Ethan Todras-Whitehill wrote this article for the New York Times. Overall it's a very positive piece which features Cliff and Devon of Los Angeles and a brief mention of Skynative. I think it's a good article, but a little awkward in it's position ... it tries to talk about philosophy without ever saying what it is or the impact, just comparing it to Rousseau and Thoreau and then saying that "being useful" helps Devin with his homework.
Aside from that the article spends most of it's time talking about going through some moves. There is a brief description of the difference between Parkour and Freerunning, but I think it leaves out the "meatier" parts of what Freerunning really is, and just how Parkour is "utilitarian". In other words, while the info is basically correct, I feel it is just shallow enough to be incomplete. It also discusses "match" and "scrutinizing" quite a bit, when (in my understanding) Parkour is really more about "just getting over" the obstacle, the difference between the American terms for every move and the French concept for "Passe Muraille". It also credits the split of Foucan and Belle incorrectly (again, as per my understanding which is admittedly one-sided). So, while I feel it's positive exposure, I feel the article jumps around a lot and doesn't really get across either the philosophy or the movement in a solid way. I think the quotes from the guys are all good and that they did a good job representing Parkour and Freerunning, of course how this ends up in print is always beyond our control. For the New York Times I'd hope for a more complete article, and not something that winds up in "Travel" as a Los Angeles California piece!
|
|
Users' Comments  |
|
|
Only registered users can comment an article. Please login or register.
|
|
