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

Feature Article

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Khrystyna Melnyk

Khrystyna Melnyk

IDC Arts in New York City

Prof. Zoe Sheehan-Saldana

November 20, 2013

What Was 5Pointz?

As we all learned two days ago, the owner of the building that housed 5Pointz’s, Jerry Wolkoff, had a crew of workers whitewash the famous graffiti walls in Brooklyn. The building was first established as the Phun Phactory in 1993 by Pat DiLillo to allow artists to legally display their graffiti as a formal showcase. Then in 2002, Jonathan Cohen began to curate the work by asking for artist’s samples and layouts that they wanted to draw on the walls. The name “5Pointz” symbolized the five boroughs coming together, but because of its reputation, it ending up joining artists from all around the world. Also because of its reputation, it has attracted many R&B and hip-hop starts and in 2013, it was featured in the movie “Now You See Me.” The building was then set to be demolished to make room for condos and the New York City Council unanimously approved the decision. This however was not taken well by the public and when 5Pointz was painted over two days ago, it created a stir in the art community. Because 5Pointz wasn’t formally viewed as an art venue and rather a place of ruckus, disorder, and graffiti, government officials didn’t see any problem with destroying it and New York City lost one of its most famous outdoor art galleries.

When people tend to think of graffiti, they picture gangs and violence, which is one of the reasons the council was so eager to get rid of it. However, the irony in this decision is that 5Pointz could have been a haven for aspiring graffiti artists and may have even been the reason for the future acceptance of graffiti as an art form. As the mission statement says on the official 5Pointz website, “5Pointz gallery curator, Meres, plans to convert the five-story, block-long industrial complex at Jackson Avenue and Davis Street into a graffiti museum…he plans to open a school for aspiring aerosol artists, complete with a formalized curriculum that imparts lessons in teamwork, art history, and entrepreneurship in addition to technique.” The anger of reading this statement after learning that 5Pointz is no more can be seen in many fans of art-graffiti. The curator, Jonathan Cohen, said, “In 10 years from now, when the art form is fully accepted, [they] won’t be remembered for any individual real estate property [they] built. [They’ll] be remembered for the greatest art murder in history. That will be [their] legacy.”

However, many people wouldn’t agree with him. 5Pointz was famed only in art community, not be federal law or by federal officials. When the council was going over the project of G&M realty, they weren’t looking at 5Pointz for what it was, a beacon of hope for prospective artists, seeking approval for their talents. They saw it as an eye sore that would have better use as condos as though this would make the neighborhood safer and more pleasant. What is interesting, however, is that Jimmy Vab Bramer, one of the councilmembers, posted that the council agreed to increase “space for artists up to 12,000 square feet and 5Pointz could continue curating art at the site.” Many were unclear how that would work, but with Wolkoff actions, it is clear this wouldn’t be true. Although 5Pointz leaders were just starting to create a bid that would mark the site as a landmark, Wolkoff used his powers to paint over decades were of art and culture, “I whitewashed the building to stop the torture…[the artists] had to take their medicine…they will be upset with me for a day or two … and then everyone will be over it.” In addition, Wolkoff claimed to have loved the graffiti and said, “If I were an art murderer I wouldn’t have allowed them to paint all these years.”

Whatever, Wolkoff’s true feelings are, it doesn’t change the fact that the murals are now gone, but shouldn’t be. Just because the government didn’t see it as a landmark, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth anything to the citizens and visitors of New York. With its demolition, it killed many hopes of getting graffiti accepted as an art form. Eric Felisbret, author of Graffiti New York, wrote, “5 Pointz holds an important place in graffiti history… as an important social hub for the creative channel of the graffiti movement…also helped to shape generations. 5 Pointz came into being in an era when the graffiti movement in New York was divided between legal and illegal graffiti, so it served as a venue for aspiring graffiti artists, who might paint illegally if it did not exist. When it’s gone, perhaps the up and coming kids will head straight into the illegal arena of tagging and street bombing,” and added, “I think the biggest loss will be the fact that we will be losing the closest thing the graffiti movement has to a museum.” Even residents of the surrounding buildings were saddened by the news because they claimed it was a “real New York view”.

While Wolkoff thinks he did the right thing and admirers of graffiti art criticize his actions by saying it was a form of gentrification, the core problem remains: should 5Pointz have been seen as landmark, and therefore, not have been destroyed? People, and even experts on the topic, have a hard time figuring out a solid and complete definition of art. One of the official definitions is, “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.” By this definition, 5Pointz should have been preserved as a museum because it housed many of these pieces of “art”. The tragic end of a mural with so much prospective is rather discouraging when thinking of how times need to change in order for more progressive art forms are accepted.

Works Cited

“5 POINTZ.” 5 POINTZ. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://5ptz.com/about/>.

“5 Pointz.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz>.

“5Pointz Redevelopment Approved by City Council.” New York Business Journal. N.p., 9 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2013/10/09/5pointz-redevelopment-approved-by-city.html>.

“Art.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art>.

Colucci, Emily. “What Are We Losing with the Disappearance of LIC’s 5 Pointz “Graffiti Museum”?” Hyperallergic RSS. N.p., 2 July 2012. Web. 16 Nov. 2013. <http://hyperallergic.com/53661/5-pointz-will-disappear-in-september-2013/>.

Evelly, Jeanmarie. “Graffiti Mecca 5Pointz Whitewashed Overnight.” DNAinfo.com New York. N.p., 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131119/long-island-city/5pointz-graffiti-whitewashed-overnight>.

Murray, Christian. “Owner of 5Pointz: I Whitewashed the Building to Stop the Torture.” Long Island City Post. N.p., 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://licpost.com/2013/11/19/owner-of-5-pointz-i-whitewashed-the-building-to-stop-the-torture/>.

5Pointz Destroyed, Aerosol Art Eternal

Posted on November 20, 2013 by jiajunwu

Graffiti is commonly associated with unruly vandalism. Gigantic bubble words and all kinds of images are sprayed onto any imaginable surface. People are divided in their opinions; some embrace graffiti as a free expression of art while others vow to cleanse the walls at all costs. In fact, graffiti is outlawed in New York City. So aerosol artists take their stencils and spray paints to make graffiti in the dead of night. But it’s not always this way.

5Pointz Aerosol Art Center, Inc., or 5Pointz: The Institute of Higher Burning, is considered the world’s premiere “graffiti Mecca” (5 POINTZ). Located in Long Island City, it is a place where graffiti is widely celebrated. Instead of censorship and reproach, artists, musicians, filmmakers, photographers, and tourists all gather at this 200,000 square-foot factory building to commemorate and express this unique art form. Not only is it an amazing sight from the adjacent 7 train, up close it is a marvel of flamboyant colors and stories symbolizing unity of the five boroughs of New York and beyond.

The building complex is owned by Jerry Wolkoff. Called the Crane Street Studios under G&M Realty, the complex provided very affordable studio spaces for artists. Beginning in the late 1990s, a group called the Phun Phactory and Wolkoff allowed artists to paint the outer walls legally (Weir). Soon, the place prospered, pulling artists away from illegal spray painting and to the warehouse walls. Then, in 2002, Jonathan Cohen, a graffiti artist known by “Meres One,” took the task of curating this outdoor exhibition and transformed it into the renowned 5Pointz (Kiper).

But all good things must come to an end. In April 2009, one of the artists, Nicole Gagne, suffered serious injuries when a concrete fire escape collapsed. In consequence, New York City Buildings Department issued numerous violations including unsafe conditions and improper permits and ordered the largest of the buildings closed (Buckley).

Then after years of vacancy, on August 2013, the New York City Planning Commission approved Wolkoff’s redevelopment proposal. The $400 million project included two residential towers, of 41 and 47 stories tall, which combined, can house one thousand apartment units with 210 affordable units for low income families (Nir). In addition, Wolkoff proposed 12,000 square feet for artists’ studios and 10,000 square feet of art panels and walls. On October 2013, the New York City Council unanimously approved the plans, thus beginning 5Pointz’s imminent demolition.

Of course, artists who have spent years painting their proudest work onto those walls were furious. They tried with utmost strength to preserve their work and the iconic site. 5Pointz and the artists formed many rallies and signed landmark petitions. The long struggle resulted in a Federal Court Judge granting a 10-day restraining order under the Visual Artists Rights Act against G&M Realty, and then a 14-day restraining order until November 12. Unfortunately, the efforts were futile as Wolkoff already had approval for redevelopment. As Bramer, one of the councilmen, said, “The truth is there was not a way to save the building. The building is privatedly owned; the owners can knock that down and build a very large building.” Also, an injunction to block demolition could not be passed because 5Pointz was not deemed to be a landmark designation as the oldest art was not over 30 years old (Marzulli).

Despite little success, the artists firmly believed that “this fight is bigger than [sic] graffiti, bigger than [sic] a building, it’s [sic] about preserving something priceless, a piece of history and a monument known the world over [sic]” (5 POINTZ). So they continued to fight for what they have worked so hard for. On November 17, hundreds of artists rallied to save 5Pointz. If this petition to landmark 5Pointz did not work, the artists planned to form a human-chain to block bulldozers. Cohen fully supported preservation and said that the new buildings will “just destroy more of what made New York what it is. Now it is just boring, full of bland boring towers of boxes of glass.” He adds, “‘Giving up’ are no words in my vocabulary. There’s always hope.” Clearly, the artists are very vocal and active in their attempts to saving 5Pointz, however a feeling of desperation seemed to be ominously looming. Emily, of Queens Brownstoner, foreshadowed a losing battle as she described the rally as, “more like a final, fond farewell than an angry political demonstration” (Emily). Meanwhile, Wolkoff remained adamant on his redevelopment plans and urged, “The artwork is absolutely fabulous. That’s why we’re asking them to come back to the new building” (Kiper). Then, everything changed overnight.

On the morning of November 19, 2013, the view from the 7 train dramatically changed. Instead of being greeted by a colorful collage of aerosol art, a white-washed building was in its place. Wolkoff had painted over the building under police protection, completely covering all aerosol art in white paint and causing a total upheaval. He justified his actions by saying, “to watch the pieces go down piece by piece by piece would be torturous… I had tears in my eyes while I was doing it.” He continued to defend his actions by saying that he loves what the artists did, but they are “misguided.” The matter of painting over their work was the same as the tradition of painting graffiti over other works of graffiti. He believed the artists don’t really want landmark preservation; they want to keep painting and he offers that choice in his new construction (Coscarelli).

In response, social media exploded with criticisms and outrage. With fervent pictures being sent across the internet, many considered what Wolkoff had done was an act of greed and disrespect. Especially with the real estate market heating up, people blamed Wolkoff’s timely decision to be for selfish financial gains. Additionally, the sudden erasure of over a decade of art history was completely shocking. Needless to say, artists and fans were aghast, speechless, and heartbroken.

On the evening of the whitewash, artists gathered at 5Pointz to share the site’s final moments. While the artists said goodbye to 5Pointz, they will never forget the connections and moments they’ve had at the site and will continue the tradition of aerosol art.

Works Cited

“5 POINTZ.” 5 POINTZ. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Buckley, Cara. “One Artist is Hurt, and 200 Others Are Feeling the Pain.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Coscarelli, Joe. “5Pointz Building Owner Defends Paint Job, Demolition: ‘It’s Best for Everyone.” New York Magazine. Daily Intelligencer, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Emily. “Closing Bell: Jerry Wolkoff Responds, and a Candlelight Vigil for 5Pointz Tonight.” Queens Brownstoner. Queens Brownstoner, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Kiper, Dmitry. “Curator of an Urban Canvas.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 24 July 2007. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Marzulli, John. “5Pointz Graffiti Mecca in Long Island City Is Likely Doomed after Judge Says He Won’t Stop Demolition.” NY Daily News. NY Daily News, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Nir, Sarah Maslin, and Charles V. Bagli. “City Council to Decide Fate of Mecca for Graffiti Artists.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Weir, Richard. “NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT: LONG ISLAND CITY; Wall Hits a Patron of Graffiti.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Feb. 1998. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Feature Article: What Happened to New York City Rap?

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Nicholas Arniotes

What Happened to NYC Rap?

Biggie Smalls! The Wu-Tang Clan! Jay-Z! These are the names of some of the most notable rappers to come out of New York City in the 1990s. What are the names of the newest and most successful rappers from New York City in the last three to four years? Can you think of any? If you cannot, you have just realized how little influence New York City has on hip-hop these days. The hip-hop community has adjusted its focus towards West Coast rappers like Kendrick Lamar and Dirty South rap groups such as Young Money (YMCMB) and MayBach Music (MBM). Last month, two veteran rappers named Maino and Jadakiss released a song into radio airwaves called “What Happened.” The New York City rappers explore several reasons why the New York City rap-scene has fallen from grace in their new song. Jadakiss and Maino only touch upon an issue that the entire rap community has been debating for the last several years.

One reason Maino and Jadakiss believe to be a cause of the decline of New York rap is the reliance upon the legendary rappers of the city’s past. Jay-Z and Nas, for example, are two legends to which the New York rap community looks for guidance. Over the years, these rappers have maintained quality and purpose in their songs despite their age. People in the New York rap community and its fans look at these legendary rappers like the gods of hip-hop. Maino raps about this in his song when he exclaims: “N*&^% got a problem with Hov/ 15 years later, are we greater? Couple mill, skyscrapers/ And people still waiting for Hov?” (Maino). These lines illustrate this ever-lasting quality that someone like Jay-Z has in New York. The community continues to look up to these legends because no one new has come to become its new leader. While the rap scenes of the South, specifically Atlanta, thrive off of the success of newer rappers like Rick Ross or 2-Chainz, New York remains with its old relics.

“What Happened” showcases another issue that the New York rap community has faced: a lack of support within the rap community of New York. Since its beginnings, rap has always been a genre with a rather competitive nature. The battles between the East and West Coast are a prime example. Different factions of rappers competed against each other for dominance over the nation’s airwaves. This lack of cooperation has occurred even within New York through numerous beefs and rivalries. In the early 2000s, critics often blamed 50 Cent for being the initiator of several critical beefs; the infamous beefs 50 Cent had with New York rappers Ja Rule and Fat Joe have dismantled the community since. These beefs were so severe, the careers of Ja Rule and Fat Joe were nearly ruined in the process. In the song, Maino states the following about this lack of collaboration: “Cause we destroyed each other, we don’t support us/ We supposed to be a team but we not, we look sweet” (Maino). The beefs that occur among New York rappers have left the community weak and suspect to the influence of the of outside rap cultures.

Radio stations in New York City have not helped the rap community either. Maino and Jadakiss attack New York City’s radio stations by claiming that they do not support New York rappers. This is sadly true. The city’s two major rap stations, Hot 97.1 FM and Power 105.1 FM, are no longer hubs of local hip-hop. In an interview with Power 105.1, Cam’Ron, a popular rapper from the late 1990s and the early 2000s, said: “We don’t dictate hits anymore. The main places where hits are being dictated are from Atlanta and Toronto, so we start following the programs of other places instead of dictating the music.” (Cam’ron). This has a lot to do with the increasing popularity of rappers from the South and West Coast. If you were to turn your radio and put on rap stations, you would most likely hear songs by Kendrick Lamar or Drake, rather than those of local rappers in the underground. New York rap radio stations no longer air new rap from New York City. Power 105.1, for example, has become a national broadcast station with the popularity of iHeart radio. Hot 97.1 FM, a radio station that has prided itself in its association with New York hip-hop from its roots, has lost its credibility. Ebro, a DJ for Hot 97.1 FM, even claims that radio stations in New York do not support the rap community. He explains, in an interview Hot 97.1 FM had with Rap Radar, how Hot 97.1 FM no longer takes risks on underground rappers and plays what is hot to keep ratings up. Rap stations in New York have abandoned the principles that established them as the city’s main sources of rap in favor of profits. The rap community in New York is given little chance to spread its wings across the country without the support of radio. At this point, radio stations will not play New York rap until the city’s rappers become more successful and profitable.

Why is it that Southern and West Coast rap have dominated rap in New York? The issue for the rap community is that there are a greater number of new rappers coming out of these areas compared to New York. Manny Faces, the creator of the New York Hip-Hop Report, describes how the rap communities in these areas work differently: they collaborate together, big-time success by their rappers in the recent years have made these areas more profitable, and underground rappers have a home within the community. New York rap is not dead whatsoever; it has simply fallen from mainstream relevance. New York was one of the biggest contributors to rap for decades. The works by New York rappers in the 1980s and 1990s have shaped rap forever. Today, rappers like ASAP Rocky, French Montana, and Trey Ave are three of New York’s new faces of rap. They may not have the “East-Coast” feel like their predecessors, but they are the new generation of rappers who have been influenced by rap around the country. In time, New York will return to the rap scene and reclaim its right as the king of rap.

“What Happened”, by Maino ft. Jadakiss

Works Cited

Baker, Soren. Scarface Says New York Rappers Are “Following the Trend”. HipHopDX: 13 May 2013. Web. 10 November 2013

Breakfast Club. Cam’Ron Interview at the Breakfast Club Power 105.1. Power 105.1 FM. Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, 11 October 2013. Web, 2013 November 13.

Coleman, Jermaine. “What Happened”. Maino ft. Jadakiss. Produced by 2Much/ Sarah J. October 2013. Web, 12 November 2013.

Epstein, Juan. Hot 97 Interview With Rap Radar. Hot 97.1 FM. Hot 97 FM, 15 October 2013. Web, 2013 November 13.

Markman, Rob. Troy Ave Has One Simple Reason For New York City’s Rap Slump Brooklyn MC theorizes about why the city’s hip-hop scene lost its’ classic feel, on ‘RapFix Live.’ MTV: 7 November 2013. Web. 10 November 2013.

The Trail of Transformation: Faithful to the End

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Cate Larsen

A small, yet diverse gathering of people walk into a worn down church building on Atlantic Avenue in 1971, near where the rippling architecture of the Barclays Center now stands. The early morning sky is already lit up on this sunny Sunday morning. On the similarly lit stage inside the building stand the nine nicely arranged members of the worship choir, a young woman leading them from the bench of a piano. There is no sheet music. There are no vocally or musically trained members. As the service begins, both congregation and choir lift their voices in melodic unison for a kingdom far grander than the view on the stage.

A cultural melting pot of ten thousand people group together in lines that stretch around the corner of Smith Street. These eager people are waiting to be let into one of the three services in the church building renovated from a former theater. Four thousand are seated inside, while others towards the back are directed to an annex building around the corner where a big screen has been set up in an overflow room. Inside the church the ceilings are high, the red carpets spotless, and the stage bright. 280 choir members stand to their feet, a middle-aged woman enthusiastically drops her lifted hands, and the room erupts into a harmony that can be heard from outside the wooden doors. A spectator would never guess that there is no sheet music and no professional musical training involved.

Believe it or not, these two vastly different choirs are one and the same. The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir is a true “rags to riches” tale. The wife of the Brooklyn Tabernacle’s senior pastor, Carol Cymbala, was always naturally inclined to and gifted in music. She had envisioned herself as the leader of a large choir from a young age. After marrying Jim Cymbala, senior pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, it seemed that her moment to begin this dream had finally come. The church was very small, yet she was able to find nine people who were passionate about music. She invited them to her home and began to teach them parts of songs to memorize for Sunday mornings. Carol was extremely shy to the point where she would get a nervous stomach right before the simple rehearsals held in her own home.

Nevertheless, over time, the choir grew to a few dozen members. Nancy Morales, one of these members who helped Carol lead the choir, and now a Deaconess in Brooklyn Tabernacle, honestly related that “the soprano section, of which I was a part, was very weak. Someone joked that we sounded like three blind mice!” Within forty years, these “mice” went from one extreme to another, winning six Grammy awards and having the honor to perform at President Barack Obama’s 2012 inauguration. However, this type of transformation does not simply happen overnight. There were defining moments in between the extremes that led to the transition and emergence from one to the other.

New York City is congested with people, and Carol Cymbala wanted to use her choir to connect with them– the daunting question was how. After months of a steady new stream of members – mostly college students – and collaborations with other Christian groups, Carol decided that she could not fulfill her goal if the choir limited itself to the church building, aware that most people were not going to go out of their way to attend. There were three subsequent events from this thought that propelled Brooklyn Tabernacle onto the path to its future: discography and bigger venues all facilitated by a new building.

Carol had longed to make a CD for the choir for years, but the funding was never available. However, in 1981 it was decided that the CD could be made as long as each chorus member pre-sold at least ten albums. After this hard work, the choir didn’t stop, recording the entire album in one night since they only had the money to rent out the studio for one day. The rest, as Nancy Morales put it, was “providential.” A young producer named Neal Joseph with Word Records, a Christian recording and distribution company, was given a copy of the album. He was instantly sold on it, and asked Carol to sign a contract.

Carol’s next plan was to rent out a hall for a concert performance, ambitiously deciding on Carnegie Hall. Though expectations were not at their peak, the turnout was massive. The crowd in front of the venue was so large that police had to be called in, and some hopefuls had to be turned away. As the choir became well known, after nearly annual album releases, they also performed at venues such as Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall! On convenient weekends such as Labor Day, the choir would travel to many different locations in the country. As a result of all this activity, a Best Gospel Album by a Choir or Chorus Grammy Award was presented to the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir consecutively from 1991-1997.

The choir’s tremendous growth was paralleled with that of the church itself over a time span of about twenty years. The Atlantic Avenue building was long outgrown, to the desperate point where a local YMCA had to be rented out for Sunday meetings. A former theater in Park Slope was finally purchased in the eighties, with a seat capacity of twelve thousand. This building was the facilitation and backrop for the tremendous growth and major events within the choir during that time. By the time “the Tab” made their final move to the former Loew’s Metropolitan Theatre in 2002, the choir was unrecognizable from their humble beginnings, congregants being dropped off at the doors by the busloads.

These key events provide plenty of reason to boast, yet Carol Cymbala takes no credit or pride, even after twenty-three produced albums released in multiple languages. She points out that many of the choir members are untrained, some former drug addicts and homeless.

“If God’s power had depended on the quality of their voices, I am quite sure nothing would have happened in those meetings. But great things did happen. As a result, I know that unless our hearts are pure, unless we depend entirely on God, our labors will be in vain, even if we are invited to sing on the stages of the world’s most famous concert halls,” she expressed.

As Nancy Morales and Carol Cymbala can both confirm, the most important part of the ministry is prayer. Each meeting begins with prayer, and during one such meeting this time of praying did not end until almost midnight! Tears sprung to Nancy Morales’ eyes as she looked back on God’s faithfulness to those who came to Him humbly and sincerely. The choir’s only goal has been to serve as a platform that points to God, focused on praising Him rather than on performance and musical technicalities; and they are confident He has honored and blessed this commitment, quoting Him in one of their recent songs as “faithful to the end.” Though the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir has come a long way, the kingdom they sing for is still believed by them to be far grander.

Feature Article: A Director’s Playground

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Michael Mamiye

From King Kong to Spider-Man, from Taxi Driver to The Godfather, New York City has been the home of some of the most iconic and revolutionary films of all time. Since the beginning of film itself, directors from all over the world have chosen to set their films on the streets of New York. But why? Is it the excitement of the Big Apple? The diverse population? The fascinating cultures? As it turns out, it is not one thing in specific, but rather a combination of many aspects, that gives New York its iconic status that it holds today.

Acting and entertainment have actually been part of New York City since long before the first film was even recorded. Broadway-theater, named for the street Broadway in Manhattan, was popular in New York from as early as the year 1750. Before people would flock to the movie theater to see the latest films, they would go to a Broadway theater, to experience one of New York’s oldest traditions. Even today, 250 years later, people still enjoy going to a good play as opposed to a film, for a more intimate form of entertainment. This history of entertainment is undoubtedly responsible to New York City’s status in film today, Broadway-theater was a major catalyst for what we know and love about the art in New York’s today.

During the years surrounding the great depression, so many of our ancestors, mine included, came through the gates of Ellis Island in New York looking for work in the “land of opportunity.” Italians, Jews, Russians, Poles and immigrants from all corners of the globe, converged on a city of just 300 square miles. New York City had become a “melting pot” of literally hundreds of different cultures. Coincidently, at the same time, filmography was beginning to take off all around the world. Because of this, filmmakers were able to come to New York and get everything that they needed in this one location. This unique aspect is, in part, the reason for the overwhelming success of New York City in film. One example of the extreme diversity of New York that comes to mind is the film Coming to America, starring Eddie Murphy. In the film, Murphy, an African prince, comes to New York in search of a woman to marry. The film illustrates the cultural clashes often seen in everyday life in New York City, due to the numerous immigrants that come to America, knowing nothing about it, and often not even speaking English.

In the film capitol of the world, Hollywood, California, almost everything is forged. Their sets are constructed for each film, their beautiful sceneries are merely projections on a green screen, and, at times, they even resort to building entire cities. But in New York, it’s the complete opposite; the entire city is a stage, where the only limit is the director’s creativity. The iconic landmarks that appear consistently throughout the films are all real. Times Square is real; the Statue of Liberty is real; the Empire State Building, Coney Island, and Central Park are all existent places that any of us can visit, on any day. Walking through Manhattan, it doesn’t take long to spot a film crew working on the next big Hollywood blockbuster; I myself must be in at least handful of films just from strolling past the sets. Equally, any New Yorker can name the exact corner that a scene was filmed in when watching something that is set in New York. It is this sense of consistency and reality that movies set in New York possess, that generates the powerful icons we associate with them.

While many people associate New York City with Manhattan, in reality, it’s much more than that. Brooklyn, The Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island, have all had their own unique impact on the culture and film of New York City. While it is true that some boroughs (namely Manhattan), may have some more of the spotlight than others, it would be an abomination to suggest that New York City would be what it is without all of its five boroughs. The film that perfectly epitomizes this idea is The Godfather. One of the most iconic films of all time, The Godfather is the winner of three Oscar awards, and is ranked number two on The Internet Movie Database’s list of the top movies of all time. What makes this film even more special is that it contains scenes that were filmed in all five of New York City’s boroughs. I can’t think of a better way to illustrate the importance of New York City as a whole, than with this example. The culture and success behind film in New York City is the culmination of all of the unique aspects that each borough has to offer.

New York is home to some of the largest industries in the country, from Wall Street to the Garment District, this city is arguably the center of the entire world. Within all of that lies the film industry, trying to capture all that New York has to offer with the help of the some of the most iconic landmarks and culturally diverse people in the world. When you really think about it, its no wonder that film in New York City has been a tremendous success. With its genuine city ambiance, limitless choice of scenery, and iconic landmarks, New York City is truly a director’s ultimate playground.

Bibliography

Coming to America. Dir. John Landis. Paramount Pictures, 1988. Film.

The Godfather. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount Pictures, 1972. Film.

“The Godfather (1972) – IMDb.” The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/>.

Feature Article: A Civil War Like No Other

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Joanne Ramadani

The competitors face each other across the large, square table, the harsh fluorescent light glinting off of their glasses. Their eyes are dark and serious, their eyebrows narrowed in determination. Their fingers are poised, ready to fire at a moment’s notice.

The clock ticks for a few moments, and then—it chimes loudly, signaling the beginning. In a flurry of finger movement, the competitors tap furiously away at the keys, struggling to win the battle that will get them one step closer to winning the war—the word war.

While not all battles are this serious, most people participating in National Novel Writing Month are serious about their goal, especially in New York City. National Novel Writing Month, often abbreviated as NaNoWriMo or NaNo, is an annual competition in which an individual challenges himself or herself to write 50,000 words or more from November 1^st until November 30^th.

The competition is nationally housed online for easy access, and the website, nanowrimo.org, includes an area in which competitors can enter their word count numerically. These numbers are represented in a bar graph that shows a participant visually how they are progressing, and the participant gets his or her own individual bar that shows other people what his or her word count is.

In theory, NaNoWriMo is an individual competition. The only limitations: Participants must begin with a fresh idea, they cannot write collaborative novels, and the novels must be some form of fiction. Participants can be of any age, and they don’t necessarily have to be seasoned, professional authors—although seasoned, professional authors do take part in NaNoWriMo and have even used it to create drafts of novels that have been published and are now relatively popular.

NaNoWriMo is generally used as something of a tool to pull drafts of novels from people who would not have the drive or motivation to write novels otherwise.

“It started for me as a personal challenge to finally complete a manuscript. Given my crazy schedule and short attention span, a thirty day challenge seemed perfect for me,” explained Mel Walker, a veteran participant in the competition.

The nature of the competition pits the writer against his or her novel, struggling to fulfill the daily word count par of 1,667 words or even to surpass that amount. However, quite against the initial theory, the spirit of competition flows freely between fellow writers, and the competition has become more social in nature.

Many writers participate in what are called “word wars,” or “word sprints” if they don’t feel like getting aggressive in their competitions. In these word wars, two or more writers set up a time period, usually fifteen minutes, during which they attempt to write as many words as they can. The word wars can be done online, but they are most effective in person.

Throughout the month of November, people participating in NaNoWriMo attend what are called “write-ins”—events at which writers sit down and try to get their word count up to or above par. These write-ins are organized by Municipal Liaisons, usually abbreviated as MLs, and Municipal Liaisons are essentially responsible for organizing events—both in-person and online—and keeping the peace in the region.

Since New York City consists of five boroughs and not all writers can get to certain boroughs, this year, Municipal Liaisons have organized write-ins in different boroughs on different days, with social meetings on Fridays.

Many participants appreciate the effort the MLs put into regional activity, especially because most of them are also taking part in NaNoWriMo. Last year, one of the Municipal Liaisons for the New York City area was Erin Morgenstern, whose very successful novel released that year, The Night Circus, was a novel written during the competition.

“The MLs do particularly wonderful jobs of hosting all the write-ins and social events. And I have to say—I admired them a hell of a lot more when I found out that they were writing their own novels, too. Do they have super powers or something?” wondered Mallika, a participant who is also juggling graduate school and did not disclose her full name.

The write-ins tend to help people focus and keep up a quicker pace when it comes to word count, and the human interaction—and spirit of competition—seems to be very motivational for writers.

“The community building aspects help reinforce our own personal motivation. To see so many others experiencing a similar journey and the joy helps. Also, I’ve found that every writer I’ve encountered is a wonderful person,” mused Walker.

Face-to-face interaction is not the only kind that New York City Wrimos (what NaNoWriMo participants call themselves) take part in. Regional forums and a chat room have been established by the Municipal Liaisons, who, in addition to organizing write-ins, moderate the online world of New York City’s NaNoWriMo community.

Participants use the forums and the chat room relatively frequently. This frequency was the reason that this year, a new message board appeared above the forum threads, telling participants in the New York City region where write-ins and socials will be located.

Though the community tends to be competitive, they also have a lot of fun together. During social meetings, participants are told to leave their laptops at home—there is no writing done at socials, because they are the resting points at the end of each week for participants.

“I’ve been to the socials. Always fun, everyone has a fictional story or a NaNo story to tell. Every writer knows a good book I haven’t read. The group is fun, intelligent, easygoing, and sexy. Yeah, I said it, writers are fun,” smirked Joe Kennedy, a participant who lives in New Jersey, but writes in at New York because he works in the city.

In addition to having fun at the socials and write-ins, participants are also proud to be part of the NYC NaNoWriMo community because of several reasons, but especially the natural mobility of the area, in comparison to the other regional communities.

“I’ve said it for many years, NYC has the best of everything. We have the best MLs in the country, amazing locations and a very active writing community. Where else can you write in a different borough every night and top it off with an online chat room?” asked Walker.

At the end of the day, community members are grateful for the social aspect, especially if it means getting into a few word wars and getting a few words closer to the coveted goal of 50,000 words.

“The NYC NaNo community is great,” admitted Kennedy. “If they can’t inspire a few more words, I’m not sure what can.”

Feature Article: Promoting Diversity through Architecture

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Donald Fung

Promoting Diversity through Architecture

Over a decade after the tragedy that occurred on September 11th in New York City, the small, forgotten St. Nicholas Church, crushed by the falling World Trade Center, was rebuilt with a Byzantine design. The church’s construction has been on and off ever since its destruction, yet few people know about this development since no images of the church has been released until late October of 2013.

This monumental church is artistically designed with its inspiration hailing from two famous Orthodox churches – the Hagia Sophia and Church of the Holy Savior in Chora. Aside from their mutual location in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Turkey), both churches have been converted into Islamic mosques in the past. Therefore, to the eyes of many people, St. Nicholas Church resembles a mosque and symbolizes the Islamic faith.

With so many inspirational Orthodox Church designs to choose from, why were those associated with Islam selected?

The church’s architect, Santiago Calatrava, seemed to be well aware of the ensuing debate stimulated by his design. Calatrava is a world-renowned artist who designed buildings and transportation systems all around the globe. He is certainly not aiming to create a replica of the previous St. Nicholas Church on the site. He wants to create something expressive; he wants to display an image of New York City as a culturally and religiously accepting city. As a Spanish architect designing a Greek Orthodox Church with Byzantine and Islamic designs, Calatrava himself is the epitome of the expression of diversity.

Calatrava, who travels constantly between the United States and Europe, believes that Europe has a wider range of architecture from different time periods with churches using styles from Romanesque to Gothic to Renaissance. Meanwhile, in America, architecture is more contemporary and less diverse. Therefore, Calatrava tries to bring a larger variety of architectural designs from different locations and time periods to the table.

However, Calatrava’s vision of diversity appears to many people as insensitivity towards the tragedy at Ground Zero. Just three years ago, in 2010, the proposal of an Islamic mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center provoked widespread conflict and debate. Calatrava’s design purposefully brings this controversy back to life. With its dome comprising of 40 ribs, St. Nicholas Church is clearly alluding to the Hagia Sophia. Even though the dome was invented by the Greeks, the Islamic world borrowed this form of architecture and incorporated it into their own religious institutions; therefore, this design is associated with Islam.

During an interview conducted by Euronews, Calatrava states that the September 11th attacks were not only an attack against people, but also against an architectural symbol of New York City, the Twin Towers. He states that “man is at the center of architecture” and the attacks “show a great contempt for humanity.” He believes that to avoid this, we should embrace cultural diversity rather than discriminate against people that happen to be religiously associated with the offenders. After such a tragic event, it is important that we display respect for others and respect for architecture in order to support our memories.

Due to his radical beliefs, Calatrava’s designs often “provoke strong reactions; they are either loved or loathed” (Euronews). He believes that architecture is the most tangible sign of civilization. According to Euronews, Calatrava claims that architecture is much more than aesthetic buildings; “it gives the sense of heritage of a particular time.” His design of St. Nicholas Church reflects just that. It accurately depicts the Orthodox heritage and tradition by basing the church off of the Hagia Sophia, which served as the symbol of Orthodox Christianity from its construction in 537 unitl 1453.

Along with St. Nicholas Church, he had also created other designs at Ground Zero. These designs include the West Concourse PATH station, which cost the city $4 billion and stands as the most expensive subway station in the world. The project, expected to be finished in 2015, is six years behind its original schedule. Similarly, the design for St. Nicholas Church is budgeted at $20 million and expected to be completed in 2016. Although many people praise his expressive, original and phenomenal designs, Calatrava’s work is surrounded by controversy and criticism due to his tendency to finish projects late and go extremely over budget.

Calatrava believes that his over budgeting on architecture is justified because architecture is everlasting. He states that the cost of architectural projects is nothing compared to the billions of dollars used to save the economy. When states give money to banks, they receive nothing in return and stall their demise temporarily. But when states allocate money toward buildings, it is both functional and everlasting.

His philosophy is that architecture is not only made for the present, it is also created for the future. Just like any other art form, architecture is made to outlast its creator. Buildings may convey a powerful message to the current and future generations. To Calatrava, the message it conveys and its durability is much more important than reducing the cost of his building.

Reverend Mark Arey, a spokesman for the archdiocese, states that the church will be open to all visitors and treat everyone with impartiality regardless of their religious background. In addition, he states that there will be a nondenominational bereavement center at the church. However, many people are still skeptical about these claims and believe that Ground Zero and the area around it should remain completely secular, devoid of any artistic element representing religion for its monumental purposes.

Although religious art have often been banned and destroyed in a variety of places, the banning of religious art in New York City, a city known for its multiculturalism and freedom, is inconceivable. We need to respect all types of art, whether they are highly accepted or controversial.

Work Citied:

Dunlap, David W. “Church Near TradeCenter to Echo Landmarks of East.” New York Times. New York Times, 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Vitello, Paul. “Islamic Center Exposes Mixed Feelings Locally.” New York Times. New York Times, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Daley, Suzanne. “A Star Architect Leaves Some Clients Fuming.” New York Times. New York Times, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Euronews. “Santiago Calatrava: finding architecture’s soul.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 30 May 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Silver, Leigh. “Santiago Calatrava’s WorldTradeCenter PATH Station Pedestrian Corridor Opens.” Complex Art and Design. Complex Media, 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Baldwin, Eric. “Calatrava Reveals Design for Church on 9/11 Memorial Site.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Toothman, Mary. “Polytechnic Architect Calatrava Describes His Philosophy.” The Ledger. Ledger Media Group, 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Rosenfield, Karissa. “Calatrava Criticized for Valencia Complex.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Ivy, Rober. “An Interview with Santiago Calatrava.” Architectural Record. McGraw Hill Financial, 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Feature Article: Where do women belong?

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Seung Ah Choi

Even after women had established their status in society after the Industrial Revolution and the Suffrage movement, they were constantly exposed to discriminatory sayings such as “Girls ought to be quiet and obedient,” and “Women belong in the kitchen.” What was frequently observed on special occasions or even daily routines reflected upon this social norm as well. Men stayed seated, gathered at a lounge drinking tea or socializing, while women huddled in a kitchen, cooking meals to feed the relatives and family members.

A traditional scene of women in the kitchen probably comes off as familiar and even “comfortable” to those who resist change. But is this familiarity, otherwise known as social belief in a broader context, an adequate justification to perpetuate the distinction of where each gender belongs? By strictly defining where women fit in, is society not limiting the subtle abilities possessed by women?

To locate answers and further implications of these questions, one should step out and explore the Museum of Modern Art’s newly debuted exhibition: “Designing Modern Women 1890-1990.” First opened on October 5th of this year, MoMA’s exhibit unveils artworks and objects designed by women. Some of the highlights include the kitchen in the Unité d’Habitation, designed by Charlotte Perriand, and a wooden chair designed by Margaret and Charles Mackintosh. By displaying works designed by women, the exhibit demonstrates that the kitchen is not the only place where women belong; they have more to offer and bring to the table – not just the one in the kitchen.

Though seemingly crowded with women’s independent works, the exhibition actually holds many projects collaborated by both men and women. This “collaboration” was especially necessary for women, due to their social standing. Under the social belief held by people from the 20^th century, women were rarely given the opportunity to publicize their design work, unless men were somehow involved with their efforts. For instance, when Charlotte Perriand requested to work with the male architect Le Corbusier, she was at first dismissed by him with a condescending remark, “We don’t embroider cushions here,”Only after he took a look at her creation of a rooftop bar at the Salon d’Automne was she allowed to begin designing. She came up with designs of three chairs, such as the red leather revolving armchair; they are credited to not only Perriand, but also to Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret. Though it cannot be said for sure that the chairs were her independent designs, it is clear that the societal influences of her male partners were greater than one can imagine.

Ironically, many objects displayed at this exhibit are items that have been classically associated with women. Few prominent examples include Marianne Brandt’s Bauhaus teapot and Ada Louise Huxtable’s metal cookware hanging on hooks, not to mention Perriand’s French kitchen in the Unité d’Habitation. However, this should not be used as a measure to place boundaries on women’s ability to design. It simply reflects upon the tradition of where women linger the most: the domestic setting. If women had more exposure to the outside world, there might have been female-designed buildings. Women might even have a bigger share of the industry now.

The notion that women were just not fully exposed to other environments to produce quality designs related to the industrial world, is sustained through the successful performance of modern-day female automobile designers. Along with the immense popularity and publicity of cars, female designers slowly appeared and soon became indispensable to the industry. Thanks to their exceptional attention to detail, most of them partake in designing the interiors of cars. They bring the completion of designing inner mechanisms of cars to a whole different level, by concentrating on details like color and shapes of each component. If so, why is it the primary role of male designers to design the exterior? The detail-oriented characteristic of women cannot be the reason for such convention; details also exist in the designs of car exterior, such as the contour, curve, and tint of different pieces – headlights and door handles. This aspect gives women qualification to be engaged in the exterior designs as well. In fact, female designers already proved that they too, could be strong when it comes to designing both the interior and exterior of vehicles. The BMW Z4 is a fabulous example that illustrates such abilities of women, as it is one of the rare cars that were redesigned purely by two females. Even though it was first introduced in 2008, it is still in production today, which indicates its lucrative success. This is not to undermine men’s ability to design. They are very capable of imagining the big picture, which is a crucial feature to consider in the industry. Through collaboration, female and male designers can remedy each other’s shortcomings.

Whether this MoMA’s exhibition, “Designing Modern Women 1890-1990,” constitutes mostly of works designed by both genders should not be a primary concern of the viewer. The showcase is not to merely catalogue the accomplishments of female designers. Rather, it is to illustrate where, and how, women stood as part of society in the not-so-far-behind past. Similar events to that of MoMA can bring much attention to this gender issue. True change cannot begin without recognition.

Works Cited:

“CHARLOTTE PERRIAND Architect + Furniture Designer (1903-1999) Design Museum Collection.” Design Museum. 18 Nov. 2013 <http://designmuseum.org/design/charlotte-perriand>.

“EXHIBITIONS.” MoMA. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1397>.

Johnson, Ken. “Shaping the Future, in the Kitchen and Beyond ‘Designing Modern Women 1890-1990,’ at MoMA.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/arts/design/designing-modern-women-1890-1990-at-moma.html?_r=1&>.

Kelly, Caitlin. “A Woman’s Touch, Still a Rarity in Car Design.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/automobiles/a-womans-touch-still-a-rarity-in-car-design.html?pagewanted=all>.

Khanchandani, Priya. “Designing Modern Women 1890-1990.” Disegno Daily. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://disegnodaily.com/opinion/designing-modern-women-1890-1990>.

New York City: A Melting Wok

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Julian Tsang

The United Nations recently celebrated Chinese food at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in mid-November. Chinese representative Liu Jieyi described how cooking food was much like regulating a country. According to him, like leaders who want the best for their countries, “chefs would choose the best material from the season. They would concentrate on flavor, taste, and also how a dish looks.” In addition, like the people who populate a country, the foods and cuisine may also serve as a benchmark for diversity. Chinese cuisine is an ideal representation of such diversity, as it encompasses a wide range of flavors and local tastes. Like painting and dance, the culinary arts are also mediums of expression that represent people and their respective contemporaries. Chinese food in particular breathes a life of its own, constantly evolving with people’s tastes over the years.

Chinese cuisine in New York City is a melting pot. Since its beginnings in the city, it has been an amalgamation of different cultures of different time periods. When Chinese food first started in the city, due to the lack of Chinese people, it was catered more to Americans and non-Chinese people. According to Fanny Wong, a former Chinese restaurant worker who has lived in the city for over 30 years, in her experience, Americans “enjoyed big flavor so they were not accustomed to white rice. It was too bland for their tastes.” Bolder tasting food like fried rice and chow mein that were enhanced with soy sauce became American staples, which according to Tim Zagat of the Zagat Survey, was “a radical departure from the spicy, chili-based dishes served back home.”

For years, the Cantonese Chinese dominated the scene in New York, modifying traditional recipes to suit the tastes of Americans. A classic example is Chop Suey. Roughly translated as “odds and ends,” Chop Suey was traditionally a simple stir-fry mix of leftover scraps from a previous night. However, the Americanized version came to include various vegetables and meats served over rice and topped with sauce. Americanized dishes like Chop Suey became immensely popular. This dish in particular allowed Chinese food to take hold in America, let alone New York.

As the times progressed and more Chinese immigrated to New York, Chinese cuisine in the city expanded to more than just egg rolls and Chop Suey. Wong noted that “initially, there wasn’t much variety in Cantonese restaurants; everything was just about the same.” Chinese immigrants were now not only limited to Cantonese-speaking areas from China, importing a wider range of dishes. Different traditions of Chinese cuisine took hold of the food scene in the city, ranging from Sichuan to Shanghai to Hunan. These cuisines were made possible by an ingredient base expanded by imports, sprouting new popular dishes like General Tso’s Chicken and orange beef. As more Chinese populated the city, it became less common for restaurants to suit the tastes of Americans, as Chinese eaters also provided a steady source of consumption. The various Chinese neighborhoods that developed from the new influx of Chinese became hubs of different Chinese traditions. Chinatown is still heavily Cantonese while East Broadway is mainly populated by people from the Fujian province. Flushing is generally Taiwanese.

Tastes for food continued to change throughout the years as new cultures moved to the city. There was a new Polynesian trend in Chinese restaurants, calling for more tropical and sweeter palates, and as John Mariani notes in his account of the restaurant culture in America, “wonton soup, egg rolls, barbecued spare ribs, sweet-and-sour pork, and beef with lobster sauce were all concocted to whet Americans’ appetites.” The Hawaiian influenced variation of Chinese was the first of many fusion cuisines. Many ethnic minorities experienced Chinese food from the many restaurants that were open year-round and had economical prices. These groups of people experimented with fusion, which was (and still is) the new direction that Chinese cuisine began to take. To this day, there are many different Chinese hybrids: Chinese-Indian, Chinese-Mexican, Chinese-Jamaican, etc. In many cases, the blending of styles is seamless as the combinations that are cooked up range from kosher egg rolls to Indian chicken lollipops to Peruvian beef stir-fry. Due to its popularity and flexibility, Chinese food represented a common ground that allowed various cultures to come together.

Some of the latest additions to Chinese cuisine include bubble tea. This specialty from Taiwan has taken hold of younger generations. Bubble tea itself represents a wide variety of tastes and palates as many teashops in Chinatown and Flushing offer a number of flavors and toppings, creating colorful combinations of juice, pudding, tapioca, etc. Bubble tea is popular not because it is visually pleasing and tasty, but because it caters to many people’s preferences.

It becomes a little difficult to look at Chinese food as merely rice in a take-out box without contemplating how multiple cultures and tastes came together to create such good-tasting food. United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, recognized that Chinese cuisine fosters a type of diversity and creativity that has allowed it to spawn a countless number of dishes. Sporting a harmonious integration of various ingredients taken from different ethnic textures, Chinese cuisine has taken New York City by storm, as its presence in the city has proven to make a positive contribution to cultural diversity. Its ability to cater to a wide range of interests and palates has allowed it to cement its place in not only in New York City culture, but also in the global scene – a true melting pot, or wok for that matter.

Works Cited

Chinese Food: A Brief History. Perf. History Channel. YouTube. YouTube, 28 June 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Chinese Food Festival in UN. Prod. Larry Lee and Baijia Liu. Perf. Liu Jieyi and Ban Ki-moon. YouTube. YouTube, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Mariani, John F. America Eats Out: An Illustrated History of Restaurants, Taverns, Coffee Shops, Speakeasies, and Other Establishments That Have Fed Us for 350 Years. New York: Morrow, 1991. Print.

Moskin, Julia. “NEIGHBORHOODS; Craving Hyphenated Chinese.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2005. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Wong, Fanny. Personal interview. 17 Nov. 2013.

“Chinese Food Festival Kicks off at UN Headquarters – People’s Daily Online.” Chinese Food Festival Kicks off at UN Headquarters – People’s Daily Online. Ed. Yao Chun ZhangQian. Xinhua, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Zagat, Nina Zagat And Tim. “Eating Beyond Sichuan.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 June 2007. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

Feature Article- Shakespeare Here and There: Director’s Approach to Shakespeare on Broadway

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Aishwarya Bhatia

Shakespeare Here and There: Director’s Approach to Shakespeare on Broadway

Every time someone would claim, “Time has changed everything,” “The New York City we live in now is very different from the one before” or even trail off into a flashback moment with the overused “Back-when-I-was-a-child” thought, I would inadvertently think to myself, “Why would someone feel the need to say something as clichéd as that?”

Of course, the world we live in now is drastically different from the one our ancestors resided in, for instance, the 1590s. Technology, innovation, and discoveries have transformed our way of life, but have our choices changed as well? Do we not seek entertainment in the same form as the past generations did? Do people, specifically, New Yorkers, not relish in the same William Shakespeare plays that repeatedly enthralled the audiences of the Renaissance?

Recently, four of Shakespeare’s plays—Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Twelfth Night, and Richard III—have been adapted and are currently playing on Broadway. The fact that we continue to watch and ask for more Shakespeare plays speaks to the power of Shakespeare’s writing and classical ideas. Directors staging such plays today have two options: 1) they can choose to present the play as it was intended, thereby preserving its content and meaning conveyed through execution; or 2) they can create modern adaptations of the plays to form a connection with the present audience. Regardless of which path a director chooses, he or she must ensure that the quality of the play and the greater picture is not being sacrificed in the course of his or her actions.

Director Tim Carroll is a stern believer in the appeal of the classics. He would agree that certain arts are deemed “classic” because the themes they entail hold relevance regardless of the era. In fact, Carroll remarked, “It’s not necessarily a question of trying to find ancient techniques, so much as trying to invite the audience into an imaginative leap so that we place the play in the world when it was written and for which it was written – and see how much of it comes alive by that method.” Thus, Carroll justifies that his approach to maintain authenticity in his plays is strictly an artistic choice that is ironically contemporary for our time.

Carroll’s Twelfth Night and Richard III, starring Mark Rylance, is made under what is called the “Original Practices” production—the purpose of which is to give the audience the closest “Shakespearean” experience conceivable and feasible. As a result, Shakespeare’s Globe theater company casts men to essay the male and female roles. In addition, the stage is not designed to provide the exposition of the play or a certain scene; instead, Carroll says the audience has to use its imagination just like Shakespeare’s audience did. Then again, the directors have to provide some form of visual aid to assist the audience. For instance, in Twelfth Night, changes in day and night need to be illustrated through sunlight and sunset. The problem, however, is depicting the change in time (without any technological devices) in a theater with a roof. In this case, Carroll follows the precedent of Shakespeare’s performances—instead of resorting to an advanced and anachronistic approach, he uses candles and “artful lighting” to emulate the effect created in the original performances of the play. Further, music provides another visual treat to the audience. According to Jeff Lunden, an arts reporter and producer, today’s audiences will “hear” the play just like Shakespeare’s audiences did. Director Carroll uses music originally composed by John Dowland and “traditional Elizabethan instruments” to allow the audience to see through music.

As one would expect, the production faces several challenges when it chooses to remain true to the original plays. For one, the media frequently questions the theater company if it is attempting to establish male dominance with its all male cast. However, time and again, representatives like Tim Carroll stand up to dismiss such arguments. In a recent interview, when asked, Carroll calmly responded, “I don’t think it’s sexist in terms of its motivation – that’s the crucial thing. You get a reward from embracing the fact that some people will be cross with you for not casting women– that is, the extraordinarily heightened artificiality.” Here, Carroll clears the flawed idea that all male casts create an air of controversy around the play.

Twelfth Night successfully battles such odds and crafts an atmosphere that makes critics like Ben Brantley think, “This is how Shakespeare was meant to be done.” For a comedy like Twelfth Night, it is almost necessary to include an all male cast to retain the flavor of deception in disguise. If a man, acting as a woman will pretend to be in disguise as a man, and a man, acting as a woman will fall for that man who is playing a woman but is disguised a man, the audience will invariably fall in the web of laughter that Shakespeare fabricated through the overarching theme of deception. Indeed, Carroll’s calculated risks work to his advantage. The sheer comic effect of cross-dressing and hysteria within the dialogue delivery (including Rylance’s “halting intonations” as Olivia) produce the desired outcome of a Shakespeare slapstick comedy. Therefore, Carroll’s attempt to stage a show in line with Shakespeare’s original play and performance has been lauded by numerous critics. New York Post’s critic Elisabeth Vincentelli went on to claim, “You’re not just going to the [Belasco] theatre – you’re experiencing what makes it magic.”

Unfortunately, however, the viewer does not experience the same luxury of watching an authentic Shakespeare play in Romeo and Juliet. The reason? Some directors get trapped in a time warp and feel the urge to create modern adaptions of Shakespeare’s plays. Although seemingly harmless, this strategy damages the essence of what makes the classic a classic. Director David Leveaux has introduced numerous changes in his production. The primary change, (which has had a ripple effect on the events that follow as well as the overall affect of the play), is the shift of the setting to a modern times where people somehow continue to speak in Elizabethan English. (Here is the time warp!)

Another quite drastic change is introduced through the character’s costumes. Charles Isherwood, an art critic for The New York Times aptly comments, “Wherefore art though riding a motorcycle, Romeo?” Isherwood’s witty remark questions the director’s choice of modernizing the play through clothing (and setting) while retaining the language. After all, who would’ve thought that Romeo would enter on a motorcycle, wearing a classic white shirt, black leather jacket, ripped jeans, and red shoes? Isherwood even used the slippery slope argument to question what it would be like if, for instance, Julius Caesar’s plotters wore business suits in Julius Caesar. Many critics have raised a similar point to criticize the play.

On the other hand, Tracy Sallows (who plays Lady Montague) believes…[the following lines cannot be put on the blog due to the interviewee’s request]…Perhaps, Sallows is correct in claiming so. The audience has always been the first priority in theaters and films because ultimately, the purpose of arts is to entertain people while stimulating thoughts. Even Isherwood concedes that modern adaptations should not be judged solely on the changes they introduce, but also on “whether they can infuse these magnificent, challenging texts with the life blood of honest feeling and formal beauty.” Romeo and Juliet leaves no stone unturned in that evaluation. Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad’s chemistry is remarkable. They feel their characters and speak from their hearts, and perhaps, that is the reason the audience understands the poetic lines written in iambs. Bloom’s acting, in particular, helps create the “beauty”. His painful eyes that simultaneously rage and wail his banishment substitute for the discomfort and out-of-place feeling the audience inevitably experiences at the start of the play. Ben Brantley, too, agrees that once he looked passed the “unfortunate motorcycle” (and by association, other alterations made in the adaptation), he was able to enjoy the play.

As long as the audience is entertained and directors and actors have done justice to the classic works, either of the two options could be employed to stage Shakespeare’s plays. The challenge, however, is capturing the zeitgeist of Shakespeare’s plays without sacrificing their intricacies. As more and more directors stand up to the challenge, we witness growing numbers of Broadway shows inspired by Shakespeare. And, as anticipated, the audiences continue to laud efforts (since the shows are consistently sold-out) to bring Shakespeare in New York. How, then, can one say that we have we changed? If anything, the only change to account for is our shift to watching more Shakespeare plays than ever before. After all, what took Shakespeare thirteen years to write, it took Broadway two months to adapt.

Works Cited

“$25 on Stage Seating Now Available for TWELFTH NIGHT and RICHARD III. Boneau/Bryan-Brown. Boneau/Bryan-Brown, 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.boneaubryanbrown.com/blog/2013/10/25-on-stage-seating-now-available-for-twelfth-night-and-richard-iii/>.

Brantley, Ben. “Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad in ‘Romeo and Juliet'” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/theater/reviews/orlando-bloom-and-condola-rashad-in-romeo-and-juliet.html>.

Brantley, Ben. “‘Twelfth Night’ and ‘Richard III’ With Mark Rylance.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/theater/reviews/twelfth-night-and-richard-iii-with-mark-rylance.html?ref=arts&_r=1&pagewanted=1>.

Carroll, Tim. “Director Tim Carroll on Making 17th Century-Style Theatrical Magic in Twelfth Night and Richard III.” Broadway.com. Broadway.com, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.broadway.com/buzz/172357/director-tim-carroll-on-making-17th-century-style-theatrical-magic-in-twelfth-night-and-richard-iii/>.

Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate?” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html>.

Lunden, Jeff. “Here’s A Wild Idea For Shakespeare: Do It His Way.” NPR. NPR, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/2013/11/10/243787060/heres-a-wild-idea-for-shakespeare-do-it-his-way>.

Marks, Peter. “Mark Rylance’s Arresting Performance in Broadway’s ‘Twelfth Night’.” Web blog post. The Style Blog: Art, Culture, and Commentary from Style Writers. The Washington Post, 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/11/11/mark-rylances-arresting-performance-in-broadways-twelfth-night/>.

Nestruck, J Kelly. “Stratford Goes Back in Time with ‘Original Practices’ Romeo and Juliet.” The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail Inc., 24 May 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/stratford-goes-back-in-time-with-original-practices-shakespeare/article12133556/?page=all>.

Trueman, Matt. “Reviews Roundup: Broadway Critics Swoon over Mark Rylance’s Shakespeare.” The Guardian. The Guardian, 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/nov/11/reviews-mark-rylance-shakespeare-broadway>.

“Twelfth Night & Richard III.” Boneau/Bryan-Brown. Boneau/Bryan-Brown, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.boneaubryanbrown.com/show/Twelfth_Night_&_Richard_III/>.