The first thing that struck me about this movie was how it took place in Ukraine. Ukraine is the place of my origin so the setting definitely appealed to me and I could identify with the movie right away, even understanding the words they spoke. The second thing that struck me however was the terrible accent that Alex had. This, for me, detracted from the film.

I didn’t especially like the movie. Its message wasn’t as poignant or moving as others we have watched in this class. I understand most of the message comes from the grandfather who was ashamed to be ashamed of being Jewish, and the story that the old woman tells changes his perspective. At the end of the trip Jonathan wasn’t afraid of dogs anymore. "Everything is illuminated in the light of the past, always on the inside looking out". I like how Jonathan sees everyone he meets during his trip at the airport, as a different person.

During the movie someone says something like "sometimes searching for a ring in the water is useless" which reminded me of the Strayed memoir we read where she says "I thought about how if you lose a ring in a river, you are never going to get it back, no matter how badly you want it or how long you wait."

I am curious to find out where this movie is filmed because the landscape is absolutely beautiful and takes away some of my fear of traveling to Ukraine.

I really enjoyed Mark Snyder's presentation of pain in art. Although I had an idea of what I wanted to do for the visual project, some of the artists that he introduced further developed my ideas. I've looked at Barbara Kruger while doing visual research for my own senior show. She is a pioneer in the ways that she incorporates text into art and the messages her work delivered. She has a strong design sense that any artist would be wise to emulate.

I loved Tracy Emin's work. I admire her use of mixed media materials and text to deliver her ideas. In my own experience I find it hard to deliver a specific message and reach the viewer's sensibilities without the use of text. A piece can stand alone but many times the viewer sees his own personal understanding in the work (which is a good thing) but text is useful in art for directing the viewer’s thinking.

David Clark was another artist that appealed to me. I've visited his work before but I've never seen any of his films. I liked what I saw of Bully and I think I would like to see the whole movie.

I find that my art is more about pain than beauty. There will always be a debate about what constitutes something as art. Art is subjective, but in my opinion I think among other criteria, art inspires some type of reaction from the viewer. Art merits some type of closer inspection. Strong art delivers a message and the viewer takes something away from the piece. In this way it is much the same as pain is. Love also. Maybe that is why these factors are catalysts as well as inspirations for creation.

I was reading about Frued the other day and somewhere it said that Frued believed 'sublimation' was the only proper defense mechanism. Sublimation is the transformation of unwanted impulses into something less harmful...a release...such as art is to those with pain/ expressing pain.

I don’t know if I like the mural by Graydon Parrish in The New Britain Museum of American Art. The technique is beautiful and the intention is clear, a commemorative depiction of the 9/11 disaster however the painting itself to me seems like an anachronism…as if it is borrowing modern inventions into classical times. I don’t have the objection that most of the people had in the class to this creation; that it was too soon and too beautiful to create and display such a piece. I think that the only objection I have to it is that it’s too direct. I prefer art with more subtlety and not direct representation and in this way it fails for me. The technique is breathtaking but the fact that the painting is done in an academic style yet features 21st century inventions ruins it for me. When I think of a great painting born out of tragedy Picasso’s Guernica immediately comes to mind. We see chaos, pain, and suffering in Guernica in which The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy: September 11, 2001, I think just doesn’t deliver.

Maybe I have a different opinion on these works because I am an artist and I guess I’ve been trained to not only look at images at face value but be able to appreciate and evaluate them in terms of light, form, color, composition etc. therefore separating me from other viewers. Maybe for this reason the picture of the falling man does not appall me. It also does not make sense to me for it to be censored. I’ve seen many deeply disturbing photographs. Many photographers aspire to get the shot of a deeply disturbing subject for reasons of social change or even success. For whatever reason I feel that a great piece of art can not be censored. Art is ultimately freedom of expression and in terms of composition, line, form, light, this is an extraordinary photograph. In my opinion this amazing photograph is a testament to this man’s life and the horror of the event. However I can agree with Susan Sontag in her book On Photography "concerned photography has done at least as much to deaden conscience as to arouse it", at least in the case of this picture.

I can agree that the movie “Harold and Maude” is a romance, and also an inspiration.
Maude said “Here today, gone tomorrow, don’t get too attached to anything” and in that way I think it is similar to what the message of Celestina tried to deliver. Unrequited affection, and not having any control over desire, are big contributors to the tragedy of love and unhappiness in life. Maude knows this. She has lived through adversity (survivor of a concentration camp) and heartache (loss of her husband) and she has learned not to take anything in life too seriously and just to enjoy every minute. This is why the movie is so inspirational.

Harold, hasn’t learned this valuable message yet. At first he doesn’t have any desire for living. He tempts death and doesn’t care to live or explore the world’s beauty. Then he meets Maude, a unique old woman who introduces him to the spice of life. He learns control over his desire only when Maude kills herself on her 80th birthday. Harold falls in love with Maude because she shows him the pleasure of life and in that way, even after she dies, her lessons will live on. To me, this is why the movie is also considered a romance.

The age difference in the movie creeped me out a little, but less so when I consider Maude as just a muse for teaching Harold some valuable life lessons. In a way it also reminds me of Eternal Sunshine, in the way that an unlikely pair find each other and enlighten each other in love. I loved the soundtrack too. Cat Stevens is still one of my favorites, even though he is a “terrorist”.