Final pages of "On Beauty"

What is the consequence of showing the painting with no verbal representation? Howard is allowing the audience to interpret the painting. He does not give the painting any of his own perception or interpretation... yet isn't that what he is to be judged on? He is also declaring his own submission to his life. This was his big chance, yet he has sabotaged his own future. He wanted to destroy his life because it was killing him, killing his entire spirit. Maybe he tries to drive his entire life into the ground as an attempt to start over. 

Do you sometimes read a novel or see a film that is ruined by someone else's interpretation of it, or their perception of particular aspects of it? 

You can't seem to enjoy anything anymore, you are stuck on understanding the deeper meaning to it.  You lose the ability to let the art do what it is suppose to do to you.. appease your eyes, appeal to your emotions. Intense analysis of anything can often ruin it's pure and natural beauty. 

The painting he presents to the audience, is actually a gift to Kiki. He is saying that he loves her, that his life is a mess, yet he still loves her. Does this happen in real life? Do people purposefully destroy their lives? Alcohol and drugs are a great example of something that people abuse as a way to destroy their own lives.  These people are trying to fail in someway. Yet they really want something out of it, they want to be noticed, they want to be recognized. What alternative motivation does Howard have for wanting to fail? He has pressure that he must live up to a certain expectation. Howard's father does not seem to appreciate Howard and what he has accomplished. He is lower class; racist, watches TV all day, does not make it out of his own environment. His father is very ignorant (his father thinks good art is only the Mona Lisa). 

on beauty

In today's class we discussed the significance of the poem entitled "On Beauty", sharing the same name as the title of the novel. What is the significance of itemizing a list of sins? The list of sins are what not to do in life. The "we" in the poem can either represent the beautiful people, or from the other viewpoint, it could be the "non-beautiful". This poem seems to be saying that beautiful people must live up to a certain expectation, that is how they are wounded. While they appear as statue-esque, they actually are wounded by this very appearance. Can you draw a line between beautiful people and "ugly" people? What makes someone ugly or beautiful? Could the poem also be saying that the ugly cannot forgive the beautiful for being the ideal? This goes along with Kiki's own issues with beautiful and ugly. When she finds out that Howard has been having an affair with one of their good friends, she refers to herself as the black, ugly bitch, while Claire is the small, white leprechaun. She obviously finds her own weight and race as a burden to her own marriage, yet she refers to the women her husband has chosen as an equally undesirable match. All assumptions which characters are built upon disappear throughout this novel. The beautiful features of Kiki (large bosom, beautiful complexion, etc.) are all compromised when her husband choses a smaller and lighter woman. Kiki does not seem to be desirable anymore in societies standards, yet she has always relied on Howard's love to validate her own beauty. When he strays from their relationship, he has compromised any of her own feelings of beauty. Kiki has always said that she defines herself, yet she finally admits that "I have staked my life on you [Howard]}. She realizes she is no longer sharing a mutual love, yet she is defined by Howard's opinion of herself. Where she seemed to be so confident in her beliefs, she is easily compromised by a man's perspective. Having a voice seems to be a way to have subjectivity and/or power in this society. Kiki is saying that her husband most give her substance in life. Where the Belsey family appeared as so liberal, independent, and equal - yet Kiki proves that the lines between left and right are not so clearly defined. 

Zadie Smith

You can not just hit people over the head by telling them your own political truths, novels are however political (or "moral"). You can't tell people that they have to believe in what she says, the politics of what she says. She is describing how she gets politics into her morals without forcing it upon the reader. Art is an analogy for morals - if novels tell you to be moral in this way, it is characterized as bad art. Iris Murdoch "Art is a case of morals". Smith says art is being truthful and honest, and it is very difficult due to self-perception. The adult is able to see the world as not completely about herself, she is not at the center of the universe. Art allows us to see multiple points of view, it is not us vs. them, it is just different opinions falling into place and identifying with all views. 

This novel is about the cultural wars. Some say we need to teach Shakespeare, the great authors - while others say we need to look at multicultural texts (it is hanus that women have been left out of the canon). Smith has been elevated into the canon by those very multiculturalists. Reverse Discrimination - someone is elevated because of race and sex. The attack of "Zadie Smith", means the ideal of Zadie Smith, the brand, the figment. Literature is about human relationship and the difficulties with that. This book is going to take us through the multicultural debate (right is Howard and family vs. Monty on the left- Jerome is the intermediary). 

Moving on to the text (On Beauty)- Jerome has gone off and working for Monty Kippses ( a British family, dad is rivals with Howard). Monty is very religious, white wing, pro-business, spiritual, Christian, pro-family, wife does not work to stay home and take care of the family WHILE Howard and his family are left-wing liberals, let their children sware in the house, the children have a lot of liberty. Monty and Howard both have books on Rembrandt coming out, although Monty's book is going to become a bestseller. Howard attacks Monty and says his reading is horrible, and Monty writes back and says he has the wrong painting. Howard is mortified that he had the wrong picture, Monty was right. Jerome went to work with the fathers art rival to get his fathers attention, he is totally rebelling against him -- yet it's strange that he is rebelling by becoming uber conservative. Kiki is upset at Howard because he had an affair - maybe Jerome is getting his father back for hurting his mother. Is there room in a family to support a difference of right-wing v. left-wing. Jerome sees this family and it is what he thinks he wants, he wants to test out this "perfect" family. When you marry someone you also marry their family in a way, you are taking on more than just one individual. Family defines someone differently than any other social group they are in. Part of falling in love with someone is seeing their interactions with all of these groups, and falling in love with these parts too. 

Further comments on Picasso

Winterson makes Picasso as a female lesbian in this portrayal of the famous painter. If Picasso was a female, would she be remembered? Picasso's father completely diminishes the worth of her art, she is a woman who can accomplish nothing through her passion. Why can't she be more like her mother or brother who have come to terms and accepted mundane, black and white lives. Art, painting provides color for Picasso, color that brings to light the lies of her family. They are just envious that she has not resorted to the same dull lifestyles they maintain. Their anger, violience, and abuse towards her is not because they just hate her, they are actually jealous of her spirit. Picasso is making a name for her self, making herself memorable, while the whole time her family tries desperately to blow her confidence, tear apart her self-image. Her brother brutally ravishes her body for sex, while her father pushes her off a roof. All along they need to make her feel worthless to regain some sort of purpose and importance.

Picasso - Art and Lies

I really enjoyed reading Jeanette Winterson's Art and Lies, and her portrayal of the character "Picasso". Picasso has been virtually ignored all of her life, for she does not fit into her seemingly perfect family. Yet what seems perfect, always contains its faults. Her father is what Picasso calls "dead", a defeated spirit vowing to bring every other being into his dead zone. His only problem is that he has no hold over Picasso, for she is vibrating with life, with color. Picasso's mother is an unsatisfied housewife, never accepting of Picasso, trapped in a black and white world. Picasso's brother is the most fascinating. His envy of Picasso, and her vibrancy for life, has led him to insult and humiliate her the only way possible, through sexual force. While he claims to "love her", his only control over her is by raping her. A families love is supposed to be unconditional, unwavering; yet Picasso is not sure whether to relic in the piercing dagger of a fraudulous love, or a love too deep to imagine. She lives in a virtual world of color. Crimson reds. sunflower yellows, she is able to see a certain reality through color and art. She constantly refers to the sun, the sun that "magnifies" reality. While her family shy's away from the sun, fearing a consuming recognition that will blast apart all of the lies they have structured themselves upon, Picasso embraces the light. Picasso contrasts the revealing sun with forgiving rain. She often wonders if the blame is on herself for failing to be lovable; if she had fit in better to this black and white family perhaps her brother would not need to rape her, or mother not condescend her, or her father not want to kill her spirit. Picasso must "lean on" this wall of rain, allow herself, her family to at once be forgiven. As much as Picasso craves this luscious color, she also must fear it. For illuminating her own world forces her to make sense of her past, of who she was and who she has become. She has realized the sinister nature of marriage, a fraud that her parents and millions of others have signed over to. "Till death us do part", yes for there is a parting of ways from death, both parties become dead to one another in the act of marriage. Her entire family is so afraid of color, of letting someone else realize any of their own intricacies. It is all a fraud, and yet Picasso finds joy in forcing light into their lives. Each member is stained with the past, with memories, hopes, dreams never realized - yet they desperately try to maintain their pristine appearance. As much as Picasso fears memory, she is also infatuated with it. Things that are no longer present, things hidden and covered, take form of their own through imagination. Those things are more prevalent in the present and future life than tangible, present objects. An old house torn down, an arm amputated - since they no longer are visible, the mind begins to create. In the end, Picasso proves that everybody is an artist. We may lie about the past, about the present, yet we are forever visibly stained with the truth. There are those that create lives desperately trying to shield away all color, and those that try to erase past lives by immersing themselves in color in the present. Regardless we are all at work creating art, creating a past, present, and future.

Laura Mandell's theory of art in a nutshell: Genre, and what we know about the Genre of the novel, is that it begins in the 18th century. Aphra Behn's Oroanoko is maybe the first novel. The short story comes into existence around 1800. Genre Fiction just means kind; e.g. science fiction, romance, realistic novel, etc. It is formula fiction, if you could just find the formal to write for example a Harlequin Romance, you would fit into that genre. In college literature, do we stick to canon or do we stray? It has been theoretically been blown apart (the Pope's, Swifts, Shelley, Dickens, Keats, Byron, Wilde, Faulkner, anything in the Norton Anthology besides for women). Canon has been transplanted by Cultural Studies (ethnic minority literature). People have become aware of politics of thiis, there were professors who would exclude works because they did not fit into their own cultural views. But has the politics gone too far, it has completely torn up the canon. There still is great art, why should we abandon this concept entirely? Just when we discover women artists, now we say there is no great art anymore? Everyone in this room is potentially a great artist, great art is narrowly defined. When we read and adore an author, we get a "return of our own alienated majesty".

Art & Lies: Handel and Picasso for next time.

Art, Poetry, and the Digital World

In Felicia Heman's poem, she is expressing the unbiased, un-jaded, innocent perspective of a child. They can carelessly come to terms with nature, loving the simplest of it's gifts, with no fear and no regret. They have not yet experienced the hardships of life; the broken hearts, the terror, the biases that life brings about. They are merely satisfied with the smallest tokens of nature, and see them only as a simple amusement to life. They have not experienced what these simple things can turn into, while the onlooking adult is all too consumed with the brutalities of nature. 

For a day is coming to quell the tone

That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!

And to dim thy brow with a touch of care.

There will be a day that will change your perspective on life forever, make you see the hardships nature brings. Until that day comes though, revel in the beauty of nature and it's smallest gifts. 

Art and Nature VS. Technology 

After reading all three presentations of the Heman's poem, I realized that presentation of the text is  very important. The HTML version is a very generic version, like we are so used to reading. Just a simple recreation of the original text. I 

was alarmed to read the TEL encoded version. I have never seen anything like this before, and although I am aware that it is the same poem (same words and everything), the layout of the page is alien to my eyes. I do not get the same feel as when I read the HTML or page version. Now all I see are computerized, digitized keys of what was once words. I do not really understand the point of this presentation of the poem. It seem like a bunch of jibberish strewn on a page, with confusing marks denoting line breaks and such. I finally came to the page version, which is the most authentic version. I personally liked reading this one the best. It was the most romanticized version with it's layout. I could somehow relate to the words and feelings more in this version. I saw the dull yellow and worn pages and I thought about the author and her feelings while writing. While the HTML version is probably the most comfortable to me, now looking at it, it look's so fresh and new, with the glistening white background of the computer screen. Not having the page version really does not give full justice to the author or the piece. This was how she intended the reader to view the piece, and I feel we should stick to her original intentions. They are all the same poem, but in another light they really are not. Poetry is suppose to move the reader, feel in-tune to their own senses and that of the authors, and I certainly did not get that by reading the encoded version. Digitizing really takes away the romantic perspective of poems, and makes it like an alien, cryptic sort of message. Looking at the aim of Heman's poem, to discuss the beauties of nature and art, and the difficulties adults have at seeing art as mere art, I do not believe that Hemans would approve of this version of her poem. She is saying to revel in the simplest things, for later everything is made too difficult, there is too much trying to decode nature in it's simplest, most beautiful form. Here we are trying to transform her work into a complicated, technologically advanced version. It really seems to destroy her message. I understand the benefits of digitizing. With all the resources available on computers and through the internet, it makes it easy to have a digitized version readily available to find the simplest of things in poems. I just believe that the most justice is given to the original, or closest to the original, version of the poem. We should be able to take Heman's message to heart. Stop trying to make things more difficult than they need be, just value them for what they are, in all their innocent and natural beauty.