Blog #4

When researching the history of Francisco Goya's painting "The Third of May 1808", I learned about the historical component of this painting. Goya was trying to commemorate the resistance of the Spanish people to Napoleon’s army during the occupation of 1808. However, in true Michel Foucault fashion, I will analyze this painting and its ‘artistic vocabulary’ without any art-historical investigation. I will not look at “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. I will look strictly at the painting and try to interpret the artist’s narrative.

The painting is an obvious contrast between two distinct groups. The first group to me is an unorganized group of captives held at gunpoint. The other group is of a uniformly and organized firing squad. The captives have sorrow expressions written on their faces. Some are lying on the ground dead while others are crying and showing their mercy. The group on the left is faceless and absent of emotion. They have robotic mannerisms as if they were programmed to kill these captives. It is obvious that Goya is favoring the sorrowful captives on the left. They are shown more as humans since their faces are visible and show emotion. Goya does not favor the firing squad since he painted their backs to the viewer and they are portrayed as robots more than humans.

The central figure in the painting is a man in the center of the group of captives. He is the lightest form in this dark-colored painting. The glowing, white color represents good. It is the only light figure in the dark painting. The viewer is drawn to this man not only because of the lightness of his shirt, but also the leading lines of the firing squad’s guns. The guns are pointing at him in the actual action of the painting, and also point the viewer of the painting to him. This man shows the most action as his arms are flung wide to show his appeal and mercy. Also, his face is depicted with a lot of detail to show his human qualities and his sorrow.

Goya uses ‘artistic vocabulary’ brilliantly to show that his painting constitutes a narrative. No historical context is necessary to explain that he strongly disapproved what was going on during the time of his painting. He is trying to make a statement that this type of war action is not appropriate and is immoral

Blog #3

In Michel Foucault’s analysis of Las Meninas, the analytical observation I found most interesting was his interpretation of what was the center reference point. I tend to agree with his “X” theory. It is easy to see an “X” formation from the painter’s eyes down to the dog’s back and from the male courtier’s eyes down to the bottom of the canvas. These two lines intersect at the eyes of the Infanta. I seemed to be more drawn by the “X” shape than the “vast curve” which is later described.

I also enjoyed Foucalt’s argument that the people’s names that are shown in the mirror are not important. It is obvious that the two people in the mirror are King Philip IV and his wife, Mariana. But he explains that if you want to “keep the relation of language to vision open,” and “treat their incompatibility as a starting-point for speech instead of as an obstacle to be avoided, so as to stay as close as possible to both, then one must erase those proper names and preserve the infinity of the task” (9). It is easy to see that the people in the mirror are important because everyone is focused on them. However, the names are not necessary and Foucalt wants to analyze the visual relationships in the painting without historical facts.

I thought it was very interesting that Foucalt described this painting in vast detail, but left out any information of art-historical investigation. Subject matter was not explored nor was any “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. Instead, he focuses on what is specifically going on in the painting. He highlights the visual relationships between the painter on the left, the subject-model, and the viewer. Foucalt explains this reciprocity viewing relationship, “A mere confrontation, eyes catching one another’s glance, direct looks superimposing themselves upon one another as they cross. And yet this slender line of reciprocal visibility embraces a whole complex network of uncertainties, exchanges, and feints” (4). At first glance at this painting I did not think of this reciprocal relationship. However, it is very evident after studying the painting and after reading this analysis.

I think Foucalt is trying to explain that this painting contains a new way of thinking in European art. It is a middle point between the old Classical style and the new modern style. He explains this idea in the final paragraph, “Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us….and representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form” (16). Foucalt is hypothesizing that this painting could be the cross over between how art was and what it can will be.

Blog #2

In our assigned text, Joseph Carroll explains that the Darwinian literary criticism model is insufficient when analyzing literature. This model looks at basic evolutionary psychological motives to predict how people will behave. Carroll argues that this method of criticism is unsatisfactory because people do not always follow universal patterns of behavior. Also, Carroll argues that characters in literature are not real people, and instead are expressions of the author. This Darwinian method analyzes behavior by looking at the universality of human nature. It does not take into account contingent factors like culture, economics, intelligence, or social standing.

After summarizing the flaws of the Darwinian literary criticism, Carroll begins to critique Pride and Prejudice using a different model. In this model, Carroll analyzes the points of view of the author, characters, and audience in order to fully explain what Austen was trying to write to her audience. The Darwinian literary criticism explains that men in the novel look for women who are beautiful and women look for men who have recourses. However, these biological and evolutionary attractions are not the only important attributes. Instead, “they must…be weighed in the balance of the total set of values that can be integrated a well-proportioned economy of human life” (100). Austen is explaining her own set of values in the novel, often times through the Elizabeth-character. Along with Elizabeth, Darcy is the other protagonist Austen uses to refute the “Darwinian” idea of human nature. Instead of youth and beauty, Darcy is attracted to Elizabeth’s wit. And instead of property and rank, Darcy’s strength of character (originally thought to be weak by Elizabeth) is what eventually attracts Elizabeth. I think Carroll does an excellent job in analyzing the novel.

After reading Carroll’s analysis of Pride and Prejudice, it was evident that not all humans act universally. It is easy to assume that humans act in and evolutionary and reproductively driving behavior. However, humans are much more complex than this. One must look at a human’s background and their uniqueness in order to better predict their behavior. I think the Darwinian literary criticism is too general and too large scale. I believe biologists and evolutionary idealist support it because it probably rings true when looking at the human race as a whole. However, I think a better model must be used when analyzing specific humans in specific situations.

Blog #1 9/8

What is the importance of the Mr. Collins-character?

When I looked at the Mr. Collins-character, I thought of him as a symbol for how men viewed women, and the role of men and women in 18th century England. I think Jane Austen uses Mr. Collins to make a social criticism of her era’s view of marriage. Mr. Collins was not at all prepared for the refusal of his proposal to Elizabeth. He assumed that Elizabeth would be happy to marry him because her future would be secure. Elizabeth was unique because she did not believe in marriage just for security. She wanted a companion that would make her happy every day and that she would actually love. This idea was contrasted by her best friend Charlotte Lucas. Charlotte believed love was not a vital part of marriage, so when Mr. Collins proposes to her, she accepts. Mr. Collins is a symbol for how marriage was viewed by men at the time of the novel.

Another dimension of Mr. Collins-character was his contrasting characteristics to Mr. Darcy. Although both men are viewed as very proud, Mr. Darcy actually has reason to be proud because of his wealth and social status. Mr. Collins is just obnoxious and overly proud of himself because he works for the “great” Lady Catherine De Bourgh. I believe Austen made Mr. Collins so pitiful in order to highlight Mr. Darcy. At Mr. Bingley’s party, I kept thinking how obnoxious Mr. Collins was and how he kept getting in the way of everyone. I found myself liking Mr. Darcy more because I disliked Mr. Collins so much. Mr. Darcy seemed more gentlemen like because Mr. Collins was not gentlemen like at all.

I believe Mr. Collins was also used to illuminate Mrs. Bennet’s foolishness as well as Mr. Bennet’s wisdom. After Elizabeth refuses Mr. Collins’ proposal, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet have opposite responses to Elizabeth. Mrs. Bennet was appalled that Elizabeth would refuse the opportunity to get married and secure her future. She chased Elizabeth down and begged her to reconsider. Mr. Bennet, on the other hand, respected Elizabeth’s decision and realized that Elizabeth had absolutely no interest in Mr. Collins and therefore should not marry him. Mr. Collin’s proposal allowed Mr. and Mrs. Bennet to show their contrasting views on their daughters’ potential marriages.

Durant: How would you describe Durant's view of the importance of philosophy?

Durant argues the importance of philosophy because it answers the questions that science cannot answer. Science advances and philosophy regresses as more questions are answered by science and fewer questions are left to be answered by philosophy. Science explains how things happen while philosophy explains why.