Thursday, May 19, 2011
BMA Exhibit-to make up for NYC trip
I found many of the pieces at the BMA Photo Exhibit really interesting, yet unfortunatly not all of them. I found for the most part most of the exhibit to be disembodied, and that it didn't really flow that well together. Just because you get a group of photos that were taken at the same time, they are still by different people artists and hard to piece all of the different subjects together. Since I have been studying photography, I have always been told to look at Cindy Sherman's work. The couple of pieces that were there, I have seen before in books or online and seeing them in person did not really do much for me. I still found what they showed to be interesting though (and not to mention that there was a John Waters in the middle of two of her photos too, which I actually loved the randomness of the location!). And as previously mentioned in class, I think everyone was interested with Larry Clark's Tulsa series. The nature of the photos today does not seem that shocking, maybe even when they were taken, it wasn't that shocking, I honestly couldn't say. I think it might be that then and now it is shocking to a a certain class of people, and the rest of us, we have seen it before. I would not call all of the pictures beautiful either, some of them were a little mundane to me. There were some moments that I found too predictable (really a junky is starting to nod off, no way...), yet there were other pictures that seemed to tell a story or make me want to know the story that i found really appealing and made me stare at them too long. I'm glad I saw some of the pieces that were there, some of them I could have skipped though.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Trees!
" “Landslide: Every Tree Tells a Story,” an outdoor photo exhibition, opens Saturday at LongHouse Reserve in East Hampton, N.Y., in homage to some of the country’s most venerable (and vulnerable) trees. Inspired by the Cultural Landscape Foundation’s 2010 Landslide, the most recent list of endangered landscapes released by the nonprofit preservation group, the show includes such heroic trees as the American elms of East Hampton (photographed by Garie Waltzer), which still form a leafy canopy over village streets despite disease and the ravages of time. Others include thousands planted by Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. and his sons in the 1890s, in Louisville, Ky. (photographed by Bob Hower, above), many of which have been lost to pollution, development and tornadoes."
There is something about light shining through trees that I find intriguing. Since I was a kid my family and I always went camping. I really miss campgrounds and National Parks, I would love to go and photograph them again.
Stink bugs, boo.
I have lived in Maryland for six years now, and last summer was the first time I had ever seen these so called 'stink bugs.' I am from California, and stink bugs there are something completely different. Those bugs are black beetles half the size of my thumb, and they stick there rear in the air and if you are standing you can smell them all the way from where they are on the ground. When I moved up from Southern Maryland and I heard someone use the term stink bug, I honestly thought they were out of their mind. I also had a conversation about how bad they smell if you smash one, to which I did, and I could not smell a thing, maybe I was expecting something close to the California stink bugs (the smell came absolutely nowhere close...).
Now me along with everyone else had to deal with them coming into their house, this did not really bother me either, I am not squeamish around bugs and i would just grab them and put them right back outside. The only thing that really bothered me was them making their loud buzzing sound and smacking against walls while I was trying to get to sleep.
But I guess the bigger problem besides them coming into people's houses is that they are going through a lot of the fruit that is being grown for mass production.
Let's just say they suck...But can we please call them something besides 'stink bugs,' because I don't think it fits...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/garden/21garden.html?pagewanted=1#
Now me along with everyone else had to deal with them coming into their house, this did not really bother me either, I am not squeamish around bugs and i would just grab them and put them right back outside. The only thing that really bothered me was them making their loud buzzing sound and smacking against walls while I was trying to get to sleep.
But I guess the bigger problem besides them coming into people's houses is that they are going through a lot of the fruit that is being grown for mass production.
Let's just say they suck...But can we please call them something besides 'stink bugs,' because I don't think it fits...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/garden/21garden.html?pagewanted=1#
Women being hailed as action stars? No way!
" [women] have been shooting and not just clawing their way into macho territory. Is this empowerment or exploitation? Feminism or fetishism? The chief film critics of The New York Times, Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott, discuss the new pow, crash and splat."
I will keep this one short and sweet because I think this article is not focusing enough on film history and how that also influences how far movies and women in those movies has come today (they do briefly mention "I Spit on Your Grave" but say absolutely nothing about it). The article focuses on movies that are coming out this summer, or that even came out last summer and the women who are portrayed as kicking ass in them. Also as a nation are we ready or do we want to see women portrayed this way? And why in half of these movies are the women being tortured and then trying to get back or then realizing their strength only after something horrible happens to them? Or women being held captive and then realizing their potential and ass kicking their way out of the situation they are in? Many comic movies are coming out this summer, with male leads, and with female co-stars, some are tough in them, some are passive. The article states how some of the movies that are coming out are having the females as the leads and letting them 'show their stuff.' The problem with this, is how the women actually being portrayed, are we glamorizing their femininity and strength or are we putting them in tight clothes and making them masochistic and strong because that is what the male viewer wants to see?
My biggest problem with this article is that we have already gone through this period on our film history, maybe we are just finally coming back around to wanting to see strong women on screen, even if they are using violence to get what they want.
There are many Russ Meyer movies that I could mention but the one that really comes to mind is "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" (1965) Really women are violent in the movies that are coming out this summer?? Only after they are brutally raped of course (the girl with the dragon tattoo series), these women looked good and beat the hell out of anyone who crossed their path, why? Because they could. There also was an entire genre of movies in the seventies that came out that was to see how far filmmakers could push the limits, and what better way to do that, than to use women and violence?
So please, let's make people see some of these movies before we mention how violent women are getting in movies that are now coming out. The movies will appear tame compared to how women were viewed in some of the "shock" movies.
"To avoid fainting, keep repeating, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/movies/women-as-violent-characters-in-movies.html?_r=1&ref=arts
I will keep this one short and sweet because I think this article is not focusing enough on film history and how that also influences how far movies and women in those movies has come today (they do briefly mention "I Spit on Your Grave" but say absolutely nothing about it). The article focuses on movies that are coming out this summer, or that even came out last summer and the women who are portrayed as kicking ass in them. Also as a nation are we ready or do we want to see women portrayed this way? And why in half of these movies are the women being tortured and then trying to get back or then realizing their strength only after something horrible happens to them? Or women being held captive and then realizing their potential and ass kicking their way out of the situation they are in? Many comic movies are coming out this summer, with male leads, and with female co-stars, some are tough in them, some are passive. The article states how some of the movies that are coming out are having the females as the leads and letting them 'show their stuff.' The problem with this, is how the women actually being portrayed, are we glamorizing their femininity and strength or are we putting them in tight clothes and making them masochistic and strong because that is what the male viewer wants to see?
My biggest problem with this article is that we have already gone through this period on our film history, maybe we are just finally coming back around to wanting to see strong women on screen, even if they are using violence to get what they want.
There are many Russ Meyer movies that I could mention but the one that really comes to mind is "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" (1965) Really women are violent in the movies that are coming out this summer?? Only after they are brutally raped of course (the girl with the dragon tattoo series), these women looked good and beat the hell out of anyone who crossed their path, why? Because they could. There also was an entire genre of movies in the seventies that came out that was to see how far filmmakers could push the limits, and what better way to do that, than to use women and violence?
So please, let's make people see some of these movies before we mention how violent women are getting in movies that are now coming out. The movies will appear tame compared to how women were viewed in some of the "shock" movies.
"To avoid fainting, keep repeating, it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/movies/women-as-violent-characters-in-movies.html?_r=1&ref=arts
Smithsonian Latino Museum?
So apparently there is debate on whether or not the Smithsonian should build a Latino based museum. Grant it we are a nation of multi-cultural people, but as the article states, would people even want to visit the museum? My mother is part Mexican, making me in turn part also, and I can honestly say I am not that interested in the concept. What will they tell me that I do not already know?
I also had this problem with the American Indian Museum (which somewhere down the line I am also a tiny percentage), and apparently I was not the only one. The American Indian Museum takes the perspective of an 'insider.' I do not know if this is what turned me off about the museum, so much that it was almost just four floors of nothing. There was parts of the museum that focused on the 'modern' Native Americans and it was just mainly sad. I have never been to a reservation, but from what I hear, are not really the best or nicest places to be.
The discussion of the article also makes an interesting point, where do we stop the nationality museums at? Irish, Scottish, Latino, German, etc. On the Mall there is an African American and American Indian Museum, are we going to break down every culture that we have here, and if we did where would all of these museums fit? The article states that there is limited real estate on the National Mall, and do we really want to fill that up with a Latino Museum? Again, I do not think the average person is really interested in going to another cultural museum unfortunately.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/26/should-we-have-a-national-latino-museum/an-era-of-decreasing-resources-for-all-museums
I also had this problem with the American Indian Museum (which somewhere down the line I am also a tiny percentage), and apparently I was not the only one. The American Indian Museum takes the perspective of an 'insider.' I do not know if this is what turned me off about the museum, so much that it was almost just four floors of nothing. There was parts of the museum that focused on the 'modern' Native Americans and it was just mainly sad. I have never been to a reservation, but from what I hear, are not really the best or nicest places to be.
The discussion of the article also makes an interesting point, where do we stop the nationality museums at? Irish, Scottish, Latino, German, etc. On the Mall there is an African American and American Indian Museum, are we going to break down every culture that we have here, and if we did where would all of these museums fit? The article states that there is limited real estate on the National Mall, and do we really want to fill that up with a Latino Museum? Again, I do not think the average person is really interested in going to another cultural museum unfortunately.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/26/should-we-have-a-national-latino-museum/an-era-of-decreasing-resources-for-all-museums
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Jonesing For Mad Men
So apparently there will not be any episodes of Mad Men this summer. I am aware that not everyone watches the show, and I am not really sure why I do either...The women are for the most part passive and the all the men are drunks. Yet there is something about the show that when you watch an entire season you get completely sucked in and you don't realize that you have just sat through twelve hours of television, because they are not one episode after another but a complete story that you as the viewer also get involved in.
Yet this whole situation is just turing into a he said/(s)he said. AMC is blaming the delay on the show's creator Matthew Weiner. He is blaming it on disputes between AMC and Lionsgate. Weiner is objecting to AMC wanting to get rid of two characters and even shortening the episode time just to save a little bit of money. Also Lionsgate and AMC are arguing about who will get more money from each episode.
I am aware that this is the way Hollywood works, people want money, and they will stop all production until they get what they want. We as the viewer or as fans of the show might not appreciate this or like it all, but there is nothing that can happen until they figure out what they are doing with the show. If you like the show then you will probably agree, it sucks that we might not see new episodes until 2012...BOO!
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/amc-confirms-mad-men-delay-over-contract-dispute/
Yet this whole situation is just turing into a he said/(s)he said. AMC is blaming the delay on the show's creator Matthew Weiner. He is blaming it on disputes between AMC and Lionsgate. Weiner is objecting to AMC wanting to get rid of two characters and even shortening the episode time just to save a little bit of money. Also Lionsgate and AMC are arguing about who will get more money from each episode.
I am aware that this is the way Hollywood works, people want money, and they will stop all production until they get what they want. We as the viewer or as fans of the show might not appreciate this or like it all, but there is nothing that can happen until they figure out what they are doing with the show. If you like the show then you will probably agree, it sucks that we might not see new episodes until 2012...BOO!
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/amc-confirms-mad-men-delay-over-contract-dispute/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)