The Environmental Proposal

We, a group of organized misfits called “Outside the Box”, propose the environmental disruption of the College 10 courtyard. To accomplish this, each individual member of the group would select a uniquely colored piece of chalk, grind the chalk and add water to create “chalk paint”. Then, as a group, we would create a collaborative abstract painting on the concrete. We would create this disruption early on a Tuesday morning, so a larger amount of students can encounter our artwork. Also by working early in the morning we would be met with limited outside influence, and little opposition.

Our purpose in causing this disruption is to create a culture clash within College 10. The reasoning is that College 10 is known to have a social science focus, and is considered to be serious and slightly dry in personality. By interrupting their routine, we’re providing them with a new artistic experience. Not only are we focusing on providing an artistic experience, but also we are observing the aspect of the individual person. This artwork is an interactive piece in which the purpose is to alter the aesthetic effect of the courtyard in which the work is made, and to explore how people engage with it. Whether people choose to walk around the piece, or right on top of it, we ultimately get to experience many different responses, which directly correlate with different personalities, and they in turn would be contributing to the shape, lines and colors of the piece, creating a living painting.

Environmental Proposal IDEAS

A scarecrow in business attire/blue collar costume

*The idea of scaring people away from conformity

A flower surrounded by garbage

*The idea of there always being able to find beauty in the bleaker aspects of society

The Ultimate Wheres Waldo

*This idea of complete strangers being able to come together for one common cause

My favorite picture

So, I was raised in the East Bay. And I live a couple blocks from this thing called the "Ashby Fleamarket". Basically its this awesome fleamarket at the Ashby BART station on Saturdays and Sundays.

So when I was first getting into black and white photography when I was in eighth grade I found this awesome stand at the fleamarket that just had BOXES and BOXES of old photographs and old negatives. And since I was developing and printing all my own stuff, I wanted to try printing other negatives. 

So I bought some random negatives from this old dude for 25 cents. I bought the negative because I saw people with afros in the picture and I was hoping it would be something awesome. When I printed it, it turned out to be Mohammed Ali when he was really young.

To this day its my favorite picture I've ever printed on my own. 

Like, what are the chances? The random negative I buy for 25 cents turns out to be fucking Mohammed Ali!!! 

I thought I'd share.

-Megan Covey.

The Universe.

The universe is old and large and wide, and small and breathless. 

Hurt by winds and storms her beautiful stars wimble in the darkness. 

A mystery that no one can tell the end of because of its vastness. And yet, maybe as small as a baby's heart. What could it be?

Small?

Or large?

Hurting.

Or healing, or both? The universe is as complicated as human emotion. Changing, always something unexpected and raw. 

Scary and never to be toyed with, she is delicate yet the strongest source of energy in...well, the universe.

Scared and hurt by life's silly games I can only look to the sky and wonder why? And when will things be different?

Or 

Smaller and quieter in her complex heart. Complexity can ruin us all. 

It is never something good nor never something bad. Just complex.

So

When I put my head down and decide to look away from the skies and future all I am left with is something hollow in my chest.

A place where something beautiful may have once lay. A game, an apple, a piece of paper and pen, a telephone, a heart, or maybe there is truly nothing there.

Until I figure out my misdemeaners I highly doubt I will understand the universe's, let alone another human beings. 

Misdemeaners are cruelty laced with care that no one cares about. 

Awful yet necessary. 

Kinda like the universe. 

-Megan Covey. 

Collages!

Can Theater and Media Speak the Same Language?

I am going to start out by stating that as I sat down to read this essay, I was absolutely dreading the experience. "Can Theater and Media speak the something or other" might possibly be the biggest turnoff for an opening title (please don't ask me to explain myself, as a freshman I'm allowed to be irrational now and then). To my utter disappointment I actually found some of the article interesting, it gave me connections and explanations to the similarities of various art-forms without completely sounding like BS.
That is not to say I didn't have my qualms with the reading, but there was enough substance to get me through the material. Aronson makes the point that "projected scenery...does not work on the stage" (Aronson, 86). That virtually describes all he discusses in the text, what does work and what doesn't in art various art-forms, making somewhat valid argument to back up his claims. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but extravagant scenery or projected imagery on the stage can be much of a distraction rather than something that enhances the storytelling. I have seen countless films and several stage productions where the "communication is still possible, but content is overwhelmed by form" (Aronson, 87). Like a dreadful live performance of "Beauty and the Beast" from AMT or the Darren Aronofsky's artistic flop "The Fountain", some directors take overt advantage of the technology provided to us in this day and age. The projected visuals and props were obviously the main focus in both productions, rather than character development or relevant direction for the actors, for that matter.
Moving on, the author discusses how a play has its own time and how it coincides with our real time. I have yet to understand the significance of that bit of information being written down by scholars or anyone at any time, but I do get the point that the theater, film, and artwork suspends its story in a certain time frame other than the present. It might just be the utter obviousness of the statement that is getting me hung up, so I'll graciously let the text slide.
Thankfully directly after he made the point that art is always stuck in a very limited "viewing angle" (Aronson, 89), and that of all things caught my attention. Of course this is yet another obvious statement, but it's interesting the possibilities that can be taken from one image. For example, an artist paints a picture of a pond. Now the artist can start with a bleak, faltering pond with bare trees and not an animal in sight. With the idea presented by the author, the artist can spend his entire life painting various aspects of the pond and its surroundings and still not cover the entire scope of the pond's surroundings.
This example leads me into another point presented by Aronson; the unfortunate frame. The forced limitations of the theater, artwork, and film make it impossible to cover every aspect of the situation at hand. Considering it's absolutely impossible not to have boundaries and its excessiveness might say something about the artist's unstable state of mind, I won't blame Aronson for trying to make a point. He is at least successful in making film and paintings seen in the same in retrospect, which pretty much sums up what he is trying to prove with his article.
Then before his conclusion, Aronson walks about how images are put up against a wall and how our eyes are attracted to flickering light. I would feel silly, if not absolutely stupid, if I spent a paragraph on how he's right and how, yes, eyes are attracted to light. Amidst the further banter, his conclusion at least summarizes his essay quite well. "Too often the theater creators are more concerned with the technology...than with understanding and exploring the way in which two vocabulary systems [intersect]"(Aronson, 95). It's clear, concise, and has complete relevance in the contemporary art world. Aside from sometimes rambling incoherently here and there, Aronson has written a very well constructed and interesting comparison of art in several important forms.

-Elijah Sickel

The World on Stage

First thought: what the f?

Within the first sentence: "'...all that is on the stage is a sign.'" And I'm sorry, but of course! If not a sign then what? And what defines a "sign"? Something that inspires more thought? As in if I saw a tree on stage it would be a sign of nature, or outdoors? That seems pretty obvious to me. 

This reading hurts my brain with words like "phenomenologically", which is defined as: A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. (By thefreedictionary.com). The word itself is intense, and its definition even more so. "The premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness..."---so reality is whats happening according to how we understand it...

To apply phenomenologically to the theater... the definition could simply be changed to: "The premise that THEATER consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in the audience's consciousness...". 

And then the other side of the phenomenologist, the semiotician. The definition of semiotics is : "The theory and study of signs and symbols, especially as elements of language or other systems of communication, and comprising semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics." (Again, freedictionary.com). 

Throughout the reading there are references to the definition of "art". And what I really got from that was that art is and can be anything if you use the right lens. When I say lens I mean if you use the right... perspective if you will. Anything can be art if you look at it in a different way then you normally would. Take modern art for instance; a single red dot on a blank canvas. You could totally see a red dot anywhere in your regular day to day life, like a left over dry erase mark on a white board, and you wouldn't think anything of it...but once you are in an art gallary looking at a huge white canvas with one small dot and you're in this place of thinking that what you're seeing is something different, that dot becomes "art". 

I'm not sure I'm understanding the reading too well, but I'm trying to break it down as much as I can. On page 22, State's says "...we grow away, perceptually, from the contents of reality (habit being a great deadener) and that art is a way of bringing us home via an 'unfamiliar' route." This I think is the best definition of art. And it can be applied to the stage so well. You may see a classroom every day, but once portrayed in an "unfamiliar route" on a stage you see it differently and it therefor becomes art!

The difference between image and sign...thats tricky as well. I believe that one can't be without the other. There are differences, yes, but its easier to describe one with the other in my opinion. Like Macbeth's dagger is and image and a sign in my opinion. It is an image of a dagger and a sign of death. 

Images that distract the audience from the stage: the clock, fire, water; the child, and the animal. To me these images distract the audience from the stage because of their signs. The clock is a symbol of time, and when I see a clock on stage I think about real time, not the stage time. Fire is a symbol of uncontrolled chaos to me, fire is unreliable and therefor makes me think of what could go wrong, distracting me from the stage. Water...well that doesn't really distract me other then thinking about how to deal with water on stage (how to clean if it gets spilled, how do you keep things dry...etc). The child, exactly the way State's says: "Who has ever seen a child on stage with out thinking, 'How well he acts, for a child!'...'Do they understand the play?'" pg 31. And the animal is just totally unpredictable. 

I think what it comes down to is the semiotician, the phenomenologist; and signs, images. All of which are important to the lens we see theater through. 

-Megan Covey

The Director Watches

I would like to say to all of you who are on my team, and have been contributing to this blog, thank you. I think that you are all awesome and I couldn't have asked for a better team than this outside the box group. I have been watching, and we started off with a lot of uncertanty and confusion, but I see that even with the little amount of direction that I gave to you all, you took the ball and scored a touchdown with it. This blog has turned out awesome and with more to come. I would like to contribute guidence to this team, so I have to lead by example. This blog is wonderful and I started it earlier this year before this class was started back in January, and I kept it up.www.localcelebrity413.blogspot.com. Take a look in your spare time, and see you all in class tuesday and after class for our meeting.

Behind the Screen Door

Aronson considers the door the most profound technological and scenographic development in the history of theatre, with claims that it fundamentally altered theatric rhythm and significantly increased the scope of illusion although its use and value differs in theatre and television.
He explains how a door can:
1. Act as a barrier between worlds, perhaps chaos and order (i.e. sitcom structures)
2. Allow/block the flow of information; create rhythm
3. Hide/Reveal people or events; create drama
A. Tragic: door = death
B. Comedic: door= chaos
Pre-door theatre was open and processional, mirroring society, with long, drawn out entrances and exits. The door offered the element of surprise, created multiple locales, and produced the aspect of illusion on a much grander scale.
In the audiences’ mind, an actor leaves reality and is transformed as he enters onstage. This act of crossing a threshold spans across cultures with historically spiritual implications (i.e. Gate of Purgatory, Noh Japanese theater).
Thanks to symbolist thinkers in the late nineteenth century however, doors began to appear less and less on stage as worlds meshed together and the distinction between spaces faded as can be seen through the designs of Appia and Craig. Aronson therefore likens modern theater to pop music, simply fading away, without finality, seeming to mirror our time of uncertainty.
Live theatre differs from television in that a stage offers a fixed, tangible perspective and the shared space necessary in creating its aura. A TV screen is isolated, with shifting angles and shots and we seem to invite them into our homes instead of vice versa, this lack of aura thanks to its instability. Small and Big Optics (human experience v. transmitted information) as defined by theorist Paul Virilio, is used to explain how since television knows no boundaries a door is simply a door, without the power and potential its presence offers on stage.
K. Williams

So this weekend I went up to Half Moon Bay to spend the weekend with my uncle and aunt.  It was quite nice to have some peace and solice away from the constant din of the dorms.  On my back to Santa Cruz my family and I enjoyed some breakfast while watching the annual pumpkin weigh-off.  Although a pumpkin weighing 915 lbs was quite astonishing I was impressed by a farmer who brought a square pumpkin (waiting to receive pic).  Im assuming that the farmer grew the pumpkin in a box in order for it to take on that shape.  I found it quite ironic that something that strayed away from the norm shape of a pumpkin was created by being placed in a box.  It's funny that something "outside of the box", different, was created inside of a box.  Is it possible to have creativity within a confined space, whether the space be a box, a theatre or a square drawn on piece of paper.  Does a box's lack of creativity create a desire to think "outside of the box?"

Till  next time

-Eric Windell

Outside the Box goes right back inside...

Here's what we, OUTSIDE THE BOX, drew inside of...a box.

How unusual that no one in the group thought to draw everything on the OUTSIDE. Because by conforming to what everyone else was doing, we in turn are thinking "inside the box". And taking into consideration that our name in itself is a cliché, we are kind of double inside of a box...But thankfully two negatives usually make a positive, so therefore by conforming to conformity we are INDEED thinking outside the box!

At first I thought we were making an ice cream cone, but it sort of took form of some demented Picasso Cat. Of course my mark in the portrait is of great significance, a stick figure on the cat's forehead screaming. I know I know, it's absolutely genius how my stick man personifies the global economy and one's right to choose and etc...Or it's just a cat, seriously can one honestly decipher what the hell any of these silly doodles mean? Don't get me wrong, I had the time of my life drawing this stuff with the group, but really now? I also don't mean to dishonor the fine work of my colleagues, but look at this drawn on the outside of our enclosed borders.

Dude, in my professional opinion that's f*cked up. Ye olde peasant woman is completely dismembered, yelling "Aw!" above some weird cat thing. In my personal opinion that's PRETTY outside the box, although I quite enjoyed the sight of an upside-down dog and a man-thing sitting on the moon.

I might be slightly biased having contributed that bone protruding from that poor peasant woman, but at LEAST it is outside the box! I'm kind of ashamed of myself for not even associating "outside the box" with a group assignment where we draw stuff inside a box. In the immortal words of Randy Jackson, "Yo dawg, yo got to step up yo game." I believe that is what we must do, step up yo game fo sho blah blah disjointed convoluted inspirational talk etc etc. My hope for this upcoming quarter is that we live up to our title, although under thought and clichéd. Actually, scratch that last line, I want to not only go outside the box but destroy it. I want to eliminate it, it's family and closest relatives will have to be relocated, and the untimely death of the box will serve warning to boxes across America.

So there it is, Outside the Box's take on our drawing inside of a box. Although I quite enjoyed the assignment itself, it sort of defeated the purpose of having a group called "Outside the Box." Dear Lord is it too late to call ourselves something different? Like "Destroy your Box" or "All work and no box make box a dull box" or something else along those lines. I mean Outside the Box? Really? If we're outside the box why are we mentioning the oppressive tirant known as "box" in our group title? It's like Liberals calling themselves "Anti-Conservatives". Acknowledging the "Man" in one's title is the worst thing an independent-minded group should do (except "F*ck that Box", I believe that title would suffice just as well as any other).

Point is I move that our original title be completely abolished...But if not, I'll deal with it. Afterall, being known as "Outside the Box" for 3 more months won't sting as much as being called "Outside the...." Oh wait nevermind, it'll sting for the next 90 days or so. That entire 216 hour period will be as comforting as eating a bowl of tacks with a nice glass of concentrated lemonade. My apologies for going on such a rant, I felt this post should symbolize something more than just "here's our picture! it's amazing!" I guess you could say I'm thinking outside the box! Ho ho ho I could feel my heart imploding as I typed those words. Anyway, enjoy our pictures!

-Elijah Sickel
Photographer

PS: hahaha JUST realized that we're now called "Atmosphere"...eh! I can live with that...maybe "Breakthrough the Atmosphere"...

Hello-

Atmosphere was nice enough to adopt me, Eric Windell, on Tuesday October 7, 2008 and I am now officially apart of a family.  Here are my ten questions of anything and I now know at least one of the answers.

1) Why am I here?

2) Who was the first to speak?

3) Can one be civilized in the wild? and what does being civilized entail?

4) Why does fear inhibit us?

5) Will this course lead me onto a different path?

6) What group will I be put in?

Atmosphere

7) Can failure be seen as a positive thing?

8) How can I learn to laugh at my mistakes?

9) How long will it take till I feel comfortable?

10) Will I embarrass myself? 

10 Questions

1. Why is it so hard to become apart of something when you've been involved with it for so long

2. How can I Love set and backstage so much, but be a terrible artist?

3. Why is the aspect of failure so daunting that it prevents people from following their dreams?

4. Why do we have to take Intro to Dance, when we want to be a tech?

5. Why do people live in trees?

6. Why do people smoke inside the dorms and make the rest of us suffer?

7. What does it take, to wake up a generation, how can you make someone take off and fly?

8. Why do people ask what is the meaning of life, when the answer is based off interpretation?

9. How do people ride bikes in Santa Cruz without there being a constant bloodbath?

10. Why do people have dreadlocks when really its bad hygiene?

Christina Benvegnu

Notes on “Directors and Designers: is there a Different Direction?”

The point that this article tries to make in the beginning is that even though most directors think that they have a good relationship with the designer, the designers reveal that this is not true.

What follows is that their relationship seams to be one where that director is the boss, and the designer must do what he wants. The director is happy with the relationship and the designer is not. The designer wants more freedom. To me this seems arbitrary. “Director” and “designer” are two jobs designated by the theatre industry; they are not a state of being within those people, because great directors where not always gifted with craftsmanship, there evolved two separate jobs in the world of theatre. There are many such outsourcings, like “costume designer” and “lighting director”. Why are only stage designers discussed? Or when the author says “designer” does she mean anyone who does a creative job? In that case there are many such jobs in the theatre. Why must a person do one or the other?

If a person has no wish to direct a show, but only to design the stage, then they are a designer. If that same person wanted to be able to control the show they could be like some of the director/designers the author mentions.

What it all comes down to is the question of how collaborative theatre should be. Should it be solely the director’s vision, or should all jobs get an equal say? The problem with the current system is that it was designed in a hierarchical way. The director is one and the designers are many. Solely by the title, “director”, there is an implication of hierarchy, and dominance. The relationship between actor and director can be described in much the same way as the designer relationship: that they must ultimately conform to the director’s vision. An actor may want to work on a show, but they can’t unless they get cast, and even then, their idea of the character might be different.

For there to be any real change in the relationship between designer and director there must be a change in the structure of the production of theatre. If there is one person in charge, then there will be people who will have to conform to his standard. However, the question then arises: can an artistic work be truly collaborative? Will the piece be a jumbled mess, without one personal vision?

Ten Questions

1. What is the point of human civilization (why can’t we just live like other animals)?

2. Why are people in Santa Cruz surprisingly resistant to the idea of animal rights/welfare?

3. Why is poverty treated as some sort of vague and mysterious concept in most of UCSC?

4. Why do college students not know the diffrence between "its" and "it's" or "your" and "you're"?

5. Why are most people so god-damn irritating?

6. Why aren’t the THEA-50 schedules posted in advance, like all other classes?

7. Why am I allergic to cats?

8. Is it very hard to learn to sing?

9. What are metapatterns?

10. Why are we always encouraged not to travel back in time?

Maria Voylokova

10 Questions

1. Why can’t we smell ourselves?
2. Can anyone ever commit a truly selfless act?
3. Why do people find Family Circus amusing/entertaining?
4. Why do we insist on making our own mistakes when older and usually wiser people have already made them for us?
5. Why do people sometimes take vegetarianism as a personal offense?
6. Is it possible to choose who or what we love?
7. Why weren‘t we created with the ability to fly?
8. Why do we hate it when our favorite band becomes mainstream and why is it so important to us that we claim initial “ownership” of them.
9. Who wrote the works of Shakespeare?
10. Why do people thing it is okay to litter?

Answers welcome,
Kim Williams

P.S. Maybe whoever has the email info can post it? Thanks.