Author: monicahuzinec (Page 1 of 2)

Upon hearing about the Ralph Lemon performance, I was eager to see what the choreographer had in store for us. I was hoping for a different type of dance than we had seen before. But unfortunately I was disappointed. We were once again in a small single room with a small set and barely any dancing at all. I did appreciate the technology aspect of it. The way the videos and sounds were displayed throughout the performance. But I couldn’t even link them to the “dance” as a whole. Both of the females in the show were very talented actresses but once again I feel as if I was missing out on the dance aspect of it. The only dancing I really saw in the show was the three men dancing to fun, upbeat, music at the end. This was my favorite part of the performance but I couldn’t even really enjoy it because I was thoroughly disappointed with the two preceding hours. I wasn’t even sure how these three men dancing to funk music related to the show in any means what so ever. Overall, I felt very uncomfortable with the performance, and although I appreciate that it was a type of art I do not see how it could be dance. The actresses were talking about things that none of us knew how to react to or make sense of. We couldn’t even look bare at each other during the performance and if we did happen to glance in someone’s direction, it was a look of “what is going on”, or they were just asleep.

When interviewing Levi, one thing he said he loved about New York City was that it was filled with all types of dance. That everywhere you go you can be in “direct conversation” with a different form of this art; and there are very very few places where this can happen. Coming into this Arts In New York City seminar with a dance concentration, I was excited to learn about all of these types of dance. I feel like there are very few weeks left and we have only seen or talked about one type continuously. I appreciate that post modern dance is an under appreciated art form but I really would have like to learn about all of types od dance present within New York City. I feel as if this Ralph Lemon performance really stuck out to me but not in a good way. It was unfortunately just another modern dance performance that left me confused and I was extremely disappointed.

Monica Huzinec

Sally Banes defines analytic post modern dance as rejecting “musicality, meaning, characterization, mood and atmosphere; it uses costume, lighting, and objects in purely functional ways. In the 1970’s, the objective of dance was to be minimalistic, functional, and objective. With no influence from western philosophies, unlike previous dance forms, there was an emphasis on spontaneity and the process of the dance rather than the finished product. Dancers began to use every day clothes and sweats as costumes, very little to no music at all, and special lighting effects in ordinary, well lit rooms. The art form centers the dance on the individual. The individual becomes an expression of dance, rather than the dance performed by the individual to represent some idea. The human body is glorified through the use of contractions, repetition, and gravity as it exposes the raw aspects of dance. For example, the concept of “actual time” is used. Through this, movements are timed to the amount needed to physically carry out the activity as opposed to the standardized timing that dictated earlier forms of dance. Banes describes this new style of choreography to be demonstrating “a theory of dance”. By the 1970s, Analytic Post-Modern dance had established a more concrete style.

Steve Paxton was an essential part in the growth and formation of post modern dance. Trained by Robert Dunn in Merce Cunningham’s studio, he developed techniques that are still used today. He was a founding member of the Judson Dance Theater located in New York City which was a major platform for post modern dancers to showcase their work at the time. What Paxton is most known for however, is his development of the dance form known as Contact Improvisation in 1972. This form of dance uses analytic post modern techniques as it utilizes the physical scientific laws of friction, momentum, gravity, and inertia to explore the relationship between dancers. Paxton believed that even a non-professional dancer was able to contribute to this dance form. The improvised dance form is based on the communication between two moving bodies that are in complete physical contact with each other for an undesignated amount of time. Contact improvisation is related to analytic post modern dance in that it uses the techniques of the style as well as introduces a new idea of dance to the world as well.

-Monica Huzinec

Since living in Manhattan, I have enjoyed sitting on top of the rocks in Central Park either reading, eating, or just hanging out with friends and taking in the city around us. Every time I find myself on these rocks, I instantly capture the moment with a picture. I chose this photograph by Ansel Adams because I was immediately able to relate to the view and the picture itself. I felt as if I was in the moment with the photographer and taking the picture on my own.

I really enjoy the simplicity and angle of the photograph as well. I feel like the black and white adds to a simplistic style and juxtaposes the busy city surrounding the park. The position of the camera is also showcasing the inside and outside of the park. Once again juxtaposing the nature by showing the trees and rocks with the enormous skyscrapers of the industrial city.

This picture actually follows the Rule of Thirds as well. Upon splitting the photgraph into its three equal horizontal sections, the horizon line seperates the bottom third from the upper two thirds. The vertical lines both fall on the two skyscrapers. This is usually refferred to as a “power point” or “crash point” when a main subject of a picture is intersected by a guideline. The center of the photograph is actually captured within the sections as well. It is the intersection of the park and the city united in the horizontal middle three boxes. This signifies the union of the park to the city around it, and it can even be said that the tree overlapping the buildings can be seen as the focal point of the picture.

For my picture, I plan on using the rule of thirds. I will use a horizon line and instead of purposely positioning objects, I will capture life simply how it is just as Adams did in his work. I believe this natural positioning has more of an impact on a picture because you can see things how they are in real life instead of a forced photograph.

Monica Huzinec

This past week, we went to Alessandro Sciarroni’s performance of “Folk-s, Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?” This upbeat folk performance started off with one repetitive combination of stomping, clapping, and knee slapping, and continued for about two hours in time. In response to Jaimee’s blog, I agree with most of what he had to say. I found it interesting how Jaimee compared the performance to a “loose narrative” I never really thought of it in that way. But thinking back, It really did have the format of a story as the show went on. It started with the introduction of the repeated step, various interactions with the performers, and one by one each would leave the stage as they pleased.

I also agree about the rigor of the dance as well. Throughout the show, especially from sitting in the first row, you were able to see the sweat literally dripping off of the dancers head, and pools of sweat visibly growing through their shirts. I was also able to notice the thighs of the dancers progressively turn red near the bottoms of their shorts from the continuous thigh slapping. It seemed extremely physically demanding and to have to do that for two hours, repeating the same steps over and over again I give them so much credit.

I found it interesting that Sciarroni, the choreographer, was the first to leave the stage. I was also wondering if EVERYTHING in the show was choreographed. It seemed like the dancers chose when they wanted to leave the stage. I liked the parts during the performance when the dancers would all just look at each other and laugh or try not to laugh. It made the audience laugh and created a connection between us and the performers. I really enjoyed the fact that they played themselves as characters and weren’t trying to be anyone else. Their roles and the closeness of the theater made the show a very personal experience.

It was also extremely impressive, as Jaimee stated, that their own rhythm’s and dance moves were the music for most of the show. Also, regardless of what song they would play, they were able to continue their competed synchronized rhythm’s without so much as a stutter. As a dancer, I know that this is very difficult to put the same steps, keeping the same beat, to a completely different song. Whether the music was folk music, electronic music, or pop music, they were able to continue their seamless combination of movements without any difficulty at all.

The only criticism I had, is actually the same one Jaimee had, I felt that at points the show did in fact drag on. I would find myself getting distracted and looking around while the same moves were continuously repeated. I felt like I knew what would happen next because it was the same beat and dance steps that had gone on for the 15mins prior with only small changes in location of the dancers. However, the few times the performers did change it up, it was even more obvious that they did because it followed the prior repetitiveness. These small changes really added to the show in a major way. It was refreshing to see the dancers to do something different and at points even provided the audience with bits of comic relief.

Overall, the performance was a refreshing change from what we have seen in the past few weeks. I enjoyed that their was music, upbeat dancing, and for once I had a better understanding of what I was watching in front of me. I am also really glad we were able to see a European performance for a change and I am very glad I had the chance to see Sciarroni perform.

-Monica Huzinec

The Following is my review of the dance review by Gia Kourlas “Review: In ‘Tape,’ Performers Move Fluidly and Whimsically About a Grid” published in the New York Times. I will review the article based on the reading by Wendy Oliver.

According to Wendy Oliver, all dance reviews should consist of four main things: Description, Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation. All four elements provide a different level of insight or explanation of the performance viewed and gives the reader the full picture of the performance in their mind as well as the authors overall opinion of the piece. In Gia Kourlas review of “Tape” in the New York Times, only a few of these necessary elements were completely portrayed.

Within the first paragraph, the reviewer is supposed to address all general information about the performance before going into the minute details later on. Kourlas states the title of the performance as well as the choreographer, however does not mention when and where the event is taking place until paragraph three. Kourlas also fails to incorporate. She seems to include a thesis statement in the last sentence of her first paragraph stating, “… Mr. Kvarnstrom’s idea of tape extends beyond the sticky stuff in this production.” But never really mentions the physical tape that is in the production after that. So is this really a thesis at all if she doesn’t back it up? For some paragraphs she does follow the “suggested format for critique” highlighted in Oliver’s writing where she will have a sentence thesis at the beginning of the paragraph and go more in depth later on in the paragraph. But she was lacking the interpretation of the thesis as a whole, and a whole thesis in general that should have been present within her first paragraph.

Along with thesis statements, other small aspects were not present within Kourlas review. While she did describe the movements of the dancers in a paragraph or two using the suggested “strong action verbs” ad “interesting adjectives” necessary, she never once mentioned what type or genre of dance the performance was. Me, having a background in dance, was able to pick up that it was some type of modern dance but the author of a critique must write to those who may not know anything about dance at all. This is also touched upon within Oliver’s reading as well. This shows that Kourlas was lacking in the analysis portion of her review.

Overall,Kourlas does evaluate the performance that she viewed, and does give her general opinion on what she saw. However, according to Wendy Oliver’s outline of how a dance critique should be written, Kourlas is clearly missing some aspects mentioned by Oliver.

-Monica Huzinec

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/arts/dance/review-in-tape-performers-move-fluidly-and-whimsically-about-a-grid.html?ref=dance

Paintings from centuries ago, have gained tremendous amounts of praise and attention based on specific elements the artist has incorporated into their work. People come from all over to crowd around the timeless paintings of Monet and Van Gogh hanging on the walls of various museums. Both artists, from different movements in art, have a way of connecting with their audiences through their work. Monet’s “Water Lilies” and Van Gogh’s “The Starry Night” attract hundreds of people each day at the MOMA in New York City. These two landscapes showcase very different styles and periods of artwork yet continue to obtain much fame throughout many years.

I have chosen to analyze The Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh and Water Lilies by Claude Monet. The Starry Night is a timeless classic made up of thick brush strokes and vibrant colors to create a wondrous well known masterpiece. Framed on a small wall at the MOMA, hundreds of different people from all over crowd around just to get the smallest glimpse of the painting. Water Lilies is a huge 3 panel piece of artwork covering an entire wall of the MOMA consisting of light colors and small thick brush strokes. At first glance, the landscapes appear to be polar opposites. However, both are extremely well known. I want to know what makes these two completely different paintings so famous. Which similar qualities do they both possess or what makes them different that people love? Although Van Gogh and Monet come from different time periods, both had such an affect on people with the work they created. I am drawn to the beauty of these paintings and I am curious as to how the artists were able to successfully reach out to their audience. In the reading Barnett says, “such things as the size of the work, the kinds of brush strokes in a painting, and the surface texture of a sculpture – is part of the meaning (52-53)”. My goal while analyzing these two famous paintings is to look deeper into all of the previously stated elements and see how they affect the meaning of what the painter was trying to portray. After the readings of Barnet and Berger I was able to question these elements while looking at the two landscapes. I wasn’t just another person at the MOMA trying to upload a “snapchat” of the work on their Iphone just because it was famous. I was able to stand there and question as to why these people were so drawn to the work and even ask why I was drawn to it.

Before this weekend, I have only been to the MOMA one other time. My first experience there was quite quick in which I just walked past the art looking at what was before me. If I liked it, I would stop and look at it for a few minutes. However, If i found the work unappealing I found myself just walking right passed it. This time though, after reading both Berger and Barnet and how they discuss how art should be looked at from more than one perspective, I walked around the MOMA with an open mind.

I found myself stopping at what I found to be obscure works of art such as Picasso and asking myself the questions I found in the readings. I stood there, wondered, and discussed with my partner about what the artist wanted us to see and the story we believed was behind the painting. As Berger says in Ways of Seeing “paintings are reproduced with words around them” and this is exactly what I was trying to accomplish during this visit.

The most fascinating piece of work that I saw during the visit had to be Georges-Pierre Seurat’s pointillism work. I went up as close as I can to the picture to see all of the minuscule dots and slowly backed away to see the whole it created. I was amazed at the small detail that I may not have even noticed if I just walked right by it. Even the frame was covered in dots! With just a small shape an entire image was created and a beautiful piece of artwork was made. Taking time to really look at a piece of art and from different perspectives just as Berger and Barnet wrote about really makes a difference when trying to find the deeper meaning of something.