Reviewing the arts

                Everyone is an art critic, but not everyone can put those valuable opinions into words.   Even then, not many of those words are read by others.  To be a recognized and respected reviewer of art seems to be as difficult as being an artist who’s good enough to have his or her work reviewed.  It seems to me that anyone who has an audience as a reviewer has a large responsibility.

                So many of us turn to the internet and other outlets in order to properly research subjects before going to a movie, buying an album, or even getting some new artwork for the living room.  However, what do people look for in reviews?  What is the difference between a good review and a bad one?  Why trust the opinion of someone you never met?

                After both reading and writing the most reviews I’ve ever been exposed too, I now realize that a good review offers information about a subject and explanations of why a particular topic works or does not work.  I see now that if a reviewer offers a deep analysis; the examples used to support the reviewer’s opinion will help me, the reader, decide if this opinion is relevant.  A reviewer may have a problem with something that I find perfectly acceptable, but this does not make for a bad review.  I now feel more informed about the subject and I have an understanding of why one might have an issue with something I do not.

                To review the arts is to share important information about a subject while offering a strong opinion.  Not everyone will agree with your opinions, but if the review is backed up by solid analysis and examples, the information gained will always be valuable.

Columbia: It is almost like real life!

When I think of college, a very clear image comes to view.  I see sidewalks full of students, backpacks, study groups and fliers with tabs on the bottom.  I also see academic buildings and dorms.  I see a closed community, a quad, a cafeteria, and a “University drive” leading to the admissions building.  This is the image of a “campus,” and an accurate description of many colleges and universities around the world.  Columbia College Chicago advertises its slogan “Create Change,” and it would seem those words go to work immediately as one is introduced to Columbia’s “campus.”

                I still remember my orientation day here at Columbia.  I felt like a tourist using a map to find my way around Chicago to Columbia’s campus.  I was shocked to find that the description of my idea of college did not exist.  Instead I was sent down Wabash Avenue to see buildings scattered all around.  People on the sidewalk didn’t look like students, and there was no “University drive.”  I entered the 1104 S. Wabash building expecting the familiar look of a school building.  What I saw was a stage, a café, and a computer lab suspended above.  Up the elevator I went.  Finally, I saw classrooms as I made my way to the tour group.  Wait, these don’t look like class rooms.  I jokingly asked my group leader, “Is this a school or a hotel?”  He answered, “It used to be.”  It was official; college was not what I expected.

                It is true; many of the buildings at Columbia College Chicago are old office buildings, banks, and hotels.  This sets up all kinds of metaphors that can be linked to Columbia, but mostly it is a place that is constantly changing.  The scattered map of buildings makes Columbia feel more like a district, or a part of town, rather than a college.  When I am at Columbia, I am not a student on a campus; I am a member of the community.  The purpose of college is to prepare individuals with knowledge and skills necessary to operate in the real world.  Columbia seems to have created a community where its students are allowed to experience the “real world,” but on easy mode.  We are all given opportunities to have our work shown, to exercise our skills, and even to have our work purchased.

                Art galleries, everywhere.  Almost every building has one.  They are like mini museums and showcase some of the best art Columbia College Chicago has to offer.  These galleries often stay true to a specific theme.  I spent some time at 618 S. Michigan Avenue on the second floor at the “Collected” gallery.  The theme of this gallery is that each piece was purchased by Columbia College Chicago.

                As I entered the exhibit, I noticed a plethora of attention grabbing pieces.  The piece that I was drawn to first was what appeared to be a cardboard cutout of a man with a giant head alongside an equally large beer bottle.  The piece was titled “Drunk City” and is by an artist simply known as “Don’t Fret.”  I was sucked into this particular piece first because of its size.  The art itself looked as if it were drawn and colored by a talented eight year old with a set of Crayola markers.  Perhaps this was a little too peculiar for me to begin my exhibit trek.  I felt as if I had cannonball’d my way into the frigid waters of abstract art.

The next piece that caught my eye was a 78” x 54” canvas oil painting.  Allow me to paint the canvas on your mind a retelling of “Renunciation,” by artist Brian Willard.  A group of well-dressed but bitter looking elderly people are gathered at the dinner table, which is arranged in a “last supper” style.  The crimson walls blend well with the traditional long wooden table presenting a variety of freshly slaughtered animals such as a goose and a pig.  On the center of the table is a sad woman who appears to be filleting her own skin.  This brings our attention back to the other dinner guests who are focusing their bitter looks on this woman.  I was able to pick up on the message right away and found myself looking at the piece for several extra minutes.  The art was very well drawn and painted.  Traditional enough to please the casual art fan, but definitely unusual enough to fit in with the rest of the “Collected.”

At the end of the gallery was a small dark room playing the exhibit’s one and only video presentation.  I sat down and watched “The Living Fields” for as long as I could.  The volume was almost nonexistent.  It seemed to me that this film relied heavily on audio, so it’s a shame that I could not hear a word of it even when standing right next to the speaker.  I was unimpressed with the visuals and bored within minutes.  All I was able to see were pieces of a naked male figure laying on newspapers and a man, from the chin down, talking.  After giving this film the old college try, I escaped the dark room and ended my tour.

Aside from the video presentation, I was generally impressed with the “Collected.”  As a film student, I will always judge works of my peers more harshly.  However, I had to rely on instinct to assess the rest.  I am not an art critic, but I’ve realized that my presence at Columbia’s “Collected,” instantly turned me into a test audience member for these students.  The art work that makes up the “Collected” has already proven worthy of Columbia College Chicago’s Department of Exhibition and Performance Spaces.  This could be seen as an equivalent of having your work purchased by a museum, but a museum does not make a piece good or interesting; the people do.  I was acting as a test subject that affects the integrity of each artist.  My opinions and critiques are examples of a reaction that would come from the general public.  Columbia College Chicago does not set up art galleries to show off student work like a picture on the refrigerator.  The art on display is being subjected to further evaluation by a controlled version of the general public.

The more I explore the Columbia district outside of class, the more I start to see the unique opportunities we have here.  Non-art students do not always get the same mini exposure tests that we get.  Law enforcement students do not have the chance to patrol around campus making real arrests.  Accountants do not get to set up an office and work with real clients.  Columbia College Chicago gives students opportunities to practice their skills in public.  The theater department puts on real performances, and opens the doors to anyone.  As a future actor, I felt as if it were my duty to be a part of the audience for a student play.

I stopped by the 11^th Street Theater and watched an authentic student work.  The play was called “Ice Cream” and was written by Carolyn Churchill, but directed, and performed by students.

“Ice Cream,” tells the story of two couples, an American man and wife and an English brother and sister. They are implicated in each other's lives more than any of them would wish, and their respective love affairs with each other's countries prove difficult to explain.

                We are introduced to the American couple first.  They appear to be a traditional white, middle class couple vacationing around national parks.  The play quickly becomes confusing because we are introduced to the other two characters separately and none of these people appear to have any connection.  Throughout the play the characters experience some major events including a car crash and a murder.  Finally, the cast gathers together at a Christmas party and we understand why they all belong in the same story.

                It was a bit anti-climactic because we did not witness any of the big events.  Scenes began right after the action and we only get to watch the reaction of the characters.  I understood they wanted the audience to focus on the reactions, and that to actual events were not as important, but if someone gets killed in a story, I want to see it!  Actually, it was interesting to see how these seemingly normal people try to deal with covering up a murder.  The result was funny at times especially when you see how stereotypically “American” the American couple is because it was written by a British woman.  The super cheesy Christmas sweaters were a nice touch.

                The story ended on an awkward note, but actually, I was a bit relieved.  The acting was okay at times, but mostly poor.  The sets were very basic, and the story itself dragged a lot.  I am glad my status at Columbia got me in for free.  “Ice Cream” was intended to be an exercise for advanced theater students to put on a play all by themselves.  As an actor, I am glad I got to see an example of other actors trying to act around a poor script, but as a test audience member, I would have broken out the rotten tomatoes.

                My experience in the 11^th street theater taught me that there is a difference between being a student and being part of the Columbia College collective.  As a student, I am constantly being challenged by my peers to reach the same level of status.  My goal is to test my ability by presenting my work to others in a very real, but very student, like way.  I can also use others to accurately gage my own skills and try to take some useful information out of the experiences.  As a part of the collective, my goal is to experience as much as I can.  Other students rely on the rest of the college to provide feedback.  This feedback is used to gage how well their skills will be received on a much larger scale.

                Columbia College Chicago offers a unique opportunity to artists that are intending a serious career in their major.  The campus is not a typical campus, but instead it blends into the city.  This is a metaphor that Columbia has created a safe, but public environment for students to showcase their work to a controlled version of the public.  I understand my responsibility as a student and as a member of the collective.  As I venture fourth into the real world, I now understand and appreciate the “real life” experiences I shared while attending Columbia College Chicago.

Block Party

                What would you do if you were famous and wealthy?  I, like many others, dream about the answer to this question all the time.  Would you put on a concert with your favorite music and make a documentary about it?  If so, you might be Dave Chappelle, and the result would be “Dave Chappelle’s Block Party.”  This documentary, released in 2005, was made at the height of comedian Dave Chappelle’s career.  For fans of Chappelle’s brand of comedy, you’ll find that he carries his sense of humor with him everywhere, but you will also get a deeper look into his personality as the documentary does not center on comedy.

                The film opens a bit awkwardly as Dave Chappelle tries to spread the news of his upcoming block party to a couple of guys trying to fix a car.  A marching band begins playing in the background, and suddenly Chappelle is using the music to do a little dance and announce the artists performing at his block party.  This opening is a bit strange, but it does a nice job of setting the tone for the documentary.  When I first saw Chappelle emerge, I expected comedy gold, but instead got a sense of the unrehearsed realism of the situation.

                Chappelle sets us up by handing out tickets to folks in his hometown, by driving around New York announcing the concert, and finally by examining the location of the block party.  This gives Chappelle to show the world where he is from.  He stops in a few shops to give viewers a sense of where he lives.  Finally, we go to New York, and Brooklyn.  Chappelle spreads the word of his block party by word of mouth.  Then, he scouts the location.  He takes us into an interesting looking house on the block called the “Angel House.”  Although I admit, it was an interesting place, I imagine the owners made some kind of agreement with Chappelle to show off their home in exchange for permission to use their street for the concert.  The in depth look in the “Angel House” did not appear to have much to do with the block party or Dave Chappelle.

                From this point on, the documentary cut back and forth between the actual concert, and behind the scenes.  I enjoyed this style of editing because it kept the pacing of the documentary engaging.  I imagine if the entire second half of the movies was only concert footage, even fans of the music would lose interest.  We get to learn a bit about each performer, see rehearsal footage, and interviews/antics with Dave Chappelle.  I laughed out loud a few times at Chappelle.  It seems to me that funny people cannot help but be funny.  The Concert seemed like a wonderful experience, and the documentary really makes you wish you could have been there.  Each performer displayed an extreme amount of talent, and although I am not a huge fan of hip hop, I could definitely appreciate the music.

                Anyone who plans to get into the entertainment industry should see this documentary.  “Block Party” is a wonderful example of how someone can take advantage of wealth and fame.  Not only is this a humbling way to throw a self-promoted concert, but Chappelle admits, “This is the greatest moment of my career.”  The documentary is full of messages for African-Americans, and insight for others to learn more about African-Americans.  It is a heartwarming story about a marching band that got a chance to perform with famous artists, ordinary people who got to meet Dave Chappelle, and a famous comedian who got to be himself and watch the concert he always wanted to see.

Jersey Shore: No, still not interested

                Reality TV is, by far, the worst innovation of television programing in our time.  These shows, usually centering around a competition, are slow, boring, and uninspired waists of time.  Viewers will watch thirty minutes, to an hour of show just to find out who will advance and who will leave.  The melodrama centered on these high stake moments seem to be the only reason anyone cares to tune in; or so I thought.  The “Jersey Shore” on MTV is a reality TV show unique in that, it does not center on any kind of competition.  Somehow, this show has become so insanely main-stream without relying on the “high stakes” drama involved with a competition.

                The “Jersey Shore” is a story about eight “guidos,” as they call themselves, that live together in a house.  They’re only obligation is to work part-time at a T-shirt store.  That is it…  That is the summery of the entire show.  Each episode is like a recap of what has been going on in their lives.

                The editing for this show is enough to make me sick.  When you watch “Jersey Shore,” you watch a constant flow of different camera filters, lenses, and camera movement.  The soundtrack is constantly changing depending on the mood of the next five seconds.  Many shots are repeated over and over again as if the creators of the show are particularly proud of getting a shot of this guy turn his head.  The majority of an episode is watching recaps, and previews.  Then, when we are introduced to new content, the pacing is so fast, I can hardly tell what just happened, but don’t worry, they will show it again, and again.

                The actual content of the “Jersey Shore” can be summed up in two words, “Bad Acting.”  After watching several episodes, I have realized that the cast is probably not as dumb as they seem.   Rather, I think they are just really poor actors that react awkwardly around each other.  For example, with a healthy mix of girls and guys, much of the show centers on the relationships they try to develop with each other.  The weakness comes from the way they handle conflicts within these relationships.  We are mostly treated to awkward staring followed by a voiceover/interview style where the actor spells out his or her feelings rather than; um… I don’t know, ACTING!

                It is, however, interesting to see the “Jersey Shore” for what it is.  The show does ask a very interesting question:  “What would you do, if you didn’t have to do anything?”  I think much of the show’s success comes from asking this question because it is something that many people long for.  We get a glimpse into the lives of a group of young adults that have no obligations, and I can see how this idea can be interesting.

                The problem I still have with this show is that it is not entertaining.  Like every other reality TV show, the viewers are just wasting their time rather than enjoying a complex story.  The “Jersey Shore’s” audience is mesmerized by the hypnotic editing  and promises of promiscuity to come.

This song again?

As a DJ, I am forced to listen to top 40 music, a lot.  As a professional, it is my job to remain objective about the music in order to please the client.  As an unprofessional, I get sick and tired of the same uninspired garbage that makes its way on the radio every month.  I often find myself criticizing every popular artist who contributes to the all-powerful top 40, and becoming so irritated that I switch to talk radio.  How does music this terrible keep reaching the top of the charts?  Perhaps that is not the right question to ask.  Perhaps I should be asking:  What is it about this kind of music that appeals to the public?

                Top 40 music is a difficult genre to identify because it is made up of every genre of music.  Also, it is difficult to elaborate on examples of individual songs because the music becomes dated so quickly.  However, the artists of top 40 music tend to make a career out of this brand of music.  I have also noticed that it is not uncommon for individuals to hate top 40 music, but groups of people to be swept away by its generic rhythms and melodies.  It would seem that inspiration and artistic integrity always take a back seat to cheap thrills and selling out. I criticize top 40 music for all these reasons, but maybe I am not looking at it the right way.

                If I look at top 40 music as a product, rather than an art form, I start to see the business behind music.  The music industry can be compared to any other industry in America.  For example, if inspiring and artistically superb music is like a five star restaurant, than top 40 music is like the fast food of music.  Fast food is cheap, easy to produce, and designed to appeal to the general public.  When I view top 40 this way, I start to see its place in our society.  Fast food prays on all the simplest wants of America.  The food is made with little regard for customer’s health, and prays on the customer’s desire to ingest food that is cooked with grease, fat, and sugar.  The music industry produces top 40 music in the same manor.  The music is written with little regard to the customer’s intelligence, and the content prays on the simplest forms of human desire such as sex, drugs, and money.

                Top 40 music is not produced for serious music listeners.  It is made with the intention of being easy to listen to, and easy to interoperate.  America will always pray on the basic desires of the population in order to sell products.  Viewing top 40 music in another light has made me realize that the problem is not in the artists.  It is the job of top 40 artists to appeal to the masses, which means that the fault lies in us.

An in depth look at bras!

A brassiere, or “bra,” in its simplest definition, is an undergarment that covers and supports the breasts.  The bra has become standard amongst females and has long since replaced the corset.  Bras are more practical than corsets, but when used as an item to identify culture, a bra is anything but practical.  A close look at this mysterious undergarment reveals many implications of cultural standards.

                It is important to first identify the purpose of the bra.  Based on the initial definition, a bra’s main purpose can be viewed as the protector of the breasts.  Breasts need to be protected so that the female can use them to nourish their young.  This is not the only reason females protect their breasts.  The support offered by a bra is used to alleviate stress created by gravity which causes breasts to eventually sag.  In present day society, sagging breasts are viewed as a telling of age.  By delaying this process, women are making an effort to uphold a young figure.  This says our culture does not wish to show old age.  The secondary protection offered by a bra is to cover the breasts.  This coverage is an instinct to protect the nipples during periods of lactation.  However, women also use the protection of a bra as a source of empowerment.  Breasts are widely revered as a sexual symbol.  The bra allows a female to hide these symbols of attraction in order to gain power over perusing males (or other females.)  However, this deduction raises a deeper philosophical question.  Are breasts covered because they are sexual symbols, or do they become sexual symbols because they are covered?  The answer to this question might be found by taking a closer look at the bra.

                Bras have a very unique shape.  In fact, the shape of the bra cannot easily be compared to any other existing objects.  With the stretch of an eye, a bra tends to have the same basic shape as a pair of goggles. Goggles are used to protect the eyes while still allowing a person to see.  The shape of a bra tends to allow a female basic protection of her breasts while still allowing her breasts to be seen.  Females use the shape of their breasts as a method of attracting a mate.  Like goggles, a bra is used to show off the shape while keeping the breasts protected.  Bras also come in a variety of colors.  Females have the ability to wear a bra that matches the rest of her outfit.  As an undergarment, a bra is not generally seen in public.  By offering a wide variety of colors, this says females view the bra as more than a tool, but also a statement of fashion.  This statement seems to advocate the mystery and sex appeal of breasts.

                In addition to color, bras offer a wide variety of styles and sizes.  Some bras offer padded cups which are meant to enhance the assumed size of the breasts.  This says that females are concerned about their breast size and use the bra as a method of deception in order to attract a mate.  Some bras are designed to push up the breasts, and force them closer together to enhance cleavage.   This reinforces the ideology that females yearn to look young.  This type of bra forces the breasts into a position that appear to make them seem perky and well proportioned.  Some bras are elaborately decorated with lace and frills.  This, again, reinforces the ideology that a bra is used as an attractor as well as a protector.

                The bra is a tool that is used by women in a variety of ways.  Its main objectives are to both protect and enhance the breasts.  With all the methods of deception a bra can provide, what does it say about our culture and our expectations?  This deception might explain that females in our culture understand that the bra is a stronger method of attraction than the breasts behind it.  There are many more mysteries that can be unraveled by taking a close look at bras, but sometimes, they are just too hard to unhook.