"The Critic as Artist" is, in large part, a satiric response to such texts as Arnold's "Function of Criticism" and Pater's Preface to The Renaissance. Discuss it in relation to these texts, but also consider it as an Art-for-Art's-Sake (again, the belief that art has no purpose beyond itself) manifesto.
Maybe it’s just the cold, but I’m struggling through Wilde’s language. Gilbert, the obvious main speaker even though this is a dialogue between Gilbert and Ernest, seems like he’s going on and on to make this point and I feel like he could easily lose said point in it. Maybe that’s “art for art’s sake”? Going on with additional language because it’s interesting and he can. Wilde’s characters are obviously educated males that could only come off this way if Wilde himself was intelligent enough to know about the topics of which his characters speak. Ernest feels that criticism is a lowly ranking craft, “Because the best that he can give us will be an echo of rich music, a dim shadow of clear-outlined form.” Meaning that a critic does not create his own art, but something based off of the works of others. Gilbert on the other hand says that criticism is actually an art in itself, “The critic occupies the same relation to the work of art that he criticizes as the artist does to the visible world of form and colour, or the unseen world of passion and of thought.” Meaning that the critic is not just imitating others, but the art which he critiques is simply a base for his own sort of art. Here Gilbert’s opinions on criticism (and possibly Wilde’s) work with Arnold and Pater’s again. They all feel that the critic is to be used to find the good things in art. As Gilbert goes on about his long-winded opinion on criticism on art, Ernest only questions him here and there to encouraging him to continue on until he feels he could find a hole in the argument (or that’s my assumption at least, there’s not really proof of it). Even Gilbert seems to doubt his own point when as the two men are about to pause for supper, Ernest suggests that Gilbert is actually coming to his own point, about art for art’s sake, “Ah! You admit, then, that the critic may occasionally be allowed to see the object as in itself it really is.” Gilbert seems unsure and suggests they revisit this after supper.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Stones of Venice
Ruskin defines three kinds of ornament, then goes on (top of 1327) to praise Gothic (Christian) ornament. Consider why and for what he praises it. Then consider what he says of modern English architecture and manufacture, its effect on the worker, and the rules he proposes for modern manufacture. If you like, also try to relate it to some aspect of present-day manufacture, art or business.
The three types of ornaments are servile, constitutional, and revolutionary. “Servile ornament, in which the execution or power of the inferior workman is entirely subjected to the intellect of the higher” Servile he attributes to Greek , Ninevite, and Egyptian methods of thinking. With the Greek style, imperfections could not be bared, so this often involved geometric shapes, like balls, ridges, and symmetrical foliage. This was because the lines could be more appropriately measured and regulated. The Assyrians and Egyptians were less concerned with perfection and either gave lesser workmen work they could not hope to do properly or else work that is lessened in skill required and therefore easy to complete. Both of those systems still made the workman a slave, thus them being counted as servile. “Constitutional ornament, in which the executive inferior power is, to a certain point, emancipated and independent, having a will of its own, yet confessing its inferiority and rendering obedience to high powers.” Here the worker is given more independence, every soul has an individual value, but they still report back to a higher power, which came from Christianity. “Do what you can, and confess frankly what you are unable to do; neither let your effort be shortened for fear of failure, nor your confession silenced for fear of shame.” Morris likes this and sees this as a fine example of the Gothic style as it takes the imperfections and presents them as perfectly acceptable. “Revolutionary ornament, in which no executive inferiority is admitted at all.” Though Morris feels the Modern English mind and the Greek mind had something in common in how they strived for perfection. Morris points out though that this is silly. “This is a noble character in the abstract, but becomes ignoble when it causes us to forget the relative dignities of that nature itself, and to prefer the perfectness of the lower nature to the imperfection of the higher.” He even mentions how in looking for perfection as perfection, one should prefer wild animals to humans because of lower creature is of a more refined perfection.
I feel Morris liked the imperfections of the Gothic architecture because they didn’t force strain on the worker. He didn’t think you should question a worker who is doing a fine job, asking him if he thinks he can better it because in his attempts he might simply hesitate and foul up the job he had been doing. You need to just be accepting of the imperfections. He suggests that you shouldn’t force a perfected finish and discourage imitation of others. Workers should just do their best. This is something that I feel is in the workplace today. I read about “millennials” which are young people in their twenties and thirties that have been rewarded for mediocrity throughout life and are expecting more of the same. This is ridiculous. If anything is rewarded, it should be greatness, striving to do your best even if your best is not perfect, but not rewards for doing the minimal and that’s it. I relate these two because I feel that in a Socialist workplace, the sort that Morris promotes, that would take place today would fall into this trap. You completed what you set out to do, huzzah! But did you really do your best? Maybe that’s just me though, I think equality is a nice idea, but I always fear someone will take advantage of the system.
The three types of ornaments are servile, constitutional, and revolutionary. “Servile ornament, in which the execution or power of the inferior workman is entirely subjected to the intellect of the higher” Servile he attributes to Greek , Ninevite, and Egyptian methods of thinking. With the Greek style, imperfections could not be bared, so this often involved geometric shapes, like balls, ridges, and symmetrical foliage. This was because the lines could be more appropriately measured and regulated. The Assyrians and Egyptians were less concerned with perfection and either gave lesser workmen work they could not hope to do properly or else work that is lessened in skill required and therefore easy to complete. Both of those systems still made the workman a slave, thus them being counted as servile. “Constitutional ornament, in which the executive inferior power is, to a certain point, emancipated and independent, having a will of its own, yet confessing its inferiority and rendering obedience to high powers.” Here the worker is given more independence, every soul has an individual value, but they still report back to a higher power, which came from Christianity. “Do what you can, and confess frankly what you are unable to do; neither let your effort be shortened for fear of failure, nor your confession silenced for fear of shame.” Morris likes this and sees this as a fine example of the Gothic style as it takes the imperfections and presents them as perfectly acceptable. “Revolutionary ornament, in which no executive inferiority is admitted at all.” Though Morris feels the Modern English mind and the Greek mind had something in common in how they strived for perfection. Morris points out though that this is silly. “This is a noble character in the abstract, but becomes ignoble when it causes us to forget the relative dignities of that nature itself, and to prefer the perfectness of the lower nature to the imperfection of the higher.” He even mentions how in looking for perfection as perfection, one should prefer wild animals to humans because of lower creature is of a more refined perfection.
I feel Morris liked the imperfections of the Gothic architecture because they didn’t force strain on the worker. He didn’t think you should question a worker who is doing a fine job, asking him if he thinks he can better it because in his attempts he might simply hesitate and foul up the job he had been doing. You need to just be accepting of the imperfections. He suggests that you shouldn’t force a perfected finish and discourage imitation of others. Workers should just do their best. This is something that I feel is in the workplace today. I read about “millennials” which are young people in their twenties and thirties that have been rewarded for mediocrity throughout life and are expecting more of the same. This is ridiculous. If anything is rewarded, it should be greatness, striving to do your best even if your best is not perfect, but not rewards for doing the minimal and that’s it. I relate these two because I feel that in a Socialist workplace, the sort that Morris promotes, that would take place today would fall into this trap. You completed what you set out to do, huzzah! But did you really do your best? Maybe that’s just me though, I think equality is a nice idea, but I always fear someone will take advantage of the system.
Goblin Market
"Goblin Market" was very popular in Victorian England as a cautionary tale for children. How do you think parents today might feel about this? Why?
Cross over prompt? Heh! I think that parents today would find this story useful. I mean, maybe refresh it a little, modernize it. But my reasoning is that the tale is one that can easily be taken today for simple disobedience. Laura did not obey her sister or the cautionary tale of Jeanne. Because of this, she desperately suffered, longing for the fruit of the goblin men. After Lizzie's stand to the goblins when they ridiculed her and tried to force her to eat their food, Laura was saved by her sister's kindness. There is also the lesson of taking things from strangers, a good moral for anyone to take. Then Lissie's bravery is very admirable. Her and Laura have a sisterly bond much like other literary sisters, such as the March's and the Bennets. Family was important and frankly that would be something excellent to remind people of in this day and age.
Cross over prompt? Heh! I think that parents today would find this story useful. I mean, maybe refresh it a little, modernize it. But my reasoning is that the tale is one that can easily be taken today for simple disobedience. Laura did not obey her sister or the cautionary tale of Jeanne. Because of this, she desperately suffered, longing for the fruit of the goblin men. After Lizzie's stand to the goblins when they ridiculed her and tried to force her to eat their food, Laura was saved by her sister's kindness. There is also the lesson of taking things from strangers, a good moral for anyone to take. Then Lissie's bravery is very admirable. Her and Laura have a sisterly bond much like other literary sisters, such as the March's and the Bennets. Family was important and frankly that would be something excellent to remind people of in this day and age.
The Blessed Damozel
In responding to this poem, consider the speakers and situation. Also consider BOTH the religious and sensual elements in it.
I have included the painting (also by Rossetti) here, so you can, if you wish, relate it to the poem:
“The Blessed Damozel” is a woman who was died. She is in the heavens longing for her lover who still lives and missed her as well. At times she leans over in the sky to watch him, and he swears he feels her hair on his face, “Surely she leaned o’er me- her hair//Fell all about my face….//Nothing: the autumn fall of leaves.” Later she spoke out and he thought he heard her, “She spoke through the still weather//…. Ah, sweet! Even now, in that bird’s song, Strove not her accents there” She cannot understand why he cannot come to heaven with her, though it seems that the only reason to me is that he isn’t dead yet. Both of them prayed. She seemed to have no question of his acceptance, but her lover worried that God would not take him to unite with her. The only thing he saw in common between himself and her was his love for her. “But shall God lift//to endless unity//The soul whose likeness with the soul//Was but its love for thee?” At the end though, after she says what she shall do when he joined her, he says he can see her smile and heard her weeping. Perhaps he’s dying?
I have included the painting (also by Rossetti) here, so you can, if you wish, relate it to the poem:
“The Blessed Damozel” is a woman who was died. She is in the heavens longing for her lover who still lives and missed her as well. At times she leans over in the sky to watch him, and he swears he feels her hair on his face, “Surely she leaned o’er me- her hair//Fell all about my face….//Nothing: the autumn fall of leaves.” Later she spoke out and he thought he heard her, “She spoke through the still weather//…. Ah, sweet! Even now, in that bird’s song, Strove not her accents there” She cannot understand why he cannot come to heaven with her, though it seems that the only reason to me is that he isn’t dead yet. Both of them prayed. She seemed to have no question of his acceptance, but her lover worried that God would not take him to unite with her. The only thing he saw in common between himself and her was his love for her. “But shall God lift//to endless unity//The soul whose likeness with the soul//Was but its love for thee?” At the end though, after she says what she shall do when he joined her, he says he can see her smile and heard her weeping. Perhaps he’s dying?
After Death
Explicate (using the Explication Worksheet in Course Documents) "After Death," focusing mainly on the speaker, situation and mood.
There is no reference to the gender of the speaker, but I’ll say she as the poet is a she and other poems are written from a feminine perspective. Though of course that doesn’t mean this is the poet. The speaker is in bed, dead or asleep. I’d venture to say that unless the use of sleep is a metaphor for death, “He leaned over me, thinking that I slept//And could not hear him…” because throughout the poem it seems the speaker is dead. The title of the poem is even “After Death” then there is the ending “He did not love me living; but once dead//He pitied me; and very sweet it is//To know he still is warm tho’ I am cold.” Cold, as in death. Still, this man, certainly someone dear to her though the relation is unclear, came to the speaker after her death. He leaned over her, spoke to her “Poor child, poor child” before he turned away and the speaker “knew he wept”. The speaker specifically mentioned that the man made no move to touch her dead body or to fully see it. This is understandable to me as the man is mourning and had obviously felt that he couldn’t show her his love in life. “He did not love me living”. The mood of the poem is sad, but bittersweet. In death the speaker knew that this man did care for them, though perhaps she could have doubted it in life.
There is no reference to the gender of the speaker, but I’ll say she as the poet is a she and other poems are written from a feminine perspective. Though of course that doesn’t mean this is the poet. The speaker is in bed, dead or asleep. I’d venture to say that unless the use of sleep is a metaphor for death, “He leaned over me, thinking that I slept//And could not hear him…” because throughout the poem it seems the speaker is dead. The title of the poem is even “After Death” then there is the ending “He did not love me living; but once dead//He pitied me; and very sweet it is//To know he still is warm tho’ I am cold.” Cold, as in death. Still, this man, certainly someone dear to her though the relation is unclear, came to the speaker after her death. He leaned over her, spoke to her “Poor child, poor child” before he turned away and the speaker “knew he wept”. The speaker specifically mentioned that the man made no move to touch her dead body or to fully see it. This is understandable to me as the man is mourning and had obviously felt that he couldn’t show her his love in life. “He did not love me living”. The mood of the poem is sad, but bittersweet. In death the speaker knew that this man did care for them, though perhaps she could have doubted it in life.
How I Became A Socialist
In responding to "How I Became a Socialist," consider how what he says of English society and Victorian progress relates to what Carlyle or Ruskin say about them.
Morris is particular about what sort of Socialist he is here. To him, Socialism is where there is "neither rich nor poor, neither master nor master’s man, neither idle nor overworked" which is what I thought Socialism always was. All men were equal in this society, their proper skills would be put to use, "no brain-sick brain workers nor heart sick hand workers." This was the belief he had always held on Socialism since he had first taken up the ideal. This is his "practical Socialism".
Ruskin was out for the workers, the people, and I feel Morris has a similar mindset. That was what I felt socialism was about, the equality of the people. Ruskin wanted the people to not be servants and Morris wants all people to be of equals. Carlyle though was looking for strong leaders, someone to rally the people to change the world so that every man could have a fair chance. He believed moreso in an equal start for every man to do with as he wants.
Morris is particular about what sort of Socialist he is here. To him, Socialism is where there is "neither rich nor poor, neither master nor master’s man, neither idle nor overworked" which is what I thought Socialism always was. All men were equal in this society, their proper skills would be put to use, "no brain-sick brain workers nor heart sick hand workers." This was the belief he had always held on Socialism since he had first taken up the ideal. This is his "practical Socialism".
Ruskin was out for the workers, the people, and I feel Morris has a similar mindset. That was what I felt socialism was about, the equality of the people. Ruskin wanted the people to not be servants and Morris wants all people to be of equals. Carlyle though was looking for strong leaders, someone to rally the people to change the world so that every man could have a fair chance. He believed moreso in an equal start for every man to do with as he wants.
Hymn to Proserpine
Keeping the above in mind, consider what the speaker says of Christianity, of why he prefers paganism, and of what he now wishes for. Also, since these two poems (and later, Eliot's "Journey of the Magi") focus on "outsiders'" views of Christianity, TRY to draw some comparisons to Browning's "Karshish."
The poem is from the point of view of a speaker that obviously has a preference for the Rome gods as opposed to the Christian God. The speaker here is a poet himself, “I am sick of singing; the bays burn deep and chafe.” It seems that he’s more concerned with losing the old religion. “O gods dethroned and deceased, cast forth, wiped out in a day!” He’s stubborn about this, “Wilt thou yet take all, Galilean? But these thou shalt not take-//The laurel, the palms, and the paean, the breasts of the nymphs in the brake” It’s almost as if he expects to wait this out, “Though all men abase them before you in spirit, and all knees bend,//I kneel not, neither adore you, but standing look to the end.” Browning’s “Karshish” took more of a scientific approach to the concept of Christianity. There the author was an educated man of science as opposed to stubborn poet. The poet speaker of Hymn was in denial and almost mourning the loss of his religion, while Karshish took a more hands off point of view, something I’d call a true outsider because he didn’t seem to take the growing Christianity as some sort of invasion.
The poem is from the point of view of a speaker that obviously has a preference for the Rome gods as opposed to the Christian God. The speaker here is a poet himself, “I am sick of singing; the bays burn deep and chafe.” It seems that he’s more concerned with losing the old religion. “O gods dethroned and deceased, cast forth, wiped out in a day!” He’s stubborn about this, “Wilt thou yet take all, Galilean? But these thou shalt not take-//The laurel, the palms, and the paean, the breasts of the nymphs in the brake” It’s almost as if he expects to wait this out, “Though all men abase them before you in spirit, and all knees bend,//I kneel not, neither adore you, but standing look to the end.” Browning’s “Karshish” took more of a scientific approach to the concept of Christianity. There the author was an educated man of science as opposed to stubborn poet. The poet speaker of Hymn was in denial and almost mourning the loss of his religion, while Karshish took a more hands off point of view, something I’d call a true outsider because he didn’t seem to take the growing Christianity as some sort of invasion.
Preface
Read the first five paragraphs of the Preface, and, keeping in mind that Pater is here discussing AESTHETIC criticism, compare what he says of the critic's purpose and methodology to what Arnold says of these in The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. (Also, keep this in mind when reading Wilde.)
Pater insists that before you know how to criticize art, you need to understand how it makes you feel. “What is this song or picture, this engaging personality presented in life or in a book, to me?” You can’t criticize something without knowing your own opinion of said art, be it book, painting, or what have you. Pater felt that what you felt about the art was just as important as any lighting or moral feedback you might receive. The critic isn’t someone that must know exactly what beauty is, but he should be someone who understands it takes many forms and can take pleasure from such a thing. I feel that Arnold and Pater basically agree on the role of the critic. They both feel that a critic needs to find the good of a work and not just sit there tearing down the bad. Pater says of Wordsworth, “The heat of his genius, entering into the substance of his work, has crystallized a part, but only a part, of it; and in that great mass verse there is much which might be forgotten.” Criticism is meant to help “crystallize” the good, while the bad or even the mediocre will be left by the wayside.
Pater insists that before you know how to criticize art, you need to understand how it makes you feel. “What is this song or picture, this engaging personality presented in life or in a book, to me?” You can’t criticize something without knowing your own opinion of said art, be it book, painting, or what have you. Pater felt that what you felt about the art was just as important as any lighting or moral feedback you might receive. The critic isn’t someone that must know exactly what beauty is, but he should be someone who understands it takes many forms and can take pleasure from such a thing. I feel that Arnold and Pater basically agree on the role of the critic. They both feel that a critic needs to find the good of a work and not just sit there tearing down the bad. Pater says of Wordsworth, “The heat of his genius, entering into the substance of his work, has crystallized a part, but only a part, of it; and in that great mass verse there is much which might be forgotten.” Criticism is meant to help “crystallize” the good, while the bad or even the mediocre will be left by the wayside.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Slave Ship
Consider both the section titled "A Definition of Greatness in Art" and the one titled "The Slave Ship" here. How does Ruskin define greatness in art? How does his discussion of "The Slave Ship" relate to this definition? I've reproduced the painting below, so you can see how closely Ruskin considers this painting and how well he expresses what he sees.
Well first you take his definition of art, which is that he feels it is a “great language” and equates art to literature and fine writings. I find this perfectly acceptable because I myself equate fine writing with art. Someone who is considered a great painter has “done just as much towards being that which we ought to respect as a great painter, as a man who was learnt how to express himself grammatically and melodiously has toward being a great poet.” Ruskin’s idea of greatness doesn’t reflect the medium, but the subject and what is contained and expressed in the painting (or writing), “It is not by the mode of representing and saying, but by what is represented and said that the respected greatness… is to be finally determined.” That is to sat artwork that expressed something, a particular and drawing point of view the affects the viewer, “which conveys to the mind of the spectator the greatest number of great ideas”
In Ruskin’s description of “The Slave Ship” he speaks of the violence in the image, the two swells on either side dividing the ocean in two, the fiery and bloody sunset, and the burning clouds. What I found interesting was that there was never any mention of the subject, but the feelings and images expressed by way of colors. He notes there “is not one false or morbid line” which is true in theory. The colors are just so vibrant. Ruskin obviously feels that this image matches up with his opinion of “great art” which it does. He not only sees the actual subject, but the violent story told in colors as well.
Well first you take his definition of art, which is that he feels it is a “great language” and equates art to literature and fine writings. I find this perfectly acceptable because I myself equate fine writing with art. Someone who is considered a great painter has “done just as much towards being that which we ought to respect as a great painter, as a man who was learnt how to express himself grammatically and melodiously has toward being a great poet.” Ruskin’s idea of greatness doesn’t reflect the medium, but the subject and what is contained and expressed in the painting (or writing), “It is not by the mode of representing and saying, but by what is represented and said that the respected greatness… is to be finally determined.” That is to sat artwork that expressed something, a particular and drawing point of view the affects the viewer, “which conveys to the mind of the spectator the greatest number of great ideas”
In Ruskin’s description of “The Slave Ship” he speaks of the violence in the image, the two swells on either side dividing the ocean in two, the fiery and bloody sunset, and the burning clouds. What I found interesting was that there was never any mention of the subject, but the feelings and images expressed by way of colors. He notes there “is not one false or morbid line” which is true in theory. The colors are just so vibrant. Ruskin obviously feels that this image matches up with his opinion of “great art” which it does. He not only sees the actual subject, but the violent story told in colors as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
