Saturday, January 26, 2008

Form in Art

A formal analysis in music, something common in a class of music theory or even aural comprehension, is both fundamental to and a byproduct of musical training. In a formal analysis of music, we analyze "formal" elements: the individual chords, the chord structures, deviations from those structures, and larger pieces that come together to represent the form of the piece. We are taught how to make this type of analysis, and then made to perform such analyses to further our understanding of music on a purely technical level.

To my knowledge, the visual arts do not get the same type of treatment. While you may be able to find "art theory" classes (if you're lucky), I would find it incredibly surprising if artists were required to study as much theory as their music-major counterparts.

But then again, they are subject to completely different circumstances. Most, if not all, visual art students study the creation of art, whereas only a small portion of music students study specifically to composer. After all, they are completely different media. Music is all about how things happen over time; it is impossible to experience a musical piece all at one moment. Art, on the other hand, is grounded in the simultaneous. You may appreciate smaller details about a piece of art after viewing it for some time and focusing on smaller parts, but the viewing essentially occurs in an instant. Additionally, music (although this paradigm is completely changing with the use of recordings, electronics, and most specifically sequencers that eliminate this need) requires a slew of performers to realize the creation of the composer. Art requires no one except the artist.

However, there is at least one similarity that makes the task of formally analyzing a piece of art a much more conceivable goal. In music analysis, it is common to hear the word "color" when referring to intentional deviations from a more diatonic setting. If this concept can justly be referred to as "color," then it is easy to find a parallel in visual art, since "color" is generally thought to be a visual concept. But is this necessarily a formal element?

The very term "color" in music occurs most often in discussion of modal mixture. Thus, there is clearly a frame of reference required for the term to even come into play. An Ab major chord may not be particularly exciting or colorful, unless it is used in a piece that is in a key like C major. Thus, it is not the specific chords in music or elements of art that become important, but rather the differences and contrasts, the deviation or fulfillment of created expectations, that gives something its formal relevance. Now we have something more formal to work with.

The "form" of a piece of music is determined by the relationships between larger sections of these expectation-fulfillment or expectation-defiance elements. With our previously-defined method for formal analysis on a smaller scale, defining larger form in visual art becomes easier. We can see it as the relationships between larger sections of a piece of art as it relates to structural or color elements. Just as in music, the content itself, or the setting of the smaller elements, may be worth noting, but is not of primary importance to a formal analysis.

So now, with these ideas in mind, I will undergo my attempt (seeing as I have very limited art knowledge) to formally analyze Edward Hopper's Early Sunday Morning. Admittedly, I studied Hopper in high school, so I have a bit of a head start with the research I have previously done, but I will try to keep my analysis fresh.
The first thing, upon viewing this piece, that strikes me is the clearly-defined color sections. There is a blue of the sky at the top, the strip of greenish-gray at the top of the buildings, the red of the second floors, down the the green of the storefronts, and the yellow of the street. But within those sections, there are deviations that make things more interesting. The sky has a piece of the building jutting into it, the strip of greenish-gray actually has hints of red thrown in, the second floor sports the irregularly-colored windows (some of which have yellow blinds, others do not), the storefronts are littered with colored awnings, windows, and text, as well as a barber's pole and a specific store that for some unknown reason is colored differently, and the yellow of the ground has the fire hydrant. Throughout the lower of these sections, shadows cut through in somewhat inconsistent directions.

Additionally, the barber's pole stands out by sporting diagonal stripes of color, while the rest of the painting is dominated by strong horizontal lines.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Pics

Some pictures I took...with a crappy camera. I have prints of these 4 hanging in my room.

Throne of a Democratic King














Precipitation














Sea of the City (The Washington Square Park Fountain)













Little Girl

An Unfinished Essay

If I ever decide to finish this, it'll be about the promising advent of technology and how its misuse can lead to our ultimate destruction. Or something like that.

Atlanta is being taken over by evil robots. The airport is, anyway. The most obvious infiltrators include a creepy egg-shaped travel clock that rocks back and forth incessantly, a massage char that clamps tight to the unsuspecting user's arms and legs before the massage begins, and an army of trash cans that periodically "eat" the trash to make room for more. Their eerie presence, reminiscent of old Sci-Fi thrillers, is both fascinating and terrifying.
But fear is most certainly not the reason for their existence. Each of these devices is meant to be helpful in some way. The clock, named "Bob" after its tendency to bob around, is multifunctional, sporting a clock, calendar, alarm, and world clock all in a conveniently-small, somewhat adorable egg-shaped container with a psychedelic multi-colored screen. The massage char, though scary at first, is relaxing enough to relieve the user of any torturous expectations, featuring many different programs of massage. Just don't try to get up before it's done. The trash cans help both the airport staff, which is no longer required to be so intensely vigilant about emptying trash cans, and the customers, who can now avoid those classically annoying messy situations where there's too much trash and not enough trash can. Just be careful not to drop something inadvertently into these trash compacters; you will never see it again.
All technological advances, designed to improve the quality of our lives, come with their share of benefits balanced with problems. Henry Ford's automobile, and its subsequent transformation into the modern car, was a brilliant invention that allowed people to go to new places faster than ever before. We began to develop wider social networks and broader tastes, as the truck enabled more efficient (and therefore cheaper) trade. However, not only is our heavy reliance on cars blamed for ozone layer depletion, greenhouse gas buildup, and therefore global warming, accidents, or "crashes," are the leading cause of death in most age groups, particularly the young teenagers who are just learning to use them.
Most, if not all, new developments carry a heavy learning curve. My grandfather is a smart man, but he was completely confounded upon his first encounter with a computer. He still does not quite understand how it even works, as is the case for a depressingly large amount of computer users. Most people can check their e-mail, surf the internet, and manage a few other programs and hardware (provided they are taught how). If problems arise, help is called in. Thus, we have become a generation not just of development, but of instructions. The people who know how things work write out simple instructions so that people who normally would be deprived of the technology can at least use it, even if they have no clue how it works.
But this creates a huge problem. Although instructions can allow someone to use a technology, they only go so far, leaving a use trapped in a world they don't understand. When something is not understood, it is much less likely to serve its purpose. Ask people how the internet works and few people will be able to give a true, comprehensive answer. Ask them why it was created, and the responses will be even more sparse. Admittedly, I do not know why the internet was created. However, I do know that its two most widespread uses: shopping and social networking, were not part of the original plan. The internet existed long before sites and programs like AOL, AIM, eBay, Amazon.com, Yahoo!, Facebook, and MySpace (to name a few).

Me Without You

What WOULD I be

Without you?

I would be

Better slept,

Better on time,

Better prepared

I would be

More relaxed,

More rich,

More of a friend to others

I would do

More homework,

More studying,

More of the things I need to do

I would do

Less spending,

Less procrastination,

Less staying up until 3 AM doing nothing productive

I would be

Clearer,

Cleaner,

Richer,

And quite possibly, better

But, what WOULDN’T I be

Without you?

I wouldn’t be inspired,

I wouldn’t be happy,

And I wouldn’t be me.

Listening to the Music of the 21st Century

“I’m not ready to make nice,” wails Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, claiming to be “mad as hell,” and wondering how someone could possibly feel so angry over something she said that they would send her a letter threatening her life. Sadly, this letter was not something she invented; not only were concert sales destroyed following her public criticism of President George W. Bush in 2003, but she also received multiple death threats from people who found her beliefs, and specifically her willingness to speak up against the government, to be an outrage. The above song, “Not Ready to Make Nice,” was released in 2006 and embodied the Dixie Chicks’ refusal to give in to pressures to keep politics out of their music.

Musicians have always found ways of making statements about the world around them in their music, providing a lasting, first-hand commentary on historical events. In his book The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, Alex Ross, music critic for The New Yorker, compiles these first-hand accounts to form a sort of history book told through music. In prose rich with musical terminology, Ross examines how historical events in the twentieth century have been reflected in the music of the time from the point of view of the composers, and even goes as far as to describe how the reverse can occur: how music can influence history. After following Ross’s guided tour through the past century of music, one then feels equipped to apply his ideas to the present and future of both music and politics, specifically as it relates to composers, songwriters, and producers of today.

As opposed to other books of history which present everything from an outsider’s point of view, Ross shows the composers in a close-up, writing their stories almost like characters in a novel. The language is, not surprisingly, past tense, but one can sense a drama unfolding, particularly with Ross’s extensive descriptions of events through scene imagery. In his first essay, “The Golden Age,” Ross writes of Richard Strauss’s piece, “The premiere of Salome had taken place in Dresden five months earlier, and word had got out that Strauss had created something beyond the pale…based on a play by a British degenerate whose name was not mentioned in polite company” (3). By using phrases from the common speech of the time that rarely appear in print such as “word got out” or “in polite company,” the reader feels a sense of connection with the composers, making them go beyond being just composers and into the realm of being friends.

Works by these composers undergo a similar treatment. Rather than merely mention a piece and its overall significance, Ross, a musician himself, goes through incredibly deep analyses of classical works. A simple melody line can become a scene, or even a commentary on human life, in Ross’s eyes, as when he writes of Strauss’s Salome, “From the start, we are plunged into an environment where bodies and ideas circulate freely, where opposites meet. There’s a hint of the glitter and swirl of city life: the debonairly gliding clarinet looks forward to the jazzy character who kicks off Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue” (7). Without even hearing the piece, a description like this puts a very clear image into the reader’s head, not only of sound but of sight as well. Ross’s descriptions become even more exciting when he has the story of an opera or ballet to summarize in addition to his musical interpretation. In only one page, the reader is given a general overview of both the story of an opera like Salome and the music in the opera, and does not at all feel slighted.

These descriptions along with Ross’s clear, musical prose help keep the readers’ interest despite the fact that the book is really a history book in disguise; he makes a potentially boring subject exciting. He includes musical terms in regular speech, like when he describes in the essay “Doctor Faust” a, “slight disturbance that carried overtones of the most spectacular upheaval…” (33). An overtone is something common to musicians, being a note higher than a played note that are heard within the sound of a played note, as if both notes were struck together. While a non-musical person may understand the sentence, it takes a musician to really make the strong conceptual connection implied by Ross’s terms. Aside from simply borrowing musical terms in his speech, his writing style itself has a very musical element to it. Reading his text is very much like listening to Mozart, whose music is generally praised as having a fluid quality to it. Each note of Mozart leads to the next, as if Mozart simply wrote one note on the page, and that note wrote the next note, and so on until the piece was completed. Ross’s words share this flow, leading the reader through logical setup and resolution as he travels along in history.

Being a book of history, Ross finds himself interpreting historical events just as often as he interprets musical ones, and he writes about the two in a very similar fashion. His prose does not change through discussions of opera, ballet, musical works, politics, wars, Nazis, and death, forcing the reader to look for connections between distant concepts. In many cases, they even become intertwined, as he writes in “Music for All,” “On August 7, 1945, the day after the atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima, Stravinsky added an extra pulse to the final chord [of his symphony], perhaps by way of honoring the immense military might of the country of which he was about to become a permanent citizen” (299). There may be no real connection between the duration of the final chord of Stravinsky’s Symphony in Three Movements and the military prowess of the United States, but Ross’s way of combining the two ideas forms a connection, if it did not already exist.

But, the evidence suggests that there was such a connection. According to Ross, “Stravinsky later cited newsreel footage of goose-stepping soldiers as a source of inspiration,” and included war-like sounds in the music (299). This war imagery may not be immediately noticeable to the audience, but it is likely that Stravinsky wanted to include some commentary on World War II in his writing. It is difficult for anyone to function in society without some form of political opinion, and artists like Stravinsky in the 20th century and the Dixie Chicks today are notorious for including their opinions in their art, whether it is painting, orchestral composition, songwriting, sculpture, photography, or any of a thousand other forms. Music in particular can be affected not only by adding lyrical imagery that many can enjoy, but by making shifts in music theory bases and overall sound qualities to create auditory imagery as well. “For a hundred years or more, masters from Austria and Germany had been marching music into remote regions of harmony and form,” Ross writes, “Their progress ran parallel to Germany’s gestation as a nation-state and its rise as a world power.” As German politicians and composers gained dominance, composers like “Debussy and Satie began to seek a way out…” (77). Ross spends a great deal of time examining Germany’s rise to power, and Nazism in particular, which seems fitting considering it had a huge social impact in the 20th century. Everyone knows of the changes Hitler caused, but few know of how deeply he affected classical music, as Ross describes in the essay “Death Fugue,” writing, “In the wake of Hitler, classical music suffered…incalculable physical losses—composers murdered in concentration camps, future talents killed on the beaches of Normandy and on the eastern front, opera houses and concert halls destroyed, émigrés forgotten in foreign lands…” (306). Just by virtue of taking the lives of many potential music revolutionaries, Hitler shaped the way music developed.

It should be no surprise, then, that following Hitler’s suicide, one of the measures taken to thwart supremacy by other nations was what is known as “psychological warfare.” As Ross outlines in “Zero Hour,” “Psychological warfare meant the pursuit of military ends by nonmilitary means, and in the case of music it meant the promotion of jazz, American composition, international contemporary music, and other sounds that could be used to degrade the concept of Aryan cultural supremacy” (346). The music of other cultures was introduced by the military to try to reverse everything that Hitler did to shut out others and place his race and his supremacist goals above everyone else. By merely exposing the people of Germany, particularly anyone who followed Hitler, to these types of music, there was a forced cultural diffusion. Jazz music is generally connected to African-American origins, so if Germans could be exposed to this type of music (and hopefully enjoy it), their ideas of cultural supremacy might change. No longer is history merely affecting music, but music is affecting history as well.

Richard Wagner is an important figure in this regard. As Ross notes, those responsible for many social movements (good and bad) cited Wagner and his operas as inspiration for either their ideas or a means to their ideas, including ultranationalists, liberalists, bohemians, African-American activists, feminists, Zionists, and Anti-Semites (12). It is no coincidence that Wagner was one of Hitler’s favorite composers for his Anti-Semitic ideas; Hitler was an avid classical music fan. Ross even goes as far as to say, “Classical music was one of the few subjects, along with children and dogs, that brought out a certain tenderness in Adolf Hitler” (305).

But, as Ross points out, the term “classical music” no longer refers to a specific genre. It has broadened to encompass both orchestral and avant-garde, baroque and electronic, a fact that makes its future hard to pin down. Ross avoids the topic for most of the book, not even making any definitive statements in the final essay about the future of classical music. Rather, he saves it for the Epilogue, where he argues that the Pop or “mainstream” genre and the classical genre, though generally pitted against each other, may be coming closer together. Pop increasingly uses elements of classical compositions, or instruments associated with classical music, and even the growing popularity of artists like Josh Groban, an almost operatic baritone, and classical music increasingly pulls in the exuberance of Pop music. “Composers may never match their popular counterparts in instant impact, but, in the freedom of their solitude, they can communicate experiences of singular intensity,” writes Ross, leading us to wonder what sort of sub- and combo-genres will emerge in the coming years (543).

Generally, classical music is known for showing its imagery through the music itself, using complex chords, timbres, and instrument combinations to create the desired feelings. Pop, on the other hand, is known for imagery in its lyrics. While the lyrics in “Not Ready to Make Nice” are powerful and hold great meaning, the chords are the same as in all the other Dixie Chicks songs (and most of Pop music). The song, although it has angry lyrics, does not sound angry. If Ross is right, then a combination between classical and Pop music could emerge which does both, a genre that I like to call “Popsical.” Broadway songwriters like Stephen Sondheim and Jason Robert Brown are already writing in a Popsical style, marrying powerful and imagery-rich music to even more powerful and imagery-rich lyrics. However, these songs are usually specific to a plot or text, and therefore stay out of the mainstream which is dominated by 3- to 4-minute bits of sound. Interestingly enough, Ross himself uses the term “Popsical” once in his online blog based on his book, when reviewing an attempt of the producers of Bang on a Can to have the public name their writing style. But, he does not like the term “Popsical,” or any of the others that were suggested by the public, including “Adventure Classical,” “Dismalism,” and “Post Secondary Modernists,” because he feels they imply that this music is, albeit influenced by classical, a move away from classical music. The terms, to a small degree, support the argument held by many that classical music is dying or dead. In the same article, Ross writes, “I have thought long and hard about this matter and come to the conclusion that the death of classical music is dead, and that all stories about this non-topic — including those protesting that classical music isn't dead after all, as well as those protesting that the entire discussion is a waste of time — are a waste of time” (“Dispassionate spasmodicism”). Classical music is alive and kicking, but it has changed, something it must continue to do before it can become as culturally important as it was throughout the history about which Ross writes.

Works Cited

Dixie Chicks. “Not Ready to Make Nice.” Taking the Long Way. Open Wide/Columbia, 2006.

Ross, Alex. “Dispassionate spasmodicism?” Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise. 1 Feb, 2005. 6 December, 2007.

Ross, Alex. The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

“The Golden Age: Strauss, Mahler, and the Fin de Siècle.” 3-32.

“Doctor Faust: Shoenberg, Debussy, and Atonality.” 33-73.

“Dance of the Earth” The Rite, the Folk, le Jazz.” 74-119.

“Music for All: Music in FDR’s America.” 260-304.

“Death Fugue: Music in Hitler’s Germany.” 305-339.

“Zero Hour: The U.S. Army and German Music, 1945-1949.” 344-354.

“Sunken Cathedrals: Music at Century’s End.” 512-539.

“Epilogue.” 541-543.

Not Against Work

I was thrilled. At the ripe young age of ten, I made it onto the stage of Three Little Bakers Dinner Theatre. It was only a local professional theatre—not even equity—but in Delaware and at my age, it might as well have been Broadway. I was only the understudy for the normal kid, a boy who later came to be one of my closest friends, but for those four guaranteed performances, I was in heaven. The role was a big one in their annual Christmas show (much of which was stolen directly from the Radio City Music Hall’s “Christmas Spectacular”), and as someone who loved singing, dancing, and generally showing off to large crowds, the huge theatre was absolutely perfect. The fact that it was paid, and therefore a job, did not faze me one bit. I would have gladly worked there even if I was not compensated.

Working for no pay seems slightly counter-intuitive. In current usage, the term “work” describes a thing that we do in order to survive, not generally something of interest. It takes up all of our time, and each day we cannot wait to get back home and spend time doing other things; watching TV, spending time with family, and generally relaxing, to name a few. We work to get money, so theoretically we will only do the work that is necessary to get the pay we want. In his essay, “Against Work,” Christopher Clausen points out that this may not always be true. “Today those of us with full-time employment typically put in several hundred more hours per year than western Europeans,” Clausen writes, “Our disposable income is correspondingly higher, though when asked whether we would prefer more leisure to greater wealth, most of us opt for leisure” (Clausen, 672). We claim that we desire to have more free time, which makes sense with how we currently view work, as an inconvenient obligation. But, as Clausen makes clear, we define ourselves by our job and how long we spend there (672). When two strangers are introduced, almost inevitably the question will arise, “What do you do for a living?” In college, it may be even worse, as students are certain to ask each other, “What is your major?” We have not even entered the workforce yet, but already our lives are devoted to determining our future careers, and developing the skills necessary to do the jobs we want to do.

But, already I have begun to use the phrase “want to do” when talking about a job. Clausen never makes this distinction between jobs that we want to do and jobs we do not want to do, a classification that W.H. Auden makes clear in his short comments on “Work and Labor.” He defines “work” as a job that one is paid for but also takes interest in; “labor” is something entirely different, where one takes a job just for the money and ability to support their family, even though they have no interest in it (Auden, 654). Thus, there is nothing inherent in a job that makes it “work” or “labor;” any job can be either, depending on the attitude of the person doing the job. Clausen’s definition of “work” is much more unclear. There is no obvious subdivision of enjoyed work and hated work to Clausen; rather, he lumps it all into one big category called “work.”

Personally, I have never had to do what Auden calls “labor” for any significant amount of time—only as a quick favor to someone or as volunteer work. All of the working that I have done in my life has been in the theatre, a field which I thoroughly enjoy. I have been a performer, a stage manager, a spotlight operator, a music operator, and many other positions, all of which appeal to me. Although I am in college for a career path other than the theatrical arts, I know that if I found myself working in a theatre for the rest of my life, I would not be disappointed. Performing and working in technical theatre has provided some of the most enjoyable experiences of my lifetime. I believe with my entire being that my life would be significantly happier if I were to work in the theatre than, say, as a sanitation worker. A sanitation worker may, however, have the complete reciprocal feelings toward the two occupations. There are sanitation workers in this world who genuinely enjoy what they do, and it is certainly possible that some of those workers would hate to be on stage. Maybe they hate getting up in front of crowds, but love the feeling of doing something integral to the health and well-being of others.

A classification must be made, but the terms “work” and “labor” are too connected into our everyday language, having become almost interchangeable. Different people use the terms differently, so a new way to define these types of jobs must be created. To avoid the preconceived ideas about words in English, I must turn to German, where multiple ideas are easily and commonly presented in the same word, forming a compound with an entirely new meaning. A job that someone enjoys and makes them happy, called “work” in Auden’s dichotomy, is “Arbeitsliebe,” (pronounced Ahr-bites-lee-buh) literally meaning “work love.” On the flipside would be “Arbeitshass,” (pronounced Ahr-bites-hahss) or “work hate.” My own Arbeitsliebe would be working in a theatre in the above example, and my Arbeitshass would be sanitation work. Of course, these are not the only jobs to which these terms apply. I am studying Music Technology because I want to work in that field. Thus, any job I could get as a Music Technologist would be an Arbeitsliebe. In addition to sanitation work, I would hate to do many other jobs, like mining, factory work, food service, and the list goes on and on. The set of jobs I would hate to do are my Arbeitshasse, and the set of jobs I would love to do are my Arbeitslieben.

It seems significant, though, that even in Auden’s dichotomy, even the favorably-defined “work,” now “Arbeitsliebe,” has its downside. He says, “[A worker] is therefore more likely to take too little leisure than too much; workers die of coronaries and forget their wives’ birthdays,” (Auden, 654) which is the entire subject of Ellen Goodman’s essay, “The Company Man.” Goodman shows a man who works so hard that he eventually dies as a result of the way he treated his body, making it take a backseat to his job (Goodman, 629). Goodman never makes it clear what the subject’s attitude to his job is, so it cannot be easily classified in Auden’s system, but it seems as though the subject must have had some enjoyment in his work to have spent so much time there even when he was not required to.

Or maybe there’s something else going on in the essay. Even using the terms Arbeitsliebe and Arbeitshass leave a bit to be desired. It is possible for a person to spend a great deal of time, even when not required to, working in a job that they hate. A sanitation worker, particularly one working as a custodian, works long hours doing something that most people would never enjoy doing—cleaning up after others. Money becomes a big factor here, as a person who has a limited skill set may only be able to get a job with low pay, and as result must work longer hours to afford the things they want in life. Thus, a worker who hates his job could find himself working terribly long hours, and getting the same result in life as Goodman’s Company Man. Though perhaps less likely, the converse is also possible. A person may love their job but the job itself may call for short hours, or maybe they have restrictions due to labor unions, in which case a person could spend little time in their Arbeitsliebe.

Perhaps Clausen’s ambiguity about which type of work he is against is therefore intentional. Arbeitshass is simply bad because a person spends their time doing something they do not want to do, literally wasting their life away. Arbeitsliebe is just as dangerous, because a person is much more likely to focus their entire attention on the work and neglect the other things deemed important in life: family, health, and friends. Thus, a person can be happy with their work, but unhappy in all other aspects of life. Perhaps this explains the study findings that Clausen cites, where David Watson claims that people are just as happy in low-paying, low-status jobs as people in high-paying, high-status jobs, regardless of their interest in the field (675).

As such, Clausen’s recommendations against work, or at least toward reducing work, make sense, whether it is Arbeitshass, Arbeitsliebe, or anything in-between. It is the very subject of Ellen Gilchrist’s essay, whose title alone gives it all away, “The Middle Way: Learning to Balance Family and Work” (Gilchrist, 656). It seems that Clausen and Gilchrist argue the same thing: that as a society, we need to learn to balance work and other things in life. “The Middle Way” is something usually only referred to in Buddhist philosophy. The Middle Way to a Buddhist is a concept of non-extremism, trying to find a middle ground between self-indulgence and self-mortification. Clausen and Goodman would likely call the devotion to work a type of self-mortification, and Gilchrist wants us to find that balance between heavy devotion to work and the self-indulgence of spending life out of work. She wants us to find a point where we work enough to get the money we need to survive and live the life that we want to live, but where we do not work so much that we ignore other aspects of life. Her argument is perhaps the most realistic of the three in the sense that she acknowledges that working is something most people must do in order to survive, as most of us are not being lucky enough to be born into great wealth, but warns that spending all of our time working is bad.

I never had a problem with working long hours. In theatre (and most other music professions) long and usually sporadic hours are the norm. An actor may spend three hours working one day, and twelve the next rehearsing for an upcoming show, which after opening may require up to eight 3- or 4-hour time commitments spread throughout the week. To most other professionals, this sounds like a breeze, but working in the theatre is an incredibly exhausting profession. An actor in a musical is required to memorize a few hours’ worth of material, including spoken dialogue and music, as well as memorize where they are to go on stage at any given point, any and all dance steps, and where they should be backstage when they are not performing. The performance itself involves a high amount of energy, as the actor must dance, sing, and speak lines in a way that has been decided upon to convey the proper emotion, much of which is left up to the actor’s personal analysis. They must also juggle any changes of costume and/or microphones, any use of objects (props), and in some cases, the movement of set pieces throughout the show. What’s more, this all must be done in the same way every time. An audience member recommends a show because of the specific acting styles of the performers, and to keep more audience members coming back, nothing must change. No other profession requires such a high level of perfection and consistency. Music performance is exhausting on all imaginable levels.

But here is where I part from Clausen. To Clausen, such an exhausting job is not worth doing because it goes against the idea that “the purpose of life is to enjoy it,” but that is precisely what ends up happening in theatre (672). Clausen perhaps never got to reap the rewards of his seemingly-pointless job in the Heart Institute, because he never got to interact with the recipients of his work, but in theatre, that interaction is constant (674). An actor can see the audience from the stage. That in itself is something that generally does not occur to people, but it is something the actor knows and uses. Some people claim that a good actor can deliver the same performance regardless of the audience, but in my experience an audience’s reaction fuels the actor to continue and to perform with gusto and energy. The benefits to the actor are instantaneous. After a good song or scene, there is applause and the actor feels appreciated. If there is a good joke in the script, the audience laughs, and although it was not a joke of his invention, the actor still feels like a comedic genius. Depending on the general practices of the theatre itself, the actor may get the opportunity to meet with audience members following a performance, which is always a rewarding experience. Everyone loves to be told they’ve done a good job at something, and an actor gets to hear it hundreds of times in only a few hours’ time. It gets more exciting when the patrons elaborate.

A woman once came to me after a performance of The Sound of Music, in which I played Rolf, the mail-boy-turned-Nazi who loved the eldest of the von Trapp children, Liesl, and in the end of the play lets the family go despite his duty and opportunity to turn them in to his superiors. After shaking my hand, as audience members normally do, she pulled me into a hug and whispered, “I knew you wouldn’t do it.” To this woman, I had become something much more than an actor playing a role; I had become Rolf, the young boy who got mixed up with the wrong crowd but still managed to know where his heart lay. To this woman, I represented true love conquering the most terrible of circumstances, and the idea that sometimes things can go right in life when everything else goes horribly wrong. Moments like that make the effort of acting more than worth it. I could easily devote my life to earning those moments.

Clausen clearly never had that experience. To him, a professor, work is a chore that, although “some of what [he does] for a living is fun,” is not in any way outweighed by the rewards (673). That is what Arbeitsliebe is all about; the benefits—whether psychological, financial, social, or intellectual—afforded by a job overpowering the difficulties attached to it to create something that a person can easily spend their existence doing. Clausen believes that, “humans are the only animal that doesn’t think the purpose of life is to enjoy it,” but in reality, we merely enjoy it in a different way.


Works Cited

Auden, W.H. “Work and Labor.” Occasions for Writing. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II and Robert DiYanni. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. 654.

Clausen, Christopher. “Against Work.” Occasions for Writing. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II and Robert DiYanni. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. 672-676.

Gilchrist, Ellen. “The Middle Way: Learning to Balance Family and Work.” Occasions for Writing. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II and Robert DiYanni. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. 656-659.

Goodman, Ellen. “The Company Man.Occasions for Writing. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II and Robert DiYanni. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. 629-630.

On Being Home

I could not wait to leave home. The idea of coming to college was such an exciting experience to me. I looked forward to not just New York City itself, or the fact that I would be taking new and challenging classes, but mostly the chance to leave Delaware. I wanted a new experience outside of my mundane routine in my home state: school, food, and sleep.

When people ask where I come from, I tell them that Delaware is my “home,” yet honestly I do not believe it. What is a “home?” The word immediately conjures the old familiar song by John Howard Payne, saying, “Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.” Payne, in vague words, explains that a “home” has some sort of power over a person, no matter where it is or what the conditions. It transcends the conditions of a place and becomes something of much more meaning, something born beyond the senses, a feeling that is not taste or tough or sight, one that can only be described in words of temperature, like “warmth,” which simultaneously tell you everything and nothing about what a place is like. While I agree that even a shoddy home can always be appreciated, I never felt the power or the warmth that Payne hints to toward Delaware. I lived there, and it was familiar, but I did not feel compelled to call it my “home.”

Not to say that I did not find home in Delaware. I spent a large portion of my childhood working at the Three Little Bakers Dinner Theatre in Delaware, and I felt a power, an indescribable connection there that would make me call it my home. Despite the fact that I did not live there, I felt more at home there than I did inside my own house. But what does that even mean? In the old adage, we are told that “Home is where the heart is,” but this is an unclear definition. Certainly it speaks beyond the physical heart; again making “home” less about location than emotional connection, specifically the connection to people, a strength or power that cannot be seen, drawing someone toward others and making them feel comfortable. I can say without a doubt that I love and care for my family, but I still did not feel “at home” when in my house with them.

My parents divorced very early in my life, and they were separated even before the courts declared it official. I have very few memories of my parents living together. My dad had a house somewhere with his soon-to-be-new-wife, and my sister and I still lived in my mother’s house. Shortly after the divorce was final, my mother decided to move to a new house, one in a better neighborhood just down the main road. A few years later my father and stepmother moved into a house a half-hour away from my mother. Physically, I felt too torn between houses to call any one of them my “home,” even though I primarily lived with my mother. Emotionally, I felt torn as well. I couldn’t call my dad’s house “home,” because I was never there and I still felt a strong connection with my mother, but my mom’s house wasn’t quite “home” either because it was far from my dad.

Three Little Bakers was more of a haven to me than a theatre. I could escape the houses and people that reminded me of the divorce, but still see both of my parents on a regular basis. It happened to be only a few minutes’ drive from my father’s house, so I felt close to him, but my mother was always with me at the theatre as well, since I was too young to drive myself. Working at the theatre also gave me a chance to perform, something that thrilled me, not just because of the recognition and applause from the audience, but because I got to be someone else. I was more comfortable being someone else; I didn’t like to be myself. This way, I could let people see of me what I wanted them to see. The fact that I felt so comfortable there allowed me to feel more connected to Three Little Bakers.

As a young child, I had fairly low self-esteem and few friends. The divorce of my parents did not help my confidence, even though I never blamed myself. My elementary school teachers told my parents that it was because there were “no other children on his intellectual level.” Whether that was true or not, all I knew was that most kids didn’t like me. Theatre gave me the opportunities to be a completely different person, and to meet other actors who did not treat me the way most people did. In theatre, I was not just “Kevin, the kind of weird kid who likes music but can’t do sports,” I was “Louis, the son of the assistant to the King of Siam,” or “Kurt, the younger boy in the von Trapp family singers.” It allowed me to become friends with people that I normally probably wouldn’t even meet, not just of my own age but of all ages. The famous international actress Juliette Binoche once said, “Choosing to be in the theatre was a way to put my roots down somewhere with other people. It was a way to choose a new family.” I wanted to have a big family, so whereas Binoche may have wanted a whole new family, I wanted to create a new extension to my existing one. If emotional connection to people defines where a person’s home is, then 3LB was most definitely my “home.” I felt strongly connected to a large number of people there, and I enjoyed every minute of being a part of my theatre family.

Simply enjoying oneself and feeling emotionally connected to the people in a place does not, however, make it your home. One year, my sister had the opportunity to go to California with her dance studio for a competition. Seeing it as a chance for a trip, my mom and I went along with her. Since I was starting some classes at the studio, many of the people who went on the trip were good friends of mine, and I had a great deal of fun while there, but never once did I consider California my home. I knew little of the state, seeing only what the competition directors allowed us to experience, and for the duration of my stay, I hardly noticed that I was even in another state. To me, it was simply a new place. The same is true of the beach house that my grandparents rented every year in Ocean City, New Jersey. It was a great house, and I had many memories there with people I love, but I never felt like it was my “home.” There is a certain degree of permanence required for something to be a “home.”

A home cannot, however, be a static thing. It must be dynamic and change with the changing circumstances of a life. Three Little Bakers was my home for a long time, but when I got to high school, I noticed that I was not there as often as before. In high school I took part in many activities, mostly music, which took up a huge amount of my time. Theatre took a backseat to the other things I wanted to do. In time, I became very close with the people at my high school. As I spent more time at school and less at the theatre, I started to lose touch with the people who I had considered my “family” at 3LB. As a result, I noticed that my home had changed. Concord High School became my home, rather than Three Little Bakers.

The change of homes was easy for me. Even when my identified home remained the same physical place, like Three Little Bakers, I was used to it changing. In theatre, you get to be a specific person on stage with certain few other people for only a limited amount of time. After that, the theatre becomes another place entirely, and many of the people in the show change. You could be a chorus dancer with a huge cast in “Telephone Hour” one month, and be the youngest member of a 50’s street gang in New York with only a few other people the next month. Home changed even when it remained the same.

When I came to college, I knew that things would be different. I knew that graduating from high school would force me to lose many of the connections I had made while a high-school student and to purge it as my home. I would have loved to stay there, but I had to move on. Over the summer, I found myself “homeless.” I still had a house to live in, but it still did not feel like home. I was out of Concord, and Three Little Bakers had since then closed its doors. I could no longer do shows there, or make it my temporary home before college began. There was no place that I felt comfortable calling “home” over the summer, so I became incredibly eager to come to college.

Coming from a state of “homelessness,” it was not at all difficult for me to make connections with new people immediately upon coming to New York University. Within the first few days of being in the dorm, I became good friends with many people on my floor. Within the first week, almost the entire floor went places together as a group. In the few weeks that I’ve known these people, it does not feel like a stretch to call many of them part of my family.

It bears a certain resemblance to being back in the theatre. My floor mates and I are crammed into a small space with a lot of stuff, reminding me of years of sitting in the miniscule backstage of 3LB with the rest of the cast and too many set pieces for the space housing them. The smallness almost leads to a forced intimacy—we cannot help but to run into each other all the time—and energy that could not possibly exist in a large space. It is almost like we are being pulled together by magnets, which lose effectiveness when they are pulled farther apart. College also holds the feeling of opportunity, not just academically but socially. I can show people what I want them to see of myself, and since they have never met me before, it becomes my new identity. It is just like being back onstage playing a character, but this time it is a character of my own invention.

The difference about being in New York and not Delaware is that I not only feel a connection to people; I feel a strong connection to place as well. I love New York City, and I have always wanted to live here. I feel safe and comfortable, despite the ideas most people have about how unsafe the city is. The American novelist Thomas Wolfe said it perfectly when he wrote, “One belongs to New York instantly, one belongs to it as much in five minutes as in five years.” Contrary to the negative connotation that is somewhat implied by the statement in that one feels no more connected after having been in New York for five years, in context, Wolfe makes this statement hugely positive. It almost forces the reader to imagine someone entering the city and immediately feeling at home. I am unfamiliar with Wolfe’s life, but the statement implies that he did not originally live in New York, and moved here at some point in his life, at which time he fell in love. He then presumably lived in the city for a large portion of his life—something that I decided I wanted to do on one of my first visits to New York. I have not yet had the experience to make that statement regarding five years, but I felt like I belonged to New York even as a tourist the first time I ever came to Manhattan. The feeling has only increased as I kept visiting, became interested in NYU, and now live here.

Being at New York University, and specifically my floor in my dorm, is definitely an impermanent thing; at the end of the year, all of us will leave the dorm and go to live other places, but it also has permanence to it. We will all be living together for the next school year, and some of us may end up together in later living situations if we so choose.

New York University has become my home. It is my home for at least the next few years, and then I will move on to something else, perhaps a job in a new place, or an apartment off-campus, or something else entirely, and that will probably become my home. But for now, I am home.