Here are the pre-reading questions for An Outpost of Progress by Joseph Conrad. Answer one THEN read the story.
1. Is it reasonable to expect someone to maintain his or her ideals in a corrupt environment - for instance, in a place where no one respected or obeyed the law, or treated others with dignity?
2. What are some ways that a person can be or feel - enslaved?
3. What is your definition of "civilization"? What are some advantages and disadvantages of living in a civilized society?
4. What might make a rational, sane person go mad?
Here are interpretive Note Sources for the second reading.
Mark places where Kayerts and Carlier show how unfit they are for life at the trading station.
Mark places where Kayerts and Carlier show that they are "insignificant and incapable" men.
Here are the Interpretive Questions for Discussion:
1. Why does Kayerts commit suicide when he hears the steamer's whistle?
2. Why, after so many months alone, does Kayerts feel that he hardly knows Carlier? Why does their friendship cease to strengthen with time, but instead disintegrate?
3. Why are Kayerts and Carlier more troubled than Makola about selling the station men for ivory?
4. Why does Makola despise the two white men?
5. Is Makola evil? Why is he portrayed as such a good family man? Why does he have two names - one African and one European?
6. Why, according to Conrad, does contact "with primitive nature and primitive man" bring "sudden and profound trouble into the heart"? (193)
7. Why is Kayerts' and Carlier's sense of morality unable to sustain them in the wilderness?
8. Why does trading the ivory for the men make Kayerts and Carlier feel like "something from within them was gone, something that worked for their safety"? (210)
9. Why is the quarrel between Kayerts and Carlier triggered when Carlier asks for sugar in his coffee? Why is Kayerts afraid of becoming a slave if he gives in?
10. Why do Kayerts and Carlier change their minds about accepting the ivory tusks that Makola secures by selling the ten company station men?
11. Why is Kayerts so upset when Carlier refers to him as a "stingy old slave-dealer"? (212)
12. Why does killing Carlier cause Kayerts to think that all his thoughts and convictions were "contemptible and childish, false and ridiculous"? (216)
13. What is the "highest wisdom" with which Kayerts becomes familiar on the night after he shoots Carlier? Why does he feel at peace in the conviction that his life has no more secrets from him? (217)
14. Why is the fate of the two white men made to depend on Gobila?
15. Why does Conrad say that "belief in ...safety" is the essence of character? (193) Why does he say that fear is the one indestructible emotion? (209)
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 193: beginning, "The two men watched the steamer," and ending, "and tries the civilized nerves of the foolish and the wise alike."
pages 208 - 209: beginning, "I can see it!" and ending, "Of course; let him decide,' approved Carlier."
pages 209-210: beginning, "At midday they made a hearty meal," and ending, "to envelop them with a solicitude irrestistible, familiar, and disgusting."
Pages 216-217: beginning, "Night came," and ending, "Help!...My God!"
Post-Discussion Writing
1. Are people evil because human nature is flawed or because our society is flawed?
2. Does our complex society make it more difficult to know and accept one's true nature?
3. Is there "progress" in human nature?
4. You are a talk show host and Makola (Mr. Price) comes on as your guest. What questions would you ask him? How would he answer your questions?
5. Do you think anyone in the position of Kayerts and Carlier would eventually go mad, as they did?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
homework for 5-15-09
Just a reminder (and information for Juliana), we should do the post discussion question (whatever length you so desire), and then post the answer to the blog.
In addition to that, we also need to to the exercise at the end of "an essay in aesthetics" which is entitled "writing interpretive questions".
-bob
In addition to that, we also need to to the exercise at the end of "an essay in aesthetics" which is entitled "writing interpretive questions".
-bob
Interpretive Question Essay
How does artistic vision difer from ordinary perception?
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
fry interpretive essay
I'm pretty sure that this was what I was supposed to write...
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
Does art distort reality, or portray it more exactly?
Galen Schmidt
In our actual lives, we can never experience our emotions purely. Because almost all actions demand a reaction, we cannot stop and think about what it is that we have just witnessed, or what it was we just felt. With art, whether it be a picture, a book or a movie, we are free from that requirement placed upon us in our ordinary lives that we respond to what we have just seen. Because of this, we can stop and contemplate the actions that we have just seen, the words we have just read, or the picture that we have just looked at. It is in this way that art can portray reality more exactly by distorting it.
Take film for example. Most movies portray events that are never likely to happen, or are flat out fictitious. But when watching a movie, we may realize that they are portraying our own lives, our own problems, and helping us to see them clearer (more clearly?). When viewing but not actually engaged in an activity, there is, as fry points out an “emotional purity” within oneself. You do not have to react to what is happening, and therefor having no lasting emotional stake in the outcome of the event, you are free to feel what is truly happening, instead of simply reacting to it.
If you were in a car accident, you would naturally have to “stuff you emotions away”, as it were. You would be spending time helping people, filing a police report, and just trying to clean up. So later, when you had time to think about the emotional impact of what had happened, the memories would be fuzzier, the emotions more blurred. However, if you were watching a car accident in a movie, you would, in a sense, be “free” of your obligation to help, and so you could simply feel the emotional impact of what has just happened.
It is said that “time heals all wounds”, and it is especially true with emotional wounds. Our brains tend to try and block out the bad ones, and highlight the good ones. But with art, we can preserve an instant in time, and all of it's emotional power over us. A piece of art can completely distort reality, but if it truly captures an emotion, then it has succeeded in portraying it more exactly than any true rendition ever could.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Art etc...
this was the question i chose for this week's discussion. i hope it makes sense. i think i kinda went off topic at some point, i don't know.
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Thursday, April 30, 2009
An Essay in Aesthetics by Roger Fry
Prereading Questions
1. What makes something a work of art?
2. Why do human beings, even cave men, create art?
3. Can something that is very ugly be a great work of art?
4. Is art important?
5. How is watching a movie of a dangerous situation different from being in a dangerous situation?
6. Present to the class a few pictures from various periods of art - e.g., realistic, impressionistic, abstract - or paintings by very different artists, such as Michelangelo and Andy Warhol. Have students discuss whether or why these are all works of art.
7. Look closely for several minutes at some object (or person) that is very familiar to you, making a list of aspects or details you had not really noticed, before.
Interpretive Note Sources (first reading)
Mark places where Fry says something about how art affects our emotions.
Mark places where Fry describes our "imaginative life."
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Fry think there is every reason for some works of art to be ugly?
2. Does Fry think art can affect our actions?
3. How would Fry explain why some works of art gain immediate recognition and others gain recognition only after a long period of time?
4. Can an object created for use, such as a china pot, become a work of art?
5. Does the artist have a moral responsibility?
6. Can art evoke undesirable emotions, such as hate and fear?
7. Why does Fry call the imaginative life "secondary"? (179)
8. Why does Fry consider art the chief organ of the imaginative life?
9. Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
10. Why is recognition of the artist's purpose an essential part of the aesthetic judgment?
11. How does artistic vision differ from ordinary perception?
12. Why are the emotions of the imaginative life weaker but more pure? (178)
13. Why does Fry think it is important for people occasionally both to "feel" and to "watch" their emotions? (180)
14. Why do the things that are useful to us wear a "cap of invisibility"? (179)
15. Does art distort reality, or portray it more exactly?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Pages 176-177; beginning, "I must begin with some elementary psychology, " and ending, "and a different kind of perception."
Pages 179-180: beginning, "Art, then, is, if I am right, the chief organ," and ending, "our own time that there is no need to prove it."
Pages 181-182: beginning, "If, then, an object of any kind is created, and ending, "supremely and magnificently ugly."
Post-Discussion Writing
1. What is the difference between "good" and "bad" art?
2. Can we be "actors" and "spectators" at the same time?
3. Are there other ways besides art that we can "get in touch" with our imaginative lives?
4. Is everyone an artist in something?
5. Is an experience of "pure emotion" a worthwhile end in itself?
6. Is censorship ever justified?
7. Can a painting by a donkey with a brush tied to his tail be great art?
8. What accounts for the feeling of beauty a work of art gives you?
9. How has a work of art - a painting or a piece of music - enabled you to experience the world differently?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor
OK - Guys. Answer one of the pre-reading questions (which are really great, by the way). Then go ahead and do your first reading. This is for the next class.
Prereading Questions
1. Is it better to confront unpleasant circumstances squarely, or to minimize problems by putting on a happy face?
2. In what ways might children be wiser than their parents?
3. Have you ever wanted to teach another persona a good "lesson" about himself or herself?
4. What is self-deception?
5. Why do people sometimes find it easier to live in the past than in the present?
6. Should we accept those we love as they are, or should we try to change their faults?
Interpretive Note Source (Second Reading)
Mark places where Julian is being himself and places where he is being dominated by his mother.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Julian's mother become so upset that she suffers a stroke?
2. Why is the black woman enraged at her son's behavior with Julian's mother?
3. Why does O'Connor have Julian's mother and the black woman wear the same hats?
4. Why do both Julian and his mother revert to childhood at the end of the story?
5. Why does Julian have fantasies about black people?
6. why is the black child attracted to Julian's mother?
7. Why does Julian's mother play with the black child and try to give him a coin?
8. Why does Julian speak of his grandfather's mansion with contempt but think of it with longing?
9. Why is Julian annoyed by the fact that his mother can put a bright face on her suffering?
10. Why are Julian's efforts to communicate with black people unsuccessful?
11. Why does Julian insist that he sees his mother with "absolute clarity"? (155)
12. Who deals better with change, Julian or his mother?
13. Why does Julian feel free only when he withdraws?
14. Why can't Julian break away from his mother? Why can he oppose her, but not break with her?
15. Why is Julian depressed by everything that gives his mother pleasure?
16. Why does Julian want to break his mother's spirit? (153)
17. Why is Julian unwilling to let his mother live in the "fantasy world" of the past? (155)
18. Why does Julian never do any of the things he dreams about? Why is he unable to put his noble ideas into action?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 152: beginning, "Well let's talk about something pleasant," and ending, "She called her insensitivity 'being adjustable."
Pages 155 - 156 beginning, "Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner compartment," and ending, "He was not dominated by his mother."
Pages 164-167: beginning, "He picked up her pocketbook," to the end of the story.
Post-Discussion Writing
1. If you were writing an advice column, what would you say to Julian and his mother to help them get along better?
2. How much respect should children show their parents when they think their parents are wrong?
3. When is a person really "grown up"?
4. Have you ever had Julian's experience of thinking you could see clearly, when in fact you were blind?
5. Is Julian or his mother more responsible for their unhappy relationship?
Prereading Questions
1. Is it better to confront unpleasant circumstances squarely, or to minimize problems by putting on a happy face?
2. In what ways might children be wiser than their parents?
3. Have you ever wanted to teach another persona a good "lesson" about himself or herself?
4. What is self-deception?
5. Why do people sometimes find it easier to live in the past than in the present?
6. Should we accept those we love as they are, or should we try to change their faults?
Interpretive Note Source (Second Reading)
Mark places where Julian is being himself and places where he is being dominated by his mother.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Julian's mother become so upset that she suffers a stroke?
2. Why is the black woman enraged at her son's behavior with Julian's mother?
3. Why does O'Connor have Julian's mother and the black woman wear the same hats?
4. Why do both Julian and his mother revert to childhood at the end of the story?
5. Why does Julian have fantasies about black people?
6. why is the black child attracted to Julian's mother?
7. Why does Julian's mother play with the black child and try to give him a coin?
8. Why does Julian speak of his grandfather's mansion with contempt but think of it with longing?
9. Why is Julian annoyed by the fact that his mother can put a bright face on her suffering?
10. Why are Julian's efforts to communicate with black people unsuccessful?
11. Why does Julian insist that he sees his mother with "absolute clarity"? (155)
12. Who deals better with change, Julian or his mother?
13. Why does Julian feel free only when he withdraws?
14. Why can't Julian break away from his mother? Why can he oppose her, but not break with her?
15. Why is Julian depressed by everything that gives his mother pleasure?
16. Why does Julian want to break his mother's spirit? (153)
17. Why is Julian unwilling to let his mother live in the "fantasy world" of the past? (155)
18. Why does Julian never do any of the things he dreams about? Why is he unable to put his noble ideas into action?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 152: beginning, "Well let's talk about something pleasant," and ending, "She called her insensitivity 'being adjustable."
Pages 155 - 156 beginning, "Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner compartment," and ending, "He was not dominated by his mother."
Pages 164-167: beginning, "He picked up her pocketbook," to the end of the story.
Post-Discussion Writing
1. If you were writing an advice column, what would you say to Julian and his mother to help them get along better?
2. How much respect should children show their parents when they think their parents are wrong?
3. When is a person really "grown up"?
4. Have you ever had Julian's experience of thinking you could see clearly, when in fact you were blind?
5. Is Julian or his mother more responsible for their unhappy relationship?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)