I really enjoyed the Snapshot 2009 day for Macaulay students. It was suprisingly a beautiful day in New York City that Sunday. The skies were clear and it was oddly warm weather to be mid-October. I knew I didn't want to take the event too literally--I didn't want to take a picture of an actual neighborhood. I wanted to take a picture of something that was important to me. The challenge was to take a picture of an area where you can imagine yourself when older, a place you can come home. The image of "home" is what led me to the Conde Nast building in Times Square.

     The Hangout- The first photo was taken in my "old" neighborhood, where I use to live until recently. Basically, my entire childhood revolved in the suburban block. I loved walking around the block at night, I loved hanging out with my friends, and I loved the atmosphere overall. This neighborhood represents happiness, family, friendship, and tranquility. In the photo, the viewer can see me hanging out with my close friends during the night, my favorite timing.

       The task of defining my ideal neighborhood proved to be difficult. Where I could see myself feeling at home was very different from my aspirations for the future. The conflict presented by these two ideas was something I needed to decide on before I took my picture. Growing up in Manhattan, I was sensitive to distinct neighborhood differences. The lower east side had a younger more bohemian vibe. The Upper East Side was snobby, but quaint. The Upper West Side was predominately Jewish and family oriented.

       The task of defining my ideal neighborhood proved to be difficult. Where I could see myself feeling at home was very different from my aspirations for the future. The conflict presented by these two ideas was something I needed to decide on before I took my picture. Growing up in Manhattan, I was sensitive to distinct neighborhood differences. The lower east side had a younger more bohemian vibe. The Upper East Side was snobby, but quaint. The Upper West Side was predominately Jewish and family oriented.

        In his essay, Richard Taruskin defines the poietic fallacy as, “the conviction that what matters most (or more strongly yet, that all that matters) in a work of art is the making of it, the maker’s input,” (10). Taruskin used this idea in exploring modern art, but the concept is certainly interesting in a different discussion of the definition of art. Here Taruskin asserts that all that matters in art is the maker and the effort he puts forth in his creation.