Tourist Guide

The second painting that caught my attention was Albert Bierstadt’s “A Storm in the Rocky Mountains.”  Landscape painting of the raw, untouched wild has always had a special effect on me. The sheer level of depth and detail in this painting make it hard to believe that it was created with a simple brush. The perspective that Bierstadt chose is also very interesting, as you can see the violent, dark storm in the distance, yet the clouds are still white and the sun is still bright and shining closer to the viewer. This contrast of moods created conflicting emotions within me. In my interpretation, besides simply depicting the Rocky Mountains, this painting also shows the constant balance between the positive and the negative essences of our world. Another interesting aspect of the painting is that even though the viewer can clearly see that the storm will soon hit this peaceful part of the mountain, it will undoubtedly pass, just as it did over the peak of the mountain visible in the background behind the storm. Perhaps this too points to the natural cycle of constant change yet preservation that’s present in our world. Landscape painting such as this amaze me in that they not only allow you to marvel at the mystical beauty of nature, but can also provoke deep, philosophical thoughts as to the nature of our planet.

Visiting the Brooklyn Museum proved to be a valuable experience in that I was exposed to types of art that I have never previously seen before. An example of such art is a painting by Valerie Hegarty entitled “Fallen Bierstadt.” This painting is based off another work by Albert Bierstadt, which depicts the Bridal Veil Falls. What’s interesting about this work of art is that it acts as a critique of landscape painting, which was prevalent in the United States during the 19^th century. Landscape painting sought to idealize the American continent and played a heavy role in creating an identity for the American populace. Hegarty took this notion and applied it to art in that she shows nature as an accurate portrayal of the current situation of the country at the time. My first interpretation of this work was to show that art in itself, as magnificent as it may be, is still made out of a material, and is thus at the mercy of the forces around it. Yet the impression that it leaves on those who see it is timeless, because the mind can’t burn as easily as a canvas. The title of the work is worth noting as well, as it connects Hegarty’s work to that of the original painter and shows how his accomplishment in portraying the beauty of the American wilderness can be easily destroyed and reevaluated.

I did learn to appreciate some forms of Modern Art during my visit to the MoMa. An example of such works is Claude Monet’s Agapanthus, which depicts nature in its purest form. This painting depicts several flowers, known as agapanthuses, surrounded by swirls of what seems to be green grass and leaves and is reminiscent of Van Gogh’s paintings. I enjoyed seeing the directions of the brushstrokes on the painting, as it points to the attention to detail paid by Monet in a painting surrounded by a green backdrop. According to the description, Monet often painted in his garden, which was rich with plant life. Such an inspiration is clearly depicted in this painting as it is completely covered in the color green, showing that life surrounds the flowers on all sides. Such art, which is a nonstandard interpretation of common scenes, is unique in its technique, which adds to its artistic value. This is the type of innovation that I can appreciate in art, as opposed to Frantisek Kupka’s lackluster style and lack of genuine technique.

I have always been rather critical of modern art. In my opinion, drawings of angled lines and shapes of different color or splatters of random paint on a canvas discredit true art from all around the world, which actually requires some sort of talent and devotion, and depicts situations or places which people can closely identify with or have some sort of personal relation to. In my opinion, for art to be successful, it must elicit some sort of emotional response. Instead, much of the works considered as modern art leave me feeling apathetic. The piece entitled “Amorpha: Fugue in Two Colors” is an example of such art. According to the description, the artist, Frantisek Kupka, painted this picture to show that rhythmic progressions of colors in a specific, organized fashion reflect the forces present in our universe. I think that it is naïve and even foolish for an artist to assume that he can capture the incredible nature of our mysterious universe with such a simple piece of art, if it can even be called that. I wonder if anyone would ever interpret this painting the way the author did as he was drawing it. If not, and the painting is interpreted completely differently by every other person, then it should not be considered art. I understand people who try to experiment with different techniques, even if unsuccessfully, in order to enrich the art of painting, but in my eyes, this piece can only serve two legitimate purposes. It should either show potential painters exactly what they should not pursue as an artist or be burned to keep someone warm in the cold winter months in New York.

Prior to my last visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the last time I visited this museum must have been several years ago. This made my trip around the museum and its many sections seem almost new and original. Although I enjoyed quite a lot of the exhibits, the first to truly catch my attention was the Etched and Gilded Armor thought to have been made for Henry VIII in 1527 by Hans Holbein the Younger. My father is an avid collector of different weapons and armor from this time period and he successfully passed this interest on to me. The first thing I noticed about this suit of armor is the fact that it is completely coated in gold. As equipment for battle, where a soldier can die at any moment, I found it interesting that it would be made with such valuable material and with such precision to detail. After reading the description and realizing that this suit may have belonged to a king however, this made complete sense. According to the description, it might have been made for a simple presentation for the French ambassador François de La Tour d’Auvergne. I was also amazed at the sheer weight of the armor. Many soldiers wore similar armor during this time period, and even though it provides ample protection from the blows of his foes, it also requires a huge amount of strength and endurance to wear and be mobile in.

This bronze statue was created in Greece during the Hellenistic Period and is dated to around the 2^nd or 3^rd century B.C. It depicts a veiled dancer in a dress in the middle of her performance. Several aspects of this statue caught my attention. First, I noticed many sculptures around the museum of both men and women in the nude. These impressed me in their attention to detail in the depiction of the most seemingly minor aspects of the human body, creating an image of a person who appears to be almost real. However, after seeing this statue, I realized that creating a clothed person out of whatever material is a lot more difficult, leading me to appreciate this work even more. Not only did the sculptor have to consider the precise details of the human body, but also how the material the woman’s dress was made of would rest on her body in accordance to her shape and posture. The sculptor also successfully captured all of the folds of the dress on the woman’s body, another incredible feat.

The International Center of Photography is a photography museum located in Midtown Manhattan, on 43^rd Street and the Avenue of the Americas. Currently, photographs from the Cuban Revolution and the Spanish Civil War are on display. The current exhibition is unique in that the photographs from the Spanish Civil War are thought to have been lost since 1939. Both exhibits provide a deep insight into life during both of these tumultuous periods in history. I have read about both of these events in my history books, but seeing this exhibition has allowed me to actually see and understand what life was like for people in these countries.

Photographs of the Spanish Civil War include depictions of soldiers, military equipment and war torn families. What caught my eye the most was a publication in a Spanish magazine entitled “This is War!” This article showed the real conditions that soldiers had to live in every day, such as huddling in caves for warmth and protection, and being provided the most minimal equipment necessary for survival.

The Cuban Revolution exhibit included a variety of photographs. Some focused on the effects that this time period had on personal life, depicting many poor and hungry families around the country. The other aspect of the exhibit focused on important figures of the period, such as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. I’ve always seen these men from a very narrow perspective, as cold, calculating leaders. Yet the exhibition showed Che Guevara’s corpse and the clothing he was dressed in, portraying his human side. Similarly, the exhibition included photographs of Fidel Castro skiing, spending time with Nikita Khrushchev and flying in airplanes.

My only criticism of this museum is that absolutely no photography is allowed inside.

If you’re looking for a light treat or a cool snack, check out Dessert Palace. Located on 2265 Emmons Street, this café is unique in that it has a giant outside area for chairs and tables. In the summer, you can come here to enjoy the view of the marina while eating delicious desserts.

This is a park located at the end of the marina on Emmons Ave and Neptune Ave. Although it houses a memorial for those who passed away during the Holocaust, it is also a very calm, serene place where you can go to get away from the world and gather your thoughts. Overlooking the length of the marina, this park provides an amazing view with plenty of benches to sit on.

The freshest seafood in all of Sheepshead Bay if not all of Brooklyn can be found at Randazzo’s Clam Bar. Located on 2023 Emmons Ave, this restaurant has been around for more than 75 years and has been called the “Pride of Sheepshead Bay.” Come here to enjoy crab meat, lobster or my personal favorite, New England Clam Chowder.

If sushi is what you’re craving, look no further. Masakari, a Japanese cuisine restaurant, is the place to go. Located on 1631 Sheepshead Bay Road, it is within walking distance from both, the train station and the marina. The incredible quality of food can only be matched by the ornate interior and the huge variety of meals available on the menu every day.

The neighborhood I call home is known as Sheepshead Bay and is located in the southern part of Brooklyn, near Coney Island. It is a very diverse region full of a variety of restaurants, stores, parks and other places of interest.

When I first found out that I would be seeing a movie at the Film Forum, I was ecstatic. I knew that this theater did not play mainstream movies, and I’ve seen enough independent films to know that they can be very amusing. When I later learned that the movie I was going to watch was going to be a documentary entitled, “Strange Powers: Magnetic Fields,” I was all the more excited. I have always been a fan of documentaries and the title was very captivating. Though, I can’t say I wasn’t disappointed when I learned that the film was about a musician, because I thought it would be something more scientific or abstract.

The film was about a band named Stephin Meritt and the Magnetic Fields. It followed the lives of the members, their roots and their accomplishments as a band in their nineteen years of existence. However, the film mainly focused on Stephin Meritt, the lead songwriter and composer of the group. Stephin can only be described as an introvert who is both cynical and humorous, creative and daring. He is responsible for the creation of very nonstandard yet strangely appealing and catchy music. I guess that’s where the title comes from. It’s hard to explain, but his persona and his delivery of lyrics just have a way of drawing listeners in, almost forcing them to enjoy and appreciate the music.

This documentary gave people a chance to not only discover a rather fascinating band, but also get a glimpse of the creation process involved in making music. Even if they’re not your favorite band, I’m sure such insight can be very interesting. Throughout the film, one gets to know Stephin on a close level, and then see how his personality is projected onto his music. I enjoyed this because often, this process happens in reverse. First you listen to a band, and then if you like them, you can research its members and their outlooks on life.

All in all, Strange Powers is definitely a film worth watching. Even if you’re not a fan of his music, and even if you’ve never heard of his music, you can still enjoy Stephin’s personality and attitude, which the film seems to grasp perfectly.

Although I was sore about having to stay late in the city after school, I was actually pretty excited about seeing “Break of Noon.” After attending an opera and a dance festival, a theatrical play would be a welcome change as this type of art is easiest for me to understand and interpret. Also, David Duchovny would be playing a lead role and I was eager to see the star of X-Files, one of my favorite shows from my childhood, in person.

The play was performed in Lucile Theater, which is located in West Village. Upon arriving, I was instantly surprised at its appearance. The theater is rather small and plain, and easily blends in with its surrounding environment. I did not think that Hollywood stars such as David Duchovny or Amanda Peet would perform at such a venue.

The play captivated me from the very first second and kept me interested until the very end. The dramatic loud noise and bright lights at the start of each scene created suspense and produced the feeling that the audience was being put into the very heat of the action in every scene. Although I prefer going into any performance completely unaware of what I will see, I will indulge those of you who would rather have some background information.  The play follows a less-than-perfect man who alleges that he saw and was saved by God during a violent attack on his office building by a mad assailant. After this holy experience, the main character, John Smith, goes on a quest to spread the message of God, which is “to be good.”

My favorite aspect of the play is that, although its general theme is somewhat clichéd, it presents a new spin on the idea of man seeing God. John Smith is the last person one would expect to have a holy experience, as he is a man guilty of many sins, such as adultery. However, he stays true to his cause, even in the face of mockery from others.

At first, the ending of the play seemed pretty straightforward. However, as I walked out of the theater and began discussing the play with my classmates, I realized that it could be interpreted in many ways. Such endings often point to successful works, as it means that people were genuinely enthralled by the content of the play and were kept interested throughout the entire performance. I know I enjoyed the “Break of Noon” because I could not stop talking about it for the entire train ride home.

On September 29^th, 2010, I attended the Metropolitan Opera’s 827^th performance of Giuseppe Verdi’s Rigoletto. This was the first time I have ever seen an opera, and I must say, the experience was surprisingly interesting and immersive. For me, opera has always been associated with a negative stigma of disinterest and boredom. Attending this performance made me realize my error and learn to appreciate a new form of art.

At the start of the performance, the first details to catch my attention were the stunning beauty of the live orchestra and the intricate details of the stage scenery. The music itself helped ease the viewer into the mood and melody of the opera, allowing people to become more emotionally attached and aware of the performance. The stage seemed very natural and realistic, with countless details that ensured that the setting of the play was authentic to the time Rigoletto was first written.

When the performers first began singing, I was instantly enthralled in the depth and power of their voices. Not only were the able to consistently hit impossibly high notes, but they projected their voices very well, ensuring that everyone in the opera house would be able to hear their performance. As the opera progressed, I began to realize that opera was a very interesting blend of both musical and theatrical performance.

Although I enjoyed the new experience of opera in the general sense, it was somewhat difficult to suspend disbelief in regards to the plot of the performance. Rigoletto is based on very clichéd, familiar themes of love and pride. Throughout the opera, I found myself criticizing several events for the simple reason that they seemed too unlikely to ever occur in the real world. These included Gilda’s act of sacrificing herself so that her womanizing, deceitful lover, the Duke of Mantua may live, and the noble’s kidnapping of Rigoletto’s daughter, Gilda, to simply play a joke on him. These events were too idealistic in nature and by being so blatantly unreal and impossible in nature, made me lose interest in the overall performance. I am the kind of viewer who wants to be able to connect a performance to the real world, which Rigoletto definitely did not allow me to do.

Attending the performance of Rigoletto made me appreciate the world of opera and establish my own, personal opinion in regards to this form of art. The performance was one that I think may be appreciated and even enjoyed by both, the opera newcomer and the hardened critic alike.

The Fall for Dance Festival was an event held on September 30^th, 2010. Its purpose was to showcase a variety of different dance genres from across the world, hoping to appeal to those who have not yet enjoyed the world of dance. With this in mind, the festival included performances by Company Rafaela Carrasco, New York City Ballet, Bill T. Jones & Arnie Zane and finally, Companhia Urbana de Danca. Each company introduced a unique form of dance, allowing the audience to compare them side-by-side and perhaps leave the show with a newfound appreciation and interest in this form of art.

I have never gone to a dance performance before. Hoping to become more culturally attuned and broaden my own perspectives, I attended the show with an open mind. Although I’ve seen professional dancers before on TV, I had no idea how different it would feel seeing them perform in person. The first company to go on stage was Rafaela Carrasco, performing a traditional flamenco dance. Their display of flamenco successfully blended vibrant, energetic dancing with simple, yet intricate instrumental music. I was enthralled in the music and the dancers’ heels added a deeper flow to the performance. Although I enjoyed the actual dancing, what impressed me more was the athleticism and precision that both the dancers and the musicians possessed. I never realized, until seeing the sweat pouring off each of the performers faces and necks, the amount of physical endurance and synchronicity that professional dances needed to develop.

The second dance to be performed was Red Angels by the New York City Ballet. Staying true to the festival’s mission statement, this dance was nothing like the flamenco dance just before it. Titled, “Red Angels,” this was a ballet dance which seethed with raw, sexual nature. The music that was played during the dance added a somewhat ominous feel to the performance. The dancing itself was mesmerizing and unpredictable, yet after it was over, I realized it was also easily forgettable. As impressed as I was by the flexibility and grace that the dancers exhibited, I personally found the dance to be just that, a demonstration of human physical capabilities. Whereas the performance by Rafaela Carrasco inspired some sort of emotion within me, this dance did nothing of the sort.

The third dance, performed by the Bill T. Jones & Arnie Zane Company, was the only dance of the evening to leave absolutely no impression on me. From the beginning to the very end, the dance was boring and lackluster. The music and later on, the prerecorded dialogue, had no apparent connection to the actual dancing, and only succeeded in confusing me even more. When the performance finally ended, I found myself clapping for the simple reason that it was finally over. However, I am glad that I saw a performance I did not truly enjoy that night, because it allowed me to understand what type of dance I did or did not like.

The Companhia Urbana de Danca performed the final dance of the night. This was a completely different variation of dance, which may be compared to urban, hip-hop styles. It featured a variety of music, ranging from techno to slow drum and bass.  The dancing was highly acrobatic and interesting, and I found myself drawn in from the very first second. The dancers seemed a lot more fluid in this performers than in the others, giving the stage a freer and open feel. Personally, I felt that this style of dance allowed the performers to more honestly express themselves.

The festival in itself can be considered a success if it gave people the chance to at least formulate a concrete opinion about dance. That way people may come to understand and even analyze different performances, eventually growing to deeply appreciate this form of art. Even if someone hated all four dances, at least it made them realize what they may like in the future. After all,  in the world of art, apathy is far worse than hatred.