This is a dance review on The Village Voice about “Umwelt”, performed by Maguy Marin’s dance company. The review was written by Deborah Jowitt and was published in July 2008.  http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-07-02/dance/moving-days/

Sara Camnasio

“The Dual Powers of Woman, in Muted Force or Frenzied Abandon” is a dance review that was written by Alistar Macaulay and published in the New York Times on August 23rd, 2012. The review was about the choreography of 1989 version of Henry Purcell’s opera “Dido and Aeneas” by Mark Morris.

Soledad Barrio & Noche Flamenca

From the Village Voice: a review of “Soledad Barrio & Noche Flamenca”, performed at the Cherry Lane Theater in West Village, New York.

This is a review by Brian Seibert in The Village Voice, published October 19th, 2011. “Ordinary Witnesses” by Rachid Ouramdane was performed at New York Live Arts.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-10-12/dance/rachid-ouramdane-s-ordinary-witnesses-gets-some-buzz/

This is a review by Claudia La Rocco in the New York Times. It was published the 13th of September, 2012. The piece was performed in the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

Nora Chipaumire’s “Miriam”

“Darting and Stuttering Through Many Points Of Light” is a dance review article by Gia Kourlas, which was published in the New York Times on September 7th, 2012. The writer wrote about Jonah Bokaer and Anthony McCall’s ‘Eclipse’, which was preformed at BAM Fisher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/arts/dance/eclipse-by-jonah-bokaer-and-anthony-mccall-at-bam-fisher.html?ref=dance

This is a New York Times review, published by Brian Seibert on September 9th 2012. The dance in question is Kapila Venu’s “The Abandonment of Sita”, presented at Asia Society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/arts/dance/kapila-venu-in-the-abandonment-of-sita-at-asia-society.html?_r=1

In the age of technology, visiting museums and art galleries can seem redundant, even unnecessary. After all, when you can easily search the Internet for thousands upon thousands of reproductions of Starry, Starry Night (or what have you), why bother to trek to whichever museum holds the original piece?

Yet, in John Berger’s Ways of Seeing, he argues that the reproductions we are so accustomed to seeing today take the originals out of their intended context. Before cameras were widely used, works of art could not physically be in two or more places at once, and many were unique to their locations. But as Berger alleges, “the painting travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting” (20). Reproductions of an original no longer make you think of the original as being unique: it is now the original of the reproduction. This, in turn, changes all meaning of the original piece — and the reproductions as well.

Visiting the Museum of Modern Art with Berger’s words in mind certainly changed the way I viewed the works of art on display. Before, I would simply look at a piece, read any captions, maybe make a mental note if I really liked anything about the piece, then move on to the next thing five feet over. Rinse and repeat. No thought required, really.

But with Berger and Ways of Seeing fresh in my mind, I began to see every piece of art from a different perspective. Aside from his commentary on reproductions, he also brings to light what the captions in museums can do to alter a viewer’s perception on a piece: in a way, it can pigeonhole the way viewers see a work of art. Captions, for all the information they give, can undermine free interpretation of art; when you give your perspective, you may also question yourself if it’s not something that it’s in line with what’s on the plaque.

Thus, when walking through the MoMA’s different exhibitions, I not only tried to look at every work without feeling restricted by any side commentary, but also imagined each piece as it was in its original location — perhaps, not in a museum, hung up on a wall or behind a glass case. Maybe not even as a work of art to be viewed publicly and scrutinized, at all. And this new “lens” through which I saw the MoMA and its collections has given me a new appreciation for art. Art cannot simply viewed as just that: art, in a museum, on display for millions of people, who take another photograph (and another, and another) and stroll right on by. Being able to imagine how each piece was intended to be viewed, and recognizing the importance of an original and the difference between viewing a reproduction and “the real thing”, has reshaped the way I see, and enjoy, art.

            In his book Ways of Seeing, John Berger brings up several interesting points regarding the perception of art. According to Berger, we no longer perceive visual images as merely what see in front of us. Rather, our view of them is obscured by that which we already know – the image’s reputation and value, the artist’s other works, the context of the art, and the many reproductions created of the image. This, Berger argues, distorts the concept of art; it is virtually impossible for adults to restore the “innocence” with which a child looks at a visual image.

Berger’s theories can be applied to any type of visual images, including modern art. When visiting the Museum of Modern Art, one should keep in mind that a piece of art is meant to be looked at and analyzed with no preconceived views. Even if a painting is extremely famous, seeing it “live” is equivalent to seeing it for the first time. The experience of being a museum-goer isn’t about the value of the art one is looking it nor is it about the meaning the painting is “supposed” to have. One should walk into any museum, especially the progressive MoMA, with an extremely open mind and a willingness to feel. One must be comfortable enough to trust his/her own judgment and go with his/her gut regarding feelings towards a certain piece. This is the only way to truly appreciate and enjoy art.

Discuss how you feel one can apply the concepts presented by Berger in looking at the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA?  Post by Sunday 12 pm.

For our Macaulay Honors arts seminar, we were given an assignment to go to the MoMA to visit a particular art movement. John Berger’s Ways of Seeing provides meaningful insight to my topic in modern art. The topic I was studying was Pop Art, a movement that took place mainly in the 1960’s. Prior to my visit to the Museum of Modern Art, I researched the subject to get a better idea of what Pop Art is. The art form takes images popular at the time, such as Marilyn Monroe’s face or an advertisement for a vacation, and changes the context to completely alter the content. By changing the image through selecting a different color or a way the art is shown, meaning can be given to the art.

John Berger’s Ways of Seeing allowed me to explore the meaning of using an image in a different context. He explains that an artist intends to have their work displayed in a certain setting, but when the image is reproduced or moved, that setting and original meaning can be lost. Instead, for reproduced work, there is a holiness attributed to the original. The different situations may cause a conflict of interests between the artist’s intent and the viewer’s reality.

In Pop Art, artists spin this idea around. For example, Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe paintings used an image of Monroe and changed the color to send a message about her true beauty to the public. He mass-produces these images, so that there was no control over who saw the paintings, and thus they spread. On the other hand, that was viewed right after her death, when she was fresh in the minds of society. In today’s world, the paintings would be viewed in much the same way that John Berger spoke, as high art. This is a sad truth, as that was the opposite of what Andy Warhol seemed to have wanted.

Meira