#the work is one of the most powerful documentaries and frankly piece of art i have ever witnessed and everyone should see if

[gainesha]

I am gonna list my 15 favorite films as of this moment, for no particular reason other than it's Saturday noon (2/2):

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Phantom Thread

Titanic

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

The Work (2017)

[hollyevolving]

Fuck that. Love yourself. Love your art.

You know...I know my flaws. I struggle with the emotional complications of ADD and post traumatic stress. I'm not an inspiring victim. I cry a lot. There are a lot of days I don't have the energy to shower. I'm not athletic. I have poor stamina and not much in the way of hand/eye coordination. I'm not the best at any of my talents. I often lack motivation entirely. I can't play any instruments with competence, because I don't practice. But I also know my merits. I'm a damn good writer, and a good enough performance singer to move people. I can sketch passably well, and I take decent documentary photos and video. I'm remarkably organized, I'm very, very good at my job, and I've got most people I know beat for resilience. I generally understand people and can usually see the big picture as well as a few moves ahead. I'm supporting myself and an elderly cat with health issues on less than half of what most of my friends earn. So...I like myself, I like my art, and I feel no compunctions about asserting my value. My work is good and so am I. I AM an artist, and I like my art. --- Maybe it's just that I don't seek perfection. I see the flaws in my work, but I don't hate it for their presence. Perfection is impossible and a waste of time. People surrender their entire voices to it. I'm good; I don't need perfect. --- Or maybe it's that people get inundated with enforced false modesty and shame and are told that those are humility. When you examine the idea of pride as a sin more deeply, it becomes apparent that pride is never what they're talking about. Arrogance and hubris are sins. Pride - honest happiness in one's positive attributes or in a job well done - can't be a sin. If it were, then by extension, only self-loathing could be good. How many kids grow up hating themselves because they are just culturally indoctrinated to do so? The words say "love yourself" but the actions say "don't," and then we guilt people for learning the "wrong" message. Fuck that. Love yourself. Love your art. And if you can't do those things yet, allow yourself to take the steps that will let you learn. Anyone who says you're not allowed to feel simple, honest pride in your accomplishments - in your progress - is lying to you and frankly, trying to hurt you. --- "That kid's getting too big for his britches." Yeah, fucker, because he's GROWING. Maybe instead of trying to cut him down, help him make some bigger goddamn britches. --- Yeah I honestly do take personal offence to the idea that all artists are *supposed* to hate their work. Nah man. That's a thing that can happen, and people have their reasons, and there's always plenty that gets scrapped and kept from publication. But damn it, if I put work out there to share, it's because I LIKE it. Why would I inflict something I didn't like on my friends? Who has the audacity to try to sell writing that they don't like themselves? That makes no sense. --- I'm not saying I assume that everyone is going to like my work. Of course that won't happen. Taste is subjective. But I haven't spent 29 years writing to produce garbage. --- Response from my friend: "As much as I hate to be on the other side, I know full well why I don't like most of my work. I know that I should be able to do much better by now. Some of that is instilled in me by society, with the idea that I should be further along with my skills with the classes that I took in college and what my parents paid for. I also know that I am not always a good judge of whether my work is good enough or not, which is why I share things, even if they are just okay in my opinion. All that being said, big props to you for getting past all of that and liking your own work."

My reply to him: "I'm not saying you can't dislike your work. I'm saying the cultural push to do so is wrong and harmful to growing artists. It's there when kids are taught it's bad to be proud of themselves (instead of it's bad to be boastful or arrogant). It's there when people in positions of trust and authority abuse their power and break kids down *instead* of teaching them. It's there when a parent or teacher resents a kid for their ability and fails to nurture it. There's plenty of my work that I don't like because it isn't good. There are drawings and poems I don't share, and songs I don't sing. But I can tell what's wrong and do better next time, and there's plenty of my work I like because it is good. I have learned how to to honestly assess it, in large part because I am a stubborn, willful, obstinate, defiant brat who managed to resist all the bad shit until I could get to real teachers who focused on their students instead of their disappointments. So if you're just not sure and you don't want to share a piece, reach out to an artist in that medium that you know and trust to honestly critique and give you meaningful feedback. You are talented and you've put a lifetime of work into developing that talent into something, and you have every right to enjoy pride in a job well done." --- The whole concept of the tortured artist destroying masterworks maddens me - they're tortured because they've *been tortured.* That doesn't go away on its own. People need to know that what's been done to them is 1) not okay and 2) correctable. Because why would anyone try if they didn't know it could get better? --- I just really don't want to see any form of self-rejection praised, let alone normalized. People shouldn't be taught that they're not supposed to like themselves or the things they're good at. There's a lot we can't do about it - but we can choose not to model it. There's a big difference between "I'm struggling with this piece," and "I hate my art why do I do this?" When we catch ourselves at that second one, that's time to stop and think and drill down to what's really going on. --- I can't count how many times I've flung a notebook across the room and cried a bit, and then realized oh shit I haven't eaten in like 10 hours and I'm thirsty and exhausted and hell, the whole reason I'm art-ing is because I had a terrible day and I'm trying to deal with it. --- So many artists preach radical compassion, but forget to show it to themselves. --- Sometimes what I do is ask myself, what would I think if it was my niece's work?

[tatakatte]

obviously, this episode was rough. Mad Queen Dany, the assassination of Jaime Lannister, the unsatisfactory death of Cersei Lannister, the improbable survival of Arya, Jon Snow being completely ineffectual (oh wait), the incredible adept player of The Game Varys caught in traitorous acts. All of it - what the fuck.

Now, i’m here for mad queen dany. I agree that there has been foreshadowing for it. we’re constantly told nearly all Targaryens go mad, and Dany’s father and brother were both mad. The vision in the House of the Undying shows a throne littered with ashes. Dany herself has burned many people, and the past few episodes she’s been growing increasingly angry and frustrated with her circumstances.

But the main question you have to consider is this: why?

Game of Thrones isn’t a documentary. It isn’t about real life or real life consequences or what not. It is a story, a plotted piece of fiction that must adhere to the rules set therein. Everyone freaked out over Ned Stark dying in season one, but it established the first, and most important, rule of GoT: the Game for the Throne is the only game that matters, and playing it poorly or abstaining leads to death.

It’s why I didn’t have a problem with the Night King storyline ending in episode 3. The supernatural stuff is only there to SUPPORT the Game. It’s there to complicate the political machinations of the characters. The Night King sets up a variety of things: Cersei as unreasonable & not caring about common folk; Dany being in the North & getting allies; the dragons as vulnerable; Arya fulfilling her prophecy (legitimizing prophecies);

They set up Cersei as the big bad. Good. She’s survived everything, Aerys and Robert and Joffery and the Tyrells. Cersei has survived not because of any supernatural means (other than The Mountain), but through her skill with The Game. She’s the big bad because she is winning at the only game that matters.

Cersei as the big bad sets up a lot of problems. What will Jaime do? Will the North go fight for Dany in the south? Can a mad Targaryen overthrow the ‘rightful’ Lannister? If legitimacy matters so much, will Jon have to take over? There’s actually very little hard evidence that Jon is Aegon Targaryen (but that’s a whole different thing)

I don’t even have much of a problem with episode 4. The aftermath of the battle is fairly... predictable. Everyone relaxes, celebrates; characters that haven’t seen each other in years meet up to reflect on how they’ve changed. And they have all CHANGED. I shouldn’t forgive writing gaffes, but even Sansa saying she survived Ramsey et al because of her strength is confirmation that characters Change and Stay Changed. 

Here’s where the first problem started in re Dany. They show the Northerners fawning over Jon and how amazing he is. They highlight the great thing he’s done, all things Dany has done, usually to a greater degree. You see her growing frustrated. The writers are trying to establish Unreasonable Mad Dany, and doing it poorly.

Jon Snow has repeatedly shown that he is a poor leader, doesn’t think things through, trusts the wrong people, and is generally unaware of everything going on around him. Jon Snow Fails at The Game. This is why he was killed.

Jon Snow will most likely end up on the throne, even though - maybe especially because - he doesn’t want it. He has the ‘best claim’ and is a male, so he should be on the throne. But because of the established main rule, Jon should not be king and he will fail because he doesn’t understand The Game.

The writers try to set up that Dany will abstain from rampant death if she has good advisers. But ultimately, Dany can do whatever she wants (Stannis didn’t listen to Davos, arguably the most practical character), and she always chooses to save people. The people she’s burned to death are slavers or oppressors. She goes against her advisers often to protect people, even at her own detriment. Dany wants to HELP people; she has ALWAYS shown mercy if possible.She’s made bad decisions and suffered and LEARNED from those mistakes. She has Changed.

So.

Dany, through an unreasonable amount of awfulness, has maintained herself. She’s been betrayed over and over and lost people over and over and she still comes out strong. She does not mindlessly murder and she even chained up her dragons rather than see them hurt innocent people. Missandei’s death hurt her, of course it did, but don’t act like either it nor the (frankly, unrealistic & poorly done) death of Rhaegal would make her lose her damn mind. Why would Dany wait for the bells to signal a surrender before attacking King’s Landing? She wouldn’t. Her actions beforehand were necessary and brutally efficient.

What purpose does this serve the story? If Dany has gone through all these things, gone through literal fire, what is the point of her becoming just like her ancestors? We bring her to the precipice, we show her the means to become exactly like all those before her, and the POINT of WRITING - the POINT of her going through everything - is that she is not a victim to destiny. She can - she should- chose to be different. It makes narrative sense. Otherwise, there is NO POINT. The writing takes the easy way out, and her character is meaningless.

It is so fucking boring to setup the Mad Targaryens, the devolution of their dragons, the men being evil & awful, the Silver Princes all dying, the elimination of the entire family except this ONE GIRL, and then have her act like the rest of them. To have her fall into her expected outcome. Why? WHY give her these obstacles and expectations and then NEVER have her overcome? THAT’S THE POINT. THAT’S WHY YOU’RE WRITING THIS. To CHANGE the STATUS QUO.

Dany would never burn innocents like that. She would destroy the Red Keep without someone to stop her, yes, but she would not ruthlessly and callously murder everyone.

Varys was an expert at The Game. That’s why he survived so many kings/queens, that’s why no one killed him, that’s why he was the Master of Whispers. Varys, unlike nearly everyone else, cared solely for the people and all he did was to protect innocents. The show constantly has him protecting children, arguably the most innocent, and giving them purpose. Varys has survived 8 seasons of actively working against bad rulers because he is so good at maneuvering around people, at keeping his actions secret. Declaring his intentions to Jon Snow - the stupidest fucking person in Westeros - is wildly amateur and NOT typical of Varys. Varys would identify the Jon Snow problem INSTANTLY especially because of how trusting & open Jon is. For Varys to expose himself unnecessarily - poor writing. Varys would’ve sent those notes out a long-ass time ago, and he would’ve pegged Tyrion as untrustworthy long ago as well. He has no reason to confide in either Tyrion or Jon, and to show him doing so was wrong. His death is extremely unfortunate, because he could’ve shown Dany how to play The Game better than anyone.

Cersei - this is her ending? She is the big bad and she.... dies in the tombs below King’s Landing with rocks falling on her? I love that she got emotional - and Lena Hedley deserves all the awards - but she’s always been strong enough to get shit done. She watches Dany burn down King’s Landing, sees the whole Keep fall apart and then just... surrenders? Really?? What the FUCK. I know they never mentioned the valonqar prophecy on the show, but it can’t meant nothing. GRRM wouldn’t put it in there if it would never amount to anything. I’m seeing comments that Jaime had his arms around Cersei and... that counts? Fuck you. Prophecies are already confirmed to be Valid, and the valonqar prophecy has to count for something.

Shoutout to Arya for going blind, getting lost in Braavos, nearly dying, learning the difficult art of Changing Faces, and then.... never doing anything with it. Excellent. Every time I saw a character I was like “Its Arya! She’s that dude! She’s that lady! She’s Jaime! She’s Euron!” and she was NEVER ANY of these people.

And lastly, I - Jaime - how. Jaime Lannister has one of the best characters arcs of any character - ever. He is utterly despicable when we first meet him. He is smug, arrogant, beautiful, undermining his king, and screwing his sister, whom he’s had three children with. He throws a child out a window to protect his incestuous relationship with his sister the queen. He’s a terrible guy. He’s blase, and it makes him obnoxious.

And then we learn about him. We learn about him through his relationship with Brienne. Jaime loses the best part of himself (so he thinks) because he’s trying to protect Brienne. He helps her play The Game as much as they can while they’re prisoners of the Bloody Mummers and the Boltons. He feels safe enough with her to confess what actually happened with Aerys, and why killing the Mad King was his greatest act. When he’s released, he goes back to rescue Brienne by jumping into a pit with a bear. He tells her he’s “dreamed” of her. Later, he takes the Valyrian steel sword his father gave him, gives it to her and names it Oathkeeper. He enables her to keep her quest. He places his honor in her and when he acts, its with her on his mind. Even when he’s with Cersei, he’s noticeably changed from before. He - and as a testament to Nikolaj CW - constantly seems disapproving or doubtful, you can see his trust in Cersei waning. He’s hurt, because he cannot acknowledge his children even as they’re dying, and he sees Cersei growing more ruthless with power. When the danger of the Night King is shown to be real, he believes (like an idiot) that Cersei will aid the North. He’s especially motivated by seeing Brienne again, as she seems to remind him of how he’s Changed. When Cersei refuses to send her armies North, Jaime confronts her. And the utter betrayal when she tells the Mountain to kill him cements the end of his relationship with her. He goes North to help defend mankind, in opposition to his sister.

And at Winterfell, Jaime is ridiculous. This is the most obvious sign of his Change. He is visibly, painfully, in love with Brienne. Every time he sees her, he lights up. He leaps to his feet whenever she’s around. He cannot stop staring at her if she’s in the room. There might as well be cartoon hearts circling above his head. The scene where he knights Brienne is the most romantic, emotional, charged scenes in the entire series. They fight against the dead constantly at each other’s sides and save each other again and again. Once the battle is over, they are still together and eventually consummate their relationship.

They continue this relationship over a decent period of time. We don’t know exactly, but it’s long enough that Sansa notices, that Jaime “officially” decides to stay in Winterfell when everyone else heads south. Cersei sends Bronn down to kill Jaime and Tyrion, confirming to Jaime that Cersei no longer cares for him, and would rather see him dead.

The scene at the end of episode 7 seemed - to me - to be the culmination of where Jaime has come. He is obviously in love with Brienne. When he hears that Cersei is winning in King’s Landing, he knows that he can get close to her, that he can turn the tide of the battle. He may, in fact, be the only one. Being with Brienne - who represents pure honor - has reminded him that he can do good, and in order to do so, he has to leave. He reminds Brienne of all the terrible things he’s done in an effort to prevent her following him, as she would most definitely do. In fact, I half-expected her to pop up and kill Euron or Cersei this episode.

In episode 8, it’s like we we’re back with season 1 Jaime. He will sacrifice anything to be with Cersei. He fights Euron in the stupidest fight ever (Jaime can defeat endless amounts of dead, but one cocky asshole gets him???), and seems near death. He finds Cersei, and does not strangle her, but tries to lead her out. They die crushed by the collapsing Keep. Jaime says that the two of them are the only thing that matters.

Like. Why? What is the point? Writing fiction has to have a point, it has to lead somewhere, it has to form some sort of logic that makes sense. Jaime has Changed. People are arguing that Jaime is always selfish and does what he wants and has never betrayed Cersei. I don’t know where that’s coming from.

Let’s look at Jaime’s greatest act. He calls it that. He watched Aerys rape Rhaella and burn the Starks alive and seen the atrocities committed by the Mountain and has had to stand by the whole time. It made him sick. But when Aerys threatened everyone,  when he said he would burn the entirety of King’s Landing, all those innocent people, Jaime couldn’t stand by any longer. He broke those oaths - ones he’s struggled to keep since he was seventeen (a baby!)- and 20 yr old Jaime kills Aerys. He lives with the insulting epithet Kingslayer, the ridicule, the besmirching of his honor, all because he knows he did the right thing. He saved thousands of people. He didn’t do all this to save himself, to save Cersei or his father. He killed Aerys because it was the right thing to do, because allowing Aerys to kill all those people would be too far in these ‘oaths’ he took.

But when Tyrion speaks with Jaime, Jaime flippantly says that he doesn’t care much for the innocent people anyway??? The thing he has lived with pressing on him his entire life was to save innocent people. He never tried to change this view of him, never tried to clear his name. The act was enough.

We’re supposed to believe that he doesn’t believe that anymore? That he abandoned Cersei, rode up North to certain death, acted like a completely lovesick fool with Brienne, and in the end, nothing changed. Why would he tell Sansa he’d stay up North, if he wanted to go back to Cersei? Why would he maintain a relationship with Brienne over several days/weeks (at least!), if he was still in love with Cersei?? Why would the impetus for returning to Cersei be because she was winning??? Everything about Jaime’s evolution has been the realization that Cersei wants power, she will do everything she can to acquire/maintain it, and that he is disposable to her. Even the baby is a tool. When she asks the Mountain to kill him, it solidifies his realization. Note how when Bronn comes at Cersei’s orders, Jaime doesn’t even seem particularly surprised or upset. He knows this is who Cersei is now.

The episode ended with Arya, the fucking Faceless Man who not used a Face in several seasons, finding a horse in the middle of a fucking fire-ridden graveyard. A pale horse. Like the one death rides. So. I guess she’s - coming for Dany. Or whatever.

I am so fucking disappointed. I hate everything they’ve done, and unless this is some cheap-ass vision Bran had and tells everyone about so they can fix it all, I will not accept this as canon. Which is insane, but I’m there.

[chrissciacca]

Adapting Walter Benjamin into Art Practice.

I am at a point where I have to come to terms with a few of the realities in my attempt to merge theory and practice. At the end of the day I am presenting "soundscapes" - a dubious concept and art form (sound recordings) in its past and current state. My fuel for trying something unique and challenging... where the practice is the research... is, in my opinion, the epistemological foundation of graduate research. What do the arts have to offer in terms of knowledge formation? Well, unfortunately not everyone will concede that art is even a small fraction as worthy as the sciences when it comes to this idea. Furthermore, I have raised the question - what would be the purpose of adapting such an enigmatic and complex, unfinished work such as The Arcades project into artistic practice? Not only that what does SOUND have to offer... a niche of a niche, underappreciated by most and dominated by our occulocentric culture.

Walter Benjamin took a unique approach to methodology because he wanted to SHOW the dialectic of the "golden age as hell" or "the new is the old is the old is the new" - not as an ostentatious display of theoretical theatrics. As Susan Buck-Morss points out The Arcades Project has "cognitive and politcal power." This is because he wanted the work to inspire real socio-political change in his lifetime.The real adaptation of The Arcades Project is better suited for looking at real world issues and not ego-driven artistry. My original concept was to look at commodity fetish, especially critical of modern-industrial bourgeoisie practice (of which I may be complicit - could I not also be using art to work this out for myself?)

The problem remains: an automatic reflexive reaction to anything conceptually difficult. Yes analysing the 900 plus pages of unfinished manuscript into a coherent theory is a major undertaking that can’t be summarised so succinctly. However I don’t think anyone is really barred from understanding it when put in perhaps “simpler” terms (frankly I think anyone can crack open The Arcades Project and skim through it to find something to relate to). Once again I recommend Susan Buck-Morss' superb interpretation/analysis. It does raise another concern I have, however.Can we not attempt to engage with complexity without concluding that complexity translates to vagueness? Is doing so automatically overwrought or overly conceptual? I don't believe so. I do think a level of complexity should be encouraged at this level. I am no philosopher but I certainly feel like Benjamin is a little more pragmatic and understandable than Kant and Hegel.Yet, I cannot expect anyone to engage with this text in their own free time and I cannot expect anyone to admire it either. Another question raised: how can one satisfy the "dialectical image" when Benjamin didn't satisfy "the dialectical image". This is about artistic treatement. While text is a language, so is sound, or images for that matter. I am translating the work into a different language. Things will be lost, but perhaps something will be gained. I am also defining it on my own terms. Terms and concepts I have tried clearly define myself (tensions - opposites).

I am working through this. I do not come with everything in a perfectly presented package - this is work, not perfection and this is not a cop-out for weak work. This is the beginning of a process. I understand in his own time Benjamin had his immediate detractors like Adorno... (not to mention traditional academic philosophy departments) yet a case is made that Adorno’s skepticism was off-base as Buck-Morss illustrates in “The Dialectics of Seeing”... he was not getting what Benjamin was doing - attempting to try something not one of his predecessors attempted to do, and not even Marx was trying to shake up history in the same way. I refuse to pigeonhole Benjamin with snap judgements of his "value" as a philosopher..."overrated" or "genius". This has nothing to do with some sort of hagiography for me. This is my attempt at an original work and concept.

As a unique work (as far as I know), this entire project feels as though I am at a loss to converse with other artists. I was really thrilled to discover another sound work adapting Benjamin. It was a relief to read Campbell Edinborough's thoughts on his Arcades Project through his piece: Being Human. A Roving Soul: Walking the City with Walter Benjamin.

QUOTE: When explaining to others that I wanted to adapt The Arcades Project, the looks I received suggested scepticism regarding the text’s suitability.

QUOTE: However, I would like to argue within this article that the method of dialectical analysis developed by Benjamin in the 1920s and 1930s can be used to establish a dramaturgical model that is relevant to participatory art and performance.

From here he has to go on defense as to why performance practice suits the dialectical image. So I take my cue. I think I can make a good case with the inherent dialectics in both the landscape concept (where soundscape is derived) and ethnographic/documentary film. This is why I'm writing a thesis and providing documentation for my practice.

QUOTE: ...Benjamin’s method sought out dialectical images that could hold opposing realities in dialogue.

Am I not trying to work with opposing realities in sound? I'm not sure I'm willing to go further in a defense if this basic premise is not capitulated to. Obviously there are degrees to success in adapting a multilayered concept such as the dialectical image, however if two oppositional soundscapes - of my chosing - are not obvious as ground zero then I'm not sure I will get far.

Is it that foreign and enigmatic if I changed the title to Yin/Yang?... but you see... the dialectical image is so much more than that and its created through a fascinating use of language - a language that is thought provoking and inspiring as potential grounds for artistic expression.

QUOTE: The Arcades Project is full of images and ideas that pull the reader’s attention in different directions in order to establish a productive space for questioning the ways in which our experience is shaped by the material world.

QUOTE: (This) dialectical reading of city space enabled Benjamin to perceive and articulate the tension between empowerment and disempowerment, poverty and wealth, public and private. In recognizing tensions within the images he collected Benjamin found a moment in which the construction of the present could be contextualized in relation to the past – perhaps illuminating lost choices passed over in the process of creating the status quo. In Benjamin’s thinking, when space is perceived dialectically it is no longer experienced as a single material point, but as one possibility within a constellation of historical and social options (Benjamin 2007: 253–64)

YES “one possibility”. It’s funny to work this out in a sound composition since I often find myself confronted with myriad was of editing and presenting the soundscape. There is often the feeling that it could go in so many equally stimulating directions. But are willing to conclude this is too lofty? This can't be shown? I have yet to hear a compelling argument. I am at the beginning of a process, not the end. If someone wants to come along and do this better than myself I welcome it. I can only give the best version as I see it... I have nothing invested in "solving" Benjamin but I do have an investment in keeping things critically engaging for myself and technically challenging (not that I believe technicality is inherently better). I'd rather grow in this way than repeat past success. Did a score of mathematicians fail at Fermats theorem? Again, lest I be caught aggrandising…I bet it was still time worth spending to some, even in failure.

[sliceannarbor]

Camden Shaw

Cellist The Dover Quartet Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Photo by Carlin Ma

SPECIAL GUEST SERIES

Camden Shaw is cellist of the Dover Quartet, a string ensemble dedicated to bringing the tradition of string quartet performance into 21st century relevance. Since its formation in 2008, the Quartet has performed more than 500 concerts spanning North America and Europe. The ensemble will open the 2018 season with a European tour, including a debut at the famed Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, returning only days later to appear at Carnegie Hall with acclaimed violinist Janine Jensen. Throughout the years, Camden has collaborated in chamber music with such renowned artists as Daniel Hope, Leon Fleischer, and Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg, and maintains an active career as a soloist with performances of the Beethoven Triple Concerto with the Artosphere Festival Orchestra, where he also holds the principal chair. The ensemble recently released their debut recording Tribute: Dover Quartet Plays Mozart (Cedille), paying homage to the great Guarneri Quartet, with whom the Quartet studied. A new documentary about the ensemble is also in progress, focused on the life of young classical musicians and the sacrifices and joys that come with a successful career. Other Quartet members are first violinist Joel Link, violinist Bryan Lee, and violist Milena Pajaro-van de Stadt. Camden graduated from the Curtis Institute of Music in 2010, where he studied with Peter Wiley. When Camden is not working, you can find him enjoying a cup of coffee with friends or in a secluded cabin somewhere, sipping bourbon. He resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

FAVORITES

Book: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

Destination: The Pacific Northwest

Prized possession: My Zygmuntowicz cello, made in 2010.

THE QUERY

Where were you born?

I was born in Ashland, Oregon.

What were some of the passions/pastimes of your earlier years?

My whole childhood, I was obsessed with sailboat design. I come from a family of sailors (both my parents and my sister now live on boats full-time), and I loved the way boat designers have to synthesize aesthetics with functionality. I spent countless hours pouring over hull designs. There's something magical in curvature, and I think it's that same sense of curvature that makes musical lines beautiful as well.

What is your first memory of music as an experience?

I remember falling asleep at one of my parent's concerts (they were both musicians) when I was little. I had a twitch in my sleep and accidentally kicked the back of the chair in front of me; the woman sitting in it was not amused. That’s when I first knew that listening to music was serious business.

Why does this form of artistic expression (playing the cello) suit you?

I love the playing of an instrument because it challenges every single part of my brain. Physical skill, intellectual understanding, and emotional intelligence are all tested daily, and I love that. In terms of quartet playing, I love the collaboration of different artists to create a cohesive vision, and I find that the interpersonal relationships in a quartet are helpful in learning how to speak purposefully but with tact.

What is the significance of the name “Dover?”

We’re named after the piece Dover Beach by Samuel Barber. Barber is one of the most famous alumni of the Curtis Institute of Music, where we founded the Quartet as undergraduate students. Barber also wrote Dover Beach for himself to perform with the Curtis Quartet. In a way, “Dover” is a sneaky way of showing our relationship to Curtis.

How did the Quartet begin to reach its mark nationally/internationally?

That’s a tough one. I think the road to enduring success as a performer comes down to pretty much only one thing, which is making audiences happy. However, for that to happen, you have to appear in front of audiences. This can happen for any number of reasons: personal connections, winning competitions, etc. I think winning the Banff International String Quartet Competition in 2013 really raised the demand for the Quartet, and at that point it was our opportunity to lose. Thankfully, I think we’ve left our audiences happy enough that we are still booking gigs- that’s really all one can hope for as a musician.

Is there a performance that remains most memorable, even today?

Our debut at Carnegie Hall will always be special in our memory. It had been a dream of all of ours since childhood, so having that dream become reality was surreal. We really tried our best that night, determined to make the performance deserving of the memory we knew it would become.

What did you enjoy most about your performance with the Quartet on A Prairie Home Companion in November, 2016?

Seeing the ease with which the pros on Prairie Home performed was inspiring. The sound effects guy - holy cow! I had no idea those sound effects were created live with actual physical objects. None of it is done digitally with sound files. Also, knowing that we were being heard by a sizable part of the country was awe-inspiring and a little scary.

Why is Barber's Adagio for Strings significant/what does this piece mean to you?

The Barber Adagio is a feat of composition. Barber’s use of a quartet to convey that kind of orchestral sound is astounding, and he also creates one of the most tragic pieces in history while using mostly major chords - something that often goes unnoticed. Something about that piece is magic, and it is even closer to our hearts knowing that Barber walked the same halls in the Curtis Institute that we did as youngsters.

How is the Quartet's commitment to sharing its music with underserved communities as part of Music for Food important to you and the other members of the ensemble?

It’s easy for artists of any kind to profess the power of their art for good - but often this remains a beautiful sentiment, unrealized. We’re increasingly aware of the responsibility of the artist to use art to raise awareness, and I think the power of music brings out a generous spirit in people. It connects us to one another, and we become more aware of humanity of a whole when we experience great music.

What is your favorite piece of music and/or composer?

This is a TOUGH one, and frankly it changes every year or so. This year, my favorite piece is Verklarte Nacht by Schoenberg. I think it is one of the most beautiful experiences, in terms of manipulating conflict and resolution, of any piece.

What music can we find you listening to in your down time?

I listen to a lot of folk music, Bob Dylan and the Canadian Stan Rogers are a few of my favorites. I also deeply respect and love the music of the Dirty Projectors, an indie band that’s really more like Beethoven than might meet the eye at first.

From where do you draw inspiration?

For me, there’s nothing more inspiring than watching a human being achieve greatness and mastery in whatever craft inspires them. When I see Olympic athletes training and competing, that’s beautiful. Someone creating a startup and growing it into a successful company is beautiful too. I guess I get the most inspiration from people going after their dreams, whatever that might be.

What are you working on right now?

I had a bit of a revelation recently about the left arm; that efficient movement is so complex and so hard to describe in words, that the best way to replicate it is to trust the aesthetic of the movement. In other words, producing machine-like precision might rely more on the movement of dance than the movement of machinery: nothing is as consistent as our aesthetic vision.

Who in your life would you like to thank, and for what?

There are too many to thank, truly. But I’d like to thank my colleagues, who work so hard and from whom I’ve derived so much inspiration.

[talbottolee-blog]

Ryan McGinley

The bodies of work I chose to focus on by Ryan McGinley are, The Kids Were Alright and Paradiso. These works are drastically different and fully capture the growth McGinley has experienced over time. The Kids Were Alright was his first great work which consisted of “documentary-style approach captured the antics and daily activities of himself, his friends, and collaborators in lower Manhattan in the late 1990s” as well as 1,500 polaroids from the time. This body of work was shown in 2002, fifteen years before Paradiso. His more recent work, Paradiso does not have the same spontaneity as his earlier works but shows a more precise focus on his subject. While these images are more calculated they are still, “preserving the exuberance of a candid image” (Ratio 3) that is commonly observed throughout his work.

Ryan McGinley started going to the city “to visit his older brother, who was gay, dressed in drag and lived with his partner on the Upper East Side” (Abrams). We see that he started off his experiences in the city with a unique perspective on the world. I believe that this is one of the influences behind the way he chooses his subjects. Mcginley went to Parsons School of Design with the intention of studying painting. Over time he changed his focus to poetry, then to graphic design and finally after “taking a class with George Pitts titled ‘Nudity, Sexuality and Beauty in Photography’” (Abrams), he decided to study photography. This class has clearly influenced his work till this day. Most of his subjects are captured in the nude.

In a conversation with Dan Colen, Ryan McGinley stated that he, “just desperately wanted to get into art school, and get the fuck out of the suburbs” (Colen). This motivation to get into the city is one all too familiar. The urge to leave the home we grow up in to get to the pull of New York was what drives him to excellence. It is possible to draw a correlation from his urge to prove himself to the success he had at such a young age. He was only twenty-six when he “had his first major solo show in New York—at the Whitney Museum of American Art” (Mills). He was the youngest person to have a solo show at the Whitney in thirty years.

While most of his pictures tend to be taken in a landscape orientation, I will compare two of his pieces taken in portrait. These photographs are taken fifteen years apart and the difference in quality is astonishing. One may even mistake them for being taken by two different artists. Quite frankly the only similarities between these pictures are they are both images of a single person and these people happen to be skinny and white. These images are both quite intimate in different ways. Otherwise, these images are drastically different. The image titled, Oliver (Orange) was taken in 2002, it is clear that this image was candid and sporadic. The background is little except blurred city lights in the dark, and he has clearly been captured mid-motion. Also, he has red-eye in the photo which shows the lack of precision and quick nature of this photograph. This image was captured with a shallow depth of field, most likely because McGinley did not have the time to adjust his camera to the situation. This image also has a much lower resolution than Chloe which is an entirely different type of photograph. It had a higher resolution which also shows the passage of time, the quality of cameras drastically improved over the last fifteen years which is evident in the work.

The most glaring difference in the two images is the background, this image is taken during the day in a natural setting while Oliver (Orange) was taken in a city. Also, the focus of the image doesn't seem to be just the woman as was the case in Oliver (Orange). Chloe is in deep focus because it has a great depth of field. The woman is one with nature and the entire image is sharp and detailed. If any part if the image is blurred it would be the woman, it’s as if she were meant to be hidden in the background. One common element in both images is the use of vibrant color that draws you in. Both images warrant a second glance. Chloe shows us the more refined art that McGinley strived to create.

We can see in Oliver (Orange) that this person seems to be a friend because of their calm demeanor in the image. It is not a simple task to take quality candids it is clear that they are friends. McGinley talks about this exhibition and the people who are in it. These people were his friends, “have become very successful artists in their own right, a lot of people have unfortunately passed away from overdoses or suicide” (52 Insights). The intimacy between the subject and photographer is clear in his body of work called, The Kids Were Alright because he was close to them. The relationships in Paradiso are much more professional which is to be expected with time. Both bodies of work have their own special qualities.  The Kids Were Alright was raw and powerful because he was capturing honest moments which mirrored life. Paradiso was beautiful in a different way, the different body types hidden amongst nature in a beautiful symbiotic relationship. Both works of art tell a story with each image the art has simply evolved over time.

What is interesting about his work is he does not take photos manually. “I’m not a technical photographer, I always put it on automatic and it doesn’t matter what camera I use because to me that isn’t what makes a picture great” (52 Insights). He perfected his craft by practice, “I’ve been shooting with Polaroid cameras since the end of the ’90s,” he says. “I started this project of mine when I was a young artist, where I would photograph everyone who came over to my apartment from 1998 to 2003. I kind of lived in a flophouse in the East Village and everyone would sleep over and come through. I shot several thousand Polaroids of people during that period” (Bateman). This casual free shooting of guests turned into part of his first body of work to get real recognition, The Kids Were Alright.

Bibliography:

Bateman, Kristen. “Ryan McGinley's Top Tips for Taking Stylish Travel Photos.” Vogue, Vogue, 19 Oct. 2017, www.vogue.com/article/ryan-mcginley-polaroid-travel-photography

“Dan Colen, 2017.” RYAN McGINLEY, ryanmcginley.com/dan-colen-2017/

Mills, Mike. “Ryan McGinley.” Interview Magazine, 1 Dec. 2016, www.interviewmagazine.com/art/ryan-mcginley-1.

“Nora Abrams, 2017.” RYAN McGINLEY, ryanmcginley.com/nora-burnett-abrams/

“Ryan McGinley.” MCA Denver, mcadenver.org/exhibitions/ryan-mcginley

“Ryan McGinley: 'New York Was Melting In Front Of Me'.” 52 Insights, 15 Aug. 2017, www.52-insights.com/ryan-mcginley-photographer-new-york-was-melting-in-front-of-me-kids-were-alright/

“The Expansive ‘Paradiso’: Ryan McGinley's New Photographs @ Ratio 3, San Francisco.” Juxtapoz Magazine - Home, www.juxtapoz.com/news/photography/the-expansive-paradiso-ryan-mcginley-s-new-photographs-ratio-3-san-francisco/

Victoria Abraham

[vileart]

Babel Dramaturgy: Colby Quinn @ Edfringe 2017

LOUD // IN BABEL

 by COLBY QUINN

dir. Anastasia Bruce-Jones

12:55pm 14th - 19th August

TheSpace@NiddrySt (Upper), Niddry Street, EH1 1TH

It is 2057 and the world’s population has reached 10 billion. To prevent unsanctioned births, British law states that no male and female can be alone together in a private place. In an abandoned house, on the edge of town, Thomas and Isla break away from the rest of the party...

An abandoned house on the outskirts of Bristol. A group of young, would-be revolutionaries break in to start fires and drink liquid steel. The party quickly becomes raucous.

Upstairs, Thomas finds an old bedroom, dusty but with shafts of

evening light filtering in, and prepares a surprise for his girlfriend, Isla; their first proper date, alone. A heart-warming love story begins; two young people held apart by a law which unjustly assumes the sexuality of heterosexual relationships finally live out the most intimate and fragile of human interactions – they discover what is like to be alone with the person you love.

As they talk – about the city, about university, about their families and, seemingly constantly, about the way their lives have been affected by the new law – they are able to begin revealing the depth of their feelings for each other.

But romantic excitement turns to recklessness for Thomas as they steel themselves with alcohol. The political becomes entangled with the private once again, as Thomas’s frustration and revolutionary fury build, fuelled by the discovery of a box of photographs which tell a story of a similarly persecuted couple. Thomas’s idea of rebellion, sexual intercourse, in a world where even a father and daughter can’t be alone together, isn’t Isla’s.

WHAT WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR THIS PERFORMANCE?

I really like one night stands. There's something really exciting about being in such an intimate situation with someone you hardly know. But I don't like having sex on one night stands. It's just a line I draw. Some people have a real issue with that.It seems to me that every time I've found myself in a situation where a guy - and I say 'guy' because it always has been guys, girls in my experience haven't been this way - has pushed the boundaries of consent, and I've told them to stop and explained to them that they were beginning to do something that was non-consensual, it's always ended up being me who comforts them.  Me who comforts them? What the hell?

Because I guess it is upsetting, thinking that if the person you're on a one-night-stand with wasn't outspoken, or sober enough, or aware enough of exactly what it is she wants (or doesn't want), you could easily have ended up raping them. But I think we can agree that it's a hell of a lot more upsetting to have it the other way round.I had that image in my head for a few weeks - the victim comforting the person who has pushed their boundaries - and LOUD // in Babel emerged out of that.

IS PERFORMANCE STILL A GOOD SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF IDEAS?

Well, in this case, I'm not really sure that's the question we need to be asking.I went through school with absolutely no discussion of consent at all - this is nothing against my school, it's a good place that really cares about it's students, but it's not in the curriculum and - worse - it's just not in people's minds.  There's no culture of talking about consent. The only formal education I've ever had about consent was a half-hearted two hour

workshop at the start of my time at University, run by students who had barely more experience than I did. Sure, I had a few afternoons in school when I was taught how to put a condom on a cucumber. Frankly, these days, that's worse than not good enough.The only place I ever see ideas of consent and - even more rarely - the difficult case of rape happening within a loving and consensual relationship being discussed is in performance and the very fringes of the media, in edgy, low-budget dramas and YouTube documentaries.As a writer and director, performance is the way I express my ideas. It's the medium through which I naturally filter and express my experiences. I guess that makes me lucky, because performance is one of the few places which *allows*, and more importantly, validates discussion of consent. Performance is absolutely necessary as a space for the public discussion of ideas.The question we need to be asking, though, is why is performance so necessary? Why is performance the only place I can be sure of being heard when I say that I have taught myself through experience how to prevent my own rape?

HOW DID YOU BECOME INTERESTED IN MAKING PERFORMANCE?

I think it was when I saw Trevor White play

Hotspur in Gregory Doran's 'Henry IV: Part I' and I realised that really great performances are about saying something totally new.In White's portrayal, Hostpur was an autistic man, wholly dedicated to his ideals, on fire with passion, leaping across the stage (I swear, four feet high sometimes) and compelling the audience with every ancient word he spoke. He never said a single thing that hasn't been said a hundred times before but it was electric and modern and totally fresh.

IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR APPROACH TO THE MAKING OF THE SHOW?

Not exactly a particular 'approach' - we're not going to rehearse everything in complete darkness or with our hands tied behind our backs or eating only rice and beans - I don't believe in directing gimmicks. But as with rehearsing any show, there are going to be unique challenges that require unique solutions.For example, Isla and Thomas (the characters in LOUD // in Babel) get drunk through the course of the show. Given that their particular level of drunkenness leads to both of them losing a degree of control and doing things that they probably wouldn't do if they were sober, it's important for Toby and Beth (our actors) to feel that particular level of drunkenness and how it affects their decisions as characters. 

So we're going to do a rehearsal where we run the show and they actually drink the amount of alcohol the characters are drinking - in real time. And I'll record that and then we'll watch it through the next day. But the recording is sort of secondary, it'll help with slight physical things, but no-one wants to watch actors pretending to be absolutely smashed, so it's not really about that. It's more to feel how that lack of control works on the characters; makes them quieter or bolder or gives them that little voice at the back of the head that whispers 'this is bad, this is really bad'.Instead of a particular approach, it'll be exercises like this. What I focus on is getting the actors' heads fully inside the psyche of their character, thinking and feeling as they do. After that, things come naturally.

DOES THE SHOW FIT WITH YOUR USUAL PRODUCTIONS?

Not exactly, but then it's been a pretty crazy range so far. I've directed 'Love's Labour's Lost' (a quirky Shakespeare comedy) set in modern-day Cambridge, 'The Duchess of Malfi' (a revenge tragedy) using physical theatre and 'set' (if you can call it setting) inside the subconscious dreaming mind of society itself, 'Birdsong' (Faulks' WW1 romance) in a pretty faithful way and I'm currently writing a short-film about two student film-makers who think they're Arthur Rimbaud. There's no real pattern here.What I think is important to me is that audiences feel a connection - some significance to what is happening on stage, whether that's because they've been through similar things themselves or conversely because they are being made to feel something totally new. It's that sense of connection that will keep people coming to the theatre, keep young people interested, and prevent the 'dying out' of theatre that the arts world at the moment is so afraid of.

WHAT DO YOU HOPE THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL EXPERIENCE?

Emotion. It's as simple as that.What I find interesting is that when you go to the theatre or the cinema, you know that what you're seeing is not real. And yet, you feel it more strongly than reality. I've had people tell me they love me for the first time and felt far less emotion than when Jack and Rose kiss on the prow of the Titanic. It's a sort of condensation of reality.People go because they want to feel something, and that's exactly what I plan to deliver.

WHAT STRATEGIES DID YOU CONSIDER TOWARDS SHAPING THIS AUDIENCE EXPERIENCE?

We've got a lot of cool ideas about this; we're planning to give some audience members t-shirts which, without revealing anything about the twists of the play, have quite an important role in a big reveal.We're also using people's voices within the play itself, so we need some volunteers to read some sections of writing for us. So, if you want to actually be in an Edinburgh show, come to us!

LOUD // in Babel, an original piece of dystopia from Colby Quinn, is a powerful insight into the dangers of a voice going unheard. Through the funny, touching and fast-paced dialogue of the two would-be lovers, the play challenges our perceptions of freedom of speech, consent and the implications of silencing a voice.

LOUD // in Babel is structured around a new and very different concept, which poses multiple problems for both the characters and the audience to grapple with. The unique concept of the play frames the issues of the present, focusing on a hypothetical future which amplifies the fears of today without parodying them or using already well-worn Orwellian tropes overtly. 

The play challenges the audience by placing them inside a space which is controlled by laws which have a fundamental impact on the way the characters have lived their lives and understand communication. 

Through the play, the audience realise their own comparative freedom, the delicate balance of the private and the political and the terrifying consequences of this balance being upset. The play itself strikes an unsettling and deeply affecting balance between romantic comedy and political drama, which drives the pace and creates a Nick Payne-esque emotional struggle. 

This rejection of standardised genre expectations holds the audience to account for their own problematic expectations of romantic relationships in theatre and western culture more broadly and reflects the darkly ambiguous position created by voicelessness within the play. The theme of voicelessness itself creates an intriguing crux in a form which is built around dialogue, asking questions about the existence and position of free speech, which are reminiscent of Sam Steiner. 

The production uses simple technical effects to create powerful images, building to an exciting technical reveal at the end. The play builds around difficult ambiguities, which come to their climax in the question of sexual consent in a loving, consensual relationship. It is a play which will spark conversations and debate among audience-members, something that lies at the heart of Fringe theatre.

from the vileblog http://ift.tt/2uocvJ1