Recent orders
Live Concert Report
Live Concert Report
Student’s Name
Institution
Jazz All-Year Round – JESSE COOK
Live Concert Report
I attended the Jazz All-Year Round – JESSE COOK concert at the Place des arts in Montreal. It was held on the 18th, September, 2012. This is one of the most memorable moments I can not forget in my life. It is very important to mention that the concert was well-organized and presented in an appealing manner to all the present fans, including me. Jazz All-Year Round – JESSE COOK concert was presented in this big hall by eight artists. There were vocalists, instrumentalists and dancers. They professionally performed their roles with the prowess that left me yearning for more.
The Jazz All-Year Round – JESSE COOK crew used a variety of instruments, including piano, trumpet, guitar, saxophone and banjo. Each of these was well-coordinated and made the songs played be quiet rhythmic and interesting throughout the whole concert. The sounds came out so clearly and it was very easy for anyone to be acquainted with the message being delivered in each of the songs. There was a free flow of tones in the songs played. These would interchangeably and rhythmically transit from high to low tones. Each of the instrumentalists was competent in doing their bit. For instance, the vocals were tactical in the use of microphone. This helped to produce a clear and audible sound projections in line with the instruments played.
Besides, the musicians were so presentable and rhythmically moved on the stage that they nearly thrilled the audience. They were dressed in a unique uniform that identified their band. This was a very well-designed fashion that conspicuously produced flamboyant colors in the beautiful laser beams in the theatre hall. This appealed to the audience which was thrilled by the presentation. Both the artists and the audience were familiar because I could notice the audience being engaged in singing part of the songs played. Surely, Jazz All-Year Round – JESSE COOK is a must watch concert for any youth willing to entertain.
Little Toot By Hardie Gramatky
Little Toot By Hardie GramatkyIntroduction
The story “Little Toot” that was written in 1993, by Hardie Gramatky, is a story that was meant for children in the age group of 2-7 years. This is the age where in they are in their preoperational stage as they are not independent in case of understanding the story but will be assisted by others and would need to be attracted by imagination provocations. This story is meant to capture the imagination as well as impact children in a positive manner by giving a moral to the story or a message through the story. The aim is to deliver a simple concept of being hard working as well as not to underestimate anybody, and this has been done in a creative and capturing manner through a story of a tugboat (imbd.com, 2010). The objective is to help the readers or children be entertained and absorbed as well as learn a positive thought. This relates to Piaget’s theory of subjective logic. It is based on basic concepts and helps children go ahead and imagine simple things like a boy having become a boat. It helps enhance their focus on shapes and lets them think about associations, friends and morals (Npr.org, 2010).
Summary
The story “Little Toot” is a well written and creatively formed a story where in a boy who is in the form of a tugboat, presumes work to be a joke. He is involved in games and having fun. He does not focus on his tasks at all. In this situation, his friends, who happened to be other boats got irritated of his games that went on all day long. They did not appreciate him as he never did his work (Npr.org, 2010). They also called him a “sissy” (imbd.com, 2010). In this way, he was always looked down upon. He was dejected by other tugboats and so has had to drift away to the sea. He realizes his faults. In the sea he comes across a ship wreck. This is when he decides to prove his worth. He helps in this situation. In this way, he does regain a position in the tugboat community and also does not have to live in the sea anymore. He also makes his parents proud and is happy about it as he had made them feel embarrassed by being playful and silly all the time (imbd.com, 2010).
Discussion
This story aims at capturing a child’s imagination and involving him as the story is being narrated. It also helps to let children start visualizing and understanding through basics like shapes and concepts. Bringing objects to life helps children get more involved and understand incidents or concepts in an easier manner. It makes it possible for them to learn by example of non-living things which are presumed to be animated. They can associate several movements and actions and that also being carried out by non-living things easily. Animation is one of the best methods for children of this age group to learn as it not only depicts and explains actions, but also is extremely amusing and entertaining. It helps add to knowledge, ideas and thoughts.
This story helps analyze three different theories of child development. As per the intellectual development theory, children learn very rapidly and they are quick at grasping. The story caters to his theory by providing several instances where in a child is required to make logical connections in order to understand this story. This story caters to the need of children o learn and so provides them with concepts of requirement to work and not play all day long. It explains several things that children can grasp and learn in this age group of preoperational stage.
Moral development is also an important aspect of children learning and growing. Here, in this story, the author has used the concept of hard work as a moral and has also shown it to be the right way or the acceptable behavior. It has tried to explain to little children as to how important it is to balance work and play in order to be acceptable to everybody.
Social development is the most important aspect of child learning, cognition and development at this age, socializing itself is new to them. They are not in a position to clearly identify as to what is acceptable and what is not. Yet, they do understand that it is extremely important to be acceptable in order to be liked and appreciated. So, this story explains these concepts through facts like the playful tugboat embarrassed its parents and was looked down upon by other tugboats. Moreover the fact that the little playful tugboat was forced to drift away to the sea leaves a long-lasting impression on young minds about behaving in the right manner and completing their work in order to be accepted by friends and family (imbd.com, 2010).
In this way, this story closely relates to several theories of cognition and learning in children. It focuses on their areas of interest and is successful at being able to capture their imagination to the best possible extent. Children enjoy this story as they get to learn and imagine as well as make several associations while listening or watching it in the form of an animated story. Actions, expressions, voice tone and color when added to this story leads to intense learning among children as they grasp the concept of hard work very quickly through the medium of this story.
Conclusion
To conclude, “Little Trot” is a well-written and engrossing a story that focuses on teaching children moral values, social behavior and intellectual learning along with entertainment. Though the story is a lot of fun for children, it does not fall short in delivering knowledge and concepts as well as creativity and ideas to children of age – groups of 2 to 7. At this stage, of preoperational learning, this story is a great benefit, especially to school going children who have been having to face a transition form playing all day long to having to put in some efforts in learning. So, this story helps children understand the need and importance of hard work and tells them that as they grow and need to become responsible, they also have to strike a balance between work and play. They cannot ply all day long, without completing their work, mainly consisting of homework, if they have to be appreciated and accepted by their friends and family. This brings in a lot of learning, which is in tune with several of the theories on child development.
References
Npr.org, 2010, as retrieved on August 24, 2010 from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15606787imbd.com, 2010, as retrieved on August 24, 2010 from
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047183/
LITR 236 World Lit and Fine Arts II Grayson Perry Reith Lectures Extra Credit
LITR 236 World Lit and Fine Arts II Grayson Perry Reith Lectures Extra Credit Assignments
Student’s Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
PART I: DEMOCRACY HAS BAD TASTE
1. Before you start, what are your expectations for this lecture?
a. On a scale of 1-10, what is your interest level for hearing the lecture?
My interest in listening to this lecture is 10/10.
b. What do you think the title of the lecture means?
Based on the title of the lecture, “Democracy has a bad taste” I believe that it talks about the quality of art. There is no empirical way to judge art in regard to good or bad, and what majority perceives as good art doesn’t simply translate as quality art.
2. According to Grayson Perry, how do we determine what “good” art is? Who are the people who make the determination?
Perry defines the criteria used to define quality of art including financial value, popularity, art historical significance or aesthetic sophistication. There are four stages to the rise and success of an artist: peer approval, serious critics and collectors, dealers and finally the public. Based on the survey conducted by artists, it is evident that the audience are the determinant of what good or bad art is. Perry explains how important the approval of fellow artists is at the start and how critics will judge an artwork. Then come the collectors, who might be serious players or merely individuals keen on “glitzing up” their homes or resell for a higher profit. Art dealers take the highest credit, in that they will validate the artwork through their own reputation and will also choose where to place (or whom to sell to) the artwork. Another criterion for validation of a work of art is “museum quality”, which is judged by someone else at the top of the validation process: the curators, are “the popes of art”, and will select artworks to place in an important exhibition or institution.
3. Why is it that “popular” art (art that a large portion of society finds appealing) is often not considered “good art”?
According to Perry, quality and popularity seems to be odd with each other in regard to art. He gives the example of David Honkey’s 2012 exhibition at the Royal academy. This was a popular show, but yet one of the worst shows to have ever been recorded in regard to art gallery. However, he cites a number of Russian artists in the 1990s, who ran a survey in whose results indicated that people aesthetically wanted the same thing everywhere in the world which included figures and animals on a blue background. There is not empirical formula of determining the quality of art and thus, determining quality of art by popularity might not have what it takes to have it take into museums, or meet the requirements of critics and collectors who are involved in art business. Based on this, popularity doesn’t mean quality art, as it is based on aesthetic of the art. Beauty is on the eyes of the beholder, which means that a person’s perception can be biased into deciding what is good or bad art. With no valid way to measure the quality of art, many people can be wrong, just the same way a wrong political candidate is elected into office, not because they are better, but because of popularity. Therefore, what is popular might not be of good quality, since it might have been popular due to advertisement with no critics.
4. What are some of the examples that Perry uses to explain his positions? Does he reference anything we have studied in class that you recognize?
In explaining why beauty cannot be used to determine the quality of art, Perry gives the example of David Honkey’s 2012 exhibition at the Royal academy. This was a popular show, but yet one of the worst shows to have ever been recorded in regard to art gallery. However, he cites a number of Russian artists in the 1990s, who ran a survey in whose results indicated that people aesthetically wanted the same thing everywhere in the world which included figures and animals on a blue background. Besides, Perry claims that historically, there have been various attempts to define perfect beauty, such as the Greek’s Golden Ratio, William Hogarth’s serpentine line in painting, or the Venetian Secret thought to be used by Titian and his contemporaries. “Beauty” is usually what defines quality for a visitor at an exhibition, but Perry warns against the use of this word, which would anger contemporary followers of Duchamp, who said that “aesthetic delectation is the danger to be avoided”.
5. What is your response to Perry’s lecture? Does he make points that you find valuable, or that change your own attitudes towards art? If so, explain.
Perry’s lecture has been illuminating, providing lots of lesson in determining the quality of art. Previously, I used to define art based on the aesthetic value, just like many people perceives that good or bad art is based on its appeal to the eyes of the visitor. However, this perception has changed in that I have learned that a good or bad art is determined by financial value, popularity, art historical significance or aesthetic sophistication, and not merely by its beauty.
6. Now that you have finished the lecture, how would you rate it on a scale from 1-10 (10 being the highest)? Did you find that the lecture was easy to understand? Why or why not?
After completing Perry’s lecture, I can rate it 10/10, and this is because it has exceeded my expectations. Perry has not only added reasons why the quality of art should not be solely be determined by its beauty, but a combination of other factors, but he has established individuals who can determine the value of an art including approval from peers, serious critics and collectors, dealers and finally the public.
PART II: BEATING THE BOUNDS
1. During this lecture Perry outlines his criteria for determining what is, and what is not, art (which he identifies with “cracks of the whip”). What are the different criteria? Outline each one.
One of the criteria used by Perry to define what is art include economic because there is a lot of money, almost 43 billion pounds a year and which are sloshing through the art market. Economic is therefore one of the reasons why one should call what they do art since it’s a nice incentive. Another criterion is that because a person is an artist and this qualifies their work to be deemed works of art. Since it is something, a person does, maybe they just want a good excuse to do something. Therefore, something that an individual loves doing can be considered works of art.
However, there are criteria that can be used to determine what is not art. For example, when an art becomes incredibly famous, it ceases to be an art and this includes the example of the Mona Lisa which Perry can hardly see it as an art. Another criterion to determine what an art is whether it is in a gallery or an art context. Another boundary is it a boring version of something else, if not, that art should be considered a joke and not art. Another criterion is whether it made by an artist – there is no such thing as art, only artists, and therefore, a person has to be an artist for them to make art. Another criterion is photography-problematic. In the 1990s, every second show seemed to be photography, but currently, there are endless snaps, making it to determine what is photography. According to Perry, if people are smiling in a photo, that is probably not a piece of art.
2. Do you agree with Perry’s definitions? Go through his list, and see if there are ones you agree with, or ones you don’t. Explain why you agree or disagree with the points he makes.
Perry has made various definitions in his lecture. One the definitions that I agree with include the definition of an art photo. According to Perry, an art photo is defined as any photo that is bigger than two meters and it is priced higher than five figures. I do agree with this definition in that famous artist such as Andreas Gursky make huge photographs, sometimes four meters by two meters, and his photographs are worth higher than five figures. For example, his ‘Rhine’ photograph has the highest price of any photograph ever, being priced at 4.5 million dollars.
3. Now that you have listened to the lecture, what have you learned? Has the lecture changed the way that you consider works of art? If so, how?
Listening to the lecture has made me think deeply especially what has to or not be considered as art. For example, if an art has been famous, it does not qualify to be called art. Other boundaries that can be used to determine whether it is a piece of art include whether it is in a gallery or an art context. Another boundary is it a boring version of something else, if not, that art should be considered a joke and not art. Another criterion is whether it made by an artist – there is no such thing as art, only artists, and therefore, a person has to be an artist for them to make art. Another criterion is photography-problematic. This lecture has really made me realize that you have to be an artist for you to make a work of art.