When I left the theater on Wednesday night, all I could think was…WOW!  I loved reading Washington Square, and so I was a little apprehensive towards seeing it played out.  After all, movies generally seem to ruin the books that they are based on.  The Harry Potter movies took all the goodness of the series and twisted it beyond recognition (um in my opinion…), and I was scared that this play would do the same. However, I was pleasantly surprised; instead of spoiling the novel, The Heiress seemed to even improve the book and fix what it was lacking.  The surprise ending of the play demonstrated Catherine’s growth better than the book; instead of merely kicking Townsend out of the house, Catherine plays a nasty revenge and allows Townsend to feel the pain and desperation that she endured those years back.

I also thought the set of the house parlor was incredible.  Though that was the only setting in the play, the front room of the house where the story took place was rich and life-like.  I almost couldn’t blame Morris for obsessing over the quality and wanting to move in!  The actors and actresses couldn’t have done better, the script was laugh-out-loud funny, and even the detailed costumed contributed largely to the play.  Even though I read the book, I was never bored and had a great time.  The show was absolutely amazing.

When Professor Sirotta played his piece for the class on Wednesday, I was reminded of the discussion we had a few minutes before about the cultural clichés that can be portrayed through music.  Just like Liu’s music in “Turandot” had a distinct chinese sound, Professor Sirotta’s piece painted a picture in my mind of the small European shtetls where the Jewish people lived.  The professor said that the words of Oyfn Pripotshok, the song on which his own piece is based, describes a Rabbi who is teaching young children the Hebrew alphabet.  The Rabbi warns the children that they will experience pain and exiles, and they must strengthen themselves by these letters.  The slow tune of the stringed instruments in “Fantasia Pripotshok” makes the piece sound like an old Jewish European song and seems to portray the culture of which the words of the song speak of.  Then, amongst the low, slow violin sounds, Sirotta includes transitions that that have a different sound from the rest of the song.  These periods of the piece incorporate instruments like the tambourine that do not sound like the Jewish European style.  These musical transitions might be symbolizing the Jewish exiles of which the Rabbi spoke of, where the Jews had to leave their shtetl homes for other places and other cultures.

Puccini’s Turandot was everything a good show should be; the opera was (very) dramatic, poetic, and even included some necessary comic relief.  Although the storyline seems a little far-fetched (the prince answers the three riddles and wins the contest, yet he gives Turandot an opportunity to get away and himself another chance of death), I think that is the charm of the opera and it contributes to the poetry.  Calaf does not want to force Turandot to marry him.  His goal is to melt her cold heart and take down the defensive gate she surrounded herself with.  In fact, this is apparent in her wardrobe.  When we are introduced to Turandot, she is wearing many layers of sparkly clothing and a tall crown.  As Turandot spends more time with Calaf and begins to warm up, she loses the outside layers of her clothing and headpiece, a metaphor for losing her defensive borders.

I was also amazed by the opera’s incredible scenery.  The short intermissions did not seem like enough time to set up the detailed and intricate settings that were built.  I also noticed how the orchestra contributed to the storyline and subliminally let the audience know how they should be feeling.  The slow, sweet music indicated a calm, touching scene, and hurried, sharp tones signified panic in the city.  Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the opera, and I am excited to see another!

When Dr. Liu prepared the class for the art gallery that featured the work of Johann Jakob Scheuchzer, he made me excited to see the collection; Dr. Liu explained that Scheuchzer incorporated art, science and religion in his work and I was curious as to how someone can combine his different passions in such different study areas to create a masterpiece.  When I initially glanced at the art, I only saw a direct depiction of biblical verses; however, upon further inspection, I discovered the intricate details of the people, animals and plants that only one knowledgeable in the science behind them would know to include.  In a depiction of Genesis Cap I. V.26, Scheuchzer includes images of skeletons and fetuses.  His knowledge of science is evident in the details of the anatomy; every bone is taken into consideration and accounted for.  In fact, it is the science behind the work that makes the art so great; like the Greeks who valued the beauty of the human body, Scheuchzer uses the beauty of anatomy to create art.

I think it is inspiring that the artist was able to pursue his different fields of interests and create a masterpiece in the process.  I hope that during my four years in college, I too will be open-minded to the different areas of study and will “expand my frames of reference.”

An artist uses his style to make the painting recognizable as his own.  The style is like his signature and can be a slight reflection of him.  This is true for Edward Hopper’s paintings as well.  When reviewing Edward Hopper’s collection, one may notice a common pattern and theme throughout his work.  Hopper seems to paint scenes with which most people can relate to.  Whether it is a depiction of a late night in the bar or of a farmhouse by the tracks, Hopper gives viewers a taste of typical American life.  This is accomplished in a way that makes the viewer feel like he is watching the subject’s life as it happens.  We, the audience, are somewhat eavesdropping on other people’s everyday activities without their consent or knowledge.

This style is evident in all of Hopper’s work.  In “New York Interior”, we are introduced to a young woman who appears to be sewing in her room.  Yet we only get a glimpse of the woman’s back.  Unlike the “Mona Lisa”, whose gaze is directed back at us, this woman is unaware of her audience and is just engrossed in her regular activities.  While the subject of “The Mona Lisa” is posing and appears to be dressed and groomed to impress, the woman in “New York Interior” remains oblivious of onlookers.  This way, the audience feels like they are getting an unbiased and unaltered view of American life; we are seeing the scenes exactly as they are, with no sugar coating.  Even in “American Landscape”, where there are no people in the scene, the cows in the painting have their backs to the audience and are not aware that they are being watched.

Similarly, in “A Woman in the Sun”, the audience is spying on a woman who appears to have just gotten out of bed and is warming in the sun before she dresses and proceeds with her day.  This woman’s gaze is not directed at us.  She, too, does not know she has an audience and would probably have had her door closed; yet we are in the room with her and can witness this private moment.

When Chris showed the class his own photography and style, he announced that he keeps his pictures “real.”  He does not tell the subjects where to stand or how to pose.  He takes the pictures as they are really happening and allows us to share in their real experiences.  Like Chris, Hopper creates paintings that are “real.”  The audience can see events as they are happening with no added bias from the painter or pretense from the subject.  The scene is not merely art.  It is real life.