Category: Blog A|Blog B (Page 4 of 10)

Andre Kertesz
The White Horse, New York
1962

I chose the photograph “The White Horse” by Andre Kertesz taken in 1962. I chose this photograph because I found it to very intriguing. The first time I glanced at it, I just saw horse on the bottom left corner and a person walking a dog on the top right corner. As I looked at it again, I noticed the shadow present and to me it seems like this shadow looks like a person sitting on top of a horse. I don’t know if this was the intention of the photographer but it is something very interesting that I noticed. I also liked this picture because there were two different elements to it. I liked how there was both a white horse and a person walking with a dog at the same time, separated by what seems to be a gate.

Compositionally, this photograph is strong because it uses counterpoint, the rules of third and positions the subjects correctly. The counterpoint can be seen in the different places that the two subjects are placed. The subjects on the top right corner are in the top third of the picture and then diagonally from those subjects, the white horse is placed in the bottom third on the left. This causes two focal points that are both equally important and placed at a proper distance from each other. The photographer also uses the rules of thirds when he places the tree on the top third of the photograph. This allows us to see some of the tree but not all of it which is better than having the tree seen for most of the picture. The photographer also positions the subjects correctly. The white horse is still and is not going to be moving anywhere in the picture. This is why there is not much space in front of the horse or on the back of it. The person and the dog are both moving subjects and because of that they have more space in front of them. This means that we can see that they will be walking towards something and not out of the frame.

Overall, this is a very interesting picture and I think that the difference in the subjects used contributes to that. The fact there is a horse, a human, and a dog present creates a very intriguing view of this photograph. I also thought that the use of black and white, makes this photograph more dramatic. I found this to be a very unique photograph since I have never seen anything like it before.

– Karla Collaguazo 🙂

Re:Jaimee

-I agree that the performance got a little repetitive- I found it a bit difficult to pay attention during the whole thing. Still, we cannot discount the enormous amount of effort put into doing a show like this. I’d find it hard to do once, let alone rehearse it multiple times!

I read the dance as a tale about how folk dances are gradually ignored and displaced by modern culture. Folk dances are symbolized by the man with the hat and his accordion, who leaves first. Without him, the rest of the dancers are left to their own devices, and adapt their dance to modernity by pairing it with contemporary music. But without the cultural identity provided by the accordion, the group loses their soul, and eventually drifts apart. This is echoed by the title, which implies that peoples’ tastes are fickle and we may discard traditional cultural forms in an instant. On a personal note, I am disappointed that the performance did not end with the first man returning to play the accordion and reunite the group.

One thing I really liked about Eunice’s critique is how she chose to start it. She opened with a paragraph very focused on the sensory elements she experienced which also transported her readers into that experience as well. She focused on what she saw, heard, and felt mixing the actual happenings of the performance with what she was expecting and how she reacted as a result. She followed a logical chronology of the show as she commented on it which made it easy to understand regardless of whether or not you had actually been present at the performance. She did an excellent job of comparing what things changed and what remained constant throughout the performance commenting on things such as the number of dancers on stage, the tone of the piece at different times, and how the dancers seemed to interact with one another. I really liked how she chose to comment on the finality of the piece based on the final number selected and how/when in the song “Say Something” the final dancers left the stage. She clearly payed attention to the performance, and was thoughtful in how she recorded her reactions to the piece both in detail and as a whole.

When we first sat down in the theatre the dancers were already placed and although the stage was dark we could partially hear and see them stomping rhythmically. This didn’t strike me as out of the ordinary being that I have been in several performances where the stage is “pre-set” with actors/dancers as the audience enters the performance space.It did surprise me when I later marveled at the sheer duration of their performance and physicality because for them the show didn’t start at 7:40 when we finally found our seats and got quite. The performance started for them ten or twenty minutes before we even realized it had begun. These dancers have an incredible level of endurance maintaining nearly constant motion for upwards of two hours. The were jumping and swinging and exploding from lunged positions to standing within seconds. Also, much of the traveling across the stage was done during their rhythmic sequences of hand/foot/leg slapping and therefore was accomplished by long single-footed hops spanning several feet at a time. These dancers if nothing else are incredible athletes and their endurance and physicality deserve copious recognition.

There was an interesting contrast between conformity and independence in the piece as well. The dances were very rhythmic and repetitive creating a sense of unity and order among the dancers even if they were doing the motions in a cannon or facing different directions. But if one dancer introduced a variation to the set of steps they were looked at strangely, and it often took several counts of this new motion before anyone decided to follow the “trend-setter.” They spent the entire performance both acting and reacting to their fellow dancers in a way that was both unified and independent. They all wanted to do what the group did and have the group do what they did, but when these two actions conflicted they were forced to either stick to their convictions and continue dancing unlike their partners, or stop their introduced variation and either return to the sequence everyone else was doing or stop dancing all together.

Sitting in the front row gave us a really interesting perspective on the performance. The dancers allotted the majority of their eye contact to one another, constantly looking at their partners to make sure they remain in sync as well as pick up on any various or introduced choreography. But the time they did spend looking at the audience was almost entirely over our heads. We were sitting at stage level and because they were standing they looked over us into the rows higher and further back almost exclusively. This enhanced my feeling of looking in on the performance. We made very few connections with the performers and they had such strong connections with one another that it was a very unique experience to be able to watch their interactions and not necessarily feel like I was connected to or part of the performance. I loved how much they seemed to enjoy dancing, frequently smiling and laughing as they looked at one another. It seemed completely authentic and I felt myself smiling as well. I found a lot of joy in feeling like I knew they loved what they were doing and loved doing it together. Their level of sync and connection with one another could not be achieved without a certain level of trust and mutual friendship. The level of physical endurance this performance took required them to work together and feed of each other’s energy- a goal that could not have been accomplished if they didn’t really enjoy dancing together.

I liked how Eunice Hew pointed out specific moments of humor in the performance as well as the music to support her evaluation. Her descriptions also gave the reader a good sense of the image of the performance. I agree with her about how the moments of humor gave it a break from the two hour long repetition, but I’d also like to bluntly add that not those moments could have detracted from the sheer monotony of the entire piece as a whole. Like Eunice, I really did enjoy those moments, such as “I’m Giving Up On You”, or the interactions between the performers, but for the most part it was just intensely, incredibly, completely and overwhelmingly boring. Thus I will not be so kind as Eunice in my critique.

At first it started out very promising. The dark lighting, six barely visible figures beating out a rhythm with their body that can be felt on the floor through your feet. As the lights came on, you saw that all but one had their eyes taped over and still they were moving in a circle, slapping their bodies in sync without mistakes. They yelled out names and one was always left to hit out the beat. In the beginning, I was really entranced.

After this introduction, the performers removed the tape. One of them then said that anybody is free to leave any time, but neither the performers nor the audience is allowed to return once they have left. And then starts a two hour long rendition of the SAME EXACT RHYTHM. Seriously, it was the same pattern of slaps and jumps and hitting the body. The only difference was where they did it and the background music.

And that’s my main problem. A rhythm isn’t engaging unless it changes, develops, evolves. Themes in classical music would develop over a piece. Even modern pop songs have different lyrics. But for all it looked physically exhausting, I wasn’t engaged. They didn’t even have an underlying beat that connected them. I couldn’t make any sense of their movements– the only pattern I could see was that usually one person was doing something different. Ultimately, you could see as everyone was getting tired, they started dropping out one by one. Sometimes the others looked like they wanted to leave, but then another would start up the dance again. Who knows, maybe it’s some kind of social commentary on herd mentality. With the comment on anyone being free to leave at any time, I wonder if the performers left and choreographed times, but I feel like I should have taken advantage of it and left myself first.

While reading Jessica Sun’s Critique on Alessandro Sciarroni’s Folk-s will you still love me tomorrow?, I found myself agreeing with some of her main arguments and ideas while at other times taking a different stance on the same aspect of the performance. Nonetheless Jessica’s description and analysis of the performance was a pleasure to read. Because of the composition of this performance it is hard to describe the choreography itself. With so much repetition in the performance the reviewer must focus more on the changes in the performance environment throughout the duration of the piece. Critiques on this piece should also include the emotions and thoughts of the audience as the performance progressed because the performance is aimed towards engaging its viewers. I enjoyed Jessica’s final sentence of her review in which she says, “It was almost impossible for the audience members to talk about the performance as everyone filed out, with the constant rhythm still beating in our minds.” As I exited the theatre I still felt the beating rhythm in my chest and in my ears. Jessica’s side note at the end of the post was interesting. I myself had not thought about that connection but after reading her thoughts I began to agree with the contrasting connection between Folk-s and Venus’ How long you can hold and absence? I applaud her for thinking of that connection between the two extremely different pieces.

I saw Alessandro Sciarroni’s performance on Thursday October 1st. The performance space of New York Live Arts contrasted traditional theatres with its lack of curtains that usually block the audience’s view of the wings. Before the lights were raised on the dancers, the performance had started with the repeating stomps and slaps of the dancers feet and hands. The use of voices during the beginning of the performance was implemented as a source of communication between the dancers as all but one were without sight. I found this amazing. Without sight these dancers still performed this synchronized progression of steps and stayed in set patterns without straying. I noticed a call and repeat dimension to the circle of dancers in which one dancer would add a short segment onto the growing choreography and the rest of the circle would then repeat the pattern and continue forward.

As the lights slowly raised on the dancers I noticed the contrasting costumes of the dancers. While Alessandro was clad in lederhosen the rest of the dancers were in a variety of modern clothes that seemed hastily chosen. Questions regarding the topic of traditional versus modern ideas began to float into my head. These questions grew in numbers as throughout the performance, as experimental modern soundscapes were layered onto the traditional folk choreography. As the repeating string of choreography got to full length, the dancers began to separate into groups and later pairs to create patterns on the stage with the moving bodies. Vignettes of dance were interspersed between periods of silence. The sections of silence helped to break the fourth wall that is usually present between performers and the audience by giving the viewers the ability to see the dancers relax and walk around as if they were not performing which created a sense of community as if the theatre was one.

While in the beginning the dancers communicated using their voices, throughout the rest of the piece they used eye contact as well as small smiles and laughs to connect with their fellow performers. There were very few moments in the piece in which a dancer was not making eye contact with one of the other dancers on stage. This constant contact helped to keep dancers on the same page with timing and spatial awareness. A majority of the performance was engaging for the viewer, however, at times the repetitive choreography became too much and the brain began to unfocus from the subjects on stage. The brain drifted with the music somewhat forgetting the dancers on stage doing the same steps they had been doing when you last remembered. The changes and abrupt stopping of the music helped jolt the audience back into focus to enjoy the next segment.

While the piece was repetitive, small changes in music, patterns and choreography helped to keep the piece moving. The underlying give and take between traditional and modern aspects helped to create a unique performance. Alessandro Sciaronni’s performance had the audience laughing, smiling and stomping along to his take on traditional Bavarian and Tyrolean dance even after the last dancer had left the stage.

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

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 :^)

The performance started even before the lights dimmed, with audience members hearing the rhythmic stomps while they took their seats. Alessandro Sciarroni’s will you still love me tomorrow? begins with the dancers standing in a circle, with all of their eyes taped shut except for Sciarroni’s. The audience watches as they perform the dance sequence, influenced by Bavarian and Tyrolean folk dance, that the audience members get to know very well as the performance continues. At the beginning of the performance, one of the dancers comes forth and explains that the performance will continue until either there is no one left in the audience or there is no dancer left on stage. Thus starts the beginning of the performance. If nothing else, the dance is amazing cardio feat, with the dancers dancing and hopping around for almost the entire duration of the dance. Just watching it left me exhausted.

The use of repetition was interesting. Though it could start to feel monotonous at times, it was broken up and made less tedious by the differing formations and interactions. Most of the beginning of the dance involved the dancers dancing seemingly by themselves. Only once they take the tape off of their eyes do they start to notice one another. As the dance progresses, they start to interact more and more often, starting first with glances, then watching one another and smiling, and then playing around with one another. Long portions were broken up by small sections of different combinations, straying from the rhythm the audience soon gets accustomed to, and by the use of humor. The dancers did a great job of engaging just enough with the audience. In addition, there was a refreshing mix of professional stage presence and the faltering of such a presence. Every once in a while, and becoming more common towards the end of the dance, audience members would see dancers smiling at one another or laughing or wiping their face or playing around with one another. Dancers would, either purposefully or not, mix up the combination or do something a little bit different from the rest of the group, and eventually, the others would follow. At first it seemed very purposeful, as though the choreographer was trying to say something about being unique and doing something different than the rest of the crowd, but as the performance went on, it became more difficult to tell what was improv and what was planned. The dance seemed to take a life of its own, and whether it was improv or choreographed, it was done tastefully so that there weren’t awkward changes and shifts as things changed and progressed.

The one aspect that did break some of the flow for me was when one of the dancers would, every so often, make his way off “stage” (still visible to the audience, given the nature of the dance space) to fiddle around with the music. While the use of music enhanced the performance, his exits often seemed to come at the wrong time or didn’t fit well with the natural rhythm of the combination, breaking the beat for me. The music, too, often just seemed to be put on at random times, perhaps when the dancer/musician felt the others were getting tired and needed a motivational boost.

Perhaps the most enjoyable part, however, was when the dancers found a way to add just a dash of humor into the performance. In dancing such an obviously tiring dance while also engaging with the audience, the dancers were able to make those watching invested in the dance as well. We eagerly await what they are going to do next, waiting to see how dancers will deviate from the worn, repetitive combination. And slowly, the audience watched as dancers started to leave, starting with Sciarroni leaving early on, teasing us with some heaves of the accordion, which reminded viewers of how exhausting the performance must be. But one by one, the dancers leave until three are left. The dancer manning the music goes off stage and starts playing Say Something. Suddenly, one of the remaining dancers leaves, leaving two alone, watching him leave. Like the audience, there’s a sense of sadness, of longing to leave (and perhaps run after the other dancer) as well. Before we know it, one of the two leaves, with the song playing in the background, emphasizing the hole left by the absence of the other dancers. The rhythm that became the soul of the performance is replaced by silence, only covered by the song playing. At last, the last dancer turns and runs off, not necessarily perfectly in time with the beat of the music, but still with a sense of finality.

This performance is one that everyone can enjoy, whether one has seen a million dances before or none at all. There is no denying the strength and endurance of the dancers, highlighted by our ability to see their hands and thighs growing redder or their clothes filling with sweat. Some of the dancers would even step off stage to get a drink of water before returning to the dance. The performers engage with and entertain the audience, making it exciting to watch. It was almost impossible for the audience members to talk about the performance as everyone filed out, with the constant rhythm still beating in our minds.

(On a side note, for those who went to the Judson Church performance with the “How long can you hold an absence?” performance, I found that this performance was sort of like the opposite of it. This was about how long the dancers could maintain their dancing before they left, rather than leaving as you got tired of waiting for something that wasn’t coming.)

Walking into the New York Live Arts theatre, I was immediately drawn to the sound of stomping. On the stage six blindfolded dancers stood in a circle and created a mesmerizing beat through their feet. When the lights came on they then began to form a recurring pulse through stamping, clapping, and slapping their thighs and feet. This pattern was kept up sporadically throughout the entire performance, sometimes with music playing over the sounds of this pulse. Variations in this recurring rhythm came with one dancer introducing a new sequence of moves, and then the others mimicking it. On the whole, the two or so hours long performance was comprised of variations of a basic set of stomps, claps, and slaps, with some exceptions.

One exception to the basic set of movements happened towards the beginning of the performance, when Mr. Sciarroni ended up alone on his back with his legs in the air only to have another dancer knock him down, one of several moments of humor. Following this, that dancer gave a small talk that the audience could leave at any time but could not return, and also that the performance would end when only one dancer or audience member remained. Mr. Sciarroni was the first to leave, simply walking off without fanfare. Even with some performers leaving, the others continued on. Sometimes as they moved around the stage, one would become isolated from the other, creating more comedic moments.

Throughout the performance there would be shifts of mood depending on how the dancers varied their movements and also on their interactions and expressions. At some points the dancers had stern expressions and sharp movements which adhered to the original pattern, creating a somewhat serious atmosphere. At other points, some dancers would smile and laugh as they played and joked around with one another, creating a fun atmosphere. There was a fluidity in these shifts which made the performance the more interesting to watch.

Later in the performance when other dancers decided to walk off, the remaining dancers would watch them leave but make no physical effort to stop them. This really connected back to the talk in the beginning in which the audience was told that one could leave but not return. The song “Say Something” was particularly apropos in last part of the performance when the final dancers ran off the stage. With two dancers remaining, one watched as the other left. Then on the line “I’m giving up on you,” the last dancer left, and really ended a touch of finality. After watching the entire performance, the amount of energy and effort in it all the way up to its final moments as well as the performance itself just leave an amazing impression.

When the dancers first began stomping, clapping, and slapping their thighs in a circle with their eyes taped over, their movements seemed random, almost clownish. However, the repetition of these movements soon began to take on a rhythm for me, where every performer remained unified and in-sync with each other. It was interesting to see this unity change throughout the performance, as they gradually began dancing while facing away from each other, and finally dancing in different directions. It was almost an organized chaos, with the dancers hopping in different directions yet performing the same exact patterns of stamping, clapping, and slapping.

The occasional additions of humor really picked up the performance since it broke away from the two hours worth of constant repetition of the traditional Bavarian dance. It was so easy to get lost and distracted in the repetitions until there was a change. For example, early in the show, the dancer in the suspenders (the one who left the earliest) had a solo, where at one point he lifted his legs straight up in the air just to have one of the other dancers knock him down, which was a startling move in comparison to the rest of the dance. There was also humor in spotting one dancer straying away or becoming isolated from the group; this was kind of an acknowledgement to the both physical and emotional exhaustion that came along with the strenuous dance.

The last part of the dance really was the highlight of the performance for me. The background music was much more attention-grabbing (like the one with the British singer), and it was interesting to see how the dancers adjusted the rhythm of their movements to fit the songs. Once “Say Something” came on, and the dancers ran off the stage while the singers sang “I’m giving up on you,” it really brought the audience back to the beginning of the performance, when one of the dancers had explained that anyone, audience members and dancers alike, was free to leave at anytime of the performance. Seeing the dancers run off the stage in exhaustion after two hours of thigh-slapping, foot-stomping, and hopping (which was an amazing feat) really emphasized how aware the performers were of this mystical, invigorating, and exhausting dance.