Last year in English we learned a lot about theater and I didn't even know it. We had a list of vocabulary terms and they included such things as Deux ex Machina, catharsis, and plot. We didn't really connect them to the theatre even though we did read plays, Fences, Othello and a Man for All Seasons being the foremost in my mind. In the book it says, "A play in a book is only the shadow of a play and not even a clear shadow of it....The printed script of a play is hardly more than an architect's blueprint of a house not yet built or [a house] built and destroyed. The color, the grace and levitation, the structural pattern in motion, the quick interplay of live beings, suspended like fitful lightning in a cloud, these things are the play, not words on paper nor thoughts and ideas fo an author." I completely agree with this quote. In English we always watch a video of the play after we read it. It really does give a better idea of the characters than just words on a paper can, though they be quite lovely. Also, with Shakespeare, it is sometimes easier to tell what some of his words mean when someone else is saying them, with what inflection they are saying them.
Later on in the chapter, it says, "In both tradgedy and comedy, it is the nature of the balance between the strengths and weaknesses of the characters and the deserved or undeserved nature of the catastrophe taht determines whether the result is tragic or comic. With minor editing of character and situation, for example, tragic Othello becomes comic Othello." It goes on to itemize how this seemingly unseemly thing could come about. It just does seem that a man killing his wife could be funny, but they do a pretty good job of pleading their case. It's pretty interesting and I can see how several other plays could be made humorous.
Somewhere it talks about how due to television and other diversions the viewing of plays has gone down. I actually really like to see plays, but a lot of the time they are more expensive than I have the stomache for. My mom used to sew costumes for a local Junior High's plays and we would get free tickets. The plays we saw there were better than some of the ones my High School put on.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Class Week 5
I really liked talking about dance this week. I dabbled in Jazz, ballet, tap and ballroom when I was younger but I got too tall and too old for the level I was dancing at, so I quite. I have to admit that I wasn't very good and pretty much had to watch the other dancers so that I could remember what to do even at the concerts. One of my favorite shows is So You Think You Can Dance and it was really interesting to learn about some of the things that I have seen while watching.
I really didn't know much about the history of dance until now. It is so interesting to see how the arts really do mesh together. I'd never thought about the dancing style beginning influenced by painting and visa versa like Martha Graham was influenced by the cubist style, but it really makes sense that they would have an effect on each other. While I was reading, I was pretty worried because I couldn't really picture in my mind what was written in the book. The diagrams helped, but I was relieved when we watched some dancing because I could pick out the cabriole and the entrachats. I kind of wish that I had attended the ballet after I knew some of the movements so that I would have had a better idea of what was going on. I really like the excerpt from Swan Lake that we watched and I'm eager to see the whole ballet someday. I have no idea how they continued to smile while executing steps that have to cause some great strain and even pain. It was really interesting to have somebody who had danced ballet to tell the class about the way point your feet and the rigorous training both ballet and modern dancers complete.
The Thriller segment we watched was also interesting. It was neat to sort of dissect it using the elements of dance. It really does add to the viewing when you know that the way they choreograph, costume, use music, and assign roles really is thought out to add to the experience. The balloon dance was also cool. I thought that it was both a narrative and diversion. It's really nifty that early dancers were willing to step out of the box even though they were criticized so that we can have that sort of dance now. It was amazing to see them use their balloon props in really unique ways. They had amazing flexibility in their feet and arms.
I really didn't know much about the history of dance until now. It is so interesting to see how the arts really do mesh together. I'd never thought about the dancing style beginning influenced by painting and visa versa like Martha Graham was influenced by the cubist style, but it really makes sense that they would have an effect on each other. While I was reading, I was pretty worried because I couldn't really picture in my mind what was written in the book. The diagrams helped, but I was relieved when we watched some dancing because I could pick out the cabriole and the entrachats. I kind of wish that I had attended the ballet after I knew some of the movements so that I would have had a better idea of what was going on. I really like the excerpt from Swan Lake that we watched and I'm eager to see the whole ballet someday. I have no idea how they continued to smile while executing steps that have to cause some great strain and even pain. It was really interesting to have somebody who had danced ballet to tell the class about the way point your feet and the rigorous training both ballet and modern dancers complete.
The Thriller segment we watched was also interesting. It was neat to sort of dissect it using the elements of dance. It really does add to the viewing when you know that the way they choreograph, costume, use music, and assign roles really is thought out to add to the experience. The balloon dance was also cool. I thought that it was both a narrative and diversion. It's really nifty that early dancers were willing to step out of the box even though they were criticized so that we can have that sort of dance now. It was amazing to see them use their balloon props in really unique ways. They had amazing flexibility in their feet and arms.
Eight Men Out
On Tuesday night I went to Eight Men Out, a movie they were screening at the Orem Public Library. I wasn't too sure that I was going to like it, because as much as I wish I were a sports fan and less mushy-minded, I'm really more a mystery, historical romance, comedy movie type of girl, and I knew that Eight Men Out was a baseball movie. In fact, I sort of have a hard time watching baseball unless I know someone that is playing because it seems like there are only a few minutes of action and then a lot of waiting. I guess I haven't really been exposed to watching sports much. The best game of baseball I've ever seen took place in South Carolina when I was watching my cousins husband and his military team play. They were super speedy and half of the balls they hit were home runs. So, the nice thing about watching a sport in a movie is that they don't have any of the waiting time and only show the highlights of the supposed game.
Eight Men Out is about the 1919 White Sox scandal. When I read that on the sign I figured it had to be about some team throwing a game for money and I was right. The movie starts with a game scene. The White Sox team are out playing in the hot sun, while their manager is inside with a bunch of newspaper men. There is a great contrast between the condition of the players and their master. He has all of this food and fine wine and is dressed impeccably. He is also plump from the great spoils he has obviously obtained as manager. The men however are in their dusty uniforms, sweating and on the thin side. It is obvious they love the game though. After the game they had be.en promised a bonus and instead they got flat champagne. During the game a few men in the stands kept commenting on who they thought they could get to work for them to throw the world series. The White Sox were considered unbeatable so a lot of people would be betting on them to win. If the people who paid the White Sox to lose bet against them, they could make a pretty penny. The players were pretty put out with their manager and they weren't being paid enough, so it was easy for the gamblers to draw a few of them into the plan. The gamblers also included some even larger gambler fish so that they would have the funds to bet and pay some of the players who wanted their cut at the start. It was really sad, because it was obvious that some of players didn't want to join, but they felt that there was no other option. One of the players, Buck Weaver, refused to be a part of the operation when he was approached. At the games he did his best, but both of the main pitchers had joined in so he was pretty much fighting a losing battle. A couple of newspaper men noticed the first game of the World Series that something fishy was going on, and they decided that they would each write down any plays they felt there was something wrong with and the player who had messed and compare their lists at the end. They came up with about six players they felt were purposely trying to throw the game. It was pretty much depressing to watch as the team struggled within themselves to try and win but kept losing even though the people around them said they were the best club they had ever seen. The best part of the whole movie was when the pitcher who wasn't in on the racket, Joe Jackson, pitched the third game. He struck out quite a few players and even some of the players who were trying to lose got behind him. I think it had a lot to do with their trainer who knew that something was going on and tried to talk to the team. It was basically the team's shining moment. After a few games they purposely lost, they realized that they weren't going to get paid, because the people who were handling the money kept putting any money they won back into the gambling circuit. Most of the players decided against continuing and one of the pitchers who had agreed to the scam just quit and actually did his part. This made the gambling people rather unhappy as they lost quite a bit of money and they sent someone to threaten the next pitcher's wife. He, of course, capitulated and the team lost their fifth game which knocked them out of the tournament. At this point the newspaper men delivered their evidence to the officials. Eight men were picked out as suspicious, but two of them actually had nothing to do with the scam. Their names were Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson. Joe really had had no knowledge and Buck knew but wasn't a part. He didn't turn his teammates in because he thought they would decide to be honest on their own. As the baseball player's trial was going on, the gamblers happily left the country on the proceeds. I have to admit that pretty much ticked me off. So did the fact that the players who spearheaded the crime were so stinking smug. I wanted to punch each of them in the nose. Unexpectedly, the court ruled not guilty, but that wasn't the end. A special commissioner the manager of the team had hired said that any member of a club who took a bribe to throw a game or knew of his teammates taking one would never play in the major leagues again. At the end of the movie it shows a minor league game. A few people in the stands wonder who the man is that is trouncing their team. One of them says it's Joe Jackson. The others don't believe him, but he insists it is and says that he was one of the players who threw the World Series. Buck Weaver happens to be sitting next to the group and denies that it is Joe saying he was one of the greatest players of all time. It's pretty much terrible that the only thing people remember about the fantastic group is that they threw the World Series.
I thought that it was actually a really good show, even if it was somewhat depressing. The actors did a good job and there were a few pretty big names. It was especially impressive to see how well Hollywood did at making them believably good baseball players. There was a bit too much swearing for my taste, but I guess it wouldn't be believable baseball history if there wasn't some swearing. Of course, while it did show that the players each had a humongous wad of tobacco in their mouths none of them that I could see had rotten teeth and that isn't very realistic. I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed it even if some parts made me mad enough to spit.
The atmosphere of the Orem Library was really great. I'm pretty comfortable with going there, because I go pretty much every week to rent some of their old movies for a dollar. I wasn't expecting the theatre to be so small and their to be so few people, but that was also nice in a way. I hope I wasn't a detriment to the six other people's experience because I kept coughing, but I guess I won't worry too much because a few of the smaller kids there kept getting up and running down the aisles and on the stage when they got restless. It was great. I had a really good view of the screen and I could hear pretty well. I'm actually interested in attending some more of these screening things because I love older movies and free is quite the best price I know of.
Eight Men Out is about the 1919 White Sox scandal. When I read that on the sign I figured it had to be about some team throwing a game for money and I was right. The movie starts with a game scene. The White Sox team are out playing in the hot sun, while their manager is inside with a bunch of newspaper men. There is a great contrast between the condition of the players and their master. He has all of this food and fine wine and is dressed impeccably. He is also plump from the great spoils he has obviously obtained as manager. The men however are in their dusty uniforms, sweating and on the thin side. It is obvious they love the game though. After the game they had be.en promised a bonus and instead they got flat champagne. During the game a few men in the stands kept commenting on who they thought they could get to work for them to throw the world series. The White Sox were considered unbeatable so a lot of people would be betting on them to win. If the people who paid the White Sox to lose bet against them, they could make a pretty penny. The players were pretty put out with their manager and they weren't being paid enough, so it was easy for the gamblers to draw a few of them into the plan. The gamblers also included some even larger gambler fish so that they would have the funds to bet and pay some of the players who wanted their cut at the start. It was really sad, because it was obvious that some of players didn't want to join, but they felt that there was no other option. One of the players, Buck Weaver, refused to be a part of the operation when he was approached. At the games he did his best, but both of the main pitchers had joined in so he was pretty much fighting a losing battle. A couple of newspaper men noticed the first game of the World Series that something fishy was going on, and they decided that they would each write down any plays they felt there was something wrong with and the player who had messed and compare their lists at the end. They came up with about six players they felt were purposely trying to throw the game. It was pretty much depressing to watch as the team struggled within themselves to try and win but kept losing even though the people around them said they were the best club they had ever seen. The best part of the whole movie was when the pitcher who wasn't in on the racket, Joe Jackson, pitched the third game. He struck out quite a few players and even some of the players who were trying to lose got behind him. I think it had a lot to do with their trainer who knew that something was going on and tried to talk to the team. It was basically the team's shining moment. After a few games they purposely lost, they realized that they weren't going to get paid, because the people who were handling the money kept putting any money they won back into the gambling circuit. Most of the players decided against continuing and one of the pitchers who had agreed to the scam just quit and actually did his part. This made the gambling people rather unhappy as they lost quite a bit of money and they sent someone to threaten the next pitcher's wife. He, of course, capitulated and the team lost their fifth game which knocked them out of the tournament. At this point the newspaper men delivered their evidence to the officials. Eight men were picked out as suspicious, but two of them actually had nothing to do with the scam. Their names were Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson. Joe really had had no knowledge and Buck knew but wasn't a part. He didn't turn his teammates in because he thought they would decide to be honest on their own. As the baseball player's trial was going on, the gamblers happily left the country on the proceeds. I have to admit that pretty much ticked me off. So did the fact that the players who spearheaded the crime were so stinking smug. I wanted to punch each of them in the nose. Unexpectedly, the court ruled not guilty, but that wasn't the end. A special commissioner the manager of the team had hired said that any member of a club who took a bribe to throw a game or knew of his teammates taking one would never play in the major leagues again. At the end of the movie it shows a minor league game. A few people in the stands wonder who the man is that is trouncing their team. One of them says it's Joe Jackson. The others don't believe him, but he insists it is and says that he was one of the players who threw the World Series. Buck Weaver happens to be sitting next to the group and denies that it is Joe saying he was one of the greatest players of all time. It's pretty much terrible that the only thing people remember about the fantastic group is that they threw the World Series.
I thought that it was actually a really good show, even if it was somewhat depressing. The actors did a good job and there were a few pretty big names. It was especially impressive to see how well Hollywood did at making them believably good baseball players. There was a bit too much swearing for my taste, but I guess it wouldn't be believable baseball history if there wasn't some swearing. Of course, while it did show that the players each had a humongous wad of tobacco in their mouths none of them that I could see had rotten teeth and that isn't very realistic. I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed it even if some parts made me mad enough to spit.
The atmosphere of the Orem Library was really great. I'm pretty comfortable with going there, because I go pretty much every week to rent some of their old movies for a dollar. I wasn't expecting the theatre to be so small and their to be so few people, but that was also nice in a way. I hope I wasn't a detriment to the six other people's experience because I kept coughing, but I guess I won't worry too much because a few of the smaller kids there kept getting up and running down the aisles and on the stage when they got restless. It was great. I had a really good view of the screen and I could hear pretty well. I'm actually interested in attending some more of these screening things because I love older movies and free is quite the best price I know of.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Music and the Spoken Word Rehersal
Okay, so I'm not exactly sure what it was called, but my family and I went to Salt Lake on Thursday to see the rehearsal of the Tabernacle Choir and the Orchestra on Temple Square in the Conference Center. It was in preparation for the 80th anniversary of Music and the Spoken Word and for the 24th of July. I have played the violin since I was in 3rd grade and I sing in our ward choir, so I know the basics pretty well. The concert was completely enjoyable and from what I know I found no fault with the illustrious Tabernacle Choir or the grand orchestra accompanying them. Another great part of the evening was our seats. We were in the middle section on the floor, pretty near the front. We had a fantastic view of the orchestra and the choir and also the Organ.
So the object was music and there were all sorts of genres involved. I'm not very good with recall, so I'm not sure of all of the names, but there was some classical and some African American spiritual and some hymn like music. It represented all of the hard work of this particular choir and orchestra and of those of the past and it represented them very well. Even though it was a rehearsal they only restarted a song one time. I'm not really sure what the medium constitutes for as singing orchestra affair. The medium could be all of the instruments or the music for the orchestra, but I'm not sure if the medium for the choir is their voices or their bodies which produce the sound and the music.
I would have to say that they are the most organized choir I have ever seen. Every woman is wearing the same thing and ever man is. On Thursday the women wore a magenta dress and a sparkly silver necklace and the men were in black suits and bow ties; the members of the orchestra all wore black as is customary. The visual aspect was very pleasing, but that isn't really what I should be concerned with when the object is music I suppose. They all stood up together and it sounded like two or four voices depending on how many parts were required at different points in the music. I know that my choir in church has definite struggles saying our S's together and enunciating and on a good day there are only twenty of us. The Tabernacle choir has, well I'm not sure how many there are in it other than there are assuredly more than twenty.
We were a little bit late and the first song we came in on was about halfway done. The first song we heard in its entirety was really incredible. It actually was probably one of my favorites because it was really uplifting. It involved all of the different players, choir and orchestra. The next piece was equally enjoyable. It was Come Thou Fount, which has always been one of my favorite songs. It was different from the first in that it was more still. The first song had sort of a military beat to it. Two of the songs at the concert included a male soloist. I think they were Rockin' my Soul in the Bosom of Abraham and Go Down Moses or something like unto it. They were great proof that the choir is excellent in all areas, even as backup singers. I have to say though, that one of the most exciting parts of the program was when the organist did a solo. He played a lot of the piece with his feet. My sister and I decided it was impossible even though we were watching him carry it off beautifully. They ended with God Be With You Til We Meet Again, which of course was quite fitting. They had some other songs such as I'm trying to Be like Jesus and all of them were well done.
It is programs like these that really inspire me to become better at my talents. I couldn't help wishing that I had a better voice so that I could be a part of the choir someday, or that I was more willing to practice so that I could be a part of the orchestra. I have to admit that some of the appeal comes from the fact that they have traveled all over the world and are internationally renowned, but also I can't imagine how great the camaraderie would be in the group. I like singing. It was definitely worth the drive to Salt Lake.
So the object was music and there were all sorts of genres involved. I'm not very good with recall, so I'm not sure of all of the names, but there was some classical and some African American spiritual and some hymn like music. It represented all of the hard work of this particular choir and orchestra and of those of the past and it represented them very well. Even though it was a rehearsal they only restarted a song one time. I'm not really sure what the medium constitutes for as singing orchestra affair. The medium could be all of the instruments or the music for the orchestra, but I'm not sure if the medium for the choir is their voices or their bodies which produce the sound and the music.
I would have to say that they are the most organized choir I have ever seen. Every woman is wearing the same thing and ever man is. On Thursday the women wore a magenta dress and a sparkly silver necklace and the men were in black suits and bow ties; the members of the orchestra all wore black as is customary. The visual aspect was very pleasing, but that isn't really what I should be concerned with when the object is music I suppose. They all stood up together and it sounded like two or four voices depending on how many parts were required at different points in the music. I know that my choir in church has definite struggles saying our S's together and enunciating and on a good day there are only twenty of us. The Tabernacle choir has, well I'm not sure how many there are in it other than there are assuredly more than twenty.
We were a little bit late and the first song we came in on was about halfway done. The first song we heard in its entirety was really incredible. It actually was probably one of my favorites because it was really uplifting. It involved all of the different players, choir and orchestra. The next piece was equally enjoyable. It was Come Thou Fount, which has always been one of my favorite songs. It was different from the first in that it was more still. The first song had sort of a military beat to it. Two of the songs at the concert included a male soloist. I think they were Rockin' my Soul in the Bosom of Abraham and Go Down Moses or something like unto it. They were great proof that the choir is excellent in all areas, even as backup singers. I have to say though, that one of the most exciting parts of the program was when the organist did a solo. He played a lot of the piece with his feet. My sister and I decided it was impossible even though we were watching him carry it off beautifully. They ended with God Be With You Til We Meet Again, which of course was quite fitting. They had some other songs such as I'm trying to Be like Jesus and all of them were well done.
It is programs like these that really inspire me to become better at my talents. I couldn't help wishing that I had a better voice so that I could be a part of the choir someday, or that I was more willing to practice so that I could be a part of the orchestra. I have to admit that some of the appeal comes from the fact that they have traveled all over the world and are internationally renowned, but also I can't imagine how great the camaraderie would be in the group. I like singing. It was definitely worth the drive to Salt Lake.
Class Week 4
I am just going to say that class on Wednesday was pretty challenging for me. I felt like I had missed day or that I wasn't studying something we were supposed to be studying. It seemed like all of a sudden people knew everything. When we were asked what about different works made them from a certain time period and people knew the answers I knew I was in big trouble. I think I was starting to catch on by the end of class, but only because I really invested myself in trying to figure out what was going on. As usual I thought it was really interesting. Also, I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but the same tapestry that was on our quiz was on Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I pretty much jumped out of my seat to tell my brother about it and how the unicorn symbolized purity and because it was surrounded by a fence it specifically symbolized Mary. I love being able to tell stuff like that.
It is really interesting for me to learn about the different Mediums artists used. I had never even heard about half of them before our class. It kind of gives me a new appreciation for the work of artists. I really value the ability to erase when I'm drawing because I almost never get something right the first time. To me fresco sounds particularly difficult in that regard, but I've also tried oil paints and those are no cake walk either. I mean, I haven't had any tutoring or education in those types of things, but I sort of like to dabble in the arts.
Another interesting thing for me to learn about in class was the different 'isms' they developed during Modernism. In my English class last year we talked about the different eras of writing, and around the same time period there were lots of different 'isms' in writing as well. I'm not sure which of the 'isms' is my favorite, but I do know that I kind of liked the Cubism and Surrealism pictures. That might just be because I have heard of Picasso and Salvador Dali.
It is really interesting for me to learn about the different Mediums artists used. I had never even heard about half of them before our class. It kind of gives me a new appreciation for the work of artists. I really value the ability to erase when I'm drawing because I almost never get something right the first time. To me fresco sounds particularly difficult in that regard, but I've also tried oil paints and those are no cake walk either. I mean, I haven't had any tutoring or education in those types of things, but I sort of like to dabble in the arts.
Another interesting thing for me to learn about in class was the different 'isms' they developed during Modernism. In my English class last year we talked about the different eras of writing, and around the same time period there were lots of different 'isms' in writing as well. I'm not sure which of the 'isms' is my favorite, but I do know that I kind of liked the Cubism and Surrealism pictures. That might just be because I have heard of Picasso and Salvador Dali.
Reading Week 4 continued
Alright, so I already did my reading blog for this week and it was pretty long, so I basically refuse to write more than four sentences about the artists we were supposed to look up. Just kidding in a way, I don't refuse exactly, but I'm not going to make this entry very long. I looked at works by Durer, Van Eyck and Caravaggio. I thought that Durer and Van Eyck were very similar in the fact that they both used a lot of symbolism in their works. Of the two of them I really like Van Eyck because of his use of color. All of his paintings use a darker value, and yet they seem somewhat bright and defined to me. Caravaggio is the one we talked about using Chiaroscuro. The thing that caught my attention in his paintings is how much emotion is infused in them. Through the faces of his subjects what they are feeling is made obvious; even without a background story you can tell their basic emotions.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Reading Week 4
This week I'll write about the reading I did in Chapter 16. I had never thought about the fact that you have to view sculpture in two different ways. I think that sculpture really is unique because it is tangible and because you have to walk around it, view it form different angles, to get the whole experience. I've never been in a position that I could touch a great work, but it sounds pretty nifty when Finn describes it. "There must have been a heavenly spirit in Michelangelo's fingers as they guided his tools, and I felt that spirit now transmitted like electric impulses through my fingers into my heart. I ran my hand again and again over those surfaces I could reach. It took only moments but it was a timeless experience." It was interesting to me that Michelangelo thought that he was just beginning to learn his craft as he died. I really am more of a realist I guess, because I really like his Pieta, and while I admire his skill still, the Rondanini Pieta isn't my favorite. At this point, I like his "polished words," better even if his later work "betrays all the anguish and genius of this great artist's last years and expresses a nobility and poignant depth."
For a tenth grade English project on veterinarians I sculpted a pair of hands cupping a puppy. I thought it was pretty hard, you know, fairly realistic. Then I see these sculptures carved out of marble, that look just like a living person. Holy cow, how did they do that? All three of the sculptors the chapter talks about had an interest in art in the very beginning. It's a good thing that their talents were encouraged or the world would be deprived of some very great visual and apparently physical, experiences. I like the sentence about Bernini's skill, "the great Italian Baroque sculptor of the seventeenth century, created the illusion of soft flesh or silken cloth in solid marble with breathtaking credibility." I used some sort of clay for my veterinarian's hands, and they didn't look soft. In fact the puppy's fur looked somewhat sharp. The greats used marble, metamorphosed limestone, as their medium, and it looks far more supple than my clay creation when carved by their talented hands.
I have to admit that I've always been a little afraid of sculpture, especially that of 'Greek' origin. The naked and nude bodies kind of make me uncomfortable. I think it might be because of what my mom calls a Victorian upbringing. For example, my mom's mother didn't even approve of talk about bathrooms and my mom was absolutely shocked when at a movie, her date leaned over to her and said, "At least you don't have to urinate." I don't remember why he said that, as I never quite understood that part of the story, but honestly, it even makes me uncomfortable to write that. I mean, what if someone just skimmed my blog and saw that word on the page causing them to think that it was simply disgusting. Anyway, the point is, my mom passed that same sort of upbringing on to me. The really weird thing though, is that one of my grandma's favorite paintings was one that she called 'Grab Your Hat and Let's Go,' which was of a woman donning only a hat. My family isn't uncultured I guess. At the start of the chapter there is a quote that it says is supposed to help people who have my same sort of problem. "To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes and the word implies some of the embarrassment which most of us feel in that condition. The word nude, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous and confident body: the body re-formed." I don't really know if that helps my phobia, but I'll try to remind myself of it when I view sculpture of, in my opinion, a provocative nature.
For a tenth grade English project on veterinarians I sculpted a pair of hands cupping a puppy. I thought it was pretty hard, you know, fairly realistic. Then I see these sculptures carved out of marble, that look just like a living person. Holy cow, how did they do that? All three of the sculptors the chapter talks about had an interest in art in the very beginning. It's a good thing that their talents were encouraged or the world would be deprived of some very great visual and apparently physical, experiences. I like the sentence about Bernini's skill, "the great Italian Baroque sculptor of the seventeenth century, created the illusion of soft flesh or silken cloth in solid marble with breathtaking credibility." I used some sort of clay for my veterinarian's hands, and they didn't look soft. In fact the puppy's fur looked somewhat sharp. The greats used marble, metamorphosed limestone, as their medium, and it looks far more supple than my clay creation when carved by their talented hands.
I have to admit that I've always been a little afraid of sculpture, especially that of 'Greek' origin. The naked and nude bodies kind of make me uncomfortable. I think it might be because of what my mom calls a Victorian upbringing. For example, my mom's mother didn't even approve of talk about bathrooms and my mom was absolutely shocked when at a movie, her date leaned over to her and said, "At least you don't have to urinate." I don't remember why he said that, as I never quite understood that part of the story, but honestly, it even makes me uncomfortable to write that. I mean, what if someone just skimmed my blog and saw that word on the page causing them to think that it was simply disgusting. Anyway, the point is, my mom passed that same sort of upbringing on to me. The really weird thing though, is that one of my grandma's favorite paintings was one that she called 'Grab Your Hat and Let's Go,' which was of a woman donning only a hat. My family isn't uncultured I guess. At the start of the chapter there is a quote that it says is supposed to help people who have my same sort of problem. "To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes and the word implies some of the embarrassment which most of us feel in that condition. The word nude, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous and confident body: the body re-formed." I don't really know if that helps my phobia, but I'll try to remind myself of it when I view sculpture of, in my opinion, a provocative nature.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Ballet Under the Stars
On Friday the tenth I went to see the Ballet Under the Stars with my mom and cousin. The drive to Murray was a little long, but I think the experience was well worth it. I had never really seen a ballet except for on television, so I wasn't really quite sure what to expect. I've always equated it with the upper crust and fancy dresses in a beautifully constructed theatre.
On with the description. The genre and 'object' were ballet and dance. I think that it really represents the hard work of each of the performers. The ballet wasn't one great ballet like The Nutcracker, or Cinderella, but a bunch of little performances or a montage. Actually, one of my favorite dances was called the carnival scene for "The Red Shoes," so I think that I would really enjoy a full ballet. I kind of reminded me of the Romeo and Juliet they did on So You Think You Can Dance. Not in story, but in the way the different participants had to act out there roles, without saying anything, but merely with there feet. That is one of the limitations of dance. There really isn't anyway the dancers can communicate other than with their body language and facial expressions, which really are quite loquacious as is stated in The Little Mermaid and proved in Lie to Me. There are many types of medium in dance. One is the dancer himself. The human body can be made to do amazing things, which is quite evident in ballet. I have to admit that I could never do a lot of the things the dancers did. It requires a great deal of flexibility and coordination, as well as a good memory. When I took dance as a little kid I had to look at the other dancers to know what step was next in our dances, even when we got to preforming time. Some other mediums are the costumes, sets and make-up. It's a little weird, but I decided that the best hairstyle for male ballerinas is floppy hair, like that of Demetri on Anastasia. Okay, that's a lot a bit weird, but it all plays into the general performance. Another thing that pretty much confuses me is the ballet shoe. At times in the ballet yesterday I thought their shoes would just fall right off. It's sort of like wearing flippers, but with a big block of would instead of thin plastic sticking straight out of the toe. the thin ribbon just doesn't seem like it should be able to hold the shoe on. Sometimes the tapping of the wood on the stage was a little distracting, but it was really pretty amazing that the dancers were so quiet generally. The costumes for ballerinas really enhance the art as well. Judging by the definitions in their calves and backs, I think that some of the lady ballerinas would have an easier time lifting their make counterparts than they did lifting them.
I think that one of the most important parts of ballet is line. At some parts they have to be so fluid, while others it is imperative that they be straight. The dancers have to have incredible posture, but they also have to be able to bend backwards and forwards to great degree. I'm not an expert on ballet, but I think that sometimes some of the dancers could have extended a little bit more so that their movements didn't seem halted too soon. Another really important part is space. They did a really good job of using all of the space available to them on the stage. During solos they leaped and twirled across even at times stepping over the mat they had set out. They were very organized when their was a group dancing and their formations were generally symmetrical so that the eye wasn't drawn to any one dancer, unless she was in the center and doing different sorts of movements than the others were.
As far as interpretation, there were so many dances that I'm not going to interpret each of them, but instead I will choose my favorite. The set on the stage was like a carnival with booths and balloons. There were two main characters and everybody wore masks. I interpreted the whole dance as a chance meeting between a commoner and royalty that was hesitant at first, but ended in love which at the very end was lost. The reason it was called The Red Shoes is that the common girl was given the shoes by the royal gent and they made her dance better. She was at first embarrassed to dance but slowly became more comfortable. This particular dance was manic. I think the meaning was made known at first by the facial expressions, and then by the body motions because masks were donned.
It was a very interesting night. I think that the performers were trying to educate the people there and expose them to culture. They did a really good job of that and there were quite a few people in attendance. It was unified by the fact that each of the dances were done in the ballet genre, but there was variety among the performers and the separate performances. It stories were clear, but the movements the dancers used to express them were quite complex. I would definitely be interested in attending another ballet.
On with the description. The genre and 'object' were ballet and dance. I think that it really represents the hard work of each of the performers. The ballet wasn't one great ballet like The Nutcracker, or Cinderella, but a bunch of little performances or a montage. Actually, one of my favorite dances was called the carnival scene for "The Red Shoes," so I think that I would really enjoy a full ballet. I kind of reminded me of the Romeo and Juliet they did on So You Think You Can Dance. Not in story, but in the way the different participants had to act out there roles, without saying anything, but merely with there feet. That is one of the limitations of dance. There really isn't anyway the dancers can communicate other than with their body language and facial expressions, which really are quite loquacious as is stated in The Little Mermaid and proved in Lie to Me. There are many types of medium in dance. One is the dancer himself. The human body can be made to do amazing things, which is quite evident in ballet. I have to admit that I could never do a lot of the things the dancers did. It requires a great deal of flexibility and coordination, as well as a good memory. When I took dance as a little kid I had to look at the other dancers to know what step was next in our dances, even when we got to preforming time. Some other mediums are the costumes, sets and make-up. It's a little weird, but I decided that the best hairstyle for male ballerinas is floppy hair, like that of Demetri on Anastasia. Okay, that's a lot a bit weird, but it all plays into the general performance. Another thing that pretty much confuses me is the ballet shoe. At times in the ballet yesterday I thought their shoes would just fall right off. It's sort of like wearing flippers, but with a big block of would instead of thin plastic sticking straight out of the toe. the thin ribbon just doesn't seem like it should be able to hold the shoe on. Sometimes the tapping of the wood on the stage was a little distracting, but it was really pretty amazing that the dancers were so quiet generally. The costumes for ballerinas really enhance the art as well. Judging by the definitions in their calves and backs, I think that some of the lady ballerinas would have an easier time lifting their make counterparts than they did lifting them.
I think that one of the most important parts of ballet is line. At some parts they have to be so fluid, while others it is imperative that they be straight. The dancers have to have incredible posture, but they also have to be able to bend backwards and forwards to great degree. I'm not an expert on ballet, but I think that sometimes some of the dancers could have extended a little bit more so that their movements didn't seem halted too soon. Another really important part is space. They did a really good job of using all of the space available to them on the stage. During solos they leaped and twirled across even at times stepping over the mat they had set out. They were very organized when their was a group dancing and their formations were generally symmetrical so that the eye wasn't drawn to any one dancer, unless she was in the center and doing different sorts of movements than the others were.
As far as interpretation, there were so many dances that I'm not going to interpret each of them, but instead I will choose my favorite. The set on the stage was like a carnival with booths and balloons. There were two main characters and everybody wore masks. I interpreted the whole dance as a chance meeting between a commoner and royalty that was hesitant at first, but ended in love which at the very end was lost. The reason it was called The Red Shoes is that the common girl was given the shoes by the royal gent and they made her dance better. She was at first embarrassed to dance but slowly became more comfortable. This particular dance was manic. I think the meaning was made known at first by the facial expressions, and then by the body motions because masks were donned.
It was a very interesting night. I think that the performers were trying to educate the people there and expose them to culture. They did a really good job of that and there were quite a few people in attendance. It was unified by the fact that each of the dances were done in the ballet genre, but there was variety among the performers and the separate performances. It stories were clear, but the movements the dancers used to express them were quite complex. I would definitely be interested in attending another ballet.
Class Week 3
We talked about the book From Bauhaus to our House in class the other day, so probably some of this post will sound similar to my reading post this week, but only the first part. We talked about the points Tom Wolfe made in his book and about specific architects. Really, I have to think that the architects that decided they didn't want to be the same as those who committed themselves to the international style made a greater impression. I the book there were a few people mentioned who were a part of the "compound," but they were only mentioned briefly. People like Morris Lapidus and John Portman almost got an entire page. So even though they were sneered at, and given "the look," they were remembered. I think one of the greatest problems with the box, besides the fact that it had a flat roof and flat siding and was thus more exposed to the elements, was that it allowed the peoples of America to become less creative. There wasn't anyone carving out the stone ornamentation, because there wasn't any. It makes the buildings of America less inspiring, less bespeaking of the American dream. They are quite impressive in their own right, but not quite on the same level of countries who have architecture dating back hundreds of years.
Another part of the lesson I really liked was learning about the visual arts. I have to admit that I sort of skimmed a little through the section on visual arts in the book and so I didn't remember all of the interesting effects things like color have on a piece of work. It was really neat to see the pictures of pure color and to hear what they made people think about, whether they were thinking something along the same lines as I was, or something totally different that made me take a second glance. I remember one in particular that honestly made me feel a little bit nauseated. It was red green and blue. They were very nice colors, in fact two of them are my favorite, but somehow the combination made me feel slightly uncomfortable. Also, the painting by Van Gogh was interesting to look at. It was hard for me to think merely about the painting and the effect it had on me without thinking about the troubled life of the artist. While the colors were vivid, a word I would normally use to describe something full of life and somehow happy, they instead had the reverse effect. The yellow was somewhat sickly and the contrast between the red and the green again made me uncomfortable. They colors were also pretty dark. Normally I actually quite like the colors green, red and yellow together, but these were calculated to have an almost negative connotation. Colors really do have a lot of power.
Another part of the lesson I really liked was learning about the visual arts. I have to admit that I sort of skimmed a little through the section on visual arts in the book and so I didn't remember all of the interesting effects things like color have on a piece of work. It was really neat to see the pictures of pure color and to hear what they made people think about, whether they were thinking something along the same lines as I was, or something totally different that made me take a second glance. I remember one in particular that honestly made me feel a little bit nauseated. It was red green and blue. They were very nice colors, in fact two of them are my favorite, but somehow the combination made me feel slightly uncomfortable. Also, the painting by Van Gogh was interesting to look at. It was hard for me to think merely about the painting and the effect it had on me without thinking about the troubled life of the artist. While the colors were vivid, a word I would normally use to describe something full of life and somehow happy, they instead had the reverse effect. The yellow was somewhat sickly and the contrast between the red and the green again made me uncomfortable. They colors were also pretty dark. Normally I actually quite like the colors green, red and yellow together, but these were calculated to have an almost negative connotation. Colors really do have a lot of power.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Reading Week 3
I thought that from Bauhaus to our House was a really interesting book. I have to admit it was kind of hard for me to tell if Tom Wolfe was for, or against the different practices of modern architecture. I realize that a good portion of the book was spent in mocking different things at it, but I'm not sure if he preferred an particular mode or if he just thought them all ridiculous. Was he a white fan, or an International style fan? Admittedly his approving of either of those would be rather difficult to fathom given the corrosive way he wrote about them. The quotes he has from Robert Stern are none too flattering, though they are some of my favorite lines from the book. "He said Hejduk was doing the only thing his designs were good for: 'paper architecture.'" (page 97) Another good line was about Eisenman, "his theorizing gave Stern 'a headache,' and his houses were a 'superfluity of walls, beams and columns' that added up not to 'deep structure' but to claustrophobia.'" Jaquelin Robertson also has an awsome quote about the work of Graves. "His houses were crawling inside and out with a sort of nasty modern ivy in the way of railings, metal trellises, unexplained pipes, exposed beams, inexplicable and obtuse tubes - most to no apparent real of architechtural purpose."
Although I'm pretty sure I didn't understand all of the sarcasm and humor in the book, I thought it was really well written. I can see how such a book could be incredibly dull, but From Bauhaus to our House really wasn't. I very much agree with a few of the general ideas of the book. Namely that many of our building are too similar. They aren't unique. In older regions, such as Europe, and even back east there are buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful. I would love an opportunity to go and just walk around and look at the old plantations (even though if looked at in context many of them were built from the profits of slavery) of the south or the huge churches in Germany or England. There are some really beautiful buildings in Utah, too, but I guess I've just always thought that somewhere like Germany was just wall to wall elegant architecture. I'm glad that the world of architecture has entered a new stage, where it isn't International and sterile.
Although I'm pretty sure I didn't understand all of the sarcasm and humor in the book, I thought it was really well written. I can see how such a book could be incredibly dull, but From Bauhaus to our House really wasn't. I very much agree with a few of the general ideas of the book. Namely that many of our building are too similar. They aren't unique. In older regions, such as Europe, and even back east there are buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful. I would love an opportunity to go and just walk around and look at the old plantations (even though if looked at in context many of them were built from the profits of slavery) of the south or the huge churches in Germany or England. There are some really beautiful buildings in Utah, too, but I guess I've just always thought that somewhere like Germany was just wall to wall elegant architecture. I'm glad that the world of architecture has entered a new stage, where it isn't International and sterile.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
4th of July Parade
I really don't remember the exact order of parade floats or bands or anything, and I didn't bring a notebook with me to catalog them because that definitely would have detracted from a community experience for me. So, what I write isn't going to be an exact synopsis but rather an account of the things I thought were the most memberable. I'll make it a point to mention here that my family has been attending the Provo Freedom Festival 4th of July Parade for as long as I can remember and will probably keep attending for quite some time. I really look forward to it, so my opinion might be a little skewed. Probably some people find parades quite boring, but I like them even when they don't throw the candy far enough for the people in the back to receive any of the bounty.
The conditions of the parade were fairly good, other than the fact that it ironically rained. Actually, from my perspective that was not really a bad thing at all because is my favorite kind of weather and it served to reduce the temperature partially. I can't imagine the actual participants were all that thrilled by the occurrence though. My family always has a most comfortable viewing point of the parade; not too far from the start so that we can beat the rush of traffic when the parade ends. We put up sheets on the fence to the east of us so that we have shade and then set our chairs against said fence. The only drawback of our positioning is that there happens to be a sidewalk right in front of it. People are constantly walking past and blocking our view, but then again nothing moves too fast in a parade, so we have plenty of chances to view the "performers." Another problem with our spot this year was that some people stood right in front of us so we ended up standing most of the parade in spite of the fact that we had perfectly good chairs available to sit in.
One of the best parts for me was being at the event with my family. I went to Singin' in the Rain by myself, so the parade had a better atmosphere in that regard. My little brother plays the trumpet in the Pleasant Grove High School marching band and marched in the very front row. This is his freshman year and the first parade I've seen him in, so that was a really neat part of the experience. I was able to cheer for the BYU parade entries even louder this year and was told "Hey Mary, you go to school there now," about five times. It really was different than when I was just a BYU hopeful.
I've always loved to watch the horse entries, including such things as the Clydesdales, the hearse, and the mounties, or whatever the officers that ride the horses are called. The floats that carry the royalty are pretty nifty as well, and I have to wonder if coming up with a creative float theme was part of the contest and if not, who did come up with them? I like the George Q. cannon and the revolutionary and other war-dressed people who remind me of the many different conflicts that have been passed through to make this country free. Of course, one of the crowd favorites was the marching of the missionaries. Not only is it unique but it is really inspiring. It was a most excellent parade.
The conditions of the parade were fairly good, other than the fact that it ironically rained. Actually, from my perspective that was not really a bad thing at all because is my favorite kind of weather and it served to reduce the temperature partially. I can't imagine the actual participants were all that thrilled by the occurrence though. My family always has a most comfortable viewing point of the parade; not too far from the start so that we can beat the rush of traffic when the parade ends. We put up sheets on the fence to the east of us so that we have shade and then set our chairs against said fence. The only drawback of our positioning is that there happens to be a sidewalk right in front of it. People are constantly walking past and blocking our view, but then again nothing moves too fast in a parade, so we have plenty of chances to view the "performers." Another problem with our spot this year was that some people stood right in front of us so we ended up standing most of the parade in spite of the fact that we had perfectly good chairs available to sit in.
One of the best parts for me was being at the event with my family. I went to Singin' in the Rain by myself, so the parade had a better atmosphere in that regard. My little brother plays the trumpet in the Pleasant Grove High School marching band and marched in the very front row. This is his freshman year and the first parade I've seen him in, so that was a really neat part of the experience. I was able to cheer for the BYU parade entries even louder this year and was told "Hey Mary, you go to school there now," about five times. It really was different than when I was just a BYU hopeful.
I've always loved to watch the horse entries, including such things as the Clydesdales, the hearse, and the mounties, or whatever the officers that ride the horses are called. The floats that carry the royalty are pretty nifty as well, and I have to wonder if coming up with a creative float theme was part of the contest and if not, who did come up with them? I like the George Q. cannon and the revolutionary and other war-dressed people who remind me of the many different conflicts that have been passed through to make this country free. Of course, one of the crowd favorites was the marching of the missionaries. Not only is it unique but it is really inspiring. It was a most excellent parade.
Reading Week 2
I had a pretty hard time understanding the Aesthetics and Criticism readings, so I guess I can't write intelligently about them, so I won't even attempt it. I really did enjoy reading chapters 14 and 17 however. I learned, or rather I read about a lot of interesting things that I had never heard of. When we talked about architecture in class, I realized that I need to read things more carefully even, because there were many terms I didn't remember.
I found the architecture chapter particularly fascinating. Whenever my family goes places now, and I'm not driving so I can look at different houses, start spouting off different architectural terms; that's Victorian eclectic, or those are Doric columns. What really surprises me is that my mom knows all of the stuff as well. When I asked her if she knew who painted certain pictures from chapter 14 she knew the answers.
I very much liked the fact that there were pictures of what the book was referring to. I guess I had always thought that the Pantheon looked like the Coliseum, but now that seems completely ridiculous to me, as they are such different structures. Along with the pictures, the diagrams helped me to visualize the general floor plans for the specific architectural eras. It seems like it will be hard for me to tell what time period a specific structure is from unless I have a birds-eye view of it as reference.
I too am curious as to how people such as the Egyptians built such marvelous structures as the pyramids with comparatively primitive resources. I have never been to the pyramids or seen the Parthenon, but just hearing about how intricately designed they are makes me want to go. It's just proof that while machinery helps quite a bit, and speeds the process, it isn't essential to create beauty.
I found the architecture chapter particularly fascinating. Whenever my family goes places now, and I'm not driving so I can look at different houses, start spouting off different architectural terms; that's Victorian eclectic, or those are Doric columns. What really surprises me is that my mom knows all of the stuff as well. When I asked her if she knew who painted certain pictures from chapter 14 she knew the answers.
I very much liked the fact that there were pictures of what the book was referring to. I guess I had always thought that the Pantheon looked like the Coliseum, but now that seems completely ridiculous to me, as they are such different structures. Along with the pictures, the diagrams helped me to visualize the general floor plans for the specific architectural eras. It seems like it will be hard for me to tell what time period a specific structure is from unless I have a birds-eye view of it as reference.
I too am curious as to how people such as the Egyptians built such marvelous structures as the pyramids with comparatively primitive resources. I have never been to the pyramids or seen the Parthenon, but just hearing about how intricately designed they are makes me want to go. It's just proof that while machinery helps quite a bit, and speeds the process, it isn't essential to create beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
