Critical Review: Afrojack

Posted on by
Reply

Is This Real Life?

This past weekend I attended a concert that set me free and made me want to dance. The concert was performed on Saturday, September 22nd, at The Roseland Ballroom in New York City by famous disc jockey, Afrojack (Nick Van De Wall). This was my first time attending a concert by a DJ. The event was called for 7:00 O’clock, but of course the main event, Afrojack, did not come on until the clock struck midnight.  I stepped off the train at about 7:40, and headed towards the venue, only to be face by a line that was almost fully around the block. Standing behind what felt like 10,000 people all dressed in different expressive attire built up an anxiety and anticipation in me that I could not handle. After an hour and a half of pacing and exhaustive waiting it was my turn to get into the illuminated venue.

The second I stepped foot into the venue, I felt a rush of happiness and sovereignty over myself. This is a place where everyone is accepted and encouraged to dance and simply have an amazing time. The feeling is euphoric. All responsibilities, afflictions, and heartaches seem to vanish when your feet touch the dance floor.

The first thing I notice is the sheer amount of people flooding the dance floor. There must have been at least 2000 unique individuals in my line of view. The next thing I noticed was the colorful and funky attire that most patrons decided to wear. From a person in a teddy bear costume to a man dressed in red from hat to sneakers. From an LED sound activated tank top to furry tie-dye boots; they had it all.

Opening act Leroy Styles kicked off the night with a bang. The pounding music and sharp laser lights enlivened and illuminated the crowd. I could hear the laughter and enjoyment spreading like a wildfire would in a dense forest across the crowd. His rhythmic music set the bar high for the expectations of what to come from the main event. Everyone was living in the moment. People were dancing, jumping, and truly enjoying the first-pumping music. Although Leroy Styles was truly sensational, the anticipation continued as we patiently waited for the main event.

As Leroy’s set was coming to an end, the Afrojack chants began. But, he was not the next act. It was a bittersweet moment to see Shermanology take the stage. Although he proved to be an amazing disc jockey and music producer, he is no Afrojack and thus the anticipation continued. However, once Shermanology’s invigorating music started pumping, Afrojack was temporarily forgotten. Everyone in the venue seized the moment and savored the music. The funny thing is, I have no clue what or who a Shermanology is, but in that moment I felt the urge to participate in the large crowd of dancers.

Usually I would choose to attend a concert where I know at least three or four songs by the performer. At this concert I can honestly say I did not know one song, but the music still seemed to stimulate all my senses. You can feel the powerful energy bouncing around the crowd and thus cannot stop your feet from moving. You can hear and feel the pulsating music vibrating throughout your body and cannot help yourself from screaming along with the beat. You can taste the sensation of love in the air, which is given off by the liberated crowd, as if it landed on the tip of your tongue.

The clock was approaching midnight, but the party was just getting started. Shermanology’s set was coming to a close, and everyone in the building knew what that meant. The moment everyone has waited so patiently for. Afrojack. The screen behind the DJ booth lit up with a five-minute countdown as a beat played in the background in tandem with the seconds ticking away. Theses minutes must have been the longest minutes of all time, but each passing second caused a more ferocious response from the crowd. The beat as well as the crowd got louder, Louder, LOUDER, as the ticks dwindled under 30 seconds. When the countdown clock hit zero the roaring beat dropped and Afrojack quickly appeared from underground to the top of his irradiated DJ booth. All I could here at this point was the thrashing music and the squeal of the extremely excited crowd.

Afrojack has finally arrived. He initiated with an electrifying song followed by a short but empowering pep talk. He exclaimed how excited and nervous he was to be playing in best place in the world, “Newwwwww Yorkkkkkkk Cityyyyy!” This certainly psyched up the crowd for they reacted with a loud roar and intense dancing, which continued deep into the night. The interesting part was, people were rarely dancing with each other once Afrojack came on. All eyes were on Afrojack and the crowd seemed to be mimicking his movements. It was as if he was the king and everyone wanted to be just like him. You would think after 5 hours straight of dancing people would get tired, but not here, the dancing never ceased. The clock was approaching one O’clock and Afrojack and the bunch were still going strong.

Unfortunately it was time for me to leave. As I exited I saw many smiling faces, along with my own through the reflection of the doors, leaving the venue. The minute I stepped outside I realized I had an hour train ride back to my house in Brooklyn and probably wouldn’t be sleeping until 3:00 A.M. I hoped on quiet train, waited for the 20+ stops to pass, and finally reached my home and bed at about 3:15 A.M. I then remembered to set my alarm for 6:00 A.M the next morning, Yup, that’s 6:00 O’clock in the morning. Back to reality.

Closing of the New York City Opera

Posted on by
3

The New York City Opera, located on 75 Broad Street in Manhattan, has been running its operas since 1944.  It is now announcing its bankruptcy and will be closing.  Earlier in the month, it was asking for $7 million dollars.  Kickstarter, a company that raises funds for startups, set up a donation to raise $1 million of the $7 million that the New York City Opera needed.  Unfortunately, it was only able to raise 1/3 of the $1 million they had intended when the donation time window closed.  It has also asked Michael Bloomberg, our mayor, for funds.  Even though he has been a huge supporter of the arts, he says that neither him nor the city will be contributing to Opera’s needs.

The Opera has been trying many ways to save money since it started struggling.  In 2011, it moved from Lincoln Center to 75 Broad Street.  It has also stopped guaranteeing salaries to its musicians and performers.  Many are sad to see this Opera go, but unfortunately, it is not making enough profit to keep running its shows.

This goes back to the opening of the new opera of Anna Nicole Smith’s life, “Anna Nicole,” earlier in the month in that many people saw the opera as a way of trying to attract a younger audience.  It was criticized and ultimately failed its goal of trying to revive the opera.  It is sensible that the New York City Opera would try to present an opera that is somewhat relatable to the younger generations.  Opera has been dying out as the years go by.  Our generation knows little to nothing about opera, its music, and its performers.

Even though they are running out of funds, they should not shut down.  They have been trying to provide inexpensive tickets to shows to the New York City community since they first began.  Opera is also an art that needs to preserved, like any art in museums and galleries.  There are many ways to express a moral or story.  Dances and plays do not have to be the only way.  Operas are still part of the art world and are important, especially for people who may not be as cultured, who need to be exposed to the arts.  They might not have as much money and the New York City Opera may be the only one that is affordable for them.

In addition, European opera houses have also been trying to preserve their arts.  However, they are being funded by public subsidies (Economist).  Europeans appreciate art in different ways than Americans do.  It might be the time to start appreciating art the same way they do because opera, like all art, is important to culture.  We can tell a lot about a country’s culture through its art, but we certainly don’t want to give the image that Americans don’t care about art through eliminating one art form.  Even though it seems a bit extreme to say “eliminating one art form,” it is unbelievable that a 70 year old opera house would close down due to lack of funding.  It might mean that we are coming close to ridding ourselves of opera.

Sources:

Cooper, Michael. “New York City Opera Announces It Will Close.” ArtsBeat New York City Opera Announces It Will Close Comments. New York Times, 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/new-york-city-opera-announces-it-will-close/?ref=arts>.

Special Report. “Hands in Their Pockets.” Economist. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.economist.com/node/739323>.

VOTE FOR JACLYN TORTORA FOR MACAULAY STUDENT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE CLASS OF 2017

Posted on by
Reply

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who do not know me, my name is Jaclyn Tortora and I am running to be the representative for the Macaulay Student Council Class of 2017. I am hardworking and outspoken which is ideal because I will make sure everyone’s ideas and concerns are heard and acted upon. I will inform you of and create opportunities for you to succeed at Macaulay. You can vote starting Friday October 4th until October 6th online on Survey Monkey. Make your vote count and vote for Jaclyn! Thank you!

THe Art of Brick Review

Posted on by
Reply

The Art Of the Brick

photo 2

Legos are fun. Legos are a toy for kids. Legos allow you to create.

But are Legos art?

Nathan Sawaya seeks out to answer that question with his latest exhibition at Discovery Channel’s gallery in Times Square. I was skeptical about Legos being art; I believed that they are a toy and nothing more. They can create but to compare it to the work of oil and canvas, or marble and a chisel, simply preposterous. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Legos can be art within twenty minutes of being in the building. The exhibit had a dark and intense feeling which I found shocking due to being surrounded by children. This exhibit is more than just a thing for children to look at, the art was coming to life with what he made, the first section of the exhibit was just copying of famous pictures and paintings, some 2D, some 3D. I really enjoyed the 3D paintings taking simple paintings and making them literally materialize before you.

One painting that sticks out in my mind that I watched come to life was “American Gothic”. I never particularly enjoyed this painting, I always thought it was bland, boring, and kind of pointless. The way Nathan successfully gives it 3D depth to the woman is beyond my imagination. She is looking slightly left, a small detail in the painting that would otherwise be ignored, but Nathan represents it beautifully with Legos, no small feat.

american gothicphoto 1

But nothing could prepare me for what I saw next. The next section of the exhibit was famous sculptures recreated. Now for some background, I went to France two weeks before college started with my family. We visited The Louvre, is the best museum I have ever been to. Everything about the museum is grand, and beautiful. But one piece, one piece just stuck with me. I was walking up the stairs to go to the Mona Lisa- touristy I know- and I saw the sculpture known as “Winged Victory”. It is beautifully sculpted depiction of a female body in robes with immense wins coming out the back of it. The feeling of Awe, Power, and honestly a little intimidation was something I thought I would never feel from looking at a stone. Because when you get down to it, it is a stone. But it quickly became my favorite sculpture of all time.

And wouldn’t you know it, Nathan recreated it. Personally I think it could have used to be about 4x the size he made it, because I believe that it is more important than say, the giant totem head he made. The piece count on it was still in the thousands, so impressive nonetheless. He was able to accurately capture the feeling of awe, the same that the unknown sculpture in Greece was able to do so long ago. I am thoroughly impressed that he is able to do what he is able to do with Legos.

Now there are impressive parts of the exhibit as well as not so impressive. There was a few times I took a step back and said, hm, I could have done that, and once or twice that I said, I could have done that better. I don’t know if I could honestly but when I am at an exhibit I expect to be awed. I expect to be shocked. I expect the entire time me to have my mouth wide open, gaping and wondering how it is physically possible the artist created this piece. That may not be fair to artists, that I have such an intense hard task for the artists to accomplish without pause, but that is how I feel. For the most part when I look at the pieces I was impressed, but like I said earlier, some could use, more effort, more time, larger scale. Other than those few cases I was thoroughly captivated during my time in the exhibit.

winged_victory_louvrephoto 3

Another criticism I have is the volume of pieces presented. I stopped read on the pieces and what made him do it, gazed at each one for a decently long time, and still was in and out of the entire place in under 2 hours. I did not expect for the exhibit to take my whole afternoon but I paid to see his work and when I have to look in a book and see the other amazing things he created in the gift shop not being able to witness it myself is terrible. I was almost pouting looking through the book going, oh that would have been cool, or wow I wonder what that looks like up close. If you aren’t going to show me what he created up close don’t mock me with a 25.99$ book on his other works.

One last concern of mine. This exhibit is good. This exhibit is great! This exhibit is deeply artist with deep meaning behind some pieces, some deep and even dark symbolism at time, see the mask below.

 mask

 

This is clearly showing someone removing a mask that removes their face along with it. It is saying if you wear a mask long enough you lose who you were underneath it to start.  There are numerous examples of this tragic beauty and dark messages throughout the exhibit. And then there are 5 year old children screaming about how everything is stupid. About how they want to go home NOW. And to sit there and try to discuss with Evans about how amazing a piece is while a child is screaming because they did not get to eat all their candy made me feel like an ass. I want so badly to take this exhibit seriously as art, and want to truly look into the meaning but I felt almost childish at times being there. But Legos are “toys” not art in eyes of most of the population so children fill the place and take away from the immersion. I think there should be separate times for families to go, or maybe minimum age after say 9pm, so that this exhibit could be taken seriously.

Call me cranky, call me cynical but I cannot help that I feel the presence of children retract from the art Nathan worked so hard to create.

All in all, I would recommend to anyone who: enjoys art, doesn’t want to commit a crazy amount of time, and be in too serious of an environment.

Destroying Art, Why?

Posted on by
8
The suppression of opposing viewpoints that Hitler felt threatened his regime was key to the success of the Third Reich. Here, Nazi officials burn books by Jewish and communist authors.

Destroying art is a crime. Defacing, vandalizing, or trying to suppress the message it is sending is wrong. Pure and simple. According to this article the reasons for people destroying art is generally three reasons: religion, politics, and aesthetics. It may be an extreme example I used but that was one of the first things Hitler did when he came into power in Germany. He destroyed any “degenerate” books and art pieces. Why you ask? Hitler understood the power behind a message and an art piece. He knew it could influence people to rise up, make people question why and that is the most dangerous thing to a person in power. So he had to remove any chance that the people would be able to be inspired to do anything.

Now what does this have to do with the article I linked you say? Well if you read it you will see that people are still trying to suppress the messages that are trying to come out today. Art is a powerful tool, and the power lies in its message- whether that message be: political, religious, or questioning society. People have different opinions. Awesome. An art piece can get you mad, an art piece can make you infuriated, but to try to stop others from viewing the work is wrong. The artist worked hard to create a piece to send out their message and although you may not agree with it, you have to respect it. I think that throwing paint on a painting, cutting a painting, or trying to destroy a painting only strengthens the message. It shows that it is working. It is causing a reaction so violent that the only response is to completely shut down and destroy the work. Ironic in a sense, trying to censor a message and only validating it.

It makes me sick that people do this to art that people work so hard to create. Pieces of history being destroyed is the single most selfish thing a human being can do. I remember seeing something on this a little while ago and it made me sick. This kid defaces a few thousand year old tomb, and what does he write?

“Ding Jinhao was here.”

The graffiti on an Egyptian carving at the 3,500-year-old Luxor Temple reads: "Ding Jinhao was here."

REALLY? I think people like that should not exist in the world. I cannot comphrend what he was thinking as he did that and I can honestly say even though I have never met him, I hate Ding Jinhao. I can reasonably understand why someone would destroy a piece of art for a political message. Because it could help further your cause. It will get publicity and cause a stir in the news, possibly. Like in the article when it mentions

“Adherents of the women’s suffrage movement also occasionally turned on art, choosing targets like art galleries where privileged men might gaze upon nudes. In 1914, a woman attacked Velázquez’s “Rokeby Venus” at the National Gallery, slicing up the back of the recumbent nude, as photographs in the exhibition show.”

So I can understand that. But in reality even if you do deface art chances are that there will not be much news coverage. The museums and curators of art purposefully do not publicize the acts of vandalism to make sure that they do not create copy cats. If people see they can get notoriety and infamy due to these senseless acts then they will become significantly more prominent. I agree 100% with that statement and think these idiots who do things like this should be forgotten and gone.

 

Pinecrest, 0. <http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/mwh/webquests/9-dep&tot/9-NaziRule.htm>.

Rachman, Tom. N.p.. Web. 1 Oct 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/design/art-under-attack-at-tate-britain-explores-motives.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=arts>.

Metamorphosis Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry this is late, it would not let me post Sunday, and I just remembered now that I could post them.

Contemporary vs. Traditional

Posted on by
3

Many show producers stray away from traditional performances and put contemporary spins on classics such as Romeo and Juliet. David Leveaux’s “Romeo and Juliet,” for example, which opened a little over a week ago, featured a Romeo dressed in a leather jacket, hoodie, and T-shirt. As Charles Isherwood puts it, Romeo was dressed like an “urban hipster.”

In the article “To Renovate or Not to Renovate?,” Charles Isherwood questions whether cloaking the text with contemporary costumes is more effective than sticking with traditional ones. Essentially, he’s asking, old or new? He notices that the “norm” for Shakespearian productions is contemporary style, and that it’s actually strange nowadays to see a production of a Shakespearian classic set in the Elizabethan times.

Isherwood discusses that there are many reasons for this decision to perform modern takes on these classic works. One is definitely to spike interest. The modern factor makes these works much more relatable to the audience. In the business point of view, this is crucial in defining the success or failure of a show. Along with that, the language spoken throughout the shows can be a barrier for the audience. Shakespearian language tends to be very dense and hard to understand, so there are a few choices to be made. Either the language can be made “simpler,” or the imagery can be more relatable for the audience to stay in tune with the show.

In the end, it all depends on whether or not the producers are able to convey the significance of the story in a contemporary setting or not. In this field, there have been many attempts to create contemporary productions, but the modern additions cloud the original spirit of the story, resulting in bland shows. But that is not to say that there aren’t any that have been successful. Nicholas Hytner’s take on “Othello” and Robert Falls’s  “King Lear” are two examples of superb productions of classics set in contemporary settings.

I think that there is definitely room for innovation in these shows and it does make it more appealing to watch something the audience can relate to. I personally find it very interesting to see how the producer can incorporate the spirit of the story and shift it into a modern setting. As long as the story behind the modern mask is still intact, I think that contemporary spins on the shows are fine.  Although there are some who people may like to stick with the “original” or traditional story, I think what makes these new shows interesting is the fact that they are different from the books themselves. It gives the audience more perspective.

What do you prefer? Traditional or contemporary? What did you think of the shows you watched recently?

Article Link : http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate? – NYTimes.com.” Theater – The New York Times. N.p., 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Destruction of Art

Posted on by
7

A new exhibition in Britain challenges the notion that all art should be protected and claim “certain assaults contain meaning and even insights into history and art” (Rachman). I personally agree with this statement. During revolutions and movements, art pieces will be destroyed. For example, the article mentions the Irish Republican Army’s action of blowing up Nelson’s Pillar, which represented a British naval hero. The destruction of Nelson’s Pillar at the time is necessary. The Irish Republican Army’s main objective was to break away from British rule, Nelson’s Pillar acted as a symbol of Britain’s power. The act of destroying it is important to signify a revolution. It would have been strange if the Irish led a revolution, but left a British monument standing. This would weaken the Irish’s resolve and confuse the revolutionaries. Preserving art is the least of their worries during a revolution. A revolution in any part of the world would never leave the current ruler’s monuments standing.

Although it is regrettable art is ruined in the process, I believe it is a necessary process. In some circumstances it is a necessary to win the war such as the melting of the statue of King George III into 42,088 bullets during the American Revolution. The addition ammunition assisted the cause. In both these circumstances, destroying art tells historians a story, which is important to record the past. Some people may see the destroyed remains of a statue as a loss of culture, but in reality it is a fountain of knowledge for historians. It brings up questions like: who were the current rulers, who destroyed these arts and why?

The article mentions the Chapman brothers, who buy works of art to deface them. Their actions may be legal, but I don’t agree with them. I regard them as vandals similar to the ones who have deface public art and imposed the cost of repairs on the public. The only difference is the legality of their actions. Their desire to deface art can not be justified on a larger scope or for the sake of any impactful cause. On the other hand, the brothers can claim their act of defacing art is their own style of art. Their actions have sparked many debates concerning if the defacing of art should be allowed under their circumstances.

What do you think about the destruction of art and the actions of the Chapman brothers?

P.S. I would advise against looking up images of the works that have been defaced by the Chapman brothers because of the drastic changes they have made. But, you are free to do so if curiosity gets the best of you.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times:

Rachman, Tom. “Passion, Principle or Both? Deciphering Art Vandalism ‘Art Under Attack,’ at Tate Britain, Explores Motives.” 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/design/art-under-attack-at-tate-britain-explores-motives.html?pagewanted=1&ref=arts

 

 

An Interwoven Globe at the Met – Breathtaking Textiles and an Inspiring Meaning

Posted on by
Reply

There was one thing I learned today: the Met shopping bag is fuchsia with black Times New Roman words lining the entire bag in different languages – except for one sentence, their English translation, is white. What do those white words say? “One Met. Many Worlds”. This place really made that motto clear to me today.

In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the exhibition “Interwoven Globe: The Worldwide Textile Trade” has already celebrated twelve days of display and was swarming with spectators from many nations. No one was standing straight – every one was scrutinizing the hundreds of fabrics while bending down. I swear some of their noses touched the surfaces of the cloths.

Ranging from tapestries to clothing to bedcovers, the exhibition gives the audience an insight as to what everyday life was like in the 1500s to 1800s. But most important of all, the diverse content of every piece of fabric represents the trading and cross-cultural relationships between countries in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. Unlike the other special exhibitions in store at the Met, which often feature a single artist’s work, the textiles in this gallery was a fusion of Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, and Colonial America arts and resources.

What is so special about this exhibit? Yes, the textiles were the combination of different cultures, but how? Let me use one of the works I saw as an example. The Abduction of Helen, which is around 190 inches wide and 140 inches high, was produced in China and sold to the Portuguese market in the early 17th Century. The story depicted, as you probably all know, is the legendary event that sparked the Trojan War. The subject of the tapestry is based on Greek mythology and history, but Chinese motifs were incorporated in the design. In the top border of the drapery, there are two phoenixes facing each other, and on the bottom border, there are two dancing dragons. Both phoenix and dragon are mythical creatures of China. Other than the animals, the waves of water in the top right of the tapestry were designed with Chinese touches. In addition to the Chinese contribution to this work, the Met’s description suggests that the faces of the characters in the textile were painted with a European style, which was most likely done by the Chinese artisans who were taught the painting style in Japan from Jesuit missionaries. The pigments also gave evidence to intercultural exchange, since blue-green pigments found in the drapery were not used in Asia, and the white was common in Japan but not found in Europe. So, the overall evaluation of this piece: A LOT of cultures was involved in manufacturing this single textile including China, Europe, and Japan. There were many other textiles that were even more intercultural than The Abduction of Helen, but what’s so fun about me giving you a written summary? I highly recommend that you go experience it for yourself. It was truly rewarding.

“Interwoven Globe” was not only a massive showcase of aesthetics; rather, it was visually pleasing AND insightful in history and cultural exchange. When I first walked into the gallery, there was a long paragraph on the wall describing the historical background that stimulated international trading in the 1500s (leading to such beautiful fabrics). As I continued on to study each of the installations, I learned that art was not only art back then, it was business as well. In order to increase business opportunities, main textile countries such as India and China would “adapt” to the buyers’ interests, and interests = culture. Therefore, in many of the textiles made in China or India, the design motifs used were not entirely Asian. Instead, European (the big buyers of Asian products) styles were commonly incorporated in the designs. Visually absorbing the amalgamation of ancient cultures is what this exhibition is all about, and it really supports the Met’s slogan. Many worlds in a single artwork.

The strategic placement of works in “Interwoven Globe” was also essential to the experience. The gallery consists of multiple rooms, and each room dedicates art to a different time period or different circumstance under which the art was made. While entering every room, a summary of the works can be found with a title that pretty much sums up the room: “Textile Traditions and Trade in Mexico and Peru”, “Indian Painted and Printed Cottons: Inspiration and Imitation”, “Chinese Silk Exports and Trade Textiles in Japan”…” Every room led to a different culture, but they also led to a later time period of textile trade. Beginning with Silk Road and overseas exchange between Asian countries and European countries of the 1500s, the exhibition ended with Colonial America in the 1800s. Not only was the exhibit a chronological timeline, but it was a gradient of showing the change of textile art as time progressed and different cultural styles became imprinted in Colonial American fabric.

Along with the actual art and their descriptions, Met provided other resources that helped make clear the importance of cultural exchange. There was a projector that showed a map of the world with arrows and lines indicating the trading relationships between countries in different continents. From the diagram, I was able to understand that crossing culture was directly related to trade. This was probably a point the Met wanted to make? Even if the Met did not intend for the exhibition to be both artistic and academic, this was definitely an overpowering experience because it was intellectual and visual at the s