The Arts in New York City » Lu Huang

Lu Huang’s Final Podcast

admin — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:00:51 +0000

Movie review for “Enchanted”

lu8943 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:58:24 +0000

“Enchanted” is basically a magic movie, it’s the No.1 ranking movie in the cinema now, as well as highly recommendated by New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Because of curiosity, I went to watch it on last Friday. I was actually kind of disappointed by it. The plot was both simple and cliched; a princess from magic world accidentally came to the human world and fell in love with an average man. Especially comparing with ” The Violin” I just watched also, I felt that the theme depicted in “Enchanted” is too trivial and naive. Probably a deeper theme in this movie is about trust because before the guy met the princess, he never trusted anyone. The princess made him start to trust people and to trust the world. He was deeply moved and attracted by the princess’ purity and innocence. Despite of the lack of originality and light theme, this movie, however, is the only one I’ve see that the audience spontaneously started clapping at the end of the movie. That just made me start wondering, what made the commercial movie achieve this that an artistic movie couldn’t? What is our ruler when measuring art? Does art still have any value if the audience feel hard to be emphasized? Or can we not call commercial movies arts since the audience really had a good time watching it, since they made the audience felt more relaxed and happier?

Lu Huang’s Podcast Review

admin — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:14:54 +0000

Intense and unfamiliar music

lu8943 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:22:06 +0000

We went to the Alexander string quaret in English class. The performance consists of three violinists and one celloist. One of those performers explained some music theories to us. It was the first time I really got to know Beethoven. The classical pieces they played were very unique. Usually, I think classical music is calm and slow, but the music by Beethoven is intense and dramatic, to some point, even frightening. It inspired me to perceive music in a different way. The experience was enhanced by the performers’ emotional attachment. They moved their bodies back and forth and their facial expressions were very intense. I was really enchanted by both the music and their body motions.

The line that connects art with life

lu8943 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:35:08 +0000

Tuesday, the windy afternoon, I rushed to the International Center of Photography on 43^rd Street planning to have a last minute glimpse of it before it closed, so I could at least have something to write on the IDC paper. However, it was that less than an hour look-around that redefined my definition of Photography. Photography, draws a line between art and life, and that line is truth.
“ This Is War!” is the topic of the exhibition. The museum displays a variety of war images including the Spanish Civil War, World War II and so on. Tens of years, passed, those pictures are as stunning still: Spanish refugees are fleeing across the border trying to avoid the Spanish revolutionary war; a little boy looks like 5 years old is carrying a bag almost as tall as him. After World War II in German, a German woman is holding a baby girl in her arms, another two girls are dragging her coat behind her, everything has fallen into ruins, and there’s still smoke coming from the fallen building behind them; during the World War II, in a refugee camp, there are more than ten people living there, a few kids are standing outside with their blank eyes looking far away.

Among all those photos, what shocked me most are the photos from El Salvador (a country in South America). Those photos were done in the early 1980s when El Salvador people were trying to rebel against the U.S backed local military dictatorship authority. There’s one picture that I can never forget: Tons of mutilated corps were left at the foot of a barren hill. Those were the “rebels” put down by the U.S backed military during the insurgency.

Before that exhibition, if someone asked me to define what would be a good picture, I would give examples of those pictures on the post cards like pictures of sunset, sea, Fuji mountain, Hawaii and so on, beautiful sceneries and beautiful color. Or I would probably choose some pictures from “America’s Next Top Model”, pictures of exotic-looking face, perfect body proportions and poses. However, after the exhibition, those black and white pictures from the war, about death and blood, totally changes my view and makes me rethink about what defines a good picture. Is it about color, symmetry, light, or position? From the exhibition, I learned it is truth. A good picture reveals truth. A good picture can make people notice things they’ve never noticed before. People are saying that the Spanish Civil war symbolizes Spanish people’s efforts towards gaining freedom and independence; however, few know that the normal Spanish people were trying to flee from the war, comparing with gaining freedom and independence, a normal Spanish would rather get away from death and blood. People are talking about how evil German was in the Nazi period; however, few notice how many innocent people in German died or hurt by the Allie’s forces when they were battling with the Nazi. I also cannot help thinking of the war in Iraq. Even though the news about Iraq comes everyday with a lot of critics concerning U.S soldiers’ safety, few people actually think about how many innocent Iraqi people died from this war during the U.S military suppression of the local rebellions, and we rarely saw those pictures, either. A good picture tells people a story, a truth; the truth may be painful, but we see it, we can try to cure it.

(this blurb needs a title)

lu8943 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:01:42 +0000

I used to exclude commercial movies from my definition of art. However, the movie ” Kingdom” totally changed my view on commercial movies. “Kingdom” is a story based on some real personal experiences. It mainly depicts how a group of four Americans eradicated the terrorists in Saudi Arab. If some people consider this is a political propaganda, then it must be the best propaganda I’ve ever seen. It depicts the political idea with out political dreadfulness. The vivid pictures of those victims’ eyes with fear, their tears… totally touched me. The end especially impressed me. The terrorist leader told his granddaughter before he got killed by the American police: ” We’ll kill all of them one day.” And at the beginning of the movie, the American police officer told his dead fellow’s wife: ” We’ll kill all of them.” The little girls’ eyes with hatred, and the American police officer’s eyes with hatred, I seem could never forget. The movie touches terrorism issue, yet it far goes beyond that issue. Is war and revenge really the solutions for terrorism? How will it affect the next generation. The first time, when thinking of the terrorists, I had a feeling beyond indignation. Compare to those popular fantasy American movies, I think that movie really touches the reality, and that is what I think the essence of art: no matter it’s expressed in an abstract way, or a concrete way, it should make people think, it should have life, instead of those pointless fantasies.

lu8943 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:51:07 +0000

My second visit to Moma

lu8943 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:18 +0000

This is my second time visiting Moma. The first time, like most of the visitors there, my eyes were glued to the masterpieces by those renowned first-class artists like Van Gogh, Monet or Picasso. Nevertheless, coming here again, I found it more interesting to compare those classic arts with the ones created by people from this new age. The comparison reshapes my definition of art: Today’s art has transformed its focus from skills to ideas.
The first floor of Moma was exhibiting the “new arts” created by people in our time. It mainly displays three works. One of them is a normal TV set. On the screen, I saw nothing but the word“ Sunday.” Everyday, there’s only one word showed on the screen, and that word tells people what day it is “today.” The purpose of this work is to help people further understand the concept of time. Another work is called WAR—RAW. As you can tell from the title: if “war” is written reversely, it becomes another word “raw”, and the new word actually describes the nature of war in some way. The interesting correlation shows a delicate yet profound design of our written language. The third work actually intrigued me most: Two projectors project different words into the same screen and the two words overlap each other. (Those words are mostly adjectives describing characters.) So a person can’t tell the words on the screen unless he/she steps in, and one word will be projected to that person’s back, the other one to the screen. I find it interesting because the artist let the audience participate into his work, and the audience is actually part of the art. This work is said to reflect the complexity of human nature.
The fourth floor and fifth floor both display those classic paintings by renowned painters like Van Gogh, Monet, or Picasso. I was attracted to a work by Monet. He painted nothing but water in that work. But the amazing thing is, people would actually find out “there’s water under water.” He really mastered colors in that painting. The color changes gradually from the surface of the water to the bottom of the water. He created a three-dimensional, multi-layer water body by simply using colors. And other works by Van Gogh or Picasso also reflected the artists’ extraordinary skills. The perfect symmetry, superb using of colors and shapes, and some other techniques,…etc, all help to create a strong visual impact.
Now, it comes to the comparison between these two types of arts: Nowadays, “Art is where you find it.” They usually don’t require a high level of skills. What attract people are the originality and the message delivered by the work. Those master arts, on the contrary, require a high level of skills. Even though they are also the reflections of artists’ emotions or opinions, what attract audience are usually their strong visual impacts. I love the “new” arts better because they are more available to the public and excited people’s creativity. Those works make people appreciate and enjoy more about life by showing people a “tricky” side of our life. And it always encourages the audience to think and to participate because it’s hard to get the meanings by simply looking at those works. I enjoyed my experience in Moma because I was really trying to feel art this time instead of just looking at art.

The Spanish Sculpture Renaissance lecture in Metropolitan Museum

lu8943 — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:25:21 +0000

The Spanish sculpture Renaissance lecture given by Metropolitan Museum on Friday evening was really an enriching and inspiring experience to me. It was about both art profession and art history in Europe. It was only a less than an hour lecture, but I really got a lot from it. I found Span’s art history was really interesting, moreover, to some extent, it was a microscope of European’s art history. Sculptors from Italy, Netherlands and other European countries all had come to Span to work. Noticeably, Spanish sculptors’ style was largely affected by Italian sculptors’, especially by Micheal Angelo’s. The figures they created were more symmetrical and muscular than those by norther European’s. Their materials were mainly marble, which was from Italy, and wood, span’s traditional material. An unique technique of Spanish Sculpture was: the sculptors liked to put a gilded cover over their works. And then they mixed the gild with colors , which extremely resembled Span’s Ancient clothes’ material. Another thing I found interesting was how those works were obtained by the museum. Amazingly, all the works were original. They were first possessed by a Paris dealer. Later on, they were sold to an American merchant. That merchant accommodated them in his own house. Before he died, he made a promise that he agreed to contribute those works to the museum. Thus, the public would see. So, all the works(columns, stairs, windows, etc) were taken into parts piece by piece. Then they were transferred into Metropolitan Museum and rebuilt up.

Some thoughts about the big-draw event

lu8943 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:34:26 +0000

Lu Huang Assignment #1 Due Sept 19
The big-draw event, I think it really is over-exaggerated by the organizers. Overall, I think it is a poorly schemed event.
First of all, its locations were arranged in an inconvenient way. It was a good idea to offer people different locations with different options. But each spot was located too far away from each other and some places were totally blocked by the trees. I mean it’s not supposed to be a treasure hunt. I spent approximately 30 minutes walking at a faster than average speed from one spot to another (American Indian Natural Museum to Battery Park City). So basically I’ve already been exhausted by the distance without even participating in the event yet. And I really had a trouble finding the Battery Park City. Eventually, an old lady guided me there. It was like a normal classroom-size and surrounded by tree. The old lady also commented it was really hard for a stranger to find that place.
Why would I bother choosing two spots instead of one? Because I didn’t feel like the first was an art event, well, neither the second. (Unfortunately, I didn’t find out until I went to the second). It was a combination of factors contributing to my conclusion. Let me talk about the Indian Natural Museum first. I totally went to two spots, and the Indian Natural Museum was the first one. So what they did there was: They first dispatched paper to people and then invited the Native Americans dancing for us. While they were dancing, we were supposed to catch their body movements and draw down on the paper. I found those professional people generally enjoyed it. But other people, like me, who didn’t have any training before, basically massed up. Nobody was there to guide you. All the staff did was to give you paper. So eventually I didn’t really enjoy the dancing because I was busy drawing. And my drawing was really… beyond disgust. The second place was Battery Park City. When I got there, I just realized I shouldn’t bother coming. Again, all the staff did was giving you paper and tools. Well, some would even give you an attitude. It was understandable. It was hot and they stayed outside for almost a day. If you have a partner, you are supposed to draw each other’s eyes, and if you don’t they will give you a mirror, so you can draw your own eyes with the help of the mirror. I really thought this was idiotic and nonsense. Basically, I could have just stayed at home and drawn my eyes with air conditioner on and not pissing out the staff. At the end of the day, I found I got nothing but a map, two pieces of paper, one pencil and a mirror, sounds like the materials for a science lab.
Probably it’s just I wasn’t lucky enough finding a place with instructors. But I really think they should arrange instructors for every spot, because without any professional guidance, all the things could be done at home. Then what’s the point of coming here? I probably am too picky, but I really think those two things I joined are either too professional or too boring. They should really come up with some creative staff, that’s what art is about. So who’s the winner? The organizer? Obviously, they totally screwed up.