Some recent articles of possible interest
I don’t know if you noticed these articles form the NY Times, but you might be interested in them…
- from today (Nov. 4), an article about music, and the people who make it, for “Family Guy” (the FOX animated show), discussing the complexities and unexpectedly broad range of the music involved
- also from today, an article on dancers working to get their bachelor’s degrees, since their dance careers are virtually guaranteed be over by the age of 35 (does dance remind you of an underpaid, less rule-bound, even more cutthroat version of professional sports yet?)
- from Oct. 31, a preview and discussion of the dance we went to last night and,
- from Nov. 2, a review of the performance
November 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
When I read the newspaper this weekend, I found the article on “Family Guy” absolutely captivating. To be honest, this show never really caught my attention or interested me, but I have just taken a quick glance at it every once in while to know what everyone’s talking about. Never would I have guessed that the music behing “Family Guy” is played by a 40 piece orchestra!! I was definitely dumbfounded when I read that. I have certainly been proven wrong that “Family Guy” is some primitive, silly show with no real stroy line..there is so much more to it! I don’t think this article is going to make me want to watch the show (and I think it’s not the author’s intention), but I will definitely respect and acknowledge it for everything that is behind it.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Family Guy is a great show. The flashbacks they have are really cultural. Sometimes you will have no idea what the joke is, but once you are learn something more you might later get the joke.
Anyways, interesting how the dance performance we saw was apparently pretty bad from the review it got.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I bunch of us were a bit late to the show and didn’t get the introduction as to what “Misuse” was about. Although the reviews cleared it up a little, it’s unfortunate that my opinion and utter confusion about it hasn’t changed much.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
OK sorry this is so long but…
To me the main point of the review of the performance (the last article) was this: “Part of the problem was that Mr. Jasperse’s subject — living and making art in a capitalist society with almost no capital — is a familiar one to which he brought no new insight.” Which I am understanding as a way of saying that the work lacked originality. The reviewer also took the performance to task for being ‘folksy’ and ‘cute’. It is almost as though the reviewer saw the performance, yawned, stretched, and declared “been there, done that.”
This may well be a legitimate complaint, especially for the dance literati (of which I am not one).
For myself, I found the performance original, quite unlike anything I had seen before. I appreciated the ‘folksy’ and ‘cute’ elements, which allowed me to connect with the movement and the relationships between the dancers (a little humor goes a long way for me, and anyone who walks around with a beanbag on his head, on stage, in a Merrill Lynch t-shirt, clearly has a sense of humor). I liked the stage set and the way the lights became fireflies in a sky full of plastic junk. I enjoyed the dancers’ athleticism and that they looked like real people and not like dolls. So, I had a good time and enjoyed witnessing something unexpected and unique (to me) for an hour of my life.
From you all, what I’ve heard is not so much a complaint about the lack of originality of the piece but a complaint about feeling baffled by the piece. Which is understandable, and which I’ve been thinking about a lot since Saturday.
What if you thought of the performance as a kind of sport (to which you are a spectator) where you do not know the rules (and, you also suspect there aren’t any rules)?
For instance, imagine you were an alien sitting down to watch your first American football game. You might wonder, what the heck are all these big guys dressed up for like that? And why do they keep running around and bumping into each other? Why do they stop all the time? Hey wait now there’s ANOTHER car ad? etc etc. You would be a confused alien. You probably wouldn’t care much about what you were looking at and you might dismiss football as ridiculous.
I am choosing football as my metaphor because personally, I used to hate football. I thought it was horribly boring. Even when people explained the rules I still didn’t care much. But slowly after watching it and thinking about it and talking about it with others, I realized that football is a way for men to act out war scenarios without actually killing each other. Then I got interested. The battle plans, the gear, the plays, it all made sense to me. Football became an extended theatrical performance about war. I found a way to understand it and somehow it seemed more interesting.
Yesterday I watched part of a game and noticed that the camera angles they are using now make it look like a video game. Even the huge number of commercials became part of the ‘story’ or the idea of football – that war has become commercialized, about profit – that the murderous part of war gets people’s attention but the real story is that big companies are making tons of money from it – that war has become something we experience on television, in dramatization, almost like a video game. When I can see football as a metaphor about war and a reflection of contemporary society’s values, I actually enjoy it.
I still think that football has faults – for instance, I wish it were more self-conscious in presenting itself as a war story, and more critical about the realities of war. Why not have the teams named after countries? religions? politicians? etc. and get real about what’s at stake here? I appreciate that other forms of art explore these questions more directly, and present a challenge to the status quo. But I can enjoy watching a football game a lot more these days.
Getting back to the subject of the performance, I take you to challenging things because I think it’s good for you to be challenged – to never feel complacent – to have to feel from time to time that you are an alien watching a football game.
My fear is that challenging experiences can make you feel dumb or inferior when you don’t ‘get’ them. Certainly you would never blame the alien for not understanding the game! but you might encourage the alien to watch a little while longer, to see if it could eventually relate it to something it knows, to find a way to engage with it. There is no “right” way to understand it, just the way that eventually works for you. I don’t think any of you are dumb or inferior in any way. I have been impressed by your willingness to try new things, to engage with them, and to try to find an appreciation of them. I trust this will continue not just in this class but in your lives.
Anyway I’d enjoy knowing your thoughts. Apologies again for the length of this comment.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Yeah I kind of got the sense that the last critic thought that the piece wasn’t original also but I thought the dance was very creative and original (well only because I haven’t seen that many dance performances in my lifetime). I guess that critic was speaking for dance experts, not for everyday folks like us who do not possess the same depth of understanding of dance.
I think if American football were to try to make a statement about the harsh realities of war, directly or indirectly, they’d lose money. I think people would lose their appreciation for football once the game becomes embedded with a political message. People watch football for entertainment, to see the dramatic unfold and to see their beloved teams or players succeed against all odds (not to mention the strategizing involved). If teams were named after certain countries or establishments, fans would be more reluctant to rally around a team. Its easier to get New Yorkers to rally around the NY Jets or the NY Giants than say the NY Democrats. The Jets and the Giants are very vague team names, distinguished only by the franchise’s history, that allows for a broader audience to root for them. A team called the NY Democrats is very exclusive.
Although it would be very interesting to see political ideologies clash in some sort of psuedo-war on the football field, it is far from plausible because football, like any other sport, is an entertainment industry which main goal is to make money.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
(the website clock is not adjusted for the end of daylight’s savings time so don’t be fooled by the times)