At 7:22 PM last night, an American Idol fan from Wichita, Kansas became the 10,000th visitor to my blog. His visit may have lasted less than a second, but it still counts!
I started this blog a year and a half ago as a way to communicate with students. It didn't work; instead I get baseball fans. Oh, well, it still works out to about 20 visits a day, and even excluding immediate family, that means I'm popular. Not enough to sell ads, but popular enough that I continue to write baseball updates.
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving!
A year ago, I wrote one of my most popular postings about all the things I have to be thankful for.
This year I have all the same things to appreciate, and one thing more... our dog Riley. My wife Rachel found Riley for us last January, and he has been a hugely positive influence in our lives. Dogs are wonderful. He is a pisher at times, but more often than not, he is a bundle of undying love. I always feel better when I get home and see him jumping for joy (literally). I think everyone should have a dog.
This year we celebrated with a fantastic dinner, and then watching USC beat Arizona State, which brings USC one step closer to the Rose Bowl. They still have to beat UCLA next week as their final regular game of the season.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film
PBS ran an excellent 4-hour documentary about Andy Warhol. If you are a fan of his, I highly recommend it. A few years ago there was an excellent exhibition at MOCA LA comparing his early commercial work with his later works, which I found fascinating. In fact, we went in the wrong entrance and ended up looking at the later work first, which made it very interesting to see his early drawings. Even if you're not a fan of his art, I think any art student would have to admit that he had an enormous influence on contemporary art. I think John Cage was interesting as a composer because many of the pieces he wrote challenged the audience to think about the definition of music.Warhol's works did the same, asking the audience to think about the definition of art.
I've seen several films about Warhol, including a couple of documentaries, and this one is by far the most all-encompassing. Of particular interest is the first hour, which covers the early part of his life, and which is the part least covered in other films.
Although it might seem like 4 hours is a long time to spend on one person, you still get the feeling when you're done that you have barely learned about this man. That's not a reflection on the quality of the doc, it's a reflection on how complex he was, and how much of an enigma he made himself to the public. He was one of the most famous people in the 20th century, yet most people know almost nothing about him, even people who were close to him.
I've seen several films about Warhol, including a couple of documentaries, and this one is by far the most all-encompassing. Of particular interest is the first hour, which covers the early part of his life, and which is the part least covered in other films.
Although it might seem like 4 hours is a long time to spend on one person, you still get the feeling when you're done that you have barely learned about this man. That's not a reflection on the quality of the doc, it's a reflection on how complex he was, and how much of an enigma he made himself to the public. He was one of the most famous people in the 20th century, yet most people know almost nothing about him, even people who were close to him.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Norton Simon
Last night I took the time to visit the Norton Simon museum in Pasadena. It's something I've been meaning to do for years. I highly recommend it. They have a split collection. One half of the museum is Renaissance and earlier (including a lot of Indian art), the other is 19th century and beyond. Although there are some great works in the Renaissance collection, I prefer the contemporary works. There are three Van Gogh paintings, any one of which alone would make the visit worthwhile.
The museum is free the first Friday night of every month. It was not crowded last night. It's not a huge museum, so you can do a good walk-through in about two hours.
The museum is free the first Friday night of every month. It was not crowded last night. It's not a huge museum, so you can do a good walk-through in about two hours.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Richard Schickel's Asinine Opinion
Richard Schickel argues that only the elite should be allowed to criticize, and that Blogging is nothing more than "talking."
"Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise." (The poorly conjugated verb is his, not mine.)
Arguing for a purely elitist critical world is the equivalent of a totalitarian society in which the definition of art is determined by a few powerful people (like Stalin or Hitler). Criticism is the ultimate democracy. As the then-future governor once said, "Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one."
Some of us ARE one. Schickel needs to catch up with a new century. (Perhaps the 20th would be enough.) He argues that one of the purposes of criticism is to open a dialogue across the ages, then implies that the web is somehow inferior at this, when it is by definition more appropriate than traditional print criticism at opening dialogue.
He argues that film critics must have "credentials" other than "loving film" in order to write. One of my favorite film critics is James Berardinelli. He was trained as an engineer, has no formal critical training, and loves movies. His reviews are not "for print, with its implication of permanence" but instead are on the web, where criticism is, more than ever, the dialogue that will last through the ages.
Worst of all, Schickel argues that "Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing" in an article that is nothing but... HIS OPINION! He doesn't even understand his own writing.
If anyone should have his critical license revoked, it's Schickel.
"Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise." (The poorly conjugated verb is his, not mine.)
Arguing for a purely elitist critical world is the equivalent of a totalitarian society in which the definition of art is determined by a few powerful people (like Stalin or Hitler). Criticism is the ultimate democracy. As the then-future governor once said, "Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one."
Some of us ARE one. Schickel needs to catch up with a new century. (Perhaps the 20th would be enough.) He argues that one of the purposes of criticism is to open a dialogue across the ages, then implies that the web is somehow inferior at this, when it is by definition more appropriate than traditional print criticism at opening dialogue.
He argues that film critics must have "credentials" other than "loving film" in order to write. One of my favorite film critics is James Berardinelli. He was trained as an engineer, has no formal critical training, and loves movies. His reviews are not "for print, with its implication of permanence" but instead are on the web, where criticism is, more than ever, the dialogue that will last through the ages.
Worst of all, Schickel argues that "Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing" in an article that is nothing but... HIS OPINION! He doesn't even understand his own writing.
If anyone should have his critical license revoked, it's Schickel.
Friday, December 29, 2006
CECI N'EST PAS MAGRITTE
The Magritte exhibit at LACMA is worth visiting. However, half of the pieces are NOT by Magritte, but by people who were influenced by him, and much of that material is weak and unoriginal.
Magritte's art is pretty simple, which is probably why it is so popular. The average person can look at it and see something. If anything, it is at times TOO simple. He himself said that you should not try to read symbolism into his paintings, nor were they motivated by dreams. When you knock those two ideas out of the equation, there's not much left.
There were an awful lot of people at the exhibit. I had assumed the museum would be as dead as everything else during the holidays, when everyone leaves town, and the people who are here are mostly tourists heading to Disneyland. Alas, apparently every other intellectual and faux intellectual left behind had the same idea and went this afternoon. As is typical at LAMCA, the layout did not help. There were quite a few places where people tended to pile up, and many pieces were almost impossible to see without walking in front of a bunch of other people.
Usually I highly recommend getting the audio tours. Not only are they informative, but they force you to slow down your pace and appreciate the artworks. However, not in this case: Don't buy the audio tour. There was very little information of any kind that was not already present in the exhibit's written descriptions, and the artists interviewed did not have a lot to say.
A few of the other artists' works were interesting. Gober's two pieces, the foot and the torso, were probably the most interesting. Regardless of the flaws of the exhibit, it's definitely worth seeing.
Magritte's art is pretty simple, which is probably why it is so popular. The average person can look at it and see something. If anything, it is at times TOO simple. He himself said that you should not try to read symbolism into his paintings, nor were they motivated by dreams. When you knock those two ideas out of the equation, there's not much left.
There were an awful lot of people at the exhibit. I had assumed the museum would be as dead as everything else during the holidays, when everyone leaves town, and the people who are here are mostly tourists heading to Disneyland. Alas, apparently every other intellectual and faux intellectual left behind had the same idea and went this afternoon. As is typical at LAMCA, the layout did not help. There were quite a few places where people tended to pile up, and many pieces were almost impossible to see without walking in front of a bunch of other people.
Usually I highly recommend getting the audio tours. Not only are they informative, but they force you to slow down your pace and appreciate the artworks. However, not in this case: Don't buy the audio tour. There was very little information of any kind that was not already present in the exhibit's written descriptions, and the artists interviewed did not have a lot to say.
A few of the other artists' works were interesting. Gober's two pieces, the foot and the torso, were probably the most interesting. Regardless of the flaws of the exhibit, it's definitely worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
