Improv Everywhere

Improv Everywhere is a group based in New York City that is notorious for its comedic performances that allow average, everyday New Yorkers to participate. The website for the group states:

Improv Everywhere causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places. Created in August of 2001 by Charlie Todd, Improv Everywhere has executed over 100 missions involving tens of thousands of undercover agents.

The group is known to engage in acts that will be somewhat socially awkward for observers and bystanders, perhaps with the goal of lightening-up the busy hustle and bustle atmosphere of the city. While the group has gained much recognition for it's pants-free NYC Subway act (April Fool's Day, 2010), other famous scenes include: synchronized swimming in a public fountain, slo-mo home depot, and the pseudo best buy employees. In may of 2010, the group put together a unique performance which reenacted the opening scene of the move Ghostbusters in the New York City Public Library:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKB7zfopiUA

Mona Lisa Curse

My take on the Mona Lisa Curse documentary is from a sociological perspective. It appears to me that there is a very bold line between the two groups of art consumers: those who consume based on what they like and those who consume based on what they are worth. The former buys art because they believe it to be beautiful, moving, intriguing, and purchase it for pure satisfaction, while the latter group buys art because they look at it as a commodity; it is worth a great amount of moneyand they will feel as if they achieved something by owning the original peice. They also spend copious amounts of money on these pieces to flaunt their wealth and prove how much they are worth.

When Robert Hughes was talking about the new art forms that are popular and costly today, such as Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull, he seemed so disappointed in the the path which the art world has taken since his day. It appears that the two groups I mentioned earlier are in a constant battle against keeping art as traditional, based on pure talent and beauty, and allowing it to grow into these modern art forms that are sometimes revolting, confusing, or downright ugly. It's interesting to think what famous painters like Monet and VanGough would say about the art that exists today and the rediculous amounts of money that people spend on them. It is even sad to realize that people like Robert Hughes, who have watched the art world dramatically change before their eyes, must admit that high prices have truly ruined the art world as they knew it.

I think that museums should not be geared towards how much money they will make, but about the artwork itself. If people are really interested and intrigued by artwork they will still go to museums to see real, well displayed, engaging pieces of art. I do not believe that all museums must change their populist nature, but if a few begin the trend of engaging more thoughtful, question provoking art pieces then the museums themselves will not be about making the money. By dumbing down the art museums and not giving people a chance to depict the art and think for themselves, I believe, defeats the purpose of an actual museum. The museums do this to attract more people, but like the Brooklyn Museum itself has experienced, it may not be working. This museum includes a lot of "Saturday night fun" such as dancing, drinking, and cash bars. Although this may be a great community attraction, do people really come to see art or just to have fun and drink? The above picture is at the Brooklyn Museum where an orchestra performed during a Saturday night event.