In "The Windhover," the bird (a kestrel) is described in its flight. With this one, focus on how the speaker's emotions color the description of the bird.
The poem is also subtitled "To Christ our Lord." If you wish, discuss the bird as a metaphor for Christ.
The speaker projects the image of the kestrel as this majestic thing. He talks about the creature’s mastery of the wind in how he flies, or how he hovers in midair rather. He describes him as a “Brute beauty” and is awe of his abilities. The language used here is so grand, “the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion//Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!” It’s as though he thinks this bird is defying nature, like he’s some amazing thing that acts against nature with how he flies. The speaker’s adoration for this bird is something like what one might hold for Jesus Christ. The speaker even declares this bird “morning’s minion king-//dom of daylight’s dauphin.”
Showing posts with label *Victorian Era. Show all posts
Showing posts with label *Victorian Era. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Journal: May 18, 1870
In the journal entry for May 18, 1870 (pp. 1525-6), Hopkins uses the terms "instress" and "inscape." How does his use of them here help you to understand what the editors tell us about these concepts? How does it help you to see what he attempts to do in his poetry?
In the introduction, the editors give us some information on “instress” and “inscape” already. “Inscape” is “the distinctive design that constitutes individual identity” which seems to be to be the thing that defines a work, or a poem in this case particularly. It’s about the individual feeling of the poem. “Instress” is the “apprehension of an object in an intense thrust of energy toward it that enables one to realize its specific distinctiveness” which I think means the understanding of something, in this case a poem, in such a way that you fully understand its uniqueness. So it seems from this, we’re meant to get the instress of the inscape. One solves the other rather.
With this journal entry and Hopkins’ use of the word, I feel that “inscape” reminds me of “landscape.” “I do not think that I have ever seen anything a more beautiful than the bluebell I have been looking at. I know the beauty of our Lord by it. It[s inscape] is [mixed of] strength and grace, like an ash [tree].” It’s the image, the picture painted by the poem to the audience. Hopkins felt that understanding and seeing this, or instressing the inscape, would bring one closer to God. In his poetry, he wants others to share in what he sees and feels and that is why he puts these images, or this inscape, into his work.
In the introduction, the editors give us some information on “instress” and “inscape” already. “Inscape” is “the distinctive design that constitutes individual identity” which seems to be to be the thing that defines a work, or a poem in this case particularly. It’s about the individual feeling of the poem. “Instress” is the “apprehension of an object in an intense thrust of energy toward it that enables one to realize its specific distinctiveness” which I think means the understanding of something, in this case a poem, in such a way that you fully understand its uniqueness. So it seems from this, we’re meant to get the instress of the inscape. One solves the other rather.
With this journal entry and Hopkins’ use of the word, I feel that “inscape” reminds me of “landscape.” “I do not think that I have ever seen anything a more beautiful than the bluebell I have been looking at. I know the beauty of our Lord by it. It[s inscape] is [mixed of] strength and grace, like an ash [tree].” It’s the image, the picture painted by the poem to the audience. Hopkins felt that understanding and seeing this, or instressing the inscape, would bring one closer to God. In his poetry, he wants others to share in what he sees and feels and that is why he puts these images, or this inscape, into his work.
Pied Beauty
"Pied Beauty" (p. 1518) praises God for many things. What do all these things have in common? Also, how does the speaker say God differs from these things He created? As with the others, focus on the language and imagery Hopkins uses to "paint his pictures."
This poem specifically applauds “dappled things” or things with mixed colors. “For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;//For rose-moles all in stipple upon upon trout that swim” These are all things of nature, things that change in time or simply by man’s own hand. The inscape I see here is a rich forest in fall with leaves still changing colors. Hopkins wants us to see here that we should appreciate our ever changing world and the God that in his constancy provides it, because while the world changes and is imperfect, its creator is not. “He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change.”
This poem specifically applauds “dappled things” or things with mixed colors. “For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;//For rose-moles all in stipple upon upon trout that swim” These are all things of nature, things that change in time or simply by man’s own hand. The inscape I see here is a rich forest in fall with leaves still changing colors. Hopkins wants us to see here that we should appreciate our ever changing world and the God that in his constancy provides it, because while the world changes and is imperfect, its creator is not. “He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change.”
Spring and Fall
What does the speaker first ask of her, and what does he tell her? Again, look also at the language and imagery. (You may, if you wish, compare this poem to Wordsworth's "We Are Seven").
The speaker is asks Margaret at first if she is mourning over Goldengrove, “Margaret, are you grieving//Over Goldengrove unleaving?” The speaker wonders if she loves the leaves like she loves the “things of man” thus we’re given the impression that this girl is young and possibly naïve. The poem being addressed “to a young child” also adds to this impression. He, the speaker, tells her that she will age and return to “such sights colder” as the forest, assumedly Goldengrove, will pale and change to her aging mind. Still, he says she’ll mourn the loss of the place she knew; here is where I first see the reference to the Garden of Eden. Goldengrove is Margaret’s Garden of Eden, a place that she could no longer visit after she had grown older, though aging is nothing like the Original Sin. The childish innocence of loving something so strongly as a place does remind me of the sweet child of “We Are Seven” who refused to allow that her and her siblings were no longer seven. With the final lines though, “It is the blight man was born for,//It is Margaret you mourn for.” I feel links the two girls more closely. Margaret didn’t wish to give up her beloved place that she loved more than people’s things, and the other girl simply refused to let it go of her belief. Both characters held strongly to something that seemed silly, but still the strength of their convictions was worth envy.
The speaker is asks Margaret at first if she is mourning over Goldengrove, “Margaret, are you grieving//Over Goldengrove unleaving?” The speaker wonders if she loves the leaves like she loves the “things of man” thus we’re given the impression that this girl is young and possibly naïve. The poem being addressed “to a young child” also adds to this impression. He, the speaker, tells her that she will age and return to “such sights colder” as the forest, assumedly Goldengrove, will pale and change to her aging mind. Still, he says she’ll mourn the loss of the place she knew; here is where I first see the reference to the Garden of Eden. Goldengrove is Margaret’s Garden of Eden, a place that she could no longer visit after she had grown older, though aging is nothing like the Original Sin. The childish innocence of loving something so strongly as a place does remind me of the sweet child of “We Are Seven” who refused to allow that her and her siblings were no longer seven. With the final lines though, “It is the blight man was born for,//It is Margaret you mourn for.” I feel links the two girls more closely. Margaret didn’t wish to give up her beloved place that she loved more than people’s things, and the other girl simply refused to let it go of her belief. Both characters held strongly to something that seemed silly, but still the strength of their convictions was worth envy.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Critic As Artist
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Victorian Era
The Victorian period was distinct in time as a time of change. Many advances were being made during this time period and it’s suggested that it was more than had been made in the two thousand years before. Sure, this might be exaggerating, but it could pretty close to the truth as well. This was a period of industrialization, when nearly everything that could run on steam power was altered to do so. People were urged to “close the Byron; open the Goethe”, meaning to set aside their introspective romances for the higher moral purposes found in other literature, such as Goethe. The initial idea is surprising in a period of invention, but makes sense as science was practicality were big players. Each period within the Victorian period is made distinct even upon itself, though this may be due to the books clean set up. The first period wasn’t a good time; women and children were at hard work with children as young as five working in mines, the representation of the people in Parliament was not as it should be with the population having shifted from where it was when the system was first created and there being no update. The Reform Bill of 1832 was the first step in remedying this as it gave the vote to all men owning property up to 10 British Pounds in worth. This still excluded many, but it was just the first step on the path to improvement. The Mid-Victorian era was full of people attacking the social system of the time, misgivings coming from the first period. The improvements of the era were evident here though. Industry was booming beyond just the railways of the first part of the Victorian age. Religion was evolving, which made sense as science was also bringing about new ideas and at least to me those two fields often like to counter each other. One of the important theories of the time was in fact evolution as though by Charles Darwin and pushed by Thomas Huxley. Many thought this was an addition to their beliefs, taking the meaning to be figurative and not literal. Men of science then were taking the Bible not as a sacred book, but a tome of history for examination and many religions didn't care for this. Toward the end of the era, things were obviously changing. While the first era could be considered one of unrest and politics, the middle of change, religion, and science, perhaps the last is of war, mutiny, and change. Mutiny and war came more from the colonies than England itself however. America having just gotten through its own civil war was becoming more of a rival. Labor was becoming a powerful force and many of its leaders were being influenced by things such as the writing of Karl Marx. Even the writers of this time were taking shots at those from the Mid-Victorian era. Obviously things were trying to head in a different direction.
The following generation after Queen Victoria’s death almost went out of their way to distinguish themselves from the Victorian era. Literary critiques of the next era would treat Victorian writers as “stuffily complacent prigs” and how very different literature had become since those writers. As always, the following generation was still built on the shoulders of its predecessors.
The following generation after Queen Victoria’s death almost went out of their way to distinguish themselves from the Victorian era. Literary critiques of the next era would treat Victorian writers as “stuffily complacent prigs” and how very different literature had become since those writers. As always, the following generation was still built on the shoulders of its predecessors.
Victorian Era: The Novel
The novel was huge during this time period. They often appeared in three volumes as opposed to simply one book, which explains why some classic literature is separated even today within one book as different "Books". This books were an attempt to cover a large amount of life and society as it really was. Each novel showed each author's own views of what life and their world was about in this time in very realistic fashions, though they might not all seem to show the same world in their individual realism. Victorian novels showed a main character who was trying to define their position within society. This was also an era of many strong women writers, considering the common topics of the novel were of daily life, society, courtship, family, and marriage.
It's interesting the reading speaks of the Victorian heroine, the representation of the human condition. While this is a model of women very familiar to me, from my experience these novel were still not without their Byronic males. Of course, they weren't quite as romantic as in the previous era of Bryon himself perhaps.
It's interesting the reading speaks of the Victorian heroine, the representation of the human condition. While this is a model of women very familiar to me, from my experience these novel were still not without their Byronic males. Of course, they weren't quite as romantic as in the previous era of Bryon himself perhaps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
