Jump to content

jfutral

Member
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jfutral

  1. Yeah. Right. OK. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/...1414411515.html (Sorry I still don't know how to make these things active links. I know the html, but last I tried, it didn't work like I thought it should.) Joe
  2. Well, then it is a good thing I haven't toured France yet, because I sure would have attempted to bring home brie, which I am assuming is the kind of cheese that is verboten. That episode sounds vaguely familiar. Joe
  3. I contacted our agent in Italy and here is what they suggest so far: "Joe hi! Roma offers all kind of good restaurants It really depends on what they want to do: should it be elegant? If they want a Roman Trattoria I suggest IL PALLARO near Campo dei Fiori or even the Restaurant in Campo dei Fiori is fantastic. Firenze: near Piazza Santo Spirito there is one good restaurant... I cannot rememeber the name. Will tell you soon... Hope this helps ciao Francesca Zitoli ATER" More as it comes in, Joe
  4. Cheese is not a big deal. It may have been back in Lucy's day. One of our dancers is from Wisconsin. When we went thourgh Italy and Holland last year he brought back about 30 lbs of cheese! He had one suitcase dedicated to cheese. He's such a cheese head! My big thing is coffee, though. I like to bring back about 5 or so lbs of coffee from where ever I go. Oh, and the mention of "kabobs" earlier is not as in "shish". A Kabob (or kebob) is like a greasy gyro in a pita sans the sauce. Each region seems to put their own spin on them, too. One place (I can't remember where) puts french fries on theirs. Fanta (as in the soft drink) is better in Europe. It doesn't taste like liquid hard candy. It taste like there is actually orange juice in it. And if you pronounce like "Santa" no one will know what you are saying. Well, most people anyway. You have to pronounce it like "wanta" like the commercial. It was like a Saturday Night Live skit in one store. The girl was right in front of the cooler and both were behind the counter. We kept pointing to it and she kept repeating us, "Fanta?" (like Santa) and shaking her head. Then someone finally got brave and grabbed one. She goes "Oh! Faaanta!". We died. Water at a restaurant is always bottled, too. And usually more expensive than wine or bear. Get used to saying "frizzante" for carbonated or "naturale" for no bubbles. I asked for tap water _once_. You would have thought I shot their dog AND kissed the guy's wife. Joe
  5. I can vouch for that conclusion in other areas of Italy. Mexican is best left to the Italians for eating. I don't know if you've been to Italy or not. And I don't know how late you normally eat, but one thing to keep in mind is no self respecting _restaurant_ serves dinner before 7pm. You are pretty much limited to pizza or a kabob before that. And most stores close for lunch for a couple of hours, so get your shopping in early and relax with the locals for lunch. And the only way to keep to a "moderate" price is to only eat a first (usually the pastas) or second (the meats) course. I always found the pastas fairly filling anyway. What I remember of Rome is being led around by our translator. We peformed at the Auditorium Via della Conciliazione when we were there. Next to the auditorium just past the arch in the wall between the Vatican and the Castle I remember a great pastery shop where I was introduced to the wonder that is Gnutella and a couple of nice restaurants, but I'll be darned if I can rememeber the names. Sorry, I can't be more help than that. I do remember the hotels being very helpful in this regard, though. We only flew through Venice and I only made day trip to Florence (Firenza). If you were going to Udine, Rimini, Parma, or Forli I definitely remember some great food there. If you want to bring home food, cheese comes back through customs easily. Prosciutto is another matter. I was able to get through with some because I was able to show that it was packed at an approved packing plant. I don't know how "nice" the agent was being, though. He was impressed that I knew this rule, but I'm still not sure it is supposed to apply to individuals. And if your hotel serves blood orange juice for breakfast, be sure to partake! If you've never had it, it rocks the house. Joe
  6. Does anyone know if the Sidney Janis Gallery is still around? Thanks, Joe
  7. I missed two. And those because I didn't trust myself. Lots of fun! Well, maybe not _lots_ but it did break up an otherwise fairly boring afternoon for a few of minutes. Joe
  8. Thanks for the recommendations. I have started a list with a few other recommendations from a couple of other folks. I'll be sure to report my findings! Joe
  9. Calling for recommendations for galleries to visit while my company hits NYC for our 4 week run at The Joyce in late July/early August. Once the show gets going I have lots of time during the days so I try to come up with a few things to do. Last year I hit a few museums, did some church hoping, and made it to a couple of IAM-NY's Tribakery meetings. That was fun. But this year I also want to hit some galleries or if you know of any good smaller museums that don't get the press and exposure that MOMA, Met, or Guggenheim get. Four weeks I have to fill up! Don't be shy! Thanks much, Joe
  10. Is there an official announcement somewhere? When will the CDs be available? Joe
  11. I guess since I'm after the music of a movie this makes the most sense posting here. A friend of mine is getting married and they want someone to play the Carol King song "Love for the Last Time " from Murphy's Romance (the theme song?). Anyway, we can't find the soundtrack or sheet music available anywhere (maybe it isn't?). Is anyone familiar with this song? Maybe you have some charts or lead sheets? Thanks much, Joe
  12. If you are up in Vermont/New Hampshire, Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, has quite the impressive little museum. There is quite an interesting display of Icelandic and other primitive art/artifacts and a slight discussion on if there is a difference. The modern stuff they have includes a Rothko and a Picasso, of all things. Joe
  13. I usually try to avoid this discussion, primarily because I hate the emotional content and barriers that it has created. But also because my brother is an engineer, faces this daily in one form or another, and has some very strong views about the whole issue as well. So this is mostly just to pass on an article he came across. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ I didn't find this anywhere in the forums, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Joe
  14. This actually highlights a couple of my questions. First we now have the lense of time to look back at Bach and find his value, which apparenly was not shared by his contemporaries. So _now_ he is elevated. But how many of his contemporaries can we point to with the same reverence? Do we see his entire cultural era as "undefiled"? Or can we really only point to a few or a few more than that who really provided this notion of "real art"? And outside that "hifalutin court" would the populace outside these circles have considered his work, well, popular? Or was he focused on providing an art form that would be recognized by those with money? And which culture can we really point to as superior? The "hifalutin" culture didn't recognize his genius. Did the common man see his worth? And where does that put people who think only "high art" is of value? Are they over looking what is around us the same way they did as Bach's contemporaries? Some of this is actually what I face right now working for Pilobolus. Some of our dancers had a run in with Mark Morris. I leave his remarks as simply that he has no high or even moderate opinion of our company. And actually by and large Pilobolus is not highly thought of by many in the dance community. Or more specifically, those who wold be considered the upper echelon or elite of the dance community. I am reminded somewhat of a Woody Allen movie where he ends up in the future. I can't remember the movie exactly, just vaguely. Joe
  15. I have not had a chance to delve near as much as I would like to. I'm even considering going back to school, because, as nerdy or odd as this sounds, I am finding art history extremely fascinating. But right now my reading is focused on individual artists, like Rothko, Pollock, etc., and, more broadly, primarily modern art at the moment. (Speaking of his composing for friends, I did finally find a set of midi files for Bach's Coffee Contata.) As far as Bach's (or anyone's) music being accessible at church, does this mean that such music was considered popluar among the common folk? Even from a contemporary perspective, just because we sing a song at church does not mean we sing it at the bar or in the car (although this seems less and less the case as "relevance" seems to be important, but that is another discussion. Or maybe not). How "on the street" was Bach's work? Joe
  16. This made me also think of those of us who make a living in the arts. This is a constant juggling act, from my perspective. We hope that people find our work interesting, at the least interesting enough to pay for it, otherwise we have to find a new line of work. Of course this also makes for an easy punching bag. Joe
  17. You don't think his work was seperated by class? The chaps down at the pub may have been found whistling a Bach tune? I guess what I am trying to ask is, would his work have been noticed or embraced by anyone other than the cultural elite of his time, including the church? That said, I also remember a church that considered Bach their _third_ choice. And (maybe the same church?) someone complaining that his music was loud and would ruin their organ if allowed to continue, or something like that. Joe
  18. Thinking about our own laments concerning contemporary culture and its seeming banality or worse its emptiness and then thinking about our recent bomb-thrower's blog about our smelly modernity got me thinking about when did these paragons of "real art" that are often espoused (Horowitz, or any number of the artists often elevated in dissiden's writings) actually flourish? When were they the norm, if ever? I mean, seems to me the best are considered the best because they rise above the norm. And we can only make a long list of exceptional artists because we have the fore-shortened view of time. Or maybe another way to ask the question, when did popular culture ever _not_ stink? And why shouldn't popular culture stink? Rather, why should we expect something that appeals to a mass demographic to be more than it is? Or also put another way, why should we desire Bach to appeal to everyone some of or all the time? And is it so bad that he doesn't? If so, why? Joe
  19. This cat at a hotel in out in Santa Fe did just that sort of thing with several 80's pop/rock songs (Judas Priest and White Snake come to mind). Very lounge lizard arrangements. Then he broke out into an acoustic Little Wing. Very hip. What was crazy is I had just heard Monte Montgomery do Little Wing, too. That was mind blowing. Joe
  20. Just a bit of an adendum. I ran across this supposedly by Leo Tolstoy in an essay "What is art?". I got this from http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html (I'm still not hip to making clickable links, sorry! Maybe this works? <a href="http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html" target="_blank">Here</a>) Failed miserably! A snipet supposedly from chapter 5: "#1. In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man. #2. Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression. #3. Speech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as a means of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The peculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it from intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings. #4. The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simplest example; one man laughs, and another who hears becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another who hears feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man seeing him comes to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena. #5. And it is upon this capacity of man to receive another man's expression of feeling and experience those feelings himself, that the activity of art is based." Joe
  21. All great responses. Thanks much. You have given me much to think about, which is what I have been doing as opposed to responding. There still seems to be something, not ambiguous but certainly indescribable in trying to pin point what this idea might look like or be represented as. Maybe I'm not certain I am in a position to understand what it means to glorify God, much less through art. I recall scripture that talks about god being glorified, but I don't recall any saint saying that what they were doing was bringing glory to God. Maybe this is something only God can identify. Not certain. Joe
  22. Well, he certainly has an idea of what he likes. He just leaves me in the dark as to what that is as well what he is railing against. I have no idea what he likes or dislikes other than "fundagelicals" or whatever he called them. Feh. Joe
  23. Maybe not just art, but with other things as well. I've heard more than one person talk about their idea of "acceptable art" as art that glorifies God. But when pressed I've not found anyone who can really explain what they mean by this. Sometimes I get rolled eyes like somehow the answer is obvious. What are your thoughts on what we mean when we say "glorify God" when referencing art, worship, or anything else for that matter. Is this phrase a bit borne of a legalistic attitude? Or is there some basis? And is this purley an interpretive matter? Joe
  24. Just visit Santa Fe! We are out here right now and it is an amazing little city. Tons of galleries and a Georgia O'Keefe museum. Lots of good work to view. Joe
×
×
  • Create New...