Yesterday’s performance was beautiful, I think.

I had a couple of thoughts that may be random or relevant.

After walking out of Symphony Space last week, I felt confused by the whole talk. I felt like the food talk focused on a specific culture in a specific area of Manhattan, while masking itself as a talk about “Jewish food” of all the “Five Boroughs.” Sure, much of the culture may have been influenced by the Jews who immigrated to America- they shaped the community, bringing certain foods as well as traditions and religious practices relating to it. But I think the discussion assumed that “Jewish food” = bagels, gefilte fish, lox and deli, simply because they are associate with that specific community (and possibly the Jews of that specific community.) I felt that the talk was lacking in that there was no mention of how- or if- these are actually jewish foods.

One thing that I found interesting was the comments about “Jewish food” not necessarily being kosher, or abiding by some of the basic rules pertaining to Jewish food. I would’ve liked to hear their thoughts about what makes “Jewish food” remain “Jewish,” even when some of the fundamental qualities that those foods had when they were first brought over to America are stripped away.

Another thing: Notice how there were five guests on the stage, four who were of the Ashkenaz (Eastern European, Russian, etc) communities, and one who had Sephardic culture (middle eastern, Spanish), specifically Iraq. The Sephardic woman hardly spoke except when asked about her specific business, and I think that may expand upon the fact that the sole focus of the discussion was on Jews of Eastern Europe. Gefilte fish, lox, deli- these are foods associated with Ashkenaz Jews. I found it interesting that the discussion didn’t give much openness to what they defined as “Jewish food”- it is specific foods from specific people who came from specific countries to a specific area of Manhattan. Almost as if to say: that IS what “Jewish food” means, no question about it.

Although it was cool to hear about “Jewish food” through a cultural lens, I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if it wasn’t so specific to that area of Manhattan. I would’ve enjoyed a discussion that could be easily overlapped with a discussion about other culturally connected foods, but I guess that wasn’t the aim of this talk.

Here are the two midterm questions that I forgot to post earlier:

1. What makes art “art”? How could each of us consider specific types/works more of a work of “art”  than others, and does that disrupt the essence of art?

2. How does art impact our lives? How could this knowledge be used by an artist in the creation of his art? Moreover, should the artist consider the impact his art will have on others when creating it?

Prior to Thursday night I had thought that opera was simply a maximum of five performers singing (or yelling) at each other and possibly having some form of physical interaction. Consequently, I was dreading this opera. My only reassurance was the fact that I knew something would be entertaining with the Macaulay crew. Once the opera started, however, I was excited about it, too.

I enjoyed the storyline and the beautiful performance. After about fifteen minutes, though, I started to get bored by all of the repetitive lines. Norma posted that she found it frustrating to keep looking back and forth, from the stage to the screen, but I do not share the annoyance; I was able to look at the screen, then look at the stage until I got bored, and then return to the screen once more with the same lines before me: repetitive lines, which, in my opinion, did not convey deep emotion or anything intense that should give reason for such long repetitions.

I entertained myself throughout by commenting on the opera to those who sat next to me, and laughing from their responses to the opera, too. But in the end, I realized that the things we were laughing about really played a huge role in the opera as a whole. For example, we laughed at Carmen’s long dresses, because she seemed to not like them to reach past her knees; her long dress contributed to the death scene, as well as simply heightening her flirtatious behavior.

I really enjoyed the third and fourth acts. I felt that these two contained true passion and emotion, as opposed to the first two. I enjoyed the action and the complex plot, and I felt that these acts were not as dragged out and excessively lengthy. Mostly, in contrast to those of the first two acts, the “repetitive” opera, as I referred to it before, was not repetitive unreasonably. The opera here beautifully conveyed the emotion, and truly contributed to the feelings we were intended to feel.

Overall, I really appreciate the opera. I love analyzing stories and symbolism, and Carmen truly had what to analyze. Did I appreciate the three hours while I was sitting at the theater? Not particularly. Nevertheless, my experience as a whole was great, and I would consider sitting through another opera.

It’s hard for me to formulate my thoughts on the ballet performance properly. Ultimately, I’d like to say that I enjoyed this ballet far more than I had expected. I’ve never been one who appreciates art on more than just a surface level, but this seminar has definitely changed that. The performances left me wowed by the beautiful dances and the aesthetic beauty of the dancers.

However, the first act- though I appreciated the skill and dedication that was evident in every movement made- was my least favorite. To be fair I’ll say that the first act was the only type of ballet I had known to exist before Thursday night, so I had expected it to be a bit more moving and inspiring, since ballet is supposedly an amazing form of art. I didn’t realize that some of the more moving and inspiring dances came in totally different forms, like the second act. That first act had expectations way too high to meet. I didn’t realize that there were so many different types of ballet, each with its own purpose.

In all honesty, I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the idea that the third act was actually a ballet. I feel more inclined to call it a performance that incorporates ballet but is not a ballet in itself. I just don’t feel comfortable calling that a ballet. Does that make sense?

Also, regarding something Prof. Ugoretz mentioned in class: ballet is soooooooo about the physical beauty and movement of the human body. That sounds like a really simple statement, but what I mean to say is that all of the dance moves skillfully and beautifully communicated different feelings, and many of them were very suggestive. There’s just so much more to ballet than I have ever or probably will ever understand!

SIDE POINT: Why is “theater” spelled “theatre” if it is clearly the American Ballet Theatre!? It is clearly not the British Ballet Theatre. These spelling things confuse me sometimes.

Though I’ve visited the 9/11 memorial two years ago, today, after learning how to see the deeper meanings in things, I saw it differently. At first when I looked into the huge hole, within it yet another hole, I thought of a children’s song called “There’s a Hole at the Bottom of the Sea,” based off the idea (unknown/belief/myth, whatever it is) that there is a hole at the bottom of the sea leading to a deeper world that we don’t know about. This idea fit well, reflecting on all the unknowns resulting from the deaths of all these people. The water was disappearing into somewhere we couldn’t see, somewhere we really didn’t know anything at all about.

I also felt a void, this hole an astonishing abyss. Sure, the water was passing through, but only on the edges, and it wasn’t even filling up. The hole was just emptiness, and I think that is the very reason why this memorial is so beautifully fit for this tragedy. The events of 9/11 left us with emptiness, a feeling of confusion and “now what?” The tragedy is mind boggling, and the loss is indescribable. This memorial features a hole within another hole, and, forgive me for the play on words, there’s no real closure after something like this; it sort of just gets deeper and deeper as you go on.

In contrast to this, the Vietnam Memorial Wall was nothing but a simple wall. I don’t really understand the significance of putting up such a meager looking thing. There were some things I did find interesting: 1. Why is there an archway to allow you to pass through to the other side at the middle of the wall? After all, it really isn’t that big of a wall anyway.. 2. There was something fascinating about the way they inscribed the words. Especially with the smaller texts, it wasn’t easy to read, especially since it was so widely spaced, each word generally splitting between two blocks. I found that when I read these, some out loud and others in my head, there was a sort of monotone to it due to the difficulty in reading it quickly. It sort of gave me a dull feeling, since I couldn’t really put emotion into the quotes the first time I was reading it. I felt like a narrator of a really boring historical article, and it made me think of the dreadful feelings post-Vietnam. Loss isn’t easy, and sometimes it can really suck the emotion out of us.

I also really liked this quote: “One thing worries me- will people believe me? Will they want to hear about it, or will they want to forget the whole thing ever happened?” First of all- who is the speaker? Why are these quotes nameless? It also made me think of the Holocaust and its survivors. I feel like this is a feeling that can come after such intense tragedy, where your world is destroyed, but you wonder if it will matter in the least to anyone else.

Both of these memorials have one thing in common: acknowledgement of the tragedy’s survivors. I think it’s important to note that the fact that there are survivors doesn’t mean the tragedies, or the survivors themselves, are any less tainted.

Hmm.

I don’t think I’d be so quick to say that my perspective on photography has changed, or that I enjoyed finding deeper meaning in Winogrand’s photographs, as some of you seem to be saying. I understand that, but I don’t think I’d say the same.

I feel that Winogrand’s photographs are beautiful- he captures natural, everyday scenes without much preparation. Like Josh said in his post- it’s just nice to have an actual portrayal of life, rather than something posed. To me, a photograph can be beautiful if it is captured with the photographer’s perspective in a cool way. As I walked around the exhibit, I noticed so many beautiful shots- and yes, some do have deeper understandings that aren’t so obvious- but they were beautiful simply because. It frustrates me a bit that I can’t really explain what makes photography beautiful- but I know that, to me, it is not because of any deeper meanings. The photograph of the woman laughing (that is used as the exhibit’s default photograph) is beautiful simply because it is natural, true laughter, rather because of any deeper representation or analysis that you can think of.

There was a quote by Winogrand on one of the walls of the exhibit: “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” This quote is just so on point. Photography isn’t the same as a painting- a photographer doesn’t photograph in order to convey a deep message. Photography is a form of art of its own. It is possible that the photo may inevitably convey a message itself, but it is important to view the photo without the message as well, as it was when it was first captured. At least, that’s what I think this quote implies. [I think this may specifically apply to photographers of natural poses.. Although I haven’t thought about it too much.]

I don’t think it is fundamental to photography to analyze the photograph like we do with works of art. The difference here is that the artist (are photographers artist? I don’t know) isn’t purposely manipulating each aspect of the photograph. True, they do choose how much of the scene they want to capture, but it is not the same as an artist who physically paints each pinpoint of a painting. [Again, natural poses. Probably not as true for photographers whose subjects are posed to represent something else.]

Does this make sense? I don’t even know if my thoughts were coherent… I enjoyed looking through the photographs and appreciating Winogrand’s perspective that was portrayed in each picture.

[quicktime]http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/ugoretz14/files/2014/09/Movie-on-9-9-14-at-12.16-AM.mov[/quicktime]

I’ve never been such an art-museum type of person- I can’t remember the last time I’ve ever been to an art museum, or if there even was a first time. When I first heard about the Macaulay Night at the Museum, I was excited to go to meet new people. The art, I thought, wasn’t going to be the highlight of my night; it’s just an excuse for us to get together in a posh setting. That’s what art museums are for, right?  I didn’t know anything about analyzing art! Were we supposed to guess what the artist intended and pretend that we understand the message he or she was trying to convey? Isn’t the Mona Lisa just a testament to Da Vinci’s skills, nothing more?

Maybe that’s a bit dramatic. I guess I never actually appreciated art, nor did I ever really feel the need to. But discussing the art with my group really changed that. One person’s thought sparked the other’s, and I found myself seeing things in the works of art that I didn’t see before. I loved where my mind was going, almost too quick to voice all at once.

In the beginning, we all just wanted to say what we thought, saying really simplistic and sort of cliche interpretations of the work that was before us. But as we continued to walk through the museum, and as we learned to really listen to each other, the conversations became deeper, more stimulating, and definitely more intriguing. One of the last works that we discussed was called Cops and Headlights V, painted by Jane Dickson. When I first saw it, I didn’t really see much more than a bunch of cops and a bunch of headlights, but my peers started to pose questions and bring forth their ideas and thoughts, and there were so many unknowns! So many uncertainties I am still trying to figure out! What’s so significant about those cops and headlights? Just… WHY?!

Perfectly placed right in the middle of a very overwhelming first week of college, this event really helped me use my mind in a new way and meet new people who enjoy thinking and learning. I really enjoyed that!