Moravian First Year Seminars in NYC
Throughout the fall semester of 2011, Moravian College students enrolled in the first-year seminars "The Great Museums of New York" and "Broadway and Beyond: NYC Plays, Players, and Playwrights" will reflect here on what they've learned as they have traveled throughout New York City.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Overall Success
Overall, I would say the fall semester was a success. I learned a lot and gained many experiences from this LinC class. Every trip to the museums brought a new feeling and something to be gained. This class opened my eyes to a new way to interpret art. Art isn't only paintings or drawings or pictures. Art is truly in the eyes of the beholder. It is a form of expression. It expresses ones feelings, and sometimes nothing at all. It can be the result of pure boredom, or skillful representation. Either way, art is what you make of it. It has no defined medium and no boundaries. This class taught me that, and I am glad it did. There is no limit to what one can create when they put their heart into it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
MoMa and Chelsea
Having already been to MoMa this semester, I already new what to expect. Like the first trip, I expected to be underimpressed. However, with less required assignments this time, I found I was more able to see what I wanted and have more time to do so.
One of my assignments was to analyze the de Kooning exhibit. I undersdtood that his brushstrokes and color choices had to do with emotions he was feeling and that all of his paintings had deeper meanings than what a viewer originally sees. However, even with this understanding I found it difficult to fully appreciate. I understand that his paintings are expressive and emotional and I appreciate that. I also can't say de Kooning wasn't talented. What I don't agree with is why he's famous. Anyone given paint can express themself on paper. Their emotions are just as real as de Kooning's and yet the person will never have their own exhibit in a museum so what is it that separates him?
With th de Kooning exhibit as my only assignment, I had more time to look around at what I considered the interesting parts of MoMa. I enjoyed the 3d works the most because I didn't have to look at them as an "art critic" so to say but I could instead interact with them. It was interesting to see everyone in the group's reactions to different pieces rather than their artistic evaluations.
The trip left a lot of free time between leaving MoMa and heading for Chelsea during which time a few of us broke off and explored central park and the lobbies of the ritziest hotels in New York including the Plaza. This was definitely an experience! I learned so much by just being in the city. Chelsea ended up being just as interesting. I actually enjoyed the galleries there more than MoMa. It was so exciting to find a new gallery because there was no way of knowing what was inside. There were some galleries that we literally had to climb over the artwork just to get inside. The galleries were much more interactive than the museum and the artists weren't famous. I think the fact they weren't famous made me appreciate their work even more. These people weren't creating art for profit or because they thought someone would like to hang it in their house; they were creating art to express themselves. To me, this is the truest form of art, uninfluenced by the perception of what art "should" be. The Romans said it best: "Ars gratia artis" or "art for the sake of art."
One of my assignments was to analyze the de Kooning exhibit. I undersdtood that his brushstrokes and color choices had to do with emotions he was feeling and that all of his paintings had deeper meanings than what a viewer originally sees. However, even with this understanding I found it difficult to fully appreciate. I understand that his paintings are expressive and emotional and I appreciate that. I also can't say de Kooning wasn't talented. What I don't agree with is why he's famous. Anyone given paint can express themself on paper. Their emotions are just as real as de Kooning's and yet the person will never have their own exhibit in a museum so what is it that separates him?
With th de Kooning exhibit as my only assignment, I had more time to look around at what I considered the interesting parts of MoMa. I enjoyed the 3d works the most because I didn't have to look at them as an "art critic" so to say but I could instead interact with them. It was interesting to see everyone in the group's reactions to different pieces rather than their artistic evaluations.
The trip left a lot of free time between leaving MoMa and heading for Chelsea during which time a few of us broke off and explored central park and the lobbies of the ritziest hotels in New York including the Plaza. This was definitely an experience! I learned so much by just being in the city. Chelsea ended up being just as interesting. I actually enjoyed the galleries there more than MoMa. It was so exciting to find a new gallery because there was no way of knowing what was inside. There were some galleries that we literally had to climb over the artwork just to get inside. The galleries were much more interactive than the museum and the artists weren't famous. I think the fact they weren't famous made me appreciate their work even more. These people weren't creating art for profit or because they thought someone would like to hang it in their house; they were creating art to express themselves. To me, this is the truest form of art, uninfluenced by the perception of what art "should" be. The Romans said it best: "Ars gratia artis" or "art for the sake of art."
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Semester in Review :)
Looking back on this semester as it comes to a close, I cannot believe that I traipsed around the crowded streets of New York City with my First Year Seminar class FIVE TIMES. Although it was definitely difficult to balance with the marching band’s football schedule, in hindsight I am definitely glad that I made the decision to join this class—the main reason for this being that I got the opportunity to see and do so many things that I would not otherwise have gotten to see or do.
For example, prior to this class, I had only seen one Broadway show. And since it had been a while since I had seen the show, I had somewhat forgotten what the experience of viewing a Broadway show was like. There is nothing quite like live theater, I was once again reminded. Indeed, regardless of people’s opinions regarding the more critical aspects of the show, there is just something special about the “live” aspect of it that no technological advancements can adequately replace, really. (Note, too, that these positive words are coming from one who would have much preferred to see Mary Poppins and The Lion King over Hair and Spiderman. On the other hand, though, Warhorse is a play that I probably would never have made time to see outside of this class, but I am so thoroughly glad that I went, as that production was completely phenomenal.
It is a similar situation with the museums that we got to visit. For instance, I had heard of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum prior to this class, and I had heard about Frank Lloyd Wright and his geometric architecture (particularly focusing on curves). However, I had never actually seen the museum, just as I had never actually seen in person a building whose architecture was a “product” of Frank Lloyd Wright’s. In our visit to the Guggenheim, I beheld both an incredibly designed museum and an incredible example of Frank Lloyd Wright’s telling style of architectural design.
Of all of our museum visits, I think my biggest shock in general came from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Again, of course I had heard of the Met. But for all of its fame, I myself had never seen it, for one reason or another. Before I even entered it, I was amazed at the sheer size of it, and its impressive architecture. This amazement only continued to increase as we meandered through a mere few of the many, many sections of the museum. Not only was the place large in size, but it had a seemingly endless supply of art on display. We would go from room to room and I could not stop being stunned by the immense quantity of art. The Met seems like one of those places that you could go to practically every day without it ever getting old.
In addition, the Lower East Side Tenement Museum and the Museum of the American Indian were very interesting. I also enjoyed attending the MAAFA Suite performance, and visiting the Museum of Modern Art and the Museum of the City of New York. The variation among our trip itineraries was what made the trips as a whole worthwhile.
For example, prior to this class, I had only seen one Broadway show. And since it had been a while since I had seen the show, I had somewhat forgotten what the experience of viewing a Broadway show was like. There is nothing quite like live theater, I was once again reminded. Indeed, regardless of people’s opinions regarding the more critical aspects of the show, there is just something special about the “live” aspect of it that no technological advancements can adequately replace, really. (Note, too, that these positive words are coming from one who would have much preferred to see Mary Poppins and The Lion King over Hair and Spiderman. On the other hand, though, Warhorse is a play that I probably would never have made time to see outside of this class, but I am so thoroughly glad that I went, as that production was completely phenomenal.
It is a similar situation with the museums that we got to visit. For instance, I had heard of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum prior to this class, and I had heard about Frank Lloyd Wright and his geometric architecture (particularly focusing on curves). However, I had never actually seen the museum, just as I had never actually seen in person a building whose architecture was a “product” of Frank Lloyd Wright’s. In our visit to the Guggenheim, I beheld both an incredibly designed museum and an incredible example of Frank Lloyd Wright’s telling style of architectural design.
Of all of our museum visits, I think my biggest shock in general came from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Again, of course I had heard of the Met. But for all of its fame, I myself had never seen it, for one reason or another. Before I even entered it, I was amazed at the sheer size of it, and its impressive architecture. This amazement only continued to increase as we meandered through a mere few of the many, many sections of the museum. Not only was the place large in size, but it had a seemingly endless supply of art on display. We would go from room to room and I could not stop being stunned by the immense quantity of art. The Met seems like one of those places that you could go to practically every day without it ever getting old.
In addition, the Lower East Side Tenement Museum and the Museum of the American Indian were very interesting. I also enjoyed attending the MAAFA Suite performance, and visiting the Museum of Modern Art and the Museum of the City of New York. The variation among our trip itineraries was what made the trips as a whole worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
