Noong mga panahaong iyon, ginagawa palang yung Glorietta pati Greenbelt, pero yung Landmark at SM, matagal na nung buhay. Dahil nasa magkabilang dulo ng mundo ng Ayala ang Landmark at Sm, ginagawa naming tawiran yung Glorietta. Noon, maganda pa yung fountain sa gitna, malaki rin yung playground para sa mga bata. Ibang- iba sa Glorietta ngayon. Ang naaalala ko lang na bukas noong stall ay yung may tinitinda na magic bulate na color orange, green, o pink na neon. Nakalimutan ko na yung tawag dun. Basta ang naalala ko bulate na “fuzzy”(hehe). Sabi ng mommy ko, ayos na daw noon yung Glorietta, at yung 4 nalang yung ginagawa. Siguro nga pero iba yung naaalala ko.
Naranasan mo na bang manatili sa mall lampas ng pagsasara nito? Yung tipong patay na halos lahat ng ilaw, lahat ng stalls at tindahan sarado na rin, at yung mga janitor nalang ang nasa loob? Ako naranasan ko na.
May tindahan kami dati sa Sm Southmall. Kapag closing na ng mall at kami nalang ang nandoon, nagkukunwari kami ng mga kapatid ko na kami ang may ari ng SM. Yung mga “rides” malapit sa food court yung mga sasakyan kunwari namin. Pati yung ice skating rink sa amin kunwari. Kunwari lang haha. Pero masaya. Kahit hindi closing time masarap tumambay sa mall, lalo na pag bata ka. Masaya tumakbo sa malawak na lugar na yun, kailangan mo lang iwasan yung mga tao, lalo na yung mga may dalang babasagin, pero syempre kailangan talagang paharang-harang sila, para may thrill. Masaya rin syempre magwindow shopping.
Bakit ko nga naman ba kinwento lahat ‘to?
Wala lang. Tungkol kasi sa mall ang binasa namin, eh. “Sa Loob at Labas ng Mall Kong Sawi” ni Rolando Tolentino.
Hindi ko masyadong naintindihan yung reading, aminado ako doon. Pero sinubukan ko naman.
Ang naintindin ko lang doon ay ang mall ay bahagi na ng kulturang Pilipino, lalo na sa kasalukuyang panahon. Lahat na siguro ng maiisip mong pwedeng gawin, posible sa mall. Pwede ka kumain, manood ng sine, maglaro, magshopping, magbasa, mag-ice skating, magbowling, magkantahan; pwede ka nga rin magsimba, maglaba, magpadentista, magpa-facial, magpagupit, magpaahit ng kilay, magpaalaga ng bata, at matulog. Hindi ko man ginagawa sa mall ang lahat ng yan (mahal ang gupit sa mall, sa kanto 40 lang may kasama nang blow dry), hindi ko naman ma-imagine ang Pi’nas ng walang mall.
Tinalakay sa babasahin ang tungkol sa estado ng pamumuhay ng tao at ng mall. Totoo nga naman na sa mag pangmayaman na mall, nakakahiya pumunta kung tatambay ka lang. Pero hindi ako gaanong sang-ayon na ang SM ay “pang-masa”. Mahal din mamili dun! Ang kaibahan nga lang, pwede ka tumambay dun at walang sisita sa iyo. Pero sa palagay ko, mas posible na walang sisita sayo dun dahil masmaraming tao ang pumupunta dun, hindi ka na mahahalata na wala kang binili o bibilhin.
Sa susunod nalang ako siguro magdadagdag. Hindi pa naman tapos ang lesson. Pero tungkol daw sa architecture ang lesson… bahala na.
spoke at : 12:57 AM
This week’s topic was about nudes.
The first meeting was just an introduction to the topic. There was a power point presentation about the different ways of how we see things. After that was a presentation of nude paintings. At first I was trying to figure out why in the world most of the paintings only depicted women. Of course, that was answered once I read “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger.
Apparently, this was really how the western world viewed women. Women were regarded as objects which men were entitled ownership of. They were expected to know their place. This is where the concept of the surveyed and the surveyor comes in. According to the reading, the men were the surveyor. It is through them that women see themselves. Women on the other hand were both the surveyed and the surveyor. They were expected to do things for the satisfaction of men and to be treated as such; they had to see themselves as how the men see them.
The nudes somehow simplify this concept. All the men had to do to boost their already inflated egos is to look at a nude painting. For a painting to be considered a nude, the first criterion is of course, it should include a naked woman. Next, the woman in the painting has to have contact with her “owner”, in this case, the man looking at the painting (not the man, in some cases, with her in the painting). To have that kind of contact, she has to then be looking at the beholder. And the last and “most important” criterion of all, the beholder has to see the woman as an object.
In class, this was summarized as, the women in the paintings satisfy men’s sexual desire, they are aware they are seen as such, they are regarded as objects, they are submissive, and there is a spectator (the man aka owner).
Sadly, this western view of women hasn’t changed much. Even with the rise of feminism, women are still seen through the eyes of the spectator. One only has to look at the number of men’s magazines and the number of women who want to be featured in it to realize that women are still seen as objects. What even harder to accept is the fact that how women see themselves is still tainted with the western concept of women.
In contrast to the western nude, the eastern concept of nakedness (not nude) sees women as men’s equal (in terms of sexuality, I guess, but not in all aspects of life). The eastern art does not have the idea of male ownership. Women are not owned, rather, there is an interaction between man and woman or, what can be called as an attraction. Lastly, it portrays love and not merely desire or lust.
I honestly like the eastern version better for the simple fact that it does not objectify women. I personally see myself as man’s equal, sometimes, I even think of myself as better than most men.
spoke at : 5:38 AM
Its disgusting. Its degrading.
spoke at : 2:31 PM
When I got to highschool, I found out about more conspiracy theories about the Mona Lisa. Things like, it was supposedly Da Vinci (because he was gay), he painted himself as a woman, and things like what some of those in class said about the Mona Lisa. Of course, there was renewed interest for the Mona Lisa with the release of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (renewed interest for all of Leonardo's paintings, actually). The rise of even more conspiracy theories about the Mona Lisa made it even more famous.
Those things being said (written), when we were warned for a week or two of thorough discussion of the Mona Lisa, I have to admit I wasn't so thrilled. Sure she's famous, the painter was famous, the smile is enchanting, but I sort of felt that there wasn't anything more to learn about it.
Of course, this is the part where I have to say I was wrong.
There was more to it, really.
Sure the conpiracy theories were present but these were exactly the reasons why the Mona Lisa was so famous. It's a mystery that has to be told (and not solved). Her smile draws the people to her. Leonardo Da Vinci is a great painter but I don't think his other paintings (except maybe the Last Supper), hold as much mystery as the Mona Lisa. His style is great but when you look at the painting, you don't really think about the painter's style. People don't usually look at the Mona Lisa and say, "ah, it's the sfumatto style!". No, people look at it, and they see the smile. And when they look at it, all these questions begin to emerge.
Then after the smile, everything else sort of follows. Everyone has their own interpretations of it. Even the background has varying explanations. For me, I think the background was also a painting. What made me think of it as such was that, when I looked at a picture of the Mona Lisa in one of the books in the library, I saw that there was something behind her. A shelf/table, like the kind you usually see beneath paintings. It has a round vase-like thing one each side, which was sort of cut in the painting.
It was said over and over in the discussion that its the questions a painting generates that makes it a classic. Its the mystery that makes the Mona Lisa so famous through the centuries and I daresay through the generations to come.
spoke at : 11:58 AM
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