Lamp Life

I’m sorry, but i still don’t understand why this musical exists. From the moment I saw it was coming I didn’t get it. Having now seen a preview of it I’m even more baffled. Not only is it in no way unique as a story, but the talent is less and they decided to set it in the 1970s’ disco days. Why? The only useful purpose that held was to add some musical numbers of comic relief that had little or nothing to do with the main plot… The goons seducing nuns? The goons dressing ridiculous… why? Isn’t the story about faith and turning a new leaf? So you waste my time with cliché and shtick silliness that is irrelevant to that story?

The characters are also single dimensional, they have little to no arc, and by the time there is a hint of one it’s too late, I stopped caring. Not that I need arc to be happy with a character, but a conventional linear theater piece like this is dead in the water without it.

Oh, and the last song is called mirror ball and EVERY other line is about a mirror ball and THERE IS NO MIRROR BALL. I think that’s indicative. Sure everything else is shiny like a mirror ball… so what? Are we trying to subvert the audience’s expectations here? Cause nothing else does so there isn’t integrity to this assumption.

The set is crowded into the space and it always feels like the actors are about to fall off the stage. The choreography is sort of boring, but it’s hard to tell if this was anyone’s fault or that the actors were trying not to hit each other on the crowded stage.

Ultimately it needs work; there is something to the whole thing that works. The movie was good, not like a great cinematic effort, but funny and good and worth the money I remember spending on it (lest we forget the sequel). If they just did a staged version of that musical it would have been better… even with the changed up songbook with disco songs instead of oldies doo-wop style tunes. But the schlock factor kills it.

I’d say rent the movie for $1.50 and call it a night.

Culture Imperialism is alive and well at the Fowler. That seems a little harsh. It’s not evil or anything, just more of the same western focus on fetishized objects. I went to the opening of the new exhibit at the Fowler museum Saturday Night, The Art of Being Tuareg: Sahara Nomads in a Modern World. I just copied and pasted that title into this post and it is even more interesting in the presupposition that there is a consideration of the modern presence of the Tuareg.

The exhibit is in line with an issue of National Geographic. Pretty pictures of the Tuareg, the camel riding, blue turban-wearing semi-nomads of the Sahara, but the focus is on the arts and crafts of the people. It is interesting. I previously knew nothing about the Tuareg beyond the VW connection. They remind me of the Ilkhanids of the Asia continent. I assume that his has a lot to do with the nomadic life style and the cultural concentration of portable and useful tradable goods in the visual arts. Also they are a marginally Muslim culture, so there is that connection as well. But this isn’t at all explored and I think that’s the issue I have with it.

If the Fowler is a anthropological museum should there be a comparative analysis of any kind? I don’t know, I don’t work there and I’m not an anthropologist beyond my attachment to Art history. I felt like I was suppose to look at some nice leatherwork and think about how quaintly adorned these people must be. There was minimal focus on the idea of these Nomads in the modern world. One display contained the recreation of the workshop of a now stationary Nigerian Tuareg family and had video playing on a mid 1980s color TV (oh look, poverty) with rabbit ears showing the artisan at work. There were a couple of videos towards the exit too, which were arranged it what I presume to be something evoking the conventional seating of the Tuareg. For those of us used to the gallery set up of the United States and not sitting on the floor, the TVs were inconveniently out of place in opposition to the display of everything else. And with the blue haired crowd, I can’t imagine they were willing to get down there, like it was an empty gesture. The big connection to the modern world, and what I see as a connection to the patrons I saw, was the entry hallway into the exhibit that focused on the appropriation of Tuareg motifs into Hermes accessories and fashion. They went so far as to put up mirrors in this area, like I was supposed to see in my garments how my clothing was connected. Beyond not really having that connection, I didn’t understand why this was at the front of the exhibition before I’ve seen any items that I’m supposed to understand were appropriated.

Also it felt like it continued throughout the other two galleries. One had an exhibit called Intersections that was all about the thematic intersection of indigenous art and there was no representation, as far as I noticed, of European or American folk art beyond some contemporary Latin American work. The other had an exhibition of silver from the collection. So next to one another were equal sized exhibitions of decorative luxury Eurocentric goods next to the folk art of everywhere else.

Perhaps I am being hypercritical, as I think about the Menil collection and the Witness gallery with its collection of artifacts the responded to western culture and the personal collections of the western artists in the collection show an effort towards declaring reciprocal influence. They too have galleries of antiquities and culturally objects in a similar fashion, but there is a clear bridge between the collections, an idea that they are related, not separate things.

Anyway, the objects are interesting, but the set up does feel like its not for a contemporary audience, a world view, decentralized culture audience. It’s playing to the patrons. I’m sure that is a necessary evil, but it feels insensitive. And when those patrons are rude, rich people like the ones that seemed to very offended by my presence I am reluctant to participate.