|
Lucinda Childs’s Dance
Re Jonathan M. Stein’s review of Lucinda Childs’s Dance—
What made Dance such an exhilarating experience for me was its total integration of music, dance and film. Each medium drew energy from the others and gave back in equal measure. And each demanded concentrated attention without dominating any other. That kind of total synergy is extremely rare.
Paul A. Epstein
Huntingdon Valley, Pa.
September 22, 2010
Women artists and the Sketch Club
Re Anne R. Fabbri’s review of Philadelphia artists at the Woodmere Art Museum—
It is inexcusable that, in an exhibition of this size in a supposedly respected venue, only one woman artist was included. Are we moving back to the “old boys’ club” again?
I know all the male artists who are mentioned in Anne Fabbri’s review, and certainly they are competent artists. I also know many women artists in Philadelphia who are as good, and some who are better.
Anne, you were much too mild in your rebuke. You should have raised hell!
Judith Ingram
Newtown Square, Pa.
September 17, 2010
Anne R. Fabbri replies: Judith Ingram is right— I should have raised hell. But I was assured that only one woman fit the qualifications: membership in the Sketch Club and one or more works of art in the Woodmere collection. Perhaps there should be picketing?
The Philadelphia Sketch Club deeply appreciates Woodmere Art Museum and Donald Meyer for their efforts in assembling the four exhibits currently on display. All can be viewed as an extension of the Club’s 150th anniversary celebration and give a comprehensive look at many of the fine artists of this region.
Anne Fabbri is correct in her many favorable comments concerning the works to be viewed. I also agree with Anne’s assessment that we must do more to present exhibition opportunities for women artists and young artists.
I must correct Anne’s statement that “The Sketch Club had to begin admitting women in 1990 or lose its tax exemption.” The actual history is a little more pleasant than the incorrect thought that the IRS held a gun to the club’s head.
Women have participated in exhibitions at the Sketch Club since 1865. The Sketch Club received its 501(c)(3) non-profit status in early 1990. Several months after that, the club decided to begin seeking and accepting women members. Reasons behind this effort included making the club a more inclusive and modern-thinking organization, as well as the financial benefits of a larger membership base.
For more than 100 years the Sketch Club had an amiable and cooperative relationship with The Plastic Club, an all-female art club just three doors south of the Sketch Club on Camac Street. Around this time, the Plastic Club also began accepting male members for many of the same reasons.
Today, more than 50% of the Sketch Club members are women artists. In the mid-1990s, the Sketch Club elected its first woman president, Betty MacDonald, who had also served as president of The Plastic Club.
Bill Patterson
President
Philadelphia Sketch Club
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 24, 2010
Leaving at intermission
Dear Anne R. Fabbri, who left EgoPo’s Marat/ Sade at intermission: Isn’t it a rule that you have to sit through the whole show before you review it?
Liam Castellan
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 21, 2010
I’m not sure this “review” should have been written, or at least, published. At best, it’s a review of the space. At worst, it’s a whine about the hot weather.
I agree that the acoustics were terrible, disagree that they
(entirely) defeated the performances. There was much, much to like in this production, and there’s room for constructive criticism, as well. (Having recently been “Zinmanned” myself, I’m a fan of the “constructive” in “constructive criticism.")
That Marat/ Sade was a hot ticket and audiences loved the show seem to support my point.
David Millstone
East Falls/ Philadelphia
September 21, 2010
Editor’s comment: Here’s my rule: If I find a piece intriguing or provocative, I post it. I don’t ask contributors to tell me what’s hot; I ask them to tell me what they think.
Thank you as always, Broad Street Review, for offering such in-depth exploration and criticism of Philadelphia’s art scene.
A small correction, though, to Steve Cohen’s review of EgoPo’s Marat/ Sade. The review mentions that drapes were added and alterations were made to the actors’ performance, which is incorrect. No alterations or adjustments were made to the production after opening night.
Brenna Geffers
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 27, 2010
Editor’s note: The writer directed EgoPo’s Marat/ Sade.
Mumia, again
Re Robert Zaller’s commentary concerning Justice On Trial—
When Larry King asked the president of Iran to account for the violence and incarceration as his regime’s response to dissidents, he evaded a reply by citing U.S. world leadership in imprisonment. We do disgracefully lead the world in our obvious injustice to the poor and minorities that dominate these disgraceful figures.
The absurdity of America’s lecturing the world on justice is sadly evident in Zaller’s indictment of our corrupt FOP and our stacked jury system. Clarity begins at home.
Patrick D. Hazard
Weimar, Germany
September 27, 2010
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
To follow up my July 2 piece about Jonathan Livingston Seagull—
I decided to revisit my Canadian concert by listening to the CD, and it sounded much better than I’d thought. Not that I thought it was bad, but now that I’ve forgotten what I was thinking at the time, I have to say I was way too critical of myself.
Oh well--my opinion of Richard Bach’s book still stands.
Maria Thompson Corley
Lancaster, Pa.
September 25, 2010
In defense of Reverend Jones
Re “In defense of the Reverend Jones,” by Robert Zaller—
The Zaller proviso— that “governments” are denied the right of free speech— is idiotic purism. It turns our overcrowded global theater of ideology over to its most demented voices.
I despise the demented General Petraeus’s pursuit of an unwinnable war but praise him for trying to protect his troops from the Taliban’s untimely use of IEDs. Only a professor in the safe house of a university can believe in such absolutist silence.
As the vicious myth of American Exceptionalism finally reveals its selfish motives, our government needs all the more to apologize to the world, as Obama has started to do. Perhaps too little, too late.
Patrick D. Hazard
Weimar, Germany
September 18, 2010
How do we separate “free speech” from “reckless endangerment”?
Here’s what Wikipedia says:
“Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. ‘Reckless’ conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.”
Reed Stevens
Campbell, Calif.
September 15, 2010
Ghost-Writer
Jane Biberman pretty much hit all the right notes in her review of Michael Hollinger’s Ghost-Writer at the Arden. I think that she clearly captured the essence of a fine play.
Her comments about the typewriter are very incisive: It’s practically a character in the play. Its pecking sound and the typist’s full-stops were quite pertinent to the action. And the actor playing the secretary was first-rate.
I too was a tad puzzled be Rees as the novelist; I thought that he was a bit weak. Was that intentional? I’m not sure. However, Biberman was right on the button regarding the author’s wife. She has to settle for being his muse, and she seems to be losing that battle to his secretary.
I too love word-play, wit and puns. Hollinger is excellent at all that. Why isn’t he a bigger deal in the theater?
Stan Baurys
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 14, 2010
New cultural capital: Tallinn
Re “New cultural capital: Tallinn, Estonia,” by Patrick D. Hazard—
I spent a day there off a cruise ship in July. From a tourist standpoint, I loved the old city— architecture, shops, people.
David Grunfeld
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 13, 2010
On wearing a veil
Re “The day I wore a veil,” by Jackie Atkins—
I am grateful to Ms. Atkins for expressing her opinions and observations.
That Ms. Atkins cannot wear a scarf because she would be branded as something distasteful, or worse, is to me emblematic of the paranoia communicated by Fox News— the same paranoia carefully employed by the previous U.S. regime to control the voting populace.
Arthur Yellin
Olney, Md.
September 8, 2010
I had the same experience on a rainy day wearing a black rain scarf, Audrey Hepburn-style.
Phyllis Mass
Center City/ Philadelphia
September 8, 2010
I am very impressed with the historical origins of women wearing head coverings. As a church-attending African/American woman who covers her head with hats and scarves on a daily basis, I certainly can relate to the article. If I wrap my head in a scarf, it is interesting the looks and comments I get.
What I am concerned about is the ugly attitudes regarding the Muslims’ religion. This is very disturbing.
Karen Price
Mount Airy Philadelphia
September 8, 2010
I enjoyed your thought-provoking essay very much.
Lora Englehart
West Chester, Pa.
September 10, 2010
Portmanteau
Re Jim Rutter’s review of Portmanteau—
With thanks for all the kind words on our production, I’d like to register a correction to the acknowledged “co-creators” in this review. In fact, the entirety of Portmanteau was created, collaged, devised, and developed by the entire ensemble. I just want to make sure credit goes where credit’s due, and a shout out goes out to all of Portmanteau’s co-creators: Kristen Bailey, Thomas Choinacky, Jessica Hurley, John Jarboe and Mary Tuomanen, as well as Maria Shaplin and Rebecca Wright.
Rebecca Wright
West Philadelphia
September 8, 2010
Editor’s note: The writer directed Portmanteau.
Saving the U.S.S. Olympia
Re “On saving the U.S.S. Olympia,” by Franklin Roberts—
Charlie Fish was my father— and has rested in peace I think, since his death in December of 1991, though with this news of the Olympia, he may be agitated at best.
Thank you for this article and the reminder of where I get my stubborn resolve. One of my father’s favorite quotes comes to mind: “There’s no such word as can’t.” Hope you’ve got some Philadelphians still of such ilk.
Sandy Fish
Stinson Beach, Calif.
September 11, 2010
The imam, the mosque and Ground Zero
Re “The imam, the mosque and Ground Zero”—
I can’t say I disagree with Robert Zaller when he writes, “The idea that a branch of primates on a minor planet circling a mediocre sun on the rim of a mid-sized galaxy should be the special object of attention of a Universal Creator strikes me as absurd.” I and all Christians feel pretty much the same way. The only difference is that our response and, I daresay, that of religious people of all faiths throughout all of time, is worship.
We look at the incomprehensible size of Creation. Then, we boggle at What or Who could make such a thing, as it’s “absurd” to believe, in our estimation, that it happened just by itself.
Then again, we look at things smaller than we are: the fractals in a snowflake, the waves of air that bring us music, our very thoughts that swirl, and don’t you know, those drive us to praise as well.
The first thing I noticed was how close Zaller is to Psalm 8: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Call that delusion if you like. It’s OK— we know how you feel.
Kile Smith
Fox Chase/ Philadelphia
September 1, 2010
There’s a zing in Robert Zaller’s agnosticism. Three centuries after Voltaire and his followers forced the Catholic Church to temper its semi-civilized Monism, we’re going to assent by our silence to monstrosities like Islam’s stoning an adulteress to death, with a men-only execution squad?
As a dues-paying MultiCulti, I think we should take away the citizenship of all those assenting to Sharia Law. Send them back to Mecca, where they can play God to each other.
There ought to be a minimum price for living in an egalitarian democracy: Don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t have done to yourself.
Patrick D. Hazard
Weimar, Germany
August 30, 2010
Since Robert Zaller is a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I will forgive him if he thinks there is a separation of church and state clause in the Bill of Rights. That phrase does not exist in the U.S, Constitution.
Our first amendment gives us the right to freely practice our faiths without interference from disapproving minds like Zaller. Which means if the Imam wishes to preach that all Jews and Christians are devils, he’s welcome to his belief. This does not give him the right to build a mosque wherever he pleases.
His choice of a non-Moslem neighborhood in the shadows of the fallen towers seems to me, in the language of one of those Mets fans, “shoving it” to New Yorkers. No clause in the Constitution gives one the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Jackie Atkins
Northern Liberties/ Philadelphia
August 30, 2010
Jackie Atkins (above) says, “No clause in the Constitution gives one the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
But that’s not the famous line that was penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck vs. US. The correct quote (whether it’s the correct reasoning is debatable, as is whether it applies here) is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.”
The word “falsely” is missing from Atkins’s version. The reference to a crowd is missing from Holmes’s. If there really is a fire in a theater, I’m sure everyone in the theater (whether it’s crowded or not) would like to know.
For more, please see page 49 of my chapter on Philadelphia Lawyers in my book, Philadelphia Originals.
Joseph Glantz
Levittown, Pa.
September 1, 2010
My sentiments to a T, and I don’t mean Tea. I think Zaller covered every point very well. He can be accused of being anti-theist— not that there’s anything wrong with that— but he very carefully shows he is not stereotyping all Muslims. The Raufs are tone-deaf to the sensitivity of the issue, but then they are rich and powerful, and so it goes.
Merilyn Jackson
South Philadelphia
September 6, 2010
Editor’s note: For my two cents’ worth on this issue, click here.
The Druid case against the mosque
Re “The Druid case against the Ground Zero mosque,” by Dan Rottenberg (Editor’s Notebook)—
As a heathen of similar bent, I will pray for you… that is, pray that your readers have the wit to comprehend your modest proposal. I expect more than a few will not.
Gregory Frost
Merion Station, Pa.
September 8, 2010
Just read your Druid article and had a good laugh and see your point, of course. But the Inquisition, Crusades et al were far longer ago than nine years— not that that makes them any less heinous. In this case I have yet to hear the American Muslim community decry Jihad or religious Fatwahs. Did one prominent Muslim ever speak out on behalf of Salmon Rushdie? I would even suggest they build and use the community center as a place of asylum for those abused in the name of Islam. That includes women and girls under threat of clitoredectomy. That would be a fitting memorial to the Muslims murdered on 9/11.
Merilyn Jackson
South Philadelphia
September 7, 2010
Your sad attempt at humor to belittle those of us who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero not only fell sadly flat but also entirely misses the point about the protest.
It is not about a Constitutional right, nor about freedom of religion nor about American tolerance. It is about the message that is sent to— or, more exactly, the message received— by a billion Muslims around the world.
According to reports, there are about 400 Mosques in New York City, so it is not for want of a house of worship that this mosque is planned for this site.
To understand why this Mosque is planned for this site it is necessary to understand the Muslim mind and to recognize not what Islam says but what Islam does. It says it is a religion of love and of peace. But it offers the “infidel” the choice of “Convert or submit or die.” Some love. Its symbol is the sword. Some peace.
When Islam conquers a nation or a people, it destroys or desecrates its—for want of a better word— ”icons.” When Islam conquered Jerusalem, it built a great mosque on the Temple Mount, sacred to all Jews. When Islam conquered Constantinople, it converted to a Mosque Saint Sophia, the grandest church in all Byzantium. Thus it has been, thus it is still.
The message that is going to be received by a billion Muslims around the world is: “We have destroyed an American icon and we have built a 15-storey magnificent Mosque in its place. Allah Akhbar!”
Andrew Kevorkian
West Philadelphia
September 9, 2010
Editor’s comment: Many of your observations could be applied to Christianity in the past. Change is inevitable. The past of Islam or any other culture doesn’t necessarily predict its future. The proposed ”mosque” is actually a community center modeled after a YMCA or a Jewish Community Center. Its proposed name is Cordoba House, after the Spanish city where, under Muslim rule, Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together harmoniously.
Has Andrew Kevorkian (above) ever heard of the Inquisition? Is he familiar with the “colorful” (as in blood red) history of Christianity? Is he familiar with the Book of Joshua, in which God directed the early Hebrews to wipe out a number of other peoples so that the Hebrews wouldn’t be tempted with their gods?
Before judging other religions, we all ought to look in the mirror.
Arthur Yellin
Olney, Md.
September 15, 2010
Rhetorical tips for Dr. Laura
Re “Rhetorical tips for Dr. Laura,” by Dan Rottenberg (Editor’s Notebook)—
Ah yes, our polymath editor. Please add “Tactical Methodism in his media madness” to his register. And don’t get surly about last names, Boss. While there may always be something rotten in the Broad Street Review, there are greater hazards impending.
In my judgment, we need another rhetorical revolution to deal with our newly meanstream media. Beginning with sports and movie star adulation in the 1920s, we have infantilized our moronic masses into “thinking” that Rush, Glenn and Laura really think when they flatter their listeners with silly rants.
Patrick D. Hazard
Weimar, Germany
September 4, 2010
Why piano students cry
Re “Why piano students cry,” by Dan Coren—
Actually, Dan, while I’ve never played a perfect concert, I have had moments when I really felt like God was playing through me, which makes all the struggle worthwhile. But you and Barbara Rottenberg are right: There’s something about approaching pieces as sublime as the ones you mention that makes me want to do them justice, and when the fact I’m a mere human stands in the way, it’s very frustrating.
The good news is, I doubt there will ever be a machine that can truly express the way a human pianist can, so our tears and frustration along the way (if we don’t curse and quit), are important if great music is to have a chance to live. And even if one’s audience is a reluctant cat (or just your walls), if you can “nail it” at home, that means you can nail it. Nobody can take that away from you!
Maria Thompson Corley
Lancaster, Pa.
August 30, 2010
Editor’s note: The writer is a concert pianist.
Jewish artists
Re “Why so many Jewish artists?”, by Joan Myerson Shrager—
Back in my misspent youth, I read an essay by a Fordham University conservative philosopher who attributed Jewish omni-excellence to a thousand years of Catholic celibacy. Get it? YOUgenics: While the clergy was busy wasting its semen, every bright young rabbinical student had first choice at the wealthiest and most fertile maidens in his flock.
I thank Ms. Shrager for informing me that my favorite 20th-Century painter, Sonia Delauney, was Jewish. I knew she had changed her name when she fled Odessa for a rich uncle in St. Petersburg, but religion wasn’t at the top of her “Must Do” list.
Patrick D. Hazard
Weimar, Germany
August 31, 2010
Joan Myerson Shrager replies: I hope readers understand that I was moved by sense of curiosity about all this rather than a pompous claim that their having Jewish blood made them great. I am curious about how, why or if Jewishness influenced them.
Editor’s note: To read another response, click here.
♦
Respond to this Article
|
