First Rough Draft

Imagine sitting and watching runway show after runway show and reading every magazine under the sun just to try and piece together what will be the next “trend” a year from now.  Deciphering between what’s “in” and what’s “out” can be a confusing and exhausting task, but have no fear, the fashion world is undergoing a major reality check.  For decades, we have been hypnotized to believe we have to keep up with the rapidly changing styles the fashion world shoves down our throats, but now that everything you think could possibly be done has been done and regurgitated time and time again, it’s time for a reboot.  Fashion as a sculptural art form has emerged, proving that the world of high-fashion is transforming into an individualistic means of expression rather than a continuous cycle of trends existing within a commercial industry.  

To begin to truly understand this progressive world, we need to answer the most basic questions: What is fashion, and what makes something “sculptural” fashion?

Fashion means something different for each of us, but the one thing everyone should at least acknowledge is that it’s a way of expression.  Many argue that fashion is not an art form, but there is a distinct line that can be drawn between clothing and fashion that is commonly misunderstood because of how easily identifiable the craft is.  Clothes are designed with the intent to sell, while fashion is created with the intent to provoke emotional reaction. Fashion is wearable art in the form of architecture formed to the body, and this revamped concept is being taken to a whole new level with work that is pushing creative boundaries. The sculptural pieces are strikingly innovative in construction and use of materials, they shy away from any norms and most of all generate reactions based off emotions.

Many designers have come and gone, toying around with the idea of creating avante garde, out of the box pieces, but none have even come close to the success of Alexander McQueen.  He believed, “people don’t want to see clothes, they want to see something that fuels the imagination,” and in 2009 he designed the ultimate apocalyptic-fantasy collection with stunning craftsmanship, a strong emotional message and a huge hint of mockery.

In the fall collection, the stage set the mood of the show with a giant heap of “trash” in the center, and with a closer look, tires, old cages and other props McQueen had used in previous shows had been recycled to make up this monstrosity.  The mound dominated the runway and had an eerie and dark feeling, and after the models emerged, the setting fit the tone to a T. 

The first models came out wearing silhouettes similar to designers Givenchy and Chanel, and they soon became parodies when McQueen added his own personal flare in the form of overly exaggerated shoulder pads and hips, creating a “Yeah, I can do what you do, and I can do it better” feeling.  This mockery also became apparent with the bright-red clown lips the models were sporting.  They screamed, “I don’t take myself too seriously, and I don’t care what you think.”  The humor added to the individualism he was trying to illustrate, but it was subtle enough that anyone on the outside world may not have caught it. 

Continuing on into the show were pieces that began to shy away from the typical “fashion.”  They were thrilling, tactile, hard, and even ugly to the eye at first, but McQueen’s use of couture craftsmanship progressed his work into an array of original works of art.  In one of the final pieces, the most breath taking of them all, the model emerged wearing a long mermaid style evening dress made of trash bag simulated fabric and a jacket representing bubble wrap.  The dress was dramatic, dark, voluminous and over whelming, making the model seem to be an apocalyptic god of the future. Aggressive and tactile, the showmanship was ugly in an engaging way. You can’t keep your eyes off of her, and you begin to ask yourself how a trash bag can be so beautiful.  The model disappears and all focus is solely on the form, exactly what a piece of sculptural fashion should do.

However, behind the fascinating pieces of work is an even more powerful message that proves McQueen is a legacy in the making.  The trash, the clown lips, and the designs all help portray the anger and frustration he had with the constant “recycling” of trends within the industry.  The ruins in the middle of the stage became a metaphor for the fashion world as he saw it.  No real individuality was separating designer from designer, and by acknowledging this he gave a big middle finger to the fashion world declaring that he would continue to create whatever he wanted, regardless of what was accepted at the time.  He stated, “There are designers that I admire, but I don’t look up to them.  I don’t really look at what everyone else is doing, that’s a studio mentality.  There comes a time when you focus solely on what you believe is right, regardless of what everyone else is doing.” 

McQueen broke all barriers between the art and fashion worlds with this collection, making him a fashion genius and the leader of the individualist movement inspiring other artists to come forward with their own personal styles.  His pieces were emotionally charged and thought provoking, leaving the interpretation up to the imagination of the viewer and with his aesthetic and technique there is no way these creations are to be considered “clothing.”  They are sculpture, and they are art.

"The Critic as Artist"

            “Why should those who cannot create take upon themselves to estimate the value of creative work? What can they know about it?”  A seemingly uneducated man, Ernest, poses the question to his dinner host Gilbert (the voice of Oscar Wilde) in a written dialogue addressing the qualities and many facets of criticism through the endless arguments the men create.

            Wilde begins by proving that critics have always been around, titling the Greeks as “a nation of art-critics,” who paved the way for the principles of life and literature, but most of all, the Greeks appreciated the most important critical aspect, the voice.  “There is no fine art without self-consciousness, and self-consciousness and the critical spirit are one,” meaning art cannot exist without some form of known emotion living within the individual, and for the critic, this emotion is dying to come out.

            The main argument Gilbert (Wilde) tries to get across is that criticism is an art form, and he refers to language itself as an art.  The critic breathes and takes in the beauty of art, this beauty then becomes the main form of criticism that can transform any piece of art into a work of literature.  This literature is one of the most pure forms of self-expression and is a “record of one’s own soul,” and this impression the art evokes is the reason the art is created in the first place.  Expression is tossed aside from the view of the critic and the attention is focused only on the impression. 

Wilde’s most controversial statement made throughout the dialogue is, “It is very much more difficult to talk about a thing than to do it,” meaning the task of critiquing the piece is actually harder than creating the piece. To help Ernest understand he uses the analogy that when a man describes something, he becomes a poet rather than a man who acts, who is merely a puppet.   The real artist is one who can take the feeling and passion from a piece of art, not take a feeling and create art.  “He gains his inspiration from form, and from form purely, as an artist should.”

After Ernest understands criticism is art, he asks why criticism is necessary and what could come of it.  Criticism helps to write history, which is an extremely large task. Gilbert explains that the critic is a cultural person who holds the dreams and feelings of generations and is representational of a race at large. In other words, the critic is the spokes-person of generations’ emotions, and he even stated, “with the development of the critical spirit we shall be able to realize, not merely our own lives, but the collective life of the race” (humanity).

To exemplify this spirit of the critic, Wilde states,” We must surrender ourselves absolutely to the work in question, whatever it may be, if we wish to gain its secret.  For the time, we must think of nothing else.”  The critic should have no prejudices and should not strive to be “fair,” nor should they get caught up in their opinions. Everyone has a sense and knowledge (consciously or subconsciously) of beauty that is different from all of the other senses, and a critic uses the sense to help the impression and feelings come to life through language in a way that is not just portraying beauty but also is beautiful. 

As the meeting closes Gilbert says, “Hours ago, Ernest, you asked me the use of Criticism.  You might just as well have asked me the use of thought.”  Wilde believed that criticism was the thoughts coming to life in writing, creating a work of art greater than the art that was originally viewed.  This passion is something writers should both understand and try to experience to help the future of criticism become as great as Wilde believes it can be.

Final Essay

Topic:  Fashion as sculptural art is emerging as a trend while the whole idea of a “trend” is changing in meaning (as seen in the 2011 runway debuts)

Introduction:

Individualistic trends are on the rise

Creativity in fashion (examples)

Brief history of fashion

Thesis

I. Gareth Pugh-Ready to wear Designer

A)    Theme of show

B)    Artistic Influences/Style

C)    Critique of show

 II. Alexander McQueen-Ready to wear and Couture Designer

A) Theme of show

B) Artistic Influences/Legacy of McQueen/Style

            C) Critique of show

III. Phillip Treacy-Couture Hat Designer  

            A)Theme of collection

            B)Artistic Influences/Style

            C)Critique of collection

Conclusion:

How these 3 designers are similar and different as well as how they are influencing the commercial and couture world

Why fashion should be considered an art and what could happen to the future of the industry

            

"Skins" (Season 1, episode 1: "Tony," MTV)

Strung-out and barefoot, a teenage girl stumbles home as she tries to sneak in before her parents catch her.  The image is laughable and somewhat unrealistic, but so is MTV’s “Skins.”  The series follows a group of naïve minors from Baltimore who party their way through high school, getting themselves into more trouble than it’s worth.

            In the first episode (Season 1, episode 1: “Tony,” MTV), Tony (James Newman), the attractive bad-boy and self-designated leader of the pack emerges.  He makes it his mission to help his buddy Stanley (Daniel Flaherty) lose his virginity before his 17^th birthday after repeatedly telling him it’s “embarrassing.”  Stanley is told that if he brings the goods he can shack up with Cadie (Britne Oldford), the promiscuous druggie who enjoys creating phallic art.  The boys plan on going to a party later that night where all of their plans will potentially go down.  After borrowing $900 worth of weed from a prostitute house in the suburbs, Stanley is sure he will lose is V-card but arrives to find his hookup Cadie has overdosed.  The night continues in a giant mess of teenage drunkenness, drugs, fights, and eventually ends with a car crashing into a lake.

            Right off the bat, the episode seems over-the-top for the sake of being over- the-top.  The characters are too rebellious for their own good, and it doesn’t help that the acting was hollow and uninspired.  Britne Oldford’s character Cadie is supposedly the “hardcore” one of the bunch, but she just comes off as brain-dead.  She tells Stanley that she will steal his virtue if he brings “really great narcotics” in a monotone, space-cadet manner.  There’s no depth to her acting, but she’s not the only one.  Almost all of the actors seem absent-minded and forced to interact with each other, but this could be a result of the lack of development of the characters in general.

            What makes the show so unrealistic though is the vulgarity of the story line. The teenage girls are portrayed in a degrading way, as if they are willing to give themselves up to any boy that crosses their path.  They come off as airheads with an unhealthy amount of self-esteem.  In the most mind-boggling scene Tony’s girlfriend Michelle (Rachel Thevenard) says to Cadie, “Stanley is going to be handling you tonight, “ making her appear to be an object that can just be passed around.  With an audience base of teenagers and young adults, it doesn’t make sense to create a world where women are portrayed this way.

            The language the characters use is offensive too!  A lot of creativity must be required to think of countless ways to describe losing your virginity.   Once you can get past the foul-mouthed, raunchy and constant balls to the wall lifestyle of these teens (if you even can), the only mediocre thing the show has going for itself is the music.  The soundtrack is carefree and upbeat, and plays as good backup music to the hectic mess unraveling on the screen.

            If the pilot episode is any indication of season one, “Skins” is dud.  In the final scene just after crashing a van into a lake Cadie says, “you’re alive, that’s cool.”   If one good thing can come of the show, maybe we can feel more motivated and accomplished about our lives because it comes across loud and clear that these teens do not. 

Mike Sleadd's "Phorcys"

Beauty is often found in art.  It can catch your every last strand of attention, clinging to the core of your deepest thoughts.  The imagination wanders and for that momentary lapse in time you become one with the artist and his or her work.  The feeling is humbling but yet exciting and is usually only experienced in a piece of “great” art, and Columbia, Missourian Mike Sleadd makes “great” art.

            Standing four feet by five feet tall in Perlow-Stevens Gallery’s front window is Sleadd’s “Phorcys (upon reviewing news of his daughter’s death).”  At first glance the drawing is nothing less than intriguing, and it creates an instant presence in the room with its size and use of stark black and white.  The lack of color immediately puts focus on the large form, a broken down man’s face.  He appears lifeless with a blank stare and deep-set empty eyes that tear right through the viewer.  After glancing at the title, it all makes sense.  He has lost his child.

            There is a connection that can almost instantaneously be made from the art to the viewer.  Appearing skeletal and lifeless, the figure becomes refreshingly haunting.  His lack of emotion assists the viewer in sparking his or her own emotions.  One can truly dive into his soul, feeling the emptiness right along with him, and there is no doubt that the piece’s purpose was to play with these emotions.

            Sleadd has been known for his use of complex subjects and extremely intricate details in his smaller drawings, but after coming down with a case of carpal tunnel, he made the switch to a “full-arm” technique with “Phorcys.”  He truly found his niche, creating movement with long sporadic and fluid lines as well as keeping with his highly detailed style with the use of tiny crosshatches and marks.  The technique is controlled and tactile, and the overall composition is laid out in such a pleasingly busy way, the viewer has no choice but to study the drawing top to bottom, side to side, far away and close-up.

            Mastering his technique with his choice of media and the way he applies it is the reason why “Phorcys” is so powerful.  He uses a feather pen and ink in a way other artists should be more willing to try out. What looks as though it was accomplished with ease and randomness is very carefully thought out down to every last overlapping line.  There is such delicacy in the work that can only be seen close up, but when viewed is breath taking.

            “Phorcys” is a piece of artwork that should be appreciated for its beauty in both its content and style.  Without such an aggressively calm approach to the drawing, the reaction the piece provokes would have weakened.  An artist’s personal style is what separates them from the rest of the art world, and Sleadd has found his way to do just that.  When asked about his art he said, “This might be the only life I have. I've decided to spend the bulk of this one as an artist 'cause next time I might come back as a newt. It would be hard to hold a pen as a newt.”

"Almost Famous"

“Listen to Tommy with a candle burning, and you’ll be able to see your entire future.”  These are the last words 15-year-old William Miller (Patrick Fugit) hears from his older sister as she gives him her secret stash of records just minutes before moving out of the house, away from her mother’s control.  It’s at this moment, the spark in Miller’s innocent eyes twinkles, and the music he hears inspires him to write.  In a world of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll Miller becomes enthralled with a passion for music and criticism in Cameron Crowe’s 2000 mega-hit “Almost Famous.“

Miller began submitting record reviews to his icon and Creem magazine journalist Lester Bangs (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), and soon after in 1973, Rolling Stone catches wind of the young boy and hires him to follow the new band Stillwater on tour.  Throughout the course of the movie Lester is shown giving his advice to Miller telling him, “You cannot make friends with rock stars or people trying to glorify the industry.”   He also continually said to be honest and unmerciful in his writings, which proves to be a challenge for Miller in the long run as he witnesses first hand the life of musicians off-stage.  He is seen as the enemy by the band, which makes it difficult for him to get the interviews he desires.

“Almost Famous” truly captures the life and times of the 70s in a way no other film has done through the use of acting.  The standout main characters William Miller (Patrick Fugit), Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) and Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) are highly developed, genuine and honest and have a complexity that almost anyone can find a personal connection with.  Kate Hudson was the perfect choice to play the Stillwater groupie, and her demeanor is flawlessly accurate of the sexuality and carefree nature of the time.  It’s hard not to connect with her because she is so in-tune with her emotions, making it easy for anyone to fall in love with her.

Crudup plays the front guitar man to the band and finds himself with an inner desire for recognition and personal success while he perfectly embodies a rocker at the same time.  In one of the more humorous scenes, Hammond is standing on top of a house ready to jump into a pool shouting down to Miller, “Tell Rolling Stone my last words were ‘I’m on drugs.’” Miller finds himself questioning just how much he should expose of the band at this moment, and Fugit captures this reluctance in an innocent and hopeful way that is carried throughout the film.

Being that “Almost Famous” is about rock-and-roll and the lifestyle, Crowe chose a soundtrack that gives the film a feel-good vibe.  Songs such as  “Tiny Dancer” (Elton John), “My Cherie Amour” (Stevie Wonder) and “That’s the Way” (Led Zeppelin) are used to lift the mood and set the tone in almost every scene, adding a bit of flare to the film.  The costumes and set were accurate down to every small detail, making you feel like you are going back in time, experiencing the journey alongside Miller.

You can tell that Crowe made this movie his baby, making sure each and every detail was captured accurately.  It’s a story of rebellion, sexuality, love, and the issues that come with stardom but most of all, it’s a portrayal of a young boy’s passion for writing and the risks he would take to become a rock critic.

"The Cove" Revised

Each year 23,000 dolphins are captured and brutally slaughtered.  Taiji, Japan, the epicenter of this madness, has consequently been named “the little town with a big secret.”  The fisherman of Taiji would drive dolphins from the ocean into a hidden cove, where they were either selected for a life in captivity or were clubbed and speared to death.  The locals were surprisingly unaware of the secret trade, and a team of filmmakers, ecologists, divers, and activists sought to uncover the hidden cruelty with the release of “The Cove” (directed by Louis Psihoyos, 2009).  

            Richard O’Barry, the crews’ leader, trained dolphins for 30 years in captivity.  His main project was to find and train the five dolphins used in “Flipper.”  After witnessing the ongoing stress and eventual suicide of “Flipper’s” leading dolphin Kathy, he felt responsible to tear down the industry he spent his whole life creating by uncovering the injustice, using film as the main mean.  “The Cove” thoroughly explores the reasoning behind the demand of dolphins, the hunters’ methods and secret marketplaces, and the ongoing arguments of captivity versus the wild in an all-inclusive, entertaining and emotionally challenging way.

From the get-go you see “The Cove” isn’t your typical form of documentary, which makes for a very entertaining twist.  The film takes on the role of storyteller, setting out to display an ecological issue in the form of a thriller, and you are able to go on the emotional journey right alongside the team. Effective imagery carefully plays with the viewers’ emotions using photographs, along with old, new and secret footage.  Jumping, joyful dolphins are quickly replaced with a blood bath, taking the viewer from a state of light-heartedness to a state of sadness and anger all within a two- hour span.

“The Cove” is shot from the point-of-view of the animal rights activist, and Psihoyos did a thorough job in showing the opposing sides’ opinions by including interviews and secret film footage of government officials, IWC (International Whaling Committee) members, and the fisherman themselves.  All of these subjects found no issue in hunting the mammal, and using their side of the story helps to light the fire under the issue and keep the viewer eagerly wanting to watch more.  

Within the filming and research process, the biggest obstacle the team faced was finding a way into the cove without getting caught, and the modern technology used to do so definitely made the movie.  The crew had footage of the town, fishermen, boats, and of course, the dolphins, but they still needed that one money-shot.  In the most suspenseful scene of the film, the team set out in the middle of the night to install cameras hidden in rocks and microphones hidden underwater.  The mission became a necessity because footage would be shot from all angles within the cove, something no one else had ever accomplished.  Without it, the documentary would have become just another boring educational film, losing all of its entertaining characteristics.

In the final and most liberating scene of “The Cove,” O’Barry strapped a television to his chest showing graphic footage from the cameras the team installed. He pranced around an IWC meeting in protest, taking his film to the next level, activism. The risk the team took to create the film and show the issue with as little editing as possible stands out as the reason why the film is so powerful in both its message and emotional challenge.

  O’Barry and Psihoyos began with an issue much too large to fight alone and with too many questions surfacing.  The documentary served as a tool to figure out how to bring light to this serious ecological problem.  The more they filmed, the more educated they became, creating a desire to uncover the issue even further.  The drive and passion displayed is something all filmmakers should strive for because the viewer can truly sense it.  They weren’t afraid to show the world exactly what was uncovered.  There was an extreme importance for this ecological problem to surface, and “The Cove” brought the issue forward in a beautifully moving way that will continue to inspire others to fight for their passions. 

"The Cove"

     Taiji, a fishing hot-spot located in Japan, has been named “the little town with a big secret.”  Each year 23,000 dolphins are captured and brutally slaughtered while unaware townspeople go about their daily lives.  This was all planned to change when “The Cove” (directed by Louis Psihoyos, 2009) was filmed and released.  A team of filmmakers, ecologists, divers, and activists sought to uncover the hidden cruelty, proving they would do whatever it would take to begin and carry out a major ecological movement.

            Richard O’Barry, the crews’ leader, trained dolphins for thirty years in captivity.  His main project was to find and train the five dolphins used in “Flipper.”  After witnessing the ongoing stress and eventual suicide of “Flipper’s” leading dolphin Kathy, he felt responsible to tear down the industry he had spent his whole life creating.  In “The Cove,” O’Barry and his team uncover a hidden cove used to hide dolphins that that no others had ever before captured on film.  The documentary thoroughly explores the reasoning behind the demand of dolphins, the hunters’ methods and secret marketplaces, and the ongoing arguments of captivity versus the wild.

            “The Cove” is shot from the point-of-view of the animal rights activist, and Psihoyos does a great job in showing the opposing sides’ opinions on the matter of dolphin slaughtering.  Townspeople, government officials, and the fishermen themselves were all interviewed or secretly captured giving their side of the story, creating a well-balanced documentary.  However, from the get-go you see this documentary isn’t your typical form of documentary, which creates a very entertaining twist.  The film takes on the role of storyteller, setting out to display a serious injustice in the form of a thriller and suspense.  Effective imagery is created using photographs, old, new, and secret footage, and interviews with the team, IWC (International Whaling Committee) and fishermen.  

 The most difficult obstacle in creating the film was finding a way into the cove without getting caught.  This is where the modern technology really made the movie.  The crew had footage of the town, fishermen, boats, and of course, the dolphins, but they still needed that one money-shot.  In the most suspenseful scene of the film, the team sets out in the middle of the night to install both cameras hidden in rocks and microphones hidden underwater.  All of the installation was shot using night-vision and heat-sensitive cameras that vividly displayed the silhouettes of each person, making it difficult to decipher the “good” guys from the “bad” guys and creating a spy-like atmosphere. This mission became necessary because the rock cameras would be able to shoot from every angle possible inside of the cove.  The filmmakers accomplished what no one else had done before, and the use of technology aided in the success of the film.

            Though the technology played a large role in making “The Cove” an emotionally powerful documentary, the risk the team took to create the film and show the issue with as little subjectivity as possible stands out the most.  O’Barry began with an issue much too large to fight alone and with too many questions to keep up with.  The documentary served as a tool to figure out how to bring light to this serious ecological problem.  The more they filmed, the more educated they became, adding to the drive to uncover the issue into further detail.  He wasn’t afraid to show the world exactly what he found, in hopes it would spark interests, and this courage adds to the impressive detail in the film.

            In the final scene, O’Barry strapped a television to his chest with graphic footage from the cove playing, and he pranced around an IWC meeting in protest.  He was quickly shot-down, but he should be proud to say he helped create and lead an all-inclusive, well-researched, technologically savvy, entertaining and emotionally challenging documentary that is only the start to a long battle for animal rights and ecological issues.

"Copyright Criminals"

Art wouldn’t be viewed as art if there weren’t an underlying controversy of some sort.  It is questionable what a completely original idea is, and this uncertainty has sparked debate in every art form imaginable.  In the case of “Copyright Criminals" (Directed by Benjamin Franzen, 2009) the concept of sampling music is analyzed and argued by musicians, lawyers, sound engineers, and sample artists themselves, making the documentary a balanced and judgment-free source when exploring the issues of copyrighting music.

            The strongest component that makes “Copyright Criminals” so effective and coherent is the use of commentary and the subjects chosen to do the commenting.  Clyde Stubblefield, an original member of the James Brown Band, is one of the most sampled artists ever, making his interview on the subject necessary.  It was logical to go straight to the creator to find out how he deals with the drama.  He spoke with a real-life-artist’s perspective that left the viewer feeling sympathetic after learning that all he yearns for is recognition of his name, not money in his pocket.  surrounding the subject.

            On the opposite end of the spectrum, the documentary takes a look at artists using these samples in their work and the legality issues they face. The progression of music and its creation with the use of sampling is outlined in the film starting with some of the earliest forms of sampling artists such as the Beatles and Prince and on into today’s music world with artists such as Jay Z. The use of this historical progression helped to make the documentary a reliable and credible source. 

            The successfulness of the documentary is also aided by the comparison of musicians to artists such as Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and Shakespeare.  Andy Warhol for example was influenced heavily in his work by icons such as Marilyn Monroe, and he used this influence to create a new masterpiece. The comparisons aid the viewer in better understanding why artists even consider using samples, which is a question many need and want answered.  Using examples outside of the hip-hop realm helps to put artistry as a whole into a better perspective. 

            The effectiveness isn’t just from the content contained within the documentary however.  Every so often, a split-screen was used comparing and layering two or more images of artists accompanied by their music to show how easy and unrecognizable sampling has been used in the past and present.  The layering gives a break from the face-time commentary and adds a new level of fun to the documentary, while still showing the development and use of sampling as a tool within the art.

             Though musicians have been known to sample for years, and as music and the technology behind the creation of this music evolves, it gets harder to pinpoint what has been “copied” and what is “original.”  “Copyright Criminals” took on the challenge of covering this hot debate topic and did so in a visually appealing, unbiased, and unique way.  Though no real end to the battle of “copier vs. creator” can be seen, the documentary lays all of the moral and ethical issues out on the table, leaving the viewer responsible to make up his or her own mind.

It's a boy? It's a girl? It's a Gaga!

After 5 hours of anticipating incubation in what looked like an oversized alien egg, Lady Gaga hatched on stage at “The Grammys” to perform her new hit single “Born this Way.”  The song was quickly named the LGBTQ community anthem with lyrics, “Don't hide yourself in regret/Just love yourself and you're set/ I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way.”  Wanting to make political and social statements about accepting everyone for who they are and the way they were born, it was a no brainer that she would perform the song at the award show.

Gaga had been carried down the red carpet the night of by scantily clad men with six packs and refused to come out of her shell for interviews.  One of the designated carriers stated, “Lady Gaga is in creative embryonic stage and won’t be born until this evening.” Little Monsters didn’t have to wait long seeing as though she was the second performance of the night.  The egg appeared on stage glowing, and Gaga emerged, or was in context of the song, birthed, horned shoulders and all.

Gaga’s performance and choice of clothing, or lack there of considering she is hardly ever seen wearing pants, was a hot topic, and after all the hype, she left her monsters underwhelmed.  She’s all about “rebirth” and accepting the skin you were born in at this stage in her career, and yes, the costumes are supposed to represent Egyptian fertility gods, but wearing a flesh-toned sheet as a skirt to represent skin isn’t going to cut it when you’re considered a fashion god in today’s world.

The high ponytail, referred to as the “Madonna pony,” on her head wasn’t a smart move either.  The comparison of “Born this Way” post-release to Madonna’s “Vogue” has already been thrown out countless times.  When confronted about ripping Madonna off with out giving her due credit, Gaga replied, “How do you like this then, I’ve made a song that sounds like some of her big hits (but also like its own song) because obviously I know who Madonna is, it’s not as if I am somehow expecting you all to imagine that I have never heard of this ‘Madonna’ singer, it’s bloody Madonna after all isn’t it?”  This makes one ponder whether or not these similarities were done for the hell of it, knowing very well what she was doing and the criticism it would bring.

Though the costumes were a bit of a bore, it made the focus on the song and performance more prevalent. Choreographer Laurieann Gibson’s choreography matched the upbeat spirit of the song.  However, mid-song, Gaga whipped out an organ that did not match this upbeatness and did nothing more than bring back memories of sitting at a Cubs game during the seventh-inning-stretch.  It was awkward and ill-fitting with the song; pop or gospel, Lady, not both. 

It’s obvious that Gaga’s vocal ability is at its peak; she didn’t falter once, which is rare these days in live performance, just ask Christina Aguilera, but as impressive as her pipes were, all of the built up hype surrounding the performance before and during the red carpet left Little Monsters and most viewers confused. There was no real, wow factor, unless the abnormally large egg strikes your fancy. It made one ask whether to stick by Gaga and declare the performance artistic genius or stick with the internal gut reaction and pray that it will only get better.

This new spirit and love for music that Gaga is currently all about is uplifting and for lack of a better word, happy even if the “Grammy” performance didn’t live up to most expectations.  If her “birth” is truly representational of the new Gaga, it’s a toss up as to what the new album expected in May will consist of; maybe the next time around, Gaga will live up to her obscure expectations.

Donna Seaman's Approach to Reviewing the Arts

Everyone has their own personal spin on being critical whether they can realize it or not.  Some people do it with ease and can whip out a review faster than a teenage girl “whipping her hair back and forth” on the dance floor.  In the Chicago Time out piece, ten pretty well known critics chitchatted about their tricks of the trade and how they go about reviewing the arts.

Donna Seaman of Booklist and WLUW’s Open Books seemed to have a pretty lucid take on ways to be an effective critic and the way she does it.  First and foremost, she’s passionate, and this rings clear considering she comes right out of the gate stating so.  “Dedicate yourself to and devote your critical attention out of hunger for what books or music or, literally, food grants you.” You’re not going to want to write about Swan Lake if you’ve spent the entirety of your life listening to Black Sabbath; you’re not going to be knowledgeable either. Go to the events, read the books, look at the paintings, and eat the food that you feel inclined to.

  However, she believes you shouldn’t completely immerse yourself too deep in your emotions and should be able to see the whole picture without blinders.  When you understand the way you see something, why you see it that way, and still understand what the purpose is, you’re going to have a well-rounded view.

She’s become stubborn with her work too; she thinks about what she’s working on, and that’s it!  When she immerses herself in reviewing something, an urge comes over her to learn more and she self-educates herself.  If some little know it all then feels the need to strike back at her, she will know what she’s talking about and give them an informed piece of her mind.  This is also how she earns trust from her readers.  Not everyone is going to like what she has to say, but if she says from a passionate and well-educated place, she’s going to get that trust she strives for. 

            Writing should obviously always have some sort of creativity to it in order to keep it from becoming a total snooze-fest.  Donna uses wordings that flow like conversation in the readers mind so they can get those brain cells working, if they don’t already.  When they feel they can relate to their critic of choice, they are going to become loyal to him or her, and they are going to want to be thrown into more and more art.  They are going to want to live it and breathe it along side their critic because they can trust her. 

Though some people out there are making a disgusting amount of money writing cheap articles that frankly just don’t cut it, Donna Seaman isn’t in it for all that.   The passion she feels for books gives her this constant urge to dedicate her life to them.  It’s critics like this that we should follow because after all, we don’t want to waste our precious lives away reading a thoughtless and unenthusiastic work. 

Reviews That Work and Don't Work

“All Good Things” is a film that can definitely make viewers feel awkward, to say the least.  Criticism came flooding in from all gates leaving vibes from both the positive and negative end of the spectrum being that the film takes the audience on an interesting journey.  Reviews came and went, leaving pieces of work that were considered either a success or failure.

Tonight at the Movies’ Laurie Curtis gave her opinion on Andrew Jarecki’s film in a review that works from all perspectives.  She begins by explaining that the driving force behind the plot is, no shocker here, money.  The events portrayed are real life, and it’s necessary for Curtis to give the reader an overview to spark interest in what’s to come without giving too much detail and ruining the movie.  She then carries on by paying attention to the director, Andrew Jarecki, and the main characters Kirstin Dunst and Ryan Gosling.  She states that Dunst captures the innocence of the woman she is portraying while Gosling is eerily able to take on versatile roles.  Giving insight into the actors’ performances is a pretty important piece to the whole review puzzle.  No one is going to want to see a film without understanding why the actor was chosen for the part, and anyone who doesn’t particularly care for the main character isn’t going to waste the twelve bucks if they have no real insight into the film whatsoever.

What really makes her review successful though is her use of emotional reaction to the film and the way she words it.  People are affected by money and love, which in some positive or negative way will eventually touch everyone.  Curtis understands this, which creates the mood of the movie, and she conveys it by using entertaining phrases such as: “they both put your hair in end and are elements that enable this drama and its thriller quality.  In both scenes you are kept guessing and very disturbed.” By showing the reader she had an emotional experience, they understand that there is depth to the film that could potentially spark interest.

On the opposite end of the review spectrum, Matt Joseph, of We Got This Covered, wasn’t as convincingly successful in his writing.  He began by explaining that the film is one probably unheard of, with use of choppy sentences that send you into an immediate state of boredom.  He continues by giving a play-by-play synopsis that does nothing more than ruin the movie for the reader, leaving not much for questioning.  Besides saying that almost everyone except Gosling gives “good” performances, he doesn’t give detailed insight into the actors’ performances.  He uses some form of the word “creepy” multiple times and seems to lack an emotional understanding that’s on the same level as Laurie Curtis. He also puts himself in the review for no real reason, which does nothing more than make you wonder, “Why?”  It seems that towards the end, he beats around the bush in a confusing way that needs to be reread over and over again to understand what he’s saying.  Someone reading his review would most likely pass on this movie because there’s no sense of creativity that would make the film appear to be a stand out flick.

Laurie Curtis: http://tonightatthemovies.com/indexhold/?p=5803

Matt Joseph: http://wegotthiscovered.com/2010/12/08/all-good-things-review/