back to the future

haven't posted in a bit, but i heard some free thinking performing arts kids may be coming through. so i decided to revive the blog with some of my creative poetry work. enjoy.


this is an exercise in playing with expressions.

my bravery
is the china on display
when the bull walks in

the bush
is chirping and
my hand is empty

i tried to
throw a stone with
my jelly arm
but my sleeve is like the glass
busted.

Meta-Critique

In conclusion, my musings on the more obvious qualities of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks left a little room for expansion; namely the ironic possibilities of the lonely life portrayed in the work. I think the Americana feeling that the piece has taken on in todays Onto-Historical world has led to many parodies and references in pop culture, all of which I could not possibly categorize here. I hit a few.

Also in terms of it's influence on the other arts, i.e. music, I could further explore it's referential points in many other works besides the work of Tom Waits. I wish I could not only experience the painting in person, but experience these musical works live as well, to better understand the virtual feeling and sound-in-time. I could also take an entire analysis to explore and deschiper the various levels of referential meaning in the Tom Waits album, which is something I am considering doing on my own free time to further my analysis of Hopper.

My historical and onto-historical sections, luckily, were only helped by the original explorations of Hopper in class; however, I was also limited by the statements and influences of many other peoples opinions of Ed. Perhaps I would have been better suited picking an artist, or a painting I was not already familiar with to some capacity, to avoid too many pre-existing prejudices or judgments. I tried to bracket them out as necessary, but I may have failed here and there.

Finally, I wish I could be more expansive in my analysis. At the risk of being too long winded in any given section, I made sure to not 'ramble' or go too far; this could be considered a weakness in my overall work. I wanted to be concise and insightful, but in setting out to be concise, might have missed an opportunity to push my exploration. If any point or detail needs elaboration or further discussion, I invite all of you to respond to the post and request such an act. I will be happy to do so.

It has been an incredible experience immersing myself in the work and seeing how it has inspired me to other forms of art, as well as how it has inspired music and culture.

Second Open Viewing

The inherent irony of the painting is that it is the picture of loneliness, while portraying four people trapped together, clearly not alone. The diner is bright and almost an unnatural glow, especially for the late night. Most of Hopper's work would capture this sort of ghostly, melancholy dialogue between the man made world and man's more intangible possessions; emotion and qualities of life. Hoppers onto-historical world introduced the fluorescent lighting that would dominate urban establishments like this one, as well as many other leaps in technology which on a larger scale (bombs and such) wrecked havoc on the world. While Fluorescent light is far from the destructive capabilities of the weapons of horror that Hopper's world gave birth to, in a way, it is part of the urbanization that left so many people in one concentrated place feeling so alone, so dehumanized.



Also, upon closer viewing, the windows on the building in the back corner appear similar to the ones in Early Sunday Morning, showing not only a theme running through Hopper's work of this era, but perhaps a comment on the night versus the morning, the nighthawks versus the empty streets.


Note the brownish, two story building with the green awning and windows. It's a slice out of Early Sunday Morning.







We could easily be glancing out the back windows of the diner, seeing the view of Early Sunday Morning.

Speaking of windows, it is interesting how Hopper treats them like they dilute or distort reality. We can't really see through the two layers of windows to the building behind the couple. Nor can we use the windows to see any reflection of the single man, whose face remains a mystery to the viewer. The shadow on his back is proportionate to the shadow to light ratio of the whole painting, or so I think. Also, one last observation about Hopper's insights into the lonely urban world: the streets are always clean. This seems especially odd, due to the rampant smoking and littering of the early 20th century, not to mention an inefficient department of waste management. What kind of alternative dream-verse of Greenwich Village was Hopper seeing? It certainly was just as lonely as the real thing.

I'm not really sure how to proceed with a performance guide, since it is more for a musical work than a painting, although I would recommend for recreations of Hopper's work to paint in an extremely isolated setting, and to not talk to anyone until the work is done. With that, I will end here and resume with the Meta-Critique.

Onto-Historical World

Hoppers World: Edward Hopper lived through some very turbulent times in American life. He was growing as an artist through both World Wars, atrocities no one in the world could comprehend, and the Great Depression, which no doubt affected American Life in a way that would forever influence the modern art movement in both visual art and literature. The painting was created immeidietly following the attack on Peral Harbor, a truly sobering moment for Americans. In the wake of the first real foreign attack on American soil, the paintings character is true to the feelings of the decade. Hopper's obsession with American loneliness and melancholy was no doubt deeply rooted in these tragic times; urban America of the forties is very well represented in Nighthawks.

His combination of American realism and impressionism is the perfect blend to represent this time period, a combination of a reality and the surreal too intense for a people to handle. Turning to the night, the streets could never be as empty as Hopper portrays, and yet, it seems right to make them so.

A podcast about Hopper and his work, also where I drew many of my references from, can be listened to here.

Today's World: I can understand his movement from the sub-urban life in the Hudson Valley to life in the big city, I experienced a similar move in my own life. Urban life can be very lonely, even in today's world. I visited Greenwich Village, the area of Hopper's influence and the supposed location of the infamous diner. The diner has since been demolished, and the feeling of the neighborhood Hopper inhabited so many years ago has changed dramatically. Walking the streets at night, people flooding in and out of bars cheerfully, I don't see the empty feelings of the 1940's resonating in today's streets of New York.

Hopper's work became infamous in the decades after it's creation, and has been imitated and referenced in countless numbers in popular culture, especially in today's world. TV shows like the Simpson's and That 70's Show have built on this tradition.

Virtual Feeling

The poem I wrote was an attempt to convey my virtual feeling of the piece; the melancholy, the loneliness, and the jealousy of the man sitting by himself. I like the duality of certain things in the painting, the light of the cafe versus the dark of the street, salt and pepper shakers, the single man versus the couple, etc. It's as if Hopper is trying to convey loneliness through a contrast of many different elements. Besides the obvious empty streets and late night setting, this painting is almost two-thirds devoid of people. Loneliness is a given.

The woman is the only thing that bothers me. If Hopper was trying to perceive the (ironic) loneliness of the modern urban landscape, why have a loud, hot girl in the mix of the painting? I think the secondary objective here is jealousy. The single man sees the couple, at whatever varied degree of hapiness they may be enjoying or not enjoying, and is simply jealous of them. The red being so vivid, leads me to belief that the jealousy is intense and saddening at the same time. We can't see the single man's face, but I'd imagine its less neutral than the rest of the bunch; I'm pegging him as the protagonist of the story of the painting. He is the voice in my poem as well. Although it's ultimately the loneliness of an entire city that Hopper is trying to convey, he is the one we identify with as truly lonely in this still shot.

I feel like this is a movie, and several things I read supported this; Hopper liked the cinema. I can see the camera zooming out at the end of the shot, to a slow, dizzy saxophone, trailing off into the fade to black.

Textual Representation

The term 'Nighthawks' is probably a disambiguation of the term 'night owl,' a euphemism for someone who is nocturnal in behavior. A 'nighthawk' could be someone who is ferociously nocturnal or self-destructive, 'hawk' brings to mind a sort of violent nature that owl does not.

'Phillies,' the only really clear word present in the painting, an ad for a brand of cigar forever immortalized in the painting. Phillies are still sold today, interestingly enough.

To further the text of the painting, I tried to write my own program in the form of a poem. It's also a nice segway into virtual feeling.

It's called "Phillie's"

sitting alone
in the early morning
where the milkshake man works

in mute white, he bends slightly,

and utters a
question towards my quiet coffee and the salt
and pepper shakers

he is the only person in the world to notice me.

the dress’ loud color
screams in my pastel world
no people in the streets.

milkshake man blends
into the background, white on white.

just look at my predicament
she, unattainable, with another hat
exactly the same as me.

coffee for nighthawks.

something is wrong.
i have a hunch.

more coffee son?

i’m tired of this scene, this mirror where
my reflection has a better suit
and gets to hold hands

Phenomenological "Sound-In-Time"

Unfortunately, as Katie also aptly observed, I cannot experience the painting's "sound-in-time," (the sound of the painting as I stand in front of it) and describing the feeling I get from looking at it would boarder on virtual feeling, which will come later. Instead I opted to graft on some referential work, and listen to the sound-in-time of Tom Wait's "Nighthawk Postcards (from Easy Street)," off the concept album "Nighthawks at the Diner," which is a live recording of Wait's, in a nightclub setting, attempting to recreate the moods of night clubs, jazz, booze, and of course, the loneliness of Hopper's painting. If the painting could speak, it would sound like this.

Listen.

The sound of the piece is the kind of cool, yet suggests the narrator is a bitterly alone night-owl, roaming the streets, boozing, describing the scenes around him. The gruff voice of Waits is humorous and stereotypical of 1950's film noir, but somehow still the perfect narrator for the picture of empty streets and late night diner stops. Waits based the album on the painting, so it can't be too far off in terms of referential meaning.

Syntax

Nighthawks is painted oil on canvas, and measures:
84.1 x 152.4 cm (33 1/8 x 60 in.)

That puts it roughly in the ball park of 3 ft x 5 ft, larger than most would guess. The color scheme is a distinctly drab pastel, composed of blues, grays, browns, and greens. The most eye-catching color of the painting is the woman's dress, which departs from the color scheme, a bright red. It's tough to pinpoint exactly which way the brush strokes went without seeing the actual painting, but from the picture it seems that many of them were strokes rather than the splashes associated with impressionism, a style for which Hopper had a fondness. However, there are some vaguely impressionistic motives in the windows of the diner, as well as the exterior, which seem less comprised of solid strokes. Also, the diner itself is geometrically incorrect; the bar is slanted so that the bartender is seemingly trapped inside, as well as the diner itself having no visible doors or way out. Other than this, the painting is pure realism, and Hopper's preoccupation with shadow play is evident in the many crossing sections of lights and darks, including some shading on the characters present in the painting. Often Hopper's characters wear an indifferent look on their faces, and Nighthawks is no different.

Historical Background

Let's backtrack a little, at the risk of getting carried away with observations. I am familiar with the painting, however, I knew little about it before I started.

Nighthawks, as it is aptly named, was painted in 1942 by Edward Hopper, an American painter who lived from 1882 - 1967. He painted several other notable works, such as our class favorite Early Sunday Morning, as well as New York Movie, Office in a Small City, and Automat. The painting is often called Hopper's most recognizable work, however, it coincides with his overall theme of the gloom of modern American urban life in the first half of the century. The work was created immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Pictured Left: Hopper, Self-Portrait.


Hopper was actually born very close to my hometown of Haverstraw, in Nyack, New York. Nyack sits on the Hudson river, on the edge of Rockland County, a forty minute to an hour drive from Manhattan. From there he went on to study in New York City, at the New York Institute of Art and Design. He studied under and was influenced by Robert Henri, another notable American painter, who encouraged his students to not only portray urban life accurately, but to "cause a stir" with their art. Henri's pupils would later collectively be known as the Ashcan School of American Art.

Hopper spent time in Europe, offering him a contrasting perspective to his native New York and American life. Instead of Parisian cubism and abstractions, Hopper was attracted to realism and Victorian architecture. He also grew fond of impressionism, and enjoyed the work of Edgar Degas. He was forced to work as a commercial artist until 1923, when he painted Mansard Roof. He then painted a series of famous, successful paintings which allowed him to dedicate himself professionally and solely to his work. He divided up his time between New York and Truro, Massachusetts. He was often seen as very alienated, up until his death, in his studio near NYU and Washington Square, in 1967. Nighthawks, a beloved piece of Americana, now resides in the Art Institute of Chicago.

Below: Hopper's New York Studio.

Open Viewing

For a closer look at a picture of the actual painting, click on it.

First impressions: loneliness. The unclear contrast of light and dark between the diner and the streets gives off a sort of ambiguity to the time of night; we know it is night, but we're not sure when. The streets and windows are completely empty, as opposed to the diner which seems to have a man by himself, a couple of some kind, and a soda jerk (appropriate term?), bending down, looking out the window. Several questions arise; why is the man with his back to the glass by himself? What is he looking at? What is the soda guy looking at? He appears to have his mouth open, as if he is saying something. The couple are almost holding hands, but the lady is looking at her right hand almost with a twinge of detachment. The three customers all have coffee cups. It appears the concept of "the dead of night" is significant. The name of the diner is "Phillie's," with what appears to be a cigar next to it, costing only five cents. This seems to establish that this is an older time. The clothing is very early 20th century, the men have fedoras and the lady is wearing a sharp red. She almost jumps right out of the painting, painted up in a loud dress with red hair and red lips. Although slightly off center, she seems to be the focus of the paintings desire, a clear contrast against the dull pastels of the rest of the piece. The sheer melancholy of the late-nighters is embodied in this soft, quiet color scheme of blue, gray, green and brown. I find myself questioning: who is comfortable eating alone? What are the connotations of such an action? And do the couple, in their indifference, look down on the lonely man? Upon looking closer, it seems like there is no way out of the diner for either the patrons nor the bartender. What is he, anyway? He almost looks like a milkman.

As Promised: The Eclectic Analysis

Subject: Edward Hopper's Nighthawks

Here we go... I am going to write start to finish tonight, in the hopes of being forward thinking and cohesive, and also spontaneous. Let's begin!

what is art? baby don't hurt me.

Hello class. I have sinned. It's been two weeks since my last post.

Anyway, here's a summary of what I read this week:

George Dickie begins his comprehensive institutional analysis of Art and the Aesthetic with a look at the definition of “art,” both in the past and present. He starts with the traditional description of art “as imitation.” Dickie then breaks the definition down into three phases, which are as follows: Phase I: art as imitation, Phase II: art cannot be defined, and Phase III: Dickie’s own work with trying to define art, while avoiding the “difficulties of traditional definitions” and “incorporate the insights of later analysis.”
He then breaks his essay in four sections. The first begins with a discussion of the most well known work to refute art as definable, namely, Morris Weitz’s article “The Role of Theory In Aesthetics.” He goes on to describe the article and it’s points (about the generic conception of certain art, and the classification argument), and then rebuts them utilizing Mandelbaum and his rebuttal of Wittgenstein’s contention that “game” could not be defined. He then moves on to the driftwood example, a strong argument against Weitz. He mentions other authors he has read, like Richard Sclafani, and how they apply. He is obviously well read.
Dickie then establishes three “distinct senses of ‘work of art:’ the classificatory sense, the secondary or derivative, and the evaluative. He plays a few words games with phrases like “this Rembrandt is a work of art” and it’s implications. It does not mean the same thing as “Sally’s cake is a work of art,” and he shows this through his distinct senses.
Dickie then moves on to section II, with the conclusion that “artifactuality is a necessary condition of the primary sense of art.” But this is not the only condition. To further refute claims made about art, Dickie goes into a ‘brief’ discussion of what the “art-world” is, both in the classical and modern sense. He then concludes with a specific definition of what a work of art is, and it’s kind of complicated. It divides into many conditions and notions; one condition in classificatory sense involves art as an artifact, or as appreciated by the art world. The second condition is four variously interconnected notions, acting on behalf of institutions, conferring of status, being a candidate, and appreciation. Dickie discusses them all at length.
In section II, Dickie continues to shoot down Weitz, while establishing his institutional theory of art. Section IV is just a wrap up and a conclusion of what has been said, and what is to come in Dickie’s full work.

REACTION
I’ve always had a problem with ‘abstract art,’ coming from a strong landscapes and imitative background (I use to paint very often, in fact I was going to build a portfolio of landscapes and nature type stuff, and go to art school). However, I chose music as my true calling, and stopped thinking about visual art entirely, and lost touch with the argument in my head about abstract art and it’s definition as far as the art world is concerned. Dickie raises some very intriguing points with his institutional theory, that simply a credible institution can declare something “art” by putting it on display. It’s kind of like the art-world being an exclusive club that only insiders can enter. However, it seems to me, regardless of artistic skill, anyone can transcend the level of classification and become something truly valuable.
But then there is the real value in abstract art, the passion in the creation of it. Dickie doesn’t talk enough about creation and passion, and I think that if he had Youtube at his disposal, like I do, he would easily have made another classification for the definition of art; passion. I advise everyone to check out this video:



Pollock says some really beautiful stuff about painting: “I want to express my feelings, rather than illustrate them. Technique is only a means to a statement” If anything was missing from Dickie, it was this attitude.

Looks Like We Made It... The Eclectic Analysis!

Finally, we reach the meat and potatoes of Ferrara’s book; his idea concerning the aggregation and utilization of all the various methodologies presented and explored in his book. He calls this multi-step analysis “an Eclectic Method for Sound, Form, and Reference,” and it is the final step in being both freed of preconceptions, while simultaneously allowing the work to mean anything. Needless to say, it’s a tad complex. Ferrara focuses on music but since we have used the method for visual art as well, I will try and make the method universal as I explore it.
First Ferrara establishes the importance of keeping the three major methods (phenomenological, conventional, and hermeneutic) autonomous, while exploring each one properly and fully. The eclectic method must suspend prejudgments of what a work could mean, while simultaneously remaining open to all the possibilities. The method is a step by step process, isolating features through the lens of a specific method, and aggregating all the methods simply by placing them side by side, in a specific order.
First, a historical framework must be established. Strictly speaking from a historical context, what was the climate of the world when this piece was created? This analysis includes the life of the author, the world around them, and any pertinent events in their lifetime leading up to the creation of art. From then on, a narrative point of view should be established.
Next, Ferrara tells the reader to do an open viewing or listening, to hear the work as a whole, hear the sound or see the art, and relay some first impressions unbiased by other works. This step is meant to engage an experience in the work, uninhibited by methodology, and record ideas and impressions. This step deals with referential meaning, and only referential meaning.

The third step is the syntax, the formal analysis of the work. What are the technical elements that comprise this piece of art?
The fourth step is phenomenology, the sound-in-time. Here Ferrara notes a more poetic approach when talking about the work is necessary. Also he reminds the reader that keeping each method separate is key. No referential meaning or formal analysis should occur here.
Step five is the beginning of the three levels of referential meaning. The first is representation of a program or text. Step six is the second level, reporting the manner in which the art is expressive of human emotion or feeling (hermeneutics). Here steps three and four should be included in a dialogue with the referential to differentiate the step and create relations with previous analysis. Step seven is the third level, the onto-historical world of the composer or author, incorporating many elements already discussed.
Step eight is a return to the open-viewing or listening, and pegs the analysis as circular. With everything else in mind, the second open viewing should be more developed, more cohesive, and more imaginative.
Step nine is a performance guide (solely for music I’d imagine), utilizing all of what has been discussed to create a map for the performer, highlighting key aspects. Step ten, the final step, is a meta-critique of the analysis as a whole, and is essential to the effectiveness of the method, in order to unite “theory and practice.”


REACTION

Ferrara’s eclectic method is quite a bit of information to take in and digest, but the idea of taking such a dense volume of method and theory and putting it all together in sort of a super-analysis is kind of cool. The electic method allows for so many varied and unique views on one piece of art that it really is an all-encompasing method. It even has a built-in safe guard step to detect it’s own weaknesses.
My only concern is that most people attempting this complex process will not have the thorough knowledge of each of it’s components. Historical is easy enough, but the average person will not be able to distinguish a phenomenological discussion from a hermeneutic discourse. I understand now why most of the book is pure summary of these views, to give the reader an appropriate framework for using the method. However, I wonder, how important is it to know all of these methods when reading a complete eclectic analysis? Is it necessary? Or does the reader of such an analysis simply get an amazing variety of views without fully understanding?
This led to me to another question, difficult to separate out from an academic setting, (considering we have to do these analysis for a grade, and in that respect the question is moot). Anyway, aside from grades, my question is this: is the eclectic analysis purely for the person conducting the method, or for an unnamed reader to see an all-encompassing view of a work? What is the intention? I’d like to think that the average intellectual would love to sit down and bang one of these babies out, but is it purely for self awareness, or is it meant to be read by others? I now pose this question to all of you.

Heidegger, in depth.

SUMMARY
Ferrara begins with a brief insight into Heidegger’s development as a philosopher, explaining that before an analysis of his work “On the Origin of the Work of Art,” we must first see the larger context of his shift in approach in the time following “Being and Time.” This begins with a review of ‘Dasein’ and the idea that resoluteness is an action decided by Dasein as “it experiences it’s ‘throwness’ into the world” (Ferrara 123). The character is transformed in his later works into a less active role.
We then move to an analysis of Heidegger’s work in the deconstruction of Western Metaphysical tradition, which partially occurs in “Being and Time.” Ferrara tells us that Heidegger later realized his deconstruction was limited, because it was trapped within the confines of what it wished to undercut. Heidegger made a choice to radically defer from traditional Metaphysics and move to new ground. He abandoned much of his earlier terms in favor of a more “meditative and poetic stance” (Ferrara 124).
Heidegger, according to Ferrara, then moved to thoughts of the Greeks, and their way of allowing phenomenon to show themselves. He wanted to rediscover this talent, seen in pre-Socratics, and reclaim early Greek thinking. “Meditative thinking” includes the Greek traditions of gathering, and/or apprehension and collection. Waiting becomes important to Heidegger as well. “Waiting” he says, “releases itself into openness.” This is separate from our preconceptions of waiting, which can be misconstrued as human nature or subjectivized. “Waiting” to Heidegger is more like “Waiting upon,” and allowing a releasement of the will. This allows for thing itself to be within its horizon, it’s region, and reveal it’s Being.
Next, Ferrara moves to a discussion of “On the Origin of the Work of Art.” Heidegger is referring to all forms of art in his essay, from music to visual art to poetry. In a roundabout way, the artist is defined as the source of the artwork, although the act of creating art is what defines the artist as such. Somehow art is present in the work and guides the artist (Ferrara 126). Ferrara says that in some ways the art work can be considered a thing. Heidegger specifies three types of being, the ready-to-hand (equipment, useful, like automobiles), the present-to-hand (junk, a pile of leaves for example), and Dasein (human existence). He relates the art work to the second kind, referred to as “mere-things”. However when defining things, traditionally, there are three types: thing as substance, thing as a sum of what is given to the senses, and thing as formed matter. Heidegger refutes them all.
Ferrara then explains why each of these falls flat in Heidegger’s mind. Heidegger’s exegesis of thing theories, however, is meta-critiqued by himself as not bringing the analysis closer to the “thingly element in art” (Ferrara 127). Heidegger moves from a meta-theoretical level to one of an art critic, interpreting a specific thing. He then muses on the existence of a pair of shoes, and what makes the shoes the thing that they are. Heidegger concludes that the shoes are much more than the “matter and form,” but are also determined by setting, purpose, and even key moods of human existence, exuded by the shoes. He comes to this reasoning by looking at a Van Gogh painting, thus using the art work to obtain the true Being of the shoes, instead of the shoes themselves. The work allows the shoes to reveal themselves in truth, (as ‘aletheai’ or “unconcealedness”), an important point in Heideggers conception of art. Ranking truth over beauty is a big step from traditional art critique.
The shoes in real form do not reveal their true being, according to Heidegger. It is only through the painting, that they are transformed into a “virtual” form, and allow for the “artist’s crystallization of human feelings and ontological insights” (Ferrara 130). Virtual forms are marked by truth.
Heidegger explores the duality that art work’s are also things and related to the things they try to describe by analyzing a greek temple. He steps back and instead of a formal critique of structure, looks at the work materials (the stones themselves), derived from the Earth. According to pre-Socratic thoughts of ‘physis,’ the physical nature of the Earth was always rising around us, and the work materials should be treated as such. Heidegger attributes this to the artist’s workmanship. Ferrara draws the conclusion that art is not static; it is something that “emerges and unfolds in our experience of it.” The thing, present-to-hand, can become art if it emerges.
Heidegger provides more discourse on the relationship between world and earth, similar to the relationship between Being and actual existing reality. The world, to Heidegger, can forever be expressed by art works such as Greek temples. Without these works, their ontological worlds would vanish. The world must be an open one, but when successfully open, creates a “spaciousness” that allows for Being. What happens in the world of art, to Heidegger, is called “worlding.”
But remaining spacious is only part of it. Heidegger uses the example of the transformation of stone from just a useless stone on the side of the road, to part of the temple. Something happens to the stone, that allows it show itself as stone for the first time. The importance of the relationship between world and earth is discussed, and how by defining earth, we can understand the relationship between earth and art objects as well.
Ferrara then discusses ‘rift-design,’ Heidegger’s concept of how truth happens in the artwork, because of its strife. Rift-design is the drawing together of basic design, breach and outline. It is a set structure, not the earth, but something more formed. Finally Ferrara concludes with a step back at the fundamental elements of “art work” in the art work; “earth (materials), rift-design (syntax), and world (reference)” (138).
To Heidegger, art must be appreciated to happen in the work of art. The truth can only happen “if an inspired person allows it to happen” (Ferrara 139). Art is different from mere things in its many fundamentals. Heidegger also asserts that all art is poetry. Since language is more than a means of communication, but is in fact rooted in Being (when referring to the sound, and not the words as objects), poetry is the art of language, and makes the language of the various arts possible. Briefly, the historical element of art is noted, for it’s importance (“History is the history of Being”) (140).
REACTION
Despite that this is a ton to take in, Heidegger’s philosophy of art seems to be a key element in all discourse when discussing an art-work. In reference to “Being There,” (a hilarious nod to Dasein, no?) it seems relevant to discuss Chance as above thinking in post-Socratic terms. He sees all objects as truth, because he has almost no concept of practicality versus aesthetic. The elevator is just another uninhibited experience to him, a present thing, and he looks at it the same way we’d look at a painting or a sculpture. He enters the world in a beautiful scene, and after years of isolation, the poverty and dirt of the streets of Washington rise up from the Earth, and present a new truth. To Chance, everything is art.
Except the television, which presents an interesting problem when taking this approach to Chance; what is TV? We know Chance believes TV to be the ultimate truth, but what kind of Being does it represent? I wonder what Heidegger would consider TV to be… a form of art object, or merely a medium of transmission? Does the television stand alone in Being, or merely broadcast Being to others? If a book could be an art object, then surely television programs could as well.
TV certainly lends itself to the idea that Chance lives in a world of mimesis, because he only knows and imitates what he sees on television. I forget what Heidegger thought of mimesis, but he probably dismissed it at being too developed by post-Socratics. Appreciation of art seems to be more rooted in the language, the poetry of art and its fundamentals, levels of understanding that Chance could never intellectually reach. So how is it that he is so uninhibited by the blocks the common man faces in reaching Heidegger’s understanding of Being or truth?
I believe that Chance wouldn’t just kick the stone aside on the roadside, he would stop and look at it as if it were part of a temple and try to recognize that it comes from earth. He does not need the context that we do to see something for it’s Being or to find truth. Even though to Heidegger the stone on the road cannot achieve Being, to Chance I think it can. He is above Heidegger’s method.

Chapter 4 and Chancey - The perfect Husserlian specimen?

SUMMARY of Chapter 4
Ferrara begins with comparing the basics of Heidegger’s phenomenology with that of his predecessor, Husserl. Heidegger’s incorporation of historical relativism stands as a big differentiation between his theories and that of Husserl. Heidegger disproves the singular act of the transcendental ego rising above preconceptions, instead focusing on finding ones existence in a cultural and historical world before attempting any sophisticated subjectivism. In short, Heidegger’s philosophy is marked by “an interpretation rooted in the analysts historical tradition” (Ferrara 90). This is decidedly different than Husserl and his idea of “pure” descriptions.
Ferrara goes on (in our assigned reading) to explain Heidegger’s work entitled ‘Being and Time.’ He starts where Heidegger starts, a discussion of the question of Being and how it has been lost in Western Philosophy. Then Heidegger’s study of Being, dubbed “fundamental ontology” is explored. The question of Being is tough to define, and many things contribute to Heidegger’s exploration of the state. He narrows this down to the Being of human existence only, and the larger generalization of Being is not discussed in his book or by Ferrara. Heidegger creates a term In order to fully ask the question of Being, man, the questioner, must become “intelligible and comprehensible.” Then Ferrara talks about the importance of Heidegger’s term “da-esin” (literally in German, “Being-There”) and it’s use throughout ‘Being and Time.’ Then the chapter goes on to discuss the etymological roots of phenomenology and relate Heidegger to some of the ancient Greeks.
Eventually Ferrara reaches the crux of the chapter, the discussion of the fundamentals of Hermeneutic Phenomenology, as established by Heidegger. His work helps to establish man’s World as both physical and ontological. “World” is related to Husserl’s Lebenswelt, but it is different. It is the “overall Being of the specific beings of the world” (Ferrara 107). Heidegger’s method is also described as giving the phenomenon the freedom under study to show it’s Being as well. Daesin is explored in full by Ferrara, including Heidegger’s views on death being a completion more than an end, and his views on the future, past and present, and how they relate to his methodology.
REACTION
Reading the chapter is not only enlightening, but certainly reveals the importance of watching a movie entitled “Being There.” Heidegger’s ideas of Being and the never-ending search for completion seems relevant to Chance, who is never searching for anything and somehow finds it. I think Chance represents the ability to transcend one’s own historical perspective and achieve the ultimate elevated analysis of things. Heidegger believes that one must first understand their own limitations before attempting to be critical of anything, but does Chance have any limitations of preconception? According to Heidegger, Chance can’t even get to step one. He can’t recognize his Being because he doesn’t have the ability to understand only man can analyze his own Being and be aware of it. He is neither intelligible nor comprehensive. But perhaps this is the flaw with the intellectual man that Husserl missed, and Heidegger attempted to correct: that man is too intelligent to skip a sense of his own Being before trying to objectively analyze something. Chance has no intellectual barriers, because he has no inelligence. He does understand repetition and patterns, and he can learn to expect things (conditioning, like Louise bringing him lunch). But how much logic is he capable of? Is his experience of life a pure phenomenological experience?

random thoughts

here's an interesting question i formed today:

i noticed today that my record label marketing textbook uses wikipedia as a cited source. i did a double take. i'm pretty sure in every academic setting i've ever been in, this has been frowned upon.

does this mean that wikipedia will eventually become a reputable source for information, and completely legit to cite from? if so, this is a big step for the internet and the spread and consolidation of knowledge through it's various channels. as far as the information age is concerned, i find this very interesting.

bagger- second viewing

just a reaction to class today: one of the things i was paying close attention to was the various cuts in the sequence; that is, the images that play over the "supernatural" monologue of Bagger about the authentic swing. one particular shot troubles me: the sun seems to make an appearance. right after the mysterious Bagger silent mouth (a hot topic in class), there is a shot of the clouds moving quickly in front of the moon (and it looks like the sun). granted the boys are on the golf course at night, what does this shot mean? it is clearly contextually significant simply because it is so foreign to the surroundings we've already taken in.

when Bagger goes out of sync, all of a sudden the breakdown of the conventions of the scene begins. the moon appears, perhaps signifying some great revelation to be had from the moment. the monologue, or it's construction, suggests that in order to understand the scene, we need not focus on what Bagger is saying. instead we should focus the visual and the sound of his voice, blending and driving towards the moment where he places the ball down. the sinking of the shot and the sound of the ball in the cup then brings the viewer back down to reality, in a beautiful moment of tension, chaos, and release. but why? what was the intention of the scene?

the obvious answer was that the writers wanted to create a supernatural feeling, and establish Bagger as having some mystical, almost prophetic quality. but what if intention doesn't matter? what if the quick clouds were just something the cinematographer thought was cool, and on a whim decided to add to the shot? here we are waxing about the beauty of the scene, when the conclusions we draw may be totally our own, and insignificant to the average viewer or the intention of the screenwriter? or maybe we are really onto something. who knows.

a night at the opera

so i spent my presidents day at the opera with my dad and sister. it was really an amazing experience, the met is such an incredible hall, and the ensemble is always really dynamite. the sets were unbelievable, as well as the musicianship displayed by the orchestra. it was truly a great experience. anyway, without further ego-stroking, here is my formal analysis of the performance.

PERFORMANCE: “Otello” at the Metropolitan Opera House, February 18th, 2008

Otello is an excellent opera, well written, with a beautiful score and some of the best character development in all of the genre. Several progressive musical techniques, coupled with a strong libretto and depth of characters works strongly and effectively. The players of the Met deliver, of course, and capture the essence of each of the strong elements of Verdi’s classic opera.

The action begins immediately, without the use of an overture to establish and sort of preconception of the themes to come. This is a bold move, but effective, because it allows themes to develop with the action they correspond to in the opera. The orchestra uses a flurry of dynamics and color, plus a minor modality, to effectively represent the storm in the beginning of the opera as Otello approaches in his ship. This kind of orchestral dynamic range is a recurring element of the opera, with the orchestra really wailing on the angrier moments of Otello. The deceptions and pessimism of Iago receive quick, short, successive minor chord hits. Desdemona often receives a fluttering bright medley in the beginning, but quickly develops into a minor, darker modality of themes towards the end. Of course, the infamous ending is the best example of the Orchestra’s dynamic range. After Otello’s death, the Orchestra gets very quiet, leaving only a timpani roll and a few choice instruments to represent the slow, quiet passing of the two major characters (Otello and Desdemona). There are no major hits, and no loud, grand finishes. There is simply a soft fade out.

It is also important to mention that Verdi breaks conventions regarding the structure of recitative and aria, instead opting for a style where it is more ambiguous where one starts and the other stops. More attention is focused on the plot, which successfully develops its characters. This especially applies to Iago and Otello, who are full developed through the action, both to tragic ends.

META-CRITIQUE

It was extremely difficult to stay on a formal level, which I’m not even sure I successfully did, because there is SO MUCH to talk about beyond the mere musical motifs and character development. The libretto remains faithful to Shakespeare’s classic, minus the omission of Act I for smoother continuity, which is huge when talking about how well characters are developed (obviously due to Shakespeare, NOT to the librettist). Then again, the music may serve to further characterize as well, but I did not explore the sound-in-time or how certain themes evoke certain sympathetic emotions.

Another huge oversight is as follows: the quality of the performance rests heavily on the clout of the players, which I could not discuss in my analysis. I went in thinking that the tenor singing Otello was going to be sub-par (I had heard from my Dad, according to reviews, he was nothing special, at least as far as the Met was concerned). Also, I am a huge Renée Fleming fan, and to see her in one of Opera’s most demanding and timeless roles was such a treat, she must have shone incredibly bright regardless of the quality of the arias she sang. I wanted to talk about her and the connotations she brings with her presence, and her fan base, and the influence of other roles I’ve seen her play.

I could not talk about the history of the Opera, its distinguished former cast members, or the conditions in which it was written, all of which matter. Historically speaking, a comparison to the structure of Wagner opera’s could have shed some light on the effectiveness of breaking down structure to character development. A comparison to Verdi’s earlier operas as well could have shown how Otello truly is one of his most mature operas, and why. Instead, many of these possibly elaborations are left blank, and the formal analysis stands weakly on its own. To be fair everything I said has purpose and works, but it seems to be a little flat when compared to all of the possible roads of exploration regarding the work.

for anyone who missed this reference today in class:

Gebauer and Wulf, in their essay, attempt to break down the essential building blocks of the concept known as "mimesis." They assume, probably for good reason, that the reader already is familiar with the term (which I was not). So I looked it up on Dictionary.com. mimesis, according to The American Heritage Dictionary is "The imitation or representation of aspects of the sensible world, especially human actions, in literature and art." It also concerns Rhetoric, another important concept of the ancient greeks; the power of argument, and the ability to imitate another's argument (and his persona) through his words. mimesis is then understood to be a form of heightened imitation, not to be confused with the sincerest and most artistic form of flattery; this is an attempt at recreating the essence of something else through poetry, music, visual art, and the written word.

The essay begins by establishing the complexity of the term, and summing it up in three pre-platonic dimensions: "imitation," "representation," and "expression." These are the buzzwords for the essay. Most of the ideas revolve around extrapolating these three words and expanding their meaning with regards to the overarching meaning of "mimesis." Plato's mimesis also included ideas like "emulation" and "transformation." Transformation is key here because it is an active word; unlike it's preceding descriptors, it refers to mimesis as something dynamic. It's more than a mirror, it's a doorway that the artist opens, and one must step through. To Plato, it's the production of a world of appearances, of image. The essay then explains Aristotle's expansion of this, including detailed work on literary mimesis.

Next the essay moves to the origins of the concept, both etymologically and conceptually, based on the work of Koller, Else, and Goran. It is important to note the linguistic root of the word, mimos, which is used to derive other words which mean "imitation," "representation," and "portrayal." According to Koller the Greeks, especially Plato, restricted the meaning of the word and eventually "falsified" it. He instead concludes it must have derived from music and dance, not simply the aesthetic. The essay then goes on to further explore the many derivations and origins of the word throughout history, but mostly concerning it's use around the fifth century, and of course, during Plato's time.

The third section of the essay strictly concerns Plato's point of view, regarding mimesis as imitation, illusion, and image. It describes mimesis in it's entirety before the work of Plato; limited to three definitions:

1. mimesis as imitation of a concrete action.

2. mimesis as imitation or emulation.

3. mimesis as a metaphor.

The conflict between writers and philosophers also comes into play, especially concerning mimesis of the "noble and perfect life," to which philosophers claim the ability, while simultaneously downplaying such an act. The essay then expands on Plato's writings with some of his later work, including the relationship between mimesis and poetry, mimesis and education, and education and poetry. Apparently poetry once played an important role in education (again, I did not realize this). The essay talks of the criteria necessary for poetry to be useful in education, applying this limitation to music as well (all Plato's ideas on the matter, that is). Then Plato's definition of mimesis, according to The Republic, is stated in twelve bullets, expanding on the original three while creating new rules for it's use.

Finally, the essay turns to more radical ideas concerning mimesis, including some more modernist theories. It discusses how Plato's point of view is an ontological one, and that artistic representation can sometimes be the representation of something phenomenal, thereby bringing artistic creation closer to God than, say, a craftsmen. The idea of images as appearance is also explored, with an example of the philosophy of real existence from The Sophist. The essay plays with the idea of mimesis ultimately capturing an essence, and finally summarizes Plato's views as discussed throughout the essay.

REACTION
First off, the concept of mimesis was totally foreign to me before this essay, and even though I read it several times, I'm still not sure I get it completely. It seems to me that mimesis is, simply, the artistic imitation of something, whether its human emotion, or simply an aesthetic. I couldn't figure out if it needs to be real, but it certainly does not have to be tangible. In playing with the idea I got more confused. One line left me pondering: "Neither writing nor reading is conceivable without mimesis." This comes right after the statement that a cultures collective memory must be preserved through writing. Now this writing has no artistic merit, it's simply a record of what transpired at a certain time. History. Does this mean that mimesis is anything that represents something? Is mimesis the act of taking anything and translating it into something else?
This would mean that a blog is mimesis. One writes some words, publishes it on the internet, and suddenly one has a perfect representation of their thoughts and feelings transfered into something with the ability to share. I think sharing is an important part of mimesis as well, you need to have two parties involved to truly achieve the full act of mimesis. If I write a poem, attempting to explain how I feel on a summer day, and no one reads it, its not quite mimesis yet, is it? Is it the act, or the confirmation of successful image, that culminates mimesis?
I was also left confused by Plato's rules regarding poetry and education. First of all, I did not realize the Greeks depended on epic poetry to educate young ones. But is he saying he valued honor and courage over fear, love and some of the other erratic emotions present in so many Greek tales? And regardless of it's effectiveness, isn't emotive art still mimesis?
Even though I feel like I was left with more questions than answers, I am hoping class will clear some of them up, and allow for more conversation.

better late than never...

hello, class. thought i would attempt to join the blogosphere (or at least the sphere of our class) with a PAWC blog. i'll post my reactions as well as some funny and hopefully relevant stuff. so here it goes, first funny video.