From Here to There: Alec Soth's America (A review of an exhibit from the Walker Art Center)

Like many artists these days, Alec Soth seems obsessed with the beautiful, yet eccentric moments in a modern day road trip. Travelling across the country while seeing beautiful sights and interesting people can always be inspiring, but is Alec Soth’s record of his wanderlust anything to write home about? Or is it as cliché as that last phrase? Through stunning composition and engaging subjects, From Here to There: Alec Soth’s America is luckily just as moving as any road trip you have been on.

By using an incredibly burdensome 8 X 10 field camera, Alec Soth has made a name for himself by surveying America in his own unique way since the 1990’s. His work has been in The New York Times and Newsweek, as well as several museums around the country. He currently has an exhibit at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, MN, and has two books of photography published. While he has all of this exposure, Soth still remains a relatively unknown photographer.

Which is not to say that he shouldn’t be known. His work is unique, not only because of its beauty, but also because each picture or set of pictures weaves a hidden story. Each picture is so complex and fascinating, that it is hard not to wonder how each photo came to be. If the photographer didn’t position all or most of these photos, how do these people and places get to be this way? Where did the photographer have to go to find this stuff? These types of questions make the whole exhibit feel more like an adventure, and less like a museum exhibit.

Even without the hidden narratives behind each photo, Soth’s work stands as a notable exhibition through brilliant composition. For instance, in his work Enchanted Forest (36), Texas he photographs a relatively normal forest with a few remnants of humanity strewn about. The gaudy and out of place disco ball is in the center of the frame, which immediately draws your attention. As you look closer, you see how the trees and rocks add intricate lines and shapes to piece, making the whole picture extremely detailed and engaging. Like a cherry on top, Soth adds a basketball and a Frisbee near the bottom of the frame to add more of his signature eccentricity. These aspects make the picture extremely fascinating, and the rest of the exhibit is just as mesmerizing.

While many artists may try to capture the moments of the American road trip, few photographers have done such a good job at it as Alec Soth. His pictures are not only beautiful to look at, but make you feel like you are taking the journey with him through the ins and outs of America. From his rare 90’s work to his contemporary series, From Here to There: Alec Soth’s America’s only disappointment is that you didn’t get invited on any of these road trips until now.

Exhibition Website: http://calendar.walkerart.org/canopy.wac?id=4673&hp=link&poster=Exhibitions

Review on Episode 10 of Boardwalk Empire

When Boardwalk Empire was announced, TV fans immediately christened it the next big HBO show based solely on its cast, creator, and Martin Scorsese (who executive produced the show, as well as directed the pilot). So when Boardwalk Empire finally premiered, viewers assumed that the promising, yet sluggish pilot was just an introduction to a grander story. They assumed that these great artists knew where the show was going, so they forgave the show’s strange pace and style. Yet after ten episodes, and with only two episodes left in the season, it seems like this season is all build up and suspense with no release. Like the season itself, episode ten is interesting, yet leaves the viewer frustrated.

With so many stories happening at once, it is hard to keep track of all of Boardwalk Empire’s plots. In this episode, Nucky finds and punishes the men who almost shot him, while also finding out how Rothstein figures into the equation. Margaret connects with Richard Harrow, which makes her re-evaluate her own situation. Angela tries to work things out with Jimmy, but after Jimmy beats up her lover’s husband out of jealously, she soon plans to leave with her lover and son. Also, after being scolded by the higher officers, Nelson becomes frustrated and decides to embrace his more sinful impulses.

As you can see, there are a lot of little interesting moments in this episode. However, like in all the other episodes in this season, these moments do not connect well enough to create a noteworthy episode. Instead, these episodes seem more like episodes that build up the suspense and drama for later episodes. While this build-up structure worked for some shows (remember how long The Wire took to get interesting every season?), Boardwalk Empire uses it in a way that makes the audience feel like they have to get through these episodes to get to the good stuff. This asks an important question. Isn’t it important for a show to be consistently good, even if it is working in a larger narrative arc? Countless of other shows have perfected this build up formula (Dexter, The Sopranos, and Nip/Tuck come to mind), so why can’t Boardwalk Empire do the same?

That being said, Boardwalk Empire is still a pretty good show. The writing, at least sometimes, is unique and engaging. The art design and production values are exceptional, and are easily the best on television. Yet what really saves this show time and time again are the actors. From Michael Shannon’s creepy narc to Kelly MacDonald’s naïve mother to Steve Buscemi’s stoic crime boss, all the actors make the show watchable. These positive aspects make the show worth watching, but with caution.

Sadly, Boardwalk Empire, at least in its first season, will not be the next big HBO show everyone wanted it to be. It will never be the Scorsese show either. Even if the last two episodes somehow make this season worthwhile, episode 10 shows us that Boardwalk Empire is less focused on individual episodes and more focused on the grander narrative arc, making the series generally weak. It is time people accepted Boardwalk Empire for what it is, a flawed yet promising show.

Review of Aqua

In the twenty first century, it is commonplace to have giant skyscrapers tower above us in pretty much every city. To stand out as a work of architecture, a building needs more than height and majesty to make the cut. Architects are desperate to find the new way to design buildings, so that the art of architecture can be revived once more in the populace’s eye. During the years of 2007 and 2009, a Chicago based architect created a building that would try to change the way skyscrapers are built. While it may not have changed the face of architecture, Aqua is still an amazing work of art.

Aqua is an eighty-six story residential skyscraper in downtown Chicago. Inspired by the postmodern movement in both art and architecture, Jeanne Gang designed Aqua to be a sustainable yet stylized building that would be as efficient as it is beautiful. After three years of construction, Aqua was let loose on Chicago to much fanfare. In fact, it even won the award for skyscraper of the year by Emporis.

While it may be the skyscraper of 2009, does Aqua even work as a residential building? The general apartments are intricately designed, as well as very striking. Most of the apartments have large window walls, making the already stunning views absolutely breathtaking (or incredibly fear inducing if you are afraid of heights). The decks on the building also add a unique aspect to the Aqua lifestyle. Each deck is individually designed to get the best view for each location, making every apartment seem like the best suite in the tower. Yet the most important aspect is that the apartments are very practical and well thought out, making the residential life at Aqua a very exquisite treat for the high-rise connoisseur.

However, it is not the residential aspects of the building that make it truly unique. It is all due to the artistry behind the design of Aqua. When you first look at Aqua, there seems to be something wrong with the building. This is caused by the sporadically placed decks mentioned before. The decks make it seem as if there are waves pulsing through the architecture, giving the building a very surreal vibe. You don’t really see very many surrealist skyscrapers, so it is very refreshing to see it done here. This wave structure also makes the building give off the subtle imagery of water, hence the Aqua name. This imagery connects visually with the river beside Aqua, giving the whole building an almost warped mirror effect. Aqua’s beauty comes from the strange details like these, making the building seem as intricately constructed as any painting or sculpture.

Aqua is definitely a bizarre building. It is hard to see very many skyscrapers copying its style in the near future. Yet with Aqua’s brilliant design and innovative stylistic flourishes, it is hard not to be in awe of such an incredible achievement. It truly is an amazing work of art.

The Positive and Negative reviews for "Painting" by Francis Bacon

Review #1:

For the painting that started Francis Bacon’s career, Painting fails to impress. Not only is his macabre surrealist style pretentious, but he is also incompetent as a painter. Bacon’s brushstrokes are incredibly sloppy, making the painting seem more like a doodle than an actual work of art. He also has no interesting patterns or symmetries in the painting, which makes the piece lack the focus that it desperately needs. This lack of focus bleeds onto the color palette as well. His muted blacks and his gaudy pinks contrast in the worst way possible, and the very miniscule amount of other colors don’t make the painting any less of an eyesore. Bacon’s style, while unique, is actually quite ridiculous. Although he has a lot of horrific images in the painting, Bacon takes away all the emotion from these images by adding silly details that don’t really make sense. How can one take a corpse with an umbrella directly above what’s left of his head seriously, let alone call it art? It’s images like this that make the painting seem amateurish, as well as extremely ostentatious. Of course it’s not supposed to make complete sense due to its surrealist nature, but its abstractions just aren’t interesting enough for us to care. With no real artistic value and an annoying style, Painting demonstrates that Bacon may not be as great or as important as art history leads us to believe. More importantly, Painting shows us that Bacon can be as lazy with his art as he is with his titles.

Review #2:

With Painting’s macabre surrealism, it is easy to see why David Lynch said that he wants Francis Bacon to be his best friend. Historically speaking, Bacon pretty much was the Lynch of his time. Not because they were both “weird” or “dark”, but because they both transported you to worlds that no one really had seen before. In Painting, Bacon creates this otherworldly vibe through intricate details, beautiful surrealism, and a morbid yet passionate style. At first glance, the painting may seem crude and unrefined. The brushstrokes are sporadic and the color scheme wears on your eyes. However, it is this coarseness that makes Painting unique, for it makes the painting seem like it was made in a fit of creative passion where being emotionally honest was just as important as the technical aspects of the piece. Not to say that the details are overlooked. In fact, the details in Painting are what make it interesting. Every element, from the green and red rug to the hanging meat sculpture, helps take you into Bacon’s world where everything feels as real as it is fantastic. And it is fantastic. With such insane imagery as a half decapitated corpse with meat, bones, and an umbrella surrounding it, Painting seems straight out of Salvador Dali’s nightmares. This nightmarish aspect of Painting may disappoint or frighten some, yet it is one of the many aspects that make Bacon’s work special. Through exploring such dark imagery, Painting makes surrealism personal and human instead of just a concept. While Lynch may have taken his place as the art world’s weirdo, Bacon’s Painting proves that his work will live on for years to come.

Black Dogs - A Book Review

Black Dogs is the perfect novel for when you're bored at the airport. It can easily be read in a bored afternoon, and it is incredibly easy to digest. However, the book sacrificed a lot for these qualities: thrilling prose, dynamic characters, exciting plot twists, etc. These traits could’ve made Black Dogs engaging and fun, yet would it be the same piece of young adult fiction posing as historical fluff that you instantly forget about after reading it? The short answer: No, it wouldn’t.

The long answer, however, is a little more complicated. The book sounds great on paper. The story follows a group of urban Baltimore punks who want to become big time thieves. The protagonist, Patrick, comes up with the idea to steal money from Led Zeppelin (the book takes place in 1973), which leads the band of hooligans to go off on a wacky quest that involves Christian biker gangs, robbing pawn shops, and even Jimmy Page himself! Sounds pretty cool, right?

So why isn’t this book cool, or even interesting? Well for starters, the characters are all boring and two-dimensional. Jason Buhrmester, the book’s author, gives each character just enough detail to help the reader visualize them. However, after the first few chapters Buhrmester seems to abandon character development altogether, making his characters turn into soulless humanoid tools used only to further the plot. For instance, instead of giving the reader an explanation on why the protagonist is so hell-bent on becoming a thief through characterization, Buhrmester just tells the reader that Patrick is a Black Sabbath fan and from there makes the reader guess everything else about Patrick. This is what the author does with every character, making the reader not care at all about anyone in the story.

Yet it is the story that drives this novel, which is apparent as soon as the plot begins to unfold. Buhrmester fills each chapter with the needed plot devices to make the story go at an incredibly fast pace, but he never takes a break to reflect on the story or it’s characters. This flaw could be looked over if the plot itself had exhilarating twists and turns. However, like the characters, the plot remains flat and monotonous, making the concept collapse under Buhrmester’s boring story. These factors not only make the reader feel detached from the story, but they also make you wonder if Buhrmester even cared about what he was writing. As you whip through the book, you can almost picture the author writing the novel as fast as he could so that no one would take his “cool” concept.

As “cool” as the concept of seventies historical fiction sounds, the rapid pace and uninspired prose makes the book seem more suited for a high school book fair instead of a Barnes and Noble. The writing is just that fluffy and amateurish. These flaws may make the book a lackluster product, but they also make Buhrmester’s creation into the best damn book to have when you’re bored at the airport. Why? The short answer: Because Black Dogs is a waste of time.

The Social Network- A Film Review

Ever since The Social Network got the reputation of being “the film that defines a generation”, people seem to treat it as an epic tragedy that is an instant classic. While this is an arguable opinion, they seem to miss an important aspect of the film. If you forget about all the hype surrounding the film and see the film for what it is, you will notice two things. Not only will you see that The Social Network is a great film, but you will also notice that the film is more of a low-concept crime drama than an epic tragedy.

The first thing the audience will notice in the film is how all the actors spit their dialogue at an incredibly fast pace. This may seem unrealistic at first. However, you quickly learn that not only is this acting style needed to get through the ridiculous amount of dialogue in this film, but that this style adds a certain old Hollywood charm that makes the contemporary story feel classic.

That being said, this dialogue style couldn’t have worked without a good cast and crew. Luckily, the film has the best cast imaginable, a legendary director, and a screenwriter that is so talented that it’s sickening. Jesse Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg brilliantly, and the supporting cast keep up with his performance with relative ease. The direction, camerawork, and editing are impeccably done, yet the viewer will barely notice these aspects because they will be so engaged by the story/screenplay itself. The script is as engaging and entertaining as it is complex and well written, making it a screenplay brimming with pure virtuosity and style.

At its simplest, the film is about the true story behind the invention of Facebook. However, it is where the film goes in between the factual events that really make the film. The Social Network’s story-arc is very similar to the story-arc in the 1983 crime drama classic Scarface. They are both about socially inept men who start out at their lowest point before finding their true calling in life. This calling leads them both to fame and fortune, yet they both still have unresolved issues that torture them. The men soon betray their true friends, which lead both men to their inevitable downfall. The only differences in these story-arcs are the endings and that Mark Zuckerberg was a programmer instead of a criminal. This crime drama structure creates drama out of an otherwise dry topic, making the film thrilling as well as intellectually stimulating.

While The Social Network may not be “the film that defines a generation”, it never seems to want to be that film. It is a complex story about a boy becoming a billionaire on accident, and that’s all it tries to be. It doesn’t try to speak for a generation, nor is Fincher trying to be the next John Hughes. The film is just a story about interesting characters that represent no one but their real life counterparts. This straightforward storytelling is what makes The Social Network easily one of the best films of the year, and why it could one day become a modern classic.

PS: I couldn't get the indentation to work right, so I apologize for the paragraph formatting. Why is it so hard to indent on this website? I really have no clue.

A negative review for an album I actually enjoy: Avalon by Anthony Green

After leaving Saosin and taking a break from Circa Survive, indie punk luminary Anthony Green came out with a solo album called Avalon. Green said it would showcase his acoustic side and have a “camp-fire vibe.” Even though the album got decent sales and a lot of fanfare from the alternative community, it remains a very weak album.

The first two songs on the album are very deceptive. ““She Loves Me So”” starts off the album with a simple song that can only be described as acoustic chill-pop. Lyrically, it is a very repetitive song, which is the case with pretty much every song on this album. With that said, this song would've been the perfect opener to Green’s acoustic “camp-fire” album. Yet Avalon is not that album, which is apparent as soon as the album’s single, ““Dear Child (I’ve Been Dying to Reach You),”” plays. Instead of being acoustic, this song goes straight back to Green’s pop punk roots, making it seem terribly out of place in the album. That is until you listen to rest of Avalon and realize that the whole album is a bunch of random songs that don’t really fit together.

The remaining songs seem drastically uninspired compared to the first two songs. The album ends like how it began, with a song that seems perfect for Green’s “camp-fire” album. Yet that album doesn’t exist, and the last song, ““Devil’s Song (This Feels Like a Nightmare),”” only brings out the fact that Avalon is an uneven and insipid experience.