Macaulay Seminar One at Brooklyn College

Hello!

For my independent visit to some sort of exhibition of art, I chose to accompany a seminar class from Queens College to Carnegie Hall to watch the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela on Sunday, December 9th. This symphony is from a school in Venezuela called “El Sistema”. This school is virtually free of charge and offers children a vigorous musical curriculum. From what I understood of the school, one of its primary goals is to keep children from taking part in harmful activities and it strives to give the children a safe place where they feel they belong. The group we watched ranged in age from 18 to 21. They all wore very colorful jackets representing their country. At the end of the show, they actually threw them out into the audience. Their selection consisted of seven pieces, most of which were purely in Spanish. The pieces were mainly based on different Latin styles of dance. “Mambo” by Leonard Bernstein from West Side Story was one of the two pieces they performed in English. They performed this lively piece in a very sprightly manner and did it justice, I think. The piece is very upbeat and suspenseful. During the performance, many of the players began to twirl their instruments when they were not actually playing. Additionally, they tried to involve audience participation by screaming “MAMBO!” at the correct time and inviting the audience to do the same. I thought this was very nice because the audience was mostly kids, because Carnegie Hall had a day inviting mainly kids to come watch performances in an effort to promote appreciation for music among the youth. I also found out towards the end of the performance that there is a chapter of El Sistema in New York City, and there were members present in the audience, supporting their Venezuelan counterparts. I did find host of the event to be a bit irksome, to be honest. In between each song, she would try to relate each song to some story from her personal life. I think this may have been an effort to connect with the kids in some way, but I feel like her approach was a bit too self-centered. She rambled for so long in between each performance that her words sort of began to take away from the experience of listening to the orchestra perform. However, she did conduct some brief interviews with a few of the musicians onstage in between certain songs. This provided an interesting perspective for the audience I think because she asked the musicians about their backgrounds and what instrument they play and their views on certain pieces. I feel like this gave me (and I’m sure, many others too) a chance to relate to the musicians in some way and to understand their culture. The musicians spoke virtually no English, however, so she had to translate all of their responses for the audience.

All in all, I really enjoyed the experience. I think I can safely say I would not have enjoyed going to some sort of art gallery on my own because I wouldn’t know what to look at and I would just glance over everything there; I would not know how to interpret anything. Listening to lively ethnic pieces, however, really reawakens my senses. As a pianist of thirteen years, I generally only listen to Western classical music and some popular music. This experience gave me a chance to understand the music and culture of another nation in a mere two hours. I feel like this was art not only because of the music that was played, but because of the passion that the performers showed for their craft. They really seemed to enjoy playing their instruments. Even one of the conductors, who conducted Mambo (there were two or three total conductors who individually conducted different pieces) was going wild, flailing his arms vigorously. Even though his back was turned to the audience, I felt I could appreciate how much he was enjoying what he was doing. I feel like when live performers clearly seem passionate about what they are doing, the audience would enjoy the show more.

So, I’ve decided to put these two posts together because in both events we went to go see comedy performances. At Uptown Showdown, it was an interesting new experience because I have never seen comedians do a debate while still trying to be funny. I felt like it was comedy improv in a sense where they’re given a topic to talk about, and even though that topic may not be funny , they are kind of forced to make it funny anyway. For example, that first guy who presented his argument for Hanukkah, even though he was pretty much just telling us the story of Hanukkah and how it came about, i thought he was one of the funniest comedians of the show. I think it is because of the way that he performed the story, adding in little jokes that would otherwise be offensive but because of the setting were not. I found myself laughing at things I should find offensive. They kept making fun of the miracle of christmas and the story behind christmas, and being a religious person I was kind of confused when i didn’t find myself getting angry. I think it’s because it was a comedy and sometimes the only way to laugh at something is to be offensive about it. I can accept that. Overall it was a great night and i still think Christmas should have one, no bias at all. That Hanukkah team was slacking. I really liked the question and answer portion of the night as well, especially when the comedians attacked that guy who asked a really stupid question to Michael. It kind of reminded me of the Louie clip that we watched in class. *NOTE TO SELF* never ask a comedian a question

At the BAM, The night started out great. I’m not really and Alfred Hitchcock fan so i thought i wasn’t going to enjoy the movie but I loved it. Hitchcock was such an great movie and I really like the way it was done. It felt kind of like an inception….a movie with a movie if you get what i mean.

The Second Half of the night…That Comedy was Horrific. I thought it was gonna be better than the Uptown Showdown because it was going to be comedians doing whatever they want, but it was horrific. The host was alright and i found myself laughing, but then the first two comics were just awful, so awful that i just walked out the show. It’s unfortunate because other people were laughing so I felt like I didn’t understand the jokes. Then I realized that everyone was probably just drunk off the Free Beer. Clever Move BAM, clever move.

On November 19th, we went to see a debate of Christmas vs. Hanukah. Coming into the debate, I thought that it wouldn’t really be that entertaining. I expected a group of amateur comedians saying corny punchlines in addition to jokes that no one really understood. However, it showed me that oral performance really takes a lot of work and truly is a form of art. The comedians had to appeal to us so we would like their performance and vote for their side. It’s almost identical to how pitchmen sell their products at fairs. In my personal opinion, the comedians weren’t really that funny other than the first male from the Hanukah team. Overall, the debate was entertaining but didn’t reach my expectation of “comedy.”

On December 6th, we watched a movie about Alfred Hitchcock and the making of his movie, “Psycho.” I expected to see a boring documentary about a old director who had a lucky movie. But what I got instead was an entertaining story about a man trying not only to direct a hit movie, but also manage other aspects of his life as well. The movie gave me insight as to how much work and effort directors/producers have to put into their productions. It showed me that it took a combination of perspiration and inspiration to make a movie, a true definition of art.

After the movie we went upstairs to see a stand-up comedy show. I noticed that stand-up comedians often use jokes that make fun of themselves to get laughs from the audience. I believe this is because usually people laugh at other people’s minor sufferings. The technique usually worked because throughout that night, whenever a comedian would make fun of themselves the audience would be in an uproar. Maybe it was also because half of them were drinking, but I’m fairly certain it was because of the technique.

Overall these two visits showed me that oral performance takes a lot of hard work and dedication. It requires a combination of inspiration and perspiration. Due to this, I believe oral performance is the best definition of art.

Hitchcock was one of my favorite things we watched together this semester. I enjoyed how he made a sort of hind-sight movie in a sense, looking back at the production of his greatest success. It was inspiring to me, seeing how so many people said that “Psycho” was going to be a failure and was not going to be successful. It was shocking to see that all these people did not believe in him despite his success in the past. However, he was headstrong and did not let these people’s pessimisms discourage him. This was very inspiring to me.
The comedy show was not very good. The seats were limited and the first few acts were not funny. I ended up leaving after the first 3 performers. Apparently the show did get funnier as the night progressed, but I feel that they should’ve put their best performers first and put everyone in a laughing mood and a good mood. This way, the less funny performers would get more laughs because the audience will already be in a good mood and ready to laugh at anything even slightly funny.

Going into the Hitchcock movie at BAM, I wasn’t so sure what to expect, especially after spending our class time watching old Hitchcock shows and movie clips. But from almost the very beginning of the film, when the camera pans to the actor playing Hitch, who looks and sounds kind of like the real Hitch (as far as I can tell, with my minimal knowledge of Alfred Hitchcock I got from watching some clips in class), and starts talking to the audience just like the real Hitch did i some of his shows, to the end (which closes in a similar manner- Hitch talking to directly to the audience, and an allusion to his film “The Birds”) I really enjoyed myself. For some reason, going into the movie I thought that maybe it was some kind of documentary film, or maybe a film that was similar to the Hitchcock works that we had previewed in class-something spooky or macabre. But I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t really that at all, and although it was biographical, it was still a very entertaining movie.

Then there was the stand up comedy. Going into that, I was really excited. I very much enjoy comedy, and especially after the uptown showdown that we had previously seen (and that I really liked) I think that my expectations were a little high. Unfortunately, I don’t think my expectations were really met. There were definitely some jokes here and there that elicited a giggle or two, and some that got a full out laugh, but overall I was a little disappointed. I ended up leaving after the second or third performer, which I didn’t mind too much at the time. I did, however hear that Judah Friedlander made a guest appearance after I had left, and that he was pretty funny. Oh well.

I stayed for three of the performances (the host and the first two comedians). Out of those three, I thought the host was the best. I found it interesting how most of their jokes were quite vulgar. I believe a good comedian should be able to make people laugh without talking about such topics. It’s almost as if talking about vulgar topics is the easy way out for a comedian. Perhaps making ordinary topics funny is harder. I’ve heard that the performances later on were much better, so I wish I stayed a bit longer.

Coming into BAM, I had higher expectations for the stand-up comedy than for the Hitchcock film. However, I was surprised at how good the Hitchcock film was; I ended up enjoying the movie much more than the comedy. My low expectations for the film were caused by my lack of knowledge of the film. I actually thought it was a going to be a documentary, so I wasn’t really excited about it. However, I was pleasantly surprised when the movie turned out to be more of a drama than a documentary. I wouldn’t have enjoyed this movie as much if we didn’t have a lesson on Hitchcock in class. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to people who don’t know about Alfred Hitchcock because they wouldn’t be able to catch various references about his life and movies. However, anyone who knows the slightest about Hitchcock should watch the film because I thought it was really entertaining and informative for something that’s supposed to be like a biography (which tend to be boring normally).

I had an excellent time at the uptown showdown. I thought all the comedians (except for maybe one) were super funny, the topic of debate- Hanukkah vs. Christmas, and the fact itself that the comedy show was presented in the form of a debate, was cute and kind of silly, and I found myself laughing almost the entire evening.

One of my favorite parts was hearing Seth Herzog’s rendition of the Hanukkah story. Some parts were a bit dry, but i loved hearing a story that I grew up hearing for so many years. Especially because it was pretty much the way i remembered being told, except with a lot more jokes involved.

I also really liked the use of audio visuals for the use in the “debate”. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a powerpoint presentation used in such a comedic fashion.

Also, I thought that MichaelShowalter’s debate- “Which holiday is less worse” was pretty clever. And his style and delivery are kind of interesting, but really good, in my opinion.

And I forgot to mention the host, who also had some pretty good material.

So in conclusion, I had a really great time (apart for some of the q & a section, which got kind of awkward), Jackie Hoffman was kinda scary (but I totally sang along with her Hanukkah songs in my head), and in the end I didn’t mind having to go all the way to 95th street.

Also, I’d like to formally apologize to Ronny, in front of everyone in the class and all of the internet for my eggnog comment. That was stupid of me. I don’t even know what eggnog smells like. So I’m sorry.

I had an interesting experience during our visit the Metropolitan Opera. Going into it, I was pretty excited. This was mostly because I had previously attended an opera and I had thoroughly enjoyed it, but I felt a little differently about The Tempest. This was probably because the previous opera that I attended was actually geared for children so it was kind of funny, and was based a well known children’s story (I think it was Cinderealla). In contrast, I found The Tempest to be a little boring; probably because I wasn’t super familiar with the story. Also some parts were a little difficult for me to follow, and I actually had a little trouble following some of the different characters (there were two, whose names I forget, but they had some pretty similar costumes). I’m also not sure how well a medium opera was to convey a Shakespeare play. Some of the rhyming scheme wasn’t too great. Also, the singing itself made it difficult to actually understand a lot of the words, and I found myself paying a lot of attention to the little screen on the seat in front of me, and not so much at the actors on the stage. I felt that the singing also caused a lot of the words to be stretched out too much in order to fill the length of the music, and that kind of bothered me, too.

There were however aspect of the opera that I did enjoy, however. I did like the grandeur of the opera; I kind of liked dressing up for the night out, and the building itself was beautiful, both from the inside and the outside. I also enjoyed the musical aspect of the opera. I spent a solid amount of time averting my eyes from the stage and into the orchestra pit, watching the condutor do his thing, and orchestra making they’re wonderful music. I also liked the stage design, especially the very first scene depicting the tempest, and costumes a lot. And the secret backdoor exit was pretty cool, too.

Muhammad and I went to the Met Museum today! After waiting ten minutes in line to get a shiny metal badge we were finally able to see art. We went to the ancient Egypt exhibition first.

What surprised me was that although the sculptures and paintings on the wall were more than three thousand years old, they colors were still there. Also the sculptures were  really well crafted considering the time period. Also, there were many intriate designs on everything. The tombs, wall, sculptures, etc.

Next, we saw the panoramic of the palace and the garden of Versailles. It was amazing. I felt like I was actually there! Although the painting was two dimensional, it had a 3D effect that amazed me.

We visited the weapons and armors section after. Every armor and weapon had amazing designs on them. It was if the armor and weapons were not crafted for fighting, but rather for beauty. I can imagine the armored warriors fighting, and suddenly stop to gaze at each other’s armor in awe. I was also very impressed by the smoothness and roundness of the helmets. Since the technology in the past was very poor, I wonder how do they make it so smooth and round. The metals used were perfect, there were so cracks, bumps, etc on it.

I was really impressed by this rock used in catapults because this rock may look simple but probably took a long time to make. Rocks are not circular, so the craftsman probably spent a lot of time making this rock circular. Also, he/she has to do this for every single rock!

I had a great time in the Met and I took a lot of pictures. I noticed that many people just stroll through the museum like a walk in the park. If they took their time to scrutinize each art, they would know why is it called art. Furthermore, the lighting in the museum plays a major role in presenting the art. If there was only one shade of light throughout the museum, the exhibitions will not look as great. However, with a bright light shining on the art and a dim light as a background, it really augments the viewers’ interest.