For my final piece I would like to do a profile of the graffiti artist Blu. Blu is an Italian street-artist who is revolutionizing the world of street-art, especially with his animated graffiti-art. His unique style moves away from the conventional ‘tagging’ style of most street-artists. He uses many plain colors; white, light blue, grey, to paint an arsenal of surreal characters on walls all around the world.
There are several key points I would like to focus on for this piece. Fist, I would like to talk about the evolving world of street and graffiti-art. New technology and a rising acceptance of graffiti-art have completely revolutionized the discipline. This, combined with rising acceptance of graffiti-art and the rise of new street-art festivals around the world (Fame Festival, Names Festival) have expanded the opportunities for graffiti-artists. This fact has morphed the identity of a street-artist from a hooligan to a potentially famous artist (as is the case with Blu.) Blu himself has traveled the world to do his art.
Animated graffiti-art especially brings a whole new notion of what is possible in art, and is an up-and-coming style. I would like to use specific videos of single and collaborative animated street-art from Blu to talk about this discipline specifically. I would also like to use several interviews with Blu’s contemporaries (using a pseudonym he does not do interviews) as further research on the current state of graffiti-art.
I would also like to touch on Blu’s use of a pseudonym, his rise to fame, and his large breadth of work. A very important part of his pieces come in the political message he works into the paintings; this is a key point in my article. My main sources include Blu’s website (blublu.org), which includes a large collection of his work, the wide compilation of videos of his work, video-interviews with his contemporaries and collaborators, and the websites of street-art festivals.
This is relevant because it is a currently changing and evolving discipline of art and Blu is one of the flagships of these changes. I have been following Blu for several years now and am aware of many of his pieces, even ones that are not on his website. This makes me the perfect person to write this article.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Graham Parsons House Show
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds, a Kalamazoo band, played a local show on the night of Feburary 20th at 444 Locust Street. Around 9:00 the house began to fill up. A B.Y.O.B. decorum had not discouraged a house full of party-goers from venturing into the bitter-cold night in search for good live music. Only about 50 people were able to squeeze into the basement. These lucky few got the good live music they were looking for.
People were squished into every possible nook and cranny by the time this five-man act started playing at around 9:45. The band started with a few up-beat tunes that got the crowd dancing, in the spaces that they could. The band’s rock and country influences showed and every so often the group smoothed into a bluesy rift that buckled the knees. Andy Catlin (K’09) manned the keys and completed the quintet with fiery fingers on these fast numbers. The Go-arounds didn’t shy away from a few slower songs either – much appreciated breaks in the otherwise high-energy set. On these songs the pure vocals of Graham Parsons led a soul-filled progression, aided by harmonies from the other two microphones on stage. These guys could really sing.
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds is comprised of Graham A. Parsons, the band’s front-man, on lead guitar and vocals. Grant Littler on guitar, Ted Kloosterman on bass, and Adam Danis on drums make up a killer rhythms section; and Andy Catlin (K’09) supplements on keyboards and guitar. This band has chemistry. The continuation of an old project, Toro and the National Guard (minus a few), the group seems to have found their nitch with this act. A constant morphing of folk, soul, blues, country and rock music, the band seems to have reached a happy medium in their upcoming release of a three-song EP (available on myspace music.)
The band’s new identity comes with a new tour around the state over the next few months. That means less shows for Graham Parsons fans in Kalamazoo. The locals soaked up their time with the band on this night, calling out for “one more song” three or four times at the end of the set. Graham and company were all too happy to oblige the audience, slowing things down for a bit only to end with a raucous last song featuring Catlin on the guitar this time. The set ended at about 11:00 and the crowds lingered only long enough to watch the band pack up and to exchange a few words with the boys. The next act played to a mostly-empty basement as the party followed Graham and his vagabonds into the night.
People were squished into every possible nook and cranny by the time this five-man act started playing at around 9:45. The band started with a few up-beat tunes that got the crowd dancing, in the spaces that they could. The band’s rock and country influences showed and every so often the group smoothed into a bluesy rift that buckled the knees. Andy Catlin (K’09) manned the keys and completed the quintet with fiery fingers on these fast numbers. The Go-arounds didn’t shy away from a few slower songs either – much appreciated breaks in the otherwise high-energy set. On these songs the pure vocals of Graham Parsons led a soul-filled progression, aided by harmonies from the other two microphones on stage. These guys could really sing.
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds is comprised of Graham A. Parsons, the band’s front-man, on lead guitar and vocals. Grant Littler on guitar, Ted Kloosterman on bass, and Adam Danis on drums make up a killer rhythms section; and Andy Catlin (K’09) supplements on keyboards and guitar. This band has chemistry. The continuation of an old project, Toro and the National Guard (minus a few), the group seems to have found their nitch with this act. A constant morphing of folk, soul, blues, country and rock music, the band seems to have reached a happy medium in their upcoming release of a three-song EP (available on myspace music.)
The band’s new identity comes with a new tour around the state over the next few months. That means less shows for Graham Parsons fans in Kalamazoo. The locals soaked up their time with the band on this night, calling out for “one more song” three or four times at the end of the set. Graham and company were all too happy to oblige the audience, slowing things down for a bit only to end with a raucous last song featuring Catlin on the guitar this time. The set ended at about 11:00 and the crowds lingered only long enough to watch the band pack up and to exchange a few words with the boys. The next act played to a mostly-empty basement as the party followed Graham and his vagabonds into the night.
Kael Revisited
Pauline Kael drew upon a highly familiar tone in her writing as a way to connect with her readership. This aspect of her style tends to conflict with her tendency towards elevated language in her reviews. This contrast, coupled with several other techniques act to separate her voice from any sort of objective truth within arts-journalism – despite the longevity of her career.
Kael’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense of authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority is derived, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kael that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false sense of authority and Kael often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kael once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as ‘Ms. Pauline Kael, lead critic for the New Yorker.’ She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements sting in an attempt to twist her audience’s arms into compliance. In her review or Victorrio De Sica’s Shoeshine, Kael writes,
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
Certainly no one wants to be incompetent of feeling these deep emotions that such an ‘authority’ as Kael does – or at least she suggests as much through the tone of the sentence.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
For Renata Adler this is characterized in Kael’s “overuse of certain fraises.” She points to her use of words ending ‘ized’ as well as her abundant use of slang words like ‘twerpy’ and ‘dopey.’ For me this element of Kael’s style conflicts with the elevated language used to connect with her New Yorker readership. Although this mix works well for those who customarily read the magazine it alienates audiences outside of that faction. This seems contrary to a way “people spoke about the movies.” It puts a contingent on which people and does not appeal to a wide audience.
Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest - further separating her voice from any sort of objective truth in media-critique. In my eyes, techniques sometimes viewed as supplementary to her strong arguments only detract from a point of view drawn from a false sense of authority.
Kael’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense of authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority is derived, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kael that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false sense of authority and Kael often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kael once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as ‘Ms. Pauline Kael, lead critic for the New Yorker.’ She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements sting in an attempt to twist her audience’s arms into compliance. In her review or Victorrio De Sica’s Shoeshine, Kael writes,
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
Certainly no one wants to be incompetent of feeling these deep emotions that such an ‘authority’ as Kael does – or at least she suggests as much through the tone of the sentence.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
For Renata Adler this is characterized in Kael’s “overuse of certain fraises.” She points to her use of words ending ‘ized’ as well as her abundant use of slang words like ‘twerpy’ and ‘dopey.’ For me this element of Kael’s style conflicts with the elevated language used to connect with her New Yorker readership. Although this mix works well for those who customarily read the magazine it alienates audiences outside of that faction. This seems contrary to a way “people spoke about the movies.” It puts a contingent on which people and does not appeal to a wide audience.
Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest - further separating her voice from any sort of objective truth in media-critique. In my eyes, techniques sometimes viewed as supplementary to her strong arguments only detract from a point of view drawn from a false sense of authority.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Blind Following
Pauline Kale’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation, though, comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority comes, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kale that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false authority and Kale often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kale once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Cutch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as “Ms. Pauline Kale, lead critic for the New Yorker.” She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements like
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
sting line this line does in her review of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine. Certainly no one wants to be unable to experience the radiance of a movie like Ms. Kale does.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
Renata Adler also talks about this affect in her overuse of certain fraises. “She also likes words ending in ‘ized’ (‘vegetablized,’ robotized,’ ‘aestheticized,’…) and a kind of slang (‘twerpy,’ ‘dopey,’ ‘dumb,’ …)which amounts, in prose, to an affectation of straigforwardness.” This, though, conflicted with an elevated language in discourse that acted to alienate any readership that was much less educated that that over her New Yorker readership.
These tools fooled many a reader into agreeing with her take on the movie or at least respecting it. I am not so easily fooled. Though. Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest in my eyes and further to separate her voice from any objective truth in media critique.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation, though, comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority comes, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kale that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false authority and Kale often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kale once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Cutch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as “Ms. Pauline Kale, lead critic for the New Yorker.” She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements like
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
sting line this line does in her review of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine. Certainly no one wants to be unable to experience the radiance of a movie like Ms. Kale does.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
Renata Adler also talks about this affect in her overuse of certain fraises. “She also likes words ending in ‘ized’ (‘vegetablized,’ robotized,’ ‘aestheticized,’…) and a kind of slang (‘twerpy,’ ‘dopey,’ ‘dumb,’ …)which amounts, in prose, to an affectation of straigforwardness.” This, though, conflicted with an elevated language in discourse that acted to alienate any readership that was much less educated that that over her New Yorker readership.
These tools fooled many a reader into agreeing with her take on the movie or at least respecting it. I am not so easily fooled. Though. Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest in my eyes and further to separate her voice from any objective truth in media critique.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Jon Pareles NYTimes Defense
The Article I'm Defending!
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
Connecting Narrative with Arts Review
"Venus in Fur" Review
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
English Facult Reading: Fostering a Sense of Family
The last Wednesday in January marked this year’s English faculty reading at Kalamazoo College. The ceremony was sited by Gail Griffin, who opened the reading, as being an event that aimed to “generate a little light” during this long, gloomy Michigan winter. She then introduced two visiting members of the English faculty, welcoming them to their first faculty reading at K. This immediately worked to establish a sense of family within the department. A jam-packed family it was indeed as the Olmstead Room of Mandelle Hall was filled with students and friends of the faculty– there was only standing room available for the last few arrivals of the nearly 100 audience members. Dr. Griffin then passed off the microphone to the department’s “fearless leader,” Andy Mozina.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
