Last Wednesday, June 20, 2007, we went to watch the 2nd part of the "Art in Action". The dance workshop was, I think, better than the 1st one, music. I don't know if it was because I appreciated dance better than classical music or because they were just more prepared or maybe it was because of the speaker.
Let's just put it this way, the dance "workshop" was better than the music workshop for a number of factors.
1. The speaker was good. He made a connection we the audience and didn't just stand there as if he was just reading from a script. Also, he spoke in the vernacular if he couldn't express himself in English. He also made the effort to try and be funny. I think that's good because that kept me awake. It made him interesting to listen to.
2. They were interesting to watch. I was particularly interested in watching the Indian dance. I don't know how the dancer did that but it was good, in a weird sort of way. I could imagine how hard she rehearsed for that dance.
3.I like dances. I like dancing. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed that we won't be able to dance in class (sorry miss!). Sure, I'm not a very good dancer, I don't think I'm even slightly good at it but there's just something about dancing that makes me enjoy it so much. Well maybe with the exception of cheer dancing; that would literally break your bones, unless you're really flexible. Dancing is a bit hard at first. You have to learn a few steps, memorize them, be able to execute them in a way that people would recognize that you're actually dancing and not just doing some weird poses. After that, you have to learn a few more steps and add them to the first ones and the whole process sort of starts all over again. The thing is that its hard to remember everything, the sequence of the steps, your position for a certain set of steps, things like that. You need to have presence of mind and of course, you have to keep to the beat of the music. But learning how to do the dance isn't enough. When performing, you have to give it your all, otherwise it wouldn't look good. No matter how complicated and new and different your choreography is, unless you don't put your heart into it, it wouldn't matter. It would just look crappy. Don't you just wonder why some people look so effortless when their dancing and you just stare at them in awe because their so good? I think its because they love what their doing and their really passionate about it.
When the speaker went up stage, he said something like, "Imagine a world without dance" (and then he started mentioning the sexbomb dancers and the ASF dancers which was funny). I'd have to say, a world without dance would be boring. Dancing makes you express yourself beyond words, which is limited. With dancing, you can express how happy you are, how much sadness you feel, how passionate you are about something. With dance, you can stand your ground against something, as with the transition from classical dance to modern dance. To be honest, I like the modern dance better. I don't know why but I'm not really in to classical music/dance.
Anyway, during the dance workshop, more than half of it was spent on a lecture about dance. Its benefits, the different genres, and the elements of dance. I was actually starting to get annoyed that the lecture was taking so long. I wanted to see the dance is actually danced, not hear about how its danced. But I guess to appreciate the dance more, you would have to learn about its history first.
Of all the dances performed during the workshop, the ones I liked best were the modern dance (they danced "Imagine"), and the Indian dance. I also liked the Maglalatik (I never thought it was a war dance! That was just about the last thing that would cross my mind watching that dance).
I liked the modern dance because, for me, it was so emotional. You can feel the essence of the song they are dancing to but its like the dance is a different entity all on its own. Its a bit hard to explain....but anyway. The Indian dance, I liked it mainly because I haven't seen anything quite like it. It was a totally new experience for me, watching that performed. I really don't know how she did that move with the shoulders. That must've been hard to practice.
spoke at : 12:30 AM
Last week, Friday, I lost Php80.
How?
Someone sold us tickets for a…workshop? (Can you call it a workshop if you just watched?)
The production(?) was called Art in Action.
There are 2 parts, Music and Dance.
June 23, 2007, Wednesday, at the U-break was the first part. We watched the DLSU Chamber Ensemble play at the Teresa Yuchengco Auditorium. I have to admit that at first, I wasn’t really paying attention to what the speaker was saying. All I remember is that, she gave the what-to-do’s if you’re going to watch a play or an on-stage (musical) production. Then, she introduced the conductor of the Chamber Ensemble to talk about*drum roll*… MUSIC. For the first part, he talked about different ethnic and western musical instruments including a demonstration (by members of the ensemble) of how they were played. I liked the part where they demo-ed the ethnic instruments because most people aren’t even aware that those exist. As for the western instruments, well, they’re okay but you’d just think, “So what’s new?”
What was new for me was the comparison between some of the classical music with some pop music. It wasn’t really a comparison. It was more like, they were telling the audience that those songs popularized in the 80’s and 90’s (I think) had something, like the tune, similar to those of the classics.
Then, they showed how to play the music right so it would be good to hear. They showed the difference between bad playing and good playing.
For their finale, the Chamber Ensemble had a “mini concert”. They’re really good too. They played some of the songs listed in the syllabus. Mozart’s “The Magic Flute”, Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata”, San Pedro’s “Sa Ugoy ng Duyan”, and Cayabyab’s “Kay Ganda ng Ating Musika”.
The verdict: I think I got my money’s worth.
I’m more excited about the dance though. It’s my frustration.
spoke at : 1:07 AM
A Film About A Film
Last week we watched a film by Guiseppe Tornatore entitled "Cinema Paradiso". It's about a young boy, Toto (Salvatore), who later grows up into a successful director, and his relationship with Alfredo, the projectionist of Cinema Paradiso, the local cinema. The film began with an old woman making a phone call who we later find out to be Toto's mother. She calls to tell his that Alfredo died. When he learns about Alfredo's death, we now see him lying on his side, and the story begins.
I liked that the story was told in flashback because then, the audience were able to really see how Toto's connection with Alfredo was formed. The flashback also has phases. The first was when Toto was a little kid. He would always bug Alfredo about the film projector, about the film, about censored parts of the film, and about his life as the projectionist. You would then see the transition of Toto's part in Alfredo's life, from Toto being the pesky little kid who always bugs him, to the son he never had. The second phase begins when the original Cinema Paradiso burns down and Alfredo loses his eyesight. This is the part where the bond between the two of them grew stronger. A new Cinema is built and Toto is now the new projectionist while Alfredo is the one who hangs around the projection room. This phase also marked the beginning of Toto's growth from being a little kid to a teenager. In some sense, everyone in town "grew up". It became the start of something new for all of them. For Toto's peers, it's when they have their first look on "mature" movies. For the older audience, it's when the "mature scenes" stopped being censored. The third phase begins when Toto falls in love with a girl named Elena. Unfortunately, they had to break-up. The last is when Toto leaves Giancaldo for good. It was Alfredo’s wish that he never come back. He wants Toto to follow his dreams probably because he knew that a better life was waiting for Toto outside their small town.
After the flash backs, Toto comes back to his home town for Alfredo’s funeral. When he came back, everything’s changed. The Cinema Paradiso was demolished. In the ending (and the climax), Alfredo left Toto something, a film made by all the deleted kissing scenes from the movies in the old Cinema Paradiso.
I think the ending was also the climax because of the compilation of clippings Alfredo left Toto. It meant something. I just can’t figure out what it is.
To be honest, I wasn’t really paying attention to all the shots, even though I know I have to. At first I really tried, honest! But it’s hard to concentrate on the story when you’re observing the film at the same time so I desisted and just watched the movie…
It’s just that, I was so deep into the story that nothing else seemed to matter. All I know is that for it to have that kind of effect on the audience, then it has to be good. Really good; otherwise, it wouldn’t work.
It’s like when reading a book. When it’s good and you like it, you forget everything else. You don’t really mind the slight typos. You don’t really pay attention to the writer’s style. You only get to do that when you read it for the third time. But when it’s boring or just plain not good, you tend to see all the errors.
spoke at : 12:48 AM
spoke at : 3:22 PM
It's just that, for the weeks to come...we're gonna be going into each specific (some)thing that people call "art". This week (and the previous one) we just defined "art"
I'm not a very artistic person. I just look at a painting or a drawing and say it's cute, or pretty, or beautiful. I look at the color or the design just so i could distinguish an object as art. This is why i practically rolled my eyes when people came up with the paper, and the panda ballpen and labeled those things as art. In my mind, I'm like, "Hindi yan art!! Pano yan magiging art?! Ni hindi nga maganda o cute?? Palusot lang yan dahil walang dala!!!Booooooo!!!" (if you have violent reactions, just comment,or tag...at your own risk...haha, joke.)
But, once everyone has presented and Ms Castro showed the powerpoint of what was art...I guess art meant something more than just being pretty, or colorful, or cute. I still don't think the paper-thing was art, but what did change about how i view art is that just because something is pretty, or colorful, or beautiful doesn't automatically make it "art". I think nature is beautiful, those untouched by people, anyway, but then its not art. Art has to be something which was created by someone who acquired the skill to do it. (huh?)
So then, I do consider my colorful stars as art. Anyone who thinks otherwise may comment.
Art is something so complicated. I still have a lot to learn.
So far, I think I can still follow.
spoke at : 6:50 AM