In Is Violence History, Peter Singer elaborates on the book Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Singer touches upon an interesting topic to talk about. Better Angels of Our Nature brings to light many of our common day questions and topics. The author, Pinker, takes on a philosophical approach of declining violence in society. Pinker makes the observation that people nowadays are less likely to suffer from a violent act or violent death. The decline of violence refers to anything – family, tribes, states. Pinker has even noted on the declined death rate amongst countries. For example, the chance of getting murdered in Europe is one tenth. On a deeper approach, Pinker questions whether this decline is related to Enlightenment, genetic changes, an increased I.Q. amongst the people and so forth. For example he asks, “Why are homicide rates higher in the southerly states of this country than in northern ones? Are aggressive tendencies heritable? Could declines in violence in particular societies be attributed to genetic change among its members? How does a president’s I.Q. correlate with the number of battle deaths in wars in which the United States is involved?” Pinker makes a really good observation and correlation between violence/death and the civilizing and intelligence of society.

On Saturday October 8, the Brooklyn Philharmonic performed in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn. However, this was not a regular performance. The orchestra performed outdoors, amid the sounds of the subway and cars, and was joined by rapper Mos Def in their performance.

The Brooklyn Philharmonic does not have a permanent home, so its director, Alan Pierson, has decided to put on three performances each in a different area of Brooklyn, catering to each neighborhood’s style. The other two events will be held in Brighton Beach and downtown Brooklyn.

I think that this is a wonderful idea. More people would go to watch the Philharmonic playing outdoors than in a concert hall. I also think its pretty cool that they performed with Mos Def. Rap and classical music sounds is a very interesting concept that I would like to hear. The combination of fresh air and unique music definitely makes the Philharmonic more interesting.

The website for the Metropolitan Museum of Art recently underwent a major overhaul. Edward Rothstein reviews the new site in his New York Times article “From Met Museum, Virtual Virtue.” Overall, Rothstein does a good job with his article. First, he describes the new site, which has a very simplistic design with black and gray banners and shows off the museum’s many collections. He continues his review with an analysis of this specific website as well as the role of websites for museums.

Rothstein points out the many things he likes about the new website and uses other websites as examples of his ideas. For example, he explains how the amount of information about the objects included on the site is just right, calling the site “encyclopedic.” He presents the websites for the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Louvre as examples of websites that didn’t do this quite as well as the Met did. Another aspect of the website for the Met that Rothstein liked was the way the website associates itself with the museum rather than competing with it. The simplistic design of the website doesn’t try to evoke sensations about the museum and the site includes interactive maps to direct people to the actual exhibits and objects in the museum building. Again, he provides an example of a website that is much weaker in this area, this time using the Museum of Modern Art’s site, which makes you feel “a sense of excitement and variety.”

The ideas that Rothstein proposes and the examples he uses help the reader to think about the role of a museum’s website. They make me wonder about how the websites impact the museums and their visitors. Is it better to see the objects in the museum in person or be able to look at images of them from anywhere? Does putting everything in the museum online make people less motivated to visit the physical museum building? How could this impact the experience? If less people decide to go to the museum because they can see it online, would this be good or bad for the experience of the people that do go to the museum? Is a less crowded museum better or is the social aspect in which people are responding to the objects in the museum together and seeing each others responses a part of the experience? I believe that putting more of a museum online will detract from the meuseum itself. However, I do think that the answers to many of these questions depend on the way the websites and museums are designed and how they work together. If they are designed to go together well, as Rothstein believes the Met and its website are, then people will look to both and there will be the impact could even be positive.

Talk about avoiding the subject.  In Ken Jaworowski’s review “Stranger Ship, Stranger Cast,” barely talks bout the play he is reviewing, “Benito Cereno.” “Benito Cereno,” is “based on a novella by Herman Melville, and the play was first performed by Robert Lowell in 1964.” The play that is currently being performed has been directed by Woodie King Jr, but I didn’t find that out until later on in the review.  In fact, when I first read the review , Jaworowski said “Mr. King” and I thought he was mentioning Martin Luther King Jr.  I missed him mentioning that Woodie King Jr. directed the current production.

I then realized that part of that fault resided in me, but Jaworowski was also to blame.  His review described the play and praised Robert Lowell’s version of it, but when it came time to evaluate Mr. King’s version his effort was as lackluster as he described the play to be.  He only dedicates four sentences to his review of the piece and goes on to give credit to Mr. King for attempting  to resurrect the composition.  This need to award condolence to Mr. King demonstrates the high standards Jaworowski holds for Lowell’s piece and how much King fails to measure up to it.  I felt as if he were being condescending when he did this because he implied Mr. King’s production wasn’t good enough to be on the same level of Lowell’s. 

Another act of degrading the act, aside from mentioning how neither the cast nor the props were properly chosen, was the length of his critique, which was four paragraphs.  I was surprised when I finished the review so quickly, because I’ve never read one so short before.  Jaworowski showed that he felt the play didn’t need his full attention and opinion because it was so bad.  Instead he wrote a few small paragraphs and called it a night.

While this play in running until October 16^th at the Flea Theater, I doubt anybody will go based on this account since it was given little effort, as it views the play was given. 

In her New York Times article, Daytime’s Talking Heads Are Now Eating Too, Alessandra Stanley reviews the new daytime talk-show “The Chew.” It is a new food related talk-show that premiered on ABC. The show features world renowned chef Mario Batalli, vegetarian author Daphne Oz, Top Chef winner Carla Hall, Food Network Star winner Michael Symon, and co-host of What Not To Wear Clinton Kelly. The show’s interesting dynamic comes from the unique personalities of the hosts and the styles that they bring to the show. The Chew takes its name from the wildly popular talk-show The View to show viewers that it will be just as upbeat and lively but on the topic of food. During the show one of the hosts will prepare a dish and discuss it with the others. This brings a much needed and refreshing change to the static shows where the chef talks to the camera.

Stanley does a great job reviewing the show. She discusses the premise of the show and gives descriptions of all of the hosts. She also brings in other shows to give examples of what to expect. She adds quotes from the host’s playful banter to give the reader a sense of what the mood of the show is like. At some times her examples may stray a little too far away from the topic but it doesn’t take away from the rest of the article. I found her review nicely written and interesting and I might just tune in to The Chew one of these days.

Sometimes certain things may surprise you and may come to you out of the blue. However, these surprises may really be helpful to you in the long run and can really turn you into a better person. Like life, the production “The Love Letter You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York,” experiences the same situations and may be swayed by its surrounding environment.

Claudia Lo Rocco, in her article “Just Can’t Say Goodbye to Gotham,” discusses the production.  She begins by bringing down some peculiar aspects about the productions such as the hackneyed script, the amateur performers and the strained concept and plot. However, she states that there is something about this production that draws the audience in.

The reviewer then brings down the location of the play which is at the 3LD Art & Technology Center in Lower Manhattan. however, it is not really inside the center, rather it takes place outside on Greenwich Street, making the play all the more exhilarating. The audience sits inside the theater, along with the composer and musicians, as they watch the action unfold through floor to ceiling glass windows.

Lo Rocco continues to give us a little background of the play and provides some information as to her experience of watching it. She explains that the play is about and “young romantic” who’s proposal was rejected by his girlfriend. He contemplates whether or not he can bear to stay in New York. She explains that most of the play is scripted, however, due to their “unpredictable stage” some parts are improvised or come about as a result of traffic flowing through the street. Lo Rocco explains that these moments were her favorite part of the production. Throughout the play many pedestrians strolling the street, stop by and watch as the play goes on and react in different ways. Some passer-bys are confused and bewildered, while others are delighted to see what will happen next.

While reading this article, I was immediately intrigued by the production. The actors of the play are almost in the same position as the audience. Just like us, they are waiting to see what will happen next and don’t really know how it will play out. They must react to certain things going on around them and must be prepared to act out a change in their environment.

When anyone goes to google news, which millions of people do everyday, they get a huge list of links to relevant news stories. However many people are suggesting that google should edit the news so that people get more important news. In Clair Millers article Should Google Tweak the News We Consume? she raises the point that google could decide which kind of news people will read every day. She mentions that many people followed the Casey Anthony trial when they should be reading about life and death situations in Africa.

This article defiantly raises an interesting point. Since google basically decides what millions of people read everyday do they have an obligation to make people read important news. If they were to alter the algorithm used so that it put world news over entertainment then many people would read these articles and be more worldly. I for one think that they should, when I go to google I am always drawn to the cool or funny articles and ignore the important ones. However if there was only important ones I would read those. Google however would lose business doing this so it is not likely to happen. I think that google being the multi billion dollar organization it is could afford to lose some money to make the world a more knowledgeable place.

A lot has been said and written about the ‘addiction’ to technology that the current generation is said to have. Repeatedly, studies are conducted which apparently prove that people can become addicted to social networking sites and gadgets and that separation from these devices can cause people to exhibit ‘withdrawal symptoms’. But I have always been skeptical of these studies simply because I am reluctant to apply a decidedly negative term such as ‘addiction’ to the way I feel about my iPhone.

But Martin Lindstrom’s intriguing article “You Love Your iPhone. Literally”  offers an interesting take on the subject that I am very much inclined to believe. Mr. Lindstrom contends that our relationship to gadgets, specifically Apple gadgets, is not accurately described by the term ‘addiction’ and in fact, more resembles ‘love.’  He bases his argument on an experiment he conducted using fMRIs or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Subjects in his experiment showed increased activity in the region of the brain associated with love and compassion when they heard or saw their iPhone. I personally own an iPhone 4 and alarmingly, I find that Mr. Lindstrom’s thesis is quite plausible. I feel that this discovery makes iPhones more dangerous than previously suspected because being in love with our phones suggests a deeper emotional impact than in the case of an addiction which may be purely chemical and more shallow.

In his thought-provoking article, Mr. Lindstrom accurately infers that just because ‘love’ is a positive emotion under other circumstances, it is not a good thing that we love our phones – I agree. ‘Love’ is an extremely powerful emotion – one that we should limit to living beings, in my opinion. Other findings Mr. Lindstrom mentions, including the ‘separation anxiety’ that iPhone owners may be experiencing when they accidentally leave their phone at home, have started me thinking hard about my relationship to my phone. Hopefully, the situation is not as alarming as the article suggests.

A common aspect of contemporary theater is innovation. New directors stray from the traditional forms of plays by incorporation interactivity and altering essential parts of a play like the stage and music. The play “The Love Letter You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York” by Jonathan Solari is a prime example of the unconventional methods of a contemporary play.
In her review, Claudia La Rocco paints a vivid description of the play by describing the novelties surrounding this play. She starts the review stating that the play is lacking on “conventional levels,” meaning that the plot, script, and acting are subpar. However, she points out that the real success of this play is the creative stage. “The Love Letter You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York” is obviously about New York, but what makes this play so unique is that the audience sits inside a building looking out a glass wall, and the actors take their roles on the streets. The unpredictable occurrences in the streets make this play very enjoyable.
La Rocco does not describe any further than the stage located on the streets. She leaves out information regarding music and plot, making this review weak at explaining all the facts. But, perhaps it was her intent to say that the creative stage is the only thing worth mentioning.
Even though this play sounds extremely interesting to watch and the review makes it sound very cool, I wonder whether or not the stage method is a gimmick. The review said that it lacked in plot and acting; if you take the actors out of a play what is left? I don’t feel confident that a production would be enjoyable solely based on a trick. I remember watching a 3D movie – Sure, it’s great and novel, but if the movie were bad, would I marvel at the 3D effects? I hope not.
Will “contemporary theater” just be an excuse to try gimmicky techinques? I plan to keep on the lookout for new shows that tread new grounds (like audience-actor relationships) and figure out whether this is just a trend or a viable method for a play.

Art is eclectic, with artists getting ideas anywhere from within their own home to another continent. The dance “Toot Is Loot”, a collaboration between Jennifer Lacey and Wally Cardona, is just that. I think it would be interesting to see a dance show that has not just one theme, but many themes involved because it keeps the show captivating.

In Brian Seibert’s review, “With the Help of Unusual Outsiders, Find Love in Strange Objects”, he gives us a good idea of what to expect from such an eclectic piece. He starts off with some background information about both how this dance came to be and about the choreographers, which is always an interesting read. He knows this particular story is interesting and unusual so he does a good job of grabbing the reader’s attention. He goes on to inform the reader about how Lacey and Cardona each added a piece of themselves into the dance, keeping it unique and original. Even though this review is heavy on the background of the choreographers, it really allowed me to understand why Seibert feels the way he does about this dance.

Seibert covers everything from the dancers’ performances to the musical score of the dance. His review is holistic, and doesn’t spend too much time explaining to us just one aspect (such as the plot of the dance) of “Toot Is Loot”. He is also very honest with the reader in his review, telling us that the ending was confusing for him.

I feel this was a successful review because it told me most of what I needed to know about this dance. The tidbits of information about the background of this dance kept me intrigued and Seibert is not biased.