the beauty in me

Gracey’s 7 : “Cremaster” I get so weird..

We watched this film and I really find it so weird. I really do not understand the movie. My teacher even asked me if I really have to understand it or I just have to simply watch it.

Well then I realized what really performance art is all about. It doesn’t emphasize on performance, but rather on “art” itself.


I really wonder how Matthew barney categorized his ideas and placed it in the movie separating it visually through that certain “floors” in the museum..

That was the first abstract expressionist film ( i hope im right) I watched and for me, it really appeared so crazy.. BUt it ended well, and not until I read the synopsis that I understood what the symbols in the film stood for. But seemingly, it still appeared to vague for me.. ­čśŽ

well, il try to make my own interpretation of the video okay?

The main character Barney wants to change the world. he wants to share to others what the world should be – free and spontaneous. He experiences conflict between 2 bands playing in one of the floors of the museum. He tried to get rid of them. Barney was on his way to the worker to help him build the future since Barney believed that the worker still doesn’t posses the right level of understanding.

He sees the group of women dancing, and he was saddened by the fact that the people seems to be so monotonous. They do the same things again and again and they are “uniformed”. They are made to look, feel, and act just like others and they cannot be free.

As the main character continues his journey, he meets this girl with a glass feet/shoe or whatever you call it and saw that the girl was prisoned by herself. He tried to save the girl but the girl changed into a half cat/leopard whatever -half human creature (how is that??) The girl now becomes the temptation for our hero. He was defeated at first and fell to the ground.

The girls who are synchronized and uniformed helped him. He was weakened, but he was more inspired to finish his task.

In the end, our main character managed to keep his work and goal higher that anything else as he succeded in his mission. He deafeted the temptation, and was able to meet the worker as he wanted to help the worker in building a better world – spontaneous and free.

So, is my interpretation weird or what? well, blame it on that piece of art men! :-p


January 24, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gracey’s 6: The most wonderful gay!

Rich Kiamco, the performer and writer of the solo-performance “unaccessorized” is one of the most amazing, wonderful, and beautiful performers I’ve seen in my whole life.


His performance is also one of the best I’ve ever seen. Well, it was my first time to see a solo performance with that high level, and I know that it is incomparable to other’s I have already seen.

One aspect that made the performance good in my own view is that it was a biography of a person who is an artist by heart. The story of his life made his performance a success since it was filled with real emotions, experiences, feelings and dreams by himself. HIs struggles to attain a certain level of contentment in life made the story even more interesting. With that I can say his life soooo unique.

How the lines were constructed and delivered gave justice to his story. The performance was comic althroughout, but the sadness and deep aspiration in his inner side can be felt. Rich has the talent to make people know, at the same time, feel what he has inside. The story did not end in a very happy way, but atleast we, the audience realize one important value in life- that the things that can really make us truly happy, are not the things we can touch or see, but the things that we can feel and experience.

January 24, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gracey’s 5 : The Masterpiece

Antigong Agong is my subject for this entry, and the work of Aristotle is my framework..hmmm How do i start this? Let’s try..


The play followed a common and usual flow of events where introduction of the characters started the play, it developed a sort of spice when the time a certain conlict was introduced. The major character was required by his love’s father to give dowry before he can marry the girl. The story somehow presented it’s climactic part when the group went to the Bundok Dahu and discovered what really happened in the place 100 years ago. The story ended with the series of events of going back to reality by the characters where all of them had their own realizations and the dowry issue was solved.

The characters, sam and amraida will be my focus on this part. The actors portrayed the characters in a so-so manner. They had provided us with quality portrayal, as Sam’s character is a 20 year old man wanting to marry his childhood friend Amraida who is with a higher social status. The actors tried to project the characters, with their actions and speeches.

I observed that the play really chose their actors very well in a sense that they were just appropriate, and they were somehow true (maybe with the fact that they are muslims just like the characters they are portraying).


The actors in the play antigong agong appeared to be so authentic while dressed in their Muslim Costume. They are made up in such a way that they really look like Muslim people(well, some of them are, and some of them are not). The stage was designed with those gigantic structures made of bamboos..Well, fantastic, but it gave me a hard time to focus on certain parts of the story (at times). The stage was so huge I can’t fit the whole thing to my eyes..But I say, it’s appropriate.


Hmm..the play was made with tragic history, a story reflecting the reality, and lines that made it so comedy..Well, Maybe some are really intended so as to give spice to the play and to avoid making it to a boring and dramatic presentation. I should say that the lines are so realistic, they really have that knowledge about the Tausug Culture, huh?.


Wow, I really love the girl who sang their songs and made a different impact to the musical aspect of the play. The melody and the music projected the mood of each scene in the play and they were succesful in making it. They really made the audience feel the emotion they want to express through their music and sound effects.


How can a play succesfully share the same thought the writers have in mind to the audience thay have? Well, let’s ask Bud Dahu writers for that..It is so amazing that the lines and formation of sentences are greatly done as they bear the thought of the play. Lines are made through considering the audience, so as the audience may react and can relate easily. The Language used was understandable, at times they shift to Tausug Dialect to project their culture and make the play more realistic. The emotions were shared to the audience to feel and appreciate.


I therefore conclude that Antigong Agong is a masterpiece.

January 21, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gracey’s 4: Antigong Agong

Isa ako sa mga Usherettes sa play na ito. At pagkatapos mapanood ang kabuuan ng play, wala akong pagsisisi na nag-volunteer ako. It’s simply just amazing!

Minsan kapag tayo ay nanonood ng mga dula, sa eskwelahan man o sa mga cultural centers at iba pa, malimit natin inuunang itanong kung ano ang istorya ng play na ating panonoorin. Minsan naman, sa tiket palang na ating binibili, makakakita na tayo ng isang maikling background kung tungkol sa ano ang dulang panonoorin. Pero sa karanasan kong manood ng Antigong Agong, hindi lamang istorya ang naghikayat sa akin na manood, kundi ang katotohanan na ito ay istorya ng Mindanao, Dulang MIndanao, at likhang Mindanao. Ito ay bagama’t repleksyon din ng aking pagkatao, at pagka Pilipino.

Masayang mapanood ang isang “authentic” Mindanao creation na nagsasalamin sa maraming paghihirap at pagsusumikap ng aking mga kababayan.


January 11, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gracey’s 3: Konting tanong para sa Sining..

Ang pelikulang “tuhog” ay nagbigay sa akin ng isang magandang halimbawa kung paano nagagawa ng tao na “gahasain” at “abusohin” ang mga natural na bagay para sa ngalan daw ng “sining”. Isang tanong tuloy ay pumasok sa aking isipan, “Ano nga ba ang basehan, para ang isang bagay ay masabing likhang sining” at paano ito masasabing “distortion”?


Isang mahalagang kaalaman ay naibahagi sa akin ni Aristotle sa kanyang obra na “On Poetics”. Ayon sa kanya, ” the difference in the imitation of these arts come under three heads, their means, their objects, and their manner..” Sa bawat pagsusuri ko tuloy sa mga bagay na ginagawa ng mga tao sa aking paligid, hinahanap ko ang tatlong aspetong ito. Sa ngayon, mas pinapalawak ko muna ang aking kaalaman upang maberipika ko ang aking pagkakaintindi sa mga konseptong ito. Balik sa pelikulang “tuhog”, nakakalungkot na hindi ata naging patas, at maktotohanan ang mga konseptong ginamit, dahil ito’y naging pawang likha ng sobrang paglalagay ng “arte” sa kung nao ang nangyari sa totoong buhay. Sa huling bahagi pa ng paelikula, nabatid naming mga manonood kung gaano ka grabe ang epekto ng maling pagpapahayag-biswal sa pag-iisip ng mga taong tumatanggap ng mga impormasyon. MAs lalong nagiging kapanipaniwala ang isang kasinungaling maganda lamang ang pagkakapresenta.

PArang komedya, ayon kay Aristotle. ” It has been observed, as for Comedy, that an imitation of men is worse than the average; worse, however not as regars any and every sort of fault, but only as regards one particular kind- the RIdiculous which is a specie of the Ugly”. NAbatid naman namin, bilang mga third degree na tagapagtanggap ng mensahe, ang kapangitan ng kopya ng kopya ng kopyang nanggaling pa sa malayong “main source” ng isang istorya. NApakahalaga na dapat ko pang mas lalaong intindihin ang mga bagay na ito upang mas lalo akong makapagpaliwanag ng mabuti tungkol sa mga bagay na maituturing kong pangit dahil sa mga aspetong nabanggit ko sa blog na ito.

January 11, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gracey’s 2: Art as Imitation

We learned in class that we are to study art and beauty. We then started ourselves on the question, “what is a good theater?”. Plato said that “art”is three times removed from the truth since art is an “imitation” of something, and because of the meaning of the word, art losses its truth value as it is not absolutely the same as where it is originally taken from. Theater, is but an art, and how we judge theater, whether it is good or bad, is guided by the understanding that theather, is an imitation of life and experiences, of nature and environment, and of everything.


What is then a good theater? Maybe because theater is a process of imitation, the more nicer and better you copy from something and put it on stage, the more beautiful the theater becomes. Or maybe, the more convincing you get, and the more realistic your art becomes, the more it should be appreciated. Theater has been famous in almost all parts of the world, and every one has his or her way to create a good one. Everything we place on stage should be good and beautiful.


BUt as I observe it today, I realize that “imitation” as a fundamental aspect in theater, changes and upgrades through time. From the yesteryears where the nobles are the basis for imitation (that was the time theater was a bit serious), to the years where there was political struggle (satiric plays and spoofs were staged), and up to these days, where even the things we consider “taboo” and “morbid” are made into theater (classic examples:sex, heinous crimes, etc.), theater changes up to now, as it chooses a lot more to imitate.

In this case, I’m a little bit confused, is there any universal rule on what is a good theater, and where should we base it? Since art imitates, and the subject of imitation changes, I guess the judgement on this matter change also through time. The manner, the object, the medium changes also through time. What more can we get also? Of course, an art, an imitaion, and a theater that changes through time, that can be appreciated and condemned at the same time.

January 11, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment