Day Sixteen: Oh, Crepe!

Our day began with us visiting Sainte-Chapelle, which is a relatively small Gothic chapel. When we first entered, it didn't seem like anything too special. Being made in the 1200s, it's not surprising that the entrance was musty and a little broken down. They had a part of a gargoyle, part of a sculpture, and some of the original spires. They also had, and I'm pretty sure this was not part of the original structure, but a gift shop. I was pretty unimpressed until we ascended to the second floor. When I walked in, I was struck by the beauty of the tall, detailed stained-glass windows. There were so many and so many little parts that I was astounded. Nearly the whole building was relying on these stained glass windows as part of the structure of the building- they seem so delicate and fragile that they could shatter during a windy night. The majority of colors were red and blue, which created a harmonious dance of light within the chapel. I've tried to do stained glass work before and I found it really difficult- so I'm constantly amazed at stained glass work, especially with such intricate detailing. The rose window which showed the Apocalypse was especially impressive. At the end of the room was an alter where the relics were probably held. I wish the relics were still there- I'd like to see what the "crown of thorns" looked like after two thousand years. Especially since the relics cost more than the chapel that housed them.

Next, we walked on over to Notre Dame, which translates to Our Lady in French, which is a Gothic, Catholic Cathedral. This was one of the first Gothic cathedrals in Paris and stands out due to its flying buttresses and famous gargoyles. When we entered Notre Dame, I wasn't blown away as I was with Sainte-Chapelle. Though there were wonderful stained glass windows, they were spaced out much more- so the effect was not the same. The rose window which was blocked by the organ was probably my favorite. The various-sized pipes created a negative space which was unusual and gorgeous. Aside from the windows, there was nothing too amazing to me about the church. I think compared to the over-stocked and elaborate Westminster Abbey and the lit wonder of Sainte-Chappelle, I was just not as interested in Notre Dame. I did, however, enjoy seeing the really old, huge chandelier which originally hung in the cathedral. I also enjoyed the Message of Peace box- I sort of wish these existed elsewhere. I participated and added my little note of peace in the box. While we were wandering around the cathedral, the bells actually rang and a sermon began. I kept thinking how strange it must be to come here for your religious service while there's a ton of tourists just wandering around the outskirts taking pictures, staring, and shopping. It seemed bizarre to me. Also, there was a very modernized section for confessionals in one of the Gothic nooks. I found this juxtaposition visually interesting, but somewhat strange. You could see the people going in to confess, which would make me uncomfortable if I were them. Think how many tourists visit every day- and they're all watching you fulfill your religious practices. Either way, it was kind of nice to be there when the services were taking place because it made the cathedral seem more real and less of just an ornament. I'm glad it's still used as what it was meant for. I did not get a chance to go up to the top, though. It was ridiculously cold and the line was quite long- they could only take ten people up every twenty minutes, so we didn't want to wait in the cold that long. So we just got lunch instead.

After lunch we wandered in and out of shops before we headed back to the hotel to prepare for our meeting and evening. I feel that I have finally mastered the metro. I wasn't a fan of it at first because I thought it too complicated and smelly- and it's still quite smelly, but at least I can navigate it quite well. It actually makes me feel more comfortable about traveling in New York City now.

We had a quick group meeting before Brittini, Danielle, and I headed out to Cirque Phenix- which was one of Paris' circuses. When we got there it did seem like a traditional circus- the venue appeared to be a large tent with various lights and a red carpet. When we entered there were photographs of clowns, elephants, and lions in the lobby. As we wandered further, there were various vendors selling popcorn, sandwiches, and little knickknacks. When we got to our seats, we were shocked to find that we had an amazing view of the whole stage. The show started a half hour late, but it was well worth the wait. It was unlike what you think about when you think of a traditional circus. There weren't clowns or animals- it was more about acrobatics and upper body strength. There was a guy who flipped a girl and caught her using only the bottom of his feet. Another guy held up a girl using only his head. These two men balanced on each other's feet while simultaneously doing splits. Another guy did back flips through rope while three people spun hoops with it. I found myself saying "Oh my God" over and over throughout the whole show. It was just spectacular, and amazing. I couldn't even begin to imagine how 10% of the stunts were physically possible. It was one of more fun things we've done while in France. Unfortunately the subways were closed by the time the show ended. As a result, we had to walk home- which was a long, not-to-fun walk. But it was fine...and we made it home safe and sound.

Have you eaten something that you have never tasted before? What was it like?

Today we decided to stop at a Crepery because Danielle really wanted a crepe before we left France. I had never had one, and decided since I loved the creme brule so much that I'd probably love the crepe too. I originally ordered a chocolate filled crepe; however, when the man made it, it was a Nutella filled crepe. I had never had Nutella before either...so this was a double experience. At first I liked it- it was a little sweeter than chocolate and had a slight hazelnut taste to it. The more I ate it the less I enjoyed it. It wasn't awful- but I wouldn't order it again.

Day Fifteen: Art Overload

So today was the mack-daddy of all museums: The Louvre. I don't think I could possibly verbalize how large it is nor the number of pieces on display. If that's only 20% of their collection, than I'm not sure what kind of storage space they have. One floor of one building could of sufficed as an impressive museum, but this was truly overwhelming. The architecture and design for the Louvre itself was quite beauitful. The building was originally constructed as a fortress during The Middle Ages. Parts of the original castlet-like construction are still visible on the lowest floor. We actually accidentally ventured down there and was able to see the foundation of the 12th century building. It was later renovated into a palace in which the kings lived in. However, when Versailles was constructed- the Louvre became a place to display the royal collection. Eventually it was decided that the Louvre should be a place to display France's greatest art collection. The large arch ways, sculpted figures from the roof, and triumphant arch as an entrance all display it's grandure; however, I found the fountains and the triangle my favorite architectural component. Once we descended into the Louvre, we did three presentations before dispersing. I saw so many notable pieces that I could probably write pages on my day at the Louvre, but I'll try and keep it a managable read. First thing of note was Michealangelo's "Dying Slaves". Not only was it nice to see some work by him, but it gave me a better understanding of what inspired Rodin. Rodin thought Michelangelo had purposely left pieces undone or gave it a rough finish; however, this isn't true. As a result, I could look at these pieces and see the rough finish that must have inspired Rodin. I absolutely loved the 19th century section. I was really taken aback by the size of all of them. David's "Coronation of Napoleon" was 20 feet by 32 feet! When you walked up to it you couldn't even see the whole painting- it was just so large. It seemed that all the people were lifesize- and I knew that they were all studied portraits. I can't even imagine how someone goes about painting such a large piece of canvas. How do you keep everything in proportion? How do hide your brush strokes? It was mind boggling and amazing. I think this was one of the most impressive things I saw at the Louvre. I was really disappointed to find out that the "Death of Marat" was just a copy- I didn't realize that when I saw it. For some reason, I always found this piece particularly powerful. There's just something about Marat's position, and smallest of cut against the blood-soaked water and dark backdrop that really works. It's just so stark: between the black background and his pale skin, and the fact that he slumps over towards the viewer- it just truly shows how he was a martyr and the true tragedy of his death. I'm glad that David didn't choose to do a standard heroic portrait of him, because I think this is much more effective and emotionally stirring. What I was SUPER disappointed in was that I could not find the "Oath of the Horatti". I walked and walked and looked and looked and could not find the painting, but I was positive that it was in the Louvre. I have no idea where it was- and I raelly wanted to see the size of it and compare it to David's other work. The "Raft of the Medussa" was much larger than I imagineded. I was really impressed by Gericault's skill in foreshortening as well as the portrayal of the one figure falling off the canvas and into the viewer's space. It was quite effective. Furthermore, it was exciting to see the small boat off in the corner- something that reproductions rarely capture. This piece was also a little more hopeful compared to many other 19th century works. After seeing this piece, I was surprised that Gericault seemed to have looser brush strokes than I originally thought. I thought he was more similar to David and had near invisible marks- but with the large piece, you could see his use of insinuated details and broader strokes. This was even more exaggerated in his sketch of the scence. I loved seeing Gericault's sketches because they were little complete compositions that were almost as interesting as the final product. In fact I found Delacroix's "Death of Sardanapoles" more interesting than his final piece. I loved the thick, loose brush strokes which were near-impressionistic. It was much brighter and emotional, I felt, than the actual piece. I was a bit disappointed by the larger version because the tones were much darker than I anticipated- I thought the reds were going to be more vibrant. I also enjoyed Delacroix's "Women of Algiers"- from afar it seems like he created detailed patterns on everything from the fabric of the women's clothing to the rugs; however, once you get up close you notice everything is loose- and not as defined as you thought. I also enjoyed his "Jewish Wedding" mostly because I had read some of his journals from when he visited Morocco and I could see many of the details that he was noting in his journal. I did find this painting to be smaller than I originally thought it was going to be- I thought it was going to be the "Raft of the Medussa" size. Also, the accompanying sketches showed how carefully he was absorbing and studying everything he saw- the clothing, positions, and landscape. Overall, I thought many of the pieces in the 19th century room was much darker in tones than I had imagined. It highly contrasted the Neo-Classical work of David and his contemporaries where there were vibrant, bold, primary colors. One artist that did not abide by this sentiment was Ingres. His "Grand Odelisque" was gorgeous. I know critics originally hated his work because they didn't like his anatomical oddities- but I think it's wonderful. It adds a bit of contrast to his hyper-realist style. His ever-so-slightly exaggerated forms are interesting, and force you to wonder what is off. The "Grand Odelisque" was full of beauitful details such as feathers, beads, and various fabrics. Everything looked as if it had a realistic texture that I wanted to reach out and touch. I also love her elongated back, and her shy little glance over her shoulder. I think this glance is as alluring as the Mona Lisa's or as commanding as Olympia's. I kept coming back to this piece. I was happy when I found his other works in another room- there were several of his "Bathers". Again, I loved that there was just a little something off about the "Large Bather's" leg. The "Turkish Bath" was wonderful too- you could really see his copy and paste method (not literally) of the various figures that he had practiced and perfected over the years. I also enjoyed the unusual circular composition. It made me dizzy circling the painting seeing all the different positions, skin tones, fabrics, and details. Paul Delarouche's "La Jeune Martyre" was also hypnotizing. It reminded me of "Ophelia"- with a young woman drowning in the water, presumably at night, with a halo. It was so eerie and unsettling, yet beauitful at the same time. The soft tones of her skin compared to the dark water created a startling contrast. I also really liked Scheffer's "Francesca and Paolo"- especially since Brittini's presentation on "The Kiss" filled me in on the story. I liked how they seemed more ghostly in this piece- as if they were already in hell, but they were still beautiful and embracing while Dante looked on from the side. He looked disgustingly at them, but they seemed to entranced in each other that they didn't seem to even notice them. Their rounded positions made them seem almost abstract- as if they were becoming one person, which spoke back to the sculpture. It was just beauitfully tragic. Those were amongst my favorite paintings- I also enjoyed seeing Girodet's "Endymon", Delacroix's "Self Portrait", Durer's "Self Portrait", Van der Weyden's "Annunciation", Fragonard's "Marie-Madeleine Guimard", and Goya's "The Countess del Carpio"- to note a few. I was bummed I never got over to the Vermeer section. I did get to see another Jan Van Eyck piece, his "The Virgin of Chancellor Rolin"- which was quite small. I was very interested in his precise detail and careful symbols which make his work like an interactive "Where's Waldo?" I, as well as Brittini and Danielle, was disappointed in the piece not because of the actual piece, but because of it's placement. Though it was small, it was placed on a wall by itself- which made it seem even smaller. The green wall, which successfully made the dark, rich greens pop out of the painting, was filthy and had holes in it- which was just distracting and took away from the painting. It truly dwarfed a wonderful piece. There were so many wonderful, realistic sculptures, one of note was "Femme Draped dite Didia Clara". The three of us all couldn't stop talking about all the subltleties of the piece- the soft creases in the palm of the hand, the arches of the feet, and the varianaces in fabrics. Some of the drapery looked so deep while others looked really shallow. On the other side of the spectrum, I was excited to see the "Lady of Auxerre"- it was interesting to see the difference between the complicated details of something like "Femme Draped dite Didia Clara" to the boxy, simplistic design of a woman. It was interesting to see the evolution in art- especially when you can walk from one room to the next and see drastically different interpretations of the human form. There was also contemporary sculptures that interested me. Tony Cragg's work was mezmerising. For instance, his 2008 piece "Elbow" caught my eye. At first I thought I saw a profile, then began walking aruond it and it transformed into a completely abstract piece. The rings in the wood and the layering was very visually engaging. I loved the swelling and shrinking shapes- and the negative space that it created. It really stood up against the classical pieces that were in the same room as them. I found this quite surprising since I'm not a huge fan of abstract art and I love the classical, realistic pieces, but Cragg's work was engaging and I felt it shifted into a whole new piece from every angle I saw it from. There were also many ancient pieces of artwork that amazed me even more than the more modern pieces. We saw the Law Code of Hammurabi. My first impression was that there were a lot of laws. I didn't realize that the text spanned all the way around the tall pieces. This is similar to the Rosetta Stone where it's a piece of history and intriguing to not only look at aestetically, but to place it in its context. I mentioned to Danielle that I wish they had put an arrow near the "Eye for an Eye" law because obviously I couldn't read any of the text (or the French translations) so I was wondering in what order the laws were in. I'll just have to look it up. I was also interested in the papyrus scrolls. It's just bizarre to imagine that this was their version of paper and text and to just realize how old they really are. I'm always impressed by how well things hold up over thousands of years. Similarly, I was dumbfounded by the Colossal Vase- it was just SO huge that I couldn't imagine what it was used for and where it would be placed. Again, I'm sure if I could read French I would have figured something out about it- but it was just so large and heavy, I couldn't figure out the practical purpose of such a large vessel. I just don't know how they would have transported such a huge item- it was almost as tall as I was! In contrast to the ancient, very basic artwork- I was also taken aback by ever elaborate and lavish pieces made for royalty. There were crowns from Louis XIV's reign- as well as his famous portrait. I couldn't believe the crowns- they were gorgeous and so decorated. It was like something out of a Disney movie. We also visited Napoleon the III's apartment- which I found even more impressive than the Palace at Versailles. Between the unncessaril long dinner table, massive chandeliers, piano, hundreds of candles, detailed furniture, and number of chairs- the apartment was beautiful. I could go on forever about all the artwork I saw-there was just so much and all of it was wonderful...it was one of the greatest experiences of my life to be able to experience the Louvre. While the day mostly consisted of art-seeing, we did take a break here and there to try and refresh our eyes and minds. We took a break for lunch and dinner, but we also visited the mall and shopped a bit- which was pretty neat. We we re there until around 9pm- which means were there for about ten hours. I didn't get to see nearly everything- so I guess I'll just have to go back.

That was literally all we did today. Once we got back from the Louvre, we all crashed due to art-exhaustion. I'm kind of happy that that was the last museum that we are going to as a group. It not only ends the whole trip on a high note- but I'm museum-ed out. I never realized how exhausting this experience would be, but it really took a lot out of me.

Question of the Day: How was the Mona Lisa?

I felt like the "Mona Lisa" completely went against everything that art museums are about. I'm not quite sure why the "Mona Lisa" is so famous- I doubt people truly think it's a truly innovative painting, or that the majority know that it's mysterious because we don't know who she truly is...but for some reason, it is the most famous painting in the world. As a result, the Louvre has felt it necessary to completely distance people from the painting. It is about five feet away from a divider where people can approach it and it is behind glass in the indent on the wall. Part of the point of museums is so that you can see the piece up close, see the brush strokes, and see things that you can't see in a reproduction. The painting was small and it's distance made it even smaller. The crowd was also annoying. I ran into the same problem I had with the Rosetta Stone- nobody wants to look at the painting, they just want a photograph to prove they saw it and then move on. I was actually pushed out of the way by one person so that he could take a picture, whereas I just wanted to look at it with my own two eyes. If you ask me, I think it's highly overrated and goes against what the artworld she be about. Having said that, I did enjoy having the experience of seeing it and person and being able to say that I saw it. It's just one of those things you have to see before you die, and I'm so glad I did.

Day Fourteen: Marie Antoinette Clearly Did Not Walk To Her Palace

Today our class went to the Palace of Versailles, which was about a half hour trip out of Paris by train. Versailles became the official seat of government in 1687. It was created strictly for royalty and was essentially its own little city so that the monarchy could get away from the problems of Paris such as poverty. The furniture, gold, and elaborate ceilings were all an effort to show off the wealth of the king and queen. Today it is a look back to that time and to how lavish (and greedy) the royal family was; however, it also gives a peek into the history of France. When we walked towards the entrance, without even a sign, you could tell it was the palace. The golden gates and huge structure was undoubtedly fit for a king. Once we got through security, the first several rooms we entered held many, many portraits of various rulers and important political figures. The paintings looked quite similar and most likely idealized the people. Not any one piece in particular stuck out to me because they seemed so similar. The rooms were ridiculously furnished. So much gold and detail in every aspect of the rooms. The flowery wallpaper, the matching furniture to the bedding, and the painted ceilings. Everything was decorated and over-the-top. The large arched windows looked out of the gardens. There were marble columns, busts, and full statues of various important peoples. There was a whole hall of noted people sculpted in stone. There was a whole hall filled with victory paintings along with busts of generals. Many of the rooms had themes such as "The Coronation Room", "The Hercules Room", "The War Room", and "The Peace Room". The titles of which corresponded with the artwork found in the room. Everything was so elaborate- the complicated shapes, trompe l'oeil paintings, high domes, grand stairways, chandeliers, curved forms, twisted columns, symmetry, and artwork. I can't imagine how long it took to construct and put together everything- or the amount of people it took do all these things! My favorite room, which couldn't actually be entered, didn't have a label. Or if it did I couldn't see it because there were so many people gathered around it trying to take pictures. But it was pretty early on in the door. Two tall white doors, with gold detailing of flowers and lines led to the gigantic room. Inside were two, swelling columns that were accompanied by two rows of windows. On the bottom were higher arched windows, and the top shorter windows. In the back of the room, in the center, were what appear to be organ pipes that reached up towards the ceiling. These, along with an altarpiece (?) were gilded. Two angels held up a row of flowers while they floated in the air. Directly in the middle of the room was a huge circle which looked out onto the bottom floor. The white balcony was as elegant as the columns. The ceiling had a large oval painted with mythological scenes of gods, goddesses, and other fantastical creators that spilled into the dome that was built into the wall. This room seemed clean, bright, and elegant- while still being as grandiose as the rest of the building. I really enjoy the exhibits in museums where they have the themed rooms from history, so I did enjoy walking around a whole huge palace with room after room that reflected historical France.

After we finished walking around the rooms that we were allowed to wander in, Brittini asked if we could venture out to Marie Antoinette's palace which lays out in the garden of Versailles. Thinking it'd be nice to take a walk, and that I'd like to see the gardens, I agreed. I'm really a country girl, so I enjoyed taking a break from the city and just wandering in the quiet garden. There were so many trees and statues (though, it would have been much prettier in the summer!)- and I just really enjoyed being outside for a while. This changed when we were walking for two hours. Turns out, we went to the left side of the river- when we should have gone on the right. We had to walk all the way around the river, which is in the shape of a cross, to get to the palace. This was over a six mile walk. Part of the trail was blocked off- so we had to trudge through the mud, and my pants got filthy. It was fun for a while- we sang in the woods since no one was there, took pictures of the gorgeous swans that were swimming around the lake, and fed some stray kittens. Once we realized we were on the wrong size, our positive attitude sort of faded. Although, I think it was worth it. Her palace was quaint, quite feminem, and pretty. The pink pillars and little gate was fit for a lady. I quite enjoyed her tastes- and preferred it over the grand palace. She had her own garden and fountains- and I could just imagine her have her own parties, trysts, and friends over here. It was quite a ways (even if you take the fast route) away from the palace- so clearly she could live her own life away from the King.

On our way back to Paris we had some issues because Danielle's metro passes (just like in London) haven't been working. So far, all five of her tickets have magically become deactivated. I'm convinced she has something on her that's doing it. She thinks it's just coincidence. Either way, her ticket wouldn't work again and no one was at the gate to help- so we had to shimmy her in between us to get her on the train. Later, she had to crawl underneath one of the booths to get in. It's been funny, and interesting. Hopefully we settle her ticket situation soon, though. We're running out of creative ways to get her on a train.

After our group meeting, the three of us went on a river boat cruise down the Seine River since we were unable to take the one in London. It was sort of goofy because the boat went about a mile per hour and showed us essentially everything we had already seen. Furthermore, the music was awful and the pre-recorded English guide was corny and cheesy. For instance, at one point he was like "This is the bridge where Parisians undoubtedly fall in love" or "Hold your breath under this bridge and make a wish- I promise it'll come true!" I did learn some things however, I learned that the gargoyles on Notre Dame are actually sculpted gutters. We also got to see the oldest bridge in Paris- which had over 300indidividually scupted heads on the sides. We had a nice evening though, we sang to the goofy music and took pictures from the boat. We also got to see the Eiffel Tower sparkle again- which is always a pretty sight.

Question of the Day: Discuss your reaction to Versailles.

I was actually not a huge fan of Versailles. I was somewhat disappointed. Everyone talks about how gorgeous it is and how beauitful the Hall of Mirrors is; however, I didn't feel the same. I'm not sure if I had super high expectations or if I was just desensatized by all the pictures I had seen of it. There was just SO much decoration that it was too much. It was like having a brownie with a pound of chocolate frosting on it- it was just too much of a good thing. Furthermore, I was disappointed to find out that many of the famous paintings in it weren't real- such as David's "Coronation of Napoleon". The Hall of Mirrors was dark and drab and it was too full of people to even appreciate anything in it. The photographs of the Hall make it seem so bright and magical; but the mirrors were tarnished and dirty and it just seemed short and unimpressive compared to what I envisioned. I actually enjoyed Marie Antonette's palace better. It was quaint and you could see her personal touches on it much more. It was clear that it wasn't about showing off- but just living in comfort. The Grand Palace seemed more forced and over the top.

Day Thirteen: "Do Women Have to Be Naked to Get into the Met Museum?"

Today we went to the Pompidou Center. It was a bit funny that on our way there, Terry got us lost in a mall. We circled around stores, went up and down escalators, and looked quite ridiculous...because, quite frankly, what group of twenty-something people get lost in a mall? I'm just imagining a group of twenty French students getting lost in Oneonta's Southside mall...it'd be a pretty funny sight. Either way, once we arrived at the Pompidou Center- it was quite a unique building. It displayed all the inner workings of the structure, which ended up being not only visually intriguing, but an architectural innovation. I guess not many people were fans of it originally, but it's pretty neat. Amanda gave her presentation on two of Dali's pieces outside since they frown on group things as well. So when we entered the museum we dispersed in smaller groups. I once again ended up venturing away from Brittini and Danielle because they were zooming in and out of rooms before I got done with two paintings. I prefer it that way anyway, but we made times and places to check in so we could plan for lunch. The first gallery I entered was essentially dedicated to female artists. This was quite refreshing, as most of the work we've seen up until this point as been by males. Furthermore, we have seen many, many nude women painted as muses or goddesses. On piece that really struck me that follows this theme was by the Guerilla Girls entitled "Do Women Have to Be Naked to Get into the Met Museum?". The piece took Ingre's "Odelisque" and threw a gorilla head on the body and gave statistics to show that there are barely any women artists shown in the Met...but there are hundreds upon hundreds of naked women portrayed in various forms. Natacha Nisic's "Catalogue de gestes" was a bit disturbing to me for some reason. It was a series of videos with one motion utilizing just the hands over and over and over. For instance, ripping off the petals from a flower, or buttoning a shirt, or wiping blood off of a finger. The whole thing just seemed violent to me. Also, the repetition of the hands playing simeltaneously mixed with the looping of an individual task made me think of the repetition of an assembly line. Perhaps these are the actions we make day to day- we're like a machine. Or perhaps it was meant to show how violent our day to day activities seem when blown up and studied. Either way, it really effected me. A video that was much more disturbing than that one was Ana Mendieta's "Chicken Piece", in which she shows herself cutting off the head of a chicken, then presenting the headless chicken to the camera while it rapdily flaps its wings. It was kind of strange to see that the chicken could still flap it's wings despite lacking a head, but it was so grotesque and violent...not really my thing. I thought Martha Rosler's "Semiotics of the Kitchen" was intresting. It was a video of her with a plethora of cooking instruments like egg beaters, graters, forks, etc. She was placed in a kichen and kind of resembled a cooking show like Rachel Ray. She stared unenthusiastically, almost bored, at the camera as she announced the object and displayed, quite violently, how to use it without any food attached. This piece was meant to show the mindless and sexist placement of females- to break this idea that women belonged in the kitchen. It was quite a powerful piece in my eyes. The final video I wanted to note was Halida Boughriet's "Action"- in which she video taped herself going up to strangers to try and hold their hands, and the reactions of that person (which was summarized strictly by their had movements)- most times in sheer horror or disgust of a stranger trying to hold their hand. I felt this really embodied the idea that we're disconnected as a species. The fact that we cannot trust other humans is sad. It also reminded me of the "Free Hug" videos that went around Youtube a few years ago. Where a man got off an airport and had no one waiting for him and it really upset him. So he started going to places with a sign that said "Free Hug" and at first no one wanted to come near him- thinking he was crazy and perverted. Soon one person did it, then another, and another, etc. This was taped then put up on Youtube. Soon, many people were doing their own "Free Hug" signs and posting it on Youtube. It became a sort of performance art bit that the Youtube community was a part of. Christina Iglesias' "Untitled (Passage II)" was spectacular. You entered this large room, and there was this rope that was tied and patterned out and mounted to the walls hanging over the floor. Though the rope work was interesting, the real masterpiece was the shadows that lain on the floor. There was this rich, thick shadow that danced all over the room. This piece was truly all about the lighting. The positive and negative space played off each other well- and it was just all round a mind boggling piece. There were other female artists I was glad to see. I was glad to see a few pieces by Yoko Ono since she rarely gets any recognition for her artwork- which she was in the forefront of the Fluxus movement and did some amazing performance pieces. I also enjoyed seeing Diane Arbus' photographs- though they were not any of my favorites. I also enjoyed Sylvie Fleury's "Tableau no 1" which was meant to be a feminem version of Mondrian's work. I really wanted to touch the furry primary colors- but thought I'd get yelled at. There was even more fun things upstairs- perhaps the two highlights for me was the Dada room and the Richard Avedon room. Since my thesis was partially on Dada, I was quite happy and excited to get to see some of their work. For instance, Duchamp's infamous "Fountain" as well as his "In Advance of a Broken Arm". I just love the humor and playful attitudes mixed with statements. Richard Avedon is amongst my favorite photographers- so I was estatic when I stumbled into his room. He had portraits of several artists and well known people such as Andy Warhol, Francis Bacon, and Marcel Duchamp. I love how he pulls physical quirks and traits to portray the individuals that truly accent their uniqueness. It's more than just a snapshot of the person's apperance. I found his self portraits funny- because he looked so awkward and posed compared to his subjects. I think he didn't feel comfortable and was trying to capture himself in front of the camera rather than just letting it come naturally. There was just something more tight and planned with his self-portraits. I also enjoyed Simon Hantai's "Peinture" which was almost Pollock-esque which abstract swirls and lines. The use of pinks and blacks really created a sense of depth and it popped off the canvas. I also responded to Tanguy's "Jour de Lenteur" mostly because I find it amazing that he can make abstract shapes and things look real. He also manages to create a sense of depth and space despite using a relatively empty backdrop. I truly enjoyed this museum because it really explored a variety of styles and materials of the artworld. There were installations, videos, found objects, projections, books, texts, furniture, spoons, and more. Things were on the ground, in the air, reflected, shadowed, interactive, and not. It just truly broke the mold of what an art museum is like- which was refreshing. The museum itself was a nice center for the type of art that it held also. I'm glad we got to see some modern art. I was, however, disappointed that we didn't get to see the Brancusi exhibit. I especially wanted to see his "The Kiss"- but maybe we'll make it back there before we leave...I won't hold my breath though because we kept saying that in London!

Following the museum, the class ventured over to the Paris Opera House. We got admission to wander around the building; however, there was quite a limited number of rooms we could actually go in- only about four or five. It was quite grandiose and over the top as far as decorations go. Everything was guilded, painted, and lit up. There were huge mirrors or arched windows. There were chandeliers and sculpted details in the furnishings. It was truly a beautiful sight. We also got to sneak a peek at the stage through a window and see the dancers practicing for their latest performance. The grand staircase was amazing too- it was just so lavish and wonderful. I liked what Terry said about how all the great composers, dancers, actors, and muscians have played here. Furthermore, many artists came here for inspiration- such as Degas. This was also the place where Phantom of the Opera was based on- which was kind of cool. There's actually a lake underneath the building (of which we didn't get to see either). It was just a great experience, but I was disappointed that we couldn't explore more of the building since it was so large. Brittini, Danielle, and I had wanted to go to a ballet performance; however, they were sold out for all performances this week. I really wanted to experience the building for it was meant for- I wanted to see the theatre in person, the lighting, and of course- the dancers!

After Le Palais Garnier, Brittini, Danielle, and I grabbed a bite to eat then headed back to the mall in which we got lost in. We wanted to shop a bit. We also purchased our tickets for both the circus and Moulin Rouge. The circus looks really cool, and it's not what you would immediately think of when you think circus. There's a lot of miming, acrobatics, and illusion work. I'm excited to see it. Also, when else are you going to be able to go to the Moulin Rouge? I'm very excited to get dressed up and see a show there! We also get complimentary champagne...so that's always nice.

Aside from shopping, there was nothing else of note for tonight. We eventually ended up hanging out at our room and recorded some videos for Brittini's blog and planned our next few days. I did want to make a note of the music here. The majority of it that we've heard has been in English. I found this strange. I'm not sure if this is why so many Parisianss speak English well or if they can't understand it but like the melodies. Danielle and I stumbled upon the French version of "Don't Forget the Lyrics" and there was even English songs on that! I find it strange, but interesting. I also find it ridiculous that one serving of Coca-Cola at a resteraunt costs anywhere from 3.50-5 Euros! In the states I can get unlimited refills for around $2! I'm used to drinking diet coke like it's water...so I've been going through withdrawls. It's hard for me to only drink one to two a day! At one resteraunt the beer was cheaper than soda. That's one thing I'm REALLY looking forward to when I get home...cheap soda.

Question of the Day: Read a label carefully. Address whether it is adequte or inadequate. What would you like to know that is not included in the label?

I found many of the labels in the Pompidou Center inadequate for me. Most of the labels had the artist's name, the title of the piece, the date, and most of the time the medium; however, they were all in French. I would have appreciated a translation in English or a pamphlet with English translations. Though I don't really expect this to happen because it is France and I don't think they should have to accomdate English speakers- it's just something I'd appreciate. Something that I think they really SHOULD add is a little background on the piece. Many of the pieces I saw had a short quote from the artist, again in French, but not really a summary of what the piece is about- which would help on many of the more abstract pieces. Many museums do have such a thing- but I did not see this at this particular museum.

Day Twelve: No Groups Allowed

Our class visited the Musee d'Orsay today. It was strange when we got there because the museum had almost as intense security procedures as an airport! We had to give our bags to a security guard to look through and walk through a metal detector. No sharp objects or large umbrellas were allowed into the museum. They were very serious about the whole ordeal! Furthermore, when we gathered the class together off to the side to give the first presentation the guards yelled as us because groups are not allowed in the museum on Sundays evidently. Our professors tried to explain that we were just going to do a few presentations, but they insisted that we separate. Then when Fiona was just trying to give us an assignment before we dispersed, another guard came up and yelled as us. They were intense there! Either way, I quite enjoyed this museum. The actual building which housed the artwork was an old railroad station- so it had an elongated hallway which led to separate smaller rooms and enclaves. Upstairs, where the offices were, were large exhibitions. The first pieces I saw were both by Manet- "Luncheon on the Grass" and "Olympia". Both pieces were quite scandalous during their time; however, I prefer "Olympia"- the piece that was rejected from the Salon during it's creation. It depicts a prostitute, sitting naked and proud, receiving flowers from her own slave. She makes eye contact with the viewer as if to show that she is not ashamed or embarrassed. I have always enjoyed the painting, there's just something about her stark pale skin against the dark backdrop that appeals to my eye. Furthermore, the whole story surrounding the painting is interesting to me- especially since it is not shocking at all in this day and age. I didn't realize that either painting was so large. "Olympia" was MUCH larger than anticipated. It also had more details than I originally thought despite technique of using blotches of colors rather than near-invisible brushstrokes. There was a distinct sense of depth- something I though Manet had gotten rid of by this point. Also, there were patterns on the left wall that I had never noticed before. The next room I wandered into was dedicated to Van Gogh and Gaugin. I was really excited to see the few pieces by Gaugin since I missed his exhibit back in London- but there were only a handful. One piece, "Paysage de Bretagne Le Moulin David", sort of reminded me some of Kandinsky's work. I wondered if maybe Kandinsky was inspired by this piece- with the bright colors and the abstract use of blocks of color. I'm not sure. There were several pieces by Van Gogh that stuck out to me. First off was "La Sieste"- which showed men sleeping amongst a field of hay. The hay and sky were so brilliantly bright. The expressive lines radiated off the canvas. The thick application of the paint with the distinct line contrasted with the more abstract and insinuated form of the man. His one "Self Portrait" was also there. I think why this piece is so famous and successful is because of how expressive it is. The pairing of complimentary colors really pop. The various shades of blues that swirl around his realistic face are wonderful. Since this piece was meant for only himself, I feel that it reveals quite a bit about him. I really enjoy the movement of the lines in all of Van Gogh's work. Rather than depicting everything as stationary, his swirly use of line and rounded forms creates movement that forces the eye to really dance around the canvas. I quite enjoyed Honroe Daumier's portrait sculptures entitled "Celebrities of the Justice Milieau". They each exaggerated facial parts of the Justice Milieau to create somewhat of carciatures of the people. I mostly enjoyed his work because I like it when artists have a sense of humor- and don't take everything too seriously. Obviously Daumier was aware of and making a statement on politics, but he created a piece that was clever and funny- not serious and depressing. One piece that really surprised me was Courbet's "Burial of Ornans". It was so large- and darker than I imagined. The muddy colors were appropriate though. I also noticed for the first time that the staff that one of the cardinals are holding that has Christ on the cross seems like it's almost floating above the mass of people- almost as if Jesus is looking down, tortured, over the whole scene. It almost doesn't look like it is attached to the staff. This piece is wonderful, and I'm not quite sure how critics had the nerve to call it the "funeral of art". I've really been enjoying seeing the pieces I've studied in class. It really gives me a new respect and perspective on them. I've also been noticing a lot of new details that I never saw. For example, in Millet's "The Gleaners" I never realized that there was a mass of other workers in the background by the haystacks- I thought it was just the three main figures in the foreground. In the back of the first floor was also a small replica of The Paris Opera House. I was shocked at how many rooms were in it since I thought all that was necessary was a few dressing rooms, the stage, and an entrance. There were also little dioramas of scenery ideas. I enjoyed seeing these because it showed how the artists tried to create a sense of realism and depth with flat surfaces. I really enjoyed the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist work. Paul Signac's "Entrece du Port de Rochelle" had a dizzying, yet beautiful effect on me. The use of blocks of color- almost a stippling effect- utilized complimentary colors to create a realistic depiction of a boat in a port. It was bright, warm, and gorgeous. It almost seemed like a mosaic of paint; it was wonderful. I stared at this for a while looking at his subtle use of different shades to build a sense of shadow and depth. This is just a small cross-section of what I saw. I only made it through the bottom floor of the museum. I ended up leaving Brittini and Danielle since they were going too fast for me. I like taking my time with each piece as opposed to feeling rushed to leave the room. There was just so much to take in. Aside from the above mentioned, I liked Renoir's "Dance a loa Ville", Seraut's "Cirque", and Dega's "Danseuses Bleus" (or any of his intimate, candid moments of the dancers, for that matter)- along with many, many others. I can't believe how much there really is to see at every museum!

Following the museum, Brittini, Danielle, and I ventured off to Champs-Elysees Clemenceau to ride on the Ferris Wheel since we were unable to go on the London Eye. We were excited to see that it was, in fact, working. Once we were at the top we could see so many of the famous monuments: the Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame, and the Arc de Triomphe. It was fun. We also wandered into the little shops that were surrounding the ride. It's funny that Paris pretty much has the same souvenirs as London (with the obvious alteration of the words "London" to "Paris"). From here, we just walked around the area and enjoyed the architecture and the various old churches that were around the area. Then we got onto the Metro to get back for our group meeting. The Metro here is much more complicated than London's Underground. The stations are not labeled as well, and their stations are much more confusing. There are multiple platforms and trains and ways...not to mention they're all in French. Furthermore, Danielle's card stopped working- so we had to either sneak her in or give her one of our cards to use. It just added to the complications. We got on the wrong train...but figured it out pretty quickly and just got off and jumped on the opposite way. Either way, I don't like the Metro as much as the Underground. Most of the time it smells and it's not as clean as the Underground. I'm sure it's obvious by now, but I prefer London to Paris. The art is spectacular, but I don't feel the city is as welcoming or tourist-friendly as London was.

After our group meeting, which we just discussed our topics for our analytical essay (see below), Brittini, Danielle, and I decided to go back to the Eiffel Tower so we could see the city from the top at night. Being more familiar with the Metro, we got there quite easily. Unfortunately, we couldn't go to the very top because they were doing renovations until next month, but we did get to go more than half way up. The view was breathtaking. We could see the whole city- even more than the Ferris wheel. It was beautiful at night. Everything was lit up, and the tower actually has twinkling lights that go off once every hour- which we saw twice, and they were like fireworks both times. It was a great experience, and I'm glad that we came during the night. The sky was so clear, the sight was beautiful, and it was a great night. It's also quite impressive to have learned that the tower weighs 10,100 tons and requires 60 tons of paint every 7 years. I can't imagine painting the whole thing! After we spent about an hour staring down at the city, we ventured in and out of the several souvenir shops then headed back to the hotel. We were going to do a river boat cruise, but thought we'd save it for another night.

Question of the Day: Write an analytical essay about a piece that you like from the Musee d'Orsay.

One of the first pieces to catch my attention at the Musee d'Orsay was Auguste Clesinger's "Femme Pique par un Serpent" from 1847. When you first approach the piece, you assume it's just a reclining nude; however, there is much more complex compositional elements at play. The figure is thrusting herself upwards and forwards in a somewhat erotic gesture. A piece of cloth, presumably her clothing, are conveniently bearing her breasts and pelvic area, while falling against her inner thigh and her upper arm- almost drawing the eye to the genitals. Her nude body is skillfully depicted- it appears as if her flesh is tight and soft. Her head is thrown back and her hair ripples onto the bed she lays in. Each tight curl is sculpted as it wanders freely from her scalp. Her eyes are closed, but her lips are slightly pursed. Her voluptuous body is almost setup as if it's being presented before the viewer- all her assets are on display. It seems as if she's in a moment of ecstasy- or orgasmic release- her hand clenches a flower and part of her garment while one of her toes tenses and points forward. The bed she sits upon seems to be a mix of a metaphoric and literal bed- while it is rounded, it seems to be filled with plants; roses, grapes, and leaves surrounded her. It does not seem that these are meant as a pattern or decorative quality to the piece- but rather a contribution to the scene. The bed is not as cleanly finished as the female form- perhaps this is meant to drawn the attention to her, or to show that she amongst a dreamworld- something not realistic. The soft contours of her form and delicate creases in her skin contrast the jagged cracks in the creases in her skin contrast the jagged cracks in the bed. The rounded pedestal also contributes to the idea that this may be a bed. It is smoothly sculpted also, and could be the anchor for this dreaming beauty.

While this piece seems like just a beautiful example of a female nude- there seems to be darker undertones. On her right wrist there is a beaded bracelet; however, the left holds a tiny sanke. This snake creates a sinister tone. Perhaps it alludes to the Garden of Eden- and this is a representation of Eve being seduced by the devil and committing original sin. The flowers on the bed could also support this theory. Or this may be a woman committing her own sin- probably sexual in nature. Perhaps she is a mistress or a prostitute. Either way, the sexual undertones and snake all contribute to the idea and themes of sin. This may also be a reminder to men to not let prostitutes and women seduce you. In the 19th century men were seen as the victim in such scenarios.

The use of marble probably served a dual purpose. It reflects back on and references classical antiquity (though they would have been painted but 19th century artists probably wouldn't have known that). It also creates a very soft, shiny, reflective surface which attracts the eye. Marble is also very delicate so it is appropriate when creating such a soft-skinned form.

I chose this piece because it immediately caught my eye. The complex twist of the back, the delicate point of the toe, the graceful curls of the hair all impressed me. I also liked drawing the figure, so this piece was right of my alley. I'm also envious of sculptors because I don't sculpt very well. I'm just amazed at how lifelike it truly is. I also wanted to choose a piece I hadn't studied in class, and since I cannot read the label, I was able to analyze and interpret it myself.

Day Eleven: I think France has a Napoleon Complex

Our first full day in Paris started out at Musee Rodin. As the title describes, the museum is dedicated to the artist Auguste Rodin. When we first got there we gathered in the garden, where several of his larger sculptures reside. I imagine the garden is beautiful in the spring and summer months, but right now it's dead and slightly depressing. It had a great view though, we could see the Eiffel Tower from there. There were presentations on "The Thinker", "The Gates of Hell", and "The Kiss" before we went inside the museum. I was especially impressed by "The Thinker". In person you can really see the fine details of the muscles and skin of the man, while also the somewhat abstract and natural quality of the human form emerging from the bronze material. It was also much larger than I anticipated. "The Gates of Hell" was also a phenomenal piece. This may have been one of my favorite pieces to see in person thus far. First off, the fact that Rodin worked on it for 37 years and never finished it before he passed away is an amazing fact on its own. It's also so busy with details that it's hard to stop looking at it. There are so many figures weaving in and out of each other and spinning off of the flat surface of the gates that it's has a dizzying effect. The gates are meant to reflect the story of Dante's Inferno- which I think it successfully does. I think "The Thinker"'s placement also is quite successful in this piece- he truly stands out above the rest of the figures and it seems that he's foreseeing all that is to come. It's a beautiful, yet disturbing piece. I must say, though, even though there are 180 figures on the sculpture- there were spots that seemed empty. Like I said, I know it's unfinished, but I think it's obvious that it's unfinished by those blank spots- they do not look intended or compositional relevant. I wonder what Rodin had intended to go there and wish I could have seen what he would do...but either way, it's a magnificent piece. It's also worth noting the two Henry Moore sculptures in the garden. I was quite disappointed that I did not have a chance to go into the Moore exhibition; however, the two large sculptures in the garden were nice to see. They were large, bulbous forms that were somehow fantastical yet organic. Their pure color stood out against the varying landscape. I wish I could have compared these large-scaled works to his smaller pieces. Going into the museum, I had certain pieces in mind that I knew he did ("The Thinker", "The Kiss", and "The Gates of Hell") and thought that was really the extent of his work. I was so wrong. All of those pieces are highly realistic while maintaining his abstract concepts of thinking or a kiss. It was his pieces that are not as well known that really blew me away. What most impressed me was how expressive every single one of his pieces were- no matter what material he was working in: plaster, bronze, marble, or terracotta. There was always a sense of emergence from the material and it was obvious that not only was he talented, but was constantly referencing art history in his work. The first work that really grabbed my eye was "The Hand of God" or "Creation"- you could see this block of marble, with these two, huge soft hands reaching towards the sky molding something. It seemed so life-like that the hands could actually wiggle their fingers and mold the material between them. This was only the beginning. What was great was you could go from something very realistic such as portraits of people, such as "Eve Fairfax", to something more abstract such as "Sleep"- where there was just a rough piece of marble with barely a hint of a face, with delicately carved eyes and mouth. Though it was nearly there, it was distinct and soft. The concept of sleep rang quite clear. Rodin was a master of capturing pure emotion. If you look at "The Cry", which is a sculpture of a woman screaming, you can see the tense muscles in the face, the distorted twists of the skin, and the pain behind the eyes. Perhaps my favorite sculpture of his was "Danaid", which references a Greek legend where the Danaids were the fifty daughters of King Danaus which were to marry his brother's fifty sons. When the sons insisted on marrying the daughters, King Danaus insisted that they kill their bridegrooms on the wedding night. As a result, the Danaids were sentenced to the underworld where their punishment was to perpetually try to fill leaky jugs with water. Rodin, however, chose to represent one of them in a tearful frustration. She's slumped over, face down, on a rock, but her graceful form is present. The form is barely emerging from the marble and it's absolutely breathtaking. The soft skin against the rough marble, and the struggle of the human form try to break free is truly moving. I think this is why Rodin is so skilled- his ability to show the process and the material that he is truly working with while at the same time making beautiful, expressive pieces. I also enjoyed the room dedicated to Camille Claudel- like Fiona said, it's nice to see some female artists! I found her piece "The Gossips" or "Chattering Women" intriguing. What first drew me to it was the unique use of onyx marble. It was this pale green color with variations that played nicely with the skin of the females as well as added some depth to the backdrop of the sculpted scene. The piece showed how talented, yet similar to Rodin, Claudel was. It's evident that she too was well aware and skilled in her medium. There's a theory going around that Rodin copied or stole some of Claudel's ideas. I think this could be possible. Especially if you look at her "The Waltz", in which she originally sculpted a nude couple dancing through space and Rodin's "The Three Virtues". In both skinny, expressive females are draped in a very similar dress. It's hard to make such an accusation though, especially if they were working closely. Either way, it's nice to recognize a talented female artist and to see who Rodin was surrounding himself with. I'm sure she was an inspiration to him either way.

Following up the museum, we went to Les Invalides to see Napelon's Tomb. The building in which housed it was again, beautiful. I think all of the cathedrals, chapels, or churches we'll be experiencing in Paris will be gorgeous- they're all so grandiose. It had high arches with coves dedicated to various generals as well as a larger-than-life altarpiece at the end of the nave. The ceiling was this high dome with a soft painting at the top. The colored glass in the windows created blue and yellow light that streamed into various sections of the inside. When you got directly into the center of the building, there was a large circle that you could look down and in the middle was Napoleon's sarcophagus. It was gigantic. While it was very tall vertically, it was pretty small horizontally- which I found a bit funny. Aside from its size, the actual sarcophagus wasn't anything too detailed or visually interesting. Once we walked down to it we could truly see how large it was. It was circled by pillars of sculpted women holding various objects like a scroll. There were also some more side sections that honored other generals such as Napoleon III. It was pretty interesting to see how celebrated military figures are. Especially because America doesn't have anything like this.

Following the Tomb, Brittini, Danielle, and I decided we were going to visit the Eiffel Tower after we grabbed a quick bite to eat and I picked up some gloves since my hands were freezing. We were fortunate enough again to stumble upon a resteraunt where the waiter spoke English, despite my mental preparations to try and speak French. I was sort of nervous going to the Eiffel Tower because Fiona warned us about pick-pocketers there and gypses. In my mind, gypses are like Ezmerelda from that Disney Movie with Quazimoto- long, bright dresses, beautiful, and just trying to find love in the city of Paris. Fiona made them seem not-so-Disney-esque. Evidentally they're very tricky and will try and distract you by throwing things at you or saying you dropped something so you look away. The one example that concerned me was the idea they may hand you a baby then take your money. This would present quite a dilemma for me, am I supposed to drop the baby? As a result, I tried to stay away from any baby I came across at the tower. Furthermore, she warned us that due to threats, there were more security around the tower. I was thinking she meant police officers or security guards, but there were about 12 to 16 army men with machine guns walking around the grounds. It was a bit strange, but I guess it's safer that way. We did see a guy get arrested for selling fake souvenirs. That was sort of interesting. Aside from the paranoia, the tower was gorgeous. I thought I was going to be a bit numb to it since it's something I've seen in photographs and miniature sculptures and paintings all my life, but it was stunning. The intricate details of the metal mixed with the garden (though everything was dead due to the winter season) mixed with the height was amazing. The negative space the metal designs created against the sky were wonderful. It was a brilliant architectural wonder. We were going to go up the tower, but it was quite foggy so we decided not to waste the money if we weren't going to see anything. But we're definately going to come back and go to the top. After we took our million photographs of the building, we just began wandering around the area. We walked around the accompanying park, and over a bridge to the other side and walked along the river. We didn't have a destination- we were just enjoying the view. I must say, though, it is much colder in Paris than in London. There are also more homeless people, which is a bit depressing, especially the ones with the adorable puppies. However, we've been really good about ignoring sketchy people and hiding our belongings. Either way, we had a nice afternoon of ducking in and out of shops and boutiques, wandering around parks, and enjoying the architecture. There are a lot of beauitful monuments and classically-inspired buildings. It's just a bummer all the plants are dead and it's so cold.

When we decided to head out for dinner we wandered down the road that's near our hotel. Since the three of us are so indecisive, it took us a while to settle on a place. We decided to go to this grill and burger place. When we walked in we asked if they spoke English, which they did not. Furthermore, they barely spoke French. So...we had to point and mime what we wanted. It was sort of like Scattegories but more was at stake: food. Either way, everything worked out and we thanked each other and the food was surprisingly really good. So I guess that worked out. I'm getting less nervous about talking to people here. So far everyone has been very friendly and patient with us. If they don't speak English, they're willing to figure out what we're saying. So that's good. It's not as scary as I was thinking it may be.

The rest of the night was spent in the hotel trying to figure out something to do. Similar to London, a lot of things close at 5 or earlier. So we were looking at a brouchure that was listing the top ten things to do in Paris- most of which were museums or monuments that we're doing with the class, so that didn't really help. We looked through books and in brouchures and we couldn't really decide on anything. We want to go to the ballet, but can't seem to find a show that corresponds with our available days. We may try and go to the circus, because that's relatively cheap and looks really fun. Brittini and I are trying to reserve tickets to go to the Moulin Rouge. We thought it'd be a once in a life time experience and an excuse to dress up since we both brought dresses. In summation, we didn't end up doing anything. We sat around trying to figure something out before we all just fell asleep. Ah well, maybe we'll be more interesting and productive people tomorrow.

Question of the Day: Describe in detail one object that you have seen today as though you were explaining it to a person who cannot see.

Imagine a perfect replica of a human figure. That figure is nude. All the muscles can be seen; the defined calf muscles, the thigh muscles, and even the abdomen appear as if they are from a fit man. The legs are spread a little more than shoulder width apart. The feet point forward in a determined position. The upper part of the torso is riddled with slashes and cuts with a rough finish. The arms are hacked off. The neck stops at a jagged stump. It seems that a perfect sculpture of a human figure has been chopped away with a machete. The bronze is a shiny black-ish tint. This is Rodin's "Walking Man".

Day Ten: Je Voudrai Un Coca Light?

Today we woke up bright and early at 6 am in order to get everything finalized and ready for our departure at 8. After finish up last minute packing and grabbing a light breakfast, we headed boarded a bus to bring us to the Eurostar. It was kind of like an airport where you had to show your passport and go through security to get to the gate to board the train. We had to lift our suitcases (which mine barely closes now...I don't know what I'm going to do if I buy more souvenirs in Paris) onto a platform for them to xray. We went through metal detectors, which I set one off, so I had to get the pat down and metal wand-ed. That was a little awkward. Then we had to wait for about an hour to be loaded onto this huge train, again, lifting our own suitcases into little storage areas. I'm glad we're going home in an airport so someone else can deal with my suitcase then. It's heavy. The ride wasn't bad at all. The seats were comfortable, the view was gorgeous (except for the tunnels- which were just dark), and the ride was quite fast.

My first impression of Paris was that it was kind of frightening. It's strange being in a place where you don't understand anyone nor can you read the signs. Luckily, it, much like London, is a beautiful city. Brittini is very excited to exercise her French skills- so I was happy to let her take the lead. She taught me very basic phrases ("Hello", "Thank You", "Can I please Have...", "Sorry", "Excuse Me", etc) so that I could barely function in public. Our hotel is VERY nice. The lobby is colorful and bright, but I'm sort of afraid of the manager. He insisted that if anyone were too loud they'd be kicked out. Furthermore, he warned that he hasn't allowed children into the hotel in five years to keep it quiet. I wonder how some of the students on the trip will do- since they are pratically children, especially when they're drunk. When Danielle and I got up to our room we were amazed. It was so large and spacious, especially compared to our last room. It's very modern, but simplistic. We even have a Matisse print on our wall. I like it. I'm especially happy because we have three beds, two of which are pushed together to make a king sized bed. Danielle said she didn't want it, so now I have a ridiculously large bed with lots of pillows. It's nice.

After we got settled into the room, Brittini, Danielle and I went to go find lunch. I was really nervous about this because I was afraid I'd not be able to understand anything and just embarress myself. We walked a little ways down the road to this sandwich place and decided on that. When we walked in, the owner of the store smiled and immediately asked where we were from in English. Clearly we're not too convincing of French locals. He spoke pretty fluid English so he joked around with us and tried to teach us how to say certain things (Diet Coke is pronounced Co-ka Light) and was very friendly. So, my first French-speaking experience was not too bad in retrospect. It's still nervewracking because I can't read any of the signs and don't really know what I'm ordering. I figured all I need to know is the word for chicken and diet coke.

We wandered down a little further to see what was around our hotel. I don't think the placement of this hotel is as nice as it was in London. I really loved the convenience of the mini-mall in London. We found this one clothing store that we wandered around for a while. Brittini went to buy a shirt but had issues when she wanted to use a 100 euro note. Luckily she could ask for someone who speaks English and things got settled. I'm so thankful she speaks French well! We also went to a sports store which was having a ridiculous sale and we all got some cheap bathing suits (1 euro each!). This was my first experience on my own talking to a cashier...luckily I just had to smile and hand the money over to him. I think this will be my tactic the remainder of the trip.

Since we wanted to actually do something our first night, we decided to go see a French film. There's a movie theatre not too far away from our hotel so we went there to see "Le Fils A Jo". I thought maybe I'd learn some French by watching it. Tickets for movies here were ridiculously cheap (3.50 Euros!). We missed the previews because a worker told us (in very broken English) that it "smelled" down there so she wanted us to wait. I'm not sure what smell prevented us from going down...but we didn't miss the start of the movie...and it smelled alright to us. The movie going experience was kind of strange. As you can imagine, if you can't understand a word that is being said...you naturally get a bit confused, but fill in the blanks with your own imagination. It was kind of funny how just the body language and traditional theatre really progressed the plot for me- despite not knowing what was being said. The film was about a father who was a professional rugby player and wanted his son to excel in rugby as well. After his wife died and his rugby field was going to be taken away (For a reason that is still unclear to me) he gets his friends to help organize a ruby game that will save the day (again, some details make no sense to me, but hey, it worked). It was a fine movie...and at the very least, a great experience.

That was pretty much it for Paris day one. I feel that Paris is more foreign than London was, and I'm sure it's because of the language barrier. As a result, it's a bit uncomfortable at the moment to try and go out and do random things. Hopefully I'll get used to it and it'll be as fluent and enjoyable as as London was. Either way, I'm excited to see the Eiffel Tower tomorrow!

Question of the Day: How does it feel to be in a foreign country when you can't understand the language?

As briefly described above, it's quite uncomfortable. I feel like I'm either embarressing myself or completely lost. It's strange to know that I can't just approach anyone and ask for directions or help. It's also strange that I don't know what I'm ordering in resteraunts, or what signs say. I feel very disconnected from everything around me, it seems very foreign to me as where London felt quite comfortable. I've had plenty of people come into Quiznos (where I used to work) and struggle with English to order food, I completely understand how they feel and commend them for what they were able to say! I had to write down how to say "Can I please have..." on my hand so I could remember it. I sort of feel like I was set down on another planet and even though I recognize everything- shoes, roads, sales, etc...nobody knows what I'm saying! It's like I'm speaking gibberish. Now, I understand it's not THAT bad because everyone we've come in contact with thus far has been able to understand English well enough, it's still my initial feeling. It's a bit bizarre and I completely respect people who are trying to get along in America when they were raised in another country or speak another language.

Day Nine: "Stonehenge Rocks"- Danielle's T-shirt

Today was sadly our last full day in London. I'm really disappointed because I truly fell in love with the city and don't want to go. We had the whole day as a free day, which was nice. Danielle and I had purchased tickets to go to Stonehenge and since we didn't have to catch the bus until 12:15, we decided to revisit the British Museum since it was free and right down the road. We only had an hour an a half to spend there, which meant we only got to go to about two or three rooms, but it was worth it. The first room we got to was in the Greek section in which we got to see a lot of the geometric and archaic pottery. One piece that was especially exciting to see was "Achilles and Penthesileia"it's the scene in which Achilles is going to kill Penthesileia, but then falls in love with her and can't go through with it. It's an interesting story and a beautiful example of Greek pottery. In a side room was a battle scene between the Greeks and the Centaurs and the Amazons. This would have been the frieze in a temple dedicated to Apollo. It was done in relief; however, the figures seemed almost in the round due to the deep carving. The figures were so emotive and complex; the limbs twisted around the composition and you could actually see the veins in the centaurs. I found these more interesting than the frieze from the Parthenon. We also made it to the prints and drawings room. The big-named piece was Michelangelo's cartoon- there are only two in existence. It was very nice to see, because the cartoons are like looking into the artist's head as he's working. You see what compositional elements he's utilizing, his style, and overall it's like a behind-the-scenes look at his work. Michelangelo's cartoons seem like finished pieces in themselves. It was huge and very complex. The felt the sketchy lines added to the overall effect of the piece. I had mixed feelings about the other pieces- some were too "abstract" for me even with the labels. I really responded to George Grosz pieces. I am more familiar with his paintings, so I enjoyed seeing his drawings. He seemed to use a consistent line that connected all of his figures to create an emotive piece. It almost seemed like a maze for the eye as you were trying to decipher one person from the next. His pieces, like his paintings, were highly political as well. Aside from these pieces, we didn't get to see much more before we had to get the bus down at Piccadilly Circus.

To get to Stonehenge, we took a tour bus out of London WAY out into the country to Wiltshire. With traffic and road work it took about three hours; however, it was completely worth it. The British country side is unparalleled. It's so lush and green! I was blown away by just the ride up. The quaint little towns added to the beauty and appeal of rural England- I really would like to move out there. While driving, we actually came up a hill to see Stonehenge breaking the horizon- I can't imagine passing it everyday on your way to work or something. It was so prominent and alluring- but we had to circle around to actually enter the grounds. I found it strange that there was admission (which was covered by our tour) to get in- I'm not sure how someone could own or claim Stonehenge, but it was well worth every pence. The commanding and powerful presence of the rocks were overwhelming. The sheer size of the rocks is impressive- but the fact that they were shaped and stacked is mind boggling. I can't believe ancient people could do such a thing. To further emphasize the amazing creation, the setting is wonderful. It sits in the middle of a luscious green hill with sheep all around. The whole experience was magnificent. I wish we could have gotten closer to the rocks, though. There was a divider preventing you from getting too close- but I really wanted to walk between the pillars. This is definitely one of the best things I've done, not only in England, but in my life.

The rest of the evening was pretty quiet, but it was really fun. Brittini, Danielle, and I got a pizza, a bottle of wine, and a cake to celebrate our last night in London while we packed. We had a lot of fun and still managed to be in bed at a decent time. There was still many, many, many things I wanted to do- but there's not enough time- we also have to be awake and ready tomorrow by 8 am to get the Eurostar to Paris. I'm a bit nervous about the language difference- but Brittini speaks French, so I'll just stick with her at all times.

Question of the Day: Discuss the work of John Constable.

I have seen many, many works by John Constable by now. I'm pretty sure at least one of his paintings have been at every museum we've been to thus far. Constable has a very realistic, but thick style of painting. Before I saw his work in person, I thought his paintings were nearly photographic; however, when you see them in person it is clear that he used small, but thick layers of paint to create very naturalistic landscapes. His work almost seems more Impressionistic than Realist in person. He's not nearly as abstract as Turner, who creates broad abstract backdrops of beautiful color combinations, but there's something loose about his brushwork. Constable's "Haywain" attests best to his style.The large painting is overpowering; it commands attention. The genre scene seems grandiose. The short paintstrokes make up details such as the reflection in the water, or the individual leaves. I quite enjoy Constable's work .

Day Eight: Dusty Chandeliers and Strawberry Beer

Today we started out at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The first thing I really saw was Dale Chihuly's blown glass chandelier which Emily presented on. I agree with her that it was somewhat disappointing with how incredibly dusty it was. I was also disappointed in how it was lit. If Chihuly wanted to show the interaction between light and glass, I feel like the piece was lacking half of its purpose: the light. Don't get me wrong, the glass work was impeccable and surreal, it's crazy to think that such a heavy, fragile thing is hanging from the ceiling; however, I was expecting a huge spotlight which would shoot off various colors all around the entrance. Instead, there was just a dusty collection of blues and yellows. I hope Emily does contact the director and complain! After the presentation, we went down to the special exhibition entitled Shadow Catchers, which was a show on camera-less photography. This was probably my favorite exhibit thus far. I'm really intrigued by alternative processes, and I found this portion of my photography studies my favorite. Photography is often categorized as hyper-realistic, so I find it really inventive when an artist can break this mentality. The first piece that really struck me was Floris Neususs' "Untitled (Korperfotogramm)" from 1962. In this piece, all you can see is a silhouette of a woman with flowers falling. While it's clear that the process required the model to stand still, there is a sense of movement. The flowers seem to be falling and the overall composition is a beautiful juxtaposition between stillness and dance. Neususs' "Be Right Back" was probably my favorite piece of the day. It was an installation piece in which a platform held an empty chair. On the ground was a shadow of someone sitting in the chair, obviously now that person is missing. This piece asked a lot of questions- who is the person? Where did they go? When will they be back? Did something happen? I thought this was so successful and a clever mind game- I kept coming back to it. There were other artists who decided to create pieces without a subject. One artist just recorded an abstract pattern of white on black lines, which when the label was read it explained that it was a recording of lighting on photo-sensitive paper. It had a drawing-like quality about it, despite it being spontaneous and random. Danielle and I actually watched a short film that explored and interviewed each of the artist on their methodology and thought processes behind their works. I found this highly successful and interesting. They were all so varied and different, but all fell under the same category of camera-less photography. Adam Fuss made a daguerreotype, from the series "My Ghost", in which he over-exposed the paper to create this blue backdrop to a sole butterfly. This soft background to the fluttering creature created a very beautiful, yet disturbing. There was something eerie and fragile about the piece. After the special exhibition, we happened to stumble into the Raphael room. That whole room took my breath away- I never knew that the paintings (which were actually cartoons- not even the finalized pieces!) were so large. The cartoons were designs for tapestries that were commissioned by Pope Leo X in 1515. There was one finished tapestry that was hanging on the wall and it was really neat to see it compared to the preparatory image. Overall, I loved the colors and felt so dwarfed by the size of the works. I have to say that this was probably my least favorite museum we've been to thus far. It was incredibly difficult to navigate and I didn't feel amazed by too many of the objects (this isn't saying they weren't well done or gorgeous, they just weren't interesting to me). Many of the other works I saw were religious in subject. I saw some illuminated manuscripts which were beautiful. I'm always awed at the small and gilded details. I also felt that many of the rooms I visited had an emphasis on functionality and practical things as opposed to paintings or sculptures. I saw a lot of clocks, mirrors, and clothing. Some of the artifacts were more interesting than others. I found the cases that had a painting with the actual article of clothing in it intriguing because you could see close to the real thing the artist got. I also really enjoyed the themed rooms which were completely redone as they would have been back in their era. These are like stepping back in time because everything as it would be: the floorboards, decorated ceilings, fire places, wallpaper- everything is as it was. There's also something innately engaging to see how much or little our everyday items such as spoons or plates have evolved. It's a way that I feel we can directly connect to the people of the past. I did enjoy the hands-on activities or pieces that were around the museum. There was one room that let you build a chair as they were constructed back then. This was kind of fun to try- although, I didn't feel safe sitting in mine when I was done. Many of the labels also had pieces of a replica of the sculptures so that you could feel the material and weight of the object on display. The jewelry was perhaps the most fascinating display. There was so much of it and quite a variation. They had it organized in a time line so you could really see the fashions and materials in which was favored throughout the years. Some of the pieces were just excessive while others I wanted for myself. The ivory pieces were my favorite. There were several earrings, necklaces, and rings in which had a small carving of usually a person out of ivory and the subtle details were great. Though it wasn't in my museum plan, I was glad to see Durer's "St. Jerome in his Study". I had several pieces by Durer on my museum plan for the National Gallery- but I never got to them and I don't think I'll get a chance to go back before we get to Paris. Durer's work is so intricate and perfect, that I was glad I got to see an example of one of his complex etchings. I also saw Canova's "Sleeping Nymph", which was fantastic. I'm quite impressed and intrigued by sculptures because I cannot sculpt well myself, and I also enjoy studying the figure. Canova's reclining figure is so perfect it seems that she may wake up at any moment. We could never find the actual floors which had plaster casts of many of the big monuments, but we did see them from the balcony. The two pieces that were most impressive to me was Trajan's Column and "David". First off, I did a presentation on Trajan's Column in one of my courses, so I knew that it was tall, but I had no idea it was THAT tall. They had only two pieces of the monument (not even on top of each other) and they both hit the high ceilings. It was remarkable. The narrative that runs around the column is very clear, and I now i can certainly believe that there are 2,500 figures! I've never been to Italy, so I've never seen "David" and I was shocked at how large it was. I always had envisioned that the sculpture was about life size- but I can totally see why it's such an impressive and famous piece of work. The sheer size and accuracy deserves note. I was disappointed I couldn't go down to it (or see the real thing, for that matter). The plaster casts were quite impressive and interesting in their own right. I did see some of the paintings that were in my museum plan; however, only briefly since we were running down to try and make the meeting- then we couldn't get back to the room.

After our group meeting, Brittini, Danielle, and I spent a little more time looking around the Victoria and Albert Museum before heading over to the National Science Museum. We had chosen to go there first because we thought it'd be more interactive and fun. We were right. The first exhibit we visited was on psychoanalysis which explored Freud's theories on the unconscious. One of the pieces that impressed me was this sculpture that when lit casted a shadow of two profiles. I thought the sculpture was merely a series of abstract, red shapes; however, once I approached it I realized it was made up of penises and fingers. It was interesting either way. There were plenty of illusions in this section of the museum. There was a three-dimensional television set that fit into a triangle which played a loop of a Rubik cube of the world's disasters. We also went through the space exhibit, but we didn't get to do any of the hands-on activities because there were two schools of kids there. There was a sculpture of the earth with a projection of the real time weather on it which was pretty neat to look at. We also explored the "Trash Fashion" exhibit which was a series of clothes that were either environmentally friendly or made out of garbage. There was a dress made out of old newspapers which was surprisingly classy and fashionable. There were also shirts and skirts made out of natural substances and utilized a harmless dying process. We spent the most time in the "Who are You?" exhibit which talked about humans and how and why they vary. There was a series of games which you could play and learn about the brain. One game, which was teaching about habits and how we learn, was like a race car game: you had a steering wheel and had to steer the car the opposite direction than you'd expect. For instance, if you wanted to go right, steer left, and vice versa. It was really frustrating and I gave up half way through. There was also this morality game which asked a series of questions about what you would or wouldn't do. For instance, if you were on a bridge and a train was about to hit a group of people, but you had the power to steer the train away to kill only one person, what would you do? Most people would kill the one over the group. The questions kept getting tougher and tougher as you progressed through the game. There was also a game on memory and sight using cameras. It discussed how scientists still don't understand how the brain understands or perceives time and images- I found this interesting. There was a lot to learn there- they talked about blood spattering, and how it can tell a lot about a murder as well as a person, genetics, interests, feelings, and more. Danielle did this one game where you had to stick your hand in a box and watch several videos. Sometimes something would grab her hand, others it would just blow air, and sometimes there was nothing at all. Afterwards, it wanted her to describe her emotional state then explained why we experience each of the feelings. The last thing we did on this level was to profiling experience where a computer asked you a series of questions and gave a number of tests to try and accurately create an avatar of who you are. Some of the questions were like "What scares you?", "Are you a day person or a night person?", "Where do you feel comfortable"? etc. Some of tests required you to read other languages or remember patterns. After the fact, a little version of you appeared in the back wall where a huge screen showed a series of dots- each representing a person who had done the test. It was an interesting end product to the experience because it showed that we are all very similar- these colorful dots- but unique also (which was shown when our individual avatar would step forward). I think this was my favorite portion of the museum. We also looked at some old cars and learned about our carbon footprint- but those were less interesting to me.

We did also make it to the Natural History Museum; however, we were there for a very, very brief time. The building was so phenomenal that we wanted to see what it looked like from the inside (which was even more beautiful) but we quickly realized that we didn't have the time or energy to spend to another museum. So, instead, we just walked in and out of a few rooms. We saw a few of the dinosaur skeletons- which are always interesting, and we went into the bird room. The bird room was a bit creepy because it was just a series of stuffed birds in various positions. I think it was most interesting to see the dodo bird since they are extinct and I didn't know what they actually looked like. Other than that, I would have much preferred seeing live birds.

To unwind, we decided to once again to a market. We ventured out the Convent Gardens which was supposed to have a similar market as Camden, but with performance art, mimes, jugglers, and dancers. This was what interested us; however, we failed to see said "performance artists, mimes, jugglers, and dancers". Maybe they only come out in the summer time. I was disappointed. I don't think we actually found the market either because we were just ducking in and out of very Americanized stores like H and M. We did go to "Fashionably British", which was incredibly expensive and not very different than our "Abercrombie and Fitch". Of course, since we're girls, found plenty of things to buy elsewhere.

Once we returned to Russell Square, we met up with our class for our group meeting. We each went around and talked about our favorite parts of the various museums and discussed travel plans for Paris. Then we went over to "The Friend at Hand Pub" for a group dinner. Danielle and I had gone their before but didn't get to eat there because it was so busy, so I was glad we were getting a chance. It's also worth noting that Oscar Wilde used to drink there- so I felt classy. We had a three course dinner with one drink (which was very nice of our professors to do for us) and it was ridiculously tasty. I was bummed that I hadn't eaten there before. Their hamburgers were SO good and I have no idea why, but they were better than any hamburger I had ever had before. I'm also not a soup person, but I lapped up the whole bowl as our starter. We also got a dessert, which I'm still not sure what it was, it tasted kind of like a breaded cake...or something with pudding on top, but it was also amazing. The whole meal was great and I'm very grateful for our professors for paying! It was a fun way to spend the evening.

After dinner, Brittini insisted that we go out to this one pub she had visited with her room mate to try strawberry beer. I had never heard of such a thing and couldn't really imagine it, so we went down to try it out. It was also fantastic. It was sweet, but not overwhelmingly so. I wrote down the brand to see if they have it in America. It was a very delicious evening.

Question of the Day: What is the smallest thing you've seen today?

I'm excluding the jewelry because it's naturally small; however, the smallest thing I saw today was a devotional booklet from 1330 of the coronation of the virgin as Queen of Heaven and two saints sculpted out of ivory, painted, and gilded. It was clearly a pocket-sized book for someone to bring with them while they travelled, but it was so intricate and beautiful. The details sculpted out of the ivory were shocking. Some of the figures were sculpted all the way around and were only connected by their feet and head. There was a magnifying glass so you could look at the details and I imagine it was necessary to make the piece as well. Mary was so detailed- you could see the strands of her hair and the ripples in the dress.