Reenactment

As humans, we have a strange relationship with something called reenacting. We feel the need to repeat, or make a response to things that already happened. This is something that happens ALL THE TIME. Its not just something like, civil war reenactments, or a response to an art piece... there are also responses to songs and movies and usually they are pretty bad or hilarious. There is this website, thatguywiththeglasses.com, he calls himself a critic. HOWEVER, he also sometimes does reenactments from movies... but puts his own twist on it. So, I recently saw him do a reenactment of The Joker, from the latest batman movie The Joker's Origin Story. I really don't know what to think of it... sometimes its funny, sometimes it just seems terrible and then it makes me sad because the Joker was the only good part in that film (in my opinion).

Vox

This is a late entry...
I actually went to see Bivouac right around when it came out. Bivouac includes video, photography, drawings and sculpture that all related to the human body. All of the pieces also relate to the term bivouac. There are several pieces from Bivouac that I enjoyed, the first was Sung Hwan Kim's "In The Room 3" piece. It was a clip, not the full video, and this clip was about dogs. There was a comparison between two homes, one in Amsterdam and the other in Seoul. There were costumes and props, the whole thing seemed really sad. Mostly, because what is being shown is true. The way people (and animals), train and teach each other is absurd... even more so when you watch someone trying to teach a dog. I didn't really think of that until now how weird that actually is. The next piece I looked at was Anna Molska's "Tanagram". Two men wearing helmets and pads are shown arranging blocks into different shapes. All of this is very geometric, almost as graceful as a ballet... probably because of the music. The blocks reminded me of when in elementary school they had those colorful blocks that you could make into different shapes and patterns JUST like what their doing in Tanagram.. obviously not as big though. My favorite out of all the things shown is what was in the screening room. Kelly Richardson's "Twilight Avenger" was quite beautiful. At first it first appeared to look like just a big bright photograph but then you notice its slightly moving... and there is peaceful nature sounds. So, I sat down and watched its whole duration (or what I thought was its whole duration... it seemed to loop). Its a dreamy piece and definitely catches the eye. It made me think about nature, and I think that's what the piece wanted you to think about. Showing something like this in the city makes more of an impact than it probably would someone in the woods. As someone who grew up in the Poconos (aka: middle of nowhere), this made me quite nostalgic.

Photograph as Performance

I am posting two photos for Photograph as Performance from our assignment along time ago. Somehow I slipped onto YouTube and caught clips of guys working out.  (Luckily I wasn't eating at the time)  They are clearly on steroids and what they think is good looking is doubtful to me. Then I happened upon a girl's response and I liked her performance better.

The top photo is the viewpoint of the body builder from his waist looking along his body.  The bumps nearly blocking out his face are his enormous pec muscles that he is exercising to build up even bigger.  

The second photo is a girl's response to the need to have great abs.  She has drawn lines with a marker on her torso to represent a six-pack and then she dusts the lines with blusher makeup to soften the marker lines.  She has also drawn a line on her chest to represent cleavage.  She is enacting the whole thing with sarcasm.

The very moment you said that we could discuss a song cover, a particular one immediately came to mind because I had actually had a discussion about it’s success days before. The song is I will survive. Originally performed by Gloria Gaynor and then remastered decades later by the band Cake, this song had managed to keep its status as a “hit” in the music industry through two different interpretations.

Originally, this song was so easy to fall in love with in the 70’s. It served both as a great contribution to the disco era, as well as being one of the first really outstanding songs that had been all about a woman calling the shots and declaring her triumphant survival through an unsatisfactory relationship. Not to bring up feminism but I can’t think of a song before this that was ever as poignant in expressing the superiority of a woman and I find it kind of revolutionary. It’s a song that everyone knows and loves unless they’ve been living under a boulder their whole life. I know this song from my mom leaving it on the radio EVERY time it was on when I was younger. She always sang along.

Then all of the sudden, one day in the 90’s this song came on in the car with my mother once again. However, this time it was a man. This time it was with a guitar and trumpets and not flashy disco sounds. It was refreshing. And now, as I have become a pretty avid cake fan, I listen to this on somewhat of a regular basis and the changes that have been made are awesome. In relation to performance, one point I’m trying to highlight is the successful transformation from this revolutionary feminist triumph that is remade successfully by a man. In remaking this, John McCrea (vocalist/songwriter) shows his obvious respect for the song and Gloria Gaynor and makes it his own, adding some changes that simply modernize the song in what is probably the best way. He must have also felt triumphant in a similar situation and could relate well to the original song; so much that he had to do his own interpretation of it and make it his own. Performing a song like this that had already been so well known and well done requires a certain degree of passion in order to make it successful. My favorite of these changes is using the word Fucking instead of stupid in the line about changing the lock. Another great change is simply the guitar solos.

http://www.phillymummers.com/fancybrigades.htm

The image above shows the Downtowners division of the Fancy Brigade Division.  They are described on the site as "a central theme dominates music, costumes and presentation of the groups of 35 or more performers.  The brigades themselves are the youngest division in the parade.  Prior to the late 1970's the brigades were seen marching as groups among the Fancy Division.  Then in 1998 with the elaborate props that each brigade had, forced this portion of the parade to be moved to indoors for their jud(g)ing."

The Mummers Parade in Philadelphia occurs on January 1, following the centuries old traditions from Europe of welcoming in the New Year by bands of masked men.  Variations of the traditions included masked men moving from house to house, performing songs, a particular dancing style or playing a game of dice.  Records of the songs, laws banning mummers, records of royalty taking part and historical accounts of the tradition exist in England, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and other European countries.  

Traditionally a leader was appointed by Swedish Mummers and he performed a traditional dance whilst reciting this traditional rhyme.

"Here we stand before your door, 

As we stood the year before;

Give us whiskey; give us gin,

Open the door and let us in.

Or give us something nice and hot

Like a steaming hot bowl of pepper pot!"

From such humble and pagan rites around celebration of community and the meeting of contrasting groups, such as townsfolk and farmers, royalty and commoners, through masked rituals, the Mummers Parade in Philadelphia has roughly continued the history.  There are roughly 10,000 Mummers each year, who are organized into groups and have their costumes and performances judged for a title.  Some of the parade groups don't even have to face the elements of Winter and parade outside, but compete completely inside in a controlled atmosphere.

This is a performance based ritual involving a whole city.  Philadelphians and tourists come to Philadelphia to watch and the roads around the Philadelphia Museum of Art to the Town Hall are closed off for the parade.  There is a museum dedicated to the Mummers at 1000 South 2nd street.  The parade allows for the continuation of nostalgia through a historical reenactment.  

References: www.phillymummers.com and www.wikipedia.com

Beyonce, OUR BELOVED BEYONCE, performed Etta James' song "At Last" at the Presidential Inauguration in January. She was invited to sing the song during the Obama’s first dance. Once Etta James found out that she was not asked to sing the song for the President and first lady, she backlashed by saying “I tell you that woman he had singing for him, singing my song, she gonna get her ass whupped. The great Beyonce. I can’t stand Beyonce… she had no business singing my song that I been singing forever.” Then she went on to bad talk the president, “You know your President, right? You know the one with the big ears? He ain’t my President.”*

The classic song has been used numerous times for movies, advertisements, special events, etc. It is a song we would probably be able to sing it word for word, it is that well known. Plenty of people have covered this song and Etta James has probably made quite a sum of money off of the people who have bought the rights to use it. The moment that Beyonce was invited to cover her song, James develops an attitude towards her. News reports stated that James was unable to attend the inauguration for health reasons. These are consequences of getting old (physical ailments, most importantly vocal loss) and Americans are going to want to see a younger, healthier Beyonce, perform the wonderfully romantic classic.

By insulting Beyonce, James caused up a stir that she did not realize would result in a bad outlook on her personality and ego. Beyonce did not lash out at James, which made her took like the innocent victim in this situation. Performance within performance? I think so.

*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/etta-james-slams-beyonce_n_164177.html

"First and Last" Rephotographed and Scanned

In 1936 Walker Evans photographed people during the Depression in Alabama. In 1979 Sherrie Levine rephotographed Walker Evans' works from the exhibition catalog "First and Last." In 2001 Michael Mandiberg scanned Evans' photographs and made AfterWalkerEvans.com and AfterSherrieLevine.com to make these photographs available to whoever would like to download, print, and frame them to put up in their homes or where ever else they would like.

On Mandiberg's website AfterSherrieLevine.com there are images with links to the high-resolution exhibition-quality images. People can also download a "certificate of authenticity" for the photograph they choose.

Mandiberg seems to be trying to let the viewer have the physical work that has value to them and for the new owner of Evans' famous photographs to be able to say that they own an "authentic" reproduction of the works. What I don't understand is why Mandiberg doesn't create his own work and make it avalible to the public instead of using a famous photographer's work that may or may not draw more attention than his own.

Levine has made a career out of ripping off famous works of art by male artists from the early 20th century. Levine claims that she is trying to show that it is relevant that women artists were absent at this time, I cannot see how she has accomplished this. For example, without having someone take a photograph of her taking a photograph of Evans' photographs how do we know that this is her point unless we research and read interviews. She has failed. Levine is nothing but a wannabe artist copying other artists' original ideas and coming up with some ridiculous concept to put herself in a cozy, money-making place in the art world. Mandiberg is no better than Levine, do they both honestly think that these artists would be okay with people taking their work and putting their names on it?


This is one of Mandiberg's scanned images of Walker Evans' photograph in the catalog from "First and Last."

This is an image of the certificate of authenticity that you can print out, date, and sign to prove you have an original Mandiberg rip-off.

The First Cut is The Deepest

The First Cut is The Deepest is a very famous song, I think mostly everyone knows of it. The first person to write and sing the song was Cat Stevens in 1967. The song has since been recreated four times. I think that it is a big deal when a song gets recognition like this because it should be flattering to the original creator. The first person to sing Cat Stevens original song was P.P. Arnold in 1967, the same here it came out. The second was Keith Hampshire in 1973, third, Rod Stewart and fourth was Sheryl Crow. All five of the artists made the song a hit single and there have been about a dozen other artists that have re created this song as well.

I love Rod Stewart and he re created the song ten years later in 1977 and for a very long time I always thought he was the originator, but as I listened to more and more music growing up I realized that artists were allowed to re create one anothers work. I think that artists just decide that the song can be done in a different way.

When Sheryl Crow re created the song in 2003 I was upset at first because I was so in love with Rod Stewart's version of the song. But I think that artists re create songs because they know it will initially be a hit and people will love it. I also think that they create them based on what they think the listener will like, so they know it will be an instant hit.

I think that it helps an artist grow when they re create work, whether it be a song, photograph or painting. It has been like this since the 1800's when painters would try to surpass their mentor and be better. So it goes hand in hand with music, they find a new way to possibly make it better and see if they can create something to make it slightly different. I sometimes think of how the originator would feel about this. If it were me I would be flattered but it would also be a shame if people did not know who the originator was in cases like this, just like I didn't know at first. They still need recognition. But lets think about it this way, Cat Stevens will get paid everytime his song is played on the radio and get paid everytime someone else records his song.