While watching Jerome Bel’s “Disabled Theater,” I really was unsure of what to make of it at first.  It is obviously a very unique piece and there are many things that one needs to take into consideration when reviewing it.  Although it is controversial, and some could argue that these disabled actors are being taken advantage of, that may not necessarily be true.

Firstly, I do not believe that Jerome Bel has a responsibility to these actors beyond the performance.  He chose the performers that he wanted for his piece, created a performance for them, and they were paid to perform.  Aside from that, I do not feel that he owes the performers any more than a choreographer would owe performers who are not disabled.

The debate over whether these actors are being exploited is very complicated and I could see the point of view of both sides.  On one hand, it does seem that most of the entertainment derived from this performance came from the fact that these actors were disabled in various ways.  In this way, Jerome Bel is exploiting their disabilities to create an entertaining performance.  This came to light especially when the actors spoke about what their families thought of the piece.  It was described as a “freak show” and many of the performers stated that their families did not enjoy it.  I can understand why their families would feel this way and not enjoy seeing their disabled sons/daughters and brothers/sisters used as a spectacle for an audience to stare and laugh at.

However, I do not believe that Jerome Bel intended to exploit these performers, nor do I think he took advantage of them.  I would assume that all of these people willingly did the performance and are paid for their services.  In addition to this, they were given an opportunity that they otherwise may have never received.  Everyone in the audience could obviously see the pure joy and elation these performers got while dancing and watching each other perform on stage.  When you look at it this way, it seems that Jerome isn’t taking advantage of these actors, but instead he is daring enough to give these people a chance when no one else will.

As a man stood in the almost complete darkness, squatting down and singing in a shrill, high- pitched voice, I was admittedly confused and unsure what to make of what I was seeing.  Soon after this, he began running around the stage and it became visible that he was completely naked.  I was very taken aback by this entrance.  However, Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker’s performance went on to be a graceful display of dance that utilized motion, sound, and lighting in a way that I found to be fascinating.

One of the motions that seemed to be continually used throughout the performance was running or scampering across the stage, often from under the light into the darkness.  I found it interesting how when one dancer would run across the stage, it seemed to impact every other dancer and they would all begin to scamper about as well.  The way the dancers moved often appeared to have an influence on what the others would do and it was beautiful to observe how all of their movements came together.  Another pattern that I noticed within the dancer’s motions was a lot of going down to the floor and, more specifically, sliding on the floor.  It was evident that they were sliding often by how distorted the chalk circle on the stage was by the end of the performance.  Because all of their movements were centered around the circle, the dancers were often sliding across its lines and smearing chalk wherever they moved.

The sounds that could be heard while watching Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker’s also contributed incredibly to the show.  A lot of these sounds went hand in hand with the motions of the dancers.  During the first part of the show, the stage was mostly enveloped by darkness and it was very difficult to see what the dancers were doing unless they were directly under the small light.  It was very difficult to trust my own eyes and I often found myself listening to the noises the dancers made as they moved to figure out where they were on stage or what they were doing.  The noises that they made as the slid across the floor or scampered around the stage became very important to try and follow what they were doing at all times.  The other aspect of the sounds in this performance which was significant was the dancers’ singing.  The music seemed to create a serene or graceful atmosphere and reminded me a lot of church music.  This once again coincided nicely with the dancers’ movements, because whenever the music began, their movements appeared to become more graceful and elegant to reflect what the audience was hearing.

Finally, another influential part of the dance was the lighting, or lack thereof.  The beginning part of the performance used only a small light in the front center of the stage, which made it difficult to see any dancers who were not in that exact position.  It was also very difficult to make out any specific details about the dancers, such as what they looked like or their costumes.  Although this was intentional, it was often very frustrating to not be able to see the dancers and I did not really enjoy the beginning of the performance because of this.  I obviously was not the only person who held this opinion, as someone unexpectedly yelled out from the audience that they felt the same way.  However, the next part of the show saw a gradual increase in the amount of light until the entire stage was illuminated.  I found this to be much more enjoyable, as we were now able to observe all of the dancers, as well as their costumes and their movements.

Overall, I found Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker’s to be an enjoyable experience.  The way in which motion, sound, and lighting all came together was truly captivating and impressive.  Although I did not exactly understand the choices in the beginning to open with the naked man or use a mostly dark stage, the performance went on to display a lot more graceful and beautiful dancing, especially when the lights came on to illuminate the stage.

Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)

Andre Kertész’s “Poughkeepsie, New York” (1937) captured my attention for a variety of reasons.  Initially, the title caught my eye because I am actually going to Poughkeepsie this weekend to visit my friend who goes to college there.  I wondered if this train station will be the one that I arrive at Saturday afternoon.  In addition to this, upon further review I found many other aspects of the photograph interesting.

I believe that this photograph is aesthetically pleasing due to its adherence with the rule of thirds, as well as the positioning of its subjects.  My focus drifted to the man in white standing in the top right corner of the photo.  He caught my eye because of his position in the top right third of the picture, as well as his white clothing’s contrast with the otherwise greyness of the background.  He appears to have his hands on his hips, and I found myself wondering what he could be thinking about.  While viewing this photograph, I began to create a story in my mind about this man, and I believe that was encouraged by his position in the photograph, which adhered to the rule of thirds.

Kertész also used the camera angle to add to the appeal of his photograph.  If he had been vertical with the staircase, the picture would have been much less pleasing to the eye.  However, the perspective that the photo provides gives a more effective view of the staircase, as well as the train tracks by showing the space in front of them.

I plan on using what I learned from the reading, as well as the things that I saw in “Poughkeepsie, New York” to frame my shots.  I will be sure to position the subject of my photo in accordance with the rule of thirds in a way that makes the most sense for what I want it to portray. For example, if I take a photograph of the horizon, I will decide whether I want the main focus to be the sky or land/water, and position my picture to show this.  By using what I have learned from these readings and Andre Kertész’s photographs, I will try to frame my shot in the most aesthetically pleasing way possible.

Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/lyon-opera-ballet-presents-limbs-theorem.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=dance&adxnnlx=1379975918-eDxMH84oYHVTiga6dM8CXA

I read “The Dawn of a World, Dreamlike Yet Chaotic” by Roslyn Sulcas, which was a review of William Forsythe’s “Limb’s Theorem.”  The review was published on The New York Times website, and related to Wendy Oliver’s reading in multiple ways.

Sulcas begins her review with a vivid description of the performance’s start, just as Oliver explained should be done.  As a critic, Sulcas does a phenomenal job of painting a picture of the stage in the reader’s head.  This is a strong foundation for the rest of her review, because it gives her audience a powerful image of the work that she will be critiquing.  She goes on to describe the next few events of the performance- what Oliver called a “movement moment.”  In the reading, Oliver made it clear that these movement moments are vital to the success of writing about dance, and Sulcas made sure to include one early on in her review.

It is also clear that Sulcas has done extensive research about the choreographer, William Forsythe and she shares all relevant background information with her readers.  The reading explained that this is crucial to supporting any conclusions that a critic may draw about the performance.  Themes or trends that the choreographer has followed in the past can reveal a lot about what their intentions were with any other performance that they have created.

Finally, Sulcas does a thorough job of analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating the dance throughout her review.  She discusses that a “motif of rearrangement permeates the work, with conventional balletic shapes reorganized into new forms that ignore the logic that usually determines the planes and impulses of classical dance,” which is just one example of how she analyzes and finds deeper meaning about what Forsythe truly intended with his work.  Sulcas even uses similes such as “a rope pulses across the floor like an EKG,” to support her assertions about the performance, thus enhancing her arguments and providing more evidence for her critique, exactly as the reading described it should be done.  Her review consistently matched the main points that Oliver’s reading explained, and I found it fascinating how accurate and relevant this critique was to the reading overall.

– Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)

At first glance, it would seem that John’s self portrait and my own do not have much in common.  I chose to draw about the things that are most important to me, while John decided to use his love of languages to communicate with the class.  However, there were some major similarities between our self portraits that become obvious when you start to think about the reasons why we chose to use these specific strategies.

First of all, I found it interesting that we both spent the majority of our performances with our backs to the class, writing/drawing on the board.  To me, this shows that we like to work privately and independently, especially when we are focused on a certain task.  In addition to this, we both decided to write/draw our work right there in front of the class, as opposed to making something beforehand and then presenting it to the class in a different way.  I think this shows that John and I are both daring, yet confident in our ability to express ourselves, even when on the spot.  Once you look beyond the surface of our self portraits, it becomes clear that they share many key similarities.

There are also many obvious differences between John’s self portrait and my own.  One thing that stood out to me is that he decided to go amongst the class and interact with them by handing out papers with phrases in different languages, while I never moved from the board.  This could show that John is more willing to explore his boundaries and is more outgoing, while I choose to express myself as an individual, without interacting with others.  Another significant difference that I found was in the mediums that we chose.  John used chalk for the most part, while I chose to use markers.  In my opinion, chalk is indicative of school and teaching, while markers are more representative of playing or doodling for children.  This could show the John took this project as a more serious educational performance, while I approached it in a less formal way that allowed me to express myself in a comfortable and personal way.

Overall, I found it astonishing to view not only John’s, but all of my classmates’ self portraits.  It was a wonderful sneak peek into everyone’s personality, and it was a lot of fun to hear everyone’s opinions about each other’s performances.  Some people picked up on small details that I would have never noticed, and some that I’m sure even the performer themselves did not intend.  When comparing my own presentation to John’s, I discovered many key similarities and differences that I did not even think of when I first watched his or thought of my own.  These self portraits were an eye opening experience and I can only hope that we have more projects like this one in the future.

– Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)

While reading Ways of Seeing by John Berger and A Short Guide to Writing About Art by Sylva Barnet, many key concepts to consider while viewing art became clear to me.  A few in particular that stood out to me were the ideas about perspective, what makes art truly art, and how to write about art.  There are various ways which I will apply these thoughts while viewing the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA.

The first concept that really made me stop and think about what I was reading was Berger’s explanation of perspective.  Specifically, how one’s perspective alters what they see while viewing art, as well as what they think of it.  As someone who is unfamiliar with art, my perspective will obviously be very different from those who have more experience with the arts.  However, after reading more about this idea, I decided that I must always keep an open mind when I am looking at new or different types of art, and leave behind any preconceived notions that I may have.  I will try my best to do this when viewing the Modern Art exhibition, so as to appreciate what I am seeing and think about its significance.  In addition to this, being open minded will allow the art to “explain in a new way the world unknown to [me]” (Berger 17).  I believe that one of the keys to viewing art for me will be to try to look at it from multiple perspectives, and not to let my own narrow view impact my experience.

Another concept which became clear to me was the question of what defines art.  Barnet wrote in depth about this, and it made me think a lot about the different theories that have been presented.  The Institutional Theory of art is that anything that artists or the public say is art, is in fact art.  This struck me as a very broad definition, and one thing that I’d like to focus on while viewing art is to determine what makes something art to me.  Also, I will think about what made the curator of the museum choose to display it.  Is it because of the artist?  Is it because the public thinks of it as art?  Or does it hold some other historic significance?  All of these are questions that I will be sure to keep in mind while visiting MOMA.

Finally, a third important concept that I found while reading was how to write about art.  Since The Arts in New York City is a writing intensive course, I felt that this would be pivotal to understand in order to have success in this class.  When writing about art, I need to remember to write about everything that I see and feel, not only for others to read, but for myself to understand my own views of art.  The more I write and the more successfully I can express what I think about what I see, the better grasp I will have for my own interpretation of art, and the better I will be able to critique and discuss it with others, including my classmates.  Barnet also brought to light how important it is to keep your audience in mind while writing about art.  This is an idea that I will keep with me throughout all of my life when writing, and one that I will definitely bring with me to MOMA if there is anything I need to write about the exhibition afterwards.