and honey I was proud of you.
I used to livejournal back in the day and there was totally a spot for you to add in what you were listening to as you wrote. Setting it as my title is like playing a game of hide a seek by myself.
Even though the songs actual subject matter is quite different then Caryl Churchill's play "Far Away," I was reminded of this song by Taking Back Sunday (you can judge me now) for its title- Everything Must Go. This play could have been a three act monster, could have run longer than Angels in America (both parts) and then some. But instead Churchill strips down the language, scenes, Freytag's pyramid... and establishes this feel. The feeling of loss.( But can it still be considered loss when the person "loosing" isn't negatively affected?) Its the feeling of giving away.
It rings loudest for me in scene II when the parade, or line up of convicts, wear the hats to their own incineration. In this life, we are so motivated to hold on to things: houses, relationships, hats- We're so interested in preserving things. We spend our lives making money and attaining new items to keep and worship. We kill each other over possessions. Churchill gives us a glimpse of a society in which things are made and then parted with. Only one hat is allowed to remain.- Give everything away, only then will you be free to be whole.
When thinking of the death row patrons (Patrons? Consider the convicts as patrons on death row.) I at first thought of their parade as purely spectacle. Of course the word "parade" suggests spectacle. Whenever you see executions on television or in movies, most of the people watching are looking for retribution. They're looking to be comforted by seeing the "guilty" dead. However, in class someone saw the parade as a celebration. I thought this was an interesting viewpoint. A celebration of life? A celebration of death? Are the death row patrons the villains or the heroes? But why must they be one or the other. We have an addiction to labeling things. We love categories; statistics. The interviewer asks you if you are the hero or the villain and you are only allowed to answer in their terms, or they can't use you. You become a lost percentage. That portion of gray area that their stylus can't reach. Why do we have to choose sides? We don't really. The death row patrons just are. And by the end of the scene they will cease to be. We don't have enough time to worry about them before they're gone.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
I know where I'm going...
Cause I know where I been.
Apparently, I am a performance snob. My boyfriend Beau and I have had many a tif in which he has asked me to suspend my bias when judging a performance. Examples include: Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate (Gene Wilder trumps everyone), Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton just needs to stop re-creating movies...), ect ect. Once I've fallen in love with a piece I simply cannot settle for anything less than (what I would consider) greatness.
I have, however, tried these past two weeks of school to see each interpretation/piece as a lone ranger, without any original, multiples, or biases (except for The Mill on the Floss, which is boring no matter how you spin it.) And while it is a much less... critical, lets say, way of viewing art, I still ruminate on the intentional fallacy. Does it matter what the author intended to create? Or should it strictly be about the work itself? (This is where this nonsense connects to Gertrude Stein) When reading Stein's work I get super frustrated because I can't focus on what I think the piece should sound/feel/read like, I get caught up on what Gertrude was hearing/feeling/whatnot. On pieces like "A Complete Portrait of Picasso," its no problem because we have an audio file of Stein reading the piece. But with a collaboration like Four Saints one has to wonder, how did Stein hear it? Did her vision align perfectly with the composer? How would she feel about modern interpretations of the work?
Who's to say?
Personally (for the sake of this assignment) I enjoyed listening instead of reading because it quieted a frustration in me that I would really not explore at this point in reading/homework/semester/blah, and allowed me to appreciate the piece. And who's to say that the interpretation we listened to is any better or worse than another (Snobs like me.)
Apparently, I am a performance snob. My boyfriend Beau and I have had many a tif in which he has asked me to suspend my bias when judging a performance. Examples include: Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate (Gene Wilder trumps everyone), Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton just needs to stop re-creating movies...), ect ect. Once I've fallen in love with a piece I simply cannot settle for anything less than (what I would consider) greatness.
I have, however, tried these past two weeks of school to see each interpretation/piece as a lone ranger, without any original, multiples, or biases (except for The Mill on the Floss, which is boring no matter how you spin it.) And while it is a much less... critical, lets say, way of viewing art, I still ruminate on the intentional fallacy. Does it matter what the author intended to create? Or should it strictly be about the work itself? (This is where this nonsense connects to Gertrude Stein) When reading Stein's work I get super frustrated because I can't focus on what I think the piece should sound/feel/read like, I get caught up on what Gertrude was hearing/feeling/whatnot. On pieces like "A Complete Portrait of Picasso," its no problem because we have an audio file of Stein reading the piece. But with a collaboration like Four Saints one has to wonder, how did Stein hear it? Did her vision align perfectly with the composer? How would she feel about modern interpretations of the work?
Who's to say?
Personally (for the sake of this assignment) I enjoyed listening instead of reading because it quieted a frustration in me that I would really not explore at this point in reading/homework/semester/blah, and allowed me to appreciate the piece. And who's to say that the interpretation we listened to is any better or worse than another (Snobs like me.)
Monday, January 9, 2012
And We Can Say We Hit Rough Water
...but in time things get much better.
Why, hello there. I dislike talking about myself, so instead of a paragraph I created an anaphoric poem complete with pictures in attempts to deal with the awkward
I am Melissa Marguerite Bowling. But I've never been so down with that name, so upon the christening of my roller derby alias, Lily I. Monster, I started telling everyone they could call me Monster, "If you'd like."
I am a Detroit Derby Girl. (shameless plug- detroitderbygirls.com)
I am a third year student at Eastern working towards a double major in Creative Writing and Literature, Language and Writing. I fell in love with the Creative Writing department when I was a freshman and thanks to the help and encouragement of one lovely Mary Koral I have been hooked ever since.
I am currently on a three step plan (1) hard work (2) notoriety (3) success, in the attempts to avoid ever having to get a big girl job. My friend K.Daver and I opened a website monstermichigan.etsy.com to sell our art and we're currently getting together enough things to populate a booth so we can take our show on the road. (If anyone wants a collective outlet to sell their stuff I'll post up just about anything Michigan Made.)
I am an artist/writer of sorts (Short stories, found objects, poems and spray paint.) Its always been my dream to write performance pieces, work with sound, multimedia, ect.
I am super excited for this class.
I am a reader of sorts. Random List of the First Things that come to Mind: Scarlett Thomas (The End of Mr. Y,) Neil Gaiman (Neverwhere/ Sandman,) Shira Erlickman (Daddy's Parking Lot Serman,) Sylvia Plath (The Bell Jar,) Shane Koyczan (Move Pen Move,) Scott Snyder (American Vampire,) Max Brooks (World War Z.)
I am experimental.
I am a lover of innovation.
I am.
Why, hello there. I dislike talking about myself, so instead of a paragraph I created an anaphoric poem complete with pictures in attempts to deal with the awkward
I am Melissa Marguerite Bowling. But I've never been so down with that name, so upon the christening of my roller derby alias, Lily I. Monster, I started telling everyone they could call me Monster, "If you'd like."
I am a Detroit Derby Girl. (shameless plug- detroitderbygirls.com)
Detroit's Grand Prix Madonnas
I am a third year student at Eastern working towards a double major in Creative Writing and Literature, Language and Writing. I fell in love with the Creative Writing department when I was a freshman and thanks to the help and encouragement of one lovely Mary Koral I have been hooked ever since.
I am currently on a three step plan (1) hard work (2) notoriety (3) success, in the attempts to avoid ever having to get a big girl job. My friend K.Daver and I opened a website monstermichigan.etsy.com to sell our art and we're currently getting together enough things to populate a booth so we can take our show on the road. (If anyone wants a collective outlet to sell their stuff I'll post up just about anything Michigan Made.)
I am an artist/writer of sorts (Short stories, found objects, poems and spray paint.) Its always been my dream to write performance pieces, work with sound, multimedia, ect.
I am super excited for this class.
Spray Paint Elephant on Recycled Dresser Parts
I am a reader of sorts. Random List of the First Things that come to Mind: Scarlett Thomas (The End of Mr. Y,) Neil Gaiman (Neverwhere/ Sandman,) Shira Erlickman (Daddy's Parking Lot Serman,) Sylvia Plath (The Bell Jar,) Shane Koyczan (Move Pen Move,) Scott Snyder (American Vampire,) Max Brooks (World War Z.)
Daddy's Parking Lot Sermon
I am experimental.
I am a lover of innovation.
I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)