Reply
New photos on the left.
-
- Confused
-
- Dark
-
- sick & feeling hopeless 🙁
-
- One plate missing…
The Metamorphosis was a rendition of Kafka’s well known tale told through the lens of dancers, artists and musicians, whose set and visual drawing power made a somewhat static short story into a fluid and dynamic event which didn’t have a moment of boredom to spare for its audience.
While the craftmanship, by Simon Daw, and sound portraiture, by Frank Moon, were astonishing brilliant (as well as spot on in subject and unique in appearance) the limelight was equally shared by the unusually intriguing dances and perfect placement decisions by choreographer Arthur Pita, whose impeccable taste shined through the work of his contorting and especially able dancer Edward Watson of the Royal Ballet. While the dance did have its moments of stark glory, its emphasis lay with the visuals and less on the central dramatic argument of the story. Thus our emotional sympathies were not in tune with the actors/dancers actions on stage, as instead our brains were astounded by an auditory and visual feast. The subtle change in storyline, particularly the setting of a seemingly 60s Communist Czechoslovakia as opposed to a turn of the century Vienna (as well as the choice of replacing Kafka’s nondescript beard boarders with Jewish men) did work well with the content however the alterations could have been less offensive in terms of the latter choice. Overall, the mostly British designed dance projects more of an impression of a bombastic Czech play as it grabbed audience with innovations in design and choreography as well as apt choice in pace and bundled its successes more in its design and its dancers’ acting talents rather than its ability to draw out heart felt emotions from the viewers for the poor tragic life of the bug Gregor Samsa.
The recent recession has affected many countries worldwide. Particularly, one of the most affected countries was Spain, who had undergone some severe budget cuts in the arts as a result of the recession. The government no longer funds art institutions and museums in Spain- they must rely on private donors if they want to continue providing an artistic outlet to the general public. Private donors however, are increasingly hard to find, and therefore the artists had to find a new solution to their problems.
These artists however, have seemed to band together to ensure that art remains in the lives of the citizens of Spain. In Madrid, Art Finds New Friends At Matadero, Red Bull Adds Money (and Energy) to Culture by Doreen Carjaval is an article detailing exactly how these groups work together.
The Matadero is an old abandoned slaughterhouse full of graffiti and blood stains. Yes. You read that correctly, blood stains. And yet, for years artists banded together in this area to showcase their artistic talents. Now, this movement has begun on a greater scale, encompassing larger groups of artists. Red Bull is an energy drink company, and they have payed to have a share of the slaughterhouse. They provide the Matadero with a good sum of money in exchange for advertisement of their products in the slaughterhouse. Similarly music groups now occupy rooms, and their music attracts younger generations to the slaughterhouse, bringing in much needed income. Last year alone 500,000 people visited the slaughterhouse to check out what is fresh and new.
It is interesting to note that together, these groups are capable of raising enough money to ensure that art continues to be a part of their lives. And yet, sadly, the amount of money that they need grows each year as they lose more and more endorsements from outside parties.
This article really shows how people with a passion can unite for a common cause. These people are passionate about what they do in their everyday lives, and therefore they do everything in their power to keep it there, even if it involves cooperating with a stylistically completely different group of artists. I think it is a great example of how team work can help foster growth, and can help people achieve their goals. In the United States, several schools also experienced budget cuts to the art department, and several schools did something very similar to what is happening in Spain, though on a much lower scale. This article just goes to show that if you want something, you have to work for it, because nothing is ever free in life.
Carjavel, Doreen. “In Madrid, Art Finds New Friends At Matadero, Red Bull Adds Money (and Energy) to Culture.” New York Times Sept.-Oct. 2013
I tried to focus on images of chaos, darkness, and the mundane. (New original photos are on the right.)
Particularly during times of social unrest, people are influenced by mass communication. Whether radio or television, mass media is an effective means of challenging social norms and influencing the public’s opinions. Never was this more accurate than during the 1960’s. It was a decade when protestors suffered the abuse of police dogs and fire-hoses, a decade when protesters forced a generation of Americans to reevaluate what it meant to be human and what it meant to be equal.
In his article “Adorable Baby, Doubting Dad, Teachable Moment”, Neil Genzlinger extols “The Van Dyke Show” for not only the social boundaries that the show breaks, but the artful way in which it questioned those societal boundaries. Neil Genzlinger admires the show’s courage to not only bring a black family onto a cast that was historically all-white, but to depict that black family as an intelligent, productive middle class family. This, Neil Genzlinger points out, was all done during an era when viewers weren’t expecting to be “jostled out of their comfort zone.” It was done when race riots and segregation were some of the most controversial topics of the day. The decision to incorporate a black middle class family in the show shows a steady moral compass and confidence on the part of the filmmakers.
Still, Neil Genzlinger praises the scene for more than its admirable message. Genzlinger reflects on the slyness with which the producers of the show introduced the black family. After minutes of building up the friendliness of the “Petersons,” the main character Rob, opens the door to introduce them. The 1960’s audience sees a well dressed, middle class family, the cliche America family, except for their skin. This Genzlinger explains is how bold messages and new ideas are supposed to be introduced. In fact, Genzlinger goes on to disparage the blunt manner many modern shows and movies adopt to address the contentious topics of our day. Genzlinger argues that many current producers have abandoned all trace of art, even suggesting that many producers have turned to breaking boundaries with the intention of changing viewer stats and not viewer attitudes.
But if Neil Genzlinger were with me now, I would ask him why these bold and controversial ideas need to be presented in an “artful” way. Why it is regrettable when a producer does not hide his message until the last minute? If he were here with me now, I would sit him in front of my computer and torrent, oops I mean buy, the first season of “The Newsroom.” It is a show that tackles many of today’s biggest issues in the most blatant and unapologetic tone imaginable. Nearly every episode, Will McAvoy sits in his chair and scrutinizes some comment, bill, or action that comes from Washington. It’s simply perfect. And I’m not the only one who feels this way, not by a long shot. Every week, 12 times a year 2.1 million viewers turn on their television to watch Tom Sorkin’s (director) show. Every week, Tom Sorkin enlightens a generation of Americans of the flaws in our economic and political system. Every week, Tom Sorkin shows that a message can be just as effective in its barest form. If art is deemed not by art critics, but by the people, then the unadorned message of “The Newsroom” has most certainly been deemed art. It seems, thats it not how your message, but what your message is.
Even if Genzlinger admitted that a bluntly stated message can be effective, I would wonder how he thinks that subtlety is dead. Look no further than HBO. Two gay men, Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Parsons, play a genius physicist and a business womanizer. Without saying a word about their sexuality on the screen, the two men have helped turned America’s head to confront the injustices and inequalities that continue to persist. Clearly, subtlety and the progressive messages that come with it are not dead.
In Jennifer Schuessler’s article, “A Star Philosopher Falls, And a Debate over Sexism is Set Off”, Colin McGinn, a philosopher at the University of Miami, willingly left his tenured post after being accused of sexually harassing a graduate student. This issue became public to philosophers all over social media and blogs. Mr. McGinn tried defending himself on blogs by noting a difference between suggesting a relationship or just entertaining it. His post also included an “alternative meaning of a crude term for masturbation” (Schuessler, “A Star Philosopher Falls, And a Debate over Sexism is Set off”). Mr. McGinn described his relationship with the undergraduate student as an “intellectual romance” (Schuessler, “A Star Philosopher Falls, And a Debate over Sexism is Set off”). However, the student’s boyfriend, Benjamin Yelle, said he saw many e-mails and text messages of Mr. McGinn speaking flirtatiously to her. Benjamin Yelle noted that in May of 2012 Mr. McGinn asked the student to have sex three times over the summer.
Mr. McGinn’s case highlighted an old issue on discrimination against women in the culture of philosophy. Since philosophers like Aristotle and Kant, it was questioned if women were capable of reason and thinking. There are many reasons women have fallen behind men. The problem is that women don’t speak up to defend themselves when sexually harassed. However, a blog called What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy?, features anonymous stories of women being harassed. Mr. McGinn’s case is also encouraging women to be less ashamed and start publicly speaking about harassment.
What struck me while reading this article is the fact that the environment in philosophy has been women-unfriendly for a long time. There are many debatable factors in philosophy that imply sexual discrimination. The article mentions a lack of female mentors, difficult methods of arguing for women, and “highly technical nature of much contemporary Angle-American philosophy” (Schuessler, “A Star Philosopher Falls, And a Debate over Sexism is Set off”). Women struggle on finding the right way to argue because if they argue too much, they’re shrews, but if they hold back, they’re considered as poor philosophers. Many events have tried to make philosophy an equal environment for women and men. A gathering known as the Bellingham Summer Philosophy Conference aims at eliminating the sexual discrimination in philosophy by establishing an informal “be nice” rule. Also, the Gendered Conference Campaign, created by the blog Feminist Philosophers tracks all male-conference lineups. Even citations in leading philosophy journals show that women make up less than 4 percent. The chairwoman of the philosophy department at the University of Sheffield in England, Jennifer Saul, wrote an essay on the discussions of Princeton faculty members. Members would sort graduate students into groups, such as smart and not hard-working or stupid. Mrs. Saul said they categorized women as stupid, which made them scared of taking risks in philosophy.
SCHUESSLER, JENNIFER. “A Star Philosopher Falls, and a Debate Over Sexism Is Set Off.” NYTIMES.COM. N.p., 2 Aug. 2013. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/arts/colin-mcginn-philosopher-to-leave-his-post.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
Jender. “What Is It like to Be a Woman in Philosophy?” What Is It like to Be a Woman in Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. <http://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com/>.
Works that have survived the test of time and are still relevant in our modern society face the distortion and re-adaptation of modern directors. These renovations can go either way; sometimes the new drab reveals an aspect of the play that was not understood before and other times a mess of props disguise the writer’s original intention.
The first sentence of Charles Isherwood’s article, “To Renovate or Not to Renovate” encapsulates what he is trying to say. He opens with, “Wherefore art thou riding a motorcycle, Romeo?” He introduces the question: Should we alter the classical plays of old to fit our modern audience?
I believe that costume and set are not meant to be completely permanent, and the addition of new dimensions can add to the success of the play. In particular, I applaud the introduction of new and vivid imagery that serves to revive works of art that would be lost otherwise. These acts should be regarded in a positive manner, because they incorporate important ideals of the past to a modern audience. Attention grabbing motorcycles allow the audience to be encapsulated by the work, and through this they will receive the message more completely. However, if the meaning of the work of art is distorted, the piece should be discarded or presented in a way that it is not seen as a direct adaptation of the original work.
It is hard to determine what is too far in the changing of an old text to please a modern audience. The addition of loads of man jewelry onto the hand of Orlando Bloom will not distort the original points that Shakespeare intended. Similarly, Elizabethan clothing does not define Romeo’s characterization or Juliet’s suicide. However, in this play the presence of the racial tension between the black Capulets and white Montagues as well as the Renaissance fresco set with a graffiti background may add just enough unneeded fluff to distort Shakespeare’s original intent. Viewers may leave the theatre in an awe of contentment, but gain no depth of knowledge or perspective.
I believe modern adaptations have the power to grab the attention of viewers like the Globe never could. What we saw Tuesday night at the Joyce Theatre was a key example of this. Minute changes to aspects like the hobby of the daughter, religious preference of the boarders and addition of Gregor’s favorite drink did not alter Kafka’s meaning. Instead, the majority of the adaptation served to entice the viewer and relate more of what Kafka was trying to establish than a mundane version where a cockroach rolls in bed ever could. That being said, I don’t like the idea of someone walking out of theatre full of glee after seeing Orlando Bloom, and spouting how they have seen Romeo and Juliet and understand it thoroughly.
I truly believe the cinema is the true venue for intense renovation. It allows you to fully show what you are trying to do via a wider range of effects and editing. This is seen in “West Side Story” and “Homeland”, two adaptations of the same Romeo and Juliet story that relate some of the points in an entertaining way without citing the Shakespeare name. It’s almost like how a movie will tell you, “based on a true story.” You have more freedom in movies, and the theatre truly does and should not allow for such an expansive range of creativity for renovations of original works. In a perfect world, everyone would sit with his or her eyes glued to the original version of the play, but this seems to be an unrealistic expectation.
Link to article: http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all
Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate.”New York Times 26 September 2013, n. pag. Web. 27 Sep. 2013. <http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all>.
Krulwich, Sara. Orlando Bloom in “Romeo and Juliet” on Broadway.. 2013. Photograph. The New York Times, New York City. Web. 27 Sep 2013. <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/09/25/theater/20130925-shakespeare-slide-MV1Z/20130925-shakespeare-slide-MV1Z-articleLarge.jpg>.
Austin
Television shows are becoming increasingly popular with the growing availability of cable television and on-demand streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu. If this is the case, why is it so difficult to promote new shows then? In the New York Times article “Networks Go to Extremes to Promote New Shows for the Fall Season,” Bill Carter points out that advertising new shows is becoming a lot more difficult due to the large amount of television shows. Therefore, marketers are developing many new and unique promotional ideas.
For example, Carter mentions the headless horsemen in Madison Square Park that were used to promote Fox’s new series “Sleepy Hollow.” Many of us might’ve noticed them or have even taken a picture with them on our way to and from Baruch last week. Fox went beyond this and sent actors in headless costumes to city and state fairs and had local weather forecasters deliver their report in headless costumes. Isn’t that awesome?
Headless Horseman promoting “Sleepy Hollow” in New York City
However, even with all these great ideas and large sums of money spent on advertisement; marketers are still finding it difficult to gain audience. It is so difficult because broadcast networks are “introducing dozens of new series at the same time” in early September. As Mr. Earley stated in the article, network marketing executives are running out of new promotional ideas all because there are too much television shows.
While I sympathize with the struggles of marketing executive, I think this sort of competition is good because it forces networks to create content that are more original. TV shows have been infamous for showing the same content over and over again with a different name and different characters. With an increased level of competition, they would need to be more distinct from other TV shows and they will need to be some new ideas introduced to gain viewers.
On the other hand, I believe people show be careful of how much time they spend watching television. With such a vast amount of TV shows and the availability of digital video recorders (DVR), it is very easy to spend all your time at home watching television and indeed, many people are wasting hours every day watching television rather than doing something more productive. Entertainment is necessary for people to relieve stress but there should be a limit because too much entertainment can turn into an undesirable waste of time.
Work Cited:
Carter, Bill. “Networks Go to Extremes to Promote New Shows for the Fall Season.” New York Times 22 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
To view the article, click here.
It’s coincidental that just this morning, my thoughts had turned to politics and government in the United States. Jeremy Peters’ article in the New York Times, “From Art to T. Rex, Shutdown Stirs Worries,” drew my attention to an interesting link between culture and government that I also had thoughts about. I had been thinking specifically about political activism and how to get people to lend their voices – and how to get the government to hear them. (These thoughts were inspired in part by the recent protest in front of the Macaulay building in which footage was taken of a clash between police and protesters – the incident has given my thoughts about lots of things.) I was hung up on how many people are disillusioned with the government of late, yet there isn’t enough uproar or activism, not enough to urge the government to act any faster. The looming government shutdown is one of those things that have people annoyed and even angry, yet it seems like there’s nothing regular citizens can do, or want to do, to move along change. My question is, how much will it take to get us out of our stupor?
We are distracted. I personally feel angered and annoyed that Congress is taking its sweet time to make a deal about the budget yet again (among many other issues), and not only do I feel powerless, but I am distracted. I’m distracted by my computer and my phone and my classes and my work. I’m distracted by all the wonderful things around me, by the beauty of the city of New York and jazz music and Star Wars. Not only are these distractions taking me further away from voicing (and more importantly, acting on) my frustration with the way things are, but the lack of people around me taking action is not encouraging for me. Yet I talk to my peers and classmates and folks at the dorm and they are just as, if not more, passionate about this subject matter as I am – yet no talk of true action has occurred yet. Perhaps we simply aren’t at the stage of anger that inspires action. Perhaps the environment of distractions has taken its toll already, and we’ll never get to that stage.
Not necessarily bad things, our daily lives are made up of distractions which take our attention away from matters more consequential.
But what if the pianos in the music practice rooms at Baruch were taken away? What if social media was blocked at school or in my dorm room? What if the local parks closed their gates and didn’t let people in? Would that be enough for me to gain focus and take action on the larger issues of the nation?
The potential closing of the museums and facilities of the Smithsonian is something I hope to be eye-opening to the citizens in Washington D.C. A beloved and unique source of knowledge and culture could close, indefinitely (theoretically). Is having our arts and cultural facilities blocked off the key to getting us up and active?
Look to Detroit, where streetlights won’t go on at night and the police take upwards of an hour to respond to a call, as a result of its government’s failings monetarily. Talks of the city’s pension plan freezing are being seriously discussed to combat the effects of the city’s bankruptcy. Does it have to come to that for people to not only notice that something is wrong, but be bothered enough to finally do something about it?
The effects of government shutdown seem far removed to most. But when our distractions are taken away, such as the Smithsonian facilities in D.C., our focus has the chance to shift – hopefully to the cause of why our distractions are gone. It’s worth noting that there are many individuals who find the inspiration to join a cause and be active in supporting it – they can fight through the distractions. But from my perspective, the general population is too entangled in their own lives and distractions to take to the streets. It seems that the government shutdown isn’t an inconvenience worthy of that these days. And perhaps it truly isn’t, but there surely are other issues that myself and others have strong feelings about. My general attitude, if not already apparent, is that citizens of the U.S. need to be more involved in government – or in getting the government to listen to its citizens’ needs.
The arts can be distractions from the misgoverning of this country, but they can be other, much more positive things as well (in fact, I feel bad framing the arts as distractions in this sense – the arts have an indescribable amount of value and oftentimes themselves can inspire action). And while I certainly don’t want this country’s cultural assets to be diminished, if that’s what it takes for people to be inspired to demand change, then that’s what it takes.
Works Cited:
Peters, Jeremy. “From Art To T. Rex, Shutdown Stirs Worry.” New York Times 26 Sep 2013, Late Edition – Final. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.
