Columbia
Given the idea of finding something that represents Columbia, I could only think of how little time I spend at school aside from when I am in class. I have never lived in the dorms so I can’t say if I would have an ideal of Columbia if I had. So in thinking about this I started thinking about the things that I find unique about Columbia.
What has always been told and reinforced to us as students is that the city is our campus given the fact that we don’t have your “typical” kind of college campuses, and the fact that our buildings are spread out within downtown. So in that thought I would say to experience Columbia you have to experience the city and hit the streets but to really experience Columbia you have to experience the large and diverse student community we have here. Its when you experience the community we have here you will see what Columbia represents. The best way I can say to do this is once again to hit the streets around Columbia’s buildings because this is where we are given the fact that it’s not December, January, or February.
Here on the streets around Columbia specifically the 623 Wabash building the 600 Michigan building and 33 E Congress building. These are some of the areas where you will find painters, photographers, fashion designers, audio engineers, musicians, writers etc. etc. etc. It is also here where you will really get a good vibe of what is going on around Columbia hearing all these kids talking about their different projects and lines of work, to what going on around the city involving their work or other extra curricular activities.
When I think of how I could show someone Columbia this is how I would do it, because when I am here I am quite often closed off in a classroom or in the basement of the 33 E Congress building’s recording studios. However when I do make it out, I can run into friends and other students on the streets or outside some of these buildings and learn of what everyone is doing throughout the college and in some ways become involved with the rest of the Colombia community. That’s the best way I could put it is that we are a community of creative minds perusing our interests not a intuition of higher education…(yawn) boring.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Columbia Event #4
Building Pictures
I have always had an interest in photography as well as architecture, given this the gallery show Building Pictures, at the Museum of Contemporary Photography in the 600 S. Michigan Ave. building of Columbia College seemed like a great pick for something that I would be interested in seeing.
“Architects and photographers both transform space, yet they both approach their tasks from opposite directions.” Given this quote the difference between the two is existence or nonexistence, architects usually are looking for something that isn’t around and want to create it. Where as photographers are looking for images or spaces that already exist that they can capture. As soon as you walk into the gallery in the 600 Michigan Ave. building you are immediately confronted with six very large photographs, large enough to cover a wall. Each one of these photographs is uniquely capturing and portraying the structural magnificence, and architectural integrity of the buildings shown, along with the unique vision of the photographer. Given the photographers unique points of view some of these pictures are able to make a statement, some are there just to show the purity of an architectural structure. Others might challenge the way you might typically look at a building or an individual space, and some portray a time line of structural events.
Dionisio Gonzalez is one of the photographers who are exhibiting their work in this gallery, he is also one of the photographers who is making a statement with his pictures. Gonzalez uses his photography as a way to bring attention to the social issues that exist in the favelas, or shantytowns of Brazil. Gonzalez does this by taking his photographs of the favelas and placing modern contemporary architecture within the all ready cluttered shanties. It is said he has done this in a reaction to the governments Proyecto Cingapura project, which was supposed to re-urbanize the favelas and provide better living conditions but has come up lacking in every area that it has proposed. On the other hand photographer Terence Gower took a much less political approach to his work and instead portrays the work of architect Luis Barragan who used color in a way to transform style into a more rich experience. Barragan does this by portraying architectural spaces that may even look abstract in black and white photographs hung on brightly painted colorful walls.
I really enjoyed this gallery show and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys photography, the marvels of architectural structures and spaces, or even anyone how enjoys staring into a picture and imagining all the thousand words, and ideas a photograph can possess.
I have always had an interest in photography as well as architecture, given this the gallery show Building Pictures, at the Museum of Contemporary Photography in the 600 S. Michigan Ave. building of Columbia College seemed like a great pick for something that I would be interested in seeing.
“Architects and photographers both transform space, yet they both approach their tasks from opposite directions.” Given this quote the difference between the two is existence or nonexistence, architects usually are looking for something that isn’t around and want to create it. Where as photographers are looking for images or spaces that already exist that they can capture. As soon as you walk into the gallery in the 600 Michigan Ave. building you are immediately confronted with six very large photographs, large enough to cover a wall. Each one of these photographs is uniquely capturing and portraying the structural magnificence, and architectural integrity of the buildings shown, along with the unique vision of the photographer. Given the photographers unique points of view some of these pictures are able to make a statement, some are there just to show the purity of an architectural structure. Others might challenge the way you might typically look at a building or an individual space, and some portray a time line of structural events.
Dionisio Gonzalez is one of the photographers who are exhibiting their work in this gallery, he is also one of the photographers who is making a statement with his pictures. Gonzalez uses his photography as a way to bring attention to the social issues that exist in the favelas, or shantytowns of Brazil. Gonzalez does this by taking his photographs of the favelas and placing modern contemporary architecture within the all ready cluttered shanties. It is said he has done this in a reaction to the governments Proyecto Cingapura project, which was supposed to re-urbanize the favelas and provide better living conditions but has come up lacking in every area that it has proposed. On the other hand photographer Terence Gower took a much less political approach to his work and instead portrays the work of architect Luis Barragan who used color in a way to transform style into a more rich experience. Barragan does this by portraying architectural spaces that may even look abstract in black and white photographs hung on brightly painted colorful walls.
I really enjoyed this gallery show and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys photography, the marvels of architectural structures and spaces, or even anyone how enjoys staring into a picture and imagining all the thousand words, and ideas a photograph can possess.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Sicko
www.michaelmoore.com
In 2007 the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore came out with another film. Yes this was going to be one more film that was going question many things, and make a lot of people angry, because that’s what Michael Moore is good at. Michael Moore’s new film Sicko is a film that questions and looks at the United States health care system and compares it to the health care systems of other countries. From the beginning of the film you are shown a few people who have had some sever and unfortunate accidents that they either have to deal with on their own or go to the hospital and pay straight from their own pocket. I never really thought your middle finger could be worth sixty thousand dollars as we found when one gentleman needed to have that or his twelve thousand dollar ring finger. There are fifty million people in the United States that don’t have any health insurance and of the fifty million who are un insured eighteen thousand of them die per year uninsured, some major statistics here. However here is where Michael More made his point that this film is not about the fifty million who are uninsured, it’s about the two hundred and fifty million who are insured in the United States. Here is where the problems have started to begin. You would have thought being insured would cover any of your health problems. With the stories of a few different people Michael More takes us through the amount of problems or madness you could say when these people who have health insurance are denied coverage, denied full payment, or told they will only be covered if they use specific health care providers even in the case of emergency. Michael More uses all of this information and all these stories, specifically the story of two 9/11 volunteers who are now facing major respiratory problems due to everything they were breathing in wile doing what they could to help. Who’s insurance companies wont give them the correct help they need because it’s not covered. Michael More takes these stories and information and starts to explore how other countries health care systems work. Moore visits Canada, England, France, and Cuba well and if you saw the extra footage Norway who’s health care system made the systems of France and England look strict.
I have only seen two of Moore’s films yet I have always liked him not necessarily because of the work he does in film, but because of the fact that he causes people to become aware and look at different issues, and he makes people question them. He has done this in many ways one of witch he might be the best at is pissing people off, a lot of people don’t like Moore yet by irritating people and making them angry he still is able to make them aware of the issue he is getting across bring more light to it. It kind of goes along with the no publicity it bad publicity saying. I have seen Sicko twice and I think that it’s a good movie it hits on a major issue we have here. The issues of health care have long been around and effect us all, so I don’t why it isn’t more of and issue. We all are going to have to deal with it very soon if we haven’t already, being college students. Some of us have had to deal with finding our own insurance or taking the risk and not having any insurance, and some of us are still fortunate to be covered by our parents insurance.
In all I think that this was a good movie because it brings awareness to a good issue that needs more light shown upon it from somewhere other than the politicians. How ever for the actual aspects of the film there were some parts that I was off set by. I guess you could simply call it Moore’s film making style, but I don’t know because I didn’t remember some of these things in the other movie I saw by Moore. The things that got me were just some of the comedic portions, I actually like that he is able to add this aspect to a documentary and a serious issue I felt some of it was just stretched a little bit to much. The other thing that got me I guess even more so than the comical jabs and satirical humor was the sound track for the movie. It may have been this that actually made some scenes seem comical when they didn’t necessarily need to be. If there were anything I could object to or alter would have been the sound for this film.
www.michaelmoore.com
In 2007 the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore came out with another film. Yes this was going to be one more film that was going question many things, and make a lot of people angry, because that’s what Michael Moore is good at. Michael Moore’s new film Sicko is a film that questions and looks at the United States health care system and compares it to the health care systems of other countries. From the beginning of the film you are shown a few people who have had some sever and unfortunate accidents that they either have to deal with on their own or go to the hospital and pay straight from their own pocket. I never really thought your middle finger could be worth sixty thousand dollars as we found when one gentleman needed to have that or his twelve thousand dollar ring finger. There are fifty million people in the United States that don’t have any health insurance and of the fifty million who are un insured eighteen thousand of them die per year uninsured, some major statistics here. However here is where Michael More made his point that this film is not about the fifty million who are uninsured, it’s about the two hundred and fifty million who are insured in the United States. Here is where the problems have started to begin. You would have thought being insured would cover any of your health problems. With the stories of a few different people Michael More takes us through the amount of problems or madness you could say when these people who have health insurance are denied coverage, denied full payment, or told they will only be covered if they use specific health care providers even in the case of emergency. Michael More uses all of this information and all these stories, specifically the story of two 9/11 volunteers who are now facing major respiratory problems due to everything they were breathing in wile doing what they could to help. Who’s insurance companies wont give them the correct help they need because it’s not covered. Michael More takes these stories and information and starts to explore how other countries health care systems work. Moore visits Canada, England, France, and Cuba well and if you saw the extra footage Norway who’s health care system made the systems of France and England look strict.
I have only seen two of Moore’s films yet I have always liked him not necessarily because of the work he does in film, but because of the fact that he causes people to become aware and look at different issues, and he makes people question them. He has done this in many ways one of witch he might be the best at is pissing people off, a lot of people don’t like Moore yet by irritating people and making them angry he still is able to make them aware of the issue he is getting across bring more light to it. It kind of goes along with the no publicity it bad publicity saying. I have seen Sicko twice and I think that it’s a good movie it hits on a major issue we have here. The issues of health care have long been around and effect us all, so I don’t why it isn’t more of and issue. We all are going to have to deal with it very soon if we haven’t already, being college students. Some of us have had to deal with finding our own insurance or taking the risk and not having any insurance, and some of us are still fortunate to be covered by our parents insurance.
In all I think that this was a good movie because it brings awareness to a good issue that needs more light shown upon it from somewhere other than the politicians. How ever for the actual aspects of the film there were some parts that I was off set by. I guess you could simply call it Moore’s film making style, but I don’t know because I didn’t remember some of these things in the other movie I saw by Moore. The things that got me were just some of the comedic portions, I actually like that he is able to add this aspect to a documentary and a serious issue I felt some of it was just stretched a little bit to much. The other thing that got me I guess even more so than the comical jabs and satirical humor was the sound track for the movie. It may have been this that actually made some scenes seem comical when they didn’t necessarily need to be. If there were anything I could object to or alter would have been the sound for this film.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Block Party
Block Party
In Dave Chappelle’s Block Party you are able to witness Dave’s pursuit to bring together a community of people of all demographics to attend a free block party / Hip Hop show. Within the beginning of this documentary Filmed by Michel Gondry, you see Dave Chappelle as his humble self. You see him as the way he acts in his normal or somewhat normal life, yet he is still entertaining us. Dave travels around his hometown in Ohio looking for local residents to attend his block party. Not only is Dave looking for local residents, he is trying to get people who wouldn’t typically experience a Hip Hop show in Brooklyn, almost in a way to open people up to something new. Through all of this I feel you can get a better idea of who Dave really is, and to me he seems like a great person. I really like this film and the way it portrays Hip Hop culture. I do like Hip Hop although I haven’t really listened to it on a regular basis. However I have always had a familiarity with it. I am also familiar with the work of Mos Def and Talib Kweli, who both make up Black Star and represent some of the Hip Hop that I like the most. I have also heard of, and listened to at one time or another just about everyone else who was in this film. I guess I have somewhat of a different out look on this subject matter because of my involvement within music and the recording industry. As well as the fact that I have worked with different Hip Hop artists from all the different demographics that Hip Hop has. I also challenge my self to listen to different music and always keep an open mind to everything until I am able to hear it myself and create my own opinions. With that said I definitely think that Dave made great choices with the musicians that he gathered to represent Hip Hop.
After reading Dyson’s work I was just reminded of the constant argument that has happened time and time again with many different types of music. Dyson expresses what I would hope more people realize, and that’s that you can’t just generalize a style of music with an entire culture of people. Hip Hop/Rap music has been around for many years, and has many different demographics to it. You have to look deeper into it, into its origins where they can be traced back to, well Brooklyn, the hart of Jamaica, and the Afro-Latin styles of Caribbean music. I believe that Dyson would give Dave’s Block Party the seal of approval based on the representation of Hip Hop music that he created. I also think that Dave shares and or agrees with Dyson’s depiction of Hip Hop culture as well as most of the performers who were in the film.
In researching alternate reviews of block Party I came across a review by Ebert and Roeper which I couldn’t agree with any more, this review was found at http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/mp3/060306-dave_chappelles_block_party.mp3 or searched for Block Party at www.rottentomatoes.com and clicking Ebert and Roeper’s review. Here they comment “the performers Chapelle uses are not from the hard edge of rap their not gangsters but accomplished musicians and created a harmonious spirit in Brooklyn despite the rain that day.” The only part of their comment I wasn’t crazy about was the statement “not gangsters but accomplished musicians” this to me just seemed like they didn’t get the message of the film. However Roper did say “I want to see another hour of Dave Chappelle’s Block Party.” There were also a few reviews that were poor given to the film, and what I gathered was that they were all responding on the footage of the film. Like “It looks like run-of-the-mill party videos shot by a drunk.” Quoted from Jim Lane of the Sacramento News & Review found on rottentomatoes.com. Although some people may not have like the footage, or possibly the mobility or unsteady shots given (Jim Lane) I on the other hand maybe through a biased view being a fan of Gondry’s work, felt that it just added to the experience and actually brought you further into the film as if you were there, rather than watching some over produced large budget style of concert footage.
Well I can definitely say I enjoyed this film, I also feel that Dave did a great job at representing Hip Hop, and delivering a fantastic set of performances to an audience who are new to the scene, or already fans. If anything I think Dave did a great job of taking viewers and opening up a different view about himself, a style of music and a culture that has gravitated around it.
In Dave Chappelle’s Block Party you are able to witness Dave’s pursuit to bring together a community of people of all demographics to attend a free block party / Hip Hop show. Within the beginning of this documentary Filmed by Michel Gondry, you see Dave Chappelle as his humble self. You see him as the way he acts in his normal or somewhat normal life, yet he is still entertaining us. Dave travels around his hometown in Ohio looking for local residents to attend his block party. Not only is Dave looking for local residents, he is trying to get people who wouldn’t typically experience a Hip Hop show in Brooklyn, almost in a way to open people up to something new. Through all of this I feel you can get a better idea of who Dave really is, and to me he seems like a great person. I really like this film and the way it portrays Hip Hop culture. I do like Hip Hop although I haven’t really listened to it on a regular basis. However I have always had a familiarity with it. I am also familiar with the work of Mos Def and Talib Kweli, who both make up Black Star and represent some of the Hip Hop that I like the most. I have also heard of, and listened to at one time or another just about everyone else who was in this film. I guess I have somewhat of a different out look on this subject matter because of my involvement within music and the recording industry. As well as the fact that I have worked with different Hip Hop artists from all the different demographics that Hip Hop has. I also challenge my self to listen to different music and always keep an open mind to everything until I am able to hear it myself and create my own opinions. With that said I definitely think that Dave made great choices with the musicians that he gathered to represent Hip Hop.
After reading Dyson’s work I was just reminded of the constant argument that has happened time and time again with many different types of music. Dyson expresses what I would hope more people realize, and that’s that you can’t just generalize a style of music with an entire culture of people. Hip Hop/Rap music has been around for many years, and has many different demographics to it. You have to look deeper into it, into its origins where they can be traced back to, well Brooklyn, the hart of Jamaica, and the Afro-Latin styles of Caribbean music. I believe that Dyson would give Dave’s Block Party the seal of approval based on the representation of Hip Hop music that he created. I also think that Dave shares and or agrees with Dyson’s depiction of Hip Hop culture as well as most of the performers who were in the film.
In researching alternate reviews of block Party I came across a review by Ebert and Roeper which I couldn’t agree with any more, this review was found at http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/mp3/060306-dave_chappelles_block_party.mp3 or searched for Block Party at www.rottentomatoes.com and clicking Ebert and Roeper’s review. Here they comment “the performers Chapelle uses are not from the hard edge of rap their not gangsters but accomplished musicians and created a harmonious spirit in Brooklyn despite the rain that day.” The only part of their comment I wasn’t crazy about was the statement “not gangsters but accomplished musicians” this to me just seemed like they didn’t get the message of the film. However Roper did say “I want to see another hour of Dave Chappelle’s Block Party.” There were also a few reviews that were poor given to the film, and what I gathered was that they were all responding on the footage of the film. Like “It looks like run-of-the-mill party videos shot by a drunk.” Quoted from Jim Lane of the Sacramento News & Review found on rottentomatoes.com. Although some people may not have like the footage, or possibly the mobility or unsteady shots given (Jim Lane) I on the other hand maybe through a biased view being a fan of Gondry’s work, felt that it just added to the experience and actually brought you further into the film as if you were there, rather than watching some over produced large budget style of concert footage.
Well I can definitely say I enjoyed this film, I also feel that Dave did a great job at representing Hip Hop, and delivering a fantastic set of performances to an audience who are new to the scene, or already fans. If anything I think Dave did a great job of taking viewers and opening up a different view about himself, a style of music and a culture that has gravitated around it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Rev. Living Out Loud
within the review of Living Out Loud submited on Rottentomatoes.com by Sean Axmaker from the Seattle Weekly, he makes some good points about the movie that I aggree with. Like when he states "Holly Hunter provides plenty of fuel, but the film still loses steam." I agree with this statement Holly did play a very invigorating role it the movie that still did't have the needed wind to set it a sail. How ever Sean's statement about the director and the way the movie went,(" director Richard LaGravenese creates in scene after scene a velvety elegance that, unfortunately, dissolves at the edges. He just can't seem to pull it all together into a coherent story.")can be eckoed with in his own rivision. Its quite possible that this does reflect the movie being the the review is also lacking coherentness. Living Out Loud does protray a series of events that revolve around Judith's (Hunter) life and how she is searching for a new meaning after her husband left her for another women. the movie is basically based around Judith's search to find new meaning and if it is possible to live a happy and successful life alone. its throught this search and many intoxicating nights that Judith meets Pat (Danny DeVito) who has also been through some life chalenging events and the two are able to develope a friendship based upon this that takes them through many enusual events, and lots of time spent haning out in a jazz club with Liz (Queen Latifa) who is a jazz singer.
“Be Wedgie Free”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcM0OT6mnqA
or
http://www.youtube.com/bewedgiefree
“Be Wedgie Free” is the slogan that Hanes is using for their new You Tube commercial. In the commercial you see actress Sarah Chalke dance, squirm, and shimmy allover as she is walking down the side walk. She is doing this all in attempts to get her wedgie out without fixing it by hand because she is out in public. I know this advertisement is not directed towards the male demographic. However it could be pretty funny to see an add like this that is targeted towards the male demographic. How differently do you think they would try to sell men’s wedgieless underwear? This advertisement however is directed towards women, women who are irritated by the problem of having wedgies, and the obstacle of trying to free themselves of these wedgies when in a place where they can’t simply pick it. The add then offers a solution to this problem of trying to wiggle your way out of a wedgie by purchasing very comforting Hanes panties that won’t ride. It seems Hanes is trying to identify with their intended customers by with a humorous approach to the irritating and possible embarrassing consequences of getting a wedgie and offering their product as a comfortable solution. I would guess that Hanes is reaching their target audience here and that many women will like this advertisement. Maybe just because of the humor of the situation, or that they might be able to relate to it. Maybe their Scrubs fans and will look farther into the product because of Sarah Chalke. If anything I can defiantly see this add catching the attention of younger kids who would probably look at just the humor in the add, or just enjoy the catchy song. Maybe seeing this add just might remind women how much they want comfortable underwear.
or
http://www.youtube.com/bewedgiefree
“Be Wedgie Free” is the slogan that Hanes is using for their new You Tube commercial. In the commercial you see actress Sarah Chalke dance, squirm, and shimmy allover as she is walking down the side walk. She is doing this all in attempts to get her wedgie out without fixing it by hand because she is out in public. I know this advertisement is not directed towards the male demographic. However it could be pretty funny to see an add like this that is targeted towards the male demographic. How differently do you think they would try to sell men’s wedgieless underwear? This advertisement however is directed towards women, women who are irritated by the problem of having wedgies, and the obstacle of trying to free themselves of these wedgies when in a place where they can’t simply pick it. The add then offers a solution to this problem of trying to wiggle your way out of a wedgie by purchasing very comforting Hanes panties that won’t ride. It seems Hanes is trying to identify with their intended customers by with a humorous approach to the irritating and possible embarrassing consequences of getting a wedgie and offering their product as a comfortable solution. I would guess that Hanes is reaching their target audience here and that many women will like this advertisement. Maybe just because of the humor of the situation, or that they might be able to relate to it. Maybe their Scrubs fans and will look farther into the product because of Sarah Chalke. If anything I can defiantly see this add catching the attention of younger kids who would probably look at just the humor in the add, or just enjoy the catchy song. Maybe seeing this add just might remind women how much they want comfortable underwear.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Living Out Loud
Living Out Loud directed and written by Richard LaGravenese and released in 1998 is a drama / comedy, portraying the new spin that’s just been put on the main character Judith Moore’s (Holly Hunter) Life. Hunter’s character in the film has had to stop and take a whole new look at her life, and how she is going to live it. After she had devoted sixteen years of her life to her marriage, as well as sacrificing career movements for her husband, he leaves her for another women. Hunter’s character is now considering all the possibilities of life, and where it might lead her. The biggest question being can she lead a successful happy life alone. To add to the story Hunter’s character winds up meeting and becoming friends with her buildings elevator man Pat (Danny DeVito). DeVito’s character has also gone through many challenges in life, a failed marriage, a resent loss of a child, and not to mention the ill ability to maintain a good job. Yet never the less he has a somewhat good outlook on life, and the continuing idea for his own business. Of course this brings these two characters close together is somewhat of a tangled friendship romantic something. Also making an appearance in this film is Queen Latifah who plays Liz a jazz singer at this cool kind of run down jazz club. Thought the film Latifah’s character is somewhat of a voice of reason for Judith. Liz who is kind of a fallen jazz singer still has a positive out look on her life and holds a strong presence. It is through these three characters that the film evolves taking you in and out of the jazz club, Judith’s apartment, the elevator, some flashes of Judith’s imagination and to some club where a choreographed dance happens.
All in all I don’t think that this was a terrible movie, it’s definitely not a movie that would be projected towards my demographic. I under stood the roll of the character and how she had to look at and reevaluate her entire life from a standpoint other than hers, yet you can imagine the struggle. Through out the film it was easy to see how the main characters were attracted to each other given their different personalities and pathways through life. Some of the events that took place like flashes into Judith’s mind or the random ness of her actions, to even the places they would go were confusing yet it kept me wondering what could actually happen next. I would say I would give this movie a two and a half of five stars, I’d say this because all the randomness and unusual humor that had been used in the film kept me some what occupied for at least one sitting.
All in all I don’t think that this was a terrible movie, it’s definitely not a movie that would be projected towards my demographic. I under stood the roll of the character and how she had to look at and reevaluate her entire life from a standpoint other than hers, yet you can imagine the struggle. Through out the film it was easy to see how the main characters were attracted to each other given their different personalities and pathways through life. Some of the events that took place like flashes into Judith’s mind or the random ness of her actions, to even the places they would go were confusing yet it kept me wondering what could actually happen next. I would say I would give this movie a two and a half of five stars, I’d say this because all the randomness and unusual humor that had been used in the film kept me some what occupied for at least one sitting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)