The night was cold and rainy; I took out my phone trying to determine where exactly the Classic Stage Company was located.  The streetlights were scarce, but there was one building with doors open, lights on, and bustling with people.  I muttered apologies for crashing into people as I tried to get into the clump of Macaulay students attending the play.  As we were ushered in, I took in the setting and how remarkably small it was compared to anything I was expecting.  The stage was masked with a sheer white cloth, enough to see the outline of the actor on stage with some objects.  This cloth was pulled out of the way by three different people walking at the same time – it was an art in itself.

The transitions and use of the property was fascinating. We would hear sounds out of the room, which was just as surprising to us as they were to the actors.  People walking, laughing, yelling, and train sounds all brought the play to life.  When the play moved into the other acts, the lights were darkened and people wearing the clothing appropriate for the time period moved in and changed the sets.  The entire fashion worn by the actors and stagehands brought an authenticity to the play that I definitely appreciated.

The acting was superb, especially as we considered their facial expressions and the interactions with the audience, since we were so close.  The audience, however, was not an integral part of the performance; we were merely there – watching the events unfold.  In the breaks of the audience, they would walk through, as if these paths were just instinctive.  Unlike the other performances we went to, we were given an amazing look at this play – the story was easy to follow, the music played a small part in the play.  It really felt like we were transported to their memory – as I imagined what they were talking about.  There was no cherry orchard.  That was the biggest part of the play, but I didn’t seem to miss it.  I imagined it just as how they described it – the path going through the cherry orchard, the blossoming blossoms.  This just solidifies the brilliant acting that we witnessed.  The connection of each actor to the cherry orchard was palpable. This connection was the most significant portion of the play – not the missing objects.

This performance was my favorite out of all the performances that we went to this semester, not necessarily because of the presence of esteemed actors – but their specific acting in this play.  I was genuinely interested in how they would bring Chekov to life.

It was crowded outside the small entrance of Carnegie Hall very much like the entrance of BAM. The lobby was small and there was only one entrance to the auditorium. This was very different from the Metropolitan Opera house which houses a fountain and glass walls at its entrance. The climb up to my seat was probably the longest out of all the performances this semester.  Because I was so high up, I was scared I would tumble over by accident and fall on the first floor audience, probably breaking some necks on the way. Another thing about the seating was the size of the seats themselves. It was uncomfortable even for me and I wondered how bad it must be for someone with long legs.

Besides the seating and venue, I really loved the performance.  It was probably the best instrumental performance I heard. Not only was the music beautiful and perfect, it was really fascinating for me to see how it was delivered. Throughout the whole performance, I focused on individual performers and tried to distinguish the sound of their instruments from the rest. I focused on their hand movements to see what they did to produce a certain sound. I really liked the flute sound because I used to play the flute. Listening to it made me feel nostalgic and want to take up playing the flute again. It was also interesting to see the conductor wave his wand around at certain people and they in turn played their instrument. It was sort of like he had a magic wand and he used to it to produce melodious music. Some of the parts really reminded me of Disney soundtracks and other parts sounding like marching band music. I really loved the repetition in all the pieces. I liked how something was introduced in the beginning of the piece and kept coming back in different ways throughout. Overall, I liked this performance more than the one at 92^nd Y only because it incorporated so many instruments that produced a unique and beautiful sound that appealed to me more than string instruments do.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Cherry Orchard on Tuesday Night, because it was very different from any other event we went to. It was a mix of every theme we had seen from the other events, except we were thrown into the play as audience members. The music was amazing, and it really complimented the setting of old Russia. The music didn’t overpower the play, and the only time it was the main focus was actually during scene changes and intermission, which I really though was a great addition.

My favorite part of the play was definitely the fact that I could see every actor and actresses’ faces. Their expressions were so clear. I saw every frown, every smile, every evil stare; it seemed so close that we as the audience were actually part of the play itself. It’s great to feel like that because we understand the play more, it’s more of a cozy event, rather than the very grand Don Giovanni at the Met, because at the Met, it was all very far away. I would have to say that event wise; I enjoyed the Cherry Orchard more. Also I would like to comment on the costumes of the actresses because they were very well made. Every dress was greatly detailed, and even at such a small play, it was fantastic that they were able to have those small elements. Of course there were not as many dress-changes as there were in Don Giovanni, but I really applaud the costume because not only did it fit into this setting (that was simple but extremely well represented) it was very authentic looking, even down to the boots that the men wore and the beautiful black dress that the mother wore at the party.

The theater itself was very different from any theater I’ve been to. The last event was at Carnegie Hall was a big auditorium where we had to look down at the performers. The Classic Stage Company had a great three-sided stage where people can actually look at the performers without straining their eyes. Also the performers ran on and off stage, using the exits that we used, and sitting next to some of the people on the first row. It was very funny when the old woman in the play took a bite from a cucumber and gave it to an audience member; it was also funny when she danced with a girl in the first row. It’s such a participatory play that it became engaging, not just because of the plot, but because of the way the stage director led the play.

It was raining and freezing outside and going to Manhattan wasn’t a pleasing idea. After getting lost and almost being late to the play, I finally arrived at the Classic stage company. The building really surprised me because it just looked like a little café from the outside. However, it hid a small auditorium in the back. The place reminded me of the club called Max’s that Patti Smith and Robert Mapplethorpe used to visit before they started out. It felt like a meeting place for artists. The auditorium was very unique, in that the stage was in the center of the audience and was not raised at a higher level. For the first time we didn’t have to look up or down at the stage but could look directly ahead at the performers. Even though it was a very small auditorium, I liked it because it was comfortable and allowed me to feel a connection to the actors. Another thing I liked at about the setup was that the actors spoke to the audience and didn’t ignore them. It made their roles seem more realistic.

I also liked how the organizers weren’t afraid to change the props right before the audience, instead of closing the curtains. It made everything less secretive. I also liked that some of the actors came in from the entrance, which added to the realistic element of the paly. I thought the acting was superb and my favorite scene was probably with the lady in the barn who complained about not having anyone to talk to. Her interaction with the audience made me laugh especially the part where she gave her half eaten cucumber to someone. . I like how the actors used every single prop on the stage and were able to utilize such a small space to its fullest. When they looked at the imaginary cherry orchard, I could almost imagine it being there. Imagining a lot of the things the characters talked about also allowed the audience to take an active role in the play. Overall, I really loved the play and its small setting. I preferred it to a Broadway show because the actors and the story seem too far away and unrealistic. I think this event was probable one of my favorite of the whole semester. And, of course, it was made better with the appearance of Ethan Hawke.

Diego Rivera’s murals were not compatible with societal views at the time, and thus its no surprise that they were torn down after the controversy that they caused. Abby Rockefeller was a big supporter and fan of Rivera’s murals and she convinced her son Nelson Rockefeller to commission Rivera to create something for one of the buildings at the center.  When providing plans for approval of the mural, there was absolutely no depiction of alcohol or any hint of communism in the painting. Yet when it came time to design the mural itself, Rivera decided to depict Lenin, Trotsky on one side and alcohol and Rockefeller on the other, in his mural Man at the Crossroads.

It’s necessary to realize that at this time, anti-communistic attitudes were widespread in United States. Prohibition was abolished with the 21^st amendment in 1933, but was still often associated with crime and sin, at least by the Churches in the U.S. Despite this, Rivera still openly depicted a communist leader and the consumption of alcohol by a Rockefeller, in his public mural, and because it was painted on Rockefeller property, it could have been seen to reflect their views as well.  Rivera was depicting things that were seen as wrong and unnecessary by some members of society and thus the mural sparked much controversy.  However, tearing it down completely might have been going too far. Yes it depicted sights and objects considered to be against the views of U.S. but that’s no excuse to destroy the whole art piece. I believe at one point or another there was a desire to move the painting somewhere else, and this would have been a much better alternative. Rather than destroying the piece, simply relocate it and design a new one in its place.

Although he did not deserve to get hismural destroyed, the culpability lies with Rivera, and his choice of design and detail in the mural itself.  That’s not to say that the mural was bad in any way, or that it doesn’t deserve to be called art. It just simply wasn’t right for the time period during which it was painted or for the area in which it was constructed. Although the idea of free speech and expression arises with this topic, it’s also worth noting that by designing the mural, he was not only representing himself, but a whole family, and some might even say a whole city, with his art work. He was asked to design something fitting for the community and failed to do so.  He was asked to take down the offensive image, and although he tried to fix the work by balancing it out with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, it was unfitting to depict a communist leader in a capitalist country to begin with, at least at that time.

Upon arriving at Carnegie Hall, and climbing to my seat, I immediately thought I was going to fall down the steep steps and over the railing. It was quite unbelievable how open the area was compared to previous places we visited.  The seats were bigger and thus more comfortable, but I was still trying my best to not knee the woman sitting in front of me. She often times leaned back, and I was forced to nervously watch her, or risk kicking her in the back of the head and cause a disturbance. Before the show began, I was looking around the auditorium  and I was disappointed to see the empty ceiling area. It was a huge circle designed into the ceiling of the building and I couldn’t help but think that a large chandelier, similar to the one at the Metropolitan Opera House, would be perfect for such an area.

After the music began playing I became much more relaxed and comfortable in my seat. It was nice hearing such mellow and relaxing music, especially when it was played live. Looking onto the stage I noticed each individual performer, the conductor, and the violin and trumpet players. Each group moved differently, but together they created a rhythm, both acoustic and visual. Even the conductor with his rapid, and crude movements, seemed to fit perfectly within the orchestra. Majority of the time they would all play in this rhythm, other times a select few groups would do their own thing. On one occasion, a group of violinists was barely moving, while another group kept bobbling back and forth, crudely playing their instrument. Watching them at certain moments threw me out of the musical rhythm, since I expected everything to flow smoothly and seamlessly.

The most enjoyable aspect for me, besides the music itself was the lack of visual strain on the audience. There was no need to watch and focus on the stage. Instead the audience was able to let their eyes wonder, or close them entirely, and enjoy the melody being played. Indeed this is what I eventually decided to do, instead of being distracted by other factors, such as people texting or a little girl leaning over the balcony in the front row, with her mother holding her back nervously.

At the end I came out of Carnegie hall enjoying myself, and the performance. Even though I heard bethovens music before, it was much different hearing it live. It was different, and better, since majority of the focus was on the musical pieces playing.  It was peaceful, soothing, and without a doubt a good conclusion to the night.

Despite the crowded atmosphere and the far away seats, the performance itself was spectacular. Even though I was not able to see the faces of the performers, and sometimes unable to detail the speaker, I was astonished at the whole Opera, especially the conclusion. From the moment the curtain opened, I was amazed at the set, and instantly reminded of my childhood, a time when I used to go to plays and performances similar to this one with my parents.  The details of the set were a great touch and I was very glad that cardboard cutouts being used to depict trees and houses was a thing of the past.

Watching the opera, I was torn between enjoying the performance and watching the translation. Even though I read the libretto, I still felt like I was missing out when people would laugh and I didn’t understand why, so I began watching the translation. Whenever my focus shifted back to the performance however, more laughter would erupt, and again I would feel lost. In the end felt like I was in a deadlock, unable to enjoy the play because I either couldn’t understand it, or watch it to the fullest extent.

As far as the characters go, Don Giovanni is inarguably a deviant and licentious man. Desiring nothing more than the satisfaction of adding another member of the opposite sex to his list of “conquests” he continually seduces women, and gains their favor, no matter how whimsical the situation may be.  The epitome of this is Donna Elvira, who is continuously persuaded by Don Giovanni, with simple words, of his fidelity and kindness, despite repeated offences of betrayal and abandonment on his part. It’s interesting to note her gullibility as well as the gullibility of the rest of the women in the play. Despite repeated wrongdoings, and sometimes blatantly obvious lies, they continue to trust their aggressor and dismiss any previous transgressions. One can’t help but wonder if Mozart’s inspiration for such portrayal of women came from real life experiences.

During the concluding scenes, I was expecting lumbering golem to walk onto the stage, but the gigantic model was just as satisfactory. Because we were so high up, I was not able to see the face of the statue, and this in itself was a bit of a nuisance.  As the opera approached its climax, I was sure that Don Giovanni would get sucked under the table, or something of that nature. I did not however expect the floor to open, nor did I expect flames to come shooting out, within inches of the performers. When the columns of flames erupted from the floors, my eyes shifted around the whole scene, but then locked on to Leporello, who was hugging the table in order to avoid the flame. Honestly, I was surprised he still had his eyebrows considering how close the flame was to his body. Overall it was a great show, the opera went up and above my expectations and despite the less than appealing seats, it was something I would definitely go see again.

An artist’s work portrays the artist’s emotions, beliefs, ideals, and sometimes, whatever they were paid to portray. Diego Rivera was hired to create a huge mural for Rockefeller Center (because Matisse and Picasso weren’t available), with the theme: “Man at the Crossroads Looking with Hope and High Vision to the Choosing of a New and Better Future.” Rivera stuck his own personal opinions in the mural, picturing Lenin’s face, highlighting Rivera’s Communist tendencies. In the 1930’s, people weren’t very big fans of Communism, so Nelson Rockefeller paid Rivera and promptly destroyed the work. Rivera, understandably upset, recreated the mural, with an addition of John D. Rockefeller Jr. in a nightclub.

One can argue that either party is right or wrong in this situation. On the one hand, Diego has the freedom of speech, and wasn’t given clear instructions on what to put in the mural and what not to. He had the right to put Lenin’s face in the mural. On the other hand, the work was commissioned for a public setting and its ideas would reflect on the patron, Rockefeller, who was not a Communist. It should have been clear to Rivera that Rockefeller would not approve Lenin’s part in the mural. If the work wasn’t commissioned, Rivera could have done whatever he wanted, but because he was being paid to paint it, he should have had more respect for the man paying him. In addition, Rivera’s revenge was petty and uncalled for. If he had given a little more thought to the situation, his mural would still be in Rockefeller Center, instead of the replacement mural, with Abraham Lincoln at its center.

Rivera had the chance to have his artwork displayed in a prominent building, to be seen by millions, but he blew it. I won’t argue with Rivera’s Communist beliefs, but in a society of people who fear Communism he should have realized that there are some times you need to keep your opinions to yourself and just try to please everyone else. There is a time and place for proclaiming one’s beliefs, but that time and place was not Rockefeller Center in 1933.

To attribute wrong and right to an artistic action is essentially the same as forging a moral association with the usually sinuous aspects of art.  Diego Rivera was an artist who essentially penciled the lines of political and social commentary into the universe of art; his works fully imagine a reality with a communistic edge.  Although Rivera was paid and followed closely in his creation of the mural – to say what Rivera did as ultimately wicked erroneously illustrates art as something that can be controlled and somehow still have meaning.  Once aspects of art are controlled, they lose their connection to the artist – this connection is what keeps art alive and fashions a similar emotion out of the audience. Rivera may have been suffocated with what the Rockefellers wanted; therefore he withdrew any sense of obligation to the patrons and instead followed his obligations to artistic purposes.  Conversely, Rivera may have had this intention from the beginning – thus calling for the huge negative response.  It is, consequently, easy to ascertain that Rivera was the villain in this scandal – but it is not necessarily true.

It was no secret that Rivera was aligned with communists and had an agenda with his paintings – as there is a strong connection with the proletariat in most of his works.  Diego Rivera could never be the right person to be a mouthpiece for the achievements and prophesies of American capitalism.  The combination of the capitalist ideals of the Rockefellers and the communist ideologies of Rivera turned out volatile, resulting in the destruction of the art.  Although I believe Rivera to be innocent, as he was justly acting on artistic principles, I condone the destruction of the mural.  It is in the rights of the Rockefellers, as patrons, to forge their own vision in their building.  I believe that in every possible permutation, there would have been controversy – because of Rivera’s ideals.   In most circumstances, the removal of art to retain peace is an unfortunate but necessary evil – and this is one of those circumstances.

This extensive history of Rockefeller Center is embedded into the structural integrity of the buildings, however the commercialism of the center overwhelms any visitor.  Rockefeller Center of the present involves the catering to the tourist by the capitalist and eliminates the need for the experience to involve history.  As a child, I went to Rockefeller Center uninspired by the tall tree, the lights, and the performances – it was completely false, a synthetic stimulus that attempted to diffuse joy out of every pore.  Is the history necessary to experience Rockefeller Center as its creators imagined it?  It is not.  The state of the area is largely commercialized, unwilling to relay any significant meaning. Rivera brought a controversial edge to the area; however his mark on it remains covered by the ornamental lights and giant trees.  That is not to say that it isn’t rewarding to uncover the history behind Rockefeller Center; it invigorates the space with deeper substance than the frivolities of what it has now come to encompass.