Author: jaimeeian

Two women sit next to each other clad in fashionable garments, decorated with jewelry, and surrounded by wine glasses. They are the subjects of a photograph taken by Lisette Model at a 1940’s Fashion Show in Hotel Pierre New York.

The image caught my eye for several reasons. One reason was simply the expense and the class that is implied in the photograph. In the photograph, Model captures several objects that are literally shining. The woman on the right wears a thick watch or bracelet on her exposed wrist and three strings of pearls hang on her neck. Both women wear rings that are subtle reminders of the notion of the upper class that is implied through the rest of the image. The wine glasses, too, capture and reflect the light, illuminating both the room and the photograph. Even the eyes of the subjects sparkle like they are gems themselves. Together, all of these elements give light and life to the image, removing it from dullness.

Also, the photograph is very appealing to the eye because of its manipulation of the rule of thirds. In all four of the focal points of the “tic tac toe” board, there is an object that is important to the image. The top right point focuses on the face of the woman on the right. Her eyes, as followed by the viewer, lead to the woman on the left, who is the focus of the top left focal point. Below her is a wine glass, the focus of the lower left point, which is directed at by the hand of the first woman, which becomes the focus of the lower right. Each focal point holds something that, alone, are descriptive of the scene. The focus on the woman on the right emphasizes the human aspect of the picture, while the focus on her hand and the jewelry which adorn it, which emphasizes the materialistic aspect. The image seemingly shifts to the left as the subjects on the right point to that direction; the woman’s eyes lead to the woman on the left, and her hand points to the wine glass. The subjects on the lefts portray the same concepts as the right side. Additionally, the gaze of the woman on the left is directed at the camera, and therefore at the viewer, making the scene much more intimate and allowing the viewer to become engaged with her and the scene as a whole.

After reading about the rule of thirds, I expected to find one subject and emphasize it by placing it in one of the focal points of the tic tac toe board. However, after viewing Model’s photograph, I now realize there are more possibilities than that. I can look to include multiple subjects in my photograph, which, as long as they exist in different focal points, will create a longer-lasting interest in the image. Also, the interaction between subjects is something that is engaging of Model’s photograph, which is something I hope to use as well. The guidelines on the rule of thirds, as well as the photographs fromn the Masters of Photography website, were very informative and even more so inspirational.

Alessandro Sciarroni choreographed an impressive and entertaining feat in “Folk-s, Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?” The performance was a reimagining of traditional folk dances from Europe, extended over the course of nearly two hours. The performance began with a ring of dancers simultaneously repeating a rhythmic pattern of steps, stomps, and slaps. This pattern persisted throughout the rest of the show, acting as a foundation that was built upon and varied upon several times before the end of the show. Like this rhythmic pattern, a loose narrative also persisted through the performance. In the show, there was a vague premise of dancers who, like the audience, were allowed to exit the at any time but not allowed to return. Over the course of the show, each character departed, concluding when the final dancer walked off stage.

Sciarroni must be commended for choreographing a dance as intense and physically demanding as this. The dance, although consisting mainly of one short, repeated dance, lasted, continuously, for an incredibly long amount of time. By the time the performance had ended, the dancers were drenched in sweat and had palms that glowed red from slapping their thighs so much. It seemed exhausting to just do it once, but to know that these performers rehearsed this multiple times beforehand really illustrates the emotional dedication and physical commitment that these performers have. It’s admirable.

In addition to the physical impressiveness of the show, the entertainment that the show provided should not be overlooked. I enjoyed watching the show very much because of the appeal both visually and sonically. A dance performance, of course, creates its entertainment through the use of the human body’s movement. This show, however, also utilized the sounds created by the human body to entertain. The rhythm created by the dancers’ bodies was entrancing to hear and impressive to watch. Watching this performance brought to mind step team performances and the UK group STOMP, which focus on human percussion and percussion on everyday objects, respectively. Like “Folk-s,” they use the creation of rhythm as a main aspect of performance, which is just incredibly fun to watch.

While the show as a whole was very entertaining, it did have a weakness in its repetition. While the base rhythm underwent several variations throughout the show in order to diversify the performance sonically, there were some points where it felt like the repetitive rhythm was dragging on, leaving me longing for something different. However, these periods seemed to be transition periods, as they would be followed by standout moments, such as the “jumping” section performed by the final four performers, which was very intense and engaging.

I am very glad to have had the opportunity to watch this performance. It was extremely fun for myself, and I really enjoyed seeing the performers having fun as well. I really appreciated seeing the performers just having a good time, not being afraid to smile and laugh. The chemistry between performers is always important in a show. In this show, that chemistry was necessary to enhance the comedic moments of the show, but also seeing performers interact in such an innocent and unashamed way just made the performers more relatable and, therefore, the performance more engaging.

-Jaimee Rodriguez :^)

In modern art, artists frequently move away from concrete and narrative images in favor of the abstract. Mark Rothko’s piece, No. 10, and Paul Klee’s Fire in the Evening are both famous, abstract paintings. However, they differ significantly in many aspects which, as a result, illustrate the different sociocultural environments in which they were created. Rothko’s piece is purely abstract, nonobjective art, whose use of many layers of blended oil on canvas evokes emotion from the viewer through its natural brush strokes and vibrant, overlaying colors, which mask subtle underlying colors. Klee’s piece, while abstract, is not purely abstract like Rothko’s because it vaguely represents the image of a fire, as implied by the title. Furthermore, the piece, painted with oil on cardboard rather than canvas, uses much more defined brush strokes of colors, which are mostly darker than those in Rothko’s, to create a very structured and geometric pattern. While Rothko’s piece represents American society’s concern with the individual and personal emotion, a common theme among abstract expressionist painters, Klee, a German expressionist, portrays the rigid and dark world of WWII-era Germany.

-Jaimee :^)

(Sorry this is late)

The review I read was on Bruno Isakovic’s Disclosure, written by Siobhan Burke. The review concerns a piece in which the intimacy of the human individual is represented and celebrated, both through literal exposure (the nude) and figurative exposure (the disclosure of secrets).

In this review, Wendy Oliver’s breakdown of the criticism process is quite evident. The review opens with a description of the performance, which is the foundation for the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation which follow afterwards. The description gives a generalized idea of what the performance showed, as recommended by Oliver’s text. Burke’s subsequent analysis focuses on the combination of word, music and movement to create the piece as a whole and how it compares to the more movement driven performance, Denuded, which is a previous work by Isakovic. Putting these pieces together, Burke creates an interpretation in which the performers interact to share their most hidden secrets, both of their body and their mind, which creates a sense of intimacy that is hard to find and establish in our culture. Finally, Burke’s evaluation consists of his criticism of the piece’s shallow and incomplete confessional (a weakness), but not without praising the honesty of the work (a strength).

-Jaimee :^)

Reading Berger and Barnet’s works really changed my perspective on viewing art. Going to the Museum of Modern Art this past week was much different than my previous museum visits. I had never been to the MoMa before, so it was a brand new experience for me; both the works and the museum itself were unfamiliar to me. A fresh environment, fresh art, and a fresh perspective.

The first exhibit I visited was the gallery of Andy Warhol’s works. It consisted of several images of pop culture, from Elvis to Marilyn Monroe to the Campbell soup can. A prevailing theme in Warhol’s works is repetition. Many of his works were either redone and copied with variation in other works or included the use of repeated images overlapping each other. Reading the descriptions next to each painting, I couldn’t help but think of chapter 1 from Ways of Seeing. I thought of the disparity between words and images. The descriptions cited the use of repetition in the images as a way for Warhol to illustrate the common and commercial existence of the subjects. While it seemed likely that that could be true, it was still “mystical.” The idea wasn’t confirmed by anyone – it was even written that Warhol preferred to refer to the meaning of his works with the phrase “no comment.” I thought of how the descriptions of these works were, in a way, unnecessary. The viewer should be the one to interpret the art, based on the context of the art and the mind of the viewer. From what I understand, this is what Barnet labels the reception theory. The art is not limited to what the artist intended or what the person who wrote the plaque thought the artist intended. I thought of the other possibilities of the meaning of the artwork. Maybe the repetition is a metaphor for Warhol’s delusional mind, or of the duality of American society at the time. As I thought of more and more possibilites, I realized that they are all valid because I was a viewer who was engaged with the art.

Another thing that struck me was viewing Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. It was not nearly as massive as I thought, especially in comparison to the huge crowd that surrounded it. When I observed it up close, it was undoubtedly beautiful, but I did not find it more or less beautiful than many of the other paintings around it. Yet, it was by far more popular, and without a doubt, more expensive. The scene reminded me of Chapter 5 from Ways of Seeing. This piece is extremely valuable just by possession, which is true for the rest of the works to an extent. The value of an item is not really dependent on the work that the artist went through, or the significance it initially had socially, but of how well the artist’s name has persisted. Van Gogh is famous for being Van Gogh, and so his artwork is valued higher than others. It was fascinating to think about, as I saw the crowd grow around Starry Night while not many people stayed around the Franz Klee pieces.

The final piece that I saw during my visit was Mark Rothko’s No. 10. It’s a personal favorite. I had been told that to fully appreciate a Rothko, one must stand very close to it to observe all it’s underlying colors, which has been said to evoke great emotion from some viewers. However, as I stepped closer to the painting, a security guard told me, politely, that I was too close and to back up. I understood and respected his wishes, but as a result, I don’t think I got the full experience. This was a very insignificant moment, but it struck a chord with me later. I, as a viewer, could not view the piece to its full extent. If, as a viewer, my perspective is important in giving the piece its meaning, by rule of the reception theory, then Mark Rothko’s piece was left incomplete.

-Jaimee Rodriguez

A steady and rumbling beat shook the theater and my body. The sound immediately imbued me with a sense of discomfort, almost fear. Soon, one dancer emerged, then another. Discord and chaos seemed to govern their bodies. Their movements were unpredictable and independent, just like man. Our minds cultivate countless, erratic thoughts unique from anyone else, our differences in thought causing conflict and confusion, which was captured by the choreography in this first part of the performance. After this, however, the male dancer began spewing distressed noises from his mouth and then kicked beach balls onto the stage, as if he were sick of being human and had purged the flaws of man from his body. The two then started observing and kicking the beach balls as if examining the ills of humanity from a removed perspective. The dancers then started to revolve around each other, reciting the names of the world’s countries, finally in a state of union. It felt like they had transformed from conflicting humans to outside observers. They were now looking at the planet from above, witnessing the countries pass by. However, they also witnessed humans and their actions, using their guns to settle their small and pointless disagreements, now aware of how futile it is. As the performance came to a close, the dancers faded into the darkness, reciting the words “day” and “night,” the only constants on this planet; no matter what fleeting problems we may have, they will never last longer than the unending cycle of day and night. In the end, we are all the same. Just a species sharing a planet, living under the same star.

While watching this performance, a bunch of words came to mind: genius, beautiful, weird, scary, inspirational, different, fascinating. I haven’t been to too many live performances like this before, but this one was definitely something special. It resonated especially with me because it combined two things that are ridiculously interesting to me: physics and dance. I’ve only had very basic introductions to both of these topics (an algebra-based physics class in high school and eight seasons of MTV’s America’s Best Dance Crew), but despite my shallow knowledge, they’ve both managed to captivate me. They’re seemingly opposites; physics is an objective, mathematical science which explains the laws of nature from the subatomic to the astronomical, while dance is an extremely human art form which illustrates the beauty of movement and the human body. Seeing these two concepts come together was moving (no pun intended). Two dancers, two individual human bodies, portraying a concept that is unimaginable for those of us who are bound to Earth: the overview effect.

Everything about this event was striking to me. I was moved by the performance, educated by the lecture, and satisfied by the Insomnia Cookies. Honestly, though, the moment that’s stayed in my mind most was from the Q&A. Someone in the crowd asked (I’m paraphrasing here) if there will come a point, after commercialized spaceflight has become common, when people will no longer experience the overview effect. I was expecting the speakers to say something like “something as grand as seeing the entirety of Earth before your very eyes will always move a human being, even those in the future.” Instead, I was surprised to find that they agreed that there will probably come a point of desensitization, just like after the publication of the first official map of Earth or after the first complete photograph of the Earth was taken. It was just astonishing to me to imagine humanity at that point. A point when everyone has seen and experienced something that is, right now, reserved to only a very select group of people. Thinking of this reminds me that humanity is always moving forward, always asking “what’s next?” I find that both terrifying and wonderful.