In Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium (1969), he changes the colors of the American flag to green and black stripes and black stars against a pinkish background. These colors are almost opposite the traditional red, white, and blue that the flag normally features. Green is rarely seen as a patriotic color for America, and replacing the most striking and important parts of the flag with this color symbolizes a rejection of previous American ideals. The replacement of the usual bright white stars with black also conveys an ominous and unsettling message. I believe the substitution of the traditional colors is meant to show how America’s actions are no longer “peace-loving” and serving the “We the People,” but have become driven by war and greed.
I think this is a really insightful analysis, and I think it is very telling of the time period the artwork was made in. The late 1960s when this flag was created was the height of American protest of the Vietnam War. They viewed it as senseless violence, which, as you said, shows how the people believed America’s actions no longer reflected their beliefs, and they have become driven by greed. Changing the colors of the flag was no doubt a statement of how America no longer represents the intention of the people and how they have rejected all previous American ideals due to their actions in the Vietnam War.
I agree with your interpretation, and I want to add that the distorted color palette of this piece may not only symbolize greed but also corruption and decay. Green is often linked to illness, so he might be commenting on how our country is sick, and he could be mourning the fall of a nation that once represented other ideals. The stars that are now blackened might also symbolize a loss of light, hinting at the idea of America’s decline.
This painting is also the complete inverse of the American flag. If you look at the white dot in the middle for 30 seconds and blink rapidly, you can see the American flag in the original colors. I interpret this as how America in reality might be the complete opposite of what we stand for, but if we try hard enough -and we do- we can perceive America as how we want to see it and how we show ourselves to the world.
I also found this cool phenomenon about if you look at the white dot for 30 seconds and then look at the flag again you can see the true colors of the American Flag. I remember learning about this phenomenon in psychology it’s called the afterimage effect. I agree how this phenomenon ties into your point of how you can turn what you perceive into what you want to see. Even if we see something distorted or in an altered way, our brain tries to reconstruct it back into something familiar that we recognize. This could reflect how people in 1969 (the year this work was made) were trying to hold on to a certain ideal of America despite the political tension and protest against the Vietnam War.
To add onto your thoughts, Johns Flag can have an open interpretation, which adds onto why it may appear ominous and unsettling. It’s open ended in my opinion; the colors in the flag can represent the ocean coast to some Americans, or an emotion to others. Depending on how America has treated someone, they’ll look at it differently.
I also thought about how the colors in Flag Moratorium are the opposite of the traditional red, white, and blue. Adding on to that, it seems that Johns chose to use these inverted colors to illustrate how backwards America is. It is not as perfect and pristine as it makes itself out to be. In fact, it has violated its own constitution an alarming amount of times to protect certain individuals and prioritizes power and money over its citizens.
I found this image very interesting also. I noticed and was interested in the fact that the colors were changed and almost inverted. I think that this is done to voice a disgust with America and their involvement in Vietnam. I also like your point that it makes an ominous and almost eerie feeling.
I heavily agree with this reading. I feel that he was probably outraged specifically with Vietnam, and America’s participation in the war. The flag, which is typically associated with freedom, is distorted to demonstrate the distortion of how the country is acting around the world and at home.
I think that’s a great thesis! However I don’t think the colors are “opposite” rather “inverted” or “negative” color. In the realm of computers, this is done by quite literally “flipping” the RGB (Red Green Blue) values in color. For example, the scale for RGB is 0-255, with the dimmest color being 0 and the brightest being 255. Lets say we have a color of (255, 255, 255), this is white. Now when we want to invert a color, all we do is take the difference between the brightness of the current color and 255. In this case, it would be 255 – 255, which is 0, and (0, 0 , 0) is black. In a way, I think Jasper is trying to create this inversion of color through the medium of painting, further representing that the country’s values are backward or “inverted.”
In “Flag Moratorium”, I believe Jasper Johns delivers a political message through the inverting of the original American flag colors to demonstrate the country’s backwardness. America prides itself on being the “land of the free” and being the best country in the world, but it does not like to acknowledge the unholy amount of problems it deals with and how the American government chooses to handle them. It is a country that claims to be the number one, yet still suffers from high homeless rates, mass shootings left and right, and the suppression of basic human rights.
While I believe that all of the pictures display some sort of political message, I think that the third Jasper Johns flag that seems to be inverted has the strongest political message. Most of the time we create our flag in the original way to show respect and love for our country. However, in this case the colors are inverted and in my opinion that done in a disrespectful way to voice an anti-American sentiment. Judging based of the date of the image I’m guessing that this image was used to voice a powerful message about disagreement with the American involvement in Vietnam.
That’s really interesting considering the context of the vietnam war. It was not popular with the American people and the war also was a turning point in American politics where the public began to distrust the government. If you look at the color wheel, the colors in flag moratorium are the exact opposite of the red, white, and blue. This reversal of colors can be interpreted as how America has turned its back on the values this country was founded.
Corita Kent’s Love stamp strikes me as a political message, as it features colors from the Pride flag, stating “Love USA.” At the time, the LGBTQ community was fighting for its rights. This message relays the idea that America is a place of liberty for people of all kinds; we should not discriminate. Challenging the view of many, the art symbolizes the acceptance of the LGBTQ community and emphasizes that they are a part of the USA’s culture.
In Jasper Johns, Flag (1954) the vivid blotches and imperfections on the flag sends a message. In the original flag made with fabric, there are no mistakes and it is perfectly manufactured. Artists usually look over there works and make sure the strokes of the blushes are smooth and that every spot has paint but this one doesn’t. My interpretation is that America isn’t as perfect as it is portrayed to be. The spots can be seen as a fading effect. To showcase that Americans are losing sight of what they stand for.
In Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium, there is a contrast of colors, and the opposite colors of the original flag. This in itself provides a very unpatriotic, sort of rebellious factor to the painting. With a little bit of research, this painting was a form of retaliation for the American involvement in the Vietnam War. The people were not very happy with the US joining and so this painted was created as a form of rejection. It is shown very clear that the painter is very unhappy with the US and is showing that they are against what is happening completely by using the complete opposite colors of the original.
In Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the, “Star Spangled Banner” Hendrix distorts the the guitar’s sounds to be very uncomfortable to the listener. The sounds of the guitar are similar to airplanes flying, gunfire, bombs, and screams. The contrast of the horrible sounds of war with America’s national anthem makes a statement about America’s military involvement and complicity in war. 1969 was a heightened point of the Vietnam War, and Hendrix may have been using his music to make his own sort of protest against the violence America was inciting. The way Hedrix mashes the discordant noise with the booming sounds of the anthem is quite powerful and representative of the state of America at the time, and is potentially still relevant today.
In Corita Kent’s piece called, Love stamp (1985), I believe to be her political messaging to be about the support of being queer, more specifically gay. During this time, the aids epidemic was searing over America in great force, causing people to link aids with homosexual intercourse. In addition, the colors she used in her artwork is a rainbow, also tying into the well-known, gay pride flag. She is clearly making a statement about how “love is love, ” also a common mantra associated with queer support rhetoric. All of this points to her overwhelming support and stance on the legalization of gay marriage and being gay as a whole.
I like how you pointed out the “love is love” message too, even if she didn’t say it outright, it feels like that sentiment is embedded in the design. It’s cool how something so small and simple like a stamp can carry so much meaning, especially during such a heavy time. The timing with the AIDS crisis definitely reveals a deeper part of the overall message of how people connected disease with homosexuality.
I think your analysis is correct here. The “love is love” messaging is definitely present. I would expand by saying that her use of the USA in the phrase love USA rather than perhaps saying something more overt like love is love might be to make a comment on how this is a fundamental concept to the US. Concepts of freedom and individualism make gay marriage rights an essential concept, and I think Kent is trying to highlight this. Not only is he supporting gay marriage, but he is supporting it for American specifically.
In Jasper John’s Moratorium, I think this message is a protest against the Vietnam war. The first thing I noticed in the paintings was the dates of each, and I noticed that this one would’ve been towards the height of the war, after a lot of deaths already. In switching the colors of the American flag to muted and subversive tones, I think Johns is trying to evoke a sense of mourning, which ties in with the title in protesting to end the war. Ultimately, this painting shows that in flattening and darkening the bright traditional colors of the flag, we can see patriotism in a different way: in fighting to end the war.
I think that this is a really interesting take. Looking back at the flag with your response in mind, it sort of uses colors stereotypically associated with the military such as green and black. This would tie into your idea of the piece being a form of retaliation or protest against the Vietnam War, as the colors hint towards the piece being in reference to the military.
I agree with your interpretation that his modification of the flag is a form of protest against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The dreary inverted colors and paint swatches, representative of a military uniform, also question the accepted ideas of America’s role in the world as the spreader of democracy, peace and freedom. The dot in the middle draws the viewer’s eye, possibly reflecting the American government’s attempts at suppressing opposition to war efforts, turning a blind eye to the atrocities in Vietnam and focusing on one narrow view that allows it to justify its actions. Further, it uses an illusion where staring at the dot for some time recreates the image of the flag when looking away. Despite staring at the dot and focusing on the narrow, Americanized perspective of the war, the violence and corruption of the war could be ignored.
I took a close look at Jasper Johns, Flag Moratorium(1969), and the painting had simply changed the color of the American Flag. However changed color gives a weird impression of the American Flag because it looks like the country was corrupted. The color red, white, and blue gave me the impression of justice but now it feels like symbol of country is damaged by injustice and power. Maybe the painter wanted to depict the society of capitalism by using different colors as usual.
The unusual colors of the American flag does seem to address the message that America doesn’t represent what it used to. Each color could represent a factor in the country such as justice, freedom, and hope. However, the twisted colors creates a sense of oddness that leads the audience into questioning the difference between a normal flag and this artwork.
Jasper John’s Three Flags voices a political message to me. He uses the American flags, a classic symbol to represent America as a whole, with all the states (at the time) represented. The flags are all within each other, making me think that the statement is that America is self-centered, the leaders only thinking about themselves, rather than how to protect the country, or stop climate change, or prevent wars. Its calling this to our attention and asking for a change.
This is also how I viewed Jasper Johns, Three Flags (1958), leaders are more focused on having power rather than being for the people and we are so divided hence the different sizes of the flags. the sizes of the flags could also represent the social class in America the poor being in the back and the rich being on top.
I also thought that this painting was meant to show America in a negative light! For me, I took each flag covering the flag beneath it to mean that America forgets i’s past/ covers it up, and each flag becoming smaller and smaller as showing how the country is deteriorating/regressing. Normally flags get bigger and grander to show national pride, but here the flags are getting smaller–perhaps to show national shame?
i agree, I feel like the three layered flags reflect a great symbol for American culture. This can possibly be a nod to the blind nationalism that americans had at the time. As you mentioned in your statement, leaders only care about themselves and citizens aren’t aware of the detrimental impacts systems are having on the country.
In Jasper Johns 3rd art piece, it seems as though he utilized the national symbol of the flag to evoke patriotism from viewer and, from this sense of emotion, question that the flag might actually now represent not unity but rather violence and division. Even the use of the title Moratorium directly references the national anti war protests that were going on at the time. Instead of defacing the flag in order to evoke a extreme sense of emotion from his audience, it appears as though it wants the audience to be quite neutral and reflective, in order to truly understand both their values and the shifting values of the country they are apart of.
In part 1 of Howl, it states “who burned
cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism.” I find this line very revolutionary because of the strong connection it makes to the unhealthiness and addictiveness between capitalism and cigarettes. With a smoking addiction, you’re able to see the negative effects but you’re not always able to see the negative and addictive qualities within the capitalism system because of how ingrained it is into our culture. Similarly to how the cigarette smoke clouds up the lungs and vision of a person, they could be trying to say the same, in which capitalism has metaphorical type of smoke that clouds the vision in how people choose to behave in society.
In part II of Howl, the line that stuck out to me was “What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” This line was amazing to me because of its deliberate word choice. By saying sphinx, I think he is talking about the hard to live riddle-like modern industrial society, since the sphinx is known for asking riddles and killing those who can’t answer. The modern industrial society is represented by saying “cement and aluminum.” So in this line, he is saying that the modern industrial society in ruining the creativity of others. This line was so impressive to me mainly because of the words “sphinx of cement and aluminum” because it’s such a clever choice of words to interpret. From this one line, I feel like you can tell how the author feels about industrialization, and its clear that he sees it as something horrible, violent, and forceful. To him, all the big machinery is forcing people to constantly work and lose themselves and their creative potential, which angers him.
Yes, and the machinery involved in the industrial society is more systematic and less individualized. In an industrial society, every person has to fit for society to function “properly,” like the parts of the machine have to compliment and work together to produce the right efficiency and productibility. However, the madness the narrator sees in others could be the refusal to live in a systematic way and hold onto their individual creativities that the industrial society would normally ignore and refuse.
In part 1 towards the end, a striking phrase for me was, “…rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head…” I really found that the contrast between rejected and conform to be interesting and a good way to describe the thinking of addicts and outsiders. While they have been rejected from society itself and any traditional ways of life, they are still trying to listen to what they believe to be right and attempting to make sense/purpose of their actions. I also really like the use of ‘naked and endless’ as terms to describe what is going on mentally, these words are used a few times throughout this poem and I think it does an excellent job at painting an image for us. The fact a mind can be naked and endless is disheartening and almost trippy to think about.
I think the line “presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy,
and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia” is very interesting. It depicts a desire for a quick fix or solution to a problem, but instead being met with long, torturous procedures that create an end worse than the start. I think it matches the tone of this whole poem in that it is constant, almost rambling like tone to read and a sense of desperation as it goes, and this particular line really enhances that feeling of desperation met rapidly with disappointment.
I agree with you 100 percent about this quote. This line really stood out to me because when we talk about the end of World War 2, at least in my other schools, the aftermath is brought up but it’s mainly about the rubble. I think this quote really shows one of the ideas that Ginsberg is trying to convey and that’s the emotional toll that everyone was dealing with after. These people have all just gone through something most of us (thankfully) can’t even imagine and I think that, in your words the “constant, almost rambling” adds to that struggle that we can see.
A striking phrase from the poem that caught my eye was when Ginsberg said “the bum’s as holy as the seraphim! The madman is holy as you my soul are holy!”. The reason this phrase caught my attention is because of the language used in order to convey the message that holiness exists in all people. The first part of the phrase Ginsberg is comparing a homeless person to a high ranking angel in Christian theology and in doing this it conveys the message that even if there is a difference in societal hierarchies the homeless person is just as spiritually significant as the high ranking angel. The second part of the phrase is doing the same thing, but using an example of a person who is misjudged most of the time, but still having the same claim that a person such as that is just as spiritually significant.
Yes I totally agree with you!! The way everyone is seen as holy shows the significance of spirituality. No matter if you are misjudged or homeless you have the same exact holiness as someone who is a high ranking angel. Ginsberg makes these comparisons very clear. It challenges this readers to think about who is considered worthy in society. Spiritual value is not determined by ones success, but by simply being human.
In part 1, Ginsberg writes a phrase that talks about the three old shrews of fate. He writes, “the one eyed shrew of the heterosexual dollar the one eyed shrew that winks out of the womb and the one eyed shrew that does nothing but sit on her ass and snip the intellectual golden threads of the craftsman’s loom” (Ginsberg). Ginsberg is comparing the fates of Greek mythology, the Moirai, to new fates seen in society now. His wording of “heterosexual dollar” to refer to consumerism and capitalism, and the womb to refer to heteronormativity and removal of queer love. But ultimately, the line talking about how the golden threads of intellect are being snipped portrays how these new depictions of the fates in society today leads to the loss of creativity and uniqueness: the disintegration of art and individuality as one succumbs to the shrews of fate.
The line that I found particularly striking was “who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull”, since the syntax invoked the skull, which feels like a very scary image to have windows. This image of the mind also feels especially relevant when discussing academies and obscene odes and expulsion. These are very intellectual thoughts and concepts that contrast the macabre nature of the windows of the skull.
In part I of “Howl” by Ginsberg it states “who lounged hungry and lonesome through Houston seeking jazz or sex or soup, and followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity”. I found these lines really powerful because they depict individuals who feel isolated and are on a quest for something, whether it’s either physical or emotional. The second part of the line, “brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity,” suggests that people are trying to grasp the harsh realities of America, like capitalism and also the idea of eternity within the American context. This illustrates how many individuals experience loneliness and are in search of answers in a world that often seems empty of meaning.
One very striking line in Ginsberg’s Howl was, “who demanded sanity trials accusing the radio of hypnotism & were left with their insanity & their hands & a hung jury, / who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism and subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy, / and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia,” (Lines 67-68). These line create a stunning picture which I think represents the point he was trying to make. These people who have gone mad with the way society is, lashing out, and wanting to receive help. Instead all they receive are harmful and void ways to try to cure them. Looking back from know, knowing all the problems with the ways they “fixed” people back in the day, I can clearly understand what Ginsberg is conveying in this descriptive message.
I also find the description of the people in howl to a insane and getting put mental asylum but there is a more metaphoric meaning to it as well. I think Howl is a poem that represents the loss of expression from an entire generation. To me the sanity trials and cures that you mention feel like Ginsberg is trying to say the artists and expression from his generation is locked up and considered insane. I think that its this proposition that causes people to think that they are trapped and unable to express themselves because everybody else thinks they are crazy. The radio hypnotism to me represnts propaganda being spouted in their media and the generations aim to fight against it. I think Ginsberg wants people to see the humanity in this generation that everyone else believes is insane and show that even the greatest minds could be called crazy.
I agree with your examination of Ginsberg’s poem and how he uses descriptive imagery to portray his well-justified anger. Another line that relates to this idea,” What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” The line uses creative imagery to describe the frustration of how Ginsburg feels about people who are reinforcing societal standards that directly harm other people, which was mentioned in your analysis.
One phrase that stood out to me the most was, “[W]ho cut their wrists three times successively unsuccessfully, gave up and were / forced to open antique stores where they thought they were growing old / and cried.” These lines reference to “the best minds of [his] generation,” and I believe they highlight the struggle of returning to normalcy following unsuccessful suicide attempts. After being looked down upon by society, people with unconventional beliefs and ideas see no purpose in living. When they cannot escape, they are forced into a mundane existence. I think Alan Ginsberg is lamenting over the wasted potential and the despair of losing so many beautiful, diverse ideas. The language he uses particularly spoke to me with how mournful it sounds.
I like your interpretation. His description is very vivid and haunting, especially the line, “open antique stores where they thought they were growing old”. It shows how creativity gets destroyed and creates conformity, and I agree with you that Ginsberg is lamenting this fact. He laments not just suicides and the loss of life but the loss of creativity which is gives the poem a tragic tone.
I really like your take on this. I also found a line that is similar “rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head.” I see a similarity that people struggle to find a place in a world full of fixed ideas that it is impossible to confess out the soul but to conform. You mentioned the lost of diverse and beautiful ideas in this poem and I think that it is a struggle that many people don’t even realize. In other words, people are experiencing pain due to a lack of creativity and expression but they cannot escape this mundane society.
I agree, I find this line very heavy and a bit sad, it captures the emotional weight of a failed escape by suicide and being “forced” to survive. What stood out to me was how Ginsberg contrasts the chaotic and intense emotion of suffering, while in an antique store. I think he used an antique store for a purpose in order to highlight how life feels afterwards:dull and quiet. This isn’t just about suicide attempts but people who used to have so much life or as he calls it “the best minds” later on are drained by society and life and then just exist with no purpose.
I agree with your interpretation of this line. I love how heavy this line feels, but you are correct in calling it “mundane.” I would like to draw attention to the specificity of mention of opening the antique store as a return to normalcy. I think this choice was intentional, to further the sense of being weighed down by their past, and, as you mentioned in your response, the impossibility of escaping it. An antique store, filled with old things carrying each their own history, continues to add a heaviness and responsibility of care for bygone mistakes and memories.
One of the most striking images/phrases in the poem for me was at the beginning when it said, “angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,” (Part 1, Line 3). This phrase to me was very powerful because it captures how the dreamers, the idealists, the visionaries are wanting this spiritual connection, but they are stuck in a world that doesn’t allow that. They are, instead, stuck in a cold, mechanical, industrial world. I feel that this mismatch of what the people want (a spiritual connection) and the reality of the world put in the same line really highlights the struggle of these people who have to live in a world that doesn’t support their aspirations.
One striking image in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl, was: “who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo.” I found this line intriguing because it references New York City — my hometown. The first part, talks about the long train ride from Battery, short for Battery Park City, which is a neighborhood in Manhattan’s lower west side, to the Bronx. Conveniently enough, I went to high school in Battery Park City, so I am assuming that Ginsberg is referencing the 1 train line here; the 1 train line starts at South Ferry, which is where the Staten Island Ferry enters Manhattan, and terminates at 242nd St – Van Cortlandt Park. I used to make this long trek up to Van Cortlandt for my cross country meets in high school. Therefore, I can greatly empathize with his description of this ride as “endless” (it probably takes 70 min without delays). He also mentions benzedrine, which I determined to be the first product name for amphetamine, a deadly drug. He then suggests by the time they get to the Bronx, the passengers are completely worn out from their journey that they lose mental functioning. The last words talk about the Zoo, which I presume is the Bronx Zoo. The Bronx Zoo opened in 1899, during the end of the Gilded Age, so people had more time for leisurely activities. I think that this image is overall trying to point out the disillusion of New York. Although there is technology like trains and activities like zoos, people are still disconnected from life.
I found the opening line of Ginsberg’s “Howl” to be compelling. It sets the tone for his mourning of a generation of artists who endured 20th-century America.
“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,”
I’d also like to note that the ‘fix’ could either refer to drugs or the whimsy (?) that he believed the artists at the time were lacking.
I also liked how the poem opened. The line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked”. This line laments the state of American society at the time, how the talented people were suppressed by society and conformity to put their talents to good use. It sets the tone for the rest of the poem.
I agree with you, the beginning is set by this eerie tone of loneliness and dense, tragic times. Everything around that is being described is very dark and the tone is heavy from what had happened during that time. There is also a slight tone of disappointment of how far gone and how bad society has gotten. I don’t believe he was only talking about the artists in that time, but the generation as a general description. I do agree though that so much has happened that theres no going back and everything is already amiss.
A phrase from “Howl” that struck me was “Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!”. This phrase in particular caught my eye because I believe it serves to emphasize how Ginsberg and those like him did not believe in the optimistic take on life the general public had. Ginsberg thought more realistically and did not care about the things that man created in order to have something to look forward to. Throughout the poem he comments on certain actions pertaining to people just living in the moment, even if they were negative experiences; it’s all part of life, there’s no avoiding it, instead, we should embrace it to the fullest extent possible.
Many different lines within this poem are very interesting and a lot to unpack. However, one line in particular caught my eye a little more than the others. The line I am talking about is, “Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums!” In this quote he is calling rebellious and destructive behavior holy, acting in a sense of counterculture. It’s interesting as these things are usually looked at as immoral and destructive to your spiritual truth.
I agree with you and would like to add that Ginsberg makes these aspects holy as a way to embrace radicalism. In the footnote, he says, “The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!”. Ginsberg makes a point that the most natural parts of life are what is holy. He challenges society as he accepts things that are typically demonized, like sex and homosexuality, making a point that it is authentic and therefore valuable. From his wording, he conveys the idea that unholy is just a matter of perspective.
One of the most striking lines that stood out to me was the start of part 2 where Ginsberg exclaims, “What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? / Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! / Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!”
This line is incredibly visually descriptive and striking. I asked myself “who is this Moloch?” After I completed outside research I learned Moloch refers to an entity found in the Hebrew bible that people seem to worship. However, as a practice for those who follow Moloch, they give their children as a sacrifice to Moloch. Based on part one and the denouncement of Moloch throughout part two, I suspect that Moloch represents the society and establishment Ginsberg lived in. Throughout the poem we see how people who are outside of the traditional American norms be punished. Moloch is a metaphor for American society because original thinkers or those outside of what is seen as normal must sacrifice a part of themselves in order to conform.
In part I of “Howl” by Ginsberg it states “who lounged hungry and lonesome through Houston seeking jazz or sex or soup, and followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity”. I found these lines striking because it is representing people who feel alienated and are seeking of searching something physical or emotionally. In the second part of the line ” brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity” what this is trying to say people are in a chase to understand the hard truth of America (capitalism) and as well the concept of Eternity in America. Which shows how most people feel lonely and are searching answers in a world that often feels meaningless.
I also thought that the statement was interesting since it shows how people feel lost and alone, looking for comfort in things like music, love, or food. Talking about “America and Eternity” shows they’re also trying to understand deeper things, like the meaning of life and the problems in the world around them. It shows how people feel empty and are searching for answers
One of the last stanzas of the poem struck me, partially because it somewhat summarizes the rest of the poem. “I’m with you in Rockland where we hug and kiss the United States under our bedsheets the United States that coughs all night and won’t let us sleep.” It touches on this love/hate relationship with the US as a country. A citizen of the US can’t help but love their country, but sometimes the country doesn’t love back. The coughing in the night are the troubles posed to citizens living in an imperfect society.
I agree, this line was also striking to me as well. I think that everyone has to feel at least a little bit of love or pride for their country, and the fact that they’re hiding under the bedsheets might show that its almost “taboo” to feel love for your country, so you have to do it in secret. I do find it interesting, because Rockland is the psychiatric hospital they are at in the poem, so the coughs in the night might be the bad bits of the hospital where they aren’t really treated with the best conditions, so they only have each other for comfort.
Hi Kai! I agree that the quote you provided definitely foreshadows the overall message of the poem: although America may not fulfill one’s ideals, there is still a sense of a lingering fondness for the country. Furthermore, I think this particular quote also beautifully encapsulates what others would depict of America (in the context of the poem). For instance, throughout the poem, readers witness as Ginsberg describes how the American culture comes with limitations and therefore, this destroys the “best minds” of Ginsberg’s generation — meaning that individuals are oppressed from essentially challenging societal standards and expectations. By Ginsberg ending the poem with this quote rather than the beginning, it forces the reader to also reflect on their perception of America and their “love/hate” connection to it.
What I found striking was the line “who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried their torsos night after night” (Line 23) The reason being because the image of a paint hotel where you “eat” fire and also drink turpentine, which is a horrible smelling toxic liquid used to clean off paintbrushes, thin and clean off oil paint. All of this happening in “Paradise Alley” is a stark contrast to the disturbing language at the beginning. And then the image of purgatory comes up. I can almost imagine an alley of burning flames and misery.
I like how you mention that you can almost imagine this scene from reading the line. I also thought that Ginsberg’s rich vocabulary made it easy to visualize a scene in your head. It’s almost like he wanted to force an image into the reader’s mind and see things from another perspective.
I think this line you chose perfectly emulates the message that poem is trying to suggest, the true madness of the night and its quick, but deadly fixes. These fixes make you so insane that one resorts to drinking turpentine, which as you said, is a severely maddening concept and image to conjure in one’s mind. I too see this dastardly picture he is creating, showing the reader the horrors that have turned humans to madness, being a shell of what once was.
One visual from the poem that struck me was in part 1, where Ginsberg writes, “who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism and subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy” (Ginsberg). I found these lines to encapsulate Howl’s protest against institutions of power in America. It was a strong imagery combining something so common as a potato salad, with tragic acts of suicide and lobotomy. It’s a rebellion of disrespecting academic institutions like the CCNY, critiquing the system as a whole to be imperfect and not made for the Americans who are forced to conform to society. The shaven heads is also something I want to comment on, where it’s a deliberate form of defiance, protesting as a collective with personal change.
I agree, the use of potato salad really gave a strong imagery and picture of the scenery. instead of using fancy words Ginsberg uses common and everyday objects to create the exaggerated contrast between potato salad to suicide. It shows it’s disagreement with institutions like CCNY, and using shaved heads as a symbolism of his protest in a visual sense.
A phrase I found striking in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl is when he states, “who threw their watches off the roof to cast their ballot for Eternity outside of Time, & alarm clocks fell on their heads every day for the next decade.” This quote, I think, does a good job of capturing the inescapability of modernity and its restraints. The act of throwing the watches off the roof symbolizes a rejection of the mechanized and bureaucratic nature of the modern order. They reject this nature in the hopes of reaching some sort of spiritual enlightenment, in that they “cast their ballot for Eternity.” Despite this rejection, they are never able to escape the modern system shown in how they are struck daily in the head with an alarm clock.
The poem Howl is filled with tons of vivid imagery, which was super interesting and engaging to me because I felt like I was able to really visualize what Ginsberg writes about. Specifically, the line: “hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob” struck me because I felt like its such a real, relatable human emotion that the reader can imagine experiencing themselves. It’s a true feeling that I think happens to a lot of people when they are in such a ridiculously hopeless situation, they can’t help but laugh to cope at first, but then break down into depression. I also found a couple of quotes suggestive of self-harm, striking because of the rawness and exposition of hidden suffering it symbolizes. “Burned cigarette holes in their arms”- to protest capitalism and “who cut their wrists… successively unsuccessfully,” saying that people try to escape this world but can’t succeed and give up.
A striking line is “who threw their watches off the roof to cast their ballot for Eternity outside of Time, & alarm clocks fell on their heads every day for the next decade.” Ginsberg capitalizes “Time” and “Eternity,” almost personifying them as rival figures. I interpreted time to be an oppressive, restrictive force (or “myth”) that the best minds of his generation try to defy, but in their defiance, face stark abuse. To me, it’s representative of how nonconformists are often punished for their rebellion. It’s interesting that they yearn for Eternity when considering the various references to suicide in the poem.
I agree! I also think Allen Ginsberg refers a lot to time in the aspect of present, past, and future as in a way compares them. This line also grabbed my attention especially the first part of the line “who threw their watches off the roof” . The imagery given with the word “threw”, creates an intense emotion of rebellion that his friends are trying to achieve from this reality and oppression of new freedoms and ideas. I also like the line “gave up and were forced to open antique stores where they thought they were growing old and cried”. Its not a line of unhappiness but more of an illusion and hope they are creating for themselves to survive this reality, they’re form of rebelling.
In part one of Howl the first few lines shocked me. “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.” I believe hes talking about people who are struggling in their lives and inorder to relax they have to go to the black side of town to get drugs like cocaine. I thought it was really interesting that he would start the poem off like this.
One striking phrase from this poem that I found is from the first stanza “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” (Soloman Line 1). I found this line striking because it was the opening line and it really set up what I had expected about the rest of the poem, especially because I did not know what the poem would be about from the title. It is also a very powerful statement and really caught my attention.
I think the opening howl feels more like desperation than straight anger or joy. The line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” makes it feel like a cry for help. The usage of the words starving, hysterical, and naked are raw and devastating words. Clearly, the howl is coming from someone who’s watching everything around them fall apart and can’t really stop it.
Yes, I agree with you. Part 1 of the poem is full of different kinds of people who are suffering and struggling to live in a modern society. I felt a strong sense of alienation from the opening line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked”. I think the “howl” here is not one of joy, but of lament. The poet see this reality but has no way to change it.
I definitely agree with this interpretation and to add on to it, the switch to repetition and repeating words adds to that sense of desperation. To me, it almost creates the start of a decent into madness as he starts out simply but it then soon evolves into repeated words like “who” to then “Moloch” and finally continues to the entire phrase of “I’m with you in Rockland”. This beginning part showcases the desperation before a slip into an almost madness, it is the time where his truer thoughts can still show through and only minimal repetition takes place.
To me, the opening section of Howl feels like a kind of spiritual panic; it’s desperation, sadness and controlled chaos — controlled by the rhythm of the poem almost. It’s the cry of someone attempting to make sense of a numb world, and it goes past simple emotions of rage or sadness. There is a very intense feeling of loneliness that’s underneath the chaotic energy when Ginsberg writes, “who dragged themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.” He seems to be capturing the breakdown of a generation in real time, and the howl acts is a warning but also witness to this.
This is so true, I didn’t think of the opening howl as desperation, but after reading your response, it helps solidify my thoughts. To me, the prose illustrated a theme of compromise—selling your soul to find a moment of quiet. I see this especially in the line: “burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night.” It seems like the poet reveals how the person is trying to escape the world they’re in—and willing to do anything in order to find peace.
First time reading the poem I viewed it as having a positive emotion but it’s very interesting how you interpreted it because I can see how Ginsberg’s tone can be perceived as a spiritual panic.
The emotional valence of the opening howl feels like a sense of joy and gratitude. Although the word “holy” is being used numerous times followed with an exclamation mark, may come off as intense or aggressive but Ginsberg’s emphasis portrays a positive tone. A key line that shows this is when Ginsberg writes, “The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!” By repeating the word holy, Ginsberg highlights on things in our lives that we often ignore or overlook, showing that all things are sacred even if they are seen as regular or secular.
The howl at the beginning of the poem feels like a mix of grief and awe to me. Its a desperate lament for lost brilliance as evident by the line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.” The howl is a cry of sorrow over genius wasted and beauty unraveling. It’s more than just rage at society and joy in rebellion, it seems to be a sorrowful recognition of whats been lost. The howl mourns what the world did to these people, and what they did to themselves. (Jack Kerouac grew up 3 mins away from me)
To me, the tone here is that of an ecstatic revelation, a spiritual manifestation. This is Ginsberg declaring everything as sacred…My attention was brought to this quote: “The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy.” It feels like he had a revelation. He extends this “holiness” to that which wouldn’t normally be considered holy. Reclaiming the obscene and declaring them holy.
I think this howl is a vindictive howl, one of protest against the repression of capitalism and a society that begs for conformity and punishes individualism and difference. It is unforgiving in its protest, but also has a certain glee attached to it, the joy of breaking free of societal chains and having the guts to be how they want without caring about how society punishes them. A line you can clearly see this in is such: “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism.” Here, such a protest is directly mentioned, and how these people are rebelling against the standards of society. Another line that I think less obviously represents this is: “yacketayakking screaming vomiting whispering facts and memories and anecdotes and eyeball kicks and shocks of hospitals and jails and wars.” This illustrates the communal protest of the people outside of mainstream society; the protest is in their every move and in their very being. I think this whole poem is a celebration of the lives of those that society looks down on, the lives that aren’t the standard of what is the “proper” way to live, and a celebration of their protest.
I agree with your analysis, Amilia, and I also think this “Howl” is one of compassion and one signaling a potential warning. He is describing how people, at least those who are original thinkers and ones who do not align themselves with conformity, are stripped of their humanity and left to fend for themselves, spiraling into a form of degeneracy. The line, “who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked and trembling before the machinery of other skeletons,” emphasizes this sense of helplessness and barrenness of the world for these great minds. They are found among other “skeletons” stripped of their flesh and organs, left with a fraction of themselves. He warns that the world will lose a great amount of intellectual advancement by punishing the flourishing of these outsiders.
I most definitely agree with this, this howl is a cry of pain-filled vindictiveness at the state of the Western world. It gives the reader and what it has done to America’s best, what I’m assuming to be talented Americans as he mentioned “the best minds of my generation”. Ginsberg, in Part I alone, describes a litany of individuals for whom he shares pity over, and the more individuals he lists, the more pain that can be sensed in his words.
The emotional valence of the howl in “Howl” is one of despair and hopelessness. Ginsberg expresses this when writing “with mother finally ******, and the last fantastic book flung out of the tenement window, and the last door closed at 4 A.M. and the last telephone slammed at the wall in reply and the last furnished room emptied down to the last piece of mental furniture, a yellow paper rose twisted on a wire hanger in the closet, and even that imaginary, nothing but a hopeful little bit of hallucination—” (Ginsberg lines 79-83). By listing everything that was lost due to societal pressure, including family, belongings, and even imagination, Ginsberg creates a sense of sadness. His choice to put “last” before each item he mentions shows how final these losses are. Reflecting on this quote, the howl is not just out of anger, but built on extreme sorrow from one who has lost everything.
The opening howl comes across as a mix of desperation and admiration to me. Ginsberg begins the poem with, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” which reads as though he’s mourning the people he thought would have been of high value or had major potential, but were crushed by society. Towards the systems that failed them, Ginsberg is frustrated. And not only pitying these people–he portrays a sense of awe in which he honors them. The howl doesn’t convey an attitude of strictly rage or joy alone; he’s morbidly compelled by the pain and suffering, unable to look away. It mimics a tumult or outcry of pain as he’s pretty much grieving the aptitude that “could have been.”
Although I’m not sure my interpretation is correct I think that Footnote to Howl’s emotion is empathy. Now the reason I say that is because with the quote “ Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel!” we see that everything is “holy” and my interpretation is that everything is equal. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you are, what you do with your life, what matters is that you are equally as important as any other person you walk by.
From my interpretation, a howl for an animal, like a wolf, is often used to gather the pack and signal a specific location. I believe the “howl” in Ginsberg’s poem serves a similar purpose. It calls out to the young population of America, shares his views on the emptiness of mainstream culture, and sends a signal of change and rebellion. This mirrors the goal of Beat culture, which was to reject conformity and inspire a more authentic and meaningful way of living. As Ginsberg writes, he howls for “the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,” signaling a call to those who feel lost or disillusioned, and urging them to wake up and challenge the system that has crushed them.
In the opening line of the poem, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” there is a lot of frusturation and sorrow. The use of the words hysterical and destroyed help contribute to the emotional valence by showing how the speaker is not just angry or joyful, simpler emotions, he’s affected on a much deeper lever. He’s griewving the loss of minds destroyed, losing them to a broken world. I think this “howl” is more a cry of pain for those consumed by a society that does nothing for them. It’s a much rawer emotion than just rage or joy or anger.
I viewed the opening section of Ginsberg’s poem as a desperate, fed-up “howl” that begs for the recognition of suffering. Ginsberg refers to many groups such as drug addicts, homosexuals, and criminals– who were all “outcasts” of society. Ginsberg’s reference to psychiatric patients specifically stood out to me, where he explains how those “who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia” (Ginsberg). The first thing that caught my eye was the absence of commas, where the sentence just rambles on in a disjointed manner that resembles the way that some speak or act after being put through traumatic psychological experiences or inhumane psychiatric treatment such as what is listed above. Ultimately, this adds on to the desperate tone of the poem, where it feels like Ginsberg is trying to bring attention to how horribly society treats its “outcasts”.
When looking at the opening, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” they seem to be in distraught. Ginberg has witnessed something so horrific yet can’t be angry nor worried through the usage of their words, it sounds like they are in deeper pain but can’t express it. Their howl sounds more like a scream, but the scream is not out of anger nor sadness.
The first line of “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” foreshadows what will happen later on in the poem.(Ginsberg). In the beginning the poem focuses on struggle and desperation (as Sophia pointed out). I saw, however, that in the beginning the intellect of such minds are present, with those who “studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kabbalah because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas” and “followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity, a hopeless task, and so took ship to Africa” (Ginsburg). This dwindles as the poem progresses, and starts to focus more on the suffering and difficulties. To me, the first part of the poem displays what was lost, and feels like grief. The great minds of so many people have deteriorated, and this is a loss that can’t be undone because so much damage has already been done.
“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked…”
With this quote in mind, it seems that the poem opens with a howl of grief and desperation and not just rage. Ginsberg mourns the loss of his generation, where there are those who are driven mad or crushed by a culture that leaves no space for spiritual or creative freedom. The repetition of raw and vulnerable images like his use of “starving hysterical naked”suggests not anger alone, but a deep lament for what America has done to its most sensitive and visionary souls. It’s a howl of anguish to expose a country that glorifies consumption while silencing dissent.
All of the different sections have a certain tone they stick to. I interpret the first section as chaos, specifically the chaos that is found in us. Except for specific parts, each line seems to tell a story that is isolated from everything around it. The range in these lines tells me that maybe this is supposed to represent the people, some people are degenerate, some people are suffering, some people are having a lot of sex, etc. The second section is when it starts getting crazy. I believe Moloch is some sort of deity that is tied to sacrificing children (thank you Google). If the previous section was the chaos of people, this is the chaos of the mind. Whoever are narrator is, they are going crazy and it’s because of Moloch. This person feels trapped by Moloch, calling them an “incomprehensible prison,” which implies that this person possibly did make a sacrifice to Moloch (part 2, line 8). If so, they haven’t gotten much in return, as they seem to blame all suffering on Moloch.
I think your interpretation of the sections as different forms of chaos is really compelling. The idea that the first section represents the chaos within people, through fragmented, individual stories is a great way to explain the disjointed yet vivid imagery. I also liked how you connected Moloch in the second section to the chaos of the mind. The phrase “incomprehensible prison” definitely suggests entrapment or a loss of agency. It’s interesting to think about how Moloch might symbolize the societal or institutional forces that break people down mentally after they’ve already been broken emotionally or spiritually.
The emotional tone completely shifts in the Footnote to Howl. It feels like a full on emotional reversal. After all the madness, fragmentation, and rage of the earlier sections, this part comes as a surprise of hope. When Ginsberg repeats “holy” over and over, it’s like a reclamation as if he is trying to sanctify the chaos that we just went through. One line that stuck with me was… “everyone is holy! everyone is holy! everyone is holy!”. Its feels like he’s declaring that even people who have been cast out out the system still matter. It’s not necessarily blind optimism, its messy and loud, like he’s screaming holiness into places where no one thinks to look.
In part one of “Howl,” Ginsberg shows that the creative and intelligent minds of the youth are being suppressed and hindered by the structure and conformity of modern society. My favorite part of the poem is the lines: “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism, / who distributed Supercommunist pamphlets in Union Square weeping and undressing while the sirens of Los Alamos wailed them down, and wailed down Wall, and the Staten Island ferry also wailed, / who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked and trembling before the machinery of other skeletons” (Ginsberg Howl lines 31–33).This vivid imagery and unique references paint a picture of a young political activist being torn down by the Capitalist structure of America, both literally and figuratively. The tone of this section of the poem is dismal and cheerless to show that the activist has been beaten down and cries out in miserable failure caused by a loss of conformity. What makes this section rich is the unique references to urban monuments (like Union Square) and typical sights (like tobacco smoke) of New York City.
The tone of the poem in “Footnote” shifts completely to feverish excitement. My favorite lines that showcase this are: “Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums! / Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! / Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles!”(Ginsberg Footnote Lines 17-21). The repetition of the word “holy” conveys an epiphany: that everything about the modern world is sacred. The range of scenery this poem covers, along with the exclamation marks and capitalization, makes this footnote section more intense than other.
I feel the emotional shift of Howl in its later sections in its specificity. Especially in the third section, when he is speaking more directly to Carl, it starts to feel more desperate and personal. Another shift is in the “Footnote.” If you look up a video of him reading it, he sounds continually more distressed and entranced. The refrains of “holy” feel like a religious chant, but it turns into something darker.
At the end of Howl, the emotion becomes intense and passionate when compared to part 1. The author’s monologue tone is being replaced with short words (‘Moloch’ )and an exclamation mark). Part 2 feels like an outbreak from the people described in part 1, sharing their pain. This becomes more obvious in part 3 with the format ‘I’m with you in Rockland.’ as the narrator shifts from one observing the other, isolated and miserable, to the crowd collectively speaking to the one with empathy, showing their connection regardless of time and space.
Jasper Johns’ Three Flags painting takes the American flag which everyone sees all the time and makes it feel different by stacking three of them on top of each other. Each one is a bit smaller so they almost pop out at you. It makes the flag seem heavy and 3D instead of just this flat symbol you don’t think about. This makes you actually look at the flag as a real object, not just something to glance at or automatically salute. It kind of makes you question what the flag really means and what it means to the viewer.
I agree that the flag being placed on itself multiple times forces us to actually consider what the flag look likes like. I also noticed that the flags look like an optical illusion where they are stacked on top of each other, making the flag seem like it pops. This attention to the flag helps the viewer consider it more than usual, or as to your point, more than something we just salute or glance at.
I can definetely agree with your point, this method of stacking the flags can be seen something more than as a painting but a message. The stacking makes it seem like the flags are way more important than what people bring it to be, and by stacking them, making it feel like its kinda of shoving at your face to look at it more and more. I think this is a great subtle way from the artist to show us something that should be considered to be respected.
Jasper Johns “Flag (Moratorium)” subtracts the traditional red, white, and blue of the American flag and replaces them with black, green, and orange transforming a national symbol of pride. This color shift undermines the flag’s usual associations. By altering only the palette, Johns adds emotional weight and political critique.
I agree, by John replacing the colors of the American flag it changes the symbolic meaning of it. For example the black may demonstrate protests, the green might define the American land, and the orange could suggest warning of some sort. Regardless of what the colors can mean, changing the colors of the flag strips it from its symbolic meaning and creates a new flag with completely new meanings.
In Jasper Johns’ “Flag” (1954), the composition of the colors, strips and stars are not uniform, but rather full of gaps, brush strokes and variations in value. Parts of the red strips have white brush strokes on top, the white stripes have gaps that show a blue or yellow background and the stars slightly differ in shapes and sizes. The visible “imperfections” in this painting really stood out to me considering the flag is usually depicted with uniform colors. The layered strokes and messy colors seem to say how the flag, and America, is continuously changing and evolving. I think Johns is trying to question what the American flag stands for and if America truly lives up to those ideals.
I like how you focused on the imperfections in Flag and how they reflect a constantly evolving America. That also stood out to me. It’s like John is forcing us to slow down and actually see the flag instead of just blindly reacting to it. I want to add that there’s also something uncomfortable about the texture. The drips and uneven layers makes it seem like the flag I falling apart which pushes a viewer to question the gap between the symbol and reality. It’s not just thats America changing, it’s that those changes come with pain, conflict, and resistance.
The Jasper Johns, Three Flags(1958), is an art piece representing the U.S.A. flag outlined with brown, insinuating it is in a frame. The piece has three flags, overlapped with each other, becoming smaller and more distant until reaching the last flag. The piece adds two other flags to the original, but it also transforms the original flag by forming a completely new one. This piece overly represents a culmination of the same flag into one flag.
That’s a great explanation of what this artwork is, and I didn’t realize the frame around it. I would like to add that although the three flags come together to almost form a new flag, just by barely looking at it, it still can be seen as the American flag. Although the artwork doesn’t change the flag at all, by layering the flag on itself is a way of adding something to the flag, even if it is a little thing. It’s still the American flag, but also very different.
Flag by Jasper Jones turns a symbol so familiar to us into art by making every brushstroke visible, serving as a reminder that even something we’d give no thought to or is mundane was created on the basis of required effort and intention. Validating the piece as art, each stoke was deliberate and shows texture to prove that it was created at the hands of a living being, and not printed or copied. The numerous amount of visible strokes alone tells to the labor that went into it’s production, drawing a parallel to how the U.S. itself was built upon the collective effort of so many people and generations. John forces a reflection about identity, and how nationalism is manifests in seemingly ordinary objects, by emphasizing his creative process in this work.
I agree with you Kennedy that this piece is about forcing the viewer to take a second look at an ordinary object. In fact, in my own viewing of Jasper John’s work, I made a discovery that I had never considered. In Flag, there are only 48 stars on the American Flag. There are 6 rows of 8 stars. This is because in 1954 when Jasper John’s produced this work, there were only 48 states — Alaska and Hawaii were not added until 1959. This is really interesting actually because if we take a look at Flag Moratorium, which was made in 1969, there are now 50 stars on Jasper John’s American flag. No longer are there rigid rows and colums — the stars are staggered. This subtle difference is something I wouldn’t have taken note of if these were just regular stock images of the American flag. Having them in “art form” allowed me to re-examine the American flag.
With Corita Kent’s Rainbow Swash, she manages to turn a plain white gas tank into a vibrant art piece and transform it into a symbol of an entire city. Many people, like myself, connect her piece to entering and leaving Boston, as it’s one of the first things you see when driving on or off the I-93 freeway. Without Corita Kent’s creative ability, the gas tank may never have become a recognizable symbol of the city and might not have caught the attention of so many eyes. Without her touch, it would have just been another ordinary gas tank becoming easily forgotten and overlooked.
For me, Jasper Johns modifications of the American flag is symbolically representative of America at war. His work in 1969, the Flag Moratorium can be interpreted as a memorial for the military soldiers, it’s directly meant to be a piece that stands for anti-war. Culturally, the transformation made a direct impact during the Vietnam war era, representing a powerful piece for peace and encouraging Americans to recognize the lack of necessity for America’s participation in the Vietnam war. I interpret the colors he’s chosen to represent the military, as well as, the death that will come out of actively being involved with an unwarranted war.
The Corita Kent piece “that they may have life” turned something non-art into art, taking the packaging of the classic American wonder-bread and re-names it Enriched bread, adding written messages into the distinguishable circles of the logo. At first glance, this transformative piece might just be about the problem of hunger and starvation families face, but another thing at stake Kent may be pointing at, could be a lack of faith in religion and distrust in government care. One of the text circles says “that God cannot appear to the except in the form of bread”, directly relating to the bible and maybe hinting at God’s manna from heaven and His miracle of being able to feed thousands with just 5 bread loaves. A Christian view on this could be suggesting that people just need to have a deeper faith and rely on God as provision because the government isn’t reliable and doesn’t provide.
Jasper Johns, Flag Moratorium artwork takes the concept of an American Flag and turns it into something completely different just by inverting the colors. He uses the flag that represents unity, nation, and pride and basically makes it mean the opposite. Just doing that alone makes the work very powerful. During the time that this artwork was made, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Vietnam War. At the time this painting of his would have had a lot of talk about it. This is because not only did he change the American flag, but he also named the artwork Flag Moratorium. Moratorium means to temporarily stop or forbid something. In a time where most people would want the country to stand together, he made an artwork that you can probably guess has something to do with no longer being engaged with the war.
Through reverse the American flag’s color Jasper John’s shows his objection to the symbol of flag for it was completely opposite, that’s such a good take. Another interesting thing about this piece is that a small white dot is painted in the middle of the flag, base on you connection to Vietnam war I wonder if this is a hint of Vietnam’s flag. Because the complementary color of blue is actually orange, but John focus on ushering green tone for majority of the canvas. And green is the complementary color of red. On a way it feels like the pattern of American Flag is covered on top of a revered Vietnam flag.
I thought the Corita Kent, Rainbow Swash (1971) was really interesting because they used a large tank that could be seen by a lot of people. Its adds something to the tank that makes it special. I am from mass so when I would go to boston, I would always see it and wondered what it meant.
In Corita Kent’s Love stamp, I feel like it does more to the cultural perspective of art than it does to the functionality of postage stamps. Postage stamps were always a little piece of art that is a small part in a person’s daily life but through this artwork, it becomes more than just art – it becomes a message. Culturally, I feel like it adds to the meaning of what a postage stamp is supposed to be by incorporating social and political aspects to just another consumer product at the time. Similarly to how color adds further interpretation to a drawing, this type of art does the same to common objects like postage stamps.
I really like your analysis on Corita Kent’s Love Stamp and I think you raise a really good point when talking about what a postage stamp can mean. I feel like it’s almost ironic in a way that something required to send a message-a letter-to someone can also carry a meaning. It’s almost as if it points to an overall idea of even the smallest most ordinary things can be powerful. Something doesn’t need to be loud and huge for it to have meaning. As far as art vs. non-art goes, I think this suggests that anything can be considered art and art surrounds us. There isn’t really a clear boundary on what art is.
Jasper Johns’ Flag painting is really just a painting of an American flag. It’s turning someing that we see everyday and elevating it into art. Culturally, I think it’s a way to let people think about what American flag stands for and what kinds of culture it represents. I think it’s kind of exploring the tolerance of American culture and aiming to figure out what can be considered art in American culture.
I agree that it’s just a painting, as it doesn’t try to do anything more than simply show the flag. However, the unique thing about “Flag” is that is looks like the flag has been stepped on, having footprints in it. Not only also has the American flag, a symbol for the people, been turned into art but the art holds a new meaning on top of it. This was made a year before the start of the Vietnam war, so most likely this is a form of political protest that portrays itself as patriotic.
Jasper John’s “Flag Moratorium” is interesting in that it takes an American flag, a great symbol rather than a piece of art, and artistically altars it. The total change in color scheme incites different emotions and thoughts when looking at it compared to the traditional red, white and blue flag. This change seems like it could be controversial to some however, as it takes away a familiarity towards an important symbol, perhaps representing a mockery or sense of unhappiness in the state of affairs in the eyes of the artist. Moratorium means a pause or delay in something, and perhaps this flag represent discontent in what is happening, and therefore a pause of respect and symbolic strength of the flag itself.
Yes, this is a great insight on the flag. It makes you think if there’s a political message hidden in the artwork. I want to add that the stripes on our original flag has red and white stripes but the “Flag Moratorium” piece has green. According to color theory, red is the opposite of green and black is the opposite of white. Usually our flags colors’ represent bravery, purity, and justice, but now that the colors are direct opposites of each other, this flag could now represent the opposite of these positive traits. So, I agree with your interpretation on how this flag could mean there is a pause of respect.
Jasper Johns’ Flag painting appeals to me because it takes something like the American flag that Americans usually see almost everyday and presents it in an unexpected way. Normally, when you see the flag it has perfectly placed stars and neat stripes. However, in this painting, the flag isn’t necessarily perfect. The colors are uneven, paint appears to be dripping, and there are some brown patches giving off a textured look. Culturall, this is very significant. To me it depicts the United States as a flawed nation that is struggling with many conflicts everyday. So this imperfectly perfect version of the flag showcases a country that still has work to do to improve its country.
I like the view you took on this. The way the flag is presented it would make a person think it was a daft of the earlier flag. I agree that it can show that America has imperfections but also impurities which can be represented by the different colors the flag is painted in rather than the original Red Blue and White.
I think that the “Rainbow Swash” by Corita Kent is non art turned into art. This is because the rainbow is painted on a big landmark in Boston thats very hard to miss. The second youre on route 93 whatever direction your going your bound to see it. The Rainbow swash I believe has a correlation to Kent’s 1985 “love Stamp” I think that in the time of the Rainbow Swash she was putting her art at stake because essentially rainbow relates to the LGBTQ. She was putting herself out there in doing so she was also putting the city out there because the rainbow was painted on a huge landmark in the middle of Boston.
Corita Kents, Rainbow Swash is definitely an ideal image of turning non-art into art. The most interesting part of this is how it turns the ordinary and transforms it into something that has meaning and makes a difference. Personally for this art, I have seen it many times simply passing by in Boston, I think the most impactful part of it, is that it turned my head and it becomes memorable. Without the art, it would have never been seen. Through art, of a standard gas tank, transformed into something eye catching and important enough to be seen now. Simplicity is transformed into meaning through everyday objects, a powerful too for be seen and get attention.
Jasper John’s Flag turns something usually not considered art, like the American flag, into such. John’s uses beeswax and newspaper to create artwork of the flag. This act compels people to rethink something they otherwise take for granted. By putting the flag in a gallery, Johns questions notions of patriotism, identity, and the line between art and symbol. Culturally, this move questions who gets to define national meaning and is a reminder that even the most iconic icons can be reinterpreted, especially during politically volatile times like the Cold War.
Flag Moratorium (1969) shows shades of blues and greens instead of the normal red, white, as blue and that stood out to me first. Instead of it being boldly patriotic, it’s kinda of a calmer statement. it challenges patriotism and how it can look and feel. it invites the viewers to reconsider power can also be seen/reflected as grief and resistance – even transformation.
The rainbow swash is special to me because I see it every time I entered Boston through the I-93. For me it represents optimism with a similar design to Kent’s Love Stamp. I feel like its supposed to represent America being a melting pot and that of equality among all people. The stripes show a kind of harmony among colors and I think that is representative of the civil rights movements and peace movements during that time. It turns a rather plain storage tank, into a landmark, kind of similar to Fenway Park and the Citgo sign.
Good connection Harvey! I also found this parallel between an artwork by Jasper John and the foundations America has been built on, like you mention here. And it credits your response even more that you resonate with the rainbow swash, and that you associate it with a big aspect of your identity (your school), much like many others who view it the same was as you do I’m sure.
In Corita Kent’s work, that they may have life, the original work referenced is Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread is a popular packaged bread brand that is widely consumed by many Americans. Her use of Wonder Bread perhaps reflects consumerism due to the widespread consumption of Wonder Bread. The words on the side, “Theres so many human people that god cannot appear to them except in the form of bread”. This message mocks the consumerism in our society that substitutes things that fill our soul such as god, with enriched bread that represents soulless consumerism.
Jasper Johns’ artworks featuring the American flag prompt the audience to examine an object typically associated with the country/political ideals through an artistic lens. A lens that values the aesthetics of the American flag. Thus turning non-art into art. Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium features the inverse colors of the American flag, with a white dot in the center. If you look at the dot for 30 seconds and close your eyes and blink rapidly, you can see the original colors of the American flag. As shown in the comment sections for this class, the painting can be interpreted in many ways, thus making it art rather than an object to be displayed as an act of patriotism.
Hi Ava, I really enjoyed and agree with your take on Jasper Johns’ work. I also wanted to add that Moratorium uniquely reinvents a familiar symbol, while also challenging one’s perception of the American flag. I really liked how you mentioned the paintings optical illusion, which pushes viewers to engage with the piece, considering it as something more than just art, but an interactive experience. It is very interesting how something so politically charged such as Moratorium can be reframed into a space for interpretation.
The Love stamp (1985) by Corita Kent shows how postal stamps can be used to convey an idea of inclusivity. The wide and textured brush strokes give a sense of creativity, authenticity, and intimacy instead of machine-made uniformity. The colors are so bright, pure, and optimistic. They almost remind me of the crayons I used from elementary school, which further shows the pure intention of building an inclusive community. This reminds me of the LGBTQ+ flag, which also uses various colors to express equality and inclusivity.
Yes, I definitely agree that the bright colors speak to a message of inclusivity! I find your connection to the LGBTQ+ flag interesting; while I don’t think Corita Kent had that in mind, it’s fascinating that humans have interpreted the rainbow as a symbol of diversity for so long. I find it odd, however, that her work promotes genuine love and connection while being a superficial, consumerist item: a stamp. Many people don’t put much thought into the stamp they’re using, seeing it as a mere formality. Perhaps Kent was aiming to push for the widespread use of it without thinking about this aspect.
In the Three Flags painting I interpret the image as a political statement implying that with each flag getting smaller it symbolizes the ideas America claims to stand for yet diminishes. Things like liberty and justice for all is now become less and less true for the minority. Which leads me into also thinking about the American Dream. The small flag represents the American Dream which is supposed to give equal opportunities to all, is now being depicted as something that is not easily accessible.
In Corita Kent’s art called, Rainbow Swash (1971), is a gas tank having colorful painting swatches. She has turned an ordinary industrial structure into public art. It is allowing everyone to see what she has done than usually going to museum pay money to see few pieces of art. In a way this is beautiful because she is challenging the traditional idea of where artwork belongs and is expanding different types of canvases. As well, the gas tank usually represents industry and energy consumption and the colorful painting swatches represents diversity and LGBTQ+ pride. It is challenging the boundaries of politics and diversity, which Kent is trying to join both together to work peacefully.
I agree with your analysis, but I want to add how this piece also has a political message of challenging the Vietnam War and promoting peace. The rainbow is a universal symbol of hope, contrasting heavily with the despair and division caused by the war in Vietnam, which by 1971 had caused much social unrest at home. The scale of this piece is a loud and public challenge to the continued actions of the U.S. government in Vietnam. As you mentioned, this piece turns a functional industrial structure into a representational piece of art, a statement within itself.
In “Three Flags” by Jasper Johns, a possible political message that can be interpreted is the layers of flags and the unification it forms. The painting has two flags which forms one in total. These layers reflect the layers in the American society or overall nation that allows it to progress or represent a powerful strong united nation such as the people, the economy, and even the military. The painting is also composed of intense vibrant colors which give a sense of boldness from the nation, in which in this context it conveys the bravery of the country and the nation of finishing one of the greatest wars, WWII, and entering more like the cold war.
Corita Kent’s that they may have life stuck out to me since she transforms a water tank into essentially a piece of art. Kent’s water tank reminds me of a discussion we had earlier this semester and in RH103, which is that if someone transcends the boundaries of traditional art by not painting on a canvas, something could still be deemed as art. In other words, this act of transformation demonstrates that art is not limited to traditional spaces; Kent proves that art can be expressed in public, accessible places — such as a water tank.
Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the national anthem is a clear protest of the Vietnam war. Hendrix intentionally warps the song, which in itself was a rebellious act. At this point, the national anthem was incredibly boring because everyone followed the same playbook. It wasn’t until Whitney Houston performance at Super Bowl 25 that people realized you add any sort of style to the anthem. Not only does Hendrix do whatever he wants with the song, he adds specific noises throughout. There are parts that sound like screaming or crying (around 2:00), and there are other parts that imitate bombs (see 2:40). And obviously, he is “saying” these things in the most provocative way, during the national anthem which is supposed to be respected.
I absolutely agree, Hendrix’s rendition completely rewrites the meaning of the national anthem. I’d also say that it’s made even more powerful by the place and timing. Beyond just a music festival, Woodstock brought together a generation of people fed up with racism, war, and political dishonesty. In addition to musically rebelling, I think Hendrix was reflecting America’s paradoxes by intentionally warping the anthem. The Bomb and siren sounds he mimics are more than just noise; they serve as a warning that excessive patriotism can be harmful. They force the audience to hear the violence and what lies beyond the anthems pride.
What stood out to me was how hiw physical presence on stage also became part of the protest. he is a blackman and a U.S A rmy veteran, he reclaimed the national anthem and made it his.
I love Jasper Johns’, Flag Moratorium so much. I looked at it in high school when we were talking about the Vietnam War. Johns really killed it with this because even in my small little school in a red state it still made people uncomfortable and that’s the point. The Vietnam War was horrific unnecessary and cruel to both the people of Vietnam and the American’s that were “fighting for their country”. Johns knew this and this art has so many subtle digs at it. Firstly changing the colors of the flag to be sadder not happy, bright or patriotic colors? Genius. The name being a nod to a protest movement. Brilliant. I love the subtleness of it because he took his normal subject, the American flag, and tweaked it to mean something else entirely
The artwork that stuck with me to have a deeper political message was Jasper Johns, Flag (1954). At first, I didn’t think much of the flag when viewing it through the small window. However, once I clicked on the image, I noticed how I could see each individual stroke of the brush, each shade of red, blue, and white that Johns used. The intentionality to distinguish the colors and textures hints at the larger impact of the Vietnam War —that the overall image of the war may have looked like a unified picture, but within it, the violence that occurred, and the aftereffects of the soldiers are each impacted differently, just like we can see each stroke in the painting.
In all of the street art, there seems to be a big emphasis on the color red. In Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack, the color red pops right at you, whereas in Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice, the red is more subtle. Street art is usually seen as taboo, so I wonder if the red resembles some sort of scandalous side to street art.
I did notice that when I reviewed all the photos, the color red was literally in all the street art, even what it seemed like neon red or bright red in the “Crack is Wack”, maybe red is a symbol of rebellion. Red is known to be a color of aggression, anger, but also energy and excitement, and I feel like you can see these types of emotions in all the street art that are presented here.
I’m going to double down and say that red also is meant to contrast the over abundance of white. Not only does the red pop out more when on a white background, but the use of white could be seen as bland and uninteresting. Street art, in this case, serves to add life where it is so lacking.
The color red was also the first thing that I also recognized. I think the red may represent a call to action a sense of urgency because in the street arts they are trying to bring awareness to social and political issues.
I agree, one key continuity between all these pieces of street art is that they all have red in them to highlight something. For example, Keith Haring, Crack is Wack (1986) is a piece which is located in Harlem New York (I pass by this piece almost everyday) and some might argue the background is orange, but when in person the background is a lot more red than it is orange. Another example is Banksy, If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011) where he uses red spray paint in order to convey his message.
I noticed in all three street artworks that words are a major component of the piece. All of the words included are quite simple and literal in their meaning, besides Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice (1984), however, the “Rx” and “Non Toxic” blurbs contained in the art piece contribute to the understanding that the piece is about health care. In Ana Bambic’s article about the 80’s Kings of street art, most of them use simple diction in their art as well. Like Samo’s “Life Is Confusing” piece is very simple to understand: it literally means what it’s saying. I think the concise, literal language in street art is used because most people walk/drive across street art in a hurry (especially in NYC), so the message of the painting needs to be conveyed immediately.
I found what you said to be very insightful and I 100% agree with you. Street art is not necessarily meant to be something you start at for hours and ponder, considering that often times it’s painted over, destroyed by natural causes, or just simply one doesn’t have time to full take it in. That is why street artists need to make sure that whatever meaning they want to be expressed comes off clearly and doesn’t take long to remember. I do think that it’s meant to stick with a person so that they do think about it beyond just that moment in time, but it needs to be designed in a way that is easily graspable but interpretable in many ways. Words can help create that especially when it’s few words or repeated words.
I really like your point about how the words are clear, simple and straight to the point and it was something I noticed as well. Even with work like Basquiat’s which is more abreast in its message portrayal, the words tie the whole piece of art together to make the message more cohesive. Words are definitely a key part in street art in making its message more universally accessible.
One contrast I noticed in these street artworks is their style. Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack uses cartoon-like figures to convey its message. On the other hand, in Banksy’s street art, such as Parking, the figures are more realistic. Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice is the most abstract one, making it even a little bit uncomfortable to view. I think these pieces really show how each artist has their own unique style.
I agree because it’s like their art is extension of the artists’ and their views of the world. We’re all told to be the change we want to see and it’s like these artists are visually creating that change by starting a conversation. It’s the artists’ unique style that brings us to stop, even if it’s just a minute, and think about something that we may be overlooking. For example, in Banksy’s Parking, he gives a simple contrast and play on words to possibly express a message that gentrification may not be as great as a development and modernization when it takes away communal spaces that encourage connecting with nature and each other.
All of these graffiti images represent a message that relates to America or NYC at the time. The Crack is Wack artwork by Haring represents how crack cocaine has become widespread and is killing others because of addiction. The Melting Point of Ice painting by Basquiat represents chaos, I believe. It has many aspects such as small drawings and dark colors, so I believe it is representing some sort of oppression and chaos in America or NYC. In Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything artwork, it represents how the government or another leading body is trying to stop change and wants to keep the bad parts of America. For example, I believe Banksy is trying to say that the leading powers don’t wish to fix the issues of racism or oppression because if graffiti did do that, it wouldn’t be allowed. This reminds me of WWI propaganda, where if people spread anti-war media, it would be immediately shut down because it would potentially bring about a change. All of these artists are speaking about the corrupt nature of the world and common issues such as drug use, government corruption, and control.
I like how you tied each pieces like addiction, oppression, and government control. What stands out to me is the continuity in how all these artists use street art to reclaim a public space and speak truth. Whether it’s Harring turning a playground to a fight about crack or Banksy mockery, they’re all challenging who gets to control the narrative.
One similarity that I noticed between two of the art works was the concept of looking at the world from a different perspective. For example, Banksy’s “Parking”, removes the ‘ing’ from ‘Parking’ and has painted a little girl on a swing coming off the ‘A’. It draws attention to the bland concrete and dreary cars, while contrasting it with the idea of a park where children play, which feels very vibrant. Banksy’s other work, ‘If Graffiti Changed Anything”, also begs the viewer to look at the world in a different way, calling to the fact that authority would shut down graffiti if it had an actual societal impact.
In all the street art pieces, a key continuity is that each one seems to be making some sort of social and political statement. The artists bring attention to issues such as drug use, censorship, and the lack of public spaces for children. The street art of Bansky, Haring and Basquiat shows that street art can serve as a powerful outlet for addressing political and social issues.
Looking across all of these pieces of art I notice the color red in some shape or form. Banksy utilizes the color for his writing, while the other two artists seem to use it as more of a side color or background instead of for direct emphasis. Typically red is associated with emotions like passion or anger, and I think in these it is more the former. The red in all of these represent the artists personal passion towards what inspires the art itself, while also catching eyes and drawing attention to not only the art but what they are trying to represent, such as the danger of drugs or maybe unhappiness with consumer based city development.
I see that all three artists use the visual language of public signs. Haring’s bright, cartoon-like figures feel like an anti-drug PSA, Basquiat’s text and symbols look like a tagged wall turned into a painting, and Banksy’s clean stencils turn street rules into jokes. They all treat the city as both a surface and the subject, but with Banksy the resistance starts to feel ironic because the same tactics that he used to fight selling art have become a way for him to earn more.
A contrast I noticed between the street art is the differences in style and color to portray the art work. The methods used to tell a messages vary a lot in the way the artist decided to depict it. As seen in Banksy’s, If Graffiti Changed Anything, red is used sparingly only to put emphasis on the written message and the blood on the rats hands, realism is used to depict the rat as well. Yet in Keith Haring’s, Crack is Wack, red is the only colored besides black used and in Jean-Michel Basquiat’s, Melting Point of Ice color varies greatly and there is almost no clear intent with scribbly drawings. It’s interesting how these artist defer in the way they express their message, yet they all have a powerful message their tell through their artwork.
I noticed a strong continuity across these works: the presence of death or decay as a consequence of modern consumerism. The color red appears frequently, signaling urgency, violence, or blood, as a visual representation of danger and mortality. In Melting Point of Ice (1984), Basquiat’s use of human skulls suggests death and unhealthiness leading to our societal collapse, while Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986) features skeletal imagery and what appears to be a $0 bill. This implies a future where the pursuit of money driven by addiction, whether to crack or consumerism, ultimately leads to worthlessness or death. Even Banksy’s Parking (2010), where the “-ing” is removed to leave only “Park,” hints at how consumer infrastructure (like car parks) overtakes natural or communal spaces. The rough, almost chaotic visual style of Basquiat and Haring reflects the urgency of their message.
A key continuity in the street art above is how each piece delivers a social or political message. Whether it’s Haring addressing the crack epidemic or Banksy commenting on censorship and rebellion, all the works use public space to provoke thought and challenge norms. Despite their different styles and eras, they show how street art consistently serves as a form of activism.
A continuity I noticed in all of the artwork is that the art is displayed in a very public place where its easy or the human eye to notice it. It is very hard to miss. For example, Keith Harings painting is in the middle of the highway and it’s so big that it’s hard to miss by any one driving by.
A key contrast in the street art featured above is the shift in how artists engage with both the public and the art world. Haring and Basquiat used street art to communicate directly with audiences, addressing problems like addiction and race in an honest and accessible way. Banksy, on the other hand, uses his art to comment on the commercialization of street art, as seen by his famed Girl With Balloon stunt. While Haring and Basquiat aimed to start conversations with the public, Banksy uses irony to criticize the very system that gave street art its platform.
A continuity between the street art is the idea of dissent. Haring protested the crack epidemic with Crack is Wack, by confronting a public health crisis ignored by the government. Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything suggests that rebellion is tolerated only when it’s powerless, highlighting how protest itself can be stolen. Similarly Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice mixes in the themes of crack, prescription, and systemic decay. Each artist uses this medium to confront authority.
a continuity in these pieces of works is how they are political commentary. Crack is Wack (1986) is directly confronting the epidemic of crack in New York. It used bold lines to convey the urgent message. Public walls being used to challenge power.
All of these graffiti images represent a message that relates to America or NYC at the time. The Crack is Wack artwork by Haring represents how crack cocaine has become widespread and is killing others because of addiction. The Melting Point of Ice painting by Basquiat represents chaos, I believe. It has many aspects such as small drawings and dark colors, so I believe it is representing some sort of oppression and chaos in America or NYC. In Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything artwork, it represents how the government or another leading body is trying to stop change and wants to keep the bad parts of America. For example, I believe Banksy is trying to say that the leading powers don’t wish to fix the issues of racism or oppression because if graffiti did do that, it wouldn’t be allowed. This reminds me of WWI propaganda, where if people spread anti-war media, it would be immediately shut down because it would potentially bring about a change. All of these artists are speaking about the corrupt nature of the world and common issues such as drug use, government corruption, and control.
I think this analysis is really insightful, specifically about the artist’s messages behind their graffiti. However, there is one small part I disagree with, regarding the piece “If Graffiti Changed Anything.” Graffiti is in fact illegal, meaning all these artworks (and all of Banky’s famous pieces) are illegal too. So, I don’t think it’s a case that the government thinks that graffiti is powerless like you implied. I think that the government thinks graffiti and its messages are powerful, and that’s why it’s illegal. You are right, the governments don’t want to change systems of oppression – which is why graffiti is banned. Because the political messages it can convey are a threat to their systems of power, as it acts as a form of communication, protest, and challenges the existing system.
A continuity among the art is tagging of walls and signs that are visible for the audience, which is the general public. These pieces look like they all have a deeper meaning relating to modern day issues, especially with Banksy pieces which often use clever like in Parking to show the use of land that could be for children and play to store vehicles. Other works like the Melting Point of Ice depicting a chaotic scene where I think it has a dual meaning of fighting oppression and drugs as “ice” was a street term for meth. I think the differences heavily depend on the style of the artist but street art uses similar tactics of tagging walls or places people can see.
Hi Harvey I really liked your idea, I also wanted to point out the artists continuous use of bright red and orange in their pieces. The bold colors can symbolize the urgency to the messages such as “Crack is Wack” or ” If Graffiti Changed Anything,” while emphasizing a rebellious tone. It’s interesting how the colors help unify these works, while also matching each artists style/tone.
I agree with your point! It reminds me of our discussions in RH103 about street art purposefully being done on public property. The illegal act of its creation nods to the greater themes in many of the works and the purpose of the genre as a whole. For example, Keith Haring’s “Crack is Wack” was done without a permit and a majority of Banksy’s art is created without permission. In this sense, I believe Banksy’s “If Graffiti Changed Anything” is ironic because graffiti is, in fact, illegal, proving that these works of art do change the world.
One continuity within the artworks above is the publicized recognition of chaos and issues in society. The first piece of art by Keith Haring highlights an important issue during the 80s, “crack is wack”. Underneath there are skeletons, pipes, and fire, which goes to show the destruction that crack brought to many people’s lives. In Jean-Michel Basquiat’s, Melting Point of Ice he includes symbols of black cultures but also mixes in scientific objects and medicine. This could be to highlight the disparity when it comes to the healthcare of minorities and symbolize a collapse in progress. The last piece of art by Banksy, “If Graffiti Changed Anything”, points out the ill intent of the government and our leadership in the world. The image is labeled “If graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.” He highlights the fact that governments thrive off others’ struggles, and they sabotage systems in place that attempt to bring change.
I agree with your analysis, and I appreciate the way you highlighted each painting and the issue it brought up. I want to add to your analysis by saying that all these paintings utilize the color red. Red is a color that calls attention to the audience. And as you said, with all these paintings, they aim to call attention to issues in our society. So the use of red in the art pieces helps reinforce the message of calling attention to these issues.
All of the street art expresses something creative that is outside of the societal norms, and most of them are by words rather than detailed depictions or paint strokes. I find this new way of art very intriguing as all of the past artists focused on using objects to convey new ideas rather than words. We tend to think a picture is worth a thousand words, but here, the graffiti artists are challenging that concept. The appearance of striking messages such as Crack is Wrack can also be read as Is Crack Wrack as a questioning phrase. Another example of creative and ambiguous phrasing is If Graffiti Changed Anything as it allowed the audience to intepret whether grafitti is powerful or not, and let them ponder about the issues in society.
I liked the concept you used of them defying the motif of a picture being worth a thousand words by using a lot of words in their artwork. However, I would like to add that these artworks also use an abundance of pictures to their word driven artwork. Especially seen in Melting Point of Ice it shows a ton of pictures that are extremely rebel which show a continuity across most of them from being morbid pictures or just being done with dark or black colored paint. It really shows the movement is against the norms of society and trying to show the dark side of the world they live in.
Banksy’s Parking is a piece that transforms a boring parking space with letters that say “parking”, to an artpiece that says “park” with a young girl swinging on the A. Banksy’s transformation turns this into a park where children play rather than a parking space, and he hints towards how society transforms land into useful things, such as parking spaces, rather than places for children to enjoy, such as parks. Through his artwork, he reclaims this place of joy for children and also shows us how our creativity can use these boring places as canvases for our imagination, signalling the hope we have for children living in environments with fewer and fewer communal spaces and parks.
I agree with your interpretation, and I also think the child may be a symbol in itself. In a more controlled and monitored environment like a city, freedom and creativity may feel suppressed. People may be overwhelmed by the noise and large population, feeling that they cannot be themselves. A child, on the other hand, represents a wild imagination and untamed character. A child is rebellious and finds happiness in all situations, so the child represents a rebellion against confinement and hopelessness.
A continuity I noticed were the boldness of the colors. I find the choices of uses the colors black and red fascinating. In most of the art pieces red was used and I think that just ties to the artist wanted people to stop and notice. Red is such a bold color that you can’t help but to stop and stare. But I also think it has a deeper message. When we think of red we think of things like stop, or associate it with bad, and most likely that color was used purposefully with the intent of the message behind the images.
I agree with you Melanie. The goal of these artists is to make their artwork as visible and public as possible. The eye catching colors are used to attract as much attention as possible to spread the artist’s message. Even Keith Haring’s crack is wack piece, the background is bright orange which reminds me of construction signs you see on the freeways. It is meant to be eye catching to drivers.
All of the street art above share a continuity with each other; words are used to send messages about pushing back against authority. Crack is Wack by Keith Haring pictures a an overt message in huge orange letters, serving as a warning about the crack epidemic (huge issue in the 80s) that the nation couldn’t ignore. Similarly, Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything applies the same technique, even decades later. This phrase and addition of the small and bloodied rat, spray painted in a messy red to portray a crime scene in progress, adds a layer of satire to the piece–as though suggesting change is illegal (a tell to rebellion oppression?). The same idea can be seen in Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice, where words like “RX” and “protection & healing” are a focal point to show how medicine becomes commodified, and patients become consumers. All artists use their environments and their own writing to critique the systems that regulate the media and how people live.
I completely agree with you Kennedy. I also felt like a continuity amongst the street artist was to use their art to share their opinions about systems. To build on what you’re saying, i feel that more than just rebellion, these artists are also trying to take these systems and bring about change in the world, and activism. Each artist has taken a public/urban space and has transformed it into a space of activism, or political/social commentary. Each art is featured on a public wall on a street and depicts some sort of message the artist is trying to convey to the public. An example of this is in Keith Haring’s, Crack is Wack (1986). This painting is featured on a public wall and points to the urgency and dangers of crack. Moreover, in Banksy’s, If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011), Banksy took a public street on Clipstone Street to create art that conveys how Graffiti is too quickly dismissed and criminalized, and brings awareness to the fact that Graffiti is treated like it’s powerful, but it often doesn’t have power to truly change anything.
Banksy’s own graffiti quote “If Graffiti changed anything it would be illegal” is a prevalent theme throughout street art as it contains political messages on public walls for all to see and potentially talk about. ‘Crack is Wack’ is placed by a busy highway, ‘Parking’ at a parking lot, etc.
However a key contrast is that all of the graffiti art styles are different and identifiable with their author tag. This ties back to the origins of Graffiti and how those without wealth wanted to get their name/art out without needing money which art is usually associated with.
All of these artworks contain the color red in them. This is perhaps not directly illustrative of all graffiti art, but it does suggest that these artists looked to make their art pop against formerly dull surfaces. Using a vibrant, contrasting color makes the artwork pop and allow it to be more easily seen. This increased visibility is important because it goes in line with spreading the underlying messages of the piece. Street art is not meant to blend in — it demands attention. It begs for people to notice it and to consider its meaning.
A key consistency I see in these Street Art-works is the use of color in a striking way. In these specific works, the use of the color red strongly draws the eye of the viewer. They also all have strong social meanings. Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy all have a strong message attached to their work beyond simple aesthetic enjoyment.
I noticed that Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy all include some sort of message in their art. Haring discusses the problem of crack addiction, Basquiat seems to be pointing at the dangers of taking too much medicine, and Banksy highlights how people make graffiti a bigger issue than it actually is.
One pattern I noticed in each of these artworks is the use of both black and red coloring. I don’t think this choice is a coincidence because both colors contrast greatly and stand out against the dull, grey backdrop of the street, which helps the artist capture attention and reach a wider audience. In Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack, for example, he deliberately places his brightly colored piece with bold black text along a grey freeway. This contrast makes the work pop to passing drivers and effectively delivers his message to Americans at the time that, well, crack is wack
All of the street art depicts more somber tones, more than likely the feelings of American culture at the time. Consumerism has replaced genuine connection, and the street art depicts that loss of connection. For example, in Haring’s Crack is Wack, the art depicts a skeleton paying their last dollar to buy a potion, more than likely representing the drug crack. This shows how consumerism is destroying ourselves and our addiction towards consumerism. Another example is Banksy’s Parking. The girl riding a swing represents the loss of common spaces and areas in favor for large parking lots, with these parking lots more than likely being near shopping centers. The girl shows how consumerism is replacing fun activities, such as swinging in a park, with our addiction for material items.
All these street arts have a continuity of use of words in the artifact. Instead of choosing artistic ways to get the message across, the artists decided to physically write the message in a creative way. Despite mostly using words, the way that the artist chose to write it helps also get their message across. This artistic choice helps the viewer not only understand what the message says but also encourages the audience to appreciate the art behind it. Every choice is made strategically from the dripping paint to the background artwork.
One of the main continuity that i’ve seen throughout Haring, Basquiat and Banksy street art is there use of color. Red is integrated in each of these whether it’s the letters or the background. Red is usually a symbol to alarm, or to get attention. For example exit signs in case of emergency, or stop signs are red to make sure you don’t miss it. The use of the color red is pretty important and it highlights the importance of the message that is being spread.
When looking at the works of Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy you see some similarities as they are all examples of street art. However, I think it is more interesting to see how the various street artists have their own theme that makes their work distinctive, but still allows it to fall under the same category. For example, Haring’s work saying crack is wack is a very vibrant and energetic piece of art that is encouraging people to abstain from drug use. But, contrasting that Banksy’s work is very simple and minimal and criticizing the stigma around street art and graffiti in the world.
A key contrast that I saw in the street art above is that in Keith Haring, Crack is Wack, is more direct and the rest you have to take a minute to understand the meaning behind it. Haring, used bold cartoon like visuals to directly point out the crack epidemic. By using bold techniques he is trying to gain a wide audience to raise awareness of drug addiction and public health. However, with the rest of the paintings it has more symbolic message and needs people to take a moment to understand it.
All the artworks are made in public places like parking lots, streets, and highways. This is important because it lest the artists share their messages with everyone, not just people who visit museums or galleries. By using these everyday spaces, the artists turn normal walls and streets into powerful spots or even landmarks. For example, Banksy’s work on a city building will be extremely expensive even though some might just think it’s by random graffiti artist.
I agree! The art is made extremely accessible when it is placed in the public like this. This is a continuation of the shift we’ve been seeing where art has been used as a political message (similar to Futurism), as these works are widely open for the public to view and even just for people to see as they’re passing by. For this reason, it makes sense for these works to be placed outside in places where the works will be seen by many people.
Yes, I think this is why Banksy’s painting shredded itself in the video. The idea of buying and selling art means one person has ownership, and can hide it from others. Street art is for everyone–anyone can go and see it! Ownership belongs to the collective, and it’s truly a selfless, anti-consumerism, movement. I also think accessibility is a key feature of street art. As opposed to expressionism, which is perhaps a bit more illusive, street art is more forward and digestible for larger audiences.
A key continuity I noticed throughout the street art pieces were the thematic messaging that comes with it. I Banksy’s work, for instance, his pieces don’t exactly come right out and say the thematic meaning behind it, but with time, we can interpret our own messaging. In his Parking piece, it took me a while, however, I feel the meaning behind it is to subvert authority. While street art is technically illegal, Banksy could be challenging the bureaucratic government by saying how artists should reclaim their autonomy. Parking is inherently bureaucratic in the sense of rules and regulations but street art completely goes against this, showcasing how street art’s messaging is usually in hopes to spark a feeling in ordinary citizens, just like all of the other artworks are trying to do.
A continuity I noticed in the street art is a constant play on the type of fonts the artwork is using. For example, whether it is Banksy, Haring, Or Basquiat, there is always at least two different types of fonts: wiggly, bleeding, fading, all of the above. The more the merrier. I think this ties into the importance of a message in street art, there is the artwork but the actual text part needs to be spruced up a little too.
A continuity I noticed within the Keith Haring, Crack is Wack (1986) and Jean Michel Basquiat, Melting Point of Ice (1984) is the obvious awareness they are trying to spread towards universal issues. In the first graffiti image, the message is clear and loud, “Crack is Wack”, suggesting awareness against drugs. The graffiti of Melting Point Ice is a little more complicated since it has too many illustrations at once yet the most obvious message there is the “eye of hours… protection and healing” and the words “non- toxic” which I think helps bring attention to society’s toxicity or something related to health issues or health care as the letters “Rx” and “Px” appear randomly in the art. Similarly, most graffiti arts bring attention to a societal issue and or show support to a need, in this case the issue of drugs and diseases seem to be one.
A key continuity in the street art of Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Banksy is their use of public space to deliver critical messages to reach a wider audience. Their use of space and form of art is accessible, easy to understand, and available to the media. For example, Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986) is a bright orange, cartoonish mural meant to criticize the public health industry, warning about the crack epidemic that’s devastating communities in NYC. Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice (1984), though more abstract and chaotic in style, critiques racial discrimination with layers of symbolism and rough text. All these artworks are big and visible, containing a revolutionary message that challenges authority, norms, and the power structure.
A key continuity that spans across all of the paintings here is their ability to be used as a medium for social and political critique. Haring’s piece is a direct response to the crack epidemic and the government’s actions regarding this epidemic, where it communicates the urgency and care needed for the public. Basquiat accomplishes a similar medium by critiquing systemic racism and the he commodification of Black identity through his chaotic layering of text and imagery. Decades later, Banksy continues this tradition: If Graffiti Changed Anything ironically critiques both the futility and rebellious power of street art, while Parking comments on love’s erosion in urban life. Despite the many changes in style and media, all three artists seem to embrace public space in order to most effectively effect change amongst their community.
A continuity between the street art featured above is that they share social commentary in a public, urban area, ensuring the artists’ ideas are heard by the public. This is especially seen in Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything, a street artwork stating “if graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.” It is very insightful when considering that graffiti is indeed illegal. Banksy is stating that the only reason graffiti is threatening is because of its capacity to elicit social change.
One key continuity was the use of words. Many art styles are completely devoid of words, choosing imagery to express a message. However with street art, there is often a clear political point to be made, and often passersby’s have a short movement to take it in before moving along. The necessity to quickly convey a message clearly, makes the use of words an obvious choice. Crack is wack is essentially a sign with illustrations around it. If Graffit Changed anything is literally some words paired with an image. These are less about deeper meanings and more about political messages emphasized with art.
The crack is wack artwork and the parking and if graffiti changed anything by Banksy, are both similar because they use words to highlight the problem. Banksy writes in bold red lettering that anybody can see while Keith writes in Bold block letters to emphasize his point.
A key continuity that I noticed in the images above is the use of similar colors. They are all done in either a bright red or orange. With all the artists whether it’s Banksy, Basquiat, or Haring, the artworks are all using very similar if not the same colors. I think this may be due to how striking the color red it. It is easier to catch the eyes of someone because of how vibrant it is which makes it easier to get the message across.
A key contrast I noticed between all three artists’ works is that they all have different styles. Haring’s Crack is Wack is cartoonish and bold, while Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice is chaotic and layered. Banksy’s Parking and If Graffiti Changed Anything are simplistic but direct. Despite all being street artists, they all have their own unique style of expression. This uniqueness is a key characteristic of street art as a whole.
A continuity present in all of the street art is the use of English letters. Because there’s always an message the authors want to convey and therefore using words or sentences would be the quickest way for passing by people catch the meaning.
All of these artists use street art as a means of political commentary. For instance, Keith Haring created a warning against the crack epidemic while Banksy critiques the usage of street art as a vehicle of protest.
We encountered the attached image during the London Street Art tour, and I immediately connected it to Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Everything (2011). Though the attached image – depicting a man being offered items representative of consumerism – is older than the Banksy graffiti (not exactly sure how much older), I think they share a purpose: to communicate a provocative message. The photo speaks to the predatory nature of consumerism, as the art by Banksy communicates a hypocrisy in the criticism of street art: it’s not hurting anyone, nor is it causing revolution-starting change, so why should it be attacked? If it was that powerful it’d be banned.
This is a film photograph I took of a wall covered in graffiti in Camden Market. The street art contains strong messaging present in Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011) and Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986). The graffiti is strongly advocating for the use of graffiti to spread political messaging claiming that it is an art form that is accessible to all people. It combines bright colors and cartoonish speech bubbles in a unique stylistic way that is reminiscent of 1980’s street art. This graffiti wall is clearly influenced by the likes of Basquiat with their collage of images and chaotic styles. Combining Keith Haring’s bright color, Banksy’s political messaging, and Basquiat’s chaotic imagery, the graffiti wall is a modern representation of the origins of graffiti.
This picture I took on the street art tour shows a person being offered tons of consumerist items. The hands hold seemingly innocent items like a water bottle and a Coke bottle, but also many of them hold guns, hinting that you should feel compelled to buy these mundane items daily or else you’re going against the law of consumerism. It draws upon the message that goods/services are thrust in our faces, made impossible to ignore, and encourage us to ritually buy something we don’t even need- like a bottle of Coke every day. Some of the hands in this plaque also hold a credit card and cash, pointing to the habit we have of always having cash on hand or a way to purchase something at the blink of an eye.
I really liked this artwork done by KAI, his work is very impactful despite the simplistic style. I definitely agree with the commentary on consumerism here, and similar to his other works, it critiques our capitalistic mindset. I wanted to add on to the fact that the person in the artwork seems very absent-minded, being fed consumerist values. The blank expression is another detail that adds to the layer of how normalized all of the items are to the common person, feeding into our easily influenced attention span.
This spray-painted duck with the message, “be kind 2 your mind (& each other)” can be found along the riverwalk in Camden Market. Similar to the images above, this pushes the boundaries of what is considered “normal art” by occupying public spaces to convey their message(s); since all of these pieces allow the artist(s) to remain anonymous, this provides some leeway for the artists to display any bold messages. However, they convey these messages by also implementing a softer subject — highlighting the juxtaposition between a light subject image and a deeper statement.
This is one of my favorite street art I took on the street art tour and it shows a dinosaur eating either a quid or a pence. If I remember correctly, this had to do something about the “quid crunch” or the “pence crunch” which had to do something about the crash of the value of the pence/quid at some point. It draws the message in a comedic way about how the economy tends to be not so perfect most of the time and there’s a “crunch” in the value of money.
This was a photo of street art called “The Kiss” by WRDSMTH in East London that I saw during the East London tour. It really stuck out to me, because like a lot of other street art, it is simple colors, which really captures your eye amidst the chaotic backdrop of all the other art and colors surrounding it. This use of just one color really helps to draw you into it, and realize that even in crazy, disorderly times, there will still always be love, something so hopeful and positive and about perseverance in times of struggle.
This image of street art I found is around a ten-minute walk away from the Camden Markets, and it both violates and reaffirms the street art tradition. First, it violates it because this art is extremely out of the way, not in a typical public space that one might expect. This was in a side alleyway that I happened to walk through while taking a shortcut, and most people would go by the busy area without ever seeing this. However, it also reaffirms the tradition because it does have a clear message, which is to warn about the dangers about global warming/human influence (what I infer from the red, orange, and yellow tones) on the globe.
This is a photo of the street art I took in Camden. It portrays the Jazz icon Amy Winehouse who also has a statue of herself not far away. I recognize some similarities between this work and other street arts such as the inclusion of letters and words. I noticed that many street art would combine two styles of art. In this specific piece, I see shadows of pop art, realism, and surrealism. It is contradicting to say that realism and surrealism can exist in one piece, but the detailed description of the facial features combined with the surreal stripes on the arms and face make it hard to not say so. Therefore, I find this piece extremely interesting. (Amy Winehouse is also one of my favorite artists!)
“Thought: Why sad? Don’t be sad. If sad, will make everyone sad.”
Through this quote, I find the voice of Saunders’ narrator to be self-regulating, in a sense, because of how he presents his emotions. He seems to have an awareness about his actions affecting the people around him. Moreover, he’s never confusing about what he means and how he wants to present himself, always wanting to give a positive atmosphere to the people around them.
Yes, I agree with you. The author always keep an eye on his behaviors. He is always reflecting his behaviors and analyzing his situations. “Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now. Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” The author constantly reminds himself his responsibility as a father, and he always trys to give his children the best they can offer.
Yes I agree. As I was reading it almost reminded me of a diary style of sorts, how one would write simple thoughts down and kind of rationalize and reflect. I think the self regulating aspect you mentioned is a good way of putting it, he is thinking not simply emotionally, but rather about his emotions and the context surrounding him and the resultant behavior. Though the formatting seems a bit odd, it is very direct and to the point which I think is a unique and good method of narration once you adjust.
Throughout the story, I had a lot of trouble comprehending what I was reading since it was written as if the narrator were speaking in bullet points instead of sentences. For example: “Oops. Missed a day. Things hectic. Will summarize yesterday.” When reading out loud, it imitates the way we send each other text messages—short, to the point, and without much flavor. Maybe this style of writing could be hinting at how our generation is moving toward monotony and life without feelings.
I agree with your point, this style of writing is very uncommon and it is not seen in many journals. I especially agree with your point of it seems similar to how our generation texts now, maybe hes giving us a preview of how he thinks what the future generations will text, maybe even speak, which sounds terrifying. It also seems like the narrator is giving advice for future generations. It’s also strange because people typically write down notes or try to advise future generations when they’re older or near death. Yet, the narrator is only 40 years old and shows no signs of being sick or dying.
I thought the same thing while reading this, the author does write similar to the way we text our friends. I saw another example of this when the author writes “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work.” I also want to add on to your point by saying that this text-like writing is also very immature. This also shows the narrator’s personality similar to a child and full of emotion, just as how she hates to work. However, in the next portion, she does admit that it is a privilege age to work. As a reader, it is entertaining to read because it feels like we are receiving the narrator’s raw thoughts even though they seem contradicting. It shows how the narrator is a bit weird in that sense, making it all the more engaging.
This is a really interesting observation that I noticed as well. His style of writing is so short and simple and while it does draw similar too our style of texting now, I was reminded of a quote by George Orwell that I think could also be the culprit. The quote runs over what he believes the rules for writing should be, “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous” (Orwell). The writing style, while maybe not inspired by, definitely follows these rule laid out in which the most simplest form if writing cane be the best according to George Orwell. I found it interesting to see these rules followed to almost a tee here.
When describing the happy period after he won the scratcher money, the narrator explains why he buys good clothes for his wife and children before he buys them for himself. His thought process for why he wants his wife to continue to have good clothes is as follows: Correction: Pam not raised wealthy. Pam’s father = farmer in small town. Had biggest farm on edge of small town. So, relative to girls on smaller farms, Pam = rich girl. If same farm near bigger town, farm only average, but no: town so small, modest farm = estate” (Saunders, pg. 12). I think the abbreviations and equal signs are normal when writing a journal entry only you are going to see, however his perception of his wife, his purchases and the happiness of his children have been transactional and purely logical like the aforementioned passage. He treats the amount of things he is going to buy, the prices of those items, the amount of credit card debt, and the people in his life like a laundry list, getting lost in consumption.
I agree with your take on the transactional mindset you’ve come to find throughout the piece. The way he explains his purchases, especially the clothes for his wife and kids, feels more like he’s running calculations than making emotional decisions. The use of shorthand and equal signs makes the journal entry feel logical and stripped of feeling, almost like he’s trying to justify his choices to himself. Even though he clearly cares about his family, his focus on debt, pricing, and value shows how deeply he’s internalized this idea that love, or success is measured by what you can provide materially.
On page 4-5, when talking about rich people, the paragraph felt like a stream of consciousness more than anything, “Do not really like rich people, as they make us poor people feel dopey and inadequate. Not that we are poor. I would say we are middle. We are very, very lucky. I know that. But still, it is not right that rich people make us middle people feel dopey and inadequate.” I felt like this was a very real statement. It sounds like a genuine thought process someone would go through. He’s very contradictory and you can see as he goes back and forth on what point he wants to make before finally saying it. It keeps the reading more engaging and interesting.
I 100% agree with you that it sounds like a stream of consciousness, but I also feel like it sounds a lot like a scattered ramble, where he is trying to justify his thoughts. And he seems to be aware of this as immediately after that paragraph he writes “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work”. I feel that his is a perfect mix of a stream of consciousness and a drunken rant.
I agree with you with the narrator’s stream of consciousness style. His contradicting thoughts make his voice sound genuine and approachable, mirroring the inner conflict that many of us face.The surrealism comes into play when Saunders combines these common fears with weird aspects, like the Semplica Girls, which are accepted as normal in the story. This blend of reality and absurdity questions social standards, making the weird seem strangely natural to the characters.
“Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now. Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” This specific line captures the narrator’s urgency, concern, good-will and sincerity. It reflects his attempt to parent and install good values so that they are not remembered for something negative.
The narrator’s voice stands out because it’s super casual and kind of all over the place, like he’s just writing whatever pops into his head. When he says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself,” it sounds more like he’s trying to convince himself than the reader (Saunders 5). His thoughts are choppy and weird, showing how insecure he is. He keeps comparing himself to others and trying to feel better about it. Being stuck in his mind makes the story feel real, but also kind of creepy, since he keeps justifying messed up stuff. It feels like we’re trapped in his head the whole time.
Yes I totally agree that the casualness and rambling of the narrator’s voice make it feel like you’re right in his head. The way he constantly tries to justify his situations and compares himself to others shows his inability inner turmoil and confliction. It’s unsettling because his thoughts seem so normal on the surface, but the more we stay in his mind, the more disturbing it becomes.
One line where Saunder’s narrator is seen as unusual is when he said “Acrobats run all jerky, due to low memory + elephants do not hop = no fun.) “ (Saunders, 5). This shows how the narrator uses symbols in his sentences instead of writing in complete sentences. This is the first time of many where he incorporates symbols to his writing in order to take “shortcuts” instead of writing full sentences. It doesn’t impede the reader from understanding what he is saying, but it gives a sense that a child is writing this and not an adult.
This guy is wack. He talks like the Hulk and I don’t understand him but I can empathize with him. It feels like he is detached a bit from his writing, where he describes events as they are rather than how he experienced them. “Race out. Rack empty. Microline gone. Gate open. Take somewhat frantic run up block, to see if any sign of them. Is not.” It’s personal, yet it lacks that emotion. It’s especially sad to see since his story is very human, he’s just a dad trying to make his kids happy.
Saunders’ narrative voice does not sound like a 40-year-old man; in fact, it sounds like a teenage girl, both through the cadence, abbreviations, and grammatical simplifications he makes. This is peculiar in itself, but combined with the subject matter it grows even more strange. He talks about human issues and his values with a troubling attitude, specifically the Semplica Girls. For example, in this quote: “Eva = sensitive. This = good, Pam and I feel. This = sign of intelligence. But Eva seems to have somehow gotten idea that sensitivity = effective way to get attention, i.e., has developed tendency to set herself apart from others, possibly as way of distinguishing self, i.e., casting self as better” (Saunders, 13). Part of this was regarding Eva’s attitude toward the Semplica Girls. He seems brainwashed and his priorities are not straight, he doesn’t consider that Eva might not be “wanting attention” per se, the SG girl situation might just be morally wrong. He is so set in his societal views that he would rather think badly about his daughter than think badly about society/the SG girls. Combined with his very casual and below-his-age writing style, it makes the story seem super dystopian and troubling. Additionally, it shows that as you get older you are expected to conform to society’s morals, and it’s no longer “endearing” to have individualistic/moral stances on things.
I feel like Saunders sounds robotic more than he does teenage. When he describes his outing with Eva at the Chillhouse, he describes his actions very methodically like he was issuing a backlog of commands, “Suddenly occurred to me, w/ little gust of relief: Eva resisting in part because she does not understand basic science of thing. Asked Eva if she even knew what Semplica Pathway was. Did not. Drew human head on napkin, explained: Lawrence Semplica = doctor + smart cookie” (Saunders 14). He uses command words and updates when something new enters his thoughts and actions. In the quote alone he uses, “Suddenly occurred to me”, to describe updating new information, “Asked:”, “Drew”, “explained:” to describe his actions. I feel like this short story is a commentary on the dehumanization of people in the modern world and is sort of a reflection on the more monotone and machine-like nature of Human kind as we progress into the future, yet there is still some sort of sort of empathy and humanity in his actions. It could just be that Saunders only writes this way in his diary instead of acting like the way he acts in real life, but I’m inclined to believe that the society is brainwashed just like how you describe he is brainwashed by society.
I agree and would like to add that the author uses the narration of Saunders’ thoughts to emphasize the irrationality of his morals, but also create a symmetry between him and people in modern-day society. In the beginning, the narrator seems to be like any other middle-class person. In the text, he says, “I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself. And when we finally do get our own bridge, trout, tree house, SGs, etc., at least will know we really earned them.” He seems relatable as he wants to be able to provide a life for his kids that they are proud of. The introduction of SGs is innocent; just another delicacy that would be nice to have. Then, as we realize the nature of these SGs and they go missing, the narrator asks the police, ” Why would they do that? They chose to be here. Why would they go off with some total-.” Unable to see the dehumanizing nature of using struggling people as decor, he believed that they were given a choice and that they were being given a better life. His thought process shocks the reader as he seems to be living in a dystopia, blind to the ethical issues of SGs. This shift of relatability with the narrator is purposeful. Pointing out that in today’s world, we turn a blind eye to injustices around the world and even comply because “it’s not our issue”. Using exaggeration, the author points out that we choose to exploit people and become the cause of their suffering, which is acceptable in the name of profit or convenience.
I noticed the same thing. The narrative voice sounds peculiar, as it often lacks a subject or complete sentence structure. For example, he states, “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (Saunders 4). I interpreted this as the narrator lacking human morals, which is why he sounds robotic rather than like a young girl. His thought process in this quote feels programmed, very robotic and methodical, which ties into the later occurrence of him buying Semplica Girls. Through his speech and later actions, we see the deterioration of his individualistic human morals as he gives in to the desire for social status.
I agree his language and perspective towards his daughter and the topic of semplica girls is very dystopian and distasteful. For example he says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself. And when we “finally do get our own bridge, trout, treehouse, SGs, etc., at least will know we really earned them, unlike, say, the Torrinis, who, I feel, must have family money” (Saunders 5). His robotic language and desire towards these materialist items are very dystopian, and show the selfish nature of consumerism. His desire for SGs also reveals how detached he is from human morals and portrays him as a soulless consumer.
I think this is a great point and to add on to the strange language, I believe that it was written like that for a reason. The language isn’t just like a teenage girls but more specifically one who is chronically online. In today’s society the ones who do the most outlandish and immoral things are usually influencers. I believe this was very intentional from the authors end, to show the extent of where status and greed can take you. They are really dangerous motivators similar to what we see in this story. Something so immoral like SG’s are a representation of wealth because of their price and having one gives you something to brag about. Even in today’s society we see so many evil and unjust things happening because of greed and status.
The narrators voice stands out because of how casual it is to the point of being broken; this text is full of half-sentences and side comments that read as though he’s writing at the same time he’s thinking. He says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself,” which sounds like he’s arguing mid-entry to convince himself more than the reader (Saunders 5). It’s a choppy way of thought processing–undoubtedly odd as well–and is telling of his insecurities as he’s obsessively comparing his looks to others, while reassuring himself simultaneously. Being “in his head” makes the story much more realistic, but it adds a layer of unsettlement as he’s justifying very obviously messed up things. By only narrating from the confines of his psyche, thoughts in which readers are bound to, the story bears an imprisoning tone.
I also noticed this kind of language throughout Saunders’ story, and I actually appreciated it. I think the diary wouldn’t have felt as authentic if it had used perfectly polished or grammatically correct language. The choppy, casual tone makes it feel like a real person is writing in the moment. As a result I feel like this creates a more realistic approach to the story’s dystopian setting, making it seem like this could truly happen in today’s world
What I find to be interesting about this approach to journaling is that it attempts to capture the essence of thought-processing, but I’m not quite sure if this is how people actually think. I don’t think people think in full sentences or even narrate their thoughts at all. Thoughts are free flowing and amorphous. To me, the style of writing that the narrator presents displays uncertainty and a lack of sophistication. The narrator is not quite sure what he wants in life or how to please his children.
It’s also interesting to point out in the line you chose that the narrator did not write “I am not tired of work” but instead wrote “Am not tired of work,” and then two sentences later he goes back to “I aspire to be rich myself.” Why did he not write “Aspire to be rich myself?” This goes back to an inconsistency in his dialogue and perhaps represents that this writing was meant to be kept to himself. This way, he can write however he likes and express what he wants without worrying about grammatical correctness since he knows what he means.
The quote I think best explains what makes the narrator unusual is “Will future people be aware of concept of ‘demons’? Will they find our belief in ‘demons’ quaint? Will ‘windows’ even exist?”. I think he sounds very unserious yet serious at the same time. He reminds me if someone possibly writing in a diary where they easily get off track as he starts with demons and ends with windows. I think this spontaneous side of him makes him interesting as we don’t know what he might mention next.
I agree with you, the character seems to just dump every thought onto the page as he’s writing this. I think it is his journal/diary so the writing style does seem reasonable. I also think he does speak in a very peculiar way since it isn’t normally seem for a guy to speak this way. But it makes more sense since this would’ve been more private. I find it intriguing how he also tends to shorten everything that he wants to say with equal signs and colons. He seems to be writing very comfortably. This tone isn’t what you would expect from a guy that is grown and even possibly have kids. But throughout the reading your able to see that he actually has a very kind heart despite being a little weird.
“Do not need to even write down, as I will never forget this awesome day!” This quote captures the unusual way the narrator writes. He sounds like an excited kid in this quote, and the way he writes throughout is filled with child wonder. In addition, the grammar in this quote isn’t accurate; it should be “as I will”, but it is “as will”, and this incorrect grammar is consistent throughout. Overall, the way he writes is as if he is a child who is writing in their diary, not grammatically accurate, and naive.
I completely agree, however I would take it a step further. The following line gives off the characteristic that the narrator is a child or a primate, “Note to future generations: Happiness possible. And happy so much better than opposite, i.e., sad. Hopefully you know! I knew, but forgot. Got used to being slightly sad! Slightly sad, due to stress, due to worry vis-à-vis limitations. But now, wow, no: happy!” (Saunders 9). The narrator is very short-sighted in their writing. Even though the narrator just won $10,000, it won’t change their lives, especially because they spent that on such vain decorations. This makes the narrator unusual because the narrator is supposed to be a man in his 40’s, but acts as though he were a child because he’s able to buy a nice yard that he gambled for. The situation is very materialistic and shows the controlling power of consumerism on people trying to keep up with their neighbors.
The narrator in “The Semplica Girl Diaries” talks like a child, using bad grammar and shortening sentences. A quote I chose to illustrate this is, “Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” This line is among many where the narrator imitates the cadence of a child, but it stood out to me particularly because it talks about the more serious topic of putting on your best face for your children.
This narrator is unlike any I have ever seen, and I admire it. He speaks as one may think of words or trying to remember a day. This can be shown here, “Asked Eva if she even knew what Semplica Pathway was. Did not. Drew human head on napkin, explained: Lawrence Semplica = doctor + smart cookie” (Saunders 14). In this, it seems like he is missing many parts of the sentence that gives it the structure, but at the same time he doesn’t need to have all the unnecessary words. This is a very original kind of writing that is concise and gets straight to the point. Also, it adds to the feeling of him writing out his thoughts from this example where he quickly describes that she “did not” know, and how he explained it to her which seem like weird details, but he does it in a way where it makes sense he’s just thinking back on his day and this is one bit he remembers. Its a very unique style that is very interesting to read.
Although the main character writing this diary is a grown adult male who is who I assume to be the father of the children. And yet there is no sense of maturity in the writing. The narrator is writing as if he is a young teen age girl writing about every thing about their day and making incoherent sentences. “Pam’s father = farmer in small town.” This is a prime example how everything is simplified. In normal writing, these equal to signs or short uses of words would not apply. Although it is a journal entry, this is not expected of the main character. They are also the type of person to just brain dump and note that they forgot a day. These are all things that are common but unexpected from a grown man in his own journaling world. But despite his character in writing and self description, he seems to care about the girls a lot and feels sad if their financial status hinders what they want.
The narrator often talks directly to “future generations”(Sept. 5, 14), which is unusual because most people don’t write journals that way. It makes him seem like he’s trying to explain or justify his choices to someone who will judge him later. Also, it sounds like he is trying to give advice to the future generation. It is also unusual because people usually take notes or try to give advice to future generations when they are old or about to die. However, the narrator was only 40 years old and he had no sign of sick or dying.
I agree! I think it’s interesting how they talk to “future generations” but also almost talks to themselves, almost having two audiences. In the part where they tell the story about the car’s bumper and the kids, they show lament and hope at the same time but they say “Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now.” (September 5). In this sentences, I feel like they’re giving an advice to future generations that they would want to hear themselves. I think that through the experiences they have gone through despite not being of older age, has lead them to enough contemplation of life to give advice to the future generations.
I also noticed this peculiarity in the narration of the story, and a line I think does a good job illustrating it is when the narrator states, “Note to future generations: In our time are such things as credit cards. Company loans money, you pay back at high interest rate. Is nice for when you do not actually have money to do thing you want to do (for example, buy extravagant cheetah).” This line defines a fundamental aspect of modern life that the majority of people today would know. The narrator is acting as if the credit card is a no longer used artifact that requires an explanation to someone from a completely different era. This is a unique quirk of the narrator that is seen throughout the piece.
Saunder writes with a lot of emotional detachment, likely due to the fragmentation of his phrases and notes. What makes his voice particularly unusual is the lack of a transition and direct thought to paper. It’s very rushed and straightforward, like he writes on September 6th, “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (Saunders). His thoughts seem repressed by social anxiety or influenced by an emotionally stunted mind, focusing more on observation. While the voice seems childish or naive, there exists a self-awareness that desires improvement, which defines his experience with unethical systems.
I agree, I think that his plan to write in his journal for 20 minutes each night is reflective of his desire to improve, or work on, himself, and him addressing the future could be way for him to look back at his thoughts as “proof of improvement” to himself. I also thought the way he writes is very unusual, and it feels it defeats the purpose of his 20 minutes a day, because it makes it feel like he is just doing it out of obligation and writing down as quick as possible without a thought. He seems not totally tied town to an opinion and jumps from one thing to another, like when he’s worried about bills one moment, and then spending unnecessary money the next.
I actually read it slightly different. I found that he was very open about his feelings, but written in the short, journal style make them come across as somewhat erratic. I would certainly agree with the social anxiety part. The concern over the Cheetah and line of: “Someday, I’m sure, dreams will come true. But when? Why not now? Why not?” There is clearly expressed vulnerability and concern here. And then the following lines are ones of excited happiness. A complete swing which shows a range of emotions. This very curt way of speaking combined with a somewhat open character emotionally is certainly unusual, but still makes sense given the format.
In the September 5th diary entry, the narrator starts off with “Oops. Missed a day. Things hectic. Will summarize yesterday.” The fragmented way she narrates her life came off to me as her being true to herself. In this entry, she’s quick and to the point, unlike other diaries where narrators embellish on the mundane events of their lives; this narrator jots down her life in a list-like way. I like the voice of the narrator in this story because it feels very human and is comforting to read. The quick snippets of daily life are relatable and nostalgic, providing the reader with an easy read but whimsical enough to keep the reader attached to the story.
Yes, I completely agree with you, I do feel like the narrator jotting down things, to remember later in the future. However, I also think it was more of the narrator texting back to us. In the September 6th diary entry it says, “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work. Good night.” In a way it seems like we are having a conversation and it is letting us see the narrator’s thoughts of how they feel. For the narrator expressing themselves like that, it feels relatable in a way because it shows that the narrator is genuinely expressing his thoughts for the future generations.
I noticed that Saunders often writes using dialogue when referring his conversations with others. Here’s an example:
“Pam: It would be nice to do something special for Lilly’s birthday. Me: Me, too, exactly, yes! Pam: She could use something. She has really been down. Me: You know what? Let’s do it” (Saunders).
I thought that this was interesting because you don’t typically see this a lot in journals. I view journals to be a lot more conversational in the sense where you can just recite what someone said without having to turn it into dialogue. This quality makes the piece more story-like.
I noticed that as well! It is sort of different to see a lot of dialogue between two people written like that in journals. Although I do kind of like the fact that he wrote it this way. Due to it being unusual and different I feel like it catches the readers attention more and makes them more engaged.
I agree, this aspect of his writing was interesting to me. The way Saunders uses dialogue in the journal entries makes it feel more like a short story than a typical diary. I think it makes the conversations more clear. But ultimately, I think Saunders does this so he can tell his version of the events.
Something unusual to me that I noticed in Saunders “The Semplica Diaries” is the use of side notes and parenthesis. I do realize that these are journal entries, but I have not really seen so many after thoughts and use of parenthesis written like that. One example from the text that stood out to me was “Thirty acres, six garages (they call them “outbuildings”): one for Ferraris (three), one for Porsches (two, plus one he is rebuilding) one for historical merry-go-round they are restoring as family (!)” (Saunders 2). It is almost like every sentence has an after thought. This is not a bad thing because it allows the readers to read every thought that was going on.
I agree with you. Typically when reading people would expect to read an complete narrative, sentence that aren’t being interpreted or required extra explanation on the side for them to understand the line. Instead in “The Semplica Diaries” this use of side notes kind disrupted the sense of organization of writing that most writing had.
es, it should be considered Surrealist. The story takes a normal suburban setting and inserts the bizarre image of women from poor countries literally hanging in the yard as status symbols. That strange, dreamlike twist feels like classic Surrealism because it reveals the ugliness of consumerism by making the metaphor disturbingly real.
I agree, the story is very distopian and surrealist, “the semplica dolls” being essentially kidnapped from third world countries and being put on display on front lawns while illogical does expose the greater issue of first world countries exploiting people from third world countries. It also reflects on our current headspace as a society, just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it is morally right oe ethical.
Yes Saunders story should be considered Surrealist. The image of women “smiling, swaying in slight breeze” while suspended by microcline in a suburban yard is farfetched, yet it’s treated like a normal sign of success. That surreal logic of turning human beings into semplica girls to beautify a lawn is exactly what makes this story hit deeply. It’s dreamlike and unsettling but not random. When the narrator says they could have a nice long run with us as if their lives are luxurious. The surrealism isn’t in the floating women, its in the way no one sees anything wrong.
Yes, and the dehumanizing of humans into decorations as a way to raise economic and societal status is what helps with the surrealism of no one noticing anything wrong. All the people see is another way to conform when they are actively supporting the removal of the freedom and the right to live as oneself. In a way, we become a Semplica Girl as we are pulled into the narrator’s head, becoming complicit in viewing the narrator’s warped justifications and actions with no choice in stopping him.
I think The Semplica Girl Diaries should be considered Surrealist. It presents a distorted version of reality in order to expose societal truths which is the foundation of Surrealism. Through the commodification of human lives The Semplica Girl Diaries is strange and kind of funny. By literally hanging women in yards as status symbols Saunders accomplishes the goal of unsettling the familiar.
I like the connection you made of the distorted reality of the diaries to Surrealisms point to exposing the societal truths. I agree the story is quite unsettling because it is making something horrific feel normal. Saunders is blending the absurdity and horror in a way that is forcing the readers to question are we accepting this as a normal in the world.
I think that yes, Semplica Girls can be classified as a surrealist piece because it blends a normal lifestyle with a very outlandish/disturbing storyline of the SG’s. The narrator describes the SG’s installation similar to an appliance like a TV being set up as he writes “SGs up now, approx. three feet off the ground, smiling, swaying in a slight breeze. Order, left to right: Tami (Laos), Gwen (Moldova), Lisa (Somalia), Betty (Philippines). Effect amazing” (Saunders 10). The image of the three women being hung as lawn decor, while being treated as an object reflects the absurdness which is normalized in the story’s society. Saunders takes the normalization a step forward when he takes his daughter Eva on a drive through a wealthy neighborhood “Drove through Eastridge, Lemon Hills. Pointed out houses w/ SGs. Had Eva keep count. In the end, of approx. “fifty houses, thirty-nine had [SG’s]” (Saunders 13). Their casual acceptance of such a bizarre sight highlights the story’s absurdity. Similar to surrealist artwork, Saunders creates a very odd fantasy to allude to a larger theme of consumerism and moral blindness.
Frankie you brilliant queen! I really like how you tied the surrealism to normalization of something disturbing–a very difficult parallel to draw. I’d add that this normalization not only reflects the characters’ world but critiques our own, where we often see luxuries and convenience come at the cost of unethical processes (e.g. the high fashion fur scandals if we’re getting relative). By framing the SGs as everyday decor, Saunders adds another layer of unsettlement to the story’s surrealist nature the way its only a step out from reality.
I agree that this is a surrealist piece, blending everyday modern activities– like when our narrator scraped a squirrel/mouse off the driveway– with an unconventional twist. I would add that the writing style itself begins to deteriorate the longer our narrator writes in his diary, contributing to the sense of absurdness and disconnection from our current world, jarring the reader from reality. The causal language reads like a diary or a to-do note, and allows the reader to confront the narrator’s internal thoughts. These thoughts are jumbled and imprecise, like the surrealist artwork that you have mentioned.
I think that this story should be classed as Surrealist. One way is the characters. Eva’s character acts as the unconscious voice in this society. When the family get’s SG’s he family is really happy as it shows their elevated status. Even though the SG’s are a horrible thing, the family still finds beauty and aestheticism in it because it symbolizes an elevated status, and it’s what everyone in the town believes as rational. However, Eva disagrees, she is the voice that expresses what everyone is thinking unconsciously, but not saying consciously. By saying, “Eva: So, just because everyone is doing it, that makes it right” when describing the SG’s, Eva becomes the vessel that brings these unconscious thoughts to everyone’s conscious minds (Saunders 13). This connects to the Surrealists movement because it’s all about bringing unconscious thoughts to the conscious mind, and about disrupting common logic and revealing social contradictions. Moreover, the very aspect of the SG’s connects to the surrealist movement. Surrealist artworks disrupt logic and realism to reveal unconscious desires or social contradictions. In the story the narrator describes the SG’s experience as “very gentle, does not hurt, SGs asleep during the whole deal” (Saunders, 14). The way the narrator calmly describes this horrific practice, with no sense of its horror, adds to the surreal effect because it causes there to be a disruption in logic.
I believe that The Semplica Girl Diaries can be considered Surrealist, primarily because Surrealism often portrays dreamlike/illogical scenes or ideas. The diary entries are written very robotically, in a detached voice that mirrors a surrealist’s illogical world, where exploitation and dehumanization are normalized. (sound familiar?) However, this robotic tone is unsettlingly realistic, especially as human beings become more reduced to cogs in a machine. In this way, the narrative becomes a paradox: the robotic voice, which initially may seem irrational, begins to make sense. An irrationality turned rational. This tension reflects the surrealist movement because it blurs the line between absurdity and reality.
Ava I totally agree that The Semplica Girl Diaries definitely can be considered to be surrealism and I feel that the dreamlike scenes are perfect evidence for this. I also like that you point out the robotic tone as it does a very good job of blurring the line between the bizarre and reality.
After, reading this short story I definitely think that this could fall under the surrealist genre. Throughout the story there were various different things that made me feel this way however some seemed to stick with me more than others. For instance, in this story women are used as lawn decorations which not only is bizarre but also disturbing. This blending of super bizarre things into everyday life is what reminds of the surrealist theme and art that we have learned about. Similar to the way we see it in surrealist art the author uses exaggerations of reality to expose and bring light to issues that we do actually have in the world. So, overall I believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this can fall under the surrealist category.
I definitely agree that this story should fall under the surrealist category! Like you mentioned, there is an odd blend of the ordinary and unusual. Even though the narrator constantly describes certain things as if they were unusual (as he assumes the future will not have them), he never goes out of his way to explain the semplica girls. The line between these odd aspects of their society and normalcy is blurred, creating a juxtaposition that we normally see in surrealism.
I think the semplica girl diaries is utilizing the same technique surrealists used to conjure up what they wanted to draw from the subconscious. This is like blackout drawing/automatic drawing, just following the motions and putting it on the canvas/page, but writing version. The subconscious elements in Saunder come in moments when she writes stuff like “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on
card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (pg 4)
To further add on, another moment where they have a blackout moment is at the end of the paragraph, “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work. Good night.” (page 5). I like the repetition of them saying work as it shows the financial burden from the Semplica Girls and it shows the narrator is tired of the endless cycle of work and spending heavy amounts of money that their mind can’t hold it together anymore plus the drinking shows the emotional and financial cost of this pursuit showing the despair they are in.
Yeah I agree that The Semplica Girl Diaries taps into Surrealist techniques, especially when it comes to automatic writing. The narrator’s fragmented diary entries, like you were talking about feel like unfiltered thought, where it’s almost their stream of consciousness, which I believe mirrors the Surrealists effort to bypass rational control. Although, unlike traditional Surrealism, Saunders grounds the bizarre elements in a painfully realistic world of social climbing and economic anxiety. It’s this mix, where mundane ambition is fused with casual horror, that gives the story its surreal power, not just because of its subconscious flow, but also through making the unreal feel disturbingly normal.
I agree! To further this discussion, I feel like the Semplicas girls themselves are a form of surrealism—a grotesque showcase of girls strung up like decorations on lawns, threaded through their heads, to show dehumanization and consumerism. This is entirely normalized in the story, even though in our reality it would be completely absurd. They are described without disgust, but with utter normality and honestly, a positive tone. By making this seem normal, Saunders mimics the overall logic of surrealism like you suggest, subconscious elements shining through the text, conjuring up these insane thoughts on whims and emotion.
You make a great point about Saunders’ subconscious elements. His fragmented, quick writing style and unconventional punctuation make the scenes described appear as a memory, or like a half-forgotten dream that you’re trying to recall, giving it a surrealist quality. The premise also treats absurd scenes and ideas as normal, which is common in surrealist works, especially as commentary on American consumerism.
I think it should be classified as surrealist due to its blending of real life and more absurd means that critique social norms. The women being strung up as decorative lawn ornaments is surreal, but it echoes Surrealism’s goal of exposing hidden realities and critiquing society. There is also the obsession with status, and the deadpanned tone and matter-of-fact diary entries intensify the weird horror surrounding the story, aligning with surrealist emotional contradictions.
I also agree that the Semplica Girl Diaries blends both real life and a distorted reality to challenge social norms — just like you mentioned. Furthermore, the women also being strung up in the yard paints them as being symbols of promise; they appear as if they pose prosperity. Nonetheless, these peculiar moments in The Semplica Girl Diaries expose societal contradictions — as reflected in the Surrealist movement.
At first I thought no, until the SG girls were introduced. Originally I thought they were simply porcelain lawn ornaments of different girls from around the world. Originally they’re introduced as “Tami (Laos), Gwen (Moldova), Lisa (Somalia), Betty (Philippines)” (Saunders). A bit odd, but not jarring. The personal statements reveal sorrowing pasts of figures with the same names as the SG girls–confusing, but shrugged off. The reveal that the SGs are real girls with microlines in their brain who have sold themselves is nothing short of morbid, and makes the reader requestion everything they’re read so far. In other words, it makes them question the short story’s reality. What is going on? Is this real or metaphor? What does it mean? Such questions also arise when I look or read surrealist arts. I think the similar lines of question and feeling as if the world has been upturned is what makes “The Semplica Girl Diaries” surrealist.
Saunders’ style makes me feel like an automatic writing. The diary format lets subconscious thoughts slip out, such as when he writes, “might die” after stressing about keeping up with the Joneses (pg2). It’s irrational but also realistic in a way, therefore it gives a sense of Surrealism.
1. In the poem “Musee des Beaux Arts,” by W.H. Auden, I found it really unexpected how they compared suffering to something that is as simple and average as “…eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;” I think it kind of teaches the audience to realize that suffering was and is something that can seem normal. I think when we look back at the past it is easy to say how could anyone allow such tragedies to take place and inhumane behaviors. However, we as a society still have suffering in the world and we are no where near perfect. Especially with media companies often being owned or under the influence of only a few powerful people, it can be easy to limit what people really see. We don’t know the full picture and I do think a lot of things that are the cause of people’s suffering have become normalized like fast fashion or prison work programs. So maybe this author is trying to teach the readers to be more aware of what’s going on.
I really loved reading the last two lines of Horace Smith’s
Ozymandias:
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
I found it really surprising how the poem starts off by speaking to the fascination and wonder of the sight of the Egyptian bust of Ramesses II, with lines such as, “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows” however, turns at the end, to demonstrate that such great power comes with consequences, and explain the aftermath of Egyptian kingdom.
I also found those lines incredibly moving, and thought it was interesting how the juxtapose the past power of the statue. I also think that Horace Smith did a fantastic job of painting the picture of an Egyptian desert.
1. In the Poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” by W.H.Auden, a moment of surprise was this quote “For the miraculous birth, there always must be Children who did not specially want it to happen…They never forgot…That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course.” This was surprising and very unexpected. This is mainly because birth and children are usually seen as innocent and as a blessing who are not aware of suffering, however the author here taught the audience something new and emphasized that even children are aware of the worlds sufferings. I was impressed with the way he was able to convey this and even mention “martyrdom” because of the deadliness of the events he was describing. He is making the point to show us even the most innocent were wounded.
I agree this also surprised me, especially the part where it says “ Children who did not specially want it to happen” which on the first read i was a little confused because I interpreted it as like the other children already there were unhappy of the extra siblings they were getting, but then you mentioned child’s innocence and that made more sense, and was even more surprising because like you said kids are usually seen as something good.
What stands out to me the most in W.H. Auden’s Musee des Beaux Arts is how casually the past can overlook suffering. In his description of the Brueghel’s painting, Icarus falls from the sky which is tragic and extraordinary but everyone around him continues as if nothing happened. The ship “sailed calmly on” and the ploughman “may have heard the splash”, but neither actually stops to acknowledge it. The moment kind of shows history as moments that most people ignored. In comparison, in Ozymandias, it shows hoe power can fade over time, leaving behind ruins that no longer command attention. Together they show that history is remembered accurately but also can just be what people chose not to see.
This is a great point about the overlooked suffering in Beaux Arts! I want to add that the poems show the fragility of human legacy. While Icarus falls to his death dramatically, to others “it was not an important failure; the sun shone”. Like you mentioned, Ozymandias is similar. The once-mighty king’s statue lies broken and buried in sand, his bold inscription now an ironic joke. What stands out to me in particular is that the two poets suggest that history is more than what just physically survives, but more so collective memory. Even the most ambitious attempts at immortality are at the mercy of human forgetfulness and nature’s decay.
In the poem “Musee des Beax Arts” by W.H Audent, I find it surprising how the poem ends. In the beginning, the object starts off mentioning death, and how “its human position” was understood; indicating that death and suffering naturally had a place in human life. The surprising part was that even after saying death was normal just like “eating or opening a window”, the object continues to say “ everything turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may / Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, / But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone” This was surprising because in the beginning death and suffering was being portrayed as an idea that couldn’t be ignored because it was to happen anyways, but in the end that was contradicted, as the object said they turn away from disaster.
I found Musee des Beaux by W.H. Auden to be interesting. The distinct shift was surprising and unexpected. He went from discussing normal and relatively positive depictions of life and behavior to more negative ad direct metaphors of suffering. His use of the paintings to formulate his metaphors add a twisted layer in my opinion. Even as he gets more specific with his description of suffering, he maintains an almost bored or indifferent tone, as if it truly is just an expected and unfortunate part of life, something he is merely observing rather than grieving or reacting to. it leaves the reader with the impression, or begging the question, how normal is suffering? Making us wonder where it is that we do not know or can’t see, or maybe just don’t care to notice.
“And was once a royal decor, had now become the spoils of war.”
In the spoken-word piece by George the Poet, I loved how he brought the story of the plaque to life, starting from the history of the main figure (Oba) of the plaque to the consequences of his actions produced onto his people. Throughout the piece, George presents a historical story that evidently leads to destruction, similarly to what happened to the actual physical object of the Benin bronze plaque. This allows the audience to understand that no matter the victory, there is always a cost – a cost that might not be worth the war – and what may seem to have beauty can really have its’ own scars and destructive properties.
In Horace Smith’s Ozymandias, I found it really surprising how fast these two lines changed in tone and attitude.
“The King of Kings; this mighty City shows The wonders of my hand.”-
The City’s gone,-
The first part shows an attitude of confidence and assurance but then the next line quickly changes into a dismantling attitude, of how bold Ozymandias was about to his own city but then after time, after periods, success eventually crumbles. Even in the most successful empires, like in this example, Babylon, will never last, however famous artifacts and remnants will always be remembered.
In W.H. Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts,” I found it intriguing the way that Auden describes suffering as something mundane, average. He uses the “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus” by Brueghel to demonstrate that while Icarus is flying too close to the sun and crashing into a small splash, the rest of the painting seems to resume it’s course, the ship sailing away, the ploughman working in the field not alarmed at all or curious about what had possibly happened. He demonstrates that suffering can be invisible, that while someone is experiencing a tragedy, someone else could pass by and not even know what someone else is going through, and that the world doesn’t pause for someone’s pain or tragedy. I think he brings light to how sometimes individuals can be so self-centered that they don’t pay attention to what happens aside from their problems, how easy it is to overlook someone’s quiet suffering.
In the poems about Ozymandias by Percy Shelley and Horace Smith, I was surprised not by the descriptions of how lonely the statue of Ramses was, but rather how it is described by both poets as something grand that was abandoned. While it is naturally alone because it was found in the desert, both poets describe it as kingly and something that was once the pinnacle of power. What was interesting to me is that instead of focusing either on it’s power, it’s discovery, or it’s loneliness, both poets showcased the three concepts in relation to each other; Shelley invokes the vastness of the Egyptian desert with his final line “The lone and level sands stretch far away”, painting the picture of a once powerful statue alone in miles and miles of desert. Horace Smith does something similar, but harkens to the might of the statue when he ends his poem with the lines “What powerful but unrecorded race/Once dwelt in that annihilated place”, with the adjective ‘annihilated’ truly highlighting how far the statue’s status has fallen. In my opinion, I think Horace Smith won the competition because his made me consider a fall from grace more vividly.
Poets and Museum Artworks:
In the poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley he writes, “ ‘Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’ / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay” (Lines 11-12). We see a bust of a powerful leader, that at the time seemed untouchable, with empowering words beneath him. The interesting or surprising thing is that although the bust is menacing in a way it’s now just a ruin, it shatters left to be forgotten. So instead of showing us the strength the statue would have shown in the past it shows us that even what we may think is untouchable and all powerful now will eventually fade away too. Something else will come along and then maybe our powerful “empire” will just be seen as an ancient artifact.
In Shelley’s “Ozymandias,” the statue in the desert says “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” This is surprising to the poet because nothing was left to look at besides decaying materials, no kingdom or structures to see. This teaches the poet/readers that high powered figures can fall as quickly as they rise.
I found the juxtaposition to be interesting. A tinge of irony- a kingdom that once was so great reduced to nothing. This shows that no matter how timeless society seems, time will always erode what once was.
In George the Poets, “The Benin bronze,” a brief summary of the Benin Empires history is portrayed through a pensive-toned poem. What took me by surprise was how Benin Emperor, Oba, took a preemptive measure against Britains motives to colonize them by severing all ties. Oba acted to keep the peace within his land and the stable trade system he had built, striking me– a viewer–shocked. This defensive play leads me to question why Oba thought that severing ties with Britain would protect/preserve his economy, especially when it was known that British trade allowed access to European markets where Benin products were in demand. One would figure that the most reasonable way to avoid colonization (by a larger world power) would be to work out an agreement that allowed immunity, or independence of some sort, of Benin to Britain in exchange for continued trade of Benin’s goods into Britain. Benin’s products were highly valued and boosted British economy, so why sever ties with one of your biggest exporters and and incite a retaliation of mass slaying upon your people? Should Oba have expected a violent retribution by Britain since he had already predicted Benin’s impending colonization?
In “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” Kean says, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Stanza 5). This is an example of how the object responds to inquiry in an unexpected way. This is because in the poem the poet asks the object, the urn questions expecting straightforward answers. The urn however, does not explain the scenes on its surface or provide a clear historical narrative. Instead it gives a deeper message, that art, through silence, imagination, and beauty can figuratively express the truth, just not in a literal or direct way. This teaches the audience and poet a lesson as well, saying that art doesn’t have to explain each thing so directly to hold truth, it can also hold and express the truth through its beauty and mere presence.
In John Keats’, ”Ode on a Grecian Urn,” the last line is the Urn explaining that ”Beauty is truth, truth is Beauty[…],” which teaches the audience a lesson on how stories, truth, can be admired through objects, beauty. Throughout the poem, Keats conveys experiences that were on the Urn and mentions how the Urn is always silent. This characterization leads to the Urn responding with a statement from before; however, that statement not only means that experiences can be admired through objects, but also that these objects are able to exist for years after people pass. This shows that objects carry stories of peoples’ past, and these stories are passed on generationally through the object.
In Smith’s Ozymandias, the stone says he is “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows the wonders of my hand.” This causes the poet to think about how the great city of Babylon had became nothing more than a desert, leading the poet to imagine London after it had been forgotten with a hunter thinking the same thing as him. Showing the fragility of society and great cities.
Both Horace Smith and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poems, titled “Ozymandias,” draw upon the theme of time eroding fame and power. In a friendly competition, the two write a poem about a recently discovered Egyptian statue that they have not yet physically seen, using reports and Diodorus Siculus’ writings as inspiration. Both poems describe an empty desert with the same forgotten piece of Egyptian history: a leg and visage of an Egyptian ruler whom they call Ozymandias. Written on the statue, Ozymandias proclaims his greatness while around him, nothing remains to account for it. Both of these poems describe how, with the passage of time, power is slowly forgotten as new rulers and new histories emerge.
In George’s the “The Benin Bronze” what was both surprising and a learning moment is how he describes that Oba was once in business with Britain until he felt threatened. Oba didn’t mind that they owned slaves because he was able to profit and monopolize off trade in his region. This description goes against the idea that African leaders always fell victim to the powers of colonialism as Oba once cooperated with them. He believed that his power and bravery gave him some protection but instead it backfired in his face when he wanted his treaty to come to an end.
A moment of surprise for me was using Icarus’ story to relate the normality of human suffering. The three paintings depict various forms of suffering: environment, others, and self. In all three paintings Auden describes the nonchalant attitudes society has towards violence. The Census of Bethlehem shows the harsh environment affecting the people, with many crowding the insides of homes to hope to keep warm. The Massacre of the Innocents shows how people can harm others, depicting the invasion in a casual manner. Finally, The Fall of Icarus depicts the self destruction of Icarus as he was drowning in the water. However, what’s most surprising is the man watching Icarus treat his suffering with indifference. As Auden states, “Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky, had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.” These words depict the normality and indifference of human suffering, even going so far as to leave a person to suffer in order to not inconvenience yourself.
I think the Auden poem is interesting because it is very explanatory. It has very clear, direct statements about what he is witnessing, particularly in Icarus. It asks you as the listener to look deeper at the painting. Without the title of the painting, it may be easy for a viewer to glance over its image and not see the person in the water. Auden assigns further meaning to what is already in the painting, creating another work that feeds off of the initial.
George the Poet’s spoken piece begins with the following line: “I used to live on the wall of a palace, until I was torn off in malice”. This is spoken by the piece itself, which is then described further as a brass work of art depicting aa African king (Oba) and his subjects. European traders are in the back of the piece, and George the Poet explains that Oba and these traders would negotiate the trade of goods exclusively found in Africa. Then, the poem shifts. Though the European traders got plenty of goods from the permitted trade, it is stated that “every time they visited they kept an open eye for me”, referring to the piece of art that is the speaker of this poem. I found this to be a parallel for how Europeans overstepped in many of the places that they colonized. Not only would they steal resources, but also art, culture, and even people, especially in Africa, where many were enslaved. The poem touches on this, stating that the Europeans “used some Africans as partners, the rest as prisoners” (George the Poet). Ultimately, both of these statements about how the Europeans acted in regards to foreign belongings and peoples is educational to the listener in informing them about European colonialism, and foreshadows the atrocities, which are touched on at the end of the piece, that occurred as a result.
I found this take very interesting and felt similar in regards to the poem emphasizing the tragedy that fell upon the stolen artworks. The explanation of the artwork intertwining with its stolen history really emphasizes the colonialism that the poet is trying to convey. George surprised me with the consistent narrative that he shares, speaking of the unredeemable injustice with the civilization having already “burned to the ground,” the “royal decor” being transformed into “spoils of war” (George).
At the beginning of “The Benin Bronze”, the story starts with “I used to live on a wall of a palace” and throughout the poem, the poet uses first-person perspective by using I. However, the term I does not refer to the poet, but refers to the object, the Benin bronze. It is surprising because “I” usually refers to a person, but it was an object in this story. This poet entertains the audience by making them think that the Benin bronze is telling what he saw in the past over numerous decades. The audience can understand and empathize better with the story since it is explained from Benin Bronze, the object that saw and experienced every significant moment. Benin Bronze saw the resources that the king used to trade with Western people and knew how the relationship between Western people and the king was ruined.
I agree with you point at the end, and I like how you point out the use of first person perspective. Not only did the poet used Benin Bronze to re-tell the relationship of the king and the Western people. The experience of Benin Bronze also reflect the the colored people under colonialism; from royal to slave. The poet personify the Benin Bronze, which make not only to tell the story of king, but also the experience of individual during the attack.
1) : in “The Benin bronze” written by George the poet, he roleplayed as the artificial Benin Bronzes. This piece is a sculpture made of brass and bronze to decorate the king’s palace. The essential goal was to emphasize the ruler of the Kingdom of Benin’s power, and to record the royal family history; every succession of the throne. Yet at the end of the poem, the Benin Bronzes no longer had its meaning as the narrator detailed the massacre brought by the British. It became a witness to the fall of the West African Kingdom of Benin; ‘a spoil of war’.
One moment where the object responds to an inquiry or teaches the audience is in the poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats where the urn itself, is offering a response to the poet’s contemplations and questions. Throughout the entire poem, Keats is questioning the depictions of figures on the urn, its meaning, and their stories. Keats focuses on the people, location, and images, and instead of an insightful or factual answer, the urn responds with “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Keats “Ode on a Grecian Urn”). Rather than satisfying Keats with a clear narrative, the Urn responds with an unconventional answer that teaches the reader about the unity of beauty and truth. The Urn insists on transforming the conversation to a philosophical one, independent of decided stories and meanings.
2) ) In “Ozymandias” both poets, Shelly and Smith, describe a towering bust of Ramesses, an Egyptian pharaoh. In Shelley’s poem, the great bust is described as “vast”, with a “sneer of cold command”, and “colossal”. However, more often times the destruction and the impermanence of the bust is focused on more, and is what the poem ends with. The bust is “shattered”, and a ruin/ wreck as opposed to a marvel. Similarly, Horace Smith also brings the bust up, only to focus on the current irrelevance of the bust by people today. These poems both suggest that time will always triumph over history; even if there are attempts to be remembered (such as statues and plaques), immortality is impossible to secure. History is lost and overlooked as time passes.
1. In Auden’s Musee painting, the surprise for me comes from how the painting reveals that suffering is rarely central in the eyes of the world. In Brueghel’s The Fall of Icarus, Auden points out an interesting detail that everyone, whether that’s the Ploughman or even a character like the sun, “turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster.” The object feels like it is aiming to teach the viewer something deeply unsettling, where tragedy often unfolds in the margins as it is never really noticed. As opposed to the the typical heroic narratives we have seen in other texts, with of the most prominent beinb Gilgamesh’s story arc, the artwork opposes these tendencies by affirming a truth about human indifference. The poem isn’t just a description but instead a revision of how we understand the place of suffering in everyday life.
Ozymandias, both poems, see the past as fleeting, or at least the power of man. This is shown through imagery: legs standing alone in an empty desert where there once was a vast kingdom. Both Shelley and Smith use a similar quote from Siculus, about the great Ozymandias and how he was the King of Kings. This is used to contrast what is present, a desert that Shelley describes as “boundless and bare,” and Smith calls a “forgotten Babylon.” Blah blah blah Breaking Bad. John Keats, in his poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” takes the opposite approach. Keats spends the entirety of the poem questioning every detail on the urn, even talking about melodies and remarking about how sweet they sound. Keats, unlike Smith and Shelley, holds the past in high regard, such as when he states that this generation will die but the urn shall remain. Thus, you can argue that Keats opposes Smith and Shelley specifically in his reaction to the inevitable passing of time. While Smith and Shelley are nihilistic in response to destruction, Keats finds motivation to value what parts of the past we still have.
I definitely agree with your point about the phrase “King of Kings”. I believe it was meant to show the irony between Ozymandai’s pridefulness and the reality of his kingdom no longer existing. Similarly, Smith mentions a “forgotten Babylon” which corroborate with the idea of something that was once so significant can become of insignificance.
In the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley, the poem states “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look at my work, ye Mighty, and despair!” but then follows with, “Nothing beside remains.”
The poem described a lonely sculptor in a desert that stretches endlessly that was once ruled by a powerful king who had; had established an influential empire. However, the sculptor has now crumbled leaving only the legs and a visage to show.
This goes to show that no matter how successful someone thinks they are or how much accomplishments they have, it can be completely erased and will not always last forever.
Ironically, the Ozymandias bragged about being the greatest of all kings, but no longer had the impact of a king or had anything to prove that.
This poem uses a dismembered statue to show that no one should be overly prideful and egotistic, since everything that you have, may no longer be yours in a blind of and eye, or in years to come.
In John Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” he brings about the idea that the story and ideas that are told through the urn may never be truly known or understood due to the passage of time. There is history and stories within the urn, but they are stuck in the marble along with them and the Ancient Greek culture. What happens, why certain deities are depicted, the legend encapsulated, is immortalized in the urn and cannot leave. Keats also notes that perhaps not truly understanding the urn is what makes it so beautiful and so sweet. He says, “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard / Are sweeter” (lines 12-13). There are some stories we can only know through our own interpretations, and those are the kinds of stories that are beautiful and keep us thinking.
Ode to a Grecian Urn:
In Ode on a Grecian Urn, Keats shows readers that art can freeze a moment forever. For example, the lovers who are always about to kiss but never do. It’s kind of eerie but also beautiful. The urn turns this tiny scene into something eternal, even though everyone in it is long gone. It made me think about how weird time is in a museum, as you’re walking through a bunch of moments that don’t move, but they still somehow speak to you.
Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” shows how easily people overlook suffering, especially when it’s not their own. He reflects on Brueghel’s painting of Icarus falling from the sky and what’s striking is that no one in the painting seems to care. The ploughman keeps working, the ship sails on. Life just continues.
This feels true to how history actually happens. Big events don’t always feel big in the moment. People are usually caught up in their own routines, and tragedy often unfolds quietly, without witnesses. Auden seems to be saying that this has always been the case as artists understood it centuries ago.
It made me think about how much of the past, and even the present, slips by unnoticed. The poem reflects on human nature, and how time moves forward regardless of who’s watching.
In the poem The Benin bronze, the poet describes the sufferings of indiginous people in south nigeria back in the colonial time. “Oba was happy to export these commodities, but I was never told that I could leave.” European traders and Oba had an agreement on trading peppers gold, and ivory, but it came with slave trade that damaged local Africans’ families. After the aggreement ended, the situation for Africans were even worse, as British invaded them, and tore down their civilization. I think this poem teaches us an important lesson that colonization came with blood and guilt. It’s just like what Auden said in his poem that “About suffering they were never wrong”.
In the poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats the poet talks about an urn where he analyzes the scenes painted on it. His point in this poem is to explain that history lives on through art and serves as a vessel for historical memories.
The spoken poem, the Benin Bronze, by George the poet left the greatest impact on me when it comes to reflection on the past. The voice inflections that he puts and the stress on some of the spoken words create and idea of theft and perhaps the immoral roots behind these items. He states, “Who used some Africans as partners, the rest prisoners.”, George the Poet. This quote tells of powerful overseers that used what was at their disposal as they liked. Taking what was within their grasp and transforming it into something beneficial, despite the potential harm to others, all silently withheld in a mute item. He warns that the past is silent and that words can be twisted in any which way, a quiet for call to curiosity, to seek a way for these objects to have their truth heard, to give theses treasures a voice.
Shelley’s “Ozymandias” and Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn” both explore how we experience the past through art and ruins, but they convey very distinct messages about time.
In “Ozymandias,” a ruined statue in the desert is the only remains of a once-great ruler. His words “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” seem ridiculous when surrounded by nothing but sand. Shelley demonstrates how time can erase power, and how even the most impressive human achievements may eventually crumble.
In contrast, Keats focuses on the preservation of beauty through art. The Grecian urn captures a perfect moment: couples frozen right before a kiss, musicians playing songs that never stop. These scenes transcend time, but they are also frozen in place, unable to change. Keats proposes that art provides a form of immortality, but one that excludes the fullfilment of real life.
Together, the poems suggest that time destroys, but art remembers but not always in the way we expect.
The poem is teaching us how history will unfold itself in the weirdest of moments and that great suffering could be happening to anyone, “While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking / dully along” (Lines 4-5). The poet shows how people will often ignore the pain others are going through, but also teaches us that time always moves forward, even during times of sadness. History keeps creating itself while everyone is busy with their daily lives. For example, this quote, “As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green / Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen / Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky, / Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on”(Lines 19-22 ), is perfect in showing how people will often not notice when something huge or sad happens. It reminds us to pay attention to things even if they seem so small.
The passage of time in Ozymandias is shown through a disconnect of human expression. In Shelly’s poem he elaborates on how the sculptor of the statue was a primary witness of his demeanor. The lines, “And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, / Tell that its sculptor well those passions read / Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things.” Shelly uses the word “passions” to describe the human elements captured in the sculpture, which have now become ironically “lifeless” in the next line. The dramatic shift in the persona of this ruler being intensely harsh being transformed into a lifeless figure displays the disconnect due to the passage of time. This figure used to once be a driving force that had control over many powerful people’s lives, and now has become a display (comparable to a caption or stock image the way Shelly describes it). It reminds the readers that absolute power can be completely diminished by long periods times, and that nothing lasts forever.
Its recency in publication is why I’m drawn to it more than the other poems, but George The Poet’s “The Benin Bronze” aligns with my current views on museums. He eloquently discusses how sickly European foreigners – in awe and in desire of the Benin people and goods before them – slowly infiltrated and colonized their lands through trade. In tragic irony, the brass that Portuguese traded to the Beninese people was taken back to Europe as Benin was raided. The last line of this poem is extremely powerful in giving the audience a summation of what museums represent in the history and memories of pre and post colonial countries; “And what was once the Royal decor had now become the spoils of war,” (George The Poet 00:03:03 – 00:03:08). The spoils of war – in this instance the Benin Bronzes and sculptures – are a symbol of the pain an entire nation suffered under colonial exploits. For these “spoils” to be then hoisted in a museum for all to see is at the very least inconsiderate of those who died behind this symbol of oppression and European greed, and glamorizes the history behind it.
Both “The Benin Bronze” by George the Poet and ” Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley contrast the once glorious past with the deadly and forgotten present to show how time never returns. The King of Benin was once such a great ruler who established organized economic system and even enthralled Europeans. But time changed things and his glory no longer remained after having conflicts with the British. His once glorious country became ruins and he was beheaded. The poem Ozymandias also used the idea of ruins to contrast the magnificent words “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings”, which also conveys a sense of lost.
“Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley brings up how the passing of time will make even great things fall. Ozymandias was once great, the “king of kings,” but now, almost nothing remains of his once great statue and legacy. What was once so mighty is now in ruins. This calls to question the stability of one’s legacy – everything, no matter how mighty and immovable it may seem, will eventually fall with time. However, we see almost the opposite in W.H.Auden’s “Musee des Beaux Arts,” which describes Icarus’ descent and death from the sky. He describes the ploughman going on with his life as it didn’t impact his day, nor did it affect the ship that was witnessed yet kept sailing. In our present day, the story of Icarus is very significant, and we can often forget that to everyone else it was just an ordinary day. This essentially is the opposite of “Ozymandias;” Icarus’s tale became more mighty and legendary with time, while not being so significant to those who lived through it. In these two poems, there is a clear contrast between how time affects the significance and legacy of physical objects like statues vs. stories, tales, and myths.
W.H. Auden’s work, “Musée des Beaux Arts,” and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias” both comment on the unavoidable finality of all things and how they are seen in the eyes of the surviving world. As the luster of kingdoms, the reign of kings, and the lives of people come to an end, time continues marching on. Every creature has their own priorities for survival, and to endure, they must become accustomed to the erosion of the unimportant. For instance, Auden writes, “[T]he ploughman may/Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,/But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone/As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green/Water.” Though the ploughman hears the tragedy of Icarus unfold before him, he continues his day, unfazed, because his life and means of survival had not been impacted. Disasters become insignificant as they occur all around the world; if not here, then there–if not today, then tomorrow. At the same time, in “Ozymandias,” Shelley regards the fallen statue of the king with a sort-of irony. The tyrant who once stood so tall has crumbled to nothing, yet the onlookers feel no nihilism, sympathy, or grief for this ruthless display of time. They have food to eat, jobs to work, and a life to live in the meantime.
I believe that W.H.Auden’s, “Musée des Beaux Arts” and George the Poet’s, “The Bronzes Speak,” both showcase the ephemeral nature of humans in the past compared to the ambitions of human’s throughout time. Their poems showcase that the human ability the effect the present may not be as great as an influence in the present but have an extreme effect over time. In the case of “Musée des Beaux Arts,” Auden highlights the case that even though Icarus, a known figure in Greek mythology, falls from flying too close to the sun, the average person would not be effected by his failure (line 17). As long as the sun is still shining and time is still progressing, the people of the present watching Icarus failure’s may not have mattered to the average person. This poem motivates the future by giving the future a choice to continue advancement of past ideas, that had to be paved from other fleeting moments in history.
George the poet, takes a similar idea about time but changes it to spotlight the inevitability of a fleeting influence that the natives of Benin felt as they became more involved with the European world. In his spoken word poem, George the poet takes the personification of a Benin Bronze to explain the waning control of the people of Benin and their inability to maintain their influence, which ultimately caused the Benin Bronzes to be under British hands.
Poets and Museum Artworks Prompt
2. Reflect on what the poem teaches us about history and the passage of time.
Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley is inspired by the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II (Ozymandias in Greek). The poem illustrates a meeting with a traveler who tells the author of an antique land where they came across a pedestal on which the old pharaoh had inscribed, “Look at my works, ye Mighty, and despair.” Only to find that all the works the pharaoh had taken pride in were destroyed over time. Ironic. This poem’s message is straightforward, commenting on how seeking immortality through monuments is futile and that millennia can eventually rob even the greats of their power, leaving behind remnants of a forgotten past.
In the poem “Musee des Beaux Arts” the author describes how sufferings throughout history often end up forgotten. We can see this when he says, “how everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may/ Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,”(Auden). Specifically, he believes the passage of time minimizes the real human sacrifice and tragedy that occurred for us to reach where our society is today. This also reflects the series of paintings as they depict tragedy in the “Massacre of the Innocents” while showing how it is forgotten in the “The Fall of Icarus”. the poem and museum artworks ultimately show us how museums facilitate inspiration into other artforms and allow for a sharing of new ideas and self expression.
PROMPT 2: Percy Bysshe Shelly “ Ozymandias”, 1817 teaches us that things are bound to get forgotten even if artifacts and ruins remain. As a result of neglect from people, not caring for these artifacts they slowly decay then become lost to time. And when someone new comes across it, they are left wondering what is that place’s story. And “We wonder,-and some Hunter may express Wondee like ours, when thro’ the wilderness Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace…” is a great example of that. Because we are amazed by this one leg left standing now, however in the far future someone will see something that we left behind and think exactly how we are.
Museum Encounters
Prompt 2
In W.H. Auden’s poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, he speaks about the behavior and actions that people may continue to possess despite suffering occuring around them. Auden’s main point or takeaway is that although during certain times people may be suffering, time does not stop and people continue with their routines. He uses the painting of Icarus falling to help get his message across. Through this painting and his description in the poem as Icarus falls, those around them don’t change what they are doing or take time to pause their lives. Although an event may have a significant impact on a certain person or group of people, to those unaffected it is almost meaningless and they continue with their lives as time goes on. Finally, as time goes on an event that may have been significant fades as time goes on it becomes a very small part of our world’s history.
The poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” by W.H.Auden highlights humanities natural instincts to protect themselves, by ignoring tragedy in the world around them. The three paintings the poem is based upon were created in the 1560s. Each painting depicts a scene where there is a tragic event, yet onlookers in the painting carry on, or turn away from the distressing images. Auden’s poem was written in 1938. Despite the time gap, the understanding that Auden garnered from the paintings are very real and continuous to the human experience. An artist’s detail from hundreds of years before can provoke thoughts, ideas and relationships between humans from the past and future.
In Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows The wonders of my hand.” — The City’s gone,—” This highlights how no matter how important or high and mighty a name or city or anything for that matter is there’s going to be a time where it means nothing. “King of kings”, “mighty city shows the wonders of my hand” King of kings have now become remains that are an artifact and the mighty city which proved his wonders are now gone. To me this is deeper than just the passage of time but maybe it also highlights that living to prove something or to gain a name isn’t important because everything comes to an end and life will go on without you here.
In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, W.H. Auden reflects on how suffering is a given throughout the passage of time. Auden writes that there must be some sort of opposite to joy and eagerness. He provides an example of this by describing the contrast between elders being excited about new births and young children being upset at them. There has and always will be an individual or group that does not feel positively in any situation. Auden additionally explores the topic of turning a blind eye to other’s suffering when it does not directly impact one. He claims that this act of ignorance is not malicious; it simply demonstrates the human condition and the tendency people have and have had to prioritize oneself.
The “Ozymandias” poems were very attentive to detail about the engraving on the architectural structure of Ramesses II found by Belonzi. Specifically, the physical appearance of legs was very influential in their writing despite not being able to see it. The view of the sculpture only allowed for the bust to be visible, however, there were deeper meanings extracted by the writers. Shelley sets the tone by contrasting the discovery of the sculpture of “stand[ing] in the desart” to being “half sunk.” Continuing to describe the appearance, there was a continuation of artistic choices which also led to the ultimate lesson of how Ramesses II was the king of kings like he had engraved. Whereas Smith had only mentioned the leg and its dominance of the desert. Hence the sculpture also being the “king” of the land. This taught us that the figure, as well as the person it depicted, were both figures of power. It extends the meaning of how much power the individual possessed in that time, and his influence to have a big sculpture made after him.
Thinking About Museums
Prompt 2: In George the Poet’s “The Benin bronze”, he beautifully recounts the history of the Benin empire; beneath his impressive word play, though, is an important history lesson about his people: the destructive nature of imperialism. Many European empires such as the British, Portuguese, and the Dutch became imperialists as a result of their rapid industrialization. George the Poet highlights that his people had complexity and organization that rivaled the Europeans. He clarifies that they were an asset to the Europeans by granting them permission to trade in Africa for spices and other goods. And despite their generosity, the Europeans were not satisfied and sought to enslave the people of Benin. George’s poem exposes the dark side of history which is often told from the perspective of “winners.” Over time, this jeopardizes the individuality of cultures and the solidarity of different ethnic groups. Only through an examination of the past through a medium such as art can we begin to truly learn from history.
In Shelley’s version of the poem “Ozymandias”, the poem convey the idea that all things will be destroyed with time. Ozymandias is a great ruler from a time long past. During the height of his reign, he no doubt felt invincible, going as far as to call himself the “king of kings”, yet at the present, there is no sign of his greatness except ruin and rubble. This seems to symbolize the destructiveness of time and that all things will come to an end given enough time.
Both Horace and Percy in their poems discuss how Ramsees describes himself as the king of kings and how his hand shows the wonders of the land of Egypt, yet there is no remains of either his power or the land. The poem Ozymandias makes me think about how even the greatest leaders and empires are no match for time. No matter how powerful someone is or how much they accomplish, they will eventually be forgotten. I think the poem is trying to show us that time always wins in the end and that fame and power don’t last forever
“Naught but the leg remains to disclose, the site of this forgotten Babylon.” (Smith, lines 7-8)
The reason this is playing with a deeper part of history is the reference to the mysterious yet powerful impact of the Babylonian hanging gardens, as too they are now none-existent or debated to even have existed at all, and yet the idea of such grand displays much like the statue remains something to admire and revel in.
Keats’s poem showcases how history is obtained in art transformed into an eternal, halted moment displayed, the “foster-child of silence and slow time” (line 2). Contrast to the ever-changing and fading human life, the urn holds onto the scenes, preserving their beauty and forever expressing “a flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme”, highlighting the dichotomy of the crafted urn to the fragility of human life (line 4). Ultimately, the urn teaches the main idea that art holds everlasting truths and history that stay beyond human life, allowing it to capture life’s beauty and the natural world through pure vibrancy. However, with this cold, concrete fact, this beauty is captured in that only of the abiotic, only through stillness this can be attained.
On the poem “Musee dees Beaux Arts” some lines that teaches us about history says, “how everything turns away Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure” (W.H Auden, lines 13-17). This demonstrates that their is people suffering due to massacres or government decisions but for other people it is not really important what is happening in the world because it does not cause a conflict in their lives. Which shows when others need help, others will not lend a hand because they are absorbed into their own life that they won’t make sacrifice for others.
I agree with your analysis at the end, especially concerning the image we were shown of the “fall of icarus”, the day goes on while Icarus drowns, but all else remains unchanged. yet on an individual level, everybody is going through life on their own terms, and in the end there is only so much other’s want or can really do for us.
In Shelley’s “Ozymandias” and Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” time takes on two contrasting roles. Shelley shows how time erases even the greatest human achievements, as seen in the image of “two vast and trunkless legs of stone” standing in a barren desert, the king’s proud words—“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”—ironically undercut by the surrounding “lone and level sands.” In contrast, Keats’s urn captures a moment forever; its frozen figures resist time, suggesting that beauty and emotion can be preserved through art—“Forever wilt thou love, and she be fair!” Together, the poems reveal that while history may crumble monuments, art can offer immortality in a way.
In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, W.H. Auden reflects on three paintings each of which depicts in some way or another a moment of distress and suffering from human history and myth. Auden dramatizes how the bystanders of these events are unaffected and uncaring in regards to the tragic events that they witness. When reflecting on the painting The Fall of Icarus Auden writes, “ … the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure,” (lines 15-17). Despite witnessing a tragic event the ploughman is unfazed because it has no bearing over his life, a reaction that Auden teaches us is part of the human condition and that is repeated throughout history. A lack of empathy that has and continues to permit human atrocities and injustices.
In John Keates’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” (1818) when he is talking about the life from when the urn was created in ancient Greece, he says, “Will silent be; and not a soul to tell/Why thou art desolate, can e’er return” (Keates). He is telling the reader of his poem that even some seemingly boring art piece of a urn has so much history behind it and so many people who’s lives it was apart of. These lives may have been more interesting than an urn, the last thing standing from that town, so we must appreciate the history and think back to what life must have been and how we’ve changed.
In his poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn”, John Keats appreciates and values the beauty of the art depicted in ancient art pieces by the ancient Greek Sosibios. In the lines 18 and 19 he says “Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve; She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss”. In these lines, Keats emphasizes how this type of art should and could never die. The type of beauty and nature of these arts as the one he repeats the word “happy” multiple times, and correlates it with words such as “peaceful” and “passion”, ultimately implying that the beauty of this art is pleasant to the eye and impactful to cultures and perspectives. Overall, Keats highlights how ancient art is unique and beautiful, which make them eternal.
1: In the Poem Ode on a Grecian Urn the Urn is analyzed and inspected until the stanza where the essential question is posed. The question is essentially asking about the value of the Urn. The first lines of the stanza ask “Who are these coming to the sacrifice?” perhaps questioning the actual content on the Urn, but also symbolically asking what the value of the urn is. What importance does this urn hold? Who “sacrifices” or rather finds value, in this urn? The Stanza continues, asking about an emptied town. While again, it may be superficially referring to the content of the urn, metaphorically, it is referring to those who originally created and valued this urn. Those who had first hand knowledge of its purpose and meaning and could appreciate it to the fullest. The poem speaks of the silence of the desolate town, which again, refers to the silence of the urn now that its true meaning is possibly forgotten or unappreciated.
The second stanza refutes the negative implications of these questions and instead insists that the urn remains valuable, in that its now “silent form” brings out thoughts and interest among those who view it. Further, the final line of “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” suggests that the true beauty of the urn is enough for it to be an object of wonder.
Museum Encounters Prompt 2:
Auden’s “Musee des Beaux Arts” teaches us how history and time can quickly move forward to individual disasters and suffering. Even if something terrible happens to someone, time will continue to pass, and others will continue to live ordinary lives in the face of what is a tragedy for someone, as seen in the painting and descriptions of Icarus falling to his death while others are living their own lives. This might suggest that in history, the sufferings of individuals can be overlooked if it is not a tragedy “of a bigger level”. There’s the saying that history tends to repeat itself, and this poem helps affirm that narrative because as time keeps flowing, certain stories will get lost in the flow of time, so in that sense, history is shaped not only by what people remember and record, but what people forget about and ignore as well.
1. George the Poet teaches the audience about the effects British imperialism had on Africa. He uses his poem to demonstrate Britain’s greed and the impact it had on African people. He describes the horror inflicted on them as Britain stole not only goods but people. John Keats “Ode on a Grecian Urn” provides an interesting perspective on the culture of early Greece. The poem encapsulates the everpresent beauty and passion that flowed through Greek culture. He states “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all ye know on Earth , and all ye need to know (line 49-50).” This demonstrates the values Greek society held, which reflected their desire to live their lives to the fullest. He gives another perspective to the culture by questioning “what struggle to escape…what wild ecstasy (line 9)?” He demonstrates the passion that runs through the Greeks, the chase and need for something more.
Shelley and Smith’s ideas in their “Ozymandias” frame art and museums as a reflection of history, and admire the curiosity it elicits in them. Shelley writes “Which yet survives, stamped on these lifeless things,” in reference to the artist’s ability to capture Ozymandias’ character. Despite the death of Ozymandias, his words and power live through the artworks depicting him centuries later. In such a manner, art can give people a glimpse of the past and somewhat combats the confines of time. Not only does it allow history to survive, but it also creates an opportunity for people to interact with it. Smith writes “What powerful but unrecorded race Once dwelt in that annihilated place,” wondering of the aspects of history that were not depicted in art. He notes all that could be lost without art, which is effectively a documentation of history.
Class Prep: Museum Encounters:
In the poem Ozymandias, the first poem recounts meeting a traveler who curiously discovered the object submerged in the sand. In the following poem, I feel like the object reveals that the city is his doing, and that he is the king. Both poems leave the audience wondering about this once great race/city that is now buried in sand, along with their king.
Prompt 2
In the poems Ode on a Grecian urn by John Keats we learn about what society was like during that time before what seems like some type of tragedy hit. He goes from explaining how sweet the melodies sound and being happy to talking about grief and sacrificing. For example in the text he states “Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve” (line 18). I feel like this quote and the idea of the urn signifies some sort of “death” of what they used to know and how they used to live and how they should not completely give up hope and let go of what they have.
W.H. Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” depicts suffering as something brought upon the people of their time; in other words, suffering will run its course in life as life moves on, regardless of whether someone may be paying attention to this matter or are oblivious to it. For instance, Auden concludes his poem by describing how the ploughman may have witnessed a disaster (such as suffering), but decided not to make it his main priority, therefore allowing crucial events to be obscured. That being said, Auden’s poem beautifully encapsulates how history has progressively reflected this notion of major ordeals being either focused on or ignored; history itself is essentially written due to who shares prior experiences or vital matters. Although individuals have the ability to either shed light upon an important matter or not, it is up to the individual themself to gradually make a change.
I connected most with The Bronzes Speak by George the Poet because it made the most sense and it’s about a topic I understand well. I have learned about the slave trade for years through school, and I have done my own research to understand the horrors. One major point George brought up was the fact the europeans would trade with the king, but enslaved and sell people that looked like him. The europeans would also not look at him as a trading partner but as someone to sell one day. And that one day arrived, the marines destroyed the city like he expected.
(poem) Prompt 2: In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” written by W.H.Auden, the poem teaches how people forget about suffering and disasters and continue with their day as time goes on. If we look at the lines, “That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot, Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer’s horse, Scratches its innocent behind on a tree,” (Musée des Beaux Arts, W.H.Auden), it’s implying that while tragedy happens, life still continues while suffering and disaster happens. People are preoccupied with their own lives to see or respond to the suffering of others. In addition, the painting The Fall of Icarus can also prove people continue with their day as tragedy happens as the painting depicts Icarus falling to their death while others continue with their life.
1. The first image I think shows a side to how art was perceived by people in the sense of education. The viewers are holding pens and paper and seem so be deep in thought. They look as though they are studying the statues of human anatomy and look deep in consideration. They also look like they are discussing with each other. I think it’s interesting that art was seen as an educating tool and something the bred new conversations.
I agree with your thoughts! I noticed that each image reflected a different emotion, though. While the first image gave off a more “inquiry and educational” theme, the second and third focused more on the structure and engineering of hauling such huge sculptures. This highlights the innovation and advancement in technology, likely fueled by greed and wonder for the stolen object. The last image conveys a “see how powerful we are” theme, and it appears they are showcasing their products, which to me has a negative connotation.
Art was seen as a positive form and according to picture 1, which seems to have many educated and wealthy men, art could have been a sign of status as well as education. The 2nd and third of the pictures show the creation of sculpture and the amount of work and effort that is put into making art. These pictures evoke emotions of creativity and a growing nationalism as the people start leaning towards collectively accepting art into their society. The art in the pictures are also people or animals, so I believe that art was also eventually used to honor certain beings in life, also evoking a sense of pride in the people.
The images show how archaeology was used to support imperial power. The artifacts were being shown off, often in dramatic ways, to suggest ownership and control. Whether it’s the sculptures from Nineveh or the Benin Bronzes, there’s a pattern of removing cultural objects from their original context and using them to boost Britain’s image.
The “Reception of the Nineveh Sculptures” specifically makes that clear. The sculptures are huge and heavy, but they’re being paraded through London like trophies. That says a lot about how archaeology was tied to empire and public spectacle rather than respect for the cultures these objects came from.
I think the images can impose the idea of masculinity. This is because in all the images, the art/architecture displayed represents a man, for example the “ Ramesses II, 1834” images is displaying men putting up an Egyptian kings head. Think this represents masculinity because by putting up the head it’s kind of like worshiping it, indicating that the Egyptian kings had power. The last image also represents masculinity because of the way the British Soldiers were sitting up, arms crossed indicating they are serious men. In the age of the image, British Soldiers also commended respect indicating strong masculinity and power.
Looking at the first two images, I see more of a curiosity and sense of inquiry being displayed. Discussions over statues, measurements and architectural interest of large figures, possibly taking inspiration. However the second shift to a more gluttonous mindset, focus instead on taking rather than learning. Picking up and removing sculptures from the original and rightful homes, and taking things like statues, figures and ivory from where they belong. The increased archaeological findings and growth of curiosity in the nineteenth century, it seems, fueled a greedy fire that set its focus instead on collector’s pride and economic gain.
The photo from above labeled, British soldiers with looted art in Benin 1897, I believe has some insight as to what archaeology was like in the 19th century. The feelings that the photo gives off is one of coldness that can even be interpreted as frightening. The soldiers stare deeply into the lens of the camera as these treasure are just sprawled out in front of them, demanding approval. The chilling feeling from the photo I believe demonstrates the matter in which these items were retrieved and tell of possibly gruesome back stories and despite all of this, the treasure are represented neatly in front as almost a testament to power almost as a proud trophy of success. Maybe archaeology during the 19th century was more like sport than the science it is today. Disrupt an take from others these processions of great importance and then display such as a trophy that will be applauded and described as remarkable for its rich history. Created an atmosphere where hunters and prey exist, the hunters will take and collect as it is simply sport to do so.
All four pictures depict a sense of prestige, and power all backed up by prosperous and educated men. This comes to show how art was portrayed as a symbol of education and knowledge, how art and statues can produce profound talks and thoughts within and with each other. In the first image, “The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819”, it can be shown that these clearly shown educated men are exploring complex ideas, and because of this, this can foster a deeper understanding of themselves and the world around them.
When I was looking at The Temporary Elgin, where a cohort of men are discussing the art surrounding them. I find it particularly interesting that the are choosing to have this conversation surrounded by art, illustrating how art played an important role in the society they lived in. Art is a showcase of human emotion and history, so having discussion while it is around reminds humans, both leaders and everyday people, about what it means to be a human and the history behind it. So I believe the societal function of museums is to be a vessel for this history.
Museums and the Legacy of Imperialism:
Looking at “ Installing the Bust of Ramesses II (1834)” and “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures (1852)”, you can see just how much effort was put into archeological finds during the nineteenth century. This shows just how fascinated the general public was about these ancient artifacts because this was backbreaking manual labour. Today we have machinery that can help us lift these types of things but we can see people using their entire body weights trying to get these ruins in the perfect position for viewing. They were proud of not only finding these relics but also being able to put them on display because of this, it adds more of a sense of pride and accomplishment. Not only national pride was involved with finding these antiques but also personal pride was more involved because of the labour put into the displays. Because of this there was not only national motivation to excavate more artifacts but I believe that this helped encourage personal motivations as well.
The photo “British soldiers with looted art in Benin, 1897” encapsulates a sense of national prides – maybe even personal pride – as the men are proudly posing behind all the looted art, as if they are showing off their trophies. The crossed arms and relaxed composure suggests as if they feel victorious and even entitled — making it seem that the ‘discovery’ is justified. The careful arrangement of the artifacts, propping up what most likely, if we assume, heavy 19th century art, shows just how much effort was put into displaying the objects; while almost inserting dominance and success to the public. Interestingly enough, the blurred faces – most likely due to the camera quality back then – mirror the way soldiers or looters today are often shown with blurred faces in photos. Whether this was on purpose or not, this details adds to the weird modern parallel, making me question what was taken and to what extent it was taken.
Archaeology in the 19th century shows not only national pride, but almost a sense of modernization by conquering the past. In all these images, the men constructing and assembling the structures are traditional and professional looking for the British standard, which seems odd positioned directly next to artifacts that don’t belong to them at all. The Temporary Elgin Room (1819) seems off in certain way because we can noticeably see the artifacts placed in makeshift ways being examined by foreigners, yet not appreciated or respected.
Prompt 1, Debating Museums:
“The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819” is an image that not only suggests that museums and artifacts evoke public wonder, but also spark social discourse. I haven’t seen an illustration or experienced a museum in which there were so many patrons in as close proximity as depicted in this painting. Not only are the viewers many in number, they seem genuinely intrigued at the archaeological finds presented before them. This painting illustrates a time before museums were commonplace throughout western society, so I can imagine there being great curiosity and conversation-starting dialogue about the sculptures presented.
In the image “Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834,” I can see more than 18 workers in different working positions, some are trying to tighten the rope and some are simply just watching, appreciating something so magnificent that they are apart of. I can see that they take the installment very serious, like it’s a big project. I can see their enthusiasm in moving something as big as the Ramesses II statue. They were showing national pride because fifteen years earlier Napoleon’s man could not move it but the British Museum successfully acquired and installed it.
Yes, definitely. I think that kind of effort from regular people really shows how much the artifact must have meant to them. If they were willing to spend their time and strength moving something that didn’t directly benefit them, it says a lot. It’s like they saw it as more than just a statue.
I want to draw our attention to the differences in the Temporary Elgin Room and the British Soldiers with the loot of Benin. The Elgin Room had an aura of wonder. Given that it was around the time period for the enlightenment and a boom in philosophy the Elgin Room was set up in a way that allowed the public to look and form opinions on the artifacts that contributed to the creation of natural science and philosophy. The painting depicts the British public studying all the details of the pieces as if to recreate, understand or improve them. Contrarily in the photo with the soldiers with looted Benin art, they are treating the artworks as prizes and demonstrations of imperialism as compared to the drive to understand nature in the Elgin Room. These art pieces were treated as prizes for these soldiers and the pieces became redefined as symbols of British dominance, compared to the artistic meaning that was intended for the art piece from its creator.
In the artwork, “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures , 1852” it shows a statue from a different country being set up. In the picture we can see that the people aren’t really that curious about the picture, instead they are just going about their daily lives. This is puzzling because usually a statue of that size would be a spectacle to look at especially if it’s unique as it’s sourced internationally. However, maybe this lack of interest by the people in the image tells us that it’s very normal for London to have artwork from different places around the world. This shows London’s imperial power, and also shows how deeply the imperial collection of art has been woven into everyday society. This image as a result invokes national pride because it shows off England’s political power as artworks and architecture especially if it comes from another country expresses the power of a nation.
In the images shown, they suggest that there was quite a lot of public enthusiasm associated with the acquisition of the artifacts. Looking at the photo with the British soldiers in Benin, they laid out the loot they collected and took a photo with it. This shows that they had an great deal of pride and nationality when collecting these artifacts for their home state. I believe that when British citizens would have seen this picture, they would have been proud to be a part of the country who can collect the most things.
An aspect of public enthusiasm for archaeology can be understood through the image “Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834.” When we look at this picture we see many people working together to help install this piece. In addition, we see those observing the statue out of curiosity. The emotions evoked in the picture are a sense of curiosity, wonder, and community. The actions and reactions of the people convey these emotions, as it shows through curiosity it brings people together as a community to admire archaeological wonders. So, to summarize the public enthusiasm for archeology in the 1900s was that it was something to be a part of as a community, and to be curious about together.
PROMT 1: In regards to the painting of British soldiers with loaded art in Benin 1897 this image provokes national pride with a hint of wonder. Clearly, the British would be proud of this painting because the British soldiers looted the art successfully. The soldiers would have had a specific reason as to why they looted the art and most likely, it was some type of retaliation. So successfully getting back at the enemy, gives the nation a major sense of pride. However, it also leaves them with the wonder of what now? Yes, the loot is taken, however what is the plan? And also raises the question what happens next? Everyone knows fighting fire with fire leads to a bigger fire so the painting sparks the question, how will the people of Benin react to something as serious as their art being stolen?
I agree with you and I would add to your idea by including the phrase “trophy hunting” somewhere in your response. Clearly, the artifacts taken were “picture-worthy” — they were a spectacle. It exudes a sense of pride and bragging rights over stolen property. The calm demeanor that the men portray points to why repatriation is such a difficult topic even today: some people do not realize the magnitude of what they have done.
The four images included above suggest that the acquisition and displayal of foreign artifacts is similar to that of zoos. The picture of people with the looted art is similar to that of hunters flaunting the prey they caught as they neatly organize the loot to nicely take a picture to show off their achievements. The reception of nineveh sculptures is reminiscent of that of an exotic animal being engaged for people to observe. Just like how animals are caged and carried over to zoos the museum staff keep the statue secure on wheels and bring it over to the museum to display.This can further a negative view point that foreign cultures are inferior and are to be looked as objects of research rather than of interest and fascination.
The connection between zoos and museums is a very interesting point. To many, we see non-humans as an inferior animal. In relation to museums, one could say that imperialism dehumanized the very people they are taking artifacts from, building an air of superiority for those within the empire.
The image “British soldiers with looted art in Benin”, 1897, stands out especially because the men depicted seem to be extremely proud of themselves for successfully looting an abundance of artifacts. This must evoke feelings of pride among British citizens, as these men managed to posses rare artifacts from another culture to, I assume, put on display. This image might also evoke curiosity among viewers, as they ask themselves how these men came to have possession over these items and if the process was treacherous or easier than imagined.
Debating Museums HWPrompt 1: From these four pictures there are many different emotions that I believe are seen in the images. Some which are intrigued, pride and a sense achievement. The soldiers have put time and energy into obtaining these arts and it seems as though they are looking at these artifacts as if they’ve achieved something big they have finally done it and are now intrigued to see what comes next. In the first picture there are many emotions some sitting and reeling it in some talking amongst each other and someone writing probably writing down history or maybe a summary of the artifact but all in all these pictures show a sense of dedication into capturing memorable pieces and placing them into museums.
“Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834” is an image that evokes curiosity more than anything else. The image depicts an Egyptian sculpture being installed by those who don’t seem to have that same cultural background. Noticing that and looking at the intricate details and size of the sculpture it makes others begin to question how or why it was made? and whom for? As the image shows many people helping installing the sculpture but also others simultaneously admiring it, viewers may question what significance it holds to those within the image and to the culture it originated from.
In the image titled “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures, 1852,” a sculpture of a lamassu is being taken from its point of origin and being transported to London to find a new home in a British museum. The wooden tools and structures that the British men are using cover most of the sculpture, adding an essence of domination of a foreign culture. The British are taking an object that was impactful for an ancient culture and incorporating it into their own by displaying it in their museum. Essentially, the nobility and complexity of its ancient society are being reduced to a fragment in a museum.
Debating Museums
Prompt 1
In the image of The Temporary Elgin Room, we see many men huddled around an ancient artifact with some examining it closely and others in deep discussion. Through this image we can see a room filled with excited individuals who are eager to understand the full significance of the precious work they have to learn from. These people aren’t just standing around and viewing these sculptures, rather they are trying to identify all possible meanings and engaging in debates to thoroughly understand its significance. The fact that many men depicted as intellectuals are collectively trying to understand it, and its placement in what looks like a high level institution shows a sense of unity and nationalism.
In the image “the contemporary Elgin room”, the painting seemed to reflect the curious and inquisitive attitude the public had toward archeology during the 19th century. The people depicted in the artwork all appear to be well educated scholars, with many of them examining or discussing the artifacts in the room.
I think there is a pattern of being proud of the discovery since there are masses of people congregated around each piece in the images, and yet I sense arrogance in a way: how they hover over the art in the images specifically where the piece is being transported, or even in the first image of the marbles, where the men just stand surrounding themselves with the art that shouldn’t really belong there but despite this, they sit in their suits and remain unbothered.
Yes, I agree! It seems as if they do not appreciate the value of each sculpture and what they represent. However, I also think that it shows a little bit of national pride. I say this because in the first image, “The Temporary Elgin”, the men seem proud/hierarchy of having such big sculptures, in a sense gives them power over other empires.
All four images have sculptures in common. Some look like it is built in the UK, but others look like it is sculpted in another part of the world, but brought to the UK. The sculpture from the second image looks like it is from ancient Egypt, which means they got it through trade or invasion. If those sculptures were taken by force, then it means that Britain had strong military power and that era. Getting other countries’ sculptures might symbolize the dominance and power, which will evoke national pride.
I totally agree with the evoking a sense of national pride when the British take the other countries sculptures. I do have to say I think every image might be depicting sculptures brought in from other countries, rather than some being built in the UK. It definitely brings up an interesting idea of if the UK wanted the sculpture so bad because they genuinely appreciated the art, they could have made a replica, but the fact that they chose to take these other country’s history really proves that they want them just to feel superior. I think this emotion is really shown in the first one “The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819” where all the men seem very distinguished posing and talking around many sculptures from ancient Greece or Rome, barely even looking at them and appreciating the ancient history that goes along with them.
In the first image there is a contrast between the people painted in the art. The entire room is mostly filled by men wearing navy blue suits that give them and elegant and professional appearance yet in the corner of the painting there appears a man painting or sketching the other men’s group portrait. This sketcher is wearing a red coat, different from the other men and his shoes also have more colors than the others. This contrast also reflects how the other men are focus in business while this sketcher seems so diligent in his work. Though the different appearance given to the sketcher, the image gives a sense of passion and the uniqueness of art.
Prompt 2:
The emotions that are evoked in the four images are in my opinion disappointment. More specifically in the first image called “The Temporary Elgin Room” and last image called “British soldiers with looted art in Benin” you notice the men having this certain look on their faces For example in the first image you see details like the men looking at each other. They don’t look happy, if anything they look confused at what they are looking at. In the last image it is also very similar, but instead of the men looking at each other they are looking at the camera with a blank stare and have their arms crossed. Their body language is everything you need to know. I feel like both of these images do a really good job at portraying how some people felt about having the artifacts now be shown in London.
I find your analysis interesting! I thought the opposite of both those images. To me, they are viewing the artifacts with pride and with a haughty protectiveness- sort of in a “we are in possession of this cool thing and no one else is” kind of way.
Class Prep: Debating Museums: The four images have the preservation of art/sculptures as the main focus. It definitely evokes a sense of national pride, especially in the first picture where the sculptures are displayed as part of the important-looking room with important-looking people lounging around them. The following sketches approach the preservation of sculptures a little differently, showing how they were moved and protected by wooden beams so that nothing could potentially damage them.
Upon looking at “The Temporary Elgin Room,” “Installing the Bust of Ramesses,” “‘Reception of Nineveh Sculptures,’” and “British soldiers with looted art in Benin,” the four images convey progression and holding pride. Take “The Temporary Elgin Room” for example: the painting shows marble statues displayed around the room, with individuals discussing amongst one another; their discussions appear as though they may be possibly debating the presence of marbles in the room, as marbles were a spectacle shortly after the publication of the aforementioned paintings. Nonetheless, their discussions also demonstrate a sense of pride of being in the presence of vital, archeological items that have and will continue to mold their approach to societal matters.
After studying the photos, I didn’t have any strong emotions because none of the people in the images are showing any emotions. This just reminds me of work, that you do just to do it. Their is no type of passion in any of the images. The men in the looted art in Benin look as if it was another day on the job. But in the Temporary Elgin room the people inside seem to be studying the statues and look a bit more proud of what they have done.
2: In The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819, the scattered pieces of broken art show the unemotional way in which the culture of places taken over by imperial forces is stolen and displaced. The pieces shown are clearly contrasted with the numerous bureaucratic looking individuals in the image who coldly stand around deciding what to do with the art. The similarity in their clothing also creates an image of lacking individuality and bureaucratic coldness. On the other hand, another viewer might interpret this image as one of national power, where bureaucratic workers are able to take and divide art as they please.
2. The images suggest that the public used archaeology to display their admiration for their history. The Temporary Elgin Room displays high class people surrounding the statues on display. This demonstrates the fact that archaeology matters to the highest members of society that are educated. Which can support the admiration they feel towards it because they can acknowledge the history and significance behind it. In Installing the Bust of Ramesses, the workers can be seen admiring the art. Which speaks to society as a whole, every member can respect archaeology.
After looking at The Temporary Elgin Room, what stood out to me is how staged and formal the whole scene is where it almost feels like a display of national pride more than just an interest in archaeology. I see this in how the sculptures are arranged almost theatrically with well dressed viewers standing around them, like if they were at a royal event and not a museum. This makes me think that the excitement around these artifacts wasn’t just about historical curiosity but also might have been tied to power and status. It seems like showing off ancient Greek marbles in London may have been a way of saying, “Look what the British Empire can take and protect.”
Artifacts like Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, are important objects that should be on public display because they represent historical figures. Bust of Ramesses II was a powerful pharaoh that was seen as powerful in ancient Egypt.
Ramesses II was known for his accomplishments such as having a 66 year long reign, defeating enemies, and building many monuments and structures (Memphis Tours).
Displaying artifacts like this helps inclusivity, make history more accessible and also encourages people to push themselves to learn about history beyond what they have only been taught.
Museums are a great tool in society that allows people to immerse themselves into different cultures and learn about historical events that have an impact on modern society. They also serve to recognize the contributions that individuals make throughout history.
It is important for objects such as The Parthenon Sculptures to be on display because they educate people about ancient Greek art as well as making art accessible to people and not limiting people from seeing pieces such as this one. Museums serve as a positive cultural function in many ways such as educating communities about history, demonstrating famous preserved sculptures and paintings from decades ago, as well as inspiring people to learn more about the past. In this society museums are the best way people engage with historic events and artifacts.
One important artifact that can be found in The British Museum is the Rosetta Stone. Discovered by French soldiers in the late 1700’s, this piece of history is a key to understanding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is important for objects such as this stone to be on public display because it gives viewers a deeper connection with global history. Museums positively allow people to interact and learn from artifacts that shaped who we are today.
The Lewis Chessmen, relics of a Viking trade expedition in the Middle Ages, properly exhibit why it’s so important for museums to include seemingly “fun” objects of ancient life. Chess has been around for centuries and is still played today, which is why its so relative to put this set on display. This chess set made of walrus’s ivory and sperm whale tooth, representing a good trade relationship with Norway in the middle ages, further educates those who come to admire it, and learn about the countries economic wellbeing of that era, simultaneously. As a non-historian, it’s easy to get lost in the habitual conquest and violence commonly portrayed through commemorations in museums. Including displays with aspects of ancient hobby-life, that still resonate with many people today, diverts the typical viewpoint of ancient society behavior as brutal, keeping viewers engaged and curious about the positivity of the middle ages.
I would say that the positive impact of museums is the ability for a wide variety of people to experience the art and history of other cultures. One place is this seen is in the Moai at the British Museum. It is fair to say that millions more people would have the chance to learn about the Indigenous cultures of Easter Island in London than would travel to the island itself. Of course, the issue of colonialism and imperialism is at play. It is not a coincidence that some of the most prestigious museums in the world belong to countries that were some of the most notorious colonizers. However, I believe that with international cooperation– and the understanding that artifacts from other cultures truly belong to those cultures and not the British, cooperation could be worked out to allow more people to view these works.
The British Museum contains two large headstones from Rapa Nui, specifically those named Hoa Hakananai’a and Moai Hava. These notably were taken in 1868 by the British survey ship HMS Topaze and in recent years there have been efforts by the Rapa Nui community for the repatriation of the two statues. The importance of having objects like this on public display is that it educates the public on the culture and heritage of foreign countries. This allows for a greater global understanding and appreciation for each other’s culture and history. This is especially important for smaller and less influential areas like Rapa Nui who may otherwise go unrecognized. This global effect of museums is their main cultural function, a function that chips away at stereotypes and makes us more interconnected.
(museum) Prompt 2: The artifact that looks interesting to me in the photo is the tusk. It’s important that the artifacts are displayed in museums as it provides education and cultural enrichment, in addition, the artifacts in the museums being on public display makes the artifact accessible to everyone. Museums nowadays provide heritage, learning opportunities, and further understand the cultures around the world.
The primary critique made by Farah Nayeri in their article “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back,” is that the manner the museums obtained their art, is wrong on a moral level. Nayeri uses Napoleon as an example, as he essentially filled the Louvre with art he stole after battles. This art would then be used to “build the image of political power” for the French (Page 2). The art that sits in museums thus is more of a reflection of colonialism than anything else.
Yes, I agree with you. Napoleon used the masterpieces he plundered in Europe to justity his invasion.”Art was placed at the service of politics” (Page 5, Farah Nayeri ) Napoleon tried to linked himself to the Enlightenment thinkers by building Louvre and filled it with masterpieces. However, after Napoleon was defeated, Louvre seemed to be a direct evidence for his invasion. People criticized Napoleon for his plunder, and asked France to give those masterpieces back.
In the third article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri, activist Mwazulu Diyabanza attempted to take artifacts from multiple museums in search for reparations for colonialism, slavery and cultural expropriation. His arguments and reasoning behind his actions take wording of the law and brings an important perspective to the movement. Diyabanza talks about how he had to pay to enter these museums and see pieces of his own heritage that were taken from his home and belonged there, not in museums. He brings light to the contradictory sentiment behind museums boasting about education while holding cultural pieces of heritage hostage in museums. He also goes on to say that a museum stole the objects they have so how is it theft if the owner is just trying to obtain what was once their property?
In “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums,” Nayeri expresses the importance of removing the contradictory practices of museums that take captive of vulnerable and valuable pieces of one culture and heritage while attempting to educate another culture or group of people, using the political protest of Mwazulu Diyabanza. Mwazulu exemplifies the fact that the museums don’t technically own aspects of a particular culture through his political actions of taking artifacts related to his culture from museums. With that, Nayeri seems to conclude that culture and heritage belong to the people but reminding society of that should be done in a strategic and positive way for the cause by using “the law to be heard.”
In the article, “The Masterpieces that Napoleon Stole, and How Some went Back,” Nayeri critiques the idea that western museums are kind of nuetral caretakers of global culture. She highlights how many objects that were on display were taken through conquest, unequal power dynamics, or coercion during colonial expansion. While the museums usually argue that they preserve these artifacts for greater good, Nayeri challenges by showing this actually erases the voices and rights of the cultures which they were taken from.This articles goes to show that restitution isn’t about objects, but the reckoning with a history of exploitation and to return agency from many that it was taken from.
The second article, “For U.S. Museums with Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era is Over,” by Graham Bowley argues that museums have lost the ability to claim both neutrality whilst displaying pieces acquired by theft or colonization. Bowley continues in saying that prized pieces are direct evidence of violence and cultural erasure. Returning these artifacts would be an acknowledgement of historical wrongdoings. The article mostly focuses on pressuring museums to take action beyond the preservation of material history and confront/apologize for their past behavior.
The article “U.S. Museums with Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over” challenges the long standing belief that museums are the ideal caretakers of cultural artifacts. It shows how, for much of the twentieth century, curators at prominent American museums took a competitive attitude to collecting antiquities, frequently acquiring artifacts through questionable colonial, or blatantly criminal tactics. People like Thomas Hoving defined their practices as “piracy,” with no regard for the civilizations from where the pieces were sourced.
According to academics like Elizabeth Marlowe, this legacy indicates a larger ethical failure: for decades, Western museums profited from global disparities, acquiring items from states devastated by war, poverty, or colonization. Repatriation, which was once viewed as radical, is now seen as a necessary response to these inequities. The article argues that museums may no longer claim moral authority over these objects just because they have been housed for decades. Instead, restoring stolen or unethically acquired items is shown to be an issue of fairness and accountability, over just legality.
Farah Nayeri critiques Western museums for displaying numerous artifacts taken from African nations during the colonial era often without consent or fair agreements. It highlights activist Mwazulu Diyabanza’s dramatic protests, such as his removal of a 19th-century wooden grave pole from the Musée du quai Branly in Paris, as acts of defiance against what many regard as stolen heritage. Diyabanza argues that these objects were “stolen under colonialism” and should be returned to their rightful homelands.
While museums often present these pieces as part of a shared global history, they rarely acknowledge the violent or unjust means by which many were acquired. This lack of transparency has fueled growing calls for restitution and deeper, more honest conversations about colonial legacies.
Mwazulu Diyabanza’s actions are bold, because they represent a kind of modern protest that challenges institutions from within their own walls. Bye removing artifacts during museum visits, hie forces a confrontation what does ownership mean when something was taken under duress, or never consented to in the first place?
Critique of museums:
In the NYTimes article “For U.S. Museums With Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over,” the author talks about how a lot of museums are basically built off stolen artifacts, but for a long time no one questioned it because people felt it was “for the sake of preservation.” The piece points out that this mindset actually erases the cultures of which the items came from, and that museums need to own up to that history instead of acting like innocent caretakers.
There is a general critique surrounding how museums originate from stolen cultural artifacts as a result of a history of colonization and imperialism. Specifically, people argue that these objects were “plundered,” and have the right to be returned to their country of origin, as they were unfairly taken in imperial conquests (Nayeri 2). However, some people argue these artifacts should belong to the public (and humankind) and therefore not need to be returned to any nation (Bowley 3). Other people argue that its still unfair, and that the cultural value of certain artifacts means it should be returned to the rightful owners. Overall there are various opinions surrounding the ethics of museums, but it is clear majority of their history is based in plundering and taking through conquest.
Farah Nayeri’s work, “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back,” appears unbiased upon first read, but under further inspection, the article becomes a critique of England’s motivation behind keeping their stolen relics. One popular argument, in defense of England’s actions, declares that the ancient artifacts are maintained the best in England’s museums—nothing more. Still, all art is political. Farah Nayeri points out that Napoleon acknowledged the political power of the work he stole; many were used to prop up rulers of the cities he conquered. By seizing them, Napoleon was making a statement of his own power. This logic can be applied to modern society by scrutinizing the message that museums like the British Museum are sending by withholding relics from their rightful owners. Perhaps it is a declaration of superiority in the arts by flaunting the success and “inclusivity” of their exhibits.
I really liked your response and I think you did an excellent job at outlining the fallacies in the British museum’s justification for keeping stolen work. My only confusion with this article was the ending, which makes me question her views on Napoleon’s actions.
In a general regard, museums are seen as pillars of colonialism, specifically depicting the theft of culture within a society. Many people who are descendants of the artifact’s origin show a general hostility towards these museums, viewing them as toxic displays of stolen property. As Mr. Diyabanza states in Nayeri’s report, “Describing the Quai Branly as ‘a museum that contains stolen objects,’ he added, ‘There is no ban on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it.’” (Nayeri 2). This attitude towards museums as shared across many who believe their culture was stolen by imperialism, and call for a return of the artifacts that were stolen.
The Louvre Museum in Paris was first introduced as a display for Napoleon’s triumphs of artifacts taken from other countries that he had conquered. And like what was said, these pieces of art were forcefully taken from their country of origin and hence not fit to be placed as a trophy in France. There were numerous art pieces that were taken by Napoleon, and at one point some were given back to their native country where they had truly belonged. The number of pieces collected contained high levels of importance and value to the origin country where its true value was appreciated. Despite many pieces still remaining in the Louvre, it has also become a large area to admire other works of art from various cultures.
Debating Museums
Prompt 3: Museum curator, Vikan, said: “If anyone tells me that sending the Elgin marbles back to Greece, that somehow the British Museum will be empty, it’s nonsense.” This quote brilliantly summarizes the sentiment of the New York Times article of US Museums. Vikan defeats any arguments against repatriation by highlighting the ridiculousness of their defense. The British Museum and many other world-famous museums have enormous collections of art and they will not be significantly harmed by returning certain pieces to their rightful owners. Vikan wants to expose that museums and their curators value the impressiveness of their collection over cultural appreciation and educating their attendees. He implies that museums used to be much like trophy hunting where countries can show off their spoils from war. This false sense of ownership that museums feel as a result of their pretentiousness is exactly why they are not the ideal places for these artifacts to be preserved.
In the New York Times article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes
Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri, activist Mwazulu
Diyabanza makes the claim that “There is no ban on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it.” The article details a series of demonstrations against stolen cultural items in foreign museums. The sentiment expressed in the article is that many museums host and display objects that are stolen from their original homeland and culture. Public and social media protests have shown activists attempting to steal ethnic artifacts causing legal repercussions and debate as to the right way to enter the politically charged conversation. Some believe they need to return the historical items back to their original homes by any means necessary, while some argue there is a better, legal way to handle the situation.
3. Paraphrase the critique being levied against museums
In the NYT article, ‘The Masterpieces that Napoleon Stole and How Some Went Back,’ Farah Nayer details the critique that many museums have benefited from the colonization and humiliation of other countries and continue to do so as they take advantage of stolen art. Nayer goes on to point out how Napoleon pilfered 600 paintings and sculptures from Italy alone and how, after the battle of Waterloo (Napoleon’s defeat), Italy tried to reclaim their artworks, and even still, this was difficult. The end of the article goes on to ask the rhetorical question, “Why is Napoleon not condemned as ferociously […] for the looting of Africa,” which is answered by how Napoleon’s occupation of Europe was shorter than the occupation of Africa. Not to mention how the colonizers of Africa had done far more horrific things, making stolen art bearable in contrast. Ultimately critiquing how difficult museums are making the return of stolen artworks.
The article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri criticizes the means by which museums have acquired artistic and historical pieces from foreign countries. She uses the experiences of Mwazulu Diyabanza, who visits museums and attempts to seize African works, to give us a glimpse into how the unreturned pieces are protested. This critique aims to hold museums accountable for the fact that they retain works that were wrongfully taken and have been requested back by their original owners.
In Farah Nayeri’s article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums,” the critique centers on how museums continue to benefit from imperialist histories by holding artifacts that were taken—often by force—from colonized regions. The article highlights activists like Mwazulu Diyabanza, who challenge the legitimacy of Western museums as rightful stewards of these cultural objects. Rather than being neutral spaces of education, the article argues, museums can serve as symbols of ongoing injustice when they refuse to return looted artifacts to their countries of origin.
I definitely agree with the idea that museums no longer serve as a neutral ground for showcasing artifacts, when many of their collections are stolen and looted. The historical and culture value of an artifact deserves recognition, and I admired Mr.Diyabanza’s stance “on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it” (Diyabanza). You raised an interesting point regarding the continued benefits that museums get from stolen artifacts, making it difficult for those who view these pieces, knowing its origin and heritage.
In the article ‘To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums’, the museum was accused of theft, for the artifacts on display did not originate from the museum location but somewhere else. Especially the sub-Saharan Africa artifacts, for those are taken through violence acts and then sent to their current location, rather than legally obtained. Mr.Diyabanza believes that not only does it stop people learning about their own culture through those artifacts, it is ridiculous for the museums to charge people with the same cultural background as the artifacts, for they should be considered as the owner and shouldn’t pay to see their own culture.
The critique of museums centers around the idea that many of the world’s most famous artworks are built on looted and forcibly taken artifacts, including the Louvre, which is critiqued upon by Nina Siegel “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back.” Siegal highlights how Napoleon’s armies systematically seized artworks from across Europe using Scurr’s book to show “how art was placed at the service of politics” (Siegal). Even though Napoleon operated under the intentions to stabilize French and “[bring] the country out of a period of complete chaos and revolutionary disruption,” he did so by stripping other nations of their heritage (Scurr). The truth behind museums, despite their seemingly neutral stance, is that they’re reflections of conquest, exploitation, and colonial power. Siegal’s focus on the return of many artifacts challenges the idea that museums remain a permanent home to these cultural pieces.
Farah Nayer’s “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back” notes the political motivations of stealing artworks, as Napoleon wanted to bring together artworks from around the world at the Louvre in attempt to take France out of a time of revolutionary disruptions and replace the chaos with a more stable climate that prioritizes learning and discovery. The association with the works of brilliant artists, such as “The Wedding Feast at Cana” by the Renaissance painter Paolo Veronese, served to create a stronger image of Napoleon’s empire because they represented his conquests. After his fall, about half of his stolen artworks were returned due to their exploitative nature. The return of stolen artworks is a major step in restitution for victims of imperialism, and this “dismantling of the Louvre” acted as an example for other countries in a similar position. Egypt now demands the return of the rosetta stones that were captured by the British after Napoleon’s defeat.
is really interesting that the ownership of art always with associate with power, I think one reason why museums are so controversial is become the origin countries of those artifacts are still somewhat powerless against the current holder.
In “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts from Museums”, Farah Nayeri describes the actions of Congolese activist Mwazulu Diyabanza, who attempted to and stole African artifacts from French museums, claiming it as “colonial-era cultural theft”. France holds much of others culture, with “so much of sub-Saharan Africa’s cultural heritage — 90,000 or so objects”. Diyabanza stands by his actions, saying it was fueled from having to pay money to see what had been taken from force from his home– what he did was not theft, as it was his property all along. President Macron seems to have taken in the critique against museums, and pledged to give back African heritage held by museums. A lawyer for Diyabanza critiques the museum for having stolen goods on display. Diyabanza isn’t alone in his thoughts, and there are many French nationals who follow him and support him. The issue with museums seems to be based on ownership, and what actions give museums the right to display artifacts and what actions do not.
Debating Museums Prompt 3:
In the first article by Nayeri, museums are critiqued for falsely advertising what they truly are. Instead of existing as cultural institutions that display arts and artifacts, they reflect deeper issues, specifically how artifacts are often forcibly acquired, which represent imperial conquests. In the article, Nayeri specifically uses Napoleon as an example, highlighting how his conquests of various other countries helped fill the world famous Louvre with art, yet it leaves those countries with a great sense of anger at having their culture stolen and displayed. This critique calls into question not only the legitimacy of museums, but also if museums have the moral responsibility to return items to their place of origin.
Farah Nayeri in her article “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back” argues how museums are not the neutral, ideal repository of cultural artifacts that is brought about in the first class prep assignment readings. This is levied through Nayeri by expressing how these collections include artifacts that were pillaged during conquests led by Napoleon specifically. From the displaying of these pieces in the museum, it almost tries to “cover up” the violent history in which they were obtained, as the truth behind these pieces perpetrate colonial power dynamics, turning the artifacts into subsequent trophies. Nayeri continues by saying hoe holding onto these pieces after the long since removal of them further builds upon the superiority of Western institutions over the cultures and societies that they were ripped away from. The only way to fix this would be to return the pillaged pieces to their rightful origin in order to restore balance and historical justice.
In “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad,” the narrator describes a moment in a dream in which others have cried to him saying, “‘La Belle Dame sans Merci Thee hath in thrall’” (The Lady Without Mercy has enslaved you). I found this line particularly moving because it expresses how much our imagination can take control of our reality, so that we’re no longer living in the reality we’re used to but the one we created in our mind, and the present reality becomes hard to recognize. I think emotions, especially strong ones, sometimes create a certain imagined reality and if we believe enough, we fall out of actually living in the present, similarly to how the narrator remained on the same hillside, despite its’ lack of beauty.
In The Lady of Shalott (1888), it seems a bit sensual but also tragic. The way the woman’s lips are slightly parted looks like she may be letting out a sigh or her last breath. Her eyes are also lowered and she’s looking directly at the viewers as if she’s silently asking for help. And the chain in her hand is like she’s holding on to life.
When reading Alfred Tennyson’s poem The Lady of Shalot, then immediately studying William Holman Hunt’s painting, the woman’s lusciously blown out hair in the painting intrigues the viewers. The context of this painting is that the women is trapped inside and is forced to make a tapestry out of the reflections of the outside world, yet the painting captures the moment she disobeys and breaks the curse. The force of breaking her curse has caused her hair to blow violently into the air, and is further shown through the balls of yarn being unraveled and blown away as well. The depiction of her hair represents hidden sexuality since she posses strong levels femininity (her hair being long, textured and vibrant) that are released all at once. The cause of breaking the curse was when, “Came two young lovers lately wed” in Part 2, which explains the Lady’s dramatic shift from isolation and obedience has shift to sexuality and freedom; this sight of sexual and romantic attraction caused her to finally break the shackles and her beautiful hair further conveys the claim that attraction consumes the body.
In John Everett Millais’ Ophelia, it is especially moving when you notice her hands upward and open. They are posed in such a way that she appears to be welcoming her death, her willingness and acceptance of drowning. Her right hand also holds flowers, as she’s surrounded by daisies and nettles, representing pain and innocence, symbolic of her forsaken love and tragic end. Her youthful and innocent life was overrun with tragedy and pain, driving her to the point of choosing death instead.
In the third image by Pre-Raphaelite it shows a girl laying in a body of water. Most would claim the girl is the center of attention in this painting, but I would say the flowers are. I believe this is the case because it appears she is holding some flowers and there are also flowers around her which make me believe the flowers hold a significant meaning to her.
I agree that the flowers may have significance in the image, but I still believe the women in the water is the main character. I think the women represents death as she seems to be laying in the body of water deceased with her eyes opened. I think the flowers signify the beauty in death as they lay over and around her.
In the first image, I would like to point out the dark cloud above the women’s head along with the mess of thread all over the room. Overall the painting displays a beautiful visual of color and designs, for example the painting to the right of the women in the image. I think the mess of thread and the cloud show that there can be beauty in a mess. The cloud over the women’s head along can represent lots of emotions but the emotions are held within which you cant see just by staring at her. When you look at her all you see is a beautiful woman, the string also represents a mess in beauty.
I definitely agree with your point that the clouds above the woman’s head represents a lot of dark emotions that she may be carrying within. However, you can’t see any signs of despair just by just looking at her. I think this reflects how many women, it is normalized to internalize their emotions and but on a brave face on the outside.
I agree with your point with the string representing a mess in beauty, as if it is trapping her and her not being able to escape. This painting is filled with meaning and emotions even if its not on her face, you can just see it around her. It makes it also seem like she is surrounded by troubleness and she is struggling to escape from it, and when she tries, she gets even more tangled and it gets more complicated.
In the painting, Ophelia by John Everett Millais, a specific detail of the painting stood out to me as a consistent visual detail. The painting has a motion of flowing horizontally, almost flowing along with Ophelia as she succumbs to the water. The tree beside her lays along with her, the grass, the flowers she rests with, even the branches of the tree, It all feels as though they are coming to greet her at her timely demise, that they welcome her. It’s as if her surroundings are saying that they stand in solitude with her and that they welcome her as part of the earth as she passes on, positioned sideways as she is.
Great observation, I noticed the same thing. Ophelia’s feeling of horizontal movement seems to take her softly toward death, not something very harsh, but sacred and natural. Your idea about the landscape welcoming her is powerful because it takes her death from tragedy to something weirdly serene and even romantic. Millais shows not only her death, but also nature receiving her almost like she is returning to it. That visual reflects the stillness right after her surrender, when the pain and tragedy meets beauty. I’d also add that the vibrant flowers surrounding her may not only represent innocence and sadness, but also highlight how connected she is to both life and death.
As I was reading the “The Lady of Shallot”, the strong imagery caught my eye, but the set of lines that caught my eye was “Four gray walls, and four gray towers / Overlook a space of flowers”. The reason I liked these lines were because of the stark contrast between bleak, gray, and sad walls looming over a very colorful picture of flowers. The way I pictured these lines, the flowers are overshadowed by these towers blocking sunshine from them. It felt like a stark juxtaposition, of beautiful things being in the shadows because of tall, overpowering, dark objects.
In Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s painting, Lady Lilith, the main thing that catches my eye is her beautiful long hair that she’s brushing. Lady Lilith is known as Adam’s (the first man) first wife that refused to be subservient to him as they were made of the same material making them equals. This leads to her leaving the Garden of Eden by herself and then Eve came along. Her brushing her hair in my mind shows her independence because it’s down. It just takes up the whole piece and it being down and not up to me shows that not only is she free but also secure with being independent.
One moving detail in “The Lady of Shalott” is her expression of sorrow as she sits alone in the boat with her hands loosely holding a chain – as if she knows what it to come with her decision of escape. The white gown tied in with the rich, symbolic tapestry evokes purity and sacrifice. This moment truly captures hers tragic defiance of fate. The quiet stillness before death, that is filled with courage, craving, and the cost of freedom.
“Ophelia” by John Everett Millais portrays a solemn form of dynamism. The flowers parallel to her limp body in the water unironically adds life to a depiction of someone without any. The surrounding woods are bright green, suggesting its the prime of spring; the contrast between the bright colors of the season and the stillness of her body in the brook make the picture a unique visual.
I liked your contrast between bright and still. I also wanted to point out a theme of dynamism in “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad.” In the beginning, the lonely night comes upon a seemingly endearing, beautiful woman that gives him hope of love. Later on in the women’s bed, he dreams about how the she is evil, and wakes up alone in a cold hill. The movement of hope to loss emphasizes the strong dynamics of victorian art.
I wanted to add to your interpretation of the flowers. In the play “Hamlet,” Ophelia is greatly sexualized yet infantilized by the male characters, who impose on her a set of social expectations. However, she “breaks out” of these social restraints near the end by tossing around flowers (among other things), in an attempt to reclaim her identity. So, I think the flowers additionally hold the significance of her effort to reclaim her identity, and adds an additional level of irony to the painting, as she died around the very thing that symbolically tried to free her.
The symbol of freedom that you point out of the flowers is something that I feel is extremely important to the understanding of the image. While she is surrounded by flowers her hands are also open as if she is letting go. There seems to be no panic or resistance to the water through her expressions. Without words her body language tells us that she is ready to be released from the control of others and conveys that she may finally be at peace.
I completely agree that Ophelia is a from of dynamism. To add on to the aspect of Dynamism, it seems that the creek she lays on has no obvious direction of movement. The river isn’t moving left or right. From the perspective of the reader, the direction of the river, and by extension her life, is still, having the possibility that it can move in either direction.
In Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Lady Lilith (1866-68) what stands out to me is the darkness in the room while the sunshines and the grass is greener than ever. The contrast in color leads me to having a differing opinion than the point of this painting I don’t think the self absorption and the ability to seduce a man stands for the power of feminine beauty instead i think it’s dangerous because a woman shouldn’t be so hyper fixated on her beauty especially with the purpose being because of a man. There are many negative side effects to focusing too much on your beauty and I feel as though the light coming from the window is more of a message that there are more productive and positive things to do like appreciating nature and the things surrounding you than weaponizing your beauty.
I liked how you brought up the consequences of weaponized feminisms, and how this focus should be put in other areas such as nature. I wanted to add on to that idea by bringing focus to the plants in the painting. The woman in the painting does not focus on the beauty of the flowers or trees behind her, but rather on how she looks when combing her hair. This displays your point on how some women may be hyper fixated on beauty to the point they forget that there is more to life than their looks.
In William Holman Hunt’s The Lady of Shalott, the painting has unexpected visual focus points- one might expect the piece to feature the string imprisoning Lady of Shalott, or her hair, which takes up almost a quarter of the painting. It even shadows a bird, attempting to fly out of the window. However, the highlighted part of the painting is the bottom right corner, illuminated by the light from the window. This draws the viewers attention away from the top of the painting and forces them to see Lady of Shalott’s loom and feet, leading the viewer to question details that may have otherwise gone unnoticed or understated.
I think that the lighting in the bottom right does take away the attention from the rest of the painting. I wanted to add what Hunt wanted to maybe hide from the viewer in the shadows. He deliberately focuses the light as to illuminate half of her body to emphasize how she is “half sick of shadows.” not only that but the deliberate lighting you mentioned hides the large dark mass blocking the view of the window being the aforementioned curse, maybe weighing on her to continue weaving.
This is a good detail that I have completely overlooked. The painting is packed with many little details such as the people outside the window or the many ornate details that decorate the walls and furniture. The artist definitely used lighting intentionally.
A line that interested me was from Christina Rossetti, “Goblin Market” was “ we must not look at goblin men, we must not buy their fruits: Who knows upon what soil they fed their hungry thirsty roots”. I find it interesting because It really showcases the times they were in and how honestly not much has changed in all these years when it comes to how woman are treated. Women are never allowed to be themselves without having to worry about how men will feel, or how they will react, This line wants to make aware hidden intentions. Woman can’t trust men’s fruit (what they offer) because the soil ( where it comes from) is unknown. Men’s intentions are never truly know. If woman buy into men they are taking a major risk in a way.
Ophelia was said to have died while trying to pick flowers, and slowly drowned from the heavy weight of her dress. In the painting of “Ophelia” by John Everett Millais, Ophelia has yet to drown but has a look of lifelessness already. Additionally, she is holding a bundle of flowers that is nowhere else in the painting. And yet she had also picked white flowers, which represent purity and innocence; but had let them go implying she is also letting go of the innocence and purity a lady of her age was required to be, along with her life.
I completely agree with this reading, and this is also particularly interesting because it is heavily implied that Ophelia committed suicide, supporting this interpretation of the painting.
A particular moving line for me was in William Holman Hunt’s article was, “I saw their starved lips in the gloam.” I think this is because most of the poem has this sensual loving feeling that specifically targets kissing and how that makes one feel. Then right before this line the tone shifts and specifically this line really shows what tone it shifted to. It’s much more darker and depressing considering how kissing was so admired then to be compared to starving it’s very abrupt almost and really show how painful this author feels.
Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin market” is packed with sensual language. the goblin’ fruit’s being regarded as “sweeter than honey from the rock” “Sweeter than man-rejoicing wine”, the goblins are merchants “Come buy, come buy” but they aren’t just selling food. the lauguage surrounding the fruit’s refers a lot to sensuality. “Laura suck’d and suck’d and suck’d the more” this demonstrates the addictive nature of the fruit but also could refer to something more carnal. With no money Laura offers a curl of her hair, transactional in a way we would not expect, the beginning of her downfall because she could not find the goblin’s again after becoming obssesed with it, it felt like she had given something she could never have again.
From Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin Market,” I especially liked the line “For there is no friend like a sister in calm or stormy weather.” During the Victorian era, society placed heavy emphasis on female purity and restraint, and it was interesting to see how two sisters were able to deal with the problems of not abiding by those expectations. I found this interesting, as this is one of the first poems that I have read that tells a story between sisters rather than the usual brother trope.
All four of these paintings show a very beautiful woman, and at face value, could simply just be a gorgeous painting of a woman. To me, each of these women look distraught, sad, unfulfilled with what may be a meaningless, mundane life. The second painting, (The Lady of Shalott) strikes me the most because she looks the most in distress, on the verge of tears even, as she sits in the boat. I also noticed that she’s holding what looks like the chain of the boat that keeps it from leaving the dock, a small detail that might suggest that she is contemplating drifting away from what is causing her emotional pain.
I agree with the sadness being encompassed in these paintings despite how beautiful and pleasing they are to the eyes. The painting of Ophelia drowning and taking her last breaths has always been striking to me. She was full of love, life, and beauty. Yet, here she lay, dying all the same despite all the wonderful qualities listed above.
I was thinking the same thing when viewing these paintings. They are all filled with a certain emptiness and sadness despite the beautiful women and mastery of art that they showcase. The third image, John Everett Millais’ Ophelia stands out to me the most. Despite the serenity of Ophelia’s surroundings, the stunning detail in her dress, and her own beauty, the image still emanates a quite melancholy feeling.
A detail I noticed in the John Everett Millais painting of Ophelia was the flowers covering her in the water. I think the choice to add other flowers not mentioned in Hamlet, such as poppies which represent death, is a very interesting and meaningful detail that the painter chose to include. Besides the meanings of the flowers and what they represent, I think think these bright flower in contrast to the more beige and sad rest of the painting, shows that even in death, one can still find the beauty.
I didn’t know what the individual flowers represented but it definitely adds so much more depth and meaning to the painting. I wonder if each type of flower in the painting was intentionally added based on its meaning- which might explain the feelings and emotions Ophelia experienced.
A detail that strikes me in Dante Gabriel Rossetti painting, Lady Lilith, was he portrayed her as a beautiful woman that is seductive and shallow. By the painting having movement of brushing her hair and having a mirror on her hand, However, by knowing the meaning of the legend of Lady Lilith, her staring into space also demonstrates her being torn of society just seeing her by her beauty and not of how she truly is.
In William Holman Hunt, The Lady of Shalott (1888-1905), a striking visual detail I noticed from the painting was that of the loom wrapping itself around her, the curse almost trying to hold her down. However, her standing symbolizes her trying to defy the curse and break it. She is in this room, the outside world peaking in the distance behind her. The colorful loom along with the bombastic room could showcase her breaking free form this curse and wanting to choose her own fate over the curse, which would juxtapose the lifeless, colorless death that awaits her.
A line that strikes me from the poem “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad” by John Keats is in the last stanza when the knight says, “And this is why I sojourn here, Alone and palely loitering.” Not only does this line encapsulate the tragic fate of the knight forever doomed to wander aimlessly in solitude but I also like how the writer ties his fate back to the men that warned him in his dreams through the repeated use of the word pale. I was surprised that the poem ended in this manner leaving things unresolved especially as I expected him to escape following the earlier mentioned warning.
One thing I love about the painting of Ophelia by John Everett Millais is the flowers Ophelia is holding. If I remember in Hamlet, each of the flowers represented someone’s trait that also represented someone, example the rosemary was remembrance which was given to Laertes.
Beautiful women with sad face, vivid color, and flowers are the characteristics that all four painting have. The painting was able to emphasize the emotion of beautiful women by using contrasting color of what she feels. The colorful background with flowers made women looks more tragic. Especially third painting and fourth painting did great job on using contrasting background.
I totally agree with you. In-fact the author of third painting, John Everett, hired an model and let her posed in water so he can capture this tragic, life-like facial emotion. Which is not a very common practice back then.
One particularly moving line that I found from the poem La Belle Dame san Merci by John Keats that I found was the line “ They cried—‘La Belle Dame sans Merci/Thee hath in thrall!’” (Lines 39 – 40). This line stood out to me the most because not only is it the title of the poem, but in a way this line also is like a warning to the man that he loves her but she does not love him. It was foreshadowing what was soon to come. This being shown through how when he wakes up she is not by his side. In a way it is like the men in his dream tried to warn him about the lady.
1. Ophelia lays down in a body of water, frozen in a state of awe. Ophelia and the landscape surrounding her is simultaneously beautiful, however it is a contrast to the reality. From her brother and father controlling her to her descent into madness that eventually led to her death demonstrates the tragic nature of her life. But yet in the end everything in this painting is beautiful, which I believe is done to reflect the nature of who she is to her core.
2. The great exhibition represented non-european groups. Particularly in the “India” painting, you can see people from different backgrounds included. That is extremely progressive considering the time.
In Keat’s poem, one line that really stood out to me is the line “I saw pale kings and princes too/pale warriors, death-pale were they all.” This line stood out to me because the repetition of the word pale emphasizes the lifelessness of the life of a knight and potentially foreshadows their own fate. This is an extremely chilling line that deepens the poem’s sense of fatal beauty in a haunting way.
In Keat’s poem, one line that really stood out to me is the line “I saw pale kings and princes too/pale warriors, death-pale were they all.” This line stood out to me because the repetition of the word pale emphasizes the lifelessness of the life of a knight and potentially foreshadows their own fate. This is an extremely chilling line that deepens the poem’s sense of fatal beauty in a haunting way. Somehow, this poem also reminds me a little bit about Apollo and Daphne from last semester, where Apollo loved Daphne so much he couldn’t let her go, and it let to Daphne’s self-ruin. In this case, there is the opposite, where the knight’s love/obsession with the figure in the poem leads to ruin, not fulfillment of their desires.
John Everett Millais’ Ophelia depicts Ophelia as she drowns in a flowery river. What stood out to me is the beauty of the scene contrasting with the tragedy of Ophelia’s end. She slowly sinks in the midst of trees, grass, and different kinds of flowers, and holds a melancholic, resigned countenance with her mouth open, suggesting she’s singing in her final moments.
That’s a really interesting way to look at it. I was wondering what the intentions of her mouth being open were and I thought that maybe it was just because she was dying. I like your take so much better though, it kind of changes the meaning of the photo for me.
1. One particularly moving visual detail appears in the Ophelia painting, where her hands float open above the water while her fingers delicately extended as if it is meant to showcase her surrendering both to death and to nature. Despite being surrounded by the lush and blooming plants and flowers, her passive form contrasts sharply with the vitality of the environment. The flowers illustrate fleeting beauty which is a topic that can be call backed to her last scene in Hamlet.
2. In the Colonial Produce image, non European cultures are represented more as resources than as people as there value is defined by what they produce rather than who they are. The display of this in the image shows materials like cotton, tea, sugar, and spices, presented in elegant arrangements that obscure the exploitative colonial systems behind them. Also, there are no visible laborers, just the goods they harvested. This visual details reinforces a narrative where the empire’s subjects are contributors to Britain’s greatness, but only as silent, passive providers as they are not to be credited for their efforts.
“I am half sick of shadows” shows that the Lady of Shalott can’t bear a boring life that she can only see things in Camelot through a magic mirror but not be able to be part of it. She finally decides live a life out of the limitation given by the unknown curse. This line is significant as it shows the change of Lady of Shalott, and this change results in her death.
Yes, and it presents Lady of Shalott as willing to take the risk to step beyond the illusion of the reality put in front of her. However, reality is what creates her doom as it presents another boundary for her – a life limited once the mirror broke. As she stepped out of the shadow of mirrored reality, she stepped into another one, the shadow of looming death; the Lady of Shalott may be “half sick of shadows,” but she never seems to be able to leave one.
I totally agree. I also find it interesting how this line comes directly after the moment she sees the two newlyweds under the moonlight. To me, it showed how deeply she wished to have someone of her own to love and live life with even though that would be impossible. I think the use of the word “shadow” is also important because it represents her situation, knowing that the lives of others and the life she wishes for is always happening and she can watch it as it follows her, but she can never touch the shadows and the life she longs for.
The line “I am half sick of shadows” represents her isolation and sadness of her boring life. She also has “no loyal knight and true” which also represents her sadness. This can be seen in the second painting where Lady shallot looks unhappy as she is going to camelot alone. However, she knows she is under some unknown curse as well, so this line emphasizes the darkness in her life, which was true because in the end she dies. I also found it so sad becasue she said this line after seeing two newlyweds, which makes me think that also yearned for this relationship.
I agree with your post! I think the line, “I am half sick of the shadows,” indicates she both enjoys the peace of being behind the scenes, but she craves a more vivid, exciting, adventurous life, especially with the word “half”. This line is the tipping point to Lady Shallot’s story, making it significant to the whole poem, because this line gives a sense of her motives and what she longs for in life.
I am half sick of shadows” is an extremely telling line about the sorrowful life of a Victorian woman. The Lady is trapped in a tower, unable to really see the world, and can only watch life from a distance. She wants to experience life, but the use of the word “half” reveals that although she’s aware of her suffering and lack of agency, she’s still afraid to challenge society’s rules. The “curse” reflects these strict rules of Victorian society, especially for women, as they were expected to remain passive in life.
To me, the statement “I am half sick of shadows” expresses the Lady of Shalott’s desire for real life, for genuine experience rather than living in an illusion. She has lived in seclusion, viewing the world only through a mirror and incorporating its “magic sights” into her tapestry. Her whole existence is filtered and secondhand…she is aware of love, and human connection but had never experienced it firsthand. This line is a turning point where she yearns for, is impatient and has a desire for reality, even at the risk of death. To me, her un happiness with mere “shadows” reflects a larger struggle for safety and self expression (especially for women during the time). Overall, it foreshadows her decision to stare out the window and appreciate the dangerous beauty of life, even if it means losing everything.
“And moving thro’ a mirror clear
That hangs before her all the year,
Shadows of the world appear.
There, she sees the highway near
Winding down to Camelot:”
appear. This indicates that the shadows Lady Shalott is referring to are the glimpses of life she can only perceive through this mirror. Wanting to look out the window is the rising action, which eventually leads to the climax of looking out her window into the real world, even though she knew it would lead to her destruction.
I interpret the poem as a warning about the shame that arises from purity culture. Right before she becomes sick of the shadows, Lady Shallot notices two lovers.
“Came two young lovers lately wed;
“I am half sick of shadows,” said
The Lady of Shalott.”
The message of the poem then becomes that if, instead of simply observing lovers, as Lady Shallot had been doing before the curse, one looks out the window ( what I consider a metaphor for falling in love), they fall from grace and commit suicide out of personal shame. Even though that love could’ve been reciprocated.
“But Lancelot mused a little space;
He said, “She has a lovely face;
God in his mercy lend her grace,
The Lady of Shalott.”
This would indicate a bash at purity culture and the Victorian curse of being unable to allow yourself to fall in love with anyone.
I thought it was interesting how lady Shalott said “I am half sick of shadows” and not fully sick of shadows. This really shows how she is quite ambiguous in thinking about the meaning of her life. In my understanding, it seems to say that while she craves love, she does not know if true love exists because everything is not real and reflected through the mirror. Earlier in part 2, the poet mentions “The knights come riding two and two:She hath no loyal knight and true,” and this shows how she does not find anyone trust worthy and while she intimacy, she is having trouble finding it. The mirror reflects only herself, which further shows the state of isolation.
I really like your take on this Lucy, especially how you note that Lady Shallot is uncertain if true love or the reality she sees through the mirror is actually real or not. I find that this frustration she feels as a result of her uncertainty about life is expressed in this line, driving her towards a turning point where she is done living life this way. Lady of Shalott lives her life from the reflection she views through her mirror, and as a result is uncertain if what she observes is real or not. The use of the word “shadows” describes this experience of uncertainty in a negative way (Part 2 The Lady of Shalott). Shadows, like the mirror, are a substitute for experiencing and viewing the actual thing. The word “shadow” connotes something dark, meaning a bad substitute for the actual thing (Part 2 The Lady of Shalott). As a result of connoting Lady of Shalott’s experience of life to something negative it shows how this is a turning point for Lady Shalott. She is now done living life this way, a point of rebellion.
I agree, the wording she uses is interesting because of its ambiguity as it shows her perspective on the realness of love. We can also see her struggle of finding true love throughout the poem as we see the mirror analogy appear again when she says, “The mirror crack’d from side to side;/’The curse is come upon me,’ cried/ The Lady of Shalott.” she had her doubts on the realness of love comparing it to a mirror because just like love reflections on a mirror aren’t real. When she says the mirror cracks, it shows her view of love saying that true love isn’t real.
The Lady of Shalott declaring “I am half sick of shadows” encapsulates a universal experience of yearning for connection. It is understandable when The Lady of Shalott asserts this, as she has no control over essentially anything in the outside world, causing her to crave these components that she’s aware others could experience since they’re not under the same curse she is. Her desire to escape her unfortunate reality of seeing everything through mirrors also reminds me of Ophelia in Hamlet, as Ophelia was similarly oppressed due to the expectations and roles set upon her by her father, also causing her to yearn for a different reality.
In Parts I and II, the life of the Lady of Shallot is described. The Lady of Shallot lives in a quiet isle, with “Four gray walls, and four gray towers”. Nobody sees her, but they do occasionally hear her sing. As the Lady of Shalott is supposedly not allowed to look at the city of Camelot directly, she can only see “Shadows of the world” through the reflection of a mirror. Up until the end of this line, the lady of Shallot is only spoken about, not a speaker. The poem before this describes the rivers, flowers, and the town the Lady of Shallot can’t look at, and she is as much a spectator to the sights as the reader is. “I am half sick of shadows” is the first time the feelings of the Lady of Shalott is described, and it reveals she is unhappy with her current position in life. As the poem has four parts, this is declared in the half of it, and shows a desire for change.
This line marks a turning point in the Lady’s emotional state. Since she is trapped in her tower, she can only see life through the reflections in the mirror, mere “shadows” of real experience. Her urge to live fully, even at significant cost, reflects the Victorian conflict between social constraint and inner desire. It’s a cry of frustration, yet also one of awakening —a passion for truth, love, and agency, no matter how tragic the outcome.
Despite the vivid imagery of the surrounding world, to lady Shalott is no more than a fake illusions. This line highlight her discontent to the current state and provide an reason for why would she break the curse. The word ‘shadows’ also serve as an contrast to the depiction of knight, like the word ‘glitter’, ‘stars’ and ‘silver’; people are always more drawn to shinny thing than darkness.
Because of the warp way in which the Lady of Shalott must view the world, the line “I am half sick of Shadows” is primarily a direct complaint about her limited perspectives of the world. Given she can not travel or view more of the world, as she is trapped, this line highlights her frustration, as in previous lines, lovers and knights and free women are mentioned. This line being placed after everything else highlights the jealously she must feel.
I believe this quote is significat because it deatails the feelings the Lady of Shalott has while living at the top of the tower. She is always looking down seeing people connect and be in each others company. But from where she is she can only see their shadows. Before she says this she saw, “two young lovers lately wed” which clearly put her over the edge and made her say, “I am half sick of shadows.”
The phrases “All ripe together ” and other phrases that play to the nature of fruit being sweet and actions that can have a more explicit meaning, give us a hint that the focus of fruit the poem may be a metaphor for the methods of coercion used by men. It is because in this case the goblins are using fruit to lure the women before they captured her. The fruit could also be a reference to alcohol as Lizzie becomes addicted to the fruit and wants the forbidden fruit which causes her to get captured by the goblins.
I agree with you. I think the fruit serve as a metaphor for indulgence, and addiction as you say. I think the dynamics between the sisters also help this interpretation, having the sister’s support and love (love that is described in a similar fashion to the fruit) help Lizzie when she is falls into her addiction.
One detail that makes the goblins fruit feel sexual is the way thats it’s described as overflowing, ripe, and irresistible…”sweeter than honey from a rock”. When Laura eats it, the moment is very intimate and almost erotic. She “suck’d their fruit globes fair or red”. The language used is indulgent and turns consumption into a sensual act. I think it complicates the story when it frames sisterly love as some redemption force. Lizzie’s self sacrifice flips the sexual charge to something that is all healing and spiritual. Almost as if desire is dangerous but love has the power to redeem even the most corrupted hunger.
I agree with the sentiment that the Goblins continuously sexualize the act of eating the fruit, and how this however, is challenged as the sisters turns this notion on its side and represent ‘healing and spiritually’ as you mentioned.
The act of eating in ‘Goblin Market’ is meant to symbolize sexuality, especially with lines like “she sucked and sucked and sucked the more.” The way Laura gives in completely, and how the goblins are pressuring and physical, makes it feel like eating the fruit is about giving in to forbidden desire.
Lizzie, who doesn’t eat the fruit even when the goblins try to force it on her, instead brings it back to save her sister. That moment when Laura kisses Lizzie with a “hungry mouth” shows that eating can also represent love and healing, not just temptation.
The Goblins repeated urging of ‘come buy come buy’ along with describing Laura’s mouth as ‘hungry’ reinforce the erotic tone of the poem. On the other hand towards the end of the poem it describes Lizzie saving her sister which transforms the metaphor of fruit from one of seduction/temptation to salvation. Ultimately I believe the poem to be about familial love and redemption rather than punishment for sexual transgression.
The phrases “All ripe together ” and other phrases that play to the nature of fruit being sweet and actions that can have a more explicit meaning, give us a hint that the focus of fruit the poem may be a metaphor for the methods of coercion used by men. It is because in this case the goblins are using fruit to lure the women before they captured her. The fruit could also be a reference to alcohol as Lizzie becomes addicted to the fruit and wants the forbidden fruit which causes her to get captured by the goblins.
Christina Rossetti’s work, “Goblin Market,” is difficult for me to digest, but its references to Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit really stand out. Looking at the poem through the lens of the victorian era, I believe Rossetti is alluding to the restraints women faced in this era in terms of sexual expression. I cannot tell, however, if she encourages purity or not. The scene where Lizzie is being attacked (perhaps as a commentary towards the oppressive norms of that time) is deeply upsetting, coming across as a feminist message. On the other hand, the end where the girls escape the fruit’s temptation has me thinking otherwise.
In The Goblin Market, the goblins’ fruit is loaded with sensual imagery amongst figurative language used to evoke sexuality. Specifically a moment includes Laura perpetually “sucking” on the fruits, unable to stop herself from indulging in their sweetness. It’s noted that the goblins coerce her with “honeyed” voices and caressive touch while physically crowding her, this action eluding the danger of sexual assault.The narrative is complicated when Lizzie resists the goblins’ advances as an act of redemption and resilience in spirit of her sister, which allows for reflection/warning about exploitation.
One line that confirms that the fruits are considered in a sexual way is: “Who knows upon what soil they fed their hungry thirsty roots?” I translated this line to mean who knows what childhood shaped their personalities/experiences? It adds life to the fruits and considers them as potential suitors for Laura. What complicates this claim later, though, is that Laura tries to sell fruit of her own. In this context, the fruit appear more strictly for economic reasons.
In Christina Rossetti’s, “Goblin Market,” the details of the poem create the association between goblins’ fruit and sexuality through vivid, sensual imagery that emphasizes temptation and indulgence. An example of this is through the line, “She suck’d and suck’d and suck’d the more Fruits which that unknown orchard bore; She suck’d until her lips were sore; ” (Rossetti). This repetition and emphasis of a physical movement is meant to mimic an erotic desire, with Laura facing shame from the men’s predatory behavior. It’s coercive and aggressive in making Laura act in a way that can be interpreted sexually in the context of the goblin’s fruit.
I agree. I think that through the abundant amount of sensual imagery and intense diction associates with the goblins fruit and sexuality. In the middle of the poem, Rossetti mentions a “forbidden fruit”, which can also be considered a biblical reference. During early times, queer was a very delicate and almost prohibited topic, the sexuality and sexual life of a woman was very important and heavily observed. The “forbidden fruit” is usually related to a desperate desire that is considered wrong like a sin. The connection between Lizzy and Laura could be compared to the “forbidden fruit” that associates it with their sexuality.
In the “All the World Going to See the Great Exhibition of 1851,” there are people near the center reaching out their arms towards the Great Exhibition, maybe in desire for what it could provide for them. Through this cartoon, the Great Exhibition seems to represent non-European culture and people as malnourished of aspects of culture they should have, basically making European culture as something to be integrated with. It seems like the cartoon also expresses how the Great Exhibition gives the perfect opportunity to learn more and fulfill non-European culture and people.
We can see the contrast of the people in Odds & Ends, in, out & about, the Great Exhibition of 1851 and During the Opera Boxes. It seems to be a trend that the British are represented as hungry people that eat which could be a reference to how they viewed the world culture as being absorbed by Europeans. You can especially see this in the Opera Boxes as the people from the other countries are serving the Europeans food and providing them services. The respect is not mutual.
Totally agree with your point about the British being shown as the ones doing the “consuming”.
Another piece that shows this is ‘The Chinese Court’ from the exhibition. The way it’s displayed feels more like a collection of decorative objects for British admiration than a true representation of Chinese culture.
The British are “collecting” pieces of the world to show off. Just like in ‘During the Opera Boxes’, the relationship feels one-sided, with non-European cultures providing something for British enjoyment, but not being seen as equal participants.
To further add on to this idea, I think the words at the bottom of the art, the very title of this piece is very telling and confirms all of these suspicions. “All The Word Going To See The Great Exhibition of 1851”, implies that this movement has a great impact on the whole entire world not just the British. It displays the almost narcissism of the British that they believe that a civil matter must impact the entirely of the world, so much so that, as pointed out, that people are running and reaching toward it. They are portrayed as above all others and as mentioned the ones doing the “consuming”, be that countries as well as the interest and attention of all.
In the India display, the Great Exhibit represented Indian culture by incorporating specific patterns and colors. Throughout the display there are a various shades of reds which may hold some significance to the culture.
The Great Exhibit also includes a huge elephant on display, draped in traditional gold and burgundy cloth, with something that looks like a carriage on its back. Since the majority of the Indian population is Hindu, I know that elephants hold spiritual significance.
Lastly, there are three male figures who I assume are of Indian descent and they are dressed very differently from the Europeans, wearing traditional clothing and flat circular hat on their heads.
The exhibition seemed to depict the other, non European cultures in different ways. Places like India were depicted ornately, with gold, patterns, fabric and an elephant, whereas places like the Bahamas were just produce tables. Rather than being culturally accurate, it is more so a spectacle showing what they get from these places, what Europeans specifically want and value, not a truthful depiction or lens into these different places.
Yes, I agree, these features in the pictures are very important to note On the surface, it seems that the Europeans attempted to represent other cultures like India and Turkey with their cultural decorations. They also included goods from the Bahamas. However I am having a hard time believing it is a spectacle because this was a part of Albert’s liberal passions, allowing him to introduce these non European cultures. I believe they are trying to do this is different ways, rather its through grand decoration or through goods. However, the name of “Great Exhibition” might give a feeling that it is mainly for show.
What stands out in the “Turkey” image is how theatrical the setting feels.The big red drapes, the pavilion, and the luxurious fabrics thats displayed behind the glass makes it seem like a fantasy set rather than genuine cultural representation. Even the man on the left dressed in exotic kind of clothing seems more like a prop rather than a person with agency. It kind of goes to show Turkey as a colorful and decorative place but still contained within British control. The empire power lies not just in coloring land but curating their identities.
I agree with the how the pavilion’s vibrancy through the architecture and structure emphasizes the luxury promoted through the glass cases. Even though the pavilion is placed within Turkey culture, there appears to be limits to the expansion of culture, such as the contrast of the man of the left near a non-enclosed clothing with the British people surrounding the enclosed artifacts and fabrics. This seems to express that without the boundaries (and maybe rules) the British established, Turkey will be without the necessary richness brought to their culture.
In the second Image (Turkey), on the top left you see an animal head with animal skin hanging from it. Although this may seem European because European men would also hunt, Native people used to wear the skin of the animals the same way its hanging on the wall which gives reason to believe that is non-European culture. Another part of the image that represent non-European culture are the clothes all the way to the right side of the image. Europeans during that time as seen by the ones in the image, didnt seem to wear such colorful clothes.
Great observations! I think its important to point out that the animal skin clothing and colorful designs are clear markers of ‘otherness’ that further separated the Turks from traditional Europeans. Another difference is the way in which the pictures are staged. It looks to be a sort of market where Turkey is made into a spectacle for British audiences. It all feeds into the orientalist stereotypes and a lack of genuine cultural understanding.
The Great Exhibition represents non-European cultures in a light of subservience – I’m using “All the World Going to See The Great Exhibition”. Atop the sphere are a litany of flags of the world, that happen to be dwarfed by her majesty’s flag (The UK). The rest of the sphere includes the different biomes, people, landscapes, and flags underneath that of the British. This illustrates the British not only as “owners” of everything within The Great Exhibition, but owners of the nations of which they pillaged, stole, and taken from.
I viewed another piece a similar way, and it’s important to note that this idea you’re explaining is prevalent in other images as well, like the Dispersion, where the English’s flag is lowered upon the exit of all the goods they’ve collected by exploitation of their colonies.
We can see the contrast of the people in Odds & Ends, in, out & about, the Great Exhibition of 1851 and During the Opera Boxes. It seems to be a trend that the British are represented as hungry people that eat which could be a reference to how they viewed the world culture as being absorbed by Europeans. You can especially see this in the Opera Boxes as the people from the other countries are serving the Europeans food and providing them services. The respect is not mutual.
I really like your observation that there is no mutual respect. I see that in right bottom corner of the image “Odds and Ends,” an East Asian looking woman is sitting in the corner, looking lonely and quiet while the British people were expressive and talking to each other. This represents how they see the Eastern culture as more reserved and establish the stereotype.
In the particular image ”India” from the Crystal palace we can a see a Large elephant in Indian attire representing a common practice within their culture. As it is showcased in the middle of the room we see many fair skinned people viewing it from the top but what I found to be interesting was the dark skinned people in their culture’s attire walking around as well. In this image it is prevalent that other cultures were not ostracized but instead were welcomed and admired.
I also noticed how in the “India” image, there were darker skinned people in traditional clothing as well, and appreciated the idea that their culture was featured in that section of the exhibition. However, in the image “Colonial Produce,” there is a dark skinned woman who is taking care of two wealthy white children. This image may show that non-white people were still being discriminated against through their labor and capitalization of their culture. This is especially evident as they are walking through the Colonial produce section, which features many products of imperialism and misappropriation of culture.
Yes, I also noticed the presence of darker skinned people in both the India and Colonial Produce exhibit. It was interesting to see how their cultures were visually included in the exhibition, but it also made me wonder if these individuals were proud to represent their heritage or if they felt conflicted because of the harsh treatment and exploitation tied to imperialism during this time.
The great exhibition represents non-European culture and people by showcasing their struggle. Specifically under the Bahama tent in the Colonial produce image they display sugarcane. A known product that was easily accessible to Europeans through exploitation “slavery”. The Bahamas was known for their rum and sugarcane trade. Something that went on for years yet their struggle wasn’t publicly acknowledged. The Europeans only decided to showcase what benefited them.
Yes, it’s interesting how sugarcane in the Bahamas were detached from the brutal labor behind them. No sign of the bodies who harvested it, no sign of the suffering behind it. It’s like they are trying to make colonialism look less violent and more aestheticaly pleasing. these goods coming from the empire’s “succes” and not the criminal means that permited it. The exhibition doesnt just represent the empire, it justifies it.
The great exhibition represents how europeans used other cultures as a form of entertainment. Many of the countries displayed in the exhibition are very extravagant with beautifully ornated elephants from India and luxurious textiles from turkey. This can be a positive thing because it shows other cultures in a positive light, highlighting the valuable exports these cultures produce. But it can also be seen as negative because it displays other cultures as inferior and are to be looked down on as spectacles.
In The Dispersion of the Works of all Nations from the Great Exhibition of 1851, viewers see that as the goods are dispersing, Britain’s flag is lowered on top of the Crystal Palace. This might imply that Britain’s dominance is hollow without having exploited the foreign people of English colonies. It’s ironic how the success of the exhibition depended on every piece of resource and delicacy the English collected from these colonized countries–the cultural wealth and plunder they invested into their work.
Non-European cultures are seen as entertainment and source of property. In Colonial Produce, you can see many Europeans viewing the items, with a little girl skipping across the stage. Moreover, these cultures are in their own dedicated sections, like how there are dedicated sections in zoos, so you know exactly what you want to see and be entertained by.
I believe that the Great Exhibition did a great job of representing non-European cultures and peoples. When looking at the Turkey exhibition, I noticed that they took inspiration from Turkish architecture and design whilst also having different Turkish artifacts and clothing. I also noticed what looks like a Turkish native at the exhibit, which also adds to a great representation of the culture itself by having someone there from that country
The Great exhibition allowed non-european and europeans to come together and create a space where they could marvel at their own culture while also learning about someone elses. For example, the image of the Indian section shows these gold embellishments on the elephant, they are beautiful and people pass it by in awe. It is also important to note that in the image, it is not only the Europeans walking about, but an Indian man and boy. Everyone is looking, taking in the history coming alive around them.
The Great Exhibition did a great job in representing non-European cultures because in the picture of Colonial Produce it shows different stations of places around the world such as in the Barbados station it has rods of sugar canes. Which sugar canes were a major part of their economy due to their rich lands. Therefore, the Great Exhibition allowed other non-European cultures get to explore and learn about about others culture.
I agree! To expand, Turkey was present in the Great Exhibition, specifically in the image labeled Turkey. It showcases genuine animal skin rugs, intricately detailed, royal robes, and classic Turkish-designed rugs. These goods were highly sough after as well, boosting their economy greatly. The Great Exhibition allowed for non-European cultures to represent themselves and allowed for a chance to globally broadcast their cultures safely and authentically, letting people of different cultures experience Turkey in its own, rightful manner.
The Great Exhibition represents non-European cultures and peoples by skin color and local products. The image of colonial produce shows black people and white people, which can promote the fact that people from different parts of the world are coming to the Great Exhibition. Also, on the ceiling, there are multiple countries’ tags and under that there are local products that are produced from each country.
I believe that the Great Exhibition was a fucked up way of allowing non-white people to see their own cultures. The white people stole from them their culture and art, yet the white people are the one’s that get to display Afrikan, Asian, Latin American art???????? Rather than not touch non-white people and their cultures, white men had to put their colonizer claws over everything. I believe that Europeans should have NEVER colonized Afrikan, Asian, Latin American, Indigenous Australian and American people and their cultures.
In the Crystal Palace image labeled “India,” the ornate display of gilded thrones and elephant statues presents Indian culture as exotic, luxurious, and ornamental. It is designed to dazzle rather than inform the audience. These artifacts are stripped of their original cultural and religious contexts and reimagined as imperial trophies, reinforcing Britain’s dominance over its colonies. The careful staging prioritizes spectacle over understanding, diminishing diverse civilizations to decorative symbols of empire.
The Great Exhibition allowed for various non-European artworks to be represented in Britain, allowing for people learn about different cultures without having to travel. Colonial Produce, for example, shows banners of different countries, including the Bahamas and Trinidad, under which art from there is showcased. The people looking at the art vary in race, age and background, reflecting the wide-spread awe and curiosity at them.
The Great exhibition tried to show the other cultures of the world by setting up stands for each country and large signs above it. It was interesting to see how big the area was for India. Across the multiple pictures you can see the signs that point towards India and in the India photo, the inside was very large. It was also interesting to see smaller countries like the Bahamas being recognized with its own stand. Even though its small it shows that the europeans wanted to include as many cultures as possible
In “All the World is Going to See the Great Exhibition 1851,” there are multiple groups of non-European people who make their way towards the Great Exhibition, specifically a group in the center, to the left and to the right. Oddly, though, there is a clear distinct space between the non-European people and the European crowd that rushes forward towards the exhibition. It’s almost like the crowd is purposefully leaving space between them and other cultures that they are not accustomed to even though they rush to learn about them. I think it portrays the attitude that the public and European people did wish to learn about other cultures, but wished to learn the story that would be presented to them in the Great Exhibition, not the truth or the full history of what these non-European cultures have faced at the hands of imperialism and colonialism. They wanted a glamorized showing and performance of non-European cultures, not proper representations.
This is a very small detail I noticed as well, however I perceived the distance to represent the chain of misinformation as well. The account and representation that European minds will get of the non-European nations are written by Europeans themselves, which means that it isn’t true. Not only is there resistance, but resistance from a false narrative, which makes the distance even bigger.
People were very excited about the exhibition. The first cartoon shows that people from all over the world are going to see the Great exhibition. It’s a worldwide event that showed that how powerful Britian were at that time.
I agree. The exhibitions seem to be very popular to the public especially in the first cartoon. There seems to be a globe with different characteristics on it such as pyramids, palm trees, and ships which help us interpret these as people coming from all over the world in order to see an exhibition.
I agree with both of you regarding the popularity of the exhibition during the time. I really liked the second cartoon because even though you can see how popular it was for people around the world, in the second cartoon I think you can see a more realistic drawing of how popular it was more locally. People are chasing and trying to follow an overflowing carriage just trying to get to the exhibit. It really just gives us a look at how excited everyone was to see it in person.
I agree the fact that all the countries were thrilled to go see London in particular, as if it is the “center” of the world. How the countries think that London is basically a privilege to show them their own culture, making many different countries revolve London. This also represents how Great Britain was one of the most powerful and dominating countries in that time.
The public seemed to look at the great exhibition with wonder and excitement. This is obviously shown in the cartoon depicting literally the entire world converging on the exhibition. It is also seen in the cartoon showing how opera boxes were used as dormitories because there was so much demand. This demand was not unfounded, as shown in the “dispersion of the works of all nations” the exhibition had just about everything you could imagine. In 1851, it was absurd to ever think you could see so much in one place.
The public attitudes about the Great Exhibition seemed generally positive. All of the cartoons seemed to point to the idea that there was general, if euro-centric, excitement about the Great Exhibition. The cartoon that I thought was the most creative, and telling, was the first one where people from all the nations of the world walk across the globe to reach London. I feel that it demonstrates how the British believed the entire world was coming to them to demonstrate their cultures, harkening back to this idea of Euro-centrism. I thought it was an incredibly creative and intriguing cartoon that summed up both the arrogance and excitement of the Great Exhibition.
I believe that the Cartoon’s show that the Great Exhibition was large and gathered interest from the public, whether it was globally or just confined to England is debated between the different cartoons. Out of the cartoons that do seem to criticize the event, we can learn that there was public sentiment against displaying a version of the cultures of other worlds because it showcases British control over the world. The great exhibition was a way that Britain re enforced that they were the greatest/main country of the world in their opinion, but these cartoons show that there was backlash and depicted event goers as fat and solely benefiting off of the other countries.
The public understood that the Great Exhibition was directed mostly towards upper-class society. The piece titled “The Opera Boxes,” explains a strict class division during this period. The exhibition was something many in the upper class strived to associate themselves with, similar to the opera.
‘The Opera Boxes’ was an especially interesting artwork. Not only does it show that mainly upper-class people visited to see the Great Exhibition, but it also implies that, because there are so many individuals going to the Exhibition that even the rich have to use the opera house boxes, something extremely expensive in its own right, as dormitories to then go see the Great Exhibition.
I also noticed that despite the premise of the Great Exhibition being a global event, most characters depicted in the comic are not only upperclass, but they also all seemed to be dressed in a British style (or at least European). It doesn’t really include visitors from other areas of the world.
The first cartoon offers a criticism to the Great Exhibition. It shows the world, but everyone is crowded around the great exhibition, and the empty parts of the world display the various cultures that are most likely in the exhibition. This adds a level of irony, as everyone is going to an exhibition to “experience” cultures when the actual real-life cultures are left deserted, even though they are the more accurate depiction of what a culture is like.
I find your take very interesting and I actually do agree with you. Many people are so hyper fixated on the brand new “opportunity” to learn of foreign cultures through the Great Exhibition yet the rest of the world is available to everyone to travel and actually experience others culture firsthand. Why should it take stealing others cultural artifacts in order to experience one’s culture, this isn’t culture appreciation but more so a mockery.
The public seemed to be entranced by The Great Exhibition. In 3 out of the 4 comics presented above implies that everybody who could afford to go to the museum was trying to get into the museum.
The cartoons illustrated a unification yet also discrimination. Everyone across the globe is trying to get into the Exhibition and to see its’ contents however some people are unable to get in. The entrance is a specific narrow size, and other men are looking at her with a funny and shocking expression. It may attract everyone but doesn’t welcome those who aren’t like the majority.
From the cartoons above. the public attitudes towards the Great Exhibition seem to be extremely positive. It seems that making a trip to the Great Exhibition was a particularly sought after and highly regarded event. In the opera boxes cartoon, this can be seen as the attendees within the opera are paying attention to news about the Great Exhibition rather than to the opera they are supposed to be watching.
I think that the attitude toward the Great exhibition was very welcoming. It may show or poke fun of some of the people or cultures, but I feel that the public was probably quite accepting of all different kinds of people being there shown from the exhibit showing how everyone wants to go meaning they want people to go to it. Even if it is meant for more wealthy people, they are accepting of anyone who can get in. As well as showing how the “whole world” seems to want to go to this thing it must be pretty amazing.
The public opinion of the Great Exhibition was that it was an opportunity to see a wide array of objects, which helped get a sense of different cultures, however, it was treated as inferior to the UK. In the last cartoon, we can see that the different works from nations surrounding the UK, as if it is something for the people of the UK to be entertained by, but not respected. In addition, the works of the different nations are all combined together while the UK is distinguishable and separate, displaying a type of us vs them mentality. So overall, although the great exhibition did have a positive impact on educating others about the works of nations, it seemed that these nations and their works were always behind the UK.
The cartoons remind me of political cartoons I viewed in previous US History classes. I learned from these cartoons that the Exhibition is an exciting event that the public is looking forward to. The cartoons are very lighthearted and diverse as they somewhat seem to brag of the rich collection of artifacts and art they will have. The first cartoon proves this, that the Exhibition is so special that “all the world” will want to rush to London to see it. I find the cartoons very funny because of how they show that every person wants to buy a ticket (2nd cartoon), and how lots of the public reads the newspaper and even stay sleeping in the opera house so they don’t miss out on the Great Exhibition (3rd cartoon).
I totally agree! To add on to your idea, I think the fourth cartoon also shows this, and how the public might have viewed the Great Exhibition as something busy, exciting, a must see, and maybe even crowded as it shows what looks like a bunch of artifacts flying in and out of the Exhibition in complete chaos.
The period cartoons represents the prestige of art and culture. It’s a commentary on the exclusivity of these art forms, like museums, and operas, while also critiquing the stolen collection that has influenced a major population. In the cartoon, “All the World,” for example, the entire globe is desolate except for London which hosts the great Exhibition. There is an influx of visitors from various parts of the world, portraying the great influence of the exhibition. It’s ironic because the exhibition seems to be made up of different cultures (including those from the rest of the world), as seen in the Dispersion.
In the first cartoon, the phrase “all the world” is used to convey the grandiosity of the Great Exhibition. I believe that this sort of implies a worldwide desire and even a need for Prince Albert’s implementation of the liberal causes mentioned above, as many people would be much better off with the policies listed being enacted. This would mean that people were eager about the Great Exhibition, and that this eagerness transcended geographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Ultimately, this would mean that public attitudes towards the Great Exhibition were largely positive.
The public seemed to be thrilled for the Exhibition. In the various illustrations men and women of varying ages (surprisingly excluding any young children) are rushing to buy tickets, and the excitement contributes to a hecticness that splits people up. The opera boxes during the Great Exhibition are an indication that the rich upper class were also drawn to it, and came from all corners of the world. Of the 12 boxes in the cartoon, 2 boxes have people with distinctly different clothing on; but more than that, having to convert the opera boxes into temporary lodging could be due to a large number of visitors who came from far away. Although the cartoon with the globe is meant to show that people from every corner of the earth are itching to see the exhibit, its audience does seem to still mainly consist of English people, based on the clothing.
I agree. I think that the cartoons illustrate the people being excited to presence The Great Exhibition. Like you mentioned, the third picture is filled with people. Despite some people appearing distracted and others relaxed, as the second picture, The Great Exhibition seems to be welcomed and longed for by the public to receive an artistic perspective.
As shown in the images, people of the time clearly viewed the Great Exhibition as a large gathering of peoples an cultures. As seen in the “Dispersion” image, there is a great chaotic wave of music and animals and people and objects all coming together. In another image, there are numerous unique peoples in the windows all engaged in different actives. Clearly people of the time saw the Great Exhibition as a place where cultures could come together and mix their unique aspects.
When looking at the artwork, the Colonial Produce piece really struck me. The way the signs were placed, labeling “Bahamas” and “Trinidad”, displaying their countries’ goods in neat tables, reminds me a lot of the layout of Disney World. Epcot Center has countries like the UK, Japan, China, France, displayed in an arrangement as well for people to “experience” the culture of those countries. To me, the Crystal Palace feels a bit pretentious and showy, where people did not have much regard for where the goods came from or the labor and conditions that went into making them. While this day and age is different from 1851, I can’t help but wonder if there are traces of racism hidden in Epcot’s design, a display of countries at the Americans’ fingertips.
The Great Exhibition is actually really similar to Disney’s Epcot. It’s interesting how both are supposed to show different cultures, but they do it in kind of a shallow way. In the India room, there’s a huge elephant carriage that feels more touristy than real. It’s made to look fantastical and exciting, but not to teach people about what life in India is actually like. Epcot is the same, as it’s just a place where people go to see something fun and different, not really to learn. The goal of both feels more like entertainment than understanding.
This is a good comparison, both the Great Exhibition and Epcot do seem to turn cultural representation into a form of entertainment more than education. The elephant carriage, like Epcot’s themed pavilions, offers a spectacle that creates a sense of wonder but doesnt invite deeper understanding. What’s struck me is how both spaces reflect the values/fantasies of the viewer more than the realities of the cultures on display. The Exhibition projected Britain’s imperial pride and control, while Epcot often has a nostalgic or idealized version of global harmony (tailored to Western audiences). I find it funny how so little has changed, we’re still drawn to cultural “experiences” that are curated for comfort over complexity, and that shows so much about ourselves and the world we think we’re exploring.
I believe that The Great Exhibition and Epcot were functionally very similar in displaying a version of the world that seemed more stereotypical than the day by day cultural lives that foreign countries have. The great exhibition had showcased the parts of the each culture the British found noteworthy, while Epcot at Disney World chooses to monetize it in their effort to seem inclusive as well as build a better brand. I believe the best way to have a Great Exhibition is to operate it similarly to a Culture Fair, where people from those communities come together.
I agree! The monetization of other cultures has many merits, namely by promoting another country’s goods and opening our eyes to them. Still, the negatives seem to far outweigh the positives. There is always a question of authenticity due to our age of consumerism; at the end of the day, the most important thing is who will spend money on these attractions, not the representation of cultures.
I think that this exhibition compares to modern-day versions, such as Disney’s Epcot center because in Epcot center it’s all about celebrating different cultures and highlighting different countries. In this Great Exhibition it’s more about showing off Great Britain’s power. If we take at the India exhibit we can see England’s imperial power because in the museum are artifacts from India and demonstrations of things existing in India like the elephant. It frames the artifacts as not something to celebrate Indian culture, but to show off Britain’s ownership of Indian artifacts. Moreover, in the manufacturing painting we can see various machines, showing England’s industrial power. This is because it depicts England’s technological advancements, showing England’s dominance, rather than educating others on various machinery.
The exhibit compares to modern day versions in the sense that both were mostly meant to be seen by only a select few (mainly the rich.) However, modern day doesn’t have restrictions on what background you have to be to attend. You don’t have to be white or come from a noble family which may have been the restrictions back then, but rather if you saved up enough money or were wealthy enough to afford, you could attend. Any costumer is a good costumer. This is obviously important because expos do more than just provide fun or amusement but they can also be educational. And when educational brand new ideas are presented to the same set of people over and over again, those are the only people that remain in power.
The Great Exhibition is similar to places like Disney’s Epcot Center because they attract a lot of unique people from around the world. Additionally, they have certain restrictions/rules that can have disparate effects on different people (ex. weight classes on rides). They also can be seen as chaotic places like we see in the cartoon of people leaving the Great Exhibition.
The Great Exhibition had a certain charm that modern-day versions like Disney’s Epcot Center can’t replicate. I attribute this to the fact that modern-day versions are repeatable and lack the physical aspect of having authentic artifacts and goods. The Exhibition was a once in a life time experience that drew viewers from all over the world giving it a sense of wonder and communion.
I especially agree with your statement that modern-day versions don’t have the same charm. I’ve been to the Epcot display at Disney 3 times, and after the first time, I felt like I was “going just to go, since I was there.” There was nothing special or charming about the place after the first time, yet for the Great Exhibition, there was that sense of charm that drew people in from all over the world. Maybe it was the atmosphere, the time period, the real life artifacts, or other aspects, but all those things that help contribute to “charm” are definitely missing from modern attempts at replicating it, like the Epcot center.
The Great Exhibition and Epcot similarly showcase a plethora of various countries’ own culturalistic values, foods, and religion(s) in an attempt to broaden society’s understanding of diverse achievements; both similarly attract abundant crowds in the means of embracing and celebrating the current state of success in the showcased countries. Although Epcot is a current-day amusement park (meaning that they’re continuously showcasing different countries and their unique values), I credit the Disney company for hiring their Epcot employees whose native countries are represented in the park, as this allows the employees to authentically represent their homeland in a respectful manner. Furthermore, modern-day versions of the Great Exhibition such as Epcot also allows the visitors to find solace in recognizing their own country’s success and progress.
Both the Great Exhibition and Epcot can be consider to have the best technology in demonstration to their own period. Such as the glass house of the Great Exhibition, which only become possible after the industrialization of London. Similarly EPCOT also used an extremely challenging structure for the exterior. And I think this is one of the reason why both are able to draw so much attention from the public.
A key theme of British Imperialism is the belief in racial superiority, particularly over Indians. Similarly, the novel portrays the beast folk as inherently inferior: “Their bestial minds were happily slow” (Wells 62). The word “happily” suggests the English viewed themselves as both better than others, and others enjoyed being inferior.
Yes, I do think that the title of “beast” given to the creations is meant to reflect ways the British would create hierarchies. There is a theme throughout the story that Moreau is super against calling his creations human, regardless of the fact that it is his goal to make a human. This can be seen as Moreau attempting to keep the hierarchy intact, for either selfish desire, or fear (as at this point, he knows the beasts can kill).
Moreau follows a similar style to the British Empire through his control of the beast folk on the island. Like the British, Moreau used fear and strict order to control the beast folk, similar to how the British imposed authority on native societies. In chapter 12, one of the beast folk tells Prendick “Evil are the punishments of those who break the law. None escape” (Wells 60). This quote explains how the strict rules ignited a sense of fear for the beast folk, which in turn made them obey the “law”.
Yes, I noticed this as well. I thought it was really interesting how all the beast folk reacted to the laws and how they chanted them in a sort of “sing-song” way. It was really ingrained into their way of thinking which reminded me of how the British Empire would also try to teach religion and moral practices to native societies. Moreau talks to Prendick about “moral education” and how he transforms “suppressed sexuality into religious emotion” and “pugnacity” into “courageous self-sacrifice” (Wells, 64). This thought process of education highlights and reflects the British Empire’s zeal to impress religion and proper thought onto societies they thought of as lesser than and as savages.
A key detail from the opening chapters of the novel is the appearance of Dr. Moreau and his assistant. Dr. Moreau is described as, “A youngish man with flaxen hair, a bristly straw-coloured moustache, and a dropping nether lip… He had watery grey eyes, oddly void of expression” (H.G. Wells, Chapter 2) Given the context that Dr. Moreau is living in isolation on a remote island, his appearance being shady, mysterious and dark is reasonable as he doesn’t have a social circle he needs to look presentable for, however his appearance conveys a deeper message. Scientists in the 18th century were purely performative; all experiments were conducted to observe the natural world around and performed in public places for civilians to watch, almost to further appreciate the repetition and continuity of God’s creation. From a religious standpoint, conducting science in the public sphere demonstrated the same kind of community that the church has. Dr. Moreau’s contrast to how presentable, social, and performative 18th-century scientists were demonstrates how he is the antithesis of what natural philosophy and biology were back then. The contents of the book show how he moves from scientific observation with the appreciation of God to manipulation and tries to play the role of God. His physical appearance at the beginning of the book serves as foreshadowing of the events in the book.
This was a super intuitive and interesting observation. I actually did not pick up on those details but that actually makes so much sense and I totally see how that holds foreshadowing. I 100% agree that science and public viewings definitely hold a religious aspect to it as far as followers go and understanding human life. I really do think the balance between science and religion is a very fragile one and that it is interesting to see how Dr. Moreau plays with that balance. I think for him it may have started out as wanting to explore the limits of science but then grew into almost an infatuation with power and what it means to be in total control of creating these beast folk. That ‘mad scientist’ vibe definitely coincides with the described appearance and is foreshadowed not just by his looks, but by the way they show him interacting with ‘actual’ people. There’s this almost awkwardness he has as well as frustration, possibly from not being able to have that total control.
When Prendick sees the beast folk repeating laws like “not to eat flesh” or not to “walk on all fours,” it feels like the novel is mocking how colonizers forced their values onto other cultures. It’s like Wells is showing how crazy it is to pretend that a civilization’s ways can just be “copy-pasted” through rules and punishments. The island feels like a mini empire, where Moreau is God and thinks preaching can erase natural instinct.
The novel indirectly comments on British Imperialism, through the interactions with Prendick and the Beast men. Prendick sees the Ape man as a “creature [that] was little better than an idiot”(Wells 73), while the Ape man sees Prendick as an equal due to them sharing 5 fingers. This rhetoric of viewing other people as non-human and savage is a common tactic used by imperialist leaders to justify their power. Hence, I believe that Prendick’s predisposition to refuse to view the Beast men as human, can be a commentary on how the British Empire justifies its imperial rule by dehumanizing others.
I absolutely agree with you that this book is using beast-folks as a metaphor to comment on the tactic of dehumanization in British imperialism. To add to your point, I think that “the house of pain” and “the law” are both used to create an imagined order to control the beast-folks, even though they were naturally not suitable for these kind of rules. Just like how the British people enforced their laws on the colonies, and cultural assimilation such as integrating the social norms and languages. In other words, the Imperial Britain tried to turn the “savages” into people like them, similar to what Dr. Moreau was doing.
I agree with your claim that the novel perpetuates the Imperial idea that other societies are less than or animalistic. Another moment in the novel where the beast men are seen as inferior is where Prendick describes them as scarcely human in intelligence. This furthers the idea that not only were the beast men physically deformed from Prendick, but also less intelligent. Prendick is able to justify the actions of Doctor Moreau as he follows the rhetoric of the prominent British Imperialist views at the time.
The Beast Folk, native to an island that Moreau had taken upon his control for experimentation, represent those who had been forcefully colonized by British Imperialist power. Much like how Britain colonized many less fortunate countries with intent to “civilize” them, Moreau mirrors the British by colonizing the island of the Beast Folk in order to reinforce his experimental agenda and propagate “the Law.” Through violence and fear, Moreau is able to enforce the Law, paralleling Western principles of using religious authority and brute morality to maintain control over it’s peoples. Moreaus forceful colonization and attempt at civilization of the Beast Folk reflect the attitudes of the British Empire and how they imposed their ruling values on non-Western societies. Readers observe that at the end of the novel, when Prendick is unable to separate himself from the trauma of being on the island gave him from his actual life, that dehumanizing principles as a backbone for Imperialistic rule is unsustainable for it’s leader and people long term.
I agree with your points, and I love how you were able to point out multiple examples that tie it all together very well. On the other hand, I’d like to add another light into the situation. I imagined it in a flipped way. Dr. Moreau was originally in England but sought refuge in his own new island implying how harsh the circumstances were. The British empire did not accept the new ideas of science since it deviated away from spiritual beings, and rather into what we now know as natural science. But after reading your points, I can also see another light in how the book contributed to the views of politics In the British empire.
The novel made connections between Dr. Moreau’s experiments and his justification and the practices of the British empire. Both Dr. Moreau and the British established a hierarchy that is foreign to the customs of the people they occupy and is set up in a way that puts themselves in position of power. Dr. Moreau first created the best people against their will, then imposed his laws upon them by force. The British empire did similarly by declaring themselves above the natives and built their colonies in a way where the British held all power.
In the novel, the way that Moreau changes the animals into humans is a great commentary on imperialism. Moreau takes these uncivilized animals and transforms them into lesser humans. He gives them structure and “purpose” by enforcing a law and allowing some of the beasts to assist him when he needs them. This is a great mirror to the way imperialists think when they go to a lesser developed country, impose their power and rule, then use those laws to oppress and get the people to do whatever tasks the imperialists need done. Not only this, in the novel, Moreau is a white man, while all of the beasts Moreau make have different color skin resembling those of countries that predominately white countries take over.
In the Island of Doctor Moreau, Moreau’s reasoning for putting these animals or “beast” through pain is a means of progress to civilize them. These beast learn to walk on two legs, speak and communicate using the English language, and even some learn how to properly cook. However, this seems to still not be quite enough for Doctor Moreau and he continues experimenting on different animals because they are still “failed humans’ in his eyes. This is similar to the ideology of the British colonizers as they invaded many cultural lands and inflicted torture and pain on them using the excuse that they were uncivilized and needed to learn how to properly live. If the native people didn’t comply with their way of life or new religions to follow- similar to the “laws” the creatures repeat- they were brutally murdered. Even when these people did comply, they were still seen as lesser than in society. Nothing was enough for the British Colonizers and they still wanted more power and control.
In The Island of Doctor Moreau, we see hints of British imperialism scattered throughout the novel especially through Dr. Moreaus experiments on the beast people on the island. For example, Doctor Moreau acts like a colonial ruler on the island taking control of a native group while imposing his own rules and values onto said natives.
A pivotal moment in the novel that comments on the ideology and practices of the British Empire is when Prendick discovers the “Law” that the Beast Folk are forced to recite and follow. The moment where ““The voice in the dark began intoning a mad litany, line by line, and I and the rest to repeat it,” swaying in unison and chanting is similar to that of religion and colonization through cultural enforcement (Wells pg. 165). Dr. Moreau, is a British scientist himself, and through religion he imposes his version of civilization onto the Beast Folk through punishment and violence. This is very similar to the British Empire’s acts of imperialism, justifying and enforcing violence through religion, holding a sense of superiority, as Dr. Moreau held against the Beast Folk.
I also initially thought of the “law” of the Beastfolk in connection to not just the British Empire, but human civilization in general. In the novel, this chapter is one of the most significant moments where Prendick questions what limits define being human and how human societies truly differ from those of the beastfolk. I like how you phrased “he imposes his version of civilization onto the Beast Folk through punishment and violence,” because as you said, as Prendick was weirded out by the sight of Beatstfolk trying to follow a set of rules, which was “standard for humans,” he was imposing his British worldview onto them. This is very similar to the history of British Imperialism, where the British would seek to impose their worldview onto others, with little care for the livelihoods of the people they were colonizing.
I agree. The laws being imposed onto the beast-folk remind me of the laws the British imposed on to other countries. Dr. Moreau’s law excludes him and the other humans just as the British laws only affected other countries and didn’t apply to them.
This novel was highly related to the British Empire and imperialism. While reading this novel, I could relate Dr. Moreau to the British Empire and the beast folk to an underdeveloped country. Dr. Moreau was attempting to transform beasts into humans, aiming to enhance their abilities and knowledge. This is similar to what the British Empire did to non-Western countries. They tried to civilize poor conditioned countries. Also it is similar that both colonized country and beast folk grew dependency over stronger countries and people.
I completely agree! I also thought this relation to imperialism is reflected in the way that the people and beast folk on the island live. Dr. Moreau and the rest of the humans live in a big fancy fortress building while the beast folk live in little huts in the woods. This contrast is similar to that of the British Empire, who lived in massive castles, and how they perceived the people they were colonizing to be living. Its interesting to see where that would put M’Ling in the comparison of the British Empire to the novel, as he’s a beast folk, but an accepted one. Maybe he would be someone who was a native to the country colonized but found themselves in a job with a higher ranking to the British?
When Prendick reflects on the cruelty of Dr. Moreau, what he thinks as the worst is the fact that before, the Beastmen may have been animals, but they were used to their life and as content as they could be. After Moreau changed them, they then “stumbled in the shackles of humanity, lived in a fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not understand; their mock-human existence, begun in an agony, was one long internal struggle, one long dread of Moreau–and for what?” (Wells, pg. 56 in my book). In this case, the people imperialized by the British are the animals, and the “shackles of humanity” is the so called “civilization” the British claimed to bring. Whether H. G. Wells agrees with this or not, he seems to at least critique imperialism for it’s effects on the people after the British leave/ while they attempt to imperialize. The non-western people, not used to living like the British, did not thrive under the Western systems, and had their traditional social and economical systems destroyed. Even after the British left, there was suffering, as such disruption isn’t easily recovered from. The end line, “and for what?” is meant to point out the pointless cruelty done by Moreau and the British. They inflicted all this suffering, and for what? Momentary feelings of power? In the name of civilization? Or perhaps they are simply evil, sadistic beings.
The power dynamic between Dr. Mureau and his creations mirror that of the British Empire and its colonies. Similarly to Dr. Mureau’s goal of humanizing the beasts, the British Empire set out goals of “civilizing” native populations, viewing them as primitive. Dr. Mureau used harsh punishments to enforce a certain mode of behavior, in some ways upholding his own pride and power, and was never satisfied as he saw more and more “progress” to be made. This could relate to the British empire’s treatment of native people, forcing them into cooperation through physical violence or by weaponizing their economic advantages.
“I remember laughing at that and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without.”
Prendick is left alone as the only survivor and laughter is his first reaction, not even knowing how the laugh came to be. When laughter happens in a situation like this, I think it’s because he’s trying to cope with his traumatic and probably stressful situation, not really knowing what else to do. However, this seems to continue the more he lives on the island because after discovering the true experimentation Dr. Moreau does with the beast folk, Prendick seems to just imitate Dr. Moreau and becomes another version of Dr. Moreau to survive.
I totally agree with you that his laughter in the first chapter foreshadowed his descent into becoming more like Dr. Moreau. “It was almost as though Nature were smiling at our misery,” Just like with your quote, this quote shows that he becomes emotionally detached when traumatic things happen, even saying things in irony. This shows that he can become emotionally detached from a situation when his life is at stake, just like how Dr. Moreau was emotionally detached from causing the beast folk pain.
A part in the opening chapter I think relates to a bigger themes is on page 8 where it says “ I found myself in a little cabin aft. There’s a dim half-memory of being lifted up to the gangway, and of a big round countenance covered with freckles and surrounded with red hair staring at me over the bulwarks. I also had a disconnected impression of a dark face, with extraordinary eyes, close to mine; but that I thought was a nightmare, until I met it again. ”
I think it’s important because the introduction to pendrick being in a cabin but not remembering how he got there introduces that mystery in the novel, along with the tension that comes with the fear that he is feeling.
In the opening chapter you can see the racism and hierarchies that connect to the novel’s larger themes of instability and the blurred lines of what it means to be civilized, and human. When Prendick is on the Ipecacuanha, the captain of the boat shows racism towards M’ling, by calling him an “ugly devil”, and by treating him as in a very dehumanized way by “[delivering] a tremendous blow between the shoulder blades with his fist” (Wells 15). M’ling, later to be revealed as one of the beast folk, is immediately treated as less than human, even before his origins are fully known. This part of the first chapter foreshadows how the Beast Folk will be treated throughout the novel, not as people, but as creatures to be controlled. On the island there were laws put into place to subdue the animal side of the beast folk to allow the beast folk to act “civilized’ and human-like. This suggests the need for constant control over the beast folk. And this need for controlling them highlights how unstable and temporary the “civilized state” is for animals, suggesting the delicateness/fragileness of the line between beast and human.
I agree, the novel goes in depth of the fragile boundaries of what it means to civilized and what it means to be uncivilized. We can see this when Prendick comes back from the island and sees the humans around him and skeptically says, “I know this is an illusion; that these seeming men and women about me are indeed men and women, men and women for ever, perfectly reasonable creatures, full of human desires and tender solicitude, emancipated from instinct and the slaves of no fantastic Law, beings altogether different from the Beast Folk. Yet I shrink from them”(Wells 246). The fact that he fears humans like he fears the beastfolk shows how similar the beastfolk are to humans. This makes him contemplate what actually makes him and other humans civilized, as he realizes the fragility of his prior belief that humans are civilized and superior to beasts.
In the opening chapter, Prendick recalls: “They [the crewmen] sank like stones. I remember laughing at that and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without” (9). After reading the book, these lines stuck out to me because of the motif of humans in society acting like the beasts on the island. In these lines, Prendick’s actions reflect his fear and selfishness in the moment. He has managed to stay alive over his two crewmen, but has also witnessed both of them die — a shocking event. This is hardly the time for laughing, yet that is Prendick’s raw response. This doesn’t seem like a normal reaction for a human, yet that is how Prendick chooses to express himself. This challenge of what it means to be a human is exactly what this book explores on Dr. Moreau’s island.
In the first chapter, Prendick describes how he does not recall attempting to attract the schooner’s attention, leaving his eventual rescue to chance. Randomness is an important theme discussed throughout the novel, and one associated with the uncaring unpredictability of nature. Nature is cruel, so Moreau carries out his experiments unsympathetically towards the animals. He asserts complete dominance over them, leaving them without any autonomy, similar to Prendick’s survival as he drifted.
In the opening chapter, the shipwreck introduces central themes of isolation, survival, and the fragility of civilization. Prendick is violently cast out from society and thrown into a lawless, liminal space, an island that starkly contrasts with the order and structure of the mainland. This transition marks a descent from a world governed by rules to one ruled by instinct and power. His outsider status forces him to confront the thin line between human and animal, preparing him to witness the erosion of boundaries between man and beast. As Prendick later reflects, “I must confess I lost faith in the sanity of the world when I saw it suffering the painful disorder of this strange experiment.” This moment foreshadows his realization that civilization is a fragile construct, easily broken when stripped of social norms and comfort.
I definitely agree that Prendick’s account of the shipwreck highlights the novel’s central themes of isolation, survival, and the fragility of civilization, however, I also found that this shipwreck correlates to Darwin’s argument in “On the Origin of Species”; as mentioned in SS104, Darwin proposed how population growth is infinite, while survival is finite (just like you had mentioned when using the example between human and animal). Furthermore, Darwin essentially proposed that nature is dynamic, meaning that nature is never fixed. Therefore, H.G Wells incorporating Darwin’s standpoint on natural evolution in addition to the themes you identified just within chapter one certainly contribute to the novel’s overall message.
In the first chapter when the men propose to sacrifice one of themselves for the others to survive, it gives an insight of how the term of humanity and inhumanity will be questioned throughout the book. Prendick emphasizes how due to the hunger, thirst, fear, and desperation, him and the others were “already thinking strange things and saying them with our eyes” (page 8). Cannibalism, an inhuman thought that was introduced in the lowest point of their lives. The thought of eating another human being for the sole benefit of their survival, was only an initial example of how humans do inhuman things selfishly thinking about their benefit or survival as the overall idea of changing an entire specie to another one to create an “ideal” world that would only truly benefit one individual.
I agree with this line of thinking and would like to further develop how this moment in the book reflects the blurred lines we see later on between what makes someone human compared to a beast folk. Throughout out the novel Moreau, Prendick and Montgomery set themselves up as being the beast folks’ intellectual and moral superiors. Once Prendrick returns to human society however he realizes that we are more like the beast folk then we would like to admit noting that, “I feel as though the animal was surging up through them [his fellow man],” (Wells 130). This surging of the animal can be glimpsed in how quickly the men on the boat were willing to turn to barbaric practices like cannibalism when their survival was on the line.
I agree with your commentary on cannibalism. To add on, cannibalism was and is still seen as inhumane, something unthinkable and animalistic. Even by the first chapter, the book explores the idea of cannibalism, something deranged animals do, not humans, shows that further into the story that lines of human and animal will be played with. In addition, the “thirst, fear, hunger, and desperation” you quoted also correlates to the idea of animals and humans and how Prendick thinks animals and humans are different while in reality when driven by the instinct, they resort to similar tendencies of thought, which is further explored in the book.
I agree! I’d like to add that the book makes it clear that Prendick is a civilized and educated man early on. This makes it even more jarring when cannibalism is not only suggested, but agreed upon. At least in Prendick’s mind, (as far I as can assume from his narration), it seems like he would believe that the act of something so inhumane would never even cross the mind of someone with a background similar to his. This definitely ties into how survival is the number one goal that all lifeforms have, and it says something about how the means by which survival is achieved doesn’t have to be fair or humane to other humans or lives. This idea is played with later on with the Beast Men, which have been genetically modified by Moreau who believes that he is making strides at improving animal lifeforms and possibly even improving their chances of survival by making them human, though his methods are extremely inhumane and unfair to the life that he alters.
In the beginning chapters of the novel, when Prendick is being nursed back to health by Montgomery, it shows how human survival is hard, and just as someone can nurse you back to health from practically death, the same person could inflict later suffering on you. I feel like this event between Prendick and Montgomery plays into the larger theme of the book because Dr. Moreau has this kind of relationship with his creations. He can easily “evolve” them, but he can also “de-evolve” them or even eliminate them from his island completely.
I agree. I think this sense of control also represents the power held by Dr Moreau. The ability to heal comes along with the ability to harm. As he can decide the life or death of someone, it adds on to his “God like” existence.
In Dr. Moreau’s eyes, pain is the thing that rules animals. He tells Prendick that as long as pain (both physical and mental) is the chief driver of his actions and beliefs, then he is no better than an animal. It’s almost as if pain is the marker between what makes an animal and what makes a human- if you live by your instincts to avoid pain you are an animal, but if you are able to overcome that pain you will be a human. So he is attempting to get the animals to overcome the pain he inflicts and make them human. In believing this, he justifies the torture that he puts the animals through. Furthermore, he rules the Beast Folk – whom he does not view as human- with pain, scaring them of the “House of Pain” they will go to if they choose to break the Law.
Yes, and pain seems to intertwine with Dr. Moreau desire to stay in power within the boundary of what makes an animal and what makes a human. Dr. Moreau is afraid of the beast folk like the beast folk are afraid of him, but Dr. Moreau is the one who has the power of control, making him different (more “human”). Dr. Moreau has the power and knowledge to use pain as a motivative and manipulative tool against the beast folk to ensure their thought process of inferiority, stabilizing that boundary.
Yes, I agree with you. Dr. Moreau sees pain as a mark of animals. “This store men and women set on pleasure and pain, Prendick, is the mark of the beast upon them, the mark of beast from which they came.” (Wells 74). Humans are not just driven by pain. Dr. Moreau justifies his experiment on beast folks by saying that the beast folks are inherently inferior to humans as they are driven by pain, and if Prendick feels sympathetic with them, he is no different than an inferior animal. Dr. Moreau establishes a boundary(pain) between human and animals, and try to break this boundary by creating beast folks. But at the same time, he makes sure that he will always be the superior creature no matter how perfect beast folks are.
I agree with that, Moreau sees pain as a very important part of his scientific goal. He believes that pain is something only animals feel and a driving factor but humans are different to animals because we are able to overcome it. He even proves this by cutting himself to prove that he is superior to an animal, in his definition. He even uses this to his advantage by punishing his humanized creatures. Dr. Moreau is doing exactly what you’re saying and putting the animals through this pain in attempt to make them more human. This reminds me of how the British even treated slaves and the people he colonized since Dr. Moreau treated his creations horribly because he saw them as inferior. Pain is essentially used as his justification for his experiment since animals cannot overcome pain, making them inferior. He also uses this to manipulate his creations into becoming more ‘human’.
I agree! This shows how Moreau uses pain as a tool for physical transformation as well as psychological. He enforces what he views as ‘civilized’ in this way that is ironically considered uncivilized. While Moreau claims overcoming pain is what makes one human, he still relies on fear and suffering to maintain authority over the Beast Folk. All of this reveals the hypocrisy at the center of this experiment. This tension shows that his vision of “humanity” is deeply flawed and exposes the violence underlying so-called civilization.
In Chapter XIV, Moreau uses pain as a means to transform monsters into something “human”. He believes that suffering is important for advancement, but there is no compassion behind it, just control. It echoes colonialism’s cruel logic, in which cruelty was frequently justified as a means to civilization. Whether it was through colonization or forced assimilation, there is this dark and dangerous idea that suffering somehow makes people better or more refined. But in the end , grief doesn’t build humanity, it breaks the animals, trapping them between who they were and what they are forced to become. What was supposed to help build true “humanity” ended up stripping it away.
I like how you connect Moreau’s use of pain to colonialism’s twisted logic that suffering somehow improves the victim. I would also like to add that what makes it darker is how the process doesn’t just strip the Beast folk of their natural body and self but it also strip Moreau of his own humanity. He’s so obsessed with control and transformation that he becomes emotionally numb, more machine than a man. It’s ironic because he tries to impose humanity by acting less and less human. The whole system of forced change backfires and instead of evolution, we get devolution on both sides.
I was thinking along the same lines, pain being a part of humanization, or civilization. Suffering, in Moreau’s eyes went hand in hand with progress and advancement, which I think foils the European attitudes among natives during peak colonization. Like Moreau used pain to control and “develop” animals, Europeans inflicted copious amounts of pain and suffering onto natives in their attempts and desire to humanize and civilize them.
In Chapter XIV, Dr. Moreau see’s pain as a necessity in order to transform animals into humans, which be believes is superior to animals. He in a way feels as he’s doing these animals a favor by turning them into powerful and respected beings. To justify his doings, Dr. Moreau mentions, “Not all living flesh is painful; nor is all nerve, not even all sensory nerve,” using this claim to overlook the moral issue of inflicting pain onto animals to make them humans. He also makes it clear that pain is a trait that make these creatures animlas, and since his goal to make them human, he believes the pain is worth it.
I agree he is turning them into animals because he wants to turn them into rational creatures. By taking out the animal part in them he humanizes them and turns them into a being like you said by causing pain because “not all living flesh is painful”
This is an interesting point you brought up and to further cement it, In the eyes of Dr.Moreau pain is not only apart of the human existence but it is necessary. As you said Dr.Moreau feels as though he is doing these animals a favor by turning them into humans, so not only is the pain justifiable, it is in multiple ways. As mentioned before it can be inferred that he believes that to be human is to feel pain but also that its morally okay since the outcome is greater than the means. It makes me wonder that maybe Dr.Moreau isn’t so much justifying his cruel actions through moral justification, maybe this is truly how he see’s the world a believes he is doing good and right by these animals.
As he discusses how pain is key into bringing beasts into the realm of men, Dr. Moreau pulls out a small knife and cuts his thigh, choosing it’s place “deliberately”, trying to prove that “it does not hurt a pinprick”. The point he tries to make is that humans and beasts are not inherently in a constant place of pain, but rather construct it to drive them to survival, and act as a “intrinsic medical advisor to warn and stimulate [humans]”. So, he theorizes that should an animal be able to overcome pain, they can be elevated to the status of man, which is what he is aiming to accomplish. So by giving them pain that he believes they can overcome, Dr. Moreau pushes them to their limits to make them a humanized animal.
I agree with this, Dr. Moreau agrees and is aware that the process of the transformation is painful and will hurt, but he diminishes the significance of it. Dr. Moreau justifies the experiments as being necessary to his scientific experiments, “But it is part of the price of the new life—the birth pangs of the new creature.” This shows his lack of empathy and rationale of the suffering in the name of science.
While Moreau believes that through pain he can transform the animals into humans, he still fails to create true humanity within them. Despite all the pain the beastfolk go through they never fully become humans, they remain stuck in this in between slipping back to their animalistic behaviors/instincts. This shows that even through pain Moreau cannot truly dominate nature.
The act of feeling in tandem with humanity is what allows us to explore the complexity of the world through expressions of both happiness and grief and every single possible emotion ever felt. Without pain there’d be no serenity and with this logic, Moreau makes the claim that pain is essential to transforming beasts into men, giving them the humanity we associate with every day: in order “To make them think and feel and speak as men—that is the real work. That is where the pain comes in.” He sees pain as a tool to suppress animal instincts and enforce human behavior.
In chapter 14 Moreau says that pain is an essential part of the transformation process of animals into humans. This shibboleth highlights the novels main claim that civilization is simply the suppression of animal instrincts through suffering. Rather than elevating beings through morality, civilization imposes order through cruelty and fear. This suggests that humanity’s claim to moral superiority may be built on the same brutal foundations as Moreau’s grotesque experiments.
Dr. Moreau presents pain as crucial mechanism that transforms beasts into men, treating it not as a way of suffering but a way to control and reform them. He makes the argument that the pain is suppressing the animal instinct they have and conditions a more human like behavior. It implies that humanity is something that can be forced onto a nonhuman being through their suffering and discipline. But the contradiction of this, is that if the transformation that is made is rooted from pain and fear instead of choice or transformation, then the beast can not truly be human.
Moreau views pain as the thing that separates humans and animals. He claims that animals are controlled by pain, and to become human is to overcome pain and act on ration and reason. He also believes that psychological “pain” such as sympathy are also factors one must overcome to be rid of their animal instincts- almost claiming the morality of causing other living things pain is animalistic. To create humans out of beasts, Moreau puts them through immense amounts of pain, and justifies this by attempting to make them overcome that pain by becoming human- only by overcoming pain will they truly become human beings. However, he claims he has failed so far and hasn’t made a proper human yet, and therefore he controls the animals via the threat of the “House of Pain” they will go through if they disobey the Law.
Well said! The view Dr. Moreau has on pain, specifically our capacity as humans to overcome it, is quite contradictory too. We see every character, one way or another, perform an action that is motivated by instinct. Even Dr. Moreau admits that he once felt pain, and though he claims to be rid of it, one can argue that the person he became, and the actions he took, originated from said pain. At the same time, he never succeeded in his quest to make his version of a human. So, if we cannot escape instinct nor create a creature who can, is there truly any way to differentiate animal from man?
In The Island of Dr. Moreau, the role of pain is seen as the determining factor that separates what is human and what is an animal. In chapter 14, Dr. Moreau states, “‘In my view – in my view. For it is just this question of pain that parts us. So long as visible or audible pain turns you sick, so long as your own pains drive you, so long as pain underlies your propositions about sin, so long, I tell you, you are an animal…” (Wells 14) Those who act under the guidance of pain are no more than animals to Dr. Moreau, it becomes the defining trait that defines the line of humanity and animals.
Throughout the book, we see how pain drives both the animals and humans within the book. For example, the animals are afraid of the whip that Dr. Moreau carries, listening to his every word with a crack of the whip. While Prendick was willing to drown himself in the water in order to prevent himself to become an animal. It’s this difference of confronting pain that determines the humanity of someone to Dr. Moreau.
I one hundred percent agree with you. Pain separates man from beast in this text, and I found that quite interesting. To assert one’s identity as a human, one could either seek pain – as you mentioned with Prendick seeking death via drowning – or run away from it as the beasts did when Dr Moreau cracked his whip. Reactions to pain are a characteristic that defines humanity.
In the novel Monreau’s view on pain is that pain is what drives animals to certain actions. Animals fear pain. So anyone with that specific trait or sensation must be an animal. Making the creatures of the story animals. And I think it’s very fascinating how he views it because I believe that humans in fact act on pain. Both physically and mentally. We let our emotions and sensations drive us to certain actions or let it avoid us into certain things.
Dr. Moreau views pain as the boundary that separates humans from animals. Dr. Moreau even goes so far as to suggest that moral feelings, such as sympathy, are possessed by animals and that to become human, one must overcome physical and emotional pain. Thus, he uses intense suffering to force Beast Folk into ‘civilized’ humans. The threat of the ‘House of Pain’ enforces obedience and is used as a way to force the Beast Folk to act in accordance with civilized society. Unfortunately, their fear of pain is the very reason they’re not perceived to be fully human or ‘civilized.’ I find that ironic.
In the latter half of The Island of Dr. Moreau, there is a scene in which he is sat down with Prendick and is explaining his ideology behind turning beast into men. During this conversation he explains what his determining factors for a “successful” human or failed human. Pain was one of the main factors, Dr. Moreau believes that pain is just a weakness and a means to an end. It distracts you from what’s really important and controls your actions. To him you’re more superior and more “humanlike” if you’re accustomed to pain which is ironic being that the ability to feel pain or anothers is what makes humans humans and lack of empathy is what makes him monstrous.
Moreau doesn’t view pain negatively rather he sees it as something that he can use to his advantage and doesn’t see an issue with inflicting pain for his own scientific discoveries. He believes that pain is the controlling force over the human race, and he thinks that by utilizing pain he can rewire different types of animals to adopt more human like behaviors. He then has to justify this by explaining as they overcome this pain they become more humanlike.
One of the role of pain in transforming beasts into men was discipline. On page 78, it says, “Each time I dip a living creature into the bath of burning pain, I say: this time I will burn out all the animal, this time I will make a rational creature of my own.” (H.G. Wells page 78). This shows that Dr. Moreau used pain to discipline the beasts so they can act with reason instead of animal behavior which can lead them to be more humanized.
This kind of “learning through pain/punishment” is very reminiscent of the kinds of punishments dealt out to criminals at the time, especially by Britain to the colonies they oppressed. Through punishments like branding, whipping, and caning, victims were expected to learn through that pain, that their actions were wrong and were not to be repeated. This is of course contrary to more modern ideas of rehabilitation and education.
Pain plays a big role in this book because only when the beasts are cornered and act most animal like, is when Prendick shows sympathy and humanizes them. “Then the pain and disfigurement of his features passed out of my mind, and I remembered only that he was a man.”
Perhaps, the book suggests that in our most visceral moments, we are at our most ‘human’ state of being.
It’s interesting that pain is what finally makes Prendick humanizes the Beastmen, as it’s dehumanization that oftentimes prompts such pain in the first place. I thought about A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, where we read about the unfathomable and seemingly endless horrors inflicted upon various natives. The spanish inflicted great pain onto the indigenous peoples, but even thought they saw them in pain and suffering that didn’t seem to make them dehumanize them any less. I wonder what made Prendick different than the Spanish and so many other oppressors.
While it most heavily apparent in chapter XIV, throughout the story Dr. Moreau presents pain as a necessary tool to successfully transform the wild beasts into the men he desires. He argues that pain is not just a byproduct of his experiments but a central mechanism for enforcing discipline and reshaping their primal instincts to human ones. A particular quote of Moreau’s thinking was when stated, “It is when suffering is pushed to its extremity that a creature ceases to be a beast.” This way of thinking suggests he views pain as both a physical and moral force.
In addition to how Dr. Monreau views pain, they even stated, “And I tell you, pleasure and pain have nothing to do with heaven or hell.” Not only does he believe that pain is both a physical and moral force, Dr. Monreau believes pain also has to do something with religion as he views pain as neither gods work nor the devils doing which is ironic considering Dr. Monreau stated they were a religious person.
I believe the role of pain is emphasized in the story because pain is a reaction all animals have when we do something that can hurt us. We experience pain when what we are doing isn’t natural. The vivisections Dr.Moreau was conducting were extremely unnatural and caused the beat people extreme pain because of that.
To Moreau, when it comes to inflicting pain on the animals to transform them from beast to man, pain is something necessary they have to go through in order to complete the transformation. Without the pain of the transformation inflicted upon them they still think and feel like animals. “So long as visible or audible pain turns you sick, so long as your own pains drive you, so long as pain underlies your proposition about sin, so long I tell you, you are an animal, thinking a little less obscurely what an animal feels” (Wells 73). In Moreau’s mind if enough pain is inflicted the beasts will start to learn to behave humanlike. It’s like a positive punishment. The pain is inflicted upon them to decrease the likelihood of them to act and behave like beasts.
A thematic pattern I noticed specifically among the Monet paintings is the use of direction as well as color to create contrast. The paintings in all have a much looser, freeform feel to them breathing more life but mudding edges. It appears that to establish sharp edges, colors and the direction of the strokes meet at such disparities that it creates the illusion of a line without the constraint of one, that would lose the feeling intend by the artist.
This is made very apparent with the Monet paintings as he differentiates the background from the foreground, the buildings, not only by choosing a high contrasting color but also by switching his brush movement. The sky in his paintings is flowy, often having this switchback movement, the water runs side to side and the brushstrokes lay parallel to each other and finally the city is made with sharp straight vertical lines, contrasting the rest of the painting. These too methods help ensure the painting is visually clear, as seen when both the water and buildings share the same color, their still easy to differentiate them due to the brush movement.
That is a really cool observation! I was thinking that the Monet paintings 4 and 8 are striking because the texture seems to jump out at you–even through the screen. It’s very interesting to see how he layers on the paint to create a third dimension–not only the contrasting direction of strokes, but also the amount of paint on the canvas per stroke. The layers highlight the exact point in which the sun hits the water, creating a glowy, ripple effect.
In the painting in Viewing 1, they all contain flowers. The flowers may be part of the subject, or blend in with pictures. In addition, each flower is brightly colored. The theme of bright flowers could represent how any moment in time contains beauty, and just like a flower, should be appreciated, as both time and beauty are always fleeting.
I like your interpretation of Manet, Degas, and Cassatt’s inclusion of flowers. I hadn’t noticed them initially but now that you point them out, I can see how vital they are to the piece and how it can represent beauty, admiration and the fleeting nature that they hold. They do blend in well the subject of each piece, and I wonder what the main intention of the artists were when including them if not for their beauty and significant representation of the women portrayed in each painting.
Something that I noticed about all eight paintings was that they seemed incredibly… unfocused. They don’t take the skyline into detail, but rather rely on what looks like shadows and vibrant colors to showcase the buildings and St. Thomas Hospital. In addition, some use flowers to make up the skyline, while others utilize cloud looking structures, but none uses literal building definitions, which I think is incredibly neat.
I totally agree with you on the neatness and skill that is required to create that “unfocused” look. It is very interesting because usually paintings created by such well known artists such as Monet are very detailed and descriptive in a sense. The description under the paintings does mention the London fog and how the paintings could be a tell on pollution in London and how badly it clouded the view of different skylines. I think these paintings could be powerful now especially with how bad climate change is. I would actually love to see some modern day artists approach cities with this idea, I think that could be influential in trying to get people to think about the effects of industrialization and capitalism on our environment. Especially since that unfocused look is so captivating it does make one consider why that stylistic choice was made.
Yes I totally agree!! But I feel it does give London the true representation it deserves with their weather. Londons fog used to come from coal fires which caused the smog to be very thick. Maybe when this painting was first being painted there was smoke and Monet most likely could not get a clear depiction of the buildings.
Stylistically, the paintings get more and more blotchy and have a painting-esque texture as we approach the turn of the century. While Olympia is beautiful in it’s own right, it definitely has a different vibe than Un bar aux Folies Bergere. Of course, this is shown most in Claude Monet’s series of paintings. Distinct lines are used sparingly, and the texture of the brush stroke in used to cultivate a certain tone throughout the pieces.
Manet’s use of stencils really highlights the order the viewers are supposed to look at the paintings. For example in Olympia, the woman’s hand is the first thing you notice about the painting then her face and figure before you move on to the background which is blurred. Manet intentionally uses stencils to change the clarity of specific objects in his paintings to add depth and meaning to his artwork. In his Olympia and Un bar aux Folies Bergère, he adds clarity to the women and other important objects like the hand in Olympia and the drinks in Un bar aux Folies Bergère. In my opinion this was intentional to set up the woman’s lack of interest in the viewer in Olympia, and the Beauty of the Bartender in Un bar aux Folies Bergère.
I completely agree with you! I definitely noticed that all these paintings have a story the longer you look. I feel like a pattern I’ve seen is an unsettled woman. However you wouldn’t notice as if you quickly hover over the image. For example with “Un bar aux Folies Bergere (1882)” we quickly notice the woman who has a “normal” seeming face you wouldn’t expect anything, until you realize the background is a mirror and she’s actually having a conversation with a man at a social gathering. Now by looking at where she is (at the bar) we notice her social class might not be exactly lined up with the man and she may fall a little below. And we can get to know her a little more.
I noticed that, in most of the impressionist paintings, the art was done through blotches of paint rather than strokes of a brush. One of the readings related this style to “optical mixing,” a psychological phenomenon in which our brain blends colors together. It highlights the substance of impressionism: seeing the world, unfiltered, through our own perspective. The paintings depicting their lives are chaotic and truthful rather than clean and romanticized. I wonder if some of the artists understood the psychological impact of this style, or if they were simply just painting as they saw the world?
In Monet’s collection of London fog, there is an experimental aspect to his paintings. It seems like he gets much more comfortable and confident with his brush strokes. He eventually starts to start to experiment with colors as well as his painting style. You can visibly see the texture of his pieces change and become much more exaggerated throughout the years. Furthermore, even though there is a change in stylistic choices, he keeps one thing constant, the way he draws the buildings being depicted.
Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament strikes me because of the different areas of focus in each painting. Some paintings are entirely blurred and soft, some have birds focused in the foreground of the painting. In another, only the glistening water is clearly defined, drawing the viewer’s eye towards the golden waves. The impact of photographs and the help of photography to complete the series may have impacted the way the pictures came into focus for Monet, as opposed to they way the view of the river would have looked to the human eye, especially with the impact of the London fog.
One thematic pattern that I see in the images above is that in all of Monet’s depictions of parliament the buildings themselves seem to blurry and distant. In fact, as a whole each painting is blurred or seems to be slightly covered by a fog or a cloud. Although some contain vibrant, bright colors while others are more dull and less colorful, they all contain the cloudiness that I previously mentioned.
A thematic pattern I noted in all these paintings is the captivity of a moment, an overall scene, including both the background and perspective. In the works of Manet, Degas, and Cassatt, a fleeting movement is captured with mid conversation, rest, or dance. In addition, these paintings are all intimate in capturing a relationship or visual, as seen by the candid painting of ballerinas, or the maternal care in “Young Mother Sewing”. Claude Monet’s “House of Parliament” also captures meaningful movement comparable to that of photography, showcasing shifts in the fog of London.
In the paintings containing people, there is a pattern of using the gaze of the subjects to further the goals of the painter. For example, in The Dance Class, no one is looking back at the viewer, perhaps to highlight the business and movement present in the room. However, in a painting like The Young Mother Sewing. The child stairs right back at us, perhaps to highlight her innocence and curiosity, while contrasting with the mother who is busy and focused. This use of gaze by impressionist seems not only to hint at the influences of photography, but also at the human experience of paying attention to where someone is looking, especially when it is at us.
An obvious pattern in Monet’s paintings is the silhouette of the city/hospital. The background, colors, and moods of the paintings change, but the silhouette is always the same, and the individual paintings would be easily recognized as members of the same series. Stylistically, the paintings all have sort of the same dull, overcast look, due to the foggy look Monet is trying to capture and depict.
A pattern I noticed in Monet’s paintings of the Houses of Parliament was in the paintings that seemed less foggy. You can somewhat tell the time of day it is from the reflection of the building on the water, and the earlier times of day seemed to be more clear out. I am wondering if this could have been a detail that helped pass the legislation to fix the urban pollution.
A thematic theme I noticed in all of Monet’s piece was the use of oil paints to create a smokey, foggy effect while still being able to use a variety of color with seeming mastery. He was able to create a cohesive tone of depressing fog. However, again, his use of color allowed for the pieces to not all be being, as he painted the same building 8 times. Through photograph, memory, or being in person, Monet painted the Houses of Parliament using a plethora of techniques in order to showcase a smog effect, the sun shining onto the river, and overall give his painting depth while not misrepresenting the main inspiration of the haze over London.
A stylistic pattern I noticed throughout Monet’s paintings is his alteration and blending of hues to demonstrate the density and thickness of the fog. For instance, one of the paintings can be found with bright colors and a prominent London skyline, indicating that the fog is not as severe; in another painting, the London skyline can be found nearly blending in with the other colors in the painting, suggesting that the fog is intense. Therefore, Monet purposely either blending the colors on the canvas or illustrating a sharp juxtaposition in which the viewer can distinguish different, non-blended colors fundamentally contributes to recognizing the fog’s extremity at the time Monet captured the moment.
The fourth painting of Monet’s Houses of Parliament appears to eminent a change in texture through the type of brush strokes Monet created, probably due to the gentle strokes of yellow he added on top of the more muted cool colors. With that, I think his passionate desire to paint only when the sun out is expressed the most in this painting because not only does the strokes of yellow create the sun’s presence within the painting, but it also creates a more dynamic feeling than some of the other paintings do. The other paintings are all smooth in texture in its’ relation to the fog’s presence, but this painting brings out a different side to the scenery, creating a textural and vibrant movement to the fog.
The yellow strokes also stood out to me. What I find interesting is how the light in his paintings dont just brighten things but it transforms the emotional feel of the scene. The way the yellow is layered over the blues and purples makes the fog feel less like a blur and more like an alive presence. It’s like the sunlight isn’t just breaking through but it’s fighting to be seen. That contrast adds tension, like you’re witnessing something fragile and fleeting that it can disappear in a second. This piece sits the viewer to make us feel the in between.
In the first picture of the Monet’s House of Parliament, it is the only one that seems to be depicting total darkness, with a tint of orange in the sky. It is also the only one that shows what seems to be two individuals in a canoe. I feel that Monet is expressing that something can be just as beautiful at night as it is in the daylight. There is a sense of calmness shown through the stillness of the water and the quiet presence of the people in the night taking in the silence and appreciating the nighttime atmosphere despite the fog surrounding them.
When looking at Manet’s Un bar aux Folies Bergère, I particularly noticed the emotion of the lady’s eyes. Her eyes seem tired and distant as she stares toward the crowd of people or perhaps towards the ground, but does not really see them. Impressionism intends to portray a small snapshot of life and in this moment, Manet is able to capture the complex emotions in the lady’s eyes during this small moment in her life. It’s almost as if she is disassociating or is stuck in her own thoughts, perhaps because she had seen someone in the bar that she wasn’t expecting. She looks withdrawn, solemn and sad while at a bar that is teeming with people.
I noticed this too. The perspective being so focused on her and her features portraying these emotions while the other people and the background are more muddled immediately stood out to me. It gives the impression of solitude or perhaps loneliness beyond the physical capacity. She looks withdrawn, sad, forlorn maybe, despite having other people and activity around her.
The second painting, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, by Édouard Manet depicts appears to depict a performance show during the 1880s. If you look closely in the lefthand corner, there are 2 legs in the air which look like some kind of trapeze performance. that detail adds to the larger theme of complexity and chaos throughout the painting.
I agree, the legs seem to be randomly placed at the top corner of the painting, but it’s all part of the chaos revolving around the painting. What strikes me even more about this painting is that not many people’s facial expressions or faces are shown clearly, but the one person’s face we can see clearly is the girl at the center of the painting and she expresses a sense of unease. This strikes me because she is the only person whose face we see and it makes me think that Édouard Manet did this on purpose in order to critique society or challenge societal norms on paintings.
The third painting in Monet’s Houses of Parliament series stands out to me because it seems to be the only one that depicts birds. What also surprises me is that pink is used as a main color to depict the sky and water. The Houses of Parliment are covered in pink fog, almost invisible to audience. I think the pinkish fog might be the result of sunlight reflecting at dawn, and it soften the outline of the building, creating a sense of unreality.
I think a striking detail in the image Édouard Manet, Olympia (1863) is the fact that the women in th bed is fully naked. Although it is very clear she is nude, I think it’s striking because the lady beside her is fully clothed. I think this can be percieved as the white lady being higher up, along with being white she is perceived as perfection and beautiful which is why she doesn’t feel the need to cover up.
I like your observation in the contrast of the two women in the painting. The white woman is stretched out quite neutrally, yet her body is perceived as sexy, attractive and feminine with details like a ribbon on her neck and a flower on her ear. She remains elegant by having a gold bracelet and slippers on while lying naked in bed, but the woman beside is beautiful in a completely different way in my eyes. She is wearing a pink dress and holding a beautiful boutique of flowers, yet there still exists an unequal difference between them, which is further conveyed through the expression on the clothed women’s face.
A striking detail I find in the painting of “Olympia” by Manet, is the naked woman’s gaze. The woman is staring directly at the viewer, fully naked, with emotions of possession, awareness, and boldness. Instead of being something to be desired, it looks like the woman is judging or even criticizing you with her gaze/stare, challenging the viewer.
Something I find interesting is the background in Manet’s “un bar aux Folies Bergere.” Upon first glance, I did not immediately notice it was a mirror, and I find the perspective of this really interesting. The woman is the focus of the painting- we can see her face- yet we can also see what she sees. Additionally, through the mirror you find she is engaged in conversation with a man, something that if you simply looked at her face you probably wouldn’t guess. It is through the mirror that we are able to see her perspective, which adds a more personal level to the painting. Its not just a portrait of her, it’s a portrait of her and her perspective, and tells a broader story about what is going on at the bar.
I also found this really striking as it also took me a minute to notice. I really like your take on this painting, specifically about the contrast between the women’s perspective versus what’s actually happening in real life. When I was looking at this painting I actually had a slightly different take on where we can see the women’s perspective. I actually thought that we can see her perspective when we see her looking forward, not her in the mirror talking to the man. In class we talked about mimesis, and how whatever is shown in a mirror is real and the artist detaches themselves from the art and doesn’t allow their perspective to interfere. As a result I think we can see the perspective of the women in the painting when looking at her and the expression of her face, and we are able to nicely see that against what’s actually happening around her through the mirror in the background.
I’m curious if the background in Manet’s “Un Bar aux Folies Bergere” really is a mirror or if it’s simply a crowd behind her. I think it can be interpreted both ways, which adds to the dreamlike setting that impressionist paintings seem to carry with them. I
I find both you and Amilia’s comment very striking and interesting. At first I was confused being that the position of her body didn’t match her body language that we see in the mirror but then looking at the bottles they are in an identical position. So i do find that interesting and agree with the fact that this is what an impressionist paintings entails it’s up to you to decide what exactly you see.
Something I noticed in Édouard Manet’s, Un bar aux Folies Bergère is that the center of the painting depicts more detail and less bluriness compared to the background which is very blurry. This is unique from other impressionist paintings where the emphasis is put onto the senses of the painting rather than the realism, whereas in this painting the subject is drawn realistically while the background is drawn blurrily to make the lady the subject and the forefront of the painting. I think this shows how the subject of the painting is exhausted from her job of bartending.
I really liked your suggestion that the subject of the painting is exhausted from her job of bartending. Having the woman in the center be the focal point creates depth in the painting without having an enormous contrast in detail (the brush strokes are thick everywhere and not polished). Additionally, it adds to the idea that impressionist paintings were supposed to give you an “impression” or a snapshot (like a photo) of a moment. This haziness and lack of complete clarity definitely accomplishes this aim.
Yes, I love the last point about how exhausted the woman is from her job. It’s like she is so overwhelmed that the whole world is becoming blurry. However, I would like to add how even though the blurry effect done in Manet’s painting makes it look very exaggerated, Cassatt’s Young Mother Sewing also has a pretty good blurring effect as well. Although it has so much less detail to begin with, the two people have so much more detail than the outdoor setting of the painting. The trees are only shaped like so, and the grass is just a wall of green with no detail. It forces the attention towards the mother and daughter.
I noticed that in Un bar aux Folies Bergère (1882), there is a blurry woman who is sitting at the back wearing white dress while all the other people are wearing black. The whole painting focuses on the contrast between the color black and white, and especially the black dress of the woman in front is painted with light white strokes, which shows depicts lights shining on her. This shows how impressionist paintings focus on lights rather than all the other details in the background.
What caught my attention was Édouard Manet’s Olympia regrading the overall facial and body expressions given by everyone. The woman looks to be bothered by the viewer (who is presumably Olympia); the man is looking at the Olympia for instruction, which I believe is seeking advice on how to treat the viewer; the cat’s body posture depicts a sort of alarmed and aggressive stance, showing that the viewer is uninvited. These facial expressions and body posture depicts an invasion of privacy that the viewer is committing, creating an unwelcome environment that creates an uneasy feeling for the viewer. On top of this, the man is carrying flowers, which may mean that there was an event of sorts happening for which we have invaded. Overall, the painting creates an eerie feeling of intrusion.
I would like to comment on your response as I saw it in a contrasting light. This image is inspired by Titan’s Venus of Urbino and in both images it appears to be a maid in the background. This image is particularly striking to me because in Olympia, the women seems to have a more sexual and stern presence, she looks directly into the viewers eyes and is laid out with heels on the bed- opposed the the women in the Venus painting who is bare foot. The maid seems to be catering to her bringing her a large bouquet of flowers. I didn’t feel much like I was invading anything but more that the was not ashamed to show off her body and was almost proud.
In Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, I found it so interesting that there is a mirror behind the woman, which shows that she is working in a bar or another establishment that serves alcohol. In the mirror, you can see that she is serving a man. From the front, you can see that the woman looks uncomfortable seems as if she does not want to serve the man in the mirror. However I think this aspect is very interesting because I believe the man does not see this uncomfortable expression of her, despite him being right of front of her. Only we as the viewers are able to. understand and interpret this uncomfortable feeling she is experiencing. I believe this painting is giving emphasis on the way women were treated during this time and how men were known to make women uncomfortable. I think the way the artist painted this was very clever, especially since he made sure that the viewers get the picture of the women’s expression. I feel like the painting also gives a very lonely feeling. The painting is in dark colors and even though you can see many people in the mirror, the painting gives the feeling that she is still alone with the man even though she is not really ‘alone’. This painting overall gives the feeling that the women feels alone and pressured.
In Edgar Degas ‘ The Dance Class (1874), the faces of the dancers and people are all slightly distorted as if they were a fuzzy memory. The color scheme consists of dull colors apart from the bright white of the tutus, similar to how some specific details in dreams stick with a person compared to other minuscule details. All aspects of this painting are hazy and feel as if they were drawn out of a trance.
The series of paintings by Monet of London all look similar on surface level, but the sixth painting in particular stands out to me the most. The fog is the least dense in this painting, and it makes London stand out a lot more in contrast to the rest of the series. It looks less melancholy, warmer, cleaner and more hospitable. The bright sky reflects on the water, making it look like the evening of a beautiful day.
One stylistic pattern I noticed in almost all of these paintings would be the artists’ use of gaze — specifically, where the characters are looking. In works like Édouard Manet’s Olympia and Un Bar Aux Foiles, some figures look directly at the viewer while others look away. I believe that this style creates a mix of confrontation and detachment, making the viewer feel both drawn into the scene and slightly unsettled.
Looking at Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament, the final image strikes me as the most eerie. Some of the images have people rowing in the water, birds flying, or at least a clear structure of the buildings, but the final painting shows the building and sky as messy streaks. This gives a sensation of uneasiness, and it feels as though the building is moving or approaching you. In the back left, the buildings are also not upright. This change may imply an increase in fog during the day Monet was painting this piece.
A striking detail I noticed on the painting of Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, is that the main focus is on the waitress and the mirror behind her showing what is in front of her. However, it appears that a man is in front of her but technically he is not in the foreground which makes it believe the man is just an illusion. By creating this piece Manet was very ambiguous because I believe he wanted to portray what would happen during the bar or as well what the waitress would encounter while working by putting a man on the background but not in the foreground.
A striking detail I noticed in the painting “Olympia” by Manet, is how the painting is overwhelmed by a sense of intimacy. The painting portrays a naked woman, giving her a vulnerable position. But asides from her physical state being vulnerable, the emotions conveyed through her eyes also seem vulnerable and intimate as she seems to be lost in thought. There seems to be a contrast between how exposed her body seems to be yet her thoughts and mindset seem to be private.
A striking detail I noticed in Mary Cassatt’s “Young Mother Sewing” is the contrasting expressions between the child and her mother. The mother is looking down carefully at her sewing, concentrated, while her child is looking straight at us, the viewers, with an expression I think is a mix of indifference and curiosity at the same time. The child seems used to her mother’s activities, and isn’t making a fuss at the lack of her mother’s attention, and at the same time, the use of the color in the painting brings the moment to life and highlights this moment in a typical “daily life.” Additionally, I find the title of this piece really funny because it’s very direct, yet at the same time, provides the key detail that the woman sewing is a young mother, and not a caretaker or an older sister/relative.
Building on this, I also find the child’s gaze in Young Mother Sewing to be incredibly striking, where it seems there’s a quiet awareness in her eyes that contrasts with the mother’s absorbed focus on her task. This dynamic humanizes both figures but subtly emphasizes the intimacy and ordinariness of domestic life. The composition’s photographic stillness, especially the way the child’s face meets the viewer directly, feels almost like a candid snapshot, which matches the photography’s Impressionist style. And I agree the title cleverly anchors the painting’s emotional weight in the specific role of motherhood, thus adding a layer of narrative to what at first seems like a simple moment.
A striking detail that I found in Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1863) is a naked woman wearing shoes in bed. It is not normal to wear shoes in bed, but an interesting fact is that she is naked. As an audience one question appeared, why is women only wearing shoes other than any clothes. Usually shoes are the first thing we take off when we go to bed. It may be a cultural difference or generational difference, but I think it was that she was in an uncomfortable position where she couldn’t rest as usual. Maybe it is because of men or someone painting her naked body but by only wearing shoes she is expressing her uncomfortable situation or feeling.
A striking detail that I noticed in Edgar Degas’s “The Dance Class” is how the one girl doing the ballet moves seems to be a main focus in the painting. The painting portrays a group of kids wearing what looks like dance costumes all in the same little dance studio. It looks like they are getting ready for a recital or something along those lines. What makes the dancer in the middle really stand out though is that while everybody else is sitting or just being occupied with other things, the girl has the focus of the older man and women.
A striking detail I noticed from Edgar Degas’s, “The Dance Class” is the girl in the background pulling at and adjusting her black choker. I think this detail does a good job in encapsulating Degas’s style of painting in which he tries to capture “casual moments of action,” (Strickland 106). He paints this girl in a moment of discomfort and annoyance two very human emotions that I do not attribute to ballerinas. In this fashion his work humanizes them and strips away the idealized image society has of ballerinas.
I’m not sure that Monet’s paintings are shown in order, but assuming they are, I noticed that the overlay of fog seems to pass in a natural way. In other words, the gradient of fog progressively gets darker before having a sudden moment of light and then continued fog. What stood out to me was the 6th image that is suddenly sunny. I think this is really accurate to the way that London weather is. It’ll be cloudy and sometimes even drizzling, and then there will be an unexpected moment where the clouds break and the sun shines. Ultimately, the way in which this natural pattern of fluctuating fog is presented in the images feels really genuine to London and I think that this series of paintings is unique for that reason.
A striking detail of Édouard Manet’s Un bar aux Folies Bergère, a scene of daily life in the loose brush strokes typical in Impressionist artworks, is the central figure’s emotional detachment. The woman is distracted, and gazes off solemnly towards the viewer, contrasting with the lively and leisurely environment and creating a more observational tone. She seems isolated in a room full of people, possibly a commentary on alienation in urban areas.
In Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère (1882) I was intriguied by the amount of people He drew in the background of the painting. It reminded me of something like a concert. The people who are closer to the image are more defined and as u look further back they get less and less definded but you can tell there is a lot of people in the painting.
One striking detail I noticed in some and all paintings in Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament is only two paintings show what I’m assuming is someone on a platform in the water while the other paintings only have the building in the background. Another detail I noticed was one of the paintings is very foggy compared to the rest of the paintings.
What makes Degas’ The Dance Class so captivating to me is the feeling that it was taken by accident, almost like someone had opened a door and taken a photo. The composition isn’t centered or polished in the traditional art sense. People seem to be cropped awkwardly, some with their backs to the veiwer and others partly out of frame.
This off balance framing contrasts with the symmetry of a typical classical painting, it might reflect the influence of early photography, capturing people in the moment rather than a pose. Rather than glorifying the dancers, he depicts the real in between moments: exhaustion, waiting, practicing and the behind the scenes of a performance.
Even the movement in the painting seems like a photo. Some dancers blend into the backdrop and the light diffuses, almost like a long exposure from an old camera. But here it was not about capturing a moment perfectly but capturing the truth of what’s happening, the raw and fleeting moments.That’s where I see Degas and photography intersecting.
I agree that the unbalanced composition and framing, as well as the movement, is what adds realism to the impressionist painting. It’s not about a particular structure but about creating a real-life scene that involves so many different flawed aspects within the people and the environment. Through the candidness, not every detail is captured as some faces and details are blurred out. This seems to create a great mixture of the type of scene a photographer would choose and possibly a lack of finish an impressionist painter would have.
I agree. The painting has an asymetrical framing and a candid perspective which makes the painting look like a photograph. It looks like a fleeting moment the dancers are stopped mid-action, no fixed poses. it’s like we’re witnessing an unstaged moment. Degas also uses space and depth like in a photograph, the way some of the dancers are standing at the back some in the front really picturing the chaos of a dance class.
In addition to what has already been commented, notice the mirror on the left wall of the painting. If you look closely, it awkwardly reflects part of the room without showing us clearly what’s behind or who’s in it. The unplanned, imperfect view reminds me of how a camera is quickly lifted to capture a space when not everything is centered or explained. It makes the scene feel more real and messy, like we’re watching the behind the scenes from the wrong angle.
Houses of Parliament by Monet exhibits the betrayal of the influence of photography. Monet’s artworks offer a fixed perspective of the same skyline is repeatedly captured, similarly to how a camera would be used in this essence. The movement of fog and subtle changes in the lighting and haze suggest a photographic intention of fleeting moments bounded by time and capture. Even though Monet painted this series by hand, the pieces contribute to the idea of seeing the environment/world as a sequence of ocular impressions–influenced by a photographs ability to freeze an exact moment of time.
Prompt 3: In “Un bar aux Folies Bergère”, Édouard Manet depicts a young woman working behind the bar of a lively setting. The way in which this painting challenges photography’s traditional “way of seeing” is through the contrast of the viewer’s point of view and that of the man depicted. Viewer’s would think that the man in front of the woman is at a decent range of distance, but as we can see in the mirror, he is seemingly in very close proximity to her, almost touching faces.
One painting that clearly shows the influence of photography’s “way of seeing” is Degas’s The Dance Class (1874). The scene is asymmetrical, with dancers cut off by the frame and gathered in various poses, creating a snapshot like image. This kind of cropping and dynamic composition mirrors photographic techniques, capturing a fleeting moment rather than a formally arranged scene. The off-center focus and blurred sense of motion reflect photography’s power to freeze life mid-action, suggesting spontaneity rather than idealized stillness.
I agree with how you describe the painting depicting the “mid motion” moment so many photographs are known to be good at capturing. I also think that the paintings Monet did of capturing the London fog all have a consistent pattern of this “in action” feeling, the water ripples are always different, the colors feel as though they are moving with each blink of an eye, and yet it is all very intentional at the same time.
In Mary Cassatt, Young Mother Sewing (1893), the posing (or rather the lack of posing) of the young mother and her child show the influence of photography. Unlike previous traditional paintings where the models are carefully placed and props/clothing are carefully arranged, there is a carelessness to the crumpled clothes and what the mother is sewing. Everything seems more natural, even the way the mother is looking down as opposed to forward. This gives it the impression of being a snapshot in time instead of a painting. The young child’s focus almost seems like it could be focused on a camera, since her gaze is almost looking out of the painting to the left.
In one scene around six minutes, the president catches the Little Tramp smoking in the bathroom and tells him to go back to work through the television. The president seems to have eyes everywhere through the use of TVs, almost insinuating that the workers’ time no matter where they were was under his authority. Even though the bathroom is a private area, the workers’ production was a public means to an end, making things that are usually considered private as public to people like the president to ensure the amount of production and manufacture he desires.
I noticed this too. it reminds me of the Saddler report a bit in that they had no agency and were under the control of authority. The authority didn’t care for boundaries or comfort, only about profit and efficiency, which was clear in this section of the film. The president has no interest in personal life or anything that infringes upon the ultimate end goal, and he uses what means he chooses to watch and make sure they will be met and that employee time is only to be for the end goals production.
Good point. The surveillance and observation part is really sharp!! That detail also satirizes the growing fear of technology invading human life. The president’s ability to invade on private spaces highlights how the mechanized efficiency of work has dehumanized employees. Chaplin succeeds at criticizing the loss of privacy alongside dignity and autonomy under capitalism.
Yes, I noticed this too and this was one of the key moments when the actors had to speak. It definitely shows that the president is highly controlling even during the workers private time. I would also like to add that these workers are working in very dangerous conditions but the little tramp character brings humor and a bit of rebelliousness to the workspace. I think this movie is also trying to point out the detail that the industrial time included a very mundane, dangerous, and boring life for the workers. They were also highly focused on making everything as efficient, as seen by the automatic eating machine, even though an automatic eating machine was not necessary needed. The workers and president only cared about efficiency and product without any care for the workers, which can be seen when the automatic feeder machine continued to malfunction yet no one helped Little Tramp leave the contraption. It can also be seen when the men are seen to each work on one part of the finished product at a time, where all the men had an assigned task that deeply relied on each other. Overall, I feel like this movie is pointing out the dehumanizing life of the workers by adding these details.
Yes, I agree with you. Another moment in the initial sequence of the Mdern Times where people were treated as tools to maximize productivity was the feeding machine. The feeding machine aimed to eliminate worker’s lunch time and increase production. From the Sadler Report we read in SS we knew that most workers only have 30 minutes lunch break for a whole, and this machine tried to keep people working while they were eating. I believe that this scene showcases the down side of industrialization: people were dehumanized and treated as slaves of big machines.
When I saw that scene, I thought it was funny that he clocked out before he went into the bathroom. It shows a level of obedience from the Little Tramp. Though he wants to smoke and eventually just causes chaos for the factory, he is taught to clock out for breaks, and he compliant with that.
I totally agree! It’s weird that a private place like a bathroom has a camera. It does ensure control over the workers, because if no production is done, then no money is made. It reminds me of my job when I came back after spring semester. I was being told I had to be careful going to the bathroom or being on my phone because they were watching our cameras.
One key detail that stood out to me was three men working on a conveyor belt and each man was assigned a specific task to do before the product moved to the other person showing. This shows a workplace that is based on division of labor. Politically, the workers are working at the pace of the machine which is a super high speed indicating that there is a high demand for the product and the factory is trying to get the product out on the market as fast as they can, resulting in workers working at an inhuman speed. This continuous action of doing the same actions for hours eventually leads these workers to alienation because they will no longer have a connection to their work but rather only focus on completing their task in order to earn minimum wage. Lastly, I recognized that even after the machine stops the man with the wrenches continues to do doing the twisting motions symbolizing how repetitiveness in this form can take a toll on a person mental health.
One of the details I found interesting was when the Tramp was chosen to test the “feeding machine”, whose utility was to boost productivity and eliminate lunch breaks for the workers. This shows how industrial capitalism overran basic human needs. The machine malfunctions, spilling food over him. He is humiliated, stripped of his dignity. Chaplin uses this to critique how workers were stripped of their autonomy. It shows how technology guided by capitalism can become violent and dehumanizing.
I agree with your take on the feeding machine.What stood out to me was how the Tramp body is literally treated like the assembly line here. He’s not a person here but just another machine to speed up. The way the machine keeps force feeding him even after it breaks just turns basic care into something aggressive and mechanical. It’s crazy that they turn something so human such as lunch to a form of humiliation. Chaplin exposes how under capitalism, efficiency matters more than dignity and safety.
That’s a really interesting point you made about how in a way Little Tramp’s body becomes also apart of an assembly line. By taking away the workers freedom of autonomy to even to just eat their own lunch at their will, essentially they turn these workers into the very machines they work with. It’s interesting how the only reason that the machine was denied by the boss was due to the fact it malfunctioned and didn’t work as promised, not for its dehumanizing qualities. This is most definitely is a commentary on capitalism and to add on to what’s already stated, I believe its also a cautionary tell of greed as well as a somber tale of the working class that suffer as a result of the higher ups with iron fists.
I completely agree with your point of how capitalism overruns basic human needs. I also realize how in the beginning scene, a herd of sheep disclose into being a crowd of workers, signifying and comparing the workers into livestock, stripping their autonomy and value. In concerns of the feeding machine, the scene shows how capitalism is literally obsessed with productivity and sales that it is willing to sacrifice health, and comfort.
Prior to this scene, the people pitching ideas for this machine were shown the primary scene with audio. Most of the film remains silent in the factory, except when the bosses speak to workers or conduct business. I believe the emphasis on audio was intended to highlight instruction and innovation, values stressed during the Modern Era. I see this scene as foreshadowing the dangers of over-industrialization. Today, those dangers have materialized as overconsumption, excessive R&D, advertising, and capitalist behavior.
In Chaplin’s movie, around minute 8:45, I noticed an extreme lack of intelligence amongst the workers, specifically the main character. In the scene, the man is seen to act clumsily and mistake a woman’s dress buttons for parts. The scene continues playing out with him spilling a bowl of his coworker’s hot soup and then sitting on it as well. There’s a drastic difference between the humorist and idiotic behaviors of the working class and the serious, all-knowing authority that seems to reveal the stereotypes about industrial efficiency and human value within the hierarchy.
In the initial section, the Tramp gets pulled into the giant gears of the machine, which shows how workers are literally consumed by the system. It’s funny at first but also kind of disturbing. I feel like the scene is making a political point about how industrialization treats people like cogs in a machine, erasing their humanity for speed and profit.
I one hundred percent agree how the comedy masks how horrifying the message is until you truly think about the situation. I also think this entire movie feels very indicative of how workers are treated by businesses as society pressed forward into a new industrial period.
The automatic feeding machine is a great example of Chaplin’s use of physical comedy and visual storytelling. As the machine malfunctions, Chaplin’s precise movements and timing turn the chaos into a funny, well-choreographed scene. The way his actions match the machine’s rhythm shows his skill in using silent film techniques. This moment captures how Modern Times uses humor and visuals to reflect the struggles of modern life.
42 minutes into the film, a shift in the Tramp’s motivations can be seen through the love story. In the first third of this movie he appears to be content with living in prison, which drives his actions. But now, as the orphaned girl runs away, he follows her. I like this artistic shift in the plot; the seemingly foolish and almost comedic incentive of the Tramp has turned romantic, which is visually appealing.
The initial section of modern times was strikingly political. The opening sequence of the crowded sheep walking forward and cutting immediately to people on their commute to the factory already provides a statement on the dehumanization that occurs by working a factory job. The scene shifts to Charlie Chaplin’s character at work, and the movie jabs at how the assembly line relies on each person working as quickly as possible and how a single human’s mistake leads to the machine-like work being disturbed. This mistake results in violence by the boss and other workers. I immediately connected this scene back to a reading in Professor Marr’s class on factory conditions for children and how violence was used to force people to work at a machine-like pace. The scene continues, with Chaplin continuing his work and then taking a short break (clocking out to use the restroom) and mimicking the repetitive motion of a machine to emphasize the effect the dehumanizing work has on him. When he goes to the restroom for a smoke break and relaxes, he is immediately forced back to work by an overseeing boss.
There is another scene where the CEO (I’m guessing) is being sold on a machine that eliminates the lunch break for his employees to increase production. However, the machine isn’t installed because it’s not practical, not because it’s dehumanizing.
The rest of the initial sequence (till minute 19:10) is seemingly Charlie Chaplin going insane and aiming to destroy the factory.
I think your insights about when Charlie Chaplin takes a break are really insightful. To take it a step further, I want to connect it to the hierarchy of property owners v. workers and how the workers were viewed and taken advantage of. The scene shows the bosses don’t care about the workers they care about the product they are making. No matter the situation, be it taking a break to use the bathroom and smoke, getting distracted by a bee, or even getting hit on the head, Chaplin couldn’t stop working. Production would get messed up and his superiors would get mad. This shows the dehumanization of workers at the time, they are just cogs in the machine of production and not seen as having real human needs.
I also found the bathroom scene politically striking, as it shows how dehumanizing the factory was for the workers. I connected this idea of dehumanization that you had to a part a little bit before the bathroom scene. At 5:37-5:35 mins we can see that Charlie Chaplin stopped working as he wanted to use the bathroom. Whilst he is on the way to the bathroom he is still twitching as if his muscles are still at work, doing his job. This highlights the working conditions of the factory, showing that he has been working for long hours. With this scene happening right before the bathroom scene you talked about it just emphasizes further the overall dehumanizing conditions of the factory. This is because when Chaplin’s body is twitching it’s like his own body won’t let him take a break, and as soon as his body does let him take a break (when he starts to smoke the cigarette in the bathroom), his boss won’t even let him take a break. As a result because of the twitching scene and the bathroom scene happening right after each other it shows the audience how bad and dehumanizing the conditions really were in the factory.
I agree with you that the repetitive motion is indeed showing dehumanization. Especially when he is trying to screw the buttons on ladies dress and screw people’s noses shows how he is made into a machine that does not have individual thinking like a normal human being should. He goes out of control just like the feeding machine, which further shows that he is no different from a cold machine. The fact that he got arrested and was sent to a hospital shows that the industrialized society is cruel to workers. It drives people crazy because they are dehumanized and exploited by the higher up, and pushed to do rapid repetitive motion that require no creativity but only muscle memory.
I also thought of the discussions regarding the exploitation and dehumanization of factory workers from social science. As you said, any human error can lead to a much bigger disturbance and violence against workers. Chaplin portrays this common violence in a comedic way, as he does with the other instances you mentioned to highlight the mistreatment early 20th century factory workers faced.
I also noticed the creative decision to portray the workers as sheep and that they are kept in a machine like condition where their labors are extracted with little breaks in between. This also reminded me of our discussions about bureaucracies in social science, where we talked about how bureaucracies operate in likeness to machines. I believe this movie also makes political commentary about how systems such as the bureaucracy, although valued for its extreme efficiency, may have lost their humanity as a consequence.
One key detail of the initial sequence of the factory was the use of surveillance by the boss. The boss seemed to oversee all the activities of the factory without having to be their physically, even in the seen where Charlie Chaplin goes into the restroom. This could be a commentary on obsessive need for employers to know the actions of their employees at all times, and their demand for higher efficiency without considering the conditions of the workers. It is both a plot device and a glimpse of the time period, to see that workers were seen by their production value by higher ups and a necessity for control and profits at all costs.
I agree with your sentiment that the administration only looked at their employees as objects to achieve peak efficiency. I also want to add that around 7:30 the higher-ups introduced a machine that would feed their workers while they worked, showcasing how they didn’t care about the well-being of their workers as long as they were able to work.
I agree with your point about the boss watching over the workers as it was a direct representation of how little freedom they had during that time. As the boss constantly monitors the workers, even in the bathroom, it puts into perspective how controlling factory life was. Those working in the factory weren’t seen as individuals, but instead degraded down to a part of a larger machine that needed to keep going. In reality many factory owners only prioritized production and many workers didn’t get breaks at all. Physical tactics like whipping were used as punishment just to make sure they stayed awake or were working fast enough. It’s disturbing how normal it was back then to dehumanize people this way as bosses had total control over their every move.
I also observed the extreme oversight that the factory president had on the factory workers. In the scene where Chaplin’s character struggled with the speed of the machine I found it interesting that the president kept asking to speed up the process. Although the boss seemed to know each time the laborers took a break or slowed down, he didn’t care for when the factory workers could not keep up with the machines. This emphasizes the increase in demand for results and more productivity. If the factory workers could not deliver they would be reprimanded.
Something I noticed in the film was the repetitive tasks that Charlie Chaplin performs. He is seen doing menial work such as screwing and it obstructs with his life outside work and his robotic nature as a whole negatively affects his life. For example, at 16:59, he is seen to run away from the police, but even when he is in a hurry, he backtracks and decides to clock into his shift to run away again. This is a repetition of what happens at 6:10, where he is scolded by his manager to get back to work and he clocks in. His acts of screwing objects and clocking into work show robotic and irrational we become when we are put under modern day jobs. These sorts of menial work can take away our ability to think for ourselves because the system rewards robotic consistency and obedience.
Robotic consistency and obedience is a great term that describes the conditions Charlie Chaplin is creating in his story. It seems all the workers are conditioned to focus on only their role and nothing more. For example, at 17:50, we can see that the workers are trying to chase Charlie Chaplin to catch him, but only when the conveyer belt is off. When the machine is turned on, they immediately to back to their role. Only when the machine is off they attempt to chase him. It’s like a machine being turned on and off. To them, their quota and work efficiency is more important than an apparent maniac having a crash-out, because if they fail in their roles they will more than likely be replaced.
I find it interesting how not only “the system rewards robotic consistency and obedience” but also shames this robotic nature. One example being when Chaplin is driven into a ‘nervous breakdown’ which leads to him being the subject of anger from the company and being sent to a hospital.
When the feeding machine presented by the mechanical salesman J. Willecomb Bellows is pitched to the boss served as a striking key moment for me during the factory scene. The machine’s purpose was to mechanize meal time, eliminating the lunch hour allotted for the men to fuel themselves for the back half of the work day. This invention blatantly highlights the dehumanizing logic of the industrial capitalism and its implications on the working class as a byproduct. Standards of the ruling capital conditioned factory workers to serve as an extension of their machinery, rather than individual beings. Through use of exaggeration, the segment combines comedic irony with sharp social criticism to prove how efficiency often comes at the expense of one’s sanity.
I agree with your analysis of the feeding machine! Another thing I that is worth noting is that the machine starts off working fine. It presents the food to him, wipes his mouth off, and rotates to the next plate. This invention is quite impressive at face value, which reflects the rise in technology as a result of the industrial revolution. This is parallel to the machinery that the workers manage at the factory. However, the feeding machine gradually becomes impractical and Chaplin gets physically abused by the machine. It dehumanized him because it was designed to reduce his eating time down to a process of merely opening his mouth and chewing. He can otherwise be controlled by the machine. The same is true with the factory machines. Rather than being extensions of what the human body can do, they are statements/motifs about what the human body cannot do. In both situations, the machines seem rational, but that does not mean they are justified.
I really liked your point about the machine reflecting the rise of technology, especially how it mirrors the factory environment. One thing I noticed was how Chaplin slowly stops resisting and just goes along with the machine. That moment stood out to me because it shows how people can become desensitized and start to accept systems that clearly aren’t made for them. It’s not just the invention that’s disturbing it’s how quickly people adjust to it, even when it strips away their humanity.
One thing I noticed was the repetition of work. Which reminded me of when we learned about the division of labor in social science. When someone became very good at a task they were forced to work in that specific section basically for the rest of their life. As well as it it shows how life was for factory workers during the industrialization. We see them suggest a machine for the workers to be able to eat while still doing their jobs which would intentionally allow less or no breaks at all. And it’s extremely unfortunate how these factory workers would be forced to work for hours on end and live in this negative cycle with no time to themselves.
Hi Melanie, I really liked your connection between the repetition of work and division of labor. The similarity between the two highlight how the industrializations main focus was mass labor. I also agree about your point on the machine that allowed for no breaks; it shows how workers were not thought of as humans but rather a part of machinery. Chaplin’s use of humor towards this issue creates a sense of irony by emphasizing harsh labor conditions with a comedic criticism.
A key moment that stood out to me that was political was at 0:07:14, it was when the Sales Talk Transcription Co. Inc. came in and persuaded the CEO to try a new feeding machine in order to not stop production and take away lunch hour. To me this is political because most factories would abuse their workers by working them overtime and giving them very little to none of breaks. By the sales man persuading the CEO of using this new invention demonstrates that they would do anything to increase production in order for them to gain more profit and not for the benefit of their workers.
Yes, the machine definitely symbolizes the bosses not willing to give the workers breaks, especially because factory work had seen large success in output in those times. I also think the machine symbolizes a “leap” to the future, as we tend to think (even now) that the more we rely on advanced machinery, the more modern we become, and the feeding machine show that this isn’t as accurate as one might think it would be. This is seen when the machine malfunctions and almost kill Chaplin. Humans would be better off doing some tasks on their own.
I agree! A sequence that stood out to me was the scene beginning at about 0:10:00. It depicts a test run of the feeding machine, where it encounters many failures. I thought that this was a funny way to present a message about machinery and how it may seem great in theory, but this scene also makes it evident that machines can have serious malfunctions in practice. You also said that machinery represents the future, even nowadays. I agree with that and I was definitely thinking about ChatGPT when viewing this scene, especially how it seems so great when it actually has serious flaws and detriments that people refuse to heed attention to.
I agree, and the feeding machine scene stood out to me as well. To add to your point, I noticed that the managers’ only qualms with the feeding machine was that it was “not practical.” Their indifference to the pain caused by the machine reflects the dehumanization of factory workers, treating them as machines themselves that should prioritize profit-maximization. This is also seen when Charlie Chaplin’s character takes a bathroom break, which doesn’t last three seconds before a manger interrupts to remind him he has to work. He is not allowed to be a human so long as being human is not productive. All that is valued in the factory is efficiency, speed and profit.
0:01:50 to 0:02:30 are the intro given to us that set down the background for the film, we are at the time period that is after industrialization and people are used to working in factory. I like how Chaplin start the scene with live stock and then immediately cut to the worker. Both are going the same direction with the same crowded surrendering, suggesting that the worker are no different than a sheep, living blindly.
I agree! I also noticed that the boss would never call a worker by their name, it was always “Hey you!” or “Man!”. I feel like this shows how everyone was seen as an animal, a cog in the machine, like you were getting at. The assembly line is also heavily present in the opening scene, another man-made way to make working more efficient and “practical”, a word used by the boss to turn down the Bellows Feeding Machine as it was not practical, unlike the assembly line. In addition, the boss uses the main character as an object to try the Bellows Feeding Machine, seeing his less than human in a hierarchial sense. The assembly line also makes the main character slowly go insane due to the such monotonous tasks he has to do all day with minimal breaks. This leads him to go utterly insane, wrecking havoc and causing chaos, breaking the practical, higly-efficient system tat has been set in place, sending him to a hospital for his nervous breakdown and fired.
Starting from 3:30 and until 5:00 the key moment was that each workers had different task to do in the same factory. This momemnt stood out to me because during last semester we learned about division of labor in social science which means specializing task for each workers. As a result of division of labor the factory became efficient however individual workers experience alienation where they don’t know what the product is. They are doing simple task without any knowledge about the final product. The moment that I picked is the perfect example of division of labor. The scene also shows the hierarchies in the factories which could be related to the politics in factories because it shows power, class structure, and economic policy.
I completely agree with your pint that they all have a role in creating the product but, don’t know what the final product is. It’s interesting how real the division of labor we learned in social science is in this film.
A key moment that stood out to me at the beginning of the movie was when the self feeding machine broke down and wouldn’t stop feeding the man. This was around 0:11:20 – 0:12:20. In my opinion this shows that no matter what some people will do whatever it takes to make more profit. I guess in a way the significance of this happening would be somewhat political because of the boss only wanting to make profit and not caring about the well being of his employees. Even if that means investing in self feeding machines that could malfunction and potentially harm the workers.
I think your definitely right. The aggressiveness of this scene, and the contrast between the well fashioned business men and the chaos going on with the machine really makes it clear that this is a criticism of the boss. Further, I think that the fact that this scene revolved around food and forcing it into the workers mouth is a commentary on the control that these bosses want to have over their workers, and the helplessness of the workers under their employers. The scene really does show Chapin as abused worker who is powerless in this situation.
In the initial scene I was intrigued by the fact the boss was using cameras to control the speed of the workers and can see everything they were doing. He even watched when the small man went into the bathroom and forced him to leave. I think it’s supposed to represent that at our jobs and out government is always watching us. They can control our break times, what we eat, where we eat and how fast we are supposed to work. Jobs and government control many aspects of our lives and if we make a mistake we are punished harshly.
During the factory sequence, the scene that stood out to me the most was when they were testing the feeding machine on the man. When the machine had an error, the reaction from the leaders was cold and unbothered. Instead of saving the man, they focused on how to adjust the machine. This scene represented the dehumanization of the workers at the time.
A powerful scene early in the love story happens when the Tramp and his companion imagine a simple life together in a small house. The woman pretends to cook, set the table, and they collect fresh milk from a cow outside. This scene is significant because it demonstrates how much they yearn for stability, comfort, and love which are things they don’t have in real life. Chaplin’s artistic interpretation of this dream shows their hope and strength even in difficult situations. Politically, it reflects the struggles of the working class during the Great Depression, clearly none of their aspirations were at all extravagant but simple, they yearned for security, love, and belonging. By presenting such a simple dream as unattainable, it critiques a system that denies even the most basic comforts to those at the bottom of the social ladder.
I love your insight on how even the simplest dreams can be unattainable due to the system people are put in. This love story even demonstrates what is a luxury to some isn’t always a luxury to others – that it can only be a dream because of the circumstances of the class system a person was forced into. Artistically, this scene allows the audience to see a wider perspective on the Little Tramp and the Gamine as their characters aren’t diminished by what they were given and continue to have hope for something better. That hope becomes something more than just a dream as it becomes some type of motivator for gaining those comforts of stability and belonging.
Absolutely, I really liked what you said about how dreams can feel so out of reach depending on the system someone is born into. It’s true that something as basic as stability or a sense of belonging might seem small to some but feel like a huge, almost impossible goal for others. I also thought the way the film shows the Tramp and the Gamine holding on to hope was really moving, they’re not giving up, even when things are stacked against them. That kind of quiet determination really says a lot about their characters and makes the story so much more meaningful.
I 100% agree with you on the imagining scene being very striking and powerful. Throughout the whole love story it just shows them working hard to obtain that life and they both are aware that they way that is possible is through money and a stable job. The movie makes you root for them to get a job which is kind of a weird thing to want for someone, especially when nowadays critiquing of 9 to 5 jobs and redundant life is very common. It is sad but in a heartwarming way that all these two people want is just some stability in their life and to have a simple life. It’s also the fact that no matter how many times they fail, they keep trying. In the end, they finally got the stable job and life they wanted only for it to be ripped away soon after. Still, they persevered just because of that American dream and the hope of having that ‘perfect life.’
I really agree with your take on that scene. it’s such a tender and powerful moment. The way they imagine such a modest life together really drives home how even the most basic hopes can feel unreachable in their situation. I thought it was especially impactful how Chaplin used something so simple, like gathering milk or setting the table, to represent a deeper longing for peace and normalcy. You’re right that it says a lot about the larger struggles of the time, how unfair it is that these small comforts are considered luxuries for people just trying to survive. It’s a quiet but strong critique of a system that fails the very people who keep it running.
From the middle part of the movie, there is a political statement when after the guys rob the store and while the women is asleep. During this time, the guys enjoy a drink and Chaplin ends up getting drunk and being a fool. This is a comment on how alcohol may be ruining people. Chaplin not only loses his job, but he got arrested, and let the girl down by not waking her. showing how alcohol causes people to fail as providers and good people.
In the middle section of this film, there were many instances of what I consider very illegal activities. Not only are they running away from the police, there is also a strange love story developed between what seems to be a middle aged guy and teenage girl. Although marriage between an older man and a younger woman was still common, it was still disturbing to see. Nonetheless, The creator of this film was still able to showcase this film without words until necessary. But within the few days that the male was in jail, the women was able to find a job for herself, and find a place to stay. This depiction reminds me of the time period and how women started to find jobs in the job market due to the war and recruitment of men to fight in WW1. And also, from the state and looks of the way the male is portrayed in this film, he did seem unfit to fight in the war. So, in addition to everything going on in this silly, random, fun film, there were implications of the war and how it shifted some aspects of our political and social systems.
In the beginning part of this section, it starts off with the couple dreaming of what I believe is their “dream life”. The short dream is of them in a house, the woman cooking for the man, and them eating together- which comes to an end as they snap back to reality, realizing they have no food or house. I feel like this dream is sort of political because it depicts the “American Dream and having a nuclear family. The desire for achieving the American Dream is further seen when the man immediately jumps at the opportunity to get a job as a night-watcher so that he can provide for his partner and have the money to live out this dream.
Not only does this scene, where the Tramp imagines his dream life with the Gamin, have deep political significance, but it is also packed with artistic details. What stood out to me during this scene was the exaggerated overabundance of food. Specifically, I found it telling when the Tramp grabbed an orange from out of his window and took a bite before tossing it away wastefully. This flippancy about food is meant to contrast heavily with their current circumstances, and it does a great job of representing how famished they are at this moment without using words.
In the middle section of Modern Times, starting around minute 55, there is the line “I’ve got a surprise for you, I’ve got a home for you” (something along those lines), and it shows the girl imagining living in a small but charming home with the man. Their home is not huge but it is charming, and it contrasts their harsh reality with an idealized dream of stability. Artistically, it uses warmth and humor to try and paint a more positive light on the depression era struggle, by offering a glimpse into their shared hopes and dreams of a more stable and simple life.
When Little Tramp works the night shift at the department store in his quest for a “real home”, him and Gamin live a luxurious fun life–at least for a moment. They can roller skate, and Gamin is able to sleep in a comfortable bed with warm clothing. The department store is decidedly not a home, but it’s the best “home” Little Tramp and Gamin get. Moving into the shabby shack Gamin finds is a significant downgrade, as there’s no bed shown and also no fun–Little Tramp can’t even swim in the lake. The existence of the department store shows that this ideal life is not an option for the workers of the store themselves. Alternatively, capitalism and shops portray unattainable homes for the working class that they can only dream of.
In the last sequence of the movie, especially the last scene where Little Tramp and his love interest walk together hand in hand after being shut out by society again, they are able to find their own version of resistance. Both of these characters have faced the brutality of industrial capitalism, and even after trying to fit into society’s standards of working to be accepted, they are ultimately chased away. They attempted to work together to provide for each other and a future life, but society will never accept them. So, together they choose a life of resistance and rebellion, and refuse to take part in the hardships of industrial capitalism. I think Little Tramp and the Gamin walking away holding hands show that they are in that resistance together, and also a refusal to give up on the dream they have together and how they hope to achieve that without playing along with an industrial society’s rules.
While the entire movie was filled with political messages, the ending of Modern Times particularly stood out to me because the message transcends time. In the final scene, Little Tramp and the woman have run away from society, and while the woman is in despair, Little Tramp tells her not to worry. The two find happiness in each other, away from an exploitative society, where they can escape from the monotony of working like a machine until they die. I believe the director could be speaking in favor of human creativity, calling out the dull life that working as a mere tool can bring. I cannot help but relate this message to our modern times (haha) with AI being able to replicate everything. Creativity and uniqueness have been lost in favor of efficiency, but perhaps we should return to our roots?
In the movie’s final sequence, the movie ends with both characters successfully obtaining jobs and walking down a long road that stretches into the hills. Despite their previous history, this road is a strategic and stylistic approach on indicating that although the future is inevitable, a plethora of opportunities awaits us – regardless of our background. In other words, the future is unlimited with progress and change.
I agree that this ending means the many hopeful possibilities in the future! The whole movie felt like a critique of what the factory and modern (what was modern back then) struggles were, and when they walk away at the end, it almost feels like they are becoming free from those burdens.
I also agree, I think that this ending opens our perspective on the freedom to create our own ending, like form our own possibility or opinion. In a way it can be seen as a possible good ending as technically they did obtain a job, which was what they were hoping for, but there is also a possibility of their supposed goal to actually be an illusion as it may fail in the future due to outside factors such as the police.
A key detail in the movie’s final sequence is the idea of stubborn survival and resistance. Throughout the entire movie, Charlie Chaplin fails to find stability in any of the jobs he found and it wasn’t until the end sequence that he found his place in singing. Despite this final success, it isn’t an entirely happy ending as they still end up found by the police and having to be on the run. However, an artistic choice is made here to showcase the refusal to surrender to despair, as a reminder of their optimistic attitudes. Rather than falling to failure, the movie ends on solidarity, emphasizing the dignity of the working-class and their stubborn defiance.
I agree! I noticed Charlie refused to give up throughout the entire movie which one can argue it’s dedication or stubbornness, either or, I like the idea about his refusal to give up emphasizes the dignity of the working class.
One of the scenes that I found to be the most significant of the final sequence was where the Little Tramp and the Gamin walk down an empty road into the horizon after he tells her to smile despite their circumstances. This moment is politically significant as it reflects Depression era resilience, where despite the fact they hold no job, no home, and no clear future, they still choose to move forward with hope. Artistically, this scene was a poignant farewell to the Tramp character as his eternal optimism and silent strength endure even as modernity has left him behind.
A continuity I see throughout the four artworks are the use of direction with the use of color, shapes, and words to create a sense of energy or movement. For example, in the first painting, the use of vibrant colors seems to create an overall liveliness, but also certain movements through the organization of the painting itself. Also, the paintings’ meaning don’t always seem as clear with aspects of abstract and cubism art but looks to be intellectually created and thought out in how the artist desires to depict his subject, using particular colors and patterns on top of one another on purpose to form the movement.
I definitely agree with your assessment that the colors and shapes make the piece feel as though it’s moving. I also think that each piece feels as though it is progressing towards something, and I wonder if each title also invokes a thought of action, since they use words like ‘revolt’, ‘journey’, ‘dynamism’, and ‘car’.
I definitely agree that there’s always a sense of energy and movement in these works of art, and especially in the first painting like you pointed out. The triangular shapes of the orange and red lines going in one direction that follows the shape of the crowd of people really makes it feel like the people and painting is moving forward with intention and a sort of fire. I also like how orange and blue are complementary colors, so it makes for a really interesting piece visually. What I find interesting about the movement in these pieces, however, is how the movement differs between each one. “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of a Car” have really clear and intentional movement with guide lines for your eye to follow in which way the subject of the painting is moving. All the other pieces have movement either with the shape, colors or variety of subjects in the piece, but it feels more subtle and drawn back in its colors and dramatic energy.
I agree on your take on how the paintings evoke movement. The first painting “revolt” reminds me of war, how what looks like red human figures, charging at someone or something, which makes me feel like its inducing strong emotion maybe such as daring or fearless. The 2nd painting “car” also gives strong feelings, it makes it seem like its a car thats darting through space, almost like a bullet, the shape of the black figure is also what helps provoke this illusion.
The art is all very abstract and have a sense of confusion and a sort of urgency because there is so much going on. There are a variety of shapes, colors, and textures being used. However, one continuity that really interested me was that these paintings are all titled something that is real. For example, “Dynamism of an Car” and ” Armored Train in Action” are two examples from the paintings that are actual objects in life. Both of these paintings and the others are taken in abstract and unique ways. These paintings are also seem to be very open to interpretation because of its hectic nature. The artists are clearly trying to convey how they see the world or are trying to add a whimsical nature to regular mundane things. Even the reading describes things in a very fun and detailed way, same as how the paintings have so many details. For example “banging mosque lamps with domes of filigreed brass, domes starred like our spirits…hearing the mighty noise of the huge doubledecker trams that rumbled by outside, ablaze with coloured lights.” These details are all lively and the color the author mentioned can be seen in his paintings.
I definitely agree that these images can be interpreted in many different way due to its chaotic nature. I believe that was the artist’s intent because people perceive colors and shapes differently, and creating art like this encourages people to use their imagination rather than be confined to one point of view. It allows people to see something from their own point of view.
I also agree because all the shapes and vibrant colors do give off a chaotic nature but it all comes together in a way that visually makes sense to who is looking at it.
Looking at all of the artwork side by side their is a distinct difference between the four on the left and the two on the far right. Those left ones have color and abstract qualities, whereas the ones to the right are comparably dull and lifeless. The bright colors grab your attention and make the focus point appear moveable or changing, but the other, darker ones depict a more serious tone. Putting them together feels like comparing an advertisement and a coloring book, totally different.
Yes, and it draws a curiosity in how each of the artworks fall under the same category of futurism. Despite contradictory figures and presentation used in the artworks, all the artworks seem to involve aspects of futurist art, expressing how broad the concept of futurist art can be. This could also speak to the meaning of futurism as violence comes in many forms and so can its’ expression through artwork.
One continuity I observe in Futurist art is the frequent use of vibrant colors and inconsistent lines. In many of the images, it can be difficult to accurately see what’s being represented. However, in the fourth image it looks like a town that is being represented. The buildings are not upright but rather tilted and many objects seem out of place. The out of place objects most likely represents chaos, emphasizing that it’s always busy and full of disruption due to change and modernization. Additionally, the bold shapes and colors create a strong contrast making the images very striking.
I like your observations and how you connect the tilted buildings and out of place artifacts to the themes of chaos and modernism. To build on what you said, I think the disorientation in the artwork represents the Futurists’ aim to reject already established perspectives in support of a brocken and fast paced view of the world. By disassembling and reassembling space in this chaotic way, I thought the artists weren’t only showing disorder, but praising it as a symbol of progress almost. The use of strong, clashing colours overwheled me, as a viewer, possibly reflecting the overwhelming nature of quick industrial growth. Futurist art seems to seek impact and experience, making people feel the energy of the modern world rather than just seeing it.
A contrast I noticed between all of the panting’s is that some have a sense of unity within them, while others have purposeful clashing. The best examples of this is in the paintings “The Revolt” by Luigi Russolo and, “Memories of a Journey” by Gino Severini. The two differ greatly as “The Revolt” has a very organic and abstract aspect to it while the latter does not. What I find more interesting though is that despite both being created in the same year, 1911, “The Revolt” has unity in it’s direction in line as well as color. It’s clear the movement in the painting and the direction the artist wants the viewers eye to follow. This greatly contrasts from “Memories of a Journey” as there is no clear visual direction the painting seems to move in, it feels very direction less. The colors have no unity and the line direction clashes into itself. It feels crowded, almost messy, but purposeful almost as if the artist wants you to have to take more time to look around the painting to understand it.
I really like your observations as far as the difference in what the artist wants you to look at or pay attention to. While some have almost a clearcut example of what the eye should be drawn too, others have a more wild abstract look. I think it also represents how some art is meant to be taken literally or the artist wants you to walk away with something that is clear, while others it is almost up to your interpretation or there isn’t exactly one right answer but perhaps multiple. Overall, it’s not just random and nonsensical but both have a level of purpose and intention that is required.
One continuity between all of these pieces of art is the abstract use of shapes in order to create an art piece that conveys movement. For example, Luigi Russolo, The Revolt (1911) has a ton of vibrant colors, but if you look closely it appears to be buildings which go on and on demonstrating some sort of movement. Another example is Gino Severini, Memories of a Journey (1911) piece which shows a lot of buildings and different modes of transportation which maybe depicts a different type of movement from the first image. It depicts a movement of industrialization and how a culture made advances.
A continuity I see in the Futuristic Art is the abstract shapes that are put together to create a whole image. For example in the first two images you can see the triangular shapes being put to the side all together to create the image. In the third one you can see many shapes make up the person shapes sculpture.
The futurist art, to me, feels like the modern art we typically see today (which sort of makes sense given the name). There is a large focus on contrast and saturation, primarily in the works by Russolo and Severini. The shapes are also abstract and stiff, straight/definite lines make up a majority of the pieces. These shapes also have a tendency to repeat to create patterns.
A continuity in the futurist art is the emphasis on the movement. Each piece used bold line and fragmented forms to suggest speed. The artwork unifies the different types of mediums in art; putting emphasis on the goal of breaking traditional modern world.
A key continuity in Gino Severini’s Armored Train in Action (1915) is the repetitive and linear placement of the soldiers on the train, which perfectly parallels the nuts and bolts along the side of the train to display themes of industrial perfection. The robust image of the soldiers confirms Filippo Marinetti’s encouragement of war and violence; in the manifesto, he states, “We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman” (page 22). The movement of the train through beautiful, colorful geometric patterns gives a sense of awe and wonder, which all these Futuristic paintings evoke. Personally, I love the selection of colors and shading. I think the allure of the bright colors is supposed to make viewers excited about the movement, but then again, it’s nothing like I’ve ever seen before.
Within all of the examples provided of futurist art, my brain is continuously challenged by the indifferentiable abstractness portrayed in every single piece. What’s meant by that is the artists use lots of leading lines within the artworks to present a focal point for the viewer, but the actual substance of the focal point(s) or subject is extremely hard to determine. It’s seemingly impossible for a viewer to make out and establish an actual “thing” or subject in the art, making it more difficult for a meaning to be interpreted–or even established–as there’s no understandable thing for someone to resonate with. Aside from the frame-bound paintings, this same theme of indeterminableness is prevalent in Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space: Lots of smooth planes are curbed with sharp, defining edges that continuously lead a viewers gaze to another space on the sculpture, creating an endless loop of trying to find the “point.”
The open ended-ness in the art fascinates me as well. Contrasted colors that don’t seem to be centered around anything in particular; it’s very appealing to the eye. It gives the viewer the power to interprets its meaning since no objective conclusion can be drawn from such paintings.
A continuity in the artwork I’ve analyzed above is the hidden messages. At first glance you see a major contrast with colors and shapes but the deeper you look the more you realize how similar the paintings are. For example you see very sharp shapes and colors that scream at you, but if you look more closely you realize there are shapes within each shape. Building these crazy lines are human figures or figures of everyday objects
Yes, I completely agree. When I first viewed the artworks, I was confused and annoyed that there was just random shapes, but looking closer there was a story to each artwork. In all the artworks, there is a common theme of chaos across all the artwork which misinterprets reality with the sharp shapes and colors that pop out at you like said. However, in another way it also is quite realistic in how it is chaotic and uses imperfections to convey feelings, very much like how nature may be imperfect and chaotic as well.
A concept of continuity I noticed in the paintings above was the use of perspective to distort a common environment. In all these images it is of common pieces or environments that one can see in modern times, however, it is distorted using perspective to give it a futuristic look. The use of perspective is what evolved the modern image into a futuristic one.
I really like the word “distorted” as a way of describing the abstract work! It reminds me how, in film, whenever a director is trying to convey that something isn’t-quite-right, they tend to tilt the camera or distort the visuals. Some of the subjects in these works, Luigi Russolo’s in particular, seem as though they are trying to break out of the abstract, otherwise known as the past or “wrong” way of life. On the other hand, this distortion could be exactly what you said: an embrace of the dynamic way of life machinery can give.
Each example of futurist art is loud, harsh, and contrasting, creating a visually busy piece. The harsh lines guide the viewer’s eye toward a focal point that often appears to be moving in one direction– albeit not freely. The lines also create a sense of tension, like the subject is pushing through something with great difficulty. Interestingly, in many of these pieces, this movement is going from the right to the left, although typically in western cultures we view things moving forward from left to right.
also noticed the images moving from right to left instead of the usual left to right that we typically associate with progress or forward motion in Western culture. This reversal showed the subject wasn’t just moving, but was struggling against something. It almost gives the impression that progress isn’t easy or smooth—instead, it takes effort and resistance to move forward, which connects to the chaotic and intense energy of Futurist art.
In Luigi Russolo’s artworks “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of a Car”, both pieces follow the same pattern of geometric shapes and lines that might point to Russolo’s personal style or suggest that there is a deeper level of connection in the seemingly inconsistent composition of futurist art. While it may be difficult to decipher the artistic decisions in these paintings or to draw parallel between them, it is certainly undeniable that the shapes in them suggest some sort of connection and expressed in the way that reflects the artist’s intentions.
I agree that the shapes and lines are ambiguous and up to interpretation. Personally, I think in “The Revolt,” the triangular lines may represent people in mobs moving towards the buildings. The buildings, situated at a different angle, suggest a kind of struggle to reach them. Perhaps the buildings represent a societal structure, and the title suggests the people are revolting against it.
In the Futurist art featured above one continuity within the images is the bold shapes that seem to fall into each other. Though every image has sharp lines it becomes hard to distinguish a focus or determine when one shape ends and another one begins. Each image also provides a lot of dynamic motion as the overlapping shapes create a sense of constant energy and rapid motion.
In every painting, the artists take great detail in designing the space of their art. For example, in Luigi Russolo’s “Dynamism of an Car” you can tell that the car in the painting is moving towards the left at a high speed. You can tell because of the spacing of the arrow slits. To me, they are treated as interval spacing in the form of sound waves, so the longer distance between each slit means it’s an increased speed. There is a singular point that is the origin of these interval slits: the midpoint at the left edge of the painting. This form of space is also used in “The Revolt” by Luigi Russolo as well. The main object of high velocity and energy is the crowd rushing from the right. As the painting goes more left, the slits space out once more. Overall, this detail reminds me of vector fields in vector calculus and Dynamism. A vector field is a group of vectors (an arrow with magnitude and direction) within a coordinate system that can tell you a curves behavior in a dynamic system such as flux and circulation. In this case, the arrows represent vectors within the painting, and tells you the behavior of the car and crowd, as they are the origin point. Dynamism is highlighted in these artworks as well, as the slits show there is dynamic movement within a still painting.
However, there is another great use of space within these artworks, a more literal use of spacing. In Filippo Marinetti’s “In the Evening, Lying on Her Bed, She Reread the Letter from Her Artilleryman at the Front,” the letter uses space to represent the chaos the Artilleryman feels. While the focus is in the bottom right, as inferred by the close spacing of the works, as the eyes are moved away from the bottom right, we can see larger spacing and varying sizes of letters within the painting. This shows the Artilleryman’s feels of unease and lack of concentration while they were writing the letter, more than likely because they were battling at the front.
Every painting uses space to highlight the meaning and action in the painting.
One contrast in the futuristic artworks is their sense of direction. The top three artworks and Armored Train in Action all exhibit a leftward pointing direction. Both pieces by Luigi Russolo have thick pointed lines that sweep across the page. The scuplture by Umberto Boccioni is striding to the left and the Armored Train in Action illustrates a barricade of soldiers shooting to the left. This is very different from the other two artworks which don’t have a clear focus or direction. Instead, they look like explosions of images/color. These different approaches could still both be representations of rebellion and violence.
I agree, there are many similarities between the two paintings, except the artist decides to change some stylistic choices. For example, instead with the boxy style in the original painting, he chose to incorporate other a more circular pattern in the new painting. Additionally, will still maintaining the vibrant colors, there is also an additional of darker colors in the newer painting. That kinda ties into what you were saying about the violence in the painting.
One thing that really stands out between Marinetti’s manifesto and the Futurist art is how obsessed they both are with speed and movement. The first painting especially feels super chaotic and intense, like everything’s in motion. That lines up perfectly with how Marinetti talks about glorifying machines, violence, and energy like they wanted to literally fuel the future through force. Neither the art nor the writing is subtle they’re both loud and in your face about rejecting the past.
A very clear continuity in futurist art is a focus on movement. In every shown work of art there movement being shown. Whether it is the arrows present in Russolo’s work, the forward stride in Boccinoni’s work, the chaotic movements of *Memories of a Journey* and *In the Evening, Lying on Her Bed, She Reread the Letter from Her Artilleryman at the Front*, or the gun fire from *Armored train in action* all of these pieces feature speed or show motion. This makes perfect sense given futurists’ interest in action and speed.
I agree, in all of the art, my eyes tend to jump around to follow the lines of movement, but paired with the varying color schemes, with some of the paintings being in black and white, and some with a splash of colors, it further adds to the chaos. Additionally, as you mentioned, the futurist’s interest in movement and action makes sense when you consider their desire for progress and power, elements that are evident in their art.
Yes I definitely agree! Additionally, I want to add on Luigi Russolo, The Revolt, Dynamism of an Car and on Gino Severini, Armored Train in Action, the paintings all have very defined shapes and lines. With these type of detail it creates a sense of urgency which allows the viewers to see movement. As well, there is overlapping shapes and vibrant colors allow the paintings to have an urgent dynamic.
A continuity I noticed about the Futurist art is the sharp angles and almost collage-like style. I think that these angles help draw attention to specific parts of the art and send a more meaningful message. In Gino Severini’s Armored Train in Action (1915), at first glance, it almost seems like it could be a nice painting of nature, maybe a river bank, but upon closer inspection one can see the true details. They start to notice the sharp points at the top of these soldiers’ hats and the viewer’s eyes follow this path up to see the big cannon on top, which could definitely contribute to the artist’s true meaning of the painting, or add on to the viewer’s interpretation .
Collage-like is such a good way to put it! I also thought that even though the art looks jumbled it’s actually very intentful and cohesive- just like how someone putting together a collage purposefully selects meaningful images and puzzles them together as one piece of art.
A subtle continuity I noticed in the Futurist artworks featured is the asymmetry and repetition of features and fragments. In the works by Luigi Russolo, the piece is not symmetrical in the way the buildings are reflected, it gives a kind of shift in perspective to the artwork and centers the focus on contrasting colors (The Revolt and Dynamism of a Car). In addition, Umberto Boccioni’s, Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, presents a sculpture resembling human body with several parts that make up movement and fluidity. It is this continuous repetition of abstract portions throughout Futurist art that gives it a feeling of velocity.
Yes I totally agree. And on top of this continuous repetition, the artist also make it to have an direction, hint the subject is doing an linear movement(using triangle as arrow). and because gravity people would assume the heavy would fall toward the light, with this asymmetry in mass the artist manage to successfully create velocity.
I agree, I think what makes them unique is their asymmetry and aside from the complexity of shapes and directions, there is also a complexity in the range of colors. Despite there being a diversity in the shapes and colors, it somehow seems to be organized like coordinated, as instead of being out of place and random, its seems that every shape and color has a purpose and a place. I think that makes the art unique and outstanding as it has a complexity and a mixture of feelings and perspectives.
A key continuity I saw throughout the six pieces of artwork was the reliance and importance geometric shapes. As the artists focused on the future and technology, their hinderance to organic, natural forms grew. They pushed into a modern era of art after WWI, mostly full of color, geometric patterns, and art with seemingly no meaning. In addition, movement of the viewers’ eyes was also apparent as the geometric shapes act as lines to follow.
Yes, I agree. The emphasis on geometric shapes reflects the artists’ fascination with order, precision, and the mechanization of society after WWI. As technology advanced, many artists abandoned naturalistic forms and used clean lines with bold patterns. The use of lines makes painting more robotic and modernized. Additionally, some paintings feature repetitive patterns, which was not often seen in Impressionist paintings.
An continuity in the six Futurist piece shown above is the chaotic placement of object’s time and/or space. The movement of the subject is break down based on time and shown all together(like onion skinning in 2d animation), given an illusion of subject exist in multiple time and space at the same time. like viewers is watching from 4th dimension.
Some continuities in the featured Futurist artworks include the defiance of traditional art conventions and interest in motion and dynamism. Russolo’s The Revolt and Dynamism of a Car are both highly abstracted, and would be difficult to discern without the aid of the titles. Additionally, both explore motion through their use of geometric forms and sharp lines, guiding the eye towards the left and creating a sense of urgency. The same idea is seen in Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, which features a human figure in the midst of walking. The figure is bulky and weighty, and, through the protruding lines and posture, emphasizes the figure’s legs and motion.
To me its extremely clear that all of the futuristic artworks have some kind of layering or repeating subject. In the Revolt and Dynamism of an Car by Luigi Russolo he repeats the red arrow shape in the art pieces. I think the arrows are supposed to represent movement. In Revolt there is also a man who is drawn a bunch of time and he is reach out towards the direction of the arrow.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the contrast that this art has from previous eras of art that we have seen. Even just coming from Impressionism, which didn’t happen much earlier than this era, the Futurist art that we view has the closest relation to what I would call Modern art. Impressionism still used traditional techniques whereas Futurism seems to use different mediums such as painting, sculpture, and miscellaneous visual media. Additionally, one continuity between many of these images is that they don’t have much of a subject, but rather a more representative idea that they showcase. I think that these two ideas combined show Futurism as the tipping point where art becomes more modern.
I also noticed the similarity between what we today consider to be modern art! I agree that there’s a lack of subject; looking at the paintings, there isn’t a singular point of focus–instead, I found my eyes jumping around, trying to discern what the painting is supposed to depict. Futuristic art seems to be more thought-provoking, instead of showing off beauty or artistic mastery.
I noticed the continuity in the futurist art from the chaotic elements that are in the painting. The paintings having sharp angles and odd geometry make the paintings look abstract, yet it’s cool that the paintings look abstract as the future is random and unknown.
In the art featured above, at first glance, it looks detached and jumbled. To me, the pieces “The Revolt”, “Dynamism of a Car”, and “Armored Train in Action” look as though the artist painted a whole, cohesive piece, then chopped it up and reassembled it in this sort of jumbled way on purpose. Even though these three pieces look detached and random in a way, they actually fit together and have a fluidity to them. My eyes aren’t jumping to different parts of the painting but moving along it in a continual way and as a whole.
Some of the main features I noticed in Futurist art are the geometric aspects and the vibrant colors used in the artwork. Instead of realistic shapes and styles of words and objects, Futurist Art focuses more on the information it conveys rather than the object itself.
One key continuity I see between Marinetti’s manifesto and the painting Dynamism of an Car is that they both jump out of old-school limitations. As it’s mentioned in the manifesto, Futurism aims to “destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind” (Marinetti). The painting shows a completely new technique to depict the dynamism of a car, and I couldn’t even tell it’s a car without reading the title. Both the manifesto and the painting aim to break traditional laws and create new laws and new understanding of art.
You’re absolutely right! As I was reading your comment about the car artwork, I saw that the Futurist Manifesto writes about the future of transportation: “We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath.” The personification of speed as beauty seems to be the foreground of the artwork, with the bright red contrasting with the dark blue. The chevron pattern is bold, hiding the car—as if we, as the viewer, are to admire the power the vehicle holds, and not the vehicle itself.
A contrast between Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto and Gino Severini’s Memories of a Journey is the celebration of violence and rejection of the past. The manifesto calls for a break against nostalgia and memory while Severini’s painting embracing it. The name of the artwork itself ‘memories’ suggests a lingering attachment to personal experiences that come from the past. This tension highlights how individual artists interpreted Futurist ideals differently, sometimes blending personal reflection with the movement’s obsession with dynamism and progress.
A continuity between Marinetti’s Manifesto and the futuristic art is how both are clearly centering motion as power. Marinetti is treating speed like it’s a religion… he literally says that a roaring car is more beautiful than a classical sculpture. Boccioni is taking that energy and running with it then sculpts a figure that doesn’t feel human anymore. It’s all flow, movement, and momentum. It’s not standing still but becomes something as It moves. The text or the artwork care about perfection or what’s traditional. They care about the energy, transformation, and pushing forward no matter of what’s getting let behind.
Exactly. Boccioni’s character doesn’t even exist unless it’s in motion. it’s not just walking it seems like something is pushing it. This matches Marinetti’s obsession with speed being the new beauty. They both don’t like things that stay still, still things are weak. the Statue doesn’t care about being aestheticaly pleasing or human, it wants to show power, change, always going forward. Even the messy and abstract parts of the sculpture feel intentional. Chaos becoming part of the power.
I feel that Marinetti’s manifesto is aggressive and obsessed with war, speed, and destruction. He even says that he wants to glorify war. But when I look at Severini’s Memories of a Journey, it feels the opposite, emotional and nostalgic. Instead of violence, it shows a fragmented, almost poetic sense of motion and memory. This contrast shows that not all Futurist artists followed Marinetti’s extreme vision.
One thing the Futurist Manifesto talked about was how the futurist movement will glorify war, as militarism and patriotism are “beautiful ideas worth dying for.” This can be seen in the painting “Armored Train in Action” by Gino Severini, where you see blue robed figures firing rifles from an army tank. It is not painted in a negative, commentary on war manner, but rather a glorifying manner where they are the center and only subject of the painting. By immortalizing this in painting, he is carrying out the futurist movement’s manifesto of glorifying war.
The connection you make from the manifesto to a specific factor within Severini’s artwork is really thoughtful and helps clarify the message both Marinetti and Severini are trying to send. Although, I ask myself if I truly think that the artist is contributing to the glorifying movement of war or unbiasedly projecting the shared values of the movement in the best way he knows how: Art.
The Futurist Manifesto declared that instead of Italy being known only for its Renaissance paintings and ancient Roman statues, it would begin celebrating the speed, technology, and power that reflect modern life. I particularly noticed how chaotic each of the futuristic paintings seemed and the strong emphasis on movement. The shapes and bright colors also jumped out to me and made it seem like the painting was alive with energy.
I agree, specifically the Armored Train in Action by Gino Severini, really expresses the manifestos appreciation for speed, technology and power in the aspect of war. The manifesto glorifies war and violence and specifically sees it as rational to let go of the past and fight for ideas and expression. I believe that the painting shows that glorification with the people guarding the train and the train moving fast enough to see the clouds and the trees. The use of angular shapes really highlights the speed and urgency of both the movement and the future.
A prominent continuity between Futurist Manifesto and Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is the theme of constant movement. Marinetti writes “4. We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed,” which relates to how Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is meant to be seen in-motion. Both Boccioni and Marinetti portray a very modern take on the future of art.
I agree, the Unique Forms of Continuity in Space shows forms of constant movement and displays one of the aspects of the Futurist Manifesto. Another aspect of the Futurist Manifesto that I thought connected to this artwork is the theme of breaking norms. Martinetti states, ” Why should we look back, when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible”(Martinetti 21). The artwork also shows very different and unique artwork that strays away from the norms similar to perhaps older renaissance artwork that focuses on the revival of the past.
In “Manifesto of Futurism,” the second line describes that “Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry” (P21) and this spirit is shown in The Revolt by Luigi Russolo by the numerous red figures who are dynamically depicted in a shape of a triangle, running towards the other side of the painting. The triangular lines pointing at one direction adds to the dynamism and shows the pushing force in a revolt. The color red in the painting shows strong passion and courage needed in a revolt.
I agree with your analysis. It is also interesting to mention how the buildings are angled towards the mob. Perhaps that is signaling that they are approaching them, and the distance between the two is shortening. This detail may also imply that the buildings are pushing against the people being on an opposite angled plane.
In Marinetti’s 1909 manifesto the car that he is driving ends up crashing due to two bikers on the road. Marinetti describes these bikers as people with “contradictory argument” as him (Marinetti 20). This highlights how the car represents modernity, speed, and technological progress (all futuristic ideas). The Bike on the other hand represents the past, tradition, outdated ways of life (traditional ideas). By the bikers causing the car accident it suggests how the fast-moving future will inevitably collide with the resistant past. It also suggests that there is a need for this tension, and conflict in order to build the future, and overthrow the past. This is seen in Luigi Russolo’s painting, Dynamism of a Car painting. In this painting we can see the car in motion, highlighting dynamism, through the use of bright colors, and repeated fragmented shapes. I can also see the tension of when past and future collide through these jagged, repeated shapes. It looks as if the car is not only shown moving through these repeated shapes, but also that it’s struggling to progress. This struggle may show that the past does resist, and that it takes conflict and obstacles in order for the future to be built.
I think a continuity can be seen with Severini’s “memories of a journey” and the Manifesto specifically when it mentions ” Time and Space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed”. The painting itself defies all rules of space and time, there are giants, random buildings, a lot of crowding, flashes of color and more. There are no rules to which the future is bound.
I love how you mentioned Marinetti’s assertion that we “live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed,” as this definitely correlates with the futuristic works; we can pinpoint a certain aspect of the works and notice that there’s no defined ending (or in other words, the painting appears endless). Not only do these paintings suggest an unboundless future, just like you had mentioned, but these paintings also convey the idea that society could also learn to yearn for this future that is unrestricted; Marinetti also touches upon this aspect of appreciating the future, stating that, “When the future is barred to them, the admirable past may be a solace for the ills of the moribund, the sickly, the prisoner… But we want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong Futurists!” (Marinetti 23). Marinetti’s account of also having the readers come to value the future aligns with the Futurist artworks also encouraging the appreciation of certain aspects, such as the “flashes of color” in which the future entails.
One key continuity that I found between Marinetti’s 1909 Manifesto and the artwork the Revolt by Luigi Russolo was that they were both about some sort of revolution or rebellion. This is kind of ironic because the manifesto is about rebelling against libraries and museums by destroying artwork and the books inside them while Luigi Russolo’s painting is literally a painting that you would find in a museum. Either way they both give off the same message about rebelling and fighting for futuristic changes. One line in particular really stuck out to me when it came to comparing the manifesto and the artwork. “Art, in fact, can be nothing but violence, cruelty, and injustice” (Marinetti 23). Even though art work can in fact be something other than violent, cruel and unjust, Luigi Russolo’s painting does support the claim made in the manifesto because it is a painting of a revolt which is usually a violent rebellion against something or someone.
I agree and would like to further develop on the continuity between the theme of violence in the manifesto and the theme of violence in Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt. Both consider violence to be a cleansing force that will bring about a new and improved society. One of the most visceral examples of this idea in the manifesto is when Marinetti wrote, “We will glorify war – the world’s only hygiene – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.” While in The Revolt, the wave of people is glorified as a revolutionary, destructive force that comes to destroy the old order.
Severini’s ‘Armored Train in Action’ visually embodies Marinetti’s Manifesto as it holds a special focus on the glorification of war, speed, and mechanized power. The painting’s fragmented and dynamic composition are significant characteristics to me as it seems like the manifesto’s call to glorify war and its fascination with machinery. The train and soldiers are fused into a sot of rhythmic force, which seems to symbolize how Futurists saw war not as destruction but as an energetic expression of modern life.
The Cubist works look just as abstract as the futurist art and also include many everyday objects. However, these paintings seem more cubic rather than geometric with multiple shapes. These everyday objects can be seen in The Table by Juan Gris or the Violin and Palette by Georges Braque. However, one distinction factor I see is that I don’t see an dynamic aspects in these art pieces like in the futuristic pieces. These pieces actually seem like a still image to me and physically capturing a moment in time without have a moving image. I would also like to add that these pieces are more relevant to music which can insinuate that music was growing at this time.
Yes, I agree with you. The point that futuristic art has a focus of motion and dynamism whlie cubist art focuses more on stillness is really insightful. Besides that, one similarity I found between futuristic artworks and cubist artworks is that both of them introduce new technique to paintings and break traditional laws. For example, the painting Still Life with Chair Caning by Picasso uses a rope to surround the painting, merging a 3d object with a 2d painting. Futuristic artwork like Dynamism of an Car by Luigi Russolo uses abstract geometrical shapes to show the dynamism of a car.
The first thing that stuck out to me about cubism compared to futurism was that the colors used in cubist art were much more muted and more natural-looking. The futurism artwork was much more intensely bold and contrasting, one example being Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt. While the style of using sharp, linear patterns is present in both art pieces, Georges Braque’s Homage to J. S. Bach has a softer feel, with its earthly grey-toned colors. This speaks to how we view the future: optimistic, bright, modern, compared to the way we view our current culture.
You bring up a really insightful comparison between the color palettes in Cubism and Futurism as it is true that Cubist works like Braque’s often lean into more subdued, earthy tones, while Futurist pieces like Russolo’s are much bolder and more vibrant. That difference does seem to reflect contrasting emotional tones or cultural views. Another perspective to consider is that the muted tones in Cubism might not just reflect a commentary on the present but also a desire to strip things down to their essential forms. It’s like a deep dive into perception itself. In contrast, Futurism’s intensity and color could reflect its embrace of speed, noise, and the chaos of industrial progress. I feel, at least, that in a way, the difference might not just be about optimism vs. realism, but also about what each movement prioritized in terms of experience and meaning.
That’s an interesting observation that you made about the color choice and how that relates to people’s feelings about the future. To further add on to that, the shading and as you mentioned contrast of colors between the two art styles I think has a role in people’s views on the present and future. The shading in Pablo Picasso’s, Still Life with Chair Caning, is smooth transition, a softer gradient that to me feels like contempt, safe and known. However this greatly contrasts to its futurist counterpart in which as seen in the painting you pointed out in Luigi Russolo’s “The Revolt”, the colors are bold, shading is virtually nonexistent, harsh lines and daring colors breeds a feeling of risk, adventure and a sense of almost optimistic unknown, giving the impression of the future they long for.
A similarity that I see between this Cubist works and the Futurist art is that there is a lot of texture within the images and they also include different shapes and shades to make a contrast and make the images pop out. Also, in a few of their artworks you can’t really tell what is happening in the image right away so it allows people to have different perspectives on what they are seeing. However, something distinct that I noticed with Cubist’s work is that they use more of nude and dull colors in most of their art and there is not much movement, it’s more stagnant.
The connection I immediately put together was the idea of the image being warped. In the futurist art, the thing being depicted is changed, it’s lines fade into the background and it is more interpretive then it is realistic. With the cubism art, things are interpreted through shapes. Picasso shows his distinct style of people, with miss-aligned eyes, blocky noses, and unusual head shapes yet they’re are still human (though that may be because Picasso’s style is just that iconic). In a more aggressive interpretation, Braque breaks down the original idea completely. There may be a table at the bottom, and there is a fragmented violin (Bach did play the violin and viola), but the piece is extremely abstract. Some parts of the image seem to have shifted around, which blend together with the seemingly random lines.
I think your point about distortion being a shared element with both is spot on. What I want to add is that while Futurism distorts for speed and chaos (kind of capturing energy mid motion), Cubism seems to be more focused on fragmentation. In Violin and Palette, the image isn’t just blurred into abstraction but he dissects each component and rearranges them across multiple perspectives. It doesn’t seem random but more so structural and even architectural. I think that Futurism leans more to emotional intensity and Cubism forces the viewer to slow down and construct meaning from it.
A similarity between the Cubist works and the Futuristic works we explored last week is that they both use shapes in order to create an image intended for the audience to see. For example, in Georges Braque, Violin and Palette (1909) the painting uses a lot of rectangles and trapezoids in order to create an image of what appears to be a violin. However a difference between the works is the lack of color from the Cubist works compared to the Futuristic art. For example, Georges Braque, Homage to J. S. Bach (1911-12) uses a limited amount of color and the color choices are such dull colors which make the painting look sad.
One thing both artists have in common is the way they break things apart into pieces, showing them from different angles. Rather than making their art look real, they focus on the shapes and putting things together. Futurist’s art is full of motion while the Cubist makes art feel more calm.
I agree with what you’re saying, I believe these cube paintings make the audience feel more like at piece, looking at the different pieces at different times. I feel like it is a way to represent objects from various perspectives, which is different from a traditional single view point. I feel like it is a way to show things for what they really are, instead of what they look like as a whole.
I think something that makes the arts similar is the way they both use certain shapes to create the art. For example in last weeks futuristic, Luigi Rujssolo’s “The Revolt (1911)” seemed to be created in triangular shapes turned to the side in order to create the art piece. In this weeks images I’ve noticed that in all of them there are certain shapes (specifically squares) that make up and create the image.
One quality that these Cubist works share in common with the Futurist art we examined last week is the emphasis on dynamism, speed, fragmentation, chaos in unity, and being non-traditional. There’s also a link between consumerism (through the items used for collage) and industrialism (means of production, machines, electricity, automobiles, etc.), as well as the presence of multiple layers. Clement Greenberg argued that collage helped revolutionize the development of modern art by creating an optical illusion of shifting planes and spatial ambiguity, challenging the viewer’s perception of space. Hopkins discusses the contradictory nature of modern life, especially the tension between photography and painting and the challenge of achieving a unity of material. However, a key difference is that Futurism is more violent, chaotic, and utopian, while collage is more critical and reflective. In the paintings, there is a lot of juxtaposition, with different forms and perspectives, though the colors are not as vibrant and dynamic as in Futurism. The bodies are in different positions, and there are different textures, letters, templates, superposition, patterns, shapes, and forms.
Despite using lines in a similar fashion to futurist art, I noticed that cubist art has colors that are much more faded and also that it feels more ‘directionless’ than futurist art. That’s not to say that that the art feels pointless, but rather that the art isn’t going in a literal direction like futurist art did. With futurist art, there was a car or people moving towards something, but with cubist art, they seem to be standing still so the art feels vivid but stagnant. Overall, I specifically enjoyed Baroque’s “Violin and Palette” the most because when I unfocus my eyes, I can still see the outline of a violin, and appreciate how the colors work well together. I feel as though this style, when contrasted to futurism, focuses more on giving an artistic look to the ordinary.
Compared to Futurist Art, Cubism is similar in the way they use geometric shapes and movement to guide the viewers eye. Futurist art, however, is more dynamic and seems to be moving in one direction against tension. Cubism is more stationary and lacks the same quality of movement. Additionally, cubism lacks the use of bright color that is present in futuristic art. The Cubist art is much more neutral toned.
Looking at the Cubism compared to the futurist art you can see some similarities. They both maintain an abstract quality of sorts with emphasis on shapes and geometry. A lot of the abstractness looks to come from the geometrical a layering characteristics that make it more interpretive and less definable, especially compared to more classic or romantic art that is more soft and fluid rather than harsh.
One thing I think distinguishes Cubism from Futurism is Cubism’s use of multimedia in their art. Greenberg states that artists would use objects like sand, wood grain, and marbleized surfaces, along with more classical materials like charcoal and paint. This adds a tactile aspect to the art, incorporating visual textures and layers. This adds another layer to art that distinguished itself from the smooth continuous surfaces seen before.
Yes I completely agree with you Amilia! These artworks share their sharp edges and “hidden messages” I see the same idea of art made within art as we see these shapes be made of everyday objects. Something I can see that is different compared to the futurism work is that these paintings are less “loud” they don’t use as many bold colors. I see more neutral colors with maybe one pop of color that really speaks out at you.
The Cubist works above show similar dynamic composition and liveliness as the Futurist works from last week. Both works consist of sharp overlaying shapes that catches the viewers attention in order to paint specific scenes. Similar to futurist works, certain cubist works are chaotic at times becomes hard to determine the center of the painting at first glance. However, the most noticeable difference between cubist and futurist works is the active motion that is portrayed. Futurist works are painted to show the concept of constant energy and motion-using angles and arrows-whereas the Cubist works seem to portray a single still movement or posed images.
I really liked your insight on how Futurism seems to show motion while Cubism shows stationary work, while still both maintaining a chaotic theme between them. I wonder at the relation between this and the time period these works emerged. Europe was in a great period of tension as these were the years leading to World War 1, and I feel like the chaotic nature of these paintings might reflect the chaotic social situation in Europe.
Futurism and these cubist artworks share a lot in common. Some of these qualities is the way that the art uses its chaotic nature with sharp edges and irregular lines to create a more abstract image that isn’t alway easy to understand what the picture is. It creates a similar feel to what you see when you look at the futurist artworks where you may have to look at it for a while to start to understand the image.
I also had this idea in our discussion last week, that artists use lines to create abstraction. Although, you dont mention how the cubist work relates more specifically–I would have liked to read your thoughts.
Cubist and Futurist artworks both share the quality of form fragmentation: They split objects and figures into further unrecognizable geometric shapes. It can be differentiated that Futurist pieces emphasize fast motion by using repetitive diagonal lines to display a sort of dynamic energy. On the other hand, Cubist works tend to feel more static, their main goal being to present multiple viewpoints of a still subject at one time.
Last week we examined Futurist art and one of the things we determined that was a quality of futurist art was the use of the abstract formation of modern objects. In the Cubist pictures we can also see the same qualities, as the use of extracting parts of modern images, and organizing it in an abstract way is used. However, what differs is the colors used for these forms of arts. Futurist had colors that were brighter and more contrasting while in Cubism the colors blend in and complement each other.
The use of different colour palettes is an interesting observation. I wonder if there’s a reason futurism uses brighter colors compared to Cubism? Perhaps we associate vivid colour with the hope of the future and dullness of Cubism with our current reality.
The most obvious similarity between cubism and futurism is the geometric features. This is apparent because in pieces like Still-life with Violin and Palettethe strings of the violin don’t even connect and the violin is very blocky and fragmented. Greenberg explains that cubist art, “interpose[s] a kind of photographic space between the
surface and the dimmer, fragile illusoriness of the Cubist space”(Greenberg 1). This focus on creating pictures within pictures goes against the traditional proportions of realism and is similar to other futurist artworks with geometric features that also reject traditional realist proportions to focus on abstract visual messages.
I think both styles heavily utilize hard shapes and angles to produce contrast and outline. For example, one futurist artist we looked at was Luigi Russolo. His paintings “the dynamism of a car” and “the revolt” both feature a series of distinct angles and bold colors to create the message. In Cubist artworks such as “The Table” and “Violin and Palette”, both paintings contained a series of sharp, jagged shapes that represent objects and scenery.
Cubism and Futurism both seem to utilize identifiable shapes and bold colors. However, Futurist artwork typically contains themes of war, movement, and technology. Cubist art, on the other hand, feels more still and focuses on specific poses.
There is an immediate similarity between Cubism and Futurism in the way both genres use geometric and sharp shapes in place of traditional, realistic curves. In both last weeks paintings and the current paintings, it is pretty difficult to distinguish what these abstract shapes are supposed to be. In particular, Georges Braque’s “Homage to J.S. Bach” is confusing to make out what the subject of the painting is without reading its title or having knowledge of who J.S. Bach is.
Cubism and Futurism are very similar especially “Juan Gris, The Table”. The use of geometry and abstractness with different colors. What I do find different is the range of color. The futurism paintings are more bright and neon-like compared to the cubism which is more of a pastel color. Also futurism focuses on the speed and motion of the picture that’s being painted which I don’t see displayed in cubism.
A very interesting aspect I noticed when comparing Cubism to Futurism is the difference in movement. In futurism, like with Luigi Russolo’s “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of an Car,” there is movement and action being represented in the artwork itself. On the other hand, with Cubism, there isn’t movement that can be seen in the artworks. It’s as if Cubism is more focused on the form. For example, In Georges Braque’s “Violin and Palette” You can tell that the image is still, with it’s main focus being the abstract shapes that form into a violin. There is an abstractness to all of the art pieces shown, yet each of them create a defined shape using abstract imagery.
A similar quality in both is the distortion of the form. Representations of humans are not necessarily proportionate, but are more meant to broadly represent types of people. The sharp lines of futurism have also carried over, with some differences in the use of different media.
Similar to last week, there are many distinct shapes and colors used. There weren’t and still aren’t that many colors being used; and if there are, they are being used as contrasting colors to define other aspects of the painting. Additionally, There are fine lines used to distinct different shapes which is also seen in many of last weeks paintings. Instead of adding elements to tell direction of the painting like the paintings from Futurism, the cubist artists decided to add texture instead. This was done so by adding sand into the paint, or physically attaching cloth to the canvas.
I believe that Cubist art should be classified as expressive rather than mimetic. The reason why I think we should classify these pieces of art as expressive is because they are very abstract and unique. When looking at these images many different people could have entirely different interpretations of the meaning behind the art. That in my mind is what makes these expressive, because of the fact that these are symbols of self expression it is up to to both the creator and the viewer to draw their own conclusions and make their own assumptions about the meaning of the art. Also, I feel that in order for art to be mimetic it must be something that all people can universally understand and come to a similar conclusion for the meaning of the art.
While both the Futurist art and Cubist art include many distinct lines and shapes in their work, I noticed that the Futurist works have more movement than the Cubist art does. While there are lots of actions taking place in Cubist art, it seems as though it’s almost stationary, and does not flow as much as Futurist art does.
Yes I agree! As we saw last week in Futurist work, Luigi Russolo, Dynamism of an Car, the painting had a movement of how lines and shapes were placed. However, Cubism seems motionless while trying to depict an object. Such as in Pablo Picasso, Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass, Picasso used a collage of shapes to portray a guitar and a geometric sketch of a wine glass. This demonstrates that both Futurist and Cubist use shapes and lines in a more abstract way than the traditional work of art. However, Cubist chooses an object or image and makes it abstract by recreating the image with shapes.
I agree with the “stationary” observation of cubist artist. Additionally I think that when I look at Futurism, I feel rushed, pressured to take action. With cubism, I can take my time, look at the shapes, the way they are placed, and not feel an impending sense of doom looming over me. All of the cubist works above have bright, but muted colors. The emphasis is on the shapes coming together, merging what was separate. With Futurism, it felt desperate, less curious, and more rough.
one thing I really noticed that makes them similar is the use of shapes in both cubist and futurism is really important. They both pick a shape and use it over and over again to create a magnificent art piece. Georges Braque uses lines over and over again to create Homage to J. S. Bach (1911-12)
I definitely agree that both Futuristic works and Cubist works share this quality of utilizing shapes and patterns to convey their respective messages. Despite the similarities that we both noticed, I also noticed that the Cubism pieces tend to have more dull-ish colors in comparison to the Futurism pieces; for instance, Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt can be seen with a vibrant mix of colors among the people, indicating a sense of progress. On the other hand, Georges Braque’s Violin and Palette does not have this blend of vibrancy and can instead be seen with a mixture of different beiges.
I also agree! I think that in both Futurism pieces and Cubist work the artist is not limited or scared to use a mixture of colors and shape. The choice and complexity of the shapes and colors, the art expresses a specific shape in its own unique way. Like the “Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass” by Pablo Picasso, it only uses a couple random shapes to illustrate a composed guitar, despite using few resources, it still portrays a vibrant yet calming image.
One key quality that Cubist and Futurist works share is their rejection of traditional perspectives in favor of fragmented viewpoints. Both movements looked towards an unnatural representation, capturing movement, time, and space in new depictions. The work by Georges Braque, Violin and Palette, displays the unique transformation of pieces just like Futurist works that use shapes and formatting. A key distinction between the Cubist and Futurist is notably the colors used. Futurist art is dynamic, aggressive, and often glorifying speed using vibrant colors like red, blue, and orange. Cubist art is more restrained, like in Georges Braque, Homage to J. S. Bach, where the colors are muted and dull.
I also noticed a change in the vibe of the two art styles due to color. Cubism here definitely seems slightly more dreary and dull, while the Futurism pieces were kind of neon and bright. I wonder if that has something to do with the time period/things the public was experiencing during the different times.
One similarity between Cubist works and Futurist art is that the objects are not directly depicted. The audience can identify what the artists had drawn, but it is not the shape or look that we are used to. It has more lines and angles in the artwork. For example, “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” by Pablo Picasso depicted the naked women, but he used only straight lines to draw the women. Last time in the discussion, the class talked about futurist work that is geometric in shape and not directly depicted.
Yes, and i feel like this is an common traits shared by artists that close to modern times, for they began to see art not as a reflection of reality but as their own expression. Picasso also experienced this shift in art style; from academic art to the Cubist. The use of geometric shape reflect how artist in this period is affected by technology.
One thing that makes these Cubist works distinct from the Futurist works we examined is what they attempt to portray. For the most part, these Cubist works depict still lives of objects, such as in Georges Braque, Violin and Palette, which, though not painted from a realist perspective, is clearly a stationary violin. Whereas futurist paintings attempt to portray machines and motion as seen in Luigi Russolo’s Dynamism of a Car, which uses arrows to depict a speeding car. Despite both art styles rejecting realism, they focus on very different things. Futurism has violent connotations, whereas Cubist works have a much more peaceful feel.
I agree, the art from futurism seems to emulate movement and emergence. The colors in the art compliment the approach as well. There is a contrast however in the cubist, which has a mellow feel to it.
One quality that I noticed the Cubist art works shared in common with the Futurist artworks was the use of geometrical shapes. For example in the Cubist works you see lots of squares and angled shapes. The same goes for the Futurist artworks with the sharp angles and points depicted in the artwork. Something that makes them distinct that I noticed was how different the colors of the artwork was. For the futuristic pieces they were more colorful and bright and stood out more. For the Cubist works the colors seem to be more dull and muted,making them not pop out as much.
In comparison to the Futurist art, the Cubist The static state of the object. Cubist artist combine the still life images observed from different angles, where the Futurist shows the movement of object. Such as in Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, the prostitute are posing for him, the curve of body is not emphasis but rather stiff. Which in Dynamism of an Car there more life to the car due to is movement.
I agree, theres is a difference between the stillness and motion represented in the two types of work. However, I believe both showcases the innovation through the perspective of art and energy.
One key aspect that I noticed as a similarity between the two types of art is the concept of reconstruction and remodeling. Both Futurism and Cubism attempt to capture the essence of the future. Futurism showcases the motion and energy, while Cubism represents a new perspective in art. For example, in Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Picasso remodels human faces facing in different directions into one, representing multiple perspectives simultaneously. Both of these concepts were new and an innovation. However, there are also some significant differences between the two styles of art. One difference that might be more of a personal opinion to me is how Cubism appears to be more feminine than the masculinity of Futurism. My favorite artist, Marie Laurencin, who is often overlooked in the Cubism category due to her distinctive style, was a significant influence on Picasso’s feminine style in his work.
The Cubists share a focus on geometric shapes with the Futurists. There are very clear angular shapes used by both to create their art. However, the Cubists shapes are seemingly more stationary in comparison to the Futurists movement based shapes.
Cubist and Futurist artworks share their abstracted and convoluted forms in common, rejecting naturalistic representation in art. Futurist art uses abstracted geometric forms to depict the motion and dynamism of objects. Cubist art, on the other hand, is stagnant, inviting more careful observation by breaking objects down into parts and reorganizing them to create a coherent image representative of multiple perspectives simultaneously.
After studying both Cubism and futurism it seems as though one of the key parallels between the two styles is there emphasis on fragmentation as a way to represent a modern experience for the audience.This is shown in all of these pieces where there is a lot of overlapping planes that oppose the typical/traditional type of confines that are had been bound to. However, while Futurism uses fragmentation to evoke more dynamic movement and speed, Cubism seems to me to be more focused on analytical observation, by offering a slow and intellectual unpacking of form rather than an energetic rush forward.
I think Cubist art should be considered more of an expressive art because it uses the colors and geometric patterns to form the subject matter in an abstract way. For example, in Violin and Palette, the violin and scenery appear to be pieced together, while letting the green and blue colors to be both the shadow and the intensification of the violin. Instead of just imitating reality, the artist seems to create his own, letting the colors and the meshing of shapes to be his emotional interpretation of the scene he paints.
It’s easy to interpret Cubist collage as expressive when looking at pieces like Still Life with Chair Caning, or Guitar Sheet Music and Wine Glass because of their bold shifts with form and medium. Hopkins, however, helps me view them as reflections of a modern state rather than merely as expressions or attempts to mimic the outside world. I think these collages can’t be considered works of raw emotion on canvas, nor do they portray reality in a conventional mimetic manner. Rather, they appear to be something else altogether — they seem to assemble reality in a way similar to modern life itself: fragmented, complex, and hybrid. Cubist collage, in my opinion, takes on a completely different meaning when viewed through Hopkins’ wider cultural perspective. It is more about understanding the world in all its new complexity than it is about expressing something.
Cubist collage should be considered a sort of expressive art because it uses distinct shapes, colors and contrast to create a representation of the modern world. Hopkins reinforces this idea by saying that modern creators, especially those of Cubism, take apart pieces of reality and fantasy to put them together to “metaphorically recreate the complex reality in which we actually live” (Hopkins). Cubism doesn’t imitate reality in its exactness or dramatize certain aspects, but rather picks and chooses the important parts to show how the artist views modern life. It is expressive in its personal feelings about the state of the world and personal choices in how one wishes to depict those feelings.
I don’t think Cubist collage should be classed as either mimetic or expressive art because collage is a technique, not a meaning. We don’t assume all oil painters are mimetic so why should we force collage into one label. In Cubist works the collage is a way to construct meaning through literal layering and different material. It doesn’t have to imitate reality or the artists inner thoughts but it could. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon could be interpreted as a depiction of reality (the human body) while The Table reflects the artists inner feelings on the whole debate and Cubic Collage as a whole.
Cubist collage doesn’t really fit into just mimetic or expressive categories. I think it’s kind of its own category. Hopkins talks about collage as more of a mindset than a style, where real and artificial mix in confusing ways. For example, in Still Life with Chair Caning, the chair pattern is printed but it’s treated like it belongs in the painting. The artwork messes with what’s real and what’s fake on purpose. The goal isn’t to copy reality or to show personal emotion, but it could be to reflect how complicated and disjointed the modern world feels.
I think that Cubist collages should be a third leg between Mimetic and Expressive. Picasso’s “Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass” really drew on this idea, that when you have the right pieces, even if they aren’t related, you could describe the atmosphere of the indulgence of music and creativity. For me that piece represents the idea of being in a coffee shop and gives a sense of leisure, using the different parts of objects, you could create an object like the guitar without necessarily having to paint it. That abstractness can give a sense of meaning without having to literally put it on the page. The Cubist Collage can be a representation of the way we see and think of objects literally but it also has the expressive qualities of abstractness.
I completely agree! The prominent objects and ideas in a majority of cubist art is unclear at first, but expressionists try to capture an unfiltered view of reality. The works by Picasso, Braque, and Gris can all be interpreted differently depending on the viewer. For example, upon first glance, Pablo Picasso’s Still Life with Chair Caning comes across as an oppressive pile of work and newspapers. At the same time, I see a playful and somewhat nostalgic setting of a cafe.
While I believe that Cubist collage can certainly be considered a distinct category from purely mimetic or expressive art, I do think it is closer to expressive art than to mimetic art. The artists combine real objects and geometric shapes, but they do not aim to represent the real world directly, so I don’t believe Cubism is mimetic at all. Rather, Cubism attempts to incorporate different viewpoints into a single piece, using creative materials such as cloth of various textures and hues. Presenting multiple perspectives in one painting is a novel approach that aligns with expressive art, as it encourages the viewer to imagine and reflect.
I believe cubist art can be easily categorized as expressive art, because it has the ability to reflect the artists feelings towards a modern world. In Hopkins writing, he argues collages are expressive of “a philosophical attitude, an aesthetic position that can suffuse virtually any expressive medium” (Hopkins 1). Instead of producing art that mirrors reality, cubic artists express the feelings the modern world.
I think Cubist collage should be strictly classified as an expressive art. Mimetic art, I believe, should be reserved for realistic paintings that depict scenes, landscapes, and the ordinary physical world. In Hopkins’s article, he contrasts Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s 1900 painting called “Reclining Nude” with René Magritte’s 1941 painting “Personal Values.” Reclining Nude is a simple painting of a woman lying on her side, completely nude, which perfectly fits the definition of mimetic art, as it attempts to imitate the human body from the male gaze. Hopkins himself says, “Nothing belongs to a contradictory world of thought, feeling, or technique.” Personal Values, the Cubist collage, is the perfect example of expressive art. The depiction of the hair comb, wine glass, and everything else looks very realistic, but their placement and setting mean something different. Why would a huge hair comb, four times its normal size, be placed over a bed in a dollhouse? The proportions and placement suggest something beyond what our eyes can see—that is why Cubist art is purely expressive and not mimetic.
According to Greenberg, cubism is a way to play with the concepts of reality and imagination. The addition of outside substances to a canvas or an original flat piece allows for a kind of depth previously not experienced in art. For example, in Georges Braque’s Homage to J. S. Bach, his addition of the name Bach in capital letters, located in the center of the piece, takes the viewer’s attention and grounds him in a two-dimensional space, while the rest of the piece plays with depth and shadow. This allows for two ways of viewing this piece, and makes it seem like Braque is trying to get this piece closer to reality by including the letters, which exist in the real two-dimensional plane of the paper. I do not think cubism is mimetic or expressive; instead, it is a different kind of art, a conceptual one that has to do with art getting closer to reality while being reinforced into imagination.
The Cubist Collage is definitely expressive art. It doesn’t seem imitative in its design; all paintings listed above look painfully unique and convey a strong sense of emotion. The artwork forces the viewer to glance over it multiple times, as there are multiple details that wouldn’t be caught upon first sight that impact one’s interpretation of the piece. I experienced this looking at George Braque’s work. At first glance, it appears that I’m just looking at neatly placed grey splashes on a canvas. But after a second glance, I see a Jesus fish, paper molded into a cross-like shape, and lines of sheet music (Braque, Violet and Pallet, 1909). The artist appears to be drawing a connection between religion and music, and the grays on the canvas can allude to the moral gray area that religion as a whole has with music; as music evolves, does it delve further away from a monotheistic God?
I think that Cubist Collage should be classified as mimetic art because it is a very authentic version of reality. Hopkins described collage art as a recreation of “the complex reality in which we actually live” (Hopkins 4). It’s through the chaotic whirlwind of pictures and pieces put together in an almost messy way that perfectly reflects how complicated and chaotic life actually is. This same idea is seen in Pablo Picasso’s, “Still Life with Chair Caning” (1911) where there is a mixture of an actual photograph of a chair and also parts of the artwork that has been created and painted by Picasso. This mixture of mediums and materials, and mismatch of styles highlights the mismatches and complexities of real life. As a result of Cubist collage art representing life in a very authentic way, I feel that it could be classified as mimetic art. This is because mimetic art is a mirror or a portrayal of real life, something that Cubist collage does.
I believe that Cubist collage leans towards expressive art rather than mimetic art. One instance of this is when viewing Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, it is clear that Picasso did not want to imitate a figure of a woman like how one would do when creating mimetic art. Rather, Picasso seems more focused on capturing the emotions of the woman through enhanced focus on their body language and physical features. Although both this piece and Cubist collage in general lean towards expressive art, I don’t think that Cubist art is completely expressive since it lacks the emphasis on emotions that most expressive pieces utilize. It is evident in pieces like Van Gogh’s The Starry Night that emotion is much more blunt, whereas in a piece of Cubist collage like Pablo Picasso’s Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass, it is not as evident.
I think it should be classified as expressive art, as it is defined by playful curiosity of texture, style, and image. For example, Picassos still life with Chair canning feels like a constant build up of ideas, a little glue here, a little paint there, ultimately encompassed by an untraditional frame. Similarly, collages are made not to imitate life but express our feelings towards it. It is a meditation. So perhaps, cubism is a meditation in itself.
I agree! I like your wording of “playful curiosity” in terms of exploring different ideas within an artwork. As Greenburg said in his article, “the imaginary planes are all parallel to one another; their effective connection lie in their common relation to the surface,” which I believe somewhat echoes your idea that collages are not supposed to imitate, but express subtle feelings. In saying that there is a common connection between throwing all sorts of textures and styles onto a piece, with the connection of the surface itself bridging the artist’s feelings into the piece, there is a valuable expressive quality in Cubist collages.
I feel it should be defined as expressive art as it is about one’s own subjective experience and their use of artistic techniques to convey feelings and emotions. For example, in Picasso’s Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass (1912), he uses cubism, collage work, exploring new ways to play with art. He even uses different types of paper like newspaper and sheet music, showcasing his expression through interesting ways, even incorporating the word “Le Jou” which I looked further into, and could poke fun at the french work for “play” or “toy”, further showcasing how cubist collages could be more seen as expressie than mimeitc.
I think that Cubist collage is more mimetic than expressive because you can see objects, for example, violins being formed by putting non-violin-like pieces together. You can see the violin being formed, the sporadic colors and shapes that are purposely placed by the artist to portray something specific. On the other hand, the art of cubist collage does feel more expressive than other forms of art. Even though pieces like Violin and Palette and Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass prove that the art is trying to mimic something, it’s done uniquely maybe to show how they feel about that subject in particular.
I half-way agree with this! You’re right that Cubist collage is based off of reality, with even attempts to transcend the 2-D plane, as explained by Greenberg. “because you can see objects” is why I leaned towards mimetic, but then I read Budd Hopkins, on one of Picasso’s works, say that the “painted
areas appear to do the impossible: to exist flat and intact on a surface that is seemingly full of holes. The ‘real’ and the ‘artificial are thus locked into an open-ended equation which contains no fixed terms” (Hopkins) In this case, the “real” is mimetics, and the “artificial” is the expressive. I don’t think the two are fighting–rather, they work together to create something new, in-between being mimetic and expressive.
Something that caught my attention was Hopkins’ take on the way in which Cubist art was capable of expressing things grounded in reality. In reference to a nude Renoir painting, he states that “For its admirers it is a lovely escapist dream, far from our jarringly complex modern reality. By comparison, the Picasso work embraces the disjunctive nature of that reality” (Hopkins). This shows a distinct contrast between traditional art and Cubism, as traditional art was seen as mostly aesthetic rather than as a means by which an artist could “metaphorically recreate the complex reality in which we actually live,” which is what Cubism aims to do (Hopkins). Because of this, it would make sense to classify Cubist art as expressive.
In my opinion, the cubist collages can be seen as both mimetic and expressive art. If mimetic art is art that is an imitation or representation of nature or reality and expressive art is focused on self-expression and emotional communication, then the cubist collages should be seen as both. Example of the collages being both mimetic and expressive is Juan Gris, The Table (1914). It’s seen as mimetic as the painting shows recognizable objects like a bottle, glass, newspaper, and parts of a table, which we use daily in the real world, and the painting is seen as expressive as the overlapping and geometric shapes create a sense of multiple viewpoints plus the colors and the contrasting textures adds to the emotional impact and overall expressive quality of the painting.
Class enters “The Waste Land” in the section “A Game of Chess.” The section begins by describing the elegance of this woman’s home and it depicts all the luxurious items that are present in her household. Upon my first read, I didn’t notice the juxtaposition between the richness of the house and the feelings of sadness and emptiness that are symbolized. For example, in the poem it talks about these gold Cupid figurines where one is supposedly hiding and another is closing it’s eyes. That was the first part of this section that made me realize that there is more to what the author is trying to say about upper class society. There really is this sense of emptiness, loneliness, and lack of love. The use of describing even the chair she sits in as a ‘burnished throne’ really sells that idea of money not necessarily being the answer to everything. And the realization that the modern world full of promises of the ‘good life,’ where riches and money can fill you with almost anything, can’t compensate for true connectedness, spirituality, and real love. It’s almost like coming to terms with what the modern world is doing to society and the consequences of such.
I really like your interpretation of “A Game of Chess.” It does seem like the wealth and luxury that the person has has not helped them be happy in anyway. I wanted to add about the part where the women starts talking about how she took pills to try and look younger it seems but she says how it didn’t work which just shows how the stress of trying to be perfect has caused these wealthy people to become overwhelmed with feelings of sadness and emptiness like you mentioned. Even though they don’t have any problems living day to day like lower classes, they are not happy with the constant perfection expected of them I guess showing how everyone has problems.
Yes I completely agree with you Chris in the fact that Eliot show two women of different classes to show that everyone has problems at this post war time. In the second part “The Game of Chess” Eliot describes two women, one of high class, and one of low class. Both women don’t have the best relationships with their husbands. The rich lady feels ignored by her husband and expresses this by saying, “speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.” (Elliot, The Game of Chess). This suggests how even though the rich lady and her husband are close in proximity, they emotionally feel very far apart. It also shows the loneliness and isolation the rich woman feels. The women from the lower social class are also struggling, just in a different way. The working class woman has had five pregnancies and is taking pills “to bring it off, she said. She’s had five already, and nearly died of young George” (Elliot, The Game of Chess). This highlights how the woman is trying to end a potential pregnancy with medicine that may not be the safest. This emphasizes the working class women’s emotional and physical exhaustion of having to constantly meet the demands of marriage and motherhood with little to no support, highlighting her suffering shaped by class, and alienation. By presenting both of these women from different social classes, Eliot reveals that in the modern wasteland, class does not prevent anyone from disconnection, isolation, and even alienation. The only difference is the type of struggle. This disconnection, isolation, and alienation both women feel reflect the emotional and spiritual condition of the world, post war.
I really like your interpretation of upper class society, and how the promise of money does not make a person feel content. I would like to add that throughout the poem there are many references to reflection and looking inward. There are many references to a window in the woman’s home. For example, Eilot references synthetic perfumes attempting to drown the fresh air coming from outside the window. I think this may be pointing to the idea that although there are many attempts to conceal the misery of high society, you will eventually be forced to confront it.
To answer the second question we see Eliot reference the loss of life in World War 1 very early into the poem. His very first line, “April is the cruelest month, breeding lilacs out of the dead land,” displays how the mass death that has occurred continues to haunt people. The spring season is supposed to come with feeling renewed as new plants grow and flowers begin to blossom. However, through imagery Eliot paints the picture that despite this period of renewal it is clouded over by the large number of lives lost and people who have perished. Eliot contextualizes war as tearing apart the world and leaving both nations and society fragmented and empty. He paints the picture that the world is filled with trauma and still trying to recover from the despair that has occurred. Following the aftermath of the world things have changed so drastically that those living have trouble adjusting to the new world they live in.
In The Waste Land, readers can infer that class structure is introduced in the second section titled, A Game of Chess. In this section of the poem, Eliot witnesses a wealthy lady with a lot of furnishings, however, she admits that she is experiencing hopelessness; she appears distressed as she is thinking about her love life. Eliot then shifts the focus onto another woman named Lil, who is also experiencing hopelessness as her pills are effecting the way she looks. Although both of these women come from different backgrounds, Eliot leaves readers with the sense that regardless of social class, individuals are all still the same.
I agree on your observation about hopelessness regardless of social class. Even with wealthy surroundings, they do not protect her from these human feelings of despair and loneliness. Lil, who is working-class, struggles with hopeless for different reasons by health issues and overworking. Eliot uses these stories to highlight ghat no matter social class, we all still suffer from our own troubles and worries, breaking the illusion of rigid social classes having separate issues. This ultimately showcases how regardless of class, we all suffer and fight our own battles, usually experiencing similar emotions.
The rigid difference in class is shown especially in “A Game of Chess,” where the first half of the section features a richly decorated, almost suffocating interior filled with luxury. These descriptions of the upper-class setting provide a stark contrast with the second half, where the working class is depicted as casual, chaotic, and miserable. Quotes such as “HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME” show how these women deal with everyday survival, birth control, bad marriages, exhaustion, as well as the fancy, luxurious lifestyle the upper class lives. However, Eliot also reveals the anxiety and pressure that the upper class experiences, despite living a seemingly perfect and relaxed life.
Yes, and I think you’re absolutely right to point out how Eliot contrasts the suffocating luxury of the upper-class interior with the chaotic pub conversation of the working class. I’d add that this contrast isn’t just social, but it’s also linguistic. In the second half of the section, Eliot shifts sharply into a colloquial or even fragmented dialogue when he says “He said, I swear, I can’t bear to look at you. And no more can’t I, I said, and think of poor Albert…” To me, this sudden informality and directness of this speech feels jarring after the earlier allusions to Shakespeare and Ovid. This rupture in his speech could be mirroring a broader collapse in communication between social classes.
In one of the opening lines, the poem states, “mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain” (lines 2-4). Through this, the poem seems to contextualize the war as something that forces someone into the joy of their past. The desire of what someone wants can only being found in their past as the war invades their present. Moreover, it could mean how war kind of stops a person’s life and any desirable living could only be found in past memories until the war produces something different from before.
That’s really interesting insight! When reading the previous line alongside the one you quoted, there is a further sense of seeing the joy from the past:
April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing […]
The poem seems to highlight this natural beauty that still exists within the land despite the war. It demonstrates how something as elegant as lilacs can be viewed in a somber way, and how human nature can invade physical nature.
That’s a really insightful take on how conflict can make people long for what they’ve lost by trapping them in their memories. To add on, Eliot’s line “mixing / Memory and desire” implies more than just nostalgia, it’s almost as if longing and the past are blurred together. This combination of desire and memory implies a sort of psychological dislocation which is also seen in the poem’s fragmented structure. Time itself appears to be scrambled by war, which does more than just ruin the present. There are only traces of the past to cling to ands no clear path ahead, and maybe this is why the poem has the impression of a collage, with parts reflecting the fragmentation of both society and individual identity.
That is a really good insight, I didn’t even notice that it could represent the past. I want to add on to that with the seemingly contradictory line she added right after “Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow.” I feel like this also puts the war into perspective because winter is known to be a cold month but because the deaths were so painful, that even winter became so warm to them. The author makes the winter sound comforting even by saying “covering Earth in a forgetful snow.” I feel like this line is trying to say that the snow is covering up the dead bodies of the victims. Overall, the author really uses a cold season to represent warmth to emphasize the pain that came from the war, which really contextualizes the war. It helps us imagine how bad the grief was and puts the Earth into perspective as well. Even the Earth feels sad that there were so many victims.
Yes, I agree with you. When I first read the lines “Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow, feeding A little life with dried tubers” I was confused, as winter was usually depicted as bitter and cold. But in this poem, April became the cruellest month because of the war and winter was something gave people warmth. I really like your interpretation of using cold season to emphasize the pain of war. The cruelty of the war was portrayed as even colder than winter itself. Also, the “forgetful snow” covered ruins of the war, making the city appear more peaceful or even “warmer” in contrast.
One key moment in the poem was when Eliot writes, “If there were water we should stop and drink… Here one can neither stand nor lie/ There is not even silence in the mountains/ But dry sterile thunder without rain” (lines 331-343). These lines contextualize the war as a draining experience. The dryness of the war would drain these soldiers not only due to the lack of necessary resources but also emotionally. The dryness would leave them to wither due to no access to water to help sustain their bodies but also because of the trauma from the sounds of bombs and ammunition. Emphasizing the lack of water, the poet wants the readers to appreciate the littles things like water. Even if there was water in the mountains the soldiers did not have the opportunity to just stop and cater to themselves.
Yes, I think specifically the line “But dry sterile thunder without rain,” is symbolic of the rest of the poem. The thunder is symbolic of the war itself, and the group avoids it while in search for life, water (in this case rain). While I am not doing very well at interpreting the final part of the poem, I think the fact the thunder continues reflects the trauma the group still has. While they have gotten what they wanted, life and possibly normalcy, the thunder continues, the scars of war.
I like your focus on the imagery being dry in representing the emotional and physical toll that comes from war. It really shows how much the soldiers were being trapped in a world that offered them no type of comfort.
I completely agree with your response, I feel like with these lines, you can perfectly picture them in your mind, what soldiers go through. With your analysis, it really makes you think about life and the things you should be grateful for. Even when war ends, life continues but the trauma from war is still there, so it never really ends in your own head and world.
“Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.”
This quote contextualizes the war by capturing the psychological aftermath of the war. The way he uses “death” in this quote is not only to describe the loss of so many in the war, but also to describe the survivors and how they are feeling. He also uses the word “fog” which helps bring a sense of sadness and loss in order to emphasize how the war has made the survivors lifeless in a way.
I agree with your analysis and find the next lines after your quote interesting as well, “Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.” Because, to your point, it highlights how the survivors felt about living. There is relief in their sighs, but also shame as they look down at their feet. It’s an interesting switch between the feeling that one has escaped death but must exist in life.
Yes, and the quote insinuates how much a person can’t really imagine the traumatic scenery of war. One can only truly know when they are there in person, seeing it before their eyes. Moreover, the brown fog could represent the cloudiness of eyesight when it comes to death as a consequence of war because what was once life in a popular place is now a place of death and a scene of war.
“ I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing.” (Game of chess)
I think this quote shows how war makes people lose themselves which causes a loss of their life. Here the character is relating to a rat in ally, afraid of who or what is going to come in. Like a rat they fear for their lives. The comparison to the rodent also show how they view themselves less than in the moment. I believe this shows the dehumanizing moments of war and how the life of a person can be lost even before the die, due to how they have to live in fear.
Yes, I totally agree. I also noticed this line and how Elliot is showing the aftereffects of war and how war can affect a person mentally. In a line just a couple after what you quoted, Elliot writes, “I remember / Those pearls that were his eyes. / ‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’” (II. A Game of Chess). This reminded me of PTSD, and how people can come back just a shell of themselves after war. He witnessed death and he can remember the eyes of those that died, and because of that, he becomes a fragment of who he used to be. He, like many others, already lost his life because of what he has experienced due to war.
In the beginning Eliot writes “Unreal City,/Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,/A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,/I had not thought death had undone so many.” Eliot uses the image of Londoners on their daily commutes to show how the War has turned the world they once knew into a devastation. There is something more than just physical loss almost a cultural disintegration taking place. The focus on the real life cost of war rather than the heroism contextualizes WWI as the true tragedy it was, not just a country rallying event.
Yes, and it’s not just the bodies that were lost but something deeper, like the spirit of the place? The line about London Bridge reminded me more of ghosts than people. It’s a weird thought because the city is still functioning, people are still walking and commuting, but everything appears dead inside. Elliot seems to be commenting on how the spirit of everyday life was killed too, not just people.
T.S. Elliot frequently mentions winter in relation to the war. In the beginning of the poem, he writes, “Winter kept us warm, covering/Earth in forgetful snow,” a line which establishes a clear irony that one could take comfort in something cold and dreary. Later, he writes “under the brown fog of winter dawn/A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many/I had not thought death had undone so many” once again bringing back the idea of winter. I think in these lines he is pointing out how the deaths of the war haunt everyone- no one escapes the loss and hardship that war brings. Here, he phrases winter as not a source of comfort but an unfortunate backdrop to the losses and destruction of war. I think these two separate interpretations of winter refer to perceptions of war before it begins and after it ends. Usually, there is a lot of patriotism and support before a war, and a pride in fighting for your nation. After the war is over, however, all that is left is a sense of devestation, regret, and loss that takes hold of everybody.
I love your interpretation of this poem. It’s true that winter and sorrow are closely connected in an ironic way. I appreciate how the poet used imagery to depict the dead of winter and employed natural scenery as a metaphor for the dead. I especially liked the fifth line in the second stanza: “And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief, and the dry stone no sound of water.” Water is the origin of life, and the dry stone without water is a powerful depiction of a sad, lifeless winter. The dead tree, resulting from the lack of water, also implies the death of people caused by tragic war.
I agree with your analysis of the “Winter kept us warm” line. It is also interesting to mention how this is a kind of aphoristic language similar to a Nietzschean phrase. “Warm winter” may be implying a kind of transcendence of knowledge of the destructiveness of war. The devastation of this war caused a transformative experience for people who had to endure it.
At the end of The Burial of the Dead, Eliot writes about a crowd of people, presumably dead, that wander through London. This part particularly stood out to me as the narrator calls out to one of the men, recognizing him in the sea of souls. Not only does this scene highlight the derealization of people affected by war, but it also calls to the loss of community members. When the man asks if “the corpse [he] planted” is going to bloom, it felt like an eerie callback to the beginning of the poem. According to Eliot, life blooms from death as we are inextricably tangled with loss; the effects of war will always stick with us.
I agree with your analysis. Eliot does write a lot about the bitterness and sorrow of the aftermath of war. As you mentioned, the beginning line of the poem, “April is the cruellest month” uses the irony of April being a month of rebirth to show the pain of remembering the pains of war. He continues with the usage of seasons and months when he says, “winter kept us warm” to further this irony of the cold keeping them warm. The cold numbness is better than the spring because it numbs the pain of war. He also later says, “summer surprised us” to show the alienation from war. The line in German that appears later proves this because it translates to “I’m not Russian at all, I come from Lithuania, truly German.” showing the alienation people felt at the time with their identity.
Eliot describes the devastating aftermath of the war and the toll it took on the people of England. In the line “A crowd flowed over London bridge, so many, I had not thought death had undone so many”. This quote highlights the sheer devastation caused by a war since the people couldn’t even comprehend that wars can be so deadly. It puts into context the grim atmosphere of the environment at that time.
I completely agree with you Donald. I definitely think this poem expresses to us the aftermath of the war and its negative impact to society. The quote “ What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow. Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,” made me realizes that the war left their city to be a sad place. It no longer felt like home in a way. It was hard to feel connected to a place that no longer had “life” in it. Everything became so lifeless not only from so many people passing away but also within nature.
Towards the end of the poem Eliot writes
” Datta: what have we given?
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment’s surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed
Which is not to be found in our obituaries
Or in memories draped by the beneficent spider
Or under seals broken by the lean solicitor
In our empty rooms” (Eliot 54). This stanza highlights how the deaths due to war were not fully captured in memorials which left many to grieve an un-reassured pain. Without closure many resorted to pushing the pain down, rather than being able to face it.
The quote, “My nerves are bad tonight. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you are thinking. Think.’
I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.”
Reminds me of how veterans came back with PTSD and wouldn’t want to speak about their experiences with war, but it was all they could think about. Constantly thinking about being in the trenches (rat’s alley) and his comrades decomposing (losing their bones).
I’d have to agree with your take, and to add on there’s such urgency in the lines you mentioned. “What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking?”. These words are disorienting, adding to the feeling of PTSD that many soldiers face after conflict.
I agree with you as this specific part of the poem reflects the numbness that those who experienced war felt. In the following lines it says, ” I remember Those are pearls that were his eyes. ‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’”. It represents the fragmented pieces of horrid memory that the soldiers carried. The eyes of many dead people who they were forced to look at, and play like a broken record within their minds. It becomes difficult to ground themselves with reality (“are you alive or not”), as many of them experienced an emotional death during war.
I agree Ava that this moment between the man and the woman signifies a kind of shell shock in the man and emotional distress in the woman. I think interactions like this were common during that time period, especially since it was shortly after World War I which was the deadliest war up to that point.
This is a very great point Ava! The Waste Land does a great job describing the emotion and thoughts of those who suffered from shellshock (what they called PTSD in World War One). To add on, shellshock also caused the person to hallucinate sounds and images of their trauma as well, creating a greater source of panic and anxiety for those who suffer from shellshock. For example, In part II “A Game of Chess,” the two main characters talk to each other, stating,
“‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing.
‘Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing?’”
This interaction highlights the hallucinations the characters are facing due to World War One.
I agree with you. The PTSD that soldiers come back home with makes them distant because there are the unspeakable terrors of war. Additionally, they aren’t able to go back to their original lifestyle anymore due to what they experienced. They are never able to remove themselves from the scene that forever haunts them.
In Part 2, A Game of Chess, there are mentions about a character named Lil who is judged by society for her appearance and for having multiple abortions. This speaks to the social standards to which women were held in order to be suitable wives to their husbands. Rather than being independent and money-earners, women were expected to be in the home and ready to take care of her husband’s kids (when they eventually came). For Lil, her declining appearance at only 31 and her foregoing of having a child with Albert are qualities that make her an unattractive wife. If a woman cannot possess those two qualities, then she is not useful to a man. This was the unfortunate reality that kept many women restricted and dependent on their partners in life.
In “The Waste Land”, a moment where T.S. Eliot contextualizes war in the poem is when he writes “I remember
Those are pearls that were his eyes.
‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’ ” I believe this comments on the shell shock (now known as PTSD) that soldiers experienced seeing such traumatic images during their time in the war. The wife of the soldier is trying, at no avail, to get him to continue living life as it was before the war, but all he can think about is what seems to be the death of a fellow soldier.
In the beginning of the poem that is being contextualizes the war it says
“Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.”
(Lines 2-4).
Spring usually a symbol of hope, however in the beginning of the poem, “Lilacs out of the dead land” (Line 2), it is used as a reminder that rebirth cannot erase the past nor scars of war. As well, suggests that even as nature tries to bring back to life, the past still remains, which causes grief, “Dull roots with spring rain” (Line 4).
I also looked toward the beginning of the poem to notice the impacts of WW1, similarly noticing the line of lilacs and spring. There’s an interesting connection between memory and desire, with the physical connection of dull roots and spring rain that is happening in these lines, and it makes me think that the dull roots and rain are almost physical representations of the memories lost on the battlefield. Rain is often seen in a more sad and pessimistic way, and the word “dullness” combined with the “lilacs out of the dead land” really calls attention to the humanistic feelings lost because of the War.
This interpretation of Spring here is certainly correct. Even further, the first line literally calls out April as “the cruellest month” (line 1). Then on lines 5-6, Eliot praises Winter for “covering Earth in forgetful snow”. This shows that anything that hides the horrors of war is a positive, even if i might normally be bad. This irony of spring being bad and winter good shows the upside down nature of war.
This moment happens later on in the poem, but something that really intrigued me was this section of T.S Eliot’s writing:
“Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth
Ringed by the flat horizon only
What is the city over the mountains
Cracks and reforms and bursts in the violet air
Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal” (T.S Eliot).
I thought it was really interesting how the warfare of WWI was being compared to the destruction of the great, ancient cities of Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria, which were all violently destroyed and ravaged at some point in their existence during ancient times. The way that this is written categorizes Vienna and London in the same way as these cities, sort of in a tone that suggests that once, (before the war), these places were also two of the “great” cities of history, but now that they have been consumed by war and destruction, their fate will be the same as the three previously mentioned cities. Additionally, I interpreted the world “unreal” in the last line as an exclamation of disbelief that even in “modern times,” all-consuming war such as WWI is still a reality. The destruction that occurred in Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria is not just a feat of the past. This contextualizes the horrors of war in a way that makes it universal across both time and peoples.
I really like your connection that the destruction of the ancient cities of Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria is a reflection of the destruction wrought in the First World War of London and Vienna. I would like to add how this doesn’t just reflect the physical destruction of these cities but also the tearing down of the old orders they represent. In their time, Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria were cultural centers around which their society was built. Their destruction, like the destruction of London and Vienna, marked a shift as an old order fell and a new one arose. This societal shift post World War One can be seen by the rise of fascist and communist ideals as well as the rise of economic protectionism.
Early in the poem Eliot quotes “Unreal, City, Under the brown fog of a winter dawn, A crowd flowed over London Bridge, som many, I had not though death had undone so many.” In these lines, Eliot compare people crossing london Bridge to a crowd of the dead. He uses this image to show how World War l left people feeling empty and broken inside. Even though some survived they are like ghost.
I also thought that the line “I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring.” in The Burial of the Dead part of the poem could be describing the dead people walking around lonely, with no where to go, similar to how you described them being empty inside.
The lines you mentioned also stood out to me, particularly because “unreal” is a term he returns to twice in the poem, each in reference to post-war London. I saw it as his attempt to demonstrate the pervasiveness of alienation and meaninglessness in modern London. He writes “Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled / And each man fixed his eyes before his feet” after the first mention of “Unreal city” and “Unshaven, with a pocket full of currants” after the second. They walk with their eyes glued to the ground, almost in an avoidance of their misery as they’re forced to move on with their lives after a transformative, catastrophic event. They leave their homes unshaven, a subtle display of their grief. The “politeness” of the emotional response is disorienting to Elliot as he recognizes the collective resignation and emotional numbness of modern society. They are hopeless—the living dead.
Halfway through the poem, Eliot illustrates the image of “The river sweats Oil and tar The barges drift with the turning tide Red sails Wide”. I think that the phrase of “sweats oil” may be a reference to the oil of probably war tanks or just overall a reference to the industrialization occurring during the war. I also think that the color “Red” mentioned may be a reference to blood. Wars are bloody, specially WWI as it’s considered as “The Great War”. For instance, in a soldier’s perspective their vision was entirely red as they were surrounded by wounded and dead soldiers.
The red is a good catch–it’s odd he uses the color instead of just saying blood. In the part where the thunder talks, it says “After the torchlight red on sweaty faces / After the frosty silence in the gardens / After the agony in stony places” (Eliot). There’s a contrast between the hot and cold, perhaps showing the heat and exhaustion of war with the finality and coldness of death. There’s more instances of heat and sweat (the need/looking for water), which is something that can only be quenched with water–I wonder what the water symbolizes, since it’s used in so many different instances.
A key moment and comment where I think the poem The Waste Land contextualizes war are the lines 20 – 24 of part three of the poem “The Fire Sermon”. It states
“Musing upon the king my brother’s wreck
And on the king my father’s death before him.
White bodies naked on the low damp ground
And bones cast in a little low dry garret,” (Elliot).
To me these lines sound like he is talking about the aftermath of war with all the naked dead bodies around on the ground, and bones lying in a room that I learned was either an attic or the top floor.
Eliot’s use of Hindu scripture in The Waste Land complicates the kind of Orientalism that we saw in the Royal Pavilion. Brighton’s chinoiserie and the Mughal domes exoticized the East for British aesthetic pleasure and ego but Eliot’s invocation feels less like a display of power and more like a search for wisdom outside the West. By the time we reach the scripture, the poem already cycled through greek myth, Shakespeare, and Dante , only to find them too hollow. Eliot doesn’t display the East as decoration but reaches towards it as maybe a spiritual safety net. Still the gesture isn’t fully free from Orientalist framing. He doesn’t engage the eastern tech in depth and uses it symbolically
Yes this is my interpretation too. Rather than use Hindu Scripture out of feigned interest or showing off like we see in the Royal Pavilion, Eliot uses it in a grasping way. He cannot land on a fitting and deep enough reference or allusion I guess. By branching out to Hindu he is symbolically grasping and branching out for spiritual meaning. It is not done in a disrespectful manner but an embracing one, which I think sets Eliot apart from the similar attempts and examples of orientalism.
Eliot’s use of Hindu scripture is definitely more thoughtful than the orientalism of the Royal Pavilion, but it’s still part of that tradition in some ways. Orientalism, as Edward Said describes it, is about the West using the East as an exotic “other” which often simplifies or romanticizes Eastern cultures to serve Western needs.
In “The Waste Land”, Eliot doesn’t use the East as decoration, but he still treats it as a kind of symbolic fix for Western spiritual emptiness. He doesn’t really engage with the full meaning of the “Upanishads”, he pulls a few lines to give the poem a sense of closure or depth. So even though his gesture feels respectful, it still fits the orientalist pattern of using Eastern ideas to patch holes in Western identity, without fully understanding or honoring their original context which initiates complexity surrounding orientalism and its frequent use.
The orientalism seen with the scripture written in “The Waste Land” draws many parallels to the same practices at the Royal Pavilion in Brighton, despite the century difference in time. The Royal Pavilion has a strong sense of orientalism due to the representation of a certain cultural, however picking a choosing favorable parts and disregarding those deemed “unfavorable”. While it does represent a cultural, it does not pay respect to it and simply uses its traditions as decorations. I believe that this is the same orientalism seen in Elliot’s poem, “The Waste Land”. The phrase in its context almost used as a garnish to his written work, It’s not used to recognize the people of this language, its used to rather use the language as a design choice, similar to The Royal Pavilion. It feels almost ironic given the origin of the language and its people and what he talks so gravely of that, it gives off the impression of orientalism even if it wasn’t intention, as with The Royal Pavilion.
I really like how you connected The Waste Land to the Royal Pavilion. You made a great point about how both use parts of another culture without fully respecting or understanding it. I think Eliot might have used the Sanskrit at the end to give the poem a sense of peace or meaning, but since he doesn’t explain it or go deeper, it can feel like he’s just using it for effect. Just like the Pavilion, it ends up taking something meaningful from another culture and using it in a way that fits a Western point of view. Even if that wasn’t the goal, it still comes across as a bit shallow or unfair.
Eliot’s mixing up of the phrase Damyata, Datta, Dayadhvam into Datta, Damyata, Dayadhvam is similiar to the orientalism we saw in Brighton in the sense that the phrases were not used in the correct context that the native culture used for. This disregard for the correct way of saying the phrase and telling of DA as some exotic god in the context of a western hellscape is similar to how the Royal Pavilion treats its dragon objects. It takes inspiration from exotic culture and, maybe unintentionally, puts in into a European context. In the case of the dragons in the Royal Pavilion, they had wings and were next to snakes which were bad luck. In the context of Eliot’s poem, I feel like it really displays DA and the Hindu sayings as closer to ancient mythology, as he paints the environment using the cries of a cockrel and talks about Datta “giving” like it is about the sacrifice of his friends.
I agree that Elliot’s use of Da, Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata was misused to fit the European context of his poem, similar to how the Pavilion was not accurate in their depiction of dragons, adding wings to them to fit the European ideas of dragons. Another example seen in the Pavilion is its outside architecture, which is inspired by Indian buildings; however, it is not entirely accurate. It is again what the Europeans think Indian architecture looked like, as they had only seen pictures of buildings in India. This relates to your statement of how Europeans would not accurately represent the culture they were pulling from, such as China and India, and would misuse it to fit what they thought was right.
I agree with this heavily. I think that Eliot’s usage of Sanskrit and Hindu phrases is disrespectful if he does not heavily subscribe to that religion. I am not super familiar with Eliot’s personal or spiritual life, but it reads similarly to the Orientalism found in the Pavilion.
I agree with your view on the use of Sanskrit words at the end of the poem. The inclusion of these words would resonate more with me if Elliot and the rest of Britain truly honored how Hinduism and Indian culture emphasize peace and harmony. However, the lines are so short and scattered that this message doesn’t fully come across. Unfortunately, misrepresentation of Indian symbols and language still happens today. The first example is when people get tattoos in different languages that don’t mean what they think they do, often misrepresenting symbols and characters of the language (such as yoga symbols, Hindi, etc.). The second example is when Western media insert sacred texts in inappropriate contexts; during an intimate sex scene in the movie “Oppenheimer,” the woman reads lines from the Bhagavad Gita while topless. The Orientalism seen in the Royal Pavilion continues today, with the same misrepresentations and neglect.
The Royal Pavilion exhibited a shallow, flashy Orientalism, while Eliot’s turn to Hindu scripture at the end of The Waste Land feels much quieter and encourages ponder. The repetition of “Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata” isn’t used just for show–it represents a final grasp at meaning after all other factors (Western myth, religion, language, etc) have failed. Eliot seems sincere of his use of this principle, but something isn’t right about how its presented. Eastern philosophy isn’t explored deeply enough and is only just inserted right at the end–like the East is just an aid to patch up the West’s crisis.
In the end of the poem, the words “Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata” mean: to give, have compassion, and control. In Hindu scripture, these words/phrases relate to graciousness and spiritual grounding, but through an imperial lens it has a more negative tone- especially the words to give and control. The Royal Pavilion’s interior seems to dance around being “given” these ideas from Chinese and Indian cultures, but also takes control of it, turning what was given into something they can control and make their own- ie: traditional Chinese dragons to “European” dragons with wings. This is what the translation of the Hindu scripture reminded me of in connection to the Pavilion.
I didn’t know those were the translations to the Hindu scripture he’s using, but it definitely adds to the western ideal of interpreting Asian cultures for repurposing them. Just like the Pavilion, Eliot is making use of Hindu scripture for personal reasons, however, it’s done with different intentions. The pavilion made use of East Asian cultures for decoration, to project power, and western fantasy ideals. The mixture of Chinese art and artifacts in rooms for leisure and dancing, only added to the controlling factor the Pavilion had over Chinese culture.
The final section of Eliot’s “Waste Land,” uses Hindu scripture similar to Orientalism at the Royal Pavilion by selectively borrowing and reinterpreting cultures for the Western narrative. The Royal Pavilion used elements of Asian culture, similar to how Eliot is using Indian culture without full immersion from a Western perspective. Eliot quotes Da, Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata as a form of spiritual instruction, “The sea was calm, your heart would have responded Gaily, when invited, beating obedient To controlling hands” (Eliot). Just like the Royal Pavilion, Eliot writes of the Hindu scripture in parts, fragmenting Indian culture for a Western framework. However, unlike the Royal Pavilion, Eliot is genuine in searching for insight from the Eastern view, acknowledging “These fragments I have shored against my ruins Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe” (Eliot).
I agree, Eliot may have not fully understand how to use Hindu scripture properly, but still gave their best attempt to make it accurate. Just like the Royal Pavilion, they may have not fully understood the meaning behind the culture, but still gave it their best shot on trying to be accurate and understand the culture.
In “How Superman Would Win the War,” it states, “Superman is the extension of their dream, and proof that Americans still like their fantasy raw.” I feel like this also relates to characterization of America because Superman becomes an extension of how America wants to present itself (strong, mighty, acting on behalf of mankind, etc.) in the illusioned reality that all their actions are for the good of mankind without any mal consquences. Superman was glorified as he became very popular amongst the people, so his flaws and mistakes aren’t as publicized as the villain’s. Instead, the flaws of his actions are brushed aside, similarly to how the ill effects of America’s actions were often indirectly dismissed through the emphasization of the seemingly good intentions for the ‘whole’ of the people in comparison to how bad it could have been as visualized through the propaganda used during the time.
Your point about Superman as a symbolic projection of America’s self image is well taken especially the idea that his popularity helped obscure the ethical gray area of his actions. It reminds me of how comics like this let the U.S image itself as the moral hero without having fully face the consequences of intervention. Even though the government didn’t sponsor the story, it still functions like propaganda because it creates a world where doing the “right thing” is simple, and America always plays the savior. The black and white framing leaves no room for the realities of war or politics which feels dangerous when you think about how many people take this comic seriously. Its less about truth and more about comfort for the readers and even national ego.
Yes, I agree with you. In all three comics, the superheroes’s purpose are the same: save the world from war and resume peaceful lives. America’s purpose is represented by these superheroes, who intervene in the war with the goal of ending it. America is always portrayed as just, strong, and willing to fight for what is right. One detail I noticed is that the cover of the Captain American directly shows the enemy of the America is the Nazi party. I think this comic is urging America to take action against the Nazis and bring peace back to the world.
These comics, especially “How Superman Would Win the War” and “Gary Concord, Ultra-man”, look to portray America as the country powerful enough to stop all wars. It pushes the idea that America is the one with not only the physical strength to overcome the power of their opponents, but also the rational reasoning to stop the nonsensical violence between the people. Superman has the abilities and strength to reach Hitler and Stalin, and then presents them before a rational government to be punished. Ultra-man physically stops the men fighting and reasons with them as to why they need to stop fighting. The comics portray America as the one with these abilities and it is their purpose to use this to stop the world from fighting.
Absolutely, I think you make a strong point about how these comics push the idea of America as both powerful and morally right. What stood out to me too was how easily the heroes end these huge conflicts like how Superman just grabs Hitler and Stalin and hands them over, and the fight is over. It really simplifies the concept of war and kind of promotes this idea that if America steps in, things can be fixed quickly and rationally. I wonder how much that may have influenced how people at the time saw America’s role in the world, especially with real war going on.
These comics use the superheroes, especially Superman it seems as representations of judgement and justice. Using them as the ultimate judges and powers in the wars symbolically represents America as the same thing. America is who ultimately makes the decision or changes the tides in a fight or war. Superman and Captain America use violence in the process of getting justice, and they are given all the praise and glory in the end despite the things they did to succeed. Similarly, America has done horrible things and committed atrocities in war, and yet presents itself as the hero who’s ends more than justified the means.
In all three comics, I notice that they portray America as the middleman who breaks apart the conflict. One example of this is in Don Shelby’s “Gary Concord, the Ultra Man” where Ultraman says to the two men fighting, “Stop fighting one another over two foreign powers who have no more sense…” (pg. 4). Since WWII is not inherently America’s fight, the comic demonstrates Ultraman sweeping in to save the scene—illustrating the need for the United States to step in to win the war against the Nazis.
You make a good point about America being presented as a kind of moral umpire—somebody who is not joining the battle for self-interest but comes in to set matters right. What I would point out is that it evolves over time, especially if you contrast the Captain America #1 cover, where Captain America does not just mediate but actually joins the battle by punching Hitler. In contrast to Ultra-Man, who tells the two men to stop fighting over “foreign powers” and acts more like a peacekeeper who is impartial, Captain America is an active partisan, confronting evil in a straightforward manner. This shows a shift in how superheroes and by extension, America is imagined. From an impartial problem-solver to a moral force who will get involved. The change reflects growing public acceptance of U.S. involvement in WWII, showing how comics continued to evolve alongside real-world opinion.
In the comic books, America is seen as a “peace keeper” or the bigger person. For example, in “Gary Concord and Ultra Man” one of the hero’s steps in saying “stop fighting one another”. In this case America is represented by the Hero indicating that America steps in when needed and resolves conflicts. In “Meet Captain America”, America is also represented by Captain whose job is to keep peace. This also intells that America is seen as the “problem solver” or the hero.
I definitely agree with your point that America is seen and supposed to be the “problem solver” in times of crisis. But it’s really ironic that America has also done questionable things in war but still puts itself on a pedestal.
As I read the Captain America comic I couldn’t help but notice that his creation as the symbol of the American military, specifically abroad, was prompted by fear that the U.S. army was being corrupted by German spies. Captain America was meant to be a vision for how America should act- stoic, patriotic, and ready for conflict. The title page of the comic shows Captain America punching out Hitler, a direct call to action for the United States. In a similar vein, the Superman comicstrip, which by virtue of being published in a magazine would be viewed by more than just children who like superheroes, shows Superman storming the Nazis before taking both Hitler and Stalin captive. Both of these comic stories feel as though they are urging the United States to enter and win a military conflict, because after all, that’s what America’s heroes would do.
I agree. I think that in a way, superheroes act as how people want their governments to act. I would almost label them a type of propaganda. Captain America, especially given how the character itself represents the US by name.
Specifically in the comic-book, “Case No. 1. Meet Captain America”, the portrayal of Captain America and by proxy America is one for great heroic nature, of like a savior. With only looking just at the cover, we see a strong, manly and muscular man, representing America, punching Hitler. Hitler’s men are attempting to defend him but the bullets they fire, simply bounce off of captain Americas body. There’s a small detail that I believe plays a major part in showing how America was represented, in which a paper titled “sabotage plans for U.S.A.” lay on the ground, showing America in almost a victim light. They are too under attack by the Nazi’s but they are powerful in the sense that Captain America is single handedly taking out Hitler.
These comics portray America as a powerful, morally superior force with a global responsibility to lead and protect. In Superman, America is the “savior of the helpless and oppressed,” defeating German troops with strength and intelligence. His ideal soldier look mirrors propaganda, pushing the image of America as a heroic superpower with the duty to reset the world order.
Ultraman shifts focus to internal struggles he appears during famine, riots, and unemployment, encouraging people to keep working: “What you need is work—Jobs!” He calls war a “foolish war” driven by “inhuman greed,” framing European powers as selfish and destructive. America, by contrast, is peaceful and focused on recovery, reinforcing its moral high ground.
Captain America is openly patriotic, wearing the US flag and punching Hitler. He symbolizes America’s readiness to fight for peace, with lines like “peace-loving America” and warnings about “invasion from within.” The comic encourages youth to join the military and protect the nation from foreign threats like “vermin” and spies. America is not just strong but righteous, stepping in to lead, save, and restore peace in a chaotic world.
America’s purpose in the world is to create peace in the world, and “save” the world from war and destruction. It is also to hold those responsible for destruction, chaos, and war accountable- in this case, the Germans/Hitler and the Russians/Stalin. The superheroes are depicted essentially as a placeholder for America, with the actions they take meant to be a dramatized version of America’s role in the world. We see this throughout all the comics, images of superheroes fighting evil-looking men in nazi uniforms, always ending it with the hero’s triumph (aka American triumph). Overall, America is seen to bring peace and protect the innocent- and because their intentions are good and true, they will always prevail.
I completely agree with you Amelia, that America’s role is to save the world from war and destruction and bring peace as well as protect the innocent. I also saw this In, “How Superman Would End the War”, Superman defeats Hitler and Stalin by bringing them in, highlighting America’s ways of imposing justice where international bodies fail. To add to your point, more than America bringing peace, I feel that these comics also show America as a needed force to create peace and justice. In the Captain America comic (on the first page) it shows Captain America punching Hitler in the face, reflecting how America needs to intervene to create justice in the world.
I agree with you that Americas purpose is to save the world. they always have. America is seen to be as the peacemakers, even when they have their own issues to resolve. The superheros are the placeholders of America – I like the world placeholder that you used.
I agree with your claim in the last sentence: “Their intentions are good and true”, and I think comic play into this narrative. America has no foreign tensions at this point and has remained political neutral and isolationist since it’s founding. The Superheros in the comics are portrayed as untouchable figured with the highest virtues, which are meant to represent America at the time. The Captain America comic ends with a block saying, “Join Captain America in his War against the spies and enemies in our midst who threaten our very existence.” With this, I would like to add that some of these comics are pro-intervention because they believe the war in Europe is a threat to American ideals, so they believe in fighting to not only “help” bring peace, but protecting American ideals.
These comics depict America has a global force of justice, leadership, and intervention in a world of international chaos. In, How Superman Would End the War, Superman defeats Hitler and Stalin by bringing them in, highlighting America’s ways of imposing justice where international bodies fail. In the Captain America comic (on the first page) it shows captain America punching Hitler in the face, also reflecting how America needs to intervene to create justice in the world. Lastly in the All-Star Comic, Ultra man defeats evil scientists and criminals, reinforcing the American strength and morality, highlighting how it takes American power to bring justice. All three comics convey that it’s America’s purpose to defeat all evils, defend the innocent and the good, and bring justice to all.
Rianah, I really agree with your point about America acting as an intervention in a world of chaos. I wanted to add, I thought the “Ultra Man” comic really related to your idea as well. In the end of the story, the superhero says “All wars are foolish, Mr. President! Untold suffering caused by human greed” (pp. 9). I think this point in the story explains how America will help out in times of need, but also realizes how stupid war can be.
Yes, I agree with your statement that the use of superheroes in comics created the perspective that America must stop this wrongdoing, as they are portrayed as a peace-loving nation (as shown on the second page of the Captain America Comic). I also wanted to add to your point that superheroes are perceived as good, and they fight what is evil. This characterization reinforces the perception that superheroes who are good fight evil, and is related to how America must fight this evil, as they are considered good, so of course they will fight against this injustice.
To add on to your point, the comic books are an exaggerated form of America’s supposed power. America isn’t as strong as the comics suggests, but the comics can negate that.
All three comic books depict America as the global peacemaker, acting solely for the good of humanity and avoiding unjust actions. Superman battles the evil Nazis, Ultra Man stops war in Europe to stabilize the global economy, and Captain America defends America while fighting against Hitler. America is portrayed as a global unifier, dedicated to righteousness and democracy, while defeating dictatorship. America is also shown as the heroes of the world, ensuring the safety and prosperity of the globe.
I agree with you Alec. These superheroes not only are seen as peacemakers, but they complete their jobs with ease. I think this is a really important detail because it reflects how powerful America is. Conflicts that have killed millions and plagued politics for years can be ended in a quick sweep by these superheroes. They transcend traditional and modern military might. This suggests that these superheroes are America’s trump card, who are capable of victory in even the toughest situations.
America is seen as the hero’s of society helping to resolve world wide issues. I noticed this because in the Superman comic we see him in an altercation with who is believed to be a nazi. Often times superhero’s are seen as life savers, problem solvers, and someone you look up to so overall America is being well represented. And America is also seen as superior compared to other countries.
Although each of the comics display a different setting or tone to get their message across and suggest the global role the United States should play in. They all have a continuity when it comes to what they are saying the US should do in global affairs. All of the comics suggest that is the United States responsibility to intervene in global conflict and act as the unifying force between multiple nations and governments. It’s suggests that the United States have the influence and power to restore order in the world and we should be doing that. Whether it’s by setting the example or by having a direct impact these comics want the United States to enforce peace.
I agree Luca, all these comics depict America, through various figures such as superman, as the righteous protector of the world. So when there is a threat to world peace, it is America’s duty to intervene. I also thought it was interesting how America is portrayed as an invincible force that can basically achieve anything yet chooses to use its power for good.
These comic books aim to encourage people to be pro war especially in a time especially under wilson when people were anti-war and believed in the idea of America first. It creates the image that to be heroic like captain America you need to be pro-war and it substitutes superheroes with the US to make the parallel that fighting nazis is heroic. It also paints the idea that the US will bring peace and justice across the world while the enemies like nazis are supervillains trying to cause world destruction. In the captain America comic captain America essentially substitutes the role of the US in the world and brings world peace fighting the supervillains who are nazis..
In these comics, America stands as a symbol of “goodness” and moral rightness. The emphasis on America as a “peace-loving” country frames America as the strong, steady moderator of the world is acutely political. America does not want to involve themselves in other countries’ matters, until they have to swoop in and save the world.
In each comic the reoccurring theme is America’s responsibility to fight against injustices and ensure peace in the world. A clear stance on war is portrayed in the Super hero comics as they paint a picture of senseless war that effects innocent civilians. The heros stand up for those who can’t do it themselves- Captain America fighting against trusted spies, Superman bringing Hitler and Stalin to justice, and Ultra man stopping the war in Europe- and represent America in a dramatized sense as each super hero seems to be almost invincible. As the heros do not back down, it relays the message that as America has only pure intentions they will continue to be persistent in symbolizing their motto of liberation for all.
The idea that these comic books propose about America is that they are the saviors. That they have the tendency to intervene into global situations and fight off the “villains”. You have Superman fighting off the nazi’s, Captain American facing off hitler and etc. These are all depictions of how the comic books see America. I would say it’s a bit comical because till this day America has this same tendency. It’s just that now it doesn’t benefit anyone and if anything we’re helping the “villains”, America still believes their heroes but their losing their morals.
These comics characterize America’s purpose in the world as “saviors” – a nation that has the responsibility the “save” the rest of the world from the horrors of Hitler, Stalin, etc. In seeing themselves as saviors, America thinks of themselves as better than other nations (more rational, more moral, champions of freedom, etc). For instance, in the first comic, the Look magazine, Superman is shown grabbing both Hitler and Stalin and delivering them to the League of Nations, suggesting that America (through Superman) should take decisive action against global threats.
I agree. I was thinking that America sort of characterizes themselves as something similar to a superhero through these comics. I also saw this predominantly in the Superman comic. In the real world, America takes it upon themselves to end the Nazi regime as well as Stalin’s reign by entering WWII. In the comic, this desire is projected onto Superman, like you mention.
I feel as though no matter what stance the comic illustrators/writers take, whether it is action or neutrality, they still make America seem as this great place that has the power to help out if they want to. The Superman comic directly portrays a world where America chimes in and sweeps the enemies clean. For example, when Superman gets to Hitler and says, “I’D LIKE TO LAND A
STRICTLY NON-ARYAN, SOCK ON YOUR JAW,”. Then both him and Stalin face due consequence. Similarly, the comic for Ultra-Man still plays an active roll in managing the reparations of war, but in contrast preaches neutrality.
I also thought it was interesting how the comics try to be neutral but still, subconscious or not, push the ideology that America is SUPER. In this case, neutrality = on the good side and the in-action/stance that America(ns) take will be good and not seen as negative.
The comics present America’s role in the world as the preserver of peace, democracy and “savior” of the defenseless who always wins. America is presented as the only Western force to be trusted with delivering justice, as seen in “Case No. 1 Meet Captain America,” in which “the ruthless war-mongerers of Europe focus their eyes on peace-loving America.” The superheroes, representative of America, have fair intentions and are thus justified in their actions. For example, the second comic states “he means to have peace even if he has to fight for it,” speaking to the level of rationality ascribed to America in their war-time actions. Additionally, the first comic ends with Superman bringing Hitler and Stalin to a meeting with the League of Nations, a display of America’s respect for law and order.
I definitely agree, especially with your point that America is the “‘savior’ of the defenseless who always wins.” I also noticed that these comics depict America as a “supernatural” force through superheroes who essentially embody the nation itself; thus, these superheroes symbolize civility, fortitude, and justice — virtues that are vital to American ideology.
America is portrayed as unified within these comics, having the ability to lead and impact in the war. In Don Shelby’s “Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man,” America is the guiding force where “those nations are both wrong!” (Shelby p.4). These comics characterize America as a force of peace saying that “All of us are Americans no matter what our origins! That war is not our fight” (Shelby p.4). This reflects the belief that America must guide the world toward rationality, unity, and peace, even if it means using force initially to suppress violent forces. America plays a mostly neutral role within these comics, however, they are capable of exercising their influence and ability over the world.
Yes, I agree with the U.S being portrayed as the only real power that can induce peace. What is funny to me is how America is pushing to seem as a place of neutrality, and yet is very much still engaging in war propaganda by producing these posters, whether their intent is to send a neutral or active message.
In these comics, America is characterized as somewhat righteous. All the comics depict a superhero saving the world and putting a stop to Nazi-ism through illustrations of the superhero punching Hitler, and grabbing him by the neck. Lines in the comics I noticed were very suggestive of America /american superheroes being what saves everyone: “Smashing thru, Captain America came face-to-face with Hitler…” and “Toward the Siegfried line races Superman. Savior of the helpless and oppressed.” The use of the words “suppressed”, “savior”, and “helpless/oppressed” further portrays America as the morally better, heroic country that’ll be the one to save the less fortunate from the Nazis. It suggests that the role of America is to bring an end to the genocide. Comics like these encourage society to imagine that the role of a superhero is to save. I think that the American youth/society could internalize this to mean that their country is the greatest because they are the superhero, strongly and bravely saving others.
I agree! In reading the comics, the superheroes all have these [powers and are seen as saviors to the evil forces in Europe, either directly or indirectly pointing to the Nazis. They are all American heroes that go out and save the day while, as you pointed out, are trying to stay as neutral as possible in some cases. However, the superheroes act as a role model to the American people, specifically inferencing that we have the power to save, as we are this strong nation that can accomplish peace unlike the other countries. I think this American ideal of a strong man saving the day/world quickly became an extremely popular narrative that is still showcased and looked up to in today’s society as well.
These comics characterized America’s purpose in the world to be heroic and courageous. They are made to help, save, and protect the people and countries that are in trouble. In these comics America is quite literally represented through superheroes. For example in the second comic “Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man” Gary’s whole purpose is to preserve the peace for America due to him being the high moderator. This theme also continues into the other comics as well. With America being the hero.
I completely agree these comics felt very patriotic and seemed like propaganda pieces to push forth american ideals into the people. That america is the hero of the world, and will save everyone from evil like stalin ad hitler.
They all characterize America’s purpose in the world as being protectors of the innocent and defenseless. In the comics, the main motivation for the superheroes is to protect those who can’t protect themselves against the forces of evil. This drive of protecting innocents can be seen in Jerry Siegel’s and Joe Shuster’s “How Superman Would Win the War, in which Superman brings Stalin and Hitler in for the “unprovoked aggression against defenseless countries”. This portrayal of the US as the champions of the defenseless gives them a moral high ground as well as moral responsibility.
Two major themes between the comics are faith and strength. These superhero stories give hope to the reader that the war will end with the might of the us army. In “How Superman Would End the War”, Hitler and Stalin are put to justice because of the American figure superman but, they are held at trial at the league of nations. This shows hat when its all don, the us and its allies will make sure these war criminals face justice. Also in “Captain America” Captain America gives faith to the American people by protecting the ideals that American people love. He is a human embodiment of the strength of America.
I think specifically the Captain America comic assigns the role of the Superhero in society. When the solider is injected with serum and is undergoing transformation, the doctors says, “The first of a corps of super-agents whose mental and physical ability will make them a terror to spies and saboteurs…like you–America should gain the strength and the will to safeguard our shores!” By saying his hopes for Captain America’s future, we can gather that the hope is that with this superhero, not only will the superhero himself stand up against the enemy, but will also serve as a role model to civilians to do the same. That is what.I think this comic is suggesting throughout is the role. Since throughout the comic, there is talk about how this superhero stops spies and captures them, fighting for ‘democracy.’In the end the comic talks about how Bucky, this young boy who wants to be just like Captain America, is able to be and urges readers that they too can be partners of Captain America.
I agree with your insight in how the presentation of Captain America brings a sense of community for the nation he serves. With the physical transformation of Captain America, he is given the strength and ability to act on the righteous values he originally had. Captain America is presented as a role model and leader to uphold the values of the nation and to encourage others in the community to do the same with the values that live within them by being a citizen. This could possibly be showing how the values of being a citizen of the nation is a person’s strength if they choose to use it wisely within the transformation of society.
From these comics, the role of superheros in society became someone that we all look up to and someone that we all expect to be saved by. Superheros are seen to always defeat the bad guys because the superheros are the good guys. In the first comic with Superman, we can see him beating the Nazis and getting justice for the world. This same pattern can be seen in the last comic with Captain America where he is also beating the Nazis. Superheros became a type of character, specifically a character with courage, bravery, and most importantly a character that fights for whats right. With this, the role of superheros in our society is to teach children what to fight for and how to fight for the good. These comics essentially teach others to become superheros and to fight for whats right. Superheros always bring justice and that is what society wants the future generations to be like as well. These comics especially encourage those to fight for American and democracy giving a role that superheros are meant to fight for USA and democracy.
I agree, it’s super patriotic and I think Ultra man still shares these traits, even while being isolationist. Ultra Man just stays in America, and his goal through the comic is to stop the rioting and let people be Americans. At one point he says “we, all of us, are Americans no matter what our origins! That war is not our fight!” I guess in this way, he’s not fighting for absolute good (i.e. go punch nazis), but he is fighting for the good of America nonetheless.
In all three comics the role of the superhero is to protect people during a time of chaos. The heroes are portrayed as strong, and immortal beings who can overcome anything and defeat the bad guys. They also have a rational and strategic outlook. In the Captain America comic, we see Captain America punching Hitler for constructing a plan to sabotage the U.S. These comics also show a sense of a country’s strength to maintain structure. The superheroes shown are fighting for justice and against cruel and oppressive behaviors.
I agree. In all three comics, the hero’s are all portrayed as buff, strong men ready to save the day. But they all interepret how America can also come and save the day. I think the hero’s are all portrayed as string because thats how other countries see America. Not just because of its size but also because of how advanced it is, and even during the time when America wasn’t as technologically advanced, it was still noticeable how strong the country is.
I agree, in all the comics a superhero is seen as the person to go to when there is a problem. For example, in How Superman Would End The War (1940) Superman is portrayed as a powerful and godlike figure. In this comic Superman captures Hitler and Stalin and delivers them to the League of Nations which effectively ended the war.
You make a good point about superheroes as symbols of safety and justice in disaster. I’d add that these comics portray heroes as more than just protectors and as them as active forces making history. In How Superman Would Win the War, Superman captures Hitler and Stalin, giving a daring vision of intervention. Similarly, Captain America punches Hitler before the US enters the war, implying that heroes and in turn, America, should lead the fight for justice. These stories also simplify complex political realities to clear fights for good vs evil. This can be motivating, but at the same time risks ignoring the real world implications and costs of war.
The role of the superhero is to do the morally right thing that benefits all of society. In the Superman comic even though he wants to hurt Hitler and Stalin, he instead brings them to the League of Nations to impose/ subject them to the law. In the Ultraman comic Ultraman directly talks to world leaders and solves the conflict by exposing corrupt officials. In a way a superhero acts like an ideal government.
I agree with your point, in every aspect of superheroes, they try to save the world, they try to minimize the violence, if they have to use it, its because its necessary. In the Captain America comic, even though Captain America punches both Hitler and Stalin, he turns them into the League of Nations, basically ending up saving the world. In all the comics books, the superheroes act like how a government is supposed to act, protecting their own.
All the comics make superheroes feel like more than just people saving random citizens. It’s like they’re supposed to represent America, stepping in when no one else can handle it. Superman just ends the war by himself, which feels like a total fantasy of how strong and good America thinks it is. Captain America does the same thing, even before the U.S. officially joined, with him punching Hitler right on the cover like it’s obvious we should be there. Even when they disagree about how involved to be, all of them still make superheroes feel like they’re shaping history, not just fighting crime on the street.
These comics portray superheroes as superhuman people who are the model of rationality and upstanding citizens. The comics portray all these heroes as upholding the law process of the United States with the exception of Superman which brought Hitler and Stalin to the League of Nations to be tried. Both Superman and Ultra man recognize that the war started with unnecessary aggression from nations, claiming land that neither has a right to, and in all 3 comics it is the role of the Superhero to bring people to a justice system like court and the League of Nations, but also defend democratic systems like congress.
Yes, I completely agree. Like in the superman comic, people are supposed to look up to him for choosing to deal with the problems through the diplomatic way. Superman didn’t just beat the bad guys, he brought them to justice. These superheros are supposed to show people what being a good citizen looks like. The reasons that you already said, as well as choosing peace over violence when you can, as shown in superman, but even superman used very little force.
I agree with you. I think that the superheroes are depicted in a superhuman and almost conventionally attractive way as their body is extremely fit and face very masculine with sharp angles. I think that by portraying them as conventionally attractive and masculine, it illustrates that they are the democratic and just ones, whereas Hitler and Stalin are ugly villains.
Every superhero in these comics are depicted as upstanding citizens; I believe they are intended to be role models to the public, no matter a person’s upbringing or status. In the Captain America comic, Steve and Bucky are both scrawny soldiers who came from nothing. Despite this, they are determined to do whatever they can for their country. I believe the writers wanted to empower all men for the cause, especially because of the final page’s encouragement to join the “Sentinels of Liberty.” Superman, on the other hand, is an unbiased alien who comes from another planet. Even though his character has no prior connection to Earth, he still chooses America’s side in upholding justice. He shows us that, if a god-like being is on America’s side, supporting the states is the right thing to do.
I agree with the idea that superhero’s are meant to serve the purpose of being role models in our society. Additionally, I think they could act as a call to action for injustice in the world. We can see in the Superman comic the impossibly heroic nature of his actions. I liked the phrasing that you used–“if a god-like being is on America’s side, supporting the states is the right thing to do.” This rhetoric is still spread in superhero media today. In the recent rendition of Superman, many found the movie to explore the political climate in today’s world and serves as a moral guideline for people today.
Many superheroes represent a specific population that they protect and live for. For example, Batman protects and represents Gotham, while Superman protects and represents Metropolis. In the case of Captain America, he represents and protects the image of the United States. We can especially see this in Simon and Kirby’s comic, where America can be seen punching Hitler, who was a clear enemy of the United States. Simon and Kirby may have created Captain America to inspire nationalism in America and to strengthen the belief that the country had the power to take down a villain as dangerous as Hitler.
This observation is so unique, I never would have made this connection myself. I think it’s worth questioning why every other villain/hero defends a fictional place and not Captain America.
Even though they differ in tones, both Captain America #1 and the Ultra-Man story in All-Star Comics #1 portray a shared belief that America bears a responsibility in shaping the worlds future. Captain America is the ultimate in-your-face call for intervention, depicting America as the moral authority (him getting violent with Hitler on the cover), representing America’s retaliation against evil before WW2 had even started. Ultra-Man illustrates a distant future where America has separated itself from warfare happening in Europe, but it ceaselessly stands as a symbol for global peace. One comic advocates for immediate intervention and the other presents reservation followed by an ideal global leadership, they both portray the same message: America is not a back-seat nation and it is the guiding force for world order.
In many regards, superheroes are treated as the ideal American. Captain America embodies this ideal the most, with him being a citizen unfit for military service but, when given the opportunity, decides to take an experimental drug in order to help protect his country. Metaphorically, I believe this is how the United States views their citizens to be. American citizens should live up to the ideal of protecting their country at all costs, and do what is necessary. Even the children should seek to be the ideal citizen and do everything to help the adults in wartime. This is seen prominently within Bucky’s relationship with Captain America, being his sidekick.
I agree, superhero’s are always depicted in this light where they are everyones savior, and the knight in shining armor. In society, they are idolized and like in Captain America, he was this ordinary person who couldn’t enlist but after the transformation, he was the ideal candidate in the army. They used him as a way to encourage other people to enlist as well. Additionally, in history, they used to do something similar to recruit people such as Uncle Sam, and Rosie the Riveter. There were many different people that were used for propaganda and which led to further meaning behind their existence.
These comics portray superheroes as models for the perfect citizen. Throughout all the comics, they bring order and peace with as little violence as possible, although they do fight their enemies. Ultra-Man, specifically, tries to find as many solutions as possible that do not involve people using violence against each other.
The comics image the superhero’s as a powerful force for shaping society in a moment of crisis for the better. Therefore comics portray the superhero’s as strong fearless men that go to stop the war. In Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, “How Superman Would Win the War,”, comic book, Superman go finds Hitler and Stalin, to turn them in to the League of Nations to have peace again in the world. This shows that Superman is ending the war through direct action but as well that there should be a moral of justice and peace in the world.
I agree, I feel like the superhero’s were a powerful force in society. More specifically, because they provided hope for the public and gave them something to feel empowered during wartimes.
These comics show the role of a superhero in society as someone who is brave and stands up for their country. Each of the comics show the main superhero defeating the bad guys (Hitler, Nazis, etc) and receiving praise in the end. This could help to motivate the young men being shipped off to war by viewing themselves as superheros for their society who will personally defeat the enemy and come home to lots of excitement and thankfulness.
I agree! Just like we learned in social science and rhetoric, there were several ways they tried to recruit people to join the war whether that be fearmongering people to join or portraying people as buff and they could be buff too if they joined the war.
These comics show the superhero as a force of absolute justice who works beyond political boundaries. In the comic “How Superman Would Win the War,” Superman ends the war by grabbing Hitler and Stalin, taking them to court. It would take longer time if government tried to capture Hitler and Stalin but it took less time for Superman to bring them to the court. It shows that the superheroes are clear good guys who solve things fast.
I agree, It is like the superhero’s were above the law in some ways because they did not have to do things the way regular people would have. Your example about the court does a really good job at further demonstrating this.
I though superheroes were forces of absolute justice, too, who were responsible for enforcing moral code and establishing peace. It’s interesting that Superman took Hitler and Stalin to court, as opposed to using violence and killing them or beating them up. Even when all the hero’s are fighting, there’s a lack of blood and brutality, and even Superman himself defaults to destroying machines and cannons as opposed to directly hurting humans. This makes superheroes seem above such graphic, primitive violence.
The comics convey superheroes to be exemplar role models physically and morally. In the Captain America comic, they illustrate him with a great physique as he is tall and muscular. His physical strength influence him to do heroic and brave actions such as fighting Hitler. They also portraying as a moral example as they illustrate him volunteering for the war and to willingly change himself to help society or in general his country. The purpose of portraying a physically strong man with high morals as a superhero is for the audience to desire to be like them and become outstanding citizens that contribute to the war.
The superhero is present as a perfect personification of the legal system. They know the clear boundary between right and wrong with the absolute power to carry out punishment for anyone who breaks the law. On top of that, the action of a superhero is not being judged, but being supported. No one challenged the rightfulness of the superhero to punish the criminal.
I think superheroes were portrayed as characters that steps up when government is being ineffective. It shows Superman winning the war by directly capturing Hitler and Stalin, bypassing the political and military systems. This calls out the inaction in the government system, and tells a fantasy of pure justice over bureaucracy. Such as in Captain America #1, Captain America punches Hitler on the cover, this is an image of direct heroism.
Across these comics, it seems as though superheroes are imagined as moral agents who step in when institutions are failing to uphold the justice they had previously promised to maintain. In the comic How Superman Would Win the War, Superman’s delivery of Hitler and Stalin to a court suggests a belief that decisive and heroic action are necessary from an other being when diplomacy falls short. Captain America #1 appears to share this same view towards the failings of diplomacy, when they open with a direct assault on Hitler that implies intervention is a moral imperative. Even Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man, although it is illustrated far more cautiously, presents its hero as a stabilizing figure. When looking at these three together, these stories seem to reflect an underlying assumption that superheroes exist to confront disorder and tyranny where others hesitate.
These comics see superhero’s as the role model for society. They are the pinnacle of humanity, both physically and ethically. In this way, they function as excellent propaganda, as the author can simply have their hero acting one way and it can be seen as the best course of action.
(1:37:29-1:38:03)
One thing that can be read as advocating American intervention in WWII was when Rick helped Laszlo and Ilsa to escape at the airport. Laszlo said to Rick that “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win”. This suggests that American intervention could be a game-changer in WWII. And it turned out that it was Rick who shot the German officer, allowing Laszlo and Ilsa to successfully escape. American intervention was quite successful in the movie.
I couldn’t agree with you more! As I was watching the last scene, I noticed the music changed to be very triumphant and glorious, celebrating the win. This further implies that America’s intervention in WWII would be successful. I also notice that as the two men walk into the night, the surroundings are clear of any obstacles, and the sky looks so peaceful. This further illustrates how the U.S. could make an impact in transforming a once chaotic and monstrous war into a happy ending.
Yes, and this was the moment where Laszlo chose duty over his love for Ilsa. Laszlo’s love for Ilsa caused him to behave in ways he wouldn’t normally do, such as sit and have a drink with patrons or put himself on the line by shooting the chief of police. By going outside of the boundaries for love, it would be expected that he would do the same when put in the situation of being able to be with Ilsa. However, his decision not to choose Ilsa for the sake of the country changes the directory of the message for the viewers at the time, encouraging duty towards the country over personal feelings for oneself.
Beyond the ending of the movie where Rick, the American in the film, helps Laszlo escape, the entire character of Rick seems very metaphorical for the United States. A hesitant American who doesn’t “Stick his neck out for anybody”, allows people to get arrested in his bar, turns a blind eye to illegalities from both sides in the war, and once had strong convictions and ideals, feels as though Rick is the thoughts of an America in WW2. He is isolationist but struggles with the notion that he should be helping fight, so when he is prompted to do so, he does, literally shooting a German officer, which for me felt like a strong moment for the case of intervention.
I heavily agree with your interpretation of Rick being almost a metaphor of America. Almost like how America was aware of what was going on but only joined the war effort later, when it served a benefit to the U.S.A. It’s why the moment you pointed out is so powerful and important since it’s contrasting this image and idea previously created. Personally the moment stood out to me a lot and this interpretation makes it even more so.
At 1:13:10 the Germans are singing their patriotic song, at this time Victor asks the band of the Saloon to play “La Marseillaise” to drown the Germans out. In social science we learned that “La Marseillaise” is a French Patriotic song about the French Revolution. Rick doesn’t stop the song from being played and sung in his saloon, instead at 1:13:24 he gives a head nod to the rest of the band to join in on the “La Marseillaise”. This entire scene portrays the French Resistance as brave, and the Nazi’s as oppressive. With approval to play “La Marseillaise”, it shows the American intervention because Rick, an American, is moving away from being neutral, and is now taking a side.
I agree this is a very pivotal moment in the movie, and I think a large part of it is due to Ilsa. Before Ilsa’s arrival, Rick was extremely neutral, and would not even take a drink with anyone to maintain the image that he was not favoring either side. However, when Ilsa arrived he took a drink with her and Victor, which was a very subtle slide to their side. After this, the first major instance was the moment you mentioned, when he allowed the band to join “La Marseillaise.” Rick took the actions he took for Ilsa, he left his neutral stance for her. I think that this reflects the sentiment of the Americans when they chose to enter the war effort- the belief of fighting for the women and children, fighting for the “innocent” of society.
I agree this part of the movie is important because it portrays the french resilience against the nazis in the saloon and the fact that an American shows how the movie director views the US’s role in global peace and politics. In addition, it views the US’s role as vital and as a leader in global peace and more than a supporter. The American doesn’t just support the French people singing the Marsellaise, but he starts the singing to lead the French people against the Germans.
Yes, and the reason Victor asks to play the French song isn’t because it fit the mood or was something he personally wanted in the moment, but because he wanted to drown out the Nazis, who were villainously singing their anthem and filling the saloon with their presence. It’s interesting to see that even though the Germans started singing first, they were ultimately overpowered by the sheer force and unity of the band and the crowd.
I think this scene is very powerful and it can be seen as a call to action for American intervention because it is showing how even in the presence of Nazis, the French are not afraid to show their patriotism and courage. This portrayal of courage and bravery is a sort of encouragement for Americans to know that although the Nazis are very powerful in Europe, there is still people who are holding out and they are in need of help.
At the end of the movie, when Rick and Victor are saying their goodbyes, Victor says something about how he knows that they will win this time. This is referring to him going to America, where this time, he will be able to get the Americans involved in the war to help win. This is calling to action the Americans to fight the good fight that many are already fighting for, while also showing how much of a difference the Americans can make to turn the tide of the war.
I agree with your analysis, and I wanted to add to it by referencing the last line of the movie,” This will be a beautiful friendship.” This line signifies to me that not only will Rick and Renault become friends, but that this represents how America should intervene in the War with other countries. As Rick is American and Captain Renault is French, this shows that alliances between countries to fight injustice should be promoted.
I agree with this perspective of this scene and want to add that this is the moment where Victor shares his hope in American involvement in the war but also the recognition of his friend Rick’s shift from being neutral to actually fighting against the injustices of the war. When Victor says his goodbyes he says, “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win”. Victor is proud of Rick for standing up for peace and justice as he seems to finally realize the cost of war. Victor also shows his trust within the American government to put an end to the war as he seems to be sure in his statement.
I think the specific scene where the Bulgarian woman comes to Rick saying that Captain Renault is demanding sex from her in order to get exit visas because they cannot afford it is the start of Rick’s morality change. The American call for intervention was fuel from protecting women and children from starving/misery, protecting family ideals, and protecting working men’s honor. If Rick didn’t help this woman out, she would be forced to suffer or be unfaithful to her husband, which makes Americans very upset because against the nuclear family ideal and keeping women safe/protected (strong American values). Rick rigging the gambling game to let the Bulgarian woman’s husband win enough money shows him indirectly protecting these values and is the starting point of his neutrality to intervention character growth. His shift in character advocated for intervention.
I agree with your comment, and I would like to add that it directly connects to the Judeo-Christian values that American society is built on: protecting the vulnerable, standing up against moral corruption, and remaining faithful to one’s spouse or partner, regardless of the circumstances. Rick’s decision to rig the game exemplifies righteous defiance against a corrupt system. This aligns with the Judeo-Christian belief in intervening when someone is being oppressed or exploited. He also believes he should do whatever is necessary to help someone stay faithful to their spouse because he upholds these American Judeo-Christian values.
I think you pointed out something very interesting. As a person with strong morals that are rooted in American values, protecting women and children is clearly a deal breaker for him. The moment Rick rigs the game for the Bulgarian women, is the moment where you see a soft call to action. It signals him slowly but surely taking a stand or at least leaning towards a side. For someone who has tried as much as he could to stay neutral, standing up for the woman is a bold move.
I felt like there were multiple instances throughout the movie that seemed to subtly suggest that the United States should intervene in WWII. From ways of production to the content of the film you can see multiple parts and aspects of the movie that suggest the United States should restore order and bring peace through intervention. A specific part of the movie that I felt suggests the United States should intervene is when the camera cuts from the orchestra’s energetic performance to images of the United State’s soldiers watching intently, smiling with happiness, and nodding their head displaying a sense of agreement.
Ricks character as a whole is representative of America during WW2. His repetitive comment “I don’t stick my neck out for anyone” in the beginning of the film is similar to Americas hesitant entry into the war. But as the film progressed, we see that Rick does starts doing favors for people such as the Laszlo’s. Ricks decision to help Victor and ilsa mimics America’s decision to enter the war to help out its allies and fight fascism.
Rick’s attitude towards politics in the beginning of the film points to American attitudes at the beginning of World War II. Rick would say “I stick my neck out for nobody,” referring to any position where he needed to take a stand or take action in any situation where he may be deemed contentious. This is similar to American isolationism following World War I, and their hesitancy to enter into another World War. Eventually, Rick does aid his ex-lover, Isla, and her husband, Victor, escape. This progression may look like a call to action for American intervention in World War II.
A quote that sticks out to me is when, after seeing Isla again for the first time, Rick says “I bet they’re asleep in New York. I bet they’re asleep all over America.” This moment recognizes the American’s ignorance to the danger of the Nazis and politics in Europe. Additionally, it shows Rick’s character becoming more aware of his obligation to ‘wake up’ and take decisive action against the Germans.
There’s a scene where Victor leads the patrons of Rick’s cafe in singing the French national anthem to drown out the group of German officers singing their German nationalist tune. Ironically, we actually looked at this scene in social science last semester when we were talking about the French Revolution, and overall, this scene speaks to more than a dramatic standoff. It symbolically pits the Allies (France and others) against the Axis powers (Nazi Germany), with the public choosing to stand against Germany. This could be seen as advocating for the Americans to join the war because it is a fight against tyranny (that Nazi Germany champions). Ultimately, this scene portrays resistance as noble and emotional, which could endorse intervention “on the side of justice” or “the right side”.
I agree that this scene, where they drown out the officers singing a German patriotic song with the French national anthem, advocated for America to intervene in the war. To expand on how it does so, I think it’s important to note that “La Marseillaise” is, first and foremost, a call to arms song. During the French Revolution, the song was meant to inspire the French people to take up arms against the monarchy. This nature of the song can be seen in the line “Aux armes, citoyens” which roughly translates to “to arms, citizens”. This reinforces your assessment that this scene is advocating for the US to intervene on the side of the Allies in WW2.
At the end of the movie (starting at 1:37:30), we witness Rick give Victor letters to help him and Ilsa escape Casablanca. Victor replies, “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.” This powerful statement from Victor highlights Rick’s stance on (finally) siding with the anti-Nazi resistance, despite showing neutrality throughout a majority of the movie. Furthermore, Rick’s shift reflects that of America’s switch from isolationism to actively participating in WWII: now that America (or symbolically in this instance, Rick) is involved, there is renewed hope that the Allies will win.
One of the most iconic scenes in the movie that advocates for American Intervention in WWII is when Victor Laszlo leads the people in Rick’s bar in singing “La Marseillaise” in order to out sing the Nazi German soldiers singing a patriotic anthem. In doing so, it’s not just simply about national pride as Casablanca was under French occupation, but to call attention to the moral duty and necessity to fight back against the Nazis actively trying to put people in concentration camps. This scene calls for Rick (and the American people watching the film) to take more of a stand, which pushes them to, even though America tried to stay indifferent. It pushes the narrative that staying complicit and neutral is simply not an option, and we must fight when injustice is at our doorsteps.
I totally agree with your idea of how it call attention to he moral duty to the audience, during many scene in the movie rick are push to be involved in the event as he face difficult choice: he can chose inaction and thereby watch other suffer or he can step in and prevent the happening of the tragedy. This is a subtle advocate for American to join the war as is implying U.S.A has the ability to stop the on-going war(create peace), therefor by not participate, U.S. A face the judgement of unethical.
One scene where Casablanca calls for America intervention is the scene where Victor tells the band to play Marseilles in response to the Nazis’ song. The band briefly looks to Rick for approval, and he gives them a slight nod of approval. Though Rick isn’t directly involved with the act of defiance against the Nazis, this scene marks the beginning of Rick’s departure from neutrality. The once “I don’t stick my neck out for anybody” diplomat becomes involved, even slightly, in a powerful demonstration of French independence (ironic, given that this takes place in Morocco). The final stage of his development is seen when he helps Victor and Ilsa escape, despite the risks and sacrifices involved.
Your definitely right about the symbolism of the scenes. Interestingly, the timeline of Rick’s move out of neutrality follows the US. The US does smaller things in trade and communication to support the allies, but in a final act joins the war after Pearl Harbor.
A moment in the movie where there was a scene about advocating for American intervention in World War II was at the very beginning at around 0:04:40 when the narrator starts talking about how desperate some countries in Europe were for America to intervene in the war. It states “With the coming of the Second World War, many eyes in imprisoned Europe turned towards the freedom of the Americas.” I feel like this really set the tone for the rest of the movie with how straight forward it kind of was about wanting America’s help.
Throughout the entire movie, America gets mentioned several times in relation to people in power. Rick himself is from America and his actions in the movie, almost represent America’s intervention as well. When Major Strasser tries to stop Ilsa and Laszlo from flying away, Rick shoots and kills him. This action represents Rick’s break from neutrality, where up until then, he’s been known for his motto, “I stick my neck out for nobody.” But here, he risks his life to help Laszlo escape. Symbolically, this can be taken as America taking a decisive stand. Rick chooses to fight fascism directly, no longer hiding behind self-interest. The film urges America to embrace its responsibility and join the fight for principles of justice and freedom.
When Rick says at the end of the film “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship” is a moment that is advocating for America to join the war. Rick represents America, and Louis represents France, so when they say that they are becoming friends, this is advocating for America to be friends with France, and join the side of the war for justice, and help them win.
(38:33-40:30)
This scene portrays the aftermath of Rick seeing Ilsa for the first time since their time together in Paris, in which she ends up leaving a note saying she can’t go away with him. Rick is drinking alcohol alone, after the closing of his cafe, when Sam finds him there and refuses to leave, expressing a great deal of loyalty and empathy towards Rick. Through this scene, Casablanca seems to convey that true friendship doesn’t see color as Rick doesn’t treat him as anything other than brother-like figure who understands the pain without trying to invalidate it. However, I can’t help thinking if the naivety that Sam attempts to play off is a boundary within the friendship, in which Sam feels he can’t completely overstep with communication of his own thoughts on the matter.
I like your reading of this scene. It true that Rick andSam relationship is framed as unusually close for the time, like it’s a friendship that crosses racial lines. But I also agree there’s boundary there thats intentional. Sam role is emotional; he’s the one that understands Rick without words but that understanding doesn’t work both ways. Rick rarely ask Sam about his own feelings and he just expects loyalty.That dynamic shows how black emotional alibi is often normalized and barely ever reciprocated. The film suggest a progressive friendship but still reinforces a power imbalance that reflects broad racial hierarchies in American at that time.
This is a really good interpretation on this scene. I also noticed how close they were, despite the race difference. I would also like to add that Sam is a piano player, and even though Rick rudely asked him to play the song he played for Ilsa, “As Time Goes By.” I think this song is a good representation of their relationship as well because it represents the fact that Sam played this song for Ilsa and for Rick. I think this song can even show a deeper meaning in the relationship among Ilsa, Sam, and Rick. Even though it seems that they are both close and friendly with each other, I can’t help but notice how rude Rick is and how little Sam is aknowledged. I feel like Sam is the one helping Rick most of the time, especially in the scene Sanaa mentioned. However, even so, it is clear that Sam, even though being black, was able to gain Rick’s trust and loyalty, even though he was white. Casablanca is trying to show that friendship is more than race but it is about loyalty. They do not only have an employee-employer relationship but a relationship build on trust, talent, and loyalty to each other. Sam always makes sure that Rick is okay, even in this scene when he tries to distract Rick from his moment of sadness.
Yes, I think this is a great a analysis and I’d have to agree. There is the appearance of progression with the friendship that seems great at surface level, but there are definite undertones. The racial dynamics that were common at this point time are much more subtle within this friendship, but the difference in empathy and behavior shows that there was a hierarchy of sorts in the friendship and that they each served a bit of a different purpose. I think this is much more put into perspective looking throughout the film as a whole and seeing sam’s other limitations because of his race, and then you can see he even had limitations within a seemingly close relationship.
I really like your analysis of their relationship, especially the brotherhood because there is this sense of loyalty between the two of them. In 17:17 this other club owner asks to ‘buy’ same and how much he is for and Rick says that he isn’t for sale no matter how much money. They then walk over to talk to Sam and offer him ‘double’ what he pays him and Sam says ‘I like it fine here.’ I am sure this isn’t the first time someone has offered to pay Sam more, yet he is so quick to decline. I do see that there may be this boundary put up but I think it goes both ways. Rick seems to be more of a private individual-especially after leaving Paris-and Sam seems to respect that. I feel like male friendships are different than female friendships, in the sense that they don’t always share their inter most thoughts with each other but rather they have an understanding and a comfortability with each other.
Rick and Sam’s relationship is notably loyal and endearing in Casablanca, but there are dynamics of race from 1940s America that can be seen in the folds. At a point in the film Sam plays “As Time Goes By,” per Ilsa’s request, Rick hears this song and immediately approaches him in a hostile way, but all he desires is to relive the moment with Ilsa. A sort of underlying hierarchy is reflected here: Because he trusts Rick, he doesn’t challenge his decisions, manifesting his role serving as a side-character. His emotional labor is expressed through music and helps guide the film’s romance, but viewers don’t see his internal character explored. This is representative of Duke Ellington’s “Take the A Train” or “Shine” by Louis Armstrong where black musicians were robbed of the spotlight, even though they heavily influenced American culture. Much like how these songs portray a theme of silence and impact of black artistry through Sam’s repeated presence at Rick’s cafe, Casablanca’s narrative keeps Rick as a supporting role to emphasize America’s cultural bounty and its racial differences.
In contrast from what WWII made the people of Germany believe, Casablanca demonstrates how race shouldn’t affect a friendship or relationship in society. In the scene where Rick is drunk and heartbroken, Sam insists for him to leave home or even offers to take him for a long drive and go fishing with the purpose of him to leave the place that is breaking him apart after the encounter he had with Ilsa. Despite Rick rejecting his offers and ordering him to play their song, and refusing to leave, Sam decides to stay with Rick the entire time. In this case, Rick is the one going through struggles, the “problematic one”, and despite the racial prejudices that are going around due to the war, that doesn’t limit Sam to be a great and reliable friend. In other words, Casablanca addresses how there should be no racial problems as in this friendship illustrated, Sam and Rick are great friends despite their difference in race.
A particular moment that caught my eye in Rick’s and Sam’s relationship was at 35:32, when Rick goes to stop Sam from playing “As Time Goes By”. From here I understood that Rick still has authority figure onto Sam but still have a brotherhood relationship. I say this because before Sam was trying his hardest to not play the song, due to him knowing Rick would get upset if he heard the song because it caused him to remember about his past with Ilsa. Therefore, Rick still has an power over Sam because if he does not follow the rules Rick tells him he could get fired and lose a true friend.
I think the film puts in a good amount of effort to show Black cultural contributions, but it still reflects the era’s racial boundaries. In the film, Rick treats Sam with more respect than other characters do. Sam sits at Rick’s table and speaks freely with him, showing a level of trust. However, Sam is still an employee of Rick, not a full partner. Although, he’s respected, the stereotype back then still didn’t allow people of color as a power holding character.
I most definitely agree with the point you make about how the film tries to acknowledge Black cultural contributions while still confining Sam to a subordinate role. What also stood out to me when I was first watching Casablanca was how the film seems to use jazz as a symbol of American identity, yet doesn’t fully extend that symbolism to Sam as a character. Even though Sam plays a central emotional role and is clearly valued by Rick, the fact that his agency remains limited, where it is shown he doesn’t make decisions or shape events, reinforces the idea that Black presence was often vital yet still left to be in the background. It seems the film wants to gesture toward inclusivity without challenging the deeper power structures of the time.
In Casablanca, at the start of the movie love is portrayed as painful and chaotic. The reason is because of the way Lisa left Rick in Paris. However by the end of the film love is portrayed as selfless because Rick chooses to let Lisa go in order for her to support her husband Victor. The key takeaway the writer wants the audience to take away is love is initially hurtful, but ultimately becomes the force for order in a world during war time.
I think the role of love in Casablanca and in general is a force pushing people to “do the right thing”. In Casablanca specifically, Rick’s love for Ilsa forces him to do the right thing and give the letters to Victor Laszlo and Ilsa. Just in the same way that Victor would sacrifice himself to make sure Ilsa survives. Love was the transformative factor that turned Rick from being innocent and hopeful in Paris to cynical in Casablanca but it is also love that lets him see through his pessimism and anger to see the importance of Victor Laszlo’s work. Its in this way that love is a chaotic force that brings a sort of order in this movie.
I really liked your interpretation as it really captures the complexity of “Casablanca” so well. I especially agree with the idea that love is a chaotic force that somehow leads to order. That contradiction really fits the tone of the film. Love transforming Rick is what pulls him out of his bitterness and helps him see beyond his own pain. In that way, love becomes a kind of moral compass for both Rick and Victor, guiding their actions even in the middle of all the chaos.
I think you make an great point about love being both chaotic and powerful. It’s interesting to see how Rick evolves as a result of love, not just falling in love with Ilsa, but also recognizing that love often requires sacrifices. That’s what motivates him to help Victor and Ilsa escape, no matter how painful it is. I would also say that the film shows how love can open people’s eyes to something greater than themselves. Rick starts by stating he sticks his neck out for no one, but by the end, he has risked everything. So, while love may shake things up, it is also what drives people in Casablanca to do the right thing in the end.
In the film, love is portrayed as both powerful and complicated which is seen in the love triangle with Rick,ILSA, and Victor. When Ilsa walks into Rick’s nightclub, it causes Rick to lose his thought and he starts to drink heavily and he pushes her away because she left him in Paris without an explanation. Their love was shown through a flashback along with the memory of how they were separated by war. Rick sacrifices his own feelings despite being in love, and he chooses to let her go. It falls into the idea “if you rlly love them you have to let them go” and that’s what he did.
You make a strong point that love in Casablanca is both powerful and complicated, especially through Rick’s emotional spiral after Ilsa reappears. I’d add that the way Rick handles his love and by choosing to let Ilsa go shows that the love in the film isn’t just about personal happiness, but about doing what’s right in a larger context. His sacrifice isn’t just romantic, it’s also extremely political. By taking stepping back, Rick allows Victor to proceed with his resistance work, showing that sometimes love means putting one’s own desire second to the good of all. The film thereby suggests that love, as painful as it may be, can lead to moral focus and heroic behavior.
Casablanca portrays love and passion in a nuanced way that suggests it’s both a force for order and chaos. Love that is full of passion leads to chaos, like how the meeting between Rick and Isla in Casablanca leads to a rekindling in their past relationship. It sends Rick into an emotional turmoil as he begins drinking and rethinking their every interaction in Paris. But love that is full of duty brings order as Rick knows that by letting Isla get on the plane with Victor, he is saving her from regret and helping Victor continue the fight against fascism. In the end, I think Casablanca is suggesting that love is meant to be more than passion because that leads to chaos, but meant to serve something greater so that it can lead to order.
Yes, and I think the movie shows that even when love feels chaotic, it can end up creating a kind of order if the people involved actually make a choice to put something bigger first. Like with Rick, his feelings for Ilsa make him a mess at first, but it’s also what pushes him to finally take a stand and do something selfless. It’s kind of like the movie saying that love isn’t supposed to just burn everything down or be all passion. It can actually push people toward decisions that matter in the larger scheme of things.
Casablanca suggests that while love and passion are vital aspects of the human experience, their role in society must be balanced by responsibility, sacrifice, and a commitment to the common good. Love is neither wholly orderly nor chaotic, it just depends on how individuals choose to act on it. It showcases love and passion as something very human yet also quite complex, able to motivate sacrifice, but at the same time, it can jeopardize personal responsibilities and social stability.
I think love is naturally chaotic in Casablanca. It makes Rick act in ways he wouldn’t, such as how he constantly repeats that he sticks his head out for no one, but ships Laszlo and Ilsa off at the end of the film. However Laszlo is much more normal about his romance, however it does make him stay with Ilsa longer than he says he would (there is that one scene where he’s talking about all the times he sorta wanted to leave her).
Exactly, Rick’s tough, “no attachments” facade completely breaks down because of love it pushes him to make selfless choices that go against everything he says about not risking himself for anyone. His decision to let Ilsa go with Laszlo is heartbreaking but shows how deeply love unsettles him. As for Laszlo, you’re right he’s steadier, more grounded in his commitment, but love still complicates him. That scene where he admits he thought about leaving Ilsa reveals that even the “normal” side of love carries its own doubts and struggles. So, love in Casablanca isn’t just chaotic for Rick; it challenges all three characters in different, very human ways. It’s messy, complicated, and never just straightforward.
Although at the beginning of the film, love is portrayed as chaotic and selfish (due to Lisa having an affair and breaking her lover’s heart), it is later seen as selfless, as Rick sacrifices himself and lets Viktor and Lisa go. This movie argues that true love does not prioritize personal fulfillment, but instead serves the greater good. It reframes love as a selfish indulgence into self-sacrifice.
Considering how the movie plays out, love and passion appear to be an agent of chaos. Ilsa and Rick’s love for each other causes them both to do impulsive, unpredictable things. For example, Rick fights back against authority to rescue Ilsa even though he was never known to put himself at risk for anybody before. Love is normally seen as a pure, virtuous force; perhaps Casablanca is sending a message that going against duty is the right thing to do.
I agree with you that love is an agent of chaos in Casablanca. For me, the most interesting part of the film is the lack of loyalty and the frivolous nature of love — at least from a modern standpoint First and foremost, Ilse cheats on her husband while he is in a concentration camp, which she lies to her husband about. Ilsa betrays his love. She also leads Rick on, which torments him emotionally for years. For both of these incidents, she faces no serious repercussions; in general, her portrayal in the movie does not suggest that these are sickening actions. This sends the message that love in many ways was not treated as seriously of an endeavor. In the case of Victor and Ilse, it seems she is with him partly because he is of high social standing and can enjoy the protection that comes with it. We see this confirmation of the unserious tone of love with the proposition of marriage that arise in the film. Rick proposes to Ilse after only knowing her for at most a few weeks (this is implied because he says he counted the number of days they knew each other). Today, all of these behaviors would be incredibly frowned upon — especially with the digital age, people have very high standards for their future partners. In the movie, these actions do lead to plot complications, but they do not face society’s judgment for it.
the films argument through the love triangle is that true love will always involve sacrifice, even for the greater good. despite the undeniable passion with IIsa, rick chose Laszlo. love can be seen as a way to reinforce social order.
In “Casablanca”, I feel as though the love triangle is meant to illustrate how love sometimes comes with sacrifice. At the end of the film, Rick lets go of Ilsa in order to keep her safe from the surrounding chaos, even if that means he won’t get to see her again and she’ll be with Laszlo. Additionally, it is also a message of how love can make a person courageous enough to push through the brutality of war, even if it means putting one’s own life and freedom at risk.
Love seems to be a force for chaos but also at the same time a sort of order. Despite the love between Rick and Ilsa, Rick decides to sacrifice himself and stays behind despite threatening so many figures of authority. In this way, there is chaos since many more deaths and risks arose due to these decisions and the feeling of sentimental love. For the sake of love, Rick decided to stay behind and not put Ilsa in risk. On the other hand, Victor was also willing to sacrifice his safety for that of his wife. And that wasn’t the only instance of that example since Victor had already did that in Paris. Rather, it was Ilsa that was still in love with Rick even though she had a husband to begin with. So love had a sort of dependency but it also tend to cause chaos at that time.
I would definitely say that the relationship between order and chaos in regards to love is dependent on the context. When Rick betrays the French Officer, he creates chaos in the hope that order will be created for the Ally nations and the stability of Ilsa’s life. Rick throws away his life in Casablanca in order to protect the one he loves. I think in Rick’s case, the love he has for Ilsa allows him to create the chaos needed to create order.
The film shows love in a selfless way and enforces ideas of sacrifice. In the love triangle, Rick sacrifices his own selfish desire to help Ilsa and Victor escape because it is the best choice. In this instance, love acts as a form of order because it pushes Rick to do what is best for Ilsa. Love acts as an order that made Rick do a risky action for someone he loved.
A scene that said a lot to me about how love could turn chaos into understanding, or order, was when Ilsa held a gun to Rick to threaten him into giving her letters. Pulling a gun on someone is an extremely violent action, but in this scene, Rick stays calm and accepts that there is a gun pointed at him. He knows Ilsa isn’t going to actually shoot him, and instead, she ends up confessing that she missed him and still loves him. This violent moment turns into a passionate, wholesome moment, and she falls into his embrace. I think this says that the role of love, passion, and empathy in society can soften the chaos and violence of the world and that it can be a force, an emotion used for good & order.
I feel that a large theme in this movie is that love can generate a purpose for one’s actions. The reason why Rick ends up sending Victor and Ilse on the plane is because Ilse is Victor’s reason for his work. Even though this is not the desire of either Ilse or Rick, Victor’s work is seen by both of them as something that is more necessary for the world than is their love, which Rick says is nothing but a “hill of beans in this crazy world”. In this way, love is a force of order and reason for outrageous acts that may otherwise be deemed as foolish.
In Casablanca, the love triangle is between Rick, Ilsa, and Laszlo. Rick and IIsa were in love in Paris before the war, but she left hum without explanation. Later, they meet again but she is now with Laszlo. As story goes on Rick decided to let her fo and helps her and Laszlo escape even though he still loves her. The movie shows that love and passion can be strong but they shouldn’t vause chaos or selfish actions. Instead, when guided by duty and sacrifice, love can help bring order. Rick’s choice proves that love isn’t just about what you want but it’s about doing what’s right, even if it hurts.
Between the love triangle, I believe love is a force for order instead of chaos. Even though Ilsa pulled a gun on Rick, the violence turned into something positive. I guess by bringing order it can bring clarity despite doing actions that are not right and if love was seen as a force for chaos, then that’s not really love it’s more of being a psychopath.
With Rich sacrificing himself for Ilse and making the best choice for her, he doesn’t do this simply out of his love for her, bur for the future. He is looking years ahead, and realizing that resistance triumphs over passion and love in the moment. While love is chaotic–as seen with the messy love triangle and Ilse’s dilemma–it’s ultimately a force for order. It’s love and hope for the future that makes people sacrifice themselves for a bigger movement, even if they are left alone without their love in the end. Rich saying “we’ll always have paris” reminded me of soldiers who had to leave their wives and family when they had to fight in the war; even though they weren’t with them, they had memories as reminders of their love.
All the artworks have a common undertone of themes of melancholy and darkness. They all seem to be the artists expressing their own misery and despair, almost pessimistic. Most of the people have this tortured expression. This is a change from the bright colors and more positive attitude we see in impressionism.
To add on a distinguishing feature of the melancholy feeling is that the people depicted in the paintings are often alone, isolated or anonymous. There is a feeling of genuine disconnect from humanity or society that leads to the breaking of these social norms. I think that even though some of the paintings do use brighter colors in the background, overall it is used to highlight the contrast the aura of despair that the people depicted in the paintings have.
The tortured expression is very true, especially in Self Portrait by Egon Schiele. The being in this painting seems to be malnourished, with a thin body underneath an absolutely unsightly face, almost alien-like. The being seems trapped, its face and right arm mangled in an almost unexplainable way. Yes, this is most definitely an impressionist painting; the emotions painted on the man could emulate something completely different to a different viewer or on a different canvas.
Similar to Cubism, the colour scheme also seems incredibly dull. There are far more people depicted in these paintings, and they’re all corpse-like which could encapsulate the zombie like nature of veterans post WW1.
I think it’s interesting that you say that because i believe the choice of colors usually represent something positive. The colors aren’t dark colors like usual paintings that entail of something dark, or of horror and misery. Although I do see the dullness maybe because it’s pastel but the colors yellow, pink and light blue are bright colors usually used to express light, peace and positivity.
I agree, but it’s strange that a majority of the paintings DO have a lot of colors. It’s almost as if a film was placed over the once vibrant artwork, making it appear dull and dreary. It could be a psychological trick that makes us perceive the colors as sombre, though. Sometimes our emotions can affect our perception of color; perhaps the depressing nature of the paintings make us see the colors differently.
A common theme I noticed between all of these pieces of art is the emotional distress all of the people depicted share. One detail that most have in common is wide, gaping, emotionless, darkened eyes. Many of the people depicted look disinterested or tired, allowing for windows into the trauma or psychological strain the individuals have undergone. In several, the eyes are hollow, almost revealing the orbital bones of the skull, perhaps symbolizing that they are dead inside.
I agree Alec, I also noticed the distortion of the human appearance in these paintings. In “The Scream” and “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack”, the people depicted in the artworks both appear ghastly and devoid of humanity. I agree with your analysis that this made them appear as dead and I also interpreted that they are not meant to be seen as humans in the eyes of the viewer, dehumanizing them in a way.
A stylistic pattern in these works to me is the distortion of human forms in different ways. I think it is interesting to see the emotional depiction of humans as objects of war or their sort of basest depictions. There is no desire to depict the subjects as beautiful, which is particularly interesting in the Self-Portraits.
All of these art works are built to be a personified humanoid rather than human. The people within these images are not created to create a perfect image of a human, rather a personification of an emotion expressed by humans. For example, in Edvard Munch “The Scream” you can see that the humanoid object is the personification of fear and panic. The object in “The Scream” gives a feeling of uncanny valley: not quite human, but recognize the humanity in the subject.
A stylistic pattern I noticed in all of these artworks would be portraying portraits of people in a sickly, grotesque manner. Like in Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait, Schiele depicts himself as a disfigured figure, contoured with burn marks and having several limbs missing. This can also be seen in Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden—even though it is less sickly and more human-like, the man is still noticeably pale and exhausted. I believe these portrayals were due to WWI having such an effect on the mass population that it would be fitting to portray one similar to the mood they were feeling during the war.
The biggest stylistic pattern I noticed when looking at this collection of artworks is the expression and design of faces. In each painting, there is at least one face that feels ghastly, or otherwise unnerves me. ‘The Scream’s’ chief facial focus looks like the Scream mask from the movies, while ‘Self-Portrait’ has a face that looks sickly, and ‘Storm Troopers under a Gas Attack’ doesn’t have clear faces, but instead intimidating and scary looking gas masks. “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden’ has a face that looks disappointed and tired in makeup as the subject smokes. The painting I found most intriguing is Beckmann’s ‘Self-Portrait with a Champagne Glass’, because the main focus on the painting has a normal looking face with a suave expression, while a crazed facial expression exists in the background. The juxtaposition of the two faces makes the painting all the more disturbing.
I agree on your insight with the juxtaposition of the two faces because it just seems to add more meaning to the overall painting. The two faces seem to express the artist’s two ways of being, with one being a more serious and presentable form to society and another lurking in the background, mocking the first. We can choose what we decide to present to society and what parts of ourselves to hide, but the parts we decide to hide will always be there in the background. We can’t erase who we are just because it doesn’t fit into society, which is probably why the artist gave the background face with a grimace.
I agree, on top of the facial expression the images show another thing that some of these paintings have in common which is the distortion of humans. For example, in Egon Schiele, Self-Portrait (1910) we can see an image of a man with his torso really small. As well as in Max Beckmann, Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass (1919) we can see the hand of the man in a relatively uncomfortable position and not a normal place for a hand to be in.
One stylistic pattern I noticed in these paintings is that the human bodies are often depicted in distorting forms. The painting “The Scream” shows a distorted human figure screaming, creating a intense sense of anxiety and desperation. Similarly, “Self Portait” by Egon Schiele, Self-Portrait shows a deformed body of human. The right hand and the left arm are missing in the painting. The outline of the human body was twisted. These details make me feel that the man in the painting is suffering.
I agree with your point about the distorted bodies making the figures seem like they’re suffering. This adds to the emotional intensity of both paintings. Something else I noticed is how the artists use color to push that feeling even further. In “The Scream”, the sky’s reds and oranges make everything feel chaotic and overwhelming, almost like the world is closing in. In Schiele’s “Self-Portrait”, the pale skin complexion make the figure look even more fragile or haunted. I think the distortion and the colors are both working together to show what the person is feeling on the inside.
yes, I totally agree with your point that the distorted forms give a sense of suffering. something else I noticed in the first painting was the choice of the background. its all these different colors all meshing together. it further makes the point of suffering, while the other painting is a still background. that his own body being distorted is enough to show immense amount of suffering.
A pattern I noticed throughout the paintings is the fluidity of the human body and its movements in the paintings. The people represented are often in unordinary poses, in motion or bodies are distorted with the movement of the painting. This theme is most clearly scene in Edvard Munch “The Scream” as well as “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” by Max Beckmann, their bodies are distorted to exarate their movement and convey a message through body language. Viewers are drawn to it and it still maintains its sense of clarity with added meaning.
I definitely see that pattern throughout and I do think it’s interesting to note that not only does the fluidity of the bodies add motion but also emotion. The different stances and the wavy kind of style of paintings like “The Scream” and “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” both provide different emotions to go along with the idea of what these people are actually moving like. In “The Scream” the affect of the fluidity and tilting of the painting adds to this idea of nervousness and anxiety while also conjoined with fear. If the artist had chosen to have the person be completely still and lack that fluidity I think it would take away from the emotions expressed. For “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” the way he is turned away and seems to be in the process of turning away adds to this idea of not liking the reflection portrayed behind him. I also do think that “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack” by Otto Dix has this motion that without would take away from the darkness and aggressiveness the painting has. So overall, I 100% agree with it adding meaning and being valuable to the overall message of each painting.
Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) really goes against what you’d expect from a normal portrait. Sylvia isn’t painted to look soft or beautiful. Instead, she has these sharp, almost masculine features and this blank, distant expression. Her outfit, cigarette, and drink make her seem kind of rebellious, like she’s rejecting all the usual ideas of how women are supposed to act or look. The background feels weird and off too, almost like the space isn’t real, which makes the vibe feel unstable. It reminds me of how social norms were falling apart, especially for women during that time.
Question 2
To begin I feel that all of the images display many striking details, but one that stood out to me most was the first painting. The first thing that I notice is that the artist used very few colors to create such a complex image with a landscape. However, the part that I found most interesting is the wavy aspect of the image. It’s interesting to me that both the background and figure in the front display this curvy nature. I feel like it adds to the eerie theme that the image all ready has, leading to the figure fitting the image and adding to the emotion that the picture makes you feel.
I noticed that in the painting “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden,” the fingers of the journalist are unnaturally spread in different directions. The facial features of the journalist are also very unnatural as she has a sharp jaw, eye bags, and unnaturally dark red lips. To me, this is expressing something unpleasant about the journalist. Perhaps she is going through something hard.
In Max Beckmann’s Self Portrait with Champagne Glass the subject of the painting is seen with a normal face expression but I found it striking how the man behind him has a creepier expression staring at the subject. I interpreted this as a mirror reflecting the crazed man within, while the man in the forefront holds a glass to show off his good side because it represents luxury. Therefore I think this represents the duality of people’s identity
I wouldn’t have thought of the manic-looking man as a reflection of the mans double-identity! You point out it could be a divide in class due to the subject looking wealthier, which leads me to interpret the work as a parallel to the class divides during its time. To me, the artists message represents how only the wealthy were able to indulge in the luxuries of life, while those who worked factory jobs were driven crazy with poor quality of life and often overlooked (as the subject is doing)/underrepresented.
The Scream, by Edward Munch features a beautiful disarray of warm toned colors, capturing a viewer’s attention almost immediately. The undulating lines of color in the sky seem to emulate the subject/main character’s internal panic or distress. The visual chaos in the sky might be paralleling an emotional experience, seen by the ailing emotion on the subjects face, showing how a quiet moment becomes overwhelming. It’s a sufficient artistic representation of anxiety or dread through the use of color and form.
Yes, I agree with the point about the sky which represents the panic that the main character is facing. However, I would like to add how although the entire painting is warped including the main subject, the bridge that he stands on and the two men in the background and even the ships remain as normal as possible with the painting style. This may symbolize that no matter what the person is going through, the world will continue to run as normal, showing a sort of eerie isolation.
In Egon Schiele’s “Self-portrait”, something that stands out to me is the way in which it looks like Schiele has lacerations or burns on certain parts of his body. It also appears that he may be holding something that could have caused them (or it could just be the stroke of a pencil). I believe this could signify how Schiele is trying to portray his “raw” self, down to the flesh. This sets Schiele apart, as traditional self-portraits do not include their artist being naked, especially not in this way.
Something I find striking in Otto Dix’s, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack painting is the dehumanization of the soldiers and their effect on the viewer. The gas masks make the soldiers look inhuman and instead alien. It completely detaches the humanity from the soldiers., making them look almost like monsters. As well as this, the gaze of the three middle soldiers are also very striking. It’s as if the soldiers are confronting the viewer in a way that feels empty because we can’t see the soldiers face, and also because it looks as if there is no hope for humanity, saying “this is what we have come to”. It also feels very accusatory, like the viewer is guilty of something and the soldiers are shaming us for that, or accusing us for doing something wrong. Overall, the gaze brings psychological discomfort to the viewer, maybe giving us a sense of what the soldiers were internally feeling a the time.
In the painting “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden,” I found it intriguing how androgynous the subject of the painting appears to be. Her short hair and scowling face present in a very masculine way. SHe does not appear to be wearing any makeup, and the lines to paint her are sharp and rigid. Without her clothing and her accessories, by just looking at the painting I would have not been able to guess she was a woman. I think this speaks to the progressive nature of the era, especially considering the title of the painting, which mentions she was a journalist– a career woman.
In Max Beckmann’s The Actors, there are 3 different boxes that is drawn. And those boxes look like they are depicting 3 different scenes in a play. Contrary to a play, this painting is still and and depicts only 3 scenes. I’m not too sure what is happening in the scenes since they are so different. But it may imply chronological order or just 3 different plays. There are also so many different colors being used and yet everything is so calm. Every color is being used but all very intentionally. In this painting, I think the boxes are very crucial to this painting.
One pattern I see in all the artworks is the distortion of faces. In all of the paintings, the faces are either blurred, stretched, have exaggerated eyes, or have more shadows than normal. I believe this speaks to the element of expressionist art that highlights the loss of one’s soul. Faces tell a lot about people, and facial expressions are one of the most drastic characteristics of humans (especially how humans differ from each other), so to distort that and to present faces in a way that almost isolates people from their humanistic qualities is extremely jarring. In particular, the painting that is most extreme to me is Max Beckmann’s Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass, where there is a complete flip from the man’s facial expressions to his reflection. This especially speaks to the alienation in society at the time, with people not able to even act and feel like themselves.
I agree with you, the first thing I noticed in all of the paintings were the faces, and like how you said, they are all stretched and altered in a way to make it harder to read the expressions on their faces.
Definitely. The first thing that I noticed when viewing these pieces was that all of the subjects read as caricatures of humans, with exaggerated features such as the stretched or blurred aspects that you mention. I also believe that this speaks to the sense of alienation in society around this time, especially Munch’s The Scream, where not only the subject of the painting is stripped of individual features, but so is the background that is comprised simply of dashes of color and vague detail about the landscaping.
Hi Kaitlyn, I definitely agree that all of the paintings depict faces in which they are expressing their emotions, such as portraying the “exaggerated eyes” you mentioned. In addition to the distorted faces, I also noticed that these pieces simultaneously incorporate distorted hands; for instance, in Edvard Munch’s The Scream, the figure can be seen with contorted hands around their face. Similarly, in Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait, the figure can be seen without any hands, however, the viewers can infer that based on the figure’s distorted facial expressions and body language, they are displaying some key characteristics of Expressionism.
Agreed. I feel as though the reason for the distortion is that traditional or more “realistic” way of painting focuses so much on the external at hand that the emotion while shown, might not be as well translated, but with expressionism it is all about maintaining the general shapes and figures to make out what is at hand, however it is distorted by whatever emotion one is feeling.
I agree with Kaitlin, the face of every artworks are distorted. However, it is contrasting with futurism because in futurism there were lots of straight lines and angles but for expressionism there are more curvy and wavy line thus there are less angles. Also even though expressionism artwork is distorted, compare to futurism it is more direct. In futurist artwork I was not able to identify what artist was trying to draw but for expressionism I can identify it.
A thematic pattern I see through out these paintings is is trying to show some type of emotional distress. In the paintings that I see it the most are Edvard Munch, The Scream, Otto Dix, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, and Max Beckmann, The Actors, the facial expressions show as if they are disconnecting from society or even they could be alienated. It is like the paintings are expressing the brutal truth of society through their facial expressions (emotional distress).
I agree- I feel like the artists make some of these distressing on purpose to convey some underlying meaning/issue. I thought that Egon Schiele’s “Self-Portrait”-the painting of a pretty emaciated body- was very dark, maybe showing how he struggled with his body image or a disorder.
I notice a pattern of distortion and fluidity in all of these paintings. It almost feels like if I stare long enough, they will continue moving and “expressing” whatever emotion is consuming the subject at the moment. For example, both the famous “The Scream painting” and the “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” maintain that flowiness of brushstrokes, it can be seen in the scream’s sky, and the portraits cigarette smoke/wallpaper.
In all of these Expressionist art, there is a clear emotion present. This is especially clear in the faces of the subjects. Each has a clear expression on their face (or explicit lack of emotion like in Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack) which pairs well with the deliberate placement/pose of their hands.
A pattern that I noticed in these artworks is the fluidity of brush strokes, especially compared to past types of art, like Cubism. These paintings feel as though they flow a lot more, and will keep moving, especially in Edvard Munch’s “The Scream”, where the painting feels like it goes past what is being depicted.
In Max Beckmann, Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass (1919), one detail that stuck out to me was the man in the back looks different than the man in front. The man in the back seems happier or insane even, while the man in the front seems more clever and mischievous because of his slight smirk. Since this art is supposed to be a self portrait, then I assume that the artist is drawing the man he sees himself as in the front and the man he wants to be or how other people see him in the back. However, the man in the back can be entering the room instead and the man in front is turning his head to face him. I think there can be many different interpretations to this painting. I just thought it was striking to see two people in a self portrait. I wonder if they are both supposed to represent the artist or if it reveals something about the artist’s personality instead.
Beckmann’s piece is really weird because of the man is the back as you mentioned. I think he may be wearing a mask of some sort but there is no obvious symbolic reason why. I also noticed that in the mirror behind him, there seems to be a smudged face. The face is Picasso-esque in shape and honestly I might be completely wrong, but I think maybe Beckmann is trying to mess with the idea of appearances with this portrait. Everything is a little wack (such as his ugly and pale hands) and it’s just enough to make you question what is and isn’t there. If the man in the back is wearing a mask, possibly he is commenting on the nature of a self-portrait, being what you wish to show to others rather than who you actually are.
I agree with your points, the man in the back seems to be looking directly at the audience, his gaze to be confrontational and even almost intense. I feel like his stare in the back almost creates a sense of psychological trauma or suffering. I can also see that in general, champagne in most of paintings, can signify joy or celebration, but in this case, the man in the front seems somber, and a little serious. I feel like this contrast can embark a deeper meaning to the message of the painting, but I just don’t know what it is.
In Max Beckmann’s Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass, it’s hard not to notice the face of the man in the top right corner of the painting. The crazed zeal look in his eyes and sinister smile make for a rather scary and intense looking person. His eyes are extremely wide and unnaturally white with his pupils constricted as he smiles largely with his teeth. His facial features directly contrast Beckmann’s, both in the emotions and also the details in the features themselves. The man in the back possibly represents an alter ego of Beckmann, how he feels on the inside, or a representation of men in society at that time period.
I do also feel as thought the figure in the back with his eyes bulging out could possibly be his alter ego. The man with the champagne glass has a very serious face and he could be putting on a facade to hide from his true feelings.
In the first image, one striking detail I notice is how the majority of the painting is made up of swirling lines. The sky and a ghostly looking person are made up of swirls. In contrast, the bridge that is made up of straight lines and the two individuals in the background don’t seem to have that fluid body movement as the figure in the forefront. This contrast implies that the figure in the forefront may be dead but their spirit is still in the world after death. Or being that the painting is named scream it also could be representing a person experiencing extreme anxiety.
I agree, at first I only noticed the curvy aspect of the image. But, after taking another look I notice the straight lines and find it very interesting. I also agree with your point that the contrast of curvy vs. straight implies the difference between life and the after life.
The first thing that struck me about Otto Dix’s “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” was how realistic the artwork was when looking at certain elements, but how comical it looked when viewed as a whole. In the portrait, the hands were so detailed, they almost seem photographed. However, in contrast to this, the body is painted without much shading, so its shape looks two-dimensional. The drastic stylistic changes create a really deceptive painting, drawing your mind into wondering what makes something realistic.
I agree, Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) challenges normative expectations by presenting a woman in a defiant pose. Instead of idealizing feminine beauty, he paints Sylvia with sharp, angular features, cropped hair, and androgynous clothing signaling a departure from traditional gender roles. I think that her stiff posture and distant gaze also show detachment.
In Otto Dix’s “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack” I think it is interesting how the gas masks look. At first glance, at least to me, they look a lot like skulls, which is obviously striking and attention grabbing. I think it could be an intentional and poignant depiction of Otto’s stance on the war and what it entailed. The art has a very eerie feeling to a it and shows an almost horrific maybe zombie like movement which I think is interesting. The front left soldier almost looks as if he is crawling or reaching, either in an attempt to escape or toward something.
I Agree, in both of Otto’s paintings the characters seem to give skeleton like features, and I think they represent death in the war. Although they are actively “alive” they could still represent death because thats what war brought for most people
In Elon Schiller, Self-portrait (1910), a striking detail I found was how skinny/ underdeveloped the portrait was. I found this striking because when someone draws/paints themselves in an image sometimes or most of the time they tend to try and emphasize their features and make themselves seem more/ better than the real thing. Instead the image shown portrays someone sickly, with bones showing. It’s a bit creepy how the face is staring and the posture is sort of leaning to the right and his left arm is up.
In Elon Schiller, Self-portrait (1910), a striking detail I found was how skinny/ underdeveloped the portrait was. I found this striking because when someone draws/paints themselves in an image sometimes or most of the time they tend to try and emphasize their features and make themselves seem more/ better than the real thing. Instead the image shown portrays someone sickly, with bones showing. It’s a bit creepy how the face is staring and the posture is sort of leaning to the right and his left arm is up..
In Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass by Max Beckmann, I immediately noticed the figure in the background. Specifically, the face of the man behind Beckmann. His face is blurred and ghostly. It creates an eerie tension, as if Beckmann is being watched or haunted. This detail adds to the painting’s atmosphere of alienation and postwar anxiety. It makes the viewer question whether this figure is real, imagined, or symbolic. It is a strange and visceral representation of the fractured social self in the aftermath of World War I.
In Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, this piece of art goes against the normal presentation of genders. Sylvia von Harden is drawn as an androgynist figure. Though she is a woman, she has features of both a man and women, which may be representative of the queer people in society. This challenges normal culture as women before were typically drawn with soft features as to ensure their femininity.
I think that this is a really interesting analysis that I didn’t even consider when first viewing this art. I think that the representation and melding of genders is definitely an expression of disregarding social norms and going against traditional femininity. This makes me wonder how it was received by the public at the time- if it made them uncomfortable/outraged, or if it was more eye-opening and positive.
Otto Dix, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) went against the viewers normative expectations in some way. I say that because based off the artwork we’ve seen most woman have been in their most “feminine form”, when it comes to artwork including woman we see a lot of nudity or them involved with things connected to femininity. However with this art piece I notice how she is fully clothed, in this long sleeve turtleneck dress with short hair smoking a cigarette. I’m not saying things like that aren’t feminine however we as viewers don’t expect to see women like this in paintings. In a way we expect the woman to be more vulnerable not so fierce or bold.
Otto Dix, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack (1924), is a visceral example of art that can challenge normal expectations through it’s evil portrayal of warfare. The choice to show masked men, striped of identity and emotion, contradicts viewers opinions of soldiers as brave and heroic. Dix’s disruption/challenge of social norms highlights chaos that rose as a result of modern war.
A striking detail I noticed in Otto Dix’s, “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” is the unusually long hands and fingers that Sylvia is depicted with. Compared to the cigarette that she’s holding, her fingers are much longer, the exaggerated bony fingers draws attention to the ring on her middle finger and masculine facial features. Those hands, which is what a journalist likely relies on, becomes a symbol of defiance towards traditional values of femininity. The short hair, short dress, and long fingers reinforces her identity as a modern, independent woman in an unstable world.
That is a really good observation. I noticed something off about the painting too, but I could not quite put my finger on it. I agree with you about how the non traditional the painting is. I think it was a really good way for the painter to go about it.
A particular art piece that striking is the Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack by Otto Dix. I think the way he draws the troops with the masks fighting and holding weapons makes the painting look very serious and uneasy. War is scary and the darkness of the painting and the faces of the men display emotions of despair and horror.
This painting also made me feel uneasy! I focused on their faces too, and the gas masks the men wear that obscure their faces–it borders less on realistic and more on cartoonish. The eyes of the mask are enlarged, giving them an alien-like appearance. White was used for the base of the mask, which is a strange considering, historically, greys and blacks seemed to be the default for gas masks. The choice of white, along with the exaggerated wrinkles, almost gives the appearance of skin. The soldiers are frightening, and I can’t tell whether they’re supposed to represent the enemy or soldiers on Dix’s side.
A striking detail that I noticed in the artwork titled The Actors made by Max Beckmann was the amount of violence that seems to be occurring in the piece. For example the man in the center stabbing himself, the girl right below him looking like she’s strangling a cat and lastly the man under the stage who looks like he is in the act of stabbing the other guy with a stick like figure. There are so many things going on in the painting, but when you focus on the smaller groups of people you can see and better understand what seems to be going on.
A striking detail I noticed from Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait is that he depicts himself with extreme facial and body distortions. Specifically, he gives himself an exceedingly bony and gaunt body frame. One of the first things I noticed from this painting was how, as you move down, Schiele becomes increasingly skinny and angular. I think this distortion of himself reflects his inner struggles with identity.
A striking detail I noticed in the work “Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack” is how it’s in black and white. In contrast from the other paintings, this one lacks a mixture of colorful colors. The illustration of giant soldiers wearing gas masks in a deserting and lifeless background, is already powerful enough and delivers the expression of dark emotions, yet the selection of black and white colors makes create the dark emotions to become more intense.
A striking detail I noticed in Edvard Munch, The Scream (earliest version 1893; this version 1910) is the emphasis on the overall meaning of the piece, not individual details. For example, the art favors colorful displays and one can tell what is happening in the artwork, however, there are no concrete outlines, showcasing a more “up-in-the-air” feel. However, with the work, portrays a catharsis of a black figure screaming, signifying the artist’s own feelings when creating the peace.
A striking detail of Edward Munch’s The Scream is the curved lines that extend from the screaming figure into the eerily red sky, almost like it’s an echo of the scream from the figure. This painting has always been terrifying to me. The figure’s simplified, distorted form and horror, coupled with the indifference of the two figures in the background, create a sense of maddening isolation in one’s suffering.
In The Scream, one of the details I found most striking is the swirling and, in another sense, almost liquefied sky that is made through an unnatural blend of reds, oranges, and yellows, that seems to be mirroring the psychological panic of the central figure. The landscape itself seems to be riddled with anxiety due to the way in which Munch structured his painting.
A striking detail I noticed in Otto Dix, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack is how grim and hollow the painting is because of the color scheme and the style. The painting being grim and hollow and the style looking stressed is a great way to present how depressing and dark war really was.
In Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926), the way Sylvia is portrayed is the complete opposite of what existing beauty standards for women were. She has extremely large hands, short dark hair, thin lips, big nose, and the dress she is wearing is extremely unflattering and shapeless. Otto Dix is capturing how Sylvia is going completely against the aesthetic norm of how women should look, however she manages to carry herself like the typical city woman: she is holding a cigarette and smoking with her legs crossed, which was the epitome of a city woman. To further show that Sylva is a undeniable city woman, he makes the cigarette box pink, the walls pink and her drink pink. Previously, wall colors and drinks were not as bright, but this scene shows the shift into the Avant-Garde era.
Otto Dix’s Portrait of Journalist Sylvia von Harden initially disturbed me a little because it’s so different from what I imagined a portrait of an woman would look like. Her sharp features, the monocle, the cigarette, and the drink all challenge traditional notions of femininity. She looks cool, almost arrogant, but weirdly disconnected.I think that Dix is demonstrating what happens when old societal rules fall away, especially after the trauma of World War I. There is an idea that identity itself has become fragile, which is what makes the painting so powerful and unsettling to me.
In The Actors (1942), it kind of messes with our expectation of performance and reality itself. We normally think of actors as people who wear masks on stage then take it off in real life but the painting blurs that line. The figures are cramped into the space and their expressions are strained or haunted or even grotesque. The costumes feel more of a prison uniform than stage outfit. I think Beckmann is saying that in society, the roles that we play aren’t optional; they’re suffocating. No breaks from the performance or an idea of who’s real or playing a part.
Throughout the film, there is a continuation of a yellowish and occasionally a teal tint to the scenes, broken up with the same kind of green writing and background. These colors are dullish and consistent. The shade of them is almost eerie. Coupled with the odd painted backgrounds that aren’t quite realistic, these colors work to provoke a strange and slightly uncomfortable feeling in the viewer. I think this parallels the uneasy social situation that came with the end of the Great War, especially since Germany had lost and was undergoing a period of political instability and economic struggles.
I also think that the pale makeup, as well as the actor’s movements in the movie, make everyone seem corpse-like or zombie-like. This could also be a remnant of the Great War, and how death and uneasiness became normalized in society afterward. The movie portrays itself almost like a nightmare which I imagine is what everything must’ve looked like after the war.
I completely agree with you Ava and Amelia in the fact that there is a use of yellow/green tints and even eerie music. I think that like Ava said it creates a sort of nightmare trying to depict the landscape of what post war looked like. When I watch the movie I not only feel like I’m in a zombie or nightmare world but simply that I am in a different one. By changing the color of the atmosphere it highlights that things are not the same and with the edition of the sad and scary music it emphasizes that life has changed for the worse. On the other hand, I wonder if the use of yellow tint is to symbolize that it’s day time or even some sort of hope. At 0.25 minutes the tint switches to a blue hue, maybe depicting night or even just darkness. So maybe instead of the yellow depicting a zombie like atmosphere it’s showing day time and that there is maybe some sense of hope left.
I agree with how the color sets a disturbing tone for the viewer. An example of this coloration is around 12:30, when the carnival is covered in this unsettling shade of yellow. The darker, almost greenish tones of the people and the tent opening, along with the twisted structure of the tents, all add to an uncanny feeling while viewing this scene.
I couldn’t agree with you all more, but I think for me is the fact that it’s also mostly silent, which acts to the eerie-ness of it all. For me the eeriness felt especially prevalent during (41:00-42:35), where the actors’ facial expressions felt very stressful, adding to the tension as a viewer. Part of this sequence, I thought, was also the high pitched music playing in the background with the yellow-ish hue filled the scene.
I agree the sets have strange and uncanny feeling. The sets remind me of the paintings we examined for expressionism. The sets aren’t representations of sets themselves, rather a personification of what a person feels a building is. For example, in 47:56 in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” when Cesare kidnaps the woman, the rooftops are displayed more like roads. In Cesare’s eyes, it’s his form of escape, so it becomes a road. It’s as personification of what Cesare feels about the set.
An interesting stylistic pattern in this movie is the music and confusing stage sets, and how they add to the disorienting feeling of this movie. The music starts eerie, and depending on the scene, shifts from quirky and go-lucky to eerie and suspenseful. This can be seen near the middle of the film as the man with a knife approaches the girl’s bed and the music shifts, then stops completely (Wiene, 0:46:15 – 0:47:00). At this point, it’s completely unclear what the man will do, as he appears to hesitate before his next move. I feel as if this scene is representative of much of the movie; the music, sets, and characters make it difficult to understand what the protagonists and side characters are thinking, adding to the disorienting vibe of the film.
I agree that the music makes the film eerie and disorienting. At 0:18:41 the person was on a stage performing with a creepy Somnambulist in a cabinet. The music at first is suspenseful with a few piano chords and then adds more string instruments when he starts to walk. It is eerie because as you said, we don’t know what everyone in this film is thinking, and all we get is the change of music. So, music really plays a big role in determining how the audience feel about each scene.
I completely agree with you Luke. There are very few straight lines in this movie, which reminds me a lot of the impressionist pieces we saw earlier this semester. You can see in the background that the trees are not straight and the props themselves are angled/bent in a direction. This adds to the surrealist aspect of the movie and definitely helps to convey horror. I think this is especially important because older horror movies like this one don’t have the advantages of modern film with scary cgi and voices. Also, one interesting detail I saw is in 54:40 – 54:45, it looks like the words of the sign switch from English to German depending on who is viewing it. This is a subtle detail that I found rather interesting.
One noticeable stylistic pattern I noticed was the color tinting throughout the movie. Most of the movie has a yellow tint, which I think represents daylight or indoor light, making it feel like it was late afternoon. There was also a switch to blue tinting, which represented darkness. Additionally, I think that the color choices where not only used to distinct the time of day but it also emphasize the characters facial expressions making it easier for the audience to make out their emotions.
I agree, the lighting and tinting is important to the films mood and emotion throughout. Music is also important as it helps paint the emotions in a scene. For example at 23:00, the music is eerie and at times the notes and its timings sound random to make it sound disorienting.This with the dim lighting and yellow tint helps creep out the viewer and carry out the overall creepiness of the scene.
Yes I agree with your observation as the color of the scenes seem to change to represent the time of day in the movie or the events that are happening. The music seems to become more intense in the blue scenes adding a eerie and mysterious tone. To add on, the producer also plays around with shapes as building and windows are crooked with painted shadows. This helps put viewers in the setting of a disoriented world.
I also noticed the differences in tinting throughout the film and what they could possibly represent during each scene. Adding on to the emphasis of facial expressions, I also believe that the different color tinting paired with the transition shots demonstrate what the particular emotion is for specific scenes. A number of times throughout the beginning of the film, shots that focused on Dr. Caligari’s face were eerie and suggested that he was up to no good.
I also noticed the use of tinted colors all throughout the film. While I thought it was odd at first, I later realized that the colors are used to convey emotions or set the scene. For example, yellow was used heavily that can suggest daytime or a warm feeling.
Through the six acts in this movie there are many interesting patterns compared to modern day movies. One interesting factor is the backgrounds/set. Typically in movies their are sets in which the actors are placed for different scenes. From the viewers perspective the setting in which the actors are in are very real and seem life like. Yet in this movie you can see the backgrounds being drawn with almost a pencil like streak. You’re also able to see the cardboards that are shaped to create an image.
I noticed that throughout the movie, whenever there was a transition, the screen would close in on certain characters. I believe this stylistic choice is used to emphasize the emotions or foreshadowing from particular scenes. For example, when Francis visited his friend after he had been murdered, the closing shot focused on his face then faded out, highlighting how Francis felt after seeing his body and Dr. Caligari’s probable role in his murder.
One very noticeable pattern throughout the movie is the crazy, wild, and sometimes ridiculousness of the sets. These sets are used all across the movie and can show crooked walls or drawn windows everywhere on the set. This seems very intentional which may be a creative choice to bring some silliness to the grim seeming movie, or it could be to show that in this unstable age, nothing is where or how it is supposed to be.
This movies visuals really showcase the difference between movies back then to now. The yellow with black cinematic vibe gives us a “terror” vibe. I feel as if the yellow is supposed to help “bring life” into these characters who look sick in a way. They look very pale and scary but maybe the yellow is supposed to even them out and maybe give us more than what we see.
One thing I noticed was the stylistic choice of the text slides. They were aqua green and would express characters speaking or at the end of a scene. In addition, the letters were very jagged and chunky. I think this was chosen to portray the style of expressionism, as they are similar to the feel of the paintings that we looked at before. The paintings were very fluid, leading the eye to the place, while some parts were sharp, similar to the text in the movie.
I agree with you. The different ways that the text are written can help portray the emotions of the actors even without hearing them audibly and not looking at their faces. They could’ve shown the caption of their dialogue with their faces on the screen as they were mouthing their lines but they chose not to. And that helped express their emotions even more visually. There is also a constant pattern of a green background.
One interesing stylistic pattern that made the movie much more intense and immersive was the use of different music throughout various scenes. The music especially in the scene where Cesare kidnaps Jane adds a lot to the movie. The frantic rising tempo heightens the chaos and fear of the moment which allows the tension to feel greater to the audience In a movie without dialogue other components like sets, music, and become much more important and focused on.
The human figures/portraits of women and men in these painting all look eerie and strange in comparison to the other portraits and paintings we’ve viewed in class, especially the paintings of Impressionism and the Pre-Raphaelite paintings of women. Unlike the portrayal of the women in those paintings, the people painted in Expressionism art are not proper, not aesthetically pleasing, and even disturbing to a viewer who normally would expect something reflective of how they see someone through their eyes. In the Otto Dix piece, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, from the title, the viewer might expect to see a proper woman with a notebook. Instead, the painting shows a rather unpleasant-looking woman who has a sour expression on her face, is smoking and drinking, and sitting in an unelegant way.
Egon Schiele’s self-portrait challenge viewer’s expectation through the portrait of human body. Normally when think of self-portrait you would think of a fine looking human; smiling or serious. But in Egon Schiele’s painting the viewer see an incomplete, twisted human body that can almost regard as ugly. in a way is similar to how Picasso drew violin, both deconstructed something that once is perceive as perfect and beautiful into an incomplete, imperfect form.
Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harder by Otto Dix shows the idea of anomie because it defers from what you usually expect from a portrait. Instead of idealizing the subject, she looks more detached, with sharp features such as short hair, or a emotionless expression. As she hold a cigarette and a drink, it even portrays her as more modern and depressing. She also dresses and posses in an way that doesn’t serve the purpose of pleasing the audiences eyes. These all shows how the painting purposely breaks the social norms, and presents the idea of anomie.
It could possibly be just the nature of the silent film, but the movie gives us a lot of time showing what is essentially nothing. Usually it will be when a character realizes something, but it’s not communicated to the audience. It’s actually quite nice, as it makes the film a bit uncomfortable to watch, especially with the music. The audience is left to wonder separately from the characters, which makes the mystery aspect more enjoyable.
I notice this as well! In the beginning of the movie (~ 6 min mark) when they set up the scene of “Alan, My Friend” the movie spends a great deal of time filming his ordinary interactions: reading a book, looking out a window—this scene lasts over a minute long—something that is not filmed in modern-day movies. To me, the style of capturing mundane daily tasks seems to be an attempt to humanize the characters and bring them to life.
A stylistic choice I noticed in the film is the use of color filters, music and vignette to convey emotion and focus to the viewer. The color filters change throughout the movie, depending on the theme to further emphasis something happening on screen and evoke an emotion intended to feel, certain rooms have colors associated with them as well. This is similar with the music, as it often changes throughout scenes and even highlights action through musical cues. The vignette shrinks when its intended to focus on a particular character or making what’s intended to be focused on more obvious. These methods all add personality to the film and make clear the story without the use of spoken words.
Yes, I agree with you. The change of filters of different colors helps the audience to understand to movie without sound. A pattern I notice was that the filter would turn yellow during the day and turn green at night. This change reminded audience of the time in the movie and made the movie easier to understand. Also, red filter was used in Jane’s room while she heard about the murder of Alan. The color of the filter reflected the emotions of the characters.
I picked up on this too. The lighting and filter changes seemed to add another layer to be interpreted. I think it was an interesting way to to convey and display what was happening, when and the emotions that were supposed to be insinuated. What was meant to stand out was better and obviously able to which I think helps a lot with following and understanding. If not for these and the music that help cue our thinking I think following and interpreting the film would be significantly more difficult. The lack of speaking can sometimes make things boring or confusing, but by making these stylistic choices it really pulled everything together.
Yes, I totally agree! I want to add that the lightning changes also completely change the vibe of the scene as well. I think the warmer colors (yellow) at the start represent the scenes are not as stressful while the cooler colors (green) represent the scenes that are more anticipating. However, this does not apply to the red scene though, which was very sad because of the death. I feel like this was a really good way to represent the mood shifts and portray the mood of a scene. Even though, I couldn’t understand the writing in the movie, I still felt like the mood of each scenes were shown very well. I feel like the music also matched the dramatic parts of the movie as well. However, I feel like the music in the movie can especially be interpreted in many different ways just as the colors in the film to show the different moods.
I think the use of expressionistic set design in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari creates a unique stylistic pattern where many distorted, sharp shapes and sharp lines take over the visuals. This unpleasant aesthetic represents the characters’ inner turmoil, fractured mental state and instability. Also, the crooked buildings, slanted windows, and twisted streets all serve to create a disturbing appearance, and it highlights the themes of madness and perception. The disturbing images not only show the protagonists’ inner pain, but also highlight the aftermath of war trauma of a nation dealing with the break down of old structures and previous order.
One thing I noticed were the distorted and almost exaggerated set designs, which made the movie have a dream-like feel to it. The architecture and the shadows put an emphasis on psychological and insanity theme. Adding onto this, the visual misinterpretations turns the physical environment into a psychological space, supporting the idea of the themes of paranoia, and uneasiness.
Yes, and maybe because it relates to the nature of being a silent film. If the set designs aren’t distorted and almost exaggerated, then the film would probably be harder to capture the eye of the viewer and move the film along in a cohesive way that stays in the psychological space of the viewer. The dream-like feel could also be on purpose too as the film is supposed to create an uneasiness and fearful movement of thought through the set designs as much as the acting of the characters.
A stylistic pattern seen throughout the movie is using unnatural set designs. For example, during the beginning of the movie (minute 5:09) we see buildings and a bridge at impossible angles and this gives a sense of a fake or a dream world. Another example can be seen towards the middle of the movie (minute 23:08) where there are buildings and even trees which seem to be at a weird angle.
Throughout the movie, scenes often take place in distorted sets that don’t match in proportion. For example, the first scene shows a fair, and its layout is crooked, which I thought was due to the low budget for backdrops. However, the warped scenery continued, especially in scenes with hallways like at 9:02. In the scene at 23:15, when they walk on the street at night, the street lamp points outward in a strange way, and the windows on the buildings sway in different directions. I believe the distortions and misproportions throughout the movie are meant to symbolize how this reality, where previous morals and normalcy are being broken, is warped and inconsistent with what reality should be.
That’s a really interesting take, I hadn’t thought about the set design as a reflection of a broken sense of morality, but that makes a lot of sense. I also noticed how the strange angles and warped buildings gave the whole movie an almost dreamlike /nightmarish kind of feeling. It kind of puts you in the mindset of the characters too, like their world is literally falling apart. It’s cool how the film uses the environment not just for atmosphere, but to say something deeper about the state of the world they’re living in.
One visual pattern I noticed is how distorted and jagged the buildings and the streets are. Nothing looks straight or stable, windows are crooked, walls lean weirdly, and the shadows feel exaggerated and fake. It creates a feeling of unease in as if the world itself is unstable. I think it reflects the characters’ mental states, especially Francis, and also shows how the world after the war felt totally broken.
Something I noticed was how the camera shot would go from a full lens to a cut out lens so it only showed a section of the shot rather than filling the entire screen. This happened throughout the movie and often occurred during moments of tension or stress. Sometimes it was a clear circle frame, or a diamond, and other times the edge of the frame would blend into the setting and stage set, and some scenes the sizing and shape would even change. I thought this was a really nice way to get the viewer to focus on key aspects and details, especially specific characters and their thought processes and emotions throughout the movie.
A stylistic pattern I noticed was the use of coloring and hues. I feel like this is often an overlooked feature in movies and television, but can be very powerful. Especially knowing how relatively new cameras and movies as a whole were back then, it was important to use any aspect they could to tell the story they want. For example, the use of the bright yellowish hue during more light hearted times and specifically daylight like at 15:10 when the fair is happening. Then when it’s perceivably night time there’s this blush hue casted over like at 24:07 when they are walking back late at night. However, there’s also a third color depiction which is this almost purplish dark gray hue which can be seen at 39:00 which is at moments where it’s still night time but the actors are indoors rather than outside. These color changes may seem subtle and not entirely important but I do think that the use of these colors are valuable to the story when producing a more eerie vibe and helping to frame where and when the story is happening. When a movie has no words and lacks the ability to really showcase everything in as high a quality as wished, little things like that make up for it and help the viewer follow along.
One thing that really stood out to me while watching The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was how off everything felt the buildings were crooked, the streets tilted, and the shadows looked fake, almost like they were painted on. At first, I thought it might just be a low-budget set, but as the movie went on, I realized it was intentional. The distorted visuals made me feel unsettled, like something was always just a little bit wrong. It put me in the headspace of the characters, especially Francis, and made the whole story feel more like a nightmare than reality. It was such a creative way to show how broken and unstable the world felt after the war, without needing to say a word.
After doing the first part of the assignment and looking at examples of expressionist art I noticed that the set in the movie is definitely supposed to display this. The buildings are more jagged than normal ones, streets are twisted and wavy rather than traditional straighter ones, and the lighting in the movie almost looks fake or unnatural. Also, a lot of things within the movie are weird in a way or maybe even unique. We see things like windows and doors shaped oddly or put on a tilt, which I think creates a more nightmarish or fake representation.
A striking stylistic pattern in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” by Robert Wiene is its use of distorted, angular set designs—with warped buildings, jagged landscapes, and twisted interiors that defy natural perspective. This pattern of an unnatural setting creates a nightmare like atmosphere that reflects the inner turmoil and psychological instability of the characters, especially the somnambulist and narrator. The tilted architecture gives the entire world a sense of unstableness, where the narrator becomes increasingly unreliable as well. The film’s visuals depicted the psychological fragmentation and confusion during post war Germany.
I was also intrigued by the set design! I noticed that a lot of the sets looked stage-like, in the sense where the scenes weren’t shot in natural locations, but in places where the set was painted. This stands especially true in scenes that take place in nature. Like you mention, it definitely feels unnatural to see painted set pieces in place of real trees and foliage.
I agree! I also believe that one of the most captivating things of the movie was the setting and how it was composed, from the colors to the shapes. The composition of the setting was unusual and strangely complexed as it appeared random but at that’s how it was supposed to appear. I also think that the strangeness of the unusual patterns of the setting reflect the social change that seemed unusual to nations such as Germany as a consequence of the war.
A visual stylistic pattern I noticed throughout the movie was the use of encroaching blackness from the edges of the screen. Multiple times throughout the film darkness would press inward from all sides of the frame. This was usually just a little bit but on occasion it would be quite intense blocking out most of the background. This was used not only to focus the viewers eye but also to add suspense and a sense of confinement. A specific scene where it was used to great effect was the kidnapping scene as it gave it an air of entrapment and danger.
Yes, I agree! whenever the movie wanted to create a sense of suspense it would blacken most of the background and focus in one specific thing. A specific detail that I saw it would blacken the background when the main character would get thoughts or when the master of the somnambulist would have a trick under his sleeve to create suspense in the town.
A stylistic pattern I noticed in the movie was that everyone looks very sickly, pale, and pasty. I felt like that was an interesting choice, and it makes the darkened emotions from features like their eyes stand out more. The changes in the background seem to match the emotional moods of the scenes, too, adding meaning with color.
I agree! The ghostly aspect of the film definitely enhances the “fear factor” the overall movie brings. I think this was super intentional as the whole purpose of the movie to be an expressionist film. More specifically, the twisted, jagged sets, again, add to the story as it is supposed to be a horror movie. It distorts the watcher’s view, also giving the viewer a sense of uneasiness.
I agree. To this point, I think that silent film works well with an expressionist mixing in, as both are silent works that use facial expressions and body language to depict a deeper theme. The film certainly makes use of both, and pays special attention to how actors look as you mentioned.
I agree, the visuals are unsettling and portray paranoia and fear. The landscapes match the emotional states of the characters. It emulates these emotions by bending the landscapes in a warped way.
(1:01:00-1:05:00) This scene describes the moment where Francis and the doctors discover Dr. Caligari’s diary, in which he writes how he’s happy to encounter a somnambulist because it allows him to uncover the secrets of Caligari through murderous acts. I find this scene as an act that challenges authority because it’s a refusal to let good morals get in the way of the personal pursuit of scientific discovery. Dr. Caligari sees the manipulation of the somnambulist as an opportunity to discover something despite what society would deem as appropriate actions within the realm of superiority.
I agree that this scene exposes how Caligari twists science into an excuse for evil. What’s crazy to me how the movie frames that this obsession with discovery is more important than humanity. It’s almost like Caligari represents the danger of an unchecked intellectual authority where experimentation and logic is used to justify control and murder. The system enables him. It makes me wonder how many people get away with the same kind of thing under a mask of professionalism.
This definitely reveals how Dr. Caligari prioritizes his own obsessive pursuit of knowledge over ethical boundaries. His actions expose the dangers of unchecked authority in science and medicine. Building on that idea I noticed the visual style of the scene only adds to it. The sets are disjointed with warped trees and strange colors. This shows Cesare’s disturbed mental state as well as Dr. Caligari’s twisted morality.
a key moment that authority is challenged is when Francis is investigating Dr. Caligari and surely enough finds out that the respected director is behind the murders. this scene undermines the trust in institutional power and reveals just how much authority can be corrupt or even dangerous.
The twist ending could have been a moment where the movie challenges authority. When Francitz appears in the mental asylum with the asylum director, the movie makes the commentary that the asylum’s director could be the authority trying to silence Francitz. The twist ending lets the viewer imagine if what Francitz really experienced was the truth or he was insane. If we believe in Francitz it could be showing us that the use of authority to silence those who speakout and Francitz is trying to challenge that authority.
Hi Harvey I agree with you and wanted to add that I think the movie also uses Cesare to reinforce this idea. Just like Francis, Cesare is controlled and silenced, but in a more literal way. He has no voice his own and is completely manipulated by Dr. Caligari. That shows how people who are vulnerable in society can be turned into “tools” by those in charge.
I feel as though the entire movie was questioning authority. Once Dr. Caligari is revealed to be the head of the insane asylum, you can view the events of him manipulating Cesare through the lens of exploitation. Those who try to go against it, like Francis, feel as though they are insane or trapped in a system that works against them. The average person has no power compared to those of high authority; in the end, there is nothing citizens can do except be seen as mentally unwell. Going off of the title of this class prep, though, I can also view this movie as a commentary on a soldier’s experience after war.
I agree that the movie reveals themes of exploitation and social hierarchies. I would like to add that as part of the exploitation of Cesare, the propaganda and rhetoric surrounding his carnival show at the very beginning of the movie dehumanized him. The spectacle of the event degrades Cesare and allows the audience to do so as well.
Like a few other people on this thread, I agree that it was when Francis discovers that Dr. Caligari is the one who directs the insane asylum. Francis and some other doctors find a manuscript of all of his evil-doings while he is asleep–this moment serving as a tell to who the manipulator behind the havoc really is. This part of the film is a critique on the blind trust people had in the government at the time, reflecting how Germans faced anxiety post-WWI because the systems that were supposed to protect the citizens actually led them to tragedy–an absolute travesty. The overall suggestion of this moment is that the governing bodies, those with power, might be the most dangerous to your rights and protection. And those poor, unsuspecting people might never see it coming, being that the lines between sane and psychotic had become harder to mediate, just like how they are in the film.
The movie uses the technique of unreliable narrator, tricking the audience to believe in Franzis’s saying. When ending reveal that Franzis was actually a patient in asylum , writers are inviting audience rethink through the entire story, questioning the truthiness of what their learned.
I agree! When we found out he was manipulated into committing the murders, it not just questions how true the story we just watched was, it also makes us question the people we suppose to be in power and wonder if we can really trust them.
I agree! I thought it was Franzi’s saying when watching the film then I rewatch the entire film after realizing that was not Franzis speaking when it revealed they were in a asylum. It made me realize too that should we question the truth.
When Franzis follows Dr. Caligari into the asylum and exposes him as not just the director, but also the mastermind behind the murders, this revelation challenges authority in the sense that it gives doubt to the idea that those in power, especially medical or governmental, are inherently rational and trustworthy. By portraying the authority figure as the true villain, the film critiques the blind faith society places in hierarchical structures.
I believe that this movie used a metaphor to describe World War 1. For example, Dr. Caligari is like a German general, and Cesare, a sleeping man (sleepwalker), is a German soldier. Dr. Caligari feeding Cesare and controlling him is just like a German soldier getting command from a General. However, if we pretend that Dr.Caligari is a general, then citizens cannot go against him but in the movie, Francis, the guy who was investigating the murder, discovers that Dr. Caligari was manipulating Cesare to commit murder. This scene is against authority since lower-positioned people is trying to go against higher-positioned people.
About 30 minutes into the movie,The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Francis reports Dr. Caligari to officials, as he suspects him for being responsible of his friend’s murder. This scene in the movie is crucial as it highlights an individual challenging the social order (and as a side note, Francis does so by distorting his face in a way that displays expressionism). In other words, Francis is essentially indicating that Dr. Caligari is not who he says he is (which, in the movie he is portrayed as an elite man). Thus, Francis’s skepticism within this scene conveys the idea that those in power may not always appear as society deems them to be; those with authority may not always be trusted.
A moment that I noticed where the movie challenges authority or social order is during Act V at around 53 minutes when the officers go to Caligari’s house and try to see if Cesare is in his box. During this time Caligari tries to block the officers from going into his home, but he fails and the men go in and take the box resulting in Caligari running away from the officers. By Caligari resisting he is not complying with authority.
Francis’ realization that Dr. Caligari is the director of the insane asylum is one moment where the movie challenges authority. The revelation acts as a critique against blind faith towards authority figures, especially in the case of WWI. Dr. Caligari is likely representative of the leaders of the nations involved in WWI, demonstrating the scale of the destruction that can result from blind obedience to authority figures.
One of the best examples in which The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari challenges authority is through the depiction of the asylum director, who is ultimately revealed to be Dr. Caligari himself. This twist casts deep suspicion on institutional power, particularly psychiatric and state authority, suggesting that those entrusted with care and control may, in fact, be the source of chaos and manipulation. The film’s jagged and distorted sets work to reflect not just the mental state of the characters but also a world where traditional structures have become incredibly untrustworthy. In portraying the figure of authority as both the orchestrator of violence and the embodiment of madness, the film seem to be critiquing the blind obedience demanded by hierarchical systems, especially when taking into consideration all that had occurred in the wake of WW1.
One moment that stood out to me was when Dr. Caligari is revealed to be the director of the asylum. That plot twist, as though expected reveals how the authority is the villain. This contradicts with the previous ideal of trusting the authority into distrust. Instead of authority being a source of safety or order, it becomes the root of manipulation and control.
A pattern that I noticed among some of the artwork is the deviation from the norm and how clear it is shown in said art. Common objects are represented in ways they don’t appear naturally, they are distorted with the purpose to evoke a reaction. This is most presently seen in Salvador Dali’s, “The Persistence of Memory” and Méret Oppenheim’s “Object”, in which clocks are shown to be melting and a coffee cup appears to be made out of hair. It breeds a slight sense of uneasiness for me as I am seeing something that I am very familiar with, yet, it is not quite right but still not so much its unrecognizable. Enough is shown to know what the object is, but also that this object is not as it’s seen in life, it had been purposefully twisted. It should be noted as well that all of these artworks brush with reality making its change much more stark as we could visualize it in our own world.
This is a great analysis! I noticed that as well—it seems like everything is almost perfectly normal, except it’s not. I like to think if an alien came to earth and saw these photos, they probably would’ve thought there’s nothing wrong. However, as humans who have lived life a certain way, we can instantly tell something is wrong. One example of this happening is in Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali’s Lip Dress and Shoe Hat (1937). Nobody wears hats that are shaped like shoes! Yet, the painting disguises the discrepancy so well, as if that was normal all along.
Your observation about the unsettling distortion of familiar objects is spot on. I think surrealism is all about the tension between the recognizable and the strange. I’d add that this “twisting” of reality isn’t just visual but also psychological. For instance, in The Treachery of Images, Magritte forces us to question the relationship between language and perception with the line “Ceci n’est pas une pipe.” It’s a painted image of a pipe, not the actual object, highlighting how representation can deceive. This part, where reality itself is questioned—is a key feature that sets Surrealism apart from movements like Expressionism, which tend to emphasize raw emotion over such conceptual play. Its so weird to think what we see is not real.
A pattern that I noticed across the Surrealist artwork is how the artists uses ordinary and everyday objects to expose the fragility of our reality. In The Treachery of Images, the artist paints pipe and the translation says ” This is not a pipe” and now the viewer is questioning the art, language, and perception. Same with The Persistence of Memory, time which we see as something solid and set, is melting. These artists take normal things and are twisting them enough to create an illusion. It’s not total chaos but it feels more calculated. It makes me question if anything is as solid or structured as we think.
I totally agree with you that there are these traces of illusion throughout. I think also other than just messing with out minds and exposing how fragile images of objects are, it pushes our minds to be more imaginative. Rather than just seeing things as they are, thinking outside the box. It takes everyday objects and turns them into something new by changing different features than one would normally expect to see.
I agree, I think the idea is to break down what we feel is true and right. Magritte’s The Double Secret, is a good example, as it targets the human form, which we obviously hope isn’t foreign to us. The unnatural breaking, and the reveal of what’s within, gives a weird feeling, because you know this isn’t you, but it does kind of look like a human. Ray’s Sleeping Woman is also a good example, as it just barely feels wrong, through the position of the woman, and the texture of the picture.
A stylistic pattern seen in some of these paintings is the lack of color in some paintings which help us view the tone. For example, in Man Ray, Black and White (1926) the painting depicts a woman holding a dark figured face where the black really pops out due to the fact that the painting is in black and white. Another example is Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali, Lip Dress and Shoe Hat (1937) where the sort of the same happens where the black really pops out because of the lack of any other color.
Something I’ve noticed looking at these pieces is that all of them are relatively muted. Aside from the last one, they all lack colorful contrast like we see in a lot of other art. Even the last piece, though it has more color than the others, is not using bright hues to contrast the details, but instead uses shadows. Lighting and shadows is another continuity through all of these pieces too, essential for differentiating the details and drawing the eyes in which bright color variants usually would.
I noticed the muted and nude tones as well throughout all the pieces. Almost all these paintings seem like they are black and white, except to having only the ocean being blue. The only painting tat has color is Max Ernst’s Europe After the Rain (1942), in which most of the civilization is painted in a dark color, making the viewers focus on an illuminated yellow structure. Yet, throughout Ernst’s entire painting, there is striking color, but extreme contrast is not used.
a common pattern in these artworks is how dreams are mixed in with real life. Many of the pieced are quite strange, like a melting clock or a fury teacup and spoon. it made me stop and think. it’s like the mind is twisting the simple everyday objects into weird things.
A pattern I noticed in the artwork, specifically Man Ray’s artwork is the way both women being painted are visually doing the samething which is laying down. Both images “Black and White”(1926), and “Sleeping Women”(1929) both show a women with her head down, both images are in black and white which I suspect is not only because the images are 3 years apart, but also being the latest one seems to be a sketch. The pattern continues with the expression of the women’s face in both images. Although in “Black and White” the women isn’t described to be sleeping she seems to be like in “Sleeping Women”. In both of the images the women’s face seems to be serious or sad, and the black and white color also gives that gloomy vibe to the image.
I think this style of art is very interesting and I feel that there are many commonalities between all of the pieces of artwork that were presented. Most notably I feel like it is essential to recognize that they all depict in-genuine scenarios and they seem to show imagery from dreams or thoughts that our subconscious produces. It is also evident through many of the pieces that these artists present ordinary objects in bizarre and even weird ways. The cup and spoon is made out of hair and the clocks are warped and not flat or circular. In addition, we see removal of the face in the first image and weird objects within, and similarly we see the lady lying by and holding an odd depiction of a face and head.
I think the most prominent feature in these artworks is the use of abstraction on a canvas that is otherwise realistic. The paintings seems to develop complex ideas and emotions, like the inconsistent feeling of time in Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, on a canvas that looks realistic and something we can understand. Surrealist art is expressive in the way that the small details that seem out of the ordinary is giving the painting meaning, as opposed to other forms of art where the meaning is derived from the style of the entire piece.
Harvey I love your take on these art pieces I would definitely have to agree with you, especially with your point of the inconsistent feeling of time. With these art pieces I notice a sense of calm. Each image shares neutral tones and a bare face. We don’t see much emotion so we don’t know exactly what is going on through the minds of the people captured, however at the same time it feel like we do because of their lack of emotion.
I also agree with you. I think that, although the artworks seem realistic for the most part, they also incorporate a dreamy, hallucinatory quality that comments on complex ideas or emotions.
I agree with your assessment that surrealist art combines reality with abstractions, causing an expressive, extraordinary piece. I think that these qualities add a sense of disillusionment or detachment from reality. It’s hard to make out whether or not these paintings exist within our same world, or if they are of a fantasy world of some sort. The consequence is a sense of mystery and disorientation when observing these pieces.
One of the most prominent themes throughout several of the images was the expressionless faces. Both of Man Ray’s pieces show women sleeping, relaxed with little emotion. Similarly, Dali and Schiaparelli’s “Lip Dress and Shoe Hat” presents facial features such as lips on clothing, detaching the focus from the womans face. In Magritte’s The Double Secret, the face is calm and neutral, adding to the overall sense of mystery between these pieces.
I agree, Frankie, and the subtlety in expression you mention is noticeably different from expressionist art like The Scream, where artists put great effort into passing the emotion onto the viewer. Here, the lack of emotion feels also feels intentional from the artist, almost making the viewer search harder for the mood or lack thereof.
I see a pattern that these artworks are all exploring and combining textures. For example, in Object, the cup and the spoon are brown and furry, which is the opposite of the usual smooth texture of a teacup. Another example is the Persistence of Memory piece, which paints the clocks in a unique, soft, and bendable texture. All the unexpected ways of depicting objects make surrealism dreamlike.
Something I noticed from these artworks is the fact that it seems to be trying to make the audience uncomfortable. For example, in Salvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, the melting clocks and the ants gathering around the bottle are all things that would make us feel uncomfortable. We traditionally view clocks as having a rigid essence: both precise and accurate, but this artwork breaks this view and makes us uncomfortable by making it soft and melting. The ants gathering around the clock also makes us uncomfortable because we are usually irked by their existence and the fact that it surrounds a nice pocket watch ruins how we believe a pocket watch should look orderly.
A pattern I noticed in all these artworks is the comparison of real people/objects to abstract people/objects. Man Ray’s “Black and White” in particular demonstrates this through the difference between the model and the artifact.
I didn’t notice the common comparison or influence of the two between each other, nice observation! I would be interested in knowing what you think the message the artist is trying to send by doing that.
I think a pattern that is prevalent in these artworks is using an image that a viewer could be familar with and distort it in a fantastical way. There is a sort of futuristic (the concept, not the art period) element to some of these works in their metallic look with hard lines. I think one of the funniest subversions is in The Treachery of Images in which the caption literally says “this is not a pipe.”
These surrealist artworks are similar in the sense that they are drawing on comparison to conventional sights and themes, but are all made to look unconventional. In Rene Magrite’s The Double Secret the viewer is presented with what would’ve been an enlarged statue of a woman, however that isn’t the case. A part of the statue is cut out and set to the side, most of which resembles her face. Beneath the surface of the original aren’t blood or organs, but sphere-like items attached to her flesh. The background of the ocean is enough to classify it as a surreal art experience.
I think this style of art is very interesting and I feel that there are many commonalities between all of the pieces of artwork that were presented. Most notably I feel like it is essential to recognize that they all depict in-genuine scenarios and they seem to show imagery from dreams or thoughts that our subconscious produces. It is also evident through many of the pieces that these artists present ordinary objects in bizarre and even weird ways. The cup and spoon is made out of hair and the clocks are warped and not flat or circular. In addition, we see removal of the face in the first image and weird objects within, and similarly we see the lady lying by and holding an odd depiction of a face and head.
A common pattern that all these artworks share is that they are all in some ways distorting reality, or present some shock factor that is unexpected from the viewers. For example, “the treachery of images” is just a painting of a pipe with a line of text that translates to: “this is not a pipe”, or “object”, which features a tea cup and spoon except everything is made of animal hair. Collectively, surrealism takes common scenery or things society all agree on what they should look like and add a twist to them to make them fundamentally different and mysterious.
One pattern I noticed that is very different from the other artworks we looked at is that the pencil work is much more visible. Many of the other works the shapes weren’t as apparent as the Surrealist art. They also almost look like a photograph, you can see that different brushes were used to make the paintings look surreal like.
A thematic pattern within each of these artworks is the disturbing and unsettling tone that the images relay to viewers. They create a dystopia whether it be utensils made with fur, melting clocks on a beach, emotionless faces, or distorted shapes. They go against natural forms and force readers to think of an alternate reality.
What I noticed in all of the artworks is how unsettling they feel to look at.The Double Secret by René Magritte really aight my eyes because its really odd how the woman’s face is broken and I don’t know what its trying to show behind it. Also The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali is also unsettling because of the way it describes how time melts.
I agree with how you called to attention the unsettling nature of the surrealist paintings! In some ways, the use of less color and the more direct painting of things, with less distortion, makes the paintings easier to look at, but once you look closer, I also notice the disturbing nature behind the stillness of the paintings, especially the facial expressions! For me, in agreement with you, the painting that stands out the most is Dali’s “The persistence of memory” because of the way if forces me to think about how time is valuable and assess what I am truly using my time for before it melted away.
For the majority of surrealist artwork, the usage of dull, muted colors is emphasized to evoke a feeling of disrupting the familiar. The use of common colors gives a sharp contrast to the distortion of everyday objects, bodies, or landscapes. For example, Man Ray’s “Black and White,” uses a noir design to bait us into expecting an artwork of a realistic woman, however he distorts her expression slightly to mimic the uncommon mask. In a way, surrealist art is meant to disturb expectations, relying on photographic realism and ordinary colors to reframe what is considered standard.
I agree, the realistic features created by color and lighting leads the audience into believing the object is real, but the unusual aspects of the object makes them question. This oddness and expectation is what makes disturbs the audiences.
My first impression of the surrealist pieces was that they were simple, clean-looking, and easy to look at. In comparison to the futurism and cubist collages we viewed before, where it was kind of like the viewer had to piece the art together to make sense of it as a whole, the surrealism art is straightforward and you can easily focus on one thing at a time. This is the theme I noticed in the artwork. They (to me) convey a singular message by providing one object as the focus of the piece.
I agree! I like that you point out that these Surrealist pieces have a subject. Something that I also noticed with Cubism and Futurism was that those styles have the viewer focus on many things at once and don’t have a singular subject, or in some cases, a single focal point. These Surrealist works feel much more “straightforward,” like you said, and are a lot easier to look at because they give the viewer a completed whole rather than multiple parts and pieces to analyze for understanding.
A stylistic and thematic pattern that I see in most of these artworks is how uneasy and somewhat drowsy they look. Something about the images just makes me feel off, especially Man Ray’s Black and White and Sleeping Women. Something about those two images in particular is kind of offputting which is ironic because they are probably the two most normal artworks out of all of them.
I also felt a sense of unease when looking at these paintings, and I agree that Man Ray’s Black and White and Sleeping Women feel especially so. There are a couple of reasons I think these paintings stand out as epically off-putting, not least because, as you mentioned, it looks so normal. It’s the small oddities that make it so strange for example they way they are positioned look extremely uncomfortable contrasting with their relaxed sleeping. Also, the way in which they seem not to be wearing any clothes makes it feel as though we are intruding where we ought not to.
Surrealist focus on subconscious, the emotional state of people in interphase of reality and dream. They explore this feeling through use of contradictory(wrong texture, misuse of objects, conflict sentence), which creates a sense of dream as common sense of daily life no longer works.
Compared to other art that we analyzed in class, Surrealism in general are very direct. For most of the surrealistic art I can’t see distortion. Some of them are actual photographs, and some of them are paintings that look like actual photographs. Also they did not use vivid color but used darker toned color which gives me impression of calm and quiet paintings.
I see expressionism as bleeding emotion, like Munch’s “The Scream”, where anxiety completely warps the environment into pandemonium. I think surrealism, on the other hand, conceals emotion beneath a sort of unsettling serenity. Dalí’s work, “The Persistence of Memory”, shows time melting rather than screaming if that makes sense. Surrealism does more than merely communicate emotion; it exposes the unconscious, usually with an unsettling elegance. So, while expressionism confronts, surrealism entices and then unsettles.
I never thought about it like that but I understand what you mean. Surrealist art is more subtle in that way it makes you think more it’s not just straight to the point. It still communicates a point without being flashy but it makes the viewer not only think about what the artist is trying to communicate, but also what it’s saying to them. There can be more meanings behind it you know?
Yes, I agree, as expressionism feels like it’s just spilling everything out, all the chaos and fear, while Surrealism feels quieter but maybe creepier because of it. Like with Dalí, the clocks melting feels calm at first but then you realize how unnatural it is and then it lingers in your head longer. Expressionism hits you all at once, and the other slowly gets under your skin.
Méret Oppenheim’s Object (1936) shows us an unconventional fur-covered teacup. The piece of tableware usually made out of porcelain is now covered in a peculiar texture. No longer smooth, the teacup provokes our senses. You feel it. This is classic surrealism, turning the familiar to the unfamiliar, making it slightly wrong and foreign. Surrealism delves into the subconscious, prompting us to create associations and overlaps we hadn’t seen before.
Expressionism is more of a distortion of reality, exposing an inner state. The Scream by Van Gogh is a testament to this. Looking at the piece, we are thrown inside the artist’s inner turmoil.
While both reject realism and traditional representation, surrealism unlocks the unconscious through irrational imagery not always emotionally explicit. Expressionism, on the other hand, aims to externalize emotion, reveal internal psychological states.
Where Expressionism oftentimes feels as if someone is sketching out a nightmare, Surrealism is as if you’re stepping into a dream. What stood out to me was that in Expressionism, death is a prevalent theme underlying almost all the paintings shown. However, in Surrealist paintings, women are often depicted sleeping peacefully, and landscapes feature bizarre yet beautiful scenery or objects.
Comparing these two types of art is like comparing light and dark. In many ways, they are the antithesis of each other: complementary. However, they are related to each other in the sense they are supposed to be a reflection of the human condition. While expressionism reflects one’s emotions in an abstract form, surrealism seems to reflect one’s emotionless expressions. For example, in Edvard Munch’s The Scream, the painting depicts fear explicitly, as if the man was embodied terror. However, in Man Ray’s Sleeping Woman, the woman sleeping shows no emotion at al, as if she was the embodiment of the loss of emotion.
In my eyes, surrealism and expressionism are very similar to one another. Both art styles depict scenes that are not founded in reality—surrealism focuses on the deepest depths of imagination while expressionism focuses on emotions. These concepts are greatly intertwined as our imagination is often influenced by our emotions. At the same time, our personal perspectives are byproducts of our expectations and how we feel in the moment. The only difference I see upon first glance is the “dream-like” quality of surrealism art.
One contrast I noticed between Surrealism and Expressionism is the color. For the most part, Expressionism uses a lot more bright color pallets, only one of the six showed being in black and white, while three of the eight showed for Surrealism have no color, and the rest are more dull. Even Man Ray’s Black and White (1926), is titled for what it is, black and white.
I also thought that these Surrealist pieces were super straightforward. The pipe portrait is especially funny to me because under it, it says, “This is not a pipe”, when it quite clearly is a pipe.
In Man Ray’s Black and White, there seems to be an expression of conflicting beauties, while also creating a hint to the conflicting images of skin within society during that time period. The woman is authentic with flaws that don’t seem to affect the curated image of her face, but the mask the woman holds up is carved with symmetry in relation to the mimetic portrayal of facial features of darker skin tones. Both portrayals of the female face are different in composition and yet, so similar in beauty, possibly invoking the notion that the change in color doesn’t affect the nature and perception of beauty.
One artwork that really caught my eye was Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931) because of its uniqueness. I think this piece really represents Surrealism because it definitely challenges regular thoughts. I really appreciated the clocks that seem to be melting. I think this is representing the loss of time or maybe how humans lose themselves in time. I think this painting is saying that humans are the will of time and time controls our actions. I also really appreciated the textures in this work with the mixture of soft textures in the melting clocks and the hard texture in the cliff in the back. However, I think the nature scene in the back also has an important meaning. I think it is trying to say that nature is dying and becoming more barren (because of the dead tree) and we are not noticing because of our obsession with time. I am not sure what that pink thing on the floor is under the clock but at first I thought it was a woman lying on the floor but now I think its some sort of cloth or animal. I think the author purposely made this aspect ambiguous.
A striking detail I notice in the surrealist art, Sleeping Woman is how clearly we can see the textures of her skin, from creases, indents, arm hairs and even a unibrow. These details make the woman look real and untouched which is very different from the woman in Black and White. Her skin is portrayed to be perfectly smooth making her look fake and sculpted. Man Ray seems to be showing two different views on women’s beauty , one representing reality and the other representing the ideal beauty standard.
I agree, looking at them image compared to the other ones you can really see the way that the image is detailed, it looks like a pencil was pressed down heavily in order to create that sharp look that it has.
One painting that really impresses me is the Double Secret by René Magritte. The face of the man is detached from his head, revealing the “secret” in the man’s head. The texture of the item in the man’s head makes it look like serveral eyeballs connected by some sort of plant. This painting is a bit uncomfortable to view at first sight, but it effectively conveys the artist’s message that everyone carries disturbing secrets beneath the surface.
I agree with your point, the contrast between the two halves, with one half being a regular, realistic style while the other half is torn apart revealing a dark-shadow interior filled with metallic spheres. I feel like it evokes a feeling of hidden identity or psychological fracture. Another feature I would like to add is the ocean background, it is calm and serene, which is a juxtaposition to the disturbed broken two-face figure in front of it, which makes the painting feel an eerie sense to it.
One detail that really stood out to me in Méret Oppenheim’s “Object” (1936) is the fur on the teacup, saucer, and spoon. It turns something familiar and classy into something uncomfortable. Although the texture suggests warmth, it contradicts with the idea of drinking from it. The stylistic choice is so intriguing to me, making me question why someone would want to use utensils covered in fur, a texture that you wouldn’t typically enjoy in your mouth.
René Magritte’s The Double Secret really stuck out to me, especially what is depicted under the supposed mask. The mechanisms on the insides are both confusing in what they are supposed to represent and dull in color. The whole painting uses mute colors but the colors of the insides of the person are distinctly gray. The scattered orbs are also confusing because it isn’t what you might expect to find under a figurative mask. One might think of another expression that the person is truly feeling or another way to express the artist’s emotions, but this one is gray orbs that look mechanical. I think this detail adds to the general confusion and challenges conventional thinking of what a mask is meant to represent.
In René Magritte’s “The Double Secret”, the detail that stuck out the most to me was the fact that the face to the left, or the mask hiding the bell looking secrets, perfectly matches the head on the right. It’s as if they are puzzle pieces meant to fit together, with the face aiming to cover up the lies within the mind. I think it’s an interesting play on the concept of somebody being two-faced, because this work makes it seem as though lies are all from one face that just covers the deception within a soul.
In Salvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, I found the figure lying on the ground particularly striking. At first glance I thought it was a kind of disfigured horse, but looking closer, I saw a closed eye with long eyelashes and an eyebrow. It looks like a melted piece of a face on the ground. One thing I think is interesting is how Dali paints a lot from his dreams. I wonder if that closed eye is representative of him dreaming this landscape, or if it represents remembering/dreaming about a memory. I think the melted clocks show that although memory persists over time, as more time goes by the memories become less realistic and more surreal. Time tends to warp memories, and I believe the clocks are warped to mirror this.
In “The Double Secret” by René Magritte, a striking detail I noticed was how the person’s face got broken off, as if they were made of ceramic. And underneath the broken-off ceramic face piece is a hollow shell with multiple bells. I think this displays the way we present ourselves to the public, not our genuine selves, but rather a hollow, unreal version. I think in this piece, the ocean signifies the person’s true self, which is not seen within them.
I agree with you, there seems to be a portrayal that the outside and inside of a person are different. The front portion is separated from the inside of the portions but I interpreted the balls on the inside to be screws or bolts. It kinda implies how the person is broken on the inside but goes back to the saying of what happen never really meets the eye. The person as a whole is shown in only one color which also implies the simplicity but the background is a pretty blue that may also signify the peace of day.
One striking detail that I found are the ants on the pocket watch in Dali’s The Persistence of Memory. I have seen this painting many times before and really enjoy it, but this is the first time I noticed the ants. Dali is known to use ants in many of his artworks which he uses to represent decay or death. It is clear in this artwork he is using them to to represent decay, as the clocks seem to be melting very slowly which can show that the persistence of memory is quite strong and not able to be decayed easily.
This is a really cool idea Chris. I wasn’t too sure if it was the decay of time or maybe the preservation of time. I thought that what the ants were doing was being frozen and encapsulated by the gold object which I depicted to be amber. In this way the ants would be frozen in the amber, suggesting time in a frozen state.
In Dali’s The Persistence of Memory (1931), the melting clocks draped over the other objects in the landscape is something I find striking. This is because Time is usually rigid, and structured. However, in this painting time appears soft and even useless. This suggests a sense of alienation of the concept of order. This alienation of order and normalcy, reflects the Dadaist mindset where they “felt they could no longer trust reason and the establishment” (Strickland 148).
Méret Oppenheim’s Object comes off as striking to me as much as it does to everyone else I’d imagine. A household item so ordinary as the bowl is covered in hair–seemingly animal like. As humans, we don’t associate furry animals with the actual being of our dishware, or even meal time at all. Seeing these two elements being fused to tangibility incites our brain to work harder to define or make sense of what we’re being presented and the purpose it serves.
In Max Ernst’s Europe After the Rain (1942), the shapes of everything seem to be familiar but foreign at the same time. It gives an uncanny sensation and confusion of what is going on. I believe it interprets a kind of post-apocalyptic European city after being destroyed in the aftermath of a war, since some of the structures resemble buildings. To me, the “buildings” also resemble the form of fungus, growing outward unpredictably, perhaps alluding to the notion of the city having died.
A striking detail in Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory painting was the melting clocks. I think Dali wanted the melting clocks to represent memories. As time goes on, people make memories however, we should take a step back and cherish those moments. As well, Dali drew ants on the bottom left corner, demonstrating diligence or discipline but with the clocks it shows we take for granted the time we have and just focus on the future and not the present.
I definitely agree that Dali’s strategic approach of incorporating melting clocks in The Persistence of Memory suggests that time is of the essence; as time goes on, we tend to reminisce the past or recount prior memories. Additionally, the ants in the corner are on the only clock that is neither melted nor faced up. Therefore, I think that the ants also demonstrate consuming time (as ants in large masses are typically found near food) and for that reason, Dali has the other clocks melting to illustrate the idea of yearning for the past and longing for prior memories.
Yes, the melting clocks is a very unsettling piece overall. Every time somebody mentions surrealism, I always bring up the melting clocks. A striking detail for me is the ants on what I assume is the pocket watch. I don’t know, something about the clocks being limp in a desolate setting with the ants, it gives me goosebumps.
I also found the melting clocks very striking. They work together with the empty environment and possibly dead lamb-like creature to create an unsettling atmosphere. Everything about the painting, including the clocks, seem lifeless except the insects on the clocks. I interpreted the fly and ants swarming the two clocks as similar to the swarming of insects around decaying bodies, signifying the end or transience of time.
A detail I found interesting in “Lip Dress and Shoe Hat” by Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali, is the mixture of a thoughtful illustration but at the same stylish. The woman of this artwork seems to be lost in thought, contemplating something outside of our view, in this perspective we see a deep emotion picture. But if we observe the aesthetic details of this image we see a hat with the shape of a heel. The pockets of her clothing have a shape of lips. I feel like these details give it as well a mixture of modern art and classic art by the choice of colors.
I agree! In addition, the dress and hat seemingly make no sense, adding to the element of the unconscious breaking through, as the unconscious can feel like a amalgamation of buried thoughts, doing stuff that normally one wouldn’t do, like wear a shoe as a hat. The stylishness with the combination of classic and modernness of it also showcases how the unconscious is breaking through as, again, it confuses the human mind. It is meant to confuse and perplex the viewer, making the reader truly have to think and contemplate what is going on and why, similar to the woman’s own expression of perplexity.
One detail I really love in Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931) is the melting clocks because I view the clocks as our temporal experiences, the transience of time, and the transient quality of moments, also I view it as time is nothing but an illusion.
I found a striking detail of Sleeping Woman by Man Ray to be the white foggy outline that borders the sleeping outline. Without, the painting borders on only realism, as it’s not highly stylized or portraying the women differently than she is (looks perfectly human). The addition of the white fog gives the painting a dreamy feel, and brings the question of whether that’s her soul, an extension of her body, or perhaps a sleepy haze being represented.
One striking detail is what looks like hair on the objects in Object. It turns the art from simple artistic re-creation of household items, to a question of what we consider normal. What is our reaction to a “normal” item being turned into something new and odd?
A striking detail that stood out amongst all 8 paintings was the Magritte’s The Treachery of Images, where her simply painted pipe was paired with her French caption that read “This is not a pipe”, which delivers a jarring realization to the audience: the image is not the object. This contradiction between visual and verbal language is so striking to me as it seems to be challenging our assumptions about perception and truth. Where many have argued that art is determined either by those who view it, this piece seems to take away this control from the audience and invites deeper reflection on how meaning is actually constructed.
A moment that violates social norms is when Gregor family treats him more like a pest rather than a person. At first they are shocked and disturbed but then quickly switch to just ignoring him. locking him in his room, and resenting him. What makes this deeper is that he isn’t like an evil villain but it’s his own sister and parents. We expect family to stick beside you, especially when something traumatic happens , but in this story, love fades when appearance and survival is on the line. Kafka’s showing how fragile normal family dynamics actually are because they turn on him as soon as Gregor cant perform his role.
I agree, the moment Gregor’s family stops treating him as a human is a clear violation of social norms. In a normal world family is supposed to care for the suffering member no matter how changed they are, but in Gregor’s case his family turns against him and sees him as a burden instead of having compassion towards him.
Yes, I agree with you. The moment that Gregor’s families treated him as a burden of their lives instead of caring him is definitely a violation of social norm. One scene that demonstrates this is when Gregor’s sister brings him various kinds of food but throws everything away afterward, regardless of whether he ate it or not. Gregor suddenly became something that disturbed his families. A healthy family should always show warmth and care toward its members, no matter what happens.
Yes! In so many other novels there seems to be such an emphasis on family love and dynamics, and this reaction of his family is unique. Humanity like to think of a family’s love and care as impenetrable and unwavering, but Kafka challenges this and instead proposes fragility and an underlying sense of never knowing how deep love and trust can really go. His disconnect between his human mind and his new body coincides with the growing disconnect between him and his family.
A violation of social norms occurs when Gregor’s father starts to throw apples at him, which leaves him with an injury because Gregor’s exoskeleton doesn’t offer much protection. This portrayal of violence, the social norm because parents are supposed to be nurturing and protective towards their children. Instead, in the story, care and protection is substituted with violence, due to the shame they have towards Gregor.
Your point about the violation of social norms is really interesting, especially in how Kafka uses the father’s violence to reflect the family’s shift from care to shame. I agree that the act of throwing apples is shocking. A moment where the traditional role of a protective parent is completely reversed. What’s more disturbing is that Gregor is already so vulnerable, and instead of receiving empathy, he’s treated like a burden or even a threat. This moment really highlights how quickly love and responsibility can collapse under the weight of fear and social pressure.
I agree with your insight of the substitution of care and protection with violence because there seems to be a connection between the physical appearance of Gregor and the love and care his family shows towards him. With Gregor being the sole provider of the family, his family has come to perceive him as the stability in their livelihood and well-being. In their more violent reactions when Gregor became a creature, it seems to express that their love towards Gregor became conditional over time as they were consistently getting something out of loving him. Gregor became their protection against instability and having to work for what they want, but when that protection disappeared, so did the connected nurturing and caring attitude towards Gregor.
When reading Metamorphosis, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Gregor. One scene in particular is on page 72, when Gregor covers himself with a sheet to relieve his family from seeing him. It reads, “Greggor had tugged the sheet down lower and in looser folds […] refrained from peering out from beneath the sheet this time; for the moment, he would resign himself to not seeing his mother and just be glad she had come” (Kafka 72). This scene highlights the alienation and shame Gregor felt about himself, and how that inner projection of his self-consciousness became so deep that he hides from the people he loves—his family.
What stood out to me is how Gregor’s first reaction after realizing he’s a bug is just stressing about missing work. He’s not freaking out about his body or thinking about his family, just worried about his boss being mad. It makes him seem quite small and powerless, like he’s stuck being this obedient worker even when everything about his life has changed. This also makes you wonder if he was already dehumanized by his job before he turned into an actual insect.
I agree completely! His thought process during this transformative time is weird and bizarre in a way. This challenges what we expect and what would be going through your mind during this time. I also agree with your point that it makes him powerless, in a way he his dismisses his feelings and what’s important to him challenging societal norms.
A moment in Kafka’s story that I found to be a striking example of how normative expectations are challenged and violated is the part of the story in which the family treats Gregor as more of a pest or insect rather than human. At first they are upset and sad of the fact of his transformation, but then they begin to avoid him, lock him away in rooms, and totally resent him. A specific example where his family very obviously violates normative expectations is when his father injures him by throwing apples at him and forcing hm into his room. Societal expectation is for families to support each other in moments of suffering or trouble, however the treatment of Gregor during this part of the novel challenges societal norms.
When I read The Metamorphosis, I read it as a critique of Capitalism and how this system dehumanizes those living under its system. I especially see this in how Gregor Samsa initially isn’t upset over the fact that he’s a monstrous vermin, but rather fearful that he’s late for work. Not to mention that his boss came in person to his house to tell him to get back to work as a traveling salesman. This is an absurd event to happen on the one day he’s late for work. Another norm violation that left me in disbelief was how, in the ending, the family celebrated their son’s death and immediately started planning to marry Greta off for more money. It’s all just a little insane.
I completely agree with the dehumanizing state of capitalism. Like you mentioned, when Gregor turned into a bug, he was also afraid that his parents will see him as lazy and useless. This is what happens though because right as Gregor is no longer to work and support his family, they start to resent and hate him. It was more of the fact that he wasn’t working more than the fact he was a creature. This makes me see that capitalism only cares if you are useful to society or not, and if not then you have no purpose.
Hi Ava, I was thinking the same thing about the critique of capitalism. To add to your point, I thought an important point of the story was when Gregor’s family cuts him off once they realize he can no longer provide for them. The way his family is brainwashed/influenced by the capitalistic system and merely valued their finances.
I agree with your point about capitalism, when I read the book as a child I didn’t know what capitalism was, but I had a feeling that the desire for money was what drove the ambitions of both Samsa and his family’s actions throughout the book. The pain he went through at the end of the novel right before his death was especially brutal for me to read then, but now that I’m older I’ve associated it with the pain and struggles many feel under late stage capitalism.
Upon my first read of The Metamorphosis, I was shocked at the family’s response to Gregor’s transformation. We consume so many narratives about families being the most important lifeline a person can have, yet Gregor’s family shuns him the moment he changes. They appear more hurt by the fact that he can no longer provide for them rather than for the loss of a family member. Perhaps this is how the average family would react, making the story more realistic. It’s quite a rude awakening, though, to see what truly binds a family together.
Yes I agree as I believe the family bond in “The Metamorphosis” is one of the most prominent norms that are challenged in the text. In society family is supposed to be our place of comfort where we are not afraid to be ourselves. At one of his most fragile moments Gregor’s father throws apples at him injuring him and going against the nurturing role that parents are typically meant to hold. Instead of protecting him his father partakes is acts of violence against him. Gregor’s family makes him feel so ashamed of himself that he even covers himself with a sheet “Gregor had had tugged the sheet down lower and in loser folds” (Kafka 72) to avoid them from seeing him. The one space he should be able to free himself from the concerns of others is where he seems to be the most burden.
A moment in Kafka’s story that I found to be a striking example of how normative expectations are challenged and violated is the part of the story in which the family treats Gregor as more of a pest or insect rather than human. At first they are upset and sad of the fact of his transformation, but then they begin to avoid him, lock him away in rooms, and totally resent him. A specific example where his family very obviously violates normative expectations is when his father injures him by throwing apples at him and forcing hm into his room. Societal expectation is for families to support each other in moments of suffering or trouble, however the treatment of Gregor during this part of the novel challenges societal norms.
A particular moment in Kafka’s book, Metamorphosis, that violates the reader’s normative expectations is the fallout post room emptying. The sister and the mom attempt to empty Gregor’s room while his father is away, but Gregor ends up startling them, causing his mother to faint when he tries to protect a particular image. This leads to when his father arrives home for him to try to stomp on and presumably kill Gregor. This violated at least my normative expectation that family is meant to protect and help each other, no matter the circumstances, especially ones that are out of that family member’s control. In addition, Gregor didn’t do anything especially wrong, so the way the father turned to violence over this slight misunderstanding was extremely unexpected.
Yes, in Metamorphosis Kafka’s depiction of family have strong negative image. When Gregor lost the ability to sustain the family and himself, normally one would expect the rest of family members to takes on this responsibility(for is what family do) without the expectation of payback. But Gregor’s family definitely failed the idea of ‘protect and help each other’ as soon as they realized Gregor wouldn’t able return to work in anytime. They no longer willing to take care of him, calls him a monster, a burden to the family.
I think one moment of “anomie” in Kafka’s story is the deterioration of family bonds and transformation of relationships. When Grete decides to lead their mother into Gregor’s room, she assures her mother that “‘It’s all right, come in, you won’t see him'” (Kafka p. 46). This violated the reader’s expectations that his mother would be happy to see Gregor, but instead, he was treated as an anomaly. Rather than trying to cure him, they chose to isolate him, turning his room into a “cave” or a “den.” In addition, Gregor is no longer regarded as a brother, but rather a pet, where Grete “had developed the habit—not entirely without cause, to be sure—of presenting herself as the holder of particular expertise when discussing Gregor with her parents” (Kafka p. 48). This challenges the normative relations of empathy and loyalty in family, revealing the familial breakdown in moral and social norms.
A time when “anomie” happens in Kafka’s Metamorphosis is frankly the entire book. In the end, he never gets out, dying of starvation. The whole book we learn about his past and his family, who are flat out just bad. As a reader, we expect him to try and do something with his life, like escaping or trying to find comfort in his new reality, however, he is passive and stagnant, which causes his to starve himself and die, doing absolutely nothing about his situation. This leaves the reader with a sense of nothingness, which at an end of a book goes against the norm because one usually has some type of reaction, good or bad to the book.
I agree with you- Gregor’s passiveness does make the whole story feel empty and frustrating. I was expecting some kind of change but instead he just fades. The lack of resolution adds to the strange and depressing tone of the book. I also feel like it highlights the disconnection he feels.
The most obvious anomie to me is the heartlessness of his family. I found his description of his family’s voices as “gentle” to be conflicting. I recall a scene where Gregor speculates that his sister is crying because he is at risk of losing his job and thus leaving his parents to pay their debts. He doesn’t consider that she may show empathy for him, and while his perspective of others’ thoughts is not reliable, it is likely a result of a series of actions that led him to believe that their first thought wouldn’t be about his well-being, or annoyance at the manager’s imposition, but rather that he is at fault, he is going to lose his job, and make everything worse. Once Gregor is revealed to be an insect, his parents’ “gentleness” subsides and they treat him cruelly. His father’s transformed view of him is immediate as he hurts Gregor from the very first moment to get him to leave their presence, crippling one of his feet. He later throws an apple at him that leaves lasting damage and rots until Gregor’s death. The only thing making him valuable to his parents was the material gain from him. Now that that’s gone, he’s an outcast and a burden deserving of betrayal from his once loving sister.
During this part of the book, the family have started putting pieces of furniture that the lodgers don’t care to have around into Gregor Samsa’s room, isolating him to certain parts of the room for long periods of time. Usually, one would be upset that their personal space was be evaded, as well as the lack of consideration they are giving him, but Samsa continually let the people around him do what they thought was good for him without once asking him. He seems to sacrifice the humanity of himself and his personal desires to the point that he behaves as if he’s undeserving of the common, everyday things (choosing what he wants to eat) because of how his new body image negatively changed others’ perception of him.
That is good point, I did not realize that he has a kind of victim complex. I would like to add on to that-his victim complex is precisely what makes him seem like an anti-hero. In my opinion, I don’t think he shows the heroic qualities that traditional heros have. For example. traditional heros have qualities of courage, selflessness, and a desire to save others. However, Gregor really doesn’t have any of these qualities. He seems so vulnerable and weak, which can especially be seen with his attitude toward his dehumanizing job. This is the complete opposite of a hero’s attitude. He seems so human and realistic, especially with his family issues, making him not a hero and an antihero instead.
That’s super insightful. I’d add that Gregor’s willingness to let his family take over his space with zero resistance demonstrates how deeply ingrained his sense of guilt and obligation has become. Even as an insect, he continues to perceive himself as a burden and acts like it, accepting the discomfort of others and escaping rather than expressing his own needs. It’s a tragic moment that demonstrates how his identity has been completely moulded by responsibility and shame rather than a sense of personal worth or agency.
I think all of this highlights how much Gregor’s passivity defines his role in the story. What stands out to me is that he doesn’t even try to reclaim any sense of control, he just adapts to whatever others decide for him, it’s like he’s given up on being seen as a person. Even when they start using his room for storage, he doesn’t react with anger or even surprise. That lack of resistance, especially when his dignity is being taken away piece by piece, makes him feel less like a protagonist with purpose and more like someone who’s just being slowly erased. It’s that absence of action that makes him such a powerful antihero, he reflects quiet resignation.
Throughout the novel, and especially in the beginning, Gregor Samsa is incredibly disgusted with his transformation—so much so that he does not want his family or society to see his appearance. Samsa is also very insecure and withdrawn, which can be seen in the way his sister feeds him and cleans up while he hides under the couch, afraid that his appearance will frighten her. Even though his sister puts in the effort to care for him, Gregor never really acknowledges her help or shows appreciation. Instead, he continues to depend on her without ever trying to ease her burden. This is not very heroic and rather than showing strength or gratitude, Gregor becomes passive and disconnected from his family
One may think that Gregor, shunned by his entire family, would make some sort of effort to reverse his condition or at least attempt to lead a more civil life in his state. Instead, Gregor lives almost as a recluse, allowing his family to neglect him. Gregor accepts his fate and abuse in a passive manor. He is not unheroic, but only because he is very inactive in any sort of capacity. Eventually, this neglect and rejection will lead to his death. In his position, many would fight tooth and nail to help themselves. Maybe Gregor’s family would have treated him more humanlike if he made an effort to be human again.
Gregor Samsa’s passive attitude towards his transformation and how people treated him as a result really surprised me. His entire personality is pathetic and he allows others to abuse him, even before his transformation. His father would constantly abuse him, even injuring him with apples, he just tolerates it and hides. Even before he turned into an insect, he still works a job that made him miserable for the sake of his unappreciative family.
I feel as though in comparison to a typical hero’s journey, Gregor gives up, and that is what makes him an antihero. The entire book, he just accepts what he cannot do and watches his life derail. He even begins holding a bit of resentment for his sister for not cleaning his room. In a way, we must show sympathy for him because this is an insane circumstance to be in, but also he needs to move around, not accept his dad throwing apples at him.
Yes I agree! One specific part that stood out to me was when everyone that surrounded him were putting items in his room as storage. Which did not allow him to move and became very isolated. If he was a hero he would’ve not let them violate his room instead he gave in and let everyone take advantage of him. Which makes us feel sympathy for him but for me he brought it upon himself because through out the book he does not try to communicate as much and lets his family do whatever they think is right.
I definitely agree that Gregor Samsa falls under the category of “antihero” due to his failure to act and react. Even from the beginning Samsa chooses to be passive about his transformation, he thinks “What if I just go back to sleep for a little while and forget all this foolishness” (Kafka p. 10). The lack of action makes him antihero, choosing to accept absurd circumstances. Throughout the story Samsa gradually falls into loneliness and isolation without the attempt to escape, fight back, or find a solution.
I agree. Even after turning into a bug, Gregor continues to worry about being late for work. He doesn’t fight back or try to escape his sad situation but he was being passive and self-blaming. A hero would try to take action, but Gregor just accepts everything quietly. Also he never stand up for himself and accept the truth. When family treated him badly, he never fight back or demand respect in family members.
Even by the end of the second chapter, we see that Gregor is no longer attempting to act or retain some of his human qualities. For instance, Kafka writes, “tormented by his worries and self-reproach, he began to crawl about, crawling over everything, walls, furniture, [and] the ceiling” (Kafka 80). This description is very aimless and bug-like, and lacking completely in the self-soothing quality that I feel is an innate human response to panic. Thus, I would define this as unheroic as there is no attempt to act in a human way– as is seen here. Gregor just spirals into madness with no valiant nor heroic attempt to save himself, contrary to how a hero would typically act.
I agree! This can also be seen in the part where Gregor decides to eat, and enjoys, just scraps of food rather than the actual fresh, human food that his family provides for him. While some humans have to eat scraps if it is necessary, preferring scraps when there is the option of actual food is definitely non-human and also represents how he is non-heroic because he does not try and save himself by staying “human”.
Gregor’s character traits that portray him as “unheroic” are his unassertiveness, passiveness, and wishy-washiness- like version of Charlie Brown. A specific moment that struck me was when he accepted mis-treatment from his own family. Gergor was a kind of already a wallflower as a human, and when he turns into an insect, it’s like nothing changed in his family’s life. Even as a bug, he doesn’t take much action and hides, tolerating being locked up. I do think that Gregor’s selfless behavior can be read as heroic, though. Sure, he lets himself get overlooked and doesn’t stand up for himself, but in a way, such selflessness is heroic because he’s being the bigger person.
A weird moment I found was at the beginning when Gregor turns into an insect. “When Gregor Samsa woke one morning he found himself right there in his bed as some sort of monstrous insect” (Kafka 21). This quote highlights the author’s relaxed tone. I found this weird because this is a big change in Gregor’s life and to describe this moment in such a relaxed tone is striking to me. This relaxed tone is reflected in Gregor’s actions when he becomes an insect. Gregor is more concerned about him getting late to work as he responded to the time saying, “Heavenly Father!” (Gregor 24). This lack of concern about his transformation is something I also find really striking. This lack of concern for his transformation also highlights an overly concern for his job. This could show how he ties his identity to his work, and helping his family, instead of tying his identity to himself.
I agree that opening the novel up with this moment felt odd, even if slightly funny because of his nonchalance at the situation. The part where I couldn’t help but smile at the slight absurdity of his casualness was when on page 22 Gregor says, “What if I just go back to sleep for a little while and forget all this foolishness”. So even though he clearly is off put by his present situation, he believes the solution is simply to go back to bed. That’s kind of relatable.
I agree to both of your points, I find it weird and deeply strange, not only because of that fact that he literally turns into bug and the physical horrors of becoming a bug, but also the fact that he is so calm and how Gregor responds to it. Its the little emotional panic Gregor shows, he doesn’t let it out by screaming or chaos, but through anxious thoughts about daily tasks and obligations. This juxtaposition and contrast between the ordinary and monstrous creates a weird tone; even when Gregor is in a nightmarish state, he never breaks into chaos.
I’m intrigued when you mention how he cares about his identity as a worker and family man before he cares about himself. I think Kakfa’s use of literally stripping every human element from Gregor and turning him into a bug, yet having the character persist in his capitalistic duties has a lot of commentary about the working conditions of this time period as well as Gregor’s mental health. Gregor has literally been dehumanized, yet his most “human” element is his role as a worker, which is so heavily engrained in him that it has become his consciousness.
The weirdest part of the Metamorphosis, is after Gregor initially opens the door. He speaks directly to his manager and essentially just says “aw man I’m sorry, I’ll get on the next train though.” I understand this moment in the story, it shows Gregor’s unreasonable devotion to work and his family, however for the rest of the story, this doesn’t make sense. It is only on the first day that he talks to his family, and there isn’t any explicit detail (that I remember) that would explain why this changes. Moreover, there isn’t a response to what he is saying. On one hand, super valid since he’s a big bug, but they essentially ignore it, which later helps them get rid of him under the idea that he is no longer Gregor. At the very least, if a big bug thing talks like your son, shouldn’t it be reasonable that you would at least try to talk to him?
One weird moment was when Gregors receiving fresh food from his sister, yet all he wanted to eat was the scraps. it was strange as you can tell he was changing on the inside. it makes you question what truly makes a human, human.
Yes, I noticed this too. There are a lot of moments throughout the story where Gregor’s transformation is clearly not just physical but mental as well. He stops liking the food he used to love, like the milk, and eats food that a bug would enjoy. He starts enjoying crawling on the walls and ceilings, and at some point even agrees with his mother and sister that having his room emptied of all his personal belongings that remind him of what it means to be human so that he can have an easier time in his new form. I think it pushes the idea that we can get so caught up in making things more convenient for us and fitting into a certain mold that we can forget to hold onto the things that make us, “us”.
The weirdest moment for me personally was when Gregor’s father lodges the apple in his back and none of his family helped him remove it. I understand that as time went on they grew more distant but what prevented the father from killing him-which is crazy in itself-was the fact the mother and sister still had this love for Gregor. So I was just confused because I felt like even though there was this drift I would imagine it wouldn’t have been strong enough to well first of all wish death upon him but also want him to be suffering from an injury. It was sad and weird and I felt like the emotions didn’t match the actions.
One of the really odd moments is when Gregor’s family starts leaving his bedroom door open so he can watch them live their lives, despite the fact that he’s in his bug form. It’s strange because it’s this balance between cruel and kind—they’re no longer keeping him locked away, but they’re no longer interacting with him as a complete human being. It’s as if he’s being treated as a pet or pest that they’ve desensitized themselves to, not a son or brother. It’s just such a strong reminder of the emotional displacement of the family and highlights the nigh-bureaucratic creepiness of the story.
You bring up a very interesting point on the contrast between the two. I wonder which might feel worse to live through? On one hand him being hidden away, he’s meant to feel shame, but in a way during this time at the very least they still see him as something so distressing and disgusting that their son or brother has become this monster that they still react to him being alive, and he still has an effect on their lives. On the other hand, when they no longer hide him, its almost as if he no longer exists to them and as you said are desensitized too him. It’s like choosing the lesser of two evils, both with lead to alienation just of a different kind. Either being kept separate and hidden due to being far too estranged yet still having an effect, or simply ceasing to exist yet be able to see life live.
This is a weird read and I’ve read this book several times, it doesn’t get more normal. Why isn’t anyone worried about the fact that Gregor is a bug? First off Kafka doesn’t just say he’s a cockroach but just describes him weird and then on top of that NO ONE IS TERRIFIED! His family is mainly embarrassed and inconvenienced by it. I don’t know about you but if my sister woke up as a bug I’d freak out. I would be screaming on top of my lungs.
A weird moment was when Gregor’s father threw apples at him and one got lodged in his back, causing a wound. Despite him being hurt, no one in the family does anything to help. No one tried to take it out despite his pain. And slowly, the apple starts to rot in this wound. No one wants to go near him, let alone help him, despite being in clear pain and having a rotting apple lodged into his back for months. I think this represents his family’s final rejection of Gregor, and marks a turning point in their care for him.
I think that this part was also impactful because it shows that the Father, at least comes to no longer view Gregor as Human or have humanity left in him. The common theme around this book is the growing alienation of Gregor by his own thoughts and by his family. Its this moment in particular though where I feel like Gregor fully becomes an insect because the people around him reject the idea that Gregor or humanity is in him. Similar towards the end where Grete, the person who cared for him the most rejects his humanity.
I agree I think this was weird but also really sad. As his son he shouldn’t even hurt him but more horrific than that they aren’t remorseful at all. Gregor gets no help from any family member, he has no one. It’s one thing to be alienated by others or society but by your own family is very unfortunate. When Gregor dies it’s even more weird that they still have these same emotions towards him, and they feel liberated that he’s gone and can finally live their life.
I agree completely! I found this part of the story very odd an a challenge of normative expectations. We expect family to help and support in times of need however we don’t see it in this instance. They almost view him as an outcast.
A weird moment is when they realize Gregor is a bug and they don’t necessarily care or they aren’t shocked, but rather they are more so embarrassed. I don’t exactly get the concept but I do see that they are ashamed that he isn’t normal, however they don’t do anything to change it.
I also find it weird how they immediately know it’s Gregor Samsa instead of assuming the bug ate him. They don’t even try to communicate with him, although they likely could’ve found a way to.
Yes, it was indeed strange. Adding on to that, I noticed this sentence “besides they were so preoccupied with their present worries that they were bereft of all foresight” (Kafka 33) shows how the parents are not mature enough to empathize or even think of a solution to help their kid. They were not only preoccupied but they were also very avoidant until the moment they saw their kid turn into a bug since they were always urging him to get out of the room but not sensed that his voice was weird.
I agree, I also find it weird how Gregor himself also doesn’t make a big deal of himself turning into a bug, but instead worries over other things, such as his job. He seems mostly annoyed by his transformation, whereas most people would be shocked or horrified to see themselves turn into a bug. His focus on his job or family’s finances is strange, and it shows how he is more afraid of financial troubles rather than losing his entire body and transforming into a bug that won’t be accepted by society.
I agree. I do think it is strange, and I think it adds to the theme of the story. Once Gregor is transformed into a bug, he loses his practical ability to do work and be a part of society. Rather than being shocked, they perceive him as a burden because he cannot support his family, which leads to their sense of shame.
A strange moment in the novel was when Gregor died, and the way the family responded to his death. Instead of feeling sadness over his death, they found it liberating to the point they started making plans for their future life, starting with marrying off the sister. I think this happened because they viewed Gregor as an inconvenience to their life, not their son or brother, and as soon as he died, they were finally able to live their life.
I agree with this sentiment heavily. I feel that the family detaches from Gregor very quickly, and that there may be something there that reflects on how Kafka views the world.
I found this very strange as well. The family recognized the beetle as Gregor, but throughout the novel, the family treat him as a monster. Near the end of the book, Gregor’s sister states, “…But now we have this beast tormenting us; it drives away our lodgers and apparently intends to take over the entire apartment and have us sleep in the gutter.” It leaves me confused because Gregor didn’t do much more than exist in his bedroom for the majority of the story. They act as if Gregor is a monster set out to destroy them.
A weird moment I found was at the beginning when Gregor turns into an insect. “When Gregor Samsa woke one morning he found himself right there in his bed as some sort of monstrous insect” (Kafka 21). This quote highlights the author’s relaxed tone. I found this weird because this is a big change in Gregor’s life and to describe this moment in such a relaxed tone is striking to me. This relaxed tone is reflected in Gregor’s actions when he becomes an insect. Gregor is more concerned about him getting late to work as he responded to the time saying, “Heavenly Father!” (Gregor 24). This lack of concern about his transformation is something I also find really striking. This lack of concern for his transformation also highlights an overly concern for his job. This could show how he ties his identity to his work, and helping his family, instead of tying his identity to himself.
One weird moment in “The Metamorphosis” is when Gregor dies and his family feels no sadness or remorse for how he lived and how they treated him. You would expect them to care at least a little bit, since Gregor was part of their family and essentially the sole provider. However towards the end they saw him as more of a burden than anything else and are glad to be rid of him finally.
Acting more as a reflection–but also a weird moment–is the part where Gregor’s transforms into a bug. It’s not the actual change or outcome itself that throws me off, it’s the stress Gregor expresses when he’s worried he will miss his train for work. As he’s very adamant about making it to work on time, the author sets a very tense tone that Gregor can’t quite seem to de-root and shake off. Kafka makes a truthful critique on modern society in this moment, where physical wellbeing and identity are secondary to routine and work-obligation. It’s not the unsettling nature of Gregor’s morph that strikes readers, it’s how inexplicably normal or logical he’s reacting to those dehumanizing him as a emanation of societal standards.
I found it shocking when the mom and the sister were treating the lodgers with so much more respect than their own family member. I understand that that was their source of income, but its baffling how they were able to see how spoiled the food was and yet they still decided to serve it to Gregor. Like even in the beginning, the first meal he got after turning into a bug was their leftovers which entailed their bones. This is crazy to me how he was the sole provider for the family but after he became a bug and was no longer able to provide for the family he was regarded with such disrespect. Like even so, he once used to be human and be their family and yet he’s being treated worse than lodgers that are paying them. All they care about his themselves cause they’re even afraid of just looking at him.
One moment in this book that I think was weird was instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with Gregor, his father wanted to lock him back in the room. In the text it states “He was fixated on the notion that Gregor must disappear into his room as quickly as possible” (Kafka 51). This is really insane to me because why did they not immediately get him help or at least ask if he was okay which obviously he was not but that is the least they could have done.
I agree, when I read that part I was so confused on why they didn’t help them instead of just locking them in the room and hoping they would disappear fast.
Perhaps the most famous weird moment in all of stories: Gregor Samsa waking up and being completely unperturbed about having turned into an insect. He is worried, but not that he’s a monstrous insect, but rather that he’s going to be late to work! Despite Gregor’s very real recognition of his new form, he’s simply unconcerned –rather, he’s worried that he is in “danger of losing his position, and because his boss would then start hounding his parents once more over their ancient debt” (Kafka 35). I saw this as Gregor not having the ability to be human under capitalism and the family responsibility he has. I know Kafka very much bought into the idea of just being “a cog in the machine”, and this moment along with other examples in the book (like wanting Gregor gone because he’s an economic/time strain) shows how dehumanizing work and poverty can be as it makes you set personal feelings aside in place of survival.
Your analysis is definitely correct here. The anti-capitalist message is clear, especially in this instance. Further, I would add that there is an idea that he literally doesn’t have time to be worried about the bug situation. Under capitalism there is such a constant movement (cog in the machine like you said) and to spend any energy or time on worrying about his transformation would be too detrimental. A distraction.
I agreed it was both shocking and sad that this was his reaction. Under the societal pressure, George sees himself as many roles but a normal human being. He has responsibilities, he has a job, and these might not even require him to be a human.
On pages 44-46 when Gregor finally exited the room I was confused as to why he didn’t think about how his appearance may affect the way his family and manager will look at him. He just goes on and on about his job, doing his best to keep it when there is clearly something more important if he has become a giant bug. I think this is because for so much of his life he has been working for the company and still has many more to work while being a young boy.
One weird/mostly sad moment is when Gregor’s family leaves the door open so Gregor can listen in on their conversations in the evening, but then they completely ignore his presence. Yeah, he’s turned into a bug, but his family still doesn’t treat him like a son or brother, they treat him with such indifference, exactly like the physical bug he is. This mix of partial inclusion but then total emotional detachment shows how alienation can happen even within families, a place where one might expect to be safest from such an issue. Especially when considering that Gregor was the main breadwinner for the family too, Kafka really speaks to how people easily discard others once they are “no longer of use”.
Looking back, they don’t really leave the door open on purpose, but it happens to be left open after changes of heart, which is even sadder that they ignore him. (Pg 54).
Something I found weird in “Metamorphosis”, was Gregor’s behavior or response towards his physical change. Kafka clearly expresses the changes and the struggles that Gregor faces as his body physically changes in addition to the mental strength it requires for him to attempt to still go to work. Despite the overwhelming difficulties and changes Gregor is facing to even move and speak, he appears to be in denial of what’s happening to him, yet he hides his denial with a superficial or even forced hopeful and positive mindset. While still attempting to make it to his job or fulfill his duties, Gregor says “Once the hindrance has been overcome, work all the more industriously and with greater focus” (Kafka 44). Despite the obvious tragedy, Gregor is forcing himself to feel hope for a change, even if he knows its impossible, he rejects the idea of failing his duties towards his family. Though this forced hopeful mindset decays throughout the novel, I think Kafka forces a positive mindset into Gregor to reflect how humans are naturally in denial while facing a tragedy or a change.
One weird moment that stuck out to me was the ending: after Gregor dies, the family moves out of the apartment and “discussed their future prospects…something they had never before properly discussed…” (Kafka 117). This particular line highlights how Gregor’s death helps the family realize how fortunate their life is, despite Gregor’s suffering (as he was a bug and also killed by his own father). Therefore, it is strange how it took Gregor’s death for the family to ultimately recognize how optimistic their future is, despite having relied on him.
During my reading of this text I found the moment where Greger, who at this point is still trying to hide his insect body from his sister, which is assumed to be out of shame, covers himself with a sheet. In my mind, this image of a giant bug that is consciously attempting to correct his actions to be modest was really absurd, while also heartbreaking as I continued through the reading. I believe it highlights the deep psychological disconnect between Gregor’s inner humanity and his ‘grotesque’ outward form, which intensifies the surreal tragedy of his isolation within his own home.
One key continuity I observe in Roy Lichtenstein’s, M-Maybe artwork is the use of colored Ben-Day dots. These dots add texture to the image, creating a contrast with the smoother solid colored sections. In certain areas, they also function as a form of shading, adding depth to the image. This technique departs from the traditional art styles, which I like because It shows how something simple can contribute to a greater whole. A single dot may seem insignificant on its own, but when many come together, they are powerful.
A contrast between the abstract expressionism and pop art is how they are responding in that post war time period. The abstract expressionism works are messy and emotional. They feel deeply personal. It reminds me of an inner chaos or spiritual awakening kind of feeling. It could be the artists way of responding to this post war period without using words. In contrast, the pop art seems to be flattening that feeling. They are loud, polished, and wrapped up in that mass culture and consumerism. The abstract expressionism has a raw feeling and the pop art makes me question if anything we are consuming is real
Yes, and I feel like the difference in emotion is what makes the contrast hit harder. The Abstract expressionism pieces feel like they’re spilling whatever chaos or energy the artist had inside. Like Pollock’s painting almost feels alive. Pop Art, like Warhol’s Marilyn, feels the opposite. It’s bright and polished, but kind of hollow, like it’s making fun of how consumer culture can look exciting but still feels empty.
I agree. While I feel like abstract artists make us think more doubting what we’re seeing and trying to find meaning in it pop art is very straightforward. It uses bright colors that entice the mind and stimulate our senses visually, with smooth lines carefully shaped and no sign of emotional turmoil. I also agree that it is very consumerism-oriented. With the rise of comics and illustrations, everything is perfectly curated, flat, and lacking emotion representing a society of mass production and capitalism.
I think that Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art contrast in how they approach subject matter and emotion. Abstract Expressionism, like Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31 and de Kooning’s Excavation, highlights raw emotion, spontaneity, and the self. These paintings are very introspective aim to convey emotion through movement, colour, and form.
Pop Art, on the other hand, kind of incorporates symbols from pop culture and consumerism, like in Warhol’s Marilyn and Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe. Rather than conveying personal feeling, Pop Art uses irony, bright colours, and very obvious and recognisable icons to speak about the superficiality or repetition of modern life. So, while Abstract Expressionism looks within, Pop Art looks outward.
I noticed that the abstract expressionism artwork and the pop art both have a heavy use of primary colors. For example, in Willem de Kooning’s Excavation, while the whole painting is pretty muted, the colors that pop out are red, blue, and yellow. Similarly, in Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe, the artist only uses red, blue, and yellow. While they are drastically different art styles, both artists choose to use primarily colors as the focal point.
A continuity shared amongst most of these pieces of art is the use of bright and saturated colors in order to catch the viewers eyes. For example, in Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) the use of bright colors in the woman’s hair demonstrates its a comic book page. Another example is in Andy Warhol, Marilyn (1967) where there are a number of bright colors which make up Marilyn Monroe’s face.
I agree, I think the use of bright colors, and the saturations of the images really allow for them to to “pop”. It really allows for the human gaze to notice the details because of how bright and hard to miss they are.
A continuity I noticed especially in the Pop Art is the color yellow. In Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, and Andy Warhol’s paintings the color yellow really stands out. I think that’s what gives the paintings that “pop”. In all three paintings the color is really out there and noticeable, it really brings the human gaze to focus on the details that are in that color.
One key contrast in the artwork is how flat it is; how it focuses on the bold coloring and abstract. Whereas the other paintings are more so three dimensional. Pop art can focus on both the canvas, while also challenging traditional artistic ideas.
In looking at the examples of the abstract expressionism artwork I feel that there are many commonalities that we can see across all of them. The first thing that came to mind when I viewed these pieces of art is a sense of chaos and genuine emotion being displayed. Although the third image is a little simpler and more controlled, the first two and even the last piece of art displays many different colors and abstract designs and symbols that I feel symbolize what the artist feels and is thinking. When looking at these pieces of art they make you feel a certain type of way and for me I get this idea of a true representation of feeling and emotion. Rather than thoroughly thinking about what they want to depict, I feel that the artist was just created this art based of their initial and genuine feelings.
Pop art seems to have this saturated surprise factor to it that makes the art feel visually appealing but like the giant clothespin not make much sense inherently. Compare this to the abstract expressionism which seems to have more movement and lines, it feels like art in America was an outlet for expression that might not have been there before. Both the pop art movement and the abstract expressionism seem to have this quality to them that shows the desire to get out of modesty and social norms and I wonder if this type of art is to bring color to a post war America, where the buildings look more and more bland in color.
I think this is a great point. I’ve noticed the same thing, there are many colors in pop art, and in abstract many rigid shapes. When you look at each use of color or compelling shapes it tells us a story. I do also agree that after the war it was a dark time and this art was used as an outlet. An outlet to bring color and change to their current reality.
I completely agree that color is important to the overall idea of Pop art. However, I do think Pop art my extend further than the saturation of the painting. You mention the giant clothespin, and that it doesn’t make sense at first glace. I agree with this initial sentiment, especially because we are viewing the piece through the difference of saturation. However, I would argue that it would fit into the motif when analyzed through the lens of abstraction in general. All of these artworks are outside of the typical day-to-day visualization. We don’t see highly saturated objects outside of art. I think the clothespin represents the visual appeal of art through the unique lens of an unexpected clothespin.
In each of the pop artworks listed for homework, the subject is drawn from some aspect of American life or culture. For example, Target with Four Faces is emblematic of a dartboard design. This work removes us from the functionality of the piece and focus more on the concentric circles that make a dartboard beautiful. In M-Maybe, the art style invokes that of a comic book. Comic books are typically thought of as professional, for-profit pieces, which means their art can be taken for granted. Finally, in Clothespin, what we consider to be an everyday object gets elevated because of the size of the pieces and the dramatization of a clothespin’s curves. In all, each of these four pieces takes everyday objects and portrays them in a different life.
Abstract Expressionism vs Pop Art
– Colour palette used in Abstract Expressionism is far more dull compared to Pop art, which has a lot more primary and brighter colours.
– Abstract Expressionism doesn’t have many artworks of identifiable figures, even what seems to be humans are distorted and not easily recognizable. Compared to pop art, where the statistics are obvious and can be easily pointed out.
-Abstract Expressionism’s meanings could be left to interpretation compared to Pop Art, which distorts popular identifiable objects by experimenting with colors.
In the artworks of Abstract Expressionism, one continuity seems to be the way the artist play with perception, colors, and shapes. At first glance the paintings seem purposeless with random shapes or confusing lines, but as you look longer they seem to have reasoning behind them. This case is evident in Willem de Kooning’s Excavation; looking at it quickly it just seems to be lines and colors. However, after going in for a deeper look, it seems as if the lines are organized in a methodical way, highlighting colors in different places and even creating faces in certain areas.
I noticed that in each of the artworks from the homework, each one featured a distinct element that stood out, which is likely why the movement is referred to as pop art. In Target with Four Faces, the bullseye is emphasized with a bold red background. Moving to M-Maybe, Lichtenstein fills the entire comic book frame with the face of an attractive woman. Although there is a lot occurring visually in both Marilyn and Clothespin, the viewer can still clearly identify the central subject—Marilyn Monroe and the clothespin sculpture because of the artist’s use of contrast and visual focus.
A key contrast I see between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art is in the commercial appeal of Pop art, which is obviously where it gets its name from. However, I think it is more interesting to examine how both of these might have been informed by American culture during the Cold War era. In a similar way to how Abstract Expressionism identifies a certain type of American individualism, Pop Art identifies some of the ideas of American commercialism and capitalism. While completely turning the other direction from expressionism, which can feel like only the artist can truly understand the painting, Pop Art gives the viewer a reframing of something that we all have familiarity with. We carry our own connotations and ideas that we associate with Marilyn Monroe, for example.
A similarity I noticed in all of the pop art is their usage of vibrant colors. Solid reds, blues, and yellows are used extensively in the comics, the woman’s face wasn’t even given a solid color, but there is merely an illusion of color with the usage of colored dots on her face. Warhol’s Marilyn exaggerates this feature even further, by using odd, bright colors, each separate image of Marilyn brings a different meaning.
In looking at the examples of the abstract expressionism artwork I feel that there are many commonalities that we can see across all of them. The first thing that came to mind when I viewed these pieces of art is a sense of chaos and genuine emotion being displayed. Although the third image is a little simpler and more controlled, the first two and even the last piece of art displays many different colors and abstract designs and symbols that I feel symbolize what the artist feels and is thinking. When looking at these pieces of art they make you feel a certain type of way and for me I get this idea of a true representation of feeling and emotion. Rather than thoroughly thinking about what they want to depict, I feel that the artist created this art based on their initial and genuine feelings.
Artists from both abstract expressionism and pop art used art to relieve stress and express individual struggle after the war, though differently. In abstract expressionism, the focus was on movement and spiritual intensity. Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31” for example, emphasized a detachment between movement and emotion, turning the canvas into an arena of randomness. Pop artists, however, operated under themes of repetition and mass culture. The work of “Marilyn” by Andy Warhol, for example, transforms the iconic Monroe into repeated, colorful prints in an attempt to embrace consumerism. Pop art, in particular, takes attention away from the individual and highlights the collective.
I really like what you said about the emphasis on movement and spiritual intensity in abstract expressionism. I also want to touch upon Pop art and focus on its shift from the individual to the collective – I find it interesting how Warhol’s use of repetition in Marilyn to not only embrace consumerism like you said, but also in a critique on how mass media flattens indivduality. Ultimately, it’s cool how Pop artists used familiar imagery to reflect a kind of emotional detachment, almost the opposite of what abstract expressionists were doing
A key continuity I noticed in both the abstract expressionism pieces and pop art is that all of the artists use dynamism to suggest some sort of movement or to evoke some sense of energy. For instance, in Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31, Pollock splatters various, differently-colored paint across the canvas; this technique ultimately energizes the canvas for both Pollock and the viewer. Similarly, Andy Warhol’s Marilyn shows both movement and vibrancy as the art piece depicts repeated images of Marilyn Monroe in different, vibrant colors — essentially energizing the images (and also contributing to the “pop art” effect).
A key contrast that I noticed between the abstract expressionist paintings above and the pop art paintings above is their tone. Specifically, the former is much more introspective and grave, while the latter is more playful and witty. This difference can be seen first and foremost from their color palettes in that the abstract expressionist paintings have a much darker color palette, as seen in Mark Rothko’s Black in Deep Red. The pop art paintings have significantly more vibrant neon colors that give them a significantly less serious tone. This is illustrated in Andy Warhol’s Marilyn, which depicts multiple images of Marilyn Monroe in a mix of bright colors.
One contrast between the pop art and abstract expressionist artworks featured is what they choose to represent. Abstract expressionist art strays from recognizable imagery, opting instead for vague colors and simplified shapes. The titles (“Untitled,” “Number 31”) are also simplified and lack representation of something tangible. Pop art, on the other hand, is highly representative and uses references to popular culture that are recognizable to its audience.
Abstract Expressionism is very wild and random, the art pieces have no structure and its just a wild assortment of similar colors and lines. Pop art is the opposite, you can easily understand what your looking at.
Andy Warhol’s “Marilyn” stands out to me especially because of how bright and contrasting each section is, my eyes were immediately drawn to it. After looking at it for a few minutes, it is very interesting in that every face is identical in the way it’s posed and who it is, and yet they each seem to portray a different emotion or tone. The change in colors is part of directing the emotion of it, but the way the contrast changes in each one pulls your eyes to different features that almost seem to change or warp the expression. The way the brightest squares are in a herringbone like pattern also makes it appealing to the mind and eyes, really grabbing and holding your attention.
Yes, and it expresses how much a slight change in perception (in this case, color) can change the meaning in what you’re viewing in the artwork. However, this particular artwork does something different as it brings multiple versions of the same person to create the idea of how we bring the value of a certain product or person down to the level of consumerism. The use of different colors presents multiple versions of Marilyn, possibly in connection to how we each warp the image of Marilyn with how people personally observed her.
I agree with you on how the bright colors shift the emotion of each section. This is one of those works, where I feel like I’ve seen it multiple times before, but never really ‘looked’ at it. In particular, the bottom right frame caught my eyes with it’s vibrant colors and pseudo-realism. It looks exaggerated and hyper colored, which really caught my eye.
I agree with your point on this, every picture seems to be the same one, but somehow theyre all different in the tones of color, which could pose different expressions and feelings while looking at it. The frame that particularly stood out to me was the bottom middle one, the hot pink really pops out at the human eye, and it was the first thing my eye saw when I opened up the picture. I feel like not only does it change in emotion, but in physical traits of the frames as well, the bright colors in different parts of the faces really makes everything different stand out, creating almost like an optical illusion.
When looking at Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe (1965) painting, the first minute I spent reading the words, observing the cityscape in the background, examining the woman’s outfit, and noting her situation, I assumed she’s probably seeing a young man and is anxious about why he hasn’t arrived. Then, as I looked longer, I noticed how detailed the city looked and how attractive the woman depicted is. I sat in wonder at how attractive the woman could be, even when painted with monochrome dots and two other colors. The monochrome dots are used to represent her flawless skin tone that has pink flush, but I think what makes her really attractive is that her face shape and structure; she is truly gorgeous.
I looked at this piece too and I really like how you notice her beauty. It’s something that I didn’t really look at but it’s true how she meets the definition of the beauty standard with her blonde hair and blue eyes, and full lips. When I was looking at the piece, I really focused on the emotions of her eyes and how the lines are surprisingly expressive for lines that are so simple. You can see her wondering and trying to come up with an excuse for getting stood up, which in itself, is unfortunately a universal experience for everyone at some point. I also loved the motion of her hair getting swept back and as it curls around her hand adding to the drama of the moment as she thinks about him.
In Jasper Johns’ Target with Four Faces, I seem to have had a mystifying experience as I kept being drawn to the perceived meaning as being blind to reality. However, I wasn’t sure why exactly I felt that way because the painting left me with more questions than answers on why I was drawn to that particular meaning in the first place. I think it could be the fact that good aim in archery is seeing where your target is, but all the faces are missing that primary feature. It makes me wonder why I’m seeing the target even though the faces in the painting can’t.
The painting that caught my eye was Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled because of its aggressive brush strokes. The painting seems so rough with heavy colors and heavily exaggerated features. The woman almost looks monstrous with her distorted limbs and facial expression. I don’t know if this painting is showing a misogynistic form or if the artist is trying to challenge the idea of beauty, specially the beauty of women. I think maybe the artist is trying to juxtapose beauty and ugliness side by side with a woman with monstrous features. I felt kind of uncomfortable looking at this image because of the rough brush strokes, her weird smile, and her broken limbs. I also noticed the what I believe to be a sun in the corner. The black colors around her body also gives a eerie feeling that she is evil. The photo also has many shapes placed around, showing its abstract qualities.
I picked Claes Oldenburg’s “Clothespin” (1976), and after sitting with it for a couple of minutes, what stood out to me the most was the scale. It’s such a basic, everyday object, but expanded up to this huge size, and that makes it seem important, or at least impossible to ignore.
People probably walk past it all the time, probably without stopping to really look. It’s just there, in the middle of everything. That contrast is what makes it interesting, something so ordinary becomes strange just by being oversized and out in public. It makes you question what belongs as a monument of this scale.
I agree, I think the point of the piece is to bring attention to the absurdity of a massive clothespin. I also think that it is telling for people to not really pay attention to it (at least in the picture). I think this also plays into the idea of the clothespin, how it used to draw attention because it was so unique, but over time people are desensitized to it.
My first impression of the painting One: Number 31 by Jackson Pollock was that this painting was completely messy and chaotic. I tried to figure out that the artist wanted us to see. The strokes on the painting looks so random that I couldn’t find a its meaning. Different colors lines were mixed in harmony. None of the colors could be looked separately. It’s chaotic and harmonious at the same time. I felt that this is a very powerful painting with strong emotions. It forced you to look at it and think about it, although I was not sure that exactly the artist meant.
Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin (1976) stood out to me mostly because of how different it was from the other paintings. It has far less color and seems almost more mundane and unassuming. When I first stared at it I just felt as though it was just a normal everyday depiction of some tall monument and people walking on by it. However, after staring at it for longer, I realized that the tall monument is actually just a almost comically large clothespin. The fact the people in the painting don’t really pay it much attention I think possibly speaks to a larger idea about every day items. Like maybe the idea of everyday items once being an invention and something new and remarkable now lowered to something taken for granted almost.
The painting by Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) stuck out to me greatly and so I decided to devote my time into unavailing this painting. The shapes used in this painting are organic and fluid, it’s not fully clear where the women is supposed to end and where she begins, what I believe to be its intention. While there are pops of bright colors, to place emphasis on an aspect of the painting, the rest of the colors are dull and muddy as they are swirled around the painting. I interpret this painting as a embodiment of confusion, the women face is in distorted in such a way that her features are misplaced, yet still are coherent enough to form a puzzled look. She herself is wrapped in confusion as her body contorts to the will of the brush stroke, and her image becomes undefined, displaying a sense of disillusionment.
I spent a few minutes staring at Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) and focused most of my time on her face. It seemed like she was being pulled apart while also being assembled. Her body is violently fragmented with odd shapes and angels throughout. There are distorted features like her eyes and arms that are created with jagged brushstrokes. You can make out just enough to tell its a human woman, but not much more. The entire work is overwhelmed by chaos which had an unsettling feeling for me. It felt raw and untraditional.
I chose Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948). It was really interesting and produced a slightly uncomfortable feeling, I think due to the distorted nature that Kooning chooses to depict this woman. Her facial features are very disfigured, not abiding by classic proportions. It also seems like her left eye is being poked out by the spikes of the star in the corner. As you work your vision down the painting, her body gets even more distorted, her blonde hair acting as a frame. She looks dirty and mostly unclothed, and it’s hard to distinguish all her different limbs and body parts. All this distorted imagery creates a sense of discomfort. Strickland wrote about how abstract expressionism worked to be “irrational” and free of needing to represent recognizable images, and I think this painting reflects this well.
Similarly to your reflection of this piece, I also noted how it portrays an abstract style, leaving the subject to look disfigured. Although, you took a more literally interpretive route than I did–but regardless of the difference in our answers–the chaotic nature of the artwork still shines through no matter how a viewer chooses to interpret it.
Amilia I love your analysis on this art piece and couldn’t agree more. I instantly noticed her eye being poked out by what seems to be a star. However, the more deeply I looked at this picture the less I noticed in the main subject, which is the girl. From what I see I noticed what looks to be like a window in the background and in front of it reminds me of a walkway, although I’m pretty sure it’s her hair. I see little figures walking along top of it, which reminds me of a sidewalk in a way, and that definitely struck out to me.
While staring at Willem de Kooning’s, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948), I worked my way through the artwork dissecting different objects and shapes as it is an abstract piece in its originality. Turning it into a game with myself, I tried to note how many tangible objects that compose the subject I could pick out from the painting. After the duration of 3 minutes, I was still managing to discern new things independent of what this art depicts. Much like we’ve discussed in earlier classes, this art is similar to that of Cubism and Futurism in the sense that a viewers focus is constantly being shifted to different compositions of the work.
Jackson Pollock’s, One: Number 31 (1950) really intrigued me. As I began to concentrate on the piece, I realized there is a purpose inside the chaos. As Strickland writes “the impassioned act of painting became an absolute value in itself” (Strickland. 158), which helps explain how Abstract Expressionism focused on the creation process itself. The contrast between splattered lines and dots highlights how each movement was sporadic, some quicker than others. I also think Pollock’s choice to use the earthy tones blue and brown balances out the strikingness between black and white. Overall, One: Number 31 highlights emotion through motion through Pollock’s physical feeling on canvas.
I agree, Pollock’s emotion and movements are highlighted throughout One: Number 31 (1950), and that the dark colors influence the mood of the piece. I noticed that the movement on the piece is very fluid yet momentary, making the paint on the canvas look like they are in active motion. To me, this looks like the bursts of color are dancing on the page in short, sporadic bursts.
The artwork I chose to look at was Clyfford Still’s, PH-971. At first glance it looks quite simple with very few colors, but looking at it more its clear that a lot of effort was put into creating it. My experience was a little unsettling. While looking, I started to imagine that I was looking at a wall with the wallpaper ripping and falling apart spreading destruction to the whole wall. The most notable part is the one black streak that spreads to the center of the artwork. I was also unsettled by the white bit on the right side with a streak of blue. Thinking about my wall idea, this could represent a new beginning with them painting the wall blue and priming with white.
An artwork that I find particularly engaging is Andy Warhol’s, Marilyn (1967). Upon first look all I could notice were the cool colors, and contrasts of colors that Warhol used to depict Marilyn. It seemed so fun, happy and lively. However, the longer I looked at it the less happy it seemed. The more I looked at the painting the more it reminded me of Warhol’s, “100 Cans of Campbell’s Soup”. I saw this work in Strickland page 145. This artwork reminded me of the Maryilin artwork because they both show consumerism. Just like he did with the soup cans, Warhol uses the same image of Marilyn multiple times, depicting her as mass-produced. This suggests that Warhol isn’t just showing Marilyn and how fun, lively and beautiful she is, he is showing how the public consumes her.
I chose Willem de Kooning’s “Excavation”. It stood out to me because it reminds me of how sometimes when you stare at ceilings or other seemingly empty spaces, your brain starts to make out faces or other features. I like that there is not explicit figure in this painting, you have to form them on your own. It invokes feelings of nostalgia and curiosity, as it reminds me of how I used to see/create figures from the ceiling in my mom’s room. Even after looking at it for a while, you can still make out new faces and figures, this is a very interactive work of art.
Black in deep red, by Mark Rothko, is a piece that I found particularly engaging. Before meditating on the piece, my initial observations were that there were three rectangles with an orangish red background; the first one was grey, the second one was black, and the third was a darker red than the background. However, after looking at the piece for three minutes, I found that in the first rectangle on the left side, there is half of a face. The second black rectangle, I noticed that the whole square isn’t black, but only the middle. Also, the outside of the middle seems to be a darker color than the first square. The last rectangle seems to have lighter lines that look like words, but I could not identify what words were there. The background is a consistent red color; however, the only deep red I see is in the last rectangle. My experience with this piece was that the longer I looked at it, the more I found, but the less I understood about the piece.
At first, Jasper Johns, Target with Four Faces looks like a painting of a mere target, painted with thick paint that creates an uneven surface. But the faces on top reveal the three-dimensional aspect of this art piece, each one with a different mouth opening and expression. I believe this difference of dimension between the top and the bottom reveal that two sides of people: the surface that is two dimensional and simple while the inside is three dimensional and complex. The fact that the face isn’t fully covered also shows how people suppress their true selves and display the simpler version of them which is represented by the simple shape of the target.
I chose Marilyn by Andy Warhol and saw that throughout all his versions, you are able to see the depth of many of Marilyn Monroe’s features. For example, there is more volume in her hair in the other squares that show her in unique colors. Coincidentally, I saw another one of Andy Warhol’s painting yesterday when I went to Tate Modern. I saw his painting named Marilyn Diptych. And I found it very interesting how Marilyn was his muse, and there were so many ways that he was able to paint the same woman, numerous times with the same and positioning. This painting actually came 5 years after the painting I saw at Tate Modern, and it was interesting to see after 5 years, it was still the same person in the same position but painted in different styles, whether it was a change in color or change in depth or change in shade.
Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) is particularly interesting to me. For a painting in 1965, it’s very modern looking in design, possibly because of the comic book design. Something I find interesting about the image is how the woman’s face is dotted, though she still appears whole. It’s a very nice expressionist painting.
I stared at Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) and felt very intrigued by the bright blonde hair and the red dots on the woman’s face. The bright colors and the edifices in the background make this comic woman very modern and eye-catching. I especially like how her hair is blown by the wind and her hand is touching one side of her face. Overall, I felt like this comic woman is very dynamic, eye-catching, and portrayed as slightly seducive
I was drawn to the colored dots on the woman’s face as well! Though they are all separate, when looking at the piece as a whole, they appear as one, unified color. Roy Lichtenstein’s style reminds me of mass produced comic books too, but I was confused as to why comic artists were upset over this. It appears as if he was merely emulating an art style, but maybe there’s a larger commentary at play. Perhaps Lichtenstein wants us to look deeper into this style to see how impersonal it is; there is no identity behind it because of its mass production.
Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) clearly depicts a woman, but gives an uncanny sensation while viewing. This is because she is very scrambled up, and her body does not consist of any smooth continuities. The uncanny feeling arises from our ability to discern that it is a person, but not a healthy-looking one. She has a crooked smile, and one of her eyes takes up a large portion of her head. She might have arms but it is difficult to find where they begin or end. It is as if Kooning could not decide whether to draw a normal-looking woman or some kind of abstraction. Her mangled appearance may represent this conflict.
As I observed Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled , I found that it is clearly an abstract way to explore the body of a woman. At first I was uneasy of how Kooning made her look. The way her eyes are distorted and her arms disappear through the brush strokes. However, I feel like this painting is a representation of all women… that not every woman should follow specific beauty standards. That women are beautiful in any type of form. As well, by Kooning using different kinds of brush strokes in this painting, this emphasizes that all women are different and that is the beauty of it.
I agree, honestly when I look at it for too long, I too get kind of “off put” or even a bit disturbed by her facial expression. She looks as if she is struggling to escape from something, or perhaps she is something we should be escaping from. She also possesses a dream-like essence, where the shapes/expressions seem to distort and mix into one another, providing a subconsciously unsettling feeling.
I chose Jasper John’s “Target With Four Faces.” It is seemingly unassuming, and naturally my eye was immediately drawn to the center during the first few seconds. Then, I hovered up to the faces just casually resting above it, and after the major components were over, I began focusing on the colors and soft shadows all around it. If you stare at the bullseye long enough, then look at a plain wall or close your eyes, you will still see it there. It produces an afterimage illusion.
I also chose a pop art, and had a similar effect from the after images. I stared at Andy Warhol’s “Marilyn,” having seen if often as a child but never focused on that artwork in particular. Looking at each Marilyn, I realized that each face was slightly different, not just the colors. To me, looking at it for a prolonged time, the faces rested at a different part of the canvas and certain features were sharper for each one. Some had longer brows, and others had a bigger beauty mark. When I closed my eyes after, I would still see her face and vibrant colors, kind of like a hypnotic effect.
I think the vibrant colors definitely add to the hypnotic effect. I’ve always enjoyed this iconic painting because it showcases such a memorable figure in history. The painting is general is beautiful because of its color scheme.
The art piece that caught my attention the most was Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31”. Looking at this painting, I think that he used a technique (similar to ones we’ve viewed before) where he loads a paintbrush with paint and slaps it aimlessly onto the canvas. Although an “unintentional” way of creating art, as I was looking at it for 3 minutes, I found it fun to let my eyes wander but noticed myself following lines of the same color, trying to connect them. To me, it also looks like the colors are dancing amongst each other, and rather than chaos, the painting evoked an unexpected calmness in its fluidity to me.
I was drawn to Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin. The centerpiece of the clothespin is some type of hyper-realistic model that is a tad uncanny, reminding me of those mock ups of new buildings that are undergoing development. This smooth, simple statue obviously doesn’t look like its meant to be there, especially with the background consisting of architecturally complex, grandiose buildings. The out-of-place feeling of the clothespin against the background heavily contributed to the uncanny sense I got from this image.
This is an interesting take! I never viewed it as out of place, because I grew up passing by it often and still do. To me, I always viewed it as a sort of reflection or modern art approach of the city hall behind it- kind of like a reflection of maybe what city hall would look like in another life.
I observed Jasper Johns, Target with Four Faces (1955). It was the weirdest artwork among four and I thought that there should be some kind of hidden meaning in this artwork. When I first looked at the work I saw target and then I saw half of four faces above the target, and I wonder how the human face is related to the target. We usually shoot arrows aiming to the target and human usually never goes next to target while someone is shooting because it is dangerous. However, my interpretation towards this artwork is that you should never miss the target because someone will die. The four human face depict life and it allows shooters to concentrate more since someone’s life depends on him.
I decided to observe the Mark Rothko, Black in Deep Red (1957) because I was curious about what makes the painting special. After staring at the painting for a while trying to figure out why it felt so empty, I decided to do a bit of research of the painting and discovered that the black in the painting is supposed to represent their shift into depression, also discovered that Mark Rothko committed suicide in 1970. After discovering that the black is supposed to be the shift into depression, I now understand why the painting felt so empty. I was not expecting a simple painting to have such a dark meaning behind it.
The artwork that I found particularly engaging was Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe from 1965. I chose this one in particular because of the text that came with the image. It stood out to me from the rest. I also feel like the bold yellow hair of the girl made it stand out a lot because of the comparison to the face. While looking at this artwork though my eyes started to blur a little bit after looking at the dots for too long making my head hurt a little. It was kind of hard to focus my eyes after that. Other than that from afar the image still stands out even though you can not really see the dots.
Looking at PH-971 (1957) by Clyfford Still without context, I first thought it to be botched attempted at marbling, or a collage, perhaps. Without the painting’s title, I found it to be sanitary and pleasant to look at. Whether he intended it this way or not, I’ve decided to think the painting is meant to show corrosion, and the many layers of the painting as it burns. A PH of 971 is incredibly basic, and so high that it’s hazardous. Knowing this, the painting screams danger. The pink and red area–the only one with a different texture to other colors–reminds me of ground meat.
The large color block of yellow in PH-971by Clyfford Still feels smoothing to my nerves. Despite that probably not the intended of Still as the shape of color blocks define in sharp edges, almost like being torn off. This with the flesh like texture on left corner(plus red, yellow, black/white, classic warning color) should produce omewhat anxious feel. But this kind remind me The Bay by Helen Frankenthaler. Just staring as the large blocks allow me to focus on the color itself. And Still chosed a really nice shade of yellow. Not too saturate, not dark not light. The color of sunflowers.
When viewing Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin, I felt a sense of calm. Even though this sculpture is in the middle of a city, it reminds me of a calm country side with blowing grass and a relaxing feeling, as when I think about a clothes pin, I imagine a simple life where clothes are hung to dry with clothespins outside. The clothespin also kind of looks like two people hugging, which gives a sense of comfort and warmth, even in the middle of a bustling city.
What I noticed was that in the “Marilyn” from Warhol, every panel have different bold and strong colors and tones, contrasting each other, making each panel different in some type of way. I can also see that the bright colors makes some of her features pop out, for example, the bottom middle would make her eyebrows and eyeshadow pop out, and the top right would bring out her highlights in her hair, however in the other panels, it would all just blend in. All of these features would make the painting seem like an optical illusion, making the human eye find something new every time you scan the painting.
At first glance, within all of the artworks available, I hardly gave the Black in Deep Red a second thought as it came off across as so simplistic and unattractive. However, as I spent several minutes just sitting with the painting, it began to look less and less like a painting and more like sitting with a mood or ineffable feeling. The way the black bleeds into the deep red creates a sense of quiet tension, almost like a smoldering feeling just beneath the surface. The soft blurred edges and the slight variations in colour made the painting feel like it was breathing to me, as though it is so very vast yet at the same time intimate to me and my personal feelings.
I totally agree with you. Instead of the visual experience that most paintings address to the audience, this painting serves more as a emotional connection with the audience. As I looked at the painting, from the edges of the color patterns to the different layers and shades of black on red, it creates a peaceful integration between colors and shape.
Looking at Marilyn, I began to shift my eyes along as though I was reading comic book panels. I moved from one face to the next and it created a progression which seemed to have a transformation from one face to the next. The slight differences across each face began to be more evident. Next, the colors began to shift in my eyes as when looking at one panel, the other colors would seem lighter or darker relative to the other colors. The various saturated colors in each panel contributed to this effect.
After deeply staring at and getting familiar with Andy Warhol’s, Marilyn (1967), I obviously first noticed the bombastic, colorful blocks of Marilyn Monroe, an iconic and infamous celebrity of the era. These overly saturated blocks of her remind me of a comic book strip, which is what I think Warhol drew inspiration from in the post WWII art, focusing on the future of art and overall consumerism behind art. Similar to how comic strips were mass produced in newspapers or in editions, art was now doing the same. I see how this art could’ve been produced easily over and over again with the new-age technology. In addition, the inverted colors, while quite an eye-sore, bring a sense of fun and rejuvenating feeling as the colors bring out this energy of light-heartedness, where art doesn’t have to feel heavy or have a deep meaning, it can just be for fun way to seep out creativity.
The Black Panther can definitely be seen as an exponent of “Black Power,” especially in the scene where the Fantastic Four first encounter him in Wakanda. The Black Panther was able to use Wakanda’s advanced technology to weaken his opponents. The Black Panthers was also able to defeat each of the Fantastic Four on his own relying on his physical strength and technological power. This highlights Black excellence, intelligence, power, and it also displays the strength Africa possesses without any European influence.
I agree with you that Wakanda as a whole seems to serve as a metaphor for black power. It not only shows the ‘strength Africa possesses’ but serves as a strong model of how Black people can have power and it almost provides a new outlook into how superheros can look. The Black Panther is intelligent not just in a technological stance, but also in an observational way. When he is fighting Sue Storm, and she tries to create a force field, he intersects before she can fully create it and admits to studying how the Fantastic Four’s powers work. I think this shows that ‘Black Power’ is different than what the previous superheros have in the sense of this new level of intelligence and strength that goes essentially beyond any current superheros level and offers a new outlook on who can be in power.
I agree with you both!! Black Panther represents a new model of power. He is more than super strength, he also has intelligence, strategy, and soverginty on his side. The scene where he outsmarts Sue Storm shows how observant he is. Another great moment comes in Fantastic Four #53 when T’Challa explains the origin of Vibranium and how Wakanda has used it to stay independent and hidden from colonial exploitation. That scene shows that Wakanda’s strength isn’t just technological, it is also political. T’Challa doesn’t ask for approval or help but rather educates the Fantastic Four on his own history. That reversal of power dynamics really captures what Black Power was about. Black Panther embodies the self-determination and pride at the center of the movement.
Yes I agree with what all of you said! The power is such a powerful representation of Black Panther because it is not only just physical or technological, it is also about the control of the narrative and resources. Black Panther isn’t just seen as a superhero, but a symbol that holds for resistance. It’s about redefining power.
Absolutely, your point about Wakanda’s independence from European influence is so important. But to add on to that, the Black Panther’s decision to test the Fantastic Four rather than immediately team up with them is significant. It shows that he doesn’t need external validation or help; rather, he takes control on his own terms. Self-determination is a key concept of Black Power — the right to define, protect, and build the community without external control. Also, he is not just a sidekick but a leader who guards a prospering, self-sufficient nation.
I can definitely agree on your point, mostly where Black Panther says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory!”, signifying how Black Panther wants to show his strength, how strong he is, and his power demonstrating Black capacity, ability. This can also represent how strong and capable Africa in general is and how they can represent themselves as heroes and as someone people can count on.
I think the Comic shows Black Panther to be seen as an “exponent” to “Black Power”. This is because in the comic we see Black Panther to be flying over the other superheroes very heroically. I think by creating the image of the Black Panther going the same way as the Fantastic four it allows for the assumption that they are on the same team. If the fantastic four were drawn facing the Black Panther, than it would’ve made him seem like the enemy, but he doesn’t in the image, he looks likes hes part of the team.
Black Panther can be seen as an exponent of Black Power. When the Fantastic Four arrive in Wakanda, they expect to find a primitive jungle but instead, they are shocked to discover a nation powered by advanced technology. The comic deliberately plays with the reader’s preconceived colonialist notions about Africa, only to twist them and reveal a place of power, innovation, and independence. T’Challa doesn’t try to fit into Western molds or seek approval; instead, he challenges the Fantastic Four, testing them on his own terms. The writers clearly intended to show that T’Challa is much more than just a superhero, he is a symbol of Black excellence, he is a political figure, redefining power and reclaiming the narrative, reshaping it into something powerful. He is the embodiment of black power.
I definitely think that this comic displays an a type of “Black Power”. Throughout the comic there are many instances where I feel like you can interpret it as that. For example, when the Fantastic Four first come across the Black Panther in Wakanda they show him using technology that is advanced past anything that they have seen before. In addition, the Black Panther had the power ad intelligence to solely take down the Fantastic Four. A specific part of the comic where it says, “The Black Panther shall greet them…As they have never been greeted before!” also shows him as powerful and an amazing superhero.
For it’s time, showing an African nation as technologically superior was revolutionary in the fight against racial stereotypes in media. Many characters, specifically The Thing (when he cracks an insensitive joke about Tarzan), are amazed at the idea. This can definitely be seen as empowerment, but there’s an odd undertone if we look at it through a modern lens. Wakanda goes against the belief that Africans are primitive, yet enforces the idea that these cultures are acceptable only if they are “advanced” in a Western sense. In a way, they are “good” because there is a chance for all of them to adopt a Western lifestyle; there is no celebration of traditional African culture. So yes, for the 1900s this comic is definitely an exponent of “Black Power,” but the message is a bit twisted for modern times. I much prefer the newer renditions of Wakanda, haha
I agree that the aspect of Wakanda being technologically superior was a way to undermine the traditional stereotypes of Africa at the time and be a proponent of black power, especially since the traditional view was them being technologically backwards. But I think you bring up a really interesting point about the meaning of “advancement” coming from a Western lens. The only reason why everyone is impressed is because it’s the technology that’s so advanced, which is what the West values. From the beginning, we see characters act surprised whenever there is a technological advancement they don’t understand (such as the cosmic communication device), and especially surprised it’s from Africa. So while it is a way to break stereotypes and showcase black power, I think it does highlight a certain hypocrisy about things only being valuable from the Western view.
Yes, and I think you’re completely right about how “advancement” is viewed through a Western lens. Even though Wakanda has developed advanced technology that the West would admire, I also noticed that they still hold on to their cultural values. This is clear in how they dress and maintain their customs, which I thought was a meaningful contrast to the high-tech setting.
This hero can absolutely be seen as an exponent of black power. In the beginning page we see Ben question how someone like Black Panther has the brains or resources to access something so high tech. And even though that message was meant to be derogatory it still can be seen as a way to enlighten the character. During this time it was clear that black individuals didn’t have respect from their society and were deemed as less then, however characters like black panther were still able to rise above negative stereotypes to show they were just as good as any other person. And that was inspiring not only to the audience reading the comics but to other writers.
I completely agree with your point Melanie about how Black Panther is seen as an exponent of Black power due to him having the qualities of a hero. He has the brains, the technology, and resources. When I was reading the comic books I felt that I could see what you are saying visually in the cover of the second book. In the beginning of the comic book, “The Way It Began..!” The image on the cover depicts Black Panther sitting on his throne. This shows his power, and shows how though he is black he is not depicted as a sidekick or someone working for or being exploited by the west, instead he is sitting even above the west as the fantastic four are below him in this visual. This cover shows how Black Panther is an exponent of “Black Power”.
I agree, this depiction of black panther was definitley a proponent of black power at the time. The general consensus was that African culture was backwards and uncivilized and this representation of Wakanda which is technologically superior is revolutionary at the time. However, in modern times it could be perceived as offensive specifically from the jokes present such as the reference to a Tarzan movie refugee. But on the other hand, it could be a representation of the racial bias of the fantastic four being disproven which is also revolutionary for its time. Overall, I believe this comic is a proponent for black power and although it could be seen as offensive in the modern day, it has important messages for its time causing great change such as the black panther movement.
I think that this comic-book hero can be seen as an exponent of “Black Panther”. The phrase and logo became larger than the comic for a period of time for that very reason: Pro-Black movement on the west coast via the Black Panther Party. Media has an impact on what a society’s conscious and subconscious desires and values are, and Black Panther being the first black super hero during a time of heightened racial tension is an example of this.
I agree with you. I think the title page allows the audience to see the Black Panther as the main character despite the previous history of the oppression. It puts it into a better light since the Black Panther is the hero and doing good. It counters the previous opinions of the black population. It is a bit degrading to not give the Black Panther facial features except his eyes.
This comic can be read as an exponent of Black Power as it tries to disprove racial stereotypes. Early in the story, Reed discusses an aircraft gifted to him by an African chieftain, Johnny is in disbelief, “you’re conning me! How does an African chieftain latch onto a plane that flies by magnetic waves.” similar lines such as “this jungle looks so primitive.. so undeveloped!” demonstrate the preconceived notions about Africa as technologically inferior. The assumptions are later overturned as Wakanda is revealed to be more advanced than the Western world.
Yes I agree with your point and would like to add the sense of independent strength that is symbolized from Black Panther. In the comic he says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory”, this signalizes his ability to conquer battles and struggles on his own without needing the help from others. Typically people looked (and still look) at Black people to be inferior and this comic demonstrates the exact opposite of that. Black Panther becomes a direct representation of self-determination where he is able to protect and become self-sufficient without having to depend on anyone such as the Fantastic Four. The Black Panther speaks to the the Black community’s ability to be socially and economically sufficient without hand outs from others.
In many ways, this comic and the story of Black Panther promote the idea of “Black Power.” The most evident example of this is during Black Panther’s fight against the Fantastic Four, when he gets the best of each one of them at one point or another, singlehandedly. The Four are known to cooperate as a group, and each has their own unique, powerful abilities, but Black Panther manages to outsmart and outprepare them for most of the fight. He doesn’t have any inherent powers, but through training and technology, he was able to subdue each one before being beaten by an external force from Wyatt, which saved the four from their traps. Essentially, he did beat the four singlehandedly, which is an astonishing feat given that they are these famous all-powerful superheroes that never lose. It promotes the idea of “Black Power” since he, a less prominent, unknown African American ruler, is the only one able to defeat all four.
The hero of the Black panther can be seen as a model for black power and excellence. The comic shows the black panther as a highly respected leader, and Wakanda as a civilized prosperous country. However, it also shows that initially, Wakanda was weak and underdeveloped, as they were unable to defend themselves against guns and invaders. After Wakanda is saved by the Black panther, it becomes uniquely technologically advanced state in the middle of the African Jungle, much to the disbelief of the other superheros. While the Black Panther himself is a symbol of black power, the comic still enforces stereotypes about Africa and colonization.
I definitely think that this comic displays a type of “Black Power”. Throughout the comic there are many instances where I feel like you can interpret it as that. For example, when the Fantastic Four first come across the Black Panther in Wakanda they show him using technology that is advanced past anything that they have seen before. In addition, the Black Panther had the power and intelligence to solely take down the Fantastic Four. A specific part of the comic where it says, “The Black Panther shall greet them…As they have never been greeted before!” also shows him as powerful and an amazing superhero.
I believe that Marvel’s Black Panther is an expression that is aimed to fight racist stereotypes by depicting an African nation in a powerful way. It gave a way for black people of the time to see themselves as capable of being powerful instead of being pushed around by society. In the comics, there were many examples of black panther shown as powerful such as when is fights klaw. At the time this is very powerful for a black superhero to exist in comics
In the first comic book “The Black Panther”, I did not view it as black power because of how the Black Panther was portrayed. He seemed more greedy than heroic, and black power is more about showing empowerment. In one of the scene’s the Black Panther says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory!”, meaning the Black Panther just wants to see how powerful he is by taking down all of the members of Fantastic Four. By this it is not showing any type of black power because the Black Panther just wants to see how strong and powerful he is and not showing any type of empowerment to his nation.
I agree, I didn’t view it as black power neither and more of they are more showing off how powerful they are. This can be seen on page 18 when black panther is fighting the thing and says, “your courage is truly a match for your fame, but your skill, alas, cannot nearly compare with mine!” If black panther worked to uplift or represent his nation then it could be seen as black power, but black panther was asserting his individual dominance.
I think, within the context of this time, Blank Panther could be an exponent of “Black Power”. We see initially that the Fantastic Four look down on Blank Panther, with The Thing saying he’s “NEVER WEARD OF IM! BUT HOW DOES SOME REFUGEE FROM A TARZAN MOVIE LAY HIS HANDS ON THIS KINDA GIZMO?”. Further doubt is passed on the technology of Wakanda, but it becomes clear the people are capable. More notably, Blank Panther is established as being on equal part with the Fantastic Four. He becomes a true superhero, someone who dedicates himself to aiding humanity. As the first major hero in the mainstream Marvel comics, Black Panther may have brought hope and representation to young black children who may have previously felt unseen. Superheroes inspire the idea that “anything is possible”, which is seen in the end of the comic when the Fantastic four suggests(playfully, but still suggestions) that Black Panther could become “a rassler” or a “new kind of folk singer” if he doesn’t want to continue fighting. The power and possibilities of Blank Panther, uninhibited by his race, is what I saw as “Black Power”.
I feel like Wakanda represents a symbol of black empowerment. It highlights the ‘strength that Africa has’ and serves as a powerful example of how Black individuals can hold power, offering a new perspective on the appearance of superheroes. Black Panther is not only smart in terms of technology but also in how he observes his surroundings. For instance, during his battle with Sue Storm, he anticipates her attempt to create a force field and intervenes before she can complete it, revealing that he has studied the powers of the Fantastic Four. The Black Panther symbolizes his strength, showcasing how powerful he is and demonstrating the abilities of Black individuals. This also reflects the strength and capability of Africa as a whole, showing that they can stand as heroes and be dependable figures for others as well. This can also mean that ‘Black Power’ differs from what previous superheroes have shown, showcasing a new level of intelligence and strength that surpasses any existing superhero and provides a different view on who can hold power.
I do think this comic book character can be seen as an exponent of “Black Power” as he is portrayed as not only being physically imposing but also as extremely cunning. This can be seen especially in his first encounter with the Fantastic Four in Fantastic Four #52 as he cleverly uses traps and the environment to fend off the four superheroes. This display of a black character as being an intellectual equal to these well-known white heroes was a stark contrast to the common perception of African Americans during the period. Having a black superhero in general is empowering, conveying a sense of self-sufficiency and the right to defend oneself. Two attributes that were not commonly attributed to black men and women in America during that time.
Hi Brogan! I definitely agree with you, especially when you mentioned the characteristics seen in Black Panther, given the time period. Similarly, towards the end of Fantastic Four #53, Black Panther is seen as an epitome of being the people’s hero; this embodiment of protecting humanity slightly mirrors the Superman and Captain America comics seen last week. Therefore, as you mentioned, it is compelling how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby depicted Black Panther to be this supernatural figure, especially given the time period when these comics were published.
Ben says the following line in chapter 53: “they tossed a bunch’a gizmos at us that Doc Doom would’a been proud of usin’! And now they’re actin’ like…just inventin’ the wheel!’
The contrast between the advance technology and tribe ritual are very interesting. Normally one wouldn’t think any civilization with such status still wears such traditional clothes. But to Black Panther, traditional culture aren’t seem as opposite to technology, but can exist together. I think Black Panther could be consider as black power for he demonstrates pride toward African culture, that the africa culture is not something barbarian or uncivilized, but one must show respect for.
I don’t believe it’s supposed to push the values of black power because the black panther, doesn’t embody the same values the panthers had. He has the fantastic four go to wakanda to hunt them for fun. He seems greedy and in love with the power he has, but doesn’t wanna use it to help people. Its clear that he was kept wakanda hidden from the rest of Africa because he doesn’t want to help the people who have been suffering from colonialism.
I feel that the comic can be seen as an exponent of black power, largely due to its representation of Africans as intelligent and capable, challenging the dominant stereotype of them as primitive. However, the only reason they are valued in the comic is because they fall under what the West views as civilized. It still centers Western ideas of what is considered advanced. When they first arrive in Wakanda, they comment on how primitive it looks and how surely, they could not have developed such advanced technology. Once they see the technology and advancements, however, they develop more respect and admiration for them. They would still be seen as primitive if not for the technology.
I can definitely see some colonial through coming through in the writing, especially in the beginning. If not intentionally, subconsciously there is attitude towards Africa, with words like “primitive” and “undeveloped” on page ten when the four are arriving, still surprised Wakanda could have produced anything high tech. Also the use of the word safari seems uncalled for, considering they were in the Jungle and safaris are typically in the plains. I think some of the writing genuinely is just uneducated and tone deaf phrasing, that at the time it was written was somewhat commonly believed of Africa. It seems like a lot of generalizations and stereotypes are employed.
Yes, I totally agree with this. While I reading the comic, that was the line that caught my eye. There’s also another line on page 10 where one of the characters said “Its so hard to believe that a ship such as this one could have come from a land with no sign of technology of industrial development…!” This line is not necessarily racist or pointing Africa in a bad light, but it is definitely underestimating Africa and making seem inferior to the other countries that already had their industrial revolution. Another aspect I want to point out is on page 3. In my opinion, Black panther doesn’t look like a hero but more like a villain because of the way they situated him above the other heros. In the other comics such as Captain American, they were always shown fighting against the villains and winning but here they just put him above the others in a scary way. I feel like these small features show a stereotypes against Africans by making them seem uncivilized or scary because of their skin.
Yes, I agree with you. The depiction of African people in the comic did comfirm the stereotypes of colonists. On page 5, when the Fantastic 4 saw a African man trying to communicate using a little metal device, he thought that “Can he actually transmit a message half-way ’round the globe with that?” The subconsciously believed that African was primitive and not able to do that. But I wonder if the author was trying to break the stereotyoe of African by designing Wankanda as a high-tech kingdom. Maybe the author tried to offered a different view of African people, but failed to jump out of their stereotypes.
I also notice that the Fantastic Four characters seem to always be doubting the technology of the Wakandans. For example, on page 15, when the Wakandans get ready to fire, they say, “What’sis…a gag? Do they expect to plish us off by shootin’ flashlight beams at us?” I’m not sure if it’s a plain misunderstanding or stubbornness that the characters are displaying, but there also seems to be a hint at a level of distrust between the West and Africa as well.
This comic does confirm colonial stereotypes about Africa, portraying it as a primitive and simple way of life (assuming they still live in tribes with hunter-gatherer survival). The image that supports this portrayal is on page 5 of “The Way It Began,” where the Fantastic Four meets the Black Panther and hears his backstory. He is pacing around the room, holding a spear and shield with African border designs and a Black Panther on it, while describing how his father was “the greatest and wisest chieftain in all of Africa; his hunting skills were second to none.” I think this particular line, paired with the image of the Black Panther’s noble family heritage rooted in hunting skills, reinforces colonial stereotypes that African people still live in tribes and forage for food. While some parts of the African continent still follow this lifestyle, there are cities and suburban areas that are never mentioned in the media (even today).
I think this is a very important detail to notice in the comics. The way that Africans are portrayed are from a very colonist view, with imperialistic undertones. Like with the quote you mentioned, feels as though they portray Africa as a less developed nation seeing as they still need to heavy rely on hunting and are rewarded for their accomplishments in this skill. It’s a weird read on African culture as it’s good that its the first time a black man is featured as a superhero, but the lack of care into actually involving the cultural feels as if its more for show, buying into the colonial stereotypical view of Africa and its people.
This comic book confirms colonist stereotypes about people in Africa, especially on page 8 where Johnny says “Now I know you’re connin’ me! How does an African chieftain latch onto a plane that flies by magnetic waves?” He was the second one to say that, emphasizing how much Black people are always seen as the socially and economically lower class. Through this attitude, Black people aren’t really given the opportunity to be more than the labels society has given, almost like they have to constantly prove themselves. Even though Black people are given a sense of power through the representation of a Black superhero, it still enforces certain aspects of colonialist stereotypes that limits what a Black person can be through the dehumanizing comments and portrayal of Wakanda as a “jungle.”
I agree with your point, especially how you note that Black people aren’t really given the opportunity to be more than the labels society gives them. It’s a notion still prevalent to this day unfortunately. That line on page 8 really stuck with me too when Johnny says, “Now I know you’re connin’ me!” it just shows how surprised he is that an African chieftain could have advanced tech. Like you said, it reinforces the idea that Black people are always seen as lower class or less capable. Even though there’s a Black superhero, the comic still leans into stereotypes by painting Wakanda as a “jungle” and using language that aims to dehumanize them.
I noticed this as well, especially with how surprised they are that the Wakandans are supposed to have incredibly advanced technology. On page 8, Sue says, “It’s so hard to believe that a ship such as this one could have come from a land with no sign of technology” (8). It’s like they are always skeptical and unable to believe that a society and culture in a place that seems “primitive” and “underdeveloped” to them could have technology more advanced and powerful than theirs. They need to see it in order to believe it, even though they are already flying a Wakandan ship. I think it continues to prove how black communities and people aren’t given a chance to be more than the “primitive” ways they are labeled and viewed as.
While Black Panther is a symbol of strength, in Wakanda there are clear stereotypes that the comic leans into. The men dress minimally with headbands, on page 15 they bang drums, and they are depicted as a tribe having a chieftain. The positive traits the people have are also counter to stereotypes, with the people being technologically advanced and clearly very smart. It’s this weird middle ground where it plays into the stereotypes but aims to subvert them at the same time. I do think it confirms stereotypes more than anything, since Wakanda is supposed to be the clear exception, making the subversion feel insincere.
I think that looking at Black Panther as a superhero and concept is interesting, because it does feel as though some of the dialogue (specifically from Ben Grimm) about how his story is similar to Tarzan movies and jokes about what he expects Wakanda to be feel like they confirm African stereotypes. Within the Marvel universe, it seems as though Wakanda could be a stereotype since it’s shrouded in secrecy. On the other hand, in our ‘universe’ reading this Fantastic Four comic book, we see a black character defeat four strong heroes while outsmarting the smartest character in Marvel in Reed Richards by luring them to what they assume is poor African country, when it actually is highly advanced. It’s almost as though Black Panther uses these assumptions to his advantage in the same way Lee and Kirby used it on their audience.
Your point about Lee and Kirby assumptions as a setup was thought provoking. What if the comics aren’t just flipping the stereotypes but rather weaponizing them? T’Challa doesn’t just defeat the Fantastic Four; he stages the encounter and creates an elaborate hunt that plays into colonial fantasy… a mysterious jungle, chiefs, and warrior king. But then he dismantles it. It seems theatrical as if he’s putting on an image of a primitive role only to pull the rug out from under everyone. The narrative control is similar to the political concept of black power . It’s not really seeking inclusion but it reclaims narrative, space, and perception. Wakanda is not just hidden but protected from the white gaze until its ready to show on its own terms.
This comic book problematizes colonial stereotypes of Africa by portraying Wakanda as a highly advanced and technologically superior society. In Fantastic Four #52–53, when the heroes arrive in Wakanda, they are surprised to find a hidden nation with futuristic technology and a powerful leader, the Black Panther. This is the complete opposite of how Western colonizers saw Africa because they saw the nation as one that was underdeveloped and in need of “saving”.
Yes, exactly. I also think it makes the surprise feel intentional, like the comic wanted readers to expect some “undeveloped” jungle just so it could prove the opposite. Seeing Wakanda as way more advanced than anywhere else flips that whole idea that Africa needed saving. Also, it makes Black Panther feel even stronger because he’s not just another hero. He’s literally running a country that’s ahead of everyone.
Both parts of the comic flip the colonialist stereotypes by showing Wakanda as a highly advanced African nation, not the “primitive” place the Fantastic Four expect. When they arrive, they’re immediately outsmarted and defeated by Black Panther, who uses superior technology and strategy. One key image (pg 22) shows him hovering over in the middle of the team, completely in control, which reverses the usual Western savior dynamic. Instead of needing help, Wakanda is powerful and self-reliant. The fact that it’s hidden from the world hints at a deliberate choice to avoid exploitation (Similar how the westerners exploited Africa for cash crop resources). Overall, the comic challenges readers to question their assumptions about Africa and Black power.
I agree, I feel like the black panther comics were ahead of its time. They showcased black power in a way that wasn’t seen before. Typically, media that held black people at the center were usually portraying them as slaves. But black panther challenges this commonality and demonstrates the reality of Africa and black power.
I really like how you pointed out that image on page 22, as Black Pantheris literally above the Fantastic Four, where it seems to come across as if he was dominating the scene. This reversal of power is such a contrast to the typical portrayal of Africa that people would be accustom to in Western societies. I’d add that even the way Wakanda mixes tradition and technology pushes back against colonialist stereotypes of that time period. T’Challa wears a sleek panther suit while using several futuristic tools, but he’s also a monarch rooted in cultural heritage. This fusion we see of these aspects of T’Challa defies the common binary where “modern” equals Western and “traditional” equals primitive. Like you said, Wakanda’s secrecy feels intentional, not because they’re afraid, but because they’re protecting themselves from the same kind of extraction that gutted real African nations for so many centuries prior to this comic.
I think the comic book does showcase colonialist stereotypes about Africa, being that it confirms the Western belief that Africa is a more “uncivilized” society. I found page 4 to be problematic with the warriors emerging half naked, performing rituals, and using weapons like spears which were considered outdated (Lee & Kirby). At the same time, however, it challenged colonial narratives through the depiction of Wakanda. On page 13, the Fantastic Four are stunned to discover how highly advanced, and technologically superior Wakanda was. They were hit by “polarity guns,” for example, which directly undermined the common stereotype of Africa as “underdeveloped” or dependent on the West (Lee & Kirby).
Yes there was definingly a weird contrast between totally upending what might have been the stereotypes at the time and totally reinforcing them. The uncivilized view that is shown in this comic as you mentioned is paired with this depiction of animals and hunting like the Gorilla on pg 27, and the Elephant on pg 29. This focus on “exotic” animals and a people who do tribal dances for their guests places an emphasis on the differences and stereotypes that a western audience might expect, even when showing technology.
I feel like the comic doesn’t directly confirm or problematize colonialist stereotypes, but does something similar to Brighton’s Royal Pavilion. On the first page of “The Way it Began”, it shows the fantastic four at a ceremony where the native are dancing for them. The way the Black Panthers tribe and the native people of his land are portrayed seems performative, just like the interior of the Royal Pavilion was. To me it sort of strengthens the idea that native/exotic cultures are meant for the entertainment of the West, a message I saw as the Fantastic Four sit in wonder of the “Friendship dance” on this page. It calls attention to the obsession of exotic culture, but maybe in a way to bring awareness.
I like your comparison a lot, I agree that the opening scene feels staged for the Fantastic Four’s gaze, much like the Royal Pavillion’s interior was designed to indulge Western fantasies of the “exotic”. This comic gives power and depth to Wakana, but at the same time, it leans into spectacle, presenting ritual and culture in a way that seems more decorative than authentic. So I agree that it seems to walk a fine line – indulging in exotic imagery but also subtly criticizing the Western fascination with it.
I think that “The Way It Began” calls attention to the exploitative nature of colonialism, which is a refreshing perspective to see on the unethicality of colonial actions in Africa. Klaw and his people, representative of European colonizers, invade Wakanda to steal their unique resources– specifically the vibranium supply– which is considered to be sacred by the Wakandans. In doing so, they massacre the people of Wakanda, including Black Panther’s father. This draws obvious parallels to how Europeans treated African people and resources during the height of their imperial regime. In having this crucial plot point, the creators of this comic confront and outwardly detest the actions of imperial Europe.
On p.6, scene 1, I took a close look at where the Wakanda people lived in and it was just a small traditional camp, and that was the moment of stereotype. Overall, this comic is unrealistic and futuristic, but the comic is still depicts Wakanda as an underdeveloped place. Most of the story were continued in fancy spaceship and in some scene I could see flying car but Wakanda is depicted similarly to real life.
I agree and also thought this was a stereotype. Even in the future they want to present Wakanda as a different and foreign, exotic place with lots of trees and very remote. Even the people are depicted as “exotic” with their different types of clothing and head pieces that a stereotype would expect them to be wearing. I would say it calls this out though, on page 10 when they talk about the jungle looking so primitive, and that things aren’t always as they seem. I believe that this is calling attention to the fact that stereotypes aren’t always true.
I think this comic book visualizes the colonialist stereotypes of Africa. In Fantastic Four #52, when the team arrives in Wakanda, they expect a primitive jungle society. Instead, they are immediately trapped by high-tech devices and brought to a futuristic city. This moment challenged the stereotypes of Africa being uncivilized. Wakanda is depicted as an extremely advanced city, particularly in comparison to the West. When T’Challa demonstrates his independence from Western help, it contradicts the colonial fantasy of white saviors and instead presents an African nation that is self-sufficient, powerful, and technologically superior.
I agree! I noticed joe the didn’t expect to be outsmarted by this superior, technologically-advanced society, budding with vibranium, a powerful naturally-occurring material that is worth millions of dollars, which is used to fund the expansive Wakanadan society. This challenges the stereotype that they are expecting of Wakanada as it is developed and worthy of being a “civilized” society, when though it’s showered by jungle. I like how you pointed out the denial of white saviorism, as black panther can definitely fight for himself and his own nation, easily defeating the fantastic four members.
In my opinion this comic does confirm the colonist stereotype about Africa especially at the beginning of the comic. The Fantastic Four just can not comprehend how Wakanda would have such advanced technology because in their minds it seems like they think it is all just jungles. One particular image that stood out to me was on page 8 when the Fantastic Four finally landed in Wakanda and were talking about how they did not believe the ship could have come from a place like Wakanda. This is because knowing that the ship came from here completely challenged the view that Wakanda was not as advanced as western countries.
I’d agree that this comic confirms colonist stereotypes about America. Focusing my claim specifically on middle-left image of the Black Panther on page 44, he’s being reprimanded and minimized to “a new kinda folk singer,” directly telling to the race dynamics America was facing in the 50s and 60s. Throughout the entire comic series, he’s demeaned and undermined for his power and value to the defense-effort, and this square parallels the superior attitudes of those advocating for segregation. The Black Panthers surrender and pledge of service to the F.F. in response to their forceful cease of his career also reflects how African Americans were allowed little autonomy and oftentimes put into boxes (figuratively).
I agree, the black panther superhero has negative representation of black and African American culture that is limiting and one dimensional. This connects to the colonialist view because colonies can only exist if one country or culture is benath the other. We can see this on page 25, when the Fantastic Four discuss how Wakanda is different from other tribes that are inferior to them due to their advanced technology. However, they still hold the notion that Wakandans are inferior and uncivilized, largely due to the dances and ceremonies they perform, which seem to be depicted backward. Ironically they say that “THEY ARE NOT THE ORDINARY NATIVE TRIBE THEY SEEM TO BE!” (p.25) which is restating the stereotypes.
I would agree that the Comic supports colonialist stereotypes about Africa. In the beginning of #52, Ben asks “How does some refugee from A Tarzan movie lay his hand on this kinda gizmo?” (page 4) referring to Black Panthers gift to Mr. Richards. Not only was his comment derogatory, but it also supports an idea that Black people during this time weren’t capable of creating such technology like the ship. By referring to the Black Panther as a person from Tarzan, Ben alludes to a dark history of racist narratives, where black people are uncivilized. Even though the comic paints Wakanda as technologically advanced, Ben’s comment suggests that this is surprising and out of the ordinary, reinforcing a racist mindset.
I agree with you that the comment was very offensive, but I think it actually problematizes them. The way in which Ben said it was meant to show how insensitive it could be with other people not finding it funny, and Sue even starts to tell him to knock it off. The fact is, Ben is supposed to represent the people who think that, and shown in the comic that those stereotypes are wrong because the African people there do have that amazing technology, unlike what people like Ben think. It shows people that the views on Africa are bad and should not be tolerated.
I agree with this sentiment as well, in the later pages around 32-34, they paint the white vibranium hunters as the evil people with their guns needlessly killing the Wakandans with clubs. Its this unfair technological advantage that draws a parallel to the colonization of Africa that was happening during that time. I think the idea that the white people who were entering Wakanda to take their resources was a commentary on how it was problemmatic for European powers to do the same in Africa.
I agree with your comment, specifically how the comic demonstrates the harmful narrative that was prevalent during that time about Black People being uncivilized. On page 40, the last panel, Blank Panther must fight a sound in the shape of a black panther. The creator of this black panther says,”… A Far Superior One, ” in correlation to how the animal black panther is superior to the Black Panther, a human, displaying the ideology that black people were uncivilized and were like animals.
I definitely believe that this comic confirms colonialist stereotypes about Africa. Almost immediately in the beginning, the Fantastic 4 talk about how they cannot believe how technologically advanced Wakanda is. They use words like “primitive” and “underdeveloped” to describe Wakanda, even though they clearly at the forefront of technology. These superheroes have a preconceived notion about Africa and it being just a “jungle”.
I agree with you Karen that this comic plays on the colonialist stereotypes of Africa. We Johnny say on page 8: “NOW I KNOW YOU’RE CONNIN’ME! HOW DOES AN AFRICAN CHIEFTAIN LATCH ONTO A PLANE THAT FLIES BY MAGNETIC WAVES?” For Johnny, the possibility that any civilization in Africa could reach such a level of advancement is simply unheard of — it’s a joking matter. This type of thinking is rooted in imperialism because many European empires denoted the imbalance in technology and wealth as a result of Africa’s lack of sophistication. This type of technology would have only been thought to be a product of Western science. Although this depiction of Africa as technologically advanced might be progressive, it also might be facetious.
This comic book definitely confirms colonialist stereotypes throughout its entirety. Just on the first page (marked down as page 2.), the man says “never heard of him! but how does some refugee from a tarzan movie lay his hands on this kinda gizmo.” Already in the first dialogue he expresses how “insane” or “likely impossible” for someone from Africa to be able to get their hands on such high quality technology, let alone give it away. It’s as if being African automatically means you don’t have access to money, technology, or resources. This feeds into the false belief that Africans are poor and underdeveloped which is far from the truth. Africa isn’t just sand and animals, there are real cities, tech hubs, and everything you’d expect to find in places like the U.S. or Europe. This comic only further portrays this stereotype and pushes people to stay stuck with this narrow and ignorant view.
The comic most certainly confirms colonial African stereotypes. In page 25 we see the opening page to the comic “The Way It Began” and we can see the outfits of the Africans are more tribal attire, which is juxtaposed with the supposed high-technology weapons they carry. Upon first glance it could be construed that the tribe had stolen the weapons, as they themselves were not technologically advanced as a society. Moreover, the Fantastic Four seem to be judgmental in their statements as well. One of them state, “They are not the ordinary native tribe they seem to be!” This implies they already had a preconception of what the people in the tribe were gonna be like. I feel as though this comment was a backhanded comment towards the tribe, further cementing the idea that the African colonies were of a lower society through their lower technology.
I believe that there can be no positive in the creation and maintenance of museums. Museums were created for the privilege of white men to look upon Asian, Latiné, Afrikan*, Pacific Islander, and indigenous Americans, Australians, Canadians, Alaskans, Latin Americans, and Asians as inferior and subhuman. If white people really want to learn the herstory of Afrika, Asia, Latin America, North America, Australia, and want to “respect” the cultures of BIPOC people, they NEED to put all of that art and culture that belongs to those people back where it belongs: with the people who created it. This tokenistic and therefore racist, misogynoir**, capitalistic practice of having museums in the first place must be ended.
* I use the spelling of Afrika with a ‘k’ due to insight of the empowerment of Afrikan people with this spelling: “Four Reasons for Using ‘K’ in Afrika”
** ** Misogynoir refers to the misogyny faced by Black women, which I found on the Black Feminist Future website: BLACK FEMINISMS GETS US FREE
Victorian sensuality – prompt 1
A particular detail I noticed was the singular red flower blooming in the painting “Lady Lilith”. From my past knowledge, I believe that this detail refers to when a woman loses her virginity, also known as “deflowering”. It is possible that Lilith is getting ready to loser her virginity in this painting.
Futurism
Prompt 1
One continuity that is obvious in the Futurist art is that all six pieces are examples abstract of abstract art. In four of the pieces I see a lot of shapes and vibrant colors however you can’t exactly make out what the artist is trying to depict. Also, in the piece of art with the words although some are full words you can’t make out exactly was is trying to be said with extra letters being added and words being dispersed and in no obvious order. Finally, the sculpture looks like it is supposed to depict a figure of some sort, but again it isn’t very obvious what exactly it’s supposed to be.
Victorian Sensuality
Prompt 1
In all four paintings I noticed that the women in each has long and luscious hair and each painting depicts nature and vibrant colors. In particular the third picture seems to depict the women still and floating with flowers in her hands in a moving river. I also feel like it is interesting to point out that she is wearing a dress in the water.
Period Images of the Crystal Palace
Prompt 1
I find the image showing the elephant most interesting and thought-provoking. The most interesting part of this image is the way in which the elephant is dressed with exotic looking clothing. They depict the elephant as an exotic thing that Europeans are able to display for their people to view and consume. As some sort of object that they are proud of and possess despite it not being culturally theirs.
The most striking detail in William Holman Hunt’s “The Lady of Shalott” is the chaotic appearance of the Lady’s hair. The rest of the room appears to be disorderly, and the wild upward frizz of the hair suggests her mental state is in distress. This painting is likely to follow from the event of her breaking her curse, and it conveys a feeling of uncertainty and liberation. She is likely feeling a complex mix of emotions.
Prompt 3: In “The Island of Dr. Moreau”, pain is seen as the separation between humans and animals. Moreau explains that pain is the main force that drives animals to act. He continues his explanation by stating that for humans, pain is present/only necessary when they need to seek medical attention. The “more intelligent” (meaning human) a being is, they do not let pain be a driving force in their decisions, they can control it. Moreau views the beastfolk’s pain as a weakness.
Moreau was viewed as a God-like figure by the beast folk. He forced them to follow laws that dehumanized them and suppressed them. He used these laws as a vehicle to place himself at the top of the social hierarchy that he created. Which reflects the practices used by the British empire to control and oppress other groups. Additionally, they believed they were doing God’s work by turning “barbaric” people into “civilized” ones.
The first viewing of paintings centers women at different points in their lives, all sending various messages. The painting of Olympia is striking because she is naked and usually nakedness represents vulnerability. However, she gives off confidence in her pose and stare, she owns the state of her body and does not shy away.
I immediately noticed a contrast between Filippo Marinetti’s piece and the rest of the futurist art pictured above. Marinetti uses words instead of shapes to convey the sharp and chaotic nature of futurism and war itself. The other paintings use geometric features and bright colors to depict the chaos and suddenness of war. Although his piece is not exactly like the rest, Marinetti does add that futuristic flair to his work by distorting the words he has placed.
In the initial sequence of “Modern Times”, a key detail that stood out was the Bellows feeding machine. I believe this fictional machine is used by Chaplin to comment on the reality of the exploitative nature of early 20th century factories. The film portrays the way that factory workers were overworked yet provided little to no breaks in a comedic manner. It can also be used to depict the very little care factory owners had for their workers’ wellbeing.
A continuity between the futurist arf is the layering and brightness of the photo. The layering especially in Luigi Russolo, The Revolt (1911) and Gino Severini, Memories of a Journey (1911) highlights an emergence of different aspects in the painting.
From 9:54 to 11:31 the boss introduces a machine that eliminates the lunch hour. The machine was designed to feed the workers so they didn’t have to leave their stations. This is political and represents the harsh treatment of workers in the factories. Additionally, it demonstrates the greed and lack of empathy the boss’s had.
(Expressionism – Prompt 2)
In Schiele’s Self Portrait, the dispersion of color pops out at me because the most amount of color is seen in the face and the lack of color is seen in the stomach area. I think the colors are used to relate to the artist’s emotions in the presentation of self as the lack of color promotes the idea of being deprived of something, something that can’t be expressed like the rest of him could. Within the face, the artist uses darker colors on top of light, possibly invoking that his mind is what brings the darkness within himself and his expression of self through art, as well as creating a disturbance with the more positive and colorful parts of his emotionality and creativity.
One quality I feel that these Cubist works and the Futurist art share in common is the abstractness of the art. There’s use of geometry to create this certain flow and point in a direction of what ‘story’ should be told by the art. Just like how in the Futurist art showed how fast and exciting the age sounds and is, these Cubist works show appreciation for almost the opposite? Instead of cars and modern technology there’s an appreciation for music and musicians. For example in “Homage to J. S. Bach” by Georges Braque. while there is these mixes of shades and shapes the eye is drawn to the words “Back J. S.”, which in reference to the title is exactly what I think the artist wanted us to be attracted to. J. S. Bach was a famous musician and composer of that time. While these two kinds of arts do share these abstract styles, they do share differences in what kind of message and feeling they are trying to extend.
One continuity between futurist and cubist artworks is their way of displaying their subject. Rather than exhibiting a subject that is easy to recognize, but offers little depth, futurist and cubist artworks present their subjects more abstractly, but allow for greater interpretation. This enigmatic quality to their artworks is what makes them unique expressions of art and challenges what we consider to be art. I think myself and many other viewers/critics of art often fall into the mindset of prioritizing detail and specificity over everything else. While futurist and cubist artworks may appear less clear or “easier to create” (which is debatable), they require more creativity than simply replicating something that is in front of you. As we see in Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon , the figures of the women are not conventionally attractive nor accurate to the human body. However, their abstractness evokes a sense of primitiveness, aggression, and tension, that would otherwise be hard to convey. It is these decisions made by cubist artists that allow them to bring out more emotion from their pieces.
The cubist utilizes layering in their work, it seems like aspects of the art are emerging from the painting. Although, I would say the color scheme is less vibrant than the art from last week.
“unreal city, under the brown fog of a winter dawn, a crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, I had not thought death had undone so many.” Elliot relates the living with the dead. He suggests that the people are traumatized from the devastation of WW1.
A thematic pattern across these works is the emphasis on psychological unrest. Which is conveyed by distorted forms, harsh lines, and bright colors. For instance, Munch’s “The Scream” illustrates raw panic and dread. It is amplified by its swirling lines and ghost figure.
One of the weirdest moments in the story for me was when Herr Samsa throws an apple at Gregor and it sinks into his back. This moment stuck out to me because it shows that outward appearance and value really dictates how people are treated. Although Gregor’s family respected him when he was a hardworking human, this moment shows how they have completely turned on him now that he is a burdensome beetle. Understandably, his family is horrified to discover that Gregor is now a beetle. However, now that he looks scary and ugly — unlike them — he gets demonized. Additionally, Gregor can no longer support his family financially, which leads them to resent him. These two philosophies point to how selfish people are and Kafka goes as far to say even your own parents could turn on you if you can no longer supplement their lives. In the end, it is Gregor’s family that indirectly kills him; he doesn’t like the food they serve him and it is this apple that gets lodges in his back that starts the decay of his body.
In Salvador Dali’s, The Persistence of Memory, I noticed that there are ants eating away at the clocks. This was a striking detail for me because it contrasts the title of the artwork. Dali titles this piece the persistence of memory, suggesting that the piece will illustrate the continuity/prolonged existence of a memory. Dali does an excellent job of portraying this through the droopiness and warpedness of the clocks. This shows that memory can last, but it can get distorted through time. The ants, however, run counter to the preservation of memories. The ants are seen ebbing away at time, implying that memories are fleeting (which is true). This poses a conflict in the piece where our memories are gradually being modified or picked away at.
A stylistic pattern I noticed was the color scheme within the paintings. There are a consistent usage of brown, blue, and black. There is also a dreamlike atmosphere especially in René Magritte, The Double Secret (1927) and Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931). More specifically due to the fact that there are elements on distortion in the paintings.
These comics use superhero’s as a symbol of hope and power. In “How Superman Would End the War”, superman captures Stalin and Hitler and delivers them to the league of nations. Demonstrating the power and justice the U.S will deliver in the face of war. In “Captain America” this theme is continued by illustrating Captain America defending American ideals.
One striking image in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl, was: “who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo.” I found this line intriguing because it references New York City — my hometown. The first part, talks about the long train ride from Battery, short for Battery Park City, which is a neighborhood in Manhattan’s lower west side, to the Bronx. Conveniently enough, I went to high school in Battery Park City, so I am assuming that Ginsberg is referencing the 1 train line here; the 1 train line starts at South Ferry, which is where the Staten Island Ferry enters Manhattan, and terminates at 242nd St – Van Cortlandt Park. I used to make this long trek up to Van Cortlandt for my cross country meets in high school. Therefore, I can greatly empathize with his description of this ride as “endless” (it probably takes 70 min without delays). He also mentions benzedrine, which I determined to be the first product name for amphetamine, a deadly drug. He then suggests by the time they get to the Bronx, the passengers are completely worn out from their journey that they lose mental functioning. The last words talk about the Zoo, which I presume is the Bronx Zoo. The Bronx Zoo opened in 1899, during the end of the Gilded Age, so people had more time for leisurely activities. I think that this image is overall trying to point out the disillusion of New York. Although there is technology like trains and activities like zoos, people are still disconnected from life.
I photographed this artwork before we started the street art tour. I feel like this violates the tradition of street art having something to say that goes outside the norms of society because of its unofficial final message. Initially, I think it did have a personal and meaningful message, possibly in dedication to mothers, but with the addition of Patrick, it changes that message. Patrick seems to be added by another artist because of the difference in detail and composition, so it seems like the second artist may be teasing the first artist or appreciating what the first artist wanted to say and just wanting to be included in the overall message.
The first line of the poem was a captivating statement. GInsberg states “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.” This line encapsulates the mental deterioration and vulnerability. The phrase “best minds of my generation destroyed by madness”, emphasizing the suffering of those effected by the state of America.
Political Messages in These Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium (1969), he changes the colors of the American flag to green and black stripes and black stars against a pinkish background. These colors are almost opposite the traditional red, white, and blue that the flag normally features. Green is rarely seen as a patriotic color for America, and replacing the most striking and important parts of the flag with this color symbolizes a rejection of previous American ideals. The replacement of the usual bright white stars with black also conveys an ominous and unsettling message. I believe the substitution of the traditional colors is meant to show how America’s actions are no longer “peace-loving” and serving the “We the People,” but have become driven by war and greed.
I think this is a really insightful analysis, and I think it is very telling of the time period the artwork was made in. The late 1960s when this flag was created was the height of American protest of the Vietnam War. They viewed it as senseless violence, which, as you said, shows how the people believed America’s actions no longer reflected their beliefs, and they have become driven by greed. Changing the colors of the flag was no doubt a statement of how America no longer represents the intention of the people and how they have rejected all previous American ideals due to their actions in the Vietnam War.
I agree with your interpretation, and I want to add that the distorted color palette of this piece may not only symbolize greed but also corruption and decay. Green is often linked to illness, so he might be commenting on how our country is sick, and he could be mourning the fall of a nation that once represented other ideals. The stars that are now blackened might also symbolize a loss of light, hinting at the idea of America’s decline.
This painting is also the complete inverse of the American flag. If you look at the white dot in the middle for 30 seconds and blink rapidly, you can see the American flag in the original colors. I interpret this as how America in reality might be the complete opposite of what we stand for, but if we try hard enough -and we do- we can perceive America as how we want to see it and how we show ourselves to the world.
I also found this cool phenomenon about if you look at the white dot for 30 seconds and then look at the flag again you can see the true colors of the American Flag. I remember learning about this phenomenon in psychology it’s called the afterimage effect. I agree how this phenomenon ties into your point of how you can turn what you perceive into what you want to see. Even if we see something distorted or in an altered way, our brain tries to reconstruct it back into something familiar that we recognize. This could reflect how people in 1969 (the year this work was made) were trying to hold on to a certain ideal of America despite the political tension and protest against the Vietnam War.
To add onto your thoughts, Johns Flag can have an open interpretation, which adds onto why it may appear ominous and unsettling. It’s open ended in my opinion; the colors in the flag can represent the ocean coast to some Americans, or an emotion to others. Depending on how America has treated someone, they’ll look at it differently.
I also thought about how the colors in Flag Moratorium are the opposite of the traditional red, white, and blue. Adding on to that, it seems that Johns chose to use these inverted colors to illustrate how backwards America is. It is not as perfect and pristine as it makes itself out to be. In fact, it has violated its own constitution an alarming amount of times to protect certain individuals and prioritizes power and money over its citizens.
I found this image very interesting also. I noticed and was interested in the fact that the colors were changed and almost inverted. I think that this is done to voice a disgust with America and their involvement in Vietnam. I also like your point that it makes an ominous and almost eerie feeling.
I heavily agree with this reading. I feel that he was probably outraged specifically with Vietnam, and America’s participation in the war. The flag, which is typically associated with freedom, is distorted to demonstrate the distortion of how the country is acting around the world and at home.
I think that’s a great thesis! However I don’t think the colors are “opposite” rather “inverted” or “negative” color. In the realm of computers, this is done by quite literally “flipping” the RGB (Red Green Blue) values in color. For example, the scale for RGB is 0-255, with the dimmest color being 0 and the brightest being 255. Lets say we have a color of (255, 255, 255), this is white. Now when we want to invert a color, all we do is take the difference between the brightness of the current color and 255. In this case, it would be 255 – 255, which is 0, and (0, 0 , 0) is black. In a way, I think Jasper is trying to create this inversion of color through the medium of painting, further representing that the country’s values are backward or “inverted.”
In “Flag Moratorium”, I believe Jasper Johns delivers a political message through the inverting of the original American flag colors to demonstrate the country’s backwardness. America prides itself on being the “land of the free” and being the best country in the world, but it does not like to acknowledge the unholy amount of problems it deals with and how the American government chooses to handle them. It is a country that claims to be the number one, yet still suffers from high homeless rates, mass shootings left and right, and the suppression of basic human rights.
While I believe that all of the pictures display some sort of political message, I think that the third Jasper Johns flag that seems to be inverted has the strongest political message. Most of the time we create our flag in the original way to show respect and love for our country. However, in this case the colors are inverted and in my opinion that done in a disrespectful way to voice an anti-American sentiment. Judging based of the date of the image I’m guessing that this image was used to voice a powerful message about disagreement with the American involvement in Vietnam.
That’s really interesting considering the context of the vietnam war. It was not popular with the American people and the war also was a turning point in American politics where the public began to distrust the government. If you look at the color wheel, the colors in flag moratorium are the exact opposite of the red, white, and blue. This reversal of colors can be interpreted as how America has turned its back on the values this country was founded.
Corita Kent’s Love stamp strikes me as a political message, as it features colors from the Pride flag, stating “Love USA.” At the time, the LGBTQ community was fighting for its rights. This message relays the idea that America is a place of liberty for people of all kinds; we should not discriminate. Challenging the view of many, the art symbolizes the acceptance of the LGBTQ community and emphasizes that they are a part of the USA’s culture.
In Jasper Johns, Flag (1954) the vivid blotches and imperfections on the flag sends a message. In the original flag made with fabric, there are no mistakes and it is perfectly manufactured. Artists usually look over there works and make sure the strokes of the blushes are smooth and that every spot has paint but this one doesn’t. My interpretation is that America isn’t as perfect as it is portrayed to be. The spots can be seen as a fading effect. To showcase that Americans are losing sight of what they stand for.
In Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium, there is a contrast of colors, and the opposite colors of the original flag. This in itself provides a very unpatriotic, sort of rebellious factor to the painting. With a little bit of research, this painting was a form of retaliation for the American involvement in the Vietnam War. The people were not very happy with the US joining and so this painted was created as a form of rejection. It is shown very clear that the painter is very unhappy with the US and is showing that they are against what is happening completely by using the complete opposite colors of the original.
In Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the, “Star Spangled Banner” Hendrix distorts the the guitar’s sounds to be very uncomfortable to the listener. The sounds of the guitar are similar to airplanes flying, gunfire, bombs, and screams. The contrast of the horrible sounds of war with America’s national anthem makes a statement about America’s military involvement and complicity in war. 1969 was a heightened point of the Vietnam War, and Hendrix may have been using his music to make his own sort of protest against the violence America was inciting. The way Hedrix mashes the discordant noise with the booming sounds of the anthem is quite powerful and representative of the state of America at the time, and is potentially still relevant today.
Political Messages in These Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Corita Kent’s piece called, Love stamp (1985), I believe to be her political messaging to be about the support of being queer, more specifically gay. During this time, the aids epidemic was searing over America in great force, causing people to link aids with homosexual intercourse. In addition, the colors she used in her artwork is a rainbow, also tying into the well-known, gay pride flag. She is clearly making a statement about how “love is love, ” also a common mantra associated with queer support rhetoric. All of this points to her overwhelming support and stance on the legalization of gay marriage and being gay as a whole.
I like how you pointed out the “love is love” message too, even if she didn’t say it outright, it feels like that sentiment is embedded in the design. It’s cool how something so small and simple like a stamp can carry so much meaning, especially during such a heavy time. The timing with the AIDS crisis definitely reveals a deeper part of the overall message of how people connected disease with homosexuality.
I think your analysis is correct here. The “love is love” messaging is definitely present. I would expand by saying that her use of the USA in the phrase love USA rather than perhaps saying something more overt like love is love might be to make a comment on how this is a fundamental concept to the US. Concepts of freedom and individualism make gay marriage rights an essential concept, and I think Kent is trying to highlight this. Not only is he supporting gay marriage, but he is supporting it for American specifically.
In Jasper John’s Moratorium, I think this message is a protest against the Vietnam war. The first thing I noticed in the paintings was the dates of each, and I noticed that this one would’ve been towards the height of the war, after a lot of deaths already. In switching the colors of the American flag to muted and subversive tones, I think Johns is trying to evoke a sense of mourning, which ties in with the title in protesting to end the war. Ultimately, this painting shows that in flattening and darkening the bright traditional colors of the flag, we can see patriotism in a different way: in fighting to end the war.
I think that this is a really interesting take. Looking back at the flag with your response in mind, it sort of uses colors stereotypically associated with the military such as green and black. This would tie into your idea of the piece being a form of retaliation or protest against the Vietnam War, as the colors hint towards the piece being in reference to the military.
I agree with your interpretation that his modification of the flag is a form of protest against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The dreary inverted colors and paint swatches, representative of a military uniform, also question the accepted ideas of America’s role in the world as the spreader of democracy, peace and freedom. The dot in the middle draws the viewer’s eye, possibly reflecting the American government’s attempts at suppressing opposition to war efforts, turning a blind eye to the atrocities in Vietnam and focusing on one narrow view that allows it to justify its actions. Further, it uses an illusion where staring at the dot for some time recreates the image of the flag when looking away. Despite staring at the dot and focusing on the narrow, Americanized perspective of the war, the violence and corruption of the war could be ignored.
I took a close look at Jasper Johns, Flag Moratorium(1969), and the painting had simply changed the color of the American Flag. However changed color gives a weird impression of the American Flag because it looks like the country was corrupted. The color red, white, and blue gave me the impression of justice but now it feels like symbol of country is damaged by injustice and power. Maybe the painter wanted to depict the society of capitalism by using different colors as usual.
The unusual colors of the American flag does seem to address the message that America doesn’t represent what it used to. Each color could represent a factor in the country such as justice, freedom, and hope. However, the twisted colors creates a sense of oddness that leads the audience into questioning the difference between a normal flag and this artwork.
Jasper John’s Three Flags voices a political message to me. He uses the American flags, a classic symbol to represent America as a whole, with all the states (at the time) represented. The flags are all within each other, making me think that the statement is that America is self-centered, the leaders only thinking about themselves, rather than how to protect the country, or stop climate change, or prevent wars. Its calling this to our attention and asking for a change.
This is also how I viewed Jasper Johns, Three Flags (1958), leaders are more focused on having power rather than being for the people and we are so divided hence the different sizes of the flags. the sizes of the flags could also represent the social class in America the poor being in the back and the rich being on top.
I also thought that this painting was meant to show America in a negative light! For me, I took each flag covering the flag beneath it to mean that America forgets i’s past/ covers it up, and each flag becoming smaller and smaller as showing how the country is deteriorating/regressing. Normally flags get bigger and grander to show national pride, but here the flags are getting smaller–perhaps to show national shame?
i agree, I feel like the three layered flags reflect a great symbol for American culture. This can possibly be a nod to the blind nationalism that americans had at the time. As you mentioned in your statement, leaders only care about themselves and citizens aren’t aware of the detrimental impacts systems are having on the country.
In Jasper Johns 3rd art piece, it seems as though he utilized the national symbol of the flag to evoke patriotism from viewer and, from this sense of emotion, question that the flag might actually now represent not unity but rather violence and division. Even the use of the title Moratorium directly references the national anti war protests that were going on at the time. Instead of defacing the flag in order to evoke a extreme sense of emotion from his audience, it appears as though it wants the audience to be quite neutral and reflective, in order to truly understand both their values and the shifting values of the country they are apart of.
Striking Language from Howl
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In part 1 of Howl, it states “who burned
cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism.” I find this line very revolutionary because of the strong connection it makes to the unhealthiness and addictiveness between capitalism and cigarettes. With a smoking addiction, you’re able to see the negative effects but you’re not always able to see the negative and addictive qualities within the capitalism system because of how ingrained it is into our culture. Similarly to how the cigarette smoke clouds up the lungs and vision of a person, they could be trying to say the same, in which capitalism has metaphorical type of smoke that clouds the vision in how people choose to behave in society.
In part II of Howl, the line that stuck out to me was “What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” This line was amazing to me because of its deliberate word choice. By saying sphinx, I think he is talking about the hard to live riddle-like modern industrial society, since the sphinx is known for asking riddles and killing those who can’t answer. The modern industrial society is represented by saying “cement and aluminum.” So in this line, he is saying that the modern industrial society in ruining the creativity of others. This line was so impressive to me mainly because of the words “sphinx of cement and aluminum” because it’s such a clever choice of words to interpret. From this one line, I feel like you can tell how the author feels about industrialization, and its clear that he sees it as something horrible, violent, and forceful. To him, all the big machinery is forcing people to constantly work and lose themselves and their creative potential, which angers him.
Yes, and the machinery involved in the industrial society is more systematic and less individualized. In an industrial society, every person has to fit for society to function “properly,” like the parts of the machine have to compliment and work together to produce the right efficiency and productibility. However, the madness the narrator sees in others could be the refusal to live in a systematic way and hold onto their individual creativities that the industrial society would normally ignore and refuse.
In part 1 towards the end, a striking phrase for me was, “…rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head…” I really found that the contrast between rejected and conform to be interesting and a good way to describe the thinking of addicts and outsiders. While they have been rejected from society itself and any traditional ways of life, they are still trying to listen to what they believe to be right and attempting to make sense/purpose of their actions. I also really like the use of ‘naked and endless’ as terms to describe what is going on mentally, these words are used a few times throughout this poem and I think it does an excellent job at painting an image for us. The fact a mind can be naked and endless is disheartening and almost trippy to think about.
I think the line “presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy,
and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia” is very interesting. It depicts a desire for a quick fix or solution to a problem, but instead being met with long, torturous procedures that create an end worse than the start. I think it matches the tone of this whole poem in that it is constant, almost rambling like tone to read and a sense of desperation as it goes, and this particular line really enhances that feeling of desperation met rapidly with disappointment.
I agree with you 100 percent about this quote. This line really stood out to me because when we talk about the end of World War 2, at least in my other schools, the aftermath is brought up but it’s mainly about the rubble. I think this quote really shows one of the ideas that Ginsberg is trying to convey and that’s the emotional toll that everyone was dealing with after. These people have all just gone through something most of us (thankfully) can’t even imagine and I think that, in your words the “constant, almost rambling” adds to that struggle that we can see.
A striking phrase from the poem that caught my eye was when Ginsberg said “the bum’s as holy as the seraphim! The madman is holy as you my soul are holy!”. The reason this phrase caught my attention is because of the language used in order to convey the message that holiness exists in all people. The first part of the phrase Ginsberg is comparing a homeless person to a high ranking angel in Christian theology and in doing this it conveys the message that even if there is a difference in societal hierarchies the homeless person is just as spiritually significant as the high ranking angel. The second part of the phrase is doing the same thing, but using an example of a person who is misjudged most of the time, but still having the same claim that a person such as that is just as spiritually significant.
Yes I totally agree with you!! The way everyone is seen as holy shows the significance of spirituality. No matter if you are misjudged or homeless you have the same exact holiness as someone who is a high ranking angel. Ginsberg makes these comparisons very clear. It challenges this readers to think about who is considered worthy in society. Spiritual value is not determined by ones success, but by simply being human.
In part 1, Ginsberg writes a phrase that talks about the three old shrews of fate. He writes, “the one eyed shrew of the heterosexual dollar the one eyed shrew that winks out of the womb and the one eyed shrew that does nothing but sit on her ass and snip the intellectual golden threads of the craftsman’s loom” (Ginsberg). Ginsberg is comparing the fates of Greek mythology, the Moirai, to new fates seen in society now. His wording of “heterosexual dollar” to refer to consumerism and capitalism, and the womb to refer to heteronormativity and removal of queer love. But ultimately, the line talking about how the golden threads of intellect are being snipped portrays how these new depictions of the fates in society today leads to the loss of creativity and uniqueness: the disintegration of art and individuality as one succumbs to the shrews of fate.
The line that I found particularly striking was “who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull”, since the syntax invoked the skull, which feels like a very scary image to have windows. This image of the mind also feels especially relevant when discussing academies and obscene odes and expulsion. These are very intellectual thoughts and concepts that contrast the macabre nature of the windows of the skull.
In part I of “Howl” by Ginsberg it states “who lounged hungry and lonesome through Houston seeking jazz or sex or soup, and followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity”. I found these lines really powerful because they depict individuals who feel isolated and are on a quest for something, whether it’s either physical or emotional. The second part of the line, “brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity,” suggests that people are trying to grasp the harsh realities of America, like capitalism and also the idea of eternity within the American context. This illustrates how many individuals experience loneliness and are in search of answers in a world that often seems empty of meaning.
Striking Language from Howl
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One very striking line in Ginsberg’s Howl was, “who demanded sanity trials accusing the radio of hypnotism & were left with their insanity & their hands & a hung jury, / who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism and subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy, / and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia,” (Lines 67-68). These line create a stunning picture which I think represents the point he was trying to make. These people who have gone mad with the way society is, lashing out, and wanting to receive help. Instead all they receive are harmful and void ways to try to cure them. Looking back from know, knowing all the problems with the ways they “fixed” people back in the day, I can clearly understand what Ginsberg is conveying in this descriptive message.
I also find the description of the people in howl to a insane and getting put mental asylum but there is a more metaphoric meaning to it as well. I think Howl is a poem that represents the loss of expression from an entire generation. To me the sanity trials and cures that you mention feel like Ginsberg is trying to say the artists and expression from his generation is locked up and considered insane. I think that its this proposition that causes people to think that they are trapped and unable to express themselves because everybody else thinks they are crazy. The radio hypnotism to me represnts propaganda being spouted in their media and the generations aim to fight against it. I think Ginsberg wants people to see the humanity in this generation that everyone else believes is insane and show that even the greatest minds could be called crazy.
I agree with your examination of Ginsberg’s poem and how he uses descriptive imagery to portray his well-justified anger. Another line that relates to this idea,” What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” The line uses creative imagery to describe the frustration of how Ginsburg feels about people who are reinforcing societal standards that directly harm other people, which was mentioned in your analysis.
One phrase that stood out to me the most was, “[W]ho cut their wrists three times successively unsuccessfully, gave up and were / forced to open antique stores where they thought they were growing old / and cried.” These lines reference to “the best minds of [his] generation,” and I believe they highlight the struggle of returning to normalcy following unsuccessful suicide attempts. After being looked down upon by society, people with unconventional beliefs and ideas see no purpose in living. When they cannot escape, they are forced into a mundane existence. I think Alan Ginsberg is lamenting over the wasted potential and the despair of losing so many beautiful, diverse ideas. The language he uses particularly spoke to me with how mournful it sounds.
I like your interpretation. His description is very vivid and haunting, especially the line, “open antique stores where they thought they were growing old”. It shows how creativity gets destroyed and creates conformity, and I agree with you that Ginsberg is lamenting this fact. He laments not just suicides and the loss of life but the loss of creativity which is gives the poem a tragic tone.
I really like your take on this. I also found a line that is similar “rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head.” I see a similarity that people struggle to find a place in a world full of fixed ideas that it is impossible to confess out the soul but to conform. You mentioned the lost of diverse and beautiful ideas in this poem and I think that it is a struggle that many people don’t even realize. In other words, people are experiencing pain due to a lack of creativity and expression but they cannot escape this mundane society.
I agree, I find this line very heavy and a bit sad, it captures the emotional weight of a failed escape by suicide and being “forced” to survive. What stood out to me was how Ginsberg contrasts the chaotic and intense emotion of suffering, while in an antique store. I think he used an antique store for a purpose in order to highlight how life feels afterwards:dull and quiet. This isn’t just about suicide attempts but people who used to have so much life or as he calls it “the best minds” later on are drained by society and life and then just exist with no purpose.
I agree with your interpretation of this line. I love how heavy this line feels, but you are correct in calling it “mundane.” I would like to draw attention to the specificity of mention of opening the antique store as a return to normalcy. I think this choice was intentional, to further the sense of being weighed down by their past, and, as you mentioned in your response, the impossibility of escaping it. An antique store, filled with old things carrying each their own history, continues to add a heaviness and responsibility of care for bygone mistakes and memories.
One of the most striking images/phrases in the poem for me was at the beginning when it said, “angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,” (Part 1, Line 3). This phrase to me was very powerful because it captures how the dreamers, the idealists, the visionaries are wanting this spiritual connection, but they are stuck in a world that doesn’t allow that. They are, instead, stuck in a cold, mechanical, industrial world. I feel that this mismatch of what the people want (a spiritual connection) and the reality of the world put in the same line really highlights the struggle of these people who have to live in a world that doesn’t support their aspirations.
One striking image in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl, was: “who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo.” I found this line intriguing because it references New York City — my hometown. The first part, talks about the long train ride from Battery, short for Battery Park City, which is a neighborhood in Manhattan’s lower west side, to the Bronx. Conveniently enough, I went to high school in Battery Park City, so I am assuming that Ginsberg is referencing the 1 train line here; the 1 train line starts at South Ferry, which is where the Staten Island Ferry enters Manhattan, and terminates at 242nd St – Van Cortlandt Park. I used to make this long trek up to Van Cortlandt for my cross country meets in high school. Therefore, I can greatly empathize with his description of this ride as “endless” (it probably takes 70 min without delays). He also mentions benzedrine, which I determined to be the first product name for amphetamine, a deadly drug. He then suggests by the time they get to the Bronx, the passengers are completely worn out from their journey that they lose mental functioning. The last words talk about the Zoo, which I presume is the Bronx Zoo. The Bronx Zoo opened in 1899, during the end of the Gilded Age, so people had more time for leisurely activities. I think that this image is overall trying to point out the disillusion of New York. Although there is technology like trains and activities like zoos, people are still disconnected from life.
I found the opening line of Ginsberg’s “Howl” to be compelling. It sets the tone for his mourning of a generation of artists who endured 20th-century America.
“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,”
I’d also like to note that the ‘fix’ could either refer to drugs or the whimsy (?) that he believed the artists at the time were lacking.
I also liked how the poem opened. The line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked”. This line laments the state of American society at the time, how the talented people were suppressed by society and conformity to put their talents to good use. It sets the tone for the rest of the poem.
I agree with you, the beginning is set by this eerie tone of loneliness and dense, tragic times. Everything around that is being described is very dark and the tone is heavy from what had happened during that time. There is also a slight tone of disappointment of how far gone and how bad society has gotten. I don’t believe he was only talking about the artists in that time, but the generation as a general description. I do agree though that so much has happened that theres no going back and everything is already amiss.
A phrase from “Howl” that struck me was “Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!”. This phrase in particular caught my eye because I believe it serves to emphasize how Ginsberg and those like him did not believe in the optimistic take on life the general public had. Ginsberg thought more realistically and did not care about the things that man created in order to have something to look forward to. Throughout the poem he comments on certain actions pertaining to people just living in the moment, even if they were negative experiences; it’s all part of life, there’s no avoiding it, instead, we should embrace it to the fullest extent possible.
Many different lines within this poem are very interesting and a lot to unpack. However, one line in particular caught my eye a little more than the others. The line I am talking about is, “Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums!” In this quote he is calling rebellious and destructive behavior holy, acting in a sense of counterculture. It’s interesting as these things are usually looked at as immoral and destructive to your spiritual truth.
I agree with you and would like to add that Ginsberg makes these aspects holy as a way to embrace radicalism. In the footnote, he says, “The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!”. Ginsberg makes a point that the most natural parts of life are what is holy. He challenges society as he accepts things that are typically demonized, like sex and homosexuality, making a point that it is authentic and therefore valuable. From his wording, he conveys the idea that unholy is just a matter of perspective.
One of the most striking lines that stood out to me was the start of part 2 where Ginsberg exclaims, “What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? / Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! / Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!”
This line is incredibly visually descriptive and striking. I asked myself “who is this Moloch?” After I completed outside research I learned Moloch refers to an entity found in the Hebrew bible that people seem to worship. However, as a practice for those who follow Moloch, they give their children as a sacrifice to Moloch. Based on part one and the denouncement of Moloch throughout part two, I suspect that Moloch represents the society and establishment Ginsberg lived in. Throughout the poem we see how people who are outside of the traditional American norms be punished. Moloch is a metaphor for American society because original thinkers or those outside of what is seen as normal must sacrifice a part of themselves in order to conform.
Striking Language from Howl
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In part I of “Howl” by Ginsberg it states “who lounged hungry and lonesome through Houston seeking jazz or sex or soup, and followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity”. I found these lines striking because it is representing people who feel alienated and are seeking of searching something physical or emotionally. In the second part of the line ” brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity” what this is trying to say people are in a chase to understand the hard truth of America (capitalism) and as well the concept of Eternity in America. Which shows how most people feel lonely and are searching answers in a world that often feels meaningless.
I also thought that the statement was interesting since it shows how people feel lost and alone, looking for comfort in things like music, love, or food. Talking about “America and Eternity” shows they’re also trying to understand deeper things, like the meaning of life and the problems in the world around them. It shows how people feel empty and are searching for answers
One of the last stanzas of the poem struck me, partially because it somewhat summarizes the rest of the poem. “I’m with you in Rockland where we hug and kiss the United States under our bedsheets the United States that coughs all night and won’t let us sleep.” It touches on this love/hate relationship with the US as a country. A citizen of the US can’t help but love their country, but sometimes the country doesn’t love back. The coughing in the night are the troubles posed to citizens living in an imperfect society.
I agree, this line was also striking to me as well. I think that everyone has to feel at least a little bit of love or pride for their country, and the fact that they’re hiding under the bedsheets might show that its almost “taboo” to feel love for your country, so you have to do it in secret. I do find it interesting, because Rockland is the psychiatric hospital they are at in the poem, so the coughs in the night might be the bad bits of the hospital where they aren’t really treated with the best conditions, so they only have each other for comfort.
Hi Kai! I agree that the quote you provided definitely foreshadows the overall message of the poem: although America may not fulfill one’s ideals, there is still a sense of a lingering fondness for the country. Furthermore, I think this particular quote also beautifully encapsulates what others would depict of America (in the context of the poem). For instance, throughout the poem, readers witness as Ginsberg describes how the American culture comes with limitations and therefore, this destroys the “best minds” of Ginsberg’s generation — meaning that individuals are oppressed from essentially challenging societal standards and expectations. By Ginsberg ending the poem with this quote rather than the beginning, it forces the reader to also reflect on their perception of America and their “love/hate” connection to it.
What I found striking was the line “who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried their torsos night after night” (Line 23) The reason being because the image of a paint hotel where you “eat” fire and also drink turpentine, which is a horrible smelling toxic liquid used to clean off paintbrushes, thin and clean off oil paint. All of this happening in “Paradise Alley” is a stark contrast to the disturbing language at the beginning. And then the image of purgatory comes up. I can almost imagine an alley of burning flames and misery.
I like how you mention that you can almost imagine this scene from reading the line. I also thought that Ginsberg’s rich vocabulary made it easy to visualize a scene in your head. It’s almost like he wanted to force an image into the reader’s mind and see things from another perspective.
I think this line you chose perfectly emulates the message that poem is trying to suggest, the true madness of the night and its quick, but deadly fixes. These fixes make you so insane that one resorts to drinking turpentine, which as you said, is a severely maddening concept and image to conjure in one’s mind. I too see this dastardly picture he is creating, showing the reader the horrors that have turned humans to madness, being a shell of what once was.
One visual from the poem that struck me was in part 1, where Ginsberg writes, “who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism and subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy” (Ginsberg). I found these lines to encapsulate Howl’s protest against institutions of power in America. It was a strong imagery combining something so common as a potato salad, with tragic acts of suicide and lobotomy. It’s a rebellion of disrespecting academic institutions like the CCNY, critiquing the system as a whole to be imperfect and not made for the Americans who are forced to conform to society. The shaven heads is also something I want to comment on, where it’s a deliberate form of defiance, protesting as a collective with personal change.
I agree, the use of potato salad really gave a strong imagery and picture of the scenery. instead of using fancy words Ginsberg uses common and everyday objects to create the exaggerated contrast between potato salad to suicide. It shows it’s disagreement with institutions like CCNY, and using shaved heads as a symbolism of his protest in a visual sense.
A phrase I found striking in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl is when he states, “who threw their watches off the roof to cast their ballot for Eternity outside of Time, & alarm clocks fell on their heads every day for the next decade.” This quote, I think, does a good job of capturing the inescapability of modernity and its restraints. The act of throwing the watches off the roof symbolizes a rejection of the mechanized and bureaucratic nature of the modern order. They reject this nature in the hopes of reaching some sort of spiritual enlightenment, in that they “cast their ballot for Eternity.” Despite this rejection, they are never able to escape the modern system shown in how they are struck daily in the head with an alarm clock.
The poem Howl is filled with tons of vivid imagery, which was super interesting and engaging to me because I felt like I was able to really visualize what Ginsberg writes about. Specifically, the line: “hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob” struck me because I felt like its such a real, relatable human emotion that the reader can imagine experiencing themselves. It’s a true feeling that I think happens to a lot of people when they are in such a ridiculously hopeless situation, they can’t help but laugh to cope at first, but then break down into depression. I also found a couple of quotes suggestive of self-harm, striking because of the rawness and exposition of hidden suffering it symbolizes. “Burned cigarette holes in their arms”- to protest capitalism and “who cut their wrists… successively unsuccessfully,” saying that people try to escape this world but can’t succeed and give up.
A striking line is “who threw their watches off the roof to cast their ballot for Eternity outside of Time, & alarm clocks fell on their heads every day for the next decade.” Ginsberg capitalizes “Time” and “Eternity,” almost personifying them as rival figures. I interpreted time to be an oppressive, restrictive force (or “myth”) that the best minds of his generation try to defy, but in their defiance, face stark abuse. To me, it’s representative of how nonconformists are often punished for their rebellion. It’s interesting that they yearn for Eternity when considering the various references to suicide in the poem.
I agree! I also think Allen Ginsberg refers a lot to time in the aspect of present, past, and future as in a way compares them. This line also grabbed my attention especially the first part of the line “who threw their watches off the roof” . The imagery given with the word “threw”, creates an intense emotion of rebellion that his friends are trying to achieve from this reality and oppression of new freedoms and ideas. I also like the line “gave up and were forced to open antique stores where they thought they were growing old and cried”. Its not a line of unhappiness but more of an illusion and hope they are creating for themselves to survive this reality, they’re form of rebelling.
In part one of Howl the first few lines shocked me. “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.” I believe hes talking about people who are struggling in their lives and inorder to relax they have to go to the black side of town to get drugs like cocaine. I thought it was really interesting that he would start the poem off like this.
One striking phrase from this poem that I found is from the first stanza “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” (Soloman Line 1). I found this line striking because it was the opening line and it really set up what I had expected about the rest of the poem, especially because I did not know what the poem would be about from the title. It is also a very powerful statement and really caught my attention.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Opening Section
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think the opening howl feels more like desperation than straight anger or joy. The line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” makes it feel like a cry for help. The usage of the words starving, hysterical, and naked are raw and devastating words. Clearly, the howl is coming from someone who’s watching everything around them fall apart and can’t really stop it.
Yes, I agree with you. Part 1 of the poem is full of different kinds of people who are suffering and struggling to live in a modern society. I felt a strong sense of alienation from the opening line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked”. I think the “howl” here is not one of joy, but of lament. The poet see this reality but has no way to change it.
I definitely agree with this interpretation and to add on to it, the switch to repetition and repeating words adds to that sense of desperation. To me, it almost creates the start of a decent into madness as he starts out simply but it then soon evolves into repeated words like “who” to then “Moloch” and finally continues to the entire phrase of “I’m with you in Rockland”. This beginning part showcases the desperation before a slip into an almost madness, it is the time where his truer thoughts can still show through and only minimal repetition takes place.
To me, the opening section of Howl feels like a kind of spiritual panic; it’s desperation, sadness and controlled chaos — controlled by the rhythm of the poem almost. It’s the cry of someone attempting to make sense of a numb world, and it goes past simple emotions of rage or sadness. There is a very intense feeling of loneliness that’s underneath the chaotic energy when Ginsberg writes, “who dragged themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.” He seems to be capturing the breakdown of a generation in real time, and the howl acts is a warning but also witness to this.
This is so true, I didn’t think of the opening howl as desperation, but after reading your response, it helps solidify my thoughts. To me, the prose illustrated a theme of compromise—selling your soul to find a moment of quiet. I see this especially in the line: “burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night.” It seems like the poet reveals how the person is trying to escape the world they’re in—and willing to do anything in order to find peace.
First time reading the poem I viewed it as having a positive emotion but it’s very interesting how you interpreted it because I can see how Ginsberg’s tone can be perceived as a spiritual panic.
The emotional valence of the opening howl feels like a sense of joy and gratitude. Although the word “holy” is being used numerous times followed with an exclamation mark, may come off as intense or aggressive but Ginsberg’s emphasis portrays a positive tone. A key line that shows this is when Ginsberg writes, “The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!” By repeating the word holy, Ginsberg highlights on things in our lives that we often ignore or overlook, showing that all things are sacred even if they are seen as regular or secular.
The howl at the beginning of the poem feels like a mix of grief and awe to me. Its a desperate lament for lost brilliance as evident by the line “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.” The howl is a cry of sorrow over genius wasted and beauty unraveling. It’s more than just rage at society and joy in rebellion, it seems to be a sorrowful recognition of whats been lost. The howl mourns what the world did to these people, and what they did to themselves. (Jack Kerouac grew up 3 mins away from me)
To me, the tone here is that of an ecstatic revelation, a spiritual manifestation. This is Ginsberg declaring everything as sacred…My attention was brought to this quote: “The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy.” It feels like he had a revelation. He extends this “holiness” to that which wouldn’t normally be considered holy. Reclaiming the obscene and declaring them holy.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Opening Section
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think this howl is a vindictive howl, one of protest against the repression of capitalism and a society that begs for conformity and punishes individualism and difference. It is unforgiving in its protest, but also has a certain glee attached to it, the joy of breaking free of societal chains and having the guts to be how they want without caring about how society punishes them. A line you can clearly see this in is such: “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism.” Here, such a protest is directly mentioned, and how these people are rebelling against the standards of society. Another line that I think less obviously represents this is: “yacketayakking screaming vomiting whispering facts and memories and anecdotes and eyeball kicks and shocks of hospitals and jails and wars.” This illustrates the communal protest of the people outside of mainstream society; the protest is in their every move and in their very being. I think this whole poem is a celebration of the lives of those that society looks down on, the lives that aren’t the standard of what is the “proper” way to live, and a celebration of their protest.
I agree with your analysis, Amilia, and I also think this “Howl” is one of compassion and one signaling a potential warning. He is describing how people, at least those who are original thinkers and ones who do not align themselves with conformity, are stripped of their humanity and left to fend for themselves, spiraling into a form of degeneracy. The line, “who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked and trembling before the machinery of other skeletons,” emphasizes this sense of helplessness and barrenness of the world for these great minds. They are found among other “skeletons” stripped of their flesh and organs, left with a fraction of themselves. He warns that the world will lose a great amount of intellectual advancement by punishing the flourishing of these outsiders.
I most definitely agree with this, this howl is a cry of pain-filled vindictiveness at the state of the Western world. It gives the reader and what it has done to America’s best, what I’m assuming to be talented Americans as he mentioned “the best minds of my generation”. Ginsberg, in Part I alone, describes a litany of individuals for whom he shares pity over, and the more individuals he lists, the more pain that can be sensed in his words.
The emotional valence of the howl in “Howl” is one of despair and hopelessness. Ginsberg expresses this when writing “with mother finally ******, and the last fantastic book flung out of the tenement window, and the last door closed at 4 A.M. and the last telephone slammed at the wall in reply and the last furnished room emptied down to the last piece of mental furniture, a yellow paper rose twisted on a wire hanger in the closet, and even that imaginary, nothing but a hopeful little bit of hallucination—” (Ginsberg lines 79-83). By listing everything that was lost due to societal pressure, including family, belongings, and even imagination, Ginsberg creates a sense of sadness. His choice to put “last” before each item he mentions shows how final these losses are. Reflecting on this quote, the howl is not just out of anger, but built on extreme sorrow from one who has lost everything.
The opening howl comes across as a mix of desperation and admiration to me. Ginsberg begins the poem with, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” which reads as though he’s mourning the people he thought would have been of high value or had major potential, but were crushed by society. Towards the systems that failed them, Ginsberg is frustrated. And not only pitying these people–he portrays a sense of awe in which he honors them. The howl doesn’t convey an attitude of strictly rage or joy alone; he’s morbidly compelled by the pain and suffering, unable to look away. It mimics a tumult or outcry of pain as he’s pretty much grieving the aptitude that “could have been.”
Although I’m not sure my interpretation is correct I think that Footnote to Howl’s emotion is empathy. Now the reason I say that is because with the quote “ Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel!” we see that everything is “holy” and my interpretation is that everything is equal. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you are, what you do with your life, what matters is that you are equally as important as any other person you walk by.
From my interpretation, a howl for an animal, like a wolf, is often used to gather the pack and signal a specific location. I believe the “howl” in Ginsberg’s poem serves a similar purpose. It calls out to the young population of America, shares his views on the emptiness of mainstream culture, and sends a signal of change and rebellion. This mirrors the goal of Beat culture, which was to reject conformity and inspire a more authentic and meaningful way of living. As Ginsberg writes, he howls for “the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,” signaling a call to those who feel lost or disillusioned, and urging them to wake up and challenge the system that has crushed them.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Opening Section
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the opening line of the poem, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” there is a lot of frusturation and sorrow. The use of the words hysterical and destroyed help contribute to the emotional valence by showing how the speaker is not just angry or joyful, simpler emotions, he’s affected on a much deeper lever. He’s griewving the loss of minds destroyed, losing them to a broken world. I think this “howl” is more a cry of pain for those consumed by a society that does nothing for them. It’s a much rawer emotion than just rage or joy or anger.
I viewed the opening section of Ginsberg’s poem as a desperate, fed-up “howl” that begs for the recognition of suffering. Ginsberg refers to many groups such as drug addicts, homosexuals, and criminals– who were all “outcasts” of society. Ginsberg’s reference to psychiatric patients specifically stood out to me, where he explains how those “who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia” (Ginsberg). The first thing that caught my eye was the absence of commas, where the sentence just rambles on in a disjointed manner that resembles the way that some speak or act after being put through traumatic psychological experiences or inhumane psychiatric treatment such as what is listed above. Ultimately, this adds on to the desperate tone of the poem, where it feels like Ginsberg is trying to bring attention to how horribly society treats its “outcasts”.
When looking at the opening, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,” they seem to be in distraught. Ginberg has witnessed something so horrific yet can’t be angry nor worried through the usage of their words, it sounds like they are in deeper pain but can’t express it. Their howl sounds more like a scream, but the scream is not out of anger nor sadness.
The first line of “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” foreshadows what will happen later on in the poem.(Ginsberg). In the beginning the poem focuses on struggle and desperation (as Sophia pointed out). I saw, however, that in the beginning the intellect of such minds are present, with those who “studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kabbalah because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas” and “followed the brilliant Spaniard to converse about America and Eternity, a hopeless task, and so took ship to Africa” (Ginsburg). This dwindles as the poem progresses, and starts to focus more on the suffering and difficulties. To me, the first part of the poem displays what was lost, and feels like grief. The great minds of so many people have deteriorated, and this is a loss that can’t be undone because so much damage has already been done.
“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked…”
With this quote in mind, it seems that the poem opens with a howl of grief and desperation and not just rage. Ginsberg mourns the loss of his generation, where there are those who are driven mad or crushed by a culture that leaves no space for spiritual or creative freedom. The repetition of raw and vulnerable images like his use of “starving hysterical naked”suggests not anger alone, but a deep lament for what America has done to its most sensitive and visionary souls. It’s a howl of anguish to expose a country that glorifies consumption while silencing dissent.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Later Sections
⤹Click the reply button just below.
All of the different sections have a certain tone they stick to. I interpret the first section as chaos, specifically the chaos that is found in us. Except for specific parts, each line seems to tell a story that is isolated from everything around it. The range in these lines tells me that maybe this is supposed to represent the people, some people are degenerate, some people are suffering, some people are having a lot of sex, etc. The second section is when it starts getting crazy. I believe Moloch is some sort of deity that is tied to sacrificing children (thank you Google). If the previous section was the chaos of people, this is the chaos of the mind. Whoever are narrator is, they are going crazy and it’s because of Moloch. This person feels trapped by Moloch, calling them an “incomprehensible prison,” which implies that this person possibly did make a sacrifice to Moloch (part 2, line 8). If so, they haven’t gotten much in return, as they seem to blame all suffering on Moloch.
I think your interpretation of the sections as different forms of chaos is really compelling. The idea that the first section represents the chaos within people, through fragmented, individual stories is a great way to explain the disjointed yet vivid imagery. I also liked how you connected Moloch in the second section to the chaos of the mind. The phrase “incomprehensible prison” definitely suggests entrapment or a loss of agency. It’s interesting to think about how Moloch might symbolize the societal or institutional forces that break people down mentally after they’ve already been broken emotionally or spiritually.
The emotional tone completely shifts in the Footnote to Howl. It feels like a full on emotional reversal. After all the madness, fragmentation, and rage of the earlier sections, this part comes as a surprise of hope. When Ginsberg repeats “holy” over and over, it’s like a reclamation as if he is trying to sanctify the chaos that we just went through. One line that stuck with me was… “everyone is holy! everyone is holy! everyone is holy!”. Its feels like he’s declaring that even people who have been cast out out the system still matter. It’s not necessarily blind optimism, its messy and loud, like he’s screaming holiness into places where no one thinks to look.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Later Sections
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In part one of “Howl,” Ginsberg shows that the creative and intelligent minds of the youth are being suppressed and hindered by the structure and conformity of modern society. My favorite part of the poem is the lines: “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism, / who distributed Supercommunist pamphlets in Union Square weeping and undressing while the sirens of Los Alamos wailed them down, and wailed down Wall, and the Staten Island ferry also wailed, / who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked and trembling before the machinery of other skeletons” (Ginsberg Howl lines 31–33).This vivid imagery and unique references paint a picture of a young political activist being torn down by the Capitalist structure of America, both literally and figuratively. The tone of this section of the poem is dismal and cheerless to show that the activist has been beaten down and cries out in miserable failure caused by a loss of conformity. What makes this section rich is the unique references to urban monuments (like Union Square) and typical sights (like tobacco smoke) of New York City.
The tone of the poem in “Footnote” shifts completely to feverish excitement. My favorite lines that showcase this are: “Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums! / Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! / Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles!”(Ginsberg Footnote Lines 17-21). The repetition of the word “holy” conveys an epiphany: that everything about the modern world is sacred. The range of scenery this poem covers, along with the exclamation marks and capitalization, makes this footnote section more intense than other.
I feel the emotional shift of Howl in its later sections in its specificity. Especially in the third section, when he is speaking more directly to Carl, it starts to feel more desperate and personal. Another shift is in the “Footnote.” If you look up a video of him reading it, he sounds continually more distressed and entranced. The refrains of “holy” feel like a religious chant, but it turns into something darker.
The Emotional Valence of Howl’s Later Sections
⤹Click the reply button just below.
At the end of Howl, the emotion becomes intense and passionate when compared to part 1. The author’s monologue tone is being replaced with short words (‘Moloch’ )and an exclamation mark). Part 2 feels like an outbreak from the people described in part 1, sharing their pain. This becomes more obvious in part 3 with the format ‘I’m with you in Rockland.’ as the narrator shifts from one observing the other, isolated and miserable, to the crowd collectively speaking to the one with empathy, showing their connection regardless of time and space.
Modifications to the Original in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Jasper Johns’ Three Flags painting takes the American flag which everyone sees all the time and makes it feel different by stacking three of them on top of each other. Each one is a bit smaller so they almost pop out at you. It makes the flag seem heavy and 3D instead of just this flat symbol you don’t think about. This makes you actually look at the flag as a real object, not just something to glance at or automatically salute. It kind of makes you question what the flag really means and what it means to the viewer.
I agree that the flag being placed on itself multiple times forces us to actually consider what the flag look likes like. I also noticed that the flags look like an optical illusion where they are stacked on top of each other, making the flag seem like it pops. This attention to the flag helps the viewer consider it more than usual, or as to your point, more than something we just salute or glance at.
I can definetely agree with your point, this method of stacking the flags can be seen something more than as a painting but a message. The stacking makes it seem like the flags are way more important than what people bring it to be, and by stacking them, making it feel like its kinda of shoving at your face to look at it more and more. I think this is a great subtle way from the artist to show us something that should be considered to be respected.
Jasper Johns “Flag (Moratorium)” subtracts the traditional red, white, and blue of the American flag and replaces them with black, green, and orange transforming a national symbol of pride. This color shift undermines the flag’s usual associations. By altering only the palette, Johns adds emotional weight and political critique.
I agree, by John replacing the colors of the American flag it changes the symbolic meaning of it. For example the black may demonstrate protests, the green might define the American land, and the orange could suggest warning of some sort. Regardless of what the colors can mean, changing the colors of the flag strips it from its symbolic meaning and creates a new flag with completely new meanings.
In Jasper Johns’ “Flag” (1954), the composition of the colors, strips and stars are not uniform, but rather full of gaps, brush strokes and variations in value. Parts of the red strips have white brush strokes on top, the white stripes have gaps that show a blue or yellow background and the stars slightly differ in shapes and sizes. The visible “imperfections” in this painting really stood out to me considering the flag is usually depicted with uniform colors. The layered strokes and messy colors seem to say how the flag, and America, is continuously changing and evolving. I think Johns is trying to question what the American flag stands for and if America truly lives up to those ideals.
I like how you focused on the imperfections in Flag and how they reflect a constantly evolving America. That also stood out to me. It’s like John is forcing us to slow down and actually see the flag instead of just blindly reacting to it. I want to add that there’s also something uncomfortable about the texture. The drips and uneven layers makes it seem like the flag I falling apart which pushes a viewer to question the gap between the symbol and reality. It’s not just thats America changing, it’s that those changes come with pain, conflict, and resistance.
Modifications to the Original in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Jasper Johns, Three Flags(1958), is an art piece representing the U.S.A. flag outlined with brown, insinuating it is in a frame. The piece has three flags, overlapped with each other, becoming smaller and more distant until reaching the last flag. The piece adds two other flags to the original, but it also transforms the original flag by forming a completely new one. This piece overly represents a culmination of the same flag into one flag.
That’s a great explanation of what this artwork is, and I didn’t realize the frame around it. I would like to add that although the three flags come together to almost form a new flag, just by barely looking at it, it still can be seen as the American flag. Although the artwork doesn’t change the flag at all, by layering the flag on itself is a way of adding something to the flag, even if it is a little thing. It’s still the American flag, but also very different.
Flag by Jasper Jones turns a symbol so familiar to us into art by making every brushstroke visible, serving as a reminder that even something we’d give no thought to or is mundane was created on the basis of required effort and intention. Validating the piece as art, each stoke was deliberate and shows texture to prove that it was created at the hands of a living being, and not printed or copied. The numerous amount of visible strokes alone tells to the labor that went into it’s production, drawing a parallel to how the U.S. itself was built upon the collective effort of so many people and generations. John forces a reflection about identity, and how nationalism is manifests in seemingly ordinary objects, by emphasizing his creative process in this work.
I agree with you Kennedy that this piece is about forcing the viewer to take a second look at an ordinary object. In fact, in my own viewing of Jasper John’s work, I made a discovery that I had never considered. In Flag, there are only 48 stars on the American Flag. There are 6 rows of 8 stars. This is because in 1954 when Jasper John’s produced this work, there were only 48 states — Alaska and Hawaii were not added until 1959. This is really interesting actually because if we take a look at Flag Moratorium, which was made in 1969, there are now 50 stars on Jasper John’s American flag. No longer are there rigid rows and colums — the stars are staggered. This subtle difference is something I wouldn’t have taken note of if these were just regular stock images of the American flag. Having them in “art form” allowed me to re-examine the American flag.
With Corita Kent’s Rainbow Swash, she manages to turn a plain white gas tank into a vibrant art piece and transform it into a symbol of an entire city. Many people, like myself, connect her piece to entering and leaving Boston, as it’s one of the first things you see when driving on or off the I-93 freeway. Without Corita Kent’s creative ability, the gas tank may never have become a recognizable symbol of the city and might not have caught the attention of so many eyes. Without her touch, it would have just been another ordinary gas tank becoming easily forgotten and overlooked.
Modifications to the Original in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
For me, Jasper Johns modifications of the American flag is symbolically representative of America at war. His work in 1969, the Flag Moratorium can be interpreted as a memorial for the military soldiers, it’s directly meant to be a piece that stands for anti-war. Culturally, the transformation made a direct impact during the Vietnam war era, representing a powerful piece for peace and encouraging Americans to recognize the lack of necessity for America’s participation in the Vietnam war. I interpret the colors he’s chosen to represent the military, as well as, the death that will come out of actively being involved with an unwarranted war.
The Corita Kent piece “that they may have life” turned something non-art into art, taking the packaging of the classic American wonder-bread and re-names it Enriched bread, adding written messages into the distinguishable circles of the logo. At first glance, this transformative piece might just be about the problem of hunger and starvation families face, but another thing at stake Kent may be pointing at, could be a lack of faith in religion and distrust in government care. One of the text circles says “that God cannot appear to the except in the form of bread”, directly relating to the bible and maybe hinting at God’s manna from heaven and His miracle of being able to feed thousands with just 5 bread loaves. A Christian view on this could be suggesting that people just need to have a deeper faith and rely on God as provision because the government isn’t reliable and doesn’t provide.
Jasper Johns, Flag Moratorium artwork takes the concept of an American Flag and turns it into something completely different just by inverting the colors. He uses the flag that represents unity, nation, and pride and basically makes it mean the opposite. Just doing that alone makes the work very powerful. During the time that this artwork was made, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Vietnam War. At the time this painting of his would have had a lot of talk about it. This is because not only did he change the American flag, but he also named the artwork Flag Moratorium. Moratorium means to temporarily stop or forbid something. In a time where most people would want the country to stand together, he made an artwork that you can probably guess has something to do with no longer being engaged with the war.
Through reverse the American flag’s color Jasper John’s shows his objection to the symbol of flag for it was completely opposite, that’s such a good take. Another interesting thing about this piece is that a small white dot is painted in the middle of the flag, base on you connection to Vietnam war I wonder if this is a hint of Vietnam’s flag. Because the complementary color of blue is actually orange, but John focus on ushering green tone for majority of the canvas. And green is the complementary color of red. On a way it feels like the pattern of American Flag is covered on top of a revered Vietnam flag.
I thought the Corita Kent, Rainbow Swash (1971) was really interesting because they used a large tank that could be seen by a lot of people. Its adds something to the tank that makes it special. I am from mass so when I would go to boston, I would always see it and wondered what it meant.
Turning Non-Art into Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Corita Kent’s Love stamp, I feel like it does more to the cultural perspective of art than it does to the functionality of postage stamps. Postage stamps were always a little piece of art that is a small part in a person’s daily life but through this artwork, it becomes more than just art – it becomes a message. Culturally, I feel like it adds to the meaning of what a postage stamp is supposed to be by incorporating social and political aspects to just another consumer product at the time. Similarly to how color adds further interpretation to a drawing, this type of art does the same to common objects like postage stamps.
I really like your analysis on Corita Kent’s Love Stamp and I think you raise a really good point when talking about what a postage stamp can mean. I feel like it’s almost ironic in a way that something required to send a message-a letter-to someone can also carry a meaning. It’s almost as if it points to an overall idea of even the smallest most ordinary things can be powerful. Something doesn’t need to be loud and huge for it to have meaning. As far as art vs. non-art goes, I think this suggests that anything can be considered art and art surrounds us. There isn’t really a clear boundary on what art is.
Jasper Johns’ Flag painting is really just a painting of an American flag. It’s turning someing that we see everyday and elevating it into art. Culturally, I think it’s a way to let people think about what American flag stands for and what kinds of culture it represents. I think it’s kind of exploring the tolerance of American culture and aiming to figure out what can be considered art in American culture.
I agree that it’s just a painting, as it doesn’t try to do anything more than simply show the flag. However, the unique thing about “Flag” is that is looks like the flag has been stepped on, having footprints in it. Not only also has the American flag, a symbol for the people, been turned into art but the art holds a new meaning on top of it. This was made a year before the start of the Vietnam war, so most likely this is a form of political protest that portrays itself as patriotic.
Jasper John’s “Flag Moratorium” is interesting in that it takes an American flag, a great symbol rather than a piece of art, and artistically altars it. The total change in color scheme incites different emotions and thoughts when looking at it compared to the traditional red, white and blue flag. This change seems like it could be controversial to some however, as it takes away a familiarity towards an important symbol, perhaps representing a mockery or sense of unhappiness in the state of affairs in the eyes of the artist. Moratorium means a pause or delay in something, and perhaps this flag represent discontent in what is happening, and therefore a pause of respect and symbolic strength of the flag itself.
Yes, this is a great insight on the flag. It makes you think if there’s a political message hidden in the artwork. I want to add that the stripes on our original flag has red and white stripes but the “Flag Moratorium” piece has green. According to color theory, red is the opposite of green and black is the opposite of white. Usually our flags colors’ represent bravery, purity, and justice, but now that the colors are direct opposites of each other, this flag could now represent the opposite of these positive traits. So, I agree with your interpretation on how this flag could mean there is a pause of respect.
Jasper Johns’ Flag painting appeals to me because it takes something like the American flag that Americans usually see almost everyday and presents it in an unexpected way. Normally, when you see the flag it has perfectly placed stars and neat stripes. However, in this painting, the flag isn’t necessarily perfect. The colors are uneven, paint appears to be dripping, and there are some brown patches giving off a textured look. Culturall, this is very significant. To me it depicts the United States as a flawed nation that is struggling with many conflicts everyday. So this imperfectly perfect version of the flag showcases a country that still has work to do to improve its country.
I like the view you took on this. The way the flag is presented it would make a person think it was a daft of the earlier flag. I agree that it can show that America has imperfections but also impurities which can be represented by the different colors the flag is painted in rather than the original Red Blue and White.
I think that the “Rainbow Swash” by Corita Kent is non art turned into art. This is because the rainbow is painted on a big landmark in Boston thats very hard to miss. The second youre on route 93 whatever direction your going your bound to see it. The Rainbow swash I believe has a correlation to Kent’s 1985 “love Stamp” I think that in the time of the Rainbow Swash she was putting her art at stake because essentially rainbow relates to the LGBTQ. She was putting herself out there in doing so she was also putting the city out there because the rainbow was painted on a huge landmark in the middle of Boston.
Corita Kents, Rainbow Swash is definitely an ideal image of turning non-art into art. The most interesting part of this is how it turns the ordinary and transforms it into something that has meaning and makes a difference. Personally for this art, I have seen it many times simply passing by in Boston, I think the most impactful part of it, is that it turned my head and it becomes memorable. Without the art, it would have never been seen. Through art, of a standard gas tank, transformed into something eye catching and important enough to be seen now. Simplicity is transformed into meaning through everyday objects, a powerful too for be seen and get attention.
Jasper John’s Flag turns something usually not considered art, like the American flag, into such. John’s uses beeswax and newspaper to create artwork of the flag. This act compels people to rethink something they otherwise take for granted. By putting the flag in a gallery, Johns questions notions of patriotism, identity, and the line between art and symbol. Culturally, this move questions who gets to define national meaning and is a reminder that even the most iconic icons can be reinterpreted, especially during politically volatile times like the Cold War.
Flag Moratorium (1969) shows shades of blues and greens instead of the normal red, white, as blue and that stood out to me first. Instead of it being boldly patriotic, it’s kinda of a calmer statement. it challenges patriotism and how it can look and feel. it invites the viewers to reconsider power can also be seen/reflected as grief and resistance – even transformation.
Turning Non-Art into Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The rainbow swash is special to me because I see it every time I entered Boston through the I-93. For me it represents optimism with a similar design to Kent’s Love Stamp. I feel like its supposed to represent America being a melting pot and that of equality among all people. The stripes show a kind of harmony among colors and I think that is representative of the civil rights movements and peace movements during that time. It turns a rather plain storage tank, into a landmark, kind of similar to Fenway Park and the Citgo sign.
Good connection Harvey! I also found this parallel between an artwork by Jasper John and the foundations America has been built on, like you mention here. And it credits your response even more that you resonate with the rainbow swash, and that you associate it with a big aspect of your identity (your school), much like many others who view it the same was as you do I’m sure.
In Corita Kent’s work, that they may have life, the original work referenced is Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread is a popular packaged bread brand that is widely consumed by many Americans. Her use of Wonder Bread perhaps reflects consumerism due to the widespread consumption of Wonder Bread. The words on the side, “Theres so many human people that god cannot appear to them except in the form of bread”. This message mocks the consumerism in our society that substitutes things that fill our soul such as god, with enriched bread that represents soulless consumerism.
Jasper Johns’ artworks featuring the American flag prompt the audience to examine an object typically associated with the country/political ideals through an artistic lens. A lens that values the aesthetics of the American flag. Thus turning non-art into art. Jasper Johns’ Flag Moratorium features the inverse colors of the American flag, with a white dot in the center. If you look at the dot for 30 seconds and close your eyes and blink rapidly, you can see the original colors of the American flag. As shown in the comment sections for this class, the painting can be interpreted in many ways, thus making it art rather than an object to be displayed as an act of patriotism.
Hi Ava, I really enjoyed and agree with your take on Jasper Johns’ work. I also wanted to add that Moratorium uniquely reinvents a familiar symbol, while also challenging one’s perception of the American flag. I really liked how you mentioned the paintings optical illusion, which pushes viewers to engage with the piece, considering it as something more than just art, but an interactive experience. It is very interesting how something so politically charged such as Moratorium can be reframed into a space for interpretation.
The Love stamp (1985) by Corita Kent shows how postal stamps can be used to convey an idea of inclusivity. The wide and textured brush strokes give a sense of creativity, authenticity, and intimacy instead of machine-made uniformity. The colors are so bright, pure, and optimistic. They almost remind me of the crayons I used from elementary school, which further shows the pure intention of building an inclusive community. This reminds me of the LGBTQ+ flag, which also uses various colors to express equality and inclusivity.
Yes, I definitely agree that the bright colors speak to a message of inclusivity! I find your connection to the LGBTQ+ flag interesting; while I don’t think Corita Kent had that in mind, it’s fascinating that humans have interpreted the rainbow as a symbol of diversity for so long. I find it odd, however, that her work promotes genuine love and connection while being a superficial, consumerist item: a stamp. Many people don’t put much thought into the stamp they’re using, seeing it as a mere formality. Perhaps Kent was aiming to push for the widespread use of it without thinking about this aspect.
In the Three Flags painting I interpret the image as a political statement implying that with each flag getting smaller it symbolizes the ideas America claims to stand for yet diminishes. Things like liberty and justice for all is now become less and less true for the minority. Which leads me into also thinking about the American Dream. The small flag represents the American Dream which is supposed to give equal opportunities to all, is now being depicted as something that is not easily accessible.
Turning Non-Art into Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Corita Kent’s art called, Rainbow Swash (1971), is a gas tank having colorful painting swatches. She has turned an ordinary industrial structure into public art. It is allowing everyone to see what she has done than usually going to museum pay money to see few pieces of art. In a way this is beautiful because she is challenging the traditional idea of where artwork belongs and is expanding different types of canvases. As well, the gas tank usually represents industry and energy consumption and the colorful painting swatches represents diversity and LGBTQ+ pride. It is challenging the boundaries of politics and diversity, which Kent is trying to join both together to work peacefully.
I agree with your analysis, but I want to add how this piece also has a political message of challenging the Vietnam War and promoting peace. The rainbow is a universal symbol of hope, contrasting heavily with the despair and division caused by the war in Vietnam, which by 1971 had caused much social unrest at home. The scale of this piece is a loud and public challenge to the continued actions of the U.S. government in Vietnam. As you mentioned, this piece turns a functional industrial structure into a representational piece of art, a statement within itself.
In “Three Flags” by Jasper Johns, a possible political message that can be interpreted is the layers of flags and the unification it forms. The painting has two flags which forms one in total. These layers reflect the layers in the American society or overall nation that allows it to progress or represent a powerful strong united nation such as the people, the economy, and even the military. The painting is also composed of intense vibrant colors which give a sense of boldness from the nation, in which in this context it conveys the bravery of the country and the nation of finishing one of the greatest wars, WWII, and entering more like the cold war.
Corita Kent’s that they may have life stuck out to me since she transforms a water tank into essentially a piece of art. Kent’s water tank reminds me of a discussion we had earlier this semester and in RH103, which is that if someone transcends the boundaries of traditional art by not painting on a canvas, something could still be deemed as art. In other words, this act of transformation demonstrates that art is not limited to traditional spaces; Kent proves that art can be expressed in public, accessible places — such as a water tank.
Political Messages in These Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the national anthem is a clear protest of the Vietnam war. Hendrix intentionally warps the song, which in itself was a rebellious act. At this point, the national anthem was incredibly boring because everyone followed the same playbook. It wasn’t until Whitney Houston performance at Super Bowl 25 that people realized you add any sort of style to the anthem. Not only does Hendrix do whatever he wants with the song, he adds specific noises throughout. There are parts that sound like screaming or crying (around 2:00), and there are other parts that imitate bombs (see 2:40). And obviously, he is “saying” these things in the most provocative way, during the national anthem which is supposed to be respected.
I absolutely agree, Hendrix’s rendition completely rewrites the meaning of the national anthem. I’d also say that it’s made even more powerful by the place and timing. Beyond just a music festival, Woodstock brought together a generation of people fed up with racism, war, and political dishonesty. In addition to musically rebelling, I think Hendrix was reflecting America’s paradoxes by intentionally warping the anthem. The Bomb and siren sounds he mimics are more than just noise; they serve as a warning that excessive patriotism can be harmful. They force the audience to hear the violence and what lies beyond the anthems pride.
What stood out to me was how hiw physical presence on stage also became part of the protest. he is a blackman and a U.S A rmy veteran, he reclaimed the national anthem and made it his.
I love Jasper Johns’, Flag Moratorium so much. I looked at it in high school when we were talking about the Vietnam War. Johns really killed it with this because even in my small little school in a red state it still made people uncomfortable and that’s the point. The Vietnam War was horrific unnecessary and cruel to both the people of Vietnam and the American’s that were “fighting for their country”. Johns knew this and this art has so many subtle digs at it. Firstly changing the colors of the flag to be sadder not happy, bright or patriotic colors? Genius. The name being a nod to a protest movement. Brilliant. I love the subtleness of it because he took his normal subject, the American flag, and tweaked it to mean something else entirely
The artwork that stuck with me to have a deeper political message was Jasper Johns, Flag (1954). At first, I didn’t think much of the flag when viewing it through the small window. However, once I clicked on the image, I noticed how I could see each individual stroke of the brush, each shade of red, blue, and white that Johns used. The intentionality to distinguish the colors and textures hints at the larger impact of the Vietnam War —that the overall image of the war may have looked like a unified picture, but within it, the violence that occurred, and the aftereffects of the soldiers are each impacted differently, just like we can see each stroke in the painting.
Continuities between Haring, Basquiat and Banksy
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In all of the street art, there seems to be a big emphasis on the color red. In Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack, the color red pops right at you, whereas in Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice, the red is more subtle. Street art is usually seen as taboo, so I wonder if the red resembles some sort of scandalous side to street art.
I did notice that when I reviewed all the photos, the color red was literally in all the street art, even what it seemed like neon red or bright red in the “Crack is Wack”, maybe red is a symbol of rebellion. Red is known to be a color of aggression, anger, but also energy and excitement, and I feel like you can see these types of emotions in all the street art that are presented here.
I’m going to double down and say that red also is meant to contrast the over abundance of white. Not only does the red pop out more when on a white background, but the use of white could be seen as bland and uninteresting. Street art, in this case, serves to add life where it is so lacking.
The color red was also the first thing that I also recognized. I think the red may represent a call to action a sense of urgency because in the street arts they are trying to bring awareness to social and political issues.
I agree I think it’s because the color red is so bright it adds very serious emphasis on what the art is trying to convey to whoever is looking at it.
I agree, one key continuity between all these pieces of street art is that they all have red in them to highlight something. For example, Keith Haring, Crack is Wack (1986) is a piece which is located in Harlem New York (I pass by this piece almost everyday) and some might argue the background is orange, but when in person the background is a lot more red than it is orange. Another example is Banksy, If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011) where he uses red spray paint in order to convey his message.
I noticed in all three street artworks that words are a major component of the piece. All of the words included are quite simple and literal in their meaning, besides Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice (1984), however, the “Rx” and “Non Toxic” blurbs contained in the art piece contribute to the understanding that the piece is about health care. In Ana Bambic’s article about the 80’s Kings of street art, most of them use simple diction in their art as well. Like Samo’s “Life Is Confusing” piece is very simple to understand: it literally means what it’s saying. I think the concise, literal language in street art is used because most people walk/drive across street art in a hurry (especially in NYC), so the message of the painting needs to be conveyed immediately.
I found what you said to be very insightful and I 100% agree with you. Street art is not necessarily meant to be something you start at for hours and ponder, considering that often times it’s painted over, destroyed by natural causes, or just simply one doesn’t have time to full take it in. That is why street artists need to make sure that whatever meaning they want to be expressed comes off clearly and doesn’t take long to remember. I do think that it’s meant to stick with a person so that they do think about it beyond just that moment in time, but it needs to be designed in a way that is easily graspable but interpretable in many ways. Words can help create that especially when it’s few words or repeated words.
I really like your point about how the words are clear, simple and straight to the point and it was something I noticed as well. Even with work like Basquiat’s which is more abreast in its message portrayal, the words tie the whole piece of art together to make the message more cohesive. Words are definitely a key part in street art in making its message more universally accessible.
One contrast I noticed in these street artworks is their style. Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack uses cartoon-like figures to convey its message. On the other hand, in Banksy’s street art, such as Parking, the figures are more realistic. Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice is the most abstract one, making it even a little bit uncomfortable to view. I think these pieces really show how each artist has their own unique style.
I agree because it’s like their art is extension of the artists’ and their views of the world. We’re all told to be the change we want to see and it’s like these artists are visually creating that change by starting a conversation. It’s the artists’ unique style that brings us to stop, even if it’s just a minute, and think about something that we may be overlooking. For example, in Banksy’s Parking, he gives a simple contrast and play on words to possibly express a message that gentrification may not be as great as a development and modernization when it takes away communal spaces that encourage connecting with nature and each other.
All of these graffiti images represent a message that relates to America or NYC at the time. The Crack is Wack artwork by Haring represents how crack cocaine has become widespread and is killing others because of addiction. The Melting Point of Ice painting by Basquiat represents chaos, I believe. It has many aspects such as small drawings and dark colors, so I believe it is representing some sort of oppression and chaos in America or NYC. In Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything artwork, it represents how the government or another leading body is trying to stop change and wants to keep the bad parts of America. For example, I believe Banksy is trying to say that the leading powers don’t wish to fix the issues of racism or oppression because if graffiti did do that, it wouldn’t be allowed. This reminds me of WWI propaganda, where if people spread anti-war media, it would be immediately shut down because it would potentially bring about a change. All of these artists are speaking about the corrupt nature of the world and common issues such as drug use, government corruption, and control.
I like how you tied each pieces like addiction, oppression, and government control. What stands out to me is the continuity in how all these artists use street art to reclaim a public space and speak truth. Whether it’s Harring turning a playground to a fight about crack or Banksy mockery, they’re all challenging who gets to control the narrative.
One similarity that I noticed between two of the art works was the concept of looking at the world from a different perspective. For example, Banksy’s “Parking”, removes the ‘ing’ from ‘Parking’ and has painted a little girl on a swing coming off the ‘A’. It draws attention to the bland concrete and dreary cars, while contrasting it with the idea of a park where children play, which feels very vibrant. Banksy’s other work, ‘If Graffiti Changed Anything”, also begs the viewer to look at the world in a different way, calling to the fact that authority would shut down graffiti if it had an actual societal impact.
In all the street art pieces, a key continuity is that each one seems to be making some sort of social and political statement. The artists bring attention to issues such as drug use, censorship, and the lack of public spaces for children. The street art of Bansky, Haring and Basquiat shows that street art can serve as a powerful outlet for addressing political and social issues.
Looking across all of these pieces of art I notice the color red in some shape or form. Banksy utilizes the color for his writing, while the other two artists seem to use it as more of a side color or background instead of for direct emphasis. Typically red is associated with emotions like passion or anger, and I think in these it is more the former. The red in all of these represent the artists personal passion towards what inspires the art itself, while also catching eyes and drawing attention to not only the art but what they are trying to represent, such as the danger of drugs or maybe unhappiness with consumer based city development.
I see that all three artists use the visual language of public signs. Haring’s bright, cartoon-like figures feel like an anti-drug PSA, Basquiat’s text and symbols look like a tagged wall turned into a painting, and Banksy’s clean stencils turn street rules into jokes. They all treat the city as both a surface and the subject, but with Banksy the resistance starts to feel ironic because the same tactics that he used to fight selling art have become a way for him to earn more.
A contrast I noticed between the street art is the differences in style and color to portray the art work. The methods used to tell a messages vary a lot in the way the artist decided to depict it. As seen in Banksy’s, If Graffiti Changed Anything, red is used sparingly only to put emphasis on the written message and the blood on the rats hands, realism is used to depict the rat as well. Yet in Keith Haring’s, Crack is Wack, red is the only colored besides black used and in Jean-Michel Basquiat’s, Melting Point of Ice color varies greatly and there is almost no clear intent with scribbly drawings. It’s interesting how these artist defer in the way they express their message, yet they all have a powerful message their tell through their artwork.
I noticed a strong continuity across these works: the presence of death or decay as a consequence of modern consumerism. The color red appears frequently, signaling urgency, violence, or blood, as a visual representation of danger and mortality. In Melting Point of Ice (1984), Basquiat’s use of human skulls suggests death and unhealthiness leading to our societal collapse, while Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986) features skeletal imagery and what appears to be a $0 bill. This implies a future where the pursuit of money driven by addiction, whether to crack or consumerism, ultimately leads to worthlessness or death. Even Banksy’s Parking (2010), where the “-ing” is removed to leave only “Park,” hints at how consumer infrastructure (like car parks) overtakes natural or communal spaces. The rough, almost chaotic visual style of Basquiat and Haring reflects the urgency of their message.
A key continuity in the street art above is how each piece delivers a social or political message. Whether it’s Haring addressing the crack epidemic or Banksy commenting on censorship and rebellion, all the works use public space to provoke thought and challenge norms. Despite their different styles and eras, they show how street art consistently serves as a form of activism.
A continuity I noticed in all of the artwork is that the art is displayed in a very public place where its easy or the human eye to notice it. It is very hard to miss. For example, Keith Harings painting is in the middle of the highway and it’s so big that it’s hard to miss by any one driving by.
A key contrast in the street art featured above is the shift in how artists engage with both the public and the art world. Haring and Basquiat used street art to communicate directly with audiences, addressing problems like addiction and race in an honest and accessible way. Banksy, on the other hand, uses his art to comment on the commercialization of street art, as seen by his famed Girl With Balloon stunt. While Haring and Basquiat aimed to start conversations with the public, Banksy uses irony to criticize the very system that gave street art its platform.
A continuity between the street art is the idea of dissent. Haring protested the crack epidemic with Crack is Wack, by confronting a public health crisis ignored by the government. Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything suggests that rebellion is tolerated only when it’s powerless, highlighting how protest itself can be stolen. Similarly Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice mixes in the themes of crack, prescription, and systemic decay. Each artist uses this medium to confront authority.
a continuity in these pieces of works is how they are political commentary. Crack is Wack (1986) is directly confronting the epidemic of crack in New York. It used bold lines to convey the urgent message. Public walls being used to challenge power.
Continuities between Haring, Basquiat and Banksy
⤹Click the reply button just below.
All of these graffiti images represent a message that relates to America or NYC at the time. The Crack is Wack artwork by Haring represents how crack cocaine has become widespread and is killing others because of addiction. The Melting Point of Ice painting by Basquiat represents chaos, I believe. It has many aspects such as small drawings and dark colors, so I believe it is representing some sort of oppression and chaos in America or NYC. In Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything artwork, it represents how the government or another leading body is trying to stop change and wants to keep the bad parts of America. For example, I believe Banksy is trying to say that the leading powers don’t wish to fix the issues of racism or oppression because if graffiti did do that, it wouldn’t be allowed. This reminds me of WWI propaganda, where if people spread anti-war media, it would be immediately shut down because it would potentially bring about a change. All of these artists are speaking about the corrupt nature of the world and common issues such as drug use, government corruption, and control.
I think this analysis is really insightful, specifically about the artist’s messages behind their graffiti. However, there is one small part I disagree with, regarding the piece “If Graffiti Changed Anything.” Graffiti is in fact illegal, meaning all these artworks (and all of Banky’s famous pieces) are illegal too. So, I don’t think it’s a case that the government thinks that graffiti is powerless like you implied. I think that the government thinks graffiti and its messages are powerful, and that’s why it’s illegal. You are right, the governments don’t want to change systems of oppression – which is why graffiti is banned. Because the political messages it can convey are a threat to their systems of power, as it acts as a form of communication, protest, and challenges the existing system.
A continuity among the art is tagging of walls and signs that are visible for the audience, which is the general public. These pieces look like they all have a deeper meaning relating to modern day issues, especially with Banksy pieces which often use clever like in Parking to show the use of land that could be for children and play to store vehicles. Other works like the Melting Point of Ice depicting a chaotic scene where I think it has a dual meaning of fighting oppression and drugs as “ice” was a street term for meth. I think the differences heavily depend on the style of the artist but street art uses similar tactics of tagging walls or places people can see.
Hi Harvey I really liked your idea, I also wanted to point out the artists continuous use of bright red and orange in their pieces. The bold colors can symbolize the urgency to the messages such as “Crack is Wack” or ” If Graffiti Changed Anything,” while emphasizing a rebellious tone. It’s interesting how the colors help unify these works, while also matching each artists style/tone.
I agree with your point! It reminds me of our discussions in RH103 about street art purposefully being done on public property. The illegal act of its creation nods to the greater themes in many of the works and the purpose of the genre as a whole. For example, Keith Haring’s “Crack is Wack” was done without a permit and a majority of Banksy’s art is created without permission. In this sense, I believe Banksy’s “If Graffiti Changed Anything” is ironic because graffiti is, in fact, illegal, proving that these works of art do change the world.
One continuity within the artworks above is the publicized recognition of chaos and issues in society. The first piece of art by Keith Haring highlights an important issue during the 80s, “crack is wack”. Underneath there are skeletons, pipes, and fire, which goes to show the destruction that crack brought to many people’s lives. In Jean-Michel Basquiat’s, Melting Point of Ice he includes symbols of black cultures but also mixes in scientific objects and medicine. This could be to highlight the disparity when it comes to the healthcare of minorities and symbolize a collapse in progress. The last piece of art by Banksy, “If Graffiti Changed Anything”, points out the ill intent of the government and our leadership in the world. The image is labeled “If graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.” He highlights the fact that governments thrive off others’ struggles, and they sabotage systems in place that attempt to bring change.
I agree with your analysis, and I appreciate the way you highlighted each painting and the issue it brought up. I want to add to your analysis by saying that all these paintings utilize the color red. Red is a color that calls attention to the audience. And as you said, with all these paintings, they aim to call attention to issues in our society. So the use of red in the art pieces helps reinforce the message of calling attention to these issues.
All of the street art expresses something creative that is outside of the societal norms, and most of them are by words rather than detailed depictions or paint strokes. I find this new way of art very intriguing as all of the past artists focused on using objects to convey new ideas rather than words. We tend to think a picture is worth a thousand words, but here, the graffiti artists are challenging that concept. The appearance of striking messages such as Crack is Wrack can also be read as Is Crack Wrack as a questioning phrase. Another example of creative and ambiguous phrasing is If Graffiti Changed Anything as it allowed the audience to intepret whether grafitti is powerful or not, and let them ponder about the issues in society.
I liked the concept you used of them defying the motif of a picture being worth a thousand words by using a lot of words in their artwork. However, I would like to add that these artworks also use an abundance of pictures to their word driven artwork. Especially seen in Melting Point of Ice it shows a ton of pictures that are extremely rebel which show a continuity across most of them from being morbid pictures or just being done with dark or black colored paint. It really shows the movement is against the norms of society and trying to show the dark side of the world they live in.
Banksy’s Parking is a piece that transforms a boring parking space with letters that say “parking”, to an artpiece that says “park” with a young girl swinging on the A. Banksy’s transformation turns this into a park where children play rather than a parking space, and he hints towards how society transforms land into useful things, such as parking spaces, rather than places for children to enjoy, such as parks. Through his artwork, he reclaims this place of joy for children and also shows us how our creativity can use these boring places as canvases for our imagination, signalling the hope we have for children living in environments with fewer and fewer communal spaces and parks.
I agree with your interpretation, and I also think the child may be a symbol in itself. In a more controlled and monitored environment like a city, freedom and creativity may feel suppressed. People may be overwhelmed by the noise and large population, feeling that they cannot be themselves. A child, on the other hand, represents a wild imagination and untamed character. A child is rebellious and finds happiness in all situations, so the child represents a rebellion against confinement and hopelessness.
A continuity I noticed were the boldness of the colors. I find the choices of uses the colors black and red fascinating. In most of the art pieces red was used and I think that just ties to the artist wanted people to stop and notice. Red is such a bold color that you can’t help but to stop and stare. But I also think it has a deeper message. When we think of red we think of things like stop, or associate it with bad, and most likely that color was used purposefully with the intent of the message behind the images.
I agree with you Melanie. The goal of these artists is to make their artwork as visible and public as possible. The eye catching colors are used to attract as much attention as possible to spread the artist’s message. Even Keith Haring’s crack is wack piece, the background is bright orange which reminds me of construction signs you see on the freeways. It is meant to be eye catching to drivers.
All of the street art above share a continuity with each other; words are used to send messages about pushing back against authority. Crack is Wack by Keith Haring pictures a an overt message in huge orange letters, serving as a warning about the crack epidemic (huge issue in the 80s) that the nation couldn’t ignore. Similarly, Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything applies the same technique, even decades later. This phrase and addition of the small and bloodied rat, spray painted in a messy red to portray a crime scene in progress, adds a layer of satire to the piece–as though suggesting change is illegal (a tell to rebellion oppression?). The same idea can be seen in Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice, where words like “RX” and “protection & healing” are a focal point to show how medicine becomes commodified, and patients become consumers. All artists use their environments and their own writing to critique the systems that regulate the media and how people live.
I completely agree with you Kennedy. I also felt like a continuity amongst the street artist was to use their art to share their opinions about systems. To build on what you’re saying, i feel that more than just rebellion, these artists are also trying to take these systems and bring about change in the world, and activism. Each artist has taken a public/urban space and has transformed it into a space of activism, or political/social commentary. Each art is featured on a public wall on a street and depicts some sort of message the artist is trying to convey to the public. An example of this is in Keith Haring’s, Crack is Wack (1986). This painting is featured on a public wall and points to the urgency and dangers of crack. Moreover, in Banksy’s, If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011), Banksy took a public street on Clipstone Street to create art that conveys how Graffiti is too quickly dismissed and criminalized, and brings awareness to the fact that Graffiti is treated like it’s powerful, but it often doesn’t have power to truly change anything.
Banksy’s own graffiti quote “If Graffiti changed anything it would be illegal” is a prevalent theme throughout street art as it contains political messages on public walls for all to see and potentially talk about. ‘Crack is Wack’ is placed by a busy highway, ‘Parking’ at a parking lot, etc.
However a key contrast is that all of the graffiti art styles are different and identifiable with their author tag. This ties back to the origins of Graffiti and how those without wealth wanted to get their name/art out without needing money which art is usually associated with.
All of these artworks contain the color red in them. This is perhaps not directly illustrative of all graffiti art, but it does suggest that these artists looked to make their art pop against formerly dull surfaces. Using a vibrant, contrasting color makes the artwork pop and allow it to be more easily seen. This increased visibility is important because it goes in line with spreading the underlying messages of the piece. Street art is not meant to blend in — it demands attention. It begs for people to notice it and to consider its meaning.
A key consistency I see in these Street Art-works is the use of color in a striking way. In these specific works, the use of the color red strongly draws the eye of the viewer. They also all have strong social meanings. Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy all have a strong message attached to their work beyond simple aesthetic enjoyment.
I noticed that Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy all include some sort of message in their art. Haring discusses the problem of crack addiction, Basquiat seems to be pointing at the dangers of taking too much medicine, and Banksy highlights how people make graffiti a bigger issue than it actually is.
One pattern I noticed in each of these artworks is the use of both black and red coloring. I don’t think this choice is a coincidence because both colors contrast greatly and stand out against the dull, grey backdrop of the street, which helps the artist capture attention and reach a wider audience. In Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack, for example, he deliberately places his brightly colored piece with bold black text along a grey freeway. This contrast makes the work pop to passing drivers and effectively delivers his message to Americans at the time that, well, crack is wack
All of the street art depicts more somber tones, more than likely the feelings of American culture at the time. Consumerism has replaced genuine connection, and the street art depicts that loss of connection. For example, in Haring’s Crack is Wack, the art depicts a skeleton paying their last dollar to buy a potion, more than likely representing the drug crack. This shows how consumerism is destroying ourselves and our addiction towards consumerism. Another example is Banksy’s Parking. The girl riding a swing represents the loss of common spaces and areas in favor for large parking lots, with these parking lots more than likely being near shopping centers. The girl shows how consumerism is replacing fun activities, such as swinging in a park, with our addiction for material items.
All these street arts have a continuity of use of words in the artifact. Instead of choosing artistic ways to get the message across, the artists decided to physically write the message in a creative way. Despite mostly using words, the way that the artist chose to write it helps also get their message across. This artistic choice helps the viewer not only understand what the message says but also encourages the audience to appreciate the art behind it. Every choice is made strategically from the dripping paint to the background artwork.
One of the main continuity that i’ve seen throughout Haring, Basquiat and Banksy street art is there use of color. Red is integrated in each of these whether it’s the letters or the background. Red is usually a symbol to alarm, or to get attention. For example exit signs in case of emergency, or stop signs are red to make sure you don’t miss it. The use of the color red is pretty important and it highlights the importance of the message that is being spread.
When looking at the works of Haring, Basquiat, and Banksy you see some similarities as they are all examples of street art. However, I think it is more interesting to see how the various street artists have their own theme that makes their work distinctive, but still allows it to fall under the same category. For example, Haring’s work saying crack is wack is a very vibrant and energetic piece of art that is encouraging people to abstain from drug use. But, contrasting that Banksy’s work is very simple and minimal and criticizing the stigma around street art and graffiti in the world.
Continuities between Haring, Basquiat and Banksy
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A key contrast that I saw in the street art above is that in Keith Haring, Crack is Wack, is more direct and the rest you have to take a minute to understand the meaning behind it. Haring, used bold cartoon like visuals to directly point out the crack epidemic. By using bold techniques he is trying to gain a wide audience to raise awareness of drug addiction and public health. However, with the rest of the paintings it has more symbolic message and needs people to take a moment to understand it.
All the artworks are made in public places like parking lots, streets, and highways. This is important because it lest the artists share their messages with everyone, not just people who visit museums or galleries. By using these everyday spaces, the artists turn normal walls and streets into powerful spots or even landmarks. For example, Banksy’s work on a city building will be extremely expensive even though some might just think it’s by random graffiti artist.
I agree! The art is made extremely accessible when it is placed in the public like this. This is a continuation of the shift we’ve been seeing where art has been used as a political message (similar to Futurism), as these works are widely open for the public to view and even just for people to see as they’re passing by. For this reason, it makes sense for these works to be placed outside in places where the works will be seen by many people.
Yes, I think this is why Banksy’s painting shredded itself in the video. The idea of buying and selling art means one person has ownership, and can hide it from others. Street art is for everyone–anyone can go and see it! Ownership belongs to the collective, and it’s truly a selfless, anti-consumerism, movement. I also think accessibility is a key feature of street art. As opposed to expressionism, which is perhaps a bit more illusive, street art is more forward and digestible for larger audiences.
A key continuity I noticed throughout the street art pieces were the thematic messaging that comes with it. I Banksy’s work, for instance, his pieces don’t exactly come right out and say the thematic meaning behind it, but with time, we can interpret our own messaging. In his Parking piece, it took me a while, however, I feel the meaning behind it is to subvert authority. While street art is technically illegal, Banksy could be challenging the bureaucratic government by saying how artists should reclaim their autonomy. Parking is inherently bureaucratic in the sense of rules and regulations but street art completely goes against this, showcasing how street art’s messaging is usually in hopes to spark a feeling in ordinary citizens, just like all of the other artworks are trying to do.
A continuity I noticed in the street art is a constant play on the type of fonts the artwork is using. For example, whether it is Banksy, Haring, Or Basquiat, there is always at least two different types of fonts: wiggly, bleeding, fading, all of the above. The more the merrier. I think this ties into the importance of a message in street art, there is the artwork but the actual text part needs to be spruced up a little too.
A continuity I noticed within the Keith Haring, Crack is Wack (1986) and Jean Michel Basquiat, Melting Point of Ice (1984) is the obvious awareness they are trying to spread towards universal issues. In the first graffiti image, the message is clear and loud, “Crack is Wack”, suggesting awareness against drugs. The graffiti of Melting Point Ice is a little more complicated since it has too many illustrations at once yet the most obvious message there is the “eye of hours… protection and healing” and the words “non- toxic” which I think helps bring attention to society’s toxicity or something related to health issues or health care as the letters “Rx” and “Px” appear randomly in the art. Similarly, most graffiti arts bring attention to a societal issue and or show support to a need, in this case the issue of drugs and diseases seem to be one.
A key continuity in the street art of Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Banksy is their use of public space to deliver critical messages to reach a wider audience. Their use of space and form of art is accessible, easy to understand, and available to the media. For example, Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986) is a bright orange, cartoonish mural meant to criticize the public health industry, warning about the crack epidemic that’s devastating communities in NYC. Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice (1984), though more abstract and chaotic in style, critiques racial discrimination with layers of symbolism and rough text. All these artworks are big and visible, containing a revolutionary message that challenges authority, norms, and the power structure.
A key continuity that spans across all of the paintings here is their ability to be used as a medium for social and political critique. Haring’s piece is a direct response to the crack epidemic and the government’s actions regarding this epidemic, where it communicates the urgency and care needed for the public. Basquiat accomplishes a similar medium by critiquing systemic racism and the he commodification of Black identity through his chaotic layering of text and imagery. Decades later, Banksy continues this tradition: If Graffiti Changed Anything ironically critiques both the futility and rebellious power of street art, while Parking comments on love’s erosion in urban life. Despite the many changes in style and media, all three artists seem to embrace public space in order to most effectively effect change amongst their community.
A continuity between the street art featured above is that they share social commentary in a public, urban area, ensuring the artists’ ideas are heard by the public. This is especially seen in Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything, a street artwork stating “if graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.” It is very insightful when considering that graffiti is indeed illegal. Banksy is stating that the only reason graffiti is threatening is because of its capacity to elicit social change.
One key continuity was the use of words. Many art styles are completely devoid of words, choosing imagery to express a message. However with street art, there is often a clear political point to be made, and often passersby’s have a short movement to take it in before moving along. The necessity to quickly convey a message clearly, makes the use of words an obvious choice. Crack is wack is essentially a sign with illustrations around it. If Graffit Changed anything is literally some words paired with an image. These are less about deeper meanings and more about political messages emphasized with art.
The crack is wack artwork and the parking and if graffiti changed anything by Banksy, are both similar because they use words to highlight the problem. Banksy writes in bold red lettering that anybody can see while Keith writes in Bold block letters to emphasize his point.
A key continuity that I noticed in the images above is the use of similar colors. They are all done in either a bright red or orange. With all the artists whether it’s Banksy, Basquiat, or Haring, the artworks are all using very similar if not the same colors. I think this may be due to how striking the color red it. It is easier to catch the eyes of someone because of how vibrant it is which makes it easier to get the message across.
A key contrast I noticed between all three artists’ works is that they all have different styles. Haring’s Crack is Wack is cartoonish and bold, while Basquiat’s Melting Point of Ice is chaotic and layered. Banksy’s Parking and If Graffiti Changed Anything are simplistic but direct. Despite all being street artists, they all have their own unique style of expression. This uniqueness is a key characteristic of street art as a whole.
A continuity present in all of the street art is the use of English letters. Because there’s always an message the authors want to convey and therefore using words or sentences would be the quickest way for passing by people catch the meaning.
All of these artists use street art as a means of political commentary. For instance, Keith Haring created a warning against the crack epidemic while Banksy critiques the usage of street art as a vehicle of protest.
Street Art You Photographed
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Street Art You Photographed
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Attachment
We encountered the attached image during the London Street Art tour, and I immediately connected it to Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Everything (2011). Though the attached image – depicting a man being offered items representative of consumerism – is older than the Banksy graffiti (not exactly sure how much older), I think they share a purpose: to communicate a provocative message. The photo speaks to the predatory nature of consumerism, as the art by Banksy communicates a hypocrisy in the criticism of street art: it’s not hurting anyone, nor is it causing revolution-starting change, so why should it be attacked? If it was that powerful it’d be banned.
Attachment
This is a film photograph I took of a wall covered in graffiti in Camden Market. The street art contains strong messaging present in Banksy’s If Graffiti Changed Anything (2011) and Keith Haring’s Crack is Wack (1986). The graffiti is strongly advocating for the use of graffiti to spread political messaging claiming that it is an art form that is accessible to all people. It combines bright colors and cartoonish speech bubbles in a unique stylistic way that is reminiscent of 1980’s street art. This graffiti wall is clearly influenced by the likes of Basquiat with their collage of images and chaotic styles. Combining Keith Haring’s bright color, Banksy’s political messaging, and Basquiat’s chaotic imagery, the graffiti wall is a modern representation of the origins of graffiti.
Street Art You Photographed
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Attachment
This picture I took on the street art tour shows a person being offered tons of consumerist items. The hands hold seemingly innocent items like a water bottle and a Coke bottle, but also many of them hold guns, hinting that you should feel compelled to buy these mundane items daily or else you’re going against the law of consumerism. It draws upon the message that goods/services are thrust in our faces, made impossible to ignore, and encourage us to ritually buy something we don’t even need- like a bottle of Coke every day. Some of the hands in this plaque also hold a credit card and cash, pointing to the habit we have of always having cash on hand or a way to purchase something at the blink of an eye.
I really liked this artwork done by KAI, his work is very impactful despite the simplistic style. I definitely agree with the commentary on consumerism here, and similar to his other works, it critiques our capitalistic mindset. I wanted to add on to the fact that the person in the artwork seems very absent-minded, being fed consumerist values. The blank expression is another detail that adds to the layer of how normalized all of the items are to the common person, feeding into our easily influenced attention span.
Attachment
This spray-painted duck with the message, “be kind 2 your mind (& each other)” can be found along the riverwalk in Camden Market. Similar to the images above, this pushes the boundaries of what is considered “normal art” by occupying public spaces to convey their message(s); since all of these pieces allow the artist(s) to remain anonymous, this provides some leeway for the artists to display any bold messages. However, they convey these messages by also implementing a softer subject — highlighting the juxtaposition between a light subject image and a deeper statement.
Attachment
This is one of my favorite street art I took on the street art tour and it shows a dinosaur eating either a quid or a pence. If I remember correctly, this had to do something about the “quid crunch” or the “pence crunch” which had to do something about the crash of the value of the pence/quid at some point. It draws the message in a comedic way about how the economy tends to be not so perfect most of the time and there’s a “crunch” in the value of money.
Attachment
This was a photo of street art called “The Kiss” by WRDSMTH in East London that I saw during the East London tour. It really stuck out to me, because like a lot of other street art, it is simple colors, which really captures your eye amidst the chaotic backdrop of all the other art and colors surrounding it. This use of just one color really helps to draw you into it, and realize that even in crazy, disorderly times, there will still always be love, something so hopeful and positive and about perseverance in times of struggle.
Attachment
This image of street art I found is around a ten-minute walk away from the Camden Markets, and it both violates and reaffirms the street art tradition. First, it violates it because this art is extremely out of the way, not in a typical public space that one might expect. This was in a side alleyway that I happened to walk through while taking a shortcut, and most people would go by the busy area without ever seeing this. However, it also reaffirms the tradition because it does have a clear message, which is to warn about the dangers about global warming/human influence (what I infer from the red, orange, and yellow tones) on the globe.
Attachment
This is a photo of the street art I took in Camden. It portrays the Jazz icon Amy Winehouse who also has a statue of herself not far away. I recognize some similarities between this work and other street arts such as the inclusion of letters and words. I noticed that many street art would combine two styles of art. In this specific piece, I see shadows of pop art, realism, and surrealism. It is contradicting to say that realism and surrealism can exist in one piece, but the detailed description of the facial features combined with the surreal stripes on the arms and face make it hard to not say so. Therefore, I find this piece extremely interesting. (Amy Winehouse is also one of my favorite artists!)
Saunders’ Narratorial Voice
⤹Click the reply button just below.
“Thought: Why sad? Don’t be sad. If sad, will make everyone sad.”
Through this quote, I find the voice of Saunders’ narrator to be self-regulating, in a sense, because of how he presents his emotions. He seems to have an awareness about his actions affecting the people around him. Moreover, he’s never confusing about what he means and how he wants to present himself, always wanting to give a positive atmosphere to the people around them.
Yes, I agree with you. The author always keep an eye on his behaviors. He is always reflecting his behaviors and analyzing his situations. “Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now. Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” The author constantly reminds himself his responsibility as a father, and he always trys to give his children the best they can offer.
Yes I agree. As I was reading it almost reminded me of a diary style of sorts, how one would write simple thoughts down and kind of rationalize and reflect. I think the self regulating aspect you mentioned is a good way of putting it, he is thinking not simply emotionally, but rather about his emotions and the context surrounding him and the resultant behavior. Though the formatting seems a bit odd, it is very direct and to the point which I think is a unique and good method of narration once you adjust.
Throughout the story, I had a lot of trouble comprehending what I was reading since it was written as if the narrator were speaking in bullet points instead of sentences. For example: “Oops. Missed a day. Things hectic. Will summarize yesterday.” When reading out loud, it imitates the way we send each other text messages—short, to the point, and without much flavor. Maybe this style of writing could be hinting at how our generation is moving toward monotony and life without feelings.
I agree with your point, this style of writing is very uncommon and it is not seen in many journals. I especially agree with your point of it seems similar to how our generation texts now, maybe hes giving us a preview of how he thinks what the future generations will text, maybe even speak, which sounds terrifying. It also seems like the narrator is giving advice for future generations. It’s also strange because people typically write down notes or try to advise future generations when they’re older or near death. Yet, the narrator is only 40 years old and shows no signs of being sick or dying.
I thought the same thing while reading this, the author does write similar to the way we text our friends. I saw another example of this when the author writes “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work.” I also want to add on to your point by saying that this text-like writing is also very immature. This also shows the narrator’s personality similar to a child and full of emotion, just as how she hates to work. However, in the next portion, she does admit that it is a privilege age to work. As a reader, it is entertaining to read because it feels like we are receiving the narrator’s raw thoughts even though they seem contradicting. It shows how the narrator is a bit weird in that sense, making it all the more engaging.
This is a really interesting observation that I noticed as well. His style of writing is so short and simple and while it does draw similar too our style of texting now, I was reminded of a quote by George Orwell that I think could also be the culprit. The quote runs over what he believes the rules for writing should be, “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous” (Orwell). The writing style, while maybe not inspired by, definitely follows these rule laid out in which the most simplest form if writing cane be the best according to George Orwell. I found it interesting to see these rules followed to almost a tee here.
When describing the happy period after he won the scratcher money, the narrator explains why he buys good clothes for his wife and children before he buys them for himself. His thought process for why he wants his wife to continue to have good clothes is as follows: Correction: Pam not raised wealthy. Pam’s father = farmer in small town. Had biggest farm on edge of small town. So, relative to girls on smaller farms, Pam = rich girl. If same farm near bigger town, farm only average, but no: town so small, modest farm = estate” (Saunders, pg. 12). I think the abbreviations and equal signs are normal when writing a journal entry only you are going to see, however his perception of his wife, his purchases and the happiness of his children have been transactional and purely logical like the aforementioned passage. He treats the amount of things he is going to buy, the prices of those items, the amount of credit card debt, and the people in his life like a laundry list, getting lost in consumption.
I agree with your take on the transactional mindset you’ve come to find throughout the piece. The way he explains his purchases, especially the clothes for his wife and kids, feels more like he’s running calculations than making emotional decisions. The use of shorthand and equal signs makes the journal entry feel logical and stripped of feeling, almost like he’s trying to justify his choices to himself. Even though he clearly cares about his family, his focus on debt, pricing, and value shows how deeply he’s internalized this idea that love, or success is measured by what you can provide materially.
On page 4-5, when talking about rich people, the paragraph felt like a stream of consciousness more than anything, “Do not really like rich people, as they make us poor people feel dopey and inadequate. Not that we are poor. I would say we are middle. We are very, very lucky. I know that. But still, it is not right that rich people make us middle people feel dopey and inadequate.” I felt like this was a very real statement. It sounds like a genuine thought process someone would go through. He’s very contradictory and you can see as he goes back and forth on what point he wants to make before finally saying it. It keeps the reading more engaging and interesting.
I 100% agree with you that it sounds like a stream of consciousness, but I also feel like it sounds a lot like a scattered ramble, where he is trying to justify his thoughts. And he seems to be aware of this as immediately after that paragraph he writes “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work”. I feel that his is a perfect mix of a stream of consciousness and a drunken rant.
I agree with you with the narrator’s stream of consciousness style. His contradicting thoughts make his voice sound genuine and approachable, mirroring the inner conflict that many of us face.The surrealism comes into play when Saunders combines these common fears with weird aspects, like the Semplica Girls, which are accepted as normal in the story. This blend of reality and absurdity questions social standards, making the weird seem strangely natural to the characters.
“Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now. Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” This specific line captures the narrator’s urgency, concern, good-will and sincerity. It reflects his attempt to parent and install good values so that they are not remembered for something negative.
The narrator’s voice stands out because it’s super casual and kind of all over the place, like he’s just writing whatever pops into his head. When he says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself,” it sounds more like he’s trying to convince himself than the reader (Saunders 5). His thoughts are choppy and weird, showing how insecure he is. He keeps comparing himself to others and trying to feel better about it. Being stuck in his mind makes the story feel real, but also kind of creepy, since he keeps justifying messed up stuff. It feels like we’re trapped in his head the whole time.
Yes I totally agree that the casualness and rambling of the narrator’s voice make it feel like you’re right in his head. The way he constantly tries to justify his situations and compares himself to others shows his inability inner turmoil and confliction. It’s unsettling because his thoughts seem so normal on the surface, but the more we stay in his mind, the more disturbing it becomes.
One line where Saunder’s narrator is seen as unusual is when he said “Acrobats run all jerky, due to low memory + elephants do not hop = no fun.) “ (Saunders, 5). This shows how the narrator uses symbols in his sentences instead of writing in complete sentences. This is the first time of many where he incorporates symbols to his writing in order to take “shortcuts” instead of writing full sentences. It doesn’t impede the reader from understanding what he is saying, but it gives a sense that a child is writing this and not an adult.
This guy is wack. He talks like the Hulk and I don’t understand him but I can empathize with him. It feels like he is detached a bit from his writing, where he describes events as they are rather than how he experienced them. “Race out. Rack empty. Microline gone. Gate open. Take somewhat frantic run up block, to see if any sign of them. Is not.” It’s personal, yet it lacks that emotion. It’s especially sad to see since his story is very human, he’s just a dad trying to make his kids happy.
Saunders’ Narratorial Voice
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Saunders’ narrative voice does not sound like a 40-year-old man; in fact, it sounds like a teenage girl, both through the cadence, abbreviations, and grammatical simplifications he makes. This is peculiar in itself, but combined with the subject matter it grows even more strange. He talks about human issues and his values with a troubling attitude, specifically the Semplica Girls. For example, in this quote: “Eva = sensitive. This = good, Pam and I feel. This = sign of intelligence. But Eva seems to have somehow gotten idea that sensitivity = effective way to get attention, i.e., has developed tendency to set herself apart from others, possibly as way of distinguishing self, i.e., casting self as better” (Saunders, 13). Part of this was regarding Eva’s attitude toward the Semplica Girls. He seems brainwashed and his priorities are not straight, he doesn’t consider that Eva might not be “wanting attention” per se, the SG girl situation might just be morally wrong. He is so set in his societal views that he would rather think badly about his daughter than think badly about society/the SG girls. Combined with his very casual and below-his-age writing style, it makes the story seem super dystopian and troubling. Additionally, it shows that as you get older you are expected to conform to society’s morals, and it’s no longer “endearing” to have individualistic/moral stances on things.
I feel like Saunders sounds robotic more than he does teenage. When he describes his outing with Eva at the Chillhouse, he describes his actions very methodically like he was issuing a backlog of commands, “Suddenly occurred to me, w/ little gust of relief: Eva resisting in part because she does not understand basic science of thing. Asked Eva if she even knew what Semplica Pathway was. Did not. Drew human head on napkin, explained: Lawrence Semplica = doctor + smart cookie” (Saunders 14). He uses command words and updates when something new enters his thoughts and actions. In the quote alone he uses, “Suddenly occurred to me”, to describe updating new information, “Asked:”, “Drew”, “explained:” to describe his actions. I feel like this short story is a commentary on the dehumanization of people in the modern world and is sort of a reflection on the more monotone and machine-like nature of Human kind as we progress into the future, yet there is still some sort of sort of empathy and humanity in his actions. It could just be that Saunders only writes this way in his diary instead of acting like the way he acts in real life, but I’m inclined to believe that the society is brainwashed just like how you describe he is brainwashed by society.
I agree and would like to add that the author uses the narration of Saunders’ thoughts to emphasize the irrationality of his morals, but also create a symmetry between him and people in modern-day society. In the beginning, the narrator seems to be like any other middle-class person. In the text, he says, “I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself. And when we finally do get our own bridge, trout, tree house, SGs, etc., at least will know we really earned them.” He seems relatable as he wants to be able to provide a life for his kids that they are proud of. The introduction of SGs is innocent; just another delicacy that would be nice to have. Then, as we realize the nature of these SGs and they go missing, the narrator asks the police, ” Why would they do that? They chose to be here. Why would they go off with some total-.” Unable to see the dehumanizing nature of using struggling people as decor, he believed that they were given a choice and that they were being given a better life. His thought process shocks the reader as he seems to be living in a dystopia, blind to the ethical issues of SGs. This shift of relatability with the narrator is purposeful. Pointing out that in today’s world, we turn a blind eye to injustices around the world and even comply because “it’s not our issue”. Using exaggeration, the author points out that we choose to exploit people and become the cause of their suffering, which is acceptable in the name of profit or convenience.
I noticed the same thing. The narrative voice sounds peculiar, as it often lacks a subject or complete sentence structure. For example, he states, “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (Saunders 4). I interpreted this as the narrator lacking human morals, which is why he sounds robotic rather than like a young girl. His thought process in this quote feels programmed, very robotic and methodical, which ties into the later occurrence of him buying Semplica Girls. Through his speech and later actions, we see the deterioration of his individualistic human morals as he gives in to the desire for social status.
I agree his language and perspective towards his daughter and the topic of semplica girls is very dystopian and distasteful. For example he says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself. And when we “finally do get our own bridge, trout, treehouse, SGs, etc., at least will know we really earned them, unlike, say, the Torrinis, who, I feel, must have family money” (Saunders 5). His robotic language and desire towards these materialist items are very dystopian, and show the selfish nature of consumerism. His desire for SGs also reveals how detached he is from human morals and portrays him as a soulless consumer.
I think this is a great point and to add on to the strange language, I believe that it was written like that for a reason. The language isn’t just like a teenage girls but more specifically one who is chronically online. In today’s society the ones who do the most outlandish and immoral things are usually influencers. I believe this was very intentional from the authors end, to show the extent of where status and greed can take you. They are really dangerous motivators similar to what we see in this story. Something so immoral like SG’s are a representation of wealth because of their price and having one gives you something to brag about. Even in today’s society we see so many evil and unjust things happening because of greed and status.
The narrators voice stands out because of how casual it is to the point of being broken; this text is full of half-sentences and side comments that read as though he’s writing at the same time he’s thinking. He says, “Am not tired of work. It is a privilege to work. I do not hate the rich. I aspire to be rich myself,” which sounds like he’s arguing mid-entry to convince himself more than the reader (Saunders 5). It’s a choppy way of thought processing–undoubtedly odd as well–and is telling of his insecurities as he’s obsessively comparing his looks to others, while reassuring himself simultaneously. Being “in his head” makes the story much more realistic, but it adds a layer of unsettlement as he’s justifying very obviously messed up things. By only narrating from the confines of his psyche, thoughts in which readers are bound to, the story bears an imprisoning tone.
I also noticed this kind of language throughout Saunders’ story, and I actually appreciated it. I think the diary wouldn’t have felt as authentic if it had used perfectly polished or grammatically correct language. The choppy, casual tone makes it feel like a real person is writing in the moment. As a result I feel like this creates a more realistic approach to the story’s dystopian setting, making it seem like this could truly happen in today’s world
What I find to be interesting about this approach to journaling is that it attempts to capture the essence of thought-processing, but I’m not quite sure if this is how people actually think. I don’t think people think in full sentences or even narrate their thoughts at all. Thoughts are free flowing and amorphous. To me, the style of writing that the narrator presents displays uncertainty and a lack of sophistication. The narrator is not quite sure what he wants in life or how to please his children.
It’s also interesting to point out in the line you chose that the narrator did not write “I am not tired of work” but instead wrote “Am not tired of work,” and then two sentences later he goes back to “I aspire to be rich myself.” Why did he not write “Aspire to be rich myself?” This goes back to an inconsistency in his dialogue and perhaps represents that this writing was meant to be kept to himself. This way, he can write however he likes and express what he wants without worrying about grammatical correctness since he knows what he means.
The quote I think best explains what makes the narrator unusual is “Will future people be aware of concept of ‘demons’? Will they find our belief in ‘demons’ quaint? Will ‘windows’ even exist?”. I think he sounds very unserious yet serious at the same time. He reminds me if someone possibly writing in a diary where they easily get off track as he starts with demons and ends with windows. I think this spontaneous side of him makes him interesting as we don’t know what he might mention next.
I agree with you, the character seems to just dump every thought onto the page as he’s writing this. I think it is his journal/diary so the writing style does seem reasonable. I also think he does speak in a very peculiar way since it isn’t normally seem for a guy to speak this way. But it makes more sense since this would’ve been more private. I find it intriguing how he also tends to shorten everything that he wants to say with equal signs and colons. He seems to be writing very comfortably. This tone isn’t what you would expect from a guy that is grown and even possibly have kids. But throughout the reading your able to see that he actually has a very kind heart despite being a little weird.
“Do not need to even write down, as I will never forget this awesome day!” This quote captures the unusual way the narrator writes. He sounds like an excited kid in this quote, and the way he writes throughout is filled with child wonder. In addition, the grammar in this quote isn’t accurate; it should be “as I will”, but it is “as will”, and this incorrect grammar is consistent throughout. Overall, the way he writes is as if he is a child who is writing in their diary, not grammatically accurate, and naive.
I completely agree, however I would take it a step further. The following line gives off the characteristic that the narrator is a child or a primate, “Note to future generations: Happiness possible. And happy so much better than opposite, i.e., sad. Hopefully you know! I knew, but forgot. Got used to being slightly sad! Slightly sad, due to stress, due to worry vis-à-vis limitations. But now, wow, no: happy!” (Saunders 9). The narrator is very short-sighted in their writing. Even though the narrator just won $10,000, it won’t change their lives, especially because they spent that on such vain decorations. This makes the narrator unusual because the narrator is supposed to be a man in his 40’s, but acts as though he were a child because he’s able to buy a nice yard that he gambled for. The situation is very materialistic and shows the controlling power of consumerism on people trying to keep up with their neighbors.
The narrator in “The Semplica Girl Diaries” talks like a child, using bad grammar and shortening sentences. A quote I chose to illustrate this is, “Soon they will be grown and how sad, if only memory of you is testy, stressed guy in bad car.” This line is among many where the narrator imitates the cadence of a child, but it stood out to me particularly because it talks about the more serious topic of putting on your best face for your children.
This narrator is unlike any I have ever seen, and I admire it. He speaks as one may think of words or trying to remember a day. This can be shown here, “Asked Eva if she even knew what Semplica Pathway was. Did not. Drew human head on napkin, explained: Lawrence Semplica = doctor + smart cookie” (Saunders 14). In this, it seems like he is missing many parts of the sentence that gives it the structure, but at the same time he doesn’t need to have all the unnecessary words. This is a very original kind of writing that is concise and gets straight to the point. Also, it adds to the feeling of him writing out his thoughts from this example where he quickly describes that she “did not” know, and how he explained it to her which seem like weird details, but he does it in a way where it makes sense he’s just thinking back on his day and this is one bit he remembers. Its a very unique style that is very interesting to read.
Although the main character writing this diary is a grown adult male who is who I assume to be the father of the children. And yet there is no sense of maturity in the writing. The narrator is writing as if he is a young teen age girl writing about every thing about their day and making incoherent sentences. “Pam’s father = farmer in small town.” This is a prime example how everything is simplified. In normal writing, these equal to signs or short uses of words would not apply. Although it is a journal entry, this is not expected of the main character. They are also the type of person to just brain dump and note that they forgot a day. These are all things that are common but unexpected from a grown man in his own journaling world. But despite his character in writing and self description, he seems to care about the girls a lot and feels sad if their financial status hinders what they want.
Saunders’ Narratorial Voice
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The narrator often talks directly to “future generations”(Sept. 5, 14), which is unusual because most people don’t write journals that way. It makes him seem like he’s trying to explain or justify his choices to someone who will judge him later. Also, it sounds like he is trying to give advice to the future generation. It is also unusual because people usually take notes or try to give advice to future generations when they are old or about to die. However, the narrator was only 40 years old and he had no sign of sick or dying.
I agree! I think it’s interesting how they talk to “future generations” but also almost talks to themselves, almost having two audiences. In the part where they tell the story about the car’s bumper and the kids, they show lament and hope at the same time but they say “Have to do better! Be kinder. Start now.” (September 5). In this sentences, I feel like they’re giving an advice to future generations that they would want to hear themselves. I think that through the experiences they have gone through despite not being of older age, has lead them to enough contemplation of life to give advice to the future generations.
I also noticed this peculiarity in the narration of the story, and a line I think does a good job illustrating it is when the narrator states, “Note to future generations: In our time are such things as credit cards. Company loans money, you pay back at high interest rate. Is nice for when you do not actually have money to do thing you want to do (for example, buy extravagant cheetah).” This line defines a fundamental aspect of modern life that the majority of people today would know. The narrator is acting as if the credit card is a no longer used artifact that requires an explanation to someone from a completely different era. This is a unique quirk of the narrator that is seen throughout the piece.
Saunder writes with a lot of emotional detachment, likely due to the fragmentation of his phrases and notes. What makes his voice particularly unusual is the lack of a transition and direct thought to paper. It’s very rushed and straightforward, like he writes on September 6th, “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (Saunders). His thoughts seem repressed by social anxiety or influenced by an emotionally stunted mind, focusing more on observation. While the voice seems childish or naive, there exists a self-awareness that desires improvement, which defines his experience with unethical systems.
I agree, I think that his plan to write in his journal for 20 minutes each night is reflective of his desire to improve, or work on, himself, and him addressing the future could be way for him to look back at his thoughts as “proof of improvement” to himself. I also thought the way he writes is very unusual, and it feels it defeats the purpose of his 20 minutes a day, because it makes it feel like he is just doing it out of obligation and writing down as quick as possible without a thought. He seems not totally tied town to an opinion and jumps from one thing to another, like when he’s worried about bills one moment, and then spending unnecessary money the next.
I actually read it slightly different. I found that he was very open about his feelings, but written in the short, journal style make them come across as somewhat erratic. I would certainly agree with the social anxiety part. The concern over the Cheetah and line of: “Someday, I’m sure, dreams will come true. But when? Why not now? Why not?” There is clearly expressed vulnerability and concern here. And then the following lines are ones of excited happiness. A complete swing which shows a range of emotions. This very curt way of speaking combined with a somewhat open character emotionally is certainly unusual, but still makes sense given the format.
In the September 5th diary entry, the narrator starts off with “Oops. Missed a day. Things hectic. Will summarize yesterday.” The fragmented way she narrates her life came off to me as her being true to herself. In this entry, she’s quick and to the point, unlike other diaries where narrators embellish on the mundane events of their lives; this narrator jots down her life in a list-like way. I like the voice of the narrator in this story because it feels very human and is comforting to read. The quick snippets of daily life are relatable and nostalgic, providing the reader with an easy read but whimsical enough to keep the reader attached to the story.
Yes, I completely agree with you, I do feel like the narrator jotting down things, to remember later in the future. However, I also think it was more of the narrator texting back to us. In the September 6th diary entry it says, “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work. Good night.” In a way it seems like we are having a conversation and it is letting us see the narrator’s thoughts of how they feel. For the narrator expressing themselves like that, it feels relatable in a way because it shows that the narrator is genuinely expressing his thoughts for the future generations.
I noticed that Saunders often writes using dialogue when referring his conversations with others. Here’s an example:
“Pam: It would be nice to do something special for Lilly’s birthday. Me: Me, too, exactly, yes! Pam: She could use something. She has really been down. Me: You know what? Let’s do it” (Saunders).
I thought that this was interesting because you don’t typically see this a lot in journals. I view journals to be a lot more conversational in the sense where you can just recite what someone said without having to turn it into dialogue. This quality makes the piece more story-like.
I noticed that as well! It is sort of different to see a lot of dialogue between two people written like that in journals. Although I do kind of like the fact that he wrote it this way. Due to it being unusual and different I feel like it catches the readers attention more and makes them more engaged.
I agree, this aspect of his writing was interesting to me. The way Saunders uses dialogue in the journal entries makes it feel more like a short story than a typical diary. I think it makes the conversations more clear. But ultimately, I think Saunders does this so he can tell his version of the events.
Something unusual to me that I noticed in Saunders “The Semplica Diaries” is the use of side notes and parenthesis. I do realize that these are journal entries, but I have not really seen so many after thoughts and use of parenthesis written like that. One example from the text that stood out to me was “Thirty acres, six garages (they call them “outbuildings”): one for Ferraris (three), one for Porsches (two, plus one he is rebuilding) one for historical merry-go-round they are restoring as family (!)” (Saunders 2). It is almost like every sentence has an after thought. This is not a bad thing because it allows the readers to read every thought that was going on.
I agree with you. Typically when reading people would expect to read an complete narrative, sentence that aren’t being interpreted or required extra explanation on the side for them to understand the line. Instead in “The Semplica Diaries” this use of side notes kind disrupted the sense of organization of writing that most writing had.
Is “The Semplica Girl Diaries” Surrealist?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
es, it should be considered Surrealist. The story takes a normal suburban setting and inserts the bizarre image of women from poor countries literally hanging in the yard as status symbols. That strange, dreamlike twist feels like classic Surrealism because it reveals the ugliness of consumerism by making the metaphor disturbingly real.
I agree, the story is very distopian and surrealist, “the semplica dolls” being essentially kidnapped from third world countries and being put on display on front lawns while illogical does expose the greater issue of first world countries exploiting people from third world countries. It also reflects on our current headspace as a society, just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it is morally right oe ethical.
Yes Saunders story should be considered Surrealist. The image of women “smiling, swaying in slight breeze” while suspended by microcline in a suburban yard is farfetched, yet it’s treated like a normal sign of success. That surreal logic of turning human beings into semplica girls to beautify a lawn is exactly what makes this story hit deeply. It’s dreamlike and unsettling but not random. When the narrator says they could have a nice long run with us as if their lives are luxurious. The surrealism isn’t in the floating women, its in the way no one sees anything wrong.
Yes, and the dehumanizing of humans into decorations as a way to raise economic and societal status is what helps with the surrealism of no one noticing anything wrong. All the people see is another way to conform when they are actively supporting the removal of the freedom and the right to live as oneself. In a way, we become a Semplica Girl as we are pulled into the narrator’s head, becoming complicit in viewing the narrator’s warped justifications and actions with no choice in stopping him.
I think The Semplica Girl Diaries should be considered Surrealist. It presents a distorted version of reality in order to expose societal truths which is the foundation of Surrealism. Through the commodification of human lives The Semplica Girl Diaries is strange and kind of funny. By literally hanging women in yards as status symbols Saunders accomplishes the goal of unsettling the familiar.
I like the connection you made of the distorted reality of the diaries to Surrealisms point to exposing the societal truths. I agree the story is quite unsettling because it is making something horrific feel normal. Saunders is blending the absurdity and horror in a way that is forcing the readers to question are we accepting this as a normal in the world.
Is “The Semplica Girl Diaries” Surrealist?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think that yes, Semplica Girls can be classified as a surrealist piece because it blends a normal lifestyle with a very outlandish/disturbing storyline of the SG’s. The narrator describes the SG’s installation similar to an appliance like a TV being set up as he writes “SGs up now, approx. three feet off the ground, smiling, swaying in a slight breeze. Order, left to right: Tami (Laos), Gwen (Moldova), Lisa (Somalia), Betty (Philippines). Effect amazing” (Saunders 10). The image of the three women being hung as lawn decor, while being treated as an object reflects the absurdness which is normalized in the story’s society. Saunders takes the normalization a step forward when he takes his daughter Eva on a drive through a wealthy neighborhood “Drove through Eastridge, Lemon Hills. Pointed out houses w/ SGs. Had Eva keep count. In the end, of approx. “fifty houses, thirty-nine had [SG’s]” (Saunders 13). Their casual acceptance of such a bizarre sight highlights the story’s absurdity. Similar to surrealist artwork, Saunders creates a very odd fantasy to allude to a larger theme of consumerism and moral blindness.
Frankie you brilliant queen! I really like how you tied the surrealism to normalization of something disturbing–a very difficult parallel to draw. I’d add that this normalization not only reflects the characters’ world but critiques our own, where we often see luxuries and convenience come at the cost of unethical processes (e.g. the high fashion fur scandals if we’re getting relative). By framing the SGs as everyday decor, Saunders adds another layer of unsettlement to the story’s surrealist nature the way its only a step out from reality.
I agree that this is a surrealist piece, blending everyday modern activities– like when our narrator scraped a squirrel/mouse off the driveway– with an unconventional twist. I would add that the writing style itself begins to deteriorate the longer our narrator writes in his diary, contributing to the sense of absurdness and disconnection from our current world, jarring the reader from reality. The causal language reads like a diary or a to-do note, and allows the reader to confront the narrator’s internal thoughts. These thoughts are jumbled and imprecise, like the surrealist artwork that you have mentioned.
I think that this story should be classed as Surrealist. One way is the characters. Eva’s character acts as the unconscious voice in this society. When the family get’s SG’s he family is really happy as it shows their elevated status. Even though the SG’s are a horrible thing, the family still finds beauty and aestheticism in it because it symbolizes an elevated status, and it’s what everyone in the town believes as rational. However, Eva disagrees, she is the voice that expresses what everyone is thinking unconsciously, but not saying consciously. By saying, “Eva: So, just because everyone is doing it, that makes it right” when describing the SG’s, Eva becomes the vessel that brings these unconscious thoughts to everyone’s conscious minds (Saunders 13). This connects to the Surrealists movement because it’s all about bringing unconscious thoughts to the conscious mind, and about disrupting common logic and revealing social contradictions. Moreover, the very aspect of the SG’s connects to the surrealist movement. Surrealist artworks disrupt logic and realism to reveal unconscious desires or social contradictions. In the story the narrator describes the SG’s experience as “very gentle, does not hurt, SGs asleep during the whole deal” (Saunders, 14). The way the narrator calmly describes this horrific practice, with no sense of its horror, adds to the surreal effect because it causes there to be a disruption in logic.
I believe that The Semplica Girl Diaries can be considered Surrealist, primarily because Surrealism often portrays dreamlike/illogical scenes or ideas. The diary entries are written very robotically, in a detached voice that mirrors a surrealist’s illogical world, where exploitation and dehumanization are normalized. (sound familiar?) However, this robotic tone is unsettlingly realistic, especially as human beings become more reduced to cogs in a machine. In this way, the narrative becomes a paradox: the robotic voice, which initially may seem irrational, begins to make sense. An irrationality turned rational. This tension reflects the surrealist movement because it blurs the line between absurdity and reality.
Ava I totally agree that The Semplica Girl Diaries definitely can be considered to be surrealism and I feel that the dreamlike scenes are perfect evidence for this. I also like that you point out the robotic tone as it does a very good job of blurring the line between the bizarre and reality.
After, reading this short story I definitely think that this could fall under the surrealist genre. Throughout the story there were various different things that made me feel this way however some seemed to stick with me more than others. For instance, in this story women are used as lawn decorations which not only is bizarre but also disturbing. This blending of super bizarre things into everyday life is what reminds of the surrealist theme and art that we have learned about. Similar to the way we see it in surrealist art the author uses exaggerations of reality to expose and bring light to issues that we do actually have in the world. So, overall I believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this can fall under the surrealist category.
I definitely agree that this story should fall under the surrealist category! Like you mentioned, there is an odd blend of the ordinary and unusual. Even though the narrator constantly describes certain things as if they were unusual (as he assumes the future will not have them), he never goes out of his way to explain the semplica girls. The line between these odd aspects of their society and normalcy is blurred, creating a juxtaposition that we normally see in surrealism.
Is “The Semplica Girl Diaries” Surrealist?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think the semplica girl diaries is utilizing the same technique surrealists used to conjure up what they wanted to draw from the subconscious. This is like blackout drawing/automatic drawing, just following the motions and putting it on the canvas/page, but writing version. The subconscious elements in Saunder come in moments when she writes stuff like “Could not think of response. Note to self: Think of response, send on
card, thus striking up friendship with Emmett?” (pg 4)
To further add on, another moment where they have a blackout moment is at the end of the paragraph, “Am writing this still drunk and it is getting late and tomorrow is Monday, which means work. Work, work, work. Stupid work. Am so tired of work. Good night.” (page 5). I like the repetition of them saying work as it shows the financial burden from the Semplica Girls and it shows the narrator is tired of the endless cycle of work and spending heavy amounts of money that their mind can’t hold it together anymore plus the drinking shows the emotional and financial cost of this pursuit showing the despair they are in.
Yeah I agree that The Semplica Girl Diaries taps into Surrealist techniques, especially when it comes to automatic writing. The narrator’s fragmented diary entries, like you were talking about feel like unfiltered thought, where it’s almost their stream of consciousness, which I believe mirrors the Surrealists effort to bypass rational control. Although, unlike traditional Surrealism, Saunders grounds the bizarre elements in a painfully realistic world of social climbing and economic anxiety. It’s this mix, where mundane ambition is fused with casual horror, that gives the story its surreal power, not just because of its subconscious flow, but also through making the unreal feel disturbingly normal.
I agree! To further this discussion, I feel like the Semplicas girls themselves are a form of surrealism—a grotesque showcase of girls strung up like decorations on lawns, threaded through their heads, to show dehumanization and consumerism. This is entirely normalized in the story, even though in our reality it would be completely absurd. They are described without disgust, but with utter normality and honestly, a positive tone. By making this seem normal, Saunders mimics the overall logic of surrealism like you suggest, subconscious elements shining through the text, conjuring up these insane thoughts on whims and emotion.
You make a great point about Saunders’ subconscious elements. His fragmented, quick writing style and unconventional punctuation make the scenes described appear as a memory, or like a half-forgotten dream that you’re trying to recall, giving it a surrealist quality. The premise also treats absurd scenes and ideas as normal, which is common in surrealist works, especially as commentary on American consumerism.
I think it should be classified as surrealist due to its blending of real life and more absurd means that critique social norms. The women being strung up as decorative lawn ornaments is surreal, but it echoes Surrealism’s goal of exposing hidden realities and critiquing society. There is also the obsession with status, and the deadpanned tone and matter-of-fact diary entries intensify the weird horror surrounding the story, aligning with surrealist emotional contradictions.
I also agree that the Semplica Girl Diaries blends both real life and a distorted reality to challenge social norms — just like you mentioned. Furthermore, the women also being strung up in the yard paints them as being symbols of promise; they appear as if they pose prosperity. Nonetheless, these peculiar moments in The Semplica Girl Diaries expose societal contradictions — as reflected in the Surrealist movement.
At first I thought no, until the SG girls were introduced. Originally I thought they were simply porcelain lawn ornaments of different girls from around the world. Originally they’re introduced as “Tami (Laos), Gwen (Moldova), Lisa (Somalia), Betty (Philippines)” (Saunders). A bit odd, but not jarring. The personal statements reveal sorrowing pasts of figures with the same names as the SG girls–confusing, but shrugged off. The reveal that the SGs are real girls with microlines in their brain who have sold themselves is nothing short of morbid, and makes the reader requestion everything they’re read so far. In other words, it makes them question the short story’s reality. What is going on? Is this real or metaphor? What does it mean? Such questions also arise when I look or read surrealist arts. I think the similar lines of question and feeling as if the world has been upturned is what makes “The Semplica Girl Diaries” surrealist.
Saunders’ style makes me feel like an automatic writing. The diary format lets subconscious thoughts slip out, such as when he writes, “might die” after stressing about keeping up with the Joneses (pg2). It’s irrational but also realistic in a way, therefore it gives a sense of Surrealism.
Moments of Surprise
⤹Click the reply button just below.
1. In the poem “Musee des Beaux Arts,” by W.H. Auden, I found it really unexpected how they compared suffering to something that is as simple and average as “…eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;” I think it kind of teaches the audience to realize that suffering was and is something that can seem normal. I think when we look back at the past it is easy to say how could anyone allow such tragedies to take place and inhumane behaviors. However, we as a society still have suffering in the world and we are no where near perfect. Especially with media companies often being owned or under the influence of only a few powerful people, it can be easy to limit what people really see. We don’t know the full picture and I do think a lot of things that are the cause of people’s suffering have become normalized like fast fashion or prison work programs. So maybe this author is trying to teach the readers to be more aware of what’s going on.
I really loved reading the last two lines of Horace Smith’s
Ozymandias:
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
I found it really surprising how the poem starts off by speaking to the fascination and wonder of the sight of the Egyptian bust of Ramesses II, with lines such as, “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows” however, turns at the end, to demonstrate that such great power comes with consequences, and explain the aftermath of Egyptian kingdom.
I also found those lines incredibly moving, and thought it was interesting how the juxtapose the past power of the statue. I also think that Horace Smith did a fantastic job of painting the picture of an Egyptian desert.
1. In the Poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” by W.H.Auden, a moment of surprise was this quote “For the miraculous birth, there always must be Children who did not specially want it to happen…They never forgot…That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course.” This was surprising and very unexpected. This is mainly because birth and children are usually seen as innocent and as a blessing who are not aware of suffering, however the author here taught the audience something new and emphasized that even children are aware of the worlds sufferings. I was impressed with the way he was able to convey this and even mention “martyrdom” because of the deadliness of the events he was describing. He is making the point to show us even the most innocent were wounded.
I agree this also surprised me, especially the part where it says “ Children who did not specially want it to happen” which on the first read i was a little confused because I interpreted it as like the other children already there were unhappy of the extra siblings they were getting, but then you mentioned child’s innocence and that made more sense, and was even more surprising because like you said kids are usually seen as something good.
What stands out to me the most in W.H. Auden’s Musee des Beaux Arts is how casually the past can overlook suffering. In his description of the Brueghel’s painting, Icarus falls from the sky which is tragic and extraordinary but everyone around him continues as if nothing happened. The ship “sailed calmly on” and the ploughman “may have heard the splash”, but neither actually stops to acknowledge it. The moment kind of shows history as moments that most people ignored. In comparison, in Ozymandias, it shows hoe power can fade over time, leaving behind ruins that no longer command attention. Together they show that history is remembered accurately but also can just be what people chose not to see.
This is a great point about the overlooked suffering in Beaux Arts! I want to add that the poems show the fragility of human legacy. While Icarus falls to his death dramatically, to others “it was not an important failure; the sun shone”. Like you mentioned, Ozymandias is similar. The once-mighty king’s statue lies broken and buried in sand, his bold inscription now an ironic joke. What stands out to me in particular is that the two poets suggest that history is more than what just physically survives, but more so collective memory. Even the most ambitious attempts at immortality are at the mercy of human forgetfulness and nature’s decay.
In the poem “Musee des Beax Arts” by W.H Audent, I find it surprising how the poem ends. In the beginning, the object starts off mentioning death, and how “its human position” was understood; indicating that death and suffering naturally had a place in human life. The surprising part was that even after saying death was normal just like “eating or opening a window”, the object continues to say “ everything turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may / Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, / But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone” This was surprising because in the beginning death and suffering was being portrayed as an idea that couldn’t be ignored because it was to happen anyways, but in the end that was contradicted, as the object said they turn away from disaster.
I found Musee des Beaux by W.H. Auden to be interesting. The distinct shift was surprising and unexpected. He went from discussing normal and relatively positive depictions of life and behavior to more negative ad direct metaphors of suffering. His use of the paintings to formulate his metaphors add a twisted layer in my opinion. Even as he gets more specific with his description of suffering, he maintains an almost bored or indifferent tone, as if it truly is just an expected and unfortunate part of life, something he is merely observing rather than grieving or reacting to. it leaves the reader with the impression, or begging the question, how normal is suffering? Making us wonder where it is that we do not know or can’t see, or maybe just don’t care to notice.
“And was once a royal decor, had now become the spoils of war.”
In the spoken-word piece by George the Poet, I loved how he brought the story of the plaque to life, starting from the history of the main figure (Oba) of the plaque to the consequences of his actions produced onto his people. Throughout the piece, George presents a historical story that evidently leads to destruction, similarly to what happened to the actual physical object of the Benin bronze plaque. This allows the audience to understand that no matter the victory, there is always a cost – a cost that might not be worth the war – and what may seem to have beauty can really have its’ own scars and destructive properties.
In Horace Smith’s Ozymandias, I found it really surprising how fast these two lines changed in tone and attitude.
“The King of Kings; this mighty City shows The wonders of my hand.”-
The City’s gone,-
The first part shows an attitude of confidence and assurance but then the next line quickly changes into a dismantling attitude, of how bold Ozymandias was about to his own city but then after time, after periods, success eventually crumbles. Even in the most successful empires, like in this example, Babylon, will never last, however famous artifacts and remnants will always be remembered.
In W.H. Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts,” I found it intriguing the way that Auden describes suffering as something mundane, average. He uses the “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus” by Brueghel to demonstrate that while Icarus is flying too close to the sun and crashing into a small splash, the rest of the painting seems to resume it’s course, the ship sailing away, the ploughman working in the field not alarmed at all or curious about what had possibly happened. He demonstrates that suffering can be invisible, that while someone is experiencing a tragedy, someone else could pass by and not even know what someone else is going through, and that the world doesn’t pause for someone’s pain or tragedy. I think he brings light to how sometimes individuals can be so self-centered that they don’t pay attention to what happens aside from their problems, how easy it is to overlook someone’s quiet suffering.
In the poems about Ozymandias by Percy Shelley and Horace Smith, I was surprised not by the descriptions of how lonely the statue of Ramses was, but rather how it is described by both poets as something grand that was abandoned. While it is naturally alone because it was found in the desert, both poets describe it as kingly and something that was once the pinnacle of power. What was interesting to me is that instead of focusing either on it’s power, it’s discovery, or it’s loneliness, both poets showcased the three concepts in relation to each other; Shelley invokes the vastness of the Egyptian desert with his final line “The lone and level sands stretch far away”, painting the picture of a once powerful statue alone in miles and miles of desert. Horace Smith does something similar, but harkens to the might of the statue when he ends his poem with the lines “What powerful but unrecorded race/Once dwelt in that annihilated place”, with the adjective ‘annihilated’ truly highlighting how far the statue’s status has fallen. In my opinion, I think Horace Smith won the competition because his made me consider a fall from grace more vividly.
Poets and Museum Artworks:
In the poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley he writes, “ ‘Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’ / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay” (Lines 11-12). We see a bust of a powerful leader, that at the time seemed untouchable, with empowering words beneath him. The interesting or surprising thing is that although the bust is menacing in a way it’s now just a ruin, it shatters left to be forgotten. So instead of showing us the strength the statue would have shown in the past it shows us that even what we may think is untouchable and all powerful now will eventually fade away too. Something else will come along and then maybe our powerful “empire” will just be seen as an ancient artifact.
Moments of Surprise
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Shelley’s “Ozymandias,” the statue in the desert says “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” This is surprising to the poet because nothing was left to look at besides decaying materials, no kingdom or structures to see. This teaches the poet/readers that high powered figures can fall as quickly as they rise.
I found the juxtaposition to be interesting. A tinge of irony- a kingdom that once was so great reduced to nothing. This shows that no matter how timeless society seems, time will always erode what once was.
In George the Poets, “The Benin bronze,” a brief summary of the Benin Empires history is portrayed through a pensive-toned poem. What took me by surprise was how Benin Emperor, Oba, took a preemptive measure against Britains motives to colonize them by severing all ties. Oba acted to keep the peace within his land and the stable trade system he had built, striking me– a viewer–shocked. This defensive play leads me to question why Oba thought that severing ties with Britain would protect/preserve his economy, especially when it was known that British trade allowed access to European markets where Benin products were in demand. One would figure that the most reasonable way to avoid colonization (by a larger world power) would be to work out an agreement that allowed immunity, or independence of some sort, of Benin to Britain in exchange for continued trade of Benin’s goods into Britain. Benin’s products were highly valued and boosted British economy, so why sever ties with one of your biggest exporters and and incite a retaliation of mass slaying upon your people? Should Oba have expected a violent retribution by Britain since he had already predicted Benin’s impending colonization?
In “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” Kean says, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Stanza 5). This is an example of how the object responds to inquiry in an unexpected way. This is because in the poem the poet asks the object, the urn questions expecting straightforward answers. The urn however, does not explain the scenes on its surface or provide a clear historical narrative. Instead it gives a deeper message, that art, through silence, imagination, and beauty can figuratively express the truth, just not in a literal or direct way. This teaches the audience and poet a lesson as well, saying that art doesn’t have to explain each thing so directly to hold truth, it can also hold and express the truth through its beauty and mere presence.
In John Keats’, ”Ode on a Grecian Urn,” the last line is the Urn explaining that ”Beauty is truth, truth is Beauty[…],” which teaches the audience a lesson on how stories, truth, can be admired through objects, beauty. Throughout the poem, Keats conveys experiences that were on the Urn and mentions how the Urn is always silent. This characterization leads to the Urn responding with a statement from before; however, that statement not only means that experiences can be admired through objects, but also that these objects are able to exist for years after people pass. This shows that objects carry stories of peoples’ past, and these stories are passed on generationally through the object.
In Smith’s Ozymandias, the stone says he is “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows the wonders of my hand.” This causes the poet to think about how the great city of Babylon had became nothing more than a desert, leading the poet to imagine London after it had been forgotten with a hunter thinking the same thing as him. Showing the fragility of society and great cities.
Both Horace Smith and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poems, titled “Ozymandias,” draw upon the theme of time eroding fame and power. In a friendly competition, the two write a poem about a recently discovered Egyptian statue that they have not yet physically seen, using reports and Diodorus Siculus’ writings as inspiration. Both poems describe an empty desert with the same forgotten piece of Egyptian history: a leg and visage of an Egyptian ruler whom they call Ozymandias. Written on the statue, Ozymandias proclaims his greatness while around him, nothing remains to account for it. Both of these poems describe how, with the passage of time, power is slowly forgotten as new rulers and new histories emerge.
In George’s the “The Benin Bronze” what was both surprising and a learning moment is how he describes that Oba was once in business with Britain until he felt threatened. Oba didn’t mind that they owned slaves because he was able to profit and monopolize off trade in his region. This description goes against the idea that African leaders always fell victim to the powers of colonialism as Oba once cooperated with them. He believed that his power and bravery gave him some protection but instead it backfired in his face when he wanted his treaty to come to an end.
A moment of surprise for me was using Icarus’ story to relate the normality of human suffering. The three paintings depict various forms of suffering: environment, others, and self. In all three paintings Auden describes the nonchalant attitudes society has towards violence. The Census of Bethlehem shows the harsh environment affecting the people, with many crowding the insides of homes to hope to keep warm. The Massacre of the Innocents shows how people can harm others, depicting the invasion in a casual manner. Finally, The Fall of Icarus depicts the self destruction of Icarus as he was drowning in the water. However, what’s most surprising is the man watching Icarus treat his suffering with indifference. As Auden states, “Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky, had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.” These words depict the normality and indifference of human suffering, even going so far as to leave a person to suffer in order to not inconvenience yourself.
I think the Auden poem is interesting because it is very explanatory. It has very clear, direct statements about what he is witnessing, particularly in Icarus. It asks you as the listener to look deeper at the painting. Without the title of the painting, it may be easy for a viewer to glance over its image and not see the person in the water. Auden assigns further meaning to what is already in the painting, creating another work that feeds off of the initial.
Moments of Surprise
⤹Click the reply button just below.
George the Poet’s spoken piece begins with the following line: “I used to live on the wall of a palace, until I was torn off in malice”. This is spoken by the piece itself, which is then described further as a brass work of art depicting aa African king (Oba) and his subjects. European traders are in the back of the piece, and George the Poet explains that Oba and these traders would negotiate the trade of goods exclusively found in Africa. Then, the poem shifts. Though the European traders got plenty of goods from the permitted trade, it is stated that “every time they visited they kept an open eye for me”, referring to the piece of art that is the speaker of this poem. I found this to be a parallel for how Europeans overstepped in many of the places that they colonized. Not only would they steal resources, but also art, culture, and even people, especially in Africa, where many were enslaved. The poem touches on this, stating that the Europeans “used some Africans as partners, the rest as prisoners” (George the Poet). Ultimately, both of these statements about how the Europeans acted in regards to foreign belongings and peoples is educational to the listener in informing them about European colonialism, and foreshadows the atrocities, which are touched on at the end of the piece, that occurred as a result.
I found this take very interesting and felt similar in regards to the poem emphasizing the tragedy that fell upon the stolen artworks. The explanation of the artwork intertwining with its stolen history really emphasizes the colonialism that the poet is trying to convey. George surprised me with the consistent narrative that he shares, speaking of the unredeemable injustice with the civilization having already “burned to the ground,” the “royal decor” being transformed into “spoils of war” (George).
At the beginning of “The Benin Bronze”, the story starts with “I used to live on a wall of a palace” and throughout the poem, the poet uses first-person perspective by using I. However, the term I does not refer to the poet, but refers to the object, the Benin bronze. It is surprising because “I” usually refers to a person, but it was an object in this story. This poet entertains the audience by making them think that the Benin bronze is telling what he saw in the past over numerous decades. The audience can understand and empathize better with the story since it is explained from Benin Bronze, the object that saw and experienced every significant moment. Benin Bronze saw the resources that the king used to trade with Western people and knew how the relationship between Western people and the king was ruined.
I agree with you point at the end, and I like how you point out the use of first person perspective. Not only did the poet used Benin Bronze to re-tell the relationship of the king and the Western people. The experience of Benin Bronze also reflect the the colored people under colonialism; from royal to slave. The poet personify the Benin Bronze, which make not only to tell the story of king, but also the experience of individual during the attack.
1) : in “The Benin bronze” written by George the poet, he roleplayed as the artificial Benin Bronzes. This piece is a sculpture made of brass and bronze to decorate the king’s palace. The essential goal was to emphasize the ruler of the Kingdom of Benin’s power, and to record the royal family history; every succession of the throne. Yet at the end of the poem, the Benin Bronzes no longer had its meaning as the narrator detailed the massacre brought by the British. It became a witness to the fall of the West African Kingdom of Benin; ‘a spoil of war’.
One moment where the object responds to an inquiry or teaches the audience is in the poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats where the urn itself, is offering a response to the poet’s contemplations and questions. Throughout the entire poem, Keats is questioning the depictions of figures on the urn, its meaning, and their stories. Keats focuses on the people, location, and images, and instead of an insightful or factual answer, the urn responds with “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Keats “Ode on a Grecian Urn”). Rather than satisfying Keats with a clear narrative, the Urn responds with an unconventional answer that teaches the reader about the unity of beauty and truth. The Urn insists on transforming the conversation to a philosophical one, independent of decided stories and meanings.
2) ) In “Ozymandias” both poets, Shelly and Smith, describe a towering bust of Ramesses, an Egyptian pharaoh. In Shelley’s poem, the great bust is described as “vast”, with a “sneer of cold command”, and “colossal”. However, more often times the destruction and the impermanence of the bust is focused on more, and is what the poem ends with. The bust is “shattered”, and a ruin/ wreck as opposed to a marvel. Similarly, Horace Smith also brings the bust up, only to focus on the current irrelevance of the bust by people today. These poems both suggest that time will always triumph over history; even if there are attempts to be remembered (such as statues and plaques), immortality is impossible to secure. History is lost and overlooked as time passes.
1. In Auden’s Musee painting, the surprise for me comes from how the painting reveals that suffering is rarely central in the eyes of the world. In Brueghel’s The Fall of Icarus, Auden points out an interesting detail that everyone, whether that’s the Ploughman or even a character like the sun, “turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster.” The object feels like it is aiming to teach the viewer something deeply unsettling, where tragedy often unfolds in the margins as it is never really noticed. As opposed to the the typical heroic narratives we have seen in other texts, with of the most prominent beinb Gilgamesh’s story arc, the artwork opposes these tendencies by affirming a truth about human indifference. The poem isn’t just a description but instead a revision of how we understand the place of suffering in everyday life.
Encounters with Deep Time
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Ozymandias, both poems, see the past as fleeting, or at least the power of man. This is shown through imagery: legs standing alone in an empty desert where there once was a vast kingdom. Both Shelley and Smith use a similar quote from Siculus, about the great Ozymandias and how he was the King of Kings. This is used to contrast what is present, a desert that Shelley describes as “boundless and bare,” and Smith calls a “forgotten Babylon.” Blah blah blah Breaking Bad. John Keats, in his poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” takes the opposite approach. Keats spends the entirety of the poem questioning every detail on the urn, even talking about melodies and remarking about how sweet they sound. Keats, unlike Smith and Shelley, holds the past in high regard, such as when he states that this generation will die but the urn shall remain. Thus, you can argue that Keats opposes Smith and Shelley specifically in his reaction to the inevitable passing of time. While Smith and Shelley are nihilistic in response to destruction, Keats finds motivation to value what parts of the past we still have.
I definitely agree with your point about the phrase “King of Kings”. I believe it was meant to show the irony between Ozymandai’s pridefulness and the reality of his kingdom no longer existing. Similarly, Smith mentions a “forgotten Babylon” which corroborate with the idea of something that was once so significant can become of insignificance.
In the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley, the poem states “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look at my work, ye Mighty, and despair!” but then follows with, “Nothing beside remains.”
The poem described a lonely sculptor in a desert that stretches endlessly that was once ruled by a powerful king who had; had established an influential empire. However, the sculptor has now crumbled leaving only the legs and a visage to show.
This goes to show that no matter how successful someone thinks they are or how much accomplishments they have, it can be completely erased and will not always last forever.
Ironically, the Ozymandias bragged about being the greatest of all kings, but no longer had the impact of a king or had anything to prove that.
This poem uses a dismembered statue to show that no one should be overly prideful and egotistic, since everything that you have, may no longer be yours in a blind of and eye, or in years to come.
In John Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” he brings about the idea that the story and ideas that are told through the urn may never be truly known or understood due to the passage of time. There is history and stories within the urn, but they are stuck in the marble along with them and the Ancient Greek culture. What happens, why certain deities are depicted, the legend encapsulated, is immortalized in the urn and cannot leave. Keats also notes that perhaps not truly understanding the urn is what makes it so beautiful and so sweet. He says, “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard / Are sweeter” (lines 12-13). There are some stories we can only know through our own interpretations, and those are the kinds of stories that are beautiful and keep us thinking.
Ode to a Grecian Urn:
In Ode on a Grecian Urn, Keats shows readers that art can freeze a moment forever. For example, the lovers who are always about to kiss but never do. It’s kind of eerie but also beautiful. The urn turns this tiny scene into something eternal, even though everyone in it is long gone. It made me think about how weird time is in a museum, as you’re walking through a bunch of moments that don’t move, but they still somehow speak to you.
Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” shows how easily people overlook suffering, especially when it’s not their own. He reflects on Brueghel’s painting of Icarus falling from the sky and what’s striking is that no one in the painting seems to care. The ploughman keeps working, the ship sails on. Life just continues.
This feels true to how history actually happens. Big events don’t always feel big in the moment. People are usually caught up in their own routines, and tragedy often unfolds quietly, without witnesses. Auden seems to be saying that this has always been the case as artists understood it centuries ago.
It made me think about how much of the past, and even the present, slips by unnoticed. The poem reflects on human nature, and how time moves forward regardless of who’s watching.
In the poem The Benin bronze, the poet describes the sufferings of indiginous people in south nigeria back in the colonial time. “Oba was happy to export these commodities, but I was never told that I could leave.” European traders and Oba had an agreement on trading peppers gold, and ivory, but it came with slave trade that damaged local Africans’ families. After the aggreement ended, the situation for Africans were even worse, as British invaded them, and tore down their civilization. I think this poem teaches us an important lesson that colonization came with blood and guilt. It’s just like what Auden said in his poem that “About suffering they were never wrong”.
In the poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats the poet talks about an urn where he analyzes the scenes painted on it. His point in this poem is to explain that history lives on through art and serves as a vessel for historical memories.
The spoken poem, the Benin Bronze, by George the poet left the greatest impact on me when it comes to reflection on the past. The voice inflections that he puts and the stress on some of the spoken words create and idea of theft and perhaps the immoral roots behind these items. He states, “Who used some Africans as partners, the rest prisoners.”, George the Poet. This quote tells of powerful overseers that used what was at their disposal as they liked. Taking what was within their grasp and transforming it into something beneficial, despite the potential harm to others, all silently withheld in a mute item. He warns that the past is silent and that words can be twisted in any which way, a quiet for call to curiosity, to seek a way for these objects to have their truth heard, to give theses treasures a voice.
Shelley’s “Ozymandias” and Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn” both explore how we experience the past through art and ruins, but they convey very distinct messages about time.
In “Ozymandias,” a ruined statue in the desert is the only remains of a once-great ruler. His words “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” seem ridiculous when surrounded by nothing but sand. Shelley demonstrates how time can erase power, and how even the most impressive human achievements may eventually crumble.
In contrast, Keats focuses on the preservation of beauty through art. The Grecian urn captures a perfect moment: couples frozen right before a kiss, musicians playing songs that never stop. These scenes transcend time, but they are also frozen in place, unable to change. Keats proposes that art provides a form of immortality, but one that excludes the fullfilment of real life.
Together, the poems suggest that time destroys, but art remembers but not always in the way we expect.
The poem is teaching us how history will unfold itself in the weirdest of moments and that great suffering could be happening to anyone, “While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking / dully along” (Lines 4-5). The poet shows how people will often ignore the pain others are going through, but also teaches us that time always moves forward, even during times of sadness. History keeps creating itself while everyone is busy with their daily lives. For example, this quote, “As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green / Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen / Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky, / Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on”(Lines 19-22 ), is perfect in showing how people will often not notice when something huge or sad happens. It reminds us to pay attention to things even if they seem so small.
The passage of time in Ozymandias is shown through a disconnect of human expression. In Shelly’s poem he elaborates on how the sculptor of the statue was a primary witness of his demeanor. The lines, “And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, / Tell that its sculptor well those passions read / Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things.” Shelly uses the word “passions” to describe the human elements captured in the sculpture, which have now become ironically “lifeless” in the next line. The dramatic shift in the persona of this ruler being intensely harsh being transformed into a lifeless figure displays the disconnect due to the passage of time. This figure used to once be a driving force that had control over many powerful people’s lives, and now has become a display (comparable to a caption or stock image the way Shelly describes it). It reminds the readers that absolute power can be completely diminished by long periods times, and that nothing lasts forever.
Encounters with Deep Time
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Its recency in publication is why I’m drawn to it more than the other poems, but George The Poet’s “The Benin Bronze” aligns with my current views on museums. He eloquently discusses how sickly European foreigners – in awe and in desire of the Benin people and goods before them – slowly infiltrated and colonized their lands through trade. In tragic irony, the brass that Portuguese traded to the Beninese people was taken back to Europe as Benin was raided. The last line of this poem is extremely powerful in giving the audience a summation of what museums represent in the history and memories of pre and post colonial countries; “And what was once the Royal decor had now become the spoils of war,” (George The Poet 00:03:03 – 00:03:08). The spoils of war – in this instance the Benin Bronzes and sculptures – are a symbol of the pain an entire nation suffered under colonial exploits. For these “spoils” to be then hoisted in a museum for all to see is at the very least inconsiderate of those who died behind this symbol of oppression and European greed, and glamorizes the history behind it.
Both “The Benin Bronze” by George the Poet and ” Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley contrast the once glorious past with the deadly and forgotten present to show how time never returns. The King of Benin was once such a great ruler who established organized economic system and even enthralled Europeans. But time changed things and his glory no longer remained after having conflicts with the British. His once glorious country became ruins and he was beheaded. The poem Ozymandias also used the idea of ruins to contrast the magnificent words “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings”, which also conveys a sense of lost.
“Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley brings up how the passing of time will make even great things fall. Ozymandias was once great, the “king of kings,” but now, almost nothing remains of his once great statue and legacy. What was once so mighty is now in ruins. This calls to question the stability of one’s legacy – everything, no matter how mighty and immovable it may seem, will eventually fall with time. However, we see almost the opposite in W.H.Auden’s “Musee des Beaux Arts,” which describes Icarus’ descent and death from the sky. He describes the ploughman going on with his life as it didn’t impact his day, nor did it affect the ship that was witnessed yet kept sailing. In our present day, the story of Icarus is very significant, and we can often forget that to everyone else it was just an ordinary day. This essentially is the opposite of “Ozymandias;” Icarus’s tale became more mighty and legendary with time, while not being so significant to those who lived through it. In these two poems, there is a clear contrast between how time affects the significance and legacy of physical objects like statues vs. stories, tales, and myths.
W.H. Auden’s work, “Musée des Beaux Arts,” and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias” both comment on the unavoidable finality of all things and how they are seen in the eyes of the surviving world. As the luster of kingdoms, the reign of kings, and the lives of people come to an end, time continues marching on. Every creature has their own priorities for survival, and to endure, they must become accustomed to the erosion of the unimportant. For instance, Auden writes, “[T]he ploughman may/Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,/But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone/As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green/Water.” Though the ploughman hears the tragedy of Icarus unfold before him, he continues his day, unfazed, because his life and means of survival had not been impacted. Disasters become insignificant as they occur all around the world; if not here, then there–if not today, then tomorrow. At the same time, in “Ozymandias,” Shelley regards the fallen statue of the king with a sort-of irony. The tyrant who once stood so tall has crumbled to nothing, yet the onlookers feel no nihilism, sympathy, or grief for this ruthless display of time. They have food to eat, jobs to work, and a life to live in the meantime.
I believe that W.H.Auden’s, “Musée des Beaux Arts” and George the Poet’s, “The Bronzes Speak,” both showcase the ephemeral nature of humans in the past compared to the ambitions of human’s throughout time. Their poems showcase that the human ability the effect the present may not be as great as an influence in the present but have an extreme effect over time. In the case of “Musée des Beaux Arts,” Auden highlights the case that even though Icarus, a known figure in Greek mythology, falls from flying too close to the sun, the average person would not be effected by his failure (line 17). As long as the sun is still shining and time is still progressing, the people of the present watching Icarus failure’s may not have mattered to the average person. This poem motivates the future by giving the future a choice to continue advancement of past ideas, that had to be paved from other fleeting moments in history.
George the poet, takes a similar idea about time but changes it to spotlight the inevitability of a fleeting influence that the natives of Benin felt as they became more involved with the European world. In his spoken word poem, George the poet takes the personification of a Benin Bronze to explain the waning control of the people of Benin and their inability to maintain their influence, which ultimately caused the Benin Bronzes to be under British hands.
Poets and Museum Artworks Prompt
2. Reflect on what the poem teaches us about history and the passage of time.
Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley is inspired by the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II (Ozymandias in Greek). The poem illustrates a meeting with a traveler who tells the author of an antique land where they came across a pedestal on which the old pharaoh had inscribed, “Look at my works, ye Mighty, and despair.” Only to find that all the works the pharaoh had taken pride in were destroyed over time. Ironic. This poem’s message is straightforward, commenting on how seeking immortality through monuments is futile and that millennia can eventually rob even the greats of their power, leaving behind remnants of a forgotten past.
In the poem “Musee des Beaux Arts” the author describes how sufferings throughout history often end up forgotten. We can see this when he says, “how everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may/ Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,”(Auden). Specifically, he believes the passage of time minimizes the real human sacrifice and tragedy that occurred for us to reach where our society is today. This also reflects the series of paintings as they depict tragedy in the “Massacre of the Innocents” while showing how it is forgotten in the “The Fall of Icarus”. the poem and museum artworks ultimately show us how museums facilitate inspiration into other artforms and allow for a sharing of new ideas and self expression.
PROMPT 2: Percy Bysshe Shelly “ Ozymandias”, 1817 teaches us that things are bound to get forgotten even if artifacts and ruins remain. As a result of neglect from people, not caring for these artifacts they slowly decay then become lost to time. And when someone new comes across it, they are left wondering what is that place’s story. And “We wonder,-and some Hunter may express Wondee like ours, when thro’ the wilderness Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace…” is a great example of that. Because we are amazed by this one leg left standing now, however in the far future someone will see something that we left behind and think exactly how we are.
Museum Encounters
Prompt 2
In W.H. Auden’s poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, he speaks about the behavior and actions that people may continue to possess despite suffering occuring around them. Auden’s main point or takeaway is that although during certain times people may be suffering, time does not stop and people continue with their routines. He uses the painting of Icarus falling to help get his message across. Through this painting and his description in the poem as Icarus falls, those around them don’t change what they are doing or take time to pause their lives. Although an event may have a significant impact on a certain person or group of people, to those unaffected it is almost meaningless and they continue with their lives as time goes on. Finally, as time goes on an event that may have been significant fades as time goes on it becomes a very small part of our world’s history.
The poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” by W.H.Auden highlights humanities natural instincts to protect themselves, by ignoring tragedy in the world around them. The three paintings the poem is based upon were created in the 1560s. Each painting depicts a scene where there is a tragic event, yet onlookers in the painting carry on, or turn away from the distressing images. Auden’s poem was written in 1938. Despite the time gap, the understanding that Auden garnered from the paintings are very real and continuous to the human experience. An artist’s detail from hundreds of years before can provoke thoughts, ideas and relationships between humans from the past and future.
In Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows The wonders of my hand.” — The City’s gone,—” This highlights how no matter how important or high and mighty a name or city or anything for that matter is there’s going to be a time where it means nothing. “King of kings”, “mighty city shows the wonders of my hand” King of kings have now become remains that are an artifact and the mighty city which proved his wonders are now gone. To me this is deeper than just the passage of time but maybe it also highlights that living to prove something or to gain a name isn’t important because everything comes to an end and life will go on without you here.
In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, W.H. Auden reflects on how suffering is a given throughout the passage of time. Auden writes that there must be some sort of opposite to joy and eagerness. He provides an example of this by describing the contrast between elders being excited about new births and young children being upset at them. There has and always will be an individual or group that does not feel positively in any situation. Auden additionally explores the topic of turning a blind eye to other’s suffering when it does not directly impact one. He claims that this act of ignorance is not malicious; it simply demonstrates the human condition and the tendency people have and have had to prioritize oneself.
The “Ozymandias” poems were very attentive to detail about the engraving on the architectural structure of Ramesses II found by Belonzi. Specifically, the physical appearance of legs was very influential in their writing despite not being able to see it. The view of the sculpture only allowed for the bust to be visible, however, there were deeper meanings extracted by the writers. Shelley sets the tone by contrasting the discovery of the sculpture of “stand[ing] in the desart” to being “half sunk.” Continuing to describe the appearance, there was a continuation of artistic choices which also led to the ultimate lesson of how Ramesses II was the king of kings like he had engraved. Whereas Smith had only mentioned the leg and its dominance of the desert. Hence the sculpture also being the “king” of the land. This taught us that the figure, as well as the person it depicted, were both figures of power. It extends the meaning of how much power the individual possessed in that time, and his influence to have a big sculpture made after him.
Thinking About Museums
Prompt 2: In George the Poet’s “The Benin bronze”, he beautifully recounts the history of the Benin empire; beneath his impressive word play, though, is an important history lesson about his people: the destructive nature of imperialism. Many European empires such as the British, Portuguese, and the Dutch became imperialists as a result of their rapid industrialization. George the Poet highlights that his people had complexity and organization that rivaled the Europeans. He clarifies that they were an asset to the Europeans by granting them permission to trade in Africa for spices and other goods. And despite their generosity, the Europeans were not satisfied and sought to enslave the people of Benin. George’s poem exposes the dark side of history which is often told from the perspective of “winners.” Over time, this jeopardizes the individuality of cultures and the solidarity of different ethnic groups. Only through an examination of the past through a medium such as art can we begin to truly learn from history.
In Shelley’s version of the poem “Ozymandias”, the poem convey the idea that all things will be destroyed with time. Ozymandias is a great ruler from a time long past. During the height of his reign, he no doubt felt invincible, going as far as to call himself the “king of kings”, yet at the present, there is no sign of his greatness except ruin and rubble. This seems to symbolize the destructiveness of time and that all things will come to an end given enough time.
Both Horace and Percy in their poems discuss how Ramsees describes himself as the king of kings and how his hand shows the wonders of the land of Egypt, yet there is no remains of either his power or the land. The poem Ozymandias makes me think about how even the greatest leaders and empires are no match for time. No matter how powerful someone is or how much they accomplish, they will eventually be forgotten. I think the poem is trying to show us that time always wins in the end and that fame and power don’t last forever
Encounters with Deep Time
⤹Click the reply button just below.
“Naught but the leg remains to disclose, the site of this forgotten Babylon.” (Smith, lines 7-8)
The reason this is playing with a deeper part of history is the reference to the mysterious yet powerful impact of the Babylonian hanging gardens, as too they are now none-existent or debated to even have existed at all, and yet the idea of such grand displays much like the statue remains something to admire and revel in.
Attachment Max-Schleifer-CGSHU-104-G3-Class-Prep.pdf
Keats’s poem showcases how history is obtained in art transformed into an eternal, halted moment displayed, the “foster-child of silence and slow time” (line 2). Contrast to the ever-changing and fading human life, the urn holds onto the scenes, preserving their beauty and forever expressing “a flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme”, highlighting the dichotomy of the crafted urn to the fragility of human life (line 4). Ultimately, the urn teaches the main idea that art holds everlasting truths and history that stay beyond human life, allowing it to capture life’s beauty and the natural world through pure vibrancy. However, with this cold, concrete fact, this beauty is captured in that only of the abiotic, only through stillness this can be attained.
On the poem “Musee dees Beaux Arts” some lines that teaches us about history says, “how everything turns away Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure” (W.H Auden, lines 13-17). This demonstrates that their is people suffering due to massacres or government decisions but for other people it is not really important what is happening in the world because it does not cause a conflict in their lives. Which shows when others need help, others will not lend a hand because they are absorbed into their own life that they won’t make sacrifice for others.
I agree with your analysis at the end, especially concerning the image we were shown of the “fall of icarus”, the day goes on while Icarus drowns, but all else remains unchanged. yet on an individual level, everybody is going through life on their own terms, and in the end there is only so much other’s want or can really do for us.
In Shelley’s “Ozymandias” and Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” time takes on two contrasting roles. Shelley shows how time erases even the greatest human achievements, as seen in the image of “two vast and trunkless legs of stone” standing in a barren desert, the king’s proud words—“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”—ironically undercut by the surrounding “lone and level sands.” In contrast, Keats’s urn captures a moment forever; its frozen figures resist time, suggesting that beauty and emotion can be preserved through art—“Forever wilt thou love, and she be fair!” Together, the poems reveal that while history may crumble monuments, art can offer immortality in a way.
In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts”, W.H. Auden reflects on three paintings each of which depicts in some way or another a moment of distress and suffering from human history and myth. Auden dramatizes how the bystanders of these events are unaffected and uncaring in regards to the tragic events that they witness. When reflecting on the painting The Fall of Icarus Auden writes, “ … the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure,” (lines 15-17). Despite witnessing a tragic event the ploughman is unfazed because it has no bearing over his life, a reaction that Auden teaches us is part of the human condition and that is repeated throughout history. A lack of empathy that has and continues to permit human atrocities and injustices.
In John Keates’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” (1818) when he is talking about the life from when the urn was created in ancient Greece, he says, “Will silent be; and not a soul to tell/Why thou art desolate, can e’er return” (Keates). He is telling the reader of his poem that even some seemingly boring art piece of a urn has so much history behind it and so many people who’s lives it was apart of. These lives may have been more interesting than an urn, the last thing standing from that town, so we must appreciate the history and think back to what life must have been and how we’ve changed.
In his poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn”, John Keats appreciates and values the beauty of the art depicted in ancient art pieces by the ancient Greek Sosibios. In the lines 18 and 19 he says “Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve; She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss”. In these lines, Keats emphasizes how this type of art should and could never die. The type of beauty and nature of these arts as the one he repeats the word “happy” multiple times, and correlates it with words such as “peaceful” and “passion”, ultimately implying that the beauty of this art is pleasant to the eye and impactful to cultures and perspectives. Overall, Keats highlights how ancient art is unique and beautiful, which make them eternal.
1: In the Poem Ode on a Grecian Urn the Urn is analyzed and inspected until the stanza where the essential question is posed. The question is essentially asking about the value of the Urn. The first lines of the stanza ask “Who are these coming to the sacrifice?” perhaps questioning the actual content on the Urn, but also symbolically asking what the value of the urn is. What importance does this urn hold? Who “sacrifices” or rather finds value, in this urn? The Stanza continues, asking about an emptied town. While again, it may be superficially referring to the content of the urn, metaphorically, it is referring to those who originally created and valued this urn. Those who had first hand knowledge of its purpose and meaning and could appreciate it to the fullest. The poem speaks of the silence of the desolate town, which again, refers to the silence of the urn now that its true meaning is possibly forgotten or unappreciated.
The second stanza refutes the negative implications of these questions and instead insists that the urn remains valuable, in that its now “silent form” brings out thoughts and interest among those who view it. Further, the final line of “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” suggests that the true beauty of the urn is enough for it to be an object of wonder.
Museum Encounters Prompt 2:
Auden’s “Musee des Beaux Arts” teaches us how history and time can quickly move forward to individual disasters and suffering. Even if something terrible happens to someone, time will continue to pass, and others will continue to live ordinary lives in the face of what is a tragedy for someone, as seen in the painting and descriptions of Icarus falling to his death while others are living their own lives. This might suggest that in history, the sufferings of individuals can be overlooked if it is not a tragedy “of a bigger level”. There’s the saying that history tends to repeat itself, and this poem helps affirm that narrative because as time keeps flowing, certain stories will get lost in the flow of time, so in that sense, history is shaped not only by what people remember and record, but what people forget about and ignore as well.
1. George the Poet teaches the audience about the effects British imperialism had on Africa. He uses his poem to demonstrate Britain’s greed and the impact it had on African people. He describes the horror inflicted on them as Britain stole not only goods but people. John Keats “Ode on a Grecian Urn” provides an interesting perspective on the culture of early Greece. The poem encapsulates the everpresent beauty and passion that flowed through Greek culture. He states “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all ye know on Earth , and all ye need to know (line 49-50).” This demonstrates the values Greek society held, which reflected their desire to live their lives to the fullest. He gives another perspective to the culture by questioning “what struggle to escape…what wild ecstasy (line 9)?” He demonstrates the passion that runs through the Greeks, the chase and need for something more.
Shelley and Smith’s ideas in their “Ozymandias” frame art and museums as a reflection of history, and admire the curiosity it elicits in them. Shelley writes “Which yet survives, stamped on these lifeless things,” in reference to the artist’s ability to capture Ozymandias’ character. Despite the death of Ozymandias, his words and power live through the artworks depicting him centuries later. In such a manner, art can give people a glimpse of the past and somewhat combats the confines of time. Not only does it allow history to survive, but it also creates an opportunity for people to interact with it. Smith writes “What powerful but unrecorded race Once dwelt in that annihilated place,” wondering of the aspects of history that were not depicted in art. He notes all that could be lost without art, which is effectively a documentation of history.
Class Prep: Museum Encounters:
In the poem Ozymandias, the first poem recounts meeting a traveler who curiously discovered the object submerged in the sand. In the following poem, I feel like the object reveals that the city is his doing, and that he is the king. Both poems leave the audience wondering about this once great race/city that is now buried in sand, along with their king.
Prompt 2
In the poems Ode on a Grecian urn by John Keats we learn about what society was like during that time before what seems like some type of tragedy hit. He goes from explaining how sweet the melodies sound and being happy to talking about grief and sacrificing. For example in the text he states “Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve” (line 18). I feel like this quote and the idea of the urn signifies some sort of “death” of what they used to know and how they used to live and how they should not completely give up hope and let go of what they have.
W.H. Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” depicts suffering as something brought upon the people of their time; in other words, suffering will run its course in life as life moves on, regardless of whether someone may be paying attention to this matter or are oblivious to it. For instance, Auden concludes his poem by describing how the ploughman may have witnessed a disaster (such as suffering), but decided not to make it his main priority, therefore allowing crucial events to be obscured. That being said, Auden’s poem beautifully encapsulates how history has progressively reflected this notion of major ordeals being either focused on or ignored; history itself is essentially written due to who shares prior experiences or vital matters. Although individuals have the ability to either shed light upon an important matter or not, it is up to the individual themself to gradually make a change.
I connected most with The Bronzes Speak by George the Poet because it made the most sense and it’s about a topic I understand well. I have learned about the slave trade for years through school, and I have done my own research to understand the horrors. One major point George brought up was the fact the europeans would trade with the king, but enslaved and sell people that looked like him. The europeans would also not look at him as a trading partner but as someone to sell one day. And that one day arrived, the marines destroyed the city like he expected.
(poem) Prompt 2: In the poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” written by W.H.Auden, the poem teaches how people forget about suffering and disasters and continue with their day as time goes on. If we look at the lines, “That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot, Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer’s horse, Scratches its innocent behind on a tree,” (Musée des Beaux Arts, W.H.Auden), it’s implying that while tragedy happens, life still continues while suffering and disaster happens. People are preoccupied with their own lives to see or respond to the suffering of others. In addition, the painting The Fall of Icarus can also prove people continue with their day as tragedy happens as the painting depicts Icarus falling to their death while others continue with their life.
Unused Question (should be invisible)
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Unused Question (should be invisible)
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Unused Question (should be invisible)
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Archaeology in the 19th Century
⤹Click the reply button just below.
1. The first image I think shows a side to how art was perceived by people in the sense of education. The viewers are holding pens and paper and seem so be deep in thought. They look as though they are studying the statues of human anatomy and look deep in consideration. They also look like they are discussing with each other. I think it’s interesting that art was seen as an educating tool and something the bred new conversations.
I agree with your thoughts! I noticed that each image reflected a different emotion, though. While the first image gave off a more “inquiry and educational” theme, the second and third focused more on the structure and engineering of hauling such huge sculptures. This highlights the innovation and advancement in technology, likely fueled by greed and wonder for the stolen object. The last image conveys a “see how powerful we are” theme, and it appears they are showcasing their products, which to me has a negative connotation.
Art was seen as a positive form and according to picture 1, which seems to have many educated and wealthy men, art could have been a sign of status as well as education. The 2nd and third of the pictures show the creation of sculpture and the amount of work and effort that is put into making art. These pictures evoke emotions of creativity and a growing nationalism as the people start leaning towards collectively accepting art into their society. The art in the pictures are also people or animals, so I believe that art was also eventually used to honor certain beings in life, also evoking a sense of pride in the people.
The images show how archaeology was used to support imperial power. The artifacts were being shown off, often in dramatic ways, to suggest ownership and control. Whether it’s the sculptures from Nineveh or the Benin Bronzes, there’s a pattern of removing cultural objects from their original context and using them to boost Britain’s image.
The “Reception of the Nineveh Sculptures” specifically makes that clear. The sculptures are huge and heavy, but they’re being paraded through London like trophies. That says a lot about how archaeology was tied to empire and public spectacle rather than respect for the cultures these objects came from.
I think the images can impose the idea of masculinity. This is because in all the images, the art/architecture displayed represents a man, for example the “ Ramesses II, 1834” images is displaying men putting up an Egyptian kings head. Think this represents masculinity because by putting up the head it’s kind of like worshiping it, indicating that the Egyptian kings had power. The last image also represents masculinity because of the way the British Soldiers were sitting up, arms crossed indicating they are serious men. In the age of the image, British Soldiers also commended respect indicating strong masculinity and power.
Looking at the first two images, I see more of a curiosity and sense of inquiry being displayed. Discussions over statues, measurements and architectural interest of large figures, possibly taking inspiration. However the second shift to a more gluttonous mindset, focus instead on taking rather than learning. Picking up and removing sculptures from the original and rightful homes, and taking things like statues, figures and ivory from where they belong. The increased archaeological findings and growth of curiosity in the nineteenth century, it seems, fueled a greedy fire that set its focus instead on collector’s pride and economic gain.
The photo from above labeled, British soldiers with looted art in Benin 1897, I believe has some insight as to what archaeology was like in the 19th century. The feelings that the photo gives off is one of coldness that can even be interpreted as frightening. The soldiers stare deeply into the lens of the camera as these treasure are just sprawled out in front of them, demanding approval. The chilling feeling from the photo I believe demonstrates the matter in which these items were retrieved and tell of possibly gruesome back stories and despite all of this, the treasure are represented neatly in front as almost a testament to power almost as a proud trophy of success. Maybe archaeology during the 19th century was more like sport than the science it is today. Disrupt an take from others these processions of great importance and then display such as a trophy that will be applauded and described as remarkable for its rich history. Created an atmosphere where hunters and prey exist, the hunters will take and collect as it is simply sport to do so.
All four pictures depict a sense of prestige, and power all backed up by prosperous and educated men. This comes to show how art was portrayed as a symbol of education and knowledge, how art and statues can produce profound talks and thoughts within and with each other. In the first image, “The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819”, it can be shown that these clearly shown educated men are exploring complex ideas, and because of this, this can foster a deeper understanding of themselves and the world around them.
When I was looking at The Temporary Elgin, where a cohort of men are discussing the art surrounding them. I find it particularly interesting that the are choosing to have this conversation surrounded by art, illustrating how art played an important role in the society they lived in. Art is a showcase of human emotion and history, so having discussion while it is around reminds humans, both leaders and everyday people, about what it means to be a human and the history behind it. So I believe the societal function of museums is to be a vessel for this history.
Museums and the Legacy of Imperialism:
Looking at “ Installing the Bust of Ramesses II (1834)” and “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures (1852)”, you can see just how much effort was put into archeological finds during the nineteenth century. This shows just how fascinated the general public was about these ancient artifacts because this was backbreaking manual labour. Today we have machinery that can help us lift these types of things but we can see people using their entire body weights trying to get these ruins in the perfect position for viewing. They were proud of not only finding these relics but also being able to put them on display because of this, it adds more of a sense of pride and accomplishment. Not only national pride was involved with finding these antiques but also personal pride was more involved because of the labour put into the displays. Because of this there was not only national motivation to excavate more artifacts but I believe that this helped encourage personal motivations as well.
The photo “British soldiers with looted art in Benin, 1897” encapsulates a sense of national prides – maybe even personal pride – as the men are proudly posing behind all the looted art, as if they are showing off their trophies. The crossed arms and relaxed composure suggests as if they feel victorious and even entitled — making it seem that the ‘discovery’ is justified. The careful arrangement of the artifacts, propping up what most likely, if we assume, heavy 19th century art, shows just how much effort was put into displaying the objects; while almost inserting dominance and success to the public. Interestingly enough, the blurred faces – most likely due to the camera quality back then – mirror the way soldiers or looters today are often shown with blurred faces in photos. Whether this was on purpose or not, this details adds to the weird modern parallel, making me question what was taken and to what extent it was taken.
Archaeology in the 19th century shows not only national pride, but almost a sense of modernization by conquering the past. In all these images, the men constructing and assembling the structures are traditional and professional looking for the British standard, which seems odd positioned directly next to artifacts that don’t belong to them at all. The Temporary Elgin Room (1819) seems off in certain way because we can noticeably see the artifacts placed in makeshift ways being examined by foreigners, yet not appreciated or respected.
Archaeology in the 19th Century
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Prompt 1, Debating Museums:
“The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819” is an image that not only suggests that museums and artifacts evoke public wonder, but also spark social discourse. I haven’t seen an illustration or experienced a museum in which there were so many patrons in as close proximity as depicted in this painting. Not only are the viewers many in number, they seem genuinely intrigued at the archaeological finds presented before them. This painting illustrates a time before museums were commonplace throughout western society, so I can imagine there being great curiosity and conversation-starting dialogue about the sculptures presented.
In the image “Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834,” I can see more than 18 workers in different working positions, some are trying to tighten the rope and some are simply just watching, appreciating something so magnificent that they are apart of. I can see that they take the installment very serious, like it’s a big project. I can see their enthusiasm in moving something as big as the Ramesses II statue. They were showing national pride because fifteen years earlier Napoleon’s man could not move it but the British Museum successfully acquired and installed it.
Yes, definitely. I think that kind of effort from regular people really shows how much the artifact must have meant to them. If they were willing to spend their time and strength moving something that didn’t directly benefit them, it says a lot. It’s like they saw it as more than just a statue.
I want to draw our attention to the differences in the Temporary Elgin Room and the British Soldiers with the loot of Benin. The Elgin Room had an aura of wonder. Given that it was around the time period for the enlightenment and a boom in philosophy the Elgin Room was set up in a way that allowed the public to look and form opinions on the artifacts that contributed to the creation of natural science and philosophy. The painting depicts the British public studying all the details of the pieces as if to recreate, understand or improve them. Contrarily in the photo with the soldiers with looted Benin art, they are treating the artworks as prizes and demonstrations of imperialism as compared to the drive to understand nature in the Elgin Room. These art pieces were treated as prizes for these soldiers and the pieces became redefined as symbols of British dominance, compared to the artistic meaning that was intended for the art piece from its creator.
In the artwork, “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures , 1852” it shows a statue from a different country being set up. In the picture we can see that the people aren’t really that curious about the picture, instead they are just going about their daily lives. This is puzzling because usually a statue of that size would be a spectacle to look at especially if it’s unique as it’s sourced internationally. However, maybe this lack of interest by the people in the image tells us that it’s very normal for London to have artwork from different places around the world. This shows London’s imperial power, and also shows how deeply the imperial collection of art has been woven into everyday society. This image as a result invokes national pride because it shows off England’s political power as artworks and architecture especially if it comes from another country expresses the power of a nation.
In the images shown, they suggest that there was quite a lot of public enthusiasm associated with the acquisition of the artifacts. Looking at the photo with the British soldiers in Benin, they laid out the loot they collected and took a photo with it. This shows that they had an great deal of pride and nationality when collecting these artifacts for their home state. I believe that when British citizens would have seen this picture, they would have been proud to be a part of the country who can collect the most things.
An aspect of public enthusiasm for archaeology can be understood through the image “Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834.” When we look at this picture we see many people working together to help install this piece. In addition, we see those observing the statue out of curiosity. The emotions evoked in the picture are a sense of curiosity, wonder, and community. The actions and reactions of the people convey these emotions, as it shows through curiosity it brings people together as a community to admire archaeological wonders. So, to summarize the public enthusiasm for archeology in the 1900s was that it was something to be a part of as a community, and to be curious about together.
PROMT 1: In regards to the painting of British soldiers with loaded art in Benin 1897 this image provokes national pride with a hint of wonder. Clearly, the British would be proud of this painting because the British soldiers looted the art successfully. The soldiers would have had a specific reason as to why they looted the art and most likely, it was some type of retaliation. So successfully getting back at the enemy, gives the nation a major sense of pride. However, it also leaves them with the wonder of what now? Yes, the loot is taken, however what is the plan? And also raises the question what happens next? Everyone knows fighting fire with fire leads to a bigger fire so the painting sparks the question, how will the people of Benin react to something as serious as their art being stolen?
I agree with you and I would add to your idea by including the phrase “trophy hunting” somewhere in your response. Clearly, the artifacts taken were “picture-worthy” — they were a spectacle. It exudes a sense of pride and bragging rights over stolen property. The calm demeanor that the men portray points to why repatriation is such a difficult topic even today: some people do not realize the magnitude of what they have done.
The four images included above suggest that the acquisition and displayal of foreign artifacts is similar to that of zoos. The picture of people with the looted art is similar to that of hunters flaunting the prey they caught as they neatly organize the loot to nicely take a picture to show off their achievements. The reception of nineveh sculptures is reminiscent of that of an exotic animal being engaged for people to observe. Just like how animals are caged and carried over to zoos the museum staff keep the statue secure on wheels and bring it over to the museum to display.This can further a negative view point that foreign cultures are inferior and are to be looked as objects of research rather than of interest and fascination.
The connection between zoos and museums is a very interesting point. To many, we see non-humans as an inferior animal. In relation to museums, one could say that imperialism dehumanized the very people they are taking artifacts from, building an air of superiority for those within the empire.
The image “British soldiers with looted art in Benin”, 1897, stands out especially because the men depicted seem to be extremely proud of themselves for successfully looting an abundance of artifacts. This must evoke feelings of pride among British citizens, as these men managed to posses rare artifacts from another culture to, I assume, put on display. This image might also evoke curiosity among viewers, as they ask themselves how these men came to have possession over these items and if the process was treacherous or easier than imagined.
Debating Museums HWPrompt 1: From these four pictures there are many different emotions that I believe are seen in the images. Some which are intrigued, pride and a sense achievement. The soldiers have put time and energy into obtaining these arts and it seems as though they are looking at these artifacts as if they’ve achieved something big they have finally done it and are now intrigued to see what comes next. In the first picture there are many emotions some sitting and reeling it in some talking amongst each other and someone writing probably writing down history or maybe a summary of the artifact but all in all these pictures show a sense of dedication into capturing memorable pieces and placing them into museums.
“Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, 1834” is an image that evokes curiosity more than anything else. The image depicts an Egyptian sculpture being installed by those who don’t seem to have that same cultural background. Noticing that and looking at the intricate details and size of the sculpture it makes others begin to question how or why it was made? and whom for? As the image shows many people helping installing the sculpture but also others simultaneously admiring it, viewers may question what significance it holds to those within the image and to the culture it originated from.
In the image titled “Reception of Nineveh Sculptures, 1852,” a sculpture of a lamassu is being taken from its point of origin and being transported to London to find a new home in a British museum. The wooden tools and structures that the British men are using cover most of the sculpture, adding an essence of domination of a foreign culture. The British are taking an object that was impactful for an ancient culture and incorporating it into their own by displaying it in their museum. Essentially, the nobility and complexity of its ancient society are being reduced to a fragment in a museum.
Debating Museums
Prompt 1
In the image of The Temporary Elgin Room, we see many men huddled around an ancient artifact with some examining it closely and others in deep discussion. Through this image we can see a room filled with excited individuals who are eager to understand the full significance of the precious work they have to learn from. These people aren’t just standing around and viewing these sculptures, rather they are trying to identify all possible meanings and engaging in debates to thoroughly understand its significance. The fact that many men depicted as intellectuals are collectively trying to understand it, and its placement in what looks like a high level institution shows a sense of unity and nationalism.
In the image “the contemporary Elgin room”, the painting seemed to reflect the curious and inquisitive attitude the public had toward archeology during the 19th century. The people depicted in the artwork all appear to be well educated scholars, with many of them examining or discussing the artifacts in the room.
Archaeology in the 19th Century
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think there is a pattern of being proud of the discovery since there are masses of people congregated around each piece in the images, and yet I sense arrogance in a way: how they hover over the art in the images specifically where the piece is being transported, or even in the first image of the marbles, where the men just stand surrounding themselves with the art that shouldn’t really belong there but despite this, they sit in their suits and remain unbothered.
Yes, I agree! It seems as if they do not appreciate the value of each sculpture and what they represent. However, I also think that it shows a little bit of national pride. I say this because in the first image, “The Temporary Elgin”, the men seem proud/hierarchy of having such big sculptures, in a sense gives them power over other empires.
All four images have sculptures in common. Some look like it is built in the UK, but others look like it is sculpted in another part of the world, but brought to the UK. The sculpture from the second image looks like it is from ancient Egypt, which means they got it through trade or invasion. If those sculptures were taken by force, then it means that Britain had strong military power and that era. Getting other countries’ sculptures might symbolize the dominance and power, which will evoke national pride.
I totally agree with the evoking a sense of national pride when the British take the other countries sculptures. I do have to say I think every image might be depicting sculptures brought in from other countries, rather than some being built in the UK. It definitely brings up an interesting idea of if the UK wanted the sculpture so bad because they genuinely appreciated the art, they could have made a replica, but the fact that they chose to take these other country’s history really proves that they want them just to feel superior. I think this emotion is really shown in the first one “The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819” where all the men seem very distinguished posing and talking around many sculptures from ancient Greece or Rome, barely even looking at them and appreciating the ancient history that goes along with them.
In the first image there is a contrast between the people painted in the art. The entire room is mostly filled by men wearing navy blue suits that give them and elegant and professional appearance yet in the corner of the painting there appears a man painting or sketching the other men’s group portrait. This sketcher is wearing a red coat, different from the other men and his shoes also have more colors than the others. This contrast also reflects how the other men are focus in business while this sketcher seems so diligent in his work. Though the different appearance given to the sketcher, the image gives a sense of passion and the uniqueness of art.
Prompt 2:
The emotions that are evoked in the four images are in my opinion disappointment. More specifically in the first image called “The Temporary Elgin Room” and last image called “British soldiers with looted art in Benin” you notice the men having this certain look on their faces For example in the first image you see details like the men looking at each other. They don’t look happy, if anything they look confused at what they are looking at. In the last image it is also very similar, but instead of the men looking at each other they are looking at the camera with a blank stare and have their arms crossed. Their body language is everything you need to know. I feel like both of these images do a really good job at portraying how some people felt about having the artifacts now be shown in London.
I find your analysis interesting! I thought the opposite of both those images. To me, they are viewing the artifacts with pride and with a haughty protectiveness- sort of in a “we are in possession of this cool thing and no one else is” kind of way.
Class Prep: Debating Museums: The four images have the preservation of art/sculptures as the main focus. It definitely evokes a sense of national pride, especially in the first picture where the sculptures are displayed as part of the important-looking room with important-looking people lounging around them. The following sketches approach the preservation of sculptures a little differently, showing how they were moved and protected by wooden beams so that nothing could potentially damage them.
Upon looking at “The Temporary Elgin Room,” “Installing the Bust of Ramesses,” “‘Reception of Nineveh Sculptures,’” and “British soldiers with looted art in Benin,” the four images convey progression and holding pride. Take “The Temporary Elgin Room” for example: the painting shows marble statues displayed around the room, with individuals discussing amongst one another; their discussions appear as though they may be possibly debating the presence of marbles in the room, as marbles were a spectacle shortly after the publication of the aforementioned paintings. Nonetheless, their discussions also demonstrate a sense of pride of being in the presence of vital, archeological items that have and will continue to mold their approach to societal matters.
After studying the photos, I didn’t have any strong emotions because none of the people in the images are showing any emotions. This just reminds me of work, that you do just to do it. Their is no type of passion in any of the images. The men in the looted art in Benin look as if it was another day on the job. But in the Temporary Elgin room the people inside seem to be studying the statues and look a bit more proud of what they have done.
2: In The Temporary Elgin Room, 1819, the scattered pieces of broken art show the unemotional way in which the culture of places taken over by imperial forces is stolen and displaced. The pieces shown are clearly contrasted with the numerous bureaucratic looking individuals in the image who coldly stand around deciding what to do with the art. The similarity in their clothing also creates an image of lacking individuality and bureaucratic coldness. On the other hand, another viewer might interpret this image as one of national power, where bureaucratic workers are able to take and divide art as they please.
2. The images suggest that the public used archaeology to display their admiration for their history. The Temporary Elgin Room displays high class people surrounding the statues on display. This demonstrates the fact that archaeology matters to the highest members of society that are educated. Which can support the admiration they feel towards it because they can acknowledge the history and significance behind it. In Installing the Bust of Ramesses, the workers can be seen admiring the art. Which speaks to society as a whole, every member can respect archaeology.
After looking at The Temporary Elgin Room, what stood out to me is how staged and formal the whole scene is where it almost feels like a display of national pride more than just an interest in archaeology. I see this in how the sculptures are arranged almost theatrically with well dressed viewers standing around them, like if they were at a royal event and not a museum. This makes me think that the excitement around these artifacts wasn’t just about historical curiosity but also might have been tied to power and status. It seems like showing off ancient Greek marbles in London may have been a way of saying, “Look what the British Empire can take and protect.”
The Cultural Function of Museums Today
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Artifacts like Installing the Bust of Ramesses II, are important objects that should be on public display because they represent historical figures. Bust of Ramesses II was a powerful pharaoh that was seen as powerful in ancient Egypt.
Ramesses II was known for his accomplishments such as having a 66 year long reign, defeating enemies, and building many monuments and structures (Memphis Tours).
Displaying artifacts like this helps inclusivity, make history more accessible and also encourages people to push themselves to learn about history beyond what they have only been taught.
Museums are a great tool in society that allows people to immerse themselves into different cultures and learn about historical events that have an impact on modern society. They also serve to recognize the contributions that individuals make throughout history.
It is important for objects such as The Parthenon Sculptures to be on display because they educate people about ancient Greek art as well as making art accessible to people and not limiting people from seeing pieces such as this one. Museums serve as a positive cultural function in many ways such as educating communities about history, demonstrating famous preserved sculptures and paintings from decades ago, as well as inspiring people to learn more about the past. In this society museums are the best way people engage with historic events and artifacts.
The Cultural Function of Museums Today
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One important artifact that can be found in The British Museum is the Rosetta Stone. Discovered by French soldiers in the late 1700’s, this piece of history is a key to understanding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is important for objects such as this stone to be on public display because it gives viewers a deeper connection with global history. Museums positively allow people to interact and learn from artifacts that shaped who we are today.
The Lewis Chessmen, relics of a Viking trade expedition in the Middle Ages, properly exhibit why it’s so important for museums to include seemingly “fun” objects of ancient life. Chess has been around for centuries and is still played today, which is why its so relative to put this set on display. This chess set made of walrus’s ivory and sperm whale tooth, representing a good trade relationship with Norway in the middle ages, further educates those who come to admire it, and learn about the countries economic wellbeing of that era, simultaneously. As a non-historian, it’s easy to get lost in the habitual conquest and violence commonly portrayed through commemorations in museums. Including displays with aspects of ancient hobby-life, that still resonate with many people today, diverts the typical viewpoint of ancient society behavior as brutal, keeping viewers engaged and curious about the positivity of the middle ages.
I would say that the positive impact of museums is the ability for a wide variety of people to experience the art and history of other cultures. One place is this seen is in the Moai at the British Museum. It is fair to say that millions more people would have the chance to learn about the Indigenous cultures of Easter Island in London than would travel to the island itself. Of course, the issue of colonialism and imperialism is at play. It is not a coincidence that some of the most prestigious museums in the world belong to countries that were some of the most notorious colonizers. However, I believe that with international cooperation– and the understanding that artifacts from other cultures truly belong to those cultures and not the British, cooperation could be worked out to allow more people to view these works.
The Cultural Function of Museums Today
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The British Museum contains two large headstones from Rapa Nui, specifically those named Hoa Hakananai’a and Moai Hava. These notably were taken in 1868 by the British survey ship HMS Topaze and in recent years there have been efforts by the Rapa Nui community for the repatriation of the two statues. The importance of having objects like this on public display is that it educates the public on the culture and heritage of foreign countries. This allows for a greater global understanding and appreciation for each other’s culture and history. This is especially important for smaller and less influential areas like Rapa Nui who may otherwise go unrecognized. This global effect of museums is their main cultural function, a function that chips away at stereotypes and makes us more interconnected.
(museum) Prompt 2: The artifact that looks interesting to me in the photo is the tusk. It’s important that the artifacts are displayed in museums as it provides education and cultural enrichment, in addition, the artifacts in the museums being on public display makes the artifact accessible to everyone. Museums nowadays provide heritage, learning opportunities, and further understand the cultures around the world.
Critiquing Museums
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The primary critique made by Farah Nayeri in their article “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back,” is that the manner the museums obtained their art, is wrong on a moral level. Nayeri uses Napoleon as an example, as he essentially filled the Louvre with art he stole after battles. This art would then be used to “build the image of political power” for the French (Page 2). The art that sits in museums thus is more of a reflection of colonialism than anything else.
Yes, I agree with you. Napoleon used the masterpieces he plundered in Europe to justity his invasion.”Art was placed at the service of politics” (Page 5, Farah Nayeri ) Napoleon tried to linked himself to the Enlightenment thinkers by building Louvre and filled it with masterpieces. However, after Napoleon was defeated, Louvre seemed to be a direct evidence for his invasion. People criticized Napoleon for his plunder, and asked France to give those masterpieces back.
In the third article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri, activist Mwazulu Diyabanza attempted to take artifacts from multiple museums in search for reparations for colonialism, slavery and cultural expropriation. His arguments and reasoning behind his actions take wording of the law and brings an important perspective to the movement. Diyabanza talks about how he had to pay to enter these museums and see pieces of his own heritage that were taken from his home and belonged there, not in museums. He brings light to the contradictory sentiment behind museums boasting about education while holding cultural pieces of heritage hostage in museums. He also goes on to say that a museum stole the objects they have so how is it theft if the owner is just trying to obtain what was once their property?
In “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums,” Nayeri expresses the importance of removing the contradictory practices of museums that take captive of vulnerable and valuable pieces of one culture and heritage while attempting to educate another culture or group of people, using the political protest of Mwazulu Diyabanza. Mwazulu exemplifies the fact that the museums don’t technically own aspects of a particular culture through his political actions of taking artifacts related to his culture from museums. With that, Nayeri seems to conclude that culture and heritage belong to the people but reminding society of that should be done in a strategic and positive way for the cause by using “the law to be heard.”
In the article, “The Masterpieces that Napoleon Stole, and How Some went Back,” Nayeri critiques the idea that western museums are kind of nuetral caretakers of global culture. She highlights how many objects that were on display were taken through conquest, unequal power dynamics, or coercion during colonial expansion. While the museums usually argue that they preserve these artifacts for greater good, Nayeri challenges by showing this actually erases the voices and rights of the cultures which they were taken from.This articles goes to show that restitution isn’t about objects, but the reckoning with a history of exploitation and to return agency from many that it was taken from.
The second article, “For U.S. Museums with Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era is Over,” by Graham Bowley argues that museums have lost the ability to claim both neutrality whilst displaying pieces acquired by theft or colonization. Bowley continues in saying that prized pieces are direct evidence of violence and cultural erasure. Returning these artifacts would be an acknowledgement of historical wrongdoings. The article mostly focuses on pressuring museums to take action beyond the preservation of material history and confront/apologize for their past behavior.
The article “U.S. Museums with Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over” challenges the long standing belief that museums are the ideal caretakers of cultural artifacts. It shows how, for much of the twentieth century, curators at prominent American museums took a competitive attitude to collecting antiquities, frequently acquiring artifacts through questionable colonial, or blatantly criminal tactics. People like Thomas Hoving defined their practices as “piracy,” with no regard for the civilizations from where the pieces were sourced.
According to academics like Elizabeth Marlowe, this legacy indicates a larger ethical failure: for decades, Western museums profited from global disparities, acquiring items from states devastated by war, poverty, or colonization. Repatriation, which was once viewed as radical, is now seen as a necessary response to these inequities. The article argues that museums may no longer claim moral authority over these objects just because they have been housed for decades. Instead, restoring stolen or unethically acquired items is shown to be an issue of fairness and accountability, over just legality.
Farah Nayeri critiques Western museums for displaying numerous artifacts taken from African nations during the colonial era often without consent or fair agreements. It highlights activist Mwazulu Diyabanza’s dramatic protests, such as his removal of a 19th-century wooden grave pole from the Musée du quai Branly in Paris, as acts of defiance against what many regard as stolen heritage. Diyabanza argues that these objects were “stolen under colonialism” and should be returned to their rightful homelands.
While museums often present these pieces as part of a shared global history, they rarely acknowledge the violent or unjust means by which many were acquired. This lack of transparency has fueled growing calls for restitution and deeper, more honest conversations about colonial legacies.
Mwazulu Diyabanza’s actions are bold, because they represent a kind of modern protest that challenges institutions from within their own walls. Bye removing artifacts during museum visits, hie forces a confrontation what does ownership mean when something was taken under duress, or never consented to in the first place?
Critique of museums:
In the NYTimes article “For U.S. Museums With Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over,” the author talks about how a lot of museums are basically built off stolen artifacts, but for a long time no one questioned it because people felt it was “for the sake of preservation.” The piece points out that this mindset actually erases the cultures of which the items came from, and that museums need to own up to that history instead of acting like innocent caretakers.
Critiquing Museums
⤹Click the reply button just below.
There is a general critique surrounding how museums originate from stolen cultural artifacts as a result of a history of colonization and imperialism. Specifically, people argue that these objects were “plundered,” and have the right to be returned to their country of origin, as they were unfairly taken in imperial conquests (Nayeri 2). However, some people argue these artifacts should belong to the public (and humankind) and therefore not need to be returned to any nation (Bowley 3). Other people argue that its still unfair, and that the cultural value of certain artifacts means it should be returned to the rightful owners. Overall there are various opinions surrounding the ethics of museums, but it is clear majority of their history is based in plundering and taking through conquest.
Farah Nayeri’s work, “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back,” appears unbiased upon first read, but under further inspection, the article becomes a critique of England’s motivation behind keeping their stolen relics. One popular argument, in defense of England’s actions, declares that the ancient artifacts are maintained the best in England’s museums—nothing more. Still, all art is political. Farah Nayeri points out that Napoleon acknowledged the political power of the work he stole; many were used to prop up rulers of the cities he conquered. By seizing them, Napoleon was making a statement of his own power. This logic can be applied to modern society by scrutinizing the message that museums like the British Museum are sending by withholding relics from their rightful owners. Perhaps it is a declaration of superiority in the arts by flaunting the success and “inclusivity” of their exhibits.
I really liked your response and I think you did an excellent job at outlining the fallacies in the British museum’s justification for keeping stolen work. My only confusion with this article was the ending, which makes me question her views on Napoleon’s actions.
In a general regard, museums are seen as pillars of colonialism, specifically depicting the theft of culture within a society. Many people who are descendants of the artifact’s origin show a general hostility towards these museums, viewing them as toxic displays of stolen property. As Mr. Diyabanza states in Nayeri’s report, “Describing the Quai Branly as ‘a museum that contains stolen objects,’ he added, ‘There is no ban on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it.’” (Nayeri 2). This attitude towards museums as shared across many who believe their culture was stolen by imperialism, and call for a return of the artifacts that were stolen.
The Louvre Museum in Paris was first introduced as a display for Napoleon’s triumphs of artifacts taken from other countries that he had conquered. And like what was said, these pieces of art were forcefully taken from their country of origin and hence not fit to be placed as a trophy in France. There were numerous art pieces that were taken by Napoleon, and at one point some were given back to their native country where they had truly belonged. The number of pieces collected contained high levels of importance and value to the origin country where its true value was appreciated. Despite many pieces still remaining in the Louvre, it has also become a large area to admire other works of art from various cultures.
Debating Museums
Prompt 3: Museum curator, Vikan, said: “If anyone tells me that sending the Elgin marbles back to Greece, that somehow the British Museum will be empty, it’s nonsense.” This quote brilliantly summarizes the sentiment of the New York Times article of US Museums. Vikan defeats any arguments against repatriation by highlighting the ridiculousness of their defense. The British Museum and many other world-famous museums have enormous collections of art and they will not be significantly harmed by returning certain pieces to their rightful owners. Vikan wants to expose that museums and their curators value the impressiveness of their collection over cultural appreciation and educating their attendees. He implies that museums used to be much like trophy hunting where countries can show off their spoils from war. This false sense of ownership that museums feel as a result of their pretentiousness is exactly why they are not the ideal places for these artifacts to be preserved.
In the New York Times article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes
Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri, activist Mwazulu
Diyabanza makes the claim that “There is no ban on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it.” The article details a series of demonstrations against stolen cultural items in foreign museums. The sentiment expressed in the article is that many museums host and display objects that are stolen from their original homeland and culture. Public and social media protests have shown activists attempting to steal ethnic artifacts causing legal repercussions and debate as to the right way to enter the politically charged conversation. Some believe they need to return the historical items back to their original homes by any means necessary, while some argue there is a better, legal way to handle the situation.
3. Paraphrase the critique being levied against museums
In the NYT article, ‘The Masterpieces that Napoleon Stole and How Some Went Back,’ Farah Nayer details the critique that many museums have benefited from the colonization and humiliation of other countries and continue to do so as they take advantage of stolen art. Nayer goes on to point out how Napoleon pilfered 600 paintings and sculptures from Italy alone and how, after the battle of Waterloo (Napoleon’s defeat), Italy tried to reclaim their artworks, and even still, this was difficult. The end of the article goes on to ask the rhetorical question, “Why is Napoleon not condemned as ferociously […] for the looting of Africa,” which is answered by how Napoleon’s occupation of Europe was shorter than the occupation of Africa. Not to mention how the colonizers of Africa had done far more horrific things, making stolen art bearable in contrast. Ultimately critiquing how difficult museums are making the return of stolen artworks.
Critiquing Museums
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums” by Farah Nayeri criticizes the means by which museums have acquired artistic and historical pieces from foreign countries. She uses the experiences of Mwazulu Diyabanza, who visits museums and attempts to seize African works, to give us a glimpse into how the unreturned pieces are protested. This critique aims to hold museums accountable for the fact that they retain works that were wrongfully taken and have been requested back by their original owners.
In Farah Nayeri’s article “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums,” the critique centers on how museums continue to benefit from imperialist histories by holding artifacts that were taken—often by force—from colonized regions. The article highlights activists like Mwazulu Diyabanza, who challenge the legitimacy of Western museums as rightful stewards of these cultural objects. Rather than being neutral spaces of education, the article argues, museums can serve as symbols of ongoing injustice when they refuse to return looted artifacts to their countries of origin.
I definitely agree with the idea that museums no longer serve as a neutral ground for showcasing artifacts, when many of their collections are stolen and looted. The historical and culture value of an artifact deserves recognition, and I admired Mr.Diyabanza’s stance “on an owner taking back his property the moment he comes across it” (Diyabanza). You raised an interesting point regarding the continued benefits that museums get from stolen artifacts, making it difficult for those who view these pieces, knowing its origin and heritage.
In the article ‘To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts From Museums’, the museum was accused of theft, for the artifacts on display did not originate from the museum location but somewhere else. Especially the sub-Saharan Africa artifacts, for those are taken through violence acts and then sent to their current location, rather than legally obtained. Mr.Diyabanza believes that not only does it stop people learning about their own culture through those artifacts, it is ridiculous for the museums to charge people with the same cultural background as the artifacts, for they should be considered as the owner and shouldn’t pay to see their own culture.
The critique of museums centers around the idea that many of the world’s most famous artworks are built on looted and forcibly taken artifacts, including the Louvre, which is critiqued upon by Nina Siegel “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back.” Siegal highlights how Napoleon’s armies systematically seized artworks from across Europe using Scurr’s book to show “how art was placed at the service of politics” (Siegal). Even though Napoleon operated under the intentions to stabilize French and “[bring] the country out of a period of complete chaos and revolutionary disruption,” he did so by stripping other nations of their heritage (Scurr). The truth behind museums, despite their seemingly neutral stance, is that they’re reflections of conquest, exploitation, and colonial power. Siegal’s focus on the return of many artifacts challenges the idea that museums remain a permanent home to these cultural pieces.
Farah Nayer’s “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back” notes the political motivations of stealing artworks, as Napoleon wanted to bring together artworks from around the world at the Louvre in attempt to take France out of a time of revolutionary disruptions and replace the chaos with a more stable climate that prioritizes learning and discovery. The association with the works of brilliant artists, such as “The Wedding Feast at Cana” by the Renaissance painter Paolo Veronese, served to create a stronger image of Napoleon’s empire because they represented his conquests. After his fall, about half of his stolen artworks were returned due to their exploitative nature. The return of stolen artworks is a major step in restitution for victims of imperialism, and this “dismantling of the Louvre” acted as an example for other countries in a similar position. Egypt now demands the return of the rosetta stones that were captured by the British after Napoleon’s defeat.
is really interesting that the ownership of art always with associate with power, I think one reason why museums are so controversial is become the origin countries of those artifacts are still somewhat powerless against the current holder.
In “To Protest Colonialism, He Takes Artifacts from Museums”, Farah Nayeri describes the actions of Congolese activist Mwazulu Diyabanza, who attempted to and stole African artifacts from French museums, claiming it as “colonial-era cultural theft”. France holds much of others culture, with “so much of sub-Saharan Africa’s cultural heritage — 90,000 or so objects”. Diyabanza stands by his actions, saying it was fueled from having to pay money to see what had been taken from force from his home– what he did was not theft, as it was his property all along. President Macron seems to have taken in the critique against museums, and pledged to give back African heritage held by museums. A lawyer for Diyabanza critiques the museum for having stolen goods on display. Diyabanza isn’t alone in his thoughts, and there are many French nationals who follow him and support him. The issue with museums seems to be based on ownership, and what actions give museums the right to display artifacts and what actions do not.
Debating Museums Prompt 3:
In the first article by Nayeri, museums are critiqued for falsely advertising what they truly are. Instead of existing as cultural institutions that display arts and artifacts, they reflect deeper issues, specifically how artifacts are often forcibly acquired, which represent imperial conquests. In the article, Nayeri specifically uses Napoleon as an example, highlighting how his conquests of various other countries helped fill the world famous Louvre with art, yet it leaves those countries with a great sense of anger at having their culture stolen and displayed. This critique calls into question not only the legitimacy of museums, but also if museums have the moral responsibility to return items to their place of origin.
Farah Nayeri in her article “The Masterpieces That Napoleon Stole, and How Some Went Back” argues how museums are not the neutral, ideal repository of cultural artifacts that is brought about in the first class prep assignment readings. This is levied through Nayeri by expressing how these collections include artifacts that were pillaged during conquests led by Napoleon specifically. From the displaying of these pieces in the museum, it almost tries to “cover up” the violent history in which they were obtained, as the truth behind these pieces perpetrate colonial power dynamics, turning the artifacts into subsequent trophies. Nayeri continues by saying hoe holding onto these pieces after the long since removal of them further builds upon the superiority of Western institutions over the cultures and societies that they were ripped away from. The only way to fix this would be to return the pillaged pieces to their rightful origin in order to restore balance and historical justice.
Moving Lines or Visual Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad,” the narrator describes a moment in a dream in which others have cried to him saying, “‘La Belle Dame sans Merci Thee hath in thrall’” (The Lady Without Mercy has enslaved you). I found this line particularly moving because it expresses how much our imagination can take control of our reality, so that we’re no longer living in the reality we’re used to but the one we created in our mind, and the present reality becomes hard to recognize. I think emotions, especially strong ones, sometimes create a certain imagined reality and if we believe enough, we fall out of actually living in the present, similarly to how the narrator remained on the same hillside, despite its’ lack of beauty.
In The Lady of Shalott (1888), it seems a bit sensual but also tragic. The way the woman’s lips are slightly parted looks like she may be letting out a sigh or her last breath. Her eyes are also lowered and she’s looking directly at the viewers as if she’s silently asking for help. And the chain in her hand is like she’s holding on to life.
When reading Alfred Tennyson’s poem The Lady of Shalot, then immediately studying William Holman Hunt’s painting, the woman’s lusciously blown out hair in the painting intrigues the viewers. The context of this painting is that the women is trapped inside and is forced to make a tapestry out of the reflections of the outside world, yet the painting captures the moment she disobeys and breaks the curse. The force of breaking her curse has caused her hair to blow violently into the air, and is further shown through the balls of yarn being unraveled and blown away as well. The depiction of her hair represents hidden sexuality since she posses strong levels femininity (her hair being long, textured and vibrant) that are released all at once. The cause of breaking the curse was when, “Came two young lovers lately wed” in Part 2, which explains the Lady’s dramatic shift from isolation and obedience has shift to sexuality and freedom; this sight of sexual and romantic attraction caused her to finally break the shackles and her beautiful hair further conveys the claim that attraction consumes the body.
In John Everett Millais’ Ophelia, it is especially moving when you notice her hands upward and open. They are posed in such a way that she appears to be welcoming her death, her willingness and acceptance of drowning. Her right hand also holds flowers, as she’s surrounded by daisies and nettles, representing pain and innocence, symbolic of her forsaken love and tragic end. Her youthful and innocent life was overrun with tragedy and pain, driving her to the point of choosing death instead.
In the third image by Pre-Raphaelite it shows a girl laying in a body of water. Most would claim the girl is the center of attention in this painting, but I would say the flowers are. I believe this is the case because it appears she is holding some flowers and there are also flowers around her which make me believe the flowers hold a significant meaning to her.
I agree that the flowers may have significance in the image, but I still believe the women in the water is the main character. I think the women represents death as she seems to be laying in the body of water deceased with her eyes opened. I think the flowers signify the beauty in death as they lay over and around her.
In the first image, I would like to point out the dark cloud above the women’s head along with the mess of thread all over the room. Overall the painting displays a beautiful visual of color and designs, for example the painting to the right of the women in the image. I think the mess of thread and the cloud show that there can be beauty in a mess. The cloud over the women’s head along can represent lots of emotions but the emotions are held within which you cant see just by staring at her. When you look at her all you see is a beautiful woman, the string also represents a mess in beauty.
I definitely agree with your point that the clouds above the woman’s head represents a lot of dark emotions that she may be carrying within. However, you can’t see any signs of despair just by just looking at her. I think this reflects how many women, it is normalized to internalize their emotions and but on a brave face on the outside.
I agree with your point with the string representing a mess in beauty, as if it is trapping her and her not being able to escape. This painting is filled with meaning and emotions even if its not on her face, you can just see it around her. It makes it also seem like she is surrounded by troubleness and she is struggling to escape from it, and when she tries, she gets even more tangled and it gets more complicated.
In the painting, Ophelia by John Everett Millais, a specific detail of the painting stood out to me as a consistent visual detail. The painting has a motion of flowing horizontally, almost flowing along with Ophelia as she succumbs to the water. The tree beside her lays along with her, the grass, the flowers she rests with, even the branches of the tree, It all feels as though they are coming to greet her at her timely demise, that they welcome her. It’s as if her surroundings are saying that they stand in solitude with her and that they welcome her as part of the earth as she passes on, positioned sideways as she is.
Great observation, I noticed the same thing. Ophelia’s feeling of horizontal movement seems to take her softly toward death, not something very harsh, but sacred and natural. Your idea about the landscape welcoming her is powerful because it takes her death from tragedy to something weirdly serene and even romantic. Millais shows not only her death, but also nature receiving her almost like she is returning to it. That visual reflects the stillness right after her surrender, when the pain and tragedy meets beauty. I’d also add that the vibrant flowers surrounding her may not only represent innocence and sadness, but also highlight how connected she is to both life and death.
As I was reading the “The Lady of Shallot”, the strong imagery caught my eye, but the set of lines that caught my eye was “Four gray walls, and four gray towers / Overlook a space of flowers”. The reason I liked these lines were because of the stark contrast between bleak, gray, and sad walls looming over a very colorful picture of flowers. The way I pictured these lines, the flowers are overshadowed by these towers blocking sunshine from them. It felt like a stark juxtaposition, of beautiful things being in the shadows because of tall, overpowering, dark objects.
In Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s painting, Lady Lilith, the main thing that catches my eye is her beautiful long hair that she’s brushing. Lady Lilith is known as Adam’s (the first man) first wife that refused to be subservient to him as they were made of the same material making them equals. This leads to her leaving the Garden of Eden by herself and then Eve came along. Her brushing her hair in my mind shows her independence because it’s down. It just takes up the whole piece and it being down and not up to me shows that not only is she free but also secure with being independent.
One moving detail in “The Lady of Shalott” is her expression of sorrow as she sits alone in the boat with her hands loosely holding a chain – as if she knows what it to come with her decision of escape. The white gown tied in with the rich, symbolic tapestry evokes purity and sacrifice. This moment truly captures hers tragic defiance of fate. The quiet stillness before death, that is filled with courage, craving, and the cost of freedom.
Moving Lines or Visual Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
“Ophelia” by John Everett Millais portrays a solemn form of dynamism. The flowers parallel to her limp body in the water unironically adds life to a depiction of someone without any. The surrounding woods are bright green, suggesting its the prime of spring; the contrast between the bright colors of the season and the stillness of her body in the brook make the picture a unique visual.
I liked your contrast between bright and still. I also wanted to point out a theme of dynamism in “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad.” In the beginning, the lonely night comes upon a seemingly endearing, beautiful woman that gives him hope of love. Later on in the women’s bed, he dreams about how the she is evil, and wakes up alone in a cold hill. The movement of hope to loss emphasizes the strong dynamics of victorian art.
I wanted to add to your interpretation of the flowers. In the play “Hamlet,” Ophelia is greatly sexualized yet infantilized by the male characters, who impose on her a set of social expectations. However, she “breaks out” of these social restraints near the end by tossing around flowers (among other things), in an attempt to reclaim her identity. So, I think the flowers additionally hold the significance of her effort to reclaim her identity, and adds an additional level of irony to the painting, as she died around the very thing that symbolically tried to free her.
The symbol of freedom that you point out of the flowers is something that I feel is extremely important to the understanding of the image. While she is surrounded by flowers her hands are also open as if she is letting go. There seems to be no panic or resistance to the water through her expressions. Without words her body language tells us that she is ready to be released from the control of others and conveys that she may finally be at peace.
I completely agree that Ophelia is a from of dynamism. To add on to the aspect of Dynamism, it seems that the creek she lays on has no obvious direction of movement. The river isn’t moving left or right. From the perspective of the reader, the direction of the river, and by extension her life, is still, having the possibility that it can move in either direction.
In Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Lady Lilith (1866-68) what stands out to me is the darkness in the room while the sunshines and the grass is greener than ever. The contrast in color leads me to having a differing opinion than the point of this painting I don’t think the self absorption and the ability to seduce a man stands for the power of feminine beauty instead i think it’s dangerous because a woman shouldn’t be so hyper fixated on her beauty especially with the purpose being because of a man. There are many negative side effects to focusing too much on your beauty and I feel as though the light coming from the window is more of a message that there are more productive and positive things to do like appreciating nature and the things surrounding you than weaponizing your beauty.
I liked how you brought up the consequences of weaponized feminisms, and how this focus should be put in other areas such as nature. I wanted to add on to that idea by bringing focus to the plants in the painting. The woman in the painting does not focus on the beauty of the flowers or trees behind her, but rather on how she looks when combing her hair. This displays your point on how some women may be hyper fixated on beauty to the point they forget that there is more to life than their looks.
In William Holman Hunt’s The Lady of Shalott, the painting has unexpected visual focus points- one might expect the piece to feature the string imprisoning Lady of Shalott, or her hair, which takes up almost a quarter of the painting. It even shadows a bird, attempting to fly out of the window. However, the highlighted part of the painting is the bottom right corner, illuminated by the light from the window. This draws the viewers attention away from the top of the painting and forces them to see Lady of Shalott’s loom and feet, leading the viewer to question details that may have otherwise gone unnoticed or understated.
I think that the lighting in the bottom right does take away the attention from the rest of the painting. I wanted to add what Hunt wanted to maybe hide from the viewer in the shadows. He deliberately focuses the light as to illuminate half of her body to emphasize how she is “half sick of shadows.” not only that but the deliberate lighting you mentioned hides the large dark mass blocking the view of the window being the aforementioned curse, maybe weighing on her to continue weaving.
This is a good detail that I have completely overlooked. The painting is packed with many little details such as the people outside the window or the many ornate details that decorate the walls and furniture. The artist definitely used lighting intentionally.
A line that interested me was from Christina Rossetti, “Goblin Market” was “ we must not look at goblin men, we must not buy their fruits: Who knows upon what soil they fed their hungry thirsty roots”. I find it interesting because It really showcases the times they were in and how honestly not much has changed in all these years when it comes to how woman are treated. Women are never allowed to be themselves without having to worry about how men will feel, or how they will react, This line wants to make aware hidden intentions. Woman can’t trust men’s fruit (what they offer) because the soil ( where it comes from) is unknown. Men’s intentions are never truly know. If woman buy into men they are taking a major risk in a way.
Ophelia was said to have died while trying to pick flowers, and slowly drowned from the heavy weight of her dress. In the painting of “Ophelia” by John Everett Millais, Ophelia has yet to drown but has a look of lifelessness already. Additionally, she is holding a bundle of flowers that is nowhere else in the painting. And yet she had also picked white flowers, which represent purity and innocence; but had let them go implying she is also letting go of the innocence and purity a lady of her age was required to be, along with her life.
I completely agree with this reading, and this is also particularly interesting because it is heavily implied that Ophelia committed suicide, supporting this interpretation of the painting.
A particular moving line for me was in William Holman Hunt’s article was, “I saw their starved lips in the gloam.” I think this is because most of the poem has this sensual loving feeling that specifically targets kissing and how that makes one feel. Then right before this line the tone shifts and specifically this line really shows what tone it shifted to. It’s much more darker and depressing considering how kissing was so admired then to be compared to starving it’s very abrupt almost and really show how painful this author feels.
Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin market” is packed with sensual language. the goblin’ fruit’s being regarded as “sweeter than honey from the rock” “Sweeter than man-rejoicing wine”, the goblins are merchants “Come buy, come buy” but they aren’t just selling food. the lauguage surrounding the fruit’s refers a lot to sensuality. “Laura suck’d and suck’d and suck’d the more” this demonstrates the addictive nature of the fruit but also could refer to something more carnal. With no money Laura offers a curl of her hair, transactional in a way we would not expect, the beginning of her downfall because she could not find the goblin’s again after becoming obssesed with it, it felt like she had given something she could never have again.
From Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin Market,” I especially liked the line “For there is no friend like a sister in calm or stormy weather.” During the Victorian era, society placed heavy emphasis on female purity and restraint, and it was interesting to see how two sisters were able to deal with the problems of not abiding by those expectations. I found this interesting, as this is one of the first poems that I have read that tells a story between sisters rather than the usual brother trope.
Moving Lines or Visual Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
All four of these paintings show a very beautiful woman, and at face value, could simply just be a gorgeous painting of a woman. To me, each of these women look distraught, sad, unfulfilled with what may be a meaningless, mundane life. The second painting, (The Lady of Shalott) strikes me the most because she looks the most in distress, on the verge of tears even, as she sits in the boat. I also noticed that she’s holding what looks like the chain of the boat that keeps it from leaving the dock, a small detail that might suggest that she is contemplating drifting away from what is causing her emotional pain.
I agree with the sadness being encompassed in these paintings despite how beautiful and pleasing they are to the eyes. The painting of Ophelia drowning and taking her last breaths has always been striking to me. She was full of love, life, and beauty. Yet, here she lay, dying all the same despite all the wonderful qualities listed above.
I was thinking the same thing when viewing these paintings. They are all filled with a certain emptiness and sadness despite the beautiful women and mastery of art that they showcase. The third image, John Everett Millais’ Ophelia stands out to me the most. Despite the serenity of Ophelia’s surroundings, the stunning detail in her dress, and her own beauty, the image still emanates a quite melancholy feeling.
A detail I noticed in the John Everett Millais painting of Ophelia was the flowers covering her in the water. I think the choice to add other flowers not mentioned in Hamlet, such as poppies which represent death, is a very interesting and meaningful detail that the painter chose to include. Besides the meanings of the flowers and what they represent, I think think these bright flower in contrast to the more beige and sad rest of the painting, shows that even in death, one can still find the beauty.
I didn’t know what the individual flowers represented but it definitely adds so much more depth and meaning to the painting. I wonder if each type of flower in the painting was intentionally added based on its meaning- which might explain the feelings and emotions Ophelia experienced.
A detail that strikes me in Dante Gabriel Rossetti painting, Lady Lilith, was he portrayed her as a beautiful woman that is seductive and shallow. By the painting having movement of brushing her hair and having a mirror on her hand, However, by knowing the meaning of the legend of Lady Lilith, her staring into space also demonstrates her being torn of society just seeing her by her beauty and not of how she truly is.
In William Holman Hunt, The Lady of Shalott (1888-1905), a striking visual detail I noticed from the painting was that of the loom wrapping itself around her, the curse almost trying to hold her down. However, her standing symbolizes her trying to defy the curse and break it. She is in this room, the outside world peaking in the distance behind her. The colorful loom along with the bombastic room could showcase her breaking free form this curse and wanting to choose her own fate over the curse, which would juxtapose the lifeless, colorless death that awaits her.
A line that strikes me from the poem “La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad” by John Keats is in the last stanza when the knight says, “And this is why I sojourn here, Alone and palely loitering.” Not only does this line encapsulate the tragic fate of the knight forever doomed to wander aimlessly in solitude but I also like how the writer ties his fate back to the men that warned him in his dreams through the repeated use of the word pale. I was surprised that the poem ended in this manner leaving things unresolved especially as I expected him to escape following the earlier mentioned warning.
One thing I love about the painting of Ophelia by John Everett Millais is the flowers Ophelia is holding. If I remember in Hamlet, each of the flowers represented someone’s trait that also represented someone, example the rosemary was remembrance which was given to Laertes.
Beautiful women with sad face, vivid color, and flowers are the characteristics that all four painting have. The painting was able to emphasize the emotion of beautiful women by using contrasting color of what she feels. The colorful background with flowers made women looks more tragic. Especially third painting and fourth painting did great job on using contrasting background.
I totally agree with you. In-fact the author of third painting, John Everett, hired an model and let her posed in water so he can capture this tragic, life-like facial emotion. Which is not a very common practice back then.
One particularly moving line that I found from the poem La Belle Dame san Merci by John Keats that I found was the line “ They cried—‘La Belle Dame sans Merci/Thee hath in thrall!’” (Lines 39 – 40). This line stood out to me the most because not only is it the title of the poem, but in a way this line also is like a warning to the man that he loves her but she does not love him. It was foreshadowing what was soon to come. This being shown through how when he wakes up she is not by his side. In a way it is like the men in his dream tried to warn him about the lady.
1. Ophelia lays down in a body of water, frozen in a state of awe. Ophelia and the landscape surrounding her is simultaneously beautiful, however it is a contrast to the reality. From her brother and father controlling her to her descent into madness that eventually led to her death demonstrates the tragic nature of her life. But yet in the end everything in this painting is beautiful, which I believe is done to reflect the nature of who she is to her core.
2. The great exhibition represented non-european groups. Particularly in the “India” painting, you can see people from different backgrounds included. That is extremely progressive considering the time.
In Keat’s poem, one line that really stood out to me is the line “I saw pale kings and princes too/pale warriors, death-pale were they all.” This line stood out to me because the repetition of the word pale emphasizes the lifelessness of the life of a knight and potentially foreshadows their own fate. This is an extremely chilling line that deepens the poem’s sense of fatal beauty in a haunting way.
In Keat’s poem, one line that really stood out to me is the line “I saw pale kings and princes too/pale warriors, death-pale were they all.” This line stood out to me because the repetition of the word pale emphasizes the lifelessness of the life of a knight and potentially foreshadows their own fate. This is an extremely chilling line that deepens the poem’s sense of fatal beauty in a haunting way. Somehow, this poem also reminds me a little bit about Apollo and Daphne from last semester, where Apollo loved Daphne so much he couldn’t let her go, and it let to Daphne’s self-ruin. In this case, there is the opposite, where the knight’s love/obsession with the figure in the poem leads to ruin, not fulfillment of their desires.
John Everett Millais’ Ophelia depicts Ophelia as she drowns in a flowery river. What stood out to me is the beauty of the scene contrasting with the tragedy of Ophelia’s end. She slowly sinks in the midst of trees, grass, and different kinds of flowers, and holds a melancholic, resigned countenance with her mouth open, suggesting she’s singing in her final moments.
That’s a really interesting way to look at it. I was wondering what the intentions of her mouth being open were and I thought that maybe it was just because she was dying. I like your take so much better though, it kind of changes the meaning of the photo for me.
1. One particularly moving visual detail appears in the Ophelia painting, where her hands float open above the water while her fingers delicately extended as if it is meant to showcase her surrendering both to death and to nature. Despite being surrounded by the lush and blooming plants and flowers, her passive form contrasts sharply with the vitality of the environment. The flowers illustrate fleeting beauty which is a topic that can be call backed to her last scene in Hamlet.
2. In the Colonial Produce image, non European cultures are represented more as resources than as people as there value is defined by what they produce rather than who they are. The display of this in the image shows materials like cotton, tea, sugar, and spices, presented in elegant arrangements that obscure the exploitative colonial systems behind them. Also, there are no visible laborers, just the goods they harvested. This visual details reinforces a narrative where the empire’s subjects are contributors to Britain’s greatness, but only as silent, passive providers as they are not to be credited for their efforts.
“I am half sick of shadows”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
“I am half sick of shadows” shows that the Lady of Shalott can’t bear a boring life that she can only see things in Camelot through a magic mirror but not be able to be part of it. She finally decides live a life out of the limitation given by the unknown curse. This line is significant as it shows the change of Lady of Shalott, and this change results in her death.
Yes, and it presents Lady of Shalott as willing to take the risk to step beyond the illusion of the reality put in front of her. However, reality is what creates her doom as it presents another boundary for her – a life limited once the mirror broke. As she stepped out of the shadow of mirrored reality, she stepped into another one, the shadow of looming death; the Lady of Shalott may be “half sick of shadows,” but she never seems to be able to leave one.
I totally agree. I also find it interesting how this line comes directly after the moment she sees the two newlyweds under the moonlight. To me, it showed how deeply she wished to have someone of her own to love and live life with even though that would be impossible. I think the use of the word “shadow” is also important because it represents her situation, knowing that the lives of others and the life she wishes for is always happening and she can watch it as it follows her, but she can never touch the shadows and the life she longs for.
The line “I am half sick of shadows” represents her isolation and sadness of her boring life. She also has “no loyal knight and true” which also represents her sadness. This can be seen in the second painting where Lady shallot looks unhappy as she is going to camelot alone. However, she knows she is under some unknown curse as well, so this line emphasizes the darkness in her life, which was true because in the end she dies. I also found it so sad becasue she said this line after seeing two newlyweds, which makes me think that also yearned for this relationship.
I agree with your post! I think the line, “I am half sick of the shadows,” indicates she both enjoys the peace of being behind the scenes, but she craves a more vivid, exciting, adventurous life, especially with the word “half”. This line is the tipping point to Lady Shallot’s story, making it significant to the whole poem, because this line gives a sense of her motives and what she longs for in life.
I am half sick of shadows” is an extremely telling line about the sorrowful life of a Victorian woman. The Lady is trapped in a tower, unable to really see the world, and can only watch life from a distance. She wants to experience life, but the use of the word “half” reveals that although she’s aware of her suffering and lack of agency, she’s still afraid to challenge society’s rules. The “curse” reflects these strict rules of Victorian society, especially for women, as they were expected to remain passive in life.
To me, the statement “I am half sick of shadows” expresses the Lady of Shalott’s desire for real life, for genuine experience rather than living in an illusion. She has lived in seclusion, viewing the world only through a mirror and incorporating its “magic sights” into her tapestry. Her whole existence is filtered and secondhand…she is aware of love, and human connection but had never experienced it firsthand. This line is a turning point where she yearns for, is impatient and has a desire for reality, even at the risk of death. To me, her un happiness with mere “shadows” reflects a larger struggle for safety and self expression (especially for women during the time). Overall, it foreshadows her decision to stare out the window and appreciate the dangerous beauty of life, even if it means losing everything.
“I am half sick of shadows”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Earlier in this poem, the lines:
appear. This indicates that the shadows Lady Shalott is referring to are the glimpses of life she can only perceive through this mirror. Wanting to look out the window is the rising action, which eventually leads to the climax of looking out her window into the real world, even though she knew it would lead to her destruction.
I interpret the poem as a warning about the shame that arises from purity culture. Right before she becomes sick of the shadows, Lady Shallot notices two lovers.
“Came two young lovers lately wed;
“I am half sick of shadows,” said
The Lady of Shalott.”
The message of the poem then becomes that if, instead of simply observing lovers, as Lady Shallot had been doing before the curse, one looks out the window ( what I consider a metaphor for falling in love), they fall from grace and commit suicide out of personal shame. Even though that love could’ve been reciprocated.
“But Lancelot mused a little space;
He said, “She has a lovely face;
God in his mercy lend her grace,
The Lady of Shalott.”
This would indicate a bash at purity culture and the Victorian curse of being unable to allow yourself to fall in love with anyone.
I thought it was interesting how lady Shalott said “I am half sick of shadows” and not fully sick of shadows. This really shows how she is quite ambiguous in thinking about the meaning of her life. In my understanding, it seems to say that while she craves love, she does not know if true love exists because everything is not real and reflected through the mirror. Earlier in part 2, the poet mentions “The knights come riding two and two:She hath no loyal knight and true,” and this shows how she does not find anyone trust worthy and while she intimacy, she is having trouble finding it. The mirror reflects only herself, which further shows the state of isolation.
I really like your take on this Lucy, especially how you note that Lady Shallot is uncertain if true love or the reality she sees through the mirror is actually real or not. I find that this frustration she feels as a result of her uncertainty about life is expressed in this line, driving her towards a turning point where she is done living life this way. Lady of Shalott lives her life from the reflection she views through her mirror, and as a result is uncertain if what she observes is real or not. The use of the word “shadows” describes this experience of uncertainty in a negative way (Part 2 The Lady of Shalott). Shadows, like the mirror, are a substitute for experiencing and viewing the actual thing. The word “shadow” connotes something dark, meaning a bad substitute for the actual thing (Part 2 The Lady of Shalott). As a result of connoting Lady of Shalott’s experience of life to something negative it shows how this is a turning point for Lady Shalott. She is now done living life this way, a point of rebellion.
I agree, the wording she uses is interesting because of its ambiguity as it shows her perspective on the realness of love. We can also see her struggle of finding true love throughout the poem as we see the mirror analogy appear again when she says, “The mirror crack’d from side to side;/’The curse is come upon me,’ cried/ The Lady of Shalott.” she had her doubts on the realness of love comparing it to a mirror because just like love reflections on a mirror aren’t real. When she says the mirror cracks, it shows her view of love saying that true love isn’t real.
“I am half sick of shadows”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Lady of Shalott declaring “I am half sick of shadows” encapsulates a universal experience of yearning for connection. It is understandable when The Lady of Shalott asserts this, as she has no control over essentially anything in the outside world, causing her to crave these components that she’s aware others could experience since they’re not under the same curse she is. Her desire to escape her unfortunate reality of seeing everything through mirrors also reminds me of Ophelia in Hamlet, as Ophelia was similarly oppressed due to the expectations and roles set upon her by her father, also causing her to yearn for a different reality.
In Parts I and II, the life of the Lady of Shallot is described. The Lady of Shallot lives in a quiet isle, with “Four gray walls, and four gray towers”. Nobody sees her, but they do occasionally hear her sing. As the Lady of Shalott is supposedly not allowed to look at the city of Camelot directly, she can only see “Shadows of the world” through the reflection of a mirror. Up until the end of this line, the lady of Shallot is only spoken about, not a speaker. The poem before this describes the rivers, flowers, and the town the Lady of Shallot can’t look at, and she is as much a spectator to the sights as the reader is. “I am half sick of shadows” is the first time the feelings of the Lady of Shalott is described, and it reveals she is unhappy with her current position in life. As the poem has four parts, this is declared in the half of it, and shows a desire for change.
This line marks a turning point in the Lady’s emotional state. Since she is trapped in her tower, she can only see life through the reflections in the mirror, mere “shadows” of real experience. Her urge to live fully, even at significant cost, reflects the Victorian conflict between social constraint and inner desire. It’s a cry of frustration, yet also one of awakening —a passion for truth, love, and agency, no matter how tragic the outcome.
Despite the vivid imagery of the surrounding world, to lady Shalott is no more than a fake illusions. This line highlight her discontent to the current state and provide an reason for why would she break the curse. The word ‘shadows’ also serve as an contrast to the depiction of knight, like the word ‘glitter’, ‘stars’ and ‘silver’; people are always more drawn to shinny thing than darkness.
Because of the warp way in which the Lady of Shalott must view the world, the line “I am half sick of Shadows” is primarily a direct complaint about her limited perspectives of the world. Given she can not travel or view more of the world, as she is trapped, this line highlights her frustration, as in previous lines, lovers and knights and free women are mentioned. This line being placed after everything else highlights the jealously she must feel.
I believe this quote is significat because it deatails the feelings the Lady of Shalott has while living at the top of the tower. She is always looking down seeing people connect and be in each others company. But from where she is she can only see their shadows. Before she says this she saw, “two young lovers lately wed” which clearly put her over the edge and made her say, “I am half sick of shadows.”
Making sense of the goblins’ fruit
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The phrases “All ripe together ” and other phrases that play to the nature of fruit being sweet and actions that can have a more explicit meaning, give us a hint that the focus of fruit the poem may be a metaphor for the methods of coercion used by men. It is because in this case the goblins are using fruit to lure the women before they captured her. The fruit could also be a reference to alcohol as Lizzie becomes addicted to the fruit and wants the forbidden fruit which causes her to get captured by the goblins.
I agree with you. I think the fruit serve as a metaphor for indulgence, and addiction as you say. I think the dynamics between the sisters also help this interpretation, having the sister’s support and love (love that is described in a similar fashion to the fruit) help Lizzie when she is falls into her addiction.
One detail that makes the goblins fruit feel sexual is the way thats it’s described as overflowing, ripe, and irresistible…”sweeter than honey from a rock”. When Laura eats it, the moment is very intimate and almost erotic. She “suck’d their fruit globes fair or red”. The language used is indulgent and turns consumption into a sensual act. I think it complicates the story when it frames sisterly love as some redemption force. Lizzie’s self sacrifice flips the sexual charge to something that is all healing and spiritual. Almost as if desire is dangerous but love has the power to redeem even the most corrupted hunger.
I agree with the sentiment that the Goblins continuously sexualize the act of eating the fruit, and how this however, is challenged as the sisters turns this notion on its side and represent ‘healing and spiritually’ as you mentioned.
The act of eating in ‘Goblin Market’ is meant to symbolize sexuality, especially with lines like “she sucked and sucked and sucked the more.” The way Laura gives in completely, and how the goblins are pressuring and physical, makes it feel like eating the fruit is about giving in to forbidden desire.
Lizzie, who doesn’t eat the fruit even when the goblins try to force it on her, instead brings it back to save her sister. That moment when Laura kisses Lizzie with a “hungry mouth” shows that eating can also represent love and healing, not just temptation.
The Goblins repeated urging of ‘come buy come buy’ along with describing Laura’s mouth as ‘hungry’ reinforce the erotic tone of the poem. On the other hand towards the end of the poem it describes Lizzie saving her sister which transforms the metaphor of fruit from one of seduction/temptation to salvation. Ultimately I believe the poem to be about familial love and redemption rather than punishment for sexual transgression.
Making sense of the goblins’ fruit
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The phrases “All ripe together ” and other phrases that play to the nature of fruit being sweet and actions that can have a more explicit meaning, give us a hint that the focus of fruit the poem may be a metaphor for the methods of coercion used by men. It is because in this case the goblins are using fruit to lure the women before they captured her. The fruit could also be a reference to alcohol as Lizzie becomes addicted to the fruit and wants the forbidden fruit which causes her to get captured by the goblins.
Christina Rossetti’s work, “Goblin Market,” is difficult for me to digest, but its references to Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit really stand out. Looking at the poem through the lens of the victorian era, I believe Rossetti is alluding to the restraints women faced in this era in terms of sexual expression. I cannot tell, however, if she encourages purity or not. The scene where Lizzie is being attacked (perhaps as a commentary towards the oppressive norms of that time) is deeply upsetting, coming across as a feminist message. On the other hand, the end where the girls escape the fruit’s temptation has me thinking otherwise.
In The Goblin Market, the goblins’ fruit is loaded with sensual imagery amongst figurative language used to evoke sexuality. Specifically a moment includes Laura perpetually “sucking” on the fruits, unable to stop herself from indulging in their sweetness. It’s noted that the goblins coerce her with “honeyed” voices and caressive touch while physically crowding her, this action eluding the danger of sexual assault.The narrative is complicated when Lizzie resists the goblins’ advances as an act of redemption and resilience in spirit of her sister, which allows for reflection/warning about exploitation.
One line that confirms that the fruits are considered in a sexual way is: “Who knows upon what soil they fed their hungry thirsty roots?” I translated this line to mean who knows what childhood shaped their personalities/experiences? It adds life to the fruits and considers them as potential suitors for Laura. What complicates this claim later, though, is that Laura tries to sell fruit of her own. In this context, the fruit appear more strictly for economic reasons.
Making sense of the goblins’ fruit
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Christina Rossetti’s, “Goblin Market,” the details of the poem create the association between goblins’ fruit and sexuality through vivid, sensual imagery that emphasizes temptation and indulgence. An example of this is through the line, “She suck’d and suck’d and suck’d the more Fruits which that unknown orchard bore; She suck’d until her lips were sore; ” (Rossetti). This repetition and emphasis of a physical movement is meant to mimic an erotic desire, with Laura facing shame from the men’s predatory behavior. It’s coercive and aggressive in making Laura act in a way that can be interpreted sexually in the context of the goblin’s fruit.
I agree. I think that through the abundant amount of sensual imagery and intense diction associates with the goblins fruit and sexuality. In the middle of the poem, Rossetti mentions a “forbidden fruit”, which can also be considered a biblical reference. During early times, queer was a very delicate and almost prohibited topic, the sexuality and sexual life of a woman was very important and heavily observed. The “forbidden fruit” is usually related to a desperate desire that is considered wrong like a sin. The connection between Lizzy and Laura could be compared to the “forbidden fruit” that associates it with their sexuality.
Non-European Cultures at the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the “All the World Going to See the Great Exhibition of 1851,” there are people near the center reaching out their arms towards the Great Exhibition, maybe in desire for what it could provide for them. Through this cartoon, the Great Exhibition seems to represent non-European culture and people as malnourished of aspects of culture they should have, basically making European culture as something to be integrated with. It seems like the cartoon also expresses how the Great Exhibition gives the perfect opportunity to learn more and fulfill non-European culture and people.
We can see the contrast of the people in Odds & Ends, in, out & about, the Great Exhibition of 1851 and During the Opera Boxes. It seems to be a trend that the British are represented as hungry people that eat which could be a reference to how they viewed the world culture as being absorbed by Europeans. You can especially see this in the Opera Boxes as the people from the other countries are serving the Europeans food and providing them services. The respect is not mutual.
Totally agree with your point about the British being shown as the ones doing the “consuming”.
Another piece that shows this is ‘The Chinese Court’ from the exhibition. The way it’s displayed feels more like a collection of decorative objects for British admiration than a true representation of Chinese culture.
The British are “collecting” pieces of the world to show off. Just like in ‘During the Opera Boxes’, the relationship feels one-sided, with non-European cultures providing something for British enjoyment, but not being seen as equal participants.
To further add on to this idea, I think the words at the bottom of the art, the very title of this piece is very telling and confirms all of these suspicions. “All The Word Going To See The Great Exhibition of 1851”, implies that this movement has a great impact on the whole entire world not just the British. It displays the almost narcissism of the British that they believe that a civil matter must impact the entirely of the world, so much so that, as pointed out, that people are running and reaching toward it. They are portrayed as above all others and as mentioned the ones doing the “consuming”, be that countries as well as the interest and attention of all.
In the India display, the Great Exhibit represented Indian culture by incorporating specific patterns and colors. Throughout the display there are a various shades of reds which may hold some significance to the culture.
The Great Exhibit also includes a huge elephant on display, draped in traditional gold and burgundy cloth, with something that looks like a carriage on its back. Since the majority of the Indian population is Hindu, I know that elephants hold spiritual significance.
Lastly, there are three male figures who I assume are of Indian descent and they are dressed very differently from the Europeans, wearing traditional clothing and flat circular hat on their heads.
The exhibition seemed to depict the other, non European cultures in different ways. Places like India were depicted ornately, with gold, patterns, fabric and an elephant, whereas places like the Bahamas were just produce tables. Rather than being culturally accurate, it is more so a spectacle showing what they get from these places, what Europeans specifically want and value, not a truthful depiction or lens into these different places.
Yes, I agree, these features in the pictures are very important to note On the surface, it seems that the Europeans attempted to represent other cultures like India and Turkey with their cultural decorations. They also included goods from the Bahamas. However I am having a hard time believing it is a spectacle because this was a part of Albert’s liberal passions, allowing him to introduce these non European cultures. I believe they are trying to do this is different ways, rather its through grand decoration or through goods. However, the name of “Great Exhibition” might give a feeling that it is mainly for show.
What stands out in the “Turkey” image is how theatrical the setting feels.The big red drapes, the pavilion, and the luxurious fabrics thats displayed behind the glass makes it seem like a fantasy set rather than genuine cultural representation. Even the man on the left dressed in exotic kind of clothing seems more like a prop rather than a person with agency. It kind of goes to show Turkey as a colorful and decorative place but still contained within British control. The empire power lies not just in coloring land but curating their identities.
I agree with the how the pavilion’s vibrancy through the architecture and structure emphasizes the luxury promoted through the glass cases. Even though the pavilion is placed within Turkey culture, there appears to be limits to the expansion of culture, such as the contrast of the man of the left near a non-enclosed clothing with the British people surrounding the enclosed artifacts and fabrics. This seems to express that without the boundaries (and maybe rules) the British established, Turkey will be without the necessary richness brought to their culture.
In the second Image (Turkey), on the top left you see an animal head with animal skin hanging from it. Although this may seem European because European men would also hunt, Native people used to wear the skin of the animals the same way its hanging on the wall which gives reason to believe that is non-European culture. Another part of the image that represent non-European culture are the clothes all the way to the right side of the image. Europeans during that time as seen by the ones in the image, didnt seem to wear such colorful clothes.
Great observations! I think its important to point out that the animal skin clothing and colorful designs are clear markers of ‘otherness’ that further separated the Turks from traditional Europeans. Another difference is the way in which the pictures are staged. It looks to be a sort of market where Turkey is made into a spectacle for British audiences. It all feeds into the orientalist stereotypes and a lack of genuine cultural understanding.
Non-European Cultures at the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Great Exhibition represents non-European cultures in a light of subservience – I’m using “All the World Going to See The Great Exhibition”. Atop the sphere are a litany of flags of the world, that happen to be dwarfed by her majesty’s flag (The UK). The rest of the sphere includes the different biomes, people, landscapes, and flags underneath that of the British. This illustrates the British not only as “owners” of everything within The Great Exhibition, but owners of the nations of which they pillaged, stole, and taken from.
I viewed another piece a similar way, and it’s important to note that this idea you’re explaining is prevalent in other images as well, like the Dispersion, where the English’s flag is lowered upon the exit of all the goods they’ve collected by exploitation of their colonies.
We can see the contrast of the people in Odds & Ends, in, out & about, the Great Exhibition of 1851 and During the Opera Boxes. It seems to be a trend that the British are represented as hungry people that eat which could be a reference to how they viewed the world culture as being absorbed by Europeans. You can especially see this in the Opera Boxes as the people from the other countries are serving the Europeans food and providing them services. The respect is not mutual.
I really like your observation that there is no mutual respect. I see that in right bottom corner of the image “Odds and Ends,” an East Asian looking woman is sitting in the corner, looking lonely and quiet while the British people were expressive and talking to each other. This represents how they see the Eastern culture as more reserved and establish the stereotype.
In the particular image ”India” from the Crystal palace we can a see a Large elephant in Indian attire representing a common practice within their culture. As it is showcased in the middle of the room we see many fair skinned people viewing it from the top but what I found to be interesting was the dark skinned people in their culture’s attire walking around as well. In this image it is prevalent that other cultures were not ostracized but instead were welcomed and admired.
I also noticed how in the “India” image, there were darker skinned people in traditional clothing as well, and appreciated the idea that their culture was featured in that section of the exhibition. However, in the image “Colonial Produce,” there is a dark skinned woman who is taking care of two wealthy white children. This image may show that non-white people were still being discriminated against through their labor and capitalization of their culture. This is especially evident as they are walking through the Colonial produce section, which features many products of imperialism and misappropriation of culture.
Yes, I also noticed the presence of darker skinned people in both the India and Colonial Produce exhibit. It was interesting to see how their cultures were visually included in the exhibition, but it also made me wonder if these individuals were proud to represent their heritage or if they felt conflicted because of the harsh treatment and exploitation tied to imperialism during this time.
The great exhibition represents non-European culture and people by showcasing their struggle. Specifically under the Bahama tent in the Colonial produce image they display sugarcane. A known product that was easily accessible to Europeans through exploitation “slavery”. The Bahamas was known for their rum and sugarcane trade. Something that went on for years yet their struggle wasn’t publicly acknowledged. The Europeans only decided to showcase what benefited them.
Yes, it’s interesting how sugarcane in the Bahamas were detached from the brutal labor behind them. No sign of the bodies who harvested it, no sign of the suffering behind it. It’s like they are trying to make colonialism look less violent and more aestheticaly pleasing. these goods coming from the empire’s “succes” and not the criminal means that permited it. The exhibition doesnt just represent the empire, it justifies it.
The great exhibition represents how europeans used other cultures as a form of entertainment. Many of the countries displayed in the exhibition are very extravagant with beautifully ornated elephants from India and luxurious textiles from turkey. This can be a positive thing because it shows other cultures in a positive light, highlighting the valuable exports these cultures produce. But it can also be seen as negative because it displays other cultures as inferior and are to be looked down on as spectacles.
In The Dispersion of the Works of all Nations from the Great Exhibition of 1851, viewers see that as the goods are dispersing, Britain’s flag is lowered on top of the Crystal Palace. This might imply that Britain’s dominance is hollow without having exploited the foreign people of English colonies. It’s ironic how the success of the exhibition depended on every piece of resource and delicacy the English collected from these colonized countries–the cultural wealth and plunder they invested into their work.
Non-European cultures are seen as entertainment and source of property. In Colonial Produce, you can see many Europeans viewing the items, with a little girl skipping across the stage. Moreover, these cultures are in their own dedicated sections, like how there are dedicated sections in zoos, so you know exactly what you want to see and be entertained by.
I believe that the Great Exhibition did a great job of representing non-European cultures and peoples. When looking at the Turkey exhibition, I noticed that they took inspiration from Turkish architecture and design whilst also having different Turkish artifacts and clothing. I also noticed what looks like a Turkish native at the exhibit, which also adds to a great representation of the culture itself by having someone there from that country
Non-European Cultures at the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Great exhibition allowed non-european and europeans to come together and create a space where they could marvel at their own culture while also learning about someone elses. For example, the image of the Indian section shows these gold embellishments on the elephant, they are beautiful and people pass it by in awe. It is also important to note that in the image, it is not only the Europeans walking about, but an Indian man and boy. Everyone is looking, taking in the history coming alive around them.
The Great Exhibition did a great job in representing non-European cultures because in the picture of Colonial Produce it shows different stations of places around the world such as in the Barbados station it has rods of sugar canes. Which sugar canes were a major part of their economy due to their rich lands. Therefore, the Great Exhibition allowed other non-European cultures get to explore and learn about about others culture.
I agree, not only did the exhibition do a great job at representing non-European cultures, the exhibition made it accessible to the non-Europeans
I agree! To expand, Turkey was present in the Great Exhibition, specifically in the image labeled Turkey. It showcases genuine animal skin rugs, intricately detailed, royal robes, and classic Turkish-designed rugs. These goods were highly sough after as well, boosting their economy greatly. The Great Exhibition allowed for non-European cultures to represent themselves and allowed for a chance to globally broadcast their cultures safely and authentically, letting people of different cultures experience Turkey in its own, rightful manner.
The Great Exhibition represents non-European cultures and peoples by skin color and local products. The image of colonial produce shows black people and white people, which can promote the fact that people from different parts of the world are coming to the Great Exhibition. Also, on the ceiling, there are multiple countries’ tags and under that there are local products that are produced from each country.
I believe that the Great Exhibition was a fucked up way of allowing non-white people to see their own cultures. The white people stole from them their culture and art, yet the white people are the one’s that get to display Afrikan, Asian, Latin American art???????? Rather than not touch non-white people and their cultures, white men had to put their colonizer claws over everything. I believe that Europeans should have NEVER colonized Afrikan, Asian, Latin American, Indigenous Australian and American people and their cultures.
In the Crystal Palace image labeled “India,” the ornate display of gilded thrones and elephant statues presents Indian culture as exotic, luxurious, and ornamental. It is designed to dazzle rather than inform the audience. These artifacts are stripped of their original cultural and religious contexts and reimagined as imperial trophies, reinforcing Britain’s dominance over its colonies. The careful staging prioritizes spectacle over understanding, diminishing diverse civilizations to decorative symbols of empire.
The Great Exhibition allowed for various non-European artworks to be represented in Britain, allowing for people learn about different cultures without having to travel. Colonial Produce, for example, shows banners of different countries, including the Bahamas and Trinidad, under which art from there is showcased. The people looking at the art vary in race, age and background, reflecting the wide-spread awe and curiosity at them.
The Great exhibition tried to show the other cultures of the world by setting up stands for each country and large signs above it. It was interesting to see how big the area was for India. Across the multiple pictures you can see the signs that point towards India and in the India photo, the inside was very large. It was also interesting to see smaller countries like the Bahamas being recognized with its own stand. Even though its small it shows that the europeans wanted to include as many cultures as possible
Public Attitudes toward the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In “All the World is Going to See the Great Exhibition 1851,” there are multiple groups of non-European people who make their way towards the Great Exhibition, specifically a group in the center, to the left and to the right. Oddly, though, there is a clear distinct space between the non-European people and the European crowd that rushes forward towards the exhibition. It’s almost like the crowd is purposefully leaving space between them and other cultures that they are not accustomed to even though they rush to learn about them. I think it portrays the attitude that the public and European people did wish to learn about other cultures, but wished to learn the story that would be presented to them in the Great Exhibition, not the truth or the full history of what these non-European cultures have faced at the hands of imperialism and colonialism. They wanted a glamorized showing and performance of non-European cultures, not proper representations.
This is a very small detail I noticed as well, however I perceived the distance to represent the chain of misinformation as well. The account and representation that European minds will get of the non-European nations are written by Europeans themselves, which means that it isn’t true. Not only is there resistance, but resistance from a false narrative, which makes the distance even bigger.
People were very excited about the exhibition. The first cartoon shows that people from all over the world are going to see the Great exhibition. It’s a worldwide event that showed that how powerful Britian were at that time.
I agree. The exhibitions seem to be very popular to the public especially in the first cartoon. There seems to be a globe with different characteristics on it such as pyramids, palm trees, and ships which help us interpret these as people coming from all over the world in order to see an exhibition.
I agree with both of you regarding the popularity of the exhibition during the time. I really liked the second cartoon because even though you can see how popular it was for people around the world, in the second cartoon I think you can see a more realistic drawing of how popular it was more locally. People are chasing and trying to follow an overflowing carriage just trying to get to the exhibit. It really just gives us a look at how excited everyone was to see it in person.
I agree the fact that all the countries were thrilled to go see London in particular, as if it is the “center” of the world. How the countries think that London is basically a privilege to show them their own culture, making many different countries revolve London. This also represents how Great Britain was one of the most powerful and dominating countries in that time.
The public seemed to look at the great exhibition with wonder and excitement. This is obviously shown in the cartoon depicting literally the entire world converging on the exhibition. It is also seen in the cartoon showing how opera boxes were used as dormitories because there was so much demand. This demand was not unfounded, as shown in the “dispersion of the works of all nations” the exhibition had just about everything you could imagine. In 1851, it was absurd to ever think you could see so much in one place.
The public attitudes about the Great Exhibition seemed generally positive. All of the cartoons seemed to point to the idea that there was general, if euro-centric, excitement about the Great Exhibition. The cartoon that I thought was the most creative, and telling, was the first one where people from all the nations of the world walk across the globe to reach London. I feel that it demonstrates how the British believed the entire world was coming to them to demonstrate their cultures, harkening back to this idea of Euro-centrism. I thought it was an incredibly creative and intriguing cartoon that summed up both the arrogance and excitement of the Great Exhibition.
Public Attitudes toward the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I believe that the Cartoon’s show that the Great Exhibition was large and gathered interest from the public, whether it was globally or just confined to England is debated between the different cartoons. Out of the cartoons that do seem to criticize the event, we can learn that there was public sentiment against displaying a version of the cultures of other worlds because it showcases British control over the world. The great exhibition was a way that Britain re enforced that they were the greatest/main country of the world in their opinion, but these cartoons show that there was backlash and depicted event goers as fat and solely benefiting off of the other countries.
The public understood that the Great Exhibition was directed mostly towards upper-class society. The piece titled “The Opera Boxes,” explains a strict class division during this period. The exhibition was something many in the upper class strived to associate themselves with, similar to the opera.
‘The Opera Boxes’ was an especially interesting artwork. Not only does it show that mainly upper-class people visited to see the Great Exhibition, but it also implies that, because there are so many individuals going to the Exhibition that even the rich have to use the opera house boxes, something extremely expensive in its own right, as dormitories to then go see the Great Exhibition.
I also noticed that despite the premise of the Great Exhibition being a global event, most characters depicted in the comic are not only upperclass, but they also all seemed to be dressed in a British style (or at least European). It doesn’t really include visitors from other areas of the world.
The first cartoon offers a criticism to the Great Exhibition. It shows the world, but everyone is crowded around the great exhibition, and the empty parts of the world display the various cultures that are most likely in the exhibition. This adds a level of irony, as everyone is going to an exhibition to “experience” cultures when the actual real-life cultures are left deserted, even though they are the more accurate depiction of what a culture is like.
I find your take very interesting and I actually do agree with you. Many people are so hyper fixated on the brand new “opportunity” to learn of foreign cultures through the Great Exhibition yet the rest of the world is available to everyone to travel and actually experience others culture firsthand. Why should it take stealing others cultural artifacts in order to experience one’s culture, this isn’t culture appreciation but more so a mockery.
The public seemed to be entranced by The Great Exhibition. In 3 out of the 4 comics presented above implies that everybody who could afford to go to the museum was trying to get into the museum.
The cartoons illustrated a unification yet also discrimination. Everyone across the globe is trying to get into the Exhibition and to see its’ contents however some people are unable to get in. The entrance is a specific narrow size, and other men are looking at her with a funny and shocking expression. It may attract everyone but doesn’t welcome those who aren’t like the majority.
From the cartoons above. the public attitudes towards the Great Exhibition seem to be extremely positive. It seems that making a trip to the Great Exhibition was a particularly sought after and highly regarded event. In the opera boxes cartoon, this can be seen as the attendees within the opera are paying attention to news about the Great Exhibition rather than to the opera they are supposed to be watching.
I think that the attitude toward the Great exhibition was very welcoming. It may show or poke fun of some of the people or cultures, but I feel that the public was probably quite accepting of all different kinds of people being there shown from the exhibit showing how everyone wants to go meaning they want people to go to it. Even if it is meant for more wealthy people, they are accepting of anyone who can get in. As well as showing how the “whole world” seems to want to go to this thing it must be pretty amazing.
The public opinion of the Great Exhibition was that it was an opportunity to see a wide array of objects, which helped get a sense of different cultures, however, it was treated as inferior to the UK. In the last cartoon, we can see that the different works from nations surrounding the UK, as if it is something for the people of the UK to be entertained by, but not respected. In addition, the works of the different nations are all combined together while the UK is distinguishable and separate, displaying a type of us vs them mentality. So overall, although the great exhibition did have a positive impact on educating others about the works of nations, it seemed that these nations and their works were always behind the UK.
Public Attitudes toward the Great Exhibition
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The cartoons remind me of political cartoons I viewed in previous US History classes. I learned from these cartoons that the Exhibition is an exciting event that the public is looking forward to. The cartoons are very lighthearted and diverse as they somewhat seem to brag of the rich collection of artifacts and art they will have. The first cartoon proves this, that the Exhibition is so special that “all the world” will want to rush to London to see it. I find the cartoons very funny because of how they show that every person wants to buy a ticket (2nd cartoon), and how lots of the public reads the newspaper and even stay sleeping in the opera house so they don’t miss out on the Great Exhibition (3rd cartoon).
I totally agree! To add on to your idea, I think the fourth cartoon also shows this, and how the public might have viewed the Great Exhibition as something busy, exciting, a must see, and maybe even crowded as it shows what looks like a bunch of artifacts flying in and out of the Exhibition in complete chaos.
The period cartoons represents the prestige of art and culture. It’s a commentary on the exclusivity of these art forms, like museums, and operas, while also critiquing the stolen collection that has influenced a major population. In the cartoon, “All the World,” for example, the entire globe is desolate except for London which hosts the great Exhibition. There is an influx of visitors from various parts of the world, portraying the great influence of the exhibition. It’s ironic because the exhibition seems to be made up of different cultures (including those from the rest of the world), as seen in the Dispersion.
In the first cartoon, the phrase “all the world” is used to convey the grandiosity of the Great Exhibition. I believe that this sort of implies a worldwide desire and even a need for Prince Albert’s implementation of the liberal causes mentioned above, as many people would be much better off with the policies listed being enacted. This would mean that people were eager about the Great Exhibition, and that this eagerness transcended geographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Ultimately, this would mean that public attitudes towards the Great Exhibition were largely positive.
The public seemed to be thrilled for the Exhibition. In the various illustrations men and women of varying ages (surprisingly excluding any young children) are rushing to buy tickets, and the excitement contributes to a hecticness that splits people up. The opera boxes during the Great Exhibition are an indication that the rich upper class were also drawn to it, and came from all corners of the world. Of the 12 boxes in the cartoon, 2 boxes have people with distinctly different clothing on; but more than that, having to convert the opera boxes into temporary lodging could be due to a large number of visitors who came from far away. Although the cartoon with the globe is meant to show that people from every corner of the earth are itching to see the exhibit, its audience does seem to still mainly consist of English people, based on the clothing.
I agree. I think that the cartoons illustrate the people being excited to presence The Great Exhibition. Like you mentioned, the third picture is filled with people. Despite some people appearing distracted and others relaxed, as the second picture, The Great Exhibition seems to be welcomed and longed for by the public to receive an artistic perspective.
As shown in the images, people of the time clearly viewed the Great Exhibition as a large gathering of peoples an cultures. As seen in the “Dispersion” image, there is a great chaotic wave of music and animals and people and objects all coming together. In another image, there are numerous unique peoples in the windows all engaged in different actives. Clearly people of the time saw the Great Exhibition as a place where cultures could come together and mix their unique aspects.
The Great Exhibition vs. Epcot
⤹Click the reply button just below.
When looking at the artwork, the Colonial Produce piece really struck me. The way the signs were placed, labeling “Bahamas” and “Trinidad”, displaying their countries’ goods in neat tables, reminds me a lot of the layout of Disney World. Epcot Center has countries like the UK, Japan, China, France, displayed in an arrangement as well for people to “experience” the culture of those countries. To me, the Crystal Palace feels a bit pretentious and showy, where people did not have much regard for where the goods came from or the labor and conditions that went into making them. While this day and age is different from 1851, I can’t help but wonder if there are traces of racism hidden in Epcot’s design, a display of countries at the Americans’ fingertips.
The Great Exhibition is actually really similar to Disney’s Epcot. It’s interesting how both are supposed to show different cultures, but they do it in kind of a shallow way. In the India room, there’s a huge elephant carriage that feels more touristy than real. It’s made to look fantastical and exciting, but not to teach people about what life in India is actually like. Epcot is the same, as it’s just a place where people go to see something fun and different, not really to learn. The goal of both feels more like entertainment than understanding.
This is a good comparison, both the Great Exhibition and Epcot do seem to turn cultural representation into a form of entertainment more than education. The elephant carriage, like Epcot’s themed pavilions, offers a spectacle that creates a sense of wonder but doesnt invite deeper understanding. What’s struck me is how both spaces reflect the values/fantasies of the viewer more than the realities of the cultures on display. The Exhibition projected Britain’s imperial pride and control, while Epcot often has a nostalgic or idealized version of global harmony (tailored to Western audiences). I find it funny how so little has changed, we’re still drawn to cultural “experiences” that are curated for comfort over complexity, and that shows so much about ourselves and the world we think we’re exploring.
The Great Exhibition vs. Epcot
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I believe that The Great Exhibition and Epcot were functionally very similar in displaying a version of the world that seemed more stereotypical than the day by day cultural lives that foreign countries have. The great exhibition had showcased the parts of the each culture the British found noteworthy, while Epcot at Disney World chooses to monetize it in their effort to seem inclusive as well as build a better brand. I believe the best way to have a Great Exhibition is to operate it similarly to a Culture Fair, where people from those communities come together.
I agree! The monetization of other cultures has many merits, namely by promoting another country’s goods and opening our eyes to them. Still, the negatives seem to far outweigh the positives. There is always a question of authenticity due to our age of consumerism; at the end of the day, the most important thing is who will spend money on these attractions, not the representation of cultures.
I think that this exhibition compares to modern-day versions, such as Disney’s Epcot center because in Epcot center it’s all about celebrating different cultures and highlighting different countries. In this Great Exhibition it’s more about showing off Great Britain’s power. If we take at the India exhibit we can see England’s imperial power because in the museum are artifacts from India and demonstrations of things existing in India like the elephant. It frames the artifacts as not something to celebrate Indian culture, but to show off Britain’s ownership of Indian artifacts. Moreover, in the manufacturing painting we can see various machines, showing England’s industrial power. This is because it depicts England’s technological advancements, showing England’s dominance, rather than educating others on various machinery.
The exhibit compares to modern day versions in the sense that both were mostly meant to be seen by only a select few (mainly the rich.) However, modern day doesn’t have restrictions on what background you have to be to attend. You don’t have to be white or come from a noble family which may have been the restrictions back then, but rather if you saved up enough money or were wealthy enough to afford, you could attend. Any costumer is a good costumer. This is obviously important because expos do more than just provide fun or amusement but they can also be educational. And when educational brand new ideas are presented to the same set of people over and over again, those are the only people that remain in power.
The Great Exhibition is similar to places like Disney’s Epcot Center because they attract a lot of unique people from around the world. Additionally, they have certain restrictions/rules that can have disparate effects on different people (ex. weight classes on rides). They also can be seen as chaotic places like we see in the cartoon of people leaving the Great Exhibition.
The Great Exhibition vs. Epcot
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Great Exhibition had a certain charm that modern-day versions like Disney’s Epcot Center can’t replicate. I attribute this to the fact that modern-day versions are repeatable and lack the physical aspect of having authentic artifacts and goods. The Exhibition was a once in a life time experience that drew viewers from all over the world giving it a sense of wonder and communion.
I especially agree with your statement that modern-day versions don’t have the same charm. I’ve been to the Epcot display at Disney 3 times, and after the first time, I felt like I was “going just to go, since I was there.” There was nothing special or charming about the place after the first time, yet for the Great Exhibition, there was that sense of charm that drew people in from all over the world. Maybe it was the atmosphere, the time period, the real life artifacts, or other aspects, but all those things that help contribute to “charm” are definitely missing from modern attempts at replicating it, like the Epcot center.
The Great Exhibition and Epcot similarly showcase a plethora of various countries’ own culturalistic values, foods, and religion(s) in an attempt to broaden society’s understanding of diverse achievements; both similarly attract abundant crowds in the means of embracing and celebrating the current state of success in the showcased countries. Although Epcot is a current-day amusement park (meaning that they’re continuously showcasing different countries and their unique values), I credit the Disney company for hiring their Epcot employees whose native countries are represented in the park, as this allows the employees to authentically represent their homeland in a respectful manner. Furthermore, modern-day versions of the Great Exhibition such as Epcot also allows the visitors to find solace in recognizing their own country’s success and progress.
Both the Great Exhibition and Epcot can be consider to have the best technology in demonstration to their own period. Such as the glass house of the Great Exhibition, which only become possible after the industrialization of London. Similarly EPCOT also used an extremely challenging structure for the exterior. And I think this is one of the reason why both are able to draw so much attention from the public.
The Novel’s Commentary on Imperialism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A key theme of British Imperialism is the belief in racial superiority, particularly over Indians. Similarly, the novel portrays the beast folk as inherently inferior: “Their bestial minds were happily slow” (Wells 62). The word “happily” suggests the English viewed themselves as both better than others, and others enjoyed being inferior.
Yes, I do think that the title of “beast” given to the creations is meant to reflect ways the British would create hierarchies. There is a theme throughout the story that Moreau is super against calling his creations human, regardless of the fact that it is his goal to make a human. This can be seen as Moreau attempting to keep the hierarchy intact, for either selfish desire, or fear (as at this point, he knows the beasts can kill).
Moreau follows a similar style to the British Empire through his control of the beast folk on the island. Like the British, Moreau used fear and strict order to control the beast folk, similar to how the British imposed authority on native societies. In chapter 12, one of the beast folk tells Prendick “Evil are the punishments of those who break the law. None escape” (Wells 60). This quote explains how the strict rules ignited a sense of fear for the beast folk, which in turn made them obey the “law”.
Yes, I noticed this as well. I thought it was really interesting how all the beast folk reacted to the laws and how they chanted them in a sort of “sing-song” way. It was really ingrained into their way of thinking which reminded me of how the British Empire would also try to teach religion and moral practices to native societies. Moreau talks to Prendick about “moral education” and how he transforms “suppressed sexuality into religious emotion” and “pugnacity” into “courageous self-sacrifice” (Wells, 64). This thought process of education highlights and reflects the British Empire’s zeal to impress religion and proper thought onto societies they thought of as lesser than and as savages.
A key detail from the opening chapters of the novel is the appearance of Dr. Moreau and his assistant. Dr. Moreau is described as, “A youngish man with flaxen hair, a bristly straw-coloured moustache, and a dropping nether lip… He had watery grey eyes, oddly void of expression” (H.G. Wells, Chapter 2) Given the context that Dr. Moreau is living in isolation on a remote island, his appearance being shady, mysterious and dark is reasonable as he doesn’t have a social circle he needs to look presentable for, however his appearance conveys a deeper message. Scientists in the 18th century were purely performative; all experiments were conducted to observe the natural world around and performed in public places for civilians to watch, almost to further appreciate the repetition and continuity of God’s creation. From a religious standpoint, conducting science in the public sphere demonstrated the same kind of community that the church has. Dr. Moreau’s contrast to how presentable, social, and performative 18th-century scientists were demonstrates how he is the antithesis of what natural philosophy and biology were back then. The contents of the book show how he moves from scientific observation with the appreciation of God to manipulation and tries to play the role of God. His physical appearance at the beginning of the book serves as foreshadowing of the events in the book.
This was a super intuitive and interesting observation. I actually did not pick up on those details but that actually makes so much sense and I totally see how that holds foreshadowing. I 100% agree that science and public viewings definitely hold a religious aspect to it as far as followers go and understanding human life. I really do think the balance between science and religion is a very fragile one and that it is interesting to see how Dr. Moreau plays with that balance. I think for him it may have started out as wanting to explore the limits of science but then grew into almost an infatuation with power and what it means to be in total control of creating these beast folk. That ‘mad scientist’ vibe definitely coincides with the described appearance and is foreshadowed not just by his looks, but by the way they show him interacting with ‘actual’ people. There’s this almost awkwardness he has as well as frustration, possibly from not being able to have that total control.
When Prendick sees the beast folk repeating laws like “not to eat flesh” or not to “walk on all fours,” it feels like the novel is mocking how colonizers forced their values onto other cultures. It’s like Wells is showing how crazy it is to pretend that a civilization’s ways can just be “copy-pasted” through rules and punishments. The island feels like a mini empire, where Moreau is God and thinks preaching can erase natural instinct.
The Novel’s Commentary on Imperialism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The novel indirectly comments on British Imperialism, through the interactions with Prendick and the Beast men. Prendick sees the Ape man as a “creature [that] was little better than an idiot”(Wells 73), while the Ape man sees Prendick as an equal due to them sharing 5 fingers. This rhetoric of viewing other people as non-human and savage is a common tactic used by imperialist leaders to justify their power. Hence, I believe that Prendick’s predisposition to refuse to view the Beast men as human, can be a commentary on how the British Empire justifies its imperial rule by dehumanizing others.
I absolutely agree with you that this book is using beast-folks as a metaphor to comment on the tactic of dehumanization in British imperialism. To add to your point, I think that “the house of pain” and “the law” are both used to create an imagined order to control the beast-folks, even though they were naturally not suitable for these kind of rules. Just like how the British people enforced their laws on the colonies, and cultural assimilation such as integrating the social norms and languages. In other words, the Imperial Britain tried to turn the “savages” into people like them, similar to what Dr. Moreau was doing.
I agree with your claim that the novel perpetuates the Imperial idea that other societies are less than or animalistic. Another moment in the novel where the beast men are seen as inferior is where Prendick describes them as scarcely human in intelligence. This furthers the idea that not only were the beast men physically deformed from Prendick, but also less intelligent. Prendick is able to justify the actions of Doctor Moreau as he follows the rhetoric of the prominent British Imperialist views at the time.
The Beast Folk, native to an island that Moreau had taken upon his control for experimentation, represent those who had been forcefully colonized by British Imperialist power. Much like how Britain colonized many less fortunate countries with intent to “civilize” them, Moreau mirrors the British by colonizing the island of the Beast Folk in order to reinforce his experimental agenda and propagate “the Law.” Through violence and fear, Moreau is able to enforce the Law, paralleling Western principles of using religious authority and brute morality to maintain control over it’s peoples. Moreaus forceful colonization and attempt at civilization of the Beast Folk reflect the attitudes of the British Empire and how they imposed their ruling values on non-Western societies. Readers observe that at the end of the novel, when Prendick is unable to separate himself from the trauma of being on the island gave him from his actual life, that dehumanizing principles as a backbone for Imperialistic rule is unsustainable for it’s leader and people long term.
I agree with your points, and I love how you were able to point out multiple examples that tie it all together very well. On the other hand, I’d like to add another light into the situation. I imagined it in a flipped way. Dr. Moreau was originally in England but sought refuge in his own new island implying how harsh the circumstances were. The British empire did not accept the new ideas of science since it deviated away from spiritual beings, and rather into what we now know as natural science. But after reading your points, I can also see another light in how the book contributed to the views of politics In the British empire.
The novel made connections between Dr. Moreau’s experiments and his justification and the practices of the British empire. Both Dr. Moreau and the British established a hierarchy that is foreign to the customs of the people they occupy and is set up in a way that puts themselves in position of power. Dr. Moreau first created the best people against their will, then imposed his laws upon them by force. The British empire did similarly by declaring themselves above the natives and built their colonies in a way where the British held all power.
In the novel, the way that Moreau changes the animals into humans is a great commentary on imperialism. Moreau takes these uncivilized animals and transforms them into lesser humans. He gives them structure and “purpose” by enforcing a law and allowing some of the beasts to assist him when he needs them. This is a great mirror to the way imperialists think when they go to a lesser developed country, impose their power and rule, then use those laws to oppress and get the people to do whatever tasks the imperialists need done. Not only this, in the novel, Moreau is a white man, while all of the beasts Moreau make have different color skin resembling those of countries that predominately white countries take over.
In the Island of Doctor Moreau, Moreau’s reasoning for putting these animals or “beast” through pain is a means of progress to civilize them. These beast learn to walk on two legs, speak and communicate using the English language, and even some learn how to properly cook. However, this seems to still not be quite enough for Doctor Moreau and he continues experimenting on different animals because they are still “failed humans’ in his eyes. This is similar to the ideology of the British colonizers as they invaded many cultural lands and inflicted torture and pain on them using the excuse that they were uncivilized and needed to learn how to properly live. If the native people didn’t comply with their way of life or new religions to follow- similar to the “laws” the creatures repeat- they were brutally murdered. Even when these people did comply, they were still seen as lesser than in society. Nothing was enough for the British Colonizers and they still wanted more power and control.
In The Island of Doctor Moreau, we see hints of British imperialism scattered throughout the novel especially through Dr. Moreaus experiments on the beast people on the island. For example, Doctor Moreau acts like a colonial ruler on the island taking control of a native group while imposing his own rules and values onto said natives.
The Novel’s Commentary on Imperialism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A pivotal moment in the novel that comments on the ideology and practices of the British Empire is when Prendick discovers the “Law” that the Beast Folk are forced to recite and follow. The moment where ““The voice in the dark began intoning a mad litany, line by line, and I and the rest to repeat it,” swaying in unison and chanting is similar to that of religion and colonization through cultural enforcement (Wells pg. 165). Dr. Moreau, is a British scientist himself, and through religion he imposes his version of civilization onto the Beast Folk through punishment and violence. This is very similar to the British Empire’s acts of imperialism, justifying and enforcing violence through religion, holding a sense of superiority, as Dr. Moreau held against the Beast Folk.
I also initially thought of the “law” of the Beastfolk in connection to not just the British Empire, but human civilization in general. In the novel, this chapter is one of the most significant moments where Prendick questions what limits define being human and how human societies truly differ from those of the beastfolk. I like how you phrased “he imposes his version of civilization onto the Beast Folk through punishment and violence,” because as you said, as Prendick was weirded out by the sight of Beatstfolk trying to follow a set of rules, which was “standard for humans,” he was imposing his British worldview onto them. This is very similar to the history of British Imperialism, where the British would seek to impose their worldview onto others, with little care for the livelihoods of the people they were colonizing.
I agree. The laws being imposed onto the beast-folk remind me of the laws the British imposed on to other countries. Dr. Moreau’s law excludes him and the other humans just as the British laws only affected other countries and didn’t apply to them.
This novel was highly related to the British Empire and imperialism. While reading this novel, I could relate Dr. Moreau to the British Empire and the beast folk to an underdeveloped country. Dr. Moreau was attempting to transform beasts into humans, aiming to enhance their abilities and knowledge. This is similar to what the British Empire did to non-Western countries. They tried to civilize poor conditioned countries. Also it is similar that both colonized country and beast folk grew dependency over stronger countries and people.
I completely agree! I also thought this relation to imperialism is reflected in the way that the people and beast folk on the island live. Dr. Moreau and the rest of the humans live in a big fancy fortress building while the beast folk live in little huts in the woods. This contrast is similar to that of the British Empire, who lived in massive castles, and how they perceived the people they were colonizing to be living. Its interesting to see where that would put M’Ling in the comparison of the British Empire to the novel, as he’s a beast folk, but an accepted one. Maybe he would be someone who was a native to the country colonized but found themselves in a job with a higher ranking to the British?
When Prendick reflects on the cruelty of Dr. Moreau, what he thinks as the worst is the fact that before, the Beastmen may have been animals, but they were used to their life and as content as they could be. After Moreau changed them, they then “stumbled in the shackles of humanity, lived in a fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not understand; their mock-human existence, begun in an agony, was one long internal struggle, one long dread of Moreau–and for what?” (Wells, pg. 56 in my book). In this case, the people imperialized by the British are the animals, and the “shackles of humanity” is the so called “civilization” the British claimed to bring. Whether H. G. Wells agrees with this or not, he seems to at least critique imperialism for it’s effects on the people after the British leave/ while they attempt to imperialize. The non-western people, not used to living like the British, did not thrive under the Western systems, and had their traditional social and economical systems destroyed. Even after the British left, there was suffering, as such disruption isn’t easily recovered from. The end line, “and for what?” is meant to point out the pointless cruelty done by Moreau and the British. They inflicted all this suffering, and for what? Momentary feelings of power? In the name of civilization? Or perhaps they are simply evil, sadistic beings.
The power dynamic between Dr. Mureau and his creations mirror that of the British Empire and its colonies. Similarly to Dr. Mureau’s goal of humanizing the beasts, the British Empire set out goals of “civilizing” native populations, viewing them as primitive. Dr. Mureau used harsh punishments to enforce a certain mode of behavior, in some ways upholding his own pride and power, and was never satisfied as he saw more and more “progress” to be made. This could relate to the British empire’s treatment of native people, forcing them into cooperation through physical violence or by weaponizing their economic advantages.
Thematic Significance of Ch. I
⤹Click the reply button just below.
“I remember laughing at that and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without.”
Prendick is left alone as the only survivor and laughter is his first reaction, not even knowing how the laugh came to be. When laughter happens in a situation like this, I think it’s because he’s trying to cope with his traumatic and probably stressful situation, not really knowing what else to do. However, this seems to continue the more he lives on the island because after discovering the true experimentation Dr. Moreau does with the beast folk, Prendick seems to just imitate Dr. Moreau and becomes another version of Dr. Moreau to survive.
I totally agree with you that his laughter in the first chapter foreshadowed his descent into becoming more like Dr. Moreau. “It was almost as though Nature were smiling at our misery,” Just like with your quote, this quote shows that he becomes emotionally detached when traumatic things happen, even saying things in irony. This shows that he can become emotionally detached from a situation when his life is at stake, just like how Dr. Moreau was emotionally detached from causing the beast folk pain.
A part in the opening chapter I think relates to a bigger themes is on page 8 where it says “ I found myself in a little cabin aft. There’s a dim half-memory of being lifted up to the gangway, and of a big round countenance covered with freckles and surrounded with red hair staring at me over the bulwarks. I also had a disconnected impression of a dark face, with extraordinary eyes, close to mine; but that I thought was a nightmare, until I met it again. ”
I think it’s important because the introduction to pendrick being in a cabin but not remembering how he got there introduces that mystery in the novel, along with the tension that comes with the fear that he is feeling.
Thematic Significance of Ch. I
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the opening chapter you can see the racism and hierarchies that connect to the novel’s larger themes of instability and the blurred lines of what it means to be civilized, and human. When Prendick is on the Ipecacuanha, the captain of the boat shows racism towards M’ling, by calling him an “ugly devil”, and by treating him as in a very dehumanized way by “[delivering] a tremendous blow between the shoulder blades with his fist” (Wells 15). M’ling, later to be revealed as one of the beast folk, is immediately treated as less than human, even before his origins are fully known. This part of the first chapter foreshadows how the Beast Folk will be treated throughout the novel, not as people, but as creatures to be controlled. On the island there were laws put into place to subdue the animal side of the beast folk to allow the beast folk to act “civilized’ and human-like. This suggests the need for constant control over the beast folk. And this need for controlling them highlights how unstable and temporary the “civilized state” is for animals, suggesting the delicateness/fragileness of the line between beast and human.
I agree, the novel goes in depth of the fragile boundaries of what it means to civilized and what it means to be uncivilized. We can see this when Prendick comes back from the island and sees the humans around him and skeptically says, “I know this is an illusion; that these seeming men and women about me are indeed men and women, men and women for ever, perfectly reasonable creatures, full of human desires and tender solicitude, emancipated from instinct and the slaves of no fantastic Law, beings altogether different from the Beast Folk. Yet I shrink from them”(Wells 246). The fact that he fears humans like he fears the beastfolk shows how similar the beastfolk are to humans. This makes him contemplate what actually makes him and other humans civilized, as he realizes the fragility of his prior belief that humans are civilized and superior to beasts.
In the opening chapter, Prendick recalls: “They [the crewmen] sank like stones. I remember laughing at that and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without” (9). After reading the book, these lines stuck out to me because of the motif of humans in society acting like the beasts on the island. In these lines, Prendick’s actions reflect his fear and selfishness in the moment. He has managed to stay alive over his two crewmen, but has also witnessed both of them die — a shocking event. This is hardly the time for laughing, yet that is Prendick’s raw response. This doesn’t seem like a normal reaction for a human, yet that is how Prendick chooses to express himself. This challenge of what it means to be a human is exactly what this book explores on Dr. Moreau’s island.
In the first chapter, Prendick describes how he does not recall attempting to attract the schooner’s attention, leaving his eventual rescue to chance. Randomness is an important theme discussed throughout the novel, and one associated with the uncaring unpredictability of nature. Nature is cruel, so Moreau carries out his experiments unsympathetically towards the animals. He asserts complete dominance over them, leaving them without any autonomy, similar to Prendick’s survival as he drifted.
Thematic Significance of Ch. I
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the opening chapter, the shipwreck introduces central themes of isolation, survival, and the fragility of civilization. Prendick is violently cast out from society and thrown into a lawless, liminal space, an island that starkly contrasts with the order and structure of the mainland. This transition marks a descent from a world governed by rules to one ruled by instinct and power. His outsider status forces him to confront the thin line between human and animal, preparing him to witness the erosion of boundaries between man and beast. As Prendick later reflects, “I must confess I lost faith in the sanity of the world when I saw it suffering the painful disorder of this strange experiment.” This moment foreshadows his realization that civilization is a fragile construct, easily broken when stripped of social norms and comfort.
I definitely agree that Prendick’s account of the shipwreck highlights the novel’s central themes of isolation, survival, and the fragility of civilization, however, I also found that this shipwreck correlates to Darwin’s argument in “On the Origin of Species”; as mentioned in SS104, Darwin proposed how population growth is infinite, while survival is finite (just like you had mentioned when using the example between human and animal). Furthermore, Darwin essentially proposed that nature is dynamic, meaning that nature is never fixed. Therefore, H.G Wells incorporating Darwin’s standpoint on natural evolution in addition to the themes you identified just within chapter one certainly contribute to the novel’s overall message.
In the first chapter when the men propose to sacrifice one of themselves for the others to survive, it gives an insight of how the term of humanity and inhumanity will be questioned throughout the book. Prendick emphasizes how due to the hunger, thirst, fear, and desperation, him and the others were “already thinking strange things and saying them with our eyes” (page 8). Cannibalism, an inhuman thought that was introduced in the lowest point of their lives. The thought of eating another human being for the sole benefit of their survival, was only an initial example of how humans do inhuman things selfishly thinking about their benefit or survival as the overall idea of changing an entire specie to another one to create an “ideal” world that would only truly benefit one individual.
I agree with this line of thinking and would like to further develop how this moment in the book reflects the blurred lines we see later on between what makes someone human compared to a beast folk. Throughout out the novel Moreau, Prendick and Montgomery set themselves up as being the beast folks’ intellectual and moral superiors. Once Prendrick returns to human society however he realizes that we are more like the beast folk then we would like to admit noting that, “I feel as though the animal was surging up through them [his fellow man],” (Wells 130). This surging of the animal can be glimpsed in how quickly the men on the boat were willing to turn to barbaric practices like cannibalism when their survival was on the line.
I agree with your commentary on cannibalism. To add on, cannibalism was and is still seen as inhumane, something unthinkable and animalistic. Even by the first chapter, the book explores the idea of cannibalism, something deranged animals do, not humans, shows that further into the story that lines of human and animal will be played with. In addition, the “thirst, fear, hunger, and desperation” you quoted also correlates to the idea of animals and humans and how Prendick thinks animals and humans are different while in reality when driven by the instinct, they resort to similar tendencies of thought, which is further explored in the book.
I agree! I’d like to add that the book makes it clear that Prendick is a civilized and educated man early on. This makes it even more jarring when cannibalism is not only suggested, but agreed upon. At least in Prendick’s mind, (as far I as can assume from his narration), it seems like he would believe that the act of something so inhumane would never even cross the mind of someone with a background similar to his. This definitely ties into how survival is the number one goal that all lifeforms have, and it says something about how the means by which survival is achieved doesn’t have to be fair or humane to other humans or lives. This idea is played with later on with the Beast Men, which have been genetically modified by Moreau who believes that he is making strides at improving animal lifeforms and possibly even improving their chances of survival by making them human, though his methods are extremely inhumane and unfair to the life that he alters.
In the beginning chapters of the novel, when Prendick is being nursed back to health by Montgomery, it shows how human survival is hard, and just as someone can nurse you back to health from practically death, the same person could inflict later suffering on you. I feel like this event between Prendick and Montgomery plays into the larger theme of the book because Dr. Moreau has this kind of relationship with his creations. He can easily “evolve” them, but he can also “de-evolve” them or even eliminate them from his island completely.
I agree. I think this sense of control also represents the power held by Dr Moreau. The ability to heal comes along with the ability to harm. As he can decide the life or death of someone, it adds on to his “God like” existence.
Pain’s Role in Uplifting Beasts into Men
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Dr. Moreau’s eyes, pain is the thing that rules animals. He tells Prendick that as long as pain (both physical and mental) is the chief driver of his actions and beliefs, then he is no better than an animal. It’s almost as if pain is the marker between what makes an animal and what makes a human- if you live by your instincts to avoid pain you are an animal, but if you are able to overcome that pain you will be a human. So he is attempting to get the animals to overcome the pain he inflicts and make them human. In believing this, he justifies the torture that he puts the animals through. Furthermore, he rules the Beast Folk – whom he does not view as human- with pain, scaring them of the “House of Pain” they will go to if they choose to break the Law.
Yes, and pain seems to intertwine with Dr. Moreau desire to stay in power within the boundary of what makes an animal and what makes a human. Dr. Moreau is afraid of the beast folk like the beast folk are afraid of him, but Dr. Moreau is the one who has the power of control, making him different (more “human”). Dr. Moreau has the power and knowledge to use pain as a motivative and manipulative tool against the beast folk to ensure their thought process of inferiority, stabilizing that boundary.
Yes, I agree with you. Dr. Moreau sees pain as a mark of animals. “This store men and women set on pleasure and pain, Prendick, is the mark of the beast upon them, the mark of beast from which they came.” (Wells 74). Humans are not just driven by pain. Dr. Moreau justifies his experiment on beast folks by saying that the beast folks are inherently inferior to humans as they are driven by pain, and if Prendick feels sympathetic with them, he is no different than an inferior animal. Dr. Moreau establishes a boundary(pain) between human and animals, and try to break this boundary by creating beast folks. But at the same time, he makes sure that he will always be the superior creature no matter how perfect beast folks are.
I agree with that, Moreau sees pain as a very important part of his scientific goal. He believes that pain is something only animals feel and a driving factor but humans are different to animals because we are able to overcome it. He even proves this by cutting himself to prove that he is superior to an animal, in his definition. He even uses this to his advantage by punishing his humanized creatures. Dr. Moreau is doing exactly what you’re saying and putting the animals through this pain in attempt to make them more human. This reminds me of how the British even treated slaves and the people he colonized since Dr. Moreau treated his creations horribly because he saw them as inferior. Pain is essentially used as his justification for his experiment since animals cannot overcome pain, making them inferior. He also uses this to manipulate his creations into becoming more ‘human’.
I agree! This shows how Moreau uses pain as a tool for physical transformation as well as psychological. He enforces what he views as ‘civilized’ in this way that is ironically considered uncivilized. While Moreau claims overcoming pain is what makes one human, he still relies on fear and suffering to maintain authority over the Beast Folk. All of this reveals the hypocrisy at the center of this experiment. This tension shows that his vision of “humanity” is deeply flawed and exposes the violence underlying so-called civilization.
In Chapter XIV, Moreau uses pain as a means to transform monsters into something “human”. He believes that suffering is important for advancement, but there is no compassion behind it, just control. It echoes colonialism’s cruel logic, in which cruelty was frequently justified as a means to civilization. Whether it was through colonization or forced assimilation, there is this dark and dangerous idea that suffering somehow makes people better or more refined. But in the end , grief doesn’t build humanity, it breaks the animals, trapping them between who they were and what they are forced to become. What was supposed to help build true “humanity” ended up stripping it away.
I like how you connect Moreau’s use of pain to colonialism’s twisted logic that suffering somehow improves the victim. I would also like to add that what makes it darker is how the process doesn’t just strip the Beast folk of their natural body and self but it also strip Moreau of his own humanity. He’s so obsessed with control and transformation that he becomes emotionally numb, more machine than a man. It’s ironic because he tries to impose humanity by acting less and less human. The whole system of forced change backfires and instead of evolution, we get devolution on both sides.
I was thinking along the same lines, pain being a part of humanization, or civilization. Suffering, in Moreau’s eyes went hand in hand with progress and advancement, which I think foils the European attitudes among natives during peak colonization. Like Moreau used pain to control and “develop” animals, Europeans inflicted copious amounts of pain and suffering onto natives in their attempts and desire to humanize and civilize them.
In Chapter XIV, Dr. Moreau see’s pain as a necessity in order to transform animals into humans, which be believes is superior to animals. He in a way feels as he’s doing these animals a favor by turning them into powerful and respected beings. To justify his doings, Dr. Moreau mentions, “Not all living flesh is painful; nor is all nerve, not even all sensory nerve,” using this claim to overlook the moral issue of inflicting pain onto animals to make them humans. He also makes it clear that pain is a trait that make these creatures animlas, and since his goal to make them human, he believes the pain is worth it.
I agree he is turning them into animals because he wants to turn them into rational creatures. By taking out the animal part in them he humanizes them and turns them into a being like you said by causing pain because “not all living flesh is painful”
This is an interesting point you brought up and to further cement it, In the eyes of Dr.Moreau pain is not only apart of the human existence but it is necessary. As you said Dr.Moreau feels as though he is doing these animals a favor by turning them into humans, so not only is the pain justifiable, it is in multiple ways. As mentioned before it can be inferred that he believes that to be human is to feel pain but also that its morally okay since the outcome is greater than the means. It makes me wonder that maybe Dr.Moreau isn’t so much justifying his cruel actions through moral justification, maybe this is truly how he see’s the world a believes he is doing good and right by these animals.
As he discusses how pain is key into bringing beasts into the realm of men, Dr. Moreau pulls out a small knife and cuts his thigh, choosing it’s place “deliberately”, trying to prove that “it does not hurt a pinprick”. The point he tries to make is that humans and beasts are not inherently in a constant place of pain, but rather construct it to drive them to survival, and act as a “intrinsic medical advisor to warn and stimulate [humans]”. So, he theorizes that should an animal be able to overcome pain, they can be elevated to the status of man, which is what he is aiming to accomplish. So by giving them pain that he believes they can overcome, Dr. Moreau pushes them to their limits to make them a humanized animal.
I agree with this, Dr. Moreau agrees and is aware that the process of the transformation is painful and will hurt, but he diminishes the significance of it. Dr. Moreau justifies the experiments as being necessary to his scientific experiments, “But it is part of the price of the new life—the birth pangs of the new creature.” This shows his lack of empathy and rationale of the suffering in the name of science.
While Moreau believes that through pain he can transform the animals into humans, he still fails to create true humanity within them. Despite all the pain the beastfolk go through they never fully become humans, they remain stuck in this in between slipping back to their animalistic behaviors/instincts. This shows that even through pain Moreau cannot truly dominate nature.
The act of feeling in tandem with humanity is what allows us to explore the complexity of the world through expressions of both happiness and grief and every single possible emotion ever felt. Without pain there’d be no serenity and with this logic, Moreau makes the claim that pain is essential to transforming beasts into men, giving them the humanity we associate with every day: in order “To make them think and feel and speak as men—that is the real work. That is where the pain comes in.” He sees pain as a tool to suppress animal instincts and enforce human behavior.
In chapter 14 Moreau says that pain is an essential part of the transformation process of animals into humans. This shibboleth highlights the novels main claim that civilization is simply the suppression of animal instrincts through suffering. Rather than elevating beings through morality, civilization imposes order through cruelty and fear. This suggests that humanity’s claim to moral superiority may be built on the same brutal foundations as Moreau’s grotesque experiments.
Dr. Moreau presents pain as crucial mechanism that transforms beasts into men, treating it not as a way of suffering but a way to control and reform them. He makes the argument that the pain is suppressing the animal instinct they have and conditions a more human like behavior. It implies that humanity is something that can be forced onto a nonhuman being through their suffering and discipline. But the contradiction of this, is that if the transformation that is made is rooted from pain and fear instead of choice or transformation, then the beast can not truly be human.
Pain’s Role in Uplifting Beasts into Men
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Moreau views pain as the thing that separates humans and animals. He claims that animals are controlled by pain, and to become human is to overcome pain and act on ration and reason. He also believes that psychological “pain” such as sympathy are also factors one must overcome to be rid of their animal instincts- almost claiming the morality of causing other living things pain is animalistic. To create humans out of beasts, Moreau puts them through immense amounts of pain, and justifies this by attempting to make them overcome that pain by becoming human- only by overcoming pain will they truly become human beings. However, he claims he has failed so far and hasn’t made a proper human yet, and therefore he controls the animals via the threat of the “House of Pain” they will go through if they disobey the Law.
Well said! The view Dr. Moreau has on pain, specifically our capacity as humans to overcome it, is quite contradictory too. We see every character, one way or another, perform an action that is motivated by instinct. Even Dr. Moreau admits that he once felt pain, and though he claims to be rid of it, one can argue that the person he became, and the actions he took, originated from said pain. At the same time, he never succeeded in his quest to make his version of a human. So, if we cannot escape instinct nor create a creature who can, is there truly any way to differentiate animal from man?
In The Island of Dr. Moreau, the role of pain is seen as the determining factor that separates what is human and what is an animal. In chapter 14, Dr. Moreau states, “‘In my view – in my view. For it is just this question of pain that parts us. So long as visible or audible pain turns you sick, so long as your own pains drive you, so long as pain underlies your propositions about sin, so long, I tell you, you are an animal…” (Wells 14) Those who act under the guidance of pain are no more than animals to Dr. Moreau, it becomes the defining trait that defines the line of humanity and animals.
Throughout the book, we see how pain drives both the animals and humans within the book. For example, the animals are afraid of the whip that Dr. Moreau carries, listening to his every word with a crack of the whip. While Prendick was willing to drown himself in the water in order to prevent himself to become an animal. It’s this difference of confronting pain that determines the humanity of someone to Dr. Moreau.
I one hundred percent agree with you. Pain separates man from beast in this text, and I found that quite interesting. To assert one’s identity as a human, one could either seek pain – as you mentioned with Prendick seeking death via drowning – or run away from it as the beasts did when Dr Moreau cracked his whip. Reactions to pain are a characteristic that defines humanity.
In the novel Monreau’s view on pain is that pain is what drives animals to certain actions. Animals fear pain. So anyone with that specific trait or sensation must be an animal. Making the creatures of the story animals. And I think it’s very fascinating how he views it because I believe that humans in fact act on pain. Both physically and mentally. We let our emotions and sensations drive us to certain actions or let it avoid us into certain things.
Dr. Moreau views pain as the boundary that separates humans from animals. Dr. Moreau even goes so far as to suggest that moral feelings, such as sympathy, are possessed by animals and that to become human, one must overcome physical and emotional pain. Thus, he uses intense suffering to force Beast Folk into ‘civilized’ humans. The threat of the ‘House of Pain’ enforces obedience and is used as a way to force the Beast Folk to act in accordance with civilized society. Unfortunately, their fear of pain is the very reason they’re not perceived to be fully human or ‘civilized.’ I find that ironic.
In the latter half of The Island of Dr. Moreau, there is a scene in which he is sat down with Prendick and is explaining his ideology behind turning beast into men. During this conversation he explains what his determining factors for a “successful” human or failed human. Pain was one of the main factors, Dr. Moreau believes that pain is just a weakness and a means to an end. It distracts you from what’s really important and controls your actions. To him you’re more superior and more “humanlike” if you’re accustomed to pain which is ironic being that the ability to feel pain or anothers is what makes humans humans and lack of empathy is what makes him monstrous.
Moreau doesn’t view pain negatively rather he sees it as something that he can use to his advantage and doesn’t see an issue with inflicting pain for his own scientific discoveries. He believes that pain is the controlling force over the human race, and he thinks that by utilizing pain he can rewire different types of animals to adopt more human like behaviors. He then has to justify this by explaining as they overcome this pain they become more humanlike.
Pain’s Role in Uplifting Beasts into Men
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One of the role of pain in transforming beasts into men was discipline. On page 78, it says, “Each time I dip a living creature into the bath of burning pain, I say: this time I will burn out all the animal, this time I will make a rational creature of my own.” (H.G. Wells page 78). This shows that Dr. Moreau used pain to discipline the beasts so they can act with reason instead of animal behavior which can lead them to be more humanized.
This kind of “learning through pain/punishment” is very reminiscent of the kinds of punishments dealt out to criminals at the time, especially by Britain to the colonies they oppressed. Through punishments like branding, whipping, and caning, victims were expected to learn through that pain, that their actions were wrong and were not to be repeated. This is of course contrary to more modern ideas of rehabilitation and education.
Pain plays a big role in this book because only when the beasts are cornered and act most animal like, is when Prendick shows sympathy and humanizes them. “Then the pain and disfigurement of his features passed out of my mind, and I remembered only that he was a man.”
Perhaps, the book suggests that in our most visceral moments, we are at our most ‘human’ state of being.
It’s interesting that pain is what finally makes Prendick humanizes the Beastmen, as it’s dehumanization that oftentimes prompts such pain in the first place. I thought about A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, where we read about the unfathomable and seemingly endless horrors inflicted upon various natives. The spanish inflicted great pain onto the indigenous peoples, but even thought they saw them in pain and suffering that didn’t seem to make them dehumanize them any less. I wonder what made Prendick different than the Spanish and so many other oppressors.
While it most heavily apparent in chapter XIV, throughout the story Dr. Moreau presents pain as a necessary tool to successfully transform the wild beasts into the men he desires. He argues that pain is not just a byproduct of his experiments but a central mechanism for enforcing discipline and reshaping their primal instincts to human ones. A particular quote of Moreau’s thinking was when stated, “It is when suffering is pushed to its extremity that a creature ceases to be a beast.” This way of thinking suggests he views pain as both a physical and moral force.
In addition to how Dr. Monreau views pain, they even stated, “And I tell you, pleasure and pain have nothing to do with heaven or hell.” Not only does he believe that pain is both a physical and moral force, Dr. Monreau believes pain also has to do something with religion as he views pain as neither gods work nor the devils doing which is ironic considering Dr. Monreau stated they were a religious person.
I believe the role of pain is emphasized in the story because pain is a reaction all animals have when we do something that can hurt us. We experience pain when what we are doing isn’t natural. The vivisections Dr.Moreau was conducting were extremely unnatural and caused the beat people extreme pain because of that.
To Moreau, when it comes to inflicting pain on the animals to transform them from beast to man, pain is something necessary they have to go through in order to complete the transformation. Without the pain of the transformation inflicted upon them they still think and feel like animals. “So long as visible or audible pain turns you sick, so long as your own pains drive you, so long as pain underlies your proposition about sin, so long I tell you, you are an animal, thinking a little less obscurely what an animal feels” (Wells 73). In Moreau’s mind if enough pain is inflicted the beasts will start to learn to behave humanlike. It’s like a positive punishment. The pain is inflicted upon them to decrease the likelihood of them to act and behave like beasts.
Thematic Patterns in Impressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A thematic pattern I noticed specifically among the Monet paintings is the use of direction as well as color to create contrast. The paintings in all have a much looser, freeform feel to them breathing more life but mudding edges. It appears that to establish sharp edges, colors and the direction of the strokes meet at such disparities that it creates the illusion of a line without the constraint of one, that would lose the feeling intend by the artist.
This is made very apparent with the Monet paintings as he differentiates the background from the foreground, the buildings, not only by choosing a high contrasting color but also by switching his brush movement. The sky in his paintings is flowy, often having this switchback movement, the water runs side to side and the brushstrokes lay parallel to each other and finally the city is made with sharp straight vertical lines, contrasting the rest of the painting. These too methods help ensure the painting is visually clear, as seen when both the water and buildings share the same color, their still easy to differentiate them due to the brush movement.
That is a really cool observation! I was thinking that the Monet paintings 4 and 8 are striking because the texture seems to jump out at you–even through the screen. It’s very interesting to see how he layers on the paint to create a third dimension–not only the contrasting direction of strokes, but also the amount of paint on the canvas per stroke. The layers highlight the exact point in which the sun hits the water, creating a glowy, ripple effect.
In the painting in Viewing 1, they all contain flowers. The flowers may be part of the subject, or blend in with pictures. In addition, each flower is brightly colored. The theme of bright flowers could represent how any moment in time contains beauty, and just like a flower, should be appreciated, as both time and beauty are always fleeting.
I like your interpretation of Manet, Degas, and Cassatt’s inclusion of flowers. I hadn’t noticed them initially but now that you point them out, I can see how vital they are to the piece and how it can represent beauty, admiration and the fleeting nature that they hold. They do blend in well the subject of each piece, and I wonder what the main intention of the artists were when including them if not for their beauty and significant representation of the women portrayed in each painting.
Something that I noticed about all eight paintings was that they seemed incredibly… unfocused. They don’t take the skyline into detail, but rather rely on what looks like shadows and vibrant colors to showcase the buildings and St. Thomas Hospital. In addition, some use flowers to make up the skyline, while others utilize cloud looking structures, but none uses literal building definitions, which I think is incredibly neat.
I totally agree with you on the neatness and skill that is required to create that “unfocused” look. It is very interesting because usually paintings created by such well known artists such as Monet are very detailed and descriptive in a sense. The description under the paintings does mention the London fog and how the paintings could be a tell on pollution in London and how badly it clouded the view of different skylines. I think these paintings could be powerful now especially with how bad climate change is. I would actually love to see some modern day artists approach cities with this idea, I think that could be influential in trying to get people to think about the effects of industrialization and capitalism on our environment. Especially since that unfocused look is so captivating it does make one consider why that stylistic choice was made.
Yes I totally agree!! But I feel it does give London the true representation it deserves with their weather. Londons fog used to come from coal fires which caused the smog to be very thick. Maybe when this painting was first being painted there was smoke and Monet most likely could not get a clear depiction of the buildings.
Stylistically, the paintings get more and more blotchy and have a painting-esque texture as we approach the turn of the century. While Olympia is beautiful in it’s own right, it definitely has a different vibe than Un bar aux Folies Bergere. Of course, this is shown most in Claude Monet’s series of paintings. Distinct lines are used sparingly, and the texture of the brush stroke in used to cultivate a certain tone throughout the pieces.
Thematic Patterns in Impressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Manet’s use of stencils really highlights the order the viewers are supposed to look at the paintings. For example in Olympia, the woman’s hand is the first thing you notice about the painting then her face and figure before you move on to the background which is blurred. Manet intentionally uses stencils to change the clarity of specific objects in his paintings to add depth and meaning to his artwork. In his Olympia and Un bar aux Folies Bergère, he adds clarity to the women and other important objects like the hand in Olympia and the drinks in Un bar aux Folies Bergère. In my opinion this was intentional to set up the woman’s lack of interest in the viewer in Olympia, and the Beauty of the Bartender in Un bar aux Folies Bergère.
I completely agree with you! I definitely noticed that all these paintings have a story the longer you look. I feel like a pattern I’ve seen is an unsettled woman. However you wouldn’t notice as if you quickly hover over the image. For example with “Un bar aux Folies Bergere (1882)” we quickly notice the woman who has a “normal” seeming face you wouldn’t expect anything, until you realize the background is a mirror and she’s actually having a conversation with a man at a social gathering. Now by looking at where she is (at the bar) we notice her social class might not be exactly lined up with the man and she may fall a little below. And we can get to know her a little more.
I noticed that, in most of the impressionist paintings, the art was done through blotches of paint rather than strokes of a brush. One of the readings related this style to “optical mixing,” a psychological phenomenon in which our brain blends colors together. It highlights the substance of impressionism: seeing the world, unfiltered, through our own perspective. The paintings depicting their lives are chaotic and truthful rather than clean and romanticized. I wonder if some of the artists understood the psychological impact of this style, or if they were simply just painting as they saw the world?
In Monet’s collection of London fog, there is an experimental aspect to his paintings. It seems like he gets much more comfortable and confident with his brush strokes. He eventually starts to start to experiment with colors as well as his painting style. You can visibly see the texture of his pieces change and become much more exaggerated throughout the years. Furthermore, even though there is a change in stylistic choices, he keeps one thing constant, the way he draws the buildings being depicted.
Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament strikes me because of the different areas of focus in each painting. Some paintings are entirely blurred and soft, some have birds focused in the foreground of the painting. In another, only the glistening water is clearly defined, drawing the viewer’s eye towards the golden waves. The impact of photographs and the help of photography to complete the series may have impacted the way the pictures came into focus for Monet, as opposed to they way the view of the river would have looked to the human eye, especially with the impact of the London fog.
One thematic pattern that I see in the images above is that in all of Monet’s depictions of parliament the buildings themselves seem to blurry and distant. In fact, as a whole each painting is blurred or seems to be slightly covered by a fog or a cloud. Although some contain vibrant, bright colors while others are more dull and less colorful, they all contain the cloudiness that I previously mentioned.
Thematic Patterns in Impressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A thematic pattern I noted in all these paintings is the captivity of a moment, an overall scene, including both the background and perspective. In the works of Manet, Degas, and Cassatt, a fleeting movement is captured with mid conversation, rest, or dance. In addition, these paintings are all intimate in capturing a relationship or visual, as seen by the candid painting of ballerinas, or the maternal care in “Young Mother Sewing”. Claude Monet’s “House of Parliament” also captures meaningful movement comparable to that of photography, showcasing shifts in the fog of London.
In the paintings containing people, there is a pattern of using the gaze of the subjects to further the goals of the painter. For example, in The Dance Class, no one is looking back at the viewer, perhaps to highlight the business and movement present in the room. However, in a painting like The Young Mother Sewing. The child stairs right back at us, perhaps to highlight her innocence and curiosity, while contrasting with the mother who is busy and focused. This use of gaze by impressionist seems not only to hint at the influences of photography, but also at the human experience of paying attention to where someone is looking, especially when it is at us.
An obvious pattern in Monet’s paintings is the silhouette of the city/hospital. The background, colors, and moods of the paintings change, but the silhouette is always the same, and the individual paintings would be easily recognized as members of the same series. Stylistically, the paintings all have sort of the same dull, overcast look, due to the foggy look Monet is trying to capture and depict.
A pattern I noticed in Monet’s paintings of the Houses of Parliament was in the paintings that seemed less foggy. You can somewhat tell the time of day it is from the reflection of the building on the water, and the earlier times of day seemed to be more clear out. I am wondering if this could have been a detail that helped pass the legislation to fix the urban pollution.
A thematic theme I noticed in all of Monet’s piece was the use of oil paints to create a smokey, foggy effect while still being able to use a variety of color with seeming mastery. He was able to create a cohesive tone of depressing fog. However, again, his use of color allowed for the pieces to not all be being, as he painted the same building 8 times. Through photograph, memory, or being in person, Monet painted the Houses of Parliament using a plethora of techniques in order to showcase a smog effect, the sun shining onto the river, and overall give his painting depth while not misrepresenting the main inspiration of the haze over London.
A stylistic pattern I noticed throughout Monet’s paintings is his alteration and blending of hues to demonstrate the density and thickness of the fog. For instance, one of the paintings can be found with bright colors and a prominent London skyline, indicating that the fog is not as severe; in another painting, the London skyline can be found nearly blending in with the other colors in the painting, suggesting that the fog is intense. Therefore, Monet purposely either blending the colors on the canvas or illustrating a sharp juxtaposition in which the viewer can distinguish different, non-blended colors fundamentally contributes to recognizing the fog’s extremity at the time Monet captured the moment.
Striking Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The fourth painting of Monet’s Houses of Parliament appears to eminent a change in texture through the type of brush strokes Monet created, probably due to the gentle strokes of yellow he added on top of the more muted cool colors. With that, I think his passionate desire to paint only when the sun out is expressed the most in this painting because not only does the strokes of yellow create the sun’s presence within the painting, but it also creates a more dynamic feeling than some of the other paintings do. The other paintings are all smooth in texture in its’ relation to the fog’s presence, but this painting brings out a different side to the scenery, creating a textural and vibrant movement to the fog.
The yellow strokes also stood out to me. What I find interesting is how the light in his paintings dont just brighten things but it transforms the emotional feel of the scene. The way the yellow is layered over the blues and purples makes the fog feel less like a blur and more like an alive presence. It’s like the sunlight isn’t just breaking through but it’s fighting to be seen. That contrast adds tension, like you’re witnessing something fragile and fleeting that it can disappear in a second. This piece sits the viewer to make us feel the in between.
In the first picture of the Monet’s House of Parliament, it is the only one that seems to be depicting total darkness, with a tint of orange in the sky. It is also the only one that shows what seems to be two individuals in a canoe. I feel that Monet is expressing that something can be just as beautiful at night as it is in the daylight. There is a sense of calmness shown through the stillness of the water and the quiet presence of the people in the night taking in the silence and appreciating the nighttime atmosphere despite the fog surrounding them.
When looking at Manet’s Un bar aux Folies Bergère, I particularly noticed the emotion of the lady’s eyes. Her eyes seem tired and distant as she stares toward the crowd of people or perhaps towards the ground, but does not really see them. Impressionism intends to portray a small snapshot of life and in this moment, Manet is able to capture the complex emotions in the lady’s eyes during this small moment in her life. It’s almost as if she is disassociating or is stuck in her own thoughts, perhaps because she had seen someone in the bar that she wasn’t expecting. She looks withdrawn, solemn and sad while at a bar that is teeming with people.
I noticed this too. The perspective being so focused on her and her features portraying these emotions while the other people and the background are more muddled immediately stood out to me. It gives the impression of solitude or perhaps loneliness beyond the physical capacity. She looks withdrawn, sad, forlorn maybe, despite having other people and activity around her.
The second painting, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, by Édouard Manet depicts appears to depict a performance show during the 1880s. If you look closely in the lefthand corner, there are 2 legs in the air which look like some kind of trapeze performance. that detail adds to the larger theme of complexity and chaos throughout the painting.
I agree, the legs seem to be randomly placed at the top corner of the painting, but it’s all part of the chaos revolving around the painting. What strikes me even more about this painting is that not many people’s facial expressions or faces are shown clearly, but the one person’s face we can see clearly is the girl at the center of the painting and she expresses a sense of unease. This strikes me because she is the only person whose face we see and it makes me think that Édouard Manet did this on purpose in order to critique society or challenge societal norms on paintings.
The third painting in Monet’s Houses of Parliament series stands out to me because it seems to be the only one that depicts birds. What also surprises me is that pink is used as a main color to depict the sky and water. The Houses of Parliment are covered in pink fog, almost invisible to audience. I think the pinkish fog might be the result of sunlight reflecting at dawn, and it soften the outline of the building, creating a sense of unreality.
I think a striking detail in the image Édouard Manet, Olympia (1863) is the fact that the women in th bed is fully naked. Although it is very clear she is nude, I think it’s striking because the lady beside her is fully clothed. I think this can be percieved as the white lady being higher up, along with being white she is perceived as perfection and beautiful which is why she doesn’t feel the need to cover up.
I like your observation in the contrast of the two women in the painting. The white woman is stretched out quite neutrally, yet her body is perceived as sexy, attractive and feminine with details like a ribbon on her neck and a flower on her ear. She remains elegant by having a gold bracelet and slippers on while lying naked in bed, but the woman beside is beautiful in a completely different way in my eyes. She is wearing a pink dress and holding a beautiful boutique of flowers, yet there still exists an unequal difference between them, which is further conveyed through the expression on the clothed women’s face.
A striking detail I find in the painting of “Olympia” by Manet, is the naked woman’s gaze. The woman is staring directly at the viewer, fully naked, with emotions of possession, awareness, and boldness. Instead of being something to be desired, it looks like the woman is judging or even criticizing you with her gaze/stare, challenging the viewer.
Striking Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Something I find interesting is the background in Manet’s “un bar aux Folies Bergere.” Upon first glance, I did not immediately notice it was a mirror, and I find the perspective of this really interesting. The woman is the focus of the painting- we can see her face- yet we can also see what she sees. Additionally, through the mirror you find she is engaged in conversation with a man, something that if you simply looked at her face you probably wouldn’t guess. It is through the mirror that we are able to see her perspective, which adds a more personal level to the painting. Its not just a portrait of her, it’s a portrait of her and her perspective, and tells a broader story about what is going on at the bar.
I also found this really striking as it also took me a minute to notice. I really like your take on this painting, specifically about the contrast between the women’s perspective versus what’s actually happening in real life. When I was looking at this painting I actually had a slightly different take on where we can see the women’s perspective. I actually thought that we can see her perspective when we see her looking forward, not her in the mirror talking to the man. In class we talked about mimesis, and how whatever is shown in a mirror is real and the artist detaches themselves from the art and doesn’t allow their perspective to interfere. As a result I think we can see the perspective of the women in the painting when looking at her and the expression of her face, and we are able to nicely see that against what’s actually happening around her through the mirror in the background.
I’m curious if the background in Manet’s “Un Bar aux Folies Bergere” really is a mirror or if it’s simply a crowd behind her. I think it can be interpreted both ways, which adds to the dreamlike setting that impressionist paintings seem to carry with them. I
I find both you and Amilia’s comment very striking and interesting. At first I was confused being that the position of her body didn’t match her body language that we see in the mirror but then looking at the bottles they are in an identical position. So i do find that interesting and agree with the fact that this is what an impressionist paintings entails it’s up to you to decide what exactly you see.
Something I noticed in Édouard Manet’s, Un bar aux Folies Bergère is that the center of the painting depicts more detail and less bluriness compared to the background which is very blurry. This is unique from other impressionist paintings where the emphasis is put onto the senses of the painting rather than the realism, whereas in this painting the subject is drawn realistically while the background is drawn blurrily to make the lady the subject and the forefront of the painting. I think this shows how the subject of the painting is exhausted from her job of bartending.
I really liked your suggestion that the subject of the painting is exhausted from her job of bartending. Having the woman in the center be the focal point creates depth in the painting without having an enormous contrast in detail (the brush strokes are thick everywhere and not polished). Additionally, it adds to the idea that impressionist paintings were supposed to give you an “impression” or a snapshot (like a photo) of a moment. This haziness and lack of complete clarity definitely accomplishes this aim.
Yes, I love the last point about how exhausted the woman is from her job. It’s like she is so overwhelmed that the whole world is becoming blurry. However, I would like to add how even though the blurry effect done in Manet’s painting makes it look very exaggerated, Cassatt’s Young Mother Sewing also has a pretty good blurring effect as well. Although it has so much less detail to begin with, the two people have so much more detail than the outdoor setting of the painting. The trees are only shaped like so, and the grass is just a wall of green with no detail. It forces the attention towards the mother and daughter.
I noticed that in Un bar aux Folies Bergère (1882), there is a blurry woman who is sitting at the back wearing white dress while all the other people are wearing black. The whole painting focuses on the contrast between the color black and white, and especially the black dress of the woman in front is painted with light white strokes, which shows depicts lights shining on her. This shows how impressionist paintings focus on lights rather than all the other details in the background.
What caught my attention was Édouard Manet’s Olympia regrading the overall facial and body expressions given by everyone. The woman looks to be bothered by the viewer (who is presumably Olympia); the man is looking at the Olympia for instruction, which I believe is seeking advice on how to treat the viewer; the cat’s body posture depicts a sort of alarmed and aggressive stance, showing that the viewer is uninvited. These facial expressions and body posture depicts an invasion of privacy that the viewer is committing, creating an unwelcome environment that creates an uneasy feeling for the viewer. On top of this, the man is carrying flowers, which may mean that there was an event of sorts happening for which we have invaded. Overall, the painting creates an eerie feeling of intrusion.
I would like to comment on your response as I saw it in a contrasting light. This image is inspired by Titan’s Venus of Urbino and in both images it appears to be a maid in the background. This image is particularly striking to me because in Olympia, the women seems to have a more sexual and stern presence, she looks directly into the viewers eyes and is laid out with heels on the bed- opposed the the women in the Venus painting who is bare foot. The maid seems to be catering to her bringing her a large bouquet of flowers. I didn’t feel much like I was invading anything but more that the was not ashamed to show off her body and was almost proud.
In Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, I found it so interesting that there is a mirror behind the woman, which shows that she is working in a bar or another establishment that serves alcohol. In the mirror, you can see that she is serving a man. From the front, you can see that the woman looks uncomfortable seems as if she does not want to serve the man in the mirror. However I think this aspect is very interesting because I believe the man does not see this uncomfortable expression of her, despite him being right of front of her. Only we as the viewers are able to. understand and interpret this uncomfortable feeling she is experiencing. I believe this painting is giving emphasis on the way women were treated during this time and how men were known to make women uncomfortable. I think the way the artist painted this was very clever, especially since he made sure that the viewers get the picture of the women’s expression. I feel like the painting also gives a very lonely feeling. The painting is in dark colors and even though you can see many people in the mirror, the painting gives the feeling that she is still alone with the man even though she is not really ‘alone’. This painting overall gives the feeling that the women feels alone and pressured.
In Edgar Degas ‘ The Dance Class (1874), the faces of the dancers and people are all slightly distorted as if they were a fuzzy memory. The color scheme consists of dull colors apart from the bright white of the tutus, similar to how some specific details in dreams stick with a person compared to other minuscule details. All aspects of this painting are hazy and feel as if they were drawn out of a trance.
The series of paintings by Monet of London all look similar on surface level, but the sixth painting in particular stands out to me the most. The fog is the least dense in this painting, and it makes London stand out a lot more in contrast to the rest of the series. It looks less melancholy, warmer, cleaner and more hospitable. The bright sky reflects on the water, making it look like the evening of a beautiful day.
One stylistic pattern I noticed in almost all of these paintings would be the artists’ use of gaze — specifically, where the characters are looking. In works like Édouard Manet’s Olympia and Un Bar Aux Foiles, some figures look directly at the viewer while others look away. I believe that this style creates a mix of confrontation and detachment, making the viewer feel both drawn into the scene and slightly unsettled.
Looking at Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament, the final image strikes me as the most eerie. Some of the images have people rowing in the water, birds flying, or at least a clear structure of the buildings, but the final painting shows the building and sky as messy streaks. This gives a sensation of uneasiness, and it feels as though the building is moving or approaching you. In the back left, the buildings are also not upright. This change may imply an increase in fog during the day Monet was painting this piece.
Striking Details
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A striking detail I noticed on the painting of Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère, is that the main focus is on the waitress and the mirror behind her showing what is in front of her. However, it appears that a man is in front of her but technically he is not in the foreground which makes it believe the man is just an illusion. By creating this piece Manet was very ambiguous because I believe he wanted to portray what would happen during the bar or as well what the waitress would encounter while working by putting a man on the background but not in the foreground.
A striking detail I noticed in the painting “Olympia” by Manet, is how the painting is overwhelmed by a sense of intimacy. The painting portrays a naked woman, giving her a vulnerable position. But asides from her physical state being vulnerable, the emotions conveyed through her eyes also seem vulnerable and intimate as she seems to be lost in thought. There seems to be a contrast between how exposed her body seems to be yet her thoughts and mindset seem to be private.
A striking detail I noticed in Mary Cassatt’s “Young Mother Sewing” is the contrasting expressions between the child and her mother. The mother is looking down carefully at her sewing, concentrated, while her child is looking straight at us, the viewers, with an expression I think is a mix of indifference and curiosity at the same time. The child seems used to her mother’s activities, and isn’t making a fuss at the lack of her mother’s attention, and at the same time, the use of the color in the painting brings the moment to life and highlights this moment in a typical “daily life.” Additionally, I find the title of this piece really funny because it’s very direct, yet at the same time, provides the key detail that the woman sewing is a young mother, and not a caretaker or an older sister/relative.
Building on this, I also find the child’s gaze in Young Mother Sewing to be incredibly striking, where it seems there’s a quiet awareness in her eyes that contrasts with the mother’s absorbed focus on her task. This dynamic humanizes both figures but subtly emphasizes the intimacy and ordinariness of domestic life. The composition’s photographic stillness, especially the way the child’s face meets the viewer directly, feels almost like a candid snapshot, which matches the photography’s Impressionist style. And I agree the title cleverly anchors the painting’s emotional weight in the specific role of motherhood, thus adding a layer of narrative to what at first seems like a simple moment.
A striking detail that I found in Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1863) is a naked woman wearing shoes in bed. It is not normal to wear shoes in bed, but an interesting fact is that she is naked. As an audience one question appeared, why is women only wearing shoes other than any clothes. Usually shoes are the first thing we take off when we go to bed. It may be a cultural difference or generational difference, but I think it was that she was in an uncomfortable position where she couldn’t rest as usual. Maybe it is because of men or someone painting her naked body but by only wearing shoes she is expressing her uncomfortable situation or feeling.
A striking detail that I noticed in Edgar Degas’s “The Dance Class” is how the one girl doing the ballet moves seems to be a main focus in the painting. The painting portrays a group of kids wearing what looks like dance costumes all in the same little dance studio. It looks like they are getting ready for a recital or something along those lines. What makes the dancer in the middle really stand out though is that while everybody else is sitting or just being occupied with other things, the girl has the focus of the older man and women.
A striking detail I noticed from Edgar Degas’s, “The Dance Class” is the girl in the background pulling at and adjusting her black choker. I think this detail does a good job in encapsulating Degas’s style of painting in which he tries to capture “casual moments of action,” (Strickland 106). He paints this girl in a moment of discomfort and annoyance two very human emotions that I do not attribute to ballerinas. In this fashion his work humanizes them and strips away the idealized image society has of ballerinas.
I’m not sure that Monet’s paintings are shown in order, but assuming they are, I noticed that the overlay of fog seems to pass in a natural way. In other words, the gradient of fog progressively gets darker before having a sudden moment of light and then continued fog. What stood out to me was the 6th image that is suddenly sunny. I think this is really accurate to the way that London weather is. It’ll be cloudy and sometimes even drizzling, and then there will be an unexpected moment where the clouds break and the sun shines. Ultimately, the way in which this natural pattern of fluctuating fog is presented in the images feels really genuine to London and I think that this series of paintings is unique for that reason.
A striking detail of Édouard Manet’s Un bar aux Folies Bergère, a scene of daily life in the loose brush strokes typical in Impressionist artworks, is the central figure’s emotional detachment. The woman is distracted, and gazes off solemnly towards the viewer, contrasting with the lively and leisurely environment and creating a more observational tone. She seems isolated in a room full of people, possibly a commentary on alienation in urban areas.
In Édouard Manet, Un bar aux Folies Bergère (1882) I was intriguied by the amount of people He drew in the background of the painting. It reminded me of something like a concert. The people who are closer to the image are more defined and as u look further back they get less and less definded but you can tell there is a lot of people in the painting.
One striking detail I noticed in some and all paintings in Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament is only two paintings show what I’m assuming is someone on a platform in the water while the other paintings only have the building in the background. Another detail I noticed was one of the paintings is very foggy compared to the rest of the paintings.
The Influence of Photography
⤹Click the reply button just below.
What makes Degas’ The Dance Class so captivating to me is the feeling that it was taken by accident, almost like someone had opened a door and taken a photo. The composition isn’t centered or polished in the traditional art sense. People seem to be cropped awkwardly, some with their backs to the veiwer and others partly out of frame.
This off balance framing contrasts with the symmetry of a typical classical painting, it might reflect the influence of early photography, capturing people in the moment rather than a pose. Rather than glorifying the dancers, he depicts the real in between moments: exhaustion, waiting, practicing and the behind the scenes of a performance.
Even the movement in the painting seems like a photo. Some dancers blend into the backdrop and the light diffuses, almost like a long exposure from an old camera. But here it was not about capturing a moment perfectly but capturing the truth of what’s happening, the raw and fleeting moments.That’s where I see Degas and photography intersecting.
I agree that the unbalanced composition and framing, as well as the movement, is what adds realism to the impressionist painting. It’s not about a particular structure but about creating a real-life scene that involves so many different flawed aspects within the people and the environment. Through the candidness, not every detail is captured as some faces and details are blurred out. This seems to create a great mixture of the type of scene a photographer would choose and possibly a lack of finish an impressionist painter would have.
I agree. The painting has an asymetrical framing and a candid perspective which makes the painting look like a photograph. It looks like a fleeting moment the dancers are stopped mid-action, no fixed poses. it’s like we’re witnessing an unstaged moment. Degas also uses space and depth like in a photograph, the way some of the dancers are standing at the back some in the front really picturing the chaos of a dance class.
In addition to what has already been commented, notice the mirror on the left wall of the painting. If you look closely, it awkwardly reflects part of the room without showing us clearly what’s behind or who’s in it. The unplanned, imperfect view reminds me of how a camera is quickly lifted to capture a space when not everything is centered or explained. It makes the scene feel more real and messy, like we’re watching the behind the scenes from the wrong angle.
The Influence of Photography
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Houses of Parliament by Monet exhibits the betrayal of the influence of photography. Monet’s artworks offer a fixed perspective of the same skyline is repeatedly captured, similarly to how a camera would be used in this essence. The movement of fog and subtle changes in the lighting and haze suggest a photographic intention of fleeting moments bounded by time and capture. Even though Monet painted this series by hand, the pieces contribute to the idea of seeing the environment/world as a sequence of ocular impressions–influenced by a photographs ability to freeze an exact moment of time.
Prompt 3: In “Un bar aux Folies Bergère”, Édouard Manet depicts a young woman working behind the bar of a lively setting. The way in which this painting challenges photography’s traditional “way of seeing” is through the contrast of the viewer’s point of view and that of the man depicted. Viewer’s would think that the man in front of the woman is at a decent range of distance, but as we can see in the mirror, he is seemingly in very close proximity to her, almost touching faces.
The Influence of Photography
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One painting that clearly shows the influence of photography’s “way of seeing” is Degas’s The Dance Class (1874). The scene is asymmetrical, with dancers cut off by the frame and gathered in various poses, creating a snapshot like image. This kind of cropping and dynamic composition mirrors photographic techniques, capturing a fleeting moment rather than a formally arranged scene. The off-center focus and blurred sense of motion reflect photography’s power to freeze life mid-action, suggesting spontaneity rather than idealized stillness.
I agree with how you describe the painting depicting the “mid motion” moment so many photographs are known to be good at capturing. I also think that the paintings Monet did of capturing the London fog all have a consistent pattern of this “in action” feeling, the water ripples are always different, the colors feel as though they are moving with each blink of an eye, and yet it is all very intentional at the same time.
In Mary Cassatt, Young Mother Sewing (1893), the posing (or rather the lack of posing) of the young mother and her child show the influence of photography. Unlike previous traditional paintings where the models are carefully placed and props/clothing are carefully arranged, there is a carelessness to the crumpled clothes and what the mother is sewing. Everything seems more natural, even the way the mother is looking down as opposed to forward. This gives it the impression of being a snapshot in time instead of a painting. The young child’s focus almost seems like it could be focused on a camera, since her gaze is almost looking out of the painting to the left.
The initial section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In one scene around six minutes, the president catches the Little Tramp smoking in the bathroom and tells him to go back to work through the television. The president seems to have eyes everywhere through the use of TVs, almost insinuating that the workers’ time no matter where they were was under his authority. Even though the bathroom is a private area, the workers’ production was a public means to an end, making things that are usually considered private as public to people like the president to ensure the amount of production and manufacture he desires.
I noticed this too. it reminds me of the Saddler report a bit in that they had no agency and were under the control of authority. The authority didn’t care for boundaries or comfort, only about profit and efficiency, which was clear in this section of the film. The president has no interest in personal life or anything that infringes upon the ultimate end goal, and he uses what means he chooses to watch and make sure they will be met and that employee time is only to be for the end goals production.
Good point. The surveillance and observation part is really sharp!! That detail also satirizes the growing fear of technology invading human life. The president’s ability to invade on private spaces highlights how the mechanized efficiency of work has dehumanized employees. Chaplin succeeds at criticizing the loss of privacy alongside dignity and autonomy under capitalism.
Yes, I noticed this too and this was one of the key moments when the actors had to speak. It definitely shows that the president is highly controlling even during the workers private time. I would also like to add that these workers are working in very dangerous conditions but the little tramp character brings humor and a bit of rebelliousness to the workspace. I think this movie is also trying to point out the detail that the industrial time included a very mundane, dangerous, and boring life for the workers. They were also highly focused on making everything as efficient, as seen by the automatic eating machine, even though an automatic eating machine was not necessary needed. The workers and president only cared about efficiency and product without any care for the workers, which can be seen when the automatic feeder machine continued to malfunction yet no one helped Little Tramp leave the contraption. It can also be seen when the men are seen to each work on one part of the finished product at a time, where all the men had an assigned task that deeply relied on each other. Overall, I feel like this movie is pointing out the dehumanizing life of the workers by adding these details.
Yes, I agree with you. Another moment in the initial sequence of the Mdern Times where people were treated as tools to maximize productivity was the feeding machine. The feeding machine aimed to eliminate worker’s lunch time and increase production. From the Sadler Report we read in SS we knew that most workers only have 30 minutes lunch break for a whole, and this machine tried to keep people working while they were eating. I believe that this scene showcases the down side of industrialization: people were dehumanized and treated as slaves of big machines.
When I saw that scene, I thought it was funny that he clocked out before he went into the bathroom. It shows a level of obedience from the Little Tramp. Though he wants to smoke and eventually just causes chaos for the factory, he is taught to clock out for breaks, and he compliant with that.
I totally agree! It’s weird that a private place like a bathroom has a camera. It does ensure control over the workers, because if no production is done, then no money is made. It reminds me of my job when I came back after spring semester. I was being told I had to be careful going to the bathroom or being on my phone because they were watching our cameras.
One key detail that stood out to me was three men working on a conveyor belt and each man was assigned a specific task to do before the product moved to the other person showing. This shows a workplace that is based on division of labor. Politically, the workers are working at the pace of the machine which is a super high speed indicating that there is a high demand for the product and the factory is trying to get the product out on the market as fast as they can, resulting in workers working at an inhuman speed. This continuous action of doing the same actions for hours eventually leads these workers to alienation because they will no longer have a connection to their work but rather only focus on completing their task in order to earn minimum wage. Lastly, I recognized that even after the machine stops the man with the wrenches continues to do doing the twisting motions symbolizing how repetitiveness in this form can take a toll on a person mental health.
One of the details I found interesting was when the Tramp was chosen to test the “feeding machine”, whose utility was to boost productivity and eliminate lunch breaks for the workers. This shows how industrial capitalism overran basic human needs. The machine malfunctions, spilling food over him. He is humiliated, stripped of his dignity. Chaplin uses this to critique how workers were stripped of their autonomy. It shows how technology guided by capitalism can become violent and dehumanizing.
I agree with your take on the feeding machine.What stood out to me was how the Tramp body is literally treated like the assembly line here. He’s not a person here but just another machine to speed up. The way the machine keeps force feeding him even after it breaks just turns basic care into something aggressive and mechanical. It’s crazy that they turn something so human such as lunch to a form of humiliation. Chaplin exposes how under capitalism, efficiency matters more than dignity and safety.
That’s a really interesting point you made about how in a way Little Tramp’s body becomes also apart of an assembly line. By taking away the workers freedom of autonomy to even to just eat their own lunch at their will, essentially they turn these workers into the very machines they work with. It’s interesting how the only reason that the machine was denied by the boss was due to the fact it malfunctioned and didn’t work as promised, not for its dehumanizing qualities. This is most definitely is a commentary on capitalism and to add on to what’s already stated, I believe its also a cautionary tell of greed as well as a somber tale of the working class that suffer as a result of the higher ups with iron fists.
I completely agree with your point of how capitalism overruns basic human needs. I also realize how in the beginning scene, a herd of sheep disclose into being a crowd of workers, signifying and comparing the workers into livestock, stripping their autonomy and value. In concerns of the feeding machine, the scene shows how capitalism is literally obsessed with productivity and sales that it is willing to sacrifice health, and comfort.
Prior to this scene, the people pitching ideas for this machine were shown the primary scene with audio. Most of the film remains silent in the factory, except when the bosses speak to workers or conduct business. I believe the emphasis on audio was intended to highlight instruction and innovation, values stressed during the Modern Era. I see this scene as foreshadowing the dangers of over-industrialization. Today, those dangers have materialized as overconsumption, excessive R&D, advertising, and capitalist behavior.
In Chaplin’s movie, around minute 8:45, I noticed an extreme lack of intelligence amongst the workers, specifically the main character. In the scene, the man is seen to act clumsily and mistake a woman’s dress buttons for parts. The scene continues playing out with him spilling a bowl of his coworker’s hot soup and then sitting on it as well. There’s a drastic difference between the humorist and idiotic behaviors of the working class and the serious, all-knowing authority that seems to reveal the stereotypes about industrial efficiency and human value within the hierarchy.
In the initial section, the Tramp gets pulled into the giant gears of the machine, which shows how workers are literally consumed by the system. It’s funny at first but also kind of disturbing. I feel like the scene is making a political point about how industrialization treats people like cogs in a machine, erasing their humanity for speed and profit.
I one hundred percent agree how the comedy masks how horrifying the message is until you truly think about the situation. I also think this entire movie feels very indicative of how workers are treated by businesses as society pressed forward into a new industrial period.
The automatic feeding machine is a great example of Chaplin’s use of physical comedy and visual storytelling. As the machine malfunctions, Chaplin’s precise movements and timing turn the chaos into a funny, well-choreographed scene. The way his actions match the machine’s rhythm shows his skill in using silent film techniques. This moment captures how Modern Times uses humor and visuals to reflect the struggles of modern life.
42 minutes into the film, a shift in the Tramp’s motivations can be seen through the love story. In the first third of this movie he appears to be content with living in prison, which drives his actions. But now, as the orphaned girl runs away, he follows her. I like this artistic shift in the plot; the seemingly foolish and almost comedic incentive of the Tramp has turned romantic, which is visually appealing.
The initial section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The initial section of modern times was strikingly political. The opening sequence of the crowded sheep walking forward and cutting immediately to people on their commute to the factory already provides a statement on the dehumanization that occurs by working a factory job. The scene shifts to Charlie Chaplin’s character at work, and the movie jabs at how the assembly line relies on each person working as quickly as possible and how a single human’s mistake leads to the machine-like work being disturbed. This mistake results in violence by the boss and other workers. I immediately connected this scene back to a reading in Professor Marr’s class on factory conditions for children and how violence was used to force people to work at a machine-like pace. The scene continues, with Chaplin continuing his work and then taking a short break (clocking out to use the restroom) and mimicking the repetitive motion of a machine to emphasize the effect the dehumanizing work has on him. When he goes to the restroom for a smoke break and relaxes, he is immediately forced back to work by an overseeing boss.
There is another scene where the CEO (I’m guessing) is being sold on a machine that eliminates the lunch break for his employees to increase production. However, the machine isn’t installed because it’s not practical, not because it’s dehumanizing.
The rest of the initial sequence (till minute 19:10) is seemingly Charlie Chaplin going insane and aiming to destroy the factory.
I think your insights about when Charlie Chaplin takes a break are really insightful. To take it a step further, I want to connect it to the hierarchy of property owners v. workers and how the workers were viewed and taken advantage of. The scene shows the bosses don’t care about the workers they care about the product they are making. No matter the situation, be it taking a break to use the bathroom and smoke, getting distracted by a bee, or even getting hit on the head, Chaplin couldn’t stop working. Production would get messed up and his superiors would get mad. This shows the dehumanization of workers at the time, they are just cogs in the machine of production and not seen as having real human needs.
Reply to Ava
I also found the bathroom scene politically striking, as it shows how dehumanizing the factory was for the workers. I connected this idea of dehumanization that you had to a part a little bit before the bathroom scene. At 5:37-5:35 mins we can see that Charlie Chaplin stopped working as he wanted to use the bathroom. Whilst he is on the way to the bathroom he is still twitching as if his muscles are still at work, doing his job. This highlights the working conditions of the factory, showing that he has been working for long hours. With this scene happening right before the bathroom scene you talked about it just emphasizes further the overall dehumanizing conditions of the factory. This is because when Chaplin’s body is twitching it’s like his own body won’t let him take a break, and as soon as his body does let him take a break (when he starts to smoke the cigarette in the bathroom), his boss won’t even let him take a break. As a result because of the twitching scene and the bathroom scene happening right after each other it shows the audience how bad and dehumanizing the conditions really were in the factory.
I agree with you that the repetitive motion is indeed showing dehumanization. Especially when he is trying to screw the buttons on ladies dress and screw people’s noses shows how he is made into a machine that does not have individual thinking like a normal human being should. He goes out of control just like the feeding machine, which further shows that he is no different from a cold machine. The fact that he got arrested and was sent to a hospital shows that the industrialized society is cruel to workers. It drives people crazy because they are dehumanized and exploited by the higher up, and pushed to do rapid repetitive motion that require no creativity but only muscle memory.
I also thought of the discussions regarding the exploitation and dehumanization of factory workers from social science. As you said, any human error can lead to a much bigger disturbance and violence against workers. Chaplin portrays this common violence in a comedic way, as he does with the other instances you mentioned to highlight the mistreatment early 20th century factory workers faced.
I also noticed the creative decision to portray the workers as sheep and that they are kept in a machine like condition where their labors are extracted with little breaks in between. This also reminded me of our discussions about bureaucracies in social science, where we talked about how bureaucracies operate in likeness to machines. I believe this movie also makes political commentary about how systems such as the bureaucracy, although valued for its extreme efficiency, may have lost their humanity as a consequence.
One key detail of the initial sequence of the factory was the use of surveillance by the boss. The boss seemed to oversee all the activities of the factory without having to be their physically, even in the seen where Charlie Chaplin goes into the restroom. This could be a commentary on obsessive need for employers to know the actions of their employees at all times, and their demand for higher efficiency without considering the conditions of the workers. It is both a plot device and a glimpse of the time period, to see that workers were seen by their production value by higher ups and a necessity for control and profits at all costs.
I agree with your sentiment that the administration only looked at their employees as objects to achieve peak efficiency. I also want to add that around 7:30 the higher-ups introduced a machine that would feed their workers while they worked, showcasing how they didn’t care about the well-being of their workers as long as they were able to work.
I agree with your point about the boss watching over the workers as it was a direct representation of how little freedom they had during that time. As the boss constantly monitors the workers, even in the bathroom, it puts into perspective how controlling factory life was. Those working in the factory weren’t seen as individuals, but instead degraded down to a part of a larger machine that needed to keep going. In reality many factory owners only prioritized production and many workers didn’t get breaks at all. Physical tactics like whipping were used as punishment just to make sure they stayed awake or were working fast enough. It’s disturbing how normal it was back then to dehumanize people this way as bosses had total control over their every move.
I also observed the extreme oversight that the factory president had on the factory workers. In the scene where Chaplin’s character struggled with the speed of the machine I found it interesting that the president kept asking to speed up the process. Although the boss seemed to know each time the laborers took a break or slowed down, he didn’t care for when the factory workers could not keep up with the machines. This emphasizes the increase in demand for results and more productivity. If the factory workers could not deliver they would be reprimanded.
Something I noticed in the film was the repetitive tasks that Charlie Chaplin performs. He is seen doing menial work such as screwing and it obstructs with his life outside work and his robotic nature as a whole negatively affects his life. For example, at 16:59, he is seen to run away from the police, but even when he is in a hurry, he backtracks and decides to clock into his shift to run away again. This is a repetition of what happens at 6:10, where he is scolded by his manager to get back to work and he clocks in. His acts of screwing objects and clocking into work show robotic and irrational we become when we are put under modern day jobs. These sorts of menial work can take away our ability to think for ourselves because the system rewards robotic consistency and obedience.
Robotic consistency and obedience is a great term that describes the conditions Charlie Chaplin is creating in his story. It seems all the workers are conditioned to focus on only their role and nothing more. For example, at 17:50, we can see that the workers are trying to chase Charlie Chaplin to catch him, but only when the conveyer belt is off. When the machine is turned on, they immediately to back to their role. Only when the machine is off they attempt to chase him. It’s like a machine being turned on and off. To them, their quota and work efficiency is more important than an apparent maniac having a crash-out, because if they fail in their roles they will more than likely be replaced.
I find it interesting how not only “the system rewards robotic consistency and obedience” but also shames this robotic nature. One example being when Chaplin is driven into a ‘nervous breakdown’ which leads to him being the subject of anger from the company and being sent to a hospital.
When the feeding machine presented by the mechanical salesman J. Willecomb Bellows is pitched to the boss served as a striking key moment for me during the factory scene. The machine’s purpose was to mechanize meal time, eliminating the lunch hour allotted for the men to fuel themselves for the back half of the work day. This invention blatantly highlights the dehumanizing logic of the industrial capitalism and its implications on the working class as a byproduct. Standards of the ruling capital conditioned factory workers to serve as an extension of their machinery, rather than individual beings. Through use of exaggeration, the segment combines comedic irony with sharp social criticism to prove how efficiency often comes at the expense of one’s sanity.
I agree with your analysis of the feeding machine! Another thing I that is worth noting is that the machine starts off working fine. It presents the food to him, wipes his mouth off, and rotates to the next plate. This invention is quite impressive at face value, which reflects the rise in technology as a result of the industrial revolution. This is parallel to the machinery that the workers manage at the factory. However, the feeding machine gradually becomes impractical and Chaplin gets physically abused by the machine. It dehumanized him because it was designed to reduce his eating time down to a process of merely opening his mouth and chewing. He can otherwise be controlled by the machine. The same is true with the factory machines. Rather than being extensions of what the human body can do, they are statements/motifs about what the human body cannot do. In both situations, the machines seem rational, but that does not mean they are justified.
I really liked your point about the machine reflecting the rise of technology, especially how it mirrors the factory environment. One thing I noticed was how Chaplin slowly stops resisting and just goes along with the machine. That moment stood out to me because it shows how people can become desensitized and start to accept systems that clearly aren’t made for them. It’s not just the invention that’s disturbing it’s how quickly people adjust to it, even when it strips away their humanity.
One thing I noticed was the repetition of work. Which reminded me of when we learned about the division of labor in social science. When someone became very good at a task they were forced to work in that specific section basically for the rest of their life. As well as it it shows how life was for factory workers during the industrialization. We see them suggest a machine for the workers to be able to eat while still doing their jobs which would intentionally allow less or no breaks at all. And it’s extremely unfortunate how these factory workers would be forced to work for hours on end and live in this negative cycle with no time to themselves.
Hi Melanie, I really liked your connection between the repetition of work and division of labor. The similarity between the two highlight how the industrializations main focus was mass labor. I also agree about your point on the machine that allowed for no breaks; it shows how workers were not thought of as humans but rather a part of machinery. Chaplin’s use of humor towards this issue creates a sense of irony by emphasizing harsh labor conditions with a comedic criticism.
The initial section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A key moment that stood out to me that was political was at 0:07:14, it was when the Sales Talk Transcription Co. Inc. came in and persuaded the CEO to try a new feeding machine in order to not stop production and take away lunch hour. To me this is political because most factories would abuse their workers by working them overtime and giving them very little to none of breaks. By the sales man persuading the CEO of using this new invention demonstrates that they would do anything to increase production in order for them to gain more profit and not for the benefit of their workers.
Yes, the machine definitely symbolizes the bosses not willing to give the workers breaks, especially because factory work had seen large success in output in those times. I also think the machine symbolizes a “leap” to the future, as we tend to think (even now) that the more we rely on advanced machinery, the more modern we become, and the feeding machine show that this isn’t as accurate as one might think it would be. This is seen when the machine malfunctions and almost kill Chaplin. Humans would be better off doing some tasks on their own.
I agree! A sequence that stood out to me was the scene beginning at about 0:10:00. It depicts a test run of the feeding machine, where it encounters many failures. I thought that this was a funny way to present a message about machinery and how it may seem great in theory, but this scene also makes it evident that machines can have serious malfunctions in practice. You also said that machinery represents the future, even nowadays. I agree with that and I was definitely thinking about ChatGPT when viewing this scene, especially how it seems so great when it actually has serious flaws and detriments that people refuse to heed attention to.
I agree, and the feeding machine scene stood out to me as well. To add to your point, I noticed that the managers’ only qualms with the feeding machine was that it was “not practical.” Their indifference to the pain caused by the machine reflects the dehumanization of factory workers, treating them as machines themselves that should prioritize profit-maximization. This is also seen when Charlie Chaplin’s character takes a bathroom break, which doesn’t last three seconds before a manger interrupts to remind him he has to work. He is not allowed to be a human so long as being human is not productive. All that is valued in the factory is efficiency, speed and profit.
0:01:50 to 0:02:30 are the intro given to us that set down the background for the film, we are at the time period that is after industrialization and people are used to working in factory. I like how Chaplin start the scene with live stock and then immediately cut to the worker. Both are going the same direction with the same crowded surrendering, suggesting that the worker are no different than a sheep, living blindly.
I agree! I also noticed that the boss would never call a worker by their name, it was always “Hey you!” or “Man!”. I feel like this shows how everyone was seen as an animal, a cog in the machine, like you were getting at. The assembly line is also heavily present in the opening scene, another man-made way to make working more efficient and “practical”, a word used by the boss to turn down the Bellows Feeding Machine as it was not practical, unlike the assembly line. In addition, the boss uses the main character as an object to try the Bellows Feeding Machine, seeing his less than human in a hierarchial sense. The assembly line also makes the main character slowly go insane due to the such monotonous tasks he has to do all day with minimal breaks. This leads him to go utterly insane, wrecking havoc and causing chaos, breaking the practical, higly-efficient system tat has been set in place, sending him to a hospital for his nervous breakdown and fired.
Starting from 3:30 and until 5:00 the key moment was that each workers had different task to do in the same factory. This momemnt stood out to me because during last semester we learned about division of labor in social science which means specializing task for each workers. As a result of division of labor the factory became efficient however individual workers experience alienation where they don’t know what the product is. They are doing simple task without any knowledge about the final product. The moment that I picked is the perfect example of division of labor. The scene also shows the hierarchies in the factories which could be related to the politics in factories because it shows power, class structure, and economic policy.
I completely agree with your pint that they all have a role in creating the product but, don’t know what the final product is. It’s interesting how real the division of labor we learned in social science is in this film.
A key moment that stood out to me at the beginning of the movie was when the self feeding machine broke down and wouldn’t stop feeding the man. This was around 0:11:20 – 0:12:20. In my opinion this shows that no matter what some people will do whatever it takes to make more profit. I guess in a way the significance of this happening would be somewhat political because of the boss only wanting to make profit and not caring about the well being of his employees. Even if that means investing in self feeding machines that could malfunction and potentially harm the workers.
I think your definitely right. The aggressiveness of this scene, and the contrast between the well fashioned business men and the chaos going on with the machine really makes it clear that this is a criticism of the boss. Further, I think that the fact that this scene revolved around food and forcing it into the workers mouth is a commentary on the control that these bosses want to have over their workers, and the helplessness of the workers under their employers. The scene really does show Chapin as abused worker who is powerless in this situation.
In the initial scene I was intrigued by the fact the boss was using cameras to control the speed of the workers and can see everything they were doing. He even watched when the small man went into the bathroom and forced him to leave. I think it’s supposed to represent that at our jobs and out government is always watching us. They can control our break times, what we eat, where we eat and how fast we are supposed to work. Jobs and government control many aspects of our lives and if we make a mistake we are punished harshly.
During the factory sequence, the scene that stood out to me the most was when they were testing the feeding machine on the man. When the machine had an error, the reaction from the leaders was cold and unbothered. Instead of saving the man, they focused on how to adjust the machine. This scene represented the dehumanization of the workers at the time.
The middle section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A powerful scene early in the love story happens when the Tramp and his companion imagine a simple life together in a small house. The woman pretends to cook, set the table, and they collect fresh milk from a cow outside. This scene is significant because it demonstrates how much they yearn for stability, comfort, and love which are things they don’t have in real life. Chaplin’s artistic interpretation of this dream shows their hope and strength even in difficult situations. Politically, it reflects the struggles of the working class during the Great Depression, clearly none of their aspirations were at all extravagant but simple, they yearned for security, love, and belonging. By presenting such a simple dream as unattainable, it critiques a system that denies even the most basic comforts to those at the bottom of the social ladder.
I love your insight on how even the simplest dreams can be unattainable due to the system people are put in. This love story even demonstrates what is a luxury to some isn’t always a luxury to others – that it can only be a dream because of the circumstances of the class system a person was forced into. Artistically, this scene allows the audience to see a wider perspective on the Little Tramp and the Gamine as their characters aren’t diminished by what they were given and continue to have hope for something better. That hope becomes something more than just a dream as it becomes some type of motivator for gaining those comforts of stability and belonging.
Absolutely, I really liked what you said about how dreams can feel so out of reach depending on the system someone is born into. It’s true that something as basic as stability or a sense of belonging might seem small to some but feel like a huge, almost impossible goal for others. I also thought the way the film shows the Tramp and the Gamine holding on to hope was really moving, they’re not giving up, even when things are stacked against them. That kind of quiet determination really says a lot about their characters and makes the story so much more meaningful.
I 100% agree with you on the imagining scene being very striking and powerful. Throughout the whole love story it just shows them working hard to obtain that life and they both are aware that they way that is possible is through money and a stable job. The movie makes you root for them to get a job which is kind of a weird thing to want for someone, especially when nowadays critiquing of 9 to 5 jobs and redundant life is very common. It is sad but in a heartwarming way that all these two people want is just some stability in their life and to have a simple life. It’s also the fact that no matter how many times they fail, they keep trying. In the end, they finally got the stable job and life they wanted only for it to be ripped away soon after. Still, they persevered just because of that American dream and the hope of having that ‘perfect life.’
I really agree with your take on that scene. it’s such a tender and powerful moment. The way they imagine such a modest life together really drives home how even the most basic hopes can feel unreachable in their situation. I thought it was especially impactful how Chaplin used something so simple, like gathering milk or setting the table, to represent a deeper longing for peace and normalcy. You’re right that it says a lot about the larger struggles of the time, how unfair it is that these small comforts are considered luxuries for people just trying to survive. It’s a quiet but strong critique of a system that fails the very people who keep it running.
The middle section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
From the middle part of the movie, there is a political statement when after the guys rob the store and while the women is asleep. During this time, the guys enjoy a drink and Chaplin ends up getting drunk and being a fool. This is a comment on how alcohol may be ruining people. Chaplin not only loses his job, but he got arrested, and let the girl down by not waking her. showing how alcohol causes people to fail as providers and good people.
In the middle section of this film, there were many instances of what I consider very illegal activities. Not only are they running away from the police, there is also a strange love story developed between what seems to be a middle aged guy and teenage girl. Although marriage between an older man and a younger woman was still common, it was still disturbing to see. Nonetheless, The creator of this film was still able to showcase this film without words until necessary. But within the few days that the male was in jail, the women was able to find a job for herself, and find a place to stay. This depiction reminds me of the time period and how women started to find jobs in the job market due to the war and recruitment of men to fight in WW1. And also, from the state and looks of the way the male is portrayed in this film, he did seem unfit to fight in the war. So, in addition to everything going on in this silly, random, fun film, there were implications of the war and how it shifted some aspects of our political and social systems.
The middle section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the beginning part of this section, it starts off with the couple dreaming of what I believe is their “dream life”. The short dream is of them in a house, the woman cooking for the man, and them eating together- which comes to an end as they snap back to reality, realizing they have no food or house. I feel like this dream is sort of political because it depicts the “American Dream and having a nuclear family. The desire for achieving the American Dream is further seen when the man immediately jumps at the opportunity to get a job as a night-watcher so that he can provide for his partner and have the money to live out this dream.
Not only does this scene, where the Tramp imagines his dream life with the Gamin, have deep political significance, but it is also packed with artistic details. What stood out to me during this scene was the exaggerated overabundance of food. Specifically, I found it telling when the Tramp grabbed an orange from out of his window and took a bite before tossing it away wastefully. This flippancy about food is meant to contrast heavily with their current circumstances, and it does a great job of representing how famished they are at this moment without using words.
In the middle section of Modern Times, starting around minute 55, there is the line “I’ve got a surprise for you, I’ve got a home for you” (something along those lines), and it shows the girl imagining living in a small but charming home with the man. Their home is not huge but it is charming, and it contrasts their harsh reality with an idealized dream of stability. Artistically, it uses warmth and humor to try and paint a more positive light on the depression era struggle, by offering a glimpse into their shared hopes and dreams of a more stable and simple life.
When Little Tramp works the night shift at the department store in his quest for a “real home”, him and Gamin live a luxurious fun life–at least for a moment. They can roller skate, and Gamin is able to sleep in a comfortable bed with warm clothing. The department store is decidedly not a home, but it’s the best “home” Little Tramp and Gamin get. Moving into the shabby shack Gamin finds is a significant downgrade, as there’s no bed shown and also no fun–Little Tramp can’t even swim in the lake. The existence of the department store shows that this ideal life is not an option for the workers of the store themselves. Alternatively, capitalism and shops portray unattainable homes for the working class that they can only dream of.
The final section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the last sequence of the movie, especially the last scene where Little Tramp and his love interest walk together hand in hand after being shut out by society again, they are able to find their own version of resistance. Both of these characters have faced the brutality of industrial capitalism, and even after trying to fit into society’s standards of working to be accepted, they are ultimately chased away. They attempted to work together to provide for each other and a future life, but society will never accept them. So, together they choose a life of resistance and rebellion, and refuse to take part in the hardships of industrial capitalism. I think Little Tramp and the Gamin walking away holding hands show that they are in that resistance together, and also a refusal to give up on the dream they have together and how they hope to achieve that without playing along with an industrial society’s rules.
The final section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
While the entire movie was filled with political messages, the ending of Modern Times particularly stood out to me because the message transcends time. In the final scene, Little Tramp and the woman have run away from society, and while the woman is in despair, Little Tramp tells her not to worry. The two find happiness in each other, away from an exploitative society, where they can escape from the monotony of working like a machine until they die. I believe the director could be speaking in favor of human creativity, calling out the dull life that working as a mere tool can bring. I cannot help but relate this message to our modern times (haha) with AI being able to replicate everything. Creativity and uniqueness have been lost in favor of efficiency, but perhaps we should return to our roots?
The final section of Modern Times
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the movie’s final sequence, the movie ends with both characters successfully obtaining jobs and walking down a long road that stretches into the hills. Despite their previous history, this road is a strategic and stylistic approach on indicating that although the future is inevitable, a plethora of opportunities awaits us – regardless of our background. In other words, the future is unlimited with progress and change.
I agree that this ending means the many hopeful possibilities in the future! The whole movie felt like a critique of what the factory and modern (what was modern back then) struggles were, and when they walk away at the end, it almost feels like they are becoming free from those burdens.
I also agree, I think that this ending opens our perspective on the freedom to create our own ending, like form our own possibility or opinion. In a way it can be seen as a possible good ending as technically they did obtain a job, which was what they were hoping for, but there is also a possibility of their supposed goal to actually be an illusion as it may fail in the future due to outside factors such as the police.
A key detail in the movie’s final sequence is the idea of stubborn survival and resistance. Throughout the entire movie, Charlie Chaplin fails to find stability in any of the jobs he found and it wasn’t until the end sequence that he found his place in singing. Despite this final success, it isn’t an entirely happy ending as they still end up found by the police and having to be on the run. However, an artistic choice is made here to showcase the refusal to surrender to despair, as a reminder of their optimistic attitudes. Rather than falling to failure, the movie ends on solidarity, emphasizing the dignity of the working-class and their stubborn defiance.
I agree! I noticed Charlie refused to give up throughout the entire movie which one can argue it’s dedication or stubbornness, either or, I like the idea about his refusal to give up emphasizes the dignity of the working class.
One of the scenes that I found to be the most significant of the final sequence was where the Little Tramp and the Gamin walk down an empty road into the horizon after he tells her to smile despite their circumstances. This moment is politically significant as it reflects Depression era resilience, where despite the fact they hold no job, no home, and no clear future, they still choose to move forward with hope. Artistically, this scene was a poignant farewell to the Tramp character as his eternal optimism and silent strength endure even as modernity has left him behind.
Futurist Art—Contrasts and Continuities
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A continuity I see throughout the four artworks are the use of direction with the use of color, shapes, and words to create a sense of energy or movement. For example, in the first painting, the use of vibrant colors seems to create an overall liveliness, but also certain movements through the organization of the painting itself. Also, the paintings’ meaning don’t always seem as clear with aspects of abstract and cubism art but looks to be intellectually created and thought out in how the artist desires to depict his subject, using particular colors and patterns on top of one another on purpose to form the movement.
I definitely agree with your assessment that the colors and shapes make the piece feel as though it’s moving. I also think that each piece feels as though it is progressing towards something, and I wonder if each title also invokes a thought of action, since they use words like ‘revolt’, ‘journey’, ‘dynamism’, and ‘car’.
I definitely agree that there’s always a sense of energy and movement in these works of art, and especially in the first painting like you pointed out. The triangular shapes of the orange and red lines going in one direction that follows the shape of the crowd of people really makes it feel like the people and painting is moving forward with intention and a sort of fire. I also like how orange and blue are complementary colors, so it makes for a really interesting piece visually. What I find interesting about the movement in these pieces, however, is how the movement differs between each one. “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of a Car” have really clear and intentional movement with guide lines for your eye to follow in which way the subject of the painting is moving. All the other pieces have movement either with the shape, colors or variety of subjects in the piece, but it feels more subtle and drawn back in its colors and dramatic energy.
I agree on your take on how the paintings evoke movement. The first painting “revolt” reminds me of war, how what looks like red human figures, charging at someone or something, which makes me feel like its inducing strong emotion maybe such as daring or fearless. The 2nd painting “car” also gives strong feelings, it makes it seem like its a car thats darting through space, almost like a bullet, the shape of the black figure is also what helps provoke this illusion.
The art is all very abstract and have a sense of confusion and a sort of urgency because there is so much going on. There are a variety of shapes, colors, and textures being used. However, one continuity that really interested me was that these paintings are all titled something that is real. For example, “Dynamism of an Car” and ” Armored Train in Action” are two examples from the paintings that are actual objects in life. Both of these paintings and the others are taken in abstract and unique ways. These paintings are also seem to be very open to interpretation because of its hectic nature. The artists are clearly trying to convey how they see the world or are trying to add a whimsical nature to regular mundane things. Even the reading describes things in a very fun and detailed way, same as how the paintings have so many details. For example “banging mosque lamps with domes of filigreed brass, domes starred like our spirits…hearing the mighty noise of the huge doubledecker trams that rumbled by outside, ablaze with coloured lights.” These details are all lively and the color the author mentioned can be seen in his paintings.
I definitely agree that these images can be interpreted in many different way due to its chaotic nature. I believe that was the artist’s intent because people perceive colors and shapes differently, and creating art like this encourages people to use their imagination rather than be confined to one point of view. It allows people to see something from their own point of view.
I also agree because all the shapes and vibrant colors do give off a chaotic nature but it all comes together in a way that visually makes sense to who is looking at it.
Looking at all of the artwork side by side their is a distinct difference between the four on the left and the two on the far right. Those left ones have color and abstract qualities, whereas the ones to the right are comparably dull and lifeless. The bright colors grab your attention and make the focus point appear moveable or changing, but the other, darker ones depict a more serious tone. Putting them together feels like comparing an advertisement and a coloring book, totally different.
Yes, and it draws a curiosity in how each of the artworks fall under the same category of futurism. Despite contradictory figures and presentation used in the artworks, all the artworks seem to involve aspects of futurist art, expressing how broad the concept of futurist art can be. This could also speak to the meaning of futurism as violence comes in many forms and so can its’ expression through artwork.
One continuity I observe in Futurist art is the frequent use of vibrant colors and inconsistent lines. In many of the images, it can be difficult to accurately see what’s being represented. However, in the fourth image it looks like a town that is being represented. The buildings are not upright but rather tilted and many objects seem out of place. The out of place objects most likely represents chaos, emphasizing that it’s always busy and full of disruption due to change and modernization. Additionally, the bold shapes and colors create a strong contrast making the images very striking.
I like your observations and how you connect the tilted buildings and out of place artifacts to the themes of chaos and modernism. To build on what you said, I think the disorientation in the artwork represents the Futurists’ aim to reject already established perspectives in support of a brocken and fast paced view of the world. By disassembling and reassembling space in this chaotic way, I thought the artists weren’t only showing disorder, but praising it as a symbol of progress almost. The use of strong, clashing colours overwheled me, as a viewer, possibly reflecting the overwhelming nature of quick industrial growth. Futurist art seems to seek impact and experience, making people feel the energy of the modern world rather than just seeing it.
A contrast I noticed between all of the panting’s is that some have a sense of unity within them, while others have purposeful clashing. The best examples of this is in the paintings “The Revolt” by Luigi Russolo and, “Memories of a Journey” by Gino Severini. The two differ greatly as “The Revolt” has a very organic and abstract aspect to it while the latter does not. What I find more interesting though is that despite both being created in the same year, 1911, “The Revolt” has unity in it’s direction in line as well as color. It’s clear the movement in the painting and the direction the artist wants the viewers eye to follow. This greatly contrasts from “Memories of a Journey” as there is no clear visual direction the painting seems to move in, it feels very direction less. The colors have no unity and the line direction clashes into itself. It feels crowded, almost messy, but purposeful almost as if the artist wants you to have to take more time to look around the painting to understand it.
I really like your observations as far as the difference in what the artist wants you to look at or pay attention to. While some have almost a clearcut example of what the eye should be drawn too, others have a more wild abstract look. I think it also represents how some art is meant to be taken literally or the artist wants you to walk away with something that is clear, while others it is almost up to your interpretation or there isn’t exactly one right answer but perhaps multiple. Overall, it’s not just random and nonsensical but both have a level of purpose and intention that is required.
One continuity between all of these pieces of art is the abstract use of shapes in order to create an art piece that conveys movement. For example, Luigi Russolo, The Revolt (1911) has a ton of vibrant colors, but if you look closely it appears to be buildings which go on and on demonstrating some sort of movement. Another example is Gino Severini, Memories of a Journey (1911) piece which shows a lot of buildings and different modes of transportation which maybe depicts a different type of movement from the first image. It depicts a movement of industrialization and how a culture made advances.
A continuity I see in the Futuristic Art is the abstract shapes that are put together to create a whole image. For example in the first two images you can see the triangular shapes being put to the side all together to create the image. In the third one you can see many shapes make up the person shapes sculpture.
The futurist art, to me, feels like the modern art we typically see today (which sort of makes sense given the name). There is a large focus on contrast and saturation, primarily in the works by Russolo and Severini. The shapes are also abstract and stiff, straight/definite lines make up a majority of the pieces. These shapes also have a tendency to repeat to create patterns.
A continuity in the futurist art is the emphasis on the movement. Each piece used bold line and fragmented forms to suggest speed. The artwork unifies the different types of mediums in art; putting emphasis on the goal of breaking traditional modern world.
A key continuity in Gino Severini’s Armored Train in Action (1915) is the repetitive and linear placement of the soldiers on the train, which perfectly parallels the nuts and bolts along the side of the train to display themes of industrial perfection. The robust image of the soldiers confirms Filippo Marinetti’s encouragement of war and violence; in the manifesto, he states, “We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman” (page 22). The movement of the train through beautiful, colorful geometric patterns gives a sense of awe and wonder, which all these Futuristic paintings evoke. Personally, I love the selection of colors and shading. I think the allure of the bright colors is supposed to make viewers excited about the movement, but then again, it’s nothing like I’ve ever seen before.
Futurist Art—Contrasts and Continuities
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Within all of the examples provided of futurist art, my brain is continuously challenged by the indifferentiable abstractness portrayed in every single piece. What’s meant by that is the artists use lots of leading lines within the artworks to present a focal point for the viewer, but the actual substance of the focal point(s) or subject is extremely hard to determine. It’s seemingly impossible for a viewer to make out and establish an actual “thing” or subject in the art, making it more difficult for a meaning to be interpreted–or even established–as there’s no understandable thing for someone to resonate with. Aside from the frame-bound paintings, this same theme of indeterminableness is prevalent in Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space: Lots of smooth planes are curbed with sharp, defining edges that continuously lead a viewers gaze to another space on the sculpture, creating an endless loop of trying to find the “point.”
The open ended-ness in the art fascinates me as well. Contrasted colors that don’t seem to be centered around anything in particular; it’s very appealing to the eye. It gives the viewer the power to interprets its meaning since no objective conclusion can be drawn from such paintings.
A continuity in the artwork I’ve analyzed above is the hidden messages. At first glance you see a major contrast with colors and shapes but the deeper you look the more you realize how similar the paintings are. For example you see very sharp shapes and colors that scream at you, but if you look more closely you realize there are shapes within each shape. Building these crazy lines are human figures or figures of everyday objects
Yes, I completely agree. When I first viewed the artworks, I was confused and annoyed that there was just random shapes, but looking closer there was a story to each artwork. In all the artworks, there is a common theme of chaos across all the artwork which misinterprets reality with the sharp shapes and colors that pop out at you like said. However, in another way it also is quite realistic in how it is chaotic and uses imperfections to convey feelings, very much like how nature may be imperfect and chaotic as well.
A concept of continuity I noticed in the paintings above was the use of perspective to distort a common environment. In all these images it is of common pieces or environments that one can see in modern times, however, it is distorted using perspective to give it a futuristic look. The use of perspective is what evolved the modern image into a futuristic one.
I really like the word “distorted” as a way of describing the abstract work! It reminds me how, in film, whenever a director is trying to convey that something isn’t-quite-right, they tend to tilt the camera or distort the visuals. Some of the subjects in these works, Luigi Russolo’s in particular, seem as though they are trying to break out of the abstract, otherwise known as the past or “wrong” way of life. On the other hand, this distortion could be exactly what you said: an embrace of the dynamic way of life machinery can give.
Each example of futurist art is loud, harsh, and contrasting, creating a visually busy piece. The harsh lines guide the viewer’s eye toward a focal point that often appears to be moving in one direction– albeit not freely. The lines also create a sense of tension, like the subject is pushing through something with great difficulty. Interestingly, in many of these pieces, this movement is going from the right to the left, although typically in western cultures we view things moving forward from left to right.
also noticed the images moving from right to left instead of the usual left to right that we typically associate with progress or forward motion in Western culture. This reversal showed the subject wasn’t just moving, but was struggling against something. It almost gives the impression that progress isn’t easy or smooth—instead, it takes effort and resistance to move forward, which connects to the chaotic and intense energy of Futurist art.
In Luigi Russolo’s artworks “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of a Car”, both pieces follow the same pattern of geometric shapes and lines that might point to Russolo’s personal style or suggest that there is a deeper level of connection in the seemingly inconsistent composition of futurist art. While it may be difficult to decipher the artistic decisions in these paintings or to draw parallel between them, it is certainly undeniable that the shapes in them suggest some sort of connection and expressed in the way that reflects the artist’s intentions.
I agree that the shapes and lines are ambiguous and up to interpretation. Personally, I think in “The Revolt,” the triangular lines may represent people in mobs moving towards the buildings. The buildings, situated at a different angle, suggest a kind of struggle to reach them. Perhaps the buildings represent a societal structure, and the title suggests the people are revolting against it.
In the Futurist art featured above one continuity within the images is the bold shapes that seem to fall into each other. Though every image has sharp lines it becomes hard to distinguish a focus or determine when one shape ends and another one begins. Each image also provides a lot of dynamic motion as the overlapping shapes create a sense of constant energy and rapid motion.
In every painting, the artists take great detail in designing the space of their art. For example, in Luigi Russolo’s “Dynamism of an Car” you can tell that the car in the painting is moving towards the left at a high speed. You can tell because of the spacing of the arrow slits. To me, they are treated as interval spacing in the form of sound waves, so the longer distance between each slit means it’s an increased speed. There is a singular point that is the origin of these interval slits: the midpoint at the left edge of the painting. This form of space is also used in “The Revolt” by Luigi Russolo as well. The main object of high velocity and energy is the crowd rushing from the right. As the painting goes more left, the slits space out once more. Overall, this detail reminds me of vector fields in vector calculus and Dynamism. A vector field is a group of vectors (an arrow with magnitude and direction) within a coordinate system that can tell you a curves behavior in a dynamic system such as flux and circulation. In this case, the arrows represent vectors within the painting, and tells you the behavior of the car and crowd, as they are the origin point. Dynamism is highlighted in these artworks as well, as the slits show there is dynamic movement within a still painting.
However, there is another great use of space within these artworks, a more literal use of spacing. In Filippo Marinetti’s “In the Evening, Lying on Her Bed, She Reread the Letter from Her Artilleryman at the Front,” the letter uses space to represent the chaos the Artilleryman feels. While the focus is in the bottom right, as inferred by the close spacing of the works, as the eyes are moved away from the bottom right, we can see larger spacing and varying sizes of letters within the painting. This shows the Artilleryman’s feels of unease and lack of concentration while they were writing the letter, more than likely because they were battling at the front.
Every painting uses space to highlight the meaning and action in the painting.
One contrast in the futuristic artworks is their sense of direction. The top three artworks and Armored Train in Action all exhibit a leftward pointing direction. Both pieces by Luigi Russolo have thick pointed lines that sweep across the page. The scuplture by Umberto Boccioni is striding to the left and the Armored Train in Action illustrates a barricade of soldiers shooting to the left. This is very different from the other two artworks which don’t have a clear focus or direction. Instead, they look like explosions of images/color. These different approaches could still both be representations of rebellion and violence.
I agree, there are many similarities between the two paintings, except the artist decides to change some stylistic choices. For example, instead with the boxy style in the original painting, he chose to incorporate other a more circular pattern in the new painting. Additionally, will still maintaining the vibrant colors, there is also an additional of darker colors in the newer painting. That kinda ties into what you were saying about the violence in the painting.
One thing that really stands out between Marinetti’s manifesto and the Futurist art is how obsessed they both are with speed and movement. The first painting especially feels super chaotic and intense, like everything’s in motion. That lines up perfectly with how Marinetti talks about glorifying machines, violence, and energy like they wanted to literally fuel the future through force. Neither the art nor the writing is subtle they’re both loud and in your face about rejecting the past.
Futurist Art—Contrasts and Continuities
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A very clear continuity in futurist art is a focus on movement. In every shown work of art there movement being shown. Whether it is the arrows present in Russolo’s work, the forward stride in Boccinoni’s work, the chaotic movements of *Memories of a Journey* and *In the Evening, Lying on Her Bed, She Reread the Letter from Her Artilleryman at the Front*, or the gun fire from *Armored train in action* all of these pieces feature speed or show motion. This makes perfect sense given futurists’ interest in action and speed.
I agree, in all of the art, my eyes tend to jump around to follow the lines of movement, but paired with the varying color schemes, with some of the paintings being in black and white, and some with a splash of colors, it further adds to the chaos. Additionally, as you mentioned, the futurist’s interest in movement and action makes sense when you consider their desire for progress and power, elements that are evident in their art.
Yes I definitely agree! Additionally, I want to add on Luigi Russolo, The Revolt, Dynamism of an Car and on Gino Severini, Armored Train in Action, the paintings all have very defined shapes and lines. With these type of detail it creates a sense of urgency which allows the viewers to see movement. As well, there is overlapping shapes and vibrant colors allow the paintings to have an urgent dynamic.
A continuity I noticed about the Futurist art is the sharp angles and almost collage-like style. I think that these angles help draw attention to specific parts of the art and send a more meaningful message. In Gino Severini’s Armored Train in Action (1915), at first glance, it almost seems like it could be a nice painting of nature, maybe a river bank, but upon closer inspection one can see the true details. They start to notice the sharp points at the top of these soldiers’ hats and the viewer’s eyes follow this path up to see the big cannon on top, which could definitely contribute to the artist’s true meaning of the painting, or add on to the viewer’s interpretation .
Collage-like is such a good way to put it! I also thought that even though the art looks jumbled it’s actually very intentful and cohesive- just like how someone putting together a collage purposefully selects meaningful images and puzzles them together as one piece of art.
A subtle continuity I noticed in the Futurist artworks featured is the asymmetry and repetition of features and fragments. In the works by Luigi Russolo, the piece is not symmetrical in the way the buildings are reflected, it gives a kind of shift in perspective to the artwork and centers the focus on contrasting colors (The Revolt and Dynamism of a Car). In addition, Umberto Boccioni’s, Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, presents a sculpture resembling human body with several parts that make up movement and fluidity. It is this continuous repetition of abstract portions throughout Futurist art that gives it a feeling of velocity.
Yes I totally agree. And on top of this continuous repetition, the artist also make it to have an direction, hint the subject is doing an linear movement(using triangle as arrow). and because gravity people would assume the heavy would fall toward the light, with this asymmetry in mass the artist manage to successfully create velocity.
I agree, I think what makes them unique is their asymmetry and aside from the complexity of shapes and directions, there is also a complexity in the range of colors. Despite there being a diversity in the shapes and colors, it somehow seems to be organized like coordinated, as instead of being out of place and random, its seems that every shape and color has a purpose and a place. I think that makes the art unique and outstanding as it has a complexity and a mixture of feelings and perspectives.
A key continuity I saw throughout the six pieces of artwork was the reliance and importance geometric shapes. As the artists focused on the future and technology, their hinderance to organic, natural forms grew. They pushed into a modern era of art after WWI, mostly full of color, geometric patterns, and art with seemingly no meaning. In addition, movement of the viewers’ eyes was also apparent as the geometric shapes act as lines to follow.
Yes, I agree. The emphasis on geometric shapes reflects the artists’ fascination with order, precision, and the mechanization of society after WWI. As technology advanced, many artists abandoned naturalistic forms and used clean lines with bold patterns. The use of lines makes painting more robotic and modernized. Additionally, some paintings feature repetitive patterns, which was not often seen in Impressionist paintings.
An continuity in the six Futurist piece shown above is the chaotic placement of object’s time and/or space. The movement of the subject is break down based on time and shown all together(like onion skinning in 2d animation), given an illusion of subject exist in multiple time and space at the same time. like viewers is watching from 4th dimension.
Some continuities in the featured Futurist artworks include the defiance of traditional art conventions and interest in motion and dynamism. Russolo’s The Revolt and Dynamism of a Car are both highly abstracted, and would be difficult to discern without the aid of the titles. Additionally, both explore motion through their use of geometric forms and sharp lines, guiding the eye towards the left and creating a sense of urgency. The same idea is seen in Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, which features a human figure in the midst of walking. The figure is bulky and weighty, and, through the protruding lines and posture, emphasizes the figure’s legs and motion.
To me its extremely clear that all of the futuristic artworks have some kind of layering or repeating subject. In the Revolt and Dynamism of an Car by Luigi Russolo he repeats the red arrow shape in the art pieces. I think the arrows are supposed to represent movement. In Revolt there is also a man who is drawn a bunch of time and he is reach out towards the direction of the arrow.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the contrast that this art has from previous eras of art that we have seen. Even just coming from Impressionism, which didn’t happen much earlier than this era, the Futurist art that we view has the closest relation to what I would call Modern art. Impressionism still used traditional techniques whereas Futurism seems to use different mediums such as painting, sculpture, and miscellaneous visual media. Additionally, one continuity between many of these images is that they don’t have much of a subject, but rather a more representative idea that they showcase. I think that these two ideas combined show Futurism as the tipping point where art becomes more modern.
I also noticed the similarity between what we today consider to be modern art! I agree that there’s a lack of subject; looking at the paintings, there isn’t a singular point of focus–instead, I found my eyes jumping around, trying to discern what the painting is supposed to depict. Futuristic art seems to be more thought-provoking, instead of showing off beauty or artistic mastery.
I noticed the continuity in the futurist art from the chaotic elements that are in the painting. The paintings having sharp angles and odd geometry make the paintings look abstract, yet it’s cool that the paintings look abstract as the future is random and unknown.
In the art featured above, at first glance, it looks detached and jumbled. To me, the pieces “The Revolt”, “Dynamism of a Car”, and “Armored Train in Action” look as though the artist painted a whole, cohesive piece, then chopped it up and reassembled it in this sort of jumbled way on purpose. Even though these three pieces look detached and random in a way, they actually fit together and have a fluidity to them. My eyes aren’t jumping to different parts of the painting but moving along it in a continual way and as a whole.
Some of the main features I noticed in Futurist art are the geometric aspects and the vibrant colors used in the artwork. Instead of realistic shapes and styles of words and objects, Futurist Art focuses more on the information it conveys rather than the object itself.
Futurist Art vs. Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One key continuity I see between Marinetti’s manifesto and the painting Dynamism of an Car is that they both jump out of old-school limitations. As it’s mentioned in the manifesto, Futurism aims to “destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind” (Marinetti). The painting shows a completely new technique to depict the dynamism of a car, and I couldn’t even tell it’s a car without reading the title. Both the manifesto and the painting aim to break traditional laws and create new laws and new understanding of art.
You’re absolutely right! As I was reading your comment about the car artwork, I saw that the Futurist Manifesto writes about the future of transportation: “We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath.” The personification of speed as beauty seems to be the foreground of the artwork, with the bright red contrasting with the dark blue. The chevron pattern is bold, hiding the car—as if we, as the viewer, are to admire the power the vehicle holds, and not the vehicle itself.
A contrast between Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto and Gino Severini’s Memories of a Journey is the celebration of violence and rejection of the past. The manifesto calls for a break against nostalgia and memory while Severini’s painting embracing it. The name of the artwork itself ‘memories’ suggests a lingering attachment to personal experiences that come from the past. This tension highlights how individual artists interpreted Futurist ideals differently, sometimes blending personal reflection with the movement’s obsession with dynamism and progress.
A continuity between Marinetti’s Manifesto and the futuristic art is how both are clearly centering motion as power. Marinetti is treating speed like it’s a religion… he literally says that a roaring car is more beautiful than a classical sculpture. Boccioni is taking that energy and running with it then sculpts a figure that doesn’t feel human anymore. It’s all flow, movement, and momentum. It’s not standing still but becomes something as It moves. The text or the artwork care about perfection or what’s traditional. They care about the energy, transformation, and pushing forward no matter of what’s getting let behind.
Exactly. Boccioni’s character doesn’t even exist unless it’s in motion. it’s not just walking it seems like something is pushing it. This matches Marinetti’s obsession with speed being the new beauty. They both don’t like things that stay still, still things are weak. the Statue doesn’t care about being aestheticaly pleasing or human, it wants to show power, change, always going forward. Even the messy and abstract parts of the sculpture feel intentional. Chaos becoming part of the power.
I feel that Marinetti’s manifesto is aggressive and obsessed with war, speed, and destruction. He even says that he wants to glorify war. But when I look at Severini’s Memories of a Journey, it feels the opposite, emotional and nostalgic. Instead of violence, it shows a fragmented, almost poetic sense of motion and memory. This contrast shows that not all Futurist artists followed Marinetti’s extreme vision.
Futurist Art vs. Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One thing the Futurist Manifesto talked about was how the futurist movement will glorify war, as militarism and patriotism are “beautiful ideas worth dying for.” This can be seen in the painting “Armored Train in Action” by Gino Severini, where you see blue robed figures firing rifles from an army tank. It is not painted in a negative, commentary on war manner, but rather a glorifying manner where they are the center and only subject of the painting. By immortalizing this in painting, he is carrying out the futurist movement’s manifesto of glorifying war.
The connection you make from the manifesto to a specific factor within Severini’s artwork is really thoughtful and helps clarify the message both Marinetti and Severini are trying to send. Although, I ask myself if I truly think that the artist is contributing to the glorifying movement of war or unbiasedly projecting the shared values of the movement in the best way he knows how: Art.
The Futurist Manifesto declared that instead of Italy being known only for its Renaissance paintings and ancient Roman statues, it would begin celebrating the speed, technology, and power that reflect modern life. I particularly noticed how chaotic each of the futuristic paintings seemed and the strong emphasis on movement. The shapes and bright colors also jumped out to me and made it seem like the painting was alive with energy.
I agree, specifically the Armored Train in Action by Gino Severini, really expresses the manifestos appreciation for speed, technology and power in the aspect of war. The manifesto glorifies war and violence and specifically sees it as rational to let go of the past and fight for ideas and expression. I believe that the painting shows that glorification with the people guarding the train and the train moving fast enough to see the clouds and the trees. The use of angular shapes really highlights the speed and urgency of both the movement and the future.
A prominent continuity between Futurist Manifesto and Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is the theme of constant movement. Marinetti writes “4. We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed,” which relates to how Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is meant to be seen in-motion. Both Boccioni and Marinetti portray a very modern take on the future of art.
I agree, the Unique Forms of Continuity in Space shows forms of constant movement and displays one of the aspects of the Futurist Manifesto. Another aspect of the Futurist Manifesto that I thought connected to this artwork is the theme of breaking norms. Martinetti states, ” Why should we look back, when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible”(Martinetti 21). The artwork also shows very different and unique artwork that strays away from the norms similar to perhaps older renaissance artwork that focuses on the revival of the past.
In “Manifesto of Futurism,” the second line describes that “Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry” (P21) and this spirit is shown in The Revolt by Luigi Russolo by the numerous red figures who are dynamically depicted in a shape of a triangle, running towards the other side of the painting. The triangular lines pointing at one direction adds to the dynamism and shows the pushing force in a revolt. The color red in the painting shows strong passion and courage needed in a revolt.
I agree with your analysis. It is also interesting to mention how the buildings are angled towards the mob. Perhaps that is signaling that they are approaching them, and the distance between the two is shortening. This detail may also imply that the buildings are pushing against the people being on an opposite angled plane.
In Marinetti’s 1909 manifesto the car that he is driving ends up crashing due to two bikers on the road. Marinetti describes these bikers as people with “contradictory argument” as him (Marinetti 20). This highlights how the car represents modernity, speed, and technological progress (all futuristic ideas). The Bike on the other hand represents the past, tradition, outdated ways of life (traditional ideas). By the bikers causing the car accident it suggests how the fast-moving future will inevitably collide with the resistant past. It also suggests that there is a need for this tension, and conflict in order to build the future, and overthrow the past. This is seen in Luigi Russolo’s painting, Dynamism of a Car painting. In this painting we can see the car in motion, highlighting dynamism, through the use of bright colors, and repeated fragmented shapes. I can also see the tension of when past and future collide through these jagged, repeated shapes. It looks as if the car is not only shown moving through these repeated shapes, but also that it’s struggling to progress. This struggle may show that the past does resist, and that it takes conflict and obstacles in order for the future to be built.
Futurist Art vs. Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think a continuity can be seen with Severini’s “memories of a journey” and the Manifesto specifically when it mentions ” Time and Space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed”. The painting itself defies all rules of space and time, there are giants, random buildings, a lot of crowding, flashes of color and more. There are no rules to which the future is bound.
I love how you mentioned Marinetti’s assertion that we “live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed,” as this definitely correlates with the futuristic works; we can pinpoint a certain aspect of the works and notice that there’s no defined ending (or in other words, the painting appears endless). Not only do these paintings suggest an unboundless future, just like you had mentioned, but these paintings also convey the idea that society could also learn to yearn for this future that is unrestricted; Marinetti also touches upon this aspect of appreciating the future, stating that, “When the future is barred to them, the admirable past may be a solace for the ills of the moribund, the sickly, the prisoner… But we want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong Futurists!” (Marinetti 23). Marinetti’s account of also having the readers come to value the future aligns with the Futurist artworks also encouraging the appreciation of certain aspects, such as the “flashes of color” in which the future entails.
One key continuity that I found between Marinetti’s 1909 Manifesto and the artwork the Revolt by Luigi Russolo was that they were both about some sort of revolution or rebellion. This is kind of ironic because the manifesto is about rebelling against libraries and museums by destroying artwork and the books inside them while Luigi Russolo’s painting is literally a painting that you would find in a museum. Either way they both give off the same message about rebelling and fighting for futuristic changes. One line in particular really stuck out to me when it came to comparing the manifesto and the artwork. “Art, in fact, can be nothing but violence, cruelty, and injustice” (Marinetti 23). Even though art work can in fact be something other than violent, cruel and unjust, Luigi Russolo’s painting does support the claim made in the manifesto because it is a painting of a revolt which is usually a violent rebellion against something or someone.
I agree and would like to further develop on the continuity between the theme of violence in the manifesto and the theme of violence in Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt. Both consider violence to be a cleansing force that will bring about a new and improved society. One of the most visceral examples of this idea in the manifesto is when Marinetti wrote, “We will glorify war – the world’s only hygiene – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.” While in The Revolt, the wave of people is glorified as a revolutionary, destructive force that comes to destroy the old order.
Severini’s ‘Armored Train in Action’ visually embodies Marinetti’s Manifesto as it holds a special focus on the glorification of war, speed, and mechanized power. The painting’s fragmented and dynamic composition are significant characteristics to me as it seems like the manifesto’s call to glorify war and its fascination with machinery. The train and soldiers are fused into a sot of rhythmic force, which seems to symbolize how Futurists saw war not as destruction but as an energetic expression of modern life.
Cubism compared to Futurism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Cubist works look just as abstract as the futurist art and also include many everyday objects. However, these paintings seem more cubic rather than geometric with multiple shapes. These everyday objects can be seen in The Table by Juan Gris or the Violin and Palette by Georges Braque. However, one distinction factor I see is that I don’t see an dynamic aspects in these art pieces like in the futuristic pieces. These pieces actually seem like a still image to me and physically capturing a moment in time without have a moving image. I would also like to add that these pieces are more relevant to music which can insinuate that music was growing at this time.
Yes, I agree with you. The point that futuristic art has a focus of motion and dynamism whlie cubist art focuses more on stillness is really insightful. Besides that, one similarity I found between futuristic artworks and cubist artworks is that both of them introduce new technique to paintings and break traditional laws. For example, the painting Still Life with Chair Caning by Picasso uses a rope to surround the painting, merging a 3d object with a 2d painting. Futuristic artwork like Dynamism of an Car by Luigi Russolo uses abstract geometrical shapes to show the dynamism of a car.
The first thing that stuck out to me about cubism compared to futurism was that the colors used in cubist art were much more muted and more natural-looking. The futurism artwork was much more intensely bold and contrasting, one example being Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt. While the style of using sharp, linear patterns is present in both art pieces, Georges Braque’s Homage to J. S. Bach has a softer feel, with its earthly grey-toned colors. This speaks to how we view the future: optimistic, bright, modern, compared to the way we view our current culture.
You bring up a really insightful comparison between the color palettes in Cubism and Futurism as it is true that Cubist works like Braque’s often lean into more subdued, earthy tones, while Futurist pieces like Russolo’s are much bolder and more vibrant. That difference does seem to reflect contrasting emotional tones or cultural views. Another perspective to consider is that the muted tones in Cubism might not just reflect a commentary on the present but also a desire to strip things down to their essential forms. It’s like a deep dive into perception itself. In contrast, Futurism’s intensity and color could reflect its embrace of speed, noise, and the chaos of industrial progress. I feel, at least, that in a way, the difference might not just be about optimism vs. realism, but also about what each movement prioritized in terms of experience and meaning.
That’s an interesting observation that you made about the color choice and how that relates to people’s feelings about the future. To further add on to that, the shading and as you mentioned contrast of colors between the two art styles I think has a role in people’s views on the present and future. The shading in Pablo Picasso’s, Still Life with Chair Caning, is smooth transition, a softer gradient that to me feels like contempt, safe and known. However this greatly contrasts to its futurist counterpart in which as seen in the painting you pointed out in Luigi Russolo’s “The Revolt”, the colors are bold, shading is virtually nonexistent, harsh lines and daring colors breeds a feeling of risk, adventure and a sense of almost optimistic unknown, giving the impression of the future they long for.
A similarity that I see between this Cubist works and the Futurist art is that there is a lot of texture within the images and they also include different shapes and shades to make a contrast and make the images pop out. Also, in a few of their artworks you can’t really tell what is happening in the image right away so it allows people to have different perspectives on what they are seeing. However, something distinct that I noticed with Cubist’s work is that they use more of nude and dull colors in most of their art and there is not much movement, it’s more stagnant.
The connection I immediately put together was the idea of the image being warped. In the futurist art, the thing being depicted is changed, it’s lines fade into the background and it is more interpretive then it is realistic. With the cubism art, things are interpreted through shapes. Picasso shows his distinct style of people, with miss-aligned eyes, blocky noses, and unusual head shapes yet they’re are still human (though that may be because Picasso’s style is just that iconic). In a more aggressive interpretation, Braque breaks down the original idea completely. There may be a table at the bottom, and there is a fragmented violin (Bach did play the violin and viola), but the piece is extremely abstract. Some parts of the image seem to have shifted around, which blend together with the seemingly random lines.
I think your point about distortion being a shared element with both is spot on. What I want to add is that while Futurism distorts for speed and chaos (kind of capturing energy mid motion), Cubism seems to be more focused on fragmentation. In Violin and Palette, the image isn’t just blurred into abstraction but he dissects each component and rearranges them across multiple perspectives. It doesn’t seem random but more so structural and even architectural. I think that Futurism leans more to emotional intensity and Cubism forces the viewer to slow down and construct meaning from it.
A similarity between the Cubist works and the Futuristic works we explored last week is that they both use shapes in order to create an image intended for the audience to see. For example, in Georges Braque, Violin and Palette (1909) the painting uses a lot of rectangles and trapezoids in order to create an image of what appears to be a violin. However a difference between the works is the lack of color from the Cubist works compared to the Futuristic art. For example, Georges Braque, Homage to J. S. Bach (1911-12) uses a limited amount of color and the color choices are such dull colors which make the painting look sad.
One thing both artists have in common is the way they break things apart into pieces, showing them from different angles. Rather than making their art look real, they focus on the shapes and putting things together. Futurist’s art is full of motion while the Cubist makes art feel more calm.
I agree with what you’re saying, I believe these cube paintings make the audience feel more like at piece, looking at the different pieces at different times. I feel like it is a way to represent objects from various perspectives, which is different from a traditional single view point. I feel like it is a way to show things for what they really are, instead of what they look like as a whole.
I think something that makes the arts similar is the way they both use certain shapes to create the art. For example in last weeks futuristic, Luigi Rujssolo’s “The Revolt (1911)” seemed to be created in triangular shapes turned to the side in order to create the art piece. In this weeks images I’ve noticed that in all of them there are certain shapes (specifically squares) that make up and create the image.
One quality that these Cubist works share in common with the Futurist art we examined last week is the emphasis on dynamism, speed, fragmentation, chaos in unity, and being non-traditional. There’s also a link between consumerism (through the items used for collage) and industrialism (means of production, machines, electricity, automobiles, etc.), as well as the presence of multiple layers. Clement Greenberg argued that collage helped revolutionize the development of modern art by creating an optical illusion of shifting planes and spatial ambiguity, challenging the viewer’s perception of space. Hopkins discusses the contradictory nature of modern life, especially the tension between photography and painting and the challenge of achieving a unity of material. However, a key difference is that Futurism is more violent, chaotic, and utopian, while collage is more critical and reflective. In the paintings, there is a lot of juxtaposition, with different forms and perspectives, though the colors are not as vibrant and dynamic as in Futurism. The bodies are in different positions, and there are different textures, letters, templates, superposition, patterns, shapes, and forms.
Despite using lines in a similar fashion to futurist art, I noticed that cubist art has colors that are much more faded and also that it feels more ‘directionless’ than futurist art. That’s not to say that that the art feels pointless, but rather that the art isn’t going in a literal direction like futurist art did. With futurist art, there was a car or people moving towards something, but with cubist art, they seem to be standing still so the art feels vivid but stagnant. Overall, I specifically enjoyed Baroque’s “Violin and Palette” the most because when I unfocus my eyes, I can still see the outline of a violin, and appreciate how the colors work well together. I feel as though this style, when contrasted to futurism, focuses more on giving an artistic look to the ordinary.
Compared to Futurist Art, Cubism is similar in the way they use geometric shapes and movement to guide the viewers eye. Futurist art, however, is more dynamic and seems to be moving in one direction against tension. Cubism is more stationary and lacks the same quality of movement. Additionally, cubism lacks the use of bright color that is present in futuristic art. The Cubist art is much more neutral toned.
Looking at the Cubism compared to the futurist art you can see some similarities. They both maintain an abstract quality of sorts with emphasis on shapes and geometry. A lot of the abstractness looks to come from the geometrical a layering characteristics that make it more interpretive and less definable, especially compared to more classic or romantic art that is more soft and fluid rather than harsh.
Cubism compared to Futurism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One thing I think distinguishes Cubism from Futurism is Cubism’s use of multimedia in their art. Greenberg states that artists would use objects like sand, wood grain, and marbleized surfaces, along with more classical materials like charcoal and paint. This adds a tactile aspect to the art, incorporating visual textures and layers. This adds another layer to art that distinguished itself from the smooth continuous surfaces seen before.
Yes I completely agree with you Amilia! These artworks share their sharp edges and “hidden messages” I see the same idea of art made within art as we see these shapes be made of everyday objects. Something I can see that is different compared to the futurism work is that these paintings are less “loud” they don’t use as many bold colors. I see more neutral colors with maybe one pop of color that really speaks out at you.
The Cubist works above show similar dynamic composition and liveliness as the Futurist works from last week. Both works consist of sharp overlaying shapes that catches the viewers attention in order to paint specific scenes. Similar to futurist works, certain cubist works are chaotic at times becomes hard to determine the center of the painting at first glance. However, the most noticeable difference between cubist and futurist works is the active motion that is portrayed. Futurist works are painted to show the concept of constant energy and motion-using angles and arrows-whereas the Cubist works seem to portray a single still movement or posed images.
I really liked your insight on how Futurism seems to show motion while Cubism shows stationary work, while still both maintaining a chaotic theme between them. I wonder at the relation between this and the time period these works emerged. Europe was in a great period of tension as these were the years leading to World War 1, and I feel like the chaotic nature of these paintings might reflect the chaotic social situation in Europe.
Futurism and these cubist artworks share a lot in common. Some of these qualities is the way that the art uses its chaotic nature with sharp edges and irregular lines to create a more abstract image that isn’t alway easy to understand what the picture is. It creates a similar feel to what you see when you look at the futurist artworks where you may have to look at it for a while to start to understand the image.
I also had this idea in our discussion last week, that artists use lines to create abstraction. Although, you dont mention how the cubist work relates more specifically–I would have liked to read your thoughts.
Cubist and Futurist artworks both share the quality of form fragmentation: They split objects and figures into further unrecognizable geometric shapes. It can be differentiated that Futurist pieces emphasize fast motion by using repetitive diagonal lines to display a sort of dynamic energy. On the other hand, Cubist works tend to feel more static, their main goal being to present multiple viewpoints of a still subject at one time.
Last week we examined Futurist art and one of the things we determined that was a quality of futurist art was the use of the abstract formation of modern objects. In the Cubist pictures we can also see the same qualities, as the use of extracting parts of modern images, and organizing it in an abstract way is used. However, what differs is the colors used for these forms of arts. Futurist had colors that were brighter and more contrasting while in Cubism the colors blend in and complement each other.
The use of different colour palettes is an interesting observation. I wonder if there’s a reason futurism uses brighter colors compared to Cubism? Perhaps we associate vivid colour with the hope of the future and dullness of Cubism with our current reality.
The most obvious similarity between cubism and futurism is the geometric features. This is apparent because in pieces like Still-life with Violin and Palettethe strings of the violin don’t even connect and the violin is very blocky and fragmented. Greenberg explains that cubist art, “interpose[s] a kind of photographic space between the
surface and the dimmer, fragile illusoriness of the Cubist space”(Greenberg 1). This focus on creating pictures within pictures goes against the traditional proportions of realism and is similar to other futurist artworks with geometric features that also reject traditional realist proportions to focus on abstract visual messages.
I think both styles heavily utilize hard shapes and angles to produce contrast and outline. For example, one futurist artist we looked at was Luigi Russolo. His paintings “the dynamism of a car” and “the revolt” both feature a series of distinct angles and bold colors to create the message. In Cubist artworks such as “The Table” and “Violin and Palette”, both paintings contained a series of sharp, jagged shapes that represent objects and scenery.
Cubism and Futurism both seem to utilize identifiable shapes and bold colors. However, Futurist artwork typically contains themes of war, movement, and technology. Cubist art, on the other hand, feels more still and focuses on specific poses.
There is an immediate similarity between Cubism and Futurism in the way both genres use geometric and sharp shapes in place of traditional, realistic curves. In both last weeks paintings and the current paintings, it is pretty difficult to distinguish what these abstract shapes are supposed to be. In particular, Georges Braque’s “Homage to J.S. Bach” is confusing to make out what the subject of the painting is without reading its title or having knowledge of who J.S. Bach is.
Cubism and Futurism are very similar especially “Juan Gris, The Table”. The use of geometry and abstractness with different colors. What I do find different is the range of color. The futurism paintings are more bright and neon-like compared to the cubism which is more of a pastel color. Also futurism focuses on the speed and motion of the picture that’s being painted which I don’t see displayed in cubism.
A very interesting aspect I noticed when comparing Cubism to Futurism is the difference in movement. In futurism, like with Luigi Russolo’s “The Revolt” and “Dynamism of an Car,” there is movement and action being represented in the artwork itself. On the other hand, with Cubism, there isn’t movement that can be seen in the artworks. It’s as if Cubism is more focused on the form. For example, In Georges Braque’s “Violin and Palette” You can tell that the image is still, with it’s main focus being the abstract shapes that form into a violin. There is an abstractness to all of the art pieces shown, yet each of them create a defined shape using abstract imagery.
A similar quality in both is the distortion of the form. Representations of humans are not necessarily proportionate, but are more meant to broadly represent types of people. The sharp lines of futurism have also carried over, with some differences in the use of different media.
Similar to last week, there are many distinct shapes and colors used. There weren’t and still aren’t that many colors being used; and if there are, they are being used as contrasting colors to define other aspects of the painting. Additionally, There are fine lines used to distinct different shapes which is also seen in many of last weeks paintings. Instead of adding elements to tell direction of the painting like the paintings from Futurism, the cubist artists decided to add texture instead. This was done so by adding sand into the paint, or physically attaching cloth to the canvas.
I believe that Cubist art should be classified as expressive rather than mimetic. The reason why I think we should classify these pieces of art as expressive is because they are very abstract and unique. When looking at these images many different people could have entirely different interpretations of the meaning behind the art. That in my mind is what makes these expressive, because of the fact that these are symbols of self expression it is up to to both the creator and the viewer to draw their own conclusions and make their own assumptions about the meaning of the art. Also, I feel that in order for art to be mimetic it must be something that all people can universally understand and come to a similar conclusion for the meaning of the art.
Cubism compared to Futurism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
While both the Futurist art and Cubist art include many distinct lines and shapes in their work, I noticed that the Futurist works have more movement than the Cubist art does. While there are lots of actions taking place in Cubist art, it seems as though it’s almost stationary, and does not flow as much as Futurist art does.
Yes I agree! As we saw last week in Futurist work, Luigi Russolo, Dynamism of an Car, the painting had a movement of how lines and shapes were placed. However, Cubism seems motionless while trying to depict an object. Such as in Pablo Picasso, Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass, Picasso used a collage of shapes to portray a guitar and a geometric sketch of a wine glass. This demonstrates that both Futurist and Cubist use shapes and lines in a more abstract way than the traditional work of art. However, Cubist chooses an object or image and makes it abstract by recreating the image with shapes.
I agree with the “stationary” observation of cubist artist. Additionally I think that when I look at Futurism, I feel rushed, pressured to take action. With cubism, I can take my time, look at the shapes, the way they are placed, and not feel an impending sense of doom looming over me. All of the cubist works above have bright, but muted colors. The emphasis is on the shapes coming together, merging what was separate. With Futurism, it felt desperate, less curious, and more rough.
one thing I really noticed that makes them similar is the use of shapes in both cubist and futurism is really important. They both pick a shape and use it over and over again to create a magnificent art piece. Georges Braque uses lines over and over again to create Homage to J. S. Bach (1911-12)
I definitely agree that both Futuristic works and Cubist works share this quality of utilizing shapes and patterns to convey their respective messages. Despite the similarities that we both noticed, I also noticed that the Cubism pieces tend to have more dull-ish colors in comparison to the Futurism pieces; for instance, Luigi Russolo’s The Revolt can be seen with a vibrant mix of colors among the people, indicating a sense of progress. On the other hand, Georges Braque’s Violin and Palette does not have this blend of vibrancy and can instead be seen with a mixture of different beiges.
I also agree! I think that in both Futurism pieces and Cubist work the artist is not limited or scared to use a mixture of colors and shape. The choice and complexity of the shapes and colors, the art expresses a specific shape in its own unique way. Like the “Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass” by Pablo Picasso, it only uses a couple random shapes to illustrate a composed guitar, despite using few resources, it still portrays a vibrant yet calming image.
One key quality that Cubist and Futurist works share is their rejection of traditional perspectives in favor of fragmented viewpoints. Both movements looked towards an unnatural representation, capturing movement, time, and space in new depictions. The work by Georges Braque, Violin and Palette, displays the unique transformation of pieces just like Futurist works that use shapes and formatting. A key distinction between the Cubist and Futurist is notably the colors used. Futurist art is dynamic, aggressive, and often glorifying speed using vibrant colors like red, blue, and orange. Cubist art is more restrained, like in Georges Braque, Homage to J. S. Bach, where the colors are muted and dull.
I also noticed a change in the vibe of the two art styles due to color. Cubism here definitely seems slightly more dreary and dull, while the Futurism pieces were kind of neon and bright. I wonder if that has something to do with the time period/things the public was experiencing during the different times.
One similarity between Cubist works and Futurist art is that the objects are not directly depicted. The audience can identify what the artists had drawn, but it is not the shape or look that we are used to. It has more lines and angles in the artwork. For example, “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” by Pablo Picasso depicted the naked women, but he used only straight lines to draw the women. Last time in the discussion, the class talked about futurist work that is geometric in shape and not directly depicted.
Yes, and i feel like this is an common traits shared by artists that close to modern times, for they began to see art not as a reflection of reality but as their own expression. Picasso also experienced this shift in art style; from academic art to the Cubist. The use of geometric shape reflect how artist in this period is affected by technology.
One thing that makes these Cubist works distinct from the Futurist works we examined is what they attempt to portray. For the most part, these Cubist works depict still lives of objects, such as in Georges Braque, Violin and Palette, which, though not painted from a realist perspective, is clearly a stationary violin. Whereas futurist paintings attempt to portray machines and motion as seen in Luigi Russolo’s Dynamism of a Car, which uses arrows to depict a speeding car. Despite both art styles rejecting realism, they focus on very different things. Futurism has violent connotations, whereas Cubist works have a much more peaceful feel.
I agree, the art from futurism seems to emulate movement and emergence. The colors in the art compliment the approach as well. There is a contrast however in the cubist, which has a mellow feel to it.
One quality that I noticed the Cubist art works shared in common with the Futurist artworks was the use of geometrical shapes. For example in the Cubist works you see lots of squares and angled shapes. The same goes for the Futurist artworks with the sharp angles and points depicted in the artwork. Something that makes them distinct that I noticed was how different the colors of the artwork was. For the futuristic pieces they were more colorful and bright and stood out more. For the Cubist works the colors seem to be more dull and muted,making them not pop out as much.
In comparison to the Futurist art, the Cubist The static state of the object. Cubist artist combine the still life images observed from different angles, where the Futurist shows the movement of object. Such as in Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, the prostitute are posing for him, the curve of body is not emphasis but rather stiff. Which in Dynamism of an Car there more life to the car due to is movement.
I agree, theres is a difference between the stillness and motion represented in the two types of work. However, I believe both showcases the innovation through the perspective of art and energy.
One key aspect that I noticed as a similarity between the two types of art is the concept of reconstruction and remodeling. Both Futurism and Cubism attempt to capture the essence of the future. Futurism showcases the motion and energy, while Cubism represents a new perspective in art. For example, in Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Picasso remodels human faces facing in different directions into one, representing multiple perspectives simultaneously. Both of these concepts were new and an innovation. However, there are also some significant differences between the two styles of art. One difference that might be more of a personal opinion to me is how Cubism appears to be more feminine than the masculinity of Futurism. My favorite artist, Marie Laurencin, who is often overlooked in the Cubism category due to her distinctive style, was a significant influence on Picasso’s feminine style in his work.
The Cubists share a focus on geometric shapes with the Futurists. There are very clear angular shapes used by both to create their art. However, the Cubists shapes are seemingly more stationary in comparison to the Futurists movement based shapes.
Cubist and Futurist artworks share their abstracted and convoluted forms in common, rejecting naturalistic representation in art. Futurist art uses abstracted geometric forms to depict the motion and dynamism of objects. Cubist art, on the other hand, is stagnant, inviting more careful observation by breaking objects down into parts and reorganizing them to create a coherent image representative of multiple perspectives simultaneously.
After studying both Cubism and futurism it seems as though one of the key parallels between the two styles is there emphasis on fragmentation as a way to represent a modern experience for the audience.This is shown in all of these pieces where there is a lot of overlapping planes that oppose the typical/traditional type of confines that are had been bound to. However, while Futurism uses fragmentation to evoke more dynamic movement and speed, Cubism seems to me to be more focused on analytical observation, by offering a slow and intellectual unpacking of form rather than an energetic rush forward.
Cubist Collage: Mimetic? Expressive? Something else?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think Cubist art should be considered more of an expressive art because it uses the colors and geometric patterns to form the subject matter in an abstract way. For example, in Violin and Palette, the violin and scenery appear to be pieced together, while letting the green and blue colors to be both the shadow and the intensification of the violin. Instead of just imitating reality, the artist seems to create his own, letting the colors and the meshing of shapes to be his emotional interpretation of the scene he paints.
It’s easy to interpret Cubist collage as expressive when looking at pieces like Still Life with Chair Caning, or Guitar Sheet Music and Wine Glass because of their bold shifts with form and medium. Hopkins, however, helps me view them as reflections of a modern state rather than merely as expressions or attempts to mimic the outside world. I think these collages can’t be considered works of raw emotion on canvas, nor do they portray reality in a conventional mimetic manner. Rather, they appear to be something else altogether — they seem to assemble reality in a way similar to modern life itself: fragmented, complex, and hybrid. Cubist collage, in my opinion, takes on a completely different meaning when viewed through Hopkins’ wider cultural perspective. It is more about understanding the world in all its new complexity than it is about expressing something.
Cubist collage should be considered a sort of expressive art because it uses distinct shapes, colors and contrast to create a representation of the modern world. Hopkins reinforces this idea by saying that modern creators, especially those of Cubism, take apart pieces of reality and fantasy to put them together to “metaphorically recreate the complex reality in which we actually live” (Hopkins). Cubism doesn’t imitate reality in its exactness or dramatize certain aspects, but rather picks and chooses the important parts to show how the artist views modern life. It is expressive in its personal feelings about the state of the world and personal choices in how one wishes to depict those feelings.
I don’t think Cubist collage should be classed as either mimetic or expressive art because collage is a technique, not a meaning. We don’t assume all oil painters are mimetic so why should we force collage into one label. In Cubist works the collage is a way to construct meaning through literal layering and different material. It doesn’t have to imitate reality or the artists inner thoughts but it could. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon could be interpreted as a depiction of reality (the human body) while The Table reflects the artists inner feelings on the whole debate and Cubic Collage as a whole.
Cubist collage doesn’t really fit into just mimetic or expressive categories. I think it’s kind of its own category. Hopkins talks about collage as more of a mindset than a style, where real and artificial mix in confusing ways. For example, in Still Life with Chair Caning, the chair pattern is printed but it’s treated like it belongs in the painting. The artwork messes with what’s real and what’s fake on purpose. The goal isn’t to copy reality or to show personal emotion, but it could be to reflect how complicated and disjointed the modern world feels.
Cubist Collage: Mimetic? Expressive? Something else?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think that Cubist collages should be a third leg between Mimetic and Expressive. Picasso’s “Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass” really drew on this idea, that when you have the right pieces, even if they aren’t related, you could describe the atmosphere of the indulgence of music and creativity. For me that piece represents the idea of being in a coffee shop and gives a sense of leisure, using the different parts of objects, you could create an object like the guitar without necessarily having to paint it. That abstractness can give a sense of meaning without having to literally put it on the page. The Cubist Collage can be a representation of the way we see and think of objects literally but it also has the expressive qualities of abstractness.
I completely agree! The prominent objects and ideas in a majority of cubist art is unclear at first, but expressionists try to capture an unfiltered view of reality. The works by Picasso, Braque, and Gris can all be interpreted differently depending on the viewer. For example, upon first glance, Pablo Picasso’s Still Life with Chair Caning comes across as an oppressive pile of work and newspapers. At the same time, I see a playful and somewhat nostalgic setting of a cafe.
While I believe that Cubist collage can certainly be considered a distinct category from purely mimetic or expressive art, I do think it is closer to expressive art than to mimetic art. The artists combine real objects and geometric shapes, but they do not aim to represent the real world directly, so I don’t believe Cubism is mimetic at all. Rather, Cubism attempts to incorporate different viewpoints into a single piece, using creative materials such as cloth of various textures and hues. Presenting multiple perspectives in one painting is a novel approach that aligns with expressive art, as it encourages the viewer to imagine and reflect.
I believe cubist art can be easily categorized as expressive art, because it has the ability to reflect the artists feelings towards a modern world. In Hopkins writing, he argues collages are expressive of “a philosophical attitude, an aesthetic position that can suffuse virtually any expressive medium” (Hopkins 1). Instead of producing art that mirrors reality, cubic artists express the feelings the modern world.
I think Cubist collage should be strictly classified as an expressive art. Mimetic art, I believe, should be reserved for realistic paintings that depict scenes, landscapes, and the ordinary physical world. In Hopkins’s article, he contrasts Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s 1900 painting called “Reclining Nude” with René Magritte’s 1941 painting “Personal Values.” Reclining Nude is a simple painting of a woman lying on her side, completely nude, which perfectly fits the definition of mimetic art, as it attempts to imitate the human body from the male gaze. Hopkins himself says, “Nothing belongs to a contradictory world of thought, feeling, or technique.” Personal Values, the Cubist collage, is the perfect example of expressive art. The depiction of the hair comb, wine glass, and everything else looks very realistic, but their placement and setting mean something different. Why would a huge hair comb, four times its normal size, be placed over a bed in a dollhouse? The proportions and placement suggest something beyond what our eyes can see—that is why Cubist art is purely expressive and not mimetic.
According to Greenberg, cubism is a way to play with the concepts of reality and imagination. The addition of outside substances to a canvas or an original flat piece allows for a kind of depth previously not experienced in art. For example, in Georges Braque’s Homage to J. S. Bach, his addition of the name Bach in capital letters, located in the center of the piece, takes the viewer’s attention and grounds him in a two-dimensional space, while the rest of the piece plays with depth and shadow. This allows for two ways of viewing this piece, and makes it seem like Braque is trying to get this piece closer to reality by including the letters, which exist in the real two-dimensional plane of the paper. I do not think cubism is mimetic or expressive; instead, it is a different kind of art, a conceptual one that has to do with art getting closer to reality while being reinforced into imagination.
The Cubist Collage is definitely expressive art. It doesn’t seem imitative in its design; all paintings listed above look painfully unique and convey a strong sense of emotion. The artwork forces the viewer to glance over it multiple times, as there are multiple details that wouldn’t be caught upon first sight that impact one’s interpretation of the piece. I experienced this looking at George Braque’s work. At first glance, it appears that I’m just looking at neatly placed grey splashes on a canvas. But after a second glance, I see a Jesus fish, paper molded into a cross-like shape, and lines of sheet music (Braque, Violet and Pallet, 1909). The artist appears to be drawing a connection between religion and music, and the grays on the canvas can allude to the moral gray area that religion as a whole has with music; as music evolves, does it delve further away from a monotheistic God?
I think that Cubist Collage should be classified as mimetic art because it is a very authentic version of reality. Hopkins described collage art as a recreation of “the complex reality in which we actually live” (Hopkins 4). It’s through the chaotic whirlwind of pictures and pieces put together in an almost messy way that perfectly reflects how complicated and chaotic life actually is. This same idea is seen in Pablo Picasso’s, “Still Life with Chair Caning” (1911) where there is a mixture of an actual photograph of a chair and also parts of the artwork that has been created and painted by Picasso. This mixture of mediums and materials, and mismatch of styles highlights the mismatches and complexities of real life. As a result of Cubist collage art representing life in a very authentic way, I feel that it could be classified as mimetic art. This is because mimetic art is a mirror or a portrayal of real life, something that Cubist collage does.
I believe that Cubist collage leans towards expressive art rather than mimetic art. One instance of this is when viewing Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, it is clear that Picasso did not want to imitate a figure of a woman like how one would do when creating mimetic art. Rather, Picasso seems more focused on capturing the emotions of the woman through enhanced focus on their body language and physical features. Although both this piece and Cubist collage in general lean towards expressive art, I don’t think that Cubist art is completely expressive since it lacks the emphasis on emotions that most expressive pieces utilize. It is evident in pieces like Van Gogh’s The Starry Night that emotion is much more blunt, whereas in a piece of Cubist collage like Pablo Picasso’s Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass, it is not as evident.
Cubist Collage: Mimetic? Expressive? Something else?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think it should be classified as expressive art, as it is defined by playful curiosity of texture, style, and image. For example, Picassos still life with Chair canning feels like a constant build up of ideas, a little glue here, a little paint there, ultimately encompassed by an untraditional frame. Similarly, collages are made not to imitate life but express our feelings towards it. It is a meditation. So perhaps, cubism is a meditation in itself.
I agree! I like your wording of “playful curiosity” in terms of exploring different ideas within an artwork. As Greenburg said in his article, “the imaginary planes are all parallel to one another; their effective connection lie in their common relation to the surface,” which I believe somewhat echoes your idea that collages are not supposed to imitate, but express subtle feelings. In saying that there is a common connection between throwing all sorts of textures and styles onto a piece, with the connection of the surface itself bridging the artist’s feelings into the piece, there is a valuable expressive quality in Cubist collages.
I feel it should be defined as expressive art as it is about one’s own subjective experience and their use of artistic techniques to convey feelings and emotions. For example, in Picasso’s Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass (1912), he uses cubism, collage work, exploring new ways to play with art. He even uses different types of paper like newspaper and sheet music, showcasing his expression through interesting ways, even incorporating the word “Le Jou” which I looked further into, and could poke fun at the french work for “play” or “toy”, further showcasing how cubist collages could be more seen as expressie than mimeitc.
I think that Cubist collage is more mimetic than expressive because you can see objects, for example, violins being formed by putting non-violin-like pieces together. You can see the violin being formed, the sporadic colors and shapes that are purposely placed by the artist to portray something specific. On the other hand, the art of cubist collage does feel more expressive than other forms of art. Even though pieces like Violin and Palette and Guitar, Sheet Music and Wine Glass prove that the art is trying to mimic something, it’s done uniquely maybe to show how they feel about that subject in particular.
I half-way agree with this! You’re right that Cubist collage is based off of reality, with even attempts to transcend the 2-D plane, as explained by Greenberg. “because you can see objects” is why I leaned towards mimetic, but then I read Budd Hopkins, on one of Picasso’s works, say that the “painted
areas appear to do the impossible: to exist flat and intact on a surface that is seemingly full of holes. The ‘real’ and the ‘artificial are thus locked into an open-ended equation which contains no fixed terms” (Hopkins) In this case, the “real” is mimetics, and the “artificial” is the expressive. I don’t think the two are fighting–rather, they work together to create something new, in-between being mimetic and expressive.
Something that caught my attention was Hopkins’ take on the way in which Cubist art was capable of expressing things grounded in reality. In reference to a nude Renoir painting, he states that “For its admirers it is a lovely escapist dream, far from our jarringly complex modern reality. By comparison, the Picasso work embraces the disjunctive nature of that reality” (Hopkins). This shows a distinct contrast between traditional art and Cubism, as traditional art was seen as mostly aesthetic rather than as a means by which an artist could “metaphorically recreate the complex reality in which we actually live,” which is what Cubism aims to do (Hopkins). Because of this, it would make sense to classify Cubist art as expressive.
In my opinion, the cubist collages can be seen as both mimetic and expressive art. If mimetic art is art that is an imitation or representation of nature or reality and expressive art is focused on self-expression and emotional communication, then the cubist collages should be seen as both. Example of the collages being both mimetic and expressive is Juan Gris, The Table (1914). It’s seen as mimetic as the painting shows recognizable objects like a bottle, glass, newspaper, and parts of a table, which we use daily in the real world, and the painting is seen as expressive as the overlapping and geometric shapes create a sense of multiple viewpoints plus the colors and the contrasting textures adds to the emotional impact and overall expressive quality of the painting.
Social Class and The Waste Land
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Social Class and The Waste Land
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Class enters “The Waste Land” in the section “A Game of Chess.” The section begins by describing the elegance of this woman’s home and it depicts all the luxurious items that are present in her household. Upon my first read, I didn’t notice the juxtaposition between the richness of the house and the feelings of sadness and emptiness that are symbolized. For example, in the poem it talks about these gold Cupid figurines where one is supposedly hiding and another is closing it’s eyes. That was the first part of this section that made me realize that there is more to what the author is trying to say about upper class society. There really is this sense of emptiness, loneliness, and lack of love. The use of describing even the chair she sits in as a ‘burnished throne’ really sells that idea of money not necessarily being the answer to everything. And the realization that the modern world full of promises of the ‘good life,’ where riches and money can fill you with almost anything, can’t compensate for true connectedness, spirituality, and real love. It’s almost like coming to terms with what the modern world is doing to society and the consequences of such.
I really like your interpretation of “A Game of Chess.” It does seem like the wealth and luxury that the person has has not helped them be happy in anyway. I wanted to add about the part where the women starts talking about how she took pills to try and look younger it seems but she says how it didn’t work which just shows how the stress of trying to be perfect has caused these wealthy people to become overwhelmed with feelings of sadness and emptiness like you mentioned. Even though they don’t have any problems living day to day like lower classes, they are not happy with the constant perfection expected of them I guess showing how everyone has problems.
Yes I completely agree with you Chris in the fact that Eliot show two women of different classes to show that everyone has problems at this post war time. In the second part “The Game of Chess” Eliot describes two women, one of high class, and one of low class. Both women don’t have the best relationships with their husbands. The rich lady feels ignored by her husband and expresses this by saying, “speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.” (Elliot, The Game of Chess). This suggests how even though the rich lady and her husband are close in proximity, they emotionally feel very far apart. It also shows the loneliness and isolation the rich woman feels. The women from the lower social class are also struggling, just in a different way. The working class woman has had five pregnancies and is taking pills “to bring it off, she said. She’s had five already, and nearly died of young George” (Elliot, The Game of Chess). This highlights how the woman is trying to end a potential pregnancy with medicine that may not be the safest. This emphasizes the working class women’s emotional and physical exhaustion of having to constantly meet the demands of marriage and motherhood with little to no support, highlighting her suffering shaped by class, and alienation. By presenting both of these women from different social classes, Eliot reveals that in the modern wasteland, class does not prevent anyone from disconnection, isolation, and even alienation. The only difference is the type of struggle. This disconnection, isolation, and alienation both women feel reflect the emotional and spiritual condition of the world, post war.
I really like your interpretation of upper class society, and how the promise of money does not make a person feel content. I would like to add that throughout the poem there are many references to reflection and looking inward. There are many references to a window in the woman’s home. For example, Eilot references synthetic perfumes attempting to drown the fresh air coming from outside the window. I think this may be pointing to the idea that although there are many attempts to conceal the misery of high society, you will eventually be forced to confront it.
To answer the second question we see Eliot reference the loss of life in World War 1 very early into the poem. His very first line, “April is the cruelest month, breeding lilacs out of the dead land,” displays how the mass death that has occurred continues to haunt people. The spring season is supposed to come with feeling renewed as new plants grow and flowers begin to blossom. However, through imagery Eliot paints the picture that despite this period of renewal it is clouded over by the large number of lives lost and people who have perished. Eliot contextualizes war as tearing apart the world and leaving both nations and society fragmented and empty. He paints the picture that the world is filled with trauma and still trying to recover from the despair that has occurred. Following the aftermath of the world things have changed so drastically that those living have trouble adjusting to the new world they live in.
Social Class and The Waste Land
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In The Waste Land, readers can infer that class structure is introduced in the second section titled, A Game of Chess. In this section of the poem, Eliot witnesses a wealthy lady with a lot of furnishings, however, she admits that she is experiencing hopelessness; she appears distressed as she is thinking about her love life. Eliot then shifts the focus onto another woman named Lil, who is also experiencing hopelessness as her pills are effecting the way she looks. Although both of these women come from different backgrounds, Eliot leaves readers with the sense that regardless of social class, individuals are all still the same.
I agree on your observation about hopelessness regardless of social class. Even with wealthy surroundings, they do not protect her from these human feelings of despair and loneliness. Lil, who is working-class, struggles with hopeless for different reasons by health issues and overworking. Eliot uses these stories to highlight ghat no matter social class, we all still suffer from our own troubles and worries, breaking the illusion of rigid social classes having separate issues. This ultimately showcases how regardless of class, we all suffer and fight our own battles, usually experiencing similar emotions.
The rigid difference in class is shown especially in “A Game of Chess,” where the first half of the section features a richly decorated, almost suffocating interior filled with luxury. These descriptions of the upper-class setting provide a stark contrast with the second half, where the working class is depicted as casual, chaotic, and miserable. Quotes such as “HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME” show how these women deal with everyday survival, birth control, bad marriages, exhaustion, as well as the fancy, luxurious lifestyle the upper class lives. However, Eliot also reveals the anxiety and pressure that the upper class experiences, despite living a seemingly perfect and relaxed life.
Yes, and I think you’re absolutely right to point out how Eliot contrasts the suffocating luxury of the upper-class interior with the chaotic pub conversation of the working class. I’d add that this contrast isn’t just social, but it’s also linguistic. In the second half of the section, Eliot shifts sharply into a colloquial or even fragmented dialogue when he says “He said, I swear, I can’t bear to look at you. And no more can’t I, I said, and think of poor Albert…” To me, this sudden informality and directness of this speech feels jarring after the earlier allusions to Shakespeare and Ovid. This rupture in his speech could be mirroring a broader collapse in communication between social classes.
The Waste Land and the Great War
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In one of the opening lines, the poem states, “mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain” (lines 2-4). Through this, the poem seems to contextualize the war as something that forces someone into the joy of their past. The desire of what someone wants can only being found in their past as the war invades their present. Moreover, it could mean how war kind of stops a person’s life and any desirable living could only be found in past memories until the war produces something different from before.
That’s really interesting insight! When reading the previous line alongside the one you quoted, there is a further sense of seeing the joy from the past:
April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing […]
The poem seems to highlight this natural beauty that still exists within the land despite the war. It demonstrates how something as elegant as lilacs can be viewed in a somber way, and how human nature can invade physical nature.
That’s a really insightful take on how conflict can make people long for what they’ve lost by trapping them in their memories. To add on, Eliot’s line “mixing / Memory and desire” implies more than just nostalgia, it’s almost as if longing and the past are blurred together. This combination of desire and memory implies a sort of psychological dislocation which is also seen in the poem’s fragmented structure. Time itself appears to be scrambled by war, which does more than just ruin the present. There are only traces of the past to cling to ands no clear path ahead, and maybe this is why the poem has the impression of a collage, with parts reflecting the fragmentation of both society and individual identity.
That is a really good insight, I didn’t even notice that it could represent the past. I want to add on to that with the seemingly contradictory line she added right after “Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow.” I feel like this also puts the war into perspective because winter is known to be a cold month but because the deaths were so painful, that even winter became so warm to them. The author makes the winter sound comforting even by saying “covering Earth in a forgetful snow.” I feel like this line is trying to say that the snow is covering up the dead bodies of the victims. Overall, the author really uses a cold season to represent warmth to emphasize the pain that came from the war, which really contextualizes the war. It helps us imagine how bad the grief was and puts the Earth into perspective as well. Even the Earth feels sad that there were so many victims.
Yes, I agree with you. When I first read the lines “Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow, feeding A little life with dried tubers” I was confused, as winter was usually depicted as bitter and cold. But in this poem, April became the cruellest month because of the war and winter was something gave people warmth. I really like your interpretation of using cold season to emphasize the pain of war. The cruelty of the war was portrayed as even colder than winter itself. Also, the “forgetful snow” covered ruins of the war, making the city appear more peaceful or even “warmer” in contrast.
One key moment in the poem was when Eliot writes, “If there were water we should stop and drink… Here one can neither stand nor lie/ There is not even silence in the mountains/ But dry sterile thunder without rain” (lines 331-343). These lines contextualize the war as a draining experience. The dryness of the war would drain these soldiers not only due to the lack of necessary resources but also emotionally. The dryness would leave them to wither due to no access to water to help sustain their bodies but also because of the trauma from the sounds of bombs and ammunition. Emphasizing the lack of water, the poet wants the readers to appreciate the littles things like water. Even if there was water in the mountains the soldiers did not have the opportunity to just stop and cater to themselves.
Yes, I think specifically the line “But dry sterile thunder without rain,” is symbolic of the rest of the poem. The thunder is symbolic of the war itself, and the group avoids it while in search for life, water (in this case rain). While I am not doing very well at interpreting the final part of the poem, I think the fact the thunder continues reflects the trauma the group still has. While they have gotten what they wanted, life and possibly normalcy, the thunder continues, the scars of war.
I like your focus on the imagery being dry in representing the emotional and physical toll that comes from war. It really shows how much the soldiers were being trapped in a world that offered them no type of comfort.
I completely agree with your response, I feel like with these lines, you can perfectly picture them in your mind, what soldiers go through. With your analysis, it really makes you think about life and the things you should be grateful for. Even when war ends, life continues but the trauma from war is still there, so it never really ends in your own head and world.
“Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.”
This quote contextualizes the war by capturing the psychological aftermath of the war. The way he uses “death” in this quote is not only to describe the loss of so many in the war, but also to describe the survivors and how they are feeling. He also uses the word “fog” which helps bring a sense of sadness and loss in order to emphasize how the war has made the survivors lifeless in a way.
I agree, I think most of the poem especially the beginning really is to show how even after the war, if you are alive it doesn’t really feel that way.
I agree with your analysis and find the next lines after your quote interesting as well, “Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.” Because, to your point, it highlights how the survivors felt about living. There is relief in their sighs, but also shame as they look down at their feet. It’s an interesting switch between the feeling that one has escaped death but must exist in life.
Yes, and the quote insinuates how much a person can’t really imagine the traumatic scenery of war. One can only truly know when they are there in person, seeing it before their eyes. Moreover, the brown fog could represent the cloudiness of eyesight when it comes to death as a consequence of war because what was once life in a popular place is now a place of death and a scene of war.
“ I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing.” (Game of chess)
I think this quote shows how war makes people lose themselves which causes a loss of their life. Here the character is relating to a rat in ally, afraid of who or what is going to come in. Like a rat they fear for their lives. The comparison to the rodent also show how they view themselves less than in the moment. I believe this shows the dehumanizing moments of war and how the life of a person can be lost even before the die, due to how they have to live in fear.
Yes, I totally agree. I also noticed this line and how Elliot is showing the aftereffects of war and how war can affect a person mentally. In a line just a couple after what you quoted, Elliot writes, “I remember / Those pearls that were his eyes. / ‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’” (II. A Game of Chess). This reminded me of PTSD, and how people can come back just a shell of themselves after war. He witnessed death and he can remember the eyes of those that died, and because of that, he becomes a fragment of who he used to be. He, like many others, already lost his life because of what he has experienced due to war.
In the beginning Eliot writes “Unreal City,/Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,/A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,/I had not thought death had undone so many.” Eliot uses the image of Londoners on their daily commutes to show how the War has turned the world they once knew into a devastation. There is something more than just physical loss almost a cultural disintegration taking place. The focus on the real life cost of war rather than the heroism contextualizes WWI as the true tragedy it was, not just a country rallying event.
Yes, and it’s not just the bodies that were lost but something deeper, like the spirit of the place? The line about London Bridge reminded me more of ghosts than people. It’s a weird thought because the city is still functioning, people are still walking and commuting, but everything appears dead inside. Elliot seems to be commenting on how the spirit of everyday life was killed too, not just people.
The Waste Land and the Great War
⤹Click the reply button just below.
T.S. Elliot frequently mentions winter in relation to the war. In the beginning of the poem, he writes, “Winter kept us warm, covering/Earth in forgetful snow,” a line which establishes a clear irony that one could take comfort in something cold and dreary. Later, he writes “under the brown fog of winter dawn/A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many/I had not thought death had undone so many” once again bringing back the idea of winter. I think in these lines he is pointing out how the deaths of the war haunt everyone- no one escapes the loss and hardship that war brings. Here, he phrases winter as not a source of comfort but an unfortunate backdrop to the losses and destruction of war. I think these two separate interpretations of winter refer to perceptions of war before it begins and after it ends. Usually, there is a lot of patriotism and support before a war, and a pride in fighting for your nation. After the war is over, however, all that is left is a sense of devestation, regret, and loss that takes hold of everybody.
I love your interpretation of this poem. It’s true that winter and sorrow are closely connected in an ironic way. I appreciate how the poet used imagery to depict the dead of winter and employed natural scenery as a metaphor for the dead. I especially liked the fifth line in the second stanza: “And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief, and the dry stone no sound of water.” Water is the origin of life, and the dry stone without water is a powerful depiction of a sad, lifeless winter. The dead tree, resulting from the lack of water, also implies the death of people caused by tragic war.
I agree with your analysis of the “Winter kept us warm” line. It is also interesting to mention how this is a kind of aphoristic language similar to a Nietzschean phrase. “Warm winter” may be implying a kind of transcendence of knowledge of the destructiveness of war. The devastation of this war caused a transformative experience for people who had to endure it.
At the end of The Burial of the Dead, Eliot writes about a crowd of people, presumably dead, that wander through London. This part particularly stood out to me as the narrator calls out to one of the men, recognizing him in the sea of souls. Not only does this scene highlight the derealization of people affected by war, but it also calls to the loss of community members. When the man asks if “the corpse [he] planted” is going to bloom, it felt like an eerie callback to the beginning of the poem. According to Eliot, life blooms from death as we are inextricably tangled with loss; the effects of war will always stick with us.
I agree with your analysis. Eliot does write a lot about the bitterness and sorrow of the aftermath of war. As you mentioned, the beginning line of the poem, “April is the cruellest month” uses the irony of April being a month of rebirth to show the pain of remembering the pains of war. He continues with the usage of seasons and months when he says, “winter kept us warm” to further this irony of the cold keeping them warm. The cold numbness is better than the spring because it numbs the pain of war. He also later says, “summer surprised us” to show the alienation from war. The line in German that appears later proves this because it translates to “I’m not Russian at all, I come from Lithuania, truly German.” showing the alienation people felt at the time with their identity.
Eliot describes the devastating aftermath of the war and the toll it took on the people of England. In the line “A crowd flowed over London bridge, so many, I had not thought death had undone so many”. This quote highlights the sheer devastation caused by a war since the people couldn’t even comprehend that wars can be so deadly. It puts into context the grim atmosphere of the environment at that time.
I completely agree with you Donald. I definitely think this poem expresses to us the aftermath of the war and its negative impact to society. The quote “ What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow. Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,” made me realizes that the war left their city to be a sad place. It no longer felt like home in a way. It was hard to feel connected to a place that no longer had “life” in it. Everything became so lifeless not only from so many people passing away but also within nature.
Towards the end of the poem Eliot writes
” Datta: what have we given?
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment’s surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed
Which is not to be found in our obituaries
Or in memories draped by the beneficent spider
Or under seals broken by the lean solicitor
In our empty rooms” (Eliot 54). This stanza highlights how the deaths due to war were not fully captured in memorials which left many to grieve an un-reassured pain. Without closure many resorted to pushing the pain down, rather than being able to face it.
The quote, “My nerves are bad tonight. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you are thinking. Think.’
I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.”
Reminds me of how veterans came back with PTSD and wouldn’t want to speak about their experiences with war, but it was all they could think about. Constantly thinking about being in the trenches (rat’s alley) and his comrades decomposing (losing their bones).
I’d have to agree with your take, and to add on there’s such urgency in the lines you mentioned. “What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking?”. These words are disorienting, adding to the feeling of PTSD that many soldiers face after conflict.
I agree with you as this specific part of the poem reflects the numbness that those who experienced war felt. In the following lines it says, ” I remember Those are pearls that were his eyes. ‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’”. It represents the fragmented pieces of horrid memory that the soldiers carried. The eyes of many dead people who they were forced to look at, and play like a broken record within their minds. It becomes difficult to ground themselves with reality (“are you alive or not”), as many of them experienced an emotional death during war.
I agree Ava that this moment between the man and the woman signifies a kind of shell shock in the man and emotional distress in the woman. I think interactions like this were common during that time period, especially since it was shortly after World War I which was the deadliest war up to that point.
This is a very great point Ava! The Waste Land does a great job describing the emotion and thoughts of those who suffered from shellshock (what they called PTSD in World War One). To add on, shellshock also caused the person to hallucinate sounds and images of their trauma as well, creating a greater source of panic and anxiety for those who suffer from shellshock. For example, In part II “A Game of Chess,” the two main characters talk to each other, stating,
“‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing.
‘Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing?’”
This interaction highlights the hallucinations the characters are facing due to World War One.
I agree with you. The PTSD that soldiers come back home with makes them distant because there are the unspeakable terrors of war. Additionally, they aren’t able to go back to their original lifestyle anymore due to what they experienced. They are never able to remove themselves from the scene that forever haunts them.
In Part 2, A Game of Chess, there are mentions about a character named Lil who is judged by society for her appearance and for having multiple abortions. This speaks to the social standards to which women were held in order to be suitable wives to their husbands. Rather than being independent and money-earners, women were expected to be in the home and ready to take care of her husband’s kids (when they eventually came). For Lil, her declining appearance at only 31 and her foregoing of having a child with Albert are qualities that make her an unattractive wife. If a woman cannot possess those two qualities, then she is not useful to a man. This was the unfortunate reality that kept many women restricted and dependent on their partners in life.
In “The Waste Land”, a moment where T.S. Eliot contextualizes war in the poem is when he writes “I remember
Those are pearls that were his eyes.
‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’ ” I believe this comments on the shell shock (now known as PTSD) that soldiers experienced seeing such traumatic images during their time in the war. The wife of the soldier is trying, at no avail, to get him to continue living life as it was before the war, but all he can think about is what seems to be the death of a fellow soldier.
The Waste Land and the Great War
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the beginning of the poem that is being contextualizes the war it says
“Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.”
(Lines 2-4).
Spring usually a symbol of hope, however in the beginning of the poem, “Lilacs out of the dead land” (Line 2), it is used as a reminder that rebirth cannot erase the past nor scars of war. As well, suggests that even as nature tries to bring back to life, the past still remains, which causes grief, “Dull roots with spring rain” (Line 4).
I also looked toward the beginning of the poem to notice the impacts of WW1, similarly noticing the line of lilacs and spring. There’s an interesting connection between memory and desire, with the physical connection of dull roots and spring rain that is happening in these lines, and it makes me think that the dull roots and rain are almost physical representations of the memories lost on the battlefield. Rain is often seen in a more sad and pessimistic way, and the word “dullness” combined with the “lilacs out of the dead land” really calls attention to the humanistic feelings lost because of the War.
This interpretation of Spring here is certainly correct. Even further, the first line literally calls out April as “the cruellest month” (line 1). Then on lines 5-6, Eliot praises Winter for “covering Earth in forgetful snow”. This shows that anything that hides the horrors of war is a positive, even if i might normally be bad. This irony of spring being bad and winter good shows the upside down nature of war.
This moment happens later on in the poem, but something that really intrigued me was this section of T.S Eliot’s writing:
“Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth
Ringed by the flat horizon only
What is the city over the mountains
Cracks and reforms and bursts in the violet air
Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal” (T.S Eliot).
I thought it was really interesting how the warfare of WWI was being compared to the destruction of the great, ancient cities of Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria, which were all violently destroyed and ravaged at some point in their existence during ancient times. The way that this is written categorizes Vienna and London in the same way as these cities, sort of in a tone that suggests that once, (before the war), these places were also two of the “great” cities of history, but now that they have been consumed by war and destruction, their fate will be the same as the three previously mentioned cities. Additionally, I interpreted the world “unreal” in the last line as an exclamation of disbelief that even in “modern times,” all-consuming war such as WWI is still a reality. The destruction that occurred in Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria is not just a feat of the past. This contextualizes the horrors of war in a way that makes it universal across both time and peoples.
I really like your connection that the destruction of the ancient cities of Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria is a reflection of the destruction wrought in the First World War of London and Vienna. I would like to add how this doesn’t just reflect the physical destruction of these cities but also the tearing down of the old orders they represent. In their time, Jerusalem, Athens, and Alexandria were cultural centers around which their society was built. Their destruction, like the destruction of London and Vienna, marked a shift as an old order fell and a new one arose. This societal shift post World War One can be seen by the rise of fascist and communist ideals as well as the rise of economic protectionism.
Early in the poem Eliot quotes “Unreal, City, Under the brown fog of a winter dawn, A crowd flowed over London Bridge, som many, I had not though death had undone so many.” In these lines, Eliot compare people crossing london Bridge to a crowd of the dead. He uses this image to show how World War l left people feeling empty and broken inside. Even though some survived they are like ghost.
I also thought that the line “I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring.” in The Burial of the Dead part of the poem could be describing the dead people walking around lonely, with no where to go, similar to how you described them being empty inside.
The lines you mentioned also stood out to me, particularly because “unreal” is a term he returns to twice in the poem, each in reference to post-war London. I saw it as his attempt to demonstrate the pervasiveness of alienation and meaninglessness in modern London. He writes “Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled / And each man fixed his eyes before his feet” after the first mention of “Unreal city” and “Unshaven, with a pocket full of currants” after the second. They walk with their eyes glued to the ground, almost in an avoidance of their misery as they’re forced to move on with their lives after a transformative, catastrophic event. They leave their homes unshaven, a subtle display of their grief. The “politeness” of the emotional response is disorienting to Elliot as he recognizes the collective resignation and emotional numbness of modern society. They are hopeless—the living dead.
Halfway through the poem, Eliot illustrates the image of “The river sweats Oil and tar The barges drift with the turning tide Red sails Wide”. I think that the phrase of “sweats oil” may be a reference to the oil of probably war tanks or just overall a reference to the industrialization occurring during the war. I also think that the color “Red” mentioned may be a reference to blood. Wars are bloody, specially WWI as it’s considered as “The Great War”. For instance, in a soldier’s perspective their vision was entirely red as they were surrounded by wounded and dead soldiers.
The red is a good catch–it’s odd he uses the color instead of just saying blood. In the part where the thunder talks, it says “After the torchlight red on sweaty faces / After the frosty silence in the gardens / After the agony in stony places” (Eliot). There’s a contrast between the hot and cold, perhaps showing the heat and exhaustion of war with the finality and coldness of death. There’s more instances of heat and sweat (the need/looking for water), which is something that can only be quenched with water–I wonder what the water symbolizes, since it’s used in so many different instances.
A key moment and comment where I think the poem The Waste Land contextualizes war are the lines 20 – 24 of part three of the poem “The Fire Sermon”. It states
“Musing upon the king my brother’s wreck
And on the king my father’s death before him.
White bodies naked on the low damp ground
And bones cast in a little low dry garret,” (Elliot).
To me these lines sound like he is talking about the aftermath of war with all the naked dead bodies around on the ground, and bones lying in a room that I learned was either an attic or the top floor.
Eliot’s Orientalism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Eliot’s use of Hindu scripture in The Waste Land complicates the kind of Orientalism that we saw in the Royal Pavilion. Brighton’s chinoiserie and the Mughal domes exoticized the East for British aesthetic pleasure and ego but Eliot’s invocation feels less like a display of power and more like a search for wisdom outside the West. By the time we reach the scripture, the poem already cycled through greek myth, Shakespeare, and Dante , only to find them too hollow. Eliot doesn’t display the East as decoration but reaches towards it as maybe a spiritual safety net. Still the gesture isn’t fully free from Orientalist framing. He doesn’t engage the eastern tech in depth and uses it symbolically
Yes this is my interpretation too. Rather than use Hindu Scripture out of feigned interest or showing off like we see in the Royal Pavilion, Eliot uses it in a grasping way. He cannot land on a fitting and deep enough reference or allusion I guess. By branching out to Hindu he is symbolically grasping and branching out for spiritual meaning. It is not done in a disrespectful manner but an embracing one, which I think sets Eliot apart from the similar attempts and examples of orientalism.
Eliot’s use of Hindu scripture is definitely more thoughtful than the orientalism of the Royal Pavilion, but it’s still part of that tradition in some ways. Orientalism, as Edward Said describes it, is about the West using the East as an exotic “other” which often simplifies or romanticizes Eastern cultures to serve Western needs.
In “The Waste Land”, Eliot doesn’t use the East as decoration, but he still treats it as a kind of symbolic fix for Western spiritual emptiness. He doesn’t really engage with the full meaning of the “Upanishads”, he pulls a few lines to give the poem a sense of closure or depth. So even though his gesture feels respectful, it still fits the orientalist pattern of using Eastern ideas to patch holes in Western identity, without fully understanding or honoring their original context which initiates complexity surrounding orientalism and its frequent use.
The orientalism seen with the scripture written in “The Waste Land” draws many parallels to the same practices at the Royal Pavilion in Brighton, despite the century difference in time. The Royal Pavilion has a strong sense of orientalism due to the representation of a certain cultural, however picking a choosing favorable parts and disregarding those deemed “unfavorable”. While it does represent a cultural, it does not pay respect to it and simply uses its traditions as decorations. I believe that this is the same orientalism seen in Elliot’s poem, “The Waste Land”. The phrase in its context almost used as a garnish to his written work, It’s not used to recognize the people of this language, its used to rather use the language as a design choice, similar to The Royal Pavilion. It feels almost ironic given the origin of the language and its people and what he talks so gravely of that, it gives off the impression of orientalism even if it wasn’t intention, as with The Royal Pavilion.
I really like how you connected The Waste Land to the Royal Pavilion. You made a great point about how both use parts of another culture without fully respecting or understanding it. I think Eliot might have used the Sanskrit at the end to give the poem a sense of peace or meaning, but since he doesn’t explain it or go deeper, it can feel like he’s just using it for effect. Just like the Pavilion, it ends up taking something meaningful from another culture and using it in a way that fits a Western point of view. Even if that wasn’t the goal, it still comes across as a bit shallow or unfair.
Eliot’s Orientalism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Eliot’s mixing up of the phrase Damyata, Datta, Dayadhvam into Datta, Damyata, Dayadhvam is similiar to the orientalism we saw in Brighton in the sense that the phrases were not used in the correct context that the native culture used for. This disregard for the correct way of saying the phrase and telling of DA as some exotic god in the context of a western hellscape is similar to how the Royal Pavilion treats its dragon objects. It takes inspiration from exotic culture and, maybe unintentionally, puts in into a European context. In the case of the dragons in the Royal Pavilion, they had wings and were next to snakes which were bad luck. In the context of Eliot’s poem, I feel like it really displays DA and the Hindu sayings as closer to ancient mythology, as he paints the environment using the cries of a cockrel and talks about Datta “giving” like it is about the sacrifice of his friends.
I agree that Elliot’s use of Da, Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata was misused to fit the European context of his poem, similar to how the Pavilion was not accurate in their depiction of dragons, adding wings to them to fit the European ideas of dragons. Another example seen in the Pavilion is its outside architecture, which is inspired by Indian buildings; however, it is not entirely accurate. It is again what the Europeans think Indian architecture looked like, as they had only seen pictures of buildings in India. This relates to your statement of how Europeans would not accurately represent the culture they were pulling from, such as China and India, and would misuse it to fit what they thought was right.
I agree with this heavily. I think that Eliot’s usage of Sanskrit and Hindu phrases is disrespectful if he does not heavily subscribe to that religion. I am not super familiar with Eliot’s personal or spiritual life, but it reads similarly to the Orientalism found in the Pavilion.
I agree with your view on the use of Sanskrit words at the end of the poem. The inclusion of these words would resonate more with me if Elliot and the rest of Britain truly honored how Hinduism and Indian culture emphasize peace and harmony. However, the lines are so short and scattered that this message doesn’t fully come across. Unfortunately, misrepresentation of Indian symbols and language still happens today. The first example is when people get tattoos in different languages that don’t mean what they think they do, often misrepresenting symbols and characters of the language (such as yoga symbols, Hindi, etc.). The second example is when Western media insert sacred texts in inappropriate contexts; during an intimate sex scene in the movie “Oppenheimer,” the woman reads lines from the Bhagavad Gita while topless. The Orientalism seen in the Royal Pavilion continues today, with the same misrepresentations and neglect.
The Royal Pavilion exhibited a shallow, flashy Orientalism, while Eliot’s turn to Hindu scripture at the end of The Waste Land feels much quieter and encourages ponder. The repetition of “Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata” isn’t used just for show–it represents a final grasp at meaning after all other factors (Western myth, religion, language, etc) have failed. Eliot seems sincere of his use of this principle, but something isn’t right about how its presented. Eastern philosophy isn’t explored deeply enough and is only just inserted right at the end–like the East is just an aid to patch up the West’s crisis.
Eliot’s Orientalism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the end of the poem, the words “Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata” mean: to give, have compassion, and control. In Hindu scripture, these words/phrases relate to graciousness and spiritual grounding, but through an imperial lens it has a more negative tone- especially the words to give and control. The Royal Pavilion’s interior seems to dance around being “given” these ideas from Chinese and Indian cultures, but also takes control of it, turning what was given into something they can control and make their own- ie: traditional Chinese dragons to “European” dragons with wings. This is what the translation of the Hindu scripture reminded me of in connection to the Pavilion.
I didn’t know those were the translations to the Hindu scripture he’s using, but it definitely adds to the western ideal of interpreting Asian cultures for repurposing them. Just like the Pavilion, Eliot is making use of Hindu scripture for personal reasons, however, it’s done with different intentions. The pavilion made use of East Asian cultures for decoration, to project power, and western fantasy ideals. The mixture of Chinese art and artifacts in rooms for leisure and dancing, only added to the controlling factor the Pavilion had over Chinese culture.
The final section of Eliot’s “Waste Land,” uses Hindu scripture similar to Orientalism at the Royal Pavilion by selectively borrowing and reinterpreting cultures for the Western narrative. The Royal Pavilion used elements of Asian culture, similar to how Eliot is using Indian culture without full immersion from a Western perspective. Eliot quotes Da, Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata as a form of spiritual instruction, “The sea was calm, your heart would have responded Gaily, when invited, beating obedient To controlling hands” (Eliot). Just like the Royal Pavilion, Eliot writes of the Hindu scripture in parts, fragmenting Indian culture for a Western framework. However, unlike the Royal Pavilion, Eliot is genuine in searching for insight from the Eastern view, acknowledging “These fragments I have shored against my ruins Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe” (Eliot).
I agree, Eliot may have not fully understand how to use Hindu scripture properly, but still gave their best attempt to make it accurate. Just like the Royal Pavilion, they may have not fully understood the meaning behind the culture, but still gave it their best shot on trying to be accurate and understand the culture.
Comic-Book Ideas about America’s Purpose
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In “How Superman Would Win the War,” it states, “Superman is the extension of their dream, and proof that Americans still like their fantasy raw.” I feel like this also relates to characterization of America because Superman becomes an extension of how America wants to present itself (strong, mighty, acting on behalf of mankind, etc.) in the illusioned reality that all their actions are for the good of mankind without any mal consquences. Superman was glorified as he became very popular amongst the people, so his flaws and mistakes aren’t as publicized as the villain’s. Instead, the flaws of his actions are brushed aside, similarly to how the ill effects of America’s actions were often indirectly dismissed through the emphasization of the seemingly good intentions for the ‘whole’ of the people in comparison to how bad it could have been as visualized through the propaganda used during the time.
Your point about Superman as a symbolic projection of America’s self image is well taken especially the idea that his popularity helped obscure the ethical gray area of his actions. It reminds me of how comics like this let the U.S image itself as the moral hero without having fully face the consequences of intervention. Even though the government didn’t sponsor the story, it still functions like propaganda because it creates a world where doing the “right thing” is simple, and America always plays the savior. The black and white framing leaves no room for the realities of war or politics which feels dangerous when you think about how many people take this comic seriously. Its less about truth and more about comfort for the readers and even national ego.
Yes, I agree with you. In all three comics, the superheroes’s purpose are the same: save the world from war and resume peaceful lives. America’s purpose is represented by these superheroes, who intervene in the war with the goal of ending it. America is always portrayed as just, strong, and willing to fight for what is right. One detail I noticed is that the cover of the Captain American directly shows the enemy of the America is the Nazi party. I think this comic is urging America to take action against the Nazis and bring peace back to the world.
These comics, especially “How Superman Would Win the War” and “Gary Concord, Ultra-man”, look to portray America as the country powerful enough to stop all wars. It pushes the idea that America is the one with not only the physical strength to overcome the power of their opponents, but also the rational reasoning to stop the nonsensical violence between the people. Superman has the abilities and strength to reach Hitler and Stalin, and then presents them before a rational government to be punished. Ultra-man physically stops the men fighting and reasons with them as to why they need to stop fighting. The comics portray America as the one with these abilities and it is their purpose to use this to stop the world from fighting.
Absolutely, I think you make a strong point about how these comics push the idea of America as both powerful and morally right. What stood out to me too was how easily the heroes end these huge conflicts like how Superman just grabs Hitler and Stalin and hands them over, and the fight is over. It really simplifies the concept of war and kind of promotes this idea that if America steps in, things can be fixed quickly and rationally. I wonder how much that may have influenced how people at the time saw America’s role in the world, especially with real war going on.
These comics use the superheroes, especially Superman it seems as representations of judgement and justice. Using them as the ultimate judges and powers in the wars symbolically represents America as the same thing. America is who ultimately makes the decision or changes the tides in a fight or war. Superman and Captain America use violence in the process of getting justice, and they are given all the praise and glory in the end despite the things they did to succeed. Similarly, America has done horrible things and committed atrocities in war, and yet presents itself as the hero who’s ends more than justified the means.
In all three comics, I notice that they portray America as the middleman who breaks apart the conflict. One example of this is in Don Shelby’s “Gary Concord, the Ultra Man” where Ultraman says to the two men fighting, “Stop fighting one another over two foreign powers who have no more sense…” (pg. 4). Since WWII is not inherently America’s fight, the comic demonstrates Ultraman sweeping in to save the scene—illustrating the need for the United States to step in to win the war against the Nazis.
You make a good point about America being presented as a kind of moral umpire—somebody who is not joining the battle for self-interest but comes in to set matters right. What I would point out is that it evolves over time, especially if you contrast the Captain America #1 cover, where Captain America does not just mediate but actually joins the battle by punching Hitler. In contrast to Ultra-Man, who tells the two men to stop fighting over “foreign powers” and acts more like a peacekeeper who is impartial, Captain America is an active partisan, confronting evil in a straightforward manner. This shows a shift in how superheroes and by extension, America is imagined. From an impartial problem-solver to a moral force who will get involved. The change reflects growing public acceptance of U.S. involvement in WWII, showing how comics continued to evolve alongside real-world opinion.
In the comic books, America is seen as a “peace keeper” or the bigger person. For example, in “Gary Concord and Ultra Man” one of the hero’s steps in saying “stop fighting one another”. In this case America is represented by the Hero indicating that America steps in when needed and resolves conflicts. In “Meet Captain America”, America is also represented by Captain whose job is to keep peace. This also intells that America is seen as the “problem solver” or the hero.
I definitely agree with your point that America is seen and supposed to be the “problem solver” in times of crisis. But it’s really ironic that America has also done questionable things in war but still puts itself on a pedestal.
As I read the Captain America comic I couldn’t help but notice that his creation as the symbol of the American military, specifically abroad, was prompted by fear that the U.S. army was being corrupted by German spies. Captain America was meant to be a vision for how America should act- stoic, patriotic, and ready for conflict. The title page of the comic shows Captain America punching out Hitler, a direct call to action for the United States. In a similar vein, the Superman comicstrip, which by virtue of being published in a magazine would be viewed by more than just children who like superheroes, shows Superman storming the Nazis before taking both Hitler and Stalin captive. Both of these comic stories feel as though they are urging the United States to enter and win a military conflict, because after all, that’s what America’s heroes would do.
I agree. I think that in a way, superheroes act as how people want their governments to act. I would almost label them a type of propaganda. Captain America, especially given how the character itself represents the US by name.
Specifically in the comic-book, “Case No. 1. Meet Captain America”, the portrayal of Captain America and by proxy America is one for great heroic nature, of like a savior. With only looking just at the cover, we see a strong, manly and muscular man, representing America, punching Hitler. Hitler’s men are attempting to defend him but the bullets they fire, simply bounce off of captain Americas body. There’s a small detail that I believe plays a major part in showing how America was represented, in which a paper titled “sabotage plans for U.S.A.” lay on the ground, showing America in almost a victim light. They are too under attack by the Nazi’s but they are powerful in the sense that Captain America is single handedly taking out Hitler.
These comics portray America as a powerful, morally superior force with a global responsibility to lead and protect. In Superman, America is the “savior of the helpless and oppressed,” defeating German troops with strength and intelligence. His ideal soldier look mirrors propaganda, pushing the image of America as a heroic superpower with the duty to reset the world order.
Ultraman shifts focus to internal struggles he appears during famine, riots, and unemployment, encouraging people to keep working: “What you need is work—Jobs!” He calls war a “foolish war” driven by “inhuman greed,” framing European powers as selfish and destructive. America, by contrast, is peaceful and focused on recovery, reinforcing its moral high ground.
Captain America is openly patriotic, wearing the US flag and punching Hitler. He symbolizes America’s readiness to fight for peace, with lines like “peace-loving America” and warnings about “invasion from within.” The comic encourages youth to join the military and protect the nation from foreign threats like “vermin” and spies. America is not just strong but righteous, stepping in to lead, save, and restore peace in a chaotic world.
Comic-Book Ideas about America’s Purpose
⤹Click the reply button just below.
America’s purpose in the world is to create peace in the world, and “save” the world from war and destruction. It is also to hold those responsible for destruction, chaos, and war accountable- in this case, the Germans/Hitler and the Russians/Stalin. The superheroes are depicted essentially as a placeholder for America, with the actions they take meant to be a dramatized version of America’s role in the world. We see this throughout all the comics, images of superheroes fighting evil-looking men in nazi uniforms, always ending it with the hero’s triumph (aka American triumph). Overall, America is seen to bring peace and protect the innocent- and because their intentions are good and true, they will always prevail.
I completely agree with you Amelia, that America’s role is to save the world from war and destruction and bring peace as well as protect the innocent. I also saw this In, “How Superman Would End the War”, Superman defeats Hitler and Stalin by bringing them in, highlighting America’s ways of imposing justice where international bodies fail. To add to your point, more than America bringing peace, I feel that these comics also show America as a needed force to create peace and justice. In the Captain America comic (on the first page) it shows Captain America punching Hitler in the face, reflecting how America needs to intervene to create justice in the world.
I agree with you that Americas purpose is to save the world. they always have. America is seen to be as the peacemakers, even when they have their own issues to resolve. The superheros are the placeholders of America – I like the world placeholder that you used.
I agree with your claim in the last sentence: “Their intentions are good and true”, and I think comic play into this narrative. America has no foreign tensions at this point and has remained political neutral and isolationist since it’s founding. The Superheros in the comics are portrayed as untouchable figured with the highest virtues, which are meant to represent America at the time. The Captain America comic ends with a block saying, “Join Captain America in his War against the spies and enemies in our midst who threaten our very existence.” With this, I would like to add that some of these comics are pro-intervention because they believe the war in Europe is a threat to American ideals, so they believe in fighting to not only “help” bring peace, but protecting American ideals.
These comics depict America has a global force of justice, leadership, and intervention in a world of international chaos. In, How Superman Would End the War, Superman defeats Hitler and Stalin by bringing them in, highlighting America’s ways of imposing justice where international bodies fail. In the Captain America comic (on the first page) it shows captain America punching Hitler in the face, also reflecting how America needs to intervene to create justice in the world. Lastly in the All-Star Comic, Ultra man defeats evil scientists and criminals, reinforcing the American strength and morality, highlighting how it takes American power to bring justice. All three comics convey that it’s America’s purpose to defeat all evils, defend the innocent and the good, and bring justice to all.
Rianah, I really agree with your point about America acting as an intervention in a world of chaos. I wanted to add, I thought the “Ultra Man” comic really related to your idea as well. In the end of the story, the superhero says “All wars are foolish, Mr. President! Untold suffering caused by human greed” (pp. 9). I think this point in the story explains how America will help out in times of need, but also realizes how stupid war can be.
Yes, I agree with your statement that the use of superheroes in comics created the perspective that America must stop this wrongdoing, as they are portrayed as a peace-loving nation (as shown on the second page of the Captain America Comic). I also wanted to add to your point that superheroes are perceived as good, and they fight what is evil. This characterization reinforces the perception that superheroes who are good fight evil, and is related to how America must fight this evil, as they are considered good, so of course they will fight against this injustice.
To add on to your point, the comic books are an exaggerated form of America’s supposed power. America isn’t as strong as the comics suggests, but the comics can negate that.
All three comic books depict America as the global peacemaker, acting solely for the good of humanity and avoiding unjust actions. Superman battles the evil Nazis, Ultra Man stops war in Europe to stabilize the global economy, and Captain America defends America while fighting against Hitler. America is portrayed as a global unifier, dedicated to righteousness and democracy, while defeating dictatorship. America is also shown as the heroes of the world, ensuring the safety and prosperity of the globe.
I agree with you Alec. These superheroes not only are seen as peacemakers, but they complete their jobs with ease. I think this is a really important detail because it reflects how powerful America is. Conflicts that have killed millions and plagued politics for years can be ended in a quick sweep by these superheroes. They transcend traditional and modern military might. This suggests that these superheroes are America’s trump card, who are capable of victory in even the toughest situations.
America is seen as the hero’s of society helping to resolve world wide issues. I noticed this because in the Superman comic we see him in an altercation with who is believed to be a nazi. Often times superhero’s are seen as life savers, problem solvers, and someone you look up to so overall America is being well represented. And America is also seen as superior compared to other countries.
Although each of the comics display a different setting or tone to get their message across and suggest the global role the United States should play in. They all have a continuity when it comes to what they are saying the US should do in global affairs. All of the comics suggest that is the United States responsibility to intervene in global conflict and act as the unifying force between multiple nations and governments. It’s suggests that the United States have the influence and power to restore order in the world and we should be doing that. Whether it’s by setting the example or by having a direct impact these comics want the United States to enforce peace.
I agree Luca, all these comics depict America, through various figures such as superman, as the righteous protector of the world. So when there is a threat to world peace, it is America’s duty to intervene. I also thought it was interesting how America is portrayed as an invincible force that can basically achieve anything yet chooses to use its power for good.
These comic books aim to encourage people to be pro war especially in a time especially under wilson when people were anti-war and believed in the idea of America first. It creates the image that to be heroic like captain America you need to be pro-war and it substitutes superheroes with the US to make the parallel that fighting nazis is heroic. It also paints the idea that the US will bring peace and justice across the world while the enemies like nazis are supervillains trying to cause world destruction. In the captain America comic captain America essentially substitutes the role of the US in the world and brings world peace fighting the supervillains who are nazis..
In these comics, America stands as a symbol of “goodness” and moral rightness. The emphasis on America as a “peace-loving” country frames America as the strong, steady moderator of the world is acutely political. America does not want to involve themselves in other countries’ matters, until they have to swoop in and save the world.
In each comic the reoccurring theme is America’s responsibility to fight against injustices and ensure peace in the world. A clear stance on war is portrayed in the Super hero comics as they paint a picture of senseless war that effects innocent civilians. The heros stand up for those who can’t do it themselves- Captain America fighting against trusted spies, Superman bringing Hitler and Stalin to justice, and Ultra man stopping the war in Europe- and represent America in a dramatized sense as each super hero seems to be almost invincible. As the heros do not back down, it relays the message that as America has only pure intentions they will continue to be persistent in symbolizing their motto of liberation for all.
The idea that these comic books propose about America is that they are the saviors. That they have the tendency to intervene into global situations and fight off the “villains”. You have Superman fighting off the nazi’s, Captain American facing off hitler and etc. These are all depictions of how the comic books see America. I would say it’s a bit comical because till this day America has this same tendency. It’s just that now it doesn’t benefit anyone and if anything we’re helping the “villains”, America still believes their heroes but their losing their morals.
Comic-Book Ideas about America’s Purpose
⤹Click the reply button just below.
These comics characterize America’s purpose in the world as “saviors” – a nation that has the responsibility the “save” the rest of the world from the horrors of Hitler, Stalin, etc. In seeing themselves as saviors, America thinks of themselves as better than other nations (more rational, more moral, champions of freedom, etc). For instance, in the first comic, the Look magazine, Superman is shown grabbing both Hitler and Stalin and delivering them to the League of Nations, suggesting that America (through Superman) should take decisive action against global threats.
I agree. I was thinking that America sort of characterizes themselves as something similar to a superhero through these comics. I also saw this predominantly in the Superman comic. In the real world, America takes it upon themselves to end the Nazi regime as well as Stalin’s reign by entering WWII. In the comic, this desire is projected onto Superman, like you mention.
I feel as though no matter what stance the comic illustrators/writers take, whether it is action or neutrality, they still make America seem as this great place that has the power to help out if they want to. The Superman comic directly portrays a world where America chimes in and sweeps the enemies clean. For example, when Superman gets to Hitler and says, “I’D LIKE TO LAND A
STRICTLY NON-ARYAN, SOCK ON YOUR JAW,”. Then both him and Stalin face due consequence. Similarly, the comic for Ultra-Man still plays an active roll in managing the reparations of war, but in contrast preaches neutrality.
I also thought it was interesting how the comics try to be neutral but still, subconscious or not, push the ideology that America is SUPER. In this case, neutrality = on the good side and the in-action/stance that America(ns) take will be good and not seen as negative.
The comics present America’s role in the world as the preserver of peace, democracy and “savior” of the defenseless who always wins. America is presented as the only Western force to be trusted with delivering justice, as seen in “Case No. 1 Meet Captain America,” in which “the ruthless war-mongerers of Europe focus their eyes on peace-loving America.” The superheroes, representative of America, have fair intentions and are thus justified in their actions. For example, the second comic states “he means to have peace even if he has to fight for it,” speaking to the level of rationality ascribed to America in their war-time actions. Additionally, the first comic ends with Superman bringing Hitler and Stalin to a meeting with the League of Nations, a display of America’s respect for law and order.
I definitely agree, especially with your point that America is the “‘savior’ of the defenseless who always wins.” I also noticed that these comics depict America as a “supernatural” force through superheroes who essentially embody the nation itself; thus, these superheroes symbolize civility, fortitude, and justice — virtues that are vital to American ideology.
America is portrayed as unified within these comics, having the ability to lead and impact in the war. In Don Shelby’s “Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man,” America is the guiding force where “those nations are both wrong!” (Shelby p.4). These comics characterize America as a force of peace saying that “All of us are Americans no matter what our origins! That war is not our fight” (Shelby p.4). This reflects the belief that America must guide the world toward rationality, unity, and peace, even if it means using force initially to suppress violent forces. America plays a mostly neutral role within these comics, however, they are capable of exercising their influence and ability over the world.
Yes, I agree with the U.S being portrayed as the only real power that can induce peace. What is funny to me is how America is pushing to seem as a place of neutrality, and yet is very much still engaging in war propaganda by producing these posters, whether their intent is to send a neutral or active message.
In these comics, America is characterized as somewhat righteous. All the comics depict a superhero saving the world and putting a stop to Nazi-ism through illustrations of the superhero punching Hitler, and grabbing him by the neck. Lines in the comics I noticed were very suggestive of America /american superheroes being what saves everyone: “Smashing thru, Captain America came face-to-face with Hitler…” and “Toward the Siegfried line races Superman. Savior of the helpless and oppressed.” The use of the words “suppressed”, “savior”, and “helpless/oppressed” further portrays America as the morally better, heroic country that’ll be the one to save the less fortunate from the Nazis. It suggests that the role of America is to bring an end to the genocide. Comics like these encourage society to imagine that the role of a superhero is to save. I think that the American youth/society could internalize this to mean that their country is the greatest because they are the superhero, strongly and bravely saving others.
I agree! In reading the comics, the superheroes all have these [powers and are seen as saviors to the evil forces in Europe, either directly or indirectly pointing to the Nazis. They are all American heroes that go out and save the day while, as you pointed out, are trying to stay as neutral as possible in some cases. However, the superheroes act as a role model to the American people, specifically inferencing that we have the power to save, as we are this strong nation that can accomplish peace unlike the other countries. I think this American ideal of a strong man saving the day/world quickly became an extremely popular narrative that is still showcased and looked up to in today’s society as well.
These comics characterized America’s purpose in the world to be heroic and courageous. They are made to help, save, and protect the people and countries that are in trouble. In these comics America is quite literally represented through superheroes. For example in the second comic “Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man” Gary’s whole purpose is to preserve the peace for America due to him being the high moderator. This theme also continues into the other comics as well. With America being the hero.
I completely agree these comics felt very patriotic and seemed like propaganda pieces to push forth american ideals into the people. That america is the hero of the world, and will save everyone from evil like stalin ad hitler.
They all characterize America’s purpose in the world as being protectors of the innocent and defenseless. In the comics, the main motivation for the superheroes is to protect those who can’t protect themselves against the forces of evil. This drive of protecting innocents can be seen in Jerry Siegel’s and Joe Shuster’s “How Superman Would Win the War, in which Superman brings Stalin and Hitler in for the “unprovoked aggression against defenseless countries”. This portrayal of the US as the champions of the defenseless gives them a moral high ground as well as moral responsibility.
Two major themes between the comics are faith and strength. These superhero stories give hope to the reader that the war will end with the might of the us army. In “How Superman Would End the War”, Hitler and Stalin are put to justice because of the American figure superman but, they are held at trial at the league of nations. This shows hat when its all don, the us and its allies will make sure these war criminals face justice. Also in “Captain America” Captain America gives faith to the American people by protecting the ideals that American people love. He is a human embodiment of the strength of America.
The Role of the Superhero in Society
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think specifically the Captain America comic assigns the role of the Superhero in society. When the solider is injected with serum and is undergoing transformation, the doctors says, “The first of a corps of super-agents whose mental and physical ability will make them a terror to spies and saboteurs…like you–America should gain the strength and the will to safeguard our shores!” By saying his hopes for Captain America’s future, we can gather that the hope is that with this superhero, not only will the superhero himself stand up against the enemy, but will also serve as a role model to civilians to do the same. That is what.I think this comic is suggesting throughout is the role. Since throughout the comic, there is talk about how this superhero stops spies and captures them, fighting for ‘democracy.’In the end the comic talks about how Bucky, this young boy who wants to be just like Captain America, is able to be and urges readers that they too can be partners of Captain America.
I agree with your insight in how the presentation of Captain America brings a sense of community for the nation he serves. With the physical transformation of Captain America, he is given the strength and ability to act on the righteous values he originally had. Captain America is presented as a role model and leader to uphold the values of the nation and to encourage others in the community to do the same with the values that live within them by being a citizen. This could possibly be showing how the values of being a citizen of the nation is a person’s strength if they choose to use it wisely within the transformation of society.
From these comics, the role of superheros in society became someone that we all look up to and someone that we all expect to be saved by. Superheros are seen to always defeat the bad guys because the superheros are the good guys. In the first comic with Superman, we can see him beating the Nazis and getting justice for the world. This same pattern can be seen in the last comic with Captain America where he is also beating the Nazis. Superheros became a type of character, specifically a character with courage, bravery, and most importantly a character that fights for whats right. With this, the role of superheros in our society is to teach children what to fight for and how to fight for the good. These comics essentially teach others to become superheros and to fight for whats right. Superheros always bring justice and that is what society wants the future generations to be like as well. These comics especially encourage those to fight for American and democracy giving a role that superheros are meant to fight for USA and democracy.
I agree, it’s super patriotic and I think Ultra man still shares these traits, even while being isolationist. Ultra Man just stays in America, and his goal through the comic is to stop the rioting and let people be Americans. At one point he says “we, all of us, are Americans no matter what our origins! That war is not our fight!” I guess in this way, he’s not fighting for absolute good (i.e. go punch nazis), but he is fighting for the good of America nonetheless.
In all three comics the role of the superhero is to protect people during a time of chaos. The heroes are portrayed as strong, and immortal beings who can overcome anything and defeat the bad guys. They also have a rational and strategic outlook. In the Captain America comic, we see Captain America punching Hitler for constructing a plan to sabotage the U.S. These comics also show a sense of a country’s strength to maintain structure. The superheroes shown are fighting for justice and against cruel and oppressive behaviors.
I agree. In all three comics, the hero’s are all portrayed as buff, strong men ready to save the day. But they all interepret how America can also come and save the day. I think the hero’s are all portrayed as string because thats how other countries see America. Not just because of its size but also because of how advanced it is, and even during the time when America wasn’t as technologically advanced, it was still noticeable how strong the country is.
I agree, in all the comics a superhero is seen as the person to go to when there is a problem. For example, in How Superman Would End The War (1940) Superman is portrayed as a powerful and godlike figure. In this comic Superman captures Hitler and Stalin and delivers them to the League of Nations which effectively ended the war.
You make a good point about superheroes as symbols of safety and justice in disaster. I’d add that these comics portray heroes as more than just protectors and as them as active forces making history. In How Superman Would Win the War, Superman captures Hitler and Stalin, giving a daring vision of intervention. Similarly, Captain America punches Hitler before the US enters the war, implying that heroes and in turn, America, should lead the fight for justice. These stories also simplify complex political realities to clear fights for good vs evil. This can be motivating, but at the same time risks ignoring the real world implications and costs of war.
The role of the superhero is to do the morally right thing that benefits all of society. In the Superman comic even though he wants to hurt Hitler and Stalin, he instead brings them to the League of Nations to impose/ subject them to the law. In the Ultraman comic Ultraman directly talks to world leaders and solves the conflict by exposing corrupt officials. In a way a superhero acts like an ideal government.
I agree with your point, in every aspect of superheroes, they try to save the world, they try to minimize the violence, if they have to use it, its because its necessary. In the Captain America comic, even though Captain America punches both Hitler and Stalin, he turns them into the League of Nations, basically ending up saving the world. In all the comics books, the superheroes act like how a government is supposed to act, protecting their own.
All the comics make superheroes feel like more than just people saving random citizens. It’s like they’re supposed to represent America, stepping in when no one else can handle it. Superman just ends the war by himself, which feels like a total fantasy of how strong and good America thinks it is. Captain America does the same thing, even before the U.S. officially joined, with him punching Hitler right on the cover like it’s obvious we should be there. Even when they disagree about how involved to be, all of them still make superheroes feel like they’re shaping history, not just fighting crime on the street.
The Role of the Superhero in Society
⤹Click the reply button just below.
These comics portray superheroes as superhuman people who are the model of rationality and upstanding citizens. The comics portray all these heroes as upholding the law process of the United States with the exception of Superman which brought Hitler and Stalin to the League of Nations to be tried. Both Superman and Ultra man recognize that the war started with unnecessary aggression from nations, claiming land that neither has a right to, and in all 3 comics it is the role of the Superhero to bring people to a justice system like court and the League of Nations, but also defend democratic systems like congress.
Yes, I completely agree. Like in the superman comic, people are supposed to look up to him for choosing to deal with the problems through the diplomatic way. Superman didn’t just beat the bad guys, he brought them to justice. These superheros are supposed to show people what being a good citizen looks like. The reasons that you already said, as well as choosing peace over violence when you can, as shown in superman, but even superman used very little force.
I agree with you. I think that the superheroes are depicted in a superhuman and almost conventionally attractive way as their body is extremely fit and face very masculine with sharp angles. I think that by portraying them as conventionally attractive and masculine, it illustrates that they are the democratic and just ones, whereas Hitler and Stalin are ugly villains.
Every superhero in these comics are depicted as upstanding citizens; I believe they are intended to be role models to the public, no matter a person’s upbringing or status. In the Captain America comic, Steve and Bucky are both scrawny soldiers who came from nothing. Despite this, they are determined to do whatever they can for their country. I believe the writers wanted to empower all men for the cause, especially because of the final page’s encouragement to join the “Sentinels of Liberty.” Superman, on the other hand, is an unbiased alien who comes from another planet. Even though his character has no prior connection to Earth, he still chooses America’s side in upholding justice. He shows us that, if a god-like being is on America’s side, supporting the states is the right thing to do.
I agree with the idea that superhero’s are meant to serve the purpose of being role models in our society. Additionally, I think they could act as a call to action for injustice in the world. We can see in the Superman comic the impossibly heroic nature of his actions. I liked the phrasing that you used–“if a god-like being is on America’s side, supporting the states is the right thing to do.” This rhetoric is still spread in superhero media today. In the recent rendition of Superman, many found the movie to explore the political climate in today’s world and serves as a moral guideline for people today.
Many superheroes represent a specific population that they protect and live for. For example, Batman protects and represents Gotham, while Superman protects and represents Metropolis. In the case of Captain America, he represents and protects the image of the United States. We can especially see this in Simon and Kirby’s comic, where America can be seen punching Hitler, who was a clear enemy of the United States. Simon and Kirby may have created Captain America to inspire nationalism in America and to strengthen the belief that the country had the power to take down a villain as dangerous as Hitler.
This observation is so unique, I never would have made this connection myself. I think it’s worth questioning why every other villain/hero defends a fictional place and not Captain America.
Even though they differ in tones, both Captain America #1 and the Ultra-Man story in All-Star Comics #1 portray a shared belief that America bears a responsibility in shaping the worlds future. Captain America is the ultimate in-your-face call for intervention, depicting America as the moral authority (him getting violent with Hitler on the cover), representing America’s retaliation against evil before WW2 had even started. Ultra-Man illustrates a distant future where America has separated itself from warfare happening in Europe, but it ceaselessly stands as a symbol for global peace. One comic advocates for immediate intervention and the other presents reservation followed by an ideal global leadership, they both portray the same message: America is not a back-seat nation and it is the guiding force for world order.
In many regards, superheroes are treated as the ideal American. Captain America embodies this ideal the most, with him being a citizen unfit for military service but, when given the opportunity, decides to take an experimental drug in order to help protect his country. Metaphorically, I believe this is how the United States views their citizens to be. American citizens should live up to the ideal of protecting their country at all costs, and do what is necessary. Even the children should seek to be the ideal citizen and do everything to help the adults in wartime. This is seen prominently within Bucky’s relationship with Captain America, being his sidekick.
I agree, superhero’s are always depicted in this light where they are everyones savior, and the knight in shining armor. In society, they are idolized and like in Captain America, he was this ordinary person who couldn’t enlist but after the transformation, he was the ideal candidate in the army. They used him as a way to encourage other people to enlist as well. Additionally, in history, they used to do something similar to recruit people such as Uncle Sam, and Rosie the Riveter. There were many different people that were used for propaganda and which led to further meaning behind their existence.
These comics portray superheroes as models for the perfect citizen. Throughout all the comics, they bring order and peace with as little violence as possible, although they do fight their enemies. Ultra-Man, specifically, tries to find as many solutions as possible that do not involve people using violence against each other.
The Role of the Superhero in Society
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The comics image the superhero’s as a powerful force for shaping society in a moment of crisis for the better. Therefore comics portray the superhero’s as strong fearless men that go to stop the war. In Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, “How Superman Would Win the War,”, comic book, Superman go finds Hitler and Stalin, to turn them in to the League of Nations to have peace again in the world. This shows that Superman is ending the war through direct action but as well that there should be a moral of justice and peace in the world.
I agree, I feel like the superhero’s were a powerful force in society. More specifically, because they provided hope for the public and gave them something to feel empowered during wartimes.
These comics show the role of a superhero in society as someone who is brave and stands up for their country. Each of the comics show the main superhero defeating the bad guys (Hitler, Nazis, etc) and receiving praise in the end. This could help to motivate the young men being shipped off to war by viewing themselves as superheros for their society who will personally defeat the enemy and come home to lots of excitement and thankfulness.
I agree! Just like we learned in social science and rhetoric, there were several ways they tried to recruit people to join the war whether that be fearmongering people to join or portraying people as buff and they could be buff too if they joined the war.
These comics show the superhero as a force of absolute justice who works beyond political boundaries. In the comic “How Superman Would Win the War,” Superman ends the war by grabbing Hitler and Stalin, taking them to court. It would take longer time if government tried to capture Hitler and Stalin but it took less time for Superman to bring them to the court. It shows that the superheroes are clear good guys who solve things fast.
I agree, It is like the superhero’s were above the law in some ways because they did not have to do things the way regular people would have. Your example about the court does a really good job at further demonstrating this.
I though superheroes were forces of absolute justice, too, who were responsible for enforcing moral code and establishing peace. It’s interesting that Superman took Hitler and Stalin to court, as opposed to using violence and killing them or beating them up. Even when all the hero’s are fighting, there’s a lack of blood and brutality, and even Superman himself defaults to destroying machines and cannons as opposed to directly hurting humans. This makes superheroes seem above such graphic, primitive violence.
The comics convey superheroes to be exemplar role models physically and morally. In the Captain America comic, they illustrate him with a great physique as he is tall and muscular. His physical strength influence him to do heroic and brave actions such as fighting Hitler. They also portraying as a moral example as they illustrate him volunteering for the war and to willingly change himself to help society or in general his country. The purpose of portraying a physically strong man with high morals as a superhero is for the audience to desire to be like them and become outstanding citizens that contribute to the war.
The superhero is present as a perfect personification of the legal system. They know the clear boundary between right and wrong with the absolute power to carry out punishment for anyone who breaks the law. On top of that, the action of a superhero is not being judged, but being supported. No one challenged the rightfulness of the superhero to punish the criminal.
I think superheroes were portrayed as characters that steps up when government is being ineffective. It shows Superman winning the war by directly capturing Hitler and Stalin, bypassing the political and military systems. This calls out the inaction in the government system, and tells a fantasy of pure justice over bureaucracy. Such as in Captain America #1, Captain America punches Hitler on the cover, this is an image of direct heroism.
Across these comics, it seems as though superheroes are imagined as moral agents who step in when institutions are failing to uphold the justice they had previously promised to maintain. In the comic How Superman Would Win the War, Superman’s delivery of Hitler and Stalin to a court suggests a belief that decisive and heroic action are necessary from an other being when diplomacy falls short. Captain America #1 appears to share this same view towards the failings of diplomacy, when they open with a direct assault on Hitler that implies intervention is a moral imperative. Even Gary Concord, the Ultra-Man, although it is illustrated far more cautiously, presents its hero as a stabilizing figure. When looking at these three together, these stories seem to reflect an underlying assumption that superheroes exist to confront disorder and tyranny where others hesitate.
These comics see superhero’s as the role model for society. They are the pinnacle of humanity, both physically and ethically. In this way, they function as excellent propaganda, as the author can simply have their hero acting one way and it can be seen as the best course of action.
Casablanca and the Case for Intervention
⤹Click the reply button just below.
(1:37:29-1:38:03)
One thing that can be read as advocating American intervention in WWII was when Rick helped Laszlo and Ilsa to escape at the airport. Laszlo said to Rick that “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win”. This suggests that American intervention could be a game-changer in WWII. And it turned out that it was Rick who shot the German officer, allowing Laszlo and Ilsa to successfully escape. American intervention was quite successful in the movie.
I couldn’t agree with you more! As I was watching the last scene, I noticed the music changed to be very triumphant and glorious, celebrating the win. This further implies that America’s intervention in WWII would be successful. I also notice that as the two men walk into the night, the surroundings are clear of any obstacles, and the sky looks so peaceful. This further illustrates how the U.S. could make an impact in transforming a once chaotic and monstrous war into a happy ending.
Yes, and this was the moment where Laszlo chose duty over his love for Ilsa. Laszlo’s love for Ilsa caused him to behave in ways he wouldn’t normally do, such as sit and have a drink with patrons or put himself on the line by shooting the chief of police. By going outside of the boundaries for love, it would be expected that he would do the same when put in the situation of being able to be with Ilsa. However, his decision not to choose Ilsa for the sake of the country changes the directory of the message for the viewers at the time, encouraging duty towards the country over personal feelings for oneself.
Beyond the ending of the movie where Rick, the American in the film, helps Laszlo escape, the entire character of Rick seems very metaphorical for the United States. A hesitant American who doesn’t “Stick his neck out for anybody”, allows people to get arrested in his bar, turns a blind eye to illegalities from both sides in the war, and once had strong convictions and ideals, feels as though Rick is the thoughts of an America in WW2. He is isolationist but struggles with the notion that he should be helping fight, so when he is prompted to do so, he does, literally shooting a German officer, which for me felt like a strong moment for the case of intervention.
I heavily agree with your interpretation of Rick being almost a metaphor of America. Almost like how America was aware of what was going on but only joined the war effort later, when it served a benefit to the U.S.A. It’s why the moment you pointed out is so powerful and important since it’s contrasting this image and idea previously created. Personally the moment stood out to me a lot and this interpretation makes it even more so.
Casablanca and the Case for Intervention
⤹Click the reply button just below.
At 1:13:10 the Germans are singing their patriotic song, at this time Victor asks the band of the Saloon to play “La Marseillaise” to drown the Germans out. In social science we learned that “La Marseillaise” is a French Patriotic song about the French Revolution. Rick doesn’t stop the song from being played and sung in his saloon, instead at 1:13:24 he gives a head nod to the rest of the band to join in on the “La Marseillaise”. This entire scene portrays the French Resistance as brave, and the Nazi’s as oppressive. With approval to play “La Marseillaise”, it shows the American intervention because Rick, an American, is moving away from being neutral, and is now taking a side.
I agree this is a very pivotal moment in the movie, and I think a large part of it is due to Ilsa. Before Ilsa’s arrival, Rick was extremely neutral, and would not even take a drink with anyone to maintain the image that he was not favoring either side. However, when Ilsa arrived he took a drink with her and Victor, which was a very subtle slide to their side. After this, the first major instance was the moment you mentioned, when he allowed the band to join “La Marseillaise.” Rick took the actions he took for Ilsa, he left his neutral stance for her. I think that this reflects the sentiment of the Americans when they chose to enter the war effort- the belief of fighting for the women and children, fighting for the “innocent” of society.
I agree this part of the movie is important because it portrays the french resilience against the nazis in the saloon and the fact that an American shows how the movie director views the US’s role in global peace and politics. In addition, it views the US’s role as vital and as a leader in global peace and more than a supporter. The American doesn’t just support the French people singing the Marsellaise, but he starts the singing to lead the French people against the Germans.
Yes, and the reason Victor asks to play the French song isn’t because it fit the mood or was something he personally wanted in the moment, but because he wanted to drown out the Nazis, who were villainously singing their anthem and filling the saloon with their presence. It’s interesting to see that even though the Germans started singing first, they were ultimately overpowered by the sheer force and unity of the band and the crowd.
I think this scene is very powerful and it can be seen as a call to action for American intervention because it is showing how even in the presence of Nazis, the French are not afraid to show their patriotism and courage. This portrayal of courage and bravery is a sort of encouragement for Americans to know that although the Nazis are very powerful in Europe, there is still people who are holding out and they are in need of help.
At the end of the movie, when Rick and Victor are saying their goodbyes, Victor says something about how he knows that they will win this time. This is referring to him going to America, where this time, he will be able to get the Americans involved in the war to help win. This is calling to action the Americans to fight the good fight that many are already fighting for, while also showing how much of a difference the Americans can make to turn the tide of the war.
I agree with your analysis, and I wanted to add to it by referencing the last line of the movie,” This will be a beautiful friendship.” This line signifies to me that not only will Rick and Renault become friends, but that this represents how America should intervene in the War with other countries. As Rick is American and Captain Renault is French, this shows that alliances between countries to fight injustice should be promoted.
I agree with this perspective of this scene and want to add that this is the moment where Victor shares his hope in American involvement in the war but also the recognition of his friend Rick’s shift from being neutral to actually fighting against the injustices of the war. When Victor says his goodbyes he says, “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win”. Victor is proud of Rick for standing up for peace and justice as he seems to finally realize the cost of war. Victor also shows his trust within the American government to put an end to the war as he seems to be sure in his statement.
I think the specific scene where the Bulgarian woman comes to Rick saying that Captain Renault is demanding sex from her in order to get exit visas because they cannot afford it is the start of Rick’s morality change. The American call for intervention was fuel from protecting women and children from starving/misery, protecting family ideals, and protecting working men’s honor. If Rick didn’t help this woman out, she would be forced to suffer or be unfaithful to her husband, which makes Americans very upset because against the nuclear family ideal and keeping women safe/protected (strong American values). Rick rigging the gambling game to let the Bulgarian woman’s husband win enough money shows him indirectly protecting these values and is the starting point of his neutrality to intervention character growth. His shift in character advocated for intervention.
I agree with your comment, and I would like to add that it directly connects to the Judeo-Christian values that American society is built on: protecting the vulnerable, standing up against moral corruption, and remaining faithful to one’s spouse or partner, regardless of the circumstances. Rick’s decision to rig the game exemplifies righteous defiance against a corrupt system. This aligns with the Judeo-Christian belief in intervening when someone is being oppressed or exploited. He also believes he should do whatever is necessary to help someone stay faithful to their spouse because he upholds these American Judeo-Christian values.
I think you pointed out something very interesting. As a person with strong morals that are rooted in American values, protecting women and children is clearly a deal breaker for him. The moment Rick rigs the game for the Bulgarian women, is the moment where you see a soft call to action. It signals him slowly but surely taking a stand or at least leaning towards a side. For someone who has tried as much as he could to stay neutral, standing up for the woman is a bold move.
I felt like there were multiple instances throughout the movie that seemed to subtly suggest that the United States should intervene in WWII. From ways of production to the content of the film you can see multiple parts and aspects of the movie that suggest the United States should restore order and bring peace through intervention. A specific part of the movie that I felt suggests the United States should intervene is when the camera cuts from the orchestra’s energetic performance to images of the United State’s soldiers watching intently, smiling with happiness, and nodding their head displaying a sense of agreement.
America might’ve been what the people and ex-pats in Casablanca were subtly looking/praying for as the presence of Germans in Casablanca increased.
Ricks character as a whole is representative of America during WW2. His repetitive comment “I don’t stick my neck out for anyone” in the beginning of the film is similar to Americas hesitant entry into the war. But as the film progressed, we see that Rick does starts doing favors for people such as the Laszlo’s. Ricks decision to help Victor and ilsa mimics America’s decision to enter the war to help out its allies and fight fascism.
Rick’s attitude towards politics in the beginning of the film points to American attitudes at the beginning of World War II. Rick would say “I stick my neck out for nobody,” referring to any position where he needed to take a stand or take action in any situation where he may be deemed contentious. This is similar to American isolationism following World War I, and their hesitancy to enter into another World War. Eventually, Rick does aid his ex-lover, Isla, and her husband, Victor, escape. This progression may look like a call to action for American intervention in World War II.
A quote that sticks out to me is when, after seeing Isla again for the first time, Rick says “I bet they’re asleep in New York. I bet they’re asleep all over America.” This moment recognizes the American’s ignorance to the danger of the Nazis and politics in Europe. Additionally, it shows Rick’s character becoming more aware of his obligation to ‘wake up’ and take decisive action against the Germans.
Casablanca and the Case for Intervention
⤹Click the reply button just below.
There’s a scene where Victor leads the patrons of Rick’s cafe in singing the French national anthem to drown out the group of German officers singing their German nationalist tune. Ironically, we actually looked at this scene in social science last semester when we were talking about the French Revolution, and overall, this scene speaks to more than a dramatic standoff. It symbolically pits the Allies (France and others) against the Axis powers (Nazi Germany), with the public choosing to stand against Germany. This could be seen as advocating for the Americans to join the war because it is a fight against tyranny (that Nazi Germany champions). Ultimately, this scene portrays resistance as noble and emotional, which could endorse intervention “on the side of justice” or “the right side”.
I agree that this scene, where they drown out the officers singing a German patriotic song with the French national anthem, advocated for America to intervene in the war. To expand on how it does so, I think it’s important to note that “La Marseillaise” is, first and foremost, a call to arms song. During the French Revolution, the song was meant to inspire the French people to take up arms against the monarchy. This nature of the song can be seen in the line “Aux armes, citoyens” which roughly translates to “to arms, citizens”. This reinforces your assessment that this scene is advocating for the US to intervene on the side of the Allies in WW2.
At the end of the movie (starting at 1:37:30), we witness Rick give Victor letters to help him and Ilsa escape Casablanca. Victor replies, “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.” This powerful statement from Victor highlights Rick’s stance on (finally) siding with the anti-Nazi resistance, despite showing neutrality throughout a majority of the movie. Furthermore, Rick’s shift reflects that of America’s switch from isolationism to actively participating in WWII: now that America (or symbolically in this instance, Rick) is involved, there is renewed hope that the Allies will win.
One of the most iconic scenes in the movie that advocates for American Intervention in WWII is when Victor Laszlo leads the people in Rick’s bar in singing “La Marseillaise” in order to out sing the Nazi German soldiers singing a patriotic anthem. In doing so, it’s not just simply about national pride as Casablanca was under French occupation, but to call attention to the moral duty and necessity to fight back against the Nazis actively trying to put people in concentration camps. This scene calls for Rick (and the American people watching the film) to take more of a stand, which pushes them to, even though America tried to stay indifferent. It pushes the narrative that staying complicit and neutral is simply not an option, and we must fight when injustice is at our doorsteps.
I totally agree with your idea of how it call attention to he moral duty to the audience, during many scene in the movie rick are push to be involved in the event as he face difficult choice: he can chose inaction and thereby watch other suffer or he can step in and prevent the happening of the tragedy. This is a subtle advocate for American to join the war as is implying U.S.A has the ability to stop the on-going war(create peace), therefor by not participate, U.S. A face the judgement of unethical.
One scene where Casablanca calls for America intervention is the scene where Victor tells the band to play Marseilles in response to the Nazis’ song. The band briefly looks to Rick for approval, and he gives them a slight nod of approval. Though Rick isn’t directly involved with the act of defiance against the Nazis, this scene marks the beginning of Rick’s departure from neutrality. The once “I don’t stick my neck out for anybody” diplomat becomes involved, even slightly, in a powerful demonstration of French independence (ironic, given that this takes place in Morocco). The final stage of his development is seen when he helps Victor and Ilsa escape, despite the risks and sacrifices involved.
Your definitely right about the symbolism of the scenes. Interestingly, the timeline of Rick’s move out of neutrality follows the US. The US does smaller things in trade and communication to support the allies, but in a final act joins the war after Pearl Harbor.
A moment in the movie where there was a scene about advocating for American intervention in World War II was at the very beginning at around 0:04:40 when the narrator starts talking about how desperate some countries in Europe were for America to intervene in the war. It states “With the coming of the Second World War, many eyes in imprisoned Europe turned towards the freedom of the Americas.” I feel like this really set the tone for the rest of the movie with how straight forward it kind of was about wanting America’s help.
Throughout the entire movie, America gets mentioned several times in relation to people in power. Rick himself is from America and his actions in the movie, almost represent America’s intervention as well. When Major Strasser tries to stop Ilsa and Laszlo from flying away, Rick shoots and kills him. This action represents Rick’s break from neutrality, where up until then, he’s been known for his motto, “I stick my neck out for nobody.” But here, he risks his life to help Laszlo escape. Symbolically, this can be taken as America taking a decisive stand. Rick chooses to fight fascism directly, no longer hiding behind self-interest. The film urges America to embrace its responsibility and join the fight for principles of justice and freedom.
When Rick says at the end of the film “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship” is a moment that is advocating for America to join the war. Rick represents America, and Louis represents France, so when they say that they are becoming friends, this is advocating for America to be friends with France, and join the side of the war for justice, and help them win.
Rick, Sam, and the Problem of Race
⤹Click the reply button just below.
(38:33-40:30)
This scene portrays the aftermath of Rick seeing Ilsa for the first time since their time together in Paris, in which she ends up leaving a note saying she can’t go away with him. Rick is drinking alcohol alone, after the closing of his cafe, when Sam finds him there and refuses to leave, expressing a great deal of loyalty and empathy towards Rick. Through this scene, Casablanca seems to convey that true friendship doesn’t see color as Rick doesn’t treat him as anything other than brother-like figure who understands the pain without trying to invalidate it. However, I can’t help thinking if the naivety that Sam attempts to play off is a boundary within the friendship, in which Sam feels he can’t completely overstep with communication of his own thoughts on the matter.
I like your reading of this scene. It true that Rick andSam relationship is framed as unusually close for the time, like it’s a friendship that crosses racial lines. But I also agree there’s boundary there thats intentional. Sam role is emotional; he’s the one that understands Rick without words but that understanding doesn’t work both ways. Rick rarely ask Sam about his own feelings and he just expects loyalty.That dynamic shows how black emotional alibi is often normalized and barely ever reciprocated. The film suggest a progressive friendship but still reinforces a power imbalance that reflects broad racial hierarchies in American at that time.
This is a really good interpretation on this scene. I also noticed how close they were, despite the race difference. I would also like to add that Sam is a piano player, and even though Rick rudely asked him to play the song he played for Ilsa, “As Time Goes By.” I think this song is a good representation of their relationship as well because it represents the fact that Sam played this song for Ilsa and for Rick. I think this song can even show a deeper meaning in the relationship among Ilsa, Sam, and Rick. Even though it seems that they are both close and friendly with each other, I can’t help but notice how rude Rick is and how little Sam is aknowledged. I feel like Sam is the one helping Rick most of the time, especially in the scene Sanaa mentioned. However, even so, it is clear that Sam, even though being black, was able to gain Rick’s trust and loyalty, even though he was white. Casablanca is trying to show that friendship is more than race but it is about loyalty. They do not only have an employee-employer relationship but a relationship build on trust, talent, and loyalty to each other. Sam always makes sure that Rick is okay, even in this scene when he tries to distract Rick from his moment of sadness.
Yes, I think this is a great a analysis and I’d have to agree. There is the appearance of progression with the friendship that seems great at surface level, but there are definite undertones. The racial dynamics that were common at this point time are much more subtle within this friendship, but the difference in empathy and behavior shows that there was a hierarchy of sorts in the friendship and that they each served a bit of a different purpose. I think this is much more put into perspective looking throughout the film as a whole and seeing sam’s other limitations because of his race, and then you can see he even had limitations within a seemingly close relationship.
I really like your analysis of their relationship, especially the brotherhood because there is this sense of loyalty between the two of them. In 17:17 this other club owner asks to ‘buy’ same and how much he is for and Rick says that he isn’t for sale no matter how much money. They then walk over to talk to Sam and offer him ‘double’ what he pays him and Sam says ‘I like it fine here.’ I am sure this isn’t the first time someone has offered to pay Sam more, yet he is so quick to decline. I do see that there may be this boundary put up but I think it goes both ways. Rick seems to be more of a private individual-especially after leaving Paris-and Sam seems to respect that. I feel like male friendships are different than female friendships, in the sense that they don’t always share their inter most thoughts with each other but rather they have an understanding and a comfortability with each other.
Rick, Sam, and the Problem of Race
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Rick and Sam’s relationship is notably loyal and endearing in Casablanca, but there are dynamics of race from 1940s America that can be seen in the folds. At a point in the film Sam plays “As Time Goes By,” per Ilsa’s request, Rick hears this song and immediately approaches him in a hostile way, but all he desires is to relive the moment with Ilsa. A sort of underlying hierarchy is reflected here: Because he trusts Rick, he doesn’t challenge his decisions, manifesting his role serving as a side-character. His emotional labor is expressed through music and helps guide the film’s romance, but viewers don’t see his internal character explored. This is representative of Duke Ellington’s “Take the A Train” or “Shine” by Louis Armstrong where black musicians were robbed of the spotlight, even though they heavily influenced American culture. Much like how these songs portray a theme of silence and impact of black artistry through Sam’s repeated presence at Rick’s cafe, Casablanca’s narrative keeps Rick as a supporting role to emphasize America’s cultural bounty and its racial differences.
Rick, Sam, and the Problem of Race
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In contrast from what WWII made the people of Germany believe, Casablanca demonstrates how race shouldn’t affect a friendship or relationship in society. In the scene where Rick is drunk and heartbroken, Sam insists for him to leave home or even offers to take him for a long drive and go fishing with the purpose of him to leave the place that is breaking him apart after the encounter he had with Ilsa. Despite Rick rejecting his offers and ordering him to play their song, and refusing to leave, Sam decides to stay with Rick the entire time. In this case, Rick is the one going through struggles, the “problematic one”, and despite the racial prejudices that are going around due to the war, that doesn’t limit Sam to be a great and reliable friend. In other words, Casablanca addresses how there should be no racial problems as in this friendship illustrated, Sam and Rick are great friends despite their difference in race.
A particular moment that caught my eye in Rick’s and Sam’s relationship was at 35:32, when Rick goes to stop Sam from playing “As Time Goes By”. From here I understood that Rick still has authority figure onto Sam but still have a brotherhood relationship. I say this because before Sam was trying his hardest to not play the song, due to him knowing Rick would get upset if he heard the song because it caused him to remember about his past with Ilsa. Therefore, Rick still has an power over Sam because if he does not follow the rules Rick tells him he could get fired and lose a true friend.
I think the film puts in a good amount of effort to show Black cultural contributions, but it still reflects the era’s racial boundaries. In the film, Rick treats Sam with more respect than other characters do. Sam sits at Rick’s table and speaks freely with him, showing a level of trust. However, Sam is still an employee of Rick, not a full partner. Although, he’s respected, the stereotype back then still didn’t allow people of color as a power holding character.
I most definitely agree with the point you make about how the film tries to acknowledge Black cultural contributions while still confining Sam to a subordinate role. What also stood out to me when I was first watching Casablanca was how the film seems to use jazz as a symbol of American identity, yet doesn’t fully extend that symbolism to Sam as a character. Even though Sam plays a central emotional role and is clearly valued by Rick, the fact that his agency remains limited, where it is shown he doesn’t make decisions or shape events, reinforces the idea that Black presence was often vital yet still left to be in the background. It seems the film wants to gesture toward inclusivity without challenging the deeper power structures of the time.
Rick, Ilsa, and Victor: Love, Passion, and History
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Casablanca, at the start of the movie love is portrayed as painful and chaotic. The reason is because of the way Lisa left Rick in Paris. However by the end of the film love is portrayed as selfless because Rick chooses to let Lisa go in order for her to support her husband Victor. The key takeaway the writer wants the audience to take away is love is initially hurtful, but ultimately becomes the force for order in a world during war time.
I think the role of love in Casablanca and in general is a force pushing people to “do the right thing”. In Casablanca specifically, Rick’s love for Ilsa forces him to do the right thing and give the letters to Victor Laszlo and Ilsa. Just in the same way that Victor would sacrifice himself to make sure Ilsa survives. Love was the transformative factor that turned Rick from being innocent and hopeful in Paris to cynical in Casablanca but it is also love that lets him see through his pessimism and anger to see the importance of Victor Laszlo’s work. Its in this way that love is a chaotic force that brings a sort of order in this movie.
I really liked your interpretation as it really captures the complexity of “Casablanca” so well. I especially agree with the idea that love is a chaotic force that somehow leads to order. That contradiction really fits the tone of the film. Love transforming Rick is what pulls him out of his bitterness and helps him see beyond his own pain. In that way, love becomes a kind of moral compass for both Rick and Victor, guiding their actions even in the middle of all the chaos.
I think you make an great point about love being both chaotic and powerful. It’s interesting to see how Rick evolves as a result of love, not just falling in love with Ilsa, but also recognizing that love often requires sacrifices. That’s what motivates him to help Victor and Ilsa escape, no matter how painful it is. I would also say that the film shows how love can open people’s eyes to something greater than themselves. Rick starts by stating he sticks his neck out for no one, but by the end, he has risked everything. So, while love may shake things up, it is also what drives people in Casablanca to do the right thing in the end.
In the film, love is portrayed as both powerful and complicated which is seen in the love triangle with Rick,ILSA, and Victor. When Ilsa walks into Rick’s nightclub, it causes Rick to lose his thought and he starts to drink heavily and he pushes her away because she left him in Paris without an explanation. Their love was shown through a flashback along with the memory of how they were separated by war. Rick sacrifices his own feelings despite being in love, and he chooses to let her go. It falls into the idea “if you rlly love them you have to let them go” and that’s what he did.
You make a strong point that love in Casablanca is both powerful and complicated, especially through Rick’s emotional spiral after Ilsa reappears. I’d add that the way Rick handles his love and by choosing to let Ilsa go shows that the love in the film isn’t just about personal happiness, but about doing what’s right in a larger context. His sacrifice isn’t just romantic, it’s also extremely political. By taking stepping back, Rick allows Victor to proceed with his resistance work, showing that sometimes love means putting one’s own desire second to the good of all. The film thereby suggests that love, as painful as it may be, can lead to moral focus and heroic behavior.
Casablanca portrays love and passion in a nuanced way that suggests it’s both a force for order and chaos. Love that is full of passion leads to chaos, like how the meeting between Rick and Isla in Casablanca leads to a rekindling in their past relationship. It sends Rick into an emotional turmoil as he begins drinking and rethinking their every interaction in Paris. But love that is full of duty brings order as Rick knows that by letting Isla get on the plane with Victor, he is saving her from regret and helping Victor continue the fight against fascism. In the end, I think Casablanca is suggesting that love is meant to be more than passion because that leads to chaos, but meant to serve something greater so that it can lead to order.
Yes, and I think the movie shows that even when love feels chaotic, it can end up creating a kind of order if the people involved actually make a choice to put something bigger first. Like with Rick, his feelings for Ilsa make him a mess at first, but it’s also what pushes him to finally take a stand and do something selfless. It’s kind of like the movie saying that love isn’t supposed to just burn everything down or be all passion. It can actually push people toward decisions that matter in the larger scheme of things.
Casablanca suggests that while love and passion are vital aspects of the human experience, their role in society must be balanced by responsibility, sacrifice, and a commitment to the common good. Love is neither wholly orderly nor chaotic, it just depends on how individuals choose to act on it. It showcases love and passion as something very human yet also quite complex, able to motivate sacrifice, but at the same time, it can jeopardize personal responsibilities and social stability.
I think love is naturally chaotic in Casablanca. It makes Rick act in ways he wouldn’t, such as how he constantly repeats that he sticks his head out for no one, but ships Laszlo and Ilsa off at the end of the film. However Laszlo is much more normal about his romance, however it does make him stay with Ilsa longer than he says he would (there is that one scene where he’s talking about all the times he sorta wanted to leave her).
Exactly, Rick’s tough, “no attachments” facade completely breaks down because of love it pushes him to make selfless choices that go against everything he says about not risking himself for anyone. His decision to let Ilsa go with Laszlo is heartbreaking but shows how deeply love unsettles him. As for Laszlo, you’re right he’s steadier, more grounded in his commitment, but love still complicates him. That scene where he admits he thought about leaving Ilsa reveals that even the “normal” side of love carries its own doubts and struggles. So, love in Casablanca isn’t just chaotic for Rick; it challenges all three characters in different, very human ways. It’s messy, complicated, and never just straightforward.
Although at the beginning of the film, love is portrayed as chaotic and selfish (due to Lisa having an affair and breaking her lover’s heart), it is later seen as selfless, as Rick sacrifices himself and lets Viktor and Lisa go. This movie argues that true love does not prioritize personal fulfillment, but instead serves the greater good. It reframes love as a selfish indulgence into self-sacrifice.
Rick, Ilsa, and Victor: Love, Passion, and History
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Considering how the movie plays out, love and passion appear to be an agent of chaos. Ilsa and Rick’s love for each other causes them both to do impulsive, unpredictable things. For example, Rick fights back against authority to rescue Ilsa even though he was never known to put himself at risk for anybody before. Love is normally seen as a pure, virtuous force; perhaps Casablanca is sending a message that going against duty is the right thing to do.
I agree with you that love is an agent of chaos in Casablanca. For me, the most interesting part of the film is the lack of loyalty and the frivolous nature of love — at least from a modern standpoint First and foremost, Ilse cheats on her husband while he is in a concentration camp, which she lies to her husband about. Ilsa betrays his love. She also leads Rick on, which torments him emotionally for years. For both of these incidents, she faces no serious repercussions; in general, her portrayal in the movie does not suggest that these are sickening actions. This sends the message that love in many ways was not treated as seriously of an endeavor. In the case of Victor and Ilse, it seems she is with him partly because he is of high social standing and can enjoy the protection that comes with it. We see this confirmation of the unserious tone of love with the proposition of marriage that arise in the film. Rick proposes to Ilse after only knowing her for at most a few weeks (this is implied because he says he counted the number of days they knew each other). Today, all of these behaviors would be incredibly frowned upon — especially with the digital age, people have very high standards for their future partners. In the movie, these actions do lead to plot complications, but they do not face society’s judgment for it.
the films argument through the love triangle is that true love will always involve sacrifice, even for the greater good. despite the undeniable passion with IIsa, rick chose Laszlo. love can be seen as a way to reinforce social order.
In “Casablanca”, I feel as though the love triangle is meant to illustrate how love sometimes comes with sacrifice. At the end of the film, Rick lets go of Ilsa in order to keep her safe from the surrounding chaos, even if that means he won’t get to see her again and she’ll be with Laszlo. Additionally, it is also a message of how love can make a person courageous enough to push through the brutality of war, even if it means putting one’s own life and freedom at risk.
Love seems to be a force for chaos but also at the same time a sort of order. Despite the love between Rick and Ilsa, Rick decides to sacrifice himself and stays behind despite threatening so many figures of authority. In this way, there is chaos since many more deaths and risks arose due to these decisions and the feeling of sentimental love. For the sake of love, Rick decided to stay behind and not put Ilsa in risk. On the other hand, Victor was also willing to sacrifice his safety for that of his wife. And that wasn’t the only instance of that example since Victor had already did that in Paris. Rather, it was Ilsa that was still in love with Rick even though she had a husband to begin with. So love had a sort of dependency but it also tend to cause chaos at that time.
I would definitely say that the relationship between order and chaos in regards to love is dependent on the context. When Rick betrays the French Officer, he creates chaos in the hope that order will be created for the Ally nations and the stability of Ilsa’s life. Rick throws away his life in Casablanca in order to protect the one he loves. I think in Rick’s case, the love he has for Ilsa allows him to create the chaos needed to create order.
The film shows love in a selfless way and enforces ideas of sacrifice. In the love triangle, Rick sacrifices his own selfish desire to help Ilsa and Victor escape because it is the best choice. In this instance, love acts as a form of order because it pushes Rick to do what is best for Ilsa. Love acts as an order that made Rick do a risky action for someone he loved.
Rick, Ilsa, and Victor: Love, Passion, and History
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A scene that said a lot to me about how love could turn chaos into understanding, or order, was when Ilsa held a gun to Rick to threaten him into giving her letters. Pulling a gun on someone is an extremely violent action, but in this scene, Rick stays calm and accepts that there is a gun pointed at him. He knows Ilsa isn’t going to actually shoot him, and instead, she ends up confessing that she missed him and still loves him. This violent moment turns into a passionate, wholesome moment, and she falls into his embrace. I think this says that the role of love, passion, and empathy in society can soften the chaos and violence of the world and that it can be a force, an emotion used for good & order.
I feel that a large theme in this movie is that love can generate a purpose for one’s actions. The reason why Rick ends up sending Victor and Ilse on the plane is because Ilse is Victor’s reason for his work. Even though this is not the desire of either Ilse or Rick, Victor’s work is seen by both of them as something that is more necessary for the world than is their love, which Rick says is nothing but a “hill of beans in this crazy world”. In this way, love is a force of order and reason for outrageous acts that may otherwise be deemed as foolish.
In Casablanca, the love triangle is between Rick, Ilsa, and Laszlo. Rick and IIsa were in love in Paris before the war, but she left hum without explanation. Later, they meet again but she is now with Laszlo. As story goes on Rick decided to let her fo and helps her and Laszlo escape even though he still loves her. The movie shows that love and passion can be strong but they shouldn’t vause chaos or selfish actions. Instead, when guided by duty and sacrifice, love can help bring order. Rick’s choice proves that love isn’t just about what you want but it’s about doing what’s right, even if it hurts.
Between the love triangle, I believe love is a force for order instead of chaos. Even though Ilsa pulled a gun on Rick, the violence turned into something positive. I guess by bringing order it can bring clarity despite doing actions that are not right and if love was seen as a force for chaos, then that’s not really love it’s more of being a psychopath.
With Rich sacrificing himself for Ilse and making the best choice for her, he doesn’t do this simply out of his love for her, bur for the future. He is looking years ahead, and realizing that resistance triumphs over passion and love in the moment. While love is chaotic–as seen with the messy love triangle and Ilse’s dilemma–it’s ultimately a force for order. It’s love and hope for the future that makes people sacrifice themselves for a bigger movement, even if they are left alone without their love in the end. Rich saying “we’ll always have paris” reminded me of soldiers who had to leave their wives and family when they had to fight in the war; even though they weren’t with them, they had memories as reminders of their love.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
All the artworks have a common undertone of themes of melancholy and darkness. They all seem to be the artists expressing their own misery and despair, almost pessimistic. Most of the people have this tortured expression. This is a change from the bright colors and more positive attitude we see in impressionism.
To add on a distinguishing feature of the melancholy feeling is that the people depicted in the paintings are often alone, isolated or anonymous. There is a feeling of genuine disconnect from humanity or society that leads to the breaking of these social norms. I think that even though some of the paintings do use brighter colors in the background, overall it is used to highlight the contrast the aura of despair that the people depicted in the paintings have.
The tortured expression is very true, especially in Self Portrait by Egon Schiele. The being in this painting seems to be malnourished, with a thin body underneath an absolutely unsightly face, almost alien-like. The being seems trapped, its face and right arm mangled in an almost unexplainable way. Yes, this is most definitely an impressionist painting; the emotions painted on the man could emulate something completely different to a different viewer or on a different canvas.
Similar to Cubism, the colour scheme also seems incredibly dull. There are far more people depicted in these paintings, and they’re all corpse-like which could encapsulate the zombie like nature of veterans post WW1.
I think it’s interesting that you say that because i believe the choice of colors usually represent something positive. The colors aren’t dark colors like usual paintings that entail of something dark, or of horror and misery. Although I do see the dullness maybe because it’s pastel but the colors yellow, pink and light blue are bright colors usually used to express light, peace and positivity.
I agree, but it’s strange that a majority of the paintings DO have a lot of colors. It’s almost as if a film was placed over the once vibrant artwork, making it appear dull and dreary. It could be a psychological trick that makes us perceive the colors as sombre, though. Sometimes our emotions can affect our perception of color; perhaps the depressing nature of the paintings make us see the colors differently.
A common theme I noticed between all of these pieces of art is the emotional distress all of the people depicted share. One detail that most have in common is wide, gaping, emotionless, darkened eyes. Many of the people depicted look disinterested or tired, allowing for windows into the trauma or psychological strain the individuals have undergone. In several, the eyes are hollow, almost revealing the orbital bones of the skull, perhaps symbolizing that they are dead inside.
I agree Alec, I also noticed the distortion of the human appearance in these paintings. In “The Scream” and “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack”, the people depicted in the artworks both appear ghastly and devoid of humanity. I agree with your analysis that this made them appear as dead and I also interpreted that they are not meant to be seen as humans in the eyes of the viewer, dehumanizing them in a way.
A stylistic pattern in these works to me is the distortion of human forms in different ways. I think it is interesting to see the emotional depiction of humans as objects of war or their sort of basest depictions. There is no desire to depict the subjects as beautiful, which is particularly interesting in the Self-Portraits.
All of these art works are built to be a personified humanoid rather than human. The people within these images are not created to create a perfect image of a human, rather a personification of an emotion expressed by humans. For example, in Edvard Munch “The Scream” you can see that the humanoid object is the personification of fear and panic. The object in “The Scream” gives a feeling of uncanny valley: not quite human, but recognize the humanity in the subject.
A stylistic pattern I noticed in all of these artworks would be portraying portraits of people in a sickly, grotesque manner. Like in Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait, Schiele depicts himself as a disfigured figure, contoured with burn marks and having several limbs missing. This can also be seen in Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden—even though it is less sickly and more human-like, the man is still noticeably pale and exhausted. I believe these portrayals were due to WWI having such an effect on the mass population that it would be fitting to portray one similar to the mood they were feeling during the war.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The biggest stylistic pattern I noticed when looking at this collection of artworks is the expression and design of faces. In each painting, there is at least one face that feels ghastly, or otherwise unnerves me. ‘The Scream’s’ chief facial focus looks like the Scream mask from the movies, while ‘Self-Portrait’ has a face that looks sickly, and ‘Storm Troopers under a Gas Attack’ doesn’t have clear faces, but instead intimidating and scary looking gas masks. “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden’ has a face that looks disappointed and tired in makeup as the subject smokes. The painting I found most intriguing is Beckmann’s ‘Self-Portrait with a Champagne Glass’, because the main focus on the painting has a normal looking face with a suave expression, while a crazed facial expression exists in the background. The juxtaposition of the two faces makes the painting all the more disturbing.
I agree on your insight with the juxtaposition of the two faces because it just seems to add more meaning to the overall painting. The two faces seem to express the artist’s two ways of being, with one being a more serious and presentable form to society and another lurking in the background, mocking the first. We can choose what we decide to present to society and what parts of ourselves to hide, but the parts we decide to hide will always be there in the background. We can’t erase who we are just because it doesn’t fit into society, which is probably why the artist gave the background face with a grimace.
I agree, on top of the facial expression the images show another thing that some of these paintings have in common which is the distortion of humans. For example, in Egon Schiele, Self-Portrait (1910) we can see an image of a man with his torso really small. As well as in Max Beckmann, Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass (1919) we can see the hand of the man in a relatively uncomfortable position and not a normal place for a hand to be in.
One stylistic pattern I noticed in these paintings is that the human bodies are often depicted in distorting forms. The painting “The Scream” shows a distorted human figure screaming, creating a intense sense of anxiety and desperation. Similarly, “Self Portait” by Egon Schiele, Self-Portrait shows a deformed body of human. The right hand and the left arm are missing in the painting. The outline of the human body was twisted. These details make me feel that the man in the painting is suffering.
I agree with your point about the distorted bodies making the figures seem like they’re suffering. This adds to the emotional intensity of both paintings. Something else I noticed is how the artists use color to push that feeling even further. In “The Scream”, the sky’s reds and oranges make everything feel chaotic and overwhelming, almost like the world is closing in. In Schiele’s “Self-Portrait”, the pale skin complexion make the figure look even more fragile or haunted. I think the distortion and the colors are both working together to show what the person is feeling on the inside.
yes, I totally agree with your point that the distorted forms give a sense of suffering. something else I noticed in the first painting was the choice of the background. its all these different colors all meshing together. it further makes the point of suffering, while the other painting is a still background. that his own body being distorted is enough to show immense amount of suffering.
A pattern I noticed throughout the paintings is the fluidity of the human body and its movements in the paintings. The people represented are often in unordinary poses, in motion or bodies are distorted with the movement of the painting. This theme is most clearly scene in Edvard Munch “The Scream” as well as “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” by Max Beckmann, their bodies are distorted to exarate their movement and convey a message through body language. Viewers are drawn to it and it still maintains its sense of clarity with added meaning.
I definitely see that pattern throughout and I do think it’s interesting to note that not only does the fluidity of the bodies add motion but also emotion. The different stances and the wavy kind of style of paintings like “The Scream” and “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” both provide different emotions to go along with the idea of what these people are actually moving like. In “The Scream” the affect of the fluidity and tilting of the painting adds to this idea of nervousness and anxiety while also conjoined with fear. If the artist had chosen to have the person be completely still and lack that fluidity I think it would take away from the emotions expressed. For “Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass” the way he is turned away and seems to be in the process of turning away adds to this idea of not liking the reflection portrayed behind him. I also do think that “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack” by Otto Dix has this motion that without would take away from the darkness and aggressiveness the painting has. So overall, I 100% agree with it adding meaning and being valuable to the overall message of each painting.
Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) really goes against what you’d expect from a normal portrait. Sylvia isn’t painted to look soft or beautiful. Instead, she has these sharp, almost masculine features and this blank, distant expression. Her outfit, cigarette, and drink make her seem kind of rebellious, like she’s rejecting all the usual ideas of how women are supposed to act or look. The background feels weird and off too, almost like the space isn’t real, which makes the vibe feel unstable. It reminds me of how social norms were falling apart, especially for women during that time.
Question 2
To begin I feel that all of the images display many striking details, but one that stood out to me most was the first painting. The first thing that I notice is that the artist used very few colors to create such a complex image with a landscape. However, the part that I found most interesting is the wavy aspect of the image. It’s interesting to me that both the background and figure in the front display this curvy nature. I feel like it adds to the eerie theme that the image all ready has, leading to the figure fitting the image and adding to the emotion that the picture makes you feel.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I noticed that in the painting “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden,” the fingers of the journalist are unnaturally spread in different directions. The facial features of the journalist are also very unnatural as she has a sharp jaw, eye bags, and unnaturally dark red lips. To me, this is expressing something unpleasant about the journalist. Perhaps she is going through something hard.
In Max Beckmann’s Self Portrait with Champagne Glass the subject of the painting is seen with a normal face expression but I found it striking how the man behind him has a creepier expression staring at the subject. I interpreted this as a mirror reflecting the crazed man within, while the man in the forefront holds a glass to show off his good side because it represents luxury. Therefore I think this represents the duality of people’s identity
I wouldn’t have thought of the manic-looking man as a reflection of the mans double-identity! You point out it could be a divide in class due to the subject looking wealthier, which leads me to interpret the work as a parallel to the class divides during its time. To me, the artists message represents how only the wealthy were able to indulge in the luxuries of life, while those who worked factory jobs were driven crazy with poor quality of life and often overlooked (as the subject is doing)/underrepresented.
The Scream, by Edward Munch features a beautiful disarray of warm toned colors, capturing a viewer’s attention almost immediately. The undulating lines of color in the sky seem to emulate the subject/main character’s internal panic or distress. The visual chaos in the sky might be paralleling an emotional experience, seen by the ailing emotion on the subjects face, showing how a quiet moment becomes overwhelming. It’s a sufficient artistic representation of anxiety or dread through the use of color and form.
Yes, I agree with the point about the sky which represents the panic that the main character is facing. However, I would like to add how although the entire painting is warped including the main subject, the bridge that he stands on and the two men in the background and even the ships remain as normal as possible with the painting style. This may symbolize that no matter what the person is going through, the world will continue to run as normal, showing a sort of eerie isolation.
In Egon Schiele’s “Self-portrait”, something that stands out to me is the way in which it looks like Schiele has lacerations or burns on certain parts of his body. It also appears that he may be holding something that could have caused them (or it could just be the stroke of a pencil). I believe this could signify how Schiele is trying to portray his “raw” self, down to the flesh. This sets Schiele apart, as traditional self-portraits do not include their artist being naked, especially not in this way.
Something I find striking in Otto Dix’s, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack painting is the dehumanization of the soldiers and their effect on the viewer. The gas masks make the soldiers look inhuman and instead alien. It completely detaches the humanity from the soldiers., making them look almost like monsters. As well as this, the gaze of the three middle soldiers are also very striking. It’s as if the soldiers are confronting the viewer in a way that feels empty because we can’t see the soldiers face, and also because it looks as if there is no hope for humanity, saying “this is what we have come to”. It also feels very accusatory, like the viewer is guilty of something and the soldiers are shaming us for that, or accusing us for doing something wrong. Overall, the gaze brings psychological discomfort to the viewer, maybe giving us a sense of what the soldiers were internally feeling a the time.
In the painting “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden,” I found it intriguing how androgynous the subject of the painting appears to be. Her short hair and scowling face present in a very masculine way. SHe does not appear to be wearing any makeup, and the lines to paint her are sharp and rigid. Without her clothing and her accessories, by just looking at the painting I would have not been able to guess she was a woman. I think this speaks to the progressive nature of the era, especially considering the title of the painting, which mentions she was a journalist– a career woman.
In Max Beckmann’s The Actors, there are 3 different boxes that is drawn. And those boxes look like they are depicting 3 different scenes in a play. Contrary to a play, this painting is still and and depicts only 3 scenes. I’m not too sure what is happening in the scenes since they are so different. But it may imply chronological order or just 3 different plays. There are also so many different colors being used and yet everything is so calm. Every color is being used but all very intentionally. In this painting, I think the boxes are very crucial to this painting.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One pattern I see in all the artworks is the distortion of faces. In all of the paintings, the faces are either blurred, stretched, have exaggerated eyes, or have more shadows than normal. I believe this speaks to the element of expressionist art that highlights the loss of one’s soul. Faces tell a lot about people, and facial expressions are one of the most drastic characteristics of humans (especially how humans differ from each other), so to distort that and to present faces in a way that almost isolates people from their humanistic qualities is extremely jarring. In particular, the painting that is most extreme to me is Max Beckmann’s Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass, where there is a complete flip from the man’s facial expressions to his reflection. This especially speaks to the alienation in society at the time, with people not able to even act and feel like themselves.
I agree with you, the first thing I noticed in all of the paintings were the faces, and like how you said, they are all stretched and altered in a way to make it harder to read the expressions on their faces.
Definitely. The first thing that I noticed when viewing these pieces was that all of the subjects read as caricatures of humans, with exaggerated features such as the stretched or blurred aspects that you mention. I also believe that this speaks to the sense of alienation in society around this time, especially Munch’s The Scream, where not only the subject of the painting is stripped of individual features, but so is the background that is comprised simply of dashes of color and vague detail about the landscaping.
Hi Kaitlyn, I definitely agree that all of the paintings depict faces in which they are expressing their emotions, such as portraying the “exaggerated eyes” you mentioned. In addition to the distorted faces, I also noticed that these pieces simultaneously incorporate distorted hands; for instance, in Edvard Munch’s The Scream, the figure can be seen with contorted hands around their face. Similarly, in Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait, the figure can be seen without any hands, however, the viewers can infer that based on the figure’s distorted facial expressions and body language, they are displaying some key characteristics of Expressionism.
Agreed. I feel as though the reason for the distortion is that traditional or more “realistic” way of painting focuses so much on the external at hand that the emotion while shown, might not be as well translated, but with expressionism it is all about maintaining the general shapes and figures to make out what is at hand, however it is distorted by whatever emotion one is feeling.
I agree with Kaitlin, the face of every artworks are distorted. However, it is contrasting with futurism because in futurism there were lots of straight lines and angles but for expressionism there are more curvy and wavy line thus there are less angles. Also even though expressionism artwork is distorted, compare to futurism it is more direct. In futurist artwork I was not able to identify what artist was trying to draw but for expressionism I can identify it.
A thematic pattern I see through out these paintings is is trying to show some type of emotional distress. In the paintings that I see it the most are Edvard Munch, The Scream, Otto Dix, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, and Max Beckmann, The Actors, the facial expressions show as if they are disconnecting from society or even they could be alienated. It is like the paintings are expressing the brutal truth of society through their facial expressions (emotional distress).
I agree- I feel like the artists make some of these distressing on purpose to convey some underlying meaning/issue. I thought that Egon Schiele’s “Self-Portrait”-the painting of a pretty emaciated body- was very dark, maybe showing how he struggled with his body image or a disorder.
I notice a pattern of distortion and fluidity in all of these paintings. It almost feels like if I stare long enough, they will continue moving and “expressing” whatever emotion is consuming the subject at the moment. For example, both the famous “The Scream painting” and the “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” maintain that flowiness of brushstrokes, it can be seen in the scream’s sky, and the portraits cigarette smoke/wallpaper.
In all of these Expressionist art, there is a clear emotion present. This is especially clear in the faces of the subjects. Each has a clear expression on their face (or explicit lack of emotion like in Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack) which pairs well with the deliberate placement/pose of their hands.
A pattern that I noticed in these artworks is the fluidity of brush strokes, especially compared to past types of art, like Cubism. These paintings feel as though they flow a lot more, and will keep moving, especially in Edvard Munch’s “The Scream”, where the painting feels like it goes past what is being depicted.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Max Beckmann, Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass (1919), one detail that stuck out to me was the man in the back looks different than the man in front. The man in the back seems happier or insane even, while the man in the front seems more clever and mischievous because of his slight smirk. Since this art is supposed to be a self portrait, then I assume that the artist is drawing the man he sees himself as in the front and the man he wants to be or how other people see him in the back. However, the man in the back can be entering the room instead and the man in front is turning his head to face him. I think there can be many different interpretations to this painting. I just thought it was striking to see two people in a self portrait. I wonder if they are both supposed to represent the artist or if it reveals something about the artist’s personality instead.
Beckmann’s piece is really weird because of the man is the back as you mentioned. I think he may be wearing a mask of some sort but there is no obvious symbolic reason why. I also noticed that in the mirror behind him, there seems to be a smudged face. The face is Picasso-esque in shape and honestly I might be completely wrong, but I think maybe Beckmann is trying to mess with the idea of appearances with this portrait. Everything is a little wack (such as his ugly and pale hands) and it’s just enough to make you question what is and isn’t there. If the man in the back is wearing a mask, possibly he is commenting on the nature of a self-portrait, being what you wish to show to others rather than who you actually are.
I agree with your points, the man in the back seems to be looking directly at the audience, his gaze to be confrontational and even almost intense. I feel like his stare in the back almost creates a sense of psychological trauma or suffering. I can also see that in general, champagne in most of paintings, can signify joy or celebration, but in this case, the man in the front seems somber, and a little serious. I feel like this contrast can embark a deeper meaning to the message of the painting, but I just don’t know what it is.
In Max Beckmann’s Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass, it’s hard not to notice the face of the man in the top right corner of the painting. The crazed zeal look in his eyes and sinister smile make for a rather scary and intense looking person. His eyes are extremely wide and unnaturally white with his pupils constricted as he smiles largely with his teeth. His facial features directly contrast Beckmann’s, both in the emotions and also the details in the features themselves. The man in the back possibly represents an alter ego of Beckmann, how he feels on the inside, or a representation of men in society at that time period.
I do also feel as thought the figure in the back with his eyes bulging out could possibly be his alter ego. The man with the champagne glass has a very serious face and he could be putting on a facade to hide from his true feelings.
In the first image, one striking detail I notice is how the majority of the painting is made up of swirling lines. The sky and a ghostly looking person are made up of swirls. In contrast, the bridge that is made up of straight lines and the two individuals in the background don’t seem to have that fluid body movement as the figure in the forefront. This contrast implies that the figure in the forefront may be dead but their spirit is still in the world after death. Or being that the painting is named scream it also could be representing a person experiencing extreme anxiety.
I agree, at first I only noticed the curvy aspect of the image. But, after taking another look I notice the straight lines and find it very interesting. I also agree with your point that the contrast of curvy vs. straight implies the difference between life and the after life.
The first thing that struck me about Otto Dix’s “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” was how realistic the artwork was when looking at certain elements, but how comical it looked when viewed as a whole. In the portrait, the hands were so detailed, they almost seem photographed. However, in contrast to this, the body is painted without much shading, so its shape looks two-dimensional. The drastic stylistic changes create a really deceptive painting, drawing your mind into wondering what makes something realistic.
I agree, Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) challenges normative expectations by presenting a woman in a defiant pose. Instead of idealizing feminine beauty, he paints Sylvia with sharp, angular features, cropped hair, and androgynous clothing signaling a departure from traditional gender roles. I think that her stiff posture and distant gaze also show detachment.
In Otto Dix’s “Storm Troopers Advance Under a Gas Attack” I think it is interesting how the gas masks look. At first glance, at least to me, they look a lot like skulls, which is obviously striking and attention grabbing. I think it could be an intentional and poignant depiction of Otto’s stance on the war and what it entailed. The art has a very eerie feeling to a it and shows an almost horrific maybe zombie like movement which I think is interesting. The front left soldier almost looks as if he is crawling or reaching, either in an attempt to escape or toward something.
I Agree, in both of Otto’s paintings the characters seem to give skeleton like features, and I think they represent death in the war. Although they are actively “alive” they could still represent death because thats what war brought for most people
In Elon Schiller, Self-portrait (1910), a striking detail I found was how skinny/ underdeveloped the portrait was. I found this striking because when someone draws/paints themselves in an image sometimes or most of the time they tend to try and emphasize their features and make themselves seem more/ better than the real thing. Instead the image shown portrays someone sickly, with bones showing. It’s a bit creepy how the face is staring and the posture is sort of leaning to the right and his left arm is up.
In Elon Schiller, Self-portrait (1910), a striking detail I found was how skinny/ underdeveloped the portrait was. I found this striking because when someone draws/paints themselves in an image sometimes or most of the time they tend to try and emphasize their features and make themselves seem more/ better than the real thing. Instead the image shown portrays someone sickly, with bones showing. It’s a bit creepy how the face is staring and the posture is sort of leaning to the right and his left arm is up..
In Self-Portrait with Champagne Glass by Max Beckmann, I immediately noticed the figure in the background. Specifically, the face of the man behind Beckmann. His face is blurred and ghostly. It creates an eerie tension, as if Beckmann is being watched or haunted. This detail adds to the painting’s atmosphere of alienation and postwar anxiety. It makes the viewer question whether this figure is real, imagined, or symbolic. It is a strange and visceral representation of the fractured social self in the aftermath of World War I.
Norm Violations in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, this piece of art goes against the normal presentation of genders. Sylvia von Harden is drawn as an androgynist figure. Though she is a woman, she has features of both a man and women, which may be representative of the queer people in society. This challenges normal culture as women before were typically drawn with soft features as to ensure their femininity.
I think that this is a really interesting analysis that I didn’t even consider when first viewing this art. I think that the representation and melding of genders is definitely an expression of disregarding social norms and going against traditional femininity. This makes me wonder how it was received by the public at the time- if it made them uncomfortable/outraged, or if it was more eye-opening and positive.
Otto Dix, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926) went against the viewers normative expectations in some way. I say that because based off the artwork we’ve seen most woman have been in their most “feminine form”, when it comes to artwork including woman we see a lot of nudity or them involved with things connected to femininity. However with this art piece I notice how she is fully clothed, in this long sleeve turtleneck dress with short hair smoking a cigarette. I’m not saying things like that aren’t feminine however we as viewers don’t expect to see women like this in paintings. In a way we expect the woman to be more vulnerable not so fierce or bold.
Otto Dix, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack (1924), is a visceral example of art that can challenge normal expectations through it’s evil portrayal of warfare. The choice to show masked men, striped of identity and emotion, contradicts viewers opinions of soldiers as brave and heroic. Dix’s disruption/challenge of social norms highlights chaos that rose as a result of modern war.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A striking detail I noticed in Otto Dix’s, “Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden” is the unusually long hands and fingers that Sylvia is depicted with. Compared to the cigarette that she’s holding, her fingers are much longer, the exaggerated bony fingers draws attention to the ring on her middle finger and masculine facial features. Those hands, which is what a journalist likely relies on, becomes a symbol of defiance towards traditional values of femininity. The short hair, short dress, and long fingers reinforces her identity as a modern, independent woman in an unstable world.
That is a really good observation. I noticed something off about the painting too, but I could not quite put my finger on it. I agree with you about how the non traditional the painting is. I think it was a really good way for the painter to go about it.
A particular art piece that striking is the Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack by Otto Dix. I think the way he draws the troops with the masks fighting and holding weapons makes the painting look very serious and uneasy. War is scary and the darkness of the painting and the faces of the men display emotions of despair and horror.
This painting also made me feel uneasy! I focused on their faces too, and the gas masks the men wear that obscure their faces–it borders less on realistic and more on cartoonish. The eyes of the mask are enlarged, giving them an alien-like appearance. White was used for the base of the mask, which is a strange considering, historically, greys and blacks seemed to be the default for gas masks. The choice of white, along with the exaggerated wrinkles, almost gives the appearance of skin. The soldiers are frightening, and I can’t tell whether they’re supposed to represent the enemy or soldiers on Dix’s side.
A striking detail that I noticed in the artwork titled The Actors made by Max Beckmann was the amount of violence that seems to be occurring in the piece. For example the man in the center stabbing himself, the girl right below him looking like she’s strangling a cat and lastly the man under the stage who looks like he is in the act of stabbing the other guy with a stick like figure. There are so many things going on in the painting, but when you focus on the smaller groups of people you can see and better understand what seems to be going on.
A striking detail I noticed from Egon Schiele’s Self-Portrait is that he depicts himself with extreme facial and body distortions. Specifically, he gives himself an exceedingly bony and gaunt body frame. One of the first things I noticed from this painting was how, as you move down, Schiele becomes increasingly skinny and angular. I think this distortion of himself reflects his inner struggles with identity.
A striking detail I noticed in the work “Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack” is how it’s in black and white. In contrast from the other paintings, this one lacks a mixture of colorful colors. The illustration of giant soldiers wearing gas masks in a deserting and lifeless background, is already powerful enough and delivers the expression of dark emotions, yet the selection of black and white colors makes create the dark emotions to become more intense.
A striking detail I noticed in Edvard Munch, The Scream (earliest version 1893; this version 1910) is the emphasis on the overall meaning of the piece, not individual details. For example, the art favors colorful displays and one can tell what is happening in the artwork, however, there are no concrete outlines, showcasing a more “up-in-the-air” feel. However, with the work, portrays a catharsis of a black figure screaming, signifying the artist’s own feelings when creating the peace.
A striking detail of Edward Munch’s The Scream is the curved lines that extend from the screaming figure into the eerily red sky, almost like it’s an echo of the scream from the figure. This painting has always been terrifying to me. The figure’s simplified, distorted form and horror, coupled with the indifference of the two figures in the background, create a sense of maddening isolation in one’s suffering.
In The Scream, one of the details I found most striking is the swirling and, in another sense, almost liquefied sky that is made through an unnatural blend of reds, oranges, and yellows, that seems to be mirroring the psychological panic of the central figure. The landscape itself seems to be riddled with anxiety due to the way in which Munch structured his painting.
A striking detail I noticed in Otto Dix, Storm Troopers Advance under a Gas Attack is how grim and hollow the painting is because of the color scheme and the style. The painting being grim and hollow and the style looking stressed is a great way to present how depressing and dark war really was.
Norm Violations in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Otto Dix’s Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden (1926), the way Sylvia is portrayed is the complete opposite of what existing beauty standards for women were. She has extremely large hands, short dark hair, thin lips, big nose, and the dress she is wearing is extremely unflattering and shapeless. Otto Dix is capturing how Sylvia is going completely against the aesthetic norm of how women should look, however she manages to carry herself like the typical city woman: she is holding a cigarette and smoking with her legs crossed, which was the epitome of a city woman. To further show that Sylva is a undeniable city woman, he makes the cigarette box pink, the walls pink and her drink pink. Previously, wall colors and drinks were not as bright, but this scene shows the shift into the Avant-Garde era.
Otto Dix’s Portrait of Journalist Sylvia von Harden initially disturbed me a little because it’s so different from what I imagined a portrait of an woman would look like. Her sharp features, the monocle, the cigarette, and the drink all challenge traditional notions of femininity. She looks cool, almost arrogant, but weirdly disconnected.I think that Dix is demonstrating what happens when old societal rules fall away, especially after the trauma of World War I. There is an idea that identity itself has become fragile, which is what makes the painting so powerful and unsettling to me.
In The Actors (1942), it kind of messes with our expectation of performance and reality itself. We normally think of actors as people who wear masks on stage then take it off in real life but the painting blurs that line. The figures are cramped into the space and their expressions are strained or haunted or even grotesque. The costumes feel more of a prison uniform than stage outfit. I think Beckmann is saying that in society, the roles that we play aren’t optional; they’re suffocating. No breaks from the performance or an idea of who’s real or playing a part.
The Movie’s Visuals
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Throughout the film, there is a continuation of a yellowish and occasionally a teal tint to the scenes, broken up with the same kind of green writing and background. These colors are dullish and consistent. The shade of them is almost eerie. Coupled with the odd painted backgrounds that aren’t quite realistic, these colors work to provoke a strange and slightly uncomfortable feeling in the viewer. I think this parallels the uneasy social situation that came with the end of the Great War, especially since Germany had lost and was undergoing a period of political instability and economic struggles.
I also think that the pale makeup, as well as the actor’s movements in the movie, make everyone seem corpse-like or zombie-like. This could also be a remnant of the Great War, and how death and uneasiness became normalized in society afterward. The movie portrays itself almost like a nightmare which I imagine is what everything must’ve looked like after the war.
I completely agree with you Ava and Amelia in the fact that there is a use of yellow/green tints and even eerie music. I think that like Ava said it creates a sort of nightmare trying to depict the landscape of what post war looked like. When I watch the movie I not only feel like I’m in a zombie or nightmare world but simply that I am in a different one. By changing the color of the atmosphere it highlights that things are not the same and with the edition of the sad and scary music it emphasizes that life has changed for the worse. On the other hand, I wonder if the use of yellow tint is to symbolize that it’s day time or even some sort of hope. At 0.25 minutes the tint switches to a blue hue, maybe depicting night or even just darkness. So maybe instead of the yellow depicting a zombie like atmosphere it’s showing day time and that there is maybe some sense of hope left.
I agree with how the color sets a disturbing tone for the viewer. An example of this coloration is around 12:30, when the carnival is covered in this unsettling shade of yellow. The darker, almost greenish tones of the people and the tent opening, along with the twisted structure of the tents, all add to an uncanny feeling while viewing this scene.
I couldn’t agree with you all more, but I think for me is the fact that it’s also mostly silent, which acts to the eerie-ness of it all. For me the eeriness felt especially prevalent during (41:00-42:35), where the actors’ facial expressions felt very stressful, adding to the tension as a viewer. Part of this sequence, I thought, was also the high pitched music playing in the background with the yellow-ish hue filled the scene.
I agree the sets have strange and uncanny feeling. The sets remind me of the paintings we examined for expressionism. The sets aren’t representations of sets themselves, rather a personification of what a person feels a building is. For example, in 47:56 in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” when Cesare kidnaps the woman, the rooftops are displayed more like roads. In Cesare’s eyes, it’s his form of escape, so it becomes a road. It’s as personification of what Cesare feels about the set.
An interesting stylistic pattern in this movie is the music and confusing stage sets, and how they add to the disorienting feeling of this movie. The music starts eerie, and depending on the scene, shifts from quirky and go-lucky to eerie and suspenseful. This can be seen near the middle of the film as the man with a knife approaches the girl’s bed and the music shifts, then stops completely (Wiene, 0:46:15 – 0:47:00). At this point, it’s completely unclear what the man will do, as he appears to hesitate before his next move. I feel as if this scene is representative of much of the movie; the music, sets, and characters make it difficult to understand what the protagonists and side characters are thinking, adding to the disorienting vibe of the film.
I agree that the music makes the film eerie and disorienting. At 0:18:41 the person was on a stage performing with a creepy Somnambulist in a cabinet. The music at first is suspenseful with a few piano chords and then adds more string instruments when he starts to walk. It is eerie because as you said, we don’t know what everyone in this film is thinking, and all we get is the change of music. So, music really plays a big role in determining how the audience feel about each scene.
I agree very much with the style of the music. It creates a very unsettling environment for the viewer that brings you into the film without dialogue.
I completely agree with you Luke. There are very few straight lines in this movie, which reminds me a lot of the impressionist pieces we saw earlier this semester. You can see in the background that the trees are not straight and the props themselves are angled/bent in a direction. This adds to the surrealist aspect of the movie and definitely helps to convey horror. I think this is especially important because older horror movies like this one don’t have the advantages of modern film with scary cgi and voices. Also, one interesting detail I saw is in 54:40 – 54:45, it looks like the words of the sign switch from English to German depending on who is viewing it. This is a subtle detail that I found rather interesting.
One noticeable stylistic pattern I noticed was the color tinting throughout the movie. Most of the movie has a yellow tint, which I think represents daylight or indoor light, making it feel like it was late afternoon. There was also a switch to blue tinting, which represented darkness. Additionally, I think that the color choices where not only used to distinct the time of day but it also emphasize the characters facial expressions making it easier for the audience to make out their emotions.
I agree, the lighting and tinting is important to the films mood and emotion throughout. Music is also important as it helps paint the emotions in a scene. For example at 23:00, the music is eerie and at times the notes and its timings sound random to make it sound disorienting.This with the dim lighting and yellow tint helps creep out the viewer and carry out the overall creepiness of the scene.
Yes I agree with your observation as the color of the scenes seem to change to represent the time of day in the movie or the events that are happening. The music seems to become more intense in the blue scenes adding a eerie and mysterious tone. To add on, the producer also plays around with shapes as building and windows are crooked with painted shadows. This helps put viewers in the setting of a disoriented world.
I also noticed the differences in tinting throughout the film and what they could possibly represent during each scene. Adding on to the emphasis of facial expressions, I also believe that the different color tinting paired with the transition shots demonstrate what the particular emotion is for specific scenes. A number of times throughout the beginning of the film, shots that focused on Dr. Caligari’s face were eerie and suggested that he was up to no good.
I also noticed the use of tinted colors all throughout the film. While I thought it was odd at first, I later realized that the colors are used to convey emotions or set the scene. For example, yellow was used heavily that can suggest daytime or a warm feeling.
Through the six acts in this movie there are many interesting patterns compared to modern day movies. One interesting factor is the backgrounds/set. Typically in movies their are sets in which the actors are placed for different scenes. From the viewers perspective the setting in which the actors are in are very real and seem life like. Yet in this movie you can see the backgrounds being drawn with almost a pencil like streak. You’re also able to see the cardboards that are shaped to create an image.
I noticed that throughout the movie, whenever there was a transition, the screen would close in on certain characters. I believe this stylistic choice is used to emphasize the emotions or foreshadowing from particular scenes. For example, when Francis visited his friend after he had been murdered, the closing shot focused on his face then faded out, highlighting how Francis felt after seeing his body and Dr. Caligari’s probable role in his murder.
One very noticeable pattern throughout the movie is the crazy, wild, and sometimes ridiculousness of the sets. These sets are used all across the movie and can show crooked walls or drawn windows everywhere on the set. This seems very intentional which may be a creative choice to bring some silliness to the grim seeming movie, or it could be to show that in this unstable age, nothing is where or how it is supposed to be.
This movies visuals really showcase the difference between movies back then to now. The yellow with black cinematic vibe gives us a “terror” vibe. I feel as if the yellow is supposed to help “bring life” into these characters who look sick in a way. They look very pale and scary but maybe the yellow is supposed to even them out and maybe give us more than what we see.
One thing I noticed was the stylistic choice of the text slides. They were aqua green and would express characters speaking or at the end of a scene. In addition, the letters were very jagged and chunky. I think this was chosen to portray the style of expressionism, as they are similar to the feel of the paintings that we looked at before. The paintings were very fluid, leading the eye to the place, while some parts were sharp, similar to the text in the movie.
I agree with you. The different ways that the text are written can help portray the emotions of the actors even without hearing them audibly and not looking at their faces. They could’ve shown the caption of their dialogue with their faces on the screen as they were mouthing their lines but they chose not to. And that helped express their emotions even more visually. There is also a constant pattern of a green background.
One interesing stylistic pattern that made the movie much more intense and immersive was the use of different music throughout various scenes. The music especially in the scene where Cesare kidnaps Jane adds a lot to the movie. The frantic rising tempo heightens the chaos and fear of the moment which allows the tension to feel greater to the audience In a movie without dialogue other components like sets, music, and become much more important and focused on.
Norm Violations in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The human figures/portraits of women and men in these painting all look eerie and strange in comparison to the other portraits and paintings we’ve viewed in class, especially the paintings of Impressionism and the Pre-Raphaelite paintings of women. Unlike the portrayal of the women in those paintings, the people painted in Expressionism art are not proper, not aesthetically pleasing, and even disturbing to a viewer who normally would expect something reflective of how they see someone through their eyes. In the Otto Dix piece, Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, from the title, the viewer might expect to see a proper woman with a notebook. Instead, the painting shows a rather unpleasant-looking woman who has a sour expression on her face, is smoking and drinking, and sitting in an unelegant way.
Egon Schiele’s self-portrait challenge viewer’s expectation through the portrait of human body. Normally when think of self-portrait you would think of a fine looking human; smiling or serious. But in Egon Schiele’s painting the viewer see an incomplete, twisted human body that can almost regard as ugly. in a way is similar to how Picasso drew violin, both deconstructed something that once is perceive as perfect and beautiful into an incomplete, imperfect form.
Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harder by Otto Dix shows the idea of anomie because it defers from what you usually expect from a portrait. Instead of idealizing the subject, she looks more detached, with sharp features such as short hair, or a emotionless expression. As she hold a cigarette and a drink, it even portrays her as more modern and depressing. She also dresses and posses in an way that doesn’t serve the purpose of pleasing the audiences eyes. These all shows how the painting purposely breaks the social norms, and presents the idea of anomie.
The Movie’s Visuals
⤹Click the reply button just below.
It could possibly be just the nature of the silent film, but the movie gives us a lot of time showing what is essentially nothing. Usually it will be when a character realizes something, but it’s not communicated to the audience. It’s actually quite nice, as it makes the film a bit uncomfortable to watch, especially with the music. The audience is left to wonder separately from the characters, which makes the mystery aspect more enjoyable.
I notice this as well! In the beginning of the movie (~ 6 min mark) when they set up the scene of “Alan, My Friend” the movie spends a great deal of time filming his ordinary interactions: reading a book, looking out a window—this scene lasts over a minute long—something that is not filmed in modern-day movies. To me, the style of capturing mundane daily tasks seems to be an attempt to humanize the characters and bring them to life.
A stylistic choice I noticed in the film is the use of color filters, music and vignette to convey emotion and focus to the viewer. The color filters change throughout the movie, depending on the theme to further emphasis something happening on screen and evoke an emotion intended to feel, certain rooms have colors associated with them as well. This is similar with the music, as it often changes throughout scenes and even highlights action through musical cues. The vignette shrinks when its intended to focus on a particular character or making what’s intended to be focused on more obvious. These methods all add personality to the film and make clear the story without the use of spoken words.
Yes, I agree with you. The change of filters of different colors helps the audience to understand to movie without sound. A pattern I notice was that the filter would turn yellow during the day and turn green at night. This change reminded audience of the time in the movie and made the movie easier to understand. Also, red filter was used in Jane’s room while she heard about the murder of Alan. The color of the filter reflected the emotions of the characters.
I picked up on this too. The lighting and filter changes seemed to add another layer to be interpreted. I think it was an interesting way to to convey and display what was happening, when and the emotions that were supposed to be insinuated. What was meant to stand out was better and obviously able to which I think helps a lot with following and understanding. If not for these and the music that help cue our thinking I think following and interpreting the film would be significantly more difficult. The lack of speaking can sometimes make things boring or confusing, but by making these stylistic choices it really pulled everything together.
Yes, I totally agree! I want to add that the lightning changes also completely change the vibe of the scene as well. I think the warmer colors (yellow) at the start represent the scenes are not as stressful while the cooler colors (green) represent the scenes that are more anticipating. However, this does not apply to the red scene though, which was very sad because of the death. I feel like this was a really good way to represent the mood shifts and portray the mood of a scene. Even though, I couldn’t understand the writing in the movie, I still felt like the mood of each scenes were shown very well. I feel like the music also matched the dramatic parts of the movie as well. However, I feel like the music in the movie can especially be interpreted in many different ways just as the colors in the film to show the different moods.
I think the use of expressionistic set design in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari creates a unique stylistic pattern where many distorted, sharp shapes and sharp lines take over the visuals. This unpleasant aesthetic represents the characters’ inner turmoil, fractured mental state and instability. Also, the crooked buildings, slanted windows, and twisted streets all serve to create a disturbing appearance, and it highlights the themes of madness and perception. The disturbing images not only show the protagonists’ inner pain, but also highlight the aftermath of war trauma of a nation dealing with the break down of old structures and previous order.
One thing I noticed were the distorted and almost exaggerated set designs, which made the movie have a dream-like feel to it. The architecture and the shadows put an emphasis on psychological and insanity theme. Adding onto this, the visual misinterpretations turns the physical environment into a psychological space, supporting the idea of the themes of paranoia, and uneasiness.
Yes, and maybe because it relates to the nature of being a silent film. If the set designs aren’t distorted and almost exaggerated, then the film would probably be harder to capture the eye of the viewer and move the film along in a cohesive way that stays in the psychological space of the viewer. The dream-like feel could also be on purpose too as the film is supposed to create an uneasiness and fearful movement of thought through the set designs as much as the acting of the characters.
A stylistic pattern seen throughout the movie is using unnatural set designs. For example, during the beginning of the movie (minute 5:09) we see buildings and a bridge at impossible angles and this gives a sense of a fake or a dream world. Another example can be seen towards the middle of the movie (minute 23:08) where there are buildings and even trees which seem to be at a weird angle.
Throughout the movie, scenes often take place in distorted sets that don’t match in proportion. For example, the first scene shows a fair, and its layout is crooked, which I thought was due to the low budget for backdrops. However, the warped scenery continued, especially in scenes with hallways like at 9:02. In the scene at 23:15, when they walk on the street at night, the street lamp points outward in a strange way, and the windows on the buildings sway in different directions. I believe the distortions and misproportions throughout the movie are meant to symbolize how this reality, where previous morals and normalcy are being broken, is warped and inconsistent with what reality should be.
That’s a really interesting take, I hadn’t thought about the set design as a reflection of a broken sense of morality, but that makes a lot of sense. I also noticed how the strange angles and warped buildings gave the whole movie an almost dreamlike /nightmarish kind of feeling. It kind of puts you in the mindset of the characters too, like their world is literally falling apart. It’s cool how the film uses the environment not just for atmosphere, but to say something deeper about the state of the world they’re living in.
One visual pattern I noticed is how distorted and jagged the buildings and the streets are. Nothing looks straight or stable, windows are crooked, walls lean weirdly, and the shadows feel exaggerated and fake. It creates a feeling of unease in as if the world itself is unstable. I think it reflects the characters’ mental states, especially Francis, and also shows how the world after the war felt totally broken.
Something I noticed was how the camera shot would go from a full lens to a cut out lens so it only showed a section of the shot rather than filling the entire screen. This happened throughout the movie and often occurred during moments of tension or stress. Sometimes it was a clear circle frame, or a diamond, and other times the edge of the frame would blend into the setting and stage set, and some scenes the sizing and shape would even change. I thought this was a really nice way to get the viewer to focus on key aspects and details, especially specific characters and their thought processes and emotions throughout the movie.
A stylistic pattern I noticed was the use of coloring and hues. I feel like this is often an overlooked feature in movies and television, but can be very powerful. Especially knowing how relatively new cameras and movies as a whole were back then, it was important to use any aspect they could to tell the story they want. For example, the use of the bright yellowish hue during more light hearted times and specifically daylight like at 15:10 when the fair is happening. Then when it’s perceivably night time there’s this blush hue casted over like at 24:07 when they are walking back late at night. However, there’s also a third color depiction which is this almost purplish dark gray hue which can be seen at 39:00 which is at moments where it’s still night time but the actors are indoors rather than outside. These color changes may seem subtle and not entirely important but I do think that the use of these colors are valuable to the story when producing a more eerie vibe and helping to frame where and when the story is happening. When a movie has no words and lacks the ability to really showcase everything in as high a quality as wished, little things like that make up for it and help the viewer follow along.
One thing that really stood out to me while watching The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was how off everything felt the buildings were crooked, the streets tilted, and the shadows looked fake, almost like they were painted on. At first, I thought it might just be a low-budget set, but as the movie went on, I realized it was intentional. The distorted visuals made me feel unsettled, like something was always just a little bit wrong. It put me in the headspace of the characters, especially Francis, and made the whole story feel more like a nightmare than reality. It was such a creative way to show how broken and unstable the world felt after the war, without needing to say a word.
After doing the first part of the assignment and looking at examples of expressionist art I noticed that the set in the movie is definitely supposed to display this. The buildings are more jagged than normal ones, streets are twisted and wavy rather than traditional straighter ones, and the lighting in the movie almost looks fake or unnatural. Also, a lot of things within the movie are weird in a way or maybe even unique. We see things like windows and doors shaped oddly or put on a tilt, which I think creates a more nightmarish or fake representation.
The Movie’s Visuals
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A striking stylistic pattern in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” by Robert Wiene is its use of distorted, angular set designs—with warped buildings, jagged landscapes, and twisted interiors that defy natural perspective. This pattern of an unnatural setting creates a nightmare like atmosphere that reflects the inner turmoil and psychological instability of the characters, especially the somnambulist and narrator. The tilted architecture gives the entire world a sense of unstableness, where the narrator becomes increasingly unreliable as well. The film’s visuals depicted the psychological fragmentation and confusion during post war Germany.
I was also intrigued by the set design! I noticed that a lot of the sets looked stage-like, in the sense where the scenes weren’t shot in natural locations, but in places where the set was painted. This stands especially true in scenes that take place in nature. Like you mention, it definitely feels unnatural to see painted set pieces in place of real trees and foliage.
I agree! I also believe that one of the most captivating things of the movie was the setting and how it was composed, from the colors to the shapes. The composition of the setting was unusual and strangely complexed as it appeared random but at that’s how it was supposed to appear. I also think that the strangeness of the unusual patterns of the setting reflect the social change that seemed unusual to nations such as Germany as a consequence of the war.
A visual stylistic pattern I noticed throughout the movie was the use of encroaching blackness from the edges of the screen. Multiple times throughout the film darkness would press inward from all sides of the frame. This was usually just a little bit but on occasion it would be quite intense blocking out most of the background. This was used not only to focus the viewers eye but also to add suspense and a sense of confinement. A specific scene where it was used to great effect was the kidnapping scene as it gave it an air of entrapment and danger.
Yes, I agree! whenever the movie wanted to create a sense of suspense it would blacken most of the background and focus in one specific thing. A specific detail that I saw it would blacken the background when the main character would get thoughts or when the master of the somnambulist would have a trick under his sleeve to create suspense in the town.
A stylistic pattern I noticed in the movie was that everyone looks very sickly, pale, and pasty. I felt like that was an interesting choice, and it makes the darkened emotions from features like their eyes stand out more. The changes in the background seem to match the emotional moods of the scenes, too, adding meaning with color.
I agree! The ghostly aspect of the film definitely enhances the “fear factor” the overall movie brings. I think this was super intentional as the whole purpose of the movie to be an expressionist film. More specifically, the twisted, jagged sets, again, add to the story as it is supposed to be a horror movie. It distorts the watcher’s view, also giving the viewer a sense of uneasiness.
I agree. To this point, I think that silent film works well with an expressionist mixing in, as both are silent works that use facial expressions and body language to depict a deeper theme. The film certainly makes use of both, and pays special attention to how actors look as you mentioned.
I agree, the visuals are unsettling and portray paranoia and fear. The landscapes match the emotional states of the characters. It emulates these emotions by bending the landscapes in a warped way.
Challenges to Authority or the Social Order
⤹Click the reply button just below.
(1:01:00-1:05:00) This scene describes the moment where Francis and the doctors discover Dr. Caligari’s diary, in which he writes how he’s happy to encounter a somnambulist because it allows him to uncover the secrets of Caligari through murderous acts. I find this scene as an act that challenges authority because it’s a refusal to let good morals get in the way of the personal pursuit of scientific discovery. Dr. Caligari sees the manipulation of the somnambulist as an opportunity to discover something despite what society would deem as appropriate actions within the realm of superiority.
I agree that this scene exposes how Caligari twists science into an excuse for evil. What’s crazy to me how the movie frames that this obsession with discovery is more important than humanity. It’s almost like Caligari represents the danger of an unchecked intellectual authority where experimentation and logic is used to justify control and murder. The system enables him. It makes me wonder how many people get away with the same kind of thing under a mask of professionalism.
This definitely reveals how Dr. Caligari prioritizes his own obsessive pursuit of knowledge over ethical boundaries. His actions expose the dangers of unchecked authority in science and medicine. Building on that idea I noticed the visual style of the scene only adds to it. The sets are disjointed with warped trees and strange colors. This shows Cesare’s disturbed mental state as well as Dr. Caligari’s twisted morality.
a key moment that authority is challenged is when Francis is investigating Dr. Caligari and surely enough finds out that the respected director is behind the murders. this scene undermines the trust in institutional power and reveals just how much authority can be corrupt or even dangerous.
Challenges to Authority or the Social Order
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The twist ending could have been a moment where the movie challenges authority. When Francitz appears in the mental asylum with the asylum director, the movie makes the commentary that the asylum’s director could be the authority trying to silence Francitz. The twist ending lets the viewer imagine if what Francitz really experienced was the truth or he was insane. If we believe in Francitz it could be showing us that the use of authority to silence those who speakout and Francitz is trying to challenge that authority.
Hi Harvey I agree with you and wanted to add that I think the movie also uses Cesare to reinforce this idea. Just like Francis, Cesare is controlled and silenced, but in a more literal way. He has no voice his own and is completely manipulated by Dr. Caligari. That shows how people who are vulnerable in society can be turned into “tools” by those in charge.
I feel as though the entire movie was questioning authority. Once Dr. Caligari is revealed to be the head of the insane asylum, you can view the events of him manipulating Cesare through the lens of exploitation. Those who try to go against it, like Francis, feel as though they are insane or trapped in a system that works against them. The average person has no power compared to those of high authority; in the end, there is nothing citizens can do except be seen as mentally unwell. Going off of the title of this class prep, though, I can also view this movie as a commentary on a soldier’s experience after war.
I agree that the movie reveals themes of exploitation and social hierarchies. I would like to add that as part of the exploitation of Cesare, the propaganda and rhetoric surrounding his carnival show at the very beginning of the movie dehumanized him. The spectacle of the event degrades Cesare and allows the audience to do so as well.
Like a few other people on this thread, I agree that it was when Francis discovers that Dr. Caligari is the one who directs the insane asylum. Francis and some other doctors find a manuscript of all of his evil-doings while he is asleep–this moment serving as a tell to who the manipulator behind the havoc really is. This part of the film is a critique on the blind trust people had in the government at the time, reflecting how Germans faced anxiety post-WWI because the systems that were supposed to protect the citizens actually led them to tragedy–an absolute travesty. The overall suggestion of this moment is that the governing bodies, those with power, might be the most dangerous to your rights and protection. And those poor, unsuspecting people might never see it coming, being that the lines between sane and psychotic had become harder to mediate, just like how they are in the film.
Challenges to Authority or the Social Order
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The movie uses the technique of unreliable narrator, tricking the audience to believe in Franzis’s saying. When ending reveal that Franzis was actually a patient in asylum , writers are inviting audience rethink through the entire story, questioning the truthiness of what their learned.
I agree! When we found out he was manipulated into committing the murders, it not just questions how true the story we just watched was, it also makes us question the people we suppose to be in power and wonder if we can really trust them.
I agree! I thought it was Franzi’s saying when watching the film then I rewatch the entire film after realizing that was not Franzis speaking when it revealed they were in a asylum. It made me realize too that should we question the truth.
When Franzis follows Dr. Caligari into the asylum and exposes him as not just the director, but also the mastermind behind the murders, this revelation challenges authority in the sense that it gives doubt to the idea that those in power, especially medical or governmental, are inherently rational and trustworthy. By portraying the authority figure as the true villain, the film critiques the blind faith society places in hierarchical structures.
I believe that this movie used a metaphor to describe World War 1. For example, Dr. Caligari is like a German general, and Cesare, a sleeping man (sleepwalker), is a German soldier. Dr. Caligari feeding Cesare and controlling him is just like a German soldier getting command from a General. However, if we pretend that Dr.Caligari is a general, then citizens cannot go against him but in the movie, Francis, the guy who was investigating the murder, discovers that Dr. Caligari was manipulating Cesare to commit murder. This scene is against authority since lower-positioned people is trying to go against higher-positioned people.
About 30 minutes into the movie,The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Francis reports Dr. Caligari to officials, as he suspects him for being responsible of his friend’s murder. This scene in the movie is crucial as it highlights an individual challenging the social order (and as a side note, Francis does so by distorting his face in a way that displays expressionism). In other words, Francis is essentially indicating that Dr. Caligari is not who he says he is (which, in the movie he is portrayed as an elite man). Thus, Francis’s skepticism within this scene conveys the idea that those in power may not always appear as society deems them to be; those with authority may not always be trusted.
A moment that I noticed where the movie challenges authority or social order is during Act V at around 53 minutes when the officers go to Caligari’s house and try to see if Cesare is in his box. During this time Caligari tries to block the officers from going into his home, but he fails and the men go in and take the box resulting in Caligari running away from the officers. By Caligari resisting he is not complying with authority.
Francis’ realization that Dr. Caligari is the director of the insane asylum is one moment where the movie challenges authority. The revelation acts as a critique against blind faith towards authority figures, especially in the case of WWI. Dr. Caligari is likely representative of the leaders of the nations involved in WWI, demonstrating the scale of the destruction that can result from blind obedience to authority figures.
One of the best examples in which The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari challenges authority is through the depiction of the asylum director, who is ultimately revealed to be Dr. Caligari himself. This twist casts deep suspicion on institutional power, particularly psychiatric and state authority, suggesting that those entrusted with care and control may, in fact, be the source of chaos and manipulation. The film’s jagged and distorted sets work to reflect not just the mental state of the characters but also a world where traditional structures have become incredibly untrustworthy. In portraying the figure of authority as both the orchestrator of violence and the embodiment of madness, the film seem to be critiquing the blind obedience demanded by hierarchical systems, especially when taking into consideration all that had occurred in the wake of WW1.
One moment that stood out to me was when Dr. Caligari is revealed to be the director of the asylum. That plot twist, as though expected reveals how the authority is the villain. This contradicts with the previous ideal of trusting the authority into distrust. Instead of authority being a source of safety or order, it becomes the root of manipulation and control.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A pattern that I noticed among some of the artwork is the deviation from the norm and how clear it is shown in said art. Common objects are represented in ways they don’t appear naturally, they are distorted with the purpose to evoke a reaction. This is most presently seen in Salvador Dali’s, “The Persistence of Memory” and Méret Oppenheim’s “Object”, in which clocks are shown to be melting and a coffee cup appears to be made out of hair. It breeds a slight sense of uneasiness for me as I am seeing something that I am very familiar with, yet, it is not quite right but still not so much its unrecognizable. Enough is shown to know what the object is, but also that this object is not as it’s seen in life, it had been purposefully twisted. It should be noted as well that all of these artworks brush with reality making its change much more stark as we could visualize it in our own world.
This is a great analysis! I noticed that as well—it seems like everything is almost perfectly normal, except it’s not. I like to think if an alien came to earth and saw these photos, they probably would’ve thought there’s nothing wrong. However, as humans who have lived life a certain way, we can instantly tell something is wrong. One example of this happening is in Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali’s Lip Dress and Shoe Hat (1937). Nobody wears hats that are shaped like shoes! Yet, the painting disguises the discrepancy so well, as if that was normal all along.
Your observation about the unsettling distortion of familiar objects is spot on. I think surrealism is all about the tension between the recognizable and the strange. I’d add that this “twisting” of reality isn’t just visual but also psychological. For instance, in The Treachery of Images, Magritte forces us to question the relationship between language and perception with the line “Ceci n’est pas une pipe.” It’s a painted image of a pipe, not the actual object, highlighting how representation can deceive. This part, where reality itself is questioned—is a key feature that sets Surrealism apart from movements like Expressionism, which tend to emphasize raw emotion over such conceptual play. Its so weird to think what we see is not real.
A pattern that I noticed across the Surrealist artwork is how the artists uses ordinary and everyday objects to expose the fragility of our reality. In The Treachery of Images, the artist paints pipe and the translation says ” This is not a pipe” and now the viewer is questioning the art, language, and perception. Same with The Persistence of Memory, time which we see as something solid and set, is melting. These artists take normal things and are twisting them enough to create an illusion. It’s not total chaos but it feels more calculated. It makes me question if anything is as solid or structured as we think.
I totally agree with you that there are these traces of illusion throughout. I think also other than just messing with out minds and exposing how fragile images of objects are, it pushes our minds to be more imaginative. Rather than just seeing things as they are, thinking outside the box. It takes everyday objects and turns them into something new by changing different features than one would normally expect to see.
I agree, I think the idea is to break down what we feel is true and right. Magritte’s The Double Secret, is a good example, as it targets the human form, which we obviously hope isn’t foreign to us. The unnatural breaking, and the reveal of what’s within, gives a weird feeling, because you know this isn’t you, but it does kind of look like a human. Ray’s Sleeping Woman is also a good example, as it just barely feels wrong, through the position of the woman, and the texture of the picture.
A stylistic pattern seen in some of these paintings is the lack of color in some paintings which help us view the tone. For example, in Man Ray, Black and White (1926) the painting depicts a woman holding a dark figured face where the black really pops out due to the fact that the painting is in black and white. Another example is Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali, Lip Dress and Shoe Hat (1937) where the sort of the same happens where the black really pops out because of the lack of any other color.
Something I’ve noticed looking at these pieces is that all of them are relatively muted. Aside from the last one, they all lack colorful contrast like we see in a lot of other art. Even the last piece, though it has more color than the others, is not using bright hues to contrast the details, but instead uses shadows. Lighting and shadows is another continuity through all of these pieces too, essential for differentiating the details and drawing the eyes in which bright color variants usually would.
I noticed the muted and nude tones as well throughout all the pieces. Almost all these paintings seem like they are black and white, except to having only the ocean being blue. The only painting tat has color is Max Ernst’s Europe After the Rain (1942), in which most of the civilization is painted in a dark color, making the viewers focus on an illuminated yellow structure. Yet, throughout Ernst’s entire painting, there is striking color, but extreme contrast is not used.
a common pattern in these artworks is how dreams are mixed in with real life. Many of the pieced are quite strange, like a melting clock or a fury teacup and spoon. it made me stop and think. it’s like the mind is twisting the simple everyday objects into weird things.
A pattern I noticed in the artwork, specifically Man Ray’s artwork is the way both women being painted are visually doing the samething which is laying down. Both images “Black and White”(1926), and “Sleeping Women”(1929) both show a women with her head down, both images are in black and white which I suspect is not only because the images are 3 years apart, but also being the latest one seems to be a sketch. The pattern continues with the expression of the women’s face in both images. Although in “Black and White” the women isn’t described to be sleeping she seems to be like in “Sleeping Women”. In both of the images the women’s face seems to be serious or sad, and the black and white color also gives that gloomy vibe to the image.
I think this style of art is very interesting and I feel that there are many commonalities between all of the pieces of artwork that were presented. Most notably I feel like it is essential to recognize that they all depict in-genuine scenarios and they seem to show imagery from dreams or thoughts that our subconscious produces. It is also evident through many of the pieces that these artists present ordinary objects in bizarre and even weird ways. The cup and spoon is made out of hair and the clocks are warped and not flat or circular. In addition, we see removal of the face in the first image and weird objects within, and similarly we see the lady lying by and holding an odd depiction of a face and head.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think the most prominent feature in these artworks is the use of abstraction on a canvas that is otherwise realistic. The paintings seems to develop complex ideas and emotions, like the inconsistent feeling of time in Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, on a canvas that looks realistic and something we can understand. Surrealist art is expressive in the way that the small details that seem out of the ordinary is giving the painting meaning, as opposed to other forms of art where the meaning is derived from the style of the entire piece.
Harvey I love your take on these art pieces I would definitely have to agree with you, especially with your point of the inconsistent feeling of time. With these art pieces I notice a sense of calm. Each image shares neutral tones and a bare face. We don’t see much emotion so we don’t know exactly what is going on through the minds of the people captured, however at the same time it feel like we do because of their lack of emotion.
I also agree with you. I think that, although the artworks seem realistic for the most part, they also incorporate a dreamy, hallucinatory quality that comments on complex ideas or emotions.
I agree with your assessment that surrealist art combines reality with abstractions, causing an expressive, extraordinary piece. I think that these qualities add a sense of disillusionment or detachment from reality. It’s hard to make out whether or not these paintings exist within our same world, or if they are of a fantasy world of some sort. The consequence is a sense of mystery and disorientation when observing these pieces.
One of the most prominent themes throughout several of the images was the expressionless faces. Both of Man Ray’s pieces show women sleeping, relaxed with little emotion. Similarly, Dali and Schiaparelli’s “Lip Dress and Shoe Hat” presents facial features such as lips on clothing, detaching the focus from the womans face. In Magritte’s The Double Secret, the face is calm and neutral, adding to the overall sense of mystery between these pieces.
I agree, Frankie, and the subtlety in expression you mention is noticeably different from expressionist art like The Scream, where artists put great effort into passing the emotion onto the viewer. Here, the lack of emotion feels also feels intentional from the artist, almost making the viewer search harder for the mood or lack thereof.
I see a pattern that these artworks are all exploring and combining textures. For example, in Object, the cup and the spoon are brown and furry, which is the opposite of the usual smooth texture of a teacup. Another example is the Persistence of Memory piece, which paints the clocks in a unique, soft, and bendable texture. All the unexpected ways of depicting objects make surrealism dreamlike.
Something I noticed from these artworks is the fact that it seems to be trying to make the audience uncomfortable. For example, in Salvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, the melting clocks and the ants gathering around the bottle are all things that would make us feel uncomfortable. We traditionally view clocks as having a rigid essence: both precise and accurate, but this artwork breaks this view and makes us uncomfortable by making it soft and melting. The ants gathering around the clock also makes us uncomfortable because we are usually irked by their existence and the fact that it surrounds a nice pocket watch ruins how we believe a pocket watch should look orderly.
A pattern I noticed in all these artworks is the comparison of real people/objects to abstract people/objects. Man Ray’s “Black and White” in particular demonstrates this through the difference between the model and the artifact.
I didn’t notice the common comparison or influence of the two between each other, nice observation! I would be interested in knowing what you think the message the artist is trying to send by doing that.
I think a pattern that is prevalent in these artworks is using an image that a viewer could be familar with and distort it in a fantastical way. There is a sort of futuristic (the concept, not the art period) element to some of these works in their metallic look with hard lines. I think one of the funniest subversions is in The Treachery of Images in which the caption literally says “this is not a pipe.”
These surrealist artworks are similar in the sense that they are drawing on comparison to conventional sights and themes, but are all made to look unconventional. In Rene Magrite’s The Double Secret the viewer is presented with what would’ve been an enlarged statue of a woman, however that isn’t the case. A part of the statue is cut out and set to the side, most of which resembles her face. Beneath the surface of the original aren’t blood or organs, but sphere-like items attached to her flesh. The background of the ocean is enough to classify it as a surreal art experience.
I think this style of art is very interesting and I feel that there are many commonalities between all of the pieces of artwork that were presented. Most notably I feel like it is essential to recognize that they all depict in-genuine scenarios and they seem to show imagery from dreams or thoughts that our subconscious produces. It is also evident through many of the pieces that these artists present ordinary objects in bizarre and even weird ways. The cup and spoon is made out of hair and the clocks are warped and not flat or circular. In addition, we see removal of the face in the first image and weird objects within, and similarly we see the lady lying by and holding an odd depiction of a face and head.
A common pattern that all these artworks share is that they are all in some ways distorting reality, or present some shock factor that is unexpected from the viewers. For example, “the treachery of images” is just a painting of a pipe with a line of text that translates to: “this is not a pipe”, or “object”, which features a tea cup and spoon except everything is made of animal hair. Collectively, surrealism takes common scenery or things society all agree on what they should look like and add a twist to them to make them fundamentally different and mysterious.
One pattern I noticed that is very different from the other artworks we looked at is that the pencil work is much more visible. Many of the other works the shapes weren’t as apparent as the Surrealist art. They also almost look like a photograph, you can see that different brushes were used to make the paintings look surreal like.
A thematic pattern within each of these artworks is the disturbing and unsettling tone that the images relay to viewers. They create a dystopia whether it be utensils made with fur, melting clocks on a beach, emotionless faces, or distorted shapes. They go against natural forms and force readers to think of an alternate reality.
Patterns in these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
What I noticed in all of the artworks is how unsettling they feel to look at.The Double Secret by René Magritte really aight my eyes because its really odd how the woman’s face is broken and I don’t know what its trying to show behind it. Also The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali is also unsettling because of the way it describes how time melts.
I agree with how you called to attention the unsettling nature of the surrealist paintings! In some ways, the use of less color and the more direct painting of things, with less distortion, makes the paintings easier to look at, but once you look closer, I also notice the disturbing nature behind the stillness of the paintings, especially the facial expressions! For me, in agreement with you, the painting that stands out the most is Dali’s “The persistence of memory” because of the way if forces me to think about how time is valuable and assess what I am truly using my time for before it melted away.
For the majority of surrealist artwork, the usage of dull, muted colors is emphasized to evoke a feeling of disrupting the familiar. The use of common colors gives a sharp contrast to the distortion of everyday objects, bodies, or landscapes. For example, Man Ray’s “Black and White,” uses a noir design to bait us into expecting an artwork of a realistic woman, however he distorts her expression slightly to mimic the uncommon mask. In a way, surrealist art is meant to disturb expectations, relying on photographic realism and ordinary colors to reframe what is considered standard.
I agree, the realistic features created by color and lighting leads the audience into believing the object is real, but the unusual aspects of the object makes them question. This oddness and expectation is what makes disturbs the audiences.
My first impression of the surrealist pieces was that they were simple, clean-looking, and easy to look at. In comparison to the futurism and cubist collages we viewed before, where it was kind of like the viewer had to piece the art together to make sense of it as a whole, the surrealism art is straightforward and you can easily focus on one thing at a time. This is the theme I noticed in the artwork. They (to me) convey a singular message by providing one object as the focus of the piece.
I agree! I like that you point out that these Surrealist pieces have a subject. Something that I also noticed with Cubism and Futurism was that those styles have the viewer focus on many things at once and don’t have a singular subject, or in some cases, a single focal point. These Surrealist works feel much more “straightforward,” like you said, and are a lot easier to look at because they give the viewer a completed whole rather than multiple parts and pieces to analyze for understanding.
A stylistic and thematic pattern that I see in most of these artworks is how uneasy and somewhat drowsy they look. Something about the images just makes me feel off, especially Man Ray’s Black and White and Sleeping Women. Something about those two images in particular is kind of offputting which is ironic because they are probably the two most normal artworks out of all of them.
I also felt a sense of unease when looking at these paintings, and I agree that Man Ray’s Black and White and Sleeping Women feel especially so. There are a couple of reasons I think these paintings stand out as epically off-putting, not least because, as you mentioned, it looks so normal. It’s the small oddities that make it so strange for example they way they are positioned look extremely uncomfortable contrasting with their relaxed sleeping. Also, the way in which they seem not to be wearing any clothes makes it feel as though we are intruding where we ought not to.
Surrealist focus on subconscious, the emotional state of people in interphase of reality and dream. They explore this feeling through use of contradictory(wrong texture, misuse of objects, conflict sentence), which creates a sense of dream as common sense of daily life no longer works.
Compared to other art that we analyzed in class, Surrealism in general are very direct. For most of the surrealistic art I can’t see distortion. Some of them are actual photographs, and some of them are paintings that look like actual photographs. Also they did not use vivid color but used darker toned color which gives me impression of calm and quiet paintings.
Surrealism compared to Expressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I see expressionism as bleeding emotion, like Munch’s “The Scream”, where anxiety completely warps the environment into pandemonium. I think surrealism, on the other hand, conceals emotion beneath a sort of unsettling serenity. Dalí’s work, “The Persistence of Memory”, shows time melting rather than screaming if that makes sense. Surrealism does more than merely communicate emotion; it exposes the unconscious, usually with an unsettling elegance. So, while expressionism confronts, surrealism entices and then unsettles.
I never thought about it like that but I understand what you mean. Surrealist art is more subtle in that way it makes you think more it’s not just straight to the point. It still communicates a point without being flashy but it makes the viewer not only think about what the artist is trying to communicate, but also what it’s saying to them. There can be more meanings behind it you know?
Yes, I agree, as expressionism feels like it’s just spilling everything out, all the chaos and fear, while Surrealism feels quieter but maybe creepier because of it. Like with Dalí, the clocks melting feels calm at first but then you realize how unnatural it is and then it lingers in your head longer. Expressionism hits you all at once, and the other slowly gets under your skin.
Méret Oppenheim’s Object (1936) shows us an unconventional fur-covered teacup. The piece of tableware usually made out of porcelain is now covered in a peculiar texture. No longer smooth, the teacup provokes our senses. You feel it. This is classic surrealism, turning the familiar to the unfamiliar, making it slightly wrong and foreign. Surrealism delves into the subconscious, prompting us to create associations and overlaps we hadn’t seen before.
Expressionism is more of a distortion of reality, exposing an inner state. The Scream by Van Gogh is a testament to this. Looking at the piece, we are thrown inside the artist’s inner turmoil.
While both reject realism and traditional representation, surrealism unlocks the unconscious through irrational imagery not always emotionally explicit. Expressionism, on the other hand, aims to externalize emotion, reveal internal psychological states.
Surrealism compared to Expressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Where Expressionism oftentimes feels as if someone is sketching out a nightmare, Surrealism is as if you’re stepping into a dream. What stood out to me was that in Expressionism, death is a prevalent theme underlying almost all the paintings shown. However, in Surrealist paintings, women are often depicted sleeping peacefully, and landscapes feature bizarre yet beautiful scenery or objects.
Comparing these two types of art is like comparing light and dark. In many ways, they are the antithesis of each other: complementary. However, they are related to each other in the sense they are supposed to be a reflection of the human condition. While expressionism reflects one’s emotions in an abstract form, surrealism seems to reflect one’s emotionless expressions. For example, in Edvard Munch’s The Scream, the painting depicts fear explicitly, as if the man was embodied terror. However, in Man Ray’s Sleeping Woman, the woman sleeping shows no emotion at al, as if she was the embodiment of the loss of emotion.
In my eyes, surrealism and expressionism are very similar to one another. Both art styles depict scenes that are not founded in reality—surrealism focuses on the deepest depths of imagination while expressionism focuses on emotions. These concepts are greatly intertwined as our imagination is often influenced by our emotions. At the same time, our personal perspectives are byproducts of our expectations and how we feel in the moment. The only difference I see upon first glance is the “dream-like” quality of surrealism art.
Surrealism compared to Expressionism
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One contrast I noticed between Surrealism and Expressionism is the color. For the most part, Expressionism uses a lot more bright color pallets, only one of the six showed being in black and white, while three of the eight showed for Surrealism have no color, and the rest are more dull. Even Man Ray’s Black and White (1926), is titled for what it is, black and white.
I also thought that these Surrealist pieces were super straightforward. The pipe portrait is especially funny to me because under it, it says, “This is not a pipe”, when it quite clearly is a pipe.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Man Ray’s Black and White, there seems to be an expression of conflicting beauties, while also creating a hint to the conflicting images of skin within society during that time period. The woman is authentic with flaws that don’t seem to affect the curated image of her face, but the mask the woman holds up is carved with symmetry in relation to the mimetic portrayal of facial features of darker skin tones. Both portrayals of the female face are different in composition and yet, so similar in beauty, possibly invoking the notion that the change in color doesn’t affect the nature and perception of beauty.
One artwork that really caught my eye was Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931) because of its uniqueness. I think this piece really represents Surrealism because it definitely challenges regular thoughts. I really appreciated the clocks that seem to be melting. I think this is representing the loss of time or maybe how humans lose themselves in time. I think this painting is saying that humans are the will of time and time controls our actions. I also really appreciated the textures in this work with the mixture of soft textures in the melting clocks and the hard texture in the cliff in the back. However, I think the nature scene in the back also has an important meaning. I think it is trying to say that nature is dying and becoming more barren (because of the dead tree) and we are not noticing because of our obsession with time. I am not sure what that pink thing on the floor is under the clock but at first I thought it was a woman lying on the floor but now I think its some sort of cloth or animal. I think the author purposely made this aspect ambiguous.
A striking detail I notice in the surrealist art, Sleeping Woman is how clearly we can see the textures of her skin, from creases, indents, arm hairs and even a unibrow. These details make the woman look real and untouched which is very different from the woman in Black and White. Her skin is portrayed to be perfectly smooth making her look fake and sculpted. Man Ray seems to be showing two different views on women’s beauty , one representing reality and the other representing the ideal beauty standard.
I agree, looking at them image compared to the other ones you can really see the way that the image is detailed, it looks like a pencil was pressed down heavily in order to create that sharp look that it has.
One painting that really impresses me is the Double Secret by René Magritte. The face of the man is detached from his head, revealing the “secret” in the man’s head. The texture of the item in the man’s head makes it look like serveral eyeballs connected by some sort of plant. This painting is a bit uncomfortable to view at first sight, but it effectively conveys the artist’s message that everyone carries disturbing secrets beneath the surface.
I agree with your point, the contrast between the two halves, with one half being a regular, realistic style while the other half is torn apart revealing a dark-shadow interior filled with metallic spheres. I feel like it evokes a feeling of hidden identity or psychological fracture. Another feature I would like to add is the ocean background, it is calm and serene, which is a juxtaposition to the disturbed broken two-face figure in front of it, which makes the painting feel an eerie sense to it.
One detail that really stood out to me in Méret Oppenheim’s “Object” (1936) is the fur on the teacup, saucer, and spoon. It turns something familiar and classy into something uncomfortable. Although the texture suggests warmth, it contradicts with the idea of drinking from it. The stylistic choice is so intriguing to me, making me question why someone would want to use utensils covered in fur, a texture that you wouldn’t typically enjoy in your mouth.
René Magritte’s The Double Secret really stuck out to me, especially what is depicted under the supposed mask. The mechanisms on the insides are both confusing in what they are supposed to represent and dull in color. The whole painting uses mute colors but the colors of the insides of the person are distinctly gray. The scattered orbs are also confusing because it isn’t what you might expect to find under a figurative mask. One might think of another expression that the person is truly feeling or another way to express the artist’s emotions, but this one is gray orbs that look mechanical. I think this detail adds to the general confusion and challenges conventional thinking of what a mask is meant to represent.
In René Magritte’s “The Double Secret”, the detail that stuck out the most to me was the fact that the face to the left, or the mask hiding the bell looking secrets, perfectly matches the head on the right. It’s as if they are puzzle pieces meant to fit together, with the face aiming to cover up the lies within the mind. I think it’s an interesting play on the concept of somebody being two-faced, because this work makes it seem as though lies are all from one face that just covers the deception within a soul.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Salvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, I found the figure lying on the ground particularly striking. At first glance I thought it was a kind of disfigured horse, but looking closer, I saw a closed eye with long eyelashes and an eyebrow. It looks like a melted piece of a face on the ground. One thing I think is interesting is how Dali paints a lot from his dreams. I wonder if that closed eye is representative of him dreaming this landscape, or if it represents remembering/dreaming about a memory. I think the melted clocks show that although memory persists over time, as more time goes by the memories become less realistic and more surreal. Time tends to warp memories, and I believe the clocks are warped to mirror this.
In “The Double Secret” by René Magritte, a striking detail I noticed was how the person’s face got broken off, as if they were made of ceramic. And underneath the broken-off ceramic face piece is a hollow shell with multiple bells. I think this displays the way we present ourselves to the public, not our genuine selves, but rather a hollow, unreal version. I think in this piece, the ocean signifies the person’s true self, which is not seen within them.
I agree with you, there seems to be a portrayal that the outside and inside of a person are different. The front portion is separated from the inside of the portions but I interpreted the balls on the inside to be screws or bolts. It kinda implies how the person is broken on the inside but goes back to the saying of what happen never really meets the eye. The person as a whole is shown in only one color which also implies the simplicity but the background is a pretty blue that may also signify the peace of day.
One striking detail that I found are the ants on the pocket watch in Dali’s The Persistence of Memory. I have seen this painting many times before and really enjoy it, but this is the first time I noticed the ants. Dali is known to use ants in many of his artworks which he uses to represent decay or death. It is clear in this artwork he is using them to to represent decay, as the clocks seem to be melting very slowly which can show that the persistence of memory is quite strong and not able to be decayed easily.
This is a really cool idea Chris. I wasn’t too sure if it was the decay of time or maybe the preservation of time. I thought that what the ants were doing was being frozen and encapsulated by the gold object which I depicted to be amber. In this way the ants would be frozen in the amber, suggesting time in a frozen state.
In Dali’s The Persistence of Memory (1931), the melting clocks draped over the other objects in the landscape is something I find striking. This is because Time is usually rigid, and structured. However, in this painting time appears soft and even useless. This suggests a sense of alienation of the concept of order. This alienation of order and normalcy, reflects the Dadaist mindset where they “felt they could no longer trust reason and the establishment” (Strickland 148).
Méret Oppenheim’s Object comes off as striking to me as much as it does to everyone else I’d imagine. A household item so ordinary as the bowl is covered in hair–seemingly animal like. As humans, we don’t associate furry animals with the actual being of our dishware, or even meal time at all. Seeing these two elements being fused to tangibility incites our brain to work harder to define or make sense of what we’re being presented and the purpose it serves.
In Max Ernst’s Europe After the Rain (1942), the shapes of everything seem to be familiar but foreign at the same time. It gives an uncanny sensation and confusion of what is going on. I believe it interprets a kind of post-apocalyptic European city after being destroyed in the aftermath of a war, since some of the structures resemble buildings. To me, the “buildings” also resemble the form of fungus, growing outward unpredictably, perhaps alluding to the notion of the city having died.
Striking Details in these Artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A striking detail in Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory painting was the melting clocks. I think Dali wanted the melting clocks to represent memories. As time goes on, people make memories however, we should take a step back and cherish those moments. As well, Dali drew ants on the bottom left corner, demonstrating diligence or discipline but with the clocks it shows we take for granted the time we have and just focus on the future and not the present.
I definitely agree that Dali’s strategic approach of incorporating melting clocks in The Persistence of Memory suggests that time is of the essence; as time goes on, we tend to reminisce the past or recount prior memories. Additionally, the ants in the corner are on the only clock that is neither melted nor faced up. Therefore, I think that the ants also demonstrate consuming time (as ants in large masses are typically found near food) and for that reason, Dali has the other clocks melting to illustrate the idea of yearning for the past and longing for prior memories.
Yes, the melting clocks is a very unsettling piece overall. Every time somebody mentions surrealism, I always bring up the melting clocks. A striking detail for me is the ants on what I assume is the pocket watch. I don’t know, something about the clocks being limp in a desolate setting with the ants, it gives me goosebumps.
I also found the melting clocks very striking. They work together with the empty environment and possibly dead lamb-like creature to create an unsettling atmosphere. Everything about the painting, including the clocks, seem lifeless except the insects on the clocks. I interpreted the fly and ants swarming the two clocks as similar to the swarming of insects around decaying bodies, signifying the end or transience of time.
A detail I found interesting in “Lip Dress and Shoe Hat” by Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali, is the mixture of a thoughtful illustration but at the same stylish. The woman of this artwork seems to be lost in thought, contemplating something outside of our view, in this perspective we see a deep emotion picture. But if we observe the aesthetic details of this image we see a hat with the shape of a heel. The pockets of her clothing have a shape of lips. I feel like these details give it as well a mixture of modern art and classic art by the choice of colors.
I agree! In addition, the dress and hat seemingly make no sense, adding to the element of the unconscious breaking through, as the unconscious can feel like a amalgamation of buried thoughts, doing stuff that normally one wouldn’t do, like wear a shoe as a hat. The stylishness with the combination of classic and modernness of it also showcases how the unconscious is breaking through as, again, it confuses the human mind. It is meant to confuse and perplex the viewer, making the reader truly have to think and contemplate what is going on and why, similar to the woman’s own expression of perplexity.
One detail I really love in Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931) is the melting clocks because I view the clocks as our temporal experiences, the transience of time, and the transient quality of moments, also I view it as time is nothing but an illusion.
I found a striking detail of Sleeping Woman by Man Ray to be the white foggy outline that borders the sleeping outline. Without, the painting borders on only realism, as it’s not highly stylized or portraying the women differently than she is (looks perfectly human). The addition of the white fog gives the painting a dreamy feel, and brings the question of whether that’s her soul, an extension of her body, or perhaps a sleepy haze being represented.
One striking detail is what looks like hair on the objects in Object. It turns the art from simple artistic re-creation of household items, to a question of what we consider normal. What is our reaction to a “normal” item being turned into something new and odd?
A striking detail that stood out amongst all 8 paintings was the Magritte’s The Treachery of Images, where her simply painted pipe was paired with her French caption that read “This is not a pipe”, which delivers a jarring realization to the audience: the image is not the object. This contradiction between visual and verbal language is so striking to me as it seems to be challenging our assumptions about perception and truth. Where many have argued that art is determined either by those who view it, this piece seems to take away this control from the audience and invites deeper reflection on how meaning is actually constructed.
Norm Violations in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A moment that violates social norms is when Gregor family treats him more like a pest rather than a person. At first they are shocked and disturbed but then quickly switch to just ignoring him. locking him in his room, and resenting him. What makes this deeper is that he isn’t like an evil villain but it’s his own sister and parents. We expect family to stick beside you, especially when something traumatic happens , but in this story, love fades when appearance and survival is on the line. Kafka’s showing how fragile normal family dynamics actually are because they turn on him as soon as Gregor cant perform his role.
I agree, the moment Gregor’s family stops treating him as a human is a clear violation of social norms. In a normal world family is supposed to care for the suffering member no matter how changed they are, but in Gregor’s case his family turns against him and sees him as a burden instead of having compassion towards him.
Yes, I agree with you. The moment that Gregor’s families treated him as a burden of their lives instead of caring him is definitely a violation of social norm. One scene that demonstrates this is when Gregor’s sister brings him various kinds of food but throws everything away afterward, regardless of whether he ate it or not. Gregor suddenly became something that disturbed his families. A healthy family should always show warmth and care toward its members, no matter what happens.
Yes! In so many other novels there seems to be such an emphasis on family love and dynamics, and this reaction of his family is unique. Humanity like to think of a family’s love and care as impenetrable and unwavering, but Kafka challenges this and instead proposes fragility and an underlying sense of never knowing how deep love and trust can really go. His disconnect between his human mind and his new body coincides with the growing disconnect between him and his family.
A violation of social norms occurs when Gregor’s father starts to throw apples at him, which leaves him with an injury because Gregor’s exoskeleton doesn’t offer much protection. This portrayal of violence, the social norm because parents are supposed to be nurturing and protective towards their children. Instead, in the story, care and protection is substituted with violence, due to the shame they have towards Gregor.
Your point about the violation of social norms is really interesting, especially in how Kafka uses the father’s violence to reflect the family’s shift from care to shame. I agree that the act of throwing apples is shocking. A moment where the traditional role of a protective parent is completely reversed. What’s more disturbing is that Gregor is already so vulnerable, and instead of receiving empathy, he’s treated like a burden or even a threat. This moment really highlights how quickly love and responsibility can collapse under the weight of fear and social pressure.
I agree with your insight of the substitution of care and protection with violence because there seems to be a connection between the physical appearance of Gregor and the love and care his family shows towards him. With Gregor being the sole provider of the family, his family has come to perceive him as the stability in their livelihood and well-being. In their more violent reactions when Gregor became a creature, it seems to express that their love towards Gregor became conditional over time as they were consistently getting something out of loving him. Gregor became their protection against instability and having to work for what they want, but when that protection disappeared, so did the connected nurturing and caring attitude towards Gregor.
When reading Metamorphosis, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Gregor. One scene in particular is on page 72, when Gregor covers himself with a sheet to relieve his family from seeing him. It reads, “Greggor had tugged the sheet down lower and in looser folds […] refrained from peering out from beneath the sheet this time; for the moment, he would resign himself to not seeing his mother and just be glad she had come” (Kafka 72). This scene highlights the alienation and shame Gregor felt about himself, and how that inner projection of his self-consciousness became so deep that he hides from the people he loves—his family.
What stood out to me is how Gregor’s first reaction after realizing he’s a bug is just stressing about missing work. He’s not freaking out about his body or thinking about his family, just worried about his boss being mad. It makes him seem quite small and powerless, like he’s stuck being this obedient worker even when everything about his life has changed. This also makes you wonder if he was already dehumanized by his job before he turned into an actual insect.
I agree completely! His thought process during this transformative time is weird and bizarre in a way. This challenges what we expect and what would be going through your mind during this time. I also agree with your point that it makes him powerless, in a way he his dismisses his feelings and what’s important to him challenging societal norms.
A moment in Kafka’s story that I found to be a striking example of how normative expectations are challenged and violated is the part of the story in which the family treats Gregor as more of a pest or insect rather than human. At first they are upset and sad of the fact of his transformation, but then they begin to avoid him, lock him away in rooms, and totally resent him. A specific example where his family very obviously violates normative expectations is when his father injures him by throwing apples at him and forcing hm into his room. Societal expectation is for families to support each other in moments of suffering or trouble, however the treatment of Gregor during this part of the novel challenges societal norms.
Norm Violations in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
When I read The Metamorphosis, I read it as a critique of Capitalism and how this system dehumanizes those living under its system. I especially see this in how Gregor Samsa initially isn’t upset over the fact that he’s a monstrous vermin, but rather fearful that he’s late for work. Not to mention that his boss came in person to his house to tell him to get back to work as a traveling salesman. This is an absurd event to happen on the one day he’s late for work. Another norm violation that left me in disbelief was how, in the ending, the family celebrated their son’s death and immediately started planning to marry Greta off for more money. It’s all just a little insane.
I completely agree with the dehumanizing state of capitalism. Like you mentioned, when Gregor turned into a bug, he was also afraid that his parents will see him as lazy and useless. This is what happens though because right as Gregor is no longer to work and support his family, they start to resent and hate him. It was more of the fact that he wasn’t working more than the fact he was a creature. This makes me see that capitalism only cares if you are useful to society or not, and if not then you have no purpose.
Hi Ava, I was thinking the same thing about the critique of capitalism. To add to your point, I thought an important point of the story was when Gregor’s family cuts him off once they realize he can no longer provide for them. The way his family is brainwashed/influenced by the capitalistic system and merely valued their finances.
I agree with your point about capitalism, when I read the book as a child I didn’t know what capitalism was, but I had a feeling that the desire for money was what drove the ambitions of both Samsa and his family’s actions throughout the book. The pain he went through at the end of the novel right before his death was especially brutal for me to read then, but now that I’m older I’ve associated it with the pain and struggles many feel under late stage capitalism.
Upon my first read of The Metamorphosis, I was shocked at the family’s response to Gregor’s transformation. We consume so many narratives about families being the most important lifeline a person can have, yet Gregor’s family shuns him the moment he changes. They appear more hurt by the fact that he can no longer provide for them rather than for the loss of a family member. Perhaps this is how the average family would react, making the story more realistic. It’s quite a rude awakening, though, to see what truly binds a family together.
Yes I agree as I believe the family bond in “The Metamorphosis” is one of the most prominent norms that are challenged in the text. In society family is supposed to be our place of comfort where we are not afraid to be ourselves. At one of his most fragile moments Gregor’s father throws apples at him injuring him and going against the nurturing role that parents are typically meant to hold. Instead of protecting him his father partakes is acts of violence against him. Gregor’s family makes him feel so ashamed of himself that he even covers himself with a sheet “Gregor had had tugged the sheet down lower and in loser folds” (Kafka 72) to avoid them from seeing him. The one space he should be able to free himself from the concerns of others is where he seems to be the most burden.
A moment in Kafka’s story that I found to be a striking example of how normative expectations are challenged and violated is the part of the story in which the family treats Gregor as more of a pest or insect rather than human. At first they are upset and sad of the fact of his transformation, but then they begin to avoid him, lock him away in rooms, and totally resent him. A specific example where his family very obviously violates normative expectations is when his father injures him by throwing apples at him and forcing hm into his room. Societal expectation is for families to support each other in moments of suffering or trouble, however the treatment of Gregor during this part of the novel challenges societal norms.
Norm Violations in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A particular moment in Kafka’s book, Metamorphosis, that violates the reader’s normative expectations is the fallout post room emptying. The sister and the mom attempt to empty Gregor’s room while his father is away, but Gregor ends up startling them, causing his mother to faint when he tries to protect a particular image. This leads to when his father arrives home for him to try to stomp on and presumably kill Gregor. This violated at least my normative expectation that family is meant to protect and help each other, no matter the circumstances, especially ones that are out of that family member’s control. In addition, Gregor didn’t do anything especially wrong, so the way the father turned to violence over this slight misunderstanding was extremely unexpected.
Yes, in Metamorphosis Kafka’s depiction of family have strong negative image. When Gregor lost the ability to sustain the family and himself, normally one would expect the rest of family members to takes on this responsibility(for is what family do) without the expectation of payback. But Gregor’s family definitely failed the idea of ‘protect and help each other’ as soon as they realized Gregor wouldn’t able return to work in anytime. They no longer willing to take care of him, calls him a monster, a burden to the family.
I think one moment of “anomie” in Kafka’s story is the deterioration of family bonds and transformation of relationships. When Grete decides to lead their mother into Gregor’s room, she assures her mother that “‘It’s all right, come in, you won’t see him'” (Kafka p. 46). This violated the reader’s expectations that his mother would be happy to see Gregor, but instead, he was treated as an anomaly. Rather than trying to cure him, they chose to isolate him, turning his room into a “cave” or a “den.” In addition, Gregor is no longer regarded as a brother, but rather a pet, where Grete “had developed the habit—not entirely without cause, to be sure—of presenting herself as the holder of particular expertise when discussing Gregor with her parents” (Kafka p. 48). This challenges the normative relations of empathy and loyalty in family, revealing the familial breakdown in moral and social norms.
A time when “anomie” happens in Kafka’s Metamorphosis is frankly the entire book. In the end, he never gets out, dying of starvation. The whole book we learn about his past and his family, who are flat out just bad. As a reader, we expect him to try and do something with his life, like escaping or trying to find comfort in his new reality, however, he is passive and stagnant, which causes his to starve himself and die, doing absolutely nothing about his situation. This leaves the reader with a sense of nothingness, which at an end of a book goes against the norm because one usually has some type of reaction, good or bad to the book.
I agree with you- Gregor’s passiveness does make the whole story feel empty and frustrating. I was expecting some kind of change but instead he just fades. The lack of resolution adds to the strange and depressing tone of the book. I also feel like it highlights the disconnection he feels.
The most obvious anomie to me is the heartlessness of his family. I found his description of his family’s voices as “gentle” to be conflicting. I recall a scene where Gregor speculates that his sister is crying because he is at risk of losing his job and thus leaving his parents to pay their debts. He doesn’t consider that she may show empathy for him, and while his perspective of others’ thoughts is not reliable, it is likely a result of a series of actions that led him to believe that their first thought wouldn’t be about his well-being, or annoyance at the manager’s imposition, but rather that he is at fault, he is going to lose his job, and make everything worse. Once Gregor is revealed to be an insect, his parents’ “gentleness” subsides and they treat him cruelly. His father’s transformed view of him is immediate as he hurts Gregor from the very first moment to get him to leave their presence, crippling one of his feet. He later throws an apple at him that leaves lasting damage and rots until Gregor’s death. The only thing making him valuable to his parents was the material gain from him. Now that that’s gone, he’s an outcast and a burden deserving of betrayal from his once loving sister.
Gregor Samsa as Antihero
⤹Click the reply button just below.
During this part of the book, the family have started putting pieces of furniture that the lodgers don’t care to have around into Gregor Samsa’s room, isolating him to certain parts of the room for long periods of time. Usually, one would be upset that their personal space was be evaded, as well as the lack of consideration they are giving him, but Samsa continually let the people around him do what they thought was good for him without once asking him. He seems to sacrifice the humanity of himself and his personal desires to the point that he behaves as if he’s undeserving of the common, everyday things (choosing what he wants to eat) because of how his new body image negatively changed others’ perception of him.
That is good point, I did not realize that he has a kind of victim complex. I would like to add on to that-his victim complex is precisely what makes him seem like an anti-hero. In my opinion, I don’t think he shows the heroic qualities that traditional heros have. For example. traditional heros have qualities of courage, selflessness, and a desire to save others. However, Gregor really doesn’t have any of these qualities. He seems so vulnerable and weak, which can especially be seen with his attitude toward his dehumanizing job. This is the complete opposite of a hero’s attitude. He seems so human and realistic, especially with his family issues, making him not a hero and an antihero instead.
That’s super insightful. I’d add that Gregor’s willingness to let his family take over his space with zero resistance demonstrates how deeply ingrained his sense of guilt and obligation has become. Even as an insect, he continues to perceive himself as a burden and acts like it, accepting the discomfort of others and escaping rather than expressing his own needs. It’s a tragic moment that demonstrates how his identity has been completely moulded by responsibility and shame rather than a sense of personal worth or agency.
I think all of this highlights how much Gregor’s passivity defines his role in the story. What stands out to me is that he doesn’t even try to reclaim any sense of control, he just adapts to whatever others decide for him, it’s like he’s given up on being seen as a person. Even when they start using his room for storage, he doesn’t react with anger or even surprise. That lack of resistance, especially when his dignity is being taken away piece by piece, makes him feel less like a protagonist with purpose and more like someone who’s just being slowly erased. It’s that absence of action that makes him such a powerful antihero, he reflects quiet resignation.
Gregor Samsa as Antihero
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Throughout the novel, and especially in the beginning, Gregor Samsa is incredibly disgusted with his transformation—so much so that he does not want his family or society to see his appearance. Samsa is also very insecure and withdrawn, which can be seen in the way his sister feeds him and cleans up while he hides under the couch, afraid that his appearance will frighten her. Even though his sister puts in the effort to care for him, Gregor never really acknowledges her help or shows appreciation. Instead, he continues to depend on her without ever trying to ease her burden. This is not very heroic and rather than showing strength or gratitude, Gregor becomes passive and disconnected from his family
One may think that Gregor, shunned by his entire family, would make some sort of effort to reverse his condition or at least attempt to lead a more civil life in his state. Instead, Gregor lives almost as a recluse, allowing his family to neglect him. Gregor accepts his fate and abuse in a passive manor. He is not unheroic, but only because he is very inactive in any sort of capacity. Eventually, this neglect and rejection will lead to his death. In his position, many would fight tooth and nail to help themselves. Maybe Gregor’s family would have treated him more humanlike if he made an effort to be human again.
Gregor Samsa’s passive attitude towards his transformation and how people treated him as a result really surprised me. His entire personality is pathetic and he allows others to abuse him, even before his transformation. His father would constantly abuse him, even injuring him with apples, he just tolerates it and hides. Even before he turned into an insect, he still works a job that made him miserable for the sake of his unappreciative family.
Gregor Samsa as Antihero
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I feel as though in comparison to a typical hero’s journey, Gregor gives up, and that is what makes him an antihero. The entire book, he just accepts what he cannot do and watches his life derail. He even begins holding a bit of resentment for his sister for not cleaning his room. In a way, we must show sympathy for him because this is an insane circumstance to be in, but also he needs to move around, not accept his dad throwing apples at him.
Yes I agree! One specific part that stood out to me was when everyone that surrounded him were putting items in his room as storage. Which did not allow him to move and became very isolated. If he was a hero he would’ve not let them violate his room instead he gave in and let everyone take advantage of him. Which makes us feel sympathy for him but for me he brought it upon himself because through out the book he does not try to communicate as much and lets his family do whatever they think is right.
I definitely agree that Gregor Samsa falls under the category of “antihero” due to his failure to act and react. Even from the beginning Samsa chooses to be passive about his transformation, he thinks “What if I just go back to sleep for a little while and forget all this foolishness” (Kafka p. 10). The lack of action makes him antihero, choosing to accept absurd circumstances. Throughout the story Samsa gradually falls into loneliness and isolation without the attempt to escape, fight back, or find a solution.
I agree. Even after turning into a bug, Gregor continues to worry about being late for work. He doesn’t fight back or try to escape his sad situation but he was being passive and self-blaming. A hero would try to take action, but Gregor just accepts everything quietly. Also he never stand up for himself and accept the truth. When family treated him badly, he never fight back or demand respect in family members.
Even by the end of the second chapter, we see that Gregor is no longer attempting to act or retain some of his human qualities. For instance, Kafka writes, “tormented by his worries and self-reproach, he began to crawl about, crawling over everything, walls, furniture, [and] the ceiling” (Kafka 80). This description is very aimless and bug-like, and lacking completely in the self-soothing quality that I feel is an innate human response to panic. Thus, I would define this as unheroic as there is no attempt to act in a human way– as is seen here. Gregor just spirals into madness with no valiant nor heroic attempt to save himself, contrary to how a hero would typically act.
I agree! This can also be seen in the part where Gregor decides to eat, and enjoys, just scraps of food rather than the actual fresh, human food that his family provides for him. While some humans have to eat scraps if it is necessary, preferring scraps when there is the option of actual food is definitely non-human and also represents how he is non-heroic because he does not try and save himself by staying “human”.
Gregor’s character traits that portray him as “unheroic” are his unassertiveness, passiveness, and wishy-washiness- like version of Charlie Brown. A specific moment that struck me was when he accepted mis-treatment from his own family. Gergor was a kind of already a wallflower as a human, and when he turns into an insect, it’s like nothing changed in his family’s life. Even as a bug, he doesn’t take much action and hides, tolerating being locked up. I do think that Gregor’s selfless behavior can be read as heroic, though. Sure, he lets himself get overlooked and doesn’t stand up for himself, but in a way, such selflessness is heroic because he’s being the bigger person.
Weird Moments in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A weird moment I found was at the beginning when Gregor turns into an insect. “When Gregor Samsa woke one morning he found himself right there in his bed as some sort of monstrous insect” (Kafka 21). This quote highlights the author’s relaxed tone. I found this weird because this is a big change in Gregor’s life and to describe this moment in such a relaxed tone is striking to me. This relaxed tone is reflected in Gregor’s actions when he becomes an insect. Gregor is more concerned about him getting late to work as he responded to the time saying, “Heavenly Father!” (Gregor 24). This lack of concern about his transformation is something I also find really striking. This lack of concern for his transformation also highlights an overly concern for his job. This could show how he ties his identity to his work, and helping his family, instead of tying his identity to himself.
I agree that opening the novel up with this moment felt odd, even if slightly funny because of his nonchalance at the situation. The part where I couldn’t help but smile at the slight absurdity of his casualness was when on page 22 Gregor says, “What if I just go back to sleep for a little while and forget all this foolishness”. So even though he clearly is off put by his present situation, he believes the solution is simply to go back to bed. That’s kind of relatable.
I agree to both of your points, I find it weird and deeply strange, not only because of that fact that he literally turns into bug and the physical horrors of becoming a bug, but also the fact that he is so calm and how Gregor responds to it. Its the little emotional panic Gregor shows, he doesn’t let it out by screaming or chaos, but through anxious thoughts about daily tasks and obligations. This juxtaposition and contrast between the ordinary and monstrous creates a weird tone; even when Gregor is in a nightmarish state, he never breaks into chaos.
I’m intrigued when you mention how he cares about his identity as a worker and family man before he cares about himself. I think Kakfa’s use of literally stripping every human element from Gregor and turning him into a bug, yet having the character persist in his capitalistic duties has a lot of commentary about the working conditions of this time period as well as Gregor’s mental health. Gregor has literally been dehumanized, yet his most “human” element is his role as a worker, which is so heavily engrained in him that it has become his consciousness.
The weirdest part of the Metamorphosis, is after Gregor initially opens the door. He speaks directly to his manager and essentially just says “aw man I’m sorry, I’ll get on the next train though.” I understand this moment in the story, it shows Gregor’s unreasonable devotion to work and his family, however for the rest of the story, this doesn’t make sense. It is only on the first day that he talks to his family, and there isn’t any explicit detail (that I remember) that would explain why this changes. Moreover, there isn’t a response to what he is saying. On one hand, super valid since he’s a big bug, but they essentially ignore it, which later helps them get rid of him under the idea that he is no longer Gregor. At the very least, if a big bug thing talks like your son, shouldn’t it be reasonable that you would at least try to talk to him?
One weird moment was when Gregors receiving fresh food from his sister, yet all he wanted to eat was the scraps. it was strange as you can tell he was changing on the inside. it makes you question what truly makes a human, human.
Yes, I noticed this too. There are a lot of moments throughout the story where Gregor’s transformation is clearly not just physical but mental as well. He stops liking the food he used to love, like the milk, and eats food that a bug would enjoy. He starts enjoying crawling on the walls and ceilings, and at some point even agrees with his mother and sister that having his room emptied of all his personal belongings that remind him of what it means to be human so that he can have an easier time in his new form. I think it pushes the idea that we can get so caught up in making things more convenient for us and fitting into a certain mold that we can forget to hold onto the things that make us, “us”.
The weirdest moment for me personally was when Gregor’s father lodges the apple in his back and none of his family helped him remove it. I understand that as time went on they grew more distant but what prevented the father from killing him-which is crazy in itself-was the fact the mother and sister still had this love for Gregor. So I was just confused because I felt like even though there was this drift I would imagine it wouldn’t have been strong enough to well first of all wish death upon him but also want him to be suffering from an injury. It was sad and weird and I felt like the emotions didn’t match the actions.
One of the really odd moments is when Gregor’s family starts leaving his bedroom door open so he can watch them live their lives, despite the fact that he’s in his bug form. It’s strange because it’s this balance between cruel and kind—they’re no longer keeping him locked away, but they’re no longer interacting with him as a complete human being. It’s as if he’s being treated as a pet or pest that they’ve desensitized themselves to, not a son or brother. It’s just such a strong reminder of the emotional displacement of the family and highlights the nigh-bureaucratic creepiness of the story.
You bring up a very interesting point on the contrast between the two. I wonder which might feel worse to live through? On one hand him being hidden away, he’s meant to feel shame, but in a way during this time at the very least they still see him as something so distressing and disgusting that their son or brother has become this monster that they still react to him being alive, and he still has an effect on their lives. On the other hand, when they no longer hide him, its almost as if he no longer exists to them and as you said are desensitized too him. It’s like choosing the lesser of two evils, both with lead to alienation just of a different kind. Either being kept separate and hidden due to being far too estranged yet still having an effect, or simply ceasing to exist yet be able to see life live.
This is a weird read and I’ve read this book several times, it doesn’t get more normal. Why isn’t anyone worried about the fact that Gregor is a bug? First off Kafka doesn’t just say he’s a cockroach but just describes him weird and then on top of that NO ONE IS TERRIFIED! His family is mainly embarrassed and inconvenienced by it. I don’t know about you but if my sister woke up as a bug I’d freak out. I would be screaming on top of my lungs.
Weird Moments in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A weird moment was when Gregor’s father threw apples at him and one got lodged in his back, causing a wound. Despite him being hurt, no one in the family does anything to help. No one tried to take it out despite his pain. And slowly, the apple starts to rot in this wound. No one wants to go near him, let alone help him, despite being in clear pain and having a rotting apple lodged into his back for months. I think this represents his family’s final rejection of Gregor, and marks a turning point in their care for him.
I think that this part was also impactful because it shows that the Father, at least comes to no longer view Gregor as Human or have humanity left in him. The common theme around this book is the growing alienation of Gregor by his own thoughts and by his family. Its this moment in particular though where I feel like Gregor fully becomes an insect because the people around him reject the idea that Gregor or humanity is in him. Similar towards the end where Grete, the person who cared for him the most rejects his humanity.
I think it’s also important because he ends up later dying from this wound, along with starving himself.
I agree I think this was weird but also really sad. As his son he shouldn’t even hurt him but more horrific than that they aren’t remorseful at all. Gregor gets no help from any family member, he has no one. It’s one thing to be alienated by others or society but by your own family is very unfortunate. When Gregor dies it’s even more weird that they still have these same emotions towards him, and they feel liberated that he’s gone and can finally live their life.
I agree completely! I found this part of the story very odd an a challenge of normative expectations. We expect family to help and support in times of need however we don’t see it in this instance. They almost view him as an outcast.
A weird moment is when they realize Gregor is a bug and they don’t necessarily care or they aren’t shocked, but rather they are more so embarrassed. I don’t exactly get the concept but I do see that they are ashamed that he isn’t normal, however they don’t do anything to change it.
I also find it weird how they immediately know it’s Gregor Samsa instead of assuming the bug ate him. They don’t even try to communicate with him, although they likely could’ve found a way to.
Yes, it was indeed strange. Adding on to that, I noticed this sentence “besides they were so preoccupied with their present worries that they were bereft of all foresight” (Kafka 33) shows how the parents are not mature enough to empathize or even think of a solution to help their kid. They were not only preoccupied but they were also very avoidant until the moment they saw their kid turn into a bug since they were always urging him to get out of the room but not sensed that his voice was weird.
I agree, I also find it weird how Gregor himself also doesn’t make a big deal of himself turning into a bug, but instead worries over other things, such as his job. He seems mostly annoyed by his transformation, whereas most people would be shocked or horrified to see themselves turn into a bug. His focus on his job or family’s finances is strange, and it shows how he is more afraid of financial troubles rather than losing his entire body and transforming into a bug that won’t be accepted by society.
I agree. I do think it is strange, and I think it adds to the theme of the story. Once Gregor is transformed into a bug, he loses his practical ability to do work and be a part of society. Rather than being shocked, they perceive him as a burden because he cannot support his family, which leads to their sense of shame.
A strange moment in the novel was when Gregor died, and the way the family responded to his death. Instead of feeling sadness over his death, they found it liberating to the point they started making plans for their future life, starting with marrying off the sister. I think this happened because they viewed Gregor as an inconvenience to their life, not their son or brother, and as soon as he died, they were finally able to live their life.
I agree with this sentiment heavily. I feel that the family detaches from Gregor very quickly, and that there may be something there that reflects on how Kafka views the world.
I found this very strange as well. The family recognized the beetle as Gregor, but throughout the novel, the family treat him as a monster. Near the end of the book, Gregor’s sister states, “…But now we have this beast tormenting us; it drives away our lodgers and apparently intends to take over the entire apartment and have us sleep in the gutter.” It leaves me confused because Gregor didn’t do much more than exist in his bedroom for the majority of the story. They act as if Gregor is a monster set out to destroy them.
A weird moment I found was at the beginning when Gregor turns into an insect. “When Gregor Samsa woke one morning he found himself right there in his bed as some sort of monstrous insect” (Kafka 21). This quote highlights the author’s relaxed tone. I found this weird because this is a big change in Gregor’s life and to describe this moment in such a relaxed tone is striking to me. This relaxed tone is reflected in Gregor’s actions when he becomes an insect. Gregor is more concerned about him getting late to work as he responded to the time saying, “Heavenly Father!” (Gregor 24). This lack of concern about his transformation is something I also find really striking. This lack of concern for his transformation also highlights an overly concern for his job. This could show how he ties his identity to his work, and helping his family, instead of tying his identity to himself.
One weird moment in “The Metamorphosis” is when Gregor dies and his family feels no sadness or remorse for how he lived and how they treated him. You would expect them to care at least a little bit, since Gregor was part of their family and essentially the sole provider. However towards the end they saw him as more of a burden than anything else and are glad to be rid of him finally.
Acting more as a reflection–but also a weird moment–is the part where Gregor’s transforms into a bug. It’s not the actual change or outcome itself that throws me off, it’s the stress Gregor expresses when he’s worried he will miss his train for work. As he’s very adamant about making it to work on time, the author sets a very tense tone that Gregor can’t quite seem to de-root and shake off. Kafka makes a truthful critique on modern society in this moment, where physical wellbeing and identity are secondary to routine and work-obligation. It’s not the unsettling nature of Gregor’s morph that strikes readers, it’s how inexplicably normal or logical he’s reacting to those dehumanizing him as a emanation of societal standards.
I found it shocking when the mom and the sister were treating the lodgers with so much more respect than their own family member. I understand that that was their source of income, but its baffling how they were able to see how spoiled the food was and yet they still decided to serve it to Gregor. Like even in the beginning, the first meal he got after turning into a bug was their leftovers which entailed their bones. This is crazy to me how he was the sole provider for the family but after he became a bug and was no longer able to provide for the family he was regarded with such disrespect. Like even so, he once used to be human and be their family and yet he’s being treated worse than lodgers that are paying them. All they care about his themselves cause they’re even afraid of just looking at him.
Weird Moments in Kafka
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One moment in this book that I think was weird was instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with Gregor, his father wanted to lock him back in the room. In the text it states “He was fixated on the notion that Gregor must disappear into his room as quickly as possible” (Kafka 51). This is really insane to me because why did they not immediately get him help or at least ask if he was okay which obviously he was not but that is the least they could have done.
I agree, when I read that part I was so confused on why they didn’t help them instead of just locking them in the room and hoping they would disappear fast.
Perhaps the most famous weird moment in all of stories: Gregor Samsa waking up and being completely unperturbed about having turned into an insect. He is worried, but not that he’s a monstrous insect, but rather that he’s going to be late to work! Despite Gregor’s very real recognition of his new form, he’s simply unconcerned –rather, he’s worried that he is in “danger of losing his position, and because his boss would then start hounding his parents once more over their ancient debt” (Kafka 35). I saw this as Gregor not having the ability to be human under capitalism and the family responsibility he has. I know Kafka very much bought into the idea of just being “a cog in the machine”, and this moment along with other examples in the book (like wanting Gregor gone because he’s an economic/time strain) shows how dehumanizing work and poverty can be as it makes you set personal feelings aside in place of survival.
Your analysis is definitely correct here. The anti-capitalist message is clear, especially in this instance. Further, I would add that there is an idea that he literally doesn’t have time to be worried about the bug situation. Under capitalism there is such a constant movement (cog in the machine like you said) and to spend any energy or time on worrying about his transformation would be too detrimental. A distraction.
I agreed it was both shocking and sad that this was his reaction. Under the societal pressure, George sees himself as many roles but a normal human being. He has responsibilities, he has a job, and these might not even require him to be a human.
On pages 44-46 when Gregor finally exited the room I was confused as to why he didn’t think about how his appearance may affect the way his family and manager will look at him. He just goes on and on about his job, doing his best to keep it when there is clearly something more important if he has become a giant bug. I think this is because for so much of his life he has been working for the company and still has many more to work while being a young boy.
One weird/mostly sad moment is when Gregor’s family leaves the door open so Gregor can listen in on their conversations in the evening, but then they completely ignore his presence. Yeah, he’s turned into a bug, but his family still doesn’t treat him like a son or brother, they treat him with such indifference, exactly like the physical bug he is. This mix of partial inclusion but then total emotional detachment shows how alienation can happen even within families, a place where one might expect to be safest from such an issue. Especially when considering that Gregor was the main breadwinner for the family too, Kafka really speaks to how people easily discard others once they are “no longer of use”.
Looking back, they don’t really leave the door open on purpose, but it happens to be left open after changes of heart, which is even sadder that they ignore him. (Pg 54).
Something I found weird in “Metamorphosis”, was Gregor’s behavior or response towards his physical change. Kafka clearly expresses the changes and the struggles that Gregor faces as his body physically changes in addition to the mental strength it requires for him to attempt to still go to work. Despite the overwhelming difficulties and changes Gregor is facing to even move and speak, he appears to be in denial of what’s happening to him, yet he hides his denial with a superficial or even forced hopeful and positive mindset. While still attempting to make it to his job or fulfill his duties, Gregor says “Once the hindrance has been overcome, work all the more industriously and with greater focus” (Kafka 44). Despite the obvious tragedy, Gregor is forcing himself to feel hope for a change, even if he knows its impossible, he rejects the idea of failing his duties towards his family. Though this forced hopeful mindset decays throughout the novel, I think Kafka forces a positive mindset into Gregor to reflect how humans are naturally in denial while facing a tragedy or a change.
One weird moment that stuck out to me was the ending: after Gregor dies, the family moves out of the apartment and “discussed their future prospects…something they had never before properly discussed…” (Kafka 117). This particular line highlights how Gregor’s death helps the family realize how fortunate their life is, despite Gregor’s suffering (as he was a bug and also killed by his own father). Therefore, it is strange how it took Gregor’s death for the family to ultimately recognize how optimistic their future is, despite having relied on him.
During my reading of this text I found the moment where Greger, who at this point is still trying to hide his insect body from his sister, which is assumed to be out of shame, covers himself with a sheet. In my mind, this image of a giant bug that is consciously attempting to correct his actions to be modest was really absurd, while also heartbreaking as I continued through the reading. I believe it highlights the deep psychological disconnect between Gregor’s inner humanity and his ‘grotesque’ outward form, which intensifies the surreal tragedy of his isolation within his own home.
Contrasts & Continuities in Postwar Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
One key continuity I observe in Roy Lichtenstein’s, M-Maybe artwork is the use of colored Ben-Day dots. These dots add texture to the image, creating a contrast with the smoother solid colored sections. In certain areas, they also function as a form of shading, adding depth to the image. This technique departs from the traditional art styles, which I like because It shows how something simple can contribute to a greater whole. A single dot may seem insignificant on its own, but when many come together, they are powerful.
A contrast between the abstract expressionism and pop art is how they are responding in that post war time period. The abstract expressionism works are messy and emotional. They feel deeply personal. It reminds me of an inner chaos or spiritual awakening kind of feeling. It could be the artists way of responding to this post war period without using words. In contrast, the pop art seems to be flattening that feeling. They are loud, polished, and wrapped up in that mass culture and consumerism. The abstract expressionism has a raw feeling and the pop art makes me question if anything we are consuming is real
Yes, and I feel like the difference in emotion is what makes the contrast hit harder. The Abstract expressionism pieces feel like they’re spilling whatever chaos or energy the artist had inside. Like Pollock’s painting almost feels alive. Pop Art, like Warhol’s Marilyn, feels the opposite. It’s bright and polished, but kind of hollow, like it’s making fun of how consumer culture can look exciting but still feels empty.
I agree. While I feel like abstract artists make us think more doubting what we’re seeing and trying to find meaning in it pop art is very straightforward. It uses bright colors that entice the mind and stimulate our senses visually, with smooth lines carefully shaped and no sign of emotional turmoil. I also agree that it is very consumerism-oriented. With the rise of comics and illustrations, everything is perfectly curated, flat, and lacking emotion representing a society of mass production and capitalism.
I think that Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art contrast in how they approach subject matter and emotion. Abstract Expressionism, like Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31 and de Kooning’s Excavation, highlights raw emotion, spontaneity, and the self. These paintings are very introspective aim to convey emotion through movement, colour, and form.
Pop Art, on the other hand, kind of incorporates symbols from pop culture and consumerism, like in Warhol’s Marilyn and Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe. Rather than conveying personal feeling, Pop Art uses irony, bright colours, and very obvious and recognisable icons to speak about the superficiality or repetition of modern life. So, while Abstract Expressionism looks within, Pop Art looks outward.
I noticed that the abstract expressionism artwork and the pop art both have a heavy use of primary colors. For example, in Willem de Kooning’s Excavation, while the whole painting is pretty muted, the colors that pop out are red, blue, and yellow. Similarly, in Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe, the artist only uses red, blue, and yellow. While they are drastically different art styles, both artists choose to use primarily colors as the focal point.
A continuity shared amongst most of these pieces of art is the use of bright and saturated colors in order to catch the viewers eyes. For example, in Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) the use of bright colors in the woman’s hair demonstrates its a comic book page. Another example is in Andy Warhol, Marilyn (1967) where there are a number of bright colors which make up Marilyn Monroe’s face.
I agree, I think the use of bright colors, and the saturations of the images really allow for them to to “pop”. It really allows for the human gaze to notice the details because of how bright and hard to miss they are.
A continuity I noticed especially in the Pop Art is the color yellow. In Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, and Andy Warhol’s paintings the color yellow really stands out. I think that’s what gives the paintings that “pop”. In all three paintings the color is really out there and noticeable, it really brings the human gaze to focus on the details that are in that color.
One key contrast in the artwork is how flat it is; how it focuses on the bold coloring and abstract. Whereas the other paintings are more so three dimensional. Pop art can focus on both the canvas, while also challenging traditional artistic ideas.
In looking at the examples of the abstract expressionism artwork I feel that there are many commonalities that we can see across all of them. The first thing that came to mind when I viewed these pieces of art is a sense of chaos and genuine emotion being displayed. Although the third image is a little simpler and more controlled, the first two and even the last piece of art displays many different colors and abstract designs and symbols that I feel symbolize what the artist feels and is thinking. When looking at these pieces of art they make you feel a certain type of way and for me I get this idea of a true representation of feeling and emotion. Rather than thoroughly thinking about what they want to depict, I feel that the artist was just created this art based of their initial and genuine feelings.
Contrasts & Continuities in Postwar Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Pop art seems to have this saturated surprise factor to it that makes the art feel visually appealing but like the giant clothespin not make much sense inherently. Compare this to the abstract expressionism which seems to have more movement and lines, it feels like art in America was an outlet for expression that might not have been there before. Both the pop art movement and the abstract expressionism seem to have this quality to them that shows the desire to get out of modesty and social norms and I wonder if this type of art is to bring color to a post war America, where the buildings look more and more bland in color.
I think this is a great point. I’ve noticed the same thing, there are many colors in pop art, and in abstract many rigid shapes. When you look at each use of color or compelling shapes it tells us a story. I do also agree that after the war it was a dark time and this art was used as an outlet. An outlet to bring color and change to their current reality.
I completely agree that color is important to the overall idea of Pop art. However, I do think Pop art my extend further than the saturation of the painting. You mention the giant clothespin, and that it doesn’t make sense at first glace. I agree with this initial sentiment, especially because we are viewing the piece through the difference of saturation. However, I would argue that it would fit into the motif when analyzed through the lens of abstraction in general. All of these artworks are outside of the typical day-to-day visualization. We don’t see highly saturated objects outside of art. I think the clothespin represents the visual appeal of art through the unique lens of an unexpected clothespin.
In each of the pop artworks listed for homework, the subject is drawn from some aspect of American life or culture. For example, Target with Four Faces is emblematic of a dartboard design. This work removes us from the functionality of the piece and focus more on the concentric circles that make a dartboard beautiful. In M-Maybe, the art style invokes that of a comic book. Comic books are typically thought of as professional, for-profit pieces, which means their art can be taken for granted. Finally, in Clothespin, what we consider to be an everyday object gets elevated because of the size of the pieces and the dramatization of a clothespin’s curves. In all, each of these four pieces takes everyday objects and portrays them in a different life.
Abstract Expressionism vs Pop Art
– Colour palette used in Abstract Expressionism is far more dull compared to Pop art, which has a lot more primary and brighter colours.
– Abstract Expressionism doesn’t have many artworks of identifiable figures, even what seems to be humans are distorted and not easily recognizable. Compared to pop art, where the statistics are obvious and can be easily pointed out.
-Abstract Expressionism’s meanings could be left to interpretation compared to Pop Art, which distorts popular identifiable objects by experimenting with colors.
In the artworks of Abstract Expressionism, one continuity seems to be the way the artist play with perception, colors, and shapes. At first glance the paintings seem purposeless with random shapes or confusing lines, but as you look longer they seem to have reasoning behind them. This case is evident in Willem de Kooning’s Excavation; looking at it quickly it just seems to be lines and colors. However, after going in for a deeper look, it seems as if the lines are organized in a methodical way, highlighting colors in different places and even creating faces in certain areas.
I noticed that in each of the artworks from the homework, each one featured a distinct element that stood out, which is likely why the movement is referred to as pop art. In Target with Four Faces, the bullseye is emphasized with a bold red background. Moving to M-Maybe, Lichtenstein fills the entire comic book frame with the face of an attractive woman. Although there is a lot occurring visually in both Marilyn and Clothespin, the viewer can still clearly identify the central subject—Marilyn Monroe and the clothespin sculpture because of the artist’s use of contrast and visual focus.
A key contrast I see between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art is in the commercial appeal of Pop art, which is obviously where it gets its name from. However, I think it is more interesting to examine how both of these might have been informed by American culture during the Cold War era. In a similar way to how Abstract Expressionism identifies a certain type of American individualism, Pop Art identifies some of the ideas of American commercialism and capitalism. While completely turning the other direction from expressionism, which can feel like only the artist can truly understand the painting, Pop Art gives the viewer a reframing of something that we all have familiarity with. We carry our own connotations and ideas that we associate with Marilyn Monroe, for example.
A similarity I noticed in all of the pop art is their usage of vibrant colors. Solid reds, blues, and yellows are used extensively in the comics, the woman’s face wasn’t even given a solid color, but there is merely an illusion of color with the usage of colored dots on her face. Warhol’s Marilyn exaggerates this feature even further, by using odd, bright colors, each separate image of Marilyn brings a different meaning.
In looking at the examples of the abstract expressionism artwork I feel that there are many commonalities that we can see across all of them. The first thing that came to mind when I viewed these pieces of art is a sense of chaos and genuine emotion being displayed. Although the third image is a little simpler and more controlled, the first two and even the last piece of art displays many different colors and abstract designs and symbols that I feel symbolize what the artist feels and is thinking. When looking at these pieces of art they make you feel a certain type of way and for me I get this idea of a true representation of feeling and emotion. Rather than thoroughly thinking about what they want to depict, I feel that the artist created this art based on their initial and genuine feelings.
Contrasts & Continuities in Postwar Art
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Artists from both abstract expressionism and pop art used art to relieve stress and express individual struggle after the war, though differently. In abstract expressionism, the focus was on movement and spiritual intensity. Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31” for example, emphasized a detachment between movement and emotion, turning the canvas into an arena of randomness. Pop artists, however, operated under themes of repetition and mass culture. The work of “Marilyn” by Andy Warhol, for example, transforms the iconic Monroe into repeated, colorful prints in an attempt to embrace consumerism. Pop art, in particular, takes attention away from the individual and highlights the collective.
I really like what you said about the emphasis on movement and spiritual intensity in abstract expressionism. I also want to touch upon Pop art and focus on its shift from the individual to the collective – I find it interesting how Warhol’s use of repetition in Marilyn to not only embrace consumerism like you said, but also in a critique on how mass media flattens indivduality. Ultimately, it’s cool how Pop artists used familiar imagery to reflect a kind of emotional detachment, almost the opposite of what abstract expressionists were doing
A key continuity I noticed in both the abstract expressionism pieces and pop art is that all of the artists use dynamism to suggest some sort of movement or to evoke some sense of energy. For instance, in Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31, Pollock splatters various, differently-colored paint across the canvas; this technique ultimately energizes the canvas for both Pollock and the viewer. Similarly, Andy Warhol’s Marilyn shows both movement and vibrancy as the art piece depicts repeated images of Marilyn Monroe in different, vibrant colors — essentially energizing the images (and also contributing to the “pop art” effect).
A key contrast that I noticed between the abstract expressionist paintings above and the pop art paintings above is their tone. Specifically, the former is much more introspective and grave, while the latter is more playful and witty. This difference can be seen first and foremost from their color palettes in that the abstract expressionist paintings have a much darker color palette, as seen in Mark Rothko’s Black in Deep Red. The pop art paintings have significantly more vibrant neon colors that give them a significantly less serious tone. This is illustrated in Andy Warhol’s Marilyn, which depicts multiple images of Marilyn Monroe in a mix of bright colors.
One contrast between the pop art and abstract expressionist artworks featured is what they choose to represent. Abstract expressionist art strays from recognizable imagery, opting instead for vague colors and simplified shapes. The titles (“Untitled,” “Number 31”) are also simplified and lack representation of something tangible. Pop art, on the other hand, is highly representative and uses references to popular culture that are recognizable to its audience.
Abstract Expressionism is very wild and random, the art pieces have no structure and its just a wild assortment of similar colors and lines. Pop art is the opposite, you can easily understand what your looking at.
Meditations on one of these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Andy Warhol’s “Marilyn” stands out to me especially because of how bright and contrasting each section is, my eyes were immediately drawn to it. After looking at it for a few minutes, it is very interesting in that every face is identical in the way it’s posed and who it is, and yet they each seem to portray a different emotion or tone. The change in colors is part of directing the emotion of it, but the way the contrast changes in each one pulls your eyes to different features that almost seem to change or warp the expression. The way the brightest squares are in a herringbone like pattern also makes it appealing to the mind and eyes, really grabbing and holding your attention.
Yes, and it expresses how much a slight change in perception (in this case, color) can change the meaning in what you’re viewing in the artwork. However, this particular artwork does something different as it brings multiple versions of the same person to create the idea of how we bring the value of a certain product or person down to the level of consumerism. The use of different colors presents multiple versions of Marilyn, possibly in connection to how we each warp the image of Marilyn with how people personally observed her.
I agree with you on how the bright colors shift the emotion of each section. This is one of those works, where I feel like I’ve seen it multiple times before, but never really ‘looked’ at it. In particular, the bottom right frame caught my eyes with it’s vibrant colors and pseudo-realism. It looks exaggerated and hyper colored, which really caught my eye.
I agree with your point on this, every picture seems to be the same one, but somehow theyre all different in the tones of color, which could pose different expressions and feelings while looking at it. The frame that particularly stood out to me was the bottom middle one, the hot pink really pops out at the human eye, and it was the first thing my eye saw when I opened up the picture. I feel like not only does it change in emotion, but in physical traits of the frames as well, the bright colors in different parts of the faces really makes everything different stand out, creating almost like an optical illusion.
When looking at Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe (1965) painting, the first minute I spent reading the words, observing the cityscape in the background, examining the woman’s outfit, and noting her situation, I assumed she’s probably seeing a young man and is anxious about why he hasn’t arrived. Then, as I looked longer, I noticed how detailed the city looked and how attractive the woman depicted is. I sat in wonder at how attractive the woman could be, even when painted with monochrome dots and two other colors. The monochrome dots are used to represent her flawless skin tone that has pink flush, but I think what makes her really attractive is that her face shape and structure; she is truly gorgeous.
I looked at this piece too and I really like how you notice her beauty. It’s something that I didn’t really look at but it’s true how she meets the definition of the beauty standard with her blonde hair and blue eyes, and full lips. When I was looking at the piece, I really focused on the emotions of her eyes and how the lines are surprisingly expressive for lines that are so simple. You can see her wondering and trying to come up with an excuse for getting stood up, which in itself, is unfortunately a universal experience for everyone at some point. I also loved the motion of her hair getting swept back and as it curls around her hand adding to the drama of the moment as she thinks about him.
In Jasper Johns’ Target with Four Faces, I seem to have had a mystifying experience as I kept being drawn to the perceived meaning as being blind to reality. However, I wasn’t sure why exactly I felt that way because the painting left me with more questions than answers on why I was drawn to that particular meaning in the first place. I think it could be the fact that good aim in archery is seeing where your target is, but all the faces are missing that primary feature. It makes me wonder why I’m seeing the target even though the faces in the painting can’t.
The painting that caught my eye was Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled because of its aggressive brush strokes. The painting seems so rough with heavy colors and heavily exaggerated features. The woman almost looks monstrous with her distorted limbs and facial expression. I don’t know if this painting is showing a misogynistic form or if the artist is trying to challenge the idea of beauty, specially the beauty of women. I think maybe the artist is trying to juxtapose beauty and ugliness side by side with a woman with monstrous features. I felt kind of uncomfortable looking at this image because of the rough brush strokes, her weird smile, and her broken limbs. I also noticed the what I believe to be a sun in the corner. The black colors around her body also gives a eerie feeling that she is evil. The photo also has many shapes placed around, showing its abstract qualities.
I picked Claes Oldenburg’s “Clothespin” (1976), and after sitting with it for a couple of minutes, what stood out to me the most was the scale. It’s such a basic, everyday object, but expanded up to this huge size, and that makes it seem important, or at least impossible to ignore.
People probably walk past it all the time, probably without stopping to really look. It’s just there, in the middle of everything. That contrast is what makes it interesting, something so ordinary becomes strange just by being oversized and out in public. It makes you question what belongs as a monument of this scale.
I agree, I think the point of the piece is to bring attention to the absurdity of a massive clothespin. I also think that it is telling for people to not really pay attention to it (at least in the picture). I think this also plays into the idea of the clothespin, how it used to draw attention because it was so unique, but over time people are desensitized to it.
My first impression of the painting One: Number 31 by Jackson Pollock was that this painting was completely messy and chaotic. I tried to figure out that the artist wanted us to see. The strokes on the painting looks so random that I couldn’t find a its meaning. Different colors lines were mixed in harmony. None of the colors could be looked separately. It’s chaotic and harmonious at the same time. I felt that this is a very powerful painting with strong emotions. It forced you to look at it and think about it, although I was not sure that exactly the artist meant.
Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin (1976) stood out to me mostly because of how different it was from the other paintings. It has far less color and seems almost more mundane and unassuming. When I first stared at it I just felt as though it was just a normal everyday depiction of some tall monument and people walking on by it. However, after staring at it for longer, I realized that the tall monument is actually just a almost comically large clothespin. The fact the people in the painting don’t really pay it much attention I think possibly speaks to a larger idea about every day items. Like maybe the idea of everyday items once being an invention and something new and remarkable now lowered to something taken for granted almost.
The painting by Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) stuck out to me greatly and so I decided to devote my time into unavailing this painting. The shapes used in this painting are organic and fluid, it’s not fully clear where the women is supposed to end and where she begins, what I believe to be its intention. While there are pops of bright colors, to place emphasis on an aspect of the painting, the rest of the colors are dull and muddy as they are swirled around the painting. I interpret this painting as a embodiment of confusion, the women face is in distorted in such a way that her features are misplaced, yet still are coherent enough to form a puzzled look. She herself is wrapped in confusion as her body contorts to the will of the brush stroke, and her image becomes undefined, displaying a sense of disillusionment.
I spent a few minutes staring at Willem de Kooning, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) and focused most of my time on her face. It seemed like she was being pulled apart while also being assembled. Her body is violently fragmented with odd shapes and angels throughout. There are distorted features like her eyes and arms that are created with jagged brushstrokes. You can make out just enough to tell its a human woman, but not much more. The entire work is overwhelmed by chaos which had an unsettling feeling for me. It felt raw and untraditional.
Meditations on one of these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I chose Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948). It was really interesting and produced a slightly uncomfortable feeling, I think due to the distorted nature that Kooning chooses to depict this woman. Her facial features are very disfigured, not abiding by classic proportions. It also seems like her left eye is being poked out by the spikes of the star in the corner. As you work your vision down the painting, her body gets even more distorted, her blonde hair acting as a frame. She looks dirty and mostly unclothed, and it’s hard to distinguish all her different limbs and body parts. All this distorted imagery creates a sense of discomfort. Strickland wrote about how abstract expressionism worked to be “irrational” and free of needing to represent recognizable images, and I think this painting reflects this well.
Similarly to your reflection of this piece, I also noted how it portrays an abstract style, leaving the subject to look disfigured. Although, you took a more literally interpretive route than I did–but regardless of the difference in our answers–the chaotic nature of the artwork still shines through no matter how a viewer chooses to interpret it.
Amilia I love your analysis on this art piece and couldn’t agree more. I instantly noticed her eye being poked out by what seems to be a star. However, the more deeply I looked at this picture the less I noticed in the main subject, which is the girl. From what I see I noticed what looks to be like a window in the background and in front of it reminds me of a walkway, although I’m pretty sure it’s her hair. I see little figures walking along top of it, which reminds me of a sidewalk in a way, and that definitely struck out to me.
While staring at Willem de Kooning’s, Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948), I worked my way through the artwork dissecting different objects and shapes as it is an abstract piece in its originality. Turning it into a game with myself, I tried to note how many tangible objects that compose the subject I could pick out from the painting. After the duration of 3 minutes, I was still managing to discern new things independent of what this art depicts. Much like we’ve discussed in earlier classes, this art is similar to that of Cubism and Futurism in the sense that a viewers focus is constantly being shifted to different compositions of the work.
Jackson Pollock’s, One: Number 31 (1950) really intrigued me. As I began to concentrate on the piece, I realized there is a purpose inside the chaos. As Strickland writes “the impassioned act of painting became an absolute value in itself” (Strickland. 158), which helps explain how Abstract Expressionism focused on the creation process itself. The contrast between splattered lines and dots highlights how each movement was sporadic, some quicker than others. I also think Pollock’s choice to use the earthy tones blue and brown balances out the strikingness between black and white. Overall, One: Number 31 highlights emotion through motion through Pollock’s physical feeling on canvas.
I agree, Pollock’s emotion and movements are highlighted throughout One: Number 31 (1950), and that the dark colors influence the mood of the piece. I noticed that the movement on the piece is very fluid yet momentary, making the paint on the canvas look like they are in active motion. To me, this looks like the bursts of color are dancing on the page in short, sporadic bursts.
The artwork I chose to look at was Clyfford Still’s, PH-971. At first glance it looks quite simple with very few colors, but looking at it more its clear that a lot of effort was put into creating it. My experience was a little unsettling. While looking, I started to imagine that I was looking at a wall with the wallpaper ripping and falling apart spreading destruction to the whole wall. The most notable part is the one black streak that spreads to the center of the artwork. I was also unsettled by the white bit on the right side with a streak of blue. Thinking about my wall idea, this could represent a new beginning with them painting the wall blue and priming with white.
An artwork that I find particularly engaging is Andy Warhol’s, Marilyn (1967). Upon first look all I could notice were the cool colors, and contrasts of colors that Warhol used to depict Marilyn. It seemed so fun, happy and lively. However, the longer I looked at it the less happy it seemed. The more I looked at the painting the more it reminded me of Warhol’s, “100 Cans of Campbell’s Soup”. I saw this work in Strickland page 145. This artwork reminded me of the Maryilin artwork because they both show consumerism. Just like he did with the soup cans, Warhol uses the same image of Marilyn multiple times, depicting her as mass-produced. This suggests that Warhol isn’t just showing Marilyn and how fun, lively and beautiful she is, he is showing how the public consumes her.
I chose Willem de Kooning’s “Excavation”. It stood out to me because it reminds me of how sometimes when you stare at ceilings or other seemingly empty spaces, your brain starts to make out faces or other features. I like that there is not explicit figure in this painting, you have to form them on your own. It invokes feelings of nostalgia and curiosity, as it reminds me of how I used to see/create figures from the ceiling in my mom’s room. Even after looking at it for a while, you can still make out new faces and figures, this is a very interactive work of art.
Black in deep red, by Mark Rothko, is a piece that I found particularly engaging. Before meditating on the piece, my initial observations were that there were three rectangles with an orangish red background; the first one was grey, the second one was black, and the third was a darker red than the background. However, after looking at the piece for three minutes, I found that in the first rectangle on the left side, there is half of a face. The second black rectangle, I noticed that the whole square isn’t black, but only the middle. Also, the outside of the middle seems to be a darker color than the first square. The last rectangle seems to have lighter lines that look like words, but I could not identify what words were there. The background is a consistent red color; however, the only deep red I see is in the last rectangle. My experience with this piece was that the longer I looked at it, the more I found, but the less I understood about the piece.
At first, Jasper Johns, Target with Four Faces looks like a painting of a mere target, painted with thick paint that creates an uneven surface. But the faces on top reveal the three-dimensional aspect of this art piece, each one with a different mouth opening and expression. I believe this difference of dimension between the top and the bottom reveal that two sides of people: the surface that is two dimensional and simple while the inside is three dimensional and complex. The fact that the face isn’t fully covered also shows how people suppress their true selves and display the simpler version of them which is represented by the simple shape of the target.
I chose Marilyn by Andy Warhol and saw that throughout all his versions, you are able to see the depth of many of Marilyn Monroe’s features. For example, there is more volume in her hair in the other squares that show her in unique colors. Coincidentally, I saw another one of Andy Warhol’s painting yesterday when I went to Tate Modern. I saw his painting named Marilyn Diptych. And I found it very interesting how Marilyn was his muse, and there were so many ways that he was able to paint the same woman, numerous times with the same and positioning. This painting actually came 5 years after the painting I saw at Tate Modern, and it was interesting to see after 5 years, it was still the same person in the same position but painted in different styles, whether it was a change in color or change in depth or change in shade.
Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) is particularly interesting to me. For a painting in 1965, it’s very modern looking in design, possibly because of the comic book design. Something I find interesting about the image is how the woman’s face is dotted, though she still appears whole. It’s a very nice expressionist painting.
I stared at Roy Lichtenstein, M-Maybe (1965) and felt very intrigued by the bright blonde hair and the red dots on the woman’s face. The bright colors and the edifices in the background make this comic woman very modern and eye-catching. I especially like how her hair is blown by the wind and her hand is touching one side of her face. Overall, I felt like this comic woman is very dynamic, eye-catching, and portrayed as slightly seducive
I was drawn to the colored dots on the woman’s face as well! Though they are all separate, when looking at the piece as a whole, they appear as one, unified color. Roy Lichtenstein’s style reminds me of mass produced comic books too, but I was confused as to why comic artists were upset over this. It appears as if he was merely emulating an art style, but maybe there’s a larger commentary at play. Perhaps Lichtenstein wants us to look deeper into this style to see how impersonal it is; there is no identity behind it because of its mass production.
Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled (1948) clearly depicts a woman, but gives an uncanny sensation while viewing. This is because she is very scrambled up, and her body does not consist of any smooth continuities. The uncanny feeling arises from our ability to discern that it is a person, but not a healthy-looking one. She has a crooked smile, and one of her eyes takes up a large portion of her head. She might have arms but it is difficult to find where they begin or end. It is as if Kooning could not decide whether to draw a normal-looking woman or some kind of abstraction. Her mangled appearance may represent this conflict.
Meditations on one of these artworks
⤹Click the reply button just below.
As I observed Willem de Kooning’s Woman/Verso: Untitled , I found that it is clearly an abstract way to explore the body of a woman. At first I was uneasy of how Kooning made her look. The way her eyes are distorted and her arms disappear through the brush strokes. However, I feel like this painting is a representation of all women… that not every woman should follow specific beauty standards. That women are beautiful in any type of form. As well, by Kooning using different kinds of brush strokes in this painting, this emphasizes that all women are different and that is the beauty of it.
I agree, honestly when I look at it for too long, I too get kind of “off put” or even a bit disturbed by her facial expression. She looks as if she is struggling to escape from something, or perhaps she is something we should be escaping from. She also possesses a dream-like essence, where the shapes/expressions seem to distort and mix into one another, providing a subconsciously unsettling feeling.
I chose Jasper John’s “Target With Four Faces.” It is seemingly unassuming, and naturally my eye was immediately drawn to the center during the first few seconds. Then, I hovered up to the faces just casually resting above it, and after the major components were over, I began focusing on the colors and soft shadows all around it. If you stare at the bullseye long enough, then look at a plain wall or close your eyes, you will still see it there. It produces an afterimage illusion.
I also chose a pop art, and had a similar effect from the after images. I stared at Andy Warhol’s “Marilyn,” having seen if often as a child but never focused on that artwork in particular. Looking at each Marilyn, I realized that each face was slightly different, not just the colors. To me, looking at it for a prolonged time, the faces rested at a different part of the canvas and certain features were sharper for each one. Some had longer brows, and others had a bigger beauty mark. When I closed my eyes after, I would still see her face and vibrant colors, kind of like a hypnotic effect.
I think the vibrant colors definitely add to the hypnotic effect. I’ve always enjoyed this iconic painting because it showcases such a memorable figure in history. The painting is general is beautiful because of its color scheme.
The art piece that caught my attention the most was Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31”. Looking at this painting, I think that he used a technique (similar to ones we’ve viewed before) where he loads a paintbrush with paint and slaps it aimlessly onto the canvas. Although an “unintentional” way of creating art, as I was looking at it for 3 minutes, I found it fun to let my eyes wander but noticed myself following lines of the same color, trying to connect them. To me, it also looks like the colors are dancing amongst each other, and rather than chaos, the painting evoked an unexpected calmness in its fluidity to me.
I was drawn to Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin. The centerpiece of the clothespin is some type of hyper-realistic model that is a tad uncanny, reminding me of those mock ups of new buildings that are undergoing development. This smooth, simple statue obviously doesn’t look like its meant to be there, especially with the background consisting of architecturally complex, grandiose buildings. The out-of-place feeling of the clothespin against the background heavily contributed to the uncanny sense I got from this image.
This is an interesting take! I never viewed it as out of place, because I grew up passing by it often and still do. To me, I always viewed it as a sort of reflection or modern art approach of the city hall behind it- kind of like a reflection of maybe what city hall would look like in another life.
I observed Jasper Johns, Target with Four Faces (1955). It was the weirdest artwork among four and I thought that there should be some kind of hidden meaning in this artwork. When I first looked at the work I saw target and then I saw half of four faces above the target, and I wonder how the human face is related to the target. We usually shoot arrows aiming to the target and human usually never goes next to target while someone is shooting because it is dangerous. However, my interpretation towards this artwork is that you should never miss the target because someone will die. The four human face depict life and it allows shooters to concentrate more since someone’s life depends on him.
I decided to observe the Mark Rothko, Black in Deep Red (1957) because I was curious about what makes the painting special. After staring at the painting for a while trying to figure out why it felt so empty, I decided to do a bit of research of the painting and discovered that the black in the painting is supposed to represent their shift into depression, also discovered that Mark Rothko committed suicide in 1970. After discovering that the black is supposed to be the shift into depression, I now understand why the painting felt so empty. I was not expecting a simple painting to have such a dark meaning behind it.
The artwork that I found particularly engaging was Roy Lichtenstein’s M-Maybe from 1965. I chose this one in particular because of the text that came with the image. It stood out to me from the rest. I also feel like the bold yellow hair of the girl made it stand out a lot because of the comparison to the face. While looking at this artwork though my eyes started to blur a little bit after looking at the dots for too long making my head hurt a little. It was kind of hard to focus my eyes after that. Other than that from afar the image still stands out even though you can not really see the dots.
Looking at PH-971 (1957) by Clyfford Still without context, I first thought it to be botched attempted at marbling, or a collage, perhaps. Without the painting’s title, I found it to be sanitary and pleasant to look at. Whether he intended it this way or not, I’ve decided to think the painting is meant to show corrosion, and the many layers of the painting as it burns. A PH of 971 is incredibly basic, and so high that it’s hazardous. Knowing this, the painting screams danger. The pink and red area–the only one with a different texture to other colors–reminds me of ground meat.
The large color block of yellow in PH-971by Clyfford Still feels smoothing to my nerves. Despite that probably not the intended of Still as the shape of color blocks define in sharp edges, almost like being torn off. This with the flesh like texture on left corner(plus red, yellow, black/white, classic warning color) should produce omewhat anxious feel. But this kind remind me The Bay by Helen Frankenthaler. Just staring as the large blocks allow me to focus on the color itself. And Still chosed a really nice shade of yellow. Not too saturate, not dark not light. The color of sunflowers.
When viewing Claes Oldenburg’s Clothespin, I felt a sense of calm. Even though this sculpture is in the middle of a city, it reminds me of a calm country side with blowing grass and a relaxing feeling, as when I think about a clothes pin, I imagine a simple life where clothes are hung to dry with clothespins outside. The clothespin also kind of looks like two people hugging, which gives a sense of comfort and warmth, even in the middle of a bustling city.
What I noticed was that in the “Marilyn” from Warhol, every panel have different bold and strong colors and tones, contrasting each other, making each panel different in some type of way. I can also see that the bright colors makes some of her features pop out, for example, the bottom middle would make her eyebrows and eyeshadow pop out, and the top right would bring out her highlights in her hair, however in the other panels, it would all just blend in. All of these features would make the painting seem like an optical illusion, making the human eye find something new every time you scan the painting.
At first glance, within all of the artworks available, I hardly gave the Black in Deep Red a second thought as it came off across as so simplistic and unattractive. However, as I spent several minutes just sitting with the painting, it began to look less and less like a painting and more like sitting with a mood or ineffable feeling. The way the black bleeds into the deep red creates a sense of quiet tension, almost like a smoldering feeling just beneath the surface. The soft blurred edges and the slight variations in colour made the painting feel like it was breathing to me, as though it is so very vast yet at the same time intimate to me and my personal feelings.
I totally agree with you. Instead of the visual experience that most paintings address to the audience, this painting serves more as a emotional connection with the audience. As I looked at the painting, from the edges of the color patterns to the different layers and shades of black on red, it creates a peaceful integration between colors and shape.
Looking at Marilyn, I began to shift my eyes along as though I was reading comic book panels. I moved from one face to the next and it created a progression which seemed to have a transformation from one face to the next. The slight differences across each face began to be more evident. Next, the colors began to shift in my eyes as when looking at one panel, the other colors would seem lighter or darker relative to the other colors. The various saturated colors in each panel contributed to this effect.
After deeply staring at and getting familiar with Andy Warhol’s, Marilyn (1967), I obviously first noticed the bombastic, colorful blocks of Marilyn Monroe, an iconic and infamous celebrity of the era. These overly saturated blocks of her remind me of a comic book strip, which is what I think Warhol drew inspiration from in the post WWII art, focusing on the future of art and overall consumerism behind art. Similar to how comic strips were mass produced in newspapers or in editions, art was now doing the same. I see how this art could’ve been produced easily over and over again with the new-age technology. In addition, the inverted colors, while quite an eye-sore, bring a sense of fun and rejuvenating feeling as the colors bring out this energy of light-heartedness, where art doesn’t have to feel heavy or have a deep meaning, it can just be for fun way to seep out creativity.
Marvel’s Black Panther and “Black Power”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The Black Panther can definitely be seen as an exponent of “Black Power,” especially in the scene where the Fantastic Four first encounter him in Wakanda. The Black Panther was able to use Wakanda’s advanced technology to weaken his opponents. The Black Panthers was also able to defeat each of the Fantastic Four on his own relying on his physical strength and technological power. This highlights Black excellence, intelligence, power, and it also displays the strength Africa possesses without any European influence.
I agree with you that Wakanda as a whole seems to serve as a metaphor for black power. It not only shows the ‘strength Africa possesses’ but serves as a strong model of how Black people can have power and it almost provides a new outlook into how superheros can look. The Black Panther is intelligent not just in a technological stance, but also in an observational way. When he is fighting Sue Storm, and she tries to create a force field, he intersects before she can fully create it and admits to studying how the Fantastic Four’s powers work. I think this shows that ‘Black Power’ is different than what the previous superheros have in the sense of this new level of intelligence and strength that goes essentially beyond any current superheros level and offers a new outlook on who can be in power.
I agree with you both!! Black Panther represents a new model of power. He is more than super strength, he also has intelligence, strategy, and soverginty on his side. The scene where he outsmarts Sue Storm shows how observant he is. Another great moment comes in Fantastic Four #53 when T’Challa explains the origin of Vibranium and how Wakanda has used it to stay independent and hidden from colonial exploitation. That scene shows that Wakanda’s strength isn’t just technological, it is also political. T’Challa doesn’t ask for approval or help but rather educates the Fantastic Four on his own history. That reversal of power dynamics really captures what Black Power was about. Black Panther embodies the self-determination and pride at the center of the movement.
Yes I agree with what all of you said! The power is such a powerful representation of Black Panther because it is not only just physical or technological, it is also about the control of the narrative and resources. Black Panther isn’t just seen as a superhero, but a symbol that holds for resistance. It’s about redefining power.
Absolutely, your point about Wakanda’s independence from European influence is so important. But to add on to that, the Black Panther’s decision to test the Fantastic Four rather than immediately team up with them is significant. It shows that he doesn’t need external validation or help; rather, he takes control on his own terms. Self-determination is a key concept of Black Power — the right to define, protect, and build the community without external control. Also, he is not just a sidekick but a leader who guards a prospering, self-sufficient nation.
I can definitely agree on your point, mostly where Black Panther says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory!”, signifying how Black Panther wants to show his strength, how strong he is, and his power demonstrating Black capacity, ability. This can also represent how strong and capable Africa in general is and how they can represent themselves as heroes and as someone people can count on.
I think the Comic shows Black Panther to be seen as an “exponent” to “Black Power”. This is because in the comic we see Black Panther to be flying over the other superheroes very heroically. I think by creating the image of the Black Panther going the same way as the Fantastic four it allows for the assumption that they are on the same team. If the fantastic four were drawn facing the Black Panther, than it would’ve made him seem like the enemy, but he doesn’t in the image, he looks likes hes part of the team.
Black Panther can be seen as an exponent of Black Power. When the Fantastic Four arrive in Wakanda, they expect to find a primitive jungle but instead, they are shocked to discover a nation powered by advanced technology. The comic deliberately plays with the reader’s preconceived colonialist notions about Africa, only to twist them and reveal a place of power, innovation, and independence. T’Challa doesn’t try to fit into Western molds or seek approval; instead, he challenges the Fantastic Four, testing them on his own terms. The writers clearly intended to show that T’Challa is much more than just a superhero, he is a symbol of Black excellence, he is a political figure, redefining power and reclaiming the narrative, reshaping it into something powerful. He is the embodiment of black power.
I definitely think that this comic displays an a type of “Black Power”. Throughout the comic there are many instances where I feel like you can interpret it as that. For example, when the Fantastic Four first come across the Black Panther in Wakanda they show him using technology that is advanced past anything that they have seen before. In addition, the Black Panther had the power ad intelligence to solely take down the Fantastic Four. A specific part of the comic where it says, “The Black Panther shall greet them…As they have never been greeted before!” also shows him as powerful and an amazing superhero.
Marvel’s Black Panther and “Black Power”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
For it’s time, showing an African nation as technologically superior was revolutionary in the fight against racial stereotypes in media. Many characters, specifically The Thing (when he cracks an insensitive joke about Tarzan), are amazed at the idea. This can definitely be seen as empowerment, but there’s an odd undertone if we look at it through a modern lens. Wakanda goes against the belief that Africans are primitive, yet enforces the idea that these cultures are acceptable only if they are “advanced” in a Western sense. In a way, they are “good” because there is a chance for all of them to adopt a Western lifestyle; there is no celebration of traditional African culture. So yes, for the 1900s this comic is definitely an exponent of “Black Power,” but the message is a bit twisted for modern times. I much prefer the newer renditions of Wakanda, haha
I agree that the aspect of Wakanda being technologically superior was a way to undermine the traditional stereotypes of Africa at the time and be a proponent of black power, especially since the traditional view was them being technologically backwards. But I think you bring up a really interesting point about the meaning of “advancement” coming from a Western lens. The only reason why everyone is impressed is because it’s the technology that’s so advanced, which is what the West values. From the beginning, we see characters act surprised whenever there is a technological advancement they don’t understand (such as the cosmic communication device), and especially surprised it’s from Africa. So while it is a way to break stereotypes and showcase black power, I think it does highlight a certain hypocrisy about things only being valuable from the Western view.
Yes, and I think you’re completely right about how “advancement” is viewed through a Western lens. Even though Wakanda has developed advanced technology that the West would admire, I also noticed that they still hold on to their cultural values. This is clear in how they dress and maintain their customs, which I thought was a meaningful contrast to the high-tech setting.
This hero can absolutely be seen as an exponent of black power. In the beginning page we see Ben question how someone like Black Panther has the brains or resources to access something so high tech. And even though that message was meant to be derogatory it still can be seen as a way to enlighten the character. During this time it was clear that black individuals didn’t have respect from their society and were deemed as less then, however characters like black panther were still able to rise above negative stereotypes to show they were just as good as any other person. And that was inspiring not only to the audience reading the comics but to other writers.
I completely agree with your point Melanie about how Black Panther is seen as an exponent of Black power due to him having the qualities of a hero. He has the brains, the technology, and resources. When I was reading the comic books I felt that I could see what you are saying visually in the cover of the second book. In the beginning of the comic book, “The Way It Began..!” The image on the cover depicts Black Panther sitting on his throne. This shows his power, and shows how though he is black he is not depicted as a sidekick or someone working for or being exploited by the west, instead he is sitting even above the west as the fantastic four are below him in this visual. This cover shows how Black Panther is an exponent of “Black Power”.
I agree, this depiction of black panther was definitley a proponent of black power at the time. The general consensus was that African culture was backwards and uncivilized and this representation of Wakanda which is technologically superior is revolutionary at the time. However, in modern times it could be perceived as offensive specifically from the jokes present such as the reference to a Tarzan movie refugee. But on the other hand, it could be a representation of the racial bias of the fantastic four being disproven which is also revolutionary for its time. Overall, I believe this comic is a proponent for black power and although it could be seen as offensive in the modern day, it has important messages for its time causing great change such as the black panther movement.
I think that this comic-book hero can be seen as an exponent of “Black Panther”. The phrase and logo became larger than the comic for a period of time for that very reason: Pro-Black movement on the west coast via the Black Panther Party. Media has an impact on what a society’s conscious and subconscious desires and values are, and Black Panther being the first black super hero during a time of heightened racial tension is an example of this.
I agree with you. I think the title page allows the audience to see the Black Panther as the main character despite the previous history of the oppression. It puts it into a better light since the Black Panther is the hero and doing good. It counters the previous opinions of the black population. It is a bit degrading to not give the Black Panther facial features except his eyes.
This comic can be read as an exponent of Black Power as it tries to disprove racial stereotypes. Early in the story, Reed discusses an aircraft gifted to him by an African chieftain, Johnny is in disbelief, “you’re conning me! How does an African chieftain latch onto a plane that flies by magnetic waves.” similar lines such as “this jungle looks so primitive.. so undeveloped!” demonstrate the preconceived notions about Africa as technologically inferior. The assumptions are later overturned as Wakanda is revealed to be more advanced than the Western world.
Yes I agree with your point and would like to add the sense of independent strength that is symbolized from Black Panther. In the comic he says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory”, this signalizes his ability to conquer battles and struggles on his own without needing the help from others. Typically people looked (and still look) at Black people to be inferior and this comic demonstrates the exact opposite of that. Black Panther becomes a direct representation of self-determination where he is able to protect and become self-sufficient without having to depend on anyone such as the Fantastic Four. The Black Panther speaks to the the Black community’s ability to be socially and economically sufficient without hand outs from others.
In many ways, this comic and the story of Black Panther promote the idea of “Black Power.” The most evident example of this is during Black Panther’s fight against the Fantastic Four, when he gets the best of each one of them at one point or another, singlehandedly. The Four are known to cooperate as a group, and each has their own unique, powerful abilities, but Black Panther manages to outsmart and outprepare them for most of the fight. He doesn’t have any inherent powers, but through training and technology, he was able to subdue each one before being beaten by an external force from Wyatt, which saved the four from their traps. Essentially, he did beat the four singlehandedly, which is an astonishing feat given that they are these famous all-powerful superheroes that never lose. It promotes the idea of “Black Power” since he, a less prominent, unknown African American ruler, is the only one able to defeat all four.
The hero of the Black panther can be seen as a model for black power and excellence. The comic shows the black panther as a highly respected leader, and Wakanda as a civilized prosperous country. However, it also shows that initially, Wakanda was weak and underdeveloped, as they were unable to defend themselves against guns and invaders. After Wakanda is saved by the Black panther, it becomes uniquely technologically advanced state in the middle of the African Jungle, much to the disbelief of the other superheros. While the Black Panther himself is a symbol of black power, the comic still enforces stereotypes about Africa and colonization.
I definitely think that this comic displays a type of “Black Power”. Throughout the comic there are many instances where I feel like you can interpret it as that. For example, when the Fantastic Four first come across the Black Panther in Wakanda they show him using technology that is advanced past anything that they have seen before. In addition, the Black Panther had the power and intelligence to solely take down the Fantastic Four. A specific part of the comic where it says, “The Black Panther shall greet them…As they have never been greeted before!” also shows him as powerful and an amazing superhero.
I believe that Marvel’s Black Panther is an expression that is aimed to fight racist stereotypes by depicting an African nation in a powerful way. It gave a way for black people of the time to see themselves as capable of being powerful instead of being pushed around by society. In the comics, there were many examples of black panther shown as powerful such as when is fights klaw. At the time this is very powerful for a black superhero to exist in comics
Marvel’s Black Panther and “Black Power”
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In the first comic book “The Black Panther”, I did not view it as black power because of how the Black Panther was portrayed. He seemed more greedy than heroic, and black power is more about showing empowerment. In one of the scene’s the Black Panther says “By the time you have awaken, the hunt will be over and the black panther shall have won his greatest victory!”, meaning the Black Panther just wants to see how powerful he is by taking down all of the members of Fantastic Four. By this it is not showing any type of black power because the Black Panther just wants to see how strong and powerful he is and not showing any type of empowerment to his nation.
I agree, I didn’t view it as black power neither and more of they are more showing off how powerful they are. This can be seen on page 18 when black panther is fighting the thing and says, “your courage is truly a match for your fame, but your skill, alas, cannot nearly compare with mine!” If black panther worked to uplift or represent his nation then it could be seen as black power, but black panther was asserting his individual dominance.
I think, within the context of this time, Blank Panther could be an exponent of “Black Power”. We see initially that the Fantastic Four look down on Blank Panther, with The Thing saying he’s “NEVER WEARD OF IM! BUT HOW DOES SOME REFUGEE FROM A TARZAN MOVIE LAY HIS HANDS ON THIS KINDA GIZMO?”. Further doubt is passed on the technology of Wakanda, but it becomes clear the people are capable. More notably, Blank Panther is established as being on equal part with the Fantastic Four. He becomes a true superhero, someone who dedicates himself to aiding humanity. As the first major hero in the mainstream Marvel comics, Black Panther may have brought hope and representation to young black children who may have previously felt unseen. Superheroes inspire the idea that “anything is possible”, which is seen in the end of the comic when the Fantastic four suggests(playfully, but still suggestions) that Black Panther could become “a rassler” or a “new kind of folk singer” if he doesn’t want to continue fighting. The power and possibilities of Blank Panther, uninhibited by his race, is what I saw as “Black Power”.
I feel like Wakanda represents a symbol of black empowerment. It highlights the ‘strength that Africa has’ and serves as a powerful example of how Black individuals can hold power, offering a new perspective on the appearance of superheroes. Black Panther is not only smart in terms of technology but also in how he observes his surroundings. For instance, during his battle with Sue Storm, he anticipates her attempt to create a force field and intervenes before she can complete it, revealing that he has studied the powers of the Fantastic Four. The Black Panther symbolizes his strength, showcasing how powerful he is and demonstrating the abilities of Black individuals. This also reflects the strength and capability of Africa as a whole, showing that they can stand as heroes and be dependable figures for others as well. This can also mean that ‘Black Power’ differs from what previous superheroes have shown, showcasing a new level of intelligence and strength that surpasses any existing superhero and provides a different view on who can hold power.
I do think this comic book character can be seen as an exponent of “Black Power” as he is portrayed as not only being physically imposing but also as extremely cunning. This can be seen especially in his first encounter with the Fantastic Four in Fantastic Four #52 as he cleverly uses traps and the environment to fend off the four superheroes. This display of a black character as being an intellectual equal to these well-known white heroes was a stark contrast to the common perception of African Americans during the period. Having a black superhero in general is empowering, conveying a sense of self-sufficiency and the right to defend oneself. Two attributes that were not commonly attributed to black men and women in America during that time.
Hi Brogan! I definitely agree with you, especially when you mentioned the characteristics seen in Black Panther, given the time period. Similarly, towards the end of Fantastic Four #53, Black Panther is seen as an epitome of being the people’s hero; this embodiment of protecting humanity slightly mirrors the Superman and Captain America comics seen last week. Therefore, as you mentioned, it is compelling how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby depicted Black Panther to be this supernatural figure, especially given the time period when these comics were published.
Ben says the following line in chapter 53: “they tossed a bunch’a gizmos at us that Doc Doom would’a been proud of usin’! And now they’re actin’ like…just inventin’ the wheel!’
The contrast between the advance technology and tribe ritual are very interesting. Normally one wouldn’t think any civilization with such status still wears such traditional clothes. But to Black Panther, traditional culture aren’t seem as opposite to technology, but can exist together. I think Black Panther could be consider as black power for he demonstrates pride toward African culture, that the africa culture is not something barbarian or uncivilized, but one must show respect for.
I don’t believe it’s supposed to push the values of black power because the black panther, doesn’t embody the same values the panthers had. He has the fantastic four go to wakanda to hunt them for fun. He seems greedy and in love with the power he has, but doesn’t wanna use it to help people. Its clear that he was kept wakanda hidden from the rest of Africa because he doesn’t want to help the people who have been suffering from colonialism.
I feel that the comic can be seen as an exponent of black power, largely due to its representation of Africans as intelligent and capable, challenging the dominant stereotype of them as primitive. However, the only reason they are valued in the comic is because they fall under what the West views as civilized. It still centers Western ideas of what is considered advanced. When they first arrive in Wakanda, they comment on how primitive it looks and how surely, they could not have developed such advanced technology. Once they see the technology and advancements, however, they develop more respect and admiration for them. They would still be seen as primitive if not for the technology.
Marvel’s Black Panther and Africa
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I can definitely see some colonial through coming through in the writing, especially in the beginning. If not intentionally, subconsciously there is attitude towards Africa, with words like “primitive” and “undeveloped” on page ten when the four are arriving, still surprised Wakanda could have produced anything high tech. Also the use of the word safari seems uncalled for, considering they were in the Jungle and safaris are typically in the plains. I think some of the writing genuinely is just uneducated and tone deaf phrasing, that at the time it was written was somewhat commonly believed of Africa. It seems like a lot of generalizations and stereotypes are employed.
Yes, I totally agree with this. While I reading the comic, that was the line that caught my eye. There’s also another line on page 10 where one of the characters said “Its so hard to believe that a ship such as this one could have come from a land with no sign of technology of industrial development…!” This line is not necessarily racist or pointing Africa in a bad light, but it is definitely underestimating Africa and making seem inferior to the other countries that already had their industrial revolution. Another aspect I want to point out is on page 3. In my opinion, Black panther doesn’t look like a hero but more like a villain because of the way they situated him above the other heros. In the other comics such as Captain American, they were always shown fighting against the villains and winning but here they just put him above the others in a scary way. I feel like these small features show a stereotypes against Africans by making them seem uncivilized or scary because of their skin.
Yes, I agree with you. The depiction of African people in the comic did comfirm the stereotypes of colonists. On page 5, when the Fantastic 4 saw a African man trying to communicate using a little metal device, he thought that “Can he actually transmit a message half-way ’round the globe with that?” The subconsciously believed that African was primitive and not able to do that. But I wonder if the author was trying to break the stereotyoe of African by designing Wankanda as a high-tech kingdom. Maybe the author tried to offered a different view of African people, but failed to jump out of their stereotypes.
I also notice that the Fantastic Four characters seem to always be doubting the technology of the Wakandans. For example, on page 15, when the Wakandans get ready to fire, they say, “What’sis…a gag? Do they expect to plish us off by shootin’ flashlight beams at us?” I’m not sure if it’s a plain misunderstanding or stubbornness that the characters are displaying, but there also seems to be a hint at a level of distrust between the West and Africa as well.
This comic does confirm colonial stereotypes about Africa, portraying it as a primitive and simple way of life (assuming they still live in tribes with hunter-gatherer survival). The image that supports this portrayal is on page 5 of “The Way It Began,” where the Fantastic Four meets the Black Panther and hears his backstory. He is pacing around the room, holding a spear and shield with African border designs and a Black Panther on it, while describing how his father was “the greatest and wisest chieftain in all of Africa; his hunting skills were second to none.” I think this particular line, paired with the image of the Black Panther’s noble family heritage rooted in hunting skills, reinforces colonial stereotypes that African people still live in tribes and forage for food. While some parts of the African continent still follow this lifestyle, there are cities and suburban areas that are never mentioned in the media (even today).
I think this is a very important detail to notice in the comics. The way that Africans are portrayed are from a very colonist view, with imperialistic undertones. Like with the quote you mentioned, feels as though they portray Africa as a less developed nation seeing as they still need to heavy rely on hunting and are rewarded for their accomplishments in this skill. It’s a weird read on African culture as it’s good that its the first time a black man is featured as a superhero, but the lack of care into actually involving the cultural feels as if its more for show, buying into the colonial stereotypical view of Africa and its people.
This comic book confirms colonist stereotypes about people in Africa, especially on page 8 where Johnny says “Now I know you’re connin’ me! How does an African chieftain latch onto a plane that flies by magnetic waves?” He was the second one to say that, emphasizing how much Black people are always seen as the socially and economically lower class. Through this attitude, Black people aren’t really given the opportunity to be more than the labels society has given, almost like they have to constantly prove themselves. Even though Black people are given a sense of power through the representation of a Black superhero, it still enforces certain aspects of colonialist stereotypes that limits what a Black person can be through the dehumanizing comments and portrayal of Wakanda as a “jungle.”
I agree with your point, especially how you note that Black people aren’t really given the opportunity to be more than the labels society gives them. It’s a notion still prevalent to this day unfortunately. That line on page 8 really stuck with me too when Johnny says, “Now I know you’re connin’ me!” it just shows how surprised he is that an African chieftain could have advanced tech. Like you said, it reinforces the idea that Black people are always seen as lower class or less capable. Even though there’s a Black superhero, the comic still leans into stereotypes by painting Wakanda as a “jungle” and using language that aims to dehumanize them.
I noticed this as well, especially with how surprised they are that the Wakandans are supposed to have incredibly advanced technology. On page 8, Sue says, “It’s so hard to believe that a ship such as this one could have come from a land with no sign of technology” (8). It’s like they are always skeptical and unable to believe that a society and culture in a place that seems “primitive” and “underdeveloped” to them could have technology more advanced and powerful than theirs. They need to see it in order to believe it, even though they are already flying a Wakandan ship. I think it continues to prove how black communities and people aren’t given a chance to be more than the “primitive” ways they are labeled and viewed as.
While Black Panther is a symbol of strength, in Wakanda there are clear stereotypes that the comic leans into. The men dress minimally with headbands, on page 15 they bang drums, and they are depicted as a tribe having a chieftain. The positive traits the people have are also counter to stereotypes, with the people being technologically advanced and clearly very smart. It’s this weird middle ground where it plays into the stereotypes but aims to subvert them at the same time. I do think it confirms stereotypes more than anything, since Wakanda is supposed to be the clear exception, making the subversion feel insincere.
I think that looking at Black Panther as a superhero and concept is interesting, because it does feel as though some of the dialogue (specifically from Ben Grimm) about how his story is similar to Tarzan movies and jokes about what he expects Wakanda to be feel like they confirm African stereotypes. Within the Marvel universe, it seems as though Wakanda could be a stereotype since it’s shrouded in secrecy. On the other hand, in our ‘universe’ reading this Fantastic Four comic book, we see a black character defeat four strong heroes while outsmarting the smartest character in Marvel in Reed Richards by luring them to what they assume is poor African country, when it actually is highly advanced. It’s almost as though Black Panther uses these assumptions to his advantage in the same way Lee and Kirby used it on their audience.
Your point about Lee and Kirby assumptions as a setup was thought provoking. What if the comics aren’t just flipping the stereotypes but rather weaponizing them? T’Challa doesn’t just defeat the Fantastic Four; he stages the encounter and creates an elaborate hunt that plays into colonial fantasy… a mysterious jungle, chiefs, and warrior king. But then he dismantles it. It seems theatrical as if he’s putting on an image of a primitive role only to pull the rug out from under everyone. The narrative control is similar to the political concept of black power . It’s not really seeking inclusion but it reclaims narrative, space, and perception. Wakanda is not just hidden but protected from the white gaze until its ready to show on its own terms.
This comic book problematizes colonial stereotypes of Africa by portraying Wakanda as a highly advanced and technologically superior society. In Fantastic Four #52–53, when the heroes arrive in Wakanda, they are surprised to find a hidden nation with futuristic technology and a powerful leader, the Black Panther. This is the complete opposite of how Western colonizers saw Africa because they saw the nation as one that was underdeveloped and in need of “saving”.
Yes, exactly. I also think it makes the surprise feel intentional, like the comic wanted readers to expect some “undeveloped” jungle just so it could prove the opposite. Seeing Wakanda as way more advanced than anywhere else flips that whole idea that Africa needed saving. Also, it makes Black Panther feel even stronger because he’s not just another hero. He’s literally running a country that’s ahead of everyone.
Marvel’s Black Panther and Africa
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Both parts of the comic flip the colonialist stereotypes by showing Wakanda as a highly advanced African nation, not the “primitive” place the Fantastic Four expect. When they arrive, they’re immediately outsmarted and defeated by Black Panther, who uses superior technology and strategy. One key image (pg 22) shows him hovering over in the middle of the team, completely in control, which reverses the usual Western savior dynamic. Instead of needing help, Wakanda is powerful and self-reliant. The fact that it’s hidden from the world hints at a deliberate choice to avoid exploitation (Similar how the westerners exploited Africa for cash crop resources). Overall, the comic challenges readers to question their assumptions about Africa and Black power.
I agree, I feel like the black panther comics were ahead of its time. They showcased black power in a way that wasn’t seen before. Typically, media that held black people at the center were usually portraying them as slaves. But black panther challenges this commonality and demonstrates the reality of Africa and black power.
I really like how you pointed out that image on page 22, as Black Pantheris literally above the Fantastic Four, where it seems to come across as if he was dominating the scene. This reversal of power is such a contrast to the typical portrayal of Africa that people would be accustom to in Western societies. I’d add that even the way Wakanda mixes tradition and technology pushes back against colonialist stereotypes of that time period. T’Challa wears a sleek panther suit while using several futuristic tools, but he’s also a monarch rooted in cultural heritage. This fusion we see of these aspects of T’Challa defies the common binary where “modern” equals Western and “traditional” equals primitive. Like you said, Wakanda’s secrecy feels intentional, not because they’re afraid, but because they’re protecting themselves from the same kind of extraction that gutted real African nations for so many centuries prior to this comic.
I think the comic book does showcase colonialist stereotypes about Africa, being that it confirms the Western belief that Africa is a more “uncivilized” society. I found page 4 to be problematic with the warriors emerging half naked, performing rituals, and using weapons like spears which were considered outdated (Lee & Kirby). At the same time, however, it challenged colonial narratives through the depiction of Wakanda. On page 13, the Fantastic Four are stunned to discover how highly advanced, and technologically superior Wakanda was. They were hit by “polarity guns,” for example, which directly undermined the common stereotype of Africa as “underdeveloped” or dependent on the West (Lee & Kirby).
Yes there was definingly a weird contrast between totally upending what might have been the stereotypes at the time and totally reinforcing them. The uncivilized view that is shown in this comic as you mentioned is paired with this depiction of animals and hunting like the Gorilla on pg 27, and the Elephant on pg 29. This focus on “exotic” animals and a people who do tribal dances for their guests places an emphasis on the differences and stereotypes that a western audience might expect, even when showing technology.
I feel like the comic doesn’t directly confirm or problematize colonialist stereotypes, but does something similar to Brighton’s Royal Pavilion. On the first page of “The Way it Began”, it shows the fantastic four at a ceremony where the native are dancing for them. The way the Black Panthers tribe and the native people of his land are portrayed seems performative, just like the interior of the Royal Pavilion was. To me it sort of strengthens the idea that native/exotic cultures are meant for the entertainment of the West, a message I saw as the Fantastic Four sit in wonder of the “Friendship dance” on this page. It calls attention to the obsession of exotic culture, but maybe in a way to bring awareness.
I like your comparison a lot, I agree that the opening scene feels staged for the Fantastic Four’s gaze, much like the Royal Pavillion’s interior was designed to indulge Western fantasies of the “exotic”. This comic gives power and depth to Wakana, but at the same time, it leans into spectacle, presenting ritual and culture in a way that seems more decorative than authentic. So I agree that it seems to walk a fine line – indulging in exotic imagery but also subtly criticizing the Western fascination with it.
I think that “The Way It Began” calls attention to the exploitative nature of colonialism, which is a refreshing perspective to see on the unethicality of colonial actions in Africa. Klaw and his people, representative of European colonizers, invade Wakanda to steal their unique resources– specifically the vibranium supply– which is considered to be sacred by the Wakandans. In doing so, they massacre the people of Wakanda, including Black Panther’s father. This draws obvious parallels to how Europeans treated African people and resources during the height of their imperial regime. In having this crucial plot point, the creators of this comic confront and outwardly detest the actions of imperial Europe.
On p.6, scene 1, I took a close look at where the Wakanda people lived in and it was just a small traditional camp, and that was the moment of stereotype. Overall, this comic is unrealistic and futuristic, but the comic is still depicts Wakanda as an underdeveloped place. Most of the story were continued in fancy spaceship and in some scene I could see flying car but Wakanda is depicted similarly to real life.
I agree and also thought this was a stereotype. Even in the future they want to present Wakanda as a different and foreign, exotic place with lots of trees and very remote. Even the people are depicted as “exotic” with their different types of clothing and head pieces that a stereotype would expect them to be wearing. I would say it calls this out though, on page 10 when they talk about the jungle looking so primitive, and that things aren’t always as they seem. I believe that this is calling attention to the fact that stereotypes aren’t always true.
I think this comic book visualizes the colonialist stereotypes of Africa. In Fantastic Four #52, when the team arrives in Wakanda, they expect a primitive jungle society. Instead, they are immediately trapped by high-tech devices and brought to a futuristic city. This moment challenged the stereotypes of Africa being uncivilized. Wakanda is depicted as an extremely advanced city, particularly in comparison to the West. When T’Challa demonstrates his independence from Western help, it contradicts the colonial fantasy of white saviors and instead presents an African nation that is self-sufficient, powerful, and technologically superior.
I agree! I noticed joe the didn’t expect to be outsmarted by this superior, technologically-advanced society, budding with vibranium, a powerful naturally-occurring material that is worth millions of dollars, which is used to fund the expansive Wakanadan society. This challenges the stereotype that they are expecting of Wakanada as it is developed and worthy of being a “civilized” society, when though it’s showered by jungle. I like how you pointed out the denial of white saviorism, as black panther can definitely fight for himself and his own nation, easily defeating the fantastic four members.
In my opinion this comic does confirm the colonist stereotype about Africa especially at the beginning of the comic. The Fantastic Four just can not comprehend how Wakanda would have such advanced technology because in their minds it seems like they think it is all just jungles. One particular image that stood out to me was on page 8 when the Fantastic Four finally landed in Wakanda and were talking about how they did not believe the ship could have come from a place like Wakanda. This is because knowing that the ship came from here completely challenged the view that Wakanda was not as advanced as western countries.
Marvel’s Black Panther and Africa
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I’d agree that this comic confirms colonist stereotypes about America. Focusing my claim specifically on middle-left image of the Black Panther on page 44, he’s being reprimanded and minimized to “a new kinda folk singer,” directly telling to the race dynamics America was facing in the 50s and 60s. Throughout the entire comic series, he’s demeaned and undermined for his power and value to the defense-effort, and this square parallels the superior attitudes of those advocating for segregation. The Black Panthers surrender and pledge of service to the F.F. in response to their forceful cease of his career also reflects how African Americans were allowed little autonomy and oftentimes put into boxes (figuratively).
I agree, the black panther superhero has negative representation of black and African American culture that is limiting and one dimensional. This connects to the colonialist view because colonies can only exist if one country or culture is benath the other. We can see this on page 25, when the Fantastic Four discuss how Wakanda is different from other tribes that are inferior to them due to their advanced technology. However, they still hold the notion that Wakandans are inferior and uncivilized, largely due to the dances and ceremonies they perform, which seem to be depicted backward. Ironically they say that “THEY ARE NOT THE ORDINARY NATIVE TRIBE THEY SEEM TO BE!” (p.25) which is restating the stereotypes.
I would agree that the Comic supports colonialist stereotypes about Africa. In the beginning of #52, Ben asks “How does some refugee from A Tarzan movie lay his hand on this kinda gizmo?” (page 4) referring to Black Panthers gift to Mr. Richards. Not only was his comment derogatory, but it also supports an idea that Black people during this time weren’t capable of creating such technology like the ship. By referring to the Black Panther as a person from Tarzan, Ben alludes to a dark history of racist narratives, where black people are uncivilized. Even though the comic paints Wakanda as technologically advanced, Ben’s comment suggests that this is surprising and out of the ordinary, reinforcing a racist mindset.
I agree with you that the comment was very offensive, but I think it actually problematizes them. The way in which Ben said it was meant to show how insensitive it could be with other people not finding it funny, and Sue even starts to tell him to knock it off. The fact is, Ben is supposed to represent the people who think that, and shown in the comic that those stereotypes are wrong because the African people there do have that amazing technology, unlike what people like Ben think. It shows people that the views on Africa are bad and should not be tolerated.
I agree with this sentiment as well, in the later pages around 32-34, they paint the white vibranium hunters as the evil people with their guns needlessly killing the Wakandans with clubs. Its this unfair technological advantage that draws a parallel to the colonization of Africa that was happening during that time. I think the idea that the white people who were entering Wakanda to take their resources was a commentary on how it was problemmatic for European powers to do the same in Africa.
I agree with your comment, specifically how the comic demonstrates the harmful narrative that was prevalent during that time about Black People being uncivilized. On page 40, the last panel, Blank Panther must fight a sound in the shape of a black panther. The creator of this black panther says,”… A Far Superior One, ” in correlation to how the animal black panther is superior to the Black Panther, a human, displaying the ideology that black people were uncivilized and were like animals.
I definitely believe that this comic confirms colonialist stereotypes about Africa. Almost immediately in the beginning, the Fantastic 4 talk about how they cannot believe how technologically advanced Wakanda is. They use words like “primitive” and “underdeveloped” to describe Wakanda, even though they clearly at the forefront of technology. These superheroes have a preconceived notion about Africa and it being just a “jungle”.
I agree with you Karen that this comic plays on the colonialist stereotypes of Africa. We Johnny say on page 8: “NOW I KNOW YOU’RE CONNIN’ME! HOW DOES AN AFRICAN CHIEFTAIN LATCH ONTO A PLANE THAT FLIES BY MAGNETIC WAVES?” For Johnny, the possibility that any civilization in Africa could reach such a level of advancement is simply unheard of — it’s a joking matter. This type of thinking is rooted in imperialism because many European empires denoted the imbalance in technology and wealth as a result of Africa’s lack of sophistication. This type of technology would have only been thought to be a product of Western science. Although this depiction of Africa as technologically advanced might be progressive, it also might be facetious.
This comic book definitely confirms colonialist stereotypes throughout its entirety. Just on the first page (marked down as page 2.), the man says “never heard of him! but how does some refugee from a tarzan movie lay his hands on this kinda gizmo.” Already in the first dialogue he expresses how “insane” or “likely impossible” for someone from Africa to be able to get their hands on such high quality technology, let alone give it away. It’s as if being African automatically means you don’t have access to money, technology, or resources. This feeds into the false belief that Africans are poor and underdeveloped which is far from the truth. Africa isn’t just sand and animals, there are real cities, tech hubs, and everything you’d expect to find in places like the U.S. or Europe. This comic only further portrays this stereotype and pushes people to stay stuck with this narrow and ignorant view.
The comic most certainly confirms colonial African stereotypes. In page 25 we see the opening page to the comic “The Way It Began” and we can see the outfits of the Africans are more tribal attire, which is juxtaposed with the supposed high-technology weapons they carry. Upon first glance it could be construed that the tribe had stolen the weapons, as they themselves were not technologically advanced as a society. Moreover, the Fantastic Four seem to be judgmental in their statements as well. One of them state, “They are not the ordinary native tribe they seem to be!” This implies they already had a preconception of what the people in the tribe were gonna be like. I feel as though this comment was a backhanded comment towards the tribe, further cementing the idea that the African colonies were of a lower society through their lower technology.
I believe that there can be no positive in the creation and maintenance of museums. Museums were created for the privilege of white men to look upon Asian, Latiné, Afrikan*, Pacific Islander, and indigenous Americans, Australians, Canadians, Alaskans, Latin Americans, and Asians as inferior and subhuman. If white people really want to learn the herstory of Afrika, Asia, Latin America, North America, Australia, and want to “respect” the cultures of BIPOC people, they NEED to put all of that art and culture that belongs to those people back where it belongs: with the people who created it. This tokenistic and therefore racist, misogynoir**, capitalistic practice of having museums in the first place must be ended.
* I use the spelling of Afrika with a ‘k’ due to insight of the empowerment of Afrikan people with this spelling: “Four Reasons for Using ‘K’ in Afrika”
** ** Misogynoir refers to the misogyny faced by Black women, which I found on the Black Feminist Future website: BLACK FEMINISMS GETS US FREE
Victorian sensuality – prompt 1
A particular detail I noticed was the singular red flower blooming in the painting “Lady Lilith”. From my past knowledge, I believe that this detail refers to when a woman loses her virginity, also known as “deflowering”. It is possible that Lilith is getting ready to loser her virginity in this painting.
Futurism
Prompt 1
One continuity that is obvious in the Futurist art is that all six pieces are examples abstract of abstract art. In four of the pieces I see a lot of shapes and vibrant colors however you can’t exactly make out what the artist is trying to depict. Also, in the piece of art with the words although some are full words you can’t make out exactly was is trying to be said with extra letters being added and words being dispersed and in no obvious order. Finally, the sculpture looks like it is supposed to depict a figure of some sort, but again it isn’t very obvious what exactly it’s supposed to be.
Victorian Sensuality
Prompt 1
In all four paintings I noticed that the women in each has long and luscious hair and each painting depicts nature and vibrant colors. In particular the third picture seems to depict the women still and floating with flowers in her hands in a moving river. I also feel like it is interesting to point out that she is wearing a dress in the water.
Period Images of the Crystal Palace
Prompt 1
I find the image showing the elephant most interesting and thought-provoking. The most interesting part of this image is the way in which the elephant is dressed with exotic looking clothing. They depict the elephant as an exotic thing that Europeans are able to display for their people to view and consume. As some sort of object that they are proud of and possess despite it not being culturally theirs.
The most striking detail in William Holman Hunt’s “The Lady of Shalott” is the chaotic appearance of the Lady’s hair. The rest of the room appears to be disorderly, and the wild upward frizz of the hair suggests her mental state is in distress. This painting is likely to follow from the event of her breaking her curse, and it conveys a feeling of uncertainty and liberation. She is likely feeling a complex mix of emotions.
Prompt 3: In “The Island of Dr. Moreau”, pain is seen as the separation between humans and animals. Moreau explains that pain is the main force that drives animals to act. He continues his explanation by stating that for humans, pain is present/only necessary when they need to seek medical attention. The “more intelligent” (meaning human) a being is, they do not let pain be a driving force in their decisions, they can control it. Moreau views the beastfolk’s pain as a weakness.
Moreau was viewed as a God-like figure by the beast folk. He forced them to follow laws that dehumanized them and suppressed them. He used these laws as a vehicle to place himself at the top of the social hierarchy that he created. Which reflects the practices used by the British empire to control and oppress other groups. Additionally, they believed they were doing God’s work by turning “barbaric” people into “civilized” ones.
The first viewing of paintings centers women at different points in their lives, all sending various messages. The painting of Olympia is striking because she is naked and usually nakedness represents vulnerability. However, she gives off confidence in her pose and stare, she owns the state of her body and does not shy away.
I immediately noticed a contrast between Filippo Marinetti’s piece and the rest of the futurist art pictured above. Marinetti uses words instead of shapes to convey the sharp and chaotic nature of futurism and war itself. The other paintings use geometric features and bright colors to depict the chaos and suddenness of war. Although his piece is not exactly like the rest, Marinetti does add that futuristic flair to his work by distorting the words he has placed.
In the initial sequence of “Modern Times”, a key detail that stood out was the Bellows feeding machine. I believe this fictional machine is used by Chaplin to comment on the reality of the exploitative nature of early 20th century factories. The film portrays the way that factory workers were overworked yet provided little to no breaks in a comedic manner. It can also be used to depict the very little care factory owners had for their workers’ wellbeing.
Attachment Nino-Machavariani-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Nino M. Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Alia-H.pdf
All in the PDF attached!
Attachment British-Museum-Reflection-1.pdf
Please see attached
A continuity between the futurist arf is the layering and brightness of the photo. The layering especially in Luigi Russolo, The Revolt (1911) and Gino Severini, Memories of a Journey (1911) highlights an emergence of different aspects in the painting.
From 9:54 to 11:31 the boss introduces a machine that eliminates the lunch hour. The machine was designed to feed the workers so they didn’t have to leave their stations. This is political and represents the harsh treatment of workers in the factories. Additionally, it demonstrates the greed and lack of empathy the boss’s had.
Attachment humanities-museum-reflection.pdf
in pdf attached
Attachment SL-Museum-Reflection.pdf
See attched PDF.
(Expressionism – Prompt 2)
In Schiele’s Self Portrait, the dispersion of color pops out at me because the most amount of color is seen in the face and the lack of color is seen in the stomach area. I think the colors are used to relate to the artist’s emotions in the presentation of self as the lack of color promotes the idea of being deprived of something, something that can’t be expressed like the rest of him could. Within the face, the artist uses darker colors on top of light, possibly invoking that his mind is what brings the darkness within himself and his expression of self through art, as well as creating a disturbance with the more positive and colorful parts of his emotionality and creativity.
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Hernan.pdf
The Rosetta Stone
Attachment Mariah-M-Museum-Reflection.pdf
See attached!
Attachment Museum-reflection-2.pdf
“Hollow log coffin” THE CORRECT FILE #PleaseGradeThisOne
Attachment museum-reflection.pdf
The Marble Head of Gaius Caesar
Attachment Humanities-Reflection.pdf
See attached.
Attachment British-Museum-Reflection-2.pdf
See attached.
Attachment 7_12_2025_Stefania-Min.pdf
Look upon my works, ye mighty and despair.
Attachment FrancescaDerby.MuseumRelfection.pdf
The Rosetta Stone
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Dylan-N.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Dylan-N-1.pdf
Please grade this one, it is the right pdf
Attachment Henebry-Museum-Reflection.pdf
See attached.
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Google-Docs.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment The-British-Museum-Kailee-DeJesus.pdf
See attached
Attachment Max-Schleifer-The-British-Museum-Reflection.pdf
I linked my museum reflection. Includes work cited, selfie, and picture taken.
Attachment museum-reflection-rm.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment british-museum-reflection.pdf
british museum reflection
Attachment KA-HU-Museum-Reflection.pdf
See attached
Attachment Museum-Essay.pdf
Please see attached!
Attachment Sophia-Schneider-British-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Sophia Schneider British Museum Reflection
Attachment Rianah-Dhamecha-Humanities-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Rianah Dhamecha Humanities British Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection.pdf
See attached.
Attachment Museum-Reflection-1.pdf
Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Jimena-Hernandez.pdf
Jimena Hernandez Humanities British Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Jimena-Hernandez-1.pdf
***Please Grade this one, it is the correct file.***
Attachment Sahanah-British-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Attachment Parthenon-Marbles-Reflection.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Amy-Morin.pdf
Incorrect file
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Amy-Morin-1.pdf
Grade this one instead!
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Garofalo-.pdf
Attached as pdf
Attachment The-British-Museum-A-Reflection.pdf
Attached as PDF
Attachment Chenlu-Lucy-L-Museum-Reflection-.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-2-1.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment HU104_-British-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Emma Ling – Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-3.pdf
Brandon Reinoso Museum Reflection
Attachment Sams-Museum-Reflection-1.pdf
Sungwon Chong(Sam) – Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Relfection-Sneha-Amudhan.pdf
Sneha Amudhan Museum Reflection
Attachment Morrow-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Chris Morrow Museum Reflection
Attachment museum-reflection-1-1.pdf
Sara Obame-Museum reflection 2
Attachment British-Museum-Reflection.-.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment Sameehas-British-Museum-Reflection-.pdf
Sameeha’s British Museum Reflection
Attachment Ramesses-Pdf-reflection.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment Haley-Johnson-Museum-Reflection.pdf
museum reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-2-2.pdf
British Museum Reflection Brogan Belknap
Attachment Museum-Reflection-4.pdf
Museum reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Kaitlin-Tan.pdf
museum reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-5.pdf
Museum Reflection
Attachment Museum-Reflection-2-3.pdf
Museum Reflection, With image and citation.
Attachment mueseum-reflection.pdf
museum reflection
Attachment Timothy-Wright-The-British-Museum.pdf
Timothy Wright: Attached is the reflection, it was great to have a moment of introspection!
Attachment Humanities-Museum-Review-Adelyn-Capone.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment british20museum20reflection.pdf.pdf
Museum reflection
Attachment Bilqees-D.-Museum-Reflection.pdf
Uploading again–may this pdf load properly.
Attachment Museum-reflection-final.pdf
Gabriella Knapp Museum Reflection
Attachment Angelina-Zepeda-British-Museum-Reflection.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment HU104-Museum-Reflection-2.pdf
British Museum Reflection
Attachment HU-104-Museum-Reflection.pdf
The British Museum Reflection
Attachment CGS-HU104-Museum-Reflection-Assignment.pdf
Dawson Carlisle
Attachment Sokhna-Diop-1.pdf
The Expense of Museums
Attachment Henebry-Museum-Reflection-1.pdf
aaaa
Attachment Samaya-Roper-Museum-reflection-.pdf
Samaya Roper Museum Reflection
Attachment HU104-Museum-Reflection-7_10-1.pdf
🗿
Attachment Museum-Reflection-GFW-1.pdf
,
Attachment Museum-Reflection-6.pdf
Pictures at the bottom of the pdf
Attachment Nino-Machavariani-Museum-Reflection-1.pdf
Nino Machavariani, Museum reflection.
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Yushan-Li.pdf
Yushan Li Museum Reflection
Attachment British-Museum-Reflection-3.pdf
see
Attachment John-Tatum-2.pdf
–
Attachment Files.pdf
–
Attachment Museum-Reflection-Jiahui-Chen.pdf
Please see attached
One quality I feel that these Cubist works and the Futurist art share in common is the abstractness of the art. There’s use of geometry to create this certain flow and point in a direction of what ‘story’ should be told by the art. Just like how in the Futurist art showed how fast and exciting the age sounds and is, these Cubist works show appreciation for almost the opposite? Instead of cars and modern technology there’s an appreciation for music and musicians. For example in “Homage to J. S. Bach” by Georges Braque. while there is these mixes of shades and shapes the eye is drawn to the words “Back J. S.”, which in reference to the title is exactly what I think the artist wanted us to be attracted to. J. S. Bach was a famous musician and composer of that time. While these two kinds of arts do share these abstract styles, they do share differences in what kind of message and feeling they are trying to extend.
One continuity between futurist and cubist artworks is their way of displaying their subject. Rather than exhibiting a subject that is easy to recognize, but offers little depth, futurist and cubist artworks present their subjects more abstractly, but allow for greater interpretation. This enigmatic quality to their artworks is what makes them unique expressions of art and challenges what we consider to be art. I think myself and many other viewers/critics of art often fall into the mindset of prioritizing detail and specificity over everything else. While futurist and cubist artworks may appear less clear or “easier to create” (which is debatable), they require more creativity than simply replicating something that is in front of you. As we see in Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon , the figures of the women are not conventionally attractive nor accurate to the human body. However, their abstractness evokes a sense of primitiveness, aggression, and tension, that would otherwise be hard to convey. It is these decisions made by cubist artists that allow them to bring out more emotion from their pieces.
Attachment Musuem-Reflection-.pdf
Museum Reflection
The cubist utilizes layering in their work, it seems like aspects of the art are emerging from the painting. Although, I would say the color scheme is less vibrant than the art from last week.
“unreal city, under the brown fog of a winter dawn, a crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, I had not thought death had undone so many.” Elliot relates the living with the dead. He suggests that the people are traumatized from the devastation of WW1.
A thematic pattern across these works is the emphasis on psychological unrest. Which is conveyed by distorted forms, harsh lines, and bright colors. For instance, Munch’s “The Scream” illustrates raw panic and dread. It is amplified by its swirling lines and ghost figure.
One of the weirdest moments in the story for me was when Herr Samsa throws an apple at Gregor and it sinks into his back. This moment stuck out to me because it shows that outward appearance and value really dictates how people are treated. Although Gregor’s family respected him when he was a hardworking human, this moment shows how they have completely turned on him now that he is a burdensome beetle. Understandably, his family is horrified to discover that Gregor is now a beetle. However, now that he looks scary and ugly — unlike them — he gets demonized. Additionally, Gregor can no longer support his family financially, which leads them to resent him. These two philosophies point to how selfish people are and Kafka goes as far to say even your own parents could turn on you if you can no longer supplement their lives. In the end, it is Gregor’s family that indirectly kills him; he doesn’t like the food they serve him and it is this apple that gets lodges in his back that starts the decay of his body.
In Salvador Dali’s, The Persistence of Memory, I noticed that there are ants eating away at the clocks. This was a striking detail for me because it contrasts the title of the artwork. Dali titles this piece the persistence of memory, suggesting that the piece will illustrate the continuity/prolonged existence of a memory. Dali does an excellent job of portraying this through the droopiness and warpedness of the clocks. This shows that memory can last, but it can get distorted through time. The ants, however, run counter to the preservation of memories. The ants are seen ebbing away at time, implying that memories are fleeting (which is true). This poses a conflict in the piece where our memories are gradually being modified or picked away at.
A stylistic pattern I noticed was the color scheme within the paintings. There are a consistent usage of brown, blue, and black. There is also a dreamlike atmosphere especially in René Magritte, The Double Secret (1927) and Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory (1931). More specifically due to the fact that there are elements on distortion in the paintings.
These comics use superhero’s as a symbol of hope and power. In “How Superman Would End the War”, superman captures Stalin and Hitler and delivers them to the league of nations. Demonstrating the power and justice the U.S will deliver in the face of war. In “Captain America” this theme is continued by illustrating Captain America defending American ideals.
Attachment Theater-Review-Romeo-and-Juliet-Kaitlin-Tan.docx.pdf
yay romeo and juliet!
Attachment Theater-Review.pdf
Cabaret
Attachment Reflection.pdf
Cabaret Reflection
Attachment theater-review.pdf
cabaret review!
Attachment Max-Schleifer-Theater-Review-Assignment.pdf
Romeo and Juliet Theater Review!
Attachment Museum-Essay-1.pdf
Please see below!
Attachment CGS-HU104-Theater-Review.pdf
Wicked Theater Review
One striking image in Alan Ginsberg’s Howl, was: “who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo.” I found this line intriguing because it references New York City — my hometown. The first part, talks about the long train ride from Battery, short for Battery Park City, which is a neighborhood in Manhattan’s lower west side, to the Bronx. Conveniently enough, I went to high school in Battery Park City, so I am assuming that Ginsberg is referencing the 1 train line here; the 1 train line starts at South Ferry, which is where the Staten Island Ferry enters Manhattan, and terminates at 242nd St – Van Cortlandt Park. I used to make this long trek up to Van Cortlandt for my cross country meets in high school. Therefore, I can greatly empathize with his description of this ride as “endless” (it probably takes 70 min without delays). He also mentions benzedrine, which I determined to be the first product name for amphetamine, a deadly drug. He then suggests by the time they get to the Bronx, the passengers are completely worn out from their journey that they lose mental functioning. The last words talk about the Zoo, which I presume is the Bronx Zoo. The Bronx Zoo opened in 1899, during the end of the Gilded Age, so people had more time for leisurely activities. I think that this image is overall trying to point out the disillusion of New York. Although there is technology like trains and activities like zoos, people are still disconnected from life.
Attachment Mom-With-Baby.pdf
I photographed this artwork before we started the street art tour. I feel like this violates the tradition of street art having something to say that goes outside the norms of society because of its unofficial final message. Initially, I think it did have a personal and meaningful message, possibly in dedication to mothers, but with the addition of Patrick, it changes that message. Patrick seems to be added by another artist because of the difference in detail and composition, so it seems like the second artist may be teasing the first artist or appreciating what the first artist wanted to say and just wanting to be included in the overall message.
Attachment SL-Theatre-Review-.pdf
Please view the attached PDF above. Thanks!
Attachment Nino-Machavariani-Theater-Review-1.pdf
Romeo and Juliet!
Attachment Theater-Review-1.pdf
Back To The Future the musical!!!!!!!!
Attachment Theater-Review-Hernan.pdf
(read this one instead)
The first line of the poem was a captivating statement. GInsberg states “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.” This line encapsulates the mental deterioration and vulnerability. The phrase “best minds of my generation destroyed by madness”, emphasizing the suffering of those effected by the state of America.
Attachment Humanities-Theater-Reflection.pdf
Merry Wives of Windsor Reflection
Attachment Wicked-2.pdf
wicked woohoo!
Attachment Theater-Review-Cabaret-GFW.pdf
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment Theatre-Review.pdf
Giant Theater Review
Attachment Francesca-Derby-Henebry-Cabaret-Review-Google-Docs.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment Theater-review.pdf
Cabaret review
Attachment KA-HU-Theater-Review-1.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment crucible-review.pdf
Time to Confess: Is the Crucible Worth the Risk?
Attachment Theater-Review-3.pdf
SIX: The Musical Review
Attachment Alec-Topouzis-Cabaret-Review.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment JH-Romeo-and-Juliet-Theater-Review.pdf
Romeo and Juliet Theater Review
Attachment Theater-Review-of-Cabaret.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment Cowboys-and-Capulets-Sahanah-Sharma-.pdf
Romeo & Juliet Review
Attachment Cowboys-and-Capulets-Sahanah-Sharma-1.pdf
Sorry I forgot the image in the previous, here is the proper one.
Attachment theater-review-1.pdf
Romeo and Juliet review
Attachment Sophia-Schneider-Romeo-Juliet-Review.pdf
Sophia Schneider Romeo and Juliet Review
Attachment Cabaret-Review.pdf2_.pdf
Cabaret Theatre Review
Attachment Theater-Review_2025-1.pdf
The Merry Wives of Windsor
https://1drv.ms/b/c/2eba56abbb.....A?e=PlePng
Attachment Review-of-Cabaret.pdf
Theater review of Cabaret!
Attachment Romeo-Juliet-Reflection.pdf
Romeo and Juliet review!
Attachment Gatsby-Theater-Review.pdf
Gatsby- theater review
Attachment Miyu-Fujimoto-Cabaret-Theatre-Review.pdf
Theatre review
Attachment Sam-Theater-Review-.pdf
Six the Musical Theater Review
Attachment Theater-Reflection.pdf
Theater review
Attachment Theater-Review-Assignment.pdf
https://docs.google.com/docume.....sp=sharing
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment Cabaret-Review-GK.pdf
Gabriella Knapp Theatre Review
Attachment Theater-Reflection-1.pdf
Theater Review- Romeo and Juliet
Attachment Timothy-Wright-Performance-Review.pdf
Theater Review – Beethoven
Attachment Cabaret-Review-Garofalo-.pdf
Cabaret Review – Garofalo
Attachment Theater-Review-Amy-Morin.pdf
The Crucible
Attachment Theater-Review-HUM104-2.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment Cabaret-Review-Angelica-Hanna-.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment tatumevitareview.pdf
–
Attachment Henebry-Theater-Review.pdf
Romeo and Juliet Review
Attachment Theater-Review-Kailee-DeJesus.pdf
Six the Musical – Theater Review
Attachment Cabarat.pdf
Cabaret 😀
Attachment HU-104-Theatre-Review-1.pdf
The Merry Wives of Windsor Theatre Review
Attachment Humanities-Theater-Review.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment Samaya-Roper-Cabaret-Review-.pdf
Samaya Roper Cabaret Review
Attachment Theater-Reflection-2.pdf
Cabaret
Attachment Theater-Review-4.pdf
Romeo and Juliet
Attachment Morrow-Theatre-Review.pdf
Giant Theatre Review
Attachment Mariah-M-Romeo-and-Juliet-Theater-Review.pdf
Romeo and Juliet!
Attachment Sokhna-Diop-2.pdf
Cabaret Review
Attachment theater-review-2.pdf
cabaret review
Attachment Theater-Review__Rianah-Dhamecha-.pdf
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment EL_Theater-Review_0802.pdf
Emma Ling Theater Reflection
Attachment LucyLi-PhantomReview-2.pdf
Theatre Review
Attachment Theater-Review-NyAira-Caraway-.pdf
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment Sameehas-Theater-Review-Google-Docs.pdf
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment Theater-Review-.pdf
Here’s my review with the photos:
Attachment Theater-Review-5.pdf
Theater Review
Attachment Cabaret-Theater-Review.pdf
Cabaret Theater Review
Attachment Angelina-Zepeda-Theater-Review.pdf
Romeo and Juliet Review
Attachment Zeys-thoughts-on-Romeo-and-Juliet-1.pdf
Review
Attachment HU104-Theater-Reflection-8_2.pdf
🌹
Attachment Bilqees-D.-Theater-Review-Romeo-and-Juliet.pdf
🌼💀🪦🪦
Attachment Theatre-Review-Yushan-Li.pdf
Hadestown Review
Attachment Theater-Review-HU-Taylor-1.pdf
Merry Wives of Windsor review
Attachment Theater-Review-HU-Taylor-2.pdf
(title included in this one)
Attachment Cabaret-Review.pdf
cabaret review
Attachment Theater-Review-6.pdf
Cabaret theater review
Attachment Cabaret-Theater-Review-1.pdf
Cabaret Submission :>)