The Arts in NYC

What Is Art?

antonio2090 — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:35:21 +0000

My initial reactions toward the art presented to us at the Chelsea galleries were very mixed. Most of the times I was telling myself “how can something so ridiculous be considered art?” The many paintings that we observed us were no different from the graffiti we see every day in our subway tunnels. Things like metal rods hanging from the ceiling, group of tree branches randomly grouped together, or nylon hanging from the ceiling with rocks inside them were all seen as art. When we see things like these in art galleries is hard to draw a line as to what is art and what isn’t.

Some say that art is only made when the individual consciously performs an action to achieve a form of art. But what about things that happen by accident or things made by nature? These can be also considered art. Beautiful mountains and forests are appreciated by their aesthetic appeal or their “artful” look and there isn’t a conscious creator of these landscapes. Even the human body can be seen as art. The human body has been the model for sculpture, paintings and other forms of art. Greeks sculpted their gods in the form of a regular human body focusing on detail and their definition of the perfect human body. When we look at the complexity of our bodies and the underlining processes that make it function, there is no wonder that it has been the fascination of many artists when making art.

So what really art is? To me, this depends on the individual. I might consider cars as artful objects - see them by their aesthetic appeal - while others just consider them as a mean of transportation. It is this conception about art that the each individual has that really draws the line as to what art is. Something might be art or beautiful to me but that does not mean it will mean the same to the person next to me. Like the saying says, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

-Antonio Jou

CHC

jadondavis — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:04:26 +0000

I found this course very entertaining, and I must admit, it was a completely new experience for me. In the past my schooling has rarely involved field trips, or writing critiques. I think actually, that I may have done more writing in this class than in any other I've ever attended. And I am positive that I've been on more field trips in this one class than in my entire life up to this point. I really enjoyed the diversity of the different trips, we saw plays, musicals, operas, orchestra's... I'm suffering from culture overload. I'm greatful for this opportunity, because it exposed my to areas of New York culture that I would otherwise have overlooked.

I remember talking with Dean Kirschner when she visited City. She said that so far, "The Arts In NYC" was the favourite class of all their students, and I would come to love it.

She was right. I'll miss you CHC 10201

-Jadon

Engineering Jokes

antonio2090 — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:50:37 +0000

Since a lot of us are majoring in some field in engineering, here are some clever jokes for us prospective engineers:

Q: What do engineers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.

To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Top 10 reasons to Date and Engineer

They are used to all nighters
They are always willing to experiment
They know how to increase and decrease friction
They know all about heat transfer
They do it with more torque
Engineering couples have better moments
They know how to deal with stress and strain
They know how to test their rigid cantilevers
"Lubrication, friction, and wear" is a class
They design and build large erections

Normal people ... believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with an Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

-Antonio Jou

Opera, Classical Music still a snore?

richardhuang — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:55:25 +0000

At the beginning of this course I was extremely excited about all the arts I would be exposed to and how I would learn to appreciate each and every one of them as if I were a high-class socialite. Thus, when I walked into the MetOpera House with my ironed slacks, sleek dress shirt, and polished shoes, I thougt that I was just as cultured and sophisticated as all the fancily-dressed adults around me. I still just as excited when I found my seat, got my playbill and looked at the amazing size and beauty of the inside of the opera house. Then, the curtains came up and my excitement sky-rocketed as I prepared to be blown away by the experience. However, after a few minutes of the beautiful setting and angelic singing, I realized that I was experiencing something I usually experience in classrooms - dozing off in my seats. To my surprise and frustration I couldn't allow myself to stay awake for every moment of the performance. I kept telling myself "Why am I being so disrespectful?" and I tried hard to stay awake. However, it just did not work. Perhaps this type of thing was just not for me.

The same thing had happened with the New York Philharmonics performance. I suppose it was true when people said that some types of music were not for everyone. Mine was just not classical nor "classy" music. Even though I did not learn to love the music, I have learned how to appreciate everything about it. Opera is still beautiful in its execution of music, singing, and acting. I love all those aspects of it actually. However, I just cannot seem to love it fully. It would be the same for classical music. Some well known pieces of classical music are extremely pleasant to listen to when you want to relax, but they are definitely not what I would put in my I-Pod to listen to.

Regardless of my "un-cultured" reaction to these types of music, there is no doubt that I will try to go to many more performances in the future to finally attain "the" level of cultured and sophistication that I have expected.

A Note for Promising Future Directors

Johnson Ho — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:52:43 +0000

Who would be so wise as to willingly pay to see a woman eat Danishes on a movie screen as she walks around viewing the display shelves of stores in Manhattan? Yet the movie was so superb as to have won 2 Oscars and several other awards. Why was this so?
My conclusion says that it must be because of Audrey Hepburn, who plays Holly Golightly. She plays the image of a wealthy blonde American party girl, kind of like a Paris Hilton of the 1960s. Seeing as how many men have become so infatuated by Paris’ apparent beauty today, the people of the 1960’s must have similarly been captured by Ms. Hepburn’s looks. Just think about that thin black dress she wears at beginning of the movie. Did you know that that very dress ended up selling for $1 million on December 5, 2006? Not only that, her little pink cocktail dress similarly sold for $192,000 on May 30, 2007. Can you believe it? All that money spent just for a little dress. Those buyers must either be really wealthy so as to spend all that money on that dress, or they really must have loved Audrey Hepburn.
As a result, to all current and future directors, should you want to succeed, choose your actors well. If you want more tips, consider basing a movie off of an excellent top-selling book, hiring some amazing musicians, or writing a script that tops that Dawn of the Dead Jews Movie we saw in Judell’s class, and you’ll be fine. Good Luck and Cheers!

P.S. If you don’t believe me about the prices, check out the following articles:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2007-05/31/content_884076.htm
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=168853

Johnson Ho

Joy and Consolation for the Abnormal

Johnson Ho — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:07:54 +0000

Ever since I’ve read Foucault, I’ve had the thought of normality versus abnormality stuck in my head for the longest time. One of Foucault’s main assertions is that abnormality defines normality, since we can only know what normal is by looking at what is abnormal. It is asserted, “The study of abnormality is one of the main ways that power relations are established in society. When an abnormality… is defined, somehow it is always the normal person who has power over the abnormal” (18).
Why has this thought remained in my noggin for the longest time? From what I remember back when I read it, I remember being called “weird” for being the one in a group who does not play video games. So when I’m around a group of video gamers, and they would be talking about Halo or Rainbow or any sort of those X-Box or Wii games, I would usually have no part with the conversation since I do not understand their gaming language. But whenever I do decide to speak up… names such as “noob” and “weirdo” would arise.
What does this mean? This means that since I am the abnormal one in the group, the actions of video gamers’ become established as the norm since their normality is defined by my abnormality. Not only that, but with their use of “noob” and “weirdo,” they as a group make a conscious effort to develop a superiority complex where they believe they have some sort of power over me since I am the single person outside of the loop.
Oh what joy and consolation the act of reading Foucault offered me at the time. Normally such demeaning names would cause a person to feel shameful and inferior. However, thanks to the marvelous philosophy of Foucault, I no longer need to feel ashamed for the gamers are really just trying to feel superior to be made happy and protect their lonesome themselves at the cost of whom they consider abnormal. Thanks Foucault!

Johnson Ho

Because everything today must be recorded to be understood…

crucibleofchaos — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:06:45 +0000

Yesterday, i received an email from professor Judell, claiming that my blog was mising on the topic of breakfast at Tiffany's. I quickly responded refuting that argument with the fact that blogging should not be set to concrete topics, and that the aim should be for each person to participate in the blog sphere, have an equal share of comments and threads of their own. One should not be required to participate or even start a conversation on the blog that he/she does not feel he/she has anything to contribute to. I continued receiving emails up until today, regarding other mssing blog entries, class evaluation being one of them. I thought to myself, is this really necessary? Does not Professor Judell know how great this class was. Wasn't it evident through the ending of the movie we made? Wasn't it evdent through the applause he received? I believe some things do not have to be put in writing to be understood, implied, or to be true. It seems as if we are progressing ever more towards a society where everything must be recorded via some means in order to be true, and to be understood. We need video cameras, audio recorders, cameras, and the written word, where once many other subtle means of communication existed--and people believed withiut seeing, or reading. I must say that had the class ended when it did, after Andrew's spectacular feature legnth film, this would have been the perfect class-- a perfect combination of fun, work, enjoyment, and culture. Culture being the part that stood out....but now, what can i say? Forced to, on New Year's Day, write blogs on antiquated topics which i have nothing intelligent to say somewhat mars my memory of this class. This is unfortunate, yet what i learned and experienced from this class still remains. First time to a comedy club, first time to the opera house, first time to the philharmonic, and first and most oddly impressive time to the chelsea galleries. Conclusively, this was a class of firsts, for many of us. There is nothing like a first experience of something to engrain it into your memory. And since the class was constructed in such a way as to allow enjoyment of these firsts (except of course for these last few days...), my memory, and first experience of these art forms is definitely fond. I can most definitely say, that i now have a redefined, and stronger love for my city: New York City.

Thank you Professor Judell, and Thank you class for a wonderful semester...

(but didnt i say that in my movie...POINT IN CASE)

Ishmam KO’s Modern Art

profjudell — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:57:01 +0000

I remember discussing in class that art is a conscious manipulation of
elements in a deliberate way.  Though contemporary art is defined in
this manner, I do not agree with this definition.  Traditionally
speaking art was defined by skill and master in a certain field.  This
definition evolved in the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as
a special appendage or faculty of the human mind.  This meant that art
would be a human activity and that it would be the result of
stimulating various thoughts and emotions and then expressing them in
some form.  Modern art has diverged greatly from this idea, so much so
that splashing paint on a canvas can be passed off as art.  I think my
dissatisfaction and displeasure with this kind of art comes from the
fact that I enjoy structure.  Structure gives humans and myself a
sense of security and satisfaction.  I actually appreciate structure
so much that I believe it applies to even the most capricious of
creatures, humans.  In the beginning of the year I remember writing a
paper that said the following: "Mankind as complex and multifarious as
it may be has a process of responding to stimuli in a procedure of
five individual steps: the introduction of a stimulus, the reception
of the stimulus, interpretation of the stimulus, use of effectors in
response to the stimulus, and eventually a change in magnitude of the
stimuli."  So when I notice something that is divergent of this
structured pattern I tend to discredit it's value.  My accepted
definition of art ends at the start of the modern surrealist movement;
 I don't appreciate the paint splashers and the lack of aesthetic
pleasantry.  To me art peaks with Da Vinci and Michelangelo during the
Renaissance.  Dissidence from realism fails to win me over and always
will.  This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate surrealism and the
like; surrealists tend to alter reality and this act in itself
requires concept.  Concept and structure go hand in hand in real art."

The Fleeting Nature of Comedy

crucibleofchaos — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:27:25 +0000

We had discussed this during class at some point, but i believe it is worthy of mentioning again. I had made the point that comedy is in some sense fleeting and ephemeral. Let me make my case a little more clearly now that i have the time. When one enjoys a comedic skit, or a comedy club, as i have now done twice (thanks to the free tickets), one experiences this sense of enjoyment, of lightness, of humor, and of joviality for merely the legnth of the joke, or the legnth of the evening, if the evening is spent telling jokes. Sure, during that period the jokes are funny, they help you in some sense get over whatever tragedy you might be harboring inside you, but they will not last much longer than that. Upon exiting the comedy club (both times), though i did really enjoy the acts, i couldn't really remember many of the jokes..and slowly but surely they completely faded out of memory. Some remained and were laughed at, but now the ones i still remember (and those are few) barely elicit a smirk or a haha. This is likely because comedy has to be fresh, and unexpected. If its not funny, its not comedy. Thus when its not fresh and unexpected its not likely to make you laugh, and thus it is some sort of antiquated comedy...the sort that made you laugh once twice maybe three of four times, but will not do so again, not genuinely anyway. This brings me to the point that comedy has a certain life cycle, lasts for only a certain amount of time, can help us ease out of tragedy for only a little whle, before life takes over again, and makes those jokes but a fleeting blow of the wind...

Angela & Mates at Work

profjudell — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:20:06 +0000