Viva la Revolucion! De Screen Printing?

Posted on by
Reply

The swift movement of multiple presses shake the room. Screen frames bounce on drying racks and send shockwaves of vibration across the floor. The space is warm and smells like a mixture of emulsion and ink. Squeegees squeak as they rub against mesh screens while conversation across the work floor is muffled by the various sounds of machinery. This is a typical day at Gowanus Print Labs, a screen printing school and studio in Brooklyn, New York.

 

Considered to be a twentieth century innovation, screen printing is a printing technique that finds its roots to stenciling as far back as the Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD) in China. Although screen printing has become more complex since then, the basic technique remains the same: ink is pushed through a mesh screen onto a stencil to produce the desired image. Today, screen printing uses a light sensitive chemical called emulsion to create the stencil (the final stencil is known as film). The process of creating this stencil is very similar to traditional film photography.

 

And yet despite the advent of newer printing technologies and techniques such as digital or offset printing, screen printing remains popular in printing posters, apparel, music album covers, and a wide variety of other products. Even more so, a recent trend of increased commercial screen printing and studios popping up especially in Brooklyn show that screen printing is rapidly growing in popularity. But why?

 

Studio manager, Lindsay Woodruff, at Gowanus Print Labs in Brooklyn might have the answer. “I think screen printing is still popular because it is one of the more hands-on kinds of printing. There are machines that can do some of the steps for us, but most people choose to do it all by hand, creating items with love and attention to detail.”  Lindsay believes that this handmade and personal characteristic of screen printing is what makes it popular choice for both artists and consumers. Artists feel more connected to their work and consumers feel more connected to their favorite artists, appreciating the “physical effort” that goes into making a print.

 

Gowanus Print Labs founded not more than three years ago touts itself as a community screen printing studio, providing an open workspace for artists and printmakers. It sits next to a commercial print factory under the same management.  Lindsay explains that the owner of the factory and his partner wanted to create “a space where artists can work, where novices can take classes, and a community of people working with their hands could be built.” Their mission is to create a community of passionate screenprinters.

 

Andy Warhol, a significant figure in art movements of the 60s and 70s, is often credited with popularizing screen printing with his iconic “pop-art” portrait of Marilyn Monroe shortly after she had committed suicide. Screen printing was and still remains a relatively inexpensive medium to reproduce large volumes of the same exact image, but requires a limit on the number of colors that can be used per print. Pop art artists like Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and Jasper Johns used a small number but bright contrasting colors to create prints that defined the pop-art movement and established screen printing as an art form.

 

Gowanus Print Labs is one of many screen printing studios that have been emerging across Brooklyn to embrace this art form, especially in the past decade. Gowanus is unique in that it provides screen printing classes from introductory to more advanced levels covering nearly every aspect of the art, and even business, of screen printing. Lindsay says that the diversity of students that show up to these classes vary. They are young and old, self-declared artists, creative muses, the curious, aspiring businessmen and women, and even seasoned veterans looking to brush up on some skills. In her own words, “We get students from all walks of life taking our classes!”

 

A survey of the studio’s website shows class after class completely booked. The popularity and demand is certainly evident.  People look to screen printing as a fun activity, as an easy and cost-effective way to produce quality stationary or wedding invitations, or even for commercial pursuits.

 

But this emerging popularity of screen printing seems to be closely related to the hand-made revolution: the rising popularity of hand-made goods. Mass-production of retail goods have left both artists and consumers longing for a personal and organic touch; a touch offered by hand-made goods. In urban areas like New York City and specifically Brooklyn, there is “an insurgence of consumers looking to buy handmade products and support local artists, which creates a market for the things that people love to make.”

Lindsay calls this trend towards screen printing, these emerging studios, and the popularity of hand-made goods as a revival of the art form. “There is a revival of people wanting to create things or wanting to work for themselves,” and Brooklyn she claims is host to these “influx of makers.”

Works Cited:

Andy Warhol and the Art of Screenprinting” Christies. N.p., 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Roberts, Gordon. “History’s Influence on Screen Printing’s Future.” ScreenWeb. Screen Printing

Magazine, 04 Mar. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Watt, James C. Y., Anne E. Wardwell, and Morris Rossabi. Why Ancient Silk Is Still Gold: Issues

in Chinese Textile History. N.p.: n.p., n.d. JSTOR. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629553>.

Woodruff, Lindsay. E-mail interview. 19 Nov. 2013.

Feature Article: The Appreciation of Forgery

Posted on by
Reply

Moving towards a bright oil canvas encased in a gold gilded, rectangular frame, you marvel at the texture made from antiquated brush strokes and the elaborate gradient of colors. Finding another piece, you repeat the process. Slowly, but surely, you make your way through the pictorialized labyrinth of art. There’s no suspicion, at all, concerning the authenticity of the artworks you appreciated. Yet, there are times when you ponder over the chances that an art piece hanging in a museum is a fraud.

          Naturally, society does not look upon such duplicity favorably. However, as Blake Gopnik, an art critic and writer for the New York Times, states, “Forgery is very clearly an economic crime, [but] it may not always be an artistic or aesthetic one.” Our repulsion with forgery stems from (1) the belief that great art is not imitable, and (2) the fury and embarrassment felt by those publicly revealed to be fools of a forger’s duplicity. We have no problem appreciating well-crafted forgeries so long as we are unaware of the artwork being one.

The art market justifies its high prices by keeping up the pretense that all art is inimitable. Art is known, in economics today, as “positional goods.” Society deems artworks valuable and expensive solely because others can’t posses one that has already been seized.

This idea that art is inimitable was not, however, always believed in. According to Alexander Nagel, a professor at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York specializing in Renaissance art, forgery was a concept invented when people such as dealers, collectors, and connoisseurs came about. Before that, Mr. Nagel points out that patrons did not view art “as singularities, as unrepeatable performances by an author.” Rather, a duplicate was appreciated as if it were the authentic piece so long as the larger aesthetic ideas and the ideals of the artists were conveyed. Additionally, Mr. Gopnik logically argues that forged paintings “almost perfectly capture [an artist’s] unique contribution to art. If they didn’t, no one would imagine [that the artist] made them.” Thus, if a duplicate is good enough to bamboozle experts, it should be good enough to give us, the novice audience, the same pleasure and insight as the original artwork would.

What would it mean, then, to commit forgery in a time when originals and duplicates are interchangeable?

Unfortunately, dealers, collectors, and connoisseurs have helped make such practices illegal. Many compare art forgery to plagiarism (except for the simple fact that plagiarists steal other peoples’ works while forgers pass off their work as someone else’s). Being incapable of differentiating the forgery from the real artwork, many connoisseurs have faced embarrassment at being ridiculed for their lack of skill. They have been angered, their pride smarting at being played a fool by a forger’s duplicity. Ultimately, connoisseurs have passed the embarrassment and anger to the public, convincing us that forgers are ridiculing not only art experts but anyone who looks and appreciates “genuine” art.

However, when encountered with a forgery, our first instinct is to marvel at the ingenuity of it. We are awed by the skills of the forger – to create and convince the mass public of the authenticity of an artwork that should have been, if real, centuries old is no easy task. As technology advances, such deceitfulness becomes more difficult to maintain. These days, art patrons can test the validity of an art piece through techniques such as dendrochronology, stable isotope analysis, thermoluminescence, atomic absorption, and so much more. For a forgery to pass all these examinations, the forger must either be extremely skilled or just exceptionally lucky.

On second thought, it’s a combination of luck, skill, and the faulty pride of connoisseurs.

Technological tests for authenticity are not easy. The simplest of exams take at least two months to produce adequate, though definitely not thorough, results. Comprehensive results originate from multiple tests and long periods of verification. Ultimately, many patrons rely on the concept of connoisseurship as a faster form of authentication.

An art connoisseur who is deemed knowledgeable concerning the details, techniques, and/or principles of an art will study a piece of artwork and judge for authenticity. However, as Mr. Gopnik details, “the connoisseur’s eye works brilliantly in that vast majority of attributions where an artwork comes without a name attached but clearly has a single maker’s signature look. And then that eye fails utterly in those remaining, more iffy cases where a piece looks quite like some artist’s work, but may almost as easily be by someone else.” Needless to say, connoisseurship cannot be trusted, as it does not work. John Myatt, named 20th century’s biggest fraud, painted and sold more than 200 forgeries for nearly a decade before convicted. Christie’s and Sotheby’s, two of the world’s largest brokers of fine and decorative art, valued his works for 25,000 British pounds rather than the 250 pounds Mr. Myatt was selling for.

As anticipated, such fraud would create economic dilemmas as patrons and collectors are cheated in their investments. Additionally, the prides of connoisseurs who gave these forgeries the green light to be auctioned would be smarting. However, such scandals have revealed just how deluded we are by the connoisseur’s eye. We have advanced technology to detect frauds. Yet, we believe that “experts” well trained in detecting authenticity suffice and are on par with our technology. That is not the case.

Forgers have taught society to doubt connoisseurship. Simultaneously, they remind us that the understanding of art should not be restricted by the obsession with “authenticity” and “unique artistic touch.”

Ethically, we should be wary of forgers. However, looking at forgery from the aesthetic and artistic perspective, we should appreciate its achievements. The overall art market should aim to make art more accessible to a wider audience. Unfortunately, our art market is geared towards the rich, using the pretense of inimitability to price high. Many emerging artists and collectors are unable to participate in the big-money game. Museums that wish to expose the public to different art forms are incapable of competing with barons, the majority who collect art solely for the sake of status rather than appreciation. Many museums run on donations and have limited funding; barons can always pay more.

Forgers, in a way, evens the gap between the wealthy and the middle-class by making the access to aesthetic ideas and artistic ideals, the definition of art before the advent of “forgery,” more accessible.

Feature Article

Posted on by
Reply

Pay as You Wish, But You Must Pay

            Imagine a foreign visitor, with excitement and expectation, visits New York City. Certainly, he does not want to miss one of the landmarks in the center of world, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met). At the entrance of the Met, he sees the prices of the admission fee (he does not understand what the word “price” means, but he recognizes the number “25” and the dollar sign “$”). He pays the full admission without a second of thought and unfortunately misses the asterik leading “suggested fee.” Would you think the visitor has been cheated?

The hypothetical anecdote might not be true. However, the scenario could turn into reality when the foreign or even Non-New-Yorker American visitor to the Met are bewildered by the admission policy of the world-class museum. Admission to the Met was free until the early 1970s, when the museum instituted a “voluntary ‘pay-what-you-wish-but -pay-something’ admission policy,” a 1993 museum bond offering prospectus said. The new policy requires visitors to pay at least a nominal amount; a penny is acceptable.

The Met has since drawn criticism over its confusing fee policy. Many visitors are baffled by the pay-what-you-wish policy; some are not even aware of it. On the admission page of museum’s official website, a bolded “recommended” comes before the price list and then at the end of the list, a small typed italicized sentence states “to help cover the costs of exhibitions, we ask that you please pay the full recommended amount.” Based on the website information, is the price “recommended”? If so, why do the visitors have to pay the full amount? The confusion not only stays on the website.

“I just asked for one adult general admissions and he just said, ‘$25,’” says Richard Johns, a high school math teacher from Little Rock, Ark., who paid the full price at the museum. “It should be made clear that it is a donation you are required to make. Especially for foreign tourists who don’t understand, they don’t know it.” The statement implies that there exist flaws in the customer service levels of the Met, which also contribute to the confusion of the policy.

“I think that’s a problem,” said Debra Caplan, a theater professor from Baruch College, “whatever they [the Met] are doing should be very clear and right now it is not. Not making it [the policy] clear just seems sort of disingenuous to me because people will get confused.”

There is an associated lawsuit brought up that alleges the world-class museum has deceived patrons over the years. “Under a clause in its original 1876 lease for the space, and according to an 1893 state law,” the suits contend, “the museum is required to allow visitors to be admitted free on most days of the week.”

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the museum to stop charging admission on free days, to inform the public that free days are available, and to make changes to signs and promotional materials to prevent visitors from being misled about the policy. A museum spokesman called the suit an “insupportable nuisance.” He added that the museum’s policy of asking people to pay at least something has been in place for more than forty years.

“The agreement with the city specifies that there has to be some minimal contribution,” said Harold Holzer, the Met’s senior vice president for public affairs. “There are people who express their own interpretation of the policy by paying very little. But something is required.”

According to the Met’s modified lease with New York City in 1893, the Met was required to offer free admission two evenings and five days a week in exchange with the free use of city-owned land. Rent today would cost the museum about $368 million per year. Yet, the power to charge hasn’t been added into the lease; however, it has been re-affirmed by Bloomberg administration recently.

The case is suspended. It is possible that if the Met failed, other museums in the city carrying out a similar policy of “suggested fee” would also be affected, such as the Brooklyn Museum and the American Museum of Natural History.

“The museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to their financial circumstances,” said Arnold Weiss, one of two attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of three museum-goers, a New Yorker and two tourists from the Czech Republic. “But instead, the museum has been converted into an elite tourist attraction.”

What Arnold Weiss stated points to another question: is the Met even authorized to charge people? Is it fulfilling the responsibility of trying to make more people aware of art and improve their appreciation for art? Or is it just taking advantage of the policy to gain profits? Who make the rules?

Due to insufficient municipal funding in 1970, the Met and the City established the current pay-what-you-wish policy even though it has never been officially written into the lease. The Met claimed that it charges people to achieve a balanced budget.

Noticeably, according to the Museum’s Annual Report of 2012, the admission fee only counts for fifteen percent of the total revenue of the institution while the museum’s endowment is from two to three billion dollars and provides much more of the income for operations about thirty-four percent. The admission fee relieves, but not eliminates, the high expense of the museum.

The confusion over the legitimacy of the charge also necessitates the examination of the history of the Met and the purpose of a public art institution. The statement of purpose of the Met clarifies that the institution existed to “furnish popular instruction and recreation.” The Trustees of The Metropolitan Museum of Art reaffirmed the statement by adding the statement of mission, which supplemented the original statement with “in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards.” Serving the public becomes one of the focuses of the Met.

“It is important to make clear as we sign this amendment that we remain very much committed to maintaining—and further widening—public access to the Museum,” Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of the Metropolitan, said at the time of the lease amendment’s signing on October 21, 2013.

The purpose of the Met was written, but the power to charge changed elastically. It is challenging to draw a line between the purpose of a public art institution and the intention to charge people. The Met wants people to pay but it also needs more public access by providing free admission. The conflict is challenging to solve but what the Met can do is to clarify the policy and make people less confused.

 

Works Cited

Kennedy, Randy. “New York City Amends Fee Policy for a Visit to the Met.” The New York Times 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Lyall, Sarah. “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum.” The New York Times 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Peralta, Eyder. “New York’s Met Museum Is Sued Over ‘Deceptive’ Entrance Fees.”National Public Ratio 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Feature Article: The Influence of Street Art in New York City

Posted on by
Reply

5Pointz, pre-November 2013

The debate on graffiti concerning its legitimacy as urban street art has been highlighted in New York City in recent events. The controversial work of the United Kingdom-based Banksy as well as the taking down of 5Pointz, an iconic exhibit, has made graffiti a hot topic. The ability of graffiti to spread political messages and provoke thought has allowed for expression all over the city, from The Bronx to Coney Island. Yet ownership is called into question when works of graffiti are taken down; while the owners of such buildings have the rights to their properties, what happens when a display catches recognition to the extent of 5Pointz? At certain points people hold meaning and history in such collections of work.

Graffiti is eye catching and thus, an effective way for artists to spread their opinions. They make political statements, often involving depictions of soldiers and political figures. Graffiti itself can be perceived as a political statement, a downfall of its easy publicity being its role as vandalism and a mark of crime. On a national scale graffiti is often used as a way of political protest. The work of select famous street artists can be particularly influential; one exceptional case is Banksy, a visiting artist who has incited much praise and criticism during his stay in New York. His presence even made a statement of social criticism: people scrambled in a mob-like fashion to jump on the Banksy bandwagon, creating a brand name allure of his moniker. The glorification of such artists and their work allows them to reach a variety of audiences beyond where their art can directly be seen; word of Banksy’s stencils have been the talk of New York City all throughout the month of October 2013.

Besides its significance in relaying social and political statements, graffiti has also gained meaning for its aesthetics. On the morning of October 19th, 2013, many residents were shocked and disappointed to wake up to large portions of 5Pointz having been whited out overnight. The owner of 5Pointz property, Jerry Wolkoff, thought tearing down the walls as they were would have been rubbing salt in existing wounds. However, the whiting out of the building’s surface evoked a negative reaction from many of the site’s supporters. The work of hundreds of artists was apparently painted over. One street artist, Just, cited a deeper meaning in the hurt reaction to the taking down of 5Pointz: “This is not just about graffiti — it’s about the unity of people who met here from all over the world.” Soon afterwards criticism appeared on the whited over walls by opponents of Wolkoff’s decision.

The feelings of entitlement are not new, as the destruction of 5Pointz for the location’s intended two towering apartment buildings had been opposed for months. Marie Flageul, a spokeswoman for 5Pointz, reasoned, “He gave us the wall for free, but we have put tremendous amount of work in it for the past 11 years and contributed to putting Long Island City on the map.” Many believe that it had become a historic icon with attempts to have the buildings made a landmark status but were denied by the Landmarks Preservation Commission for its lack of architectural significance and young age of its artwork. A lawsuit had even been filed in October by the group behind 5Pointz, citing a violation of the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act. They were turned down later that month and Wolkoff’s plan was approved.

Wolkoff reinforced that graffiti was ephemeral and reassured artists that there would be space for new work around in plans for the building. While 5Pointz holds a special place in the hearts of many New Yorkers, graffiti has transformed neighborhoods of other parts of the city. The many tags in Bushwick had been a constant reminder for Joseph Ficalora of his negative childhood experiences growing up in a rough neighborhood. Ficalora, a business and factory owner, invited street artists to paint on his space. The past few years have given way the creation of many murals that now make up the Bushwick Collective. Ficalora was able to turn graffiti in his neighborhood around from a mark of crime to a display of creativity that decorates streets that used to hold bad memories.

Like any other form of art, graffiti has the power to influence viewers and transform society. Also like many other forms of art, graffiti is controversial and its notoriety is a double edged sword. Ultimately property ownership is enforced but street art will continue to pop up as a presence that has much momentum in the urban setting of New York City. It exposes people of all ages and backgrounds to art and adds to the culture and history of the city. While 5Pointz reached a prominent status, street art will continue to live in many forms.

 

The ephemerality of art/Banksy in Woodside

 

 

Bibligraphy

Barron, James. “Racing to See Banksy Graffiti, While It Can Still Be Seen.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/nyregion/racing-to-see-banksy-graffiti-while-it-can-still-be-seen.html>.

Smith, Roberta. “Mystery Man, Painting the Town.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/arts/design/banksy-makes-new-york-his-gallery-for-a-month.html>.

Buckley, Cara, and Marc Santora. “Night Falls, and 5Pointz, a Graffiti Mecca, Is Whited Out in Queens.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/nyregion/5pointz-a-graffiti-mecca-in-queens-is-wiped-clean-overnight.html?ref=arts&_r=0>.

Nir, Sarah M., and Charles V. Bagli. “City Council to Decide Fate of Mecca for Graffiti Artists.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/nyregion/city-council-to-decide-fate-of-mecca-for-graffiti-artists.html>.

O’Leary, Amy. “Bushwick Gets a Fresh Coat.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 3 May 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/nyregion/a-son-of-bushwick-turns-the-neighborhood-into-a-gallery-for-street-art.html>.

Kennedy, Randy. “A Feast of Street Art, Luminous and Legal.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/arts/design/graffiti-art-of-the-city-from-the-bronx-to-brooklyn.html>.

Trapasso, Clare. “Founders of 5Pointz File Lawsuit to Block Demolition of Grafitti Mecca.” Nydailynews.com. New York Daily News, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/fight-5pointz-article-1.1482340>.

Evelly, Jeanmarie. “5Pointz Artists Fighting Demolition With Lawsuit.” DNAinfo.com New York. DNAinfo, 14 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131014/long-island-city/5pointz-artists-fighting-demolition-with-lawsuit>.

Feature Article ‘Talking Transitions’

Posted on by
Reply

Feature Article ‘Talking Transitions’

These last two weeks opened a startling new exhibition and political education venue entitled ‘Talking Transitions’ located in an empty lot off of Canal Street and Varick Street, which is aimed at creating discussions and propositions for the new mayor.

I walked into the brightly lit tent erected on what’s called Duarte Square, purely out of curiosity. By its look, I was actually expecting some sort of pop up night club or fashion show. Instead, I stumbled upon a newly created mixed media project sponsored by George Soros’ non-profit organization for justice and change, Open Society. Having been vaguely familiar with Open Society from one of their fantastic podcasts (‘Life of the Law’), I was already in reverence of the idea. The huge tent is transparent and filled with colored lights and interesting arrangements using recycled crates. Lined up on unfinished wooden boxes were plastic protected iPads – named ‘interactive devices’ – each of which had a series of survey questions available to answer according to your status in New York City; lifelong resident, recent import, commuter, visitor, etc. Cleverly, the survey was answerable in 5 question batches so that exhibition visitors, while busy, would not have to make a huge commitment to still respond. Aside from the surveys, a ‘soapbox’ or microphone stand was available for anyone bold enough to get up and start a verbal conversation. The side walls were dressed with whiteboards for idea storming and boxes of labels and permanent markers were available and a popular method of writing down ideas and sticking them on any free space. This type of open source mining for crowd information using stickers and pens seems to be influenced from the installation art Candy Chang. She employeed this medium in her international exhibtions ‘Before I Die’ ‘Neighborloand’ and ‘I Wish this Was’ where strangers could record and see the ideas, concerns and wishes of their communities in a non-judgmental space.

When I spoke to several of the Talking Transitions employees milling around the tent after, they seem to continue the same thought thread. ‘Talking Transitions’ is meant to be simply a way to facilitate communication. It has no idealogy, no association with the local government, and no political incentive. Its events are independently organized and sponsored. After the two week space closes, a team from Open Society simply plans to quantify all the collected data and present it to the mayor as a means for consideration in his plans. Nevertheless, I was surprised to find that despite appearing free form and friendly, the employees of Talking Transitions did not want to answer my questions and preferred to I was redirect me to a special ‘Media Relations’ person. Once I obtained the media relations person’s attention, he refused to answer questions unless they were ‘off the books’.

From him, I learned that the entire two week event was surprisingly thought of and set up just a few weeks before the elections. Now, almost done with its run, its hope is to inspire other cities to do the same type of work. The tent, with it bright, dynamic demeanor, which I mistook for an art exhibition, was actually done by the production company ‘Production Glue’ which is a popular design firm that undertakes large scale NYC events like Tribeca Film Festival Streets and Election Night. Because of its innovative and visually striking appearance, there is a case for the for-profit company’s work to be taken into consideration as art as each aspect of their design is rich in metaphorical meaning and eye catching appeal.

I arrived on a mid-afternoon in the tent about a half hour before the two scheduled events started. Although built as a single tent, it is divided up into three spaces. One is  a ‘Town Hall’ stage set with lights and cameras for official events and panels, one is the opening survey room, and the last is a smaller cocktail room that actually serves food in the evenings. I decided to go for the smaller conversation first, which was about Property Zoning and organized by the Municipal Arts Association. I sort of had a lot of hope for this event as the Municipal Art Society is one of the few organizations responsible for bringing more public space in the city, like the closing of Times Square, and some of its public art. There were a lot of people in tweed coats, fashionably curved glasses and thirty year olds with grey streaked hair- all probably urban planners or associates of MAS itself. I found myself wondering more about why intellectuals don’t tweeze their eyebrows rather than pesky zoning laws and moved on to the main event. It was about simplifying property taxes and included several urban planners from NYU’s Furman Center as well as people from the current Bloomberg administration.  I started nibbling on my pb&j sandwich once the panelists started to talk about laws and issues that were way over my head. Ironically, although it was advertised as a Q&A, less than five minutes were open for questions after the sharp host finished her well versed probes. Interestingly, the conversation surrounded the fact that property taxes are extremely high for NYC residents, the majority of whom are renters and have to pay the taxes of their richer landlords- something with sounded to me like an Occupy Wall Street issue. However, with the panelists sophisticated language, there was little transmission on unfairness or anger as it was discussed with as least pizzaz as possible.

The history of Duarte Square comes into play here. Before Open Society borrowed the area for this event, it was a space for Occupy Wall Street protesters to voice their opinions. While those who initially voiced and called for change were beaten, gassed and jailed, this newfangled colored tent with high technology screens is meant to be the reaction to that- the tamer ‘opiate’ for many people who are breaking under the weight of NYC’s burdens to again, speak about and ask for change. There is a clear irony here. While the data collected in this project is meant to passively educate and better expand the knowledge NYC has abut itself, it is also acknowledging that we live in a beaurocratic system with many harsh issues that can undermines even the most enlightened and altruistic of ideas and movements. The reasoning for ‘Talking Transitions’ could be that New Yorkers can affect change but only in large numbers and only indirectly. And the last part –‘indirectly’- is disheartening, yet still a better alternative to the fire throated calls of our since forgotten protesters.

As art, I felt that this event was monumental as it crossed the bridge between artistic intention and political change. As a political outpost, I felt this event was also a monumental work, because it opened up a place for discussion and problem solving without assigning the need for the division of parties and outward negativity. My strongest feelings from attending this event came from the kernel of truth it contained while staring at its enormous lit up crate sign ‘Talk’. We do need to talk- and learn how to talk in the most efficient way that reflects our constantly evolving society. Using technology and creating safe spaces may just very well an initial experiment toward creating the most efficient medium for turning conversations into actions that can make an alternative life possible for the millions of people out there who don’t believe that our lives should be controlled by changes outside of our control.

The Unique Playing Field of Art Investment

Posted on by
Reply

On November 14, 2013, an Andy Warhol piece depicting the immediate aftermath of a car crash sold at Sotheby’s in New York City for $105 million (Associated Press). The 8-by-13-foot painting titled “Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster)” depicts a twisted body sprawled across a car’s mangled interior. Its hefty price tag stems from the prestige of the artist, the vividness of the piece, the connection with the viewer, and many more personal reasons. Potential clients might describe how the piece connected with them on an extremely personal level or how the piece will go well in their home. However, a rising majority might refer to the annual growth of the art, the estimated earnings in 10 years, and the estimated liquidity of the piece. They might refer to the piece as risky, safe, or moderate depending on these circumstances. This growing majority of economical thinkers primarily consist of investment groups, known as hedge funds. Through strategic purchases and the creation of an art-specific market, art is becoming one of fastest-growing securities in the modern day.

When reduced to its simplest form, hedge funds have a basic goal: invest smart and make money. Although there are many factors to the operation of this, this concept is now being applied to art.  In order to understand how the art market works, one must understand how any regular securities market operates.

A securities market consists of buyers and sellers who publicly report various transactions (O’Neil 10 – 30). These transactions are entered into a database and reviewed by analysts, who eventually make moving averages and market trends. The transactions also portray how the market is doing and through this information, analysts can determine if current numbers prove that it is a bull (fast-growing) market or a bear (slow-growing) market.  These trends are visible to the public eye through security indexes such as the Standard and Poor’s 500, the NASDAQ, Dow Jones, New York Stock Exchange, and many others. By categorizing the market, analysts will advise investors on how to yield maximum profit. The investor can then decide if he or she wants short-term profit or long-term growth. Certain securities trend towards short-term profit while others stem for the latter. A buyer chooses what type of investment he wants depending on liquidity, which is how quickly a security can be converted to cash.

Before choosing an investment, a buyer must look at risks. Risks include competition, operating costs, environmental factors, and depreciation. Through analytical research each risk can be made into a negative number. These negative numbers will combine with costs, forming the actual net value of the security. After computing risks, costs, the market trend, and potential earnings, an investor can decide if he or she wants to purchase that security. Since hedge funds primarily deal with millions of dollars, research and analytical thinking is heavily needed before making an investment. Therefore, any publically traded exchange system has three parts: a buyer, a seller, and an index.

Although 30% of the world’s art-tailored investment management groups are located in China, there are many hedge funds located within the United States (Sommer). Amongst the leaders of this group is the Art Fund Association LLC, located in Midtown, Manhattan. The Art Fund Association focuses on a variety of art including sculptures, paintings, and photographs. They use modern evaluation techniques before investing just like a regular hedge fund. However, there are distinct differences between common securities and art securities.

The art market is portrayed through the Mei Moses Foundation index. Just like a regular index, the Mei Moses Foundation displays market trends based on transactions. The main difficulty faced by the Art Fund Association is that many art deals are private, held by private auction houses that do not release their transaction details. This creates a skewed market, as all transactions are not visible. According to a representative from ArtVest, an art market advisory firm, “The key to investing in art is to fully understand the marketplace. Art requires a unique understanding of the drivers of connoisseurship and collector demand which establish value.” Therefore, there is no completely accurate depiction of the art market. To combat this, the Art Fund Association hires both finance professionals and art historians (The Art Fund Association LLC). Working together, both groups make projections on art pieces. They do this by examining similar items in the market and comparing them to the item at hand. Analysts can also examine the item’s buyer frequency and current market trends to eventually make the projection.

Apart from projections, the Art Fund Association must examine a piece to determine risks and costs.  For example, a potential risk of a Van Gough painting may be that the piece is subject to weathering due to its age. By using the Mei Moses Foundation index, this particular hedge fund will examine how much equally old and elaborate paintings are worth in the current market. They can also check to see if similar paintings have increased or decreased in value, in the last five or ten years.  Analysts can then determine the numerical risk of the painting depending on its current market.

However, the question still hovering over all of this is: what happens when a piece is truly unique? This is where the art historians have a strong input. Through their detailed study of various pieces and their knowledge of market trends, the art historians are able to examine a piece on its unique features and thus determine a value. Although this may sound subjective, these art historians are using market trends and theory to come to a conclusion. Investing is not a definite form in any market; it is largely based on human nature and theory.

The rising art market is proving to be a profitable arena for those seeking to diversify their investment portfolio. The Andy Warhol painting that sold for $105 million was projected a similar price by the Art Fund Association. Therefore, the organization is credible and highly profitable for those seeking to venture into the uncommon.

Feature Article

Posted on by
Reply

Yayoi Kusama: Polka dots

Earlier this year, the Rain Room attracted a large audience to the Museum of Modern Art. With an unlimited time restraint on visiting guests, the line to enter lasted up to a six-hour wait. In comparison, guests to Yayoi Kusama’s Infinity Rooms, currently exhibited at the David Zwirner gallery in Chelsea, Manhattan until December 21st, are only given 40 seconds in each chamber. Whereas the Rain Room brought visitors into the center of an endless rainstorm, Kusama’s Infinity Rooms bring visitors into the center of an endless space.

Yayoi Kusama was born and raised in Nagano, Japan in 1929. She studied Nihonga, a strict Japanese-style of painting developed during the Meiji Period, at Kyoto Municipal School of Arts and Crafts. As a child, she decorated everything with polka dots and nets. Such motifs stuck with her throughout her whole career. And even now, her nets of polka dots, which she calls Infinity Nets, are still prevalent in her work. Kusama’s obsession with polka dots emerged from childhood hallucinations, a result of physical abuse from her mother. She saw the world veiled in dots. Once, during an interview, she described her inner life:

One day I was looking at the red flower patterns of the tablecloth on a table, and when I looked up I saw the same pattern covering the ceiling, the windows and the walls, and finally all over the room, my body and the universe. I felt as if I had begun to self-obliterate, to revolve in the infinity of endless time and the absoluteness of space, and be reduced to nothingness. As I realized it was actually happening and not just in my imagination, I was frightened. I knew I had to run away lest I should be deprived of my life by the spell of the red flowers. I ran desperately up the stairs. The steps below me began to fall apart and I fell down the stairs straining my ankle.

Therefore art acted as a medicine for all her troubles from the polka dots. In her book Manhattan Suicide Addict, Kusama describes a polka dot as having “the form of the sun, which is a symbol of the energy of the whole world and our living life, and also the form of the moon, which is calm. Round, soft, colorful, senseless and unknowing. Polka dots become movement… Polka dots are a way to infinity.”

Kusama immigrated to New York in 1957 and worked alongside other avant-garde artists of the time, such as Georgia O’Keeffe and Joseph Cornell. Before her relocation, Kusama recreated her polka dotted universe through watercolors and paints on paper. But New York liberated her from the 2D. In the early 1960s, she started covering items, such as ladders, shoes, and chairs, with phallic protrusions as an expression of sexually and identity. Kusama posed in pictures with her works to be in the limelight as both an artist and an “eccentric personality.” Her most noticeable creations, besides her iconic polka dots, were her performance arts, which involved painting dots on naked performers, such as the Grand Orgy to Awaken the Dead at the MOMA in 1969 and Homosexual Wedding at the Church of Self-obliteration in 1968.

The reason why we don’t study Kusama in art history like we might of Georgia O’Keeffe, or even other artists who worked at the same time as Kusama, is because she fell out of mainstream by returning to Japan in 1973. Due to poor health, Kusama voluntarily checked herself into Seiwa Hospital for the Mentally Ill in Shinjuku, Tokyo. She’s been a permanent resident since 1977 and creates her art in a studio nearby. Since returning to Japan, Kusama has started writing novels, short stories, and poems.

In Kusama’s successful climb back into fame, her installations have attracted the most attention. Just last summer, her Fireflies on the Water exhibition was displayed at the Whitney Museum of American Art. In a dark room with mirrored walls, 150 lights were suspended over a pool of water creating an endless space. Immediately before her exhibition in New York though, Kusama had The Obliteration Room displayed in Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane where children visitors decorated a white room of white furniture with brightly colored polka dot stickers of various sizes. In the span of two weeks, the results were vibrant.

Kusama’s installations create infinite spaces through the repetition of polka dots, whether they are reflections of neon lights or colorful stickers. The purpose of overwhelming the physical world with what seems to be multiplying polka dots is to obliterate materiality.  In Into Performance: Japanese Women Artists in New York by Midori Yoshimoto, Kusama is quoted to saying, “Polka dots can’t stay alone, two and three and more polka dots become movement. Our earth is only one polka dot among a million stars in the cosmos. When we obliterate nature and our bodies with polka dots, we become part of the unity of our environment. I become part of the eternal, and we obliterate ourselves in Love.”

What was once a source of terror, almost like chronic insanity, to Kusama had now turned into inspiration. Art was initially a medicine to her troubles, and so she immersed herself in creation. Kusama had high output, and that speed added to her insanity. But her polka dots transformed from simply circles to a cosmic symbol, and Kusama believed that “by obliterating one’s identity, one could become one with eternity.”

Work Cited

Brooks, Katherine. “New Yorkers Flock To Yayoi Kusama’s New, Bespeckled ‘Infinity Rooms'” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Brooks, Katherine. “Yayoi Kusama’s ‘Fireflies On The Water’ At The Whitney (PHOTO).” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 June 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Cotter, Holland. “Vivid Hallucinations From a Fragile Life.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 12 July 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Frank, Priscilla. “Yayoi Kusama’s ‘Infinite Obsession’ Heads To Brazil.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Pilling, David. “The World According to Yayoi Kusama.” Financial Times. THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Swanson, Carl. “The Art of the Flame-Out.” NYMag.com. New York Media LLC, 8 July 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Meet Molly- The Girl that’s Been All Over the NYC Music Festival Scene

Posted on by
Reply

pillYou may have heard of the famous girl, Molly, but if you haven’t, you should know that she is all the rage at club scenes and music festivals nation wide. This “special” girl Molly will supposedly make your life better and will make you want to dance. But who is she and what has been all the commotion about her?

While Molly may sound like the name of a little girl with blonde pigtails, Molly is actually a slang term for methylenedioxy methylamphetamine (MDMA), also known as the purest form of ecstasy. Molly has been specifically noted for its tendency to evoke euphoria, decrease anxiety, and increase ones love for everyone around one by flooding your brain with serotonin. Those 3 effects have been the reasons that Molly is one of the most commonly abused drugs by teenagers. The drug is typically taken by pill or snorted through the nose, but how the users body will react to the drug is unpredictable. The effects of Molly may seem like fun and safe side effects, but, she is actually highly addictive and life threatening.

But what makes Molly so popular and widespread? Well, to start, Molly has a very notable reputation as being a mainstream drug in the music world. If you ask any rave or concert goer, they will most likely be able to tell you all about their dear friend Molly.  Molly is responsible for thousands of deaths every year especially within clubs and electronic dance music festivals.

Molly has been around for quite some time. However, it has only been recently noticed that celebrities all over have glorified the drug. For example, in the song “We Cant Stop”, by Miley Cyrus, Cyrus sings how “…we like to party, dancing with molly, doing whatever we want.” Another rapper, by the name of Tyga, decided to dedicate an entire song about losing his beloved friend Molly. Many other artists like Chris Webby, Ace Hood, and Nicki Minaj have idolized her name in their songs as a casual societal activity. Her name appearing countless number of times in our society is the reason that New York has experienced a skyrocketing percentage within teens with high drug abuse rates.

All summer long, teenagers all over the world attend music festivals to celebrate their love for electronic dance music (EDM) and the idea of unity within the teenage community through music. Festivals held in NYC include Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC), Electric Zoo (E-Zoo), and many other smaller events on Governors Island. After conducting my own survey, via surveymonkey.com, I was able to conclude that 77% of people, under the age of 23, who have went to one of these music festivals, have tried Molly at least once. This percentage only accounts for those who have actually attended one of those 3 music events in NYC listed above! Who knows how many more people have experimented with this deadly drug?

Drug usage has been so prominent within those 3 specific festivals, that just this past summer, the Electric Zoo Festival had to cancel their 3rd day of celebration due to 2 Molly related deaths. Though only 4 people a year, on average, in New York City, die from Molly overdose, as opposed to approximately 4,700 cocaine overdoes, within a 10 year span, dance-music fans abuse it to its full potential.

Because Molly tends to be sold in a white powder form (weather it’d be in a bag or in a pill), it is easy for drug-dealers to mix in any other cheap drug. This mixture can be lethal; especially when combined with loud volumes and rapid dancing. Since Molly is known to be the purest form of MDMA, (also referenced as the molecular form), teenagers have been fooled into its marketing of Molly as being a safe alternative to other drugs. Having this myth of safety floating around teenage gossip in NYC, many surrender themselves in the hands of Molly.

While surveys may not always be accurate, testimonies can always show first hand experience. After recently attending a music event at SRB (a club in Downtown, Brooklyn), I got to meet through a mutual friend one of the DJ’s that performed that night. Eric Sean, DJ and musical artist for approximately 2 years now, says that drug usage at musical festivals and events in New York, has “become an expectation…. It doesn’t shock me that kids are experimenting with all sorts of drugs, but I personally believe the entire experience lies within the rush you get from the music.” DJ Eric also claims that he cannot tell anyone how to live his or her life so he fully endorses one’s freedom to experiment.

Other fellow peers, who haven’t experienced the dance music festival experience, argue against the drug usage. After talking to a friend of mine, Olya Z., about drug usage in NYC clubs and festivals, she stated that peer pressure may be a cause of ones choice to take Molly. ‘Drugs flow in a chain”, says Olya, “people who observe others taking drugs and talking about how ‘enjoyable’ it is might make a person succumb into taking drugs.”

Shockingly, the worlds most famous DJ’s even have opinions on the Molly related deaths in NYC. DJ Zedd (Anton Zaslavski) is definitely someone who can vouch for the incidents he has seen and heard about with Molly. When asked his opinion about the cancellation of the 3rd day of E-Zoo during an interview with Tampa Bay Times, DJ Zedd responded, “When is it a right thing to cancel a concert?” DJ Zedd continues to explain, “If a place is not safe… I do think it’s definitely right to cancel a show…it’s a risk. But if we’re talking about people’s responsibilities, it’s difficult to judge that but there’s not much you can do.”

The verdict of the drug usage throughout NYC in clubs and festivals shows that there is no actual reason for people to be abusing the drug. The idea of raving was built upon the love for the music and the distribution of “good vibes.” Kids who use drugs irresponsibly are a danger to themselves and society. The legality of the drug is also questionable, which makes regulation very difficult among the crowd.

The safest way to enjoy these festivals is sober. NYC wants to enforce security more strictly to prevent any further drug abuse within music festivalgoers.

Molly may seem fabulous, but she is actually a deadly girl (sincere apologies to anyone named Molly reading this; I’m sure you’re lovely). She can turn your evening of wild partying at a music event, to a fatal night at the hospital.

Works Cited

Baker, Ernest, and Jacob Moore. “A History of Rappers Referencing “Molly” In Songs | Complex.” Complex.com. N.p., 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.complex.com/music/2012/04/a-history-of-rappers-referencing-molly-in-songs>.

Cridlin, Jay. “DJ Zedd Discusses Hit Singles, EDM’s Drug Culture before Concert at the Ritz Ybor in Tampa.” Tampa Bay Times. N.p., 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/music/talking-zedd/2140129>.

“DrugFacts: MDMA (Ecstasy or Molly).” National Institute on Drug Abuse. USA.gov, Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasy-or-molly>.

Freid, David, and Simran Kohsla. “Dancing with Molly: The EDM Drug.” Boulder Daily Camera. Digital First Media, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24515034/dancing-molly-edm-drug>.

McKinley, James C., Jr. “Overdoses of ‘Molly’ Led to Electric Zoo Deaths.” Arts Beat Blog NY Times. NY Times, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/overdoses-of-molly-led-to-electric-zoo-deaths/?_r=0>.

Feature Article

Posted on by
Reply

            The large room is packed to the brim with wealthy individuals, all of whom are dressed to the nine in expensive attire. Many of them are talking to each other in hushed but harried tones, occasionally glancing towards the front of the room, which currently only holds an empty stage and podium. As time passes the air in the room, already buzzing with excitement; begins to feel frenetic as the crowd starts to grow impatient for the event to begin. Suddenly, the room grows quiet; a group of men and women are ascending the stairs to the stage. A man in an immaculate suit steps up to the podium and thanks the audience for attending the event. Several people sit up straighter while others are now whipping out their cellphones and dialing numbers. The art auction has officially begun.

Art auctions have recently started to mimic the atmosphere of casinos and sporting events with record shattering bids happening left and right. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with a newfound appreciation for artists or their work. It has much more to do with showing off one’s vast wealth and making a profit by purchasing a “valuable” piece of art for an obscene price and flipping it and selling it at an even more incredulous price.

On November 12, 2013, Balloon Dog (Orange) by Jeff Koons was sold at $58.4 million at a Christie’s auction in N.Y. That same night, Christie’s broke the record for most expensive piece of art ever sold at auction when it received $142.4 million for the Francis Bacon painting Three Studies of Lucian Freud. This price eclipsed the previous record holder; Edvard Munch’s The Scream, which sold for $119.9 million. The very next day, November 13th, Andy Warhol’s Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster) fetched $105.4 million at a Sotheby’s auction.

Anyone who is surprised at the sums being paid for these pieces of art must not have been following the art market very closely. Disregarding the 2008 recession, the market has been increasing at a near exponential rate. Eleven of the 20 highest prices paid at auction have occurred since 2008. Sotheby’s is up 80% in record art prices. And neither of these is happening because the wealthy developed a sudden appreciation for fine art overnight.

One of the reasons why the art market is booming is because flipping works-formerly frowned upon by art galleries and auction houses-is becoming more common. New York University economist Michael Moses has tracked the sale and resale of major works of art and has determined 19th century art to have an average annual return of 1.6%, impressionist and modern works to have $7.7%, postwar and contemporary to have 12.6% and, traditional Chinese to have 17%. No wonder flipping pieces is so attractive right now.

In addition to flipping, art is also a sound investment. If one was to look at the fall of 2008 to today, anyone who had purchased art at record prices during that time has come out ahead. Art has also been proven to be a recession-proof alternative investment as those who are wealthy enough to purchase million dollar pieces of artwork often aren’t affected in the same way that the masses are affected by a downturn in the economy not to mention that the value of art tends to increase, not decrease, as time goes by.

New billionaires are being churned out every year with the current number at a record high of 1,426, a 210-person increase from the previous year. The average net worth of each billionaire has also increased, up $100 million from 2012. So, as the number and wealth of the elite increase, these individuals must find new ways of showing off their fortune and maintaining or even increasing it.

The world of art has always been a signal of wealth and status. Fine art itself holds especially true to this notion because each piece is unique and can’t be owned by anybody else. By spending $120 million on a piece one is generally showing the world, or even just their peers, that they can afford to blow $120 million on an item whose worth is completely speculative. However, art is also one of the few assets that generally tend to appreciate in value over time so it’s not a worthless purchase either.

Central banks are also helping the rich by pushing up asset prices, ensuring the wealthy feel even better off, while making interest rates on financial holdings unattractive, thus encouraging investment in things like paintings.

The belief that the superrich will continue to grow at a pace that outstrips the rest of us, also fuels their continued investments in the arts. It is a prestigious market that only a few have access to. And, as long as only a small percentage of the population has access to the type of wealth that can purchase expensive works of art then it is a business that will continue to grow thus furthering their fortune.

The art market isn’t just a playing field for those who appreciate art; it’s a business, a means to show off one’s vast fortune, an indicator as to just how skewed the distribution of wealth is. As evidenced by recent sales and data that prove just how profitable flipping and investing really is, art no longer belongs to the public, it has become a means making a profit while making all of your peers jealous that you own the Three Studies of Lucian Freud painting by Francis Bacon.

 

 

 

Feature article: WE WANT THE BOOBIES?

Posted on by
Reply

Jake Greenberg

IDC 1001H

Professor Sheehan Saldana

Nov 20, 2013

Feature Article: We want the Boobies?

I scream, you scream, we all scream for…Boobies? When going to the BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) to see Nosferatu, there are certain things that you expect to see, boobs is not one…or two of them. Yes, Nosferatu and all of the Dracula spin offs do have sexual innuendos, but it is just that, an innuendo. Why did the director feel it necessary to make his interpretation of Nosferatu different with overblown sex conversations and naked women?  Is it due to the acronym for the theatre and a feeling that he must do something that makes you say, “BAM”? The repetition of common themes or story lines throughout all of New York City’s show houses shows a lack of creative thinking. Rather than deal with this problem, directors throughout the city have incorporated sex appeal into shows in order to keep peoples attention, even if it destroys the story line.

 

In 21st Century America, sex, in many forms, has leaked into countless facets of society. Part of art is being able to adapt to the changing attitudes of the times, but to what extent? It is all about the how. There is nothing wrong with incorporating nudity and sexually driven conversations in old stories to modernize them, but it should be done artfully. Half way through the show audience members actually turned to me and asked, “I thought we were here to see Nosferatu?” There is a problem when the use of sex engulfs the actual essence of the story trying to be portrayed. The director focused so much on bringing blatant seduction and bareness to the show that it took away from the performance, rather than complementing it.

 

Then there is the right way to do things. In another example of “bringing sexy back”, to quote Justin Timberlake, the Tennessee Williams classic, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, introduces Scarlett Johansson into the show to bring that sex appeal. The knowledge that Ms. Johansson was in it was enough for my father to attend the show, which shows that incorporating sex appeal can help popularity. The difference in this instance, however, is that upon returning from the show my father’s response was, “Wow, that show was great, the performance was so well put together. Oh, and Jake, Scarlett looked great.” That is what should be achieved from accommodating the tastes of the day and age, a hook to the show, not an anchor.

 

Another performance that was able to push the boundaries of what is acceptable on stage is Avenue Q, which discusses everything from Internet porn, to racism. Again, this entire show was able to make this balance because they weren’t trying to be something it’s not. This was a newly made idea that’s story was based on covering many of the hot topics in today’s media outlet. I’m sure many people during this show leaned over to their neighbor and asked, “What is this?” just like in Nosferatu, but because it is such a fresh and revealing spectacle, than because it had been a part of a bait and switch performance.

 

What it comes down to is that it isn’t fair to the audience to receive false advertising. Many directors have found ways, whether it is difficult or not, to accommodate the changing tastes of the public without selling-out the idea of the show. Partly because they weave it into the presentation rather than just throw it in randomly and tastelessly; partly because they advertise the changes so people can expect a certain style, rather than be distastefully surprised with an act that in no way touches on the title it hides under.

 

Is it too much to ask not to be lied too? People still would show up to classics like Nosferatu because of how great of a story it already is. Is this an assumption? NO, because the theatre was filled with people who willingly bought tickets to the show, expecting a version of the classical Nosferatu. A show like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof does have the room to allow a new, sexy swing on the story because the original story still had that play in it. Some stories just can’t have sex weaved into them. Those kinds of shows have appeal for that reason and to instead try to inject sex into the story will not turn out well.

 

It was perceptive and understandable why Grzegorz Jarzyna saw that sex appeal is a big drive for people’s attention in the New York City area, but he didn’t pick up on how to take that information in a way to benefit his theatrical display. It was a great initial idea by Jarzyna, making a vampire story sexy just like so many successful run offs, starting with Buffy the Vampire Slayer all the way up to Twilight. The difference is that they are run-offs, they in no way strain to pretend to be the original Dracula or Nosferatu. In his play he only threw sex in at random moments that only confused the audience and in no way furthered the plot. It was intended humorously, but this story is not meant to be a comedy and clearly wasn’t able to adapt into that role.

 

Admittedly, although shows are forms of art, they are also forms of business. That being said, if the only thing that makes a show worth coming to see is the actors and actresses indulging in sexual activities and attitudes, then that director is in the wrong form of directing. There are plenty of lucrative fields in which actors and actress’ nudity will achieve the required satisfaction in viewers, but the stage is not one of them.