Author: Kaven Cao

During my time at the Jewish Museum, I was particularly fascinated with Rachel Feinstein’s gallery. Her artwork reflects her daring personality, creativity, and feminist ideals. One artwork that really caught my eyes from her exhibition was a statue called Mr. Time. Like many of her other sculptures, Mr. Time is a representation of life, imperfections, and women empowerment.

Mr. Time was made in 2015 and Rachel Feinstein created this sculpture with powder-coated aluminum, vinyl, and a working clock. She drew inspiration from her son, Francis Currin, who made it when he was ten years old. This artwork was also not the original piece. It went through a transformation from a small pencil drawing to a human-scale, three-dimensional metal object.

At first glance, I thought that Feinstein was trying to illustrate this ambiguous concept of time with this statue. Since time was a concept created by human beings, Rachel Feinstein needed to use human-like or human-made objects to represent time. Thus, I believe the clock was used as the head of the statue because both time and the clock to measure time were both invented by humans. But being a feminist, Feinstein using a masculine figure to identify time captivated me. I wondered why is time a male and why is time in the form of a human. Walking around the exhibit, I saw the other artworks from Feinstein and a brief synopsis about her on the wall. I slowly began to understand Rachel Feinstein’s meaning in her abstract artwork. The statue not only had a clock as the head, but its whole body had guns, knives, swords, and letters with hearts all over. The way I see it, Feinstein is trying to define toxic masculinity through time. Time in this artwork would be history. Hence, throughout history, men only knew violence during the time of swords and knives, and later on when guns were invented. The love letters are probably what males thought would be something they would receive in return for exemplifying their masculinity through war and chaos. Or it could be love letters to the family of those males who died from conflicts involving those knives and guns. I believe both meanings involve some sort of conflict or bloodshed because violence has always been part of human history.

Feinstein probably wanted to suggest that toxic masculinity has led to nothing but the destruction of either females, family, or even all human beings. What appeared like a child’s drawing animated into a symbol for feminism and anti-violence. One could say it could be a sign of the anti-gun movement. For any of these reasons, the abstract concept of time would always be there. And it will illustrate how some things never change no matter how much time has passed.

(Metro Newspaper Wed October 30, 2019)

Copyrighted Ahmad Choudhry, follow him at @ahmxdd.c

They say that the dead comes back on Halloween

Blurring the lines between the living and the dead

But if we, the living, be very keen

We would realize that we are no different

One may ask…

What is the difference between the living and the dead?

When the youth, who are supposed to be filled with life, chant:

I feel so dead on the inside

What is the difference between the living and the dead?

When adults sulk when Mondays arrive

And going to work like a zombie horde

Living not only means breathing

Living is not defined by a heartbeat

Living means hope

Living means you live every day like your last day

Living means having a passion, a dream

That’s what makes us living

Drop your phones and drop your worries

Step out of your house and  step out of your comfort zone

Dress up for Halloween to scare away the dead

Give some candy and get some back

Enjoy the sweetness and cackle through the night

Just remember this…

It ain’t the dead that’s been haunting you

Because it was only you all along

Don’t paint yourself like a zombie

Because you are the joker that gets the last laugh

In Camera Lucida, the author, Roland Barthes, seeks to discover another meaning in photography. Barthes seeks to break down the art of photography to find something inside of it that doesn’t make photography plain. What captivated me was when he tried to explain the three players of photography in Chapter 4 of Part One on page 9, “Operator, Spectrum, and Spectator”. He clearly stated that photography consist of the photographer, the people looking at the photography, and the thing or person being photographed. The photographer must use his or her own “emotion” to take their type of photographs. Roland, on the other hand, never experienced this kind of emotion but rather only possesses two experiences: “ that of the observed subject and that of the subject observing…”.Yet, Roland Barthes also claimed that the spectrum of the photograph has a “rather terrible thing” which is the “return of the dead”. I am not sure by what is returning and how is the thing that is returning from the dead a terrible thing. I also question why Roland Barthes thinks he is different from other photographers. Is it just because he thinks of photography differently?

In Part Two, Roland Barthes began to talk about photography through his deceased mother. In Chapter 27 pages 65 to 67, “To Recognize”, Barthes explicitly stated that he missed his mother and never really could find her even in her photographs. Even though he admitted that the “brightness of her eyes” was “reserved” and “preserved”, yet he also claimed that he could not find her. I understand that he cannot bring himself to believe that his mother still exists in those old photographs. Roland Barthes compared these “false” images to a dream where things we dreamed of being “almost” within our grasp, which is why we tend to be disappointed. This comparison illustrates the deep grief that Barthes feels for the loss of his mother and how much he misses the real her. What I am puzzled about is why does he affirm that photographs do not have the same features as his mother. He seems troubled to find the “essential identity” of his mother and so I wanted to ask what is the “essential identity” of his mother that the photography lacks.

My question for this class is: why can’t we classify photography or photographs even though we rely on the object that is being photographed?

I chose this photo because I took it to capture a variety of details, hence, which one is the subject? The people, the trees, the hut, or the towering skyscrapers? 

During the trip to the High Line, my group and I were assigned to visit the art galleries on the 25th street of the Chelsea area. I’ve been to the High Line and Hudson Yards before so that was not new to me, but I never visited the art galleries in Chelsea before so this was a very interesting experience. Two galleries caught my attention because of their different interactions between the artworks and the environment of the art galleries. 

The first gallery my group and I went to was the Amsterdam Whitney Gallery inside this building that also hosted other galleries. What was fascinating was that inside the gallery different sections had dramatically different styles of artworks, making it look like the gallery had galleries inside of it. The gallery’s environment was considered white cube but the interactions weren’t just between the artworks and the surrounding wall. Inside the Amsterdam Whitney, there was antique furniture in every section of the gallery. There would be antique chairs and tables in every corner of the gallery, luring us to sit on one of them. In some way, these antiques also provided a contrast to the artworks the gallery offered.

As we entered the gallery, the paintings to the left and right were abstract paintings by an artist called Francesca Scesa. His style focused on the color and shape between strings and the vibrant colors of his paintings were brought out by the white walls and the white lights. Another interesting painting of his was his self-portrait on the top of the wall. The feature that captured my interest was that the painting was tilted and it reminded me of the discussion we had on the High Line before the class separated when we discussed why artworks located on the top are tilted since the angle of our view would be distorted if the painting was upright. Hence, the installers of the gallery used their space very efficiently to bring out the colors of their artworks and also minimizing the space used for all these artworks. I still wonder about the meaning behind the furniture if it is also supposed to offer a contrast to the abstract artworks or complement them.

The second gallery my group and I visited was called, Gallery Henoch, and it was by far the best gallery on the street. Once we walked in, we took a small flight of stairs that lead us to the entrance of the gallery and we were struck with this cozy vibe. The gallery was still standard white-cube but the ceiling was made of bricks instead of the regular white surface. Another difference is the lighting of the gallery because Gallery Henoch has orange, dimmer lights compared to the Amsterdam Whitney’s LED bright lights. My eyes were less-strained in the orange lighted environment and I felt more mellow while studying the artworks. My favorite artwork was a painting called “Allure” by Alexandra Averbach. It was a realistic painting of flowers and grapes in a big glass goblet. I personally like nature and any natural things found in nature. The dim-lights and brick ceiling matched the artwork the gallery offered because nature goes best with a countryside environment and it gave me a very relaxing experience.

Almost every child during their early school days enjoyed spinning the miniature world globe in their history class. However, there is one globe that cannot be easily played with, the Unisphere. Through the entrance into Flushing Meadows Corona Park, and across the lake, you will see a giant globe towering over the trees on the west side of the public park. As you walk closer, the rows of trees clear into an open space with clean lawn surrounding the stairs leading up to the Unisphere. The metallic sphere situated itself inside an even bigger fountain bowl, surrounding itself with spray jets that shoots water up to two stories high.

I’ve been to the Unisphere multiple times in the past because it is my backyard. This summer I visited this landmark again while on a casual stroll in the park, right before the US open was going to start. I went during the morning time but the summer heat was already starting to toast the people in the park. I do not know if the park officials opened the spray jets of the Unisphere to help people cool off or welcoming the upcoming US Open. However, I know that this was not the original mission of my friendly neighborhood landmark. This artwork was built for the famous world fairs hosted in Corona Park. The Unisphere represented the world with the continents and countries with metal plates. What always fascinates me was how the architects and engineers took geography into account with levels of metal plates.

Not only do I like to visit the Unisphere, but my family also enjoys it too. Nowadays, the Unisphere serves not only a community function but also a very practical use: a place for kids to play, a cooling place, and a tourist attraction. Hence, I believe this landmark counts as an art as space. In the past, it served as the unifying factor of the world fairs and it continues to do so, especially in a very diverse borough, Queens. It’s also another spot to cool down for kids who like water and also a nice view to take pictures.

Another place I visited this summer was the Pepsi-Cola sign in Gantry State Park in Long Island City. Again, it is a famous landmark within a public park yet the only difference is, it is a leftover of a Pepsi-Cola bottling plant. I went during the late afternoon, just before the sun was setting giving the massive sign a nice neon red view. The sign sits right on the waterfront overlooking the city. When I took a picture next to sign, I felt so small standing next to it. The sign was at least three stories tall, towering over me. It was as if the size was talking to the people in the city across the river to acknowledge its existence.

However, this sign is just a reminiscence of a history of Long Island City. The neighborhood community is no longer industrial and the Pepsi-Cola company is gone from the area too. As I walked through the park, it looked newly renovated. Benches and tables were new, the lawn was clean, and the boardwalk next to the river was newly built. I thought this was one of the best parks in the city and I wondered why there was such a nice park in Long Island City until I walked through the neighborhood. Once an industrial area became an area for luxury development. Skyhigh condominiums filled in the vacant spots of the old plants. All these features in the park and the Pepsi-Cola sign are just to complement the neighborhood. These days, people go to the park and visit the sign to take photos and admire it only. There is no practical use for the sign or an accurate portrayal of the surrounding neighborhood. Thus, I believe the Pepsi-Cola sign to be an art in place because the landmark just brings aesthetic value and tourism to the park and the neighborhood. There is no significant communal value and integration with the community.

The two places I traveled to over the summer were very alike in certain features yet differed on a very important factor, the landmark’s integration with the community and the value it brings to them. The Unisphere represents the world as one and how small the world is if everyone came together as they did during the world fairs. On the other hand, the Pepsi-Cola sign is just a decor for the park, for the luxury neighborhood. Another major difference was that the Unisphere was commissioned by the government, whereas, the Pepsi-Cola sign was made by the company itself. In the end, both places are very enjoyable and a good place to take nice photos.

Marble statue of a lion, ca. 400–390 B.C.

Greek

Marble statues of lions were sometimes used as tomb monuments or as guardians at both ends of a large tomb facade. Like many classical Greek works of art, this statue was taken to Rome during the imperial period.

For this assignment, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to fulfill my quest for a lion. In the Greek and Roman Art section, I found a marble statue of a lion in the middle of the gallery. The lion was hard to miss because it was the centerpiece of the room, attracting attention to all the visitors, including me. The statue was created during the Classical Period of Greece and its purpose, according to the museum, was to either guard tombs or act as tomb monuments. I was surprised by the size and physique of the lion statue because real lions are bigger, muscular, and their features resemble the feline family. This statue, however, had a smaller stature and pretty bony. The face of the statue is also very sharp and angular, resembling a dog. I also observed the position of the lion and tried to anticipate the actions of the lion that the sculptor wanted to depict. It was interesting in that the lion had its mouth open, looking upwards like it was looking at someone. The statue also bent its front body like it was about to pounce on the person it was looking at. I concluded that the sculptor of this lion wanted the statue to act as a tomb guardian, ready to defend the tomb against any disturbers. In light of this hypothesis, I assume the lion was more dog-like to symbolize its domestic role of guarding something, like a dog guarding a house.