Jump to content

jfutral

Member
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jfutral

  1. Thanks! I was hoping we weren't that unnoticeable. Joe You dance with Pilobolus!?!! Wow. I mean, am I reading that wrong? Cool. That would be cool, but, no. I'm their lighting supervisor. And it probably works out best that way. But the dancers are very cool people and great to work with. Joe
  2. Thanks! I was hoping we weren't that unnoticeable. Joe
  3. Heads up notice! This was a tough one for me. Not sure where I should post this. It is the Oscars, but it is on TV, but this is about the dance company I work for doing some things throughout the show. But the Oscars are only on Sunday, so maybe short term would have been a better forum. Let the moderators fall where they may. The Academy asked Pilobolus to do some movie snipets/intros along the lines of the Hyundai Santa Fe commercial we did, the silhouette stuff. Unfortunately I won't be out there in L.A., (no need for us techs) but a few of the dancers will be. And the proofs that I saw were really cool. Well, that was the plan as of Wednesday. Who knows if it will get cut at the last minute or not. We also should be on eXtra's coverage of the Oscars. This was supposed to be hush hush, but we are only one day away from the awards and the dancers seem to be telling everyone, too. At least I won't be the only one fired. Joe
  4. As one who just recently went through the process, it is rather painless. Keep an eye on Amazon and Amazon Market Place for a good price on Windows XP, SP 2. That's what I did. I'm not a 100% certain even if your Dell was the full SP2 install that it would still work. I use Boot Camp and Parallels Beta (after you buy Parallels) becuase with the Beta you can use your Boot Camp partition as the Parallels system. I'm told, though, that Parallels works faster on its own dedicated install. I didn't want a seperate install, though. Too much to keep track of for a system I don't want to be using to begin with. If you do this, you will have to activate XP twice, the second time by phone. But MS only asks you if you are using this on one computer. Just say "yes" and they pretty much don't care about details. I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and it does not work under Parallels, only boot camp. Apparently Parallels doesn't support 3D graphics or something like that. But of course I have XP because of work. Parallels is not seemless with the hardware my software needs to interact with. So Parallels was pretty much a bust for me all around, but it is still cool. Joe
  5. "Who cares?" or a variation "Why should I care?" or another variation "If no one else seems to care (and no one does seem to care, or at least very few do) why should I?" And if the answer centers around "You/they should care because blah" the follow up is "How do we get them/us/me to care?" Joe
  6. Coming up, I will be on the road with Pilobolus for almost 3 months. That's a nice long time away from home. Check out the website (www.pilobolus.com) and if I am close to anyone, let me know. Would love visit. We mostly hit and run, but I can sometimes get away for dinner, lunch, or coffee or bottled water or something. With some NE stuff coming up as the exception, most of this is west coast touring and little jaunt to Italy for good measure. Email or PM if you want. Joe
  7. LOL! This is now my favourite line. You may well be. Maybe not so much regarding your view on art, however. Joe
  8. I forgot all about this thread. As a performing company, we love SOs. We don't always get them. I really hate what we call "Walking ovations" where people are leaving while they are clapping during the bows. But we were REALLY freaked out when we toured Switzerland and the audience was going nuts, but would not stand up! One local technician said "Here, if they are standing, they are leaving." What we also found was that instead of an SO, they stopmed their feet. That took some getting used to, too. Joe
  9. Rothko had some very interesting opinions about this whole idea of the church prescribing to artists what the created should be or how it should look, etc. But maybe some other time. I certainly don't want to make more of commissioning iconographs than is there. But any time someone thinks something is important enough to utilize the services of an artist, even if more for their craftsmenship than their expressive abilities, I am all for it! Art was about craftsmenship long before it was about expression, from what I can tell. I mean, for instance, the Levites were chosen as the musicians because they were skilled, not because they were expressive. To me this shows an appreciation and respect for art/creativity that one would want skilled craftsmen invovled, and I don't want to see that part of the equation diminished. From that perspective, I do find the use of artists for iconographs as more reciprocal in support/encouragement/respect for the arts than not. Joe
  10. Well, for me the key phrase was "in my encounters" and to clarify any supposed dichotomy that someone might infer in my question, I certainly did not make an distinction between protestant views=low art and Catholic/Orthodox views=high art. My mother-in-law, who is Catholic, has a very strong kitschy side. What made me ask the question is, I posed my recent thoughts on art to a self-professed Arminian pastor who seemed to believe that my view of art is more likely shared in reformed cirlces than others. And this is something I have found in my travels and conversations. By no means do I consider my experiences exhaustive, but I do know my friend is _very_ well traveled, and to find him reflect my experience just made me ask why this _might_ be so. It may have more to do with cultural/social influences than theology, which is fine with me, I was just curious. But I certainly have had more contending to do in, say, more charismatic churches than reformed churches. Maybe it is a low church/high church sort of thing. I have not heard things like "Christians should not watch 'R' rated movies" in reformed circles. But I have elsewhere. Now certainly it is not hard to find exceptions within more IC circles, but I have found this to be a more likely generalization than not. I say IC, because I do think the EC was supposed to be different, though some paradoxes exist there, too. For instances, I have found it far more likely to find artists with thoughts on art in circles like, say here on A&F, than on more EC centered circles, such as maybe theooze. So while the arts may be stated as important to the EC, I have found it more difficult to have conversations about art with EC folks than IC folks. And I do enjoy these conversations! And the questions they bring up, especially about art and faith. :-) Again, key phrase being "in my encounters". YMMV. Joe
  11. Unless you are dictating the details of how the work should be created and look (in which case I'm not sure why you would commission the work from an artist as opposed to some generic factory) I don't know that this is totally avoidable, although I get your drift. So while I do get your drift, I do think this commissioning is an important part in supporting the arts and one of many ways I think the church can be a leader in the arts by showing the importance of the arts. But this does bring up a question in my mind, not necessarily having to do with the Orthodox. But in my encounters with protestant evangelicals, it is more often the reformers that seem to have a more holistic or accepting (?) view of the arts, well maybe from a more theological position. Can there be a reason for this? Joe
  12. Speaking of questions and I know Betty Spackman's book _A profound weakness: Christians and Kitsch_ has come up a few times, IAM-NY has posted their Tribakery Discussion group questions on their website. It is under the heading talking about starting your own regional Tribakery group. They did about 15 weeks of discussions based on her book. I got to sit in on about three of them. www.iamny.org Her book brought up a ton of questions. Joe
  13. Being art _as_ part of our being. Not sure how to explain this other than through example. When "the church often thinks of the arts within the context of what art can do for the church", that is art viewed as utilitarian, whether they recognize it as such or not. That is art as a tool. When we try to change the art used in church to appeal to or attract certain kinds of people, that is utilitarian. So if we think that way in the church, then we seem to want to carry this thinking beyond the church. This is when someone says "Hey I am/want to be an artist and use my art to reach other people" or get artists to do that, that is a materialist way of thinking about art. If we want to use our art or use artists as a tool to affect the culture, then we run the risk of the art or the artist being insincere. It's a bait and switch kind of mentality. It is more concerned with learning a new technique to reach people than actually living our lives as we were created to. Well, that sucks as an attempt to explain, too. I think it boils down to art can _become_ a tool, but if we start out trying to use it _as_ a tool, the value is diminished. Maybe not as a work of art, but there is a certain falsehood about it when the work isn't created as art, but instead as a method or technique. Art is not a tool. It is an expression of who we are as creations of the Creator. When we worship through song and speech (and that preacher is an artist even if he doesn't recognize it, some more dramatic than oratorial), or through the art of ritual, or the art of conversation, or through the art of whatever, we are participating/partaking/acknowledging/experiencing how we were created in God's image. It is part of who we are. We can't be singing to show off, to appeal, to attract. We create to worship because that is how we can relate as created beings with a creative God. Hollywood can offer a bit of an example, too. There are those who create to win awards or for box office hits. Then there are those who create because they can't imagine doing anything else. Occassionally this can be the same creation, which gives people like me hope. We don't want to have an affect on culture as our latest _strategy_ to reach the world/lost. We participate in culture because we are cultural beings. We work as artists (and I don't mean just paid artists) because we _are_ artists. And that is how we affect culture, by being who and what we were created for. But this is why I think Christianity is not a cultural phenomenom. If it was it would be tied to a particular culture and not be of value to anyone else. I don't think that is what God planned. I could be wrong. If we try to tie Christianity to a culture, then if that culture changes, where does that leave Christianity? But if we, as Christians, affect culture because we are a part of it naturally or organically, not as a "mission field", then there is no need for Christianity to figure out how to change to culture to be relevant. We're already there being a part of it, participating and exchanging ideas and love. At the same time we, as the church, need to elevate our expectations of art, especially the art we worship through. I do think buying into a consumeristic ideal of art runs the risk of offering God our second (or third, or fourth, etc.) bests. What's popular isn't always what's the best. Not that we take a snobbish or high art view of things, but we don't accept second rate in which ever form we appreciate. Crap. I'm still floundering here. I thought after hashing some of this out with my wife I had a better grasp of how to express this. The concept is in my head, I just can't get it to "materialize". :-) Joe
  14. Sort of, yes. But not viewed as a self existant entity. Art is the result of humans experiencing part of who and what we are. I'm not sure exactly how to word this. The thought is running around the edges of my brain, which is a very short trip. I'll have to give it some more thought. Joe
  15. That was part or mostly what I meant when I said "art as a subservient activity instead of an active, vital part of who we are as creations." I think the important thing in keeping the church from becoming utilitarian with art (and I do think this is an important consideration) is to eschew this materialist view of art and art making. Art isn't something to "use" in worship, either. We express worship artistically/creatively because this is part of who we are as beings created in God's image. So then when we participate in culture as artists it isn't utilitarian, it isn't a "method" of evangelism, or a method of any kind, and culture isn't our latest evangelistic project, it is a natural part or extension of being human and relating in this world. Something like that, Joe
  16. Hmm. Good question. My initial response is to get rid of the "outside the church" suffixes. How does the church do art? What is the role in pastoring the arts or artists? I guess I think that way because I think the mistake has been made in thinking that Christianity is a cultural phenomenon. We have had to develop "alternatives" to the culture or "responses" to culture" and how that has taken shape is by developing our own (sub)culture. This has only perpetuated the secular/sacred divide or other ways of thinking of the church as outside of relevance. How do we move the church beyond this compartmentalized view of art? We should affect culture by being a part of it. Right now I would say one of our biggest obstacle is moving much of the body beyond the sentimental or kitsch in art. Too much of the (western? evangelical?) church has somehow lost touch with creativity and replaced it with this plastic consumerism calling itself art. Some of this is because we decided we needed to be seperate, the culture from the church, then seeing the vacuum decided we needed seperate but equal, but we never really reached equal, in a lot of ways. And that a result of keeping art as a subservient activity instead of an active, vital part of who we are as creations. I do think modernism has had a detrimental affect on art placing it in the irrational sphere. And the church has succumbed to much of the modern pre-suppositions. Many well meaning churches and leaders have bought into the notion of the faith/reason split of the enlightenment. How do we move the church beyond that? As a friend of mine once asked what does a post-materialist epistemology look like? The only coherent response I could give is, I don't know but if it doesn't involve art we will be behind before we even start. Heck, I don't know. That's just some of my musings at this point. I guess that is part of my question of what is the next step? Joe
  17. I'm really hoping this software works with Parallels. Rebooting does not thrill me, though it is still easier than carrying two laptops. The thing is the offline lighting console editor (for ETC lighting consoles) needs to control an external floopy drive directly. This is why it never worked properly on a Mac even with VPC. I could still write the show in VPC, but I needed to have a real PC to write the disk so I could load the show onto the lighting console. But I figure worse case, I know the software works with Boot Camp, I write the show in Parallels, and then write to disk with Boot Camp. Joe
  18. That's still kind of tough. I am mostly interested in their personal view of art and why they think that way, which usually shapes the other questions for me, such as the whole sacred/secular split, does art have value outside its use in services, is there such as thing as Christian art and do they view Christian art as the only acceptible art or art of value? (and thinking of your past questions) is art any more a calling than anything else someone might do? Is it _only_ a calling? etc. But assuming they come from a similar view of art and faith as I do, some basic questions might be, what does the speaker think the bible says about art and art making? What is/should be the role of art? Does/can/should art play a role in epistemology? Do we put unneccesary burdens/expectations on art and artists, or at least maybe more so than the non-artist or profession? Why? Why does the church feel the need to create its own subculture? Wow. I thought I'd be pouring with questions. I feel like I kind of forced the ones above out of me. But I guess I've come to terms with so much of this, I'd mostly be interested in the speaker's personal views and how they got there. I guess I kind of feel like my personal next question is how do we build a greater appreciation for and understanding of art in the church. More generally, sort of, what is the next step? Joe
  19. Holy Crap! And who are you? I lived in Gorham, ME, for about 9 years and moved back south in '03. Yeah, I hope that didn't sound too "stalker"-ish. The name's Andrew - you might remember me from the coffeehouse in Westbrook. (I'd take this to PM, but my message box keeps telling me it's full at 0%. I must be too new...) AnThom! Of course. Shoot me some email at jfutral@aol.com and let me know how things are going for you! It's great to hear from you! Ah, Westbrook. Joe
  20. Wow. That really is a blank slate kind of opportunity. But I would have to at least get an idea of what direction the speaker is coming from. So the questions would probably be to get this understanding, or if I am asking questions after hearing the person speak or they are someone I know, I would ask for clarifications or his thoughts on issues depending on what I know of him. For instance, I would try to find out if he (for simplicities sake I went with "he") believes in a sacred secular split of the arts and then questions along those lines, what does sacred/acceptable art look like, what does non-sacred/unacceptable art look like. What does he think makes for good or great art? Why? Can a Christian make "non-Christian" art? Can a non-Christian make Christian art? But if the speaker is someone like Mako Fujimora I would ask what he thinks is the most pressing issue as artists and as believers as artists and how do we use our art to address these issues? I would also ask about the IAMNY project and if he feels the process has been worthwhile? But then if it was someone like Glenn Kaiser, the questioning might be simlar, but I would try to find out his views from a pastoral perspective as well as an artist. But if the speaker was nardis, I would probably find an entirely different line of questioning such as what the Enlightenment did to art and how is that reflected or responded to by the church and where do we think we are now as artists, have we re-thought enough to say that reason is empty without faith and thus all we do is spiritual in nature and how do we reflect this in our art or do we? Just some thoughts, Joe
  21. Holy Crap! And who are you? I lived in Gorham, ME, for about 9 years and moved back south in '03. The million dolar question. On one hand, though, I can't think there are only a few of us who wonder about this. But the commitment to follow through with something to bring everyone together, such as the founders of this board have done, is definitely a Spirit inspired urging. Joe
  22. I hear what you are saying. I mean I know the place was short lived. But what a life! Maybe the answer _is_ this is a transient and translocateable (is that a word?) "world". Maybe this is how it should be, at least for now anyway. I just wish I came across it more often. But then maybe that would make it too ordinary a thing. Right now those moments are special. Are there "places" like this or close to it now? I'd hate to think Nashville is all we have to offer. But I suppose to a certain degree NYC is still an electric place for artists. When I worked the Fringe Festival a couple years back, it was still electric to walk by the Blue Note and see who was playing that night. Ah, to dream, Joe
×
×
  • Create New...