Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Rain Deserves a Shower of Praises
The Beatles have been known to unite people, from their relaxed attitudes to their peaceful lyrics in songs like “Let It Be”, “Across the Universe” or John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Though The Beatles are no longer making music and playing concerts they have left a legacy that has given rise to numerous tribute bands.
One such band, Rain, came to Miller Auditorium in Kalamazoo, MI in mid February. Just like their greatest influence, Rain brought together a diverse and eclectic crowd all excited to see their favorite songs performed by one of the greatest tribute bands. Their show couldn’t have disappointed even the greatest fans.
Rain seemed to pride themselves on gathering this varied crowd. Throughout the show members of the band asked for lots of audience participation and would often only ask one type of group to participate at a time. During “Hey Jude” their John Lennon asked, “All the ladies, give us a sing,” and later “Everybody over sixty!” The crowd was made up of kids so young and small they had to stand in their seats to see and ranged in age all the way up to those that were so old they couldn’t stand to see at all. The mixed crowd made for a great experience for those that were used to a more homogenous feel.
Besides their varied audience, Rain effectively recreated the feel of the times in which The Beatles were most famous. Throughout the concert, the set changes a total of five times. The first set recreates the feel of “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964. Following this the set becomes that of Shea Stadium where The Beatles played their most highly attended concert. Later they play music from the “St. Pepper” and Flower Power era. They end their show with the “Abbey Road” era.
Between each set change video montages played on the side of stage showing clips from shows, audience members, commercials of the times and even war clips. These montages effectively immersed the audience in the time period and got them remembering the pop culture but also the politics that fueled some of The Beatles greatest music. Along with changing sets and playing montages, the members of Rain changed costumes and appearances. They went from black suits, skinny ties, and long hair in the “Ed Sullivan” era to their barefoot, dirty shirt, and bearded “Abbey Road” era.
By the end of the show the whole crowd was on their feet begging for an encore. The first encore was “Imagine” and left some crowd members in tears, following that they played “Hey Jude” to end on a happy note. Following the show, as people dispersed for their cars, many were singing its praises. One woman, speaking to her partner, said “Maybe its my memory that is going, but that might have been better than when I saw The Beatles back in ’65”.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Photographer or Pornographer?
The cover of Sally Mann’s photographic collection “Immediate Family” features her three young children bare-chested staring defiantly into the lens of the camera. Though their gazes are strong and poses just as threatening, they are visibly small and weak. Their bodies have not yet changed into those of teenagers or adults. The mixes of arms are thin and breakable but despite this vulnerable size the children still look ahead and seem to say, “I dare you.” They may want to come across as stronger, older or more mature then they are but there is no denying that these are the bodies and faces of young children.
The provocative work of photographer Sally Mann has long raised issues from contemporary America on what is acceptable in art. Her collections of photographs in “At Twelve” and “Immediate Family” feature many nude shots of her own and others children. Many have asked whether Mann is a pornographer, creating graphic images of these children. Others wonder if she may have hurt children or in any way manipulated them to capture these “candid” moments in their lives. Mann is, indeed, an artist, but also a mother, and though much of her work touches on the innocent sexuality of youth, her focus is merely on her family and the desire to capture moments in time. Mann has said, “the things that are close to you are the things you can photograph the best and unless you photograph what you love, you are not going to make good art.”
And what Mann creates is good art. Her images have been praised as, “ethereal, provocative, sensual, inspiring, and full of wonder.” On the other hand her work has been called, “torturous, pornographic, disgusting or repulsive.” Coming from a small town in the south and being the youngest in her family she was often forgotten and left to wander on her own. Mann usually ran about naked in her home and yard like the rest of the family. Mann has taken her experiences and the way she was raised and applied it to her family life. In raising her children, Mann allowed Jesse, Emmet, and Virginia to run around in the nude and do as they please. These are the moments that she captures.
In “Immediate Family” her children are completely or nearly nude in every shot. The only things they wear are their bold faces and attitudes. In the photograph “Dog Scratches”, Virginia, her daughter, is lying nude on the couch bathed in sunlight, her body stretched and exposed, with one long gash running down her chest and stomach (apparently from a dog scratch). Another, “Wet Bed,” shows Virginia sleeping nude in bed; her body open and a dark stain spreading underneath her. Photos like these, and many others, have caused critics to raise questions, not only about her work, but also about her parenting.
It is not unusual for questions of this nature to arise. Over the past 100 years in photography the use of nudes, especially nude children, has come under a more critical eye. In 1886 photographer Frank Sutcliffe was excommunicated from the church for taking a photo of a group of nude, prepubescent boys swimming in the shallows. While the Church fought Sutcliffe and his material but the public readily accepted it as art. Since this occurrence the public has become more protective of its children and instead of becoming more accepting of this work, the public has fought harder against it. The changing values of the American home and society have greatly changed the standards for children’s nudes in art.
Compared to ‘photographers’ like Anne Geddes who put babies in flower costumes and on flower petals, Mann’s work comes across as abrasive and harsh. Geddes images have never been considered inappropriate or vulgar because her subjects, though nude children, do not hang on the edge of child versus adult, girl versus woman, daughter versus friend. And that is a point of concern in Mann’s photographs from “Immediate Family”. Her children are all photographed as early as 3 and up to age 11. Unlike Geddes, Mann doesn’t try and beautify the children. Often, in her photographs, the kids are covered in the popsicle drips, blackberry juice, or blood from cuts and bloody noses. They are real and have not been idealized for anyone.
But the public wants the idealized, don’t they? They fight against anything too provocative. Sexual images stir up ‘naughty’ feelings and turn impressionable youth towards sex. Geddes photographs what the public wants, the flowery, fluffy babies that represent purity and innocence. In today’s culture it seems that no photograph, no matter how artistically done, can escape the critics backlash. These shots of nude children are obviously pornographic representations of the photographers own messed up psyche, right?
In 2000, Jessie Mann, now an artist herself, spoke up about the photographs. Jessie , says the publicity coincided with her realization that their childhood wasn't "like other people's." The experience of collaborating with her mother taught her about the power of art, she says. And she admires the way the photographs provoke questions about the difference (or lack of it) between reality and fantasy, even as they touch on something deeper: "There is magic in things, life is magical and wonderful." Her statements have not led anyone to believe that they caused her or her siblings any harm as some have suggested.
The work of Mann has indeed featured nude children in provocative poses. Unlike pornographers looking for subjects to exploit their sexuality Mann’s children don’t exploit their bodies. They don’t realize the power that their nude bodies possess and while their minds are still young and innocent their bodies represent something much more sexual. As an artist Mann has no need to censor herself, as a mother she reached a point where her photographs became inappropriate and should have stepped back. The beauty of all of her shots, though, is what is important.
The provocative work of photographer Sally Mann has long raised issues from contemporary America on what is acceptable in art. Her collections of photographs in “At Twelve” and “Immediate Family” feature many nude shots of her own and others children. Many have asked whether Mann is a pornographer, creating graphic images of these children. Others wonder if she may have hurt children or in any way manipulated them to capture these “candid” moments in their lives. Mann is, indeed, an artist, but also a mother, and though much of her work touches on the innocent sexuality of youth, her focus is merely on her family and the desire to capture moments in time. Mann has said, “the things that are close to you are the things you can photograph the best and unless you photograph what you love, you are not going to make good art.”
And what Mann creates is good art. Her images have been praised as, “ethereal, provocative, sensual, inspiring, and full of wonder.” On the other hand her work has been called, “torturous, pornographic, disgusting or repulsive.” Coming from a small town in the south and being the youngest in her family she was often forgotten and left to wander on her own. Mann usually ran about naked in her home and yard like the rest of the family. Mann has taken her experiences and the way she was raised and applied it to her family life. In raising her children, Mann allowed Jesse, Emmet, and Virginia to run around in the nude and do as they please. These are the moments that she captures.
In “Immediate Family” her children are completely or nearly nude in every shot. The only things they wear are their bold faces and attitudes. In the photograph “Dog Scratches”, Virginia, her daughter, is lying nude on the couch bathed in sunlight, her body stretched and exposed, with one long gash running down her chest and stomach (apparently from a dog scratch). Another, “Wet Bed,” shows Virginia sleeping nude in bed; her body open and a dark stain spreading underneath her. Photos like these, and many others, have caused critics to raise questions, not only about her work, but also about her parenting.
It is not unusual for questions of this nature to arise. Over the past 100 years in photography the use of nudes, especially nude children, has come under a more critical eye. In 1886 photographer Frank Sutcliffe was excommunicated from the church for taking a photo of a group of nude, prepubescent boys swimming in the shallows. While the Church fought Sutcliffe and his material but the public readily accepted it as art. Since this occurrence the public has become more protective of its children and instead of becoming more accepting of this work, the public has fought harder against it. The changing values of the American home and society have greatly changed the standards for children’s nudes in art.
Compared to ‘photographers’ like Anne Geddes who put babies in flower costumes and on flower petals, Mann’s work comes across as abrasive and harsh. Geddes images have never been considered inappropriate or vulgar because her subjects, though nude children, do not hang on the edge of child versus adult, girl versus woman, daughter versus friend. And that is a point of concern in Mann’s photographs from “Immediate Family”. Her children are all photographed as early as 3 and up to age 11. Unlike Geddes, Mann doesn’t try and beautify the children. Often, in her photographs, the kids are covered in the popsicle drips, blackberry juice, or blood from cuts and bloody noses. They are real and have not been idealized for anyone.
But the public wants the idealized, don’t they? They fight against anything too provocative. Sexual images stir up ‘naughty’ feelings and turn impressionable youth towards sex. Geddes photographs what the public wants, the flowery, fluffy babies that represent purity and innocence. In today’s culture it seems that no photograph, no matter how artistically done, can escape the critics backlash. These shots of nude children are obviously pornographic representations of the photographers own messed up psyche, right?
In 2000, Jessie Mann, now an artist herself, spoke up about the photographs. Jessie , says the publicity coincided with her realization that their childhood wasn't "like other people's." The experience of collaborating with her mother taught her about the power of art, she says. And she admires the way the photographs provoke questions about the difference (or lack of it) between reality and fantasy, even as they touch on something deeper: "There is magic in things, life is magical and wonderful." Her statements have not led anyone to believe that they caused her or her siblings any harm as some have suggested.
The work of Mann has indeed featured nude children in provocative poses. Unlike pornographers looking for subjects to exploit their sexuality Mann’s children don’t exploit their bodies. They don’t realize the power that their nude bodies possess and while their minds are still young and innocent their bodies represent something much more sexual. As an artist Mann has no need to censor herself, as a mother she reached a point where her photographs became inappropriate and should have stepped back. The beauty of all of her shots, though, is what is important.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Little Something
In 2000 this article was published in the NYT and relates to Sally Mann and her work. I am writing about her for my final but if you want to read about it from another perspective it is a really well done piece.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EFDB1F3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63&pagewanted=2
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EFDB1F3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63&pagewanted=2
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Final Proposal: Sally Mann
Since the 1970’s Sally Mann has been making a name for herself in modern photography. Going back to the traditional roots of photography Mann utilizes old cameras and traditional processes to create her ethereal, haunting images of the vitality of life and the bitterness of death.
In the early 1990’s her work started a scandal revolving around the ethics of photography. Mann, a resident of very rural Virginia, often let her three children run around in the nude. Her first two published books At Twelve and Immediate Family both featured images of her nude children. The content of the photographs caused serious criticism and was considered pornographic. Though the debate over her photographs has died down the underlying social issues are still of great importance. The photographs did not just bring up issues of pornography but also of familial relationship, previous experience, bonds and the ethics of photography.
The majority of my final will be based on research done through analysis of photographs, researching past articles and watching documentaries. Mann will also be compared to artists whose work has brought about similar debate, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe. Combining these resources together will allow a complete picture of Mann to be made.
In the early 1990’s her work started a scandal revolving around the ethics of photography. Mann, a resident of very rural Virginia, often let her three children run around in the nude. Her first two published books At Twelve and Immediate Family both featured images of her nude children. The content of the photographs caused serious criticism and was considered pornographic. Though the debate over her photographs has died down the underlying social issues are still of great importance. The photographs did not just bring up issues of pornography but also of familial relationship, previous experience, bonds and the ethics of photography.
The majority of my final will be based on research done through analysis of photographs, researching past articles and watching documentaries. Mann will also be compared to artists whose work has brought about similar debate, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe. Combining these resources together will allow a complete picture of Mann to be made.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Economy Doesn't Keep Glamour Away at Oscars
When the economy starts to flounder, glitz and glamour are often traded in for more reasonable uses of money. The Academy Awards, though, did not suffer from this economic downturn; they were, in fact, glitzier than ever. The show, in an effort to regain viewers (2007 Oscars had 40 million viewers, the 2008 had only 32 million) restructured the awards show and created something magical.
The focus of the 81st Annual Academy Awards was on the presentation itself. For the many actors, producers, directors, editors, and others at the Kodak Theatre, the Academy Awards is the end all be all of great shows. In past years the feeling of glamour and beauty is poorly translated to television but this year the audience felt all of the fantasy and magic come through. The set of the Kodak Theatre was ornate and very old Hollywood. The crystal curtains were stunning and enveloped all those who were on stage. The stage floor resembled patterns that Michelangelo used in his plazas. In keeping with the old Hollywood theme, a showy bandstand was set up and the musicians played jazzy renditions of the typical Oscar themes.
During segments of the show the set was changed from simple backdrops to lavish sets to present the awards for Best Art Direction (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Best Costume Design (“The Duchess”), and Best Make- Up (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). Before announcing the nominees for the Best Original Song, A.R. Rahman and Thomas Newman performed a medley of “Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, and “Down to Earth” bringing in Indian choreography.
Another performer of the night was Queen Latifah singing, “I’ll be Seeing You” in memoriam of the many people involved in the movie business that passed away within the last year. Generally, this moment leaves the crowd and at-home audience in tears. The crowd at the Kodak Theatre may have been moved but at-home audiences were far from moved. During this segment the camera, in an effort to portray the feel of the show, moved wilding about following the different screens on stage. Instead of being encompassed by the images of these people who are no longer with us the movement of the camera was distracting.
The glamour of the show continued by bringing back five previous winners in each category of Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. The sense of awe from the crowd looking upon such talent was obvious and the Academy’s choice to present the awards in this was much stronger than in years past.
The Awards ended, quite sweetly with the awarding of the Best Picture, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Members of the cast and crew swarmed the stage and the excited amongst them and the rest of the audience was apparent. Danny Boyle, director of “Slumdog Millionaire” mentioned that the entire Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre was, “Bloody wonderful”.
The focus of the 81st Annual Academy Awards was on the presentation itself. For the many actors, producers, directors, editors, and others at the Kodak Theatre, the Academy Awards is the end all be all of great shows. In past years the feeling of glamour and beauty is poorly translated to television but this year the audience felt all of the fantasy and magic come through. The set of the Kodak Theatre was ornate and very old Hollywood. The crystal curtains were stunning and enveloped all those who were on stage. The stage floor resembled patterns that Michelangelo used in his plazas. In keeping with the old Hollywood theme, a showy bandstand was set up and the musicians played jazzy renditions of the typical Oscar themes.
During segments of the show the set was changed from simple backdrops to lavish sets to present the awards for Best Art Direction (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Best Costume Design (“The Duchess”), and Best Make- Up (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). Before announcing the nominees for the Best Original Song, A.R. Rahman and Thomas Newman performed a medley of “Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, and “Down to Earth” bringing in Indian choreography.
Another performer of the night was Queen Latifah singing, “I’ll be Seeing You” in memoriam of the many people involved in the movie business that passed away within the last year. Generally, this moment leaves the crowd and at-home audience in tears. The crowd at the Kodak Theatre may have been moved but at-home audiences were far from moved. During this segment the camera, in an effort to portray the feel of the show, moved wilding about following the different screens on stage. Instead of being encompassed by the images of these people who are no longer with us the movement of the camera was distracting.
The glamour of the show continued by bringing back five previous winners in each category of Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. The sense of awe from the crowd looking upon such talent was obvious and the Academy’s choice to present the awards in this was much stronger than in years past.
The Awards ended, quite sweetly with the awarding of the Best Picture, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Members of the cast and crew swarmed the stage and the excited amongst them and the rest of the audience was apparent. Danny Boyle, director of “Slumdog Millionaire” mentioned that the entire Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre was, “Bloody wonderful”.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kael
Pauline Kael has been revered by many and loathed by some for her blatant opinions of movies. In reading Afterglow by Francis Davis and House Critic by Renata Adler two very different perspectives of this American movie critic are presented. Davis praises Kael for her straight-forwardness while Adler chews her to pieces for a, “jarringly, piece by piece, line by line, and without interruption, worthless”, collection of reviews. Adler, though tough, provided enough examples to prove that Kael was no “great”.
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hicok, A Primer in Poetry
When a poet walks in wearing a blue t-shirt, jeans and sneakers any expectation of the pompous, pretentious, poetry reading type is removed. Hicok even says himself, “I hate poetry readings, I can’t pay attention at all…So if you get distracted by anything and everything, don’t worry”. His laid back attitude didn’t reflect at all upon Hicok’s numerous accomplishments.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
