New York Times Arts Blog

Posted on by
5

The a photograph has on the human psyche is incredible. Alfred Stieglitz once said, “A photograph is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality.” In his article called “Recalling the Wave of Water and Panic”, Randy Kennedy writes about how this fall, the Museum of the City of New York, with help from the International Center of Photography, will be hosting an exhibit to honor and remember the victims of Hurricane Sandy for its first Anniversary that is approaching this coming Tuesday. Over 900 different photographers, many of whom were personally affected by the storm, took the photos being displayed in the gallery. After rummaging through over 10,000 photographs, the committee chose about 200 images depicting not only the horrors of the storm itself but also the proud devastation of its aftermath. The gallery will be opening October 29th, the first anniversary of Sandy, and running through February 10th. It will also be featuring a special selection of photographs depicting “a desolate, darkened Lower Manhattan.” (Kennedy)

I personally cannot wait to attend this gallery. I think it will be an extraordinary experience, especially for people like myself, who were brutally effected uh hurricane Sandy. Living in the Sheepshead Bay Area, I experienced severe flooding, power outages, and I did not live at home for nearly two months after the storm. But the physical aftermath is nothing compared to the emotion one. Few of my friends had to carry out their little sibling and pets. One of my friends carried out his grandmother who could not swim out of his house, chin deep in water. And one of my friends experienced a tragedy like no other: she lost her father to Hurricane Sandy. He, trying to save his family and salvage some valuables, drowned amidst the streets. The tragic emotional experience these people encountered is genuinely unimaginable. It it absolutely necessary for all of us to see these photographs just to fathom the experience. We do not give Sandy victims the compassion and support they deserve, but this gallery might be a start.

Kennedy, Randy. “Recalling the Wave of Water and Panic.” New York Times. 25 Oct. 2013. Nytimes.com. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/arts/design/recalling-the-wave-of-water-and-panic.html>

 

Christine’s Interview

Posted on by
Reply

Brian is a student from Parsons The New School of Design. He’s currently a freshman and is unsure what field of art he wants to study. I interviewed him on his thoughts about art.

Q:  Tell me how you got started in art. Was there an event or period in your life that led you to want to pursue art, like attending an art school?

A: I forgot. I mean how do you exactly start in art? Don’t all children fundamentally start doing art when they’re little? Aren’t we all artists? I don’t think there was an exact event that got me started in art. But making art is just a habit from childhood for me and I decided that I wanted to make money from doing something I like.

Q: Is there a particular type of art you prefer more then others?

A: Right now I’m really into installation art, which uses the space around viewers in an exhibition. Rather then being a visual art piece, usually the art is conceptual or doing an action. I recently went to a James Turlock exhibit in the Guggenheim. He transformed the space within the Guggenheim into an art piece. It was essentially a light show and he transformed a spiral inside the Guggenheim into a giant light tunnel. I find that form of art interesting because I find we live in a culture that is saturated with media that can be accessed instantly. When we’re living in a culture like that, visual art isn’t as spectacular or as important as it once was in the past. Why bother going to the Louvre to look at the Mona Lisa ten feet away when you can have a 300 dpi print of it on your computer? To me installation art transforms art into an experience rather then something visual.

Q: Where do you find your inspiration for art?

A: I don’t believe in inspiration. Instead I believe that all artists pull from references that they found within their mind and create through that. Every artist has their own repertoire that they pull ideas from. Recently I did a project on shadows and I decided to base it off of Commedia dell’Arte’s, Perriot, the sad clown. I mixed multiple references into my art project and that essentially creates something innovated.

Q: How is your experience at Parsons The New School of Design so far?

A: Honestly, I don’t really like it because of the community. I find many of the students there aren’t artist but rather stylists. They copy other people’s ideas and use it as their own. They also lack references to different artists. But the thing that annoys me the most is that some people are ignorant about the world because they’re wealthy and privileged. I also don’t like that the techniques and things I’m learning in class, I already know. The teachers are just teaching the basics like form, foreground, gesture and figure drawings, which I learned during high school taking outside courses.

Q: Do you think that art is more talent or from learning?

A: Drawing is more learning based, where you learn the techniques and concepts of shapes and shading. But the actual creation of concepts is something that you have to be born with. You need to take things around you and transform them into something new.

Q: Before attending your current school, you went a high school that specialized in math and science, how do you feel about the sudden change to an art and design school?

A: Parsons is a design school, so it’s a dramatically different change. I think the thing with math and science schools is that you have to follow a set of rules to achieve certain goals and grades. In that sense the workload is much less because it is all based on predetermined knowledge. While in an art school, there is more experimentation and more of a demand for you to create new ideas. Therefore you need to have a great deal of creativity and in a sense more thought and brainstorming to create something new. I definitely like this type of thinking better because it’s easier to have ideas flow through you rather then doing a monotonous math problem or taking a test on facts that you crammed for in the morning.

Q: Is there a field or major you intend to study?

A: I think I’m either doing fine arts or fashion designing, since Parsons is known for its fashion designing. When someone goes into the art field, the reality is most people don’t make a lot of money. My thought is that I might as well go into fine arts because I get more freedom on the type of art I can create.

Q: What do you enjoy the most at school? What do you find most difficult about it?

A: The most difficult thing is getting all my assignments done on time. I procrastinate way too much. I like to blog, play video games and read Lady Gaga forums instead of working on projects. The thing that I enjoy the most is the prompts and guidelines for assignments because it gives me parameters and reasons to create something. I feel like teachers are challenging me to create something and sometimes I have to get out of my comfort zone to try to complete the task.

Q: Where do you see art taking you in the future?

A: I want a career in the art field. Ideally I would want to be paid for my ideas and the things I create. That is essentially what every artist wants, but I am better then the average artist.

Interview: Megan Gray

Posted on by
Reply

Shirley Yau

Professor Tenneriello

IDC 1001H

21 October 2013

Interviewer: Shirley Yau

Respondent: Megan Gray

Location: Pret a Manger on 29th Street 7Th Avenue

Time/Date: 6:00 pm October 15th, 2013

Megan Gray is from Staten Island, New York and graduated NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts with a degree in Dramatic Writing. Not only is she the Artistic Director of the Magnet Theatre but also a writer, performer, and Impov teacher as well. She has taught improvisation at numerous universities including Columbia Business School and Brookdale Community College. She produces and hosts a female improv show “We Might Just Kiss” as well as many others. Before the Magnet Theatre, Megan written for MTV and Comedy Central but ended up quitting to focus her career on artistic directing.

Question: So, tell me how you got your start.

Answer: I guess in comedy. Even though I went to NYU for dramatic writing, I always found myself leaning towards comedy. In my senior year my friends and I decided to take an improv class at the UCB (Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre). I originally started taking improv to get ideas out, like writer’s block, but I quickly became addicted to performing. Then I started at the Magnet, where I am now. After becoming a Level 1 Improv teacher, I found a greater appreciation for performing. I want to show my students that I practice what I preach. Every year, I learn something new; the job is a lot of trial and error. How you gage the success of a show is really interesting. Improv takes much more time to develop than a written show does; it’s trying to work out those little kinks that makes it fun.

Question: What exactly is an artistic director?

Answer: Its basically quality control; I’m captain of the ship. I make the schedule and decisions on what shows were going to keep or cut. I always check in with the all directors of the different teams to make sure everything is running smoothly. If I’m the captain, they’re like my first mates. I’m the liaison to our performer, so a lot of my job is emailing and contacting people. I also need make sure that our shows maintain the specific criteria: is it funny, does it showcase our performers well? Is it maintaining the voice of our theatre? The shows have to be funny but at the same time, intelligent. Because it’s improv, you never know what you’re going to get. Everyone is really supportive and I’m glad the theatre is growing. I basically keep the ship going.

Question: What are your favorite and least favorite aspects about your career?

Answer: The most rewarding is when our performers are doing a great job and a packed house to see it. Then, everyone is just so happy. It’s frustrating when there’s a really great show but no one to see it. Also in improv, nothing is pre-planned. There is no same show twice, which I think is what makes it so magical. It’s the purest form of theatre; all we have is each other, no script, props, or costumes. The feeling of if you weren’t there, that sucks because you cant recreate the show. It’s amazing.

What really sucks is when you have to tell people no. People take things really personally because they care, so when I have to give notes to them about how to improve, they tend to assume “I hate them,” and I just feel really bad. Sometimes I have to be the bad guy and tell people “this is not a magnet show,” or “there’s not enough room.” In the end it’s fine, but in the moment you feel bad. It also doesn’t pay great and you get a ton of e-mails. Sometimes it feels like ugh, what am I doing this for? And then when it’s successful, I’m like oh, this is why. You have to trust yourself.

Question: How would you define your style of performing arts?

Answer: I always go for the fun. There’s nothing worse than seeing someone not having fun on stage. At the theatre we always say, play to the height of your intelligence. Don’t play dumb. You can play child-like but don’t play childish. Fun and smart. That’s my style. I’m a fast, funny performer rather than a slow and patient performer, but I think it’s important for the theatre to have both methods.

Question: Who do you admire the most in your field?

Answer: This is probably the same for any woman improviser, but it’s Amy Pohler. She’s one of the original founders of the UCB.  She’s just always been so consistently funny, and I love the fact that no one ever says she’s a funny woman. Everyone just always agrees, she’s hilarious, and it’s true. I think she embodies the perfect improviser. Whenever I see her perform, she’s always so fun and energetic. I honestly think everyone secretly has a girl crush on her. For improv, it’s definitely her.

Question: What characteristics do you think define a great improv performer?

Answer: Being open to failure. In improv, you fail so many times you become numb to it, and I think that’s great for any line of work. You really have to keep doing it to unlock the part of your brain that is not judging you or is not afraid to fail. I think listening to what others have to say about your work but at the same time knowing when you’re right about something. Being open-minded is important because if you get stuck on one thing, you’re closing off a possibility of a different kind of success. Also, you shouldn’t be afraid to look silly! The best stars are the ones who are open to doing anything, those who have a sense of humor, such as Tom Hanks on SNL.

Question: What role do you think improvisers plays in our current society?

Answer: There’s a reason why improv is becoming so popular. I think in the face of technology, so much of our interactions are online, whether it’s texting or just Facebook, that we don’t interact with real people anymore, which can be alienating. I believe people still need to hang out with people. Improv is a great way to make each other laugh and feel creative in a way that is sort of lost now. Face to face interactions are just seen less and less these days. It brings a spirit of yes to the community and helps people accept and listen to others. It’s also great for the community, workplace, and everybody really. It lets our imagination run wild, which is hard to do in this day and age, because there’s no editing in improv.

Question: What is an artistic outlook on life?

Answer: I think artists are really great at deconstructing things. For example, if someone says chair, being able to take it apart and ask questions like who might be in this chair? Is this an electric chair? Is this a kid in a kindergarten, is it an old person, is it a bored person? Who might be in there, and what does it mean? We look at things with different perspectives. There are a lot of awful things out in the world, so being flexible in your thinking is super important. Things don’t always have to be serious. “Even the mightiest oak must bend.” When you give in a little, that’s when you get the reward.

Question: What’s your all time favorite show?

Answer: Monty Python and Kids in the Hall are the two iconic sketch comedies. The State is another sketch comedy show. It’s just so absurd and silly and ridiculous. It’s really smart comedy. Monty Python and Kids in the Hall are the two shows I can watch over and over again.

NY Times Andy Warhol: 15 Minutes Eternal

Posted on by
5

Whenever I hear the name Andy Warhol, the first images that comes to mind is the stack of Campbell’s Noodle Soup cans and a pipe with the words “This is not a pipe” above it. Some of you might have seen his other works, such as the upside down urinal or a portrait of 8 Elvis Presleys. As simple as some of his artworks are, Warhol’s was the “bellwether of the art market.” His works included some of the most expensive art ever sold.

An article dated quite a while back but still featured on the front page of the New York Times Arts website was about an Andy Warhol exhibition that was held in China. It was called “Andy Warhol: 15 Minutes Eternal.” This phrase is quite aptly used as Andy Warhol was the artist who coined the term “15 minutes of fame” in 1968 by saying, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”

The main problem with the exhibition was the Chinese ban of Andy Warhol’s Mao Portrait. After President Richard M. Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, Warhol visited the country himself in 1982 and created portraits of Mao. Eric Shiner, director of the Pittsburg Andy Warhol Museum, argued that the replication of Mao’s face can be found in the art works of many Chinese artists. It is a very commonplace aspect of Chinese art. The Chinese government to place a ban on Warhol’s depiction of Mao seems irrational. Shiner relented and took the Mao portrait out of the Warhol exhibition. He believed that displaying Warhol’s works to the Chinese public was more important than fighting to include the Mao portrait.

It is easy to accuse the Chinese government for being unreasonable, if we solely use what was written in the New York Times article. However, if we look closely, we can see that the article does not go into details why the Mao portrait was banned. There’s a perfectly logical explanation as to why the Chinese government did what it did.

To many Chinese citizens, the mere mention of Mao Zedong is a taboo. It is easy to understand why Mao Zedong has become a rejected figure if we go through the Chinese history during its Communist Era. Near the end of his reign, many of Mao’s plans such as the “Great Leap Forward,” failed. The number of people who died from starvation during the Great Leap Forward is astronomical, not to mention the disasters that occurred in the Chinese countryside. During this campaign, approximately 6 million people were wrongly punished.

The New York Times article made it seem as if the Chinese government was disrespecting Mao and Andy Warhol’s art. Eric Shiner did not grasp the reason as to why the Chinese government did what it did. Mao Zedong is the emblem of, to many Chinese citizens, an era they want to forget. To glorify him as a pop icon is not considered appealing. Compare it to the Germans glorifying Adolf Hitler in an exhibition targeting Jews. It is absurd to say the least.

Instead of writing a short article summarizing the event biasedly, Patricia Cohen, the author of the article, should have researched into the situation. She should have looked at both sides rather than taking the side that was easily explained. The way she backed up her article with quotes from Shiner and none from the Chinese is unfair. It creates misunderstandings for the reader. The exhibition is as much commercial as it is political. There are reasons as to why the Chinese government did what it did. To exclude their justifications only creates misunderstandings and wrongly-directed abhorrence.

NY Times Blog Post: The Met’s Partnership and Expansion

Posted on by
8

For it’s first time ever, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has teamed up with another institution to buy a contemporary art installation. When “The Refusal of Time,” another work by William Kentridge, who also directed “The Nose,” premiered in Kassel, Germany, two museums expressed interest in acquiring it. Both the Met and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art already had several pieces by Kentridge and were looking to add to their collection. In collaboration, the two museums have agreed to co-own the installation and determine a mutually acceptable schedule to split show times. “The Refusal of Time” will display through May 11th after Kentridge’s production of “The Nose” winds down. The San Francisco museum will wait until their museum expansion is finished to display the video projection in 2016.

Neither museum points at a lack of funding as a cause for this new co-ownership. Rather, the idea to share the piece simply came from practical motivations. Unlike many arts partnerships before, sharing “The Refusal of Time” is not likely to damage the artwork. Because it is a contemporary video installation there is no worry about harming the canvas during transportation. Furthermore, neither museum anticipates continuously showing Kentridge’s video work because it requires an entirely empty room and clamorous echoes.

This joint acquisition seems to hint at what to expect from the Met’s new modern and contemporary gallery (at Madison Avenue and 75th Street). Their expansion for a space devoted to works like Kentridge’s “The Refusal of Time” tells me that the Met is hoping to gain a new circle of support with, perhaps, a focus on a younger audience. As Thomas Campbell, director of the Met, says, “The new building will give us space to be experimental.” I think the Met is trying to experiment with reaching a younger platform of art enthusiasts who feel more connection to digital forms of art. By designating a new location to play around with sufficiently satisfying those interests, the Met can retain their distinction as having a great collection of what generally comes to mind when one thinks of art while offering a quality space to present modern pieces.

My hope is to see the new Whitney building offer a more open style of viewing art. Like what we did at the Brooklyn Museum, I hope to be able to openly discuss what we view there without the pressure to whisper. Because art is so subjective there is always something someone else will feel for a piece that didn’t stand out in your mind. There’s more to be learned when you can freely discuss those aspects of art that stand out to you in front of the piece than try to recall the work in memory. Therefore, by making the discussion of ideas more accessible, the general understanding of why art is amazing will reach more people. I think the limitations to enjoying art come from restrictions in accessing and discussing it. If what we know about Kentridge’s work and “The Refusal of Time” holds true, I think the Whitney building is already moving to create a more immersive environment of viewing art. I’m excited to see how the new building’s approach to art will differ from the main Met building and how partnership with other museums will play into new exciting exhibits of artwork.

 

Vogel, Carol. “One Met Isn’t Enough.” NYTimes. N.p., 16 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/arts/design/one-met-isnt-enough.html?src=recg>.

New York Times Blog

Posted on by
7

Earlier this year in May at the Cannes Film Festival, the movie “Blue Is the Warmest Color” started to be in the spot light after the chairman of the jury, Steven Spielberg, awarded the Palme d’Or to the French director, Abdellatif Kechiche, and his two  leading ladies. It seems like that reputation always comes with controversies. The topic of lesbian love along with explicit sex scene has received a lot of attention. The movie is unsurprisingly rated NC-17 by Motion Picture Association of America.


The story focuses on the growth of the fifteen-year-old heroine Adèle, played by Adèle Exarchopoulos; and her affair with Emma, a worldly art student played by Léa Seydoux. Like most other girls, Adèle chats about boys with girls. After she breaks up with her ex-boyfriend, she encounters Emma, the girl with blue hair and foxed eyes. Soon, they fall in love in a lesbian bar. Emma exists as a mentor and guider for Adèle into her young adulthood and allows her to find desire.

The movie is opening in New York and Los Angeles on October 25 with an NC-17 rating. According to the websites of Motion Picture Association of America, NY-17 means “most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under.” The film contains roughly fifteen minutes of unabashed sex between its lead actresses.

However, the rating is technically a recommendation rather than an enforced law with contractual force. While most cinemas will not accept teenagers under 17, the IFC center in Greenwich Village ignores the NC-17 rating and chooses to allow some inquisitive youngsters to attend the movie. John Vanco, senior vice president and general manager of the center, believes that “this is not a movie for young children, but it is our judgment that it is not inappropriate for mature, inquiring teenagers who are looking ahead to the emotional challenges and opportunities that adulthood holds.”

The French title of the movie is “The Life of Adèle-Chapter 1 & 2,” which alludes that the movie would examine Adèle’s stories of exploring herself as a teenager in the “first two chapter of her life.” “Chapter 1” represents Adèle’s first love with her ex-boyfriend.  “Chapter 2” witnesses her groeth and her transition to young adulthood, both physically and emotionally. Adèle seeks herself, loses herself, and finds herself.

Too much attention has been paid to the movie’s sex scenes. The movie, after all, is a coming-of-age story about a high school girl meeting with various issues, ranging from peer pressure, first love, homework, postgraduates plans to her self-identification,  which are all associated with adolescence. If we watch the three-hour-long movie, more time has been devoted to the classroom rather than to the bedroom. The movie is not just about sex.

Since the movie demonstrates a transition between adolescence and adulthood, it should be better appreciated by viewers under the NC-17 line and might seem more exotic and foreign to the older generation. The sex scene can not stand for the whole movie. In France, the movie has a rating of “12,” which means that anyone over that age is permitted to attend. Clearly, there is a dictinction between the way U.S. and France use to rate a movie. Maybe our criteria should be re-evaluated. Instead of solely focusing on some explicit graphic or verbal content, we should also take the subject of a film into our accounts and pose a question: which group of the audience would get the most out of the film?

Should teenagers be allowed to watch rated R or NC-17 movies? What do you think of the rating system of Motion Picture Association of America?

 

Work Cited:

Scott, Anthony Oliver. “Theater Will Ignore NC-17 Rating for ‘Blue Is the Warmest    Color.'” The New York Times. 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/theater-will-ignore-nc-17-rating-for-blue-is-the-warmest-color/

 

 

Interview with Anil Gupta

Posted on by
Reply

Interview for IDC: Anil Gupta (Inkline Studio)

 

This man is someone I consider as a friend and is an open book. This isn’t even a third of the interview. No introduction is needed for this extraordinary man and artist.

 

If you did go to college what college did you go to?

 

“I was a college dropout I went to school in Bombay, India at a well-known Institute for art from 1981 to 1982 and then got my BFA bachelor’s degree in finance for art in two years which had to do with graphic design so I just did that in the beginning of my career.”

 

Do you find it important to have preliminary courses in Business and finance in order to make art a successful career?

 

“Art is no different from seeking any other kind of money seeking activity. Art could be leisurely, art can be therapeutic, and art is absolutely a key instinct of our psyche. As a caveman we try to draw, as a kid we try to pick up crayons and draw. It seems to be in the DNA level. It’s an activity that seems to come pretty naturally, but with any activity that is natural it can always turn into commercial. For example dancing could be natural and it could be feel good but once you’re out on that stage you could make money off of it cause you’re providing your skills to the public. Having said that many people starting out at a young age with art have no idea that they will end up making a career out of it. For my own example when I was 12 and I loved drawing I didn’t know I was going to be a “commercial artist”. I was doing it because it felt right and you don’t want to take that pressure of pure financial gains from something that you love, because you can’t put the magic in it. It’s very hard not to put in your soul and art into it because then your only goal is to make money. Becomes almost mechanical. A machine for example. It is important to understand the gain from the art and I think that situation doesn’t come in your life until you’re reaching your 20s. Where everyone else is becoming doctors, accountants, and lawyers what have you, they are using the courses you know the majors that they had to seek jobs and money. So as an artist you mingle with your friends that go with the usual route of making money and it seems little safer if you asked me. A doctor can go and just make money guaranteed you could just go out there and make money, but art for example is extremely risky from that point of view. As a kid born in India competition is pretty severe parents often push their children to seek out jobs that will guarantee them money, life supporting you know well you could secure your life and make sure you have a roof over your head and Feed yourself. It’s like a survival type of society in India so when you break the news to your mom or dad your going to be an artist they start worrying about you. Extremely a gray area so yes you have to be extremely focused and bold and persuasive and resilient if you’re going to pursue art as a career and I can speak from my experiences I was really strong at it and I knew there’s nothing else I would do otherwise. So of course that’s how I took art and I’m still doing it. I was very fortunate to have found myself in the right place at the right time. If I was in a village somewhere or like a suburb I probably wouldn’t have been successful but art also resides and culminates and survives in location. That is the key if you look into the history people were in the right place at the right time. Da Vinci was from Venice, which was the city at the time and allowed him to make art for people who would sponsor and pay for it. Pretty sure there are people in remote areas and the suburbs that have skill levels but no means of applying that and making a career out of that.”

 

Do you feel that artists need to have something that makes their art different from other artists? To make that Clear, I know that you will never make the same tattoo twice. Why is that?

 

“I see what you mean. But those are personal goals and those are personal standards. Not repeating something, to me, is ethical.  Those are ethical issues. If a client is being told that tattoo is unique to their body, it is pretty personal to them. So they’re walking around out there with this tattoo on them with the belief that they have this unique piece they are proud of and came to me, sat down with me, and they spoke to me over consultation and we drew something up and you can’t make it again; it is one of a kind. Once you establish that belief it would be unethical to then copy that and make money off of it on someone else, but that is my opinion on the matter, my standard. In many ways there are things out there called flash art, which is when you walk into a tattoo parlor and the walls are plastered with different tattoos with numbers next to them and you just pick one and now the whole town is having the same tattoo that you have. That’s the difference between a custom tattoo studio and a regular tattoo parlor. Which is also a legitimate and I would say pretty much the majority of most tattoo artists in America are flash Studios out there. That is how I’m different from them; you know that custom is personal.”

 

When it comes to a custom tattoo studio do you think it’s almost a little more fulfilling because of the personal attachment to the clients?

 

“Um, customization is the peak of art. Personalization and customization I hate to say it but it is kind of like the elitist style. So for like example if you are to buy a Ferrari they will literally take your butt and make the impression in the main seat with your butt and it will be that car made specifically for how big your ass, I mean butt, is. It’s like what is the difference between the rich man’s house and the poor man’s house. The rich man has all this money to get every line of the house down to the exact T that he wants. So that’s the key of it. I find myself catering to that kind of market. So that’s pretty much the key to me, customization.”

 

So you wouldn’t per se judge someone like Jackson Pollock, who made his living and his art off of repetition of the same product?

 

“Life emulates art, but then art also emulates life. There was a time when somebody must have started doing something original. We live in a time of conveniences. So when you go to write a poem you don’t go use or like rent the language. You don’t reinvent the wheel. You pretty much go and read a dictionary of the meaning and then you go and write a poem. So you are in other words synthesizing your thoughts in the form of a poem in someone else’s language. There you go, you are actually in short copying someone else’s thoughts or at least they have written down the meanings so it would just be unproductive to go reinvent everything. We just use a lot of those things and we put together to the best of our knowledge. Back to the question ‘would I Judge Jackson Pollock?’; art had been recycled many times over with genres like Art Deco and Art Nouveau. We had genres where we had Impressionism, Cubism, and so on. But each time you see the genre each person is trying to make it into their own unique style and is doing their best to put his or her own spin on it. But there has already been a pre-established foundation of other old masters that have done this job so well.”

meandanil

 

 

 

arm

 

heart

 

 

Interview With Lisa Gavaletz (NYU/Julliard Stage Manager)

Posted on by
Reply

An interview conducted with a friend of mine: Lisa Gavaletz (freelance stage manager who has recently worked at institutions such as NYU in their graduate acting program and The Julliard School).  She has twenty-three years of professional experience.  This interview was conducted in the Paul Walker Theatre where Lisa is currently working on a production of Tennessee William’s Vieux Carre. 

 RS: How did you get your start in the theatre?

LG: I thought I wanted to be an actor and I very quickly realized I was a terrible actor.  Then, when I was in college, I had auditioned for something and I didn’t get cast and I was upset cause I didn’t get cast cause I thought I wanted to be an actor and the director said to me “Well, why don’t you assist our stage manger cause I’d like for you to be part of the show so why don’t you assist our stage manager and you can learn how things work backstage.” and I said “okay” and I found out that I really enjoyed it and I really liked being backstage—I could be in control.  And after that first show, I still auditioned and I still never got cast so I kept stage managing.  Then, when I finally did get cast in something, I was terrible and I hated it and I didn’t enjoy being onstage because by that time I really liked the backstage stuff and then I was lucky enough when I graduated college–I went to college in Trenton, New Jersey.  When I finished college, I was lucky enough to be accepted to an internship at The Julliard School.  So, I did an academic year internship and I got to assist a lot of different stage managers, I got to work with a lot of different really great actors cause a program like that is going to have talented people.  And then, I started freelancing and that was in my internship—I don’t know if I want you to know how old I am—my internship was 1990 to 1991.  So, but that is how I got started I wanted to be in the theatre and I thought I wanted to be an actor but I wasn’t.

RS: How long has this been an interest of yours?

LG: I have been a freelance stage manager for that entire time.  I have been freelancing for twenty-three years now.  Um, and there have been times where all I’ve done the entire year is stage-manage and there have been times where I’ve said, “I can’t do this anymore.  I need to stop.”  I’ve had other jobs, but I always come back.  I always come back to theatre.  My kind of “philosophy” is that as long as I can make—I’m never gonna get rich by being in the theatre.  Very few people can do theatre and y’know, unless you get on a Broadway show that runs forever.  But, my philosophy is that as long as I can make enough money to pay the bills—and go to Cyclones games.

 RS: Of course (laughs)

 LG: As long as I can do that, then I’m fine.  But, yeah, it’s always, ever since I started, this is what I’ve wanted to do and I’ve been lucky enough that and I’m lucky enough to work—I mean, this is New York University graduate acting and design program.  This and Julliard and Yale are considered the three top in the country.  Not just on the east coast, but the three top in the country and I work at two of them, so it is really what I—and there are times that I go through phases.  There are times that I’ve been unhappy and been like “I don’t want to do this anymore.” And then I’ll do a show that’s really really amazing. So, twenty-three years now–twenty-three years professionally. 

 

RS: It was good, because you said that you had those productions that brought you back when you were—So, what would you say is your favorite production that you worked on and why?  Hate to put you on the spot there (laughs).

LG: Well, different shows are memorable for different reasons, but if I were forced to choose something, it would be a show called “Nine Parts of Desire”.  It was a one-woman show and it was the woman who wrote the play—It was autobiographical.  It was about her and it was a very powerful show and it had to do with—Her background is her father was born in Iraq and moved here to the states in his twenties and she was born here and she does not look the traditional way you assume most Middle Eastern people look.  She’s blonde haired and the play was about after September 11th of 2001—Her family in Iraq and all of a sudden the way that things changed.  She and I became very good friends.  That was probably the most fulfilling because it was her and me and the lighting board operator.  We ran for eight months.  Another really memorable one was right after my internship, so the summer of ’91.  I was a production assistant, who is a very low man on the totem pole, for Othello: Shakespeare in Central Park.  Raul Julia—the late Raul Julia—played Othello.  Christopher Walken played Iago.  But, because that was my first professional job after my internship, that was really really special to me as well.  And then there have just been several shows over the years that I thought “Wow, I’ve had a really great time on this one.” But, if I had to choose, it would be “Nine Parts” because the actor and I were so close and it ran for eight months.  It was one of those experiences that you’re like, “This is why I do theatre.”

RS: You said that that was very fulfilling.  What aspect of your job do you find that you love the most—that is most fulfilling? 

LG: That’s a good question.  That is actually a good question cause it’s hard to answer.  Most times, it is the relationship that I have with the actors.  Although, sometimes when the play itself is really good, it’s exciting to work on something that you know people are gonna like.  Although, there have been times when I’ve worked on a show and we’re like “This is great; everybody’s gonna love this” and then the critics hate it.  I’ve worked in academic theatre a lot lately.  For the past five years, I’ve worked pretty much only at Julliard and NYU and the most fulfilling aspect of that is working with actors who first of all everybody knows is talented and seeing them have success professionally.  And, I think that is the most fulfilling.  Just the relationship and being able to bring my experience of having worked for so long in the theatre to kind of help young actors—to give them advice sometimes.  I had one actor fairly recently at Julliard who was always a little bit late to rehearsal and I took him aside and had a serious conversation with him.  I said “You’ll get a reputation.” And, I’m not yelling at you.  He actually really appreciated it because he was one of those guys that’s always late.  And he said, “For the past three years at Julliard, all anybody did was yell and scream at him.”  And he was on time then for a little while. So, me hoping to teach somebody something and then then them going out into the real world—when I’m working in academic theatre, that’s pretty amazing.    

RS: Any advice for me?

LG: Advice to anybody who wants to–Is listen to everybody.  I think it’s a great idea for anybody who wants to be an actor to learn what has to happen backstage.  Here at NYU, it’s a three year graduate acting program.  In their first year. They have to crew the third year show.  I personally, as a stage manager, I think that’s invaluable. 

RS: Could you see yourself doing anything else besides this?

LG: In all honesty, after all this time, not really.  After you’ve done something for twenty years that involves meeting new people— But, in terms of “do I want to be a doctor?” Oh god, no. I say to anyone interested in anything in the arts.  If it works for you, wonderful, but if it doesn’t, at least you can say you tried it.  I didn’t want to be one of those people who said “Wow, I really wish you could have tried.

 

RS: Great, thank you for your time. 

 

“All the World’s a Bar at Channel From Esquire”

Posted on by
10

Most people are familiar with the popular men’s magazine Esquire. Almost every place that sells newspapers and magazines carries it. Last month, Esquire launched its new television channel, the Esquire Network, and so far it has established itself as a channel where alcohol consumption is a dominating theme.

Of course, it’s not that surprising coming from a channel–and a magazine–that is targeted toward men and seems like it really ramps up the stereotypical, “all-American” idea of what a man should be like and what he should be interested in; that is, drinking, sports, women. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but the way Esquire Network seems to focus on drinking even on shows that don’t have to do with drinking is a little off-putting. It’s also laughable how many of their shows have macho names, but are no tougher than anything you might see on mainstream television.

One show, “Brew Dogs”, is very simple in its premise: two Scottish brewers travel across America looking for new and unusual ways to brew beer. This is one show where the fascination with alcohol makes sense–it’s the entire point of the series. “Best Bars in America”, a show Esquire plans to introduce in November, is another show that will obviously focus on alcohol and the consumption thereof.

But what bothered me was that even shows that have nothing to do with alcohol find a way to bring it into the spotlight. Another show on Esquire Network, “Boundless”, is a show about two Canadian endurance athletes and their travels across the world as they complete various grueling races. This doesn’t sound like a show where drinking would be mentioned at all. But as the New York Times reports,

“The hosts of “Boundless,” two Canadian endurance athletes, Simon Donato and Turbo Trebilcock, go to literally marathon lengths to gin up the gin, even in remote and unboozy locations like Angkor Wat in Cambodia. There, they enter a six-day, 230-kilometer marathon, and even in that unendurably hot and humid climate, amid chanting Buddhist monks, there is drinking. A German competitor guzzles a beer at every aid station, though most of the hard-core consumption is committed by a merry group of Indian runners who like to party.

“Guess we needed a couple more whiskeys before we started,” one of them, Manoj, says roguishly after a so-so running time on Day 1.”

 My first thought while reading this was, “What sort of athlete drinks while they’re participating in an event? I thought that was something that only happened in American beer commercials.” While I’m sure that drinking isn’t the main motif of “Boundless”, it’s kind of disconcerting to hear about that kind of behavior, but it’s even more disconcerting to realize that it’s not explicitly being condemned.

“Knife Fight”, at first, sounds like a show that might have to do with actual knife fights, which are definitely not situations you’d want to be drunk for. But no, “Knife Fight” is simply just another competitive cooking show, with a gritty, tough-sounding name to give it that extra masculine twist. The way the show’s own host describes “Knife Fight” makes it clear that it’s a show that takes itself way too seriously:

“Ilan Hall, a chef and the host of “Knife Fight,” describes his series as “a bare-knuckled boxing show of a cooking competition” that pits chefs against each other in an “after-hours war zone.” (He wears a camouflage flak jacket instead of an apron.)”

 But, just like with “Boundless”, it’s another show that adds to the feeling that Esquire Network is obsessed with drinking. Prior to a competition, a contestant is shown eating eggs and is quoted as saying, “Got to coat your stomach for all the booze we are about to drink.” Granted, food and alcohol being consumed together is nothing shocking, but reading this in the Times’ article made me think, “Really? Really? Are you cooking or drinking?”

There’s nothing wrong with drinking, but there is something wrong and unsettling with glorifying it to such a degree as the Esquire Network seems to do. It contributes to the problem of alcoholism, for one thing, and for another, it’s entirely unnecessary. If I want to watch a show about endurance runners, that’s what I’m expecting, not two guys going to ridiculous lengths to get drunk.

Works Cited:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/arts/television/all-the-worlds-a-bar-at-channel-from-esquire.html

Interview with Amy Purssey

Posted on by
Reply

Amy Purssey, Assistant Director of the Eli Klein Fine Arts Gallery, describes herself as an observant person and avid lover of art since her childhood in England. Equipped with perceptive arts insights, Purssey recounts a short anecdote about seeing a Matisse at the age of ten, walking out of the museum, and noticing the similarity of the surrounding foliage to those of his famous gouaches découpés. It turns out Matisse’s residence-in-museum had inspired those specific pieces. Since then, she has accepted a scholarship to intensively pursue sculpture and painting in which the pressure paradoxically pushed her away from art, started a degree in French and International Relations, completed a degree in the History of Art, and found a passion for Chinese contemporary art.

In part thanks to an arts collaboration with Damien Hirst, prominent English artist and collector, Purssey rediscovered her love for the arts world and was determined to find her place in gallery work. For a chance to work at a London museum, she walked to every arts street and personally handed out résumés. And, after studying Dali’s Lobster Telephone in a university lecture, and seeing the piece during her internship at Tate Modern Gallery, Purssey was especially certain a professional career in the arts world was well-suited for her. During a visit to her sister, a business in mandarin student, Purssey was captivated by the 798 district, a thriving art zone in Beijing. The rapid growth in Chinese art was particularly exciting and spurred Purssey’s research at the Eli Klein Fine Arts Gallery, which specializes in Chinese contemporary art. Today, she works on a range of tasks for the gallery from curating the show to planning social media outreach. Although relatively new to New York City, Purssey is interested in participating more in the wide range of arts available, as well as learning Mandarin to eventually communicate with the gallery’s mainland artists directly.

LISA: What does art mean to you?

AMY: To me, art means anything that speaks for itself. One person can look at a piece, and they don’t get it, whereas another person can look at it and feel an intense emotion. When I personally look at a work and feel something that I can’t even put into words, that’s when I know it’s a great piece. With some of the artists at Eli Klein, I get that gasp of wow. When I have no clue as to how an artist has done what they’ve done –especially because I have done art myself– that is art.

LISA: Are there any limitations to what you consider to be art?

AMY: Art is in the eye of the beholder, so it’s very much a matter of opinion. For example, Damien Hirst did a piece on twins and his whole concept was for my twin sister and I to sit in front of a blank canvas where above us were two squares of dots. I remember thinking, “You didn’t create me. You created the concept, but you didn’t create me. So, am I effectively art or what is this?” For something like that, where he didn’t create me, that’s not art. But people say it is. That’s the thing. Art is always pushing boundaries. I think today anything you call art can be art, which is an interesting concept actually.

LISA: Following that idea, does mundane art, pictures that people take each day and slap a filter on, devalue professional art?

AMY: Well, I work at a commercial gallery so everything you see here is for sale. When you’re looking at a piece, you’re also looking at what the piece is priced at. However, I do believe that what the piece is priced at should not define whether it’s successful not. Although, on a material level, it still does. I went to a Sotheby’s auction a few weeks ago and saw a very unremarkable piece going for two hundred thousand dollars. Essentially, I was looking at a plain board painted black and I thought, “How is that art?” But it sold. So, again, art is a matter of opinion. It’s the kind of thing where people either love it or hate it. That’s how art is always going to be.

LISA: What do you think affects creativity?

AMY: I think there’s a shock and awe factor. The pursuit of doing something revolutionary and something that hasn’t been done before is a powerful motivation. It’s interesting to see how far people will go to stretch the boundaries of what is art. I think nowadays, you have to redefine the word art.

Also, as an artist, you can’t avoid your society because that’s where you draw your inspiration from. For example, there’s an exhibition coming up about Hurricane Sandy, and that’s a clear example of being affected by your environment.

LISA: Where do you see the aspect of art you work in heading?

AMY: In ten years, I can really see Chinese contemporary art making a significant change to how we know it now in the West. People are going to be so much more aware of Chinese contemporary art. It’s only since the 90s that they have stood alone, separate from immediate comparison to western art, as stable collected pieces. Whereas once everyone wanted standard western artists, now there’s a booming recognition of Chinese art. I’m curious to see where the popularity stands in the future. Ultimately, the sky’s the limit. There aren’t too many limitations; it’s just a matter of watching the state of things.

LISA: What’s something in art today that excites you? And, conversely, frustrates you?

AMY: What frustrates me is peoples’ naivety towards some works and some artists. I’ve found, from speaking to westerners about their opinions of Chinese contemporary art, that there are some pieces where people automatically think, “That looks a little bit corrupt.” However, in actual fact, the art has nothing to do with that. They’re falsely led to believe the art represents those cultural misconceptions. What strikes me is how some well-known artists are playing more with the concept of art than actually physically doing the work. As well as how well a name sells as opposed to a stunning piece. Avid collectors generally have a style they love to collect, which inevitably leads to collecting a name. Personally, I hope I don’t ever become that. There’s always so much more to explore. You’ve always got to look at the bigger picture and never be narrow-minded with anything that has to do with art. I always look at a piece and question what it says to me and what it says for itself. There shouldn’t be someone explaining the concept to you.

 

Many thanks to Amy Purssey and the Eli Klein Fine Arts Gallery for offering their time and experience for this interview.