Removal of Man at the Crossroads: Right or wrong?
Upon seeing “Man at the Crossroads”, I think that the removal of it was the right decision and ultimately Diego Rivera is at fault. He blatantly painted an offensive image of John D. Rockefeller, an active supporter of the Prohibition and a Baptist, drinking gin and surrounded with prostitutes in low cut shirts. As a further insult, Rivera also included a picture of Lenin. This was extremely problematic because Rivera essentially portrayed the Rockefellers, a prominent American family, as if they were against the Prohibition and in support of communism during the Red Scare. Personally, I’m not against artists using their work to depict their political views but it was wrong for Rivera to create a false image of his employer. In addition, he tricked the Rockefellers by having them approve a “fake” sketch of the mural, only for him to completely change it once he started working. But, I thought that it was interesting for Rivera to blatantly include images of alcohol and communism without even attempting to hide it. It makes it seem as though he was purposely trying to provoke Rockefeller and it makes me wonder whether Rivera actually thought he would get away with it.
Besides maintaining the image of the Rockefellers, I feel that if Rivera’s mural weren’t taken down it would ruin the majestic atmosphere of Rockefeller Center. After all, it serves as a symbol of the legacy of the Rockefellers and essentially a reminder of the possibilities of the American dream. It represents their idealized self and allows them to escape the realities of life, suffering and hardships. Here, in Rockefeller Center they can forget their everyday life and bask in the fruits of success. But, having a picture of the Rockefellers drinking gin and supporting communism would tarnish this image of perfection and replace it with one of a lawbreaker and a rebel.
Filed under Reviews | Tags: Li | Comment (0)Outer Space: A review
My initial reaction to “I don’t believe in outer space” was confusion. It took awhile to realize that it was the same actress portraying both the meek woman and the snaring more demanding voice. I thought it was two separate individuals until I realized that she was the only woman on stage. Perhaps, it’s because I’m not use to seeing one actress portraying multiple roles. Also, I found that it was hard to focus on just one aspect of the play because there were so many things going on at the same time. There were too many visual and auditory stimuli assaulting my senses all at once. For example, at the start of the play there was the actress portraying two roles, a guy creeping around the stage, two men doing ballet with each other and a man lying on the floor on stage simultaneously. Since there were so many scenes going on at the same time, by focusing on one scene I end up getting lost in another. If I focused my attention on the ballet dancers, I ended up losing track of the words that the woman was saying. Throughout the whole play, I found myself trying to find a way to connect these seemingly random scenes to no avail. But, I think that the ending summed up the whole play. I thought that perhaps the random events represented life, one filled with constant activity and energy. But, when a person dies it all disappears like the voice of the woman and the light at the end of the play.
I thought that the film had a Fluxus aspect to it. It was a deviation from the traditional ballet performances and plays. It didn’t have a clear-cut plot line that the audience can follow and had multiple scenes occurring on stage at the same time. Even the ballet dances were a deviation from the norm. For example, in the beginning of the play there were two males dancing together, with one of them performing the role of a female. In another instance, one of the ballet dancers stuffed balls in his pant before continuing to dance. It was quite an odd action. I would think that while performing, no dancer would want unnecessarily cumbersome objects on the body. Wouldn’t those balls in his pants hinder or make his movements awkward? Was there a purpose for it? Perhaps, he wanted to enhance his assets (for the particulars of his piece) or simply to provide comic relief.
One particular scene that stood out to me was when the man clothed in all black came onto the stage. It was partly due to his clothes, which was different from the other actors and actresses. But the main point that stood out was that his speech had rhyme. I thought that it was interesting that among the seemingly random events, his speech was the only thing that had a form of structure or order to it.
Filed under Reviews | Tags: Li | Comment (0)