This is probably going to be the most memorable trip of the semester for me because it was the last one, how much I enjoyed it, and because I was so surprised by it. I should start my review by saying that I did not know that this play was supposed to take place in the 70s or the 80s, which is why for almost all the play, I did not get what the big deal was. I just didn’t understand why the sex change would change anything about Chris. She is still the same person with the same thoughts and feelings. But even if it did take place today, I think that the fact that Chris lied hurt more than anything. I really understood why Chris lied. She had everything he wanted and I think she was trying to hide the struggles of her past and not bring up the traumatic things that happened to her before she had the life she always wanted to avoid ruining it or being judged again. If she was kicked out of her house and only 17 by her own family, how could she expect others to accept her? I was really sympathizing for Chris for so long, I really didn’t judge her until she played her father. It was when she revealed what she did to her dad to her brother that I realized that these characters aren’t ideal and that everything is not black and white. I think the thing that made these characters so real was that they had both good and bad qualities. They were only human. Even until the end of the play, I was really sad for Chris because I think it is naïve to believe that the family would live happily-ever-after, especially during that time period, but I was feeling bad for Chris until the end because at the end of her therapy session, I was wondering if she would have gotten the sex changed if she felt that she could have been a gay guy during that time and find someone to love her.

I do not remember who brought it up in class first, but I definitely agree that some of the language in the play was offensive. Every time one of the characters said the “f” word, I would cringe or wince. It is such a vulgar word and even the way the actors delivered the word, you could tell it was out of a place of disgust, which was just so harsh.

For some reason, I thought it was really selfish of some of the family members to make the situation about them. For example, Tony was very concerned about himself and if he is gay and concerned about the fact that he was with a man. During his confession scene, I realized he probably did not want Chris’s secret to get out because of what people would say about him too. Even the son Joey was kind of selfish. I thought his reaction was selfish as well. I thought that he left the family to join the military because he couldn’t take knowing that his step-mom was a man. I feel like his reaction was impulsive and I feel like he wasn’t thinking about how running away might affect his family and was just concerned with himself.

I think it was Alex and Cale who mentioned it, but they said that the playwright tried getting the play recognized years ago and no one would touch it. This got me thinking about other works of art that in the pass would not be acceptable. It really made me sad to hear that this play and probably other art forms that are considered inappropriate go unrecognized because I feel like the arts are supposed to be this open and honest way of communicating the truth, even if it a truth we do not want to see.

I had never been to the NY Historical Society before or knew what it was. It reminded me to the other museums we have been to or that I have seen in the city, except this one was more high-tech and combined this idea of ancient beauty with technology of the future. I just really loved the idea of know that the Macaulay student made history on October 11 because our pictures were documented and presented in an exhibition for people in the future to see. I feel like this makes our pictures mean so much more.

However, I was really disappointed with the size of this exhibition. The room was supposed to house a little less than half of all the Macaulay students. It was crowded and tight, and if you have read my other reviews, you know that I am not a fan of tight and compact spaces. I have to be honest and say that I did stay at the exhibition for more than forty-five minutes. I just wanted to circle the room as quickly as I could. But it took time to see every picture because there were so many of them and they were all so small. I would have liked to seen the pictures blown up and hung up on walls like they would be in other art museums.

I enjoyed seeing the creativity of the other Macaulay students. It was really interesting to see why they and how they grouped certain pictures together. I really enjoyed the mini-Manhattan with some of the train lines running through it, made-up of our pictures. It was also really cool to see the use of filters and the orientation of each photo in its presentation. One curator thought that the pictures were more interesting upside down, and I definitely agree. I also really appreciated the slide show. I can tell that the curators put a lot of time into making the exhibition. Aside from the creativity of the student curators, the creativity of the other Macaulay students was also really lovely to see. One student took a picture of these butterflies that was really beautiful and serene. Another took a picture of ice cream. However, like myself, the most popular subject was the city. So many students took pictures of Manhattan and I think that we did this because there is so much to see in the city. I know I took my pictures because I love the way the city looks when I’m on the ferry and when the sun almost creates this silhouette of the city, it is just a breathtaking view.

Ah!! I just had to express my happiness from going to Carnegie Hall. It was my first time and I really enjoyed it. It was really beautiful, regal, and as big as I was expecting. The structure of the hall looked like that of the opera house, which makes sense. The music really filled the entire room, besides the harpsichord. But I really enjoyed how each instrument was really heard and none, besides the harpsichord, was really overpowered by the others. The musicians really put on a performance because for some of the performance, I remember specifically in the season Winter, their entire bodies were moving, not just their arms. It was as if their entire bodies were involved in the music they were making, and this was really enjoyable to watch. I didn’t imagine performing to be such a physically demanding act, especially since most of the musicians were standing for the whole time. But I think Jeanette was the one who brought up the question in her review of Carnegie Hall: who is the real artist Anne Sophie Mutter or Vivaldi? I have heard the Four Seasons many times, and by different musicians and artists too. I knew going into Carnegie Hall that I was going to enjoy the performance because I love the Four Seasons. But did I like it because of Anne Sophie Mutter and her ensemble of students, or because Vivaldi composed the original music?

For some reason, I thought it was ironic that Anne Sophie Mutter was in the center of the performance in this beautiful bright yellow dress and her students were behind her dressed in black. For some reason, it was as if this was done to make her the showcase of the performance, but I would have appreciated it more if her students were. I felt like they were meant to act as her accents and I would have really liked the personalities of her students to come out a bit, rather than the performance be focused around Anne Sophie Mutter. But I do understand that she is the ringleader of the act and that she is recognized as one of the world’s best violinists. She is a Grammy Award Winner and I see people paying for their tickets to see her, not necessarily her students. I think this is why she kept walking off stage and then back on several times, which I did not understand the reason for until we discussed the trip in class.

If you read my review of the opera, then you know that I do not like to be seated in a closed space and not have much room to move. This was really the only thing that I did not like about Carnegie Hall. The seats were so much closer together and there was less legroom than at the opera. As soon as I sat down, I was uncomfortable and knew that I was going to have to deal with it. I really tried not to let this ruin my experience, because it did at the opera, and I’m sorry if making a big deal out of nothing, but small, confining spaces are my pet-peeve, and I honestly am terrified of them. But this was the only thing that threatened my experience at Carnegie Hall.

I want to start this review with the good things I got from this trip. It clicked in my mind when we were discussing the trip in class that food as an art form, like any other art form, involves passion. Every speaker at the food talk was very opinionated and ardent about the food and the discussion, and this really appealed to me. I assume that chefs who spend so much time, effort, and creativity on the food they prepare to be passionate about the art they are creating. When we were talking about how much food means to us, culturally, I brought up my personal connection with my grandmother and my sister. When I was younger, we would prepare rice and meat and roll them into grape leaves together. Whenever I think about grape leaves, see them, or even eat them, I automatically associate them with my grandmother and the memories I have of her making them with me. I think food is one of those art forms that we use to define different cultures, but I can’t help but wonder if we underappreciate this as art. I never thought about the food I have at home as art before this trip. As for the actual food discussion, I really appreciated how there was at least one speaker who kept mentioning the history of the food and how the food immigrated to New York with the people. I also was intrigued by the idea of the food almost “evolving” over the years. For example, the same dish probably will not look or taste the same in Israel as it does in Manhattan or look or taste the same today as it did 30 or 50 years ago.

Now what I did not like about this trip was that the discussion was meant for a specific audience that was well versed in Jewish culture and food. I would have learned so much more had I known what the speakers were talking about. I think if the discussion spent a few minutes trying to introduce audience members who did not know much about Jewish food to the culture, the discussion would have been more effective and I would have been more engaged in the conversation. I honestly apologize if I am being rude or harsh but the name of the event is, “Five Boroughs Food Talk.” I think that the Symphony Space is hosting a series of food discussions. At least I hope that is the case, because the particular one we went to only talked about Jewish food and predominately only in Manhattan. For some reason it really bothered me that almost all of the conversation was about Jewish food in only one borough. I think it would have been interesting to hear about how the food varies across the boroughs and explore the reasons for this and perhaps relate it to the immigration patterns.

I definitely learned a lot from this trip, but I cannot say that enjoyed the physical trip. I felt left out and almost excluded from an inside discussion, and I do not think that the speakers meant to do that, perhaps because they anticipated a specific audience. I think the best word to describe this trip for me is “frustrating.” However, what I love about most of the trip we go on are the questions they bring up. We brought up some of them in class. For example, who is the real artist, the person who prepares the food or the person who makes the recipe? Does the food have to look nice for it to be considered art? Is this art form closed off to those who cannot afford to eat out or explore different ethnic foods? I love it when these trips bring up these debatable questions that have no real right answer.

When I went to the opera, I expected to enjoy the experience more than the actual opera. After I went to the opera, I found I enjoyed the actual opera more than the experience.

I was not expecting the opera to resemble a play or a show. The singers are also actors and there were actual sets. Not only was I surprised by the sets, but also I was also surprised that they moved and turned. The actual opera, the singing and acting, was my favorite part of the opera because I was not expecting much. I my mind, I picture singers on a stage, singing a play or performance. Similar to script reading, only the script is being sung.

However, I think I would have enjoyed the opera much more if I could see the singers/actors closer and if I could hear them better. I now know that they were singing without microphones and I know that it is amazing that their voices could fill the opera house like that, but I wanted to feel the music the way I did when Amanda Hick sang to the class. I know people probably say this all the time, but when Amanda sang to us, I literally got chills. I was also battling with looking at what was happening on the stage and reading the subtitles. I wish I understood French or that I had shut the subtitles off and just watched the opera.

I think I understood and I actually enjoyed the opera because I could follow the storyline. I understood that Carmen was meant to be this temptress and how she could ruin a character like Don Jose. She was very seductive and so willing to use her sexuality to get what she wants. She used it to wield this power and have men almost worship her. Don Jose gave up everything for her until he went mad. I also think I was expecting the opera to be so dramatic, similar to a Shakespearean tragic play.

Unfortunately, I was extremely uncomfortable while watching the opera. There wasn’t much room for my legs, not that I have long legs, but I get fidgety and I like to cross my legs. I did not have the room to do so. The velvet seats, although nice, were creating a wardrobe malfunction. Every time I would slide off or on the chair, the friction between the velvet and my jeans would pull my pants down. Not lying. And I just kept thinking about how uncomfortable I was the whole time. However, the velvet on the stairs and the giant chandelier were absolutely stunning. The chandelier looked like an explosion of beautifully shard glass.

I think I am ambivalent about my opera experience. I don’t want to say I liked it because there were things about it that I did not like and I don’t want to say I hated it because there were things I liked about it. I think if I ever get the chance to go again, I will definitely shut the subtitles off, pay attention to the seat choice, and wear a belt.

1) How do curators determine what is good art and what is bad art? Are there certain standards the art has to meet? And similarly, how do art teachers/professors grade art?

2) What do you think art will look like in the far future? For example, when I picture the world 50 years from now, I see metallics, structure, order, sharp shapes, and patterns. So what will the art look like and do you think it will mimic this picture of the future?

The American Ballet Theatre was absolutely beautiful. From the sets, to the dancers, to the music, everything was beautiful. Every single “act” brought something new to the performance and I enjoyed every single one.

The first act, “Sinfonietta,” seemed to be about symmetry. There was no real set during this act, which made me think that the focus must really be the dancing. The choreography seemed to alternate between one, to two, to a group of dancers. The dancers did a lot of running and jumping in this act. I noticed that they made the choreography look so easy, when I know it is not. I know that the dancers have to be in control of almost every muscle in their body during the dance. I cannot imagine the work and hours of practice that went into each practice. However, something I did notice that bothered me was the actual sound of the dancers shoes hitting the stage. For some reason, the sound of the ballerinas coming down on their feet distracted me from the actual dancing and the orchestra too. I know it is foolish to be bothered by it because these dancers are coming down on their feet with their full body weight and coming down after being so high off the stage. Still, the sound bothered me and I found myself paying attention to it often. The music in “Sinfonietta” was high-spirited and mimicked the high-energy dancing. I was heavily relying on the orchestra for some kind of story line, but then again, I think this act was meant to focus more on the actual dancing and choreography and not on a story line.

The second act, “Jardin aux Lilas,” was the most emotionally touching act of the entire night. This act’s story line was taking place in a garden, which was beautifully created on the stage, where there is a farewell party. The garden party is meant to celebrate or focus on a soon to be married couple, however, it ended up focusing on the tension between lovers. The bride appeared to be set up, or arranged to marry a much older gentleman, whose costumes varied much differently from the rest of the dancers. There was a longing between the bride and the man she truly loved and wanted to be with. The audience is left hoping and expecting a final kiss between the bride and the man she wants to be with. Unfortunately, this final, farewell kiss never comes. There is also tension and a different sense of longing between the groom and his mistress. The theme that rang through this act was yearning and longing. I also thought that this choreography told the story of how unfortunate life can be. Both the groom and the bride seemed to be aware that they would not be happy in this forced union and wanted to be with other people. This specific act, more so the scenery and set, reminded me of Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer Nights Dream. I actually think someone(s) in the class mentioned it during the act. Something I think that is important to notice is that the title of this act, “Jardin aux Lilas,” means “Lilac Garden” when translated into English. The thing to note is that lilacs represent the emotions of love, which I see very fitting for this act. The dancing obviously mimicked longing and orchestra played softly. The music made me feelsad and almost depressed.

The third and final act, “Fancy Free,” was my personal favorite. This specific act seemed to be more along the lines of modern ballet, not that I would know (this was my first time seeing a ballet). The story was about three, humor-filled sailors. The sailors were spending “a night on the town” when they started competing for the attention of two dames. The sailors were competing for their attention and almost asking the women, “Pick me, pick me, pick me.” Their dancing was high-spirited. I almost forgot that I was watching a ballet when one of the dancers jumped on the bar table and jumped back off. The choreography of the dancing captured the humor between the sailors. At one point the sailors burst into fighting each other in a very sill manner that was hard to take seriously. The orchestra, of course captured this silliness. The music was light-hearted and I think it was also meant to capture the time period in which this story would take place, perhaps the 1940s or 50s. The way the act ended was neither woman choosing a sailor, I think they just walked out of the bar and in the middle of their fighting, the sailors did not notice. However, a third woman comes out and the cycle starts again.

     I definitely see myself going to another ballet in future. The only things I did not like about the ballet were the actual sound of the dancers shoes hitting the stage floor and the amount of clapping the dancers received. I did notice that the curtain was lifted around three times and the clapping continued for quite a long time. I thought this was basically feeding the dancers’ egos. However, after I thought about it, I think they deserved it. They made each movement and motion look so graceful and beautiful. I cannot imagine the amount of energy that went into each performance and I think that it is appropriate that their hard work be appreciated with a few rounds of clapping.

It was kind of disappointing to visit the Vietnam Memorial after seeing the 9/11 one. Please do not get me wrong, it was beautiful and made me just as sad as the 9/11 Memorial, but it was not grand, or majestic, or attention grabbing. However, the Vietnam Memorial had something that the 9/11 Memorial could not give me. It let me see into the minds of the soldiers and almost feel a little fleck of what they felt. It was more personal. I am fortunate enough to say that I did not lose anyone my family knew personally on 9/11, which is perhaps why I could not feel the same loss as some people did at the 9/11 Memorial. However, I saw that loss at the Vietnam Memorial. I saw the loss of humanity and hope in those quotes by those soldiers. There was one quote on the wall the read something like, “Is this all for nothing?” This soldier was doubting his purpose and the use of his life. There were many other, and probably more powerful quotes at the Vietnam Memorial that made me see beyond a name and see a person, not just some name I did not know. Reading the letters from those soldiers made the experience more personal. It made me see inside their minds and thoughts and feelings. Ironically, the Vietnam Memorial pulled me into the art more than the 9/11 Memorial did. It pulled me into all the emotion that comes with war and loss of hope and death. After talking about the Vietnam Memorial with some of the class, I finally understood that the artist wanted the viewer to move around. He/she wanted the viewer to back up to see the large printing and get really close to see the fine printing and walk through the “doorway” or “arch” in the wall. This, again, sucked me into the art. The artist obviously wanted the viewer to look at the wall from different angles and perhaps step back and think about what they just read. Unfortunately, I was too tired to stand and think, so I sat down and thought about the horrible things these men probably saw. I will probably never understand what it means to truly go to war, but reading what these soldiers thought gave me a glimpse. They were probably surrounded by death. I think that this echoes in the location of the Vietnam Memorial. The wall seems to be built between a noisy street and the water. When I was reading what was written on the wall, I could hear neither the noise of the city or the noise of the water.

I really hope I do not offend someone in my review, but the 9/11 Memorial reminded me of everything else in the city, royal, grand, large (in its own way) and callous. The memorial seemed to be made of deep gray metals that were cold. It did draw me in to some extent, but not the way the Vietnam Memorial did. The group of friends I was with for most of the trip did visit both “grounds,” but were not very much pulled into the architecture. I understand that the giant square-shaped holes in the ground are constantly being filled with water, but are never really being filled, and is supposed to represent this massive void that the day left in America’s pride and in the families of those who lost in 9/11, but the memorial did not pull me in emotionally. As I may have mentioned, it was about a list of names of people I did not know, and could not connect with. Something I think that the artist took in consideration when designing the structure is that it is impossible to see the end of the “holes” from around the memorial. I think this is also meant to represent that the void has no end and can never be quenched. I think if I knew someone who lost their life on 9/11, I would have a deeper emotional connection to this memorial. After talking about the memorial with some of the class, I finally understood that the memorial is supposed show the large number of people who lose their lives on 9/11. To some extent, it is about the names. So many people lost their lives on that day. The artist probably wanted the viewer to think about the number of people. People were in the plans, in the buildings, and some lost their lives trying to save others. Something I noticed about the scenery is that the memorials (essentially two giant square holes in the ground) were framed by trees creating another square, around the memorial. I think this was purposely done to frame the 9/11 Memorial, to make it appear as a true work of art. Or maybe this was purposely done to capture the two massive voids the artist created.

Disclaimer: I did take pictures at the memorial, and I know we touched upon this in class, but something I did not say is that (as I’ve mentioned in this review) I am fortunate enough to say I did not lose anyone on 9/11, which is perhaps why I do not fully understand what this memorial means. It acts as a place people can come to for closure and mourning. I will not feel the same loss they felt, but seeing it gave me a sense of what some of those people were feeling and taking a picture of it means capturing the feeling, essentially making it last longer. I am so so so so so sorry if this offended people.

I could not have been more excited to see the Garry Winogrand exhibit. It was a long day traveling through the city, the same day as the Brooklyn Museum workshop at the Macaulay building. When I arrived at the Metropolitan Museum, it took my breath away. The building was just so majestic and enormous; it quickly lifted my mood. When I reached the Garry Winogrand exhibit, I realized that my day was going to be an emotional rollercoaster. My first feeling was disappointment. It looked as if Garry Winogrand took pictures of things to see what they would look like in pictures. His photographs had me wondering if I took a random picture of a woman in a crowded city, or a picture of a man in a telephone booth, or maybe a picture of a soldier walking in a street, would it be art? Would it be beautiful? No, perhaps my photos would not be art or beautiful because I wouldn’t know how to capture it. I cannot predict what it would like in a photograph. I think that Garry Winogrand had the talent to picture in his mind what a subject would look like in a photograph. Perhaps he would argue against this, but then how would he know what to shoot and what not to shoot. There was a quote by Garry Winogrand in one of the rooms that read, “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” I silently laughed to myself the first time I read this because it was exactly what I thought Garry Winogrand did. But looking back, there was something exciting knowing that Winogrand looked at something, thought “What would this look like photographed?” and just took a photo of it. What’s really funny to me now is that I learned a lot about the photographer, versus the subjects of the photos. I learned that Winogrand was known for street photography, shooting in crowded and dense cities. He also photographed animals in a zoo (don’t ask which one), but the most important thing I learned is that this artist enjoyed taking photographs. He had a passion for shooting pictures. Garry Winogrand’s exhibition taught me to remember the simple things and to find art in the things all around me. I not only learned to appreciate the simple photos, but I also learned to appreciate the love Garry Winogrand had for simply taking pictures.