Cartooning is a beautiful art form.
Last Friday I went to a joint talk by Chris Ware and Marjane Satrapi, moderated by Françoise Mouly (New Yorker art director, wife of Art Spiegelman, etc). The talk was a free event of N.Y.U.'s Festival of New French Writing. I regret that I could not attend so many of the Festival's talks, but I am so glad I was able to catch this one at least.
I first started to become aware of Ware (har har) in 2002, when he was included in the 2002 Whitney Biennial for Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth. I was blown away by the incredible detail, and at the same time simplicity, evident in his work. The sheer number of hours that must've gone into production of this book-length comic (graphic novel?)...it was the only kind of artwork that seemed to not only engage me but give me the urge to run home and work on something myself. I love art with that effect.
As much as I find myself more and more interested in comics as an art form, I was still not aware of Satrapi, until Friday night. This despite the fact that the movie version of her book Persepolis had been nominated for an Oscar. (Certain parts of my pop culture knowledge simply have big gaping holes - I've come to accept this).
Anyway...I just wanted to say thank you to NYU for bringing Satrapi to my attention through this joint lecture series. It was such a treat to watch both her and Ware talk about their work. They're both excellent artists who work in the same genre but in totally different styles, and it was amazing to see comics taken so seriously by two such different personalities. Satrapi was full of energy and endlessly quotable, and Ware was, like the characters in his comics, endlessly apologizing for existing. Totally fascinating.
Notes on culture and contemporary issues, responses to the writings of others, and general observations by Catherine LaSota.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Debris.
I manage a small boutique in Nolita. Every day, before I open the store, I sweep the sidewalk. Some days are messier than others, but generally the litter strewn about is not all that interesting.
Today there was a concert ticket stub in the pile of trash I was sweeping together. I was curious to see what concert this stub was from, so I leaned down close to read it. It was a concert for the band Squeeze.
Squeeze? When have they played a concert recently? I wondered. So I looked to see where the concert had taken place: The Academy.
And then I saw the date of the concert: 1995.
Man, some debris has quite the life span.
Today there was a concert ticket stub in the pile of trash I was sweeping together. I was curious to see what concert this stub was from, so I leaned down close to read it. It was a concert for the band Squeeze.
Squeeze? When have they played a concert recently? I wondered. So I looked to see where the concert had taken place: The Academy.
And then I saw the date of the concert: 1995.
Man, some debris has quite the life span.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Interesting
Right now, MSNBC and CNN are covering the inaugural parade, and Fox News is broadcasting live from Bush's homecoming rally in Texas, where he is giving a speech. I hope Fox can learn to say goodbye.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
books on writing
I have been writing a LOT recently (really, I have - just not on this blog).
I am having a blast discovering my apparent passion for writing, and I am also reading more than ever, devouring books.
One thing I've noticed is that there are tons of books out there ABOUT writing: books about finding your voice, books about honing your craft, books about getting published. I started to think that absolutely everyone must want to be a writer, for there to be so many books out there on the subject of writing.
But then I thought: perhaps it makes sense that there are so many books on writing. After all, writers write, and one area that all writers have some level of knowledge about is...writing. So perhaps many authors feel inclined to pen a book on their craft.
There are plenty of books out there about pursuing art, music, etc...but books on writing outnumber them all.
Naturally - if you are a writer, you write...if you are an artist or musician, maybe you write, and maybe you don't, but the pool of authors for books in those fields must be considerably smaller than it is for writing.
This post officially wins the award for most frequent use of the word writing.
I am having a blast discovering my apparent passion for writing, and I am also reading more than ever, devouring books.
One thing I've noticed is that there are tons of books out there ABOUT writing: books about finding your voice, books about honing your craft, books about getting published. I started to think that absolutely everyone must want to be a writer, for there to be so many books out there on the subject of writing.
But then I thought: perhaps it makes sense that there are so many books on writing. After all, writers write, and one area that all writers have some level of knowledge about is...writing. So perhaps many authors feel inclined to pen a book on their craft.
There are plenty of books out there about pursuing art, music, etc...but books on writing outnumber them all.
Naturally - if you are a writer, you write...if you are an artist or musician, maybe you write, and maybe you don't, but the pool of authors for books in those fields must be considerably smaller than it is for writing.
This post officially wins the award for most frequent use of the word writing.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lopate
I listen to WNYC, the New York City NPR affiliate, a lot.
I love the Brian Lehrer show (10am-12pm every weekday) the most, but I often listen to other programs as well.
Immediately after Brian Lehrer's show is the Leonard Lopate show (12pm-2pm every weekday). I have *tried* to listen to this show, hosted by the brother of writer Phillip Lopate, many a time and enjoy it as I do my Brian Lehrer. I have concluded that this just cannot be done.
Leonard has a way of speaking that grates on me just a bit. He asks questions in a manner that, I think, sounds mildly presumptuous. I believe this is because he extends his speaking out in such a way that he always seems to squeeze in his own view/opinion of a situation at the same time he is asking his guest for their view. It can be a very leading way to inquire about something.
But as much as I always have trouble with Leonard's interview style, I am sure I will continue to listen to his program. I just love WNYC too much, and sometimes he does have some very interesting guests on, guests that don't become in any way derailed by his questioning methods, as I do.
Perhaps I am alone in my view of Leonard. I try not to judge, really I do. Sigh.
I love the Brian Lehrer show (10am-12pm every weekday) the most, but I often listen to other programs as well.
Immediately after Brian Lehrer's show is the Leonard Lopate show (12pm-2pm every weekday). I have *tried* to listen to this show, hosted by the brother of writer Phillip Lopate, many a time and enjoy it as I do my Brian Lehrer. I have concluded that this just cannot be done.
Leonard has a way of speaking that grates on me just a bit. He asks questions in a manner that, I think, sounds mildly presumptuous. I believe this is because he extends his speaking out in such a way that he always seems to squeeze in his own view/opinion of a situation at the same time he is asking his guest for their view. It can be a very leading way to inquire about something.
But as much as I always have trouble with Leonard's interview style, I am sure I will continue to listen to his program. I just love WNYC too much, and sometimes he does have some very interesting guests on, guests that don't become in any way derailed by his questioning methods, as I do.
Perhaps I am alone in my view of Leonard. I try not to judge, really I do. Sigh.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Treadmill TV, Part 2
Okay.
My gym has decided to leave the televisions on MTV for some kind of extended time period, I guess (previous long-term gym television choices have included, inexplicably, TBS, C-Span, ESPN2, and various infomercial stations).
So this MTV marathon gave me the opportunity yesterday, while running along on the treadmill, to experience another MTV program previously unbeknownst to me...well, at least to experience it in part, and with closed captioning instead of sound. This latest program is called The City, and as far as I could tell, it is intended to be a Sex and the City for females in the 20-23 age bracket (oh, and probably in the aspirational high school age bracket as well...it's never too early to start dreaming about your big city move to NYC, girls).
Anyhoo...I was all set to share my rage at yet another drama that mischaracterizes the reality of life for 20-somethings in New York City...but then someone informed me that this show is in fact, at least in theory, a documentary of ACTUAL young women making their way in the city. Really??? Who the hell are these people? They work at entry level jobs at Diane von Furstenberg, yet they are able to afford beautiful, new, sunlit apartments in Tribeca and Gramercy. To use the lingo of the young kids: WTF??
Ugh. I think I might just watch the premiere of Real World: Brooklyn tonight so that I can further develop my MTV rage. Apparently the kiddos in this season are living in a loft in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Having recently lived in Red Hook myself for two years, I look forward to the ridiculous portrayal of these people in a very personal way.
Maybe this is bad for me. Maybe I need to de-program MTV on my television. I just find it so enraging and fascinating.
My gym has decided to leave the televisions on MTV for some kind of extended time period, I guess (previous long-term gym television choices have included, inexplicably, TBS, C-Span, ESPN2, and various infomercial stations).
So this MTV marathon gave me the opportunity yesterday, while running along on the treadmill, to experience another MTV program previously unbeknownst to me...well, at least to experience it in part, and with closed captioning instead of sound. This latest program is called The City, and as far as I could tell, it is intended to be a Sex and the City for females in the 20-23 age bracket (oh, and probably in the aspirational high school age bracket as well...it's never too early to start dreaming about your big city move to NYC, girls).
Anyhoo...I was all set to share my rage at yet another drama that mischaracterizes the reality of life for 20-somethings in New York City...but then someone informed me that this show is in fact, at least in theory, a documentary of ACTUAL young women making their way in the city. Really??? Who the hell are these people? They work at entry level jobs at Diane von Furstenberg, yet they are able to afford beautiful, new, sunlit apartments in Tribeca and Gramercy. To use the lingo of the young kids: WTF??
Ugh. I think I might just watch the premiere of Real World: Brooklyn tonight so that I can further develop my MTV rage. Apparently the kiddos in this season are living in a loft in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Having recently lived in Red Hook myself for two years, I look forward to the ridiculous portrayal of these people in a very personal way.
Maybe this is bad for me. Maybe I need to de-program MTV on my television. I just find it so enraging and fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)