Category: Uncategorized

Knowing we were going to see an opera, I had expectations of something grand. I had never seen an opera before, all I had were preconceived notions of what an opera actually is based on what I’d seen from the media: the brazen women clad in armor, the old men from the Muppets, and the high class audience. Walking into the Metropolitan Opera House, it was clear that there was some truth to my expectations. Surrounding me were people in semi-forma to formal dress in a lavish lobby with spiraling, carpeted staircases, all under light produced by chandeliers that resembled the supernova of a star. Once I got to my seat in the balcony, overlooking the immense stage, I was pretty excited to see what all of us were about to witness.

As soon as the curtain opened revealing the first act, I was already impressed. The stage was beautifully dark; it looked dismal and frightening. I was shocked at the amount of people on stage. There were so many “peasants” in addition to the main stars of the show, and their simultaneous movements made the crowd appear to flow in and out like water. Centered were the singers, and when I heard them first belt out the Italian lyrics, I was in awe. Even as high up as we were seated, their voices penetrated throughout the opera house, strong and controlled. It was incredible. I could not even imagine how much skill, talent, training and courage it must have taken to reach that level. They sang beautifully, beyond what I thought was capable of any voice. They were like gods who had transcended the limits of the human body. This awe lasted throughout the entire performance.

Throughout the second and third acts, I continued to be impressed. One moment I remember very distinctly was the unveiling of the second scene in Act 2: the imperial palace. It was breathtaking. The set was glowing white, with elaborate decor and appeared to have a real pool of glistening water in the center, in front of the emperor’s throne. The entire audience let out a collective gasp of awe. Combined with the colorful and vibrant costumes of the characters, specifically Ping, Pang, and Pong, it was just an astonishing sight. This scene, the riddle scene, was especially unforgettable.

As far as the actual plot, it was an unexpected and subtle tragedy. I say this mostly because of the very small tragedy of the minor character Liu. Her story is incredibly sad; she falls in love with Calaf and dies for him so he can live with another woman. Her role in the play is heartbreaking, even though she seemed so minor. Other than this small subplot, however, the opera was a pretty cliche story. A strong and independent woman submitting to love with one kiss is a pretty immature concept in my eyes. However, the political implications of the story is interesting, especially considering it was made by an Italian about a “mythic” China.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed watching this opera. It was beautiful aesthetically and listening to the singers as inspiring. I’m very glad we were lucky enough to be given the opportunity to watch this incredible performance (for free) and I really hope to see another one in the future.

As I walked into the New York Live Arts, I was not sure of what to expect. I knew that the performance I was about to watch had to do with a folk dance but I was curious to see on how it was going to be presented. As we entered the room, the stage was dark but I could hear foot stomping and I saw shadows. This caught my attention and I knew that the performance was going to be interesting. As the lights came on, the performers kept on with the stomping, thigh slapping and clapping. Not only was the rhythm captivating, but the fact that the six performers on stage were blindfolded intrigued me. They kept an on-going pattern where one person would add a new move to the dance and everybody would then keep repeating it. These few steps that were introduced in the beginning of the performance formed the foundation for the rest of the show. These few steps were repeated over and over throughout the entire show with the exception of some new moves introduced at different times.

In the beginning of the show and in several instances throughout the show, there were long, silent pauses which added to the intensity of the performance. You would have these performers repeating the stomping, clapping, and thigh slapping and then all of a sudden the entire room would get completely silent and the performers would just stare at each other. This grabbed my attention because it kept me wanting to know what as going to happen next. Something else that grabbed my attention and left me thinking was when one of the performers was talking to the audience and said that anybody could leave at any time, including the performers, but the catch was that they could not enter back inside. This mean that the performance would keep going on until there was no more performers on stage and nobody left in the audience. At first, I found this humorous but then it made me think about how the performers would accomplish this. I have never been to a show where the performers leave the stage out of nowhere and never come back.

The first performer to leave was Mr. Sciarroni and after him, one by one, all the performers ended up leaving as well. The exit of the performers was quite humorous because they would just walk off stage without any worries or care that they were leaving while the performance was still going on. The rest of the performers would just keep on with the show and not really acknowledge the performer that was leaving. There were a few instances of humor throughout the show and this helped to keep the audience interested and amazed at how these performers could keep on with doing this dance over and over. The sweat could be seen and the stamina that these performers had was just amazing. They would never miss a beat or step and even if they were doing it again and again, each step and beat that they hit was just as intense and meaningful as the rest. The performers had a variety of expressions and interactions with one another throughout the performance and it was interesting to see how through these interactions and different expressions, the atmosphere of the room changed from one moment to the next. I sensed moments of seriousness, humor and everything in between throughout the course of the show.

The highlight of the show for me was the ending because I found it humorous and I thought that the choice of the song “Say something” was clever. The way that the remaining two performers were able to keep the repeating steps of this folk dance and make it flow with this song, was incredible. The beats and rhythm worked perfectly and I thought it was very well done. Overall, this performance, “Folk-s, will you still love me tomorrow?”, was quite amazing and I enjoyed seeing the energy that the performers carried throughout the room for almost two hours.

– Karla Collaguazo

The two works I have chosen to analyze for my first paper are Pablo Picasso’s Flowers and Vincent Van Gogh’s Irises. The reason I chose these works and they intrigue me so much as a pair to analyze in this compare and contrast fashion is the fact that they share so many similarities, yet are so different. Van Gogh created Irises in 1889 in southern France, Picasso created Flowers in 1901 in Paris. Both works focus on a small bunch of flowers and share a similar vibrance and depth in color palette. Despite these extensive similarities the works are inherently unique. What happened in the 12 years and few hundred miles between these two artists that led to paintings that are so alike and yet so different? Did the culture of their respective areas influence them? Was it the painters they surrounded themselves with? Or is it possible that Van Goghs impressionism influenced Picasso to reinvent the quintessential painting of flora and fauna in his own style? These questions are ones that I hope to answer in my paper and are the reason that these paintings have entreated me to make them the focus of our first in depth art case study.

The works of art that I have chosen to analyze for my first paper are “Agapanthus” by Claude Monet and “Abstract Portrait of Marcel Duchamp” by Katherine Sophie Drier. I chose these two paintings because of the vastly different ways in which the viewer can perceive the beauty of the respective paintings.The paintings are entirely different even when one first views them, one being very obviously a painted depiction of a beautiful flower, and the other being a painting that makes almost no sense without historical context. The painting by Katherine Sophie Drier requires a more active viewing process because it involves a little bit of contextual understanding as to who Marcel Duchamp was and his impact on the art community. This painting is not as easily appreciated as “Agapanthus” is to the general public. “Agapanthus” is a painting that is very pleasing to the eye itself, without much needed strain or thought about the meaning or context of the situation or subject. “Agapanthus” can be more passively enjoyed by people who are not the most avid art viewers. The painting by Drier is to a certain extent subject to interpretation to the viewer, while the depiction “Agapanthus” is not really up for debate.

Glenn Collaku- Blog A