I would like to again offer my critique of another piece of art which I found in the gallery.
The piece, in short, is of massive proportions and very modernist in nature. It is a large slab of painted plaster, measuring between ten and twelve feet in height, a foot in depth, and perhaps 24 feet in breadth. There were actually multiple copies of this piece and it came in two varieties. One was a piece of the description above in an eggshell white coat of paint, the other is a shad of teal blue. More interestingly, these slabs are adorned with other works of art on them ranging from lithographs to paintings to drawings to photographs--all framed, all haning on the larger plaster background piece.
I think these pieces pair beautifully to create a great commentary on America. The white plaster symbolizes to me the blankness of a character. This is the apathy of American citizens. The other works of art serve to show the disspassion we have toward our actual Americanism and how we define it through various activities and ideals portrayed in these rather distracting images. With out these distractions to pull us away from our basest identity, we are a pure but apathetic character. On the surface, we appear to have many interests, but we these interests are all so superficial. Underneath, we are blank and boring: a white wall.
Until...
Until we are defined deeper with a new color, a new character. That teal blue color of the gallery wall is the new American character. We have just the same superficial identity and interest, but when we look beyond those we find something else. The blue is symbolic of the sky, an open space for us to explore. The white is much like this, but the white is too pure, too blank. The sky is a higher goal for us to reach. A higher purpose for America to aspire to.
Perhaps the blue wall is the symbol of America while the white is the symbol of a nation with out a character.
This is the kind of bullshit I think about.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Independence, Arrogance, or Ignorance?
One of the strongest themes that can be taken from almost any work concerning America is a strong sense of individualism. This individualism is present in the language of the Declaration of Independence, the fear in "The Minister's Black Veil," and the strong attidtudes of "Self-Reliance."
AHEM, a brief bout of scribus interruptus, you must excuse me. Where was I?
Individualism can be viewed a few ways. Generally, we like to portray it positively as "independence." In this case we are making decisions for ourselves and choosing to conform or not to conform as we see fit. On the other hand, we might see individualism as simply being conceited and self-righteous. Clearly, we need to be individuals because no one is as good as you are so you should just ignore everyone else. On the third hand, it might just be unconcious ignorance or apathy that causes this. We want to be individuals because we just don't care or even notice what other people think.
Mark Mulhern's untitled colored pencil print (casually called "Couch") features a man, probably a self-portrait of the artist because of its similarity to another man depicted in a similar painting by the same artist, laying on a couch in a psychologist's office. The psychologist's face is obscured by a cloud of darkness, probably meant to depict dark thoughts. In this cloud over the doctor's face and above the patient's head there are indistinguishable images. One that stands out, though is what appears to be a bald eagle with a body shaped like a heart. On the rug under the psychologist's chair are more rudimentary images. Among them is a truck, a stuffed turkey, leaves, a gun, and a hammer and sickle like that on the flag of the USSR.
The fact that the patient's face is the only readily distinguishable feature in the drawing seems to be speaking about the clarity of self-image in our own minds over the image we have of others. The patient is entirely focused on himself and getting his thoughts out.
The images featured throughout the drawing (the truck, eagle, turkey etc.) are likely to be the anxieties of the patient. The truck and turkey are symbols of America's traditions and work ethic and the patient probably has some anxieties about conformities to these. The hammer and sickle is perhaps the most alarming part of the image, though. Why would a drawing about America have a contemporary (the image was created in 1984) symbol of communism along side all the other symbols of America? Most likely it is to represent the fears and issues Americans felt about communism. Or perhaps, it's place among commonplace objects expresses the mind of Americans (in the view of the artist) that Communism might not be that bad. That, though is a view more of the last ten years than the past 30.
As for the obscurity of the psychologist's face, this is perhaps the most important part of the drawing to its theme of self-absorbance. The thoughts coming from the patient, and what appears to be a clock being tossed aside by the patient, completely black-out the face of the psychologist above his strangely formal dress of a tailcoat, cummerbund, and bowtie. This is a symbolism of the arrogance of the patient. He doesn't care about the psychologist's identity. He wishes to be independent of him. The patient is so absorbed in fixing his own problems, that he doesn't have any idea that other's might have issues as well. He's not even able to be independent and self-reliant because he's depending on the doctor for help defining his own image.
Furthermore, the Valerie Babb excerpt we read seemed to speak of definition through elimination. We define ourselves by what we are not. In this way, the psychologist is defined by not being the patient. By making one thing more clear, we make the other variables less clear (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). In this way, we know so much about the patient that we seem to know nothing about the doctor. Quite the contrary though, we know that the doctor is not the patient, and that might just be enough.
AHEM, a brief bout of scribus interruptus, you must excuse me. Where was I?
Individualism can be viewed a few ways. Generally, we like to portray it positively as "independence." In this case we are making decisions for ourselves and choosing to conform or not to conform as we see fit. On the other hand, we might see individualism as simply being conceited and self-righteous. Clearly, we need to be individuals because no one is as good as you are so you should just ignore everyone else. On the third hand, it might just be unconcious ignorance or apathy that causes this. We want to be individuals because we just don't care or even notice what other people think.
Mark Mulhern's untitled colored pencil print (casually called "Couch") features a man, probably a self-portrait of the artist because of its similarity to another man depicted in a similar painting by the same artist, laying on a couch in a psychologist's office. The psychologist's face is obscured by a cloud of darkness, probably meant to depict dark thoughts. In this cloud over the doctor's face and above the patient's head there are indistinguishable images. One that stands out, though is what appears to be a bald eagle with a body shaped like a heart. On the rug under the psychologist's chair are more rudimentary images. Among them is a truck, a stuffed turkey, leaves, a gun, and a hammer and sickle like that on the flag of the USSR.
The fact that the patient's face is the only readily distinguishable feature in the drawing seems to be speaking about the clarity of self-image in our own minds over the image we have of others. The patient is entirely focused on himself and getting his thoughts out.
The images featured throughout the drawing (the truck, eagle, turkey etc.) are likely to be the anxieties of the patient. The truck and turkey are symbols of America's traditions and work ethic and the patient probably has some anxieties about conformities to these. The hammer and sickle is perhaps the most alarming part of the image, though. Why would a drawing about America have a contemporary (the image was created in 1984) symbol of communism along side all the other symbols of America? Most likely it is to represent the fears and issues Americans felt about communism. Or perhaps, it's place among commonplace objects expresses the mind of Americans (in the view of the artist) that Communism might not be that bad. That, though is a view more of the last ten years than the past 30.
As for the obscurity of the psychologist's face, this is perhaps the most important part of the drawing to its theme of self-absorbance. The thoughts coming from the patient, and what appears to be a clock being tossed aside by the patient, completely black-out the face of the psychologist above his strangely formal dress of a tailcoat, cummerbund, and bowtie. This is a symbolism of the arrogance of the patient. He doesn't care about the psychologist's identity. He wishes to be independent of him. The patient is so absorbed in fixing his own problems, that he doesn't have any idea that other's might have issues as well. He's not even able to be independent and self-reliant because he's depending on the doctor for help defining his own image.
Furthermore, the Valerie Babb excerpt we read seemed to speak of definition through elimination. We define ourselves by what we are not. In this way, the psychologist is defined by not being the patient. By making one thing more clear, we make the other variables less clear (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). In this way, we know so much about the patient that we seem to know nothing about the doctor. Quite the contrary though, we know that the doctor is not the patient, and that might just be enough.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
On "Work Time"
Since our blog posts are usually supposed to be about something we have done in class that week, I choose to write about work time today.
Perhaps a poem would be most fitting:
Work Time
To everything there is a season
A time to read
A time to write
A time to read more
A time to rhetorically analyze
A time to read for fun
But not when you have too much reading
A time to write more
A time to write about what you've read
A time to re-read what you read yesterday
A time to read what you wrote again
A time to re-write what you wrote
A time to read what someone else wrote that you read two days ago
A time to write about what you read about what your classmate wrote after you read what you wrote in analysis of what said classmate wrote about what he or she read while picking out literary strategies in his or her own writing about a reading that we had done which was written by someone who read what you wrote on Monday.
This is work time.
A time to read.
A time to read.
A time to blog.
A time to read.
A time to stop reading because your eyes hurt too much.
A time when you have to start sitting in the front of the class in all your other classes because it hurts your eyes to wear your glasses because you've read way too much of what other people wrote.
A time for peace.
A time to heal those eyes.
A time to relax and listen to some music.
A time to try to listen to music while reading.
A time to start tapping your foot and singing along to the music while you're reading and realize two pages latter that you don't know what you just read.
Just a few thoughts.
Perhaps a poem would be most fitting:
Work Time
To everything there is a season
A time to read
A time to write
A time to read more
A time to rhetorically analyze
A time to read for fun
But not when you have too much reading
A time to write more
A time to write about what you've read
A time to re-read what you read yesterday
A time to read what you wrote again
A time to re-write what you wrote
A time to read what someone else wrote that you read two days ago
A time to write about what you read about what your classmate wrote after you read what you wrote in analysis of what said classmate wrote about what he or she read while picking out literary strategies in his or her own writing about a reading that we had done which was written by someone who read what you wrote on Monday.
This is work time.
A time to read.
A time to read.
A time to blog.
A time to read.
A time to stop reading because your eyes hurt too much.
A time when you have to start sitting in the front of the class in all your other classes because it hurts your eyes to wear your glasses because you've read way too much of what other people wrote.
A time for peace.
A time to heal those eyes.
A time to relax and listen to some music.
A time to try to listen to music while reading.
A time to start tapping your foot and singing along to the music while you're reading and realize two pages latter that you don't know what you just read.
Just a few thoughts.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
I sing Humanity
I am the little boy.
I am the hunger.
I am the suffering
That cries in the daylight
For the terror of the night.
Where darkness hides at dawn
When light comes to destroy.
The night is cold but loving.
The day is harsh and hatred.
Light has come to darken the passion of darkness.
And there are more of me.
I cry for the dark.
I cry for the night.
I sing for my brothers.
I sing for my sisters.
I am the grown man.
I am the triumph.
I am the greed.
The light has engulfed me.
No longer can I see the darkness.
The day is warm and loving.
The night is harsh with hatred.
I sew seeds of life
That grow into death.
Look for my sign
Away from your home.
The light has spread
And killed the young boy.
I cry for my body.
I cry for my soul.
I sing for oppression.
I have sung for evil.
The light has blinded me.
The darkness has left me.
But now I can see the moon again.
Now I see the twilight of our days.
I sing for the world.
I sing for you.
I sing humanity.
I am the hunger.
I am the suffering
That cries in the daylight
For the terror of the night.
Where darkness hides at dawn
When light comes to destroy.
The night is cold but loving.
The day is harsh and hatred.
Light has come to darken the passion of darkness.
And there are more of me.
I cry for the dark.
I cry for the night.
I sing for my brothers.
I sing for my sisters.
I am the grown man.
I am the triumph.
I am the greed.
The light has engulfed me.
No longer can I see the darkness.
The day is warm and loving.
The night is harsh with hatred.
I sew seeds of life
That grow into death.
Look for my sign
Away from your home.
The light has spread
And killed the young boy.
I cry for my body.
I cry for my soul.
I sing for oppression.
I have sung for evil.
The light has blinded me.
The darkness has left me.
But now I can see the moon again.
Now I see the twilight of our days.
I sing for the world.
I sing for you.
I sing humanity.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On "The Spirit of Disobedience" and Bias
Since we ran out of time and didn't get the chance to talk about this essay in class, I'm going to share a few of my thoughts on it here--mainly because there are some things I'd really like to get off my chest about it.
As most of you know, I could be considered relatively conservative on the political spectrum at McFarland High School, so if you think my opinions are formed out of some sort of bias, they might be, but I do try to assess things equally.
The main thing that I want to point out about Mr. White's essay is this: I smell bias Thoreau and Emerson's beliefs on liberty, but the way Mr. White attacked the ideological views of modern Republicans and fiscal conservatives sent me over the edge a little bit.
As both a Christian and economic conservative "child-of-the-Enlightement" thinker, Mr. White basically called me out as a hypocrite with his argument that the two can't go together. He feels that either Christian virtue or Capitalism had to win the heart of America and Capitalism won out. To this I call out Mr. White for narrow-mindedness. Does he really think that two doctrines that govern fairly separate areas of society are not able to be combined to work to some degree of harmony? There is a certain degree of conflict between the two ideologies, but that is what is so great about America.
The conflict causes us to considere who we really are inside and forwards other parts of society. Christian virtue suggests that we lend a hand to our fellow man. Enlightenment virtue suggests that we only do that privately, no through the government. As a result, we set up non-government, not-for-profit organizations.
Furthermore, I don't see how Mr. White can claim one doctrine won over the other more than the other. In general, I see both of them failing and falling rapidly over the past 20 years. Figures like President George W. Bush who don't get the liberty part of fiscal conservatism and the humanistic part of Evangelical Chrisitianity are those who give these two American virtues their bad name.
I hate to have to make President Bush a scapegoat once again, but he does deserve it. It is people that misinterpret the intention of American virtue who destroy it. The Libertarian and humanitarian ideals of the Transcendentalists are what America should be about. One would think we would listen to the thinkers who have become regarded as the most original in American thought. But instead, we pick one set of virtues or the other.
As most of you know, I could be considered relatively conservative on the political spectrum at McFarland High School, so if you think my opinions are formed out of some sort of bias, they might be, but I do try to assess things equally.
The main thing that I want to point out about Mr. White's essay is this: I smell bias Thoreau and Emerson's beliefs on liberty, but the way Mr. White attacked the ideological views of modern Republicans and fiscal conservatives sent me over the edge a little bit.
As both a Christian and economic conservative "child-of-the-Enlightement" thinker, Mr. White basically called me out as a hypocrite with his argument that the two can't go together. He feels that either Christian virtue or Capitalism had to win the heart of America and Capitalism won out. To this I call out Mr. White for narrow-mindedness. Does he really think that two doctrines that govern fairly separate areas of society are not able to be combined to work to some degree of harmony? There is a certain degree of conflict between the two ideologies, but that is what is so great about America.
The conflict causes us to considere who we really are inside and forwards other parts of society. Christian virtue suggests that we lend a hand to our fellow man. Enlightenment virtue suggests that we only do that privately, no through the government. As a result, we set up non-government, not-for-profit organizations.
Furthermore, I don't see how Mr. White can claim one doctrine won over the other more than the other. In general, I see both of them failing and falling rapidly over the past 20 years. Figures like President George W. Bush who don't get the liberty part of fiscal conservatism and the humanistic part of Evangelical Chrisitianity are those who give these two American virtues their bad name.
I hate to have to make President Bush a scapegoat once again, but he does deserve it. It is people that misinterpret the intention of American virtue who destroy it. The Libertarian and humanitarian ideals of the Transcendentalists are what America should be about. One would think we would listen to the thinkers who have become regarded as the most original in American thought. But instead, we pick one set of virtues or the other.
Monday, March 1, 2010
"To be Great is to be Misunderstood"
In that case, Mr. Emerson, you are certainly a great man. This line, as cliche as it is, happens to be quite ironic as well because it is viewed first as a great line and misunderstood, making it great: mind-blowing.
Being misunderstood is not really a sufficient condition for being great in my opinion. It can be argued that it is a necessary one, though. However, as a witty maxim, this does work. I can think of a lot of people who are misunderstood, but I would struggle to call these people great in any way.
Emerson's focus on genius of originality and greatness of misunderstanding is kind of awesome. For one thing, he makes himself a genius by his own definition. For another thing, he's probably pretty close to being right. Geniuses are well ahead of the thought of their time. Their though processes are either too radical or too unconventional for the rest of society to keep up with. As a result, they are often distrusted. For example: Jesus was martyred for his preachings, Newton wasn't understood widely until 200 years after his theories on calculus, Socrates was martyred, Galileo was martyred. Emerson mentions all these men and their greatness.
These are people who probably "got it" a lot more than anyone else. As a result, they become either feared, loved or both. Furthermore, the things geniuses say and theorize often go against the grain, causing their interpretation to be unclear, leading to misunderstanding, making them great by Emerson's definition.
The idea that genius must be achieved by orginality is admirable. I have no problems with defining a great thinker as someone who figured some profound thing out with out the help of many other sources. This does discredit many pre-approved geniuses though. Stephen Hawking loses a lot becuase he just improved on Einstein's and others' theories. Or what about Plato? He basically took many things Socrates said and made them better and easier to understand. That almost defies greatness.
It's easy to misunderstand a genius, I guess.
Being misunderstood is not really a sufficient condition for being great in my opinion. It can be argued that it is a necessary one, though. However, as a witty maxim, this does work. I can think of a lot of people who are misunderstood, but I would struggle to call these people great in any way.
Emerson's focus on genius of originality and greatness of misunderstanding is kind of awesome. For one thing, he makes himself a genius by his own definition. For another thing, he's probably pretty close to being right. Geniuses are well ahead of the thought of their time. Their though processes are either too radical or too unconventional for the rest of society to keep up with. As a result, they are often distrusted. For example: Jesus was martyred for his preachings, Newton wasn't understood widely until 200 years after his theories on calculus, Socrates was martyred, Galileo was martyred. Emerson mentions all these men and their greatness.
These are people who probably "got it" a lot more than anyone else. As a result, they become either feared, loved or both. Furthermore, the things geniuses say and theorize often go against the grain, causing their interpretation to be unclear, leading to misunderstanding, making them great by Emerson's definition.
The idea that genius must be achieved by orginality is admirable. I have no problems with defining a great thinker as someone who figured some profound thing out with out the help of many other sources. This does discredit many pre-approved geniuses though. Stephen Hawking loses a lot becuase he just improved on Einstein's and others' theories. Or what about Plato? He basically took many things Socrates said and made them better and easier to understand. That almost defies greatness.
It's easy to misunderstand a genius, I guess.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Relationships in The Great Gatsby
Perhaps my general worldview is a bit skewed, perhaps Fitzgerald just did a poor job of portraying depth, or perhaps these people are just superficial.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)