INTRODUCTION:

       From traveling through Brooklyn to Manhattan, I felt satisfied with the easy commute I had to go to reach the Banksy Museum. There was only one train line I had to go to, which was the N train, which made the trip very cheap and accessible to reach the museum. After reaching Canal Street, I walked around to find the museum till I saw a photo of Banksy right on top of a 3-story building. Immediately I walked in and climbed the stairs to the cashier on the counter. After showing him my student ID, he gave me a discount to the point where I had to pay $26. When my ticket was paid, he pointed to the entrance of the third floor of the museum where my journey to the Banksy Museum would begin.

SECTION 1 (PALESTINE AND UKRAINE SECTION):

“The Bethlehem Wall” by Banksy

“Ukraine Murals” by Banksy

       It was quite fascinating to observe art works, in which Banksy revealed his political stance on certain issues that were occurring in the world. Most notably, he has spread awareness through graffiti and even took the time to post them in his social media accounts to illustrate the damage that the wars in Palestine and Ukraine were to the innocent civilians who lived there. As shown in “The Bethlehem Wall”, he was willing to travel to a warzone area through a series of illegal tunnels to get his voice heard of the anger and disappointment he felt of the lost lives that were occurring. Many of the war paintings I’ve seen, such as Picasso’s “Guernica” that was discussed in one of the lectures, were all made by artists at their homes or pleasant locations and eventually shown in museums for display. Banksy, however, was very unique in that he was an artist who was willing to travel to dangerous places, in which many of them were bombed, to paint on damaged properties of what he thought were detrimental events that were occurring in those areas. This was also proven in the “Ukraine Murals”, especially with the street paintings of the woman holding a fire extinguisher while wearing a gas mask and the one with a child using judo on an old man. It just illustrates the high amount of unusual defense methods that innocent civilians had to go through when defending themselves in a war that they are not adapted to.

SECTION 2 (UNITED KINGDOM SECTION):

“Queen Vic” by Banksy

“Queen Ziggy Stardust” by Banksy

“Stop and Search” by Banksy

       Banksy made many graffiti works in the United Kingdom that mostly depicted him questioning those who have a lot of power and influence on society. For instance, he was not afraid to voice his social criticisms towards many monarchs. Within the “Queen Vic” painting, he drew a figure of Queen Victoria sitting on top of a woman. The context behind this was fueled by his anger at Queen Victoria making a statement that opposed gay rights claiming that, “…women are not able to be gay.” This painting was created during a time when gay rights were limited in Great Britain. As a result, the artwork raised awareness about the tyranny of the monarch, who ignored the concerns of the people and failed to address them. Another work of art that Banksy made of a monarch was the “Queen Ziggy Stardust” painting. This piece of graffiti, however, was made to compliment Queen Elizabeth by depicting her as Ziggy Stardust who was a fictional character that became an icon in rock music. This can furthermore show Banksy the complementary thoughts he had on both characters and their similarities to one another. Other than monarchs, Banksy was also shown to heavily criticize British law enforcement. As shown in the painting “Stop and Search”  a police officer stops and checks Dorothy’s bag from “The Wizard of Oz”. This shows the ridiculousness of Great Britain’s stop and search policy that was occurring during this time, as it highlights the violation of the rights of British citizens (Mainly of which belong to minority groups). Most of these people were also shown to be innocent, as represented by Dorothy and the flowers she had in her bag.

SECTION 3 (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE SECTION/CONCLUSION):

“If graffiti changed anything-it would be illegal” by Banksy

“Child Labor” by Banksy

       The main icon that Banksy used in many of his drawings was that of a “Rat”. When graffiti was born in the 20th century, it was seen as a dangerous art tool because of its damage towards properties that were owned by property and business owners. Even if people want to get rid of them, I’ve learned that the “Rat”icon was used as a symbol by Banksy to show how graffiti artists cannot be easily disposed of in society. Furthermore, Banksy rather sees it as an important artist tool for street artists to spread their ideals on large objects to depict it towards a larger audience. This can further motivate social change and even cause people to recognize issues that they’ve never known before. One of these rat paintings is shown in “If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal”, which shows Banksy’s perspective on the mass impact graffiti has on people’s rights. I also started to gain a perspective on how Banksy’s artworks are not at all damaging to property owners. Mayor Bloomberg created a bounty hunt for Banksy fearing that his works would damage the reputations of many business owners. However, many of them are under the control of the property owners. One of those graffiti works was the “Child Labor” graffiti, which was painted in a Bronx property painting and was eventually removed to be stored. Many property owners would even go as far as to sell them to museums or auctions, which raised questions on their morality.

Earlier today, my seminar-related travels brought me to the Metropolitan Pavilion, which was hosting the Affordable Art Fair–a gallery in which artists from all over the U.S. and even international artists have the opportunity to showcase their art and sell it to the interested. I admittedly did not have high hopes for this event, a feeling pre-established by my purchase of a ticket the night before. I had paid roughly $41 for a relatively bare-bones entry ticket; VIP tickets were around twice that if memory serves. This represented my first financial hurdle in regards to the curiously named “Affordable” Art Fair, as I found the comparatively steep price affordable by no means. As a silver lining, guests under 16 were allowed free entry–but what good did that do me? I digress.

As I stepped into the venue itself, I was greeted with bustle. Swaths of people moving from exhibit to exhibit as if on a circuit, chatting up a storm amongst themselves and even with the artists. Immediately, I felt out of place. The employees were polite and I had no real interactions with anyone (save for one of the artists, but I will get to that later), but looking at the price tags of artworks made me realize the gulf between myself, an 18-year-old college student working a minimum wage job, and the artistically inclined who had undoubtedly come from all over to spend thousands of dollars on a new painting for their living room–or something. I think the cheapest painting I found was $600. Slave to souvenirs as I am, though, I didn’t walk home empty-handed: virtually all of the artists gave out free postcards or bookmarks as business cards, and who would I be not to capitalize on such an opportunity?

In any case, the art itself was a mixed bag for my tastes. I believe that modern art receives too much flak from the general population who I notice tend to prefer the classic old Western canon. I won’t lie and say that every piece I saw spoke to me, but there were many that I highly enjoyed. For example, Mercedes Jelinek’s Immersion, a photograph printed on recycled book paper, seemed to me an incredibly interesting way to present photography in a novel light. That being said, it was also $6,000, which overrode any positive feelings I had for the work. I understand that artists need to make a living, but the entire point of an “accessible” gallery should be that art is accessible to everyone, and I don’t see how such a price point can justifiably be called accessible.

As I sauntered through the gallery, I came across works by Chicago artist Richard Glick. We exchanged polite smiles and then he struck up a conversation with me, which made me momentarily freeze. He told me he was the artist behind the paintings I was looking at–something I discerned by the name on his lanyard–and I barely uttered a “That’s nice.” Retrospectively embarrassing for me, but we got to talking and I started warming up. The first thing he said to me after was, “You know, they call this affordable but it really isn’t at all.” I swiftly nodded, and we got along to talking about my school, what I was interested in, et cetera. This interaction was probably the highlight of my visit. I really enjoyed being able to have a conversation with an artist, even if it was just exchanging pleasantries. Instead of being some far-off figure, the artist was just a human standing in front of me. I also liked that he addressed the hypocrisy of calling the Fair “affordable” without my having to even intimate such a thing.

I wish I had more positive things to say about the Affordable Art Fair, but I would be lying. Woefully out of place among the rich art snobs of Manhattan, I decided to move on to better, cheaper things. Namely, a quick detour to the Chelsea Hotel to check out the lobby before I hopped on the SIM1c once again. With Patti Smith on my mind, I set out on a 10 minute walk from the Pavilion to the Hotel; it was probably shorter than that in actuality. But in any case, it served as a nice way to end my trip, although I do regret not getting a coffee or something in the bar. Next time, I’m sure.

The trip to the city was not actually that bad. I went to Bay Ridge with a friend and had a coffee before heading to the Banksy Museum. I took the R train all the way down, and although the ride was long, it was not bad at all. The only real problem was the rain and wind; the weather has really changed to fall. Regardless, when I finally got off the train, the museum was right next to the station.

I knew a little about Banksy before my trip to the museum, but nothing more than the basics. I knew he did graffiti art, and that style often conveys a political message. Graffiti art is illegal, so when it is created, it usually has a message behind it. However, anything beyond that was unknown to me.

Walking into the museum was a special experience for me. The art on display was amazing, and the messages conveyed were powerful. It is clear that Banksy hates two things: the police and big businesses. In other words, Banksy is the average person’s painter, someone who stands up for the little guy and shows the elite that art is for everyone. This was evident when one of his paintings went to auction and shredded itself after being sold, effectively destroying the artwork. In short, his graffiti art is for the public and is not meant to be gatekept by the elite.

I feel the piece of art that best represents Banksy’s style is titled “I Fought the Law and I Won.” This artwork does a great job of making historical allusions and relating them to modern times. The man getting pinned down is reminiscent of the man who shot ex-president Ronald Reagan. In the piece, however, the man is a graffiti artist, and Banksy tries to show that graffiti artists are treated in a similar way to those who are seen as dangerous. The artwork also alludes to the Clash song “I Fought the Law, But the Law Won.” Along with being a great song, it adds to Banksy’s sense of humor and emphasizes that his graffiti art has legitimized graffiti as a form of art.

My favorite piece in the entire museum was the one shown below. It depicts a criminal holding onto the paper of a typewriter while scaling down a wall. `Besides being aesthetically pleasing, the piece carries a great message. My interpretation is that people can escape from the prison of their minds through creativity. This is very similar to the route Banksy has taken in his art; his creativity comes in a taboo form, but it serves as an escape from tradition.

All in all, my trip to the Banksy Museum was very special, and I genuinely had a great time. Banksy is so different from other artists, and the message he conveys is important: art is for everyone, not just for one class of people.

”I Fought the Law and I Won” (top)

Banksy’s criminal (bottom)

Art Display:
          Upon entering the Art Lab at Snug Harbor, there were many unique paintings filling the halls that surrounded us. Ranging from sculptures, cartoon paintings, to paper collages made by kids, I was amused by the diverse selections they had on display. What particularly struck me was how community-oriented these paintings were; they were mainly completed by Staten Island artists, and even depicted famous Staten Island “monuments”, such as the Ferry. Additionally, because these paintings were being sold, I noticed that a lot of them were emphasizing beauty, rather than a deeper meaning. This was probably because, as commonly noted by John Berger in “Ways of Seeing”, people love to hang art that is beautiful, shows their possessions, or can be used as decoration.

Oil Painting Class:
          After looking at the many pieces arranged, I walked into a room where I could participate in a live oil-painting class. I was excited to try oil painting for the first time, especially right after our discussion of oil paintings in Seminar! This was a really nice experience considering we had not paid anything and basically got a free art class and supplies, truly being an affordable access to art. Also, there were a lot of other Macaulay kids here too, so it was fun to complete this class together. I was assigned two pumpkins to paint— one white and one orange.
         First, I started off with a “sketch” in blue oil paint. Initially, I found it difficult to create the original sketch, especially because of the enormous brush I had to work with. However, after some trial and error and patience, I was slowly able to get a sketch, to the best of my talent, of what best replicated the pumpkins that laid before me. After the sketch, I was given a multitude of colors of oil paint to start layering the sketch into completion. This was my favorite part. Mixing the colors to mirror those of the real pumpkins and constantly transferring my sight into my hands was a fun process. I have never copied a real life object onto a painting, and surprisingly it was less difficult than I had thought it would be.
———Although my pumpkins are not fully realistic to the real ones, I am still content with the final product. Also, I enjoyed seeing everyone else’s final products. Everyone used a different technique, and it was fascinating how the interpretation of the same object can be depicted differently on their final canvas. After finishing the oil painting, we were able to take them home. It impressed me that it takes a week to fully dry, but now seeing it after the drying process, I can appreciate that you can see the layers of oil paint, further giving it dimension.

Conclusion:
          My time spent at the Snug Harbor Art Lab was my favorite Seminar trip so far. Instead of just looking at the art, which unfortunately can be boring at times to my wandering mind,  I was also able to interact with it and be an artist for a day. After the Art Lab, I further spent the day at the Botanical Gardens and had a fun time looking at nature’s art as well.

I first started my trip for The Counter like many others, going on the ferry; it was not a long trip, and it was bearable because there were people to talk to. I later took the train and walked a bit, later arriving at my destination, the Roundabout Theatre. It was not the biggest theater I’ve been to, but there was a different type of set there. The set for The Counter was small, but it had everything it needed. My expectations for this play were not high, but that is because I don’t typically like theaters, and I do not like plays in general.

After watching the play, I could only say a couple things about it. I liked the small cast; it made it easier to learn the characters and their own struggles, and it made everything less confusing. I like how The Counter portrays that everyone has their own struggles and that even though not every struggle is the same, people can still bond over them. Katie, a barista, had problems with a man and decided to move away to live a better life, in her opinion. Paul, a retired firefighter, did not want to live anymore and wanted to be killed in surprise by poison. Paul, after going to Katie’s cafe for a while, asked to be friends with Katie, and she obliged. After becoming friends, they later shared some secrets together, those being the ones I stated before. I liked how they talked their problems out and learned more about each other. I liked most of the play except two different parts. The first part was when Paul was explaining his affair with Peg, a married woman, to Katie. Katie was explaining how she saw a synergy between them, and she seemed like she did not see anything wrong with the affair. The second part I did not like was the ending. The ending was just an abrupt stop that leaves the viewer guessing what will happen next. In my opinion, if you make a play, finish it with a real ending that you created; do not just leave your viewers guessing.

In conclusion, I think The Counter was not a bad play; it just had two moments that I did not particularly like. Besides that, I think it showcases how different people have their own problems pretty well.

Our class took a trip to the Roundabout Theatre to see a preview of a play called “The Counter.” The play features a barista, Katie, and an old customer, Paul, who begin interacting beyond coffee. Paul asks to be friends with Katie, which strikes me because I don’t believe you can be friends with somebody you don’t know much about. I can imagine that Katie was surprised as well. Paul understands the idea that you cannot be friends without revealing deep secrets about each other, so he starts to reveal that he is an alcoholic, and he becomes categorized as somebody who is depressed. Katie begins to open up about leaving her home, and her ex(friend?) to run away from the life she had when she had a hysterectomy. Paul and Katie begin to clash, as they both have different opinions about Katie running away. I enjoy the irony in this because while they have different opinions, they are not so different themselves.

Later, Paul asks Katie to kill him and surprise him. This is not explicitly mentioned, but I interpret it as Paul trying to run away from his issues by ending it, while he condemns Katie for running away. Katie does not want to deal with people’s pity of her having a hysterectomy while Paul does not want to deal with everybody else’s pity of him taking care of his mother and brother until they passed away. At this point in the play, I started to tear up, I felt as if I could sympathize with the characters even though the play is fictional. After much more talking, Katie’s problems seemed to follow her into her new home, as her ex-friend (who knows about the hysterectomy and hurts her emotionally) found her address and is going to see her. Paul tells her she has to go and move elsewhere to protect her peace. From once disagreeing with each other to understanding each other with talks over the countertop,  the moral of this is you cannot make assumptions that everybody doesn’t understand how you feel. People will never understand the full extent of how you feel. But they may understand the principle of the situation. Had Paul and Katie not given each other a chance, we probably wouldn’t have been met with the resolution of Katie and Paul both attempting to protect their peace in the end.