Journal 15:
You thought you had indulged my affinity for McDonagh's work, but I ask your pardon once more. The first two trilogies his work was well received. Critics admired his bold choices in lieu of creating visceral images of violence to show its dark roots.
However, the reviews for The Pillowman were at best mixed. Even casting the great David Tennant as Katurian could not staunch the critique that this play had crossed the line between acceptable dark humor, and this deplorable new piece of perverted theatre. Many found this new play unfounded in the torture. They said that the play questioned the role and power of art and begged the question if art could be destructive. They thought that The Pillowman was an example of the works McDonagh …show more content…
In this gallery there were pieces that combined audio and visual elements to create abstract works. One of these was a room with eight or nine video screens filming different angles of the same man reciting his poem “Thanks 4 Nothing.” He speaks about all the ways in which society, and his friends have failed him--and then he gives them all false well wishes. The next room showed many visceral images of the gang violence in Compton juxtaposed by pictures of the community in a much more innocent light. The personal struggles of the one slightly aged privileged white male, John Giorno, (who has quite a bit of success with spoken word) seemed to pale in comparison to the challenges of the whole Compton community. I am certain the intention of the first exhibit was not to show how the problems of the privilege pale in comparison to communities ravaged by poverty and brutality. I wonder if the museum placed these two exhibits next to each other to elicit this contemplation about how small regrets and anger can fester and alienate from his/her community because him/her are unable to put these wrongs into perspective. Is the message that I took away less valid because it was not the intention of the artist? I think this gallery, and The Pillowman reviews make a compelling argument for looking beyond the traditional interpretations of art to find different meanings that may have been unintentional in the piece's
You thought you had indulged my affinity for McDonagh's work, but I ask your pardon once more. The first two trilogies his work was well received. Critics admired his bold choices in lieu of creating visceral images of violence to show its dark roots.
However, the reviews for The Pillowman were at best mixed. Even casting the great David Tennant as Katurian could not staunch the critique that this play had crossed the line between acceptable dark humor, and this deplorable new piece of perverted theatre. Many found this new play unfounded in the torture. They said that the play questioned the role and power of art and begged the question if art could be destructive. They thought that The Pillowman was an example of the works McDonagh …show more content…
In this gallery there were pieces that combined audio and visual elements to create abstract works. One of these was a room with eight or nine video screens filming different angles of the same man reciting his poem “Thanks 4 Nothing.” He speaks about all the ways in which society, and his friends have failed him--and then he gives them all false well wishes. The next room showed many visceral images of the gang violence in Compton juxtaposed by pictures of the community in a much more innocent light. The personal struggles of the one slightly aged privileged white male, John Giorno, (who has quite a bit of success with spoken word) seemed to pale in comparison to the challenges of the whole Compton community. I am certain the intention of the first exhibit was not to show how the problems of the privilege pale in comparison to communities ravaged by poverty and brutality. I wonder if the museum placed these two exhibits next to each other to elicit this contemplation about how small regrets and anger can fester and alienate from his/her community because him/her are unable to put these wrongs into perspective. Is the message that I took away less valid because it was not the intention of the artist? I think this gallery, and The Pillowman reviews make a compelling argument for looking beyond the traditional interpretations of art to find different meanings that may have been unintentional in the piece's