The Met Breuer exhibit titled Kerry James Marshall: Mastry and the Metropolitan Museum exhibit titled Jerusalem 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven both contained interesting history and facts. Additionally, both of these exhibits were able to represent and tell their historical context through unique artistic representation. To start, the Kerry James Marshall exhibit offered rich African American cultural history, particularly about social movements and the fight for civil rights. The piece that I found most interesting and influential was titled “Black Painting,” as it depicted a very dark scene, that would appear almost totally black if you did not look close. This is exactly what the artist wants you to do, to focus in and really look hard at his painting. As a whole, he wanted to represent the struggle of African Americans, as they felt that they blended in with society and did not have a voice. By creating this painting and making its viewers take a hard look at it, the artist is giving African Americans a voice, even in just the regular scenes of life. This exhibit as a whole offered fantastic insight into the civil rights movement, and offered perspectives that you cannot simply see by reading a textbook. The Jerusalem exhibit was also another exhibit that offered rich history and different perspectives on the sacred holy land of Jerusalem. The immense amount of diversity and its central location made it a very cultural and wealthy city. I particularly found interesting The gold coins and illuminated manuscripts on display, as they enhanced and made note of these facts about Jerusalem. This exhibit also emphasized the idea that the religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all from the same root. Today, we find these cultures to be polar opposite, and have particular prejudices about them. However, looking back on our history and particularly the history of Jerusalem, we see that these religions have very little differences between them, and all value the same ideals about loving one another and doing good. This is what I feel is one of the major underlying ideas behind this exhibit. After viewing the presentations on these two exhibits, I then begin to realize the differences between them and the exhibit my group went to, The Dreamlands exhibit located at the Whitney Museum. Our museum, unlike the other two, does not have a particular historical theme. This I felt, is the reason why I thought the Whitney was more a unique exhibit, as it is really up to the viewer to see further into the work and try to interpret it what the artist is trying to say. In conclusion, all three exhibits offered valuable insight into different artistic perspectives. Whether it was an historical insight or otherwise, if you go to any of the three exhibits you will most certainty walk away with something valuable.
Author: matthewdamiani
The piece that interested me was the work titled The Colossus of New York by Colson Whitehead. In it, he writes that not everyone’s New York City is the same, despite living in the same place. Since everyone has different experiences and memories, the world around them develops differently and therefore, they will have their own distinct definition of New York City. Whitehead states, “There are eight million naked cities in this naked city – they dispute and disagree. The New York City you live in is not my New York City.” This idea that Whitehead embraces was interesting to me, as I thought about the influence geography can have on a person, where you live can heavily influence you as a person. An extreme example of this effect is someone living in a rural area compared to someone living in an urban area. These two people will most likely have two different outlooks on life and have differences in what they like to do based on the activities around them. Living in two different areas can affect other factors as well, such as political views, what they do for a living, and how they interact with the people around them. However, New York City is an interesting case. People living in just two separate neighborhoods is enough to spark differences between them, never mind across states and countries. New York City is so rich in culture and diversity, that almost every neighborhood or part of the city is different from the next. Additionally, how people grew up can also affect their outlook and experiences in New York. Did you just come here, or have you been living here your whole life? Did you move from a different part of the City, or from another state or country? Every New Yorker seems to have their own “funny story” they always tell or a memory that they will forget. However, despite these differences, we as New Yorkers do share many similarities as well. You can still ask any New Yorker where to get the best slice of pizza, or which subway line takes you to that place. Everyone seems to be an expert navigator and knows the city like the back of their hand, and everyone knows stopping to stare at a map or to look up at buildings is a “tourist thing.” There is a reason why so many people come from all over the United States and beyond to visit the city. There is no place like it, and the people who inhabit it are just as interesting and unique as the city itself.
The performance of Phantasmagoria by the La MaMa theater was both an interesting and confusing experience. To start, I felt as though the performance provided a good atmosphere as well as an interesting take on the story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Instead of just plainly performing and interpreting the plot of the novel, they decided to incorporate both the novel as well as aspects of Mary Shelley’s life. As interesting of a concept as this may be, I felt as though the execution of it was not to its full potential. The scenes felt very chaotic, and it was difficult to determine when the characters were transitioning between the plot of the novel and events in Shelley’s life. Perhaps knowing more about the life of Mary Shelley as background information would have aided in understanding the play? Maybe this bit could be included before the play began? The actors diving right into the life of Shelley made it confusing for the audience to follow. The different actors doubling roles also did not help with any clarification and instead added to the confusion of what scene was happening. An example being the doubling of the character Percy playing both Percy and Victor Frankenstein. Despite this, the inclusion of a narrator speaking to the audience in a mock “classroom” style speech helped to clarify what was going on and help the audience fully grasp the main ideas. Another aspect I felt the performance did a great job on was the use of puppets to depict the monster. This made an interesting twist when compared to the usual performances of this novel, and the handling of the puppet made it seem very human and life like, almost like an actual character of the play. The use of lights and shadows also seemed very professional and helped to add to the monster’s character as a whole. Additionally, the use of poetry was included in the performance and was incorporated into scenes for dramatic effect. I felt as though this was yet another positive decision by the director, and seemed to give a “mood” to the scenes. The scenery and special effects also seemed to add to the entire mood of the play as a whole; from the satanic and magic symbols on the floor, to the fog in the room before the performance, and the use of darkness throughout. All these collectively gave a frightening atmosphere, adding to the height and sensation of different scenes. Comparing this performance to Sense and Sensibility, I felt as though Sense and Sensibility was more organized, engaging, fast paced, and overall more entertaining than Phantasmagoria.
In the work Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the scientist Victor Frankenstein creates a monster by reanimating sewed together body parts from different corpses. Many modern film makers attempt to mirror Mary Shelley’s version of Frankenstein’s monster, however fail to do so precisely. One of the more key differences between the two monsters is the fact that in modern day, we refer to the actual monster as “Frankenstein.” Rather in the novel, the creator of The Monster is named Frankenstein and the monster itself is just referred to as “The Monster,” since the creature was not exactly human and so did not bear a name. Perhaps for simplicity’s sake it is easier to refer to the monster as almost a child to Victor Frankenstein and have him take the name of his creator? Additionally, physical differences are also seen between the modern day “Frankenstein” monster and Mary Shelley’s monster. For example, many would know the modern adaptation of the monster as having green skin, bolts on the side of the neck, and having a square head. However, Mary Shelley’s version could not be any different, as the monster was described as having yellow eyes, thin, shriveled yellow skin, flowing black hair, remarkably white teeth, and black lips all in perfect proportion (as seen on pages 38 and 39). Could these differences be the result of the movie industry attempting to make the monster more visually pleasing and to give him more of a human persona? Additionally, it is also worth considering that adaptations of this novel may stray farther and farther from the true story as time progresses, eventually to the point where the image of The Monster is so well known in modern times it would be difficult to change his image. I find these physical differences the most interesting to note, as I wonder who first developed the first version of the modern “Frankenstein” or if his image gradually changed over time. In conclusion, the modern adaptation of The Monster based on the story Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is very different from the way Shelley describes it in her work.
The theatrical performance of Sense and Sensibility performed by the Bedlam Theater Co. offers a visual three dimensional interpretation of the novel by Jane Austen. Being a rather long novel, I felt as though this performance did a great job of not only fully developing the character’s personality traits, but also addressing key turning points in the novel in both an entertaining and sometimes comical way, in such a short period of time. For instance, the portrayal of both the main characters Elinor and Marianne. Elinor, being the older sibling, took on the responsibility of both her younger siblings and was portrayed to be the more mature character, as seen in the way she spoke and conveyed her feelings to other character’s in the play. By contrast, the portrayal of Marianne almost seemed to be the opposite, as she expressed her emotions possibly too much and gave off the persona of immaturity, for example in the “putrid fever” scene where her emotional sickness turns into physical sickness. Both these dynamic characters were accurately portrayed based on the novel. However, the play did stray from the novel in some particular ways, an example being Margaret playing a huge role in the play and not in the novel. This allowed the playwrights to have the freedom of creating the character Margaret the way they want and deciding how much they will incorporate her. Overall, they did a great job of portraying Margaret to give her the impression of possessing childlike innocence and immaturity, and letting her almost be the middle ground of the two sisters. Additionally, she also seemed to break up the main character role between Elinor and Marianne to give a more dynamic and creative portrayal of the story. Character’s interior thoughts were also displayed in an interesting matter when compared to the book. In this performance, interior thoughts and emotions were usually depicted as very dark scenes, sometimes incorporating dance and lighting effects for dramatic emphasis. For example, when Edward was about to marry Lucy, Elinor’s interior thoughts were shown and revealed how much she really loved Edward and did her thoughts allowed her to not hold back how she really felt. Additionally, an “interior thoughts” scene was shown as Marianne was spiraling into a depression because of her encounter with Willoughby. This scene was depicted to be chaotic and representative of Marianne being unable to escape her internal emotions and feelings. This type of depiction helps the audience members to really visualize how the characters are feeling at particular points within the performance, as well as compare how it was represented in the novel. The putrid fever scene was handled and executed quite well by the actors, as it served to both externalize the internal pain she was feeling as well as act as a catalyst for other characters to take action. However, I felt as though the scene where Willoughby shows up to see Marianne and admit what had really happened should have been given more emphasis. This scene is one of the larger scenes in the novel and is a major turning point in the story itself, revealing what has happened with Willoughby that the reader has been wondering about for a good portion of the novel. I felt as though the playwright should have given more to this scene and allow the audience to really grasp an established opinion of Willoughby and if what he had done was right or wrong. Nevertheless, the main ideas of the scene came across smoothly and were well executed by the actors. In conclusion, both the novel and the theatrical performance of the work Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen both gave a compelling and powerful story. However, the theatrical performance allowed the audience to really get to know the characters as a person and make judgements on their personality by their actions on stage, allowing for a more personal experience. In a short period of time, the performance was able to summarize the key aspects and turning points of the story in both and entertaining and comical way.
In Jane Austen’s work, Sense and Sensibility, both the main characters Elinor and Marianne get married towards the final chapters. However, Jane Austen handles the marriages of both these women in peculiar ways, for Elinor’s marriage stretches over two chapters, and Marianne’s marriage is told very briefly in the final few paragraphs. I feel as though Austen did this purposefully to prove a point to the reader. Edward’s rejection of the marriage of Lucy was indeed a plot twist, and not something the reader would be expecting, as it was almost concrete that Edward would be marrying Lucy. Therefore, Austen wants to emphasize and drag out this point to the point where the reader gets the full effect. However, the love affair between Colonel Brandon and Marianne was known throughout the entire work, and as a result not as big of a surprise that Marianne would eventually fall for and marry the Colonel. Additionally, it is also important to look at the societal and cultural norms that surround marriage or life in general. In usual circumstances, the oldest child is usually catered towards the most in the family. The oldest child is usually the first to accomplish feats in life, as well as experience things for the first time, and usually get the most attention from parents and other family. The oldest child will usually also be the first one to marry as well, which is usually a big deal. On the other hand, the younger child is not necessarily neglected, but many parents will have a feeling of “been there, done that,” and as a result, not cater towards the middle or younger child as much as the first child. Therefore, the marriage of the younger child is still a celebration, but has somehow lost its “specialness” after the oldest child has been married off. This is applicable to Austen’s work, for she seems to dictate and reflect this social norm when the two sisters get married off. Elinor, as the oldest, receives a long and extensive explanation of her marriage, while Marianne’s marriage is squeezed into the final paragraphs. Additionally, it is also worth noting that Marianne’s love affair has been told throughout the entire novel, and has been a main topic of discussion in the novel as well, provoking a large portion of the plot. Elinor however, even though involved in love affairs, has not had quite the influence as Marianne. Perhaps Austen had felt that Elinor deserves a “happy every after” with her love Edward, for all the hard work she has done to help protect and take care of her sister; and as a result, give her an extensive portion at the end of the novel. While Marianne is rushed at the end, letting her marry the Colonel to bring the novel to a close.
The work Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen reads of two sisters named Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. Despite being sisters however, the two characters display personality traits that contrast and conflict with each other; for Elinor has a thought of sense and rationality, and Marianna has a thought of romance and emotion. Throughout the entire selection, Jane Austen allows us to see within the mind of both these characters. However, in particular I would like to focus on scene located within the tenth chapter of the first volume. In this scene, we learn more about the character Willoughby, and his relationship with Marianne. They realize how much they have in common with each other, and how Elinor realizes that this love conflicts with the love interest that Colonel Brandon has with Marianne. This scene allows the reader to access the mind of Marianne, for it flaunts her true character. Despite the fact that she just met Willoughby, she appears to be “in love” with him, both for his good looks and personality connection, in what seems to be a “Romeo and Juliet” type situation. Even to Mrs. Dashwood, Willoughby seems to be the perfect man. “Willoughby was a young man of good abilities, quick imagination, lively spirits, and open, affectionate manners. He was exactly formed to engage Marianne’s heart.” (37) Despite this situation involving Marianne and Willoughby, I feel as though Austen includes Elinor to put in perspective the mindset of Marianne. Elinor uses satire to tease her sister about talking to Willoughby so much, they will run out of things to talk about the next time they meet. Through this statement, Elinor is playing the role of the rational thinking character, which allows us to see how Marianne rushes into her love affair with someone who she barely knows. Could the idea of lust be the downfall of Marianne? Would being lustful constitute a tragic flaw for Marianne later on in the work? It is worth noting that while this is all taking place, Colonel Brandon still has true feelings for Marianne, which Marianne and Willoughby mock and ridicule, stating “that he has neither genius, taste, nor spirit. That his understanding has no brilliancy…” (40) This statement is also a reflection on the perspective and mindset of Marianne as a whole, for she shows that she only cares about herself and a sense of being conceited. Once she has her man and is happy, she mocks the lonely people looking for love such as the Colonel. Willoughby also expresses his dislike for the Colonel, despite complimenting him at first. “You cannot deny me the privilege of disliking him as much as ever.” (40) Once again, Elinor as the rational one comes in defense of the Colonel, telling Marianne her opinion on him; “I can only pronounce him to be a sensible man, well-bred…and I believe possessing an amiable heart.” (40) I would like to mention that this part of the chapter not only shows Marianne as the character traits described, but also displays the fact that Elinor can be sometimes seen as “mix” of characters. Of course rational minded, but here we also see Elinor showing sympathy and emotion for the Colonel, which we would typically see only of Marianne. In conclusion, a lot can be learned about the mindset of particularly Marianne but also Elinor from what seems to be a simple chapter in the work Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen. One can observe the nature of Marianne, full of haste and eager to find love without investing time and effort into it. Which could end up being the tragic flaw of Marianne, not thinking before taking the leap. Additionally, Marianne also humors at the appearance of the Colonel, (who cannot compete next to Willoughby) possibly showing the conceit nature of her. In my opinion, I feel as though I prefer Elinor over Marianne, for I feel that the rational thinking mind is more powerful and more alert to surroundings than the mind blocked by the bliss of love.
This photo was taken by and posted by the site Fortune.com, the creators of a business magazine. It depicts the line in front of the Apple store on 5th Avenue days before the release of the new IPhone seven. In it, we can see people with various pieces of camping equipment, such as tents, chairs, and umbrellas, implying that they plan to stay there for a while. What you don’t see is the hidden social phycology behind why these people are doing this. Our generation has become obsessed with having whatever new technology is available, even if it is extremely similar to current technology. We devote our lives to mindlessly waiting for the “next new thing,” just to have it and show it off to our peers to gain social status. This photo in conjunction with the article about the new IPhone seven serves to prove this claim about the American youth; for as stated by Susan Sontag in her work “On Photography,” “Photographs furnish evidence. Something we hear about, but doubt, seems proven once we’re shown a photograph.” The message this article is putting out is magnified, enhanced, and supported by placing this photo right in the middle of it. In addition to this, the photographer of this photo also wants you to feel some emotion while looking at his work as well. One may feel the same excitement these people are to get the new IPhone, or upset that these people are wasting their time waiting when they could be doing something much more productive to society. Sontag also comments on this emotional outcry by stating how photographs work by “converting experience into an image.” She goes on by stating how photographs take a slim fraction of time and place, allowing them to emphasize the emotions and feelings occurring during that time. “Each still photograph is a privileged moment, turning into a slim object that one can keep and look at again.” This is very true in this case, as we can almost feel the anticipation of these people waiting outside the store waiting, rather if you would just walk past these people throughout your day and you would think nothing of it. A photo makes you focus on a particular moment in time and makes you think why it is important or why the photographer would take such a photo.
Within this selection of poetry by Sharon Olds, the piece that stood out to me the most was the piece titled “I Could Not Tell.” The poem on a basic level describes an accident, a mother tripping off a moving bus with her child in her arms. What seems like a simple everyday event, Olds magnifies and describes the thought process of a caring mother throughout the entire event. Throughout the poem, she describes her exact feelings in vivid detail as the event was in play, as Olds is known to do. “The tightening of my jaw, the irk that I’d miss my stop, the step out of the air.” The mother is even willing to hurt herself to save her child from taking the brunt of the fall, “I plunged to one knee on the street, scraped it, twisted it.” Olds here is implying that the mother holds her child’s life more important than her own, and is willing to hurt herself in order to save her child. Despite being a horrible experience for the mother, the child is seen unaffected, as the poem discusses the innocent nature of the child, “Jumping out, my daughter laughing. Do it again.” As well as when she states, “the clear child gazing about her in the air.” Additionally, Olds also writes towards the end of the poem about how the narrator notices another mother performing the same task of jumping off the moving bus, but this time successful. She is risking her life as well as her “life’s life,” her child. She states this to imply how that her child’s life and safety is means everything to her. Looking at the poem as a whole, Olds takes a simple everyday event and poetically describes it in such a way that implies the protective role a mother plays, as well as the love a mother has for her child.
Within this selection of poems, the one that stood out to me the most was the poem titled “A Small Moment” by Cornelius Eady. In his work, Eady focuses on a particular small moment in the big hustle and bustle of New York City. In this case, meeting someone new in a local bakery. The poems focus is stepping back and appreciating the small things in life, which native New Yorkers often do not do. The author of this work uses the season of spring to represent rebirth and new life, as the narrator in the poem is discovering new love. This is seen in the second stanza of the peom, “Am I flirting? Am I happy because the days are longer?” Additionally, the author is also trying to convey the idea of diversity. New York City is considered the “melting pot,” where all different kinds of people live and spread their cultural views. This makes meeting someone new every so exciting, as everyone has a different story to tell and experiences to share. Which includes the person working behind the counter at a local bakery, or the customer shopping at such a bakery. Overall, the poem “A Small Moment” by Cornelius Eady tells of only a small moment taking place in New York City, which has a much larger symbolic meaning about love and diversity behind it.