Analysis #2 - Screaming over Bakhtin

A man walks along a bridge with two friends on a warm and breezy day, when he notices the clouds churning eerily into a dark gray, tumultuous frenzy.  Far in the distance, the pastel sky changes to streaks of crimson as if flames of fire are licking from the heavens.  He senses that an unbeknownst terror has ripped through nature, stripping her of all her beauty.  He becomes paralyzed with fear at the phenomenon he is witnessing, before he grabs his face and the panic spews forth into a high-pitched howl that he cannot contain.  His friends continue to walk ahead entranced in their intimate conversation oblivious to any change around them. 

In Edvard Munch’s, The Scream, we see a person holding his face and screaming while standing on a bridge.  The scene allows for many individual interpretations.  Munch’s voice speaks through his character in a compilation of words that become continuous even after one views the painting which follows the discourse of Bakhtin’s philosophy. 

In Bakhtin’s, Discourse in the Novel, he states, “The word, directed toward its object, enters a dialogically agitated and tension-filled environment of alien words, value and judgments and accents, weaves in and out of complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others, intersects with yet a third group: and all this may crucially shape discourse, may leave a trace in all its semantic layers, may complicate its expression and influence its entire stylistic profile.” (1088) 

One can derive from the art that the words used to describe the horror the man is feeling does affect it’s stylistic profile.  His terror which is something that is forthcoming unlike anything he has ever encountered before, like demons about to descend upon him, are layered in a way to solidify the complex intricacies of the expression that are intended for the viewer.  This artwork is heteroglossic in that the artist intends to evoke something deep through the character by his vocalization of his fear, intended by the painter.  This includes the coexistence of the character, the painter, as well as the viewer, where all three play their part.

One could agree with Bakhtin that this is a dialogical painting that speaks to us from previous works of art and will continue on, in other future paintings.  One might see the man in the picture expressing anxiety and terror that will resonate his own utterances of fear and other emotions long after he has finished viewing the painting.  In essence, it will perpetuate more thoughts and feelings going forward.  It’s a continuous cycle where every word to describe the painting remains in conversation with another.   





Works Cited:
Discourse in the Novel
Mikhail M. Bakhtin
The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism
WW Norton & Company - New York/London
Vincent B Leitch, General Editor 2010, 2001, p 1088

The Scream, Edvard Munch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream

Reflection #4 - Lecture Review on Kant & Bakhtin

Reflecting on tonight’s class, we finished reviewing the Enlightenment Theory. The main point in Immanuel Kant’s, What is Enlightenment?, is the emergence from self-imposed immaturity. For when a person can seek out understanding without the guidance from others, he/she is then considered to have taken a step into maturity. Kant’s aim to appreciate beauty universally with disinterestedness, made some sense to me.
In Rene Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am,” we are reminded of the duality of self among other implications that adhere to rationalism, empiricism and skepticism.
Reviewing Bakhtin and Formalism, we discussed his Discourse of the Novel. This essay drives home the point that one should care about the text itself and how every text is dialogical. Meaning, one thought stems from a prior thought and branches out to a future thought/word/dialogue.
I appreciated watching the Hunchback of Notre Dame clip when we discussed the concept of Bakhtin’s Carnival. It made much more sense. I understood the idea of the inversion of power when it is permitted/allowed during the Carnival and how that gives people a different perspective of the life of others. Sometimes it appears to be greener on the other side; other times, not so. In the case with the Hunchback, when he was crowned King of the Carnival, he smiled and seemed to be happy, although the irony in that was he was crowned for being the ugliest – and he wasn’t wearing a mask. So his joy was founded by others who were belittling him.

Reflection #3 - Enlightenment Theory

Tonight we reviewed the Enlightenment Theory. There was a lot of material covered. This theory moves from rationalism (understanding through reason), to empiricism (understanding through senses), and ends with skepticism (understanding that true knowledge is not possible).
Out of the writings we discussed, I felt the easiest to grasp (not easy at all) was Kant’s, What is Enlightenment? This writing basically expresses the idea that to rise out of self-imposed immaturity, one must be able to understand things without the guidance of others. This concept seems basic enough, however, Kant goes on to explain that, “Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters.” (pg 2) He discusses restrictions on freedom in public and encourages private expression as long as it does not hinder the progression of enlightenment.
We also discussed the four reflective judgments to include: the agreeable (sensory), the good (ethical), the beautiful and the sublime; with the beautiful and sublime both falling under the subjective universal judgment. These reflective judgments lack a firm rule, whereas determinative judgments surpass subjectivity.
We touched on Rene Descartes and his idea that if you doubt your own existence than you can be sure that you do exist.
Alexander Pope’s, Essay on Criticism, was discussed briefly. His writing appeals to the neo-classical art in the 18th century and he suggests that you must know your strengths and weaknesses. This essay makes a point to silence the critics.


Works cited:
An Answer to the Question:
What is Enlightenment? (1784) Immanuel Kant

Reflection # 2 - Aristotle's Way of Thinking...

Today we had the opportunity to listen to guest speaker, Kevin O'Neill, discuss Classical Rhethoric Theory. We had an interesting lesson about the Greek cultural and how the use of rhetoric focuses on context. Three important facts we learned about the Greeks were: Labor, Cultural of Work, and the Realm of Speech and action (Pathos/Logos)- turning the human body into an act of self-expression.

The Greeks were physical people who cared very much about how they looked and how they spoke. They were also an agonistic culture (extremely competitive). The Greeks created the Polis - urban environment surrounded by farmland. But no one could argue that God created the kingdoms. Plato argued that the Greeks' creation of Polis was only through speech.

Speech was a very important way of life for the Greeks. Aristotle determined there were three main ways of speaking: Deliberative - speaking of the future, Forensic - speaking of the past, and Epideitic - eulogizing a person through either praise or blame. Aristotle's thoughts on rhetoric were for speech to operate on logic.

The Sophists were instrumental in teaching the public (for money) how to use expression, dress, and tone of voice in being persuasive.

The Greeks used different argumentative avenues to their advantage. Epagoge (induction) and Dialectical (batting back and forth). The Dialectical would focus on syllogism - an assembly of a set of sentences that generate a final sentence from the first two. The sentence must declare that it is either true or false, must contain a subject and predicate, and the premise has to end in a conclusion.(ie. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal).

In communicating through speech, Aristotle believed in the importance of ethos - character of the individual - that he must have goodwill (Eunola,) and must seem virtuous. He also understood the psychology of people and that human desire must be understood before speaking to one's audience as well as knowing that happiness entices people to flourish.

In the end, Artistotle insisted that to be an effective speaker, one must know the tools to use in order to speak effectively in an agonistic society.

Analsysis #1 - Who Could Blame a Girl?

Who Could Blame a Girl?

In Gorgias’s, Encomium of Helen, through the use of rhetoric, he defends Helen’s actions of infidelity using several different reasons. They are as follows: the fact that her parents were gods and it was her destiny, her beauty was immeasurable, the persuasion of speech (logos), and the idea that she may have just been besotted with love. In the movie, First Knight, Lady Guinevere’s actions are supported in a similar way that Gorgias defends Helen of Troy’s actions.

Gorgias proposed that because Helen’s parents were gods, it was probably this reason that her actions could not have been different. “The will of fortune and the plan of the gods.” (39) In essence, she was not in charge of her own destiny, therefore no matter what she did to prevent her infidelity, it was her fate and that could not be altered. In addition, Helen was said to have been blessed with an undeniable beauty that men couldn’t resist, and because of this beauty that “aroused erotic passions in many men,” (39) how could anyone fault Helen for being led astray? If a man became a victim to Helen’s beauty, it was not her problem; it was theirs. If these reasons were not convincing enough, it is very possible, according to Gorgias, that Helen was persuaded by speech. Gorgias makes it clear that, “A speech persuaded a soul that was persuaded by what was said and to consent to what was done. The persuader then, is the wrongdoer.” (39) Finally, he makes his last point that maybe Helen was just besotted with love and who can argue with that?

In the attached clip of, First Knight, Lady Guinevere and Sir Lancelot are thrown together in a passionate embrace. Under normal circumstances this might not be a problem, however, Lady Guinevere is married to King Arthur. In support of her actions of this illicit affair, one might argue through rhetoric that because King Arthur was the age of her father, her sexual desires for a younger man were only natural. Sir Lancelot was handsome, younger, carefree in his actions and protective of her. How could a she be faulted for falling victim to him? Furthermore, one could argue that because she was impressionable, by proof that she joined King Arthur in marriage at his persuasion, in an attempt to protect her city from the rebels, she could have easily been coerced by Sir Lancelot through his words, (logos) that they belonged together. As Gorgias has said in his Encomium of Helen, “Speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body.” (39)

Lady Guinevere was incapable of denying Sir Lancelot’s charm and the intense attraction that he had for her, and vice versa. Because of this, it wouldn’t be fair to condemn Lady Guinevere and blame her for the affair. She was a victim and because of the way Sir Lancelot pursued her she wouldn’t have been able to resist his charm and the love he felt for her.

Both Helen of Troy and Lady Guinevere were helpless against the deep desires they felt for their pursuers. These men used seductive persuasion by their words, actions and physical contact to win the hearts of the woman they loved. In the end, how could either woman be blamed for falling in love with handsome, younger men? I only hope that one day this argument could benefit women in the 21st century.

Works Cited:
Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism
Leitch, New York, 2010, 2001 - p 39

First Knight, 1995
Director, Jerry Zucker
Perf. Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julia Ormond

Reflection #1

This past week we focused on Rhetoric – the Art of Persuasion - through the writings of Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen.  We also discussed Plato’s Republic Books II, III and X.  In addition, we viewed a clip of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.   

I really enjoyed the class discussion of Gorgias the most.  I was reminded that it was important to take into consideration the historical context of the writing; something I failed to do at the start.  It was easy to form an opinion that Gorgias should not have defended Helen for her actions of cheating on her husband, thus leading to the Trojan War, given that we all have free will and are responsible for our own choices.  This makes sense in our century, however, in understanding the historical time of the writing and the belief system during that period, it started to make more sense of why Gorgias argued in her defense.  Several things came into consideration.  First, he argued that because she was a descendant from the gods, she stirred passion in men who could not resist her beauty.   The fact that she may have just fallen in love was another consideration.  Gorgias also stated that through the art of persuasion through speech, this may have persuaded her soul.  Finally, maybe it was just her destiny to be fulfilled. 

In the end, Gorgias makes it clear that there could have been many things that would have been the driving force for Helen to make her choices and that despite her cheating, she should be forgiven and not held accountable for her actions or the Trojan War.

In Plato’s Republic, we learned that he demands censorship of all writings.  He believes that poetry is a lie, psychologically damaging, and because people are impressionable from what they read, these untruths will corrupt the readers.  He also felt this way about plays. 

In the Allegory of the Cave video clip, we saw prisoners being held in a cave, unable to move their bodies and heads which were forced to look straight ahead.  A fire was lit behind the prisoners and a few workers would hold up cut-outs of animals and people and cast the shadow on the cave wall.  When a prisoner was freed and brought up into the sunlight, he learned that he could not trust what was real.  The correlation between clip and Plato’s views are that nothing is real, everything is in a shadow and that poetry is twice removed.