Initially, I thought traveling to the Macaulay building to hear a play we had already read as a class would be a waste of time. However, I was excited to see the Macaulay building for the first time. After we entered the Macaulay building, we sat in a lounge area playing basketball legends on a computer, waiting for an actor stuck in traffic. Once the actor was ready, we entered the room to listen to the play. I saw the playwright in the back and a group of actors in the front preparing to read the play to us. As the actors started to read the play, I understood why it is important to hear it and not just passively read it. Hearing the narrative, the screams, and the emotions first-hand from the actors helped me to understand the play in a way I think just reading it would not provide. Although they only read the play from their voices and did not act it out as they would in an actual set, I determined the dynamics of each character, and the actors had the effect of setting the stage in a way that just reading it yourself would not have. The actors helped me understand what happened in this absurd situation where the man’s wife was birthing rabbits.

After the actors finished reading the play, I fully grasped its idea and message and saw the playwright’s idea as the artist behind it. The Q&A after the performance was also engaging as I heard the stories and passions behind each actor and artist who performed. I heard how the playwright handles misinterpretation, financial motives, and passion behind art. Most actors have actual day jobs and are not just full-time actors, which adds meaning to their art because they do it out of love alone since it is not how they make money. Furthermore, I thought the playwright would reject misinterpretation of his art, and how many of us thought it might have to do with pregnancy tests being done from rabbits in the 1970’s. However, he believed this interpretation was fine as everyone gets different meanings from the artist’s art, and as soon as art gets put out into the world it is open for everyone to see it as they see fit since it is not the artist’s possession anymore.

At first, I thought this trip would be a waste of time, straddling me away from other priorities; however, after the trip, I thought it was exciting to hear from the playwright and better understand the intention behind the play. Overall, I enjoyed the trip, and it was great to see the mindset behind the artist and learn more about art as a whole. 

The play in itself is absurd upon the first reading. Half the cast was drunk and unable to fully come to terms with the extent of the situation and humor and alcohol was their only way to cope. However, the author found a unique outlet to convey the gender roles, stereotypes, and oppressive expectations of women at that time. The sheer horror was a stark contrast to the humor the other actors brought to the scene. Nevertheless, reading the play is one thing and being able to experience it is another. Being merely a few feet away from the actors was an incredible experience to see them interpret the work and bring it to life in their own unique way. More than that, being able to talk to the author, understand his work from his perspective, and have a glimpse into his mind to understand the creative choices he made was an incredible experience. Asking him about his work to understand it in its purest form without it being hindered by outside interpretation was an opportunity that is rare and that I am incredibly grateful for.

I did not know what to expect out of this trip, especially since I had never been to the Macaulay building before, yet I was pleasantly surprised by how much I learned from both the playwright and actors involved. The overall tone of the play seemed to change in this cast reading. It felt more serious with the way Mary’s lines were read out; I believe the live version more accurately embodies the message conveyed about the expectations of women during the time. The inspiration for the play was much different from what I had originally inferred. I like how the playwright used an originally lighthearted hoax to create a much more serious work that explores themes of gender roles and the treatment of women in 18th century society. I agree wholeheartedly with what Steve said about the growing inaccessibility of theater and admire his grassroots organizing of productions, which not only reaches out to the general public, but also smaller artists in the field.

More than the discussion of the play itself, I found the tangential advice that the actors gave about pursuing art while having a career in another field to be very insightful. I love creating art, but chose to major in biology because I knew when applying to college that art is not a financially viable path for me to devote myself to. It was refreshing to hear that everyone involved in this production also had a day job either related or unrelated to theater since there is often this expectation to commit to your art as an artist. That being said, I still am pursuing a career in biology for the love of the subject, and this discussion reassured me that balancing my interests in both art and STEM is possible.

I thought it was cool how the play was being read at the Macaulay building. The actors were really good, and the screams from the actress made a very realistic start. I think the liberties the actors took as they were reading it made the play easier to understand. For example, the actress reading the part of the midwife making the character seem extremely drunk for the second half of the play made the absurd things she was saying make more sense. In my initial reading of the play, I disregarded the one line about her being drunk so that made the play not as easy to understand. I also think the emotion used by the actor reading for Joshua also added another layer of depth to the play. It allowed me to infer what the character was feeling a little better than when I read the play. I think having the actors reading the play also made it easier to understand due to the absurdity of the situation. While reading the play I found myself struggling to understand the meaning behind it whereas watching the same play, things were clearer.

 

I think that the Q and Q with the writers and actors was interesting, but I felt that it didn’t add much to my understanding of the play or the arts as a whole. I did agree with the sentiment that artists are sort of forced to make a decision between pursing the arts full time or not. I liked the advice from the actress playing the midwife that was general, and about how you can pursue your goals without risking everything to do so.

 

Overall, I would say it was an nice experience to see the play read in this way. I also enjoyed the insights the writer gave on the play and art as a whole.

The night at the museum was an extraordinary experience and an opportunity I am so grateful to have had. Being part of Macaulay is such a privledge as this college cares so much for deepening the appreciation of the arts and exposure to it in its students. In doing so, we become well rounded individuals as we understand the window into time that art offers. A chance to learn from past mistakes and better humanity as we step forward as the next generation and potential leaders of this country. Art is traditionally repressed and only granted to the elite in society. Macaulay allows us to break this barrier and not only have the chance to beat witness to it, but also be a living part of it through our connection with it. As we undestand the arts and its impact on the world, we form a connection to it, thus, extending its reach and passing the responsibility unto us to continue its message and heed its warning.

Being from Brooklyn my whole life and only recently moving to Staten Island, I have been to the Brooklyn Museum close to 6 times. However, I’ve never seen it in such a light. The atmosphere changed drastically. I couldn’t pinpoint why. Perhaps it was due to the people I now surround myself with during this trip that changed the meaning and experience. But one thing was definite, the museum has changed dramatically. The layout of it changed since 2023 when I last visited the museum. The paintings were in different parts of the museum, paintings that I once recognized on display were hidden in the archives, and paintings that once stood tall were notably at my eye level or below. As I rested my aching feet and sat at a bench with a few friends, I couldn’t help but notice that there was another member of ou conversation, a man painted and hung on the wall at 2 feet tall. The meaning was incredible. Where this white man, a slave owner and colonizer once stood tall above its visitors 2 years ago, allowing him to continue to demean and look at people as below him even after his death and inhumane actions, the museum took the extraordinarily creative matter into their own hands and put him down at last. Which I thought was extremely notable and brave. As we see history through the window of art, it is also our responsibility to not let certain art be portrayed in idolized light. It is our mission to bring justice to the victims of the past and one way we can requite them is by lowering those who showed them no mercy but for some reason continue to stand tall and glare below their visitors centuries later. However, it is important to not get rid of it completely as otherwise history will repeat itself if it is not on display for us to learn from and grow as a humanity.

During my trip to the museum, where me and Jackson were viewing the art together, I found two pieces of art that really stood out to me.

The first piece of art that stood out to me was A View of the Two Lakes and Mountain House, Catskills Mountains, Morning by Thomas Cole. Me and Jackson both liked this painting because we felt like we were on the journey with the man standing in the middle. It was almost like we were seeing the scenery through the eyes of the man, and we could almost see the landscape in front of us because of the amount of detail to it.

 

The second piece of art that stood out to me was Before the Storm by Richard Mayhew. This painting stood out to me for one reason in particular. It stood out to me because when I looked at it, I got nostalgia. To me in particular, it almost looks like you are looking at the trees through a window during a storm. The blurry view you get from the painting is made because of the amount of rain going down on the window, thus making the landscape outside almost blurry-like.

In conclusion, I liked my trip to the museum, and I actually found art that stood out to me, making my trip enjoyable.

 

On Tuesday, 10/15, I was whisked away on a bus from CSI to the Brooklyn Museum for Macaulay’s traditional Night at the Museum event. There were various pieces of art that I found intriguing, but ultimately the experience itself was more interesting.

I thought that these images were interesting because while they are all the same person, the photo on the left seemingly represents them in a more feminine manner, due to the absence of facial hair, as well as the presence of longer hair. These are features that are typically associated with femininity. The photo on the right contrasts this, and shows the subject with shorter hair and a mustache, which are features heavily associated with masculinity. In the image in the middle, it is revealed that the images around it are portraying the same person. Half of the person’s image has these feminine features, while the other has masculine features. This could be commentary on the duality of humans as individuals and how conventional preconceived ideas of gender may not be an accurate description for individuals in society as a whole. It could also be commentary on how perception can impact one’s perspective and there are multiple different angles to look at not only images, but also situations.

I felt that this was interesting to me because the calligraphic nature of the piece exemplifies how we as a species have developed over time, in aspects such as language and communication. There were multiple pieces similar to this one, and I found it interesting that this illustration-like form of communication is believed to have had clear meaning in the past, when art is generally seen as something that is up for interpretation, and carries multiple messages depending on the perspective of the viewer.

The experience of being granted the ability to explore certain areas of the Brooklyn Museum with my Macaulay peers was an interesting one. At first, I thought it would be easier to move around since the museum was closed off to the rest of the public. However, I ultimately found it difficult due to the large number of students. I feel that this event was a great opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation regarding the art and other exhibitions with both like-minded peers and peers who had completely different interpretations and ideas regarding them. I feel that having these conversations was helpful for us to get to know each other’s mindsets and ideas better, which is important for us to further or knowledge and learn more from one another, even if we disagree.

To reiterate, this experience, though not particularly what I anticipated, helped to enrich my understanding of my peers as well as view some works of art and exhibitions that I have not encountered in the past.

The night at the museum was an interesting experience. I think it was really cool to have almost the entire museum only open to us. First we went to the auditorium to listen to the guest speakers. They brought up interesting questions about what a museum is. I liked that I was able to meet people from different CUNYs. I spent the majority of my time on the fifth floor.
There was one room dedicated to LGBTQ artwork.
I found it bold to use a lot of nudity within the artwork. It was definitely an exhibit that was meant to celebrate people’s differences.

There was also a room with a bunch of chairs. This was not as interesting to me since they were all similar styles.

 

I think the trip was a cool experience, but I probably would not go on my own to a similar event.

The first thing I was looking forward to this night was reuniting with my high school friend. I found him with one of his friends he met from Macaulay that I didn’t really know who he was at the time. We went to the auditorium, and I was excited to see what the museum had to offer after they said we were one of the first groups being exposed to this new floor they were working on. Although the art pieces were visually appealing, they didn’t really communicate anything to me.

 

1. Canopic Jars and Covers of Tjuli

When first seeing this, I saw a nice detailed sculpture of heads representing gods on top of the jar lid. After reading the description, I learned that they stuffed organs in them, which was shocking. This reminded me of a funeral process I learned about in AP World History. I don’t remember specifically which culture it was, but before mummifying the dead body, they took out its organs and stuffed them into a jar. I think this perfectly represents the question they shared in the auditorium, which asked something similar to “what if descriptions change beautiful sculptures into violent art pieces”.

 

1. Cartonnage of Nespanetjerenpare

This art piece showed how the definition of red was different back in the day. When I first looked at this, I thought it represented someone evil and intimidating because of the red skin color, but according to the description, it represented resurrection, permanence, stability, and endurance. This shows how colors had different meanings back then.

 

Other than these art pieces, none of the other ones caught my attention as much as these two. The greatest thing that happened in this museum is that I realized my high school friends Macaulay friend was Polish, and he knew how to speak it, so we instantly became friends. Other than that, I didn’t really enjoy the museum aspect of this trip.