The Arts in New York City | Baruch Fall 2013 Macaulay Seminar 1

New York Times Arts Blog: Architects Bringing Beauty to Penn Station

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Olivia Sztanga

A link to the article here.

Built in 1910, the original Penn Station was considered the architectural pride and joy of New York City, but as a result of the number of total daily passengers exceeding its capacity, the entire structure was demolished in 1963. Within a decade, Penn Plaza along with its main feature, Madison Square Garden, was constructed, and into its clumsily designed basement of random support beams and platforms, the new Penn Station was moved. As a result, Penn Station, with its frustratingly illogical layout, is the one place I hate most in this world. (I’m not even exaggerating.)

enhanced-buzz-25113-1358464012-2

More before and after photos here, and I highly recommend checking them out because they get pretty funny.

In somewhat recent news, the New York City Council voted to limit the Garden’s operating permit to ten years, despite its owners seeking a permanent lease. This motion is likely to force the famous arena to vacate its current site, unless city officials fail to draft and finance a plan for a new train station. The City Council hopes a new station will better accommodate the growing number of commuters, as well as revitalize what is becoming a somewhat grim area of the city.

In order to promote the movement for a new Penn Station, The Municipal Art Society recently hosted an exhibit in which it invited four of New York City’s leading architecture firms, Diller Scofidio & Renfro, SHoP Architects, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture, to reimagine and redesign the train station. Each of the plans anticipated including high-speed rail and security improvements to meet the needs of today’s society.

51a625c3b3fc4b39ee000272_penn-station-re-imagined_shop_architects_pennstationinterior11-528x263

My personal favorite design is by SHoP Architects, as it seems to resemble and make tribute to the old Penn Station. It also utilizes current city landmarks, such as the High Line, to connect the station to MSG and preserve the easy walk for arena-goers.

Some argue that a complete redesign of Penn Station is too costly, and that simple renovations and system overhauls will do. In fact, such a plan will likely cost several billion dollars and require multiple federal contracts. Similar issues caused former plans from the 1990s, such as “Moynihan Station,” to fail or become delayed on multiple occasions, making any such prospects seem rather unlikely. However, I believe the costs associated with the project will be worth it, assuming it succeeds in creating a new and beautiful landmark for such a great city.

Works Cited:

Bagli, Charles. “Madison Square Garden Is Told to Move.” The New York Times 24 July 2013: n. pag. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.

Previdi, Robert. “Fixing Penn Station Without Rebuilding It.” The New York Times 1 Oct. 2013: n. pag. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.

Progrebin, Robin. “Thinking Big: Four Visions of a New Penn Station.” The New York Times 28 May 2013: n. pag. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.

Photos from ArchDaily and BuzzFeed.

NY Times Blog Post: “Minority Report”

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Seung Ah Choi

Growing as a part of moral society, we are taught to help the poor. Thanks to Shelley and Donald Rubin who have donated over a million dollars for the past year, many art institutions were able to receive a ray of light. However, what makes the Rubins different from other donors is not the amount of their donation, but where they donate. Some of the organizations they support include the Socrates Sculpture Park in Long Island City, the Queens Museum of Art, and the Bronx Museum of Arts. Unconventionally, they are all located outside of Manhattan: a mecca for arts and entertainment. By choosing to donate to non-Manhattan venues, the Rubins are losing their privilege to be “acknowledged at glamorous ballroom galas,” with “their names etched onto prominent buildings.” Yet, they are winning the opportunity to truly demonstrate their belief, “small really is beautiful.”

Nevertheless, it is too quick to judge that the Rubins are the only “revolutionary” donors out there. Henry Christensen III and his wife have been aiding those in their home borough of Brooklyn, while Alan Suna, his brother and a colleague have supported the museums in Queens over the last twelve years. Does this mean that such underrepresented institutions are receiving enough spotlight? Not so much. Many face significant financial crises, which make $5,000 individual contributions worth a million dollars to them. However, as the article already indicates, such donations “can also come with strings attached.” Although I understand that this notion is often true, I oppose it. I believe that the arts should remain independent and free; it should not be manipulated by any other means.

The broad concept of supporting those in need does not only exist in the arts world of New York City, but also globally, through prominent examples of Olympic Games and World Cup. By hosting in developing countries, the IOC and FIFA are ultimately allowing them to grow and advance. For example, the 1988 Seoul and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games helped those cities to be one step closer towards progress and innovation. Before the events were hosted in South Korea and China, many people had heard of negative aspects, which turned out to be simple preconceptions. Similarly, there are many other nations with much potential, such as India, Brazil, and Russia, waiting to be discovered. Perhaps it is about time to give more attention to the underrepresented. They certainly deserve it.

Works Cited

Pogrebin, Robin. “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/arts/design/these-donors-will-take-anything-but-manhattan.html?ref=design>.

Drug Deaths Threaten Rising Business of Electronic Music Fests

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Tina Jing Ru Shen

Electronic dance music concerts have always been associated with high drug use since the late 1900s. This is primarily because it has become common to find people overdosing during such performances. According to the New York Times article Drug Deaths Threaten Rising Business of Electronic Music Fests, since this March seven people who were at electronic dance concerts in the United States died because of MDMA overdoses, and just last month, the Electric Zoo Festival at Randalls Island was closed down because there was a case of two attendees dying of MDMA overdoses.

“For some reason we have the stamp of drug misuse and I think that it’s unfair,” a well-known DJ at the Electric Zoo Festival said, “It ruins the party for a lot of other people”. It ruins the party for a lot of other people all right. Electric music fests have become increasingly popular and has become a rising business. Along with the massive amount of people attending such events, there is a growing number of investors and sponsors for electric music dance performances. By closing down Electric Zoo, sponsors like Coors Light, Blue Moon beers, Vita Coco, Hi-Chew are also highly affected. This Electric Zoo Festival incident did not just impact those involved in it. The incident at the Randalls Island concert came just a few weeks before SFX Entertainment’s electronic music concert, so SFX also experienced some difficulties in continuing what they organized. The entertainment group had already set up medical reinforcements, high security, and even planned to organize an educational session to discuss the harmful effects of drug-taking. Other electric concert organizers have taken these measures for the past years, but drug casualties have occurred nevertheless. Now electric music festivals are at risk of closing down because of the occasional drug issues, and these organizations find it unfair that their concerts are being classified as events that allow drug use. “Most major festival promoters have zero-tolerance drug policies, and their sites have security checks, free water stations, first-aid tents and ambulances on call”. After going through these security regulations, drugs were still able to infiltrate into the concerts, “No promoter can prevent all drugs from entering a festival site, nor can do they do anything about drugs consumed before an attendee walks through the gate. Yet many in the dance world think promoters and stars need to do more to discourage it”. Many critics believe that it is the responsibility of the organizers to reinforce discouragement to do drugs.

The stereotype that dance concerts are sanctuaries for drug users is incorrect and is an unfair image projected on electronic music festivals. Organizers of such events have already taken measures to prevent drugs from getting into the festival: they have sponsored educational sessions on the harmful and unnecessary effects of drug use, they have increased their security force, and they have hired medical professionals to be en garde at concerts. What else can they do? These entertainment corporations have done their best and have made their message clear that they do not welcome the presence of drug during their performances. They should not be closed down just because some people went out of their way to smuggle drugs and get high during the show. It was the drug users’ choice to make those actions. The consequences resulting from a few individual’s decision to overdose should not be pushed onto the concept of electric music or industries involved in the performances.

So, do you think electric music dance concerts should be closed down because of these drug deaths?

Works Cited

Sisario, Ben, and James McKinley. “Drug Deaths Threaten Rising Business of Electronic Music Fests.” The New York Times. N.p., 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

The Troubling Issue of Gay Rights with Russian Art

Posted on October 11, 2013 by kparakkattu

Article Found Here.

Recent legislation in Russia banning “propaganda on nontraditional relationships” has caused vast public outcry, especially in the United States. Such was evident on October 10, 2013 when Valery Gergiev, a prominent supporter of Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin, drew a large gay rights protest on the night that he was performing with the Mariinsky Orchestra in a program of three Stravinsky ballets. The protest lead by activist group Queer Nation, yelled “Gergiev, your silence is killing Russian gays!” (Cooper) and other negative comments towards Gergiev. Before they were escorted out of the performance, several members of the audience cheered for them while others denounced the disruption. Acting in a semi-constructive manner, the group said what they had to say before the performance began and left without confrontation. Although Gergiev does not discriminate in his own theatre in Russia, his decision to support Putin forms infamy, especially amongst the gays rights groups of New York.

Before entering into the specifics of the issue, it is important to examine America’s cultural values and how such protests express these ideals. We, as Americans, feel that a man’s beliefs and actions outside of his workplace ultimately affect his credibility. For example, if a governor or a president is believed to have cheated on his or her spouse, that person has lost all credibility and support. Such was the case for Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and other political giants. Although what they did in their personal lives as no direct connection with their ruling practices, we as a society denounce such impurity. Connecting our ideals to this issue, Gergiev’s performance is now seen in a negative light due to his beliefs. Just like our governors and presidents who have conducted wrongdoings in their personal lives, Gergiev is no longer welcome in the United States by some, until he changes his beliefs.

Gay rights is such a tough issue in that it conflicts with American ideas about freedom of thought and freedom of practice. A large paradox in our society is that we acknowledge different beliefs but rebuke those who are famous and have beliefs against the socially accepted norms. One would argue that there is nothing wrong in this way of life, as we are trying to form a more educated and socially-equal society. Though this may be true when thinking in an ethnocentric mindset, one must realize that our values of human rights is somewhat subjective. When an issue clashes human rights versus freedom of thought, Americans tend to prioritize and say that beliefs on humans rights should be shared worldwide.

Gergiev, I personally have no problem with your performance and would gladly watch it one day. Some might call me ignorant for supporting such a man and his ideas but I would argue that a man’s work and his ideas are two separate entities and should be seen as that. I do not agree with Gergiev’s values but forcing him to change them to make a profit, would make me feel like a monster and nothing greater than the legislators who banned gay rights in the first place.

It is important to understand that for me to come to this conclusion, I had to draw a line between my personal beliefs about a man’s work and his thoughts. If Hitler or Stalin was in Gergiev’s place, I too would probably protest the performance since these men have killed innocent people. Gergiev has not done so nor as he banned homosexuals from entering his theatre. The world is not black and white therefore why does every issue and its subsequent effect have to be so?

I understand that this issue is widely personal and that I may not know all the factors, so I ask that if you disagree with me please have proof, so I can reexamine.

Works Cited:

Cooper, Michael. “Gay Rights Protests Follow Gergiev to Carnegie Hall.” ArtsBeat Gay Rights Protests Follow Gergiev to Carnegie Hall Comments. NY Tmes, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

meaningful intentions?

Posted on October 11, 2013 by jasonwoo

Why do the wealthy donate to the arts? Obligation to do so was my first thought, but after reading Robin Pogrebin’s article, “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan,” I learned why. Social status. Pogrebins says that “gifts serve as something of an entry fee to New York’s loftiest social circles.” Wealth is not enough to be acknowledged by the social elite. A deeply rooted love for the arts is required and investing large sums of money to popular organizations masks feigned interest. I do not see art as a business, but others think very differently.

Knowing art donations have self-interested intentions, I am surprised to read on and find a wealthy couple breaking the norm. Shelly and Donald Rubin donate money to small art establishments, such as the Bronx and Queens Museums, with no expectations in return. Their donations, one $300,000 and two $500,000, are small compared to the $100 million donation to the New York Public Library, but large compared to other donations received from these small institutions. The Rubins simply love art and feel obligated to support it. True and honest intentions.

Unlike larger institutions which host events to praise and publicize those who contribute, smaller institutions have little to offer. Only a very grateful thank-you. That is why the Rubins’ string of donations to a number of lesser-known art institutions is surprising. Their hands on approach is also a shock. While many donate through representatives, the Rubins discuss issues face-to-face. “At the Bronx Museum, for example, Mr. Rubin talked at length with Ms. Block about building attendance before deciding to help finance the museum’s free admission.” The Rubins act on their concerns and besides a short article on The Times, they have little acknowledgment.

I hate less than meaningful intentions so this article was a nice read. Pretending to have a passion for art by signing a check takes away from those who love art, but do not have means to support it. However, I cannot judge because I am neither a lover for the arts nor a wealthy socialite, but I can have an opinion.

Works Cited

Pogrebin, Robin. “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/arts/design/these-donors-will-take-anything-but-manhattan.html?ref=design>.

New York Times Arts Blog: New approach to filmmaking

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Aishwarya Bhatia

Novelty+ controversy+ attention-grabbing title sequence = approach to a successful movie

As conception of new ideas becomes more difficult, filmmakers run the risk of being called imitative and boring. As a result, filmmakers today have adopted a new strategy to ensure their movie’s success at the box office. Bill Condon’s “The Fifth Estate” about Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder is a quintessential example.

Julian Assange, an internationally recognized man, provides the basis of novelty and controversy in Condon’s new venture. As the leader of a controversial organization, Assange has been deemed, as the title of the article suggests, “both hero and villain, and irresistible”. According to David Carr, Assange’s recognition and “transnational” accent makes him a prime choice of filmmakers today. In fact, there were five movies vying to capture the story of WikiLeaks, but only one documentary (“We Steal Secrets”) and the upcoming movie (“The Fifth Estate”) went in production.

To promote his film, Condon has assigned Prologue (a digital design company) the responsibility to creatively advertise the movie. The two-minute long title sequence aims to “re-create the [17,000 year-old] history of the news media” and highlight the creation of an ultimate forum that has become subject to controversy around the world. In fact, the opening sequence traces history from “oral precedents” and shamans of developing civilizations to written language to printing press in Renaissance, all the way to digital devices we use today.

Although I find Condon’s approach very innovative and entrepreneurial, I am unsure of how the audiences will react to the plot in general. Benedict Cumberbatch, who will essay the role of Julian Assange, is known for his acting skills. (Honestly, it is surprisingly that his appearance bears so much resemblance to Assange’s.) The movie sounds promising and novel, but as Carr mentions, Assange’s character may strike a chord with the audience, and remind them of different heroes and villains in past movies and television shows. If it turns out that Assange’s character bears resemblance with popular characters of the past, (namely, Tom Cruise in “Minority Report,” Harrison Ford in “Blade Runner,” and Robert Redford in “3 Days of the Condor”), then the movie will lose its appeal. A novel idea should be exactly what it promises—new.

At the same time, however, the movie has two things going for it. One, the distinct prologue is bound to draw the audience’s attention and incite some curiosity within those who know little to nothing about WikiLeaks and its operations. Moreover, the movie comes off as a thriller, which gives the viewer more to work with and think about. Prologue’s title sequence leaves the viewer on edge by using visual techniques where “pulses of light…circle the globe, in some new digital order that appears not to have sorted itself just yet.” This uncertainty will perhaps be the primary momentum that drags people into movie theaters on October 18^th.

Second, coincidentally or not, the movie is releasing in light of a government shutdown and political problems that have accelerated due to that. This may work to the movie’s benefit, especially compelling the skeptics and cynics to go to the theaters.

What I want to know is how the movie features Julian Assange. Contrary to expectations, Julian Assange has already condemned the movie for tailoring facts and wrongly depicting him for the purposes of filmmaking. The outlooks on his character will obviously vary form the perspectives of his supporters to Bill Condon to his opponents, but the question is: how will he really be portrayed—as a hero or as a villain?

Work Cited

Carr, David. “Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Founder, Has His Cinema Moment.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2013. <www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/movies/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-has-his-cinema-moment.html?ref=arts&_r=0>.

Cieply, Michael. “Creating a Prologue for ‘Fifth Estate'” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/movies/creating-a-prologue-for-fifth-estate.html>.

$25 or $0?

Posted on October 10, 2013 by christinezhou

When one walks into the Metropolitan Museum of Art the first thing they’ll see is a large board broadcasting the prices for admission. Most people pay the full price, a few don’t. Those few are the ones who know about the “suggested” clause; one can pay however much they wish, whether it be $25 or $1. A recent article in the New York Times titled “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum” explores the ethical aspect of the museum purposely making their fee policy difficult to understand.

I have been to the Metropolitan Museum several times and, aware of the tiny print I usually only pay a minimal amount (eg. $2). However, I often see people to the left and right of me paying the full-price. In addition, I often hear confused chatter from tourists who see the word “recommended” on the board yet are unsure of what that means. Is it right for the Met to leave it to the individuals to figure out for themselves what the appropriate amount is? Two lawsuits against the museum seem to argue no.

The article mentions that the museum is being sued on the grounds that it has misled the public, not only concerning how much to pay but whether or not it is necessary to pay at all. An 1876 lease and 1893 state law both require the museum to admit free entry on most days of the week. However, in the early 1970’s the Met was running a deficit and director Hoving asked the city for permission to charge admission daily. Heckscher; NYC Parks Commissioner and Administrator of Recreation and Cultural Affairs, said he would allow the museum to charge a fee as long as its amount was “left entirely to the individual’s discretion.” This agreement never made its way onto the lease and both lawsuits are arguing that this agreement is violating both the lease and state law. One is now suing for fraud and the other is seeking recompense on behalf of those who say they have been duped the Met’s admission policy.

I think the recompense suit is taking it too far because the Met can’t be expected to interview all those who’ve felt they’ve been wronged and ask them what they would’ve paid had the word “recommended” been larger. And if the museum isn’t willing to enlarge the font on the board then they should at least train their cashiers to clarify instead of beating around the bush and cheating the public. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen a befuddled tourist give up after a round of questions that seem to get nowhere and pay the full price. Hopefully, the suits will pressure the museum into displaying the word “donation” instead of “recommended” or “suggestion”.

The Met also allows customers to buy tickets online but it only has the listed options of general admission, seniors, etc. It doesn’t allow you to pay what you wish. They also have an annual membership that grants you free access at a cost of $60. If you have the option to pay a minimum of a few cents as a donation and are shelling out a mandatory fee then that’s not only unethical but possibly illegal, even taking into account the agreement between Hoving and Heckscher.

What do you think about the Met’s intentional vagueness regarding its admission policy? Is it illegal? Or simply misleading? What role do the ticket takers play in all of this? What results do you wish to see come out of the lawsuits?

Lyall, Sarah. “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum.” New York Times. 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/arts/design/seeking-clarity-on-fees-at-the-metropolitan-museum.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=arts&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1381205923-6iwcBCH1YDYwTumAcUtieg>.

Glee: The Proper Goodbye

Posted on October 10, 2013 by marcsaadia

As most teens around the country already know, Glee star, Corey Monteith passed away this past July. The report quickly spread throughout the Internet and social media, and teens all over the world were already commemorating the TV star. The cause of death was initially unknown, but most expected the worst. A relapse. After battling his addictions for many years, Corey finally seemed to be on the right track. He completed rehab and was seemingly sober. However, the tests came back, and indeed, the cause of Corey’s death was due to substance abuse. It was a fatal concoction of heroin and alcohol. This article explores the how the TV show chooses to commemorate Corey.

Many patiently anticipated the season premiere, to see the way Corey would be remembered, and how a lesson on drug and alcohol abuse would be portrayed. Surprisingly there was no lesson at all. The show kicks off weeks after Finn’s (Corey) death with many of the students still suffering with grief, although still no innuendo as to how Finn passed. A show filled with attempts to positively affect the lives of teens simply passed up on a golden opportunity to enlighten on the dangers on substance abuse. After all the lessons taught about relationships, being who you are, and not falling into peer pressure among many others, how can glee fail to include such a current issue? How could a show that has influenced tons of teens in a positive way simply leave out this important lesson? Not only did the show fail to take the time to caution teens about the detrimental affects of drugs and alcohol, the show went out of its way to make sure the cause of Finn’s death remained unknown throughout the episode. Was blowing it off the answer? Many disagree and believe it would have been proper and fitting to include a lesson on the dangers of substance abuse. This is an issue so prevalent among teens around the country; an issue that has taken many lives and forever crippled many families. How can they pass on this moment?

However, some critics agree the producers did make an effort to emphasize celebration of life. They deem the rough moment in Corey’s life trivial by leaving his cause of death unknown in the show. Instead of looking at his shortcomings, they focus on appreciate his amazing life.

The bottom line is, substance abuse is an issue today that must be addressed. I think substance abuse is the worst thing a student will face in high school because it is the hardest to avoid. In many cases, it is part on fitting into the “crew”. Statistics show that the great majority of teens are not educated on the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol. Do you think the producers of Glee should have attempted to educate on the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol? Or do you think they took the right approach by leaving the bad part out?

Works Cited

http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/arts/television/glee-addresses-the-loss-of-cory-monteith.html?ref=arts&_r=0

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/prescription/abuse-international-statistics.html

http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-shocking-facts-about-teens-and-drug-use

Gogol Mood Diary

Posted on October 9, 2013 by hannautkin

The aquiline nose of a Roman showed physical power even if the person did not have political power. The way bears whine is the sound I heard whenever the main character complained. I imagined the courtship rituals to look a lot like the games of Eugene Onegin’s social parties. Gogol’s humor reminded me of Oscar Wilde- both very political, cerebral and witty. The main character’s swagger reminded me of the antics of these kind of gym men.The way the book incorporated a lot of city walking and eating and disdain reminded me of Mr. Bloom from Ulysses.

Mood Diary: The Nose

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Edward Mordechay

The Nose was a very pleasant read. There were many moments where I was completely involved yet confused. I was constantly forced to imagine the world of The Nose and to add information to fill in the gaps of abnormality.

Right of the bat I was imagining a perfectly shaped nose, and I mean perfect, something a person only sees once in a lifetime. If the nose didn’t seem that great than I don’t even think it was worth writing about. Now Adam Scott’s got one of those noses I would read about.

The mans reaction to the nose being in the bread was very funny because he’ not surprised, but dumfounded. He’s just like Pauly D in this gif, he’s confused and has no idea what’s going on, but he’s not sure what to think about either. In The Nose Jakovlevitch feels even more like this when his wife starts accusing him and threatens to go to the police. That was particularly funny because she was belittling his workmanship and not that a nose ended up in the bread she made. This is also why I speculate that Jakovlevitch’s wife cut the nose and put it in the bread. This is very plausible because the story closely resembles castration and who else to do it than your own wife, the person you sleep with every night.

The story continues to entertain when Jakovlevitch tries to rid himself of the nose. What perplexes me is that he never thinks of giving the nose back, wouldn’t you want your nose back? Nonetheless, he gets to the bridge and in an attempt to throwing the nose in the ocean,presumably, he gets caught. I feel like he gave this reaction, and even more so when the sentry told him of the nose falling.

The best part of the novel by far was the second part with the Major’s reaction. I feel like the Major thinks of himself as if he were the Great Sphinx of Giza because of his narcissism and because the Sphinx itself has no nose.

What also perpetuates me at this point in the story is that the Major asks his valet to pass him a mirror which means that the valet saw the Major’s face, but later on in the story the Major feels embarrassed to show his face even though it was already seen.

My favorite scene in the whole story was when the advertiser gives the Major some snuff, a piece of tobacco you sniff, and the Major goes crazy because he has no nose in order to sniff the tobacco. It was such a nice slice of irony as in this picture where the ice creams are eating the people.

By the end of the novel I think the Major feels like this

Even more so because he rejected Madame’s daughter and he got all this attention from the story of the nose which made him even more popular when he got the nose back.

Overall I thought the story was mainly written to give off some laughs and to create this inception like feel, which cracks fun at class ranking and how it’s a joke that we take it so seriously while it only creates confusion over what is actually real and what isn’t.