This week your task is changing from observer to critic. You’ve been reading the Arts section for a few weeks now. What observations do you have on the Arts coverage in the NY Times? How does it correspond with your own sense of the arts and/ or culture generally? Are there aspects of the coverage that you find particularly illuminating, irritating, surprising, or dull? Are there areas where you would like to see more, or less, coverage? Support your observations with specific references to articles from this week’s NY Times Arts section.
And as always… Add your comments to this post. I encourage you to leave multiple comments, and to respond to freely others’ ideas. Also, please save your comments on your own computer, in case the blog crashes.
The New York Times Arts section covers many diversified topics of what one would consider art. The coverage ranges from current events in pop culture to classical art in art museums. For example, the article, “Joe Jonas Comes of Age” by Melena Ryzik discusses the difficulties Joe Jonas will face as he attempts to transition from a Disney pop star to a multidimensional talent. In “Putting Names to the Greats of Indian Art,” Roberta Smith discusses the wonders of Indian art and the attempt to identify Indian art with the artists who created them. I enjoy these articles because they are vastly different from each other and expand on one’s artistic view. Like a typical teenager, I enjoy articles covering music and pop culture. However, I also would greatly enjoy more articles and coverage on local cultural events. For example, there are scarcely any articles that cover any local cultural events in this week’s New York Times art section. I would like to see more articles that cover different types of different cultural art events that can allow me to “experience” and become a part of different cultures.
One thing I’ve always liked about the NYT is that I think it’s one of the few quality news outlets that are available and that’s one thing that makes their Arts section especially good. Inevitably, everyone will have a different opinion when it comes to whether an entertainment venue is actually worthwhile or utter rubbish, but it’s somewhat reassuring to know that the opinions expressed within come from people who, if nothing else, are qualified to be publishing their views in a newspaper.
That being said, I’m still smarting over the article about Irish dance. 😛
Hmmm. I have no idea why that got submitted before I was finished typing.
One thing I’ve enjoyed for the past two weeks is the coverage on the new TV shows that have been coming out (hence why most of my comments about about those articles in particular). I always find that they offer more insight into the background of the show and their cultural relevance than the average TV oriented magazine. I can only hear so much about wooden acting before I start to wonder what caused producers to come up with a show like “Homeland.”
The article does so much more than just talk about the shows flaws or strong points, but draws detailed comparisons to the others currently on air.
Surprisingly, the New York Times Arts Section, had a lot more diversified, interesting articles than I thought it would. Within a few days, I found myself being intrigued by and reading more and more articles, not just for the blog but out of pure interest. I appreciate the fact that the section covers basically every interpretation of art out there. For example, the article “Joe Jonas Comes of Age”, is about an artist far from the classical singers I excepted to be covered in the section. Similarly, last week there was an article reviewing rapper J.Cole’s new album, and much to my surprise, giving it a good review. Of course there was no shortage of more classical musical coverage but nevertheless, I appreciated the wide spectrum of music that the magazine covered. I also found myself learning a lot more about all the different events and productions that I would not have heard about otherwise. A perfect example of this is actually “The Week in Culture Pictures”, it was a compilation of photos from various events happening around the city. There were pictures from a ballet at Lincoln Center, from rap and rock concerts, and most interestingly, from an installation called “Golden Ghost”, which is made up of piles of thread with a gold necklace hidden somewhere that visitors can keep if they find it. I really enjoyed the diversity of the articles included in the arts section, there really was something for everyone.
One of the most commendable traits of the New York TImes proves to be its greatest liabilities in its Arts section. The NY Times has always held true to objective approach and unbiased reporting. This is what has allowed the periodical to rise to prominence as a reliable and detailed source for world events and information on a litany of subjects. That being said the Times so far has demonstrated a lack of what one might call “heart” or emotional appeal. This sense of humanity is what allows expression to become Art. There are relatively little personal pieces pertaining to subjective topics and issues. As a reader, I would love to see articles which explore underground art scenes or cultures written in stylized verse. Something which captures the imagination and spirit which is what makes art so worthwhile and essential to human experience. This added touch would give the Times a little added flavor and jazz to liven the section up.
I definitely agree with Yana’s comment that the New York Times Art section is more interesting than I expected. Initially, I expected the New York Times to have articles about dull plays and artwork that I have no interest. However, throughout each day I found that there was at least one if not more articles that intrigued me. For example, two weeks ago there was an article about the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills that described how television networks nowadays are bluntly out to make money. Even after one of the housewife’s husband committed suicide, the Bravo network continued to film the show. This is evidence that the television show is only out for monetary gain and that not even a suicide could prevent it from doing so. I disagree with Josh’s comment that the New York Times is unbiased. In every article that I have read so far the author’s opinion is embedded somewhere within the article. For example, in the article “Daytime’s Talking Heads Are Now Eating, Too,” the author explains how “The Chew” whose name rhymes with “The View” also on the ABC television network is pretty much another talk show except with food. “The Chew” consists of five people with strong personalities who cook and talk about what foods are popular etc. The author feels that this show is nothing out of the ordinary because currently even chefs have become celebrities.
Throughout my perusing of the Arts Section, I have noticed that they sometimes negatively spin certain stories, people, or events. Now this is not always a bad thing, considering that the world is not one big happy perfect place like some people view it to be. This is evident in the recent article on the Black Eyed Peas concert in Central Park. The article is titled ‘Rapping in the Rain, All Similes’, and is supposed to be a review of the recent concert they participated in which all proceeds were donated to the Robin Hood Foundation. The Black Eyed Peas, musical talent aside, have always been concerned with current events. In my favorite song by the group, ‘Where is the Love?’, they even sing about the problems our world faces. One would expect in this article they would be praised for their actions, but instead the writer decides to bash each member individually. Collectively the writer calls them gimmicky and graceless, but only briefly touches upon the time and money they donate to charity. This being said, I have enjoyed reading the Arts Section more than I initially anticipated. It is much more broad of a topic than I expected, and I would find it difficult to believe that someone could not find multiple articles that are tailored toward their interests.
I found the Arts section of the NYTimes to be very opinionated because I read a lot of reviews, but I thought that the writers did a good job justifying their positions. The articles were well written, which makes them interesting to me even though I would normally not read the arts section. I also like how the arts section covers such a wide range of arts such as theater, music, television, and museums. The reviews on the television shows that I read were very similar to my own opinions about those shows which made me more interested in the articles. I was surprised to read articles such as “Rapping in the Rain, All Smiles,” which is a review on a recent Black Eyes Peas concert in Central Park, because I liked to hear the opinions of professionals about a form of art that I listen to on a daily basis. The parts of the coverage that I found dull was when I could not find an article that particularly interested me, but this was not all that bad because it gave me opportunities to read about art that I would not normally read about. I would like to see much more coverage on artwork displayed at museums. Overall, I thought that doing this coverage on the Arts section made me much more aware of art around me and helped me consider some artwork in completely different points of view.
I’ve always been an “artsy” person in general, so I would have read some articles in the same vein by my own initiative. Like others have mentioned, I enjoy the wide range of genres and kinds of art gathered and grouped in the Times, and it really does help expose the population to less known/appreciated forms of art happening around them. Personally, I liked being up-to-date on current performances and showings, but I could go without the many, many reviews of everything. As a rule, I am not a fan of opinionated writing, so I liked the analyses on where culture is headed, general overviews on upcoming events, and informative writing much more than reviews. As far as enjoying the reading goes, I am irritated by the way some of the contributors write. When art disagrees with them, they have a way of using flowery language to express their disdain and sarcastic comments. I can understand that not all art is equal, but the way they disparage someone’s work with petty ridicule is annoying to me. (ex. the theater review of ‘Dreams of Flying Dreams of Falling’) I would say a few of these journalists are spending more time flipping through a thesaurus than actually writing an article, trying to make sure the NY Times stays at an 8th grade reading level. Other articles suffer from a lack of humour and sense. For me, “This Just In: Study Shows Songs About Sex Are Hot Sellers”, a sober article about the obvious, gave me the sense of “Really? This is what you feel you need to inform people about?” It might have even been an entertaining article if the journalist had any talent in execution and delivery. All in all, I do think the NY Times has a good, diverse Art Section that’s worth browsing.
As I was skimming through the more recent NY Times Articles, I found a variety of articles interesting, reaffirming my admiration for the section’s ability to cover such a wide range of topics, all under the “Arts Section” umbrella. Almost as if a metaphor for art in general, this section, specifically the articles I looked at today, really does have a little bit of everything. From “This Just In: Study Shows Songs About Sex Are Hot Sellers” which talks about psychologists’ findings there is a direct correlation between a songs promiscuity and it’s popularity, combining music and psychology. To “Heroic Tale of the Holocaust, With a Twist” which talks about a film where it is said that a French Mosque rector helped Jews escape from the Holocaust, which combines film and history. However, I do agree with Jenny about the fact that some of these articles seem to be written in very complex language, almost as if on purpose. There are articles in which this language fits, but there are others where some of the word choices are unnecessary. I think an article written about how songs about sex are more popular in the media, or about a Black Eyed Peas performance can stand to be a little more colloquial. Other than that, however, I am enjoying this section more and more as I go along, and definitely appreciate the diversity of it’s coverage.
I particularly enjoy reading the arts section of the New York Times as it covers a wide array of topics. This week, for example, the section covers events from music festivals to theater productions as well as movie and music reviews. Not only does it cater to a wide array of interests but is also appropriate for many different ages. The New York Times art section covers a wide range of topics, including those intended for younger audiences as well as those for the elderly. This week’s section, for example, covers everything from updates on the NFL to a musical festival in New Jersey. This section has really opened my mind to art as it has exposed me to various exhibits or events that would otherwise go unnoticed. I agree with Abhishek that the writers of this section are rather opinionated and I think that this is what makes the section so interesting to read. It is interesting to first read their opinion and then attend the event myself, proceed to form my own opinion and compare it to that of the writers. One such example of these strong opinions is demonstrated by this week’s article discussing the musical festival in Asbury Park, New Jersey. After reading this article, I have a clear idea of how unique and surprising these musicians are. One other part of the section I find especially useful is that titled “The Week Ahead” which offers suggestions on everything from dance to art events. This is particularly useful being in New York as many of the events mentioned are just a short subway ride away. This week’s guide suggests that we watch “How to Make it in America”, for example. In the future I would love to see more reviews of TV shows, such as that discussing “Arrested Development” in this week’s issue. I am constantly on the look out for what shows might interest me and am confident that I can trust the New York Times art section to give me such advice.
One of the many things I enjoy about the Times Arts section is how wide its definition of art is. Despite what I initially expected, it does not strike me as an elitist column for stereotypical “art appreciators”, and continues to impress me with its interesting reviews, opinions, and promotions. I commend the writers’ relatable writing techniques and astute observations. One article that struck me in particular was this week’s “Can Anybody Be a Designer?” by Alice Rawsthorn. I’ve been mulling over the concept of modern art and design for some time already, and Rawsthorn’s article immediately caught my attention with its title alone. It starts off by giving the reader a glimpse of a new gallery opening in South Korea entitled “Unnamed”, featuring the works of revolutionary (and controversial) Chinese artist Ai Weiwei among others who have also exhibited in the past. In Rawsthorn’s words, “”Unnamed” explores the role of design in projects with which it would not traditionally have been associated. …design is not solely the preserve of professional designers but can also be the work of scientists, activists, computer programmers, hackers and anyone else who applies ingenuity, originality, strategic thinking and other qualities that are indispensable to good design.” In other words, this show is meant to broaden the somewhat archaic definition of design (“a preliminary sketch for a work of art: the plan of a building, or part of it”, usually in a commercial context) and perhaps globalize the term, as well as make it a means for bringing about social, political, and environmental change. This all may sound very vague and many scientists and non-designers aren’t too thrilled with this classification of everything being design. One line that caught my attention was “Thank you, but I’m happy being a scientist.”, in the context of the said scientist being complimented and called an artist. I personally like the idea of design begin all around us, although the word itself may have an artificial intonation. Design, to me, is something artistic that is done with the intention of pleasing the eye; perhaps I am still fixated with design being a merely commercial thing. Either way, I am excited to learn more about the “Unnamed” gallery and see how true it stays to its promise of broadening the idea of design.
The NYT doesn’t do but review everything it can. I suppose, what a sectiob lacks is general opinions on the state of art toay, its problems, etc. Moreover, if I were to read the NYT, I would think, that the most respectful form of art is TV shows. It’s not. Personnaly, I love exhebitions, but they’re non-existant in New York, judging by the paper, There is so much going on, but somehow that is not important anymore.
The papaer certainly needs to balance analysis and facts, and find out what’s IMPORTANT. What kind of news is “Adapting Julia Child for E-Readers”? Millions of books get electronized, that’s not a novelty. Who needs to know?
I agree with a lot of the above comments that the New York Times has a very broad definition of art. The New York Times covers many topics, such as books, dance, theater, music, movies, television, and more. However, I think in its efforts to cover the topics that seem to be the most appealing to New Yorkers, it has avoided coverage of other forms of art. When I think of art, the first thing that comes to mind is paintings and sculptures. There are many exhibits and galleries in New York that deserve to be in the NYT. I see that there is barely any coverage of more traditional forms of art. Instead, we have articles like “For 2nd Time, Adele Cancels a Tour”, “Adapting Julia Child for E-Readers”, “David Mitchell, Broadway Set Designer, Dies at 79” that have no place in an arts section whatsoever. There are some articles which I enjoy reading, particularly those about music and television; but I still think the NYT arts section needs to focus more on other, more universal forms of art.
I agree with Ivan’s assertion that NY Times arts section is very vast in its content and deals with several genres of music. What I would like to commend is the newspaper’s use analysis on the arts one article that I found really interesting was the” Gruesome and Gory, a Chaotic Fairy Tale Gone Terribly Awry”, which is a movie review the article is well written and goes in depth behind the scenes of the philharmonic. Overall the Arts section is very enjoyable and provides for a great read on entertainment and the arts community.