see if they could take a famous and loved piece and make a newer or better piece. This is exactly what Professor Sirotta has done with “Oyfn Pripetshik.” While preserving the original melody, he added a brief introduction and a few variations. I look forward to hearing his completed piece performed by the Staten Island Philharmonic.

Wow! I can’t believe that I went to an opera! When I read through the syllabus for this class, I was dreading the fact that I had to go see Turandot. I thought that it was going to be really boring. I thought I’d be totally lost, since it is in a different language. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised.

Even with our little bit of confusion and disorder leaving CSI, we managed to make it there in plenty of time. When I came up the escalator from the subway, I was amazed! Lincoln Center looked absolutely beautiful at night!! The only time I had really seen it was during the day and, honestly, I had no clue that THAT was Lincoln Center. After meeting up with my friends, we went inside the opera hall. What another amazing sight. The decor was stunning, and a lot to take in. When we finally walked all the way up to the nosebleeds, we found our seats and Act I began. Act I was hard to see, considering the distance. It also didn’t help that he upper part of the stage was covered by the curtains. This part of the opera seemed more like background explaination than story telling. I wasn’t impressed.

During the first intermission, Elisa, Naomi, Professor and I went down to the orchestra level to find empty seats. I found a seat in Row C, on the floor, and settled in for Act II. I was hoping that this would improve my opera experience. When the curtain opened for the start of Act II, the stage was mind-blowing. The amount of craftsmanship and effort put into the backdrop was incredible. I could not believe my eyes! Being closer to the stage, I was able to get more involved in the story. I started to enjoy the opera.

By Act III, I was hooked. The much anticipated aria, “Nessun Dorma,” was breathtaking. Marcello Giordani did an excellent job filling the piece with emotion, hitting the notes with ease. I’m sure it must be difficult to sing a piece made famous by Pavarotti, as comparisons will always be made.  For my first opera experience, however, I went in a skeptic and left a fan.

I absolutely enjoyed attending the opera. I think that it was a wonderful experience, one I definitely would not have had in my forseeable future. I would like to thank Macaulay for taking us. It was a beautiful choice. It was great spending by birthday evening with all of my friends seeing Turandot.

Science is a complex thing. Our knowledge on various subjects is constantly changing. What was true and valid last week is disproved and replaced with another theory this week. We are still unsure about the world that we are living in. Charles Liu, the Director of the Macaulay and Verrazano Honors College at CSI, challenged us to think outside the box.

When Dr. Liu came in to speak with us, he spoke on the matter of combining religion and science. He posed a question: “Could someone who is verbose in science be just as verbose in religion?” Most of us answered “no,” but in fact, the answer is yes. Look back at some of the famous scientists in history such as Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, even Benjamin Franklin. Besides Science, what else do all these famous people have in common?? The were all philosophers! They were just as well read in science as they were in religion. Fast forward a few hundred years to 2012. When we hear that someone is a scientist, we automatically assume that they have no religious background at all.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, we had the honor of attending the opening of an art gallery at CSI. The name of the gallery was “Expanding Frames of Reference: Art, Science and Religion.” Normally, you don’t see those three terms in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence! Well, a Swiss scholar Johann Jakob Scheuchzer challenged this idea and developed scientifically based art commissioned to mimic passages from the Bible. The idea was brilliant!

One of the paintings that illustrates this the best is Physica Sacra plate CCCLXXI. The bible quote to go with this plate is found in Joshua, chapter 10, and reads:

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.“

In the painting, we see the sun shining over a mountain top and the moon in the back right. Around the frame we can see the changing of the moon and sun over the course of a day. At one point though, it seems that the light patterns have remained static, illustrating the above quote.

I was quite taken back by all of this. I had always been one of those naïve persons who  believed that science and religion could never co-exist. However, Scheuchzer, through his art, demonstrates that scientific principals found their origin in the Bible. After viewing this exhibition, my mind has definitely been changed in regards to this. Science and religion can and do, in fact, co-exist.

Everyone has their own sense of style, from how they dress to how they speak to how they write. The list can go on and on. Artists, through their work, express their own unique perspective and style. Now, you can not look at one piece from an artist’s portfolio and say, “Hey! His style is ….”. It doesn’t work like that. Style and perspective are developed over many many years and can be seen across various works. So, for example, let’s look at the style of Edward Hopper.

One of Hopper’s most famous works, which we discussed in the last post, is Nighthawks. In the painting, you can see how Hopper uses various light sources and angles to move characters either into the background or foreground. For example, the man sitting by himself at the bar looks a lot darker in the picture than the rest of the characters, while the bartender and couple sitting on the other side are very well lit and distinguishable. In addition, the outside surroundings of the bar are very dark and poorly lit. Your eyes are drawn into the diner, and directly to the couple.

Now, let’s take a look at Night Shadows, another Hopper painting. The same principals of style apply here. In my opinion, I think that this painting is less about the character, but the fact the no one else is around. We as viewers feel almost like we are stalking this man from the rooftops as he is walking to his destination. Once again, the use of the light source, which is greatly exaggerated (which can be concluded by the shadows), is meant to highlight the street and vacancy of the area, rather than the lone person on the street.