Response to Style Wars

It's understandable that graffiti creates a lot of controversy. In one respect, it is a way for the youth and young adults to express themselves and feel like they have made their mark on society. On the other hand, graffiti defaces public property and the efforts against graffiti and in the removal of it cost the government and transportation system hundreds and thousands of dollars.
Graffiti becomes a problem when the subway system and sides of buildings are covered with tags. One person who was interviewed said that he only cared about bombing as many things as possible, he didn't care about making his work the biggest or best looking. This mindset is when graffiti becomes a nuisance: its not an art form, but just a way for people to mark where they have been. Graffiti just becomes a jumbled mess, and the areas that actually have graffiti that looks good are painted over by people who just want to be d-bags and go over other peoples work.
Graffiti has the potential to become something other than a nuisance. Taggers can put their work on a canvas instead of a subway car and sell it instead of having their work tagged over or removed. This allows the work of artists to last far longer than it would have on the streets. Graffiti artists could also be hired out to decorate sides of buildings, subway stations, and trains. This way, artists can leave their mark for all people to see in a way that will last, instead of trying to bomb every single train, leaving work unfinished and doing things that are potentially dangerous. The government should not totally shut down graffiti artist, but promote it in a way that will be beneficial instead of detrimental to the community. Some amazing art can be created if artists are given a chance by the public. If artists are commissioned to work in the interiors and exteriors of subway cars, other artists would be less tempted to vandalize the public property because there wouldn't be a blank canvas for them to work on. This would also give each train an individual presence, turning graffiti into a public art form rather than a destructive pastime.
There should be a way for the public and graffiti artists to come to an agreement to make graffiti less of an issue in the city. Now that it has surfaced, graffiti will never disappear, it will only evolve.

Father's Day '99

The stories told in “Father’s Day ’99” tell inspiring stories about the relationships between fathers and their kids as they care for and protect each other. There are three stories told in the radio story, one about a father who recovers his son’s lost teddy bear, another about a son who brings his father with Alzheimer’s back to the place where he had lived in hopes of bringing back some memories that had been lost due to the disease, and the third about a father who tries to protect his daughter only to crush her spirit further. The three stories are told in slightly different ways, the first switching between a narrative and an interview, the second between a narrative, interview and raw footage, and the third strictly an interview, but from two different perspectives.
The first story is about a father who does the seemingly impossible for his son, finding a beloved teddy bear against all odds, given a massive pile of trash and only 15 minutes to go through it all. The program combines a narrative telling of the story by the person whom the story is about, with an interview of that person with the host of the program. This way the listener not only gets an overview of the story, but also the opinion of the father that may have not been included in a mere retelling of the story. The small miracle that occurred is inspiring.
During the second act of the program, clips of conversation fade into music, which sets the mood of the story being told. The music doesn’t overpower the story, but adds to it. At moments the music in the background stops when the sons tells the story, then it slowly fades back in as the audio switches to the raw footage of the trip. At places where the audio is cut, the music swells, and then fades again as the next part of the audio comes back in. The audio of the second story gives the listeners a better idea about what actually happened: you get to listen to the man’s father trying to remember the names and professions of his sons. A retelling just wouldn't have the same effect on the listener.
The third episode tells a story about how a father ended up disappointing his daughter when he took a lie too far: the father ended up making his daughter believe in something that was never really there. This story is told by both the father and daughter, the interviewer asking the occasional question. Through this method of storytelling, the listener gets both sides of the story and understands how each side felt in response to what had happened.

Reaction to Dina

This artist uses an experimental method to present her work. Instead of using a single sheet of paper, she overlaps multiple sheets that are cut at odd angles, torn, and cut to create an interesting surface to work on. The artist leaves a majority of the work uncompleted, parts of the scene or figure left as a pencil drawing, while the rest is painted into a lifelike image. Standing at different distances from the work reveals different levels of the painting: only at a close distance can a person see the light sketches. Instead of trying to fill the blank space, the artist emphasizes the empty space in her work and the incomplete areas. This works because the painting is not done on a traditional rectangular canvas, and the blank space forces the viewer to fill in the image, leaving the scene depicted up to interpretation. In this way, the artist creates a successful collection of work.

Reaction to Guy Carlo

The photographs by Guy Carlo are nothing less than strange. A hand print stands out red against a left butt cheek, and a man's face is warped into a cartoon-like portrait. The collection of Carlo's work is based primarily on computer manipulation of photos. The photos that aren't edited, like the first photo shown, are of random images, not what one would call fine art. I personally feel that Carlo's work is nothing special, something that could be done by a student who was playing around with photos on his or her computer. There was one photo that was blurry, and it cannot be deduced whether or not the photo was blurred accidentally or purposefully. Overall, the images Carlo presents are somewhat interesting, but seem amateur.