Rendering №4

The article published on the website of “The Art Newspaper” on February 12, 2013 is headlined “Life on the South China Sea”. It carries a lot of comment on the reopening of the Hong Kong Maritime Museum. The author of the article reports at length that the museum is due to reopen on 26 February in a three-storey pier in the city’s central business district. It’s an open secret that the space will boast coveted views of Victoria Harbour and, at 35,000 sq. ft, will be six times bigger than the museum’s previous home, a colonial building in Stanley, a suburb of Hong Kong.

Speaking of the museum, it is interesting to note that one of its highlights is a rare and highly detailed Qing Dynasty scroll which records the Imperial navy’s successful campaign to quell piracy along the Guangdong coast. The author makes it clear that the work was acquired by the museum from a French family’s collection in 2006, and was made by an unknown artist in the early 1800s, around the time of the campaign. Moreover, it was revealed that at any given time the institution will display more than 1,000 of the 5,000 objects in its collection, as well as items on long-term loan from individuals. Besides, Anthony Hardy says that the museum also plans to bring at least two major exhibitions from world-class collections to Hong Kong in 2013.

Giving appraisal to the situation, it is necessary to point out that the museum is turned into “a high-tech, modern museum”, and the new space will include 13 permanent galleries, , two spaces for visiting exhibitions, a cafe and two shops. Besides, there is a general feeling to believe that the museum, with its new, more convenient location and larger floor plan, can attract at least 140,000 visitors in its first year—more than triple the number it drew in Stanley.

The article draws a conclusion that although the museum has the backing of the government, it is a privately run institution, and will be financed primarily by funding from the local shipping industry. For instance, Hardy, who is a collector, was the chairman of the Wallem Group shipping company until 2006, when he retired and focused his energy on the maritime museum. Richard Wesley, who has worked in historical museums in Australia, is the museum’s director. As for me, I think that the reconstruction will help Chinese as well as people from other countries to expand their knowledge of Hong Kong’s history as a world maritime capital, the evolution of seafaring life through the centuries, and the development of China’s export trade in ceramics and other coastal-based trades and industries.

Individual Reading. Summary №1

The first-person narrator of the novel makes an acquaintance with the Stricklands. Mrs. Strickland is interested in art and literature and in the people who are connected to it. However her husband, a stockbroker, is a completely different person. He seems to the narrator to be a mediocre, boring and not art-oriented. However, one event makes the narrator change his opinion about Charles Strickland, for the latter suddenly leaves his wife and children and goes to Paris. Mrs. Strickland is convinced that Charles left her for a lover to spend his money in Paris on luxury hotels and restaurants, for after seventeen years of marriage he could not leave her without any possible explanations. Wanting to return Charles, the woman asks the narrator to go to Paris and try to return him into the family. Unable to refuse the grieving woman, the narrator agrees to help her and to disperse the doubts.

Rendering №3

The article published on the website of the newspaper “The New York Times” on February 21, 2013 is headlined “Banksy Work, Taken from London Wall, Turns Up in Miami, for Auction”. The article reports at length that “Slave Labor (Bunting Boy),” a 2012 work by the mysterious British graffiti artist Banksy, has vanished from a wall outside a discount store in London, and turned up at an auction house in Miami. In this respect it’s worthwhile mentioning the fact that the town council in Haringey, the north London borough where the Banksy work appeared last May and disappeared last week, say that they want the piece returned. 

 

Speaking of this picture, it is necessary to note that it appeared last year during the celebrations commemorating Queen Elizabeth’s 60 years on the throne and was taken as an acerbic social comment, as most of Banksy’s works are, and has been regarded as a cultural attraction in the Turnpike Lane neighborhood where it stood.

Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to point out that according to Alan Strickland, a member of the Haringey Council, the community feels that this artwork was given to it for free, and that it should be kept in Haringey where it belongs, not sold for a fast buck. However, it’s an open secret that actually the piece may go for quite a few fast bucks: Fine Art Auctions Miami, where the work has turned up, has included it in a Modern, Contemporary and Street Art sale scheduled for Saturday, and is expecting $500,000 to $700,000 for it.

There is also much speculation of how “Slave Labor” made his way to Miami. In resolute terms the author makes it clear that Poundland, the shop where it originally appeared, has said that it was not involved with the work’s removal. Besides, it is necessary to emphasize that the auction house is not saying who is selling it, or how it was obtained.

The article concludes by giving an official response from the Fine Art Auctions Miami that they has done all the necessarily due diligence about the ownership of the work and that’s why they are not able to provide any information by law and contract, about any details of this consignment. Actually, they will be happy to do so only if they receive any proof that the works were removed and acquired illegally. As for me, I think this theft was probably made on commission. So, if this piece is sold it will disappear into a private collection and never is to be heard from again, at least not for generations.

Rendering №2

The article published on the website of the newspaper “The New York Times” on October 5, 2012 is headlined “The Starving Artist at MoMA’s Doors”. The article reports at length that it is hard to make a trip to the Museum of Modern Art without noticing, just outside the entrance on West 53rd Street, the lean, fresh-faced young man with paint-caked clothes standing next to his paint-caked table. It’s an open secret that this person is Mark Nilsson, 25, at his sidewalk portrait booth who can depict you for 50 dollars in a bold brushwork style, a unique, moody interpretation in acrylics on a stiff, nine-inch-square bit of paper.

There is every reason to believe that people always talk about starving artists who die without ever seeing their work ascend to the walls of places like the Modern. So there is every likelihood that Mr. Nilsson, right outside its doors, is in the prime of his starving period — starving for paying customers, anyway, ones willing to sit still for an hour for a likeness that is far from one of those sugary caricatures you get in Times Square. It’s an open secret that many days, Mr. Nilsson, who has been working outside the museum since the summer of 2011, goes without a single taker. It was revealed that for the past few weeks, a construction crew has forced him to a less opportune location, across the street from the museum’s entrance, where there seem to be fewer of the foreign tourists who make up the bulk of his clientele.

Analyzing this situation it is necessary to mention that Mr. Nilsson, who grew up in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and studied painting at the State University of New York at Purchase, is a common sight inside the museum, too, where he uses the bathroom and studies the Matisses and Cezannes on the fifth floor. On Wednesday afternoon, he left his table unattended to check out several Cezanne landscapes and still lifes. There is general feeling to believe that the well-appointed museumgoers, mostly tourists, seemed tickled to see the gangly artist in the paint-hardened jeans and splotchy shirt speaking passionately about the paintings. They took snapshots of the real-live artist. Besides, it is necessary to point out that Ellen Moody, 27, a museum conservator, admired Mr. Nilsson’s work space, a lightweight $30 card table now laden with thick layers of paint — really a huge palette that itself is a colorful curiosity to passers-by.

In resolute terms the author of the article makes it clear that there was a friend teaching art in Taiwan who urged Mr. Nilsson to join him, and the couple from the Napa Valley who offered to fly him out for a few weeks to paint portraits, and the studio downtown that said it wanted to commission him to paint subjects it chose. In the conclusion the author gives Mr. Nilsson’s former college classmate opinion on his creativity: “You’re the only one of us I know who’s making a living painting”. As for me, I admire such people as Mr. Nilsson who put their soul into their work. Mr. Nilsson is a real artist who lives his life for Art and shares it with us with the help of his works.

Film Review №1

Frida (2002)

Cast: Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo, Alfred Molina as Diego Rivera, Geoffrey Rush as Leon Trotsky, Mía Maestro as Cristina Kahlo, Antonio Banderas as David Alfaro Siqueiros, Edward Norton as Nelson Rockefeller, Patricia Reyes Spíndola as Matilde Kahlo, Roger Rees as Guillermo Kahlo.

Director: Julie Taymor

Synopsis: the film represents a biography of artist Frida Kahlo, who channeled the pain of a crippling injury and her tempestuous marriage into her work (the plot is based on the book “Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo” by Hayden Herrera).

Review:

Frida Kahlo was a woman who endured a life of crippling pain caused by a trolley accident in her youth, but her innate energy, passion and love of life, as well as her enormous abilities as a painter, allowed her to overcome that obstacle to achieve her fame and recognition. The only thing she was not able to overcome successfully, was her tense relationship with Diego Rivera (her husband), which occupied her lifetime almost as much as her painting.

One of the merits of the film is the history it provides, chronicling the period of the 1920's and 1930's, for example, the political struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, an affair between Frida and Trotsky during the period of his exile in Mexico (right before his assassination), the mistake of Nelson Rockefeller commissioning Rivera a huge fresco for his public hall, etc.

As for the actor’s performances, Salma Hayek, for instance, proved herself to be a great actress. She managed to capture a physical torment that Frida was forced to endure during her lifetime (it was also the central subject of her art), while being confidant, beautiful and passionate. So Hayek captured the spirit of Frida and performed it with heart and style. She is just a pleasure to watch, for she doesn't play Frida, she is Frida. All in all, Salma carries this movie. Nevertheless, other actors also gave incredible performances.

As for me I liked this movie. It is the kind of story that goes straight to your heart and brain. It learns us not to give up in any situations, for example, Frida experienced so many tragic things in life that it should be enough to commit suicide, but she never gives up, grows stronger and the one thing that certainly helps her through hard times is her wit, dignity and love for life and art. She takes what she wants and needs but also gives a lot. Moreover, her honest, truthful and beautiful works reveal one of the greatest talents of our time. What is really impressing, is the artistic references in the film, for example, the surreal animated sequences, especially the hospital nightmare with skeletons (besides, we should not forget about the costumes which are very colourful, beautiful and unusual). What is more important, “Frida” made me want to learn more about Frida Kahlo’s life and creativity. I think this film can be singled out as a work of art.