"Darkened Woman" (A poem inspired by the above work)
Exposed, Exhibited
Twice
On the Turn, Transmute
Waiting as if fixed
By a creamy determinate,
once clasped by a shadow
Silent and outstretched.
Her voice buds
and blooms within
arms that gladly
curve inward, stagnate.
As words, formulate
and hover across the crimson
cherry "formless"
and for this alone
You mask the assured, threatening
Grip.
Eyeless
And oh how
You know her name
but, it is no Boudica
and as such you ravish
with prolonged, striking glances
her raw compromise.
for her muted limbs
endure a dimond bracelet
radiating retracted refusals
for which you attach
Cold Reason.
By- Danielle Dykeman
I should now like to analyze the above work of art through the lens of Formalism.
Formalism is a form of critique where by one looks at the text itself, not the artist. Thus I need to analyze, interpret, or evaluate the inherent features of the piece of Art. That is to say, the value of the art (as created by my judgement) is determined by it's form, I.E. the way it was made, purely visible aspects, and its medium.
Everything needed to understand the work is within the work itself.
With that said, here I go:
The work is of a understated Collage form. It was made by assembling different forms in order to create a unified whole. Visually it invokes a crushed or perhaps disjointed feminine motif that serves to beg the question: Why is the subject's form so compacted and why does the subject look away? Perhaps the reduction of or to an extreme point, the removal of, the feminine has created a suppressed female form who is incapable of being completely in view. Presently culture seems to reject the traditional, socially constructed, notion of the feminine and yet has not fully accepted or presented another alternative for those of the Female sex. Thus, are not woman, in many ways, like the above work; overlaping onto ourselves in an attempt to construct definition?
Although this is a visual work, it in many ways reminds me of Shklovsky's idea/construction of "Defamilarization." That is to say that this work distinguishes itself from regular or ordinary images used for communication insomuch that it is used to present the world in such a way as to allow us to see things differently. Innovation lies in finding new techniques of defamilarization and it is my belief that Delson's use of collage (a reconstruction of conventional images) produces a new language that invokes a world much different from that we confront on a daily basis.
Eagleton sees Literature as more than a faucet of beauty and spiritual disentanglement from the everyday; he sees literature as a form of social control over the middle and working classes. Literature reproduces the dominant social order. In other words Literature cannot be seen as separate from ideology.Eagleton sees the rise of English Literature as a rise that more than conveniently took place during the fall of religion in the Victorian era. This is not to say that a secret order of authors and ruling class members got together in an effort to supplement religion with Literature, but rather that such a supplication was unavoidable and Literature, due to the advent of the printing press readily filled the ideological hole that the fall of religion left. Literature, as a whole, deals with universal human values rather than specific historical and political ideologies. Even when literature seems to touch on wars, the oppression of woman, the hardships of the poor, etc., by its very idealized status it serves more to enrich and impress upon the reader a higher minded contemplation of eternal truths and beauties. Because Literature seems to create a common ground of appreciation, an appreciation that spans across multiple viewpoints and classes, the lower middle class and the working class by way of literature would develop a reverence for those above them and thus lesson their urge to be disruptive. The truth of oppression is than less important than feeling the truth via Literature. In this way, Literature becomes a distraction where by the underappreciated and exploited may experience worlds, lives, classes, and even separate identities. These experiences then, although impoverished experiences, would lessen the likelihood that real change would be sought after. That is to say that a working man who can read of India, while never visiting it, might feel satiated enough in his life that the idea of improving his condition, in order to gain the ability to truly visit India, might never impress itself strongly enough upon him.
The study of English Literature then became something for the working class men and woman who sought higher education. The study of “English” was seen as a softening and humanizing endeavor that was based on feeling and so was considered a bass subject that in no way compared with the true scientific learning that the higher class participated in. As the study grew it became an endeavor of the colonizing class, I.E. soldiers, because, the instilled humanizing effects of literature produced a national identity that served to help one preserver in the face of savage races. It also created a feeling of “culture” that allowed one without power to perceive power over another less cultured individual or race. In the end Literature gained ground as a respective form of study, due to war and subsequently a reawakening of national identity and spiritual necessity. Thus Literary Theory was born. Theory allowed one to exam literature, which gave it a place in the realm of “real” subjects of intellectual pursuit.
Personal Response: This was a hard read for me, not because the text was difficult, but rather, because it touched a nerve. I come from a rather poor family that moved every time the wind blew. I spent my childhood in and out of almost 20 schools that scattered across the US. My mother, a single mom, worked in factories and low level jobs. Her position in life made her hateful and prone to drinking. My world then became one of books. I read profusely and what I read took me away from the world around me, which was cold and uninviting. Literature uplifted me and gave me an idea of self and that idea of self, gave me faith in life. Eagleton’s words make more sense to me than I would like to admit. We have all heard the phrase “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” but no one ever calls books a drug, at least not in a negative, blinding sense. I must admit that my lack of attention to the outside world lead to my pursuit of an English degree. What does one who led a life in books do when told to pursue life on their own? For me, I ran back to books.
Eagleton, Terry. "Literary Theory: An Introduction." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.2137-2145. Print.
Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit; Lectures on Fine Art
For Hegel, meaning is not an in and of itself concept, rather it is a concept given form by way of relationships that reside in an ever changing whole; thus, meaning and truth are never fixed entities but rather ever changing notions that are in process. Hegel focuses on the idea of the dialectic, which involves the confrontation of any idea by way of an antitheses or it’s opposite. In turn, the result; a synthesis of the two is achieved by a process of “overcoming.” This is important because the dialectic or the art of achieving truth through the exchange of logical arguments will always be in flux, and so then too with the antithesis, due to meanings continuous process of change. So then, the end result of philosophy is not meaning or truth in a traditional sense but rather the process by which a philosopher gains recognition of the world and sees it as its own creation. This end result, if achieved, would then result in the end of the dialectic.
In “Phenomenology of Spirit,” Hegel discusses the dialectic confrontation of what he refers to as the “Master-Slave” relationship. The main argument within this concept is: How does a human gain a sense of self? For Hegel this is done by 1) viewing yourself as a self and 2) the recognition of this self by others. This then almost becomes a “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” scenario as a child develops a sense of self largely because of being treated and seen as a self. Thus we are dependent on others in our pursuit of self. This dependence leads to master slave relationships. That is to say “Selves do not take their fundamental dependence on others kindly. Here power enters the discussion, as Hegel imagines that each individual would prefer to guarantee continued recognition from the other, while not extending that recognition in return” (538). This leads to masters that have lurking doubts regarding their selves because they have eradicated their equal other and created definition that is dependent rather than freely given. In turn the slaves self-consciousness is defined by way of their work.
In “Lectures on Fine Art,” Hegel enters the discussion of Aesthetics by stating that art is a road to full consciousness or rather the idea that we are the creators of meaning. Art allows our true spirits form and in turn allows it to then be comprehended. For Hegel man made art is superior to that of the natural world or God made Art, because nature, unlike humans, is unaware of an ability to reach an awareness of spirit. For man art ties the inner and outer worlds together while showing him his self and creating a path to ultimate consciousness. We reach said ultimate consciousness when we realize that the spirit of creation resides in all aspects of the created world, including ourselves. The end result of such consciousness is free rationality. Hegel goes on to discuss art in stages: symbolic (perceived nature), classical (symbolic’s antithesis: the human form), and the Romantic (moves artist and audience by way of irony and the sublime towards an inward self-consciousness).
Personal Response: Hegel’s Master-Slave thesis in many ways reminded me of past sociology classes. We are the product of an unwritten set of social rules which govern and shape us. Said rules are created and enforced, consciously or unconsciously, by everyone around us. The idea that we are products, which comes after the idea that we are selves, creates a dangerous question: Is it possible to have a true self? According to Hegel, it is not true in a physical sense. If we live in a world of created meaning, our process is that of social definition. Thus, as Hegel states, the only way to gain authority and ownership over ourselves is by way of an elevated sense of consciousness. That is to say a recognition of our power over and willing acceptance of constructed meaning.
Hegel, Gorge Wilhelm Friedrich. "Phenomenology of Spirit." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.536-546. Print.
Hegel, Gorge Wilhelm Friedrich. "Lectures on Fine Art." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.547-555. Print.
Burke-“Our Ideas of the sublime and the Beautiful”
Curiosity and novelty, seemingly positive attributes, lead to momentary breaks from the norms of familiarity. To Burke curiosity and novelty are limited due to their fickle natures that reside on an obsession with the new and unusual. Thus, to prevent restlessness people seek stimulation via other types of passions. We seek pleasure and joy (linked to life and health) and pain and danger (linked to illness, death, and self-preservation). For Burke the latter of these two groups impact the human experience more strongly than the former. However, this is not to say that one is linked to notions of negativity while the other is to be seen as a positive. Burke views both groups of emotions as positives that exist separate of one another and are not dependent on each other. Most of time the human mind is neither in pain nor in pleasure, rather, it is in a state of indifference. Pleasure, by the mere fact that it is an effect of satisfaction and tranquility, leaves us, after its resolution, in a state of indifference similar to that which it found us in before the induction of pleasure (despite said indifference being tinged with the color of the experienced pleasure); because, it’s very founding is that of ease and so it eases in and out of our lives. Whereas, pain is a different type of positive, as it induces feelings of sobriety, senses of awe, tranquil horror, and emotional immediacy that is lacking in traditional pleasure and regular states of indifference.
Now, one might point out that pleasure and pain, normally, are seen as bi polarities and thus exist only once one is removed. I.E. with the removal of pleasure one experiences pain. For Burke, this is a naïve and rather bass way of interpreting pain and pleasure. For Burke the absence of pleasure is brought about by a natural transgression towards indifference, a break referred to as disappointment, or a removal that speaks to an irreversible loss and this is known as grief. These three results caused by the dissipation, abrupt lack of, or forever removal of pleasure do not lead to a true sense of pain as Burke defines it.
So why does Burke prefer Pain to Pleasure if they are both defined as positives? He states:
“Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling” (459).
To Burke, the ideas of pain are more powerful than that of pleasure because tormented suffering leads to greater effects on the mind and the body than does any pleasure which the mind might contrive. This in turn leads to the greatest pain, that of death. This is not to say that death is Painful in the traditional “owe that hurts” sense, but rather that it is the ultimate fate we must all accept. And what is more terrifying than the acceptance of our own moralities? And then is not Death the ultimate avenue to the sublime?
Burke closes his essay entitled ‘Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful” with a comparison of beauty and the sublime. Although he goes into a rather descriptive comparison of the two (ex: beauty is smooth and sublime is rough) his main point seems to be that the sublime is a result of pain (the greater passion) whereas beauty is the result of pleasure and thus is a lesser to sublimity. Thus despite their ability to unify they are to forever be considered separate entities.
Personal Response: I found Burke to be a very interesting insomuch that his words enlivened a sense of argumentation within me. His notions regarding pain and pleasure were interesting and seemingly believable on all fronts, except for one, and that is the idea that pleasure cannot be an avenue to the sublime because the sublime is an effect of pain. The sublime is supposed to be the most complex emotion that the human mind can attempt to touch and its complexity rests on the notion that it can never be fully understood or quantified because its power and expanse is beyond human consciousness. How then can pleasure be said to be disconnected from the sublime? When we mere mortals fall in love, press body to body, and break apart in another’s arms gasping, are we not touching something that is indefinable? Our bodies, in a technical sense, could be said to be copulating so as to produce children; but, most copulation has nothing to do with species regeneration. To me the ultimate pleasure is that of two bodies tangled amongst each other, lost in a world of their own making. When I’m there I feel like I am touching something beyond conscious understanding and I am not alone in this notion. How many artists devote their lives to the complexity found within the pleasures of the body? This is not to say that I disbelieve Burke’s notions regarding pain’s close relationship with sublimity, rather, that I believe both pain and pleasure are routes to the sublime.
Burke, Edmund. "A Philisophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.450-460. Print.
Kant believes that Art is an exalted part of human existence that creates new philosophical understanding of what can be considered to be the human experience. To Kant, the aesthetic experience of beauty joins the physical (sensible) and the nonphysical (nonsensible) worlds and thus creates a unity in understanding. Beauty is subjective and thus is based more on personal reflection than a universal validity. Thus, the ability to judge something as beautiful, in light of subjectivity, is one that rests on the notion of taste. Taste is a learned cultural ability which allows the appreciator to distinguish between what is good (reason based on what we should desire), agreeable (senses-physical desire), and the beautiful (a mixture of the sensible and the nonsensible-involves no desire) by way of disinterest. That is to say a judgment of beauty must surpass a personal response (I like this, thus, everyone else will) so as to become an objective response (everyone should like this). For Kant, this can only be done if the appreciator is judging through a lens of cultivated individual disinterest. If personal gratification is involved in the judgment, such as with food, objectivity is impossible due to idiosyncratic and physiological appetites; however, in the case of something such as flowers, disinterested contemplation is possible because the beauty of flowers is in not connected to personal gratification. This is not to say that the ideal of beauty can ever be a universal concept rather it is an ideal of the cultivated imagination.
In this vein of contemplative disinterest, Art then should not be considered through a vulgar (matter over form) or a utilitarian (useful beyond beauty) mindset, because, an Aesthetic provides a freedom from the physical world and thus allows us to mentally break away from the immersion of self in the everyday. In turn, by creating a freedom that allows one to embrace the abstraction of the mind, beauty creates a unity between the world and the elevated creativity of the mind. Beauty makes everything fit together. In contrast, the sublime creates a disconnect between the mind and the physical world either by presenting us with something to great to comprehend or too powerful to be harnessed. The sublime is an experience in the limitations of that which is sensible. Thus we need beauty to connect the nonsensible with the sensible in order to experience unity.
Personal Response: Once I was able to discern what I believe to be Kant’s intent I found myself rather enjoying his work. While he does go into, at length, what taste is, and what art can be in an abstract moral sense, and even what constitutes as genius on the part of the artist, his overarching theme of beauty as a route to personal unity was in itself poetic and intellectually mature. I agree with him insomuch as he gave clarity to a notion that I had no words in which to voice it. There have been times in my life when the struggle of the everyday has collided with the incomprehensible sublimity of nature and thus left me in a state of personal confliction that even a religious interest could not remedy. However, a painting, a poem, and/or a well executed dance could and has instilled calm in me that I could not properly explain until now. The idea that an objective disinterested appreciation of aesthetics that results in judgments about beauty/art which in turn leads to an experience (the appreciation of art) and thus a connectivity between the sensible and the insensible is, for me, quite real. And this connectivity gives an almost unexplainable imaginative freedom which allows for personal peace in an indefinable world.
Kant, Immanuel. "Critique of the Power Of Judgement." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. 406-449. Print.
Criticism, in Pope’s eyes, use to be a process by which critics advised authors and subsequently instructed readers on how to appreciate said authors. Everyone has an opinion but this does not mean everyone can be a critic nor is a critics job to influence mass opinion. Those who have the power to make or break a writer’s livelihood should be able to write themselves, should be well versed in the classics, and be able to understand unity and form; for, if they are more mediocrity than genius how then are they capable of distinguishing between that which is intellectually palpable and/or sublime and that which dissuades from the art form? Pope’s essay exudes a mastery of harmony and prose construction that helps give sway to the type of writing he felt should be admired.
“But you who seek to give merit and fame,
And justly bear a critic’s noble name,
Be sure yourself and your own reach to know,
How far your genius, taste, and learning go;
Launch not beyond your depth, but be discreet,
And mark that point where sense and dullness meet” (46-51).
In addition, a sound critic must reside on a well-deserved moral foundation so as not to fall victim to pride: an emotion which distorts reason. That is to say, a critic should seek to understand the writers overall intent and derive merit and bestow advice based on intent. A critic should not bask in his ability to find small errors. Likewise, a critic should not love a piece for its beautiful use of language or rhythm if such language and melody results in nothing more than a chaotic and thus un-unified work. “True ease in writing comes from Art, not chance,/ As those move easiest who have learn’d to dance” (362-3).
Pope, like Longinus, felt that the best art was derived from a polished mind. I.E one well versed in nature, past works, and form. Pope privileged criticism and saw it as an avenue for growth. He reveled in writings that hint at a classical foundation; although, he advises critics as well as writers to not relish prose in parts (I.E. the past OR the present) but rather to have an understanding of the past so as to be able to approach the present in an intellectual manner. Pope was himself a well accomplished scholar and literary figure, despite a plethora of road blocks. He was persecuted for being catholic and thus was not allowed to study in English universities, vote, hold public office nor live in England. He was privately tutored and perhaps due to feeling disadvantaged was quite rigid with his studies and ideas. In addition, as a child he suffered from TB of the bones which stunted his growth and thus disallowed him to grow pas 4.5 feet. He suffered intense pain all his life due to his past ailment and yet continually pushed himself in the literary world. He translated and edited great works, was capable of making a living off his prose, and sought to redefine the writing of his era so as to bring about the greatness reserved for the Greeks in his present day. However, Pope, despite his amazing contributions to the literary art form, was heavily criticized in his time. With the advent of the printing press and the public cafes/taverns more people were writing, sharing, and critiquing up and coming works. These works and critiques were not always up to Pope’s standard and Pope seemed incapable of finding a middle ground with those he felt worked with smut writing.
Personal Response: I, in many ways, agree with Pope. I believe literary critics must be able to write so as to better understand the art form and I also believe that writing, if it is to be marked as grand or sublime, should contain intent that elevates the mind. However, I do not believe that only literary critics should have a voice pertaining to the validity and purpose of a work. Is not a student, a blogger, or an individual rapt with opinion deserving of a voice? Pope believed that one should not blindly believe critics, this is true, but not for the reasons he noted (they could be wrong), but rather, because a global and a communal discourse is critical in an intellectual world, no matter what the subject being discussed pertains to. As for all works needing to be that of a grand type, I most aggressively disagree. Every work may not be literature but this does mean that that which is not of an elevated art form need be overlooked. The written word is a platform for the sharing of ideas and should never conform to one notion or another. Plus, I enjoy a cheap read every now and then as such works entertain me at times when I do not wish to be elevated.This may be why at 23 Pope wrote a work that is being read hundreds of years later where as I, at 23, am writing a blog about him versus writing my own great work, but, such is life.
Pope, Alexander. "An Essay on Criticism." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.133-153. Print.
A Longinus style analysis of the above youtube video would suggest the following:
To start: The video contains 4 layers which create an overall effect of the sublime. Those layers are as follows:
1) 1) Stock footage from a police department and school films. They convey social messages of conformity/social mores one should follow, such as: “Do not accept rides from strangers,” “Remember the policeman is always your friend,” “Be Polite,” “Be considerate of others,” “Obey the rules of the Game,” and “be a good loser.” These Images create an ironic display of expected social mores which are learned in youth under the pretense of “we all follow these rules and they lead to safety.”
2) 2) Images of a singular young boy playing ball, interacting with a mother and father, enjoying a day at the beach, ECT. These images create a feeling of innocence which leads the Audience to question: What makes some innocent young children turn into murders?”
Note: The last image of the video is of the singular young boy (presumed to depict John Wayne Gacy) kissing a man.
3) 3) Images of groups of boys playing on jungle Gyms, playing basketball, or waiting at bus stops. The groups of boys are always watched by either the Audience, or an older gentleman who always succeeds in giving one of the boys a ride/taking him away. These images are supposed to depict the “hunting” style activities that John Wayne Gacy Jr. participated in, in order to attain his victims.
4)4) The song “John Wayne Gacy Jr.” by Sufjan Stevens. The lyrics present the listener with a haunting melody and quite disturbing lyrics pertaining to the story of John Wayne Gacy Jr. The song touches on the following points of interest: John Wayne Gacy Jr’s father was a violent alcoholic; JWGJ was extremely close with his mother; a swing set accident, occurring in JWGJ youth, formed a blood clot in his brain which resulted in blackouts, psychological damage, and severe headaches later in his life; As an adult JWGJ was well liked within his community for being a friendly and well involved member of his town (later the some 10,000 members of his town felt horribly tricked); He kept his victims in a crawlspace under his house; JWG is presumed to have killed 27 young boys; Before sexually assaulting his victims and then murdering them; JWGJ would stifle their screams and strength with a chloroform soaked rag; He dressed up as a clown for fun and for birthday parties.
Sufjan Stevens ends his song with the following haunting lyrical statement: “In my best behavior, I am really just like him, Look beneath the floor boards for the secrets I have hid.” These words seem to suggest that we are all in a way like JWGJ in the idea that we were once innocent and now, as adults, keep horrible secrets or urges from the world.
Grand discourse produces sublimity and thus is preferred over rhetorical persuasion. Persuasion is a form of control on the part of the rhetorician and in essence is an attempt to control the audience whereas the amazement and wonder produced by sublime discourse is an uncontrolled response. The above video is not trying to persuade it’s audience, rather it is presenting an avenue of discourse which is both haunting and amazing. This is not to say that grandeur on the part of the producer is an altogether natural and easily applicable thing. It is best accompanied by knowledge so as to curb ignorance and impulsive language. That is to say that discourse without the backing of knowledge can be falsely grand and produce a vain and hollow notion of sublimity. The song, while emotionally indescribable, was not disassociated from fact. I.E. The lyrics contained actual knowledge about JWGJ and his case. Sublime works are riddled with avenues for reflection and thus maintain their sublimity because the works greatness is not lost after one passing. Personally, I find that the more I watch and listen to this video the more deeply it affects me.
5 source of sublimity: (all sources must be backed by competency)-All sources are found within Sufjan Steven’s video.
1) 1) Power to conceive great thoughts: “sublimity is the echo of a noble mind” (139). “Words will be great if thoughts are weighty” (139). Intelligence, Selection and organization of material or creation of unity, polishing/editing,
2) 2) Strong and inspired emotion: Amplification (commonplaces, exaggeration, intensification and build-up or strength imposed by dwelling on the subject), inspiration/imitation of great writers, words create a visual response I.E. the emotional language allows the writer and audience to see what is imagined
3) 3) Figures of speech and thought: words or phrases that diverge from their original meaning I.E. metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and personification. Best when used in such a fashion as to not immediately reveal its artifice. That is to say the figures create an elevated state of emotion rather than thoughts of trickery. Stylizes emotion
4)4) Noble diction: choice of correct and magnificent words gives the power of charm and enticement to the producer. The art of diction (what separates genius from mediocrity) is the ability to know which words create an elevated form of thought in a given situation. “Grandeur is not divorced from service and utility” (151).
5) 5) Dignified and elevated word arrangement: Harmony and Rhythm, use of grammar “The beauty of the body depends on the way in which the limbs are joined together” (153).
Longinus. "On sublimity." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd Ed.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.133-153. Print.
The history of theory and criticism begins with the classical theorists, because, their work influenced the development of theory and continues to influence present day theorists. In western culture, the big hitters or the classical theorists most widely studied and highly regarded are Plato and Aristotle. In addition, a renewed interest in theory and rhetoric has brought other theorists such as Gorgias and Longinus (to name a few) into the “picture,” as well, thus widening the scope of classical theory and criticism.“Taken together, the classical theorists represent a wide range of opinions about literature and its significance developed over a millennium (from the fifth century B.C.E to the fifth century C.E.) (7).” In order to break this down for myself and thus personally discern the impact classical theory has had on Literary Criticism, I would like to explore the themes within the classical works I have been studying in my Critical theories class.
1) Gorgias of Leontini (ca. 483-376 B.C.E.) from “Encomium of Helen”
Gorgias saw speech as a powerful and beautiful form of persuasion. Gorgias was a Sophist, which was a profession not a school of thought, that sought to teach the art of rhetoric to those who could pay for the pleasure. The rise of the sophists was largely due to the political transformation of the day. The Greeks maintained a Democracy that was governed by the people and thus required its people to have a certain level of oratory ability. Gorgias wrote the “Encomium of Helen” for his own amusement in order to display the power properly directed speech could have over an audience. Gorgias’ focus on form over moral intent would later influence Plato’s focus on rhetorical moral purity.
Gorgias’ “Encomium of Helen” undertook the seemingly impossible task of freeing Helen of Troy from any blame previously bestowed upon her, regarding the Trojan War. Gorgias argues that Helen’s actions, that of abandoning her husband for the Trojan Prince Paris and thus starting the war, were brought about by way of fate/the will of the Gods, physical force, rhetorical persuasion, or love. Gorgias then goes on to explain that either of these forces would leave Helen blameless, as a human cannot restrain a God, physical force would mark Helen a figure of violation or rather as a victim, “speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body” (39), and love is either a force of God or a human weakness and thus leaves it’s victims blameless. This type of reasoning, obviously, leads a reader or listener to not only consider Gorgias’ argument concerning Helen’s innocence but also to consider the idea that anyone, through well thought out reasoning, could be proven innocent of any crime. Thus, Gorgias displays the power that rhetoric has in an intellectual body.
How can I apply this to Literature? Well, if anything Gorgias could help present day scholars or students of literature understand that one must question an author’s intent as well as the trustworthiness of a narrator. When we read a piece of prose, are we gleaning some form of “truth,” or are we being sold an artful rhetorical fabrication?
2) Plato (ca. 427-ca. 347 B.C.E.) Republic Books II, III, X.
Plato, a man disgusted with the violence and corruption in Athenian politics, sought to dig deeper into the nature of Ethics and in doing so create an ideal state. Plato believed in rational thought, morals, a loss of ego, a doing away with the illogical distraction of passions, and an ever present quest for Truth. Plato reasoned that no state could ever be truly virtuous until philosophers became kings or kings became philosophers. The Republic was an orally created rhetorical conversation between a character named Socrates and, presumably, students of philosophy/possible future Athenian leaders. This conversational format allowed Plato to rhetorically “discuss” his philosophy concerning an ideal state without actually taking credit for any of the ideas brought forth in The Republic.
In The Republic the character Socrates discusses the importance justice, despite the fact that most people feel that an unjust life is easier and better than a just one. Socrates argues that while most people are quick to inflict injustice they are loath to suffer through it, which is why laws are created; laws, by dictating what is viewed as just, eradicate suffering, but, they also reveal a flaw within human nature: no one is willingly just, we are just merely because we have to be. Now, in order to safe guard justice, while creating a society founded on logic, Socrates argues for rigid systems of education which would focus on Truth. Imitation or mimesis would not be allowed, which means all art, including poetry would be banned. Socrates argues that art, by being a copy of a copy (The original copy being of course earthly nature which is a copy of something in God’s mind) dissuades from truth and thus justice, because it distorts reality.
How can I apply this to Literature? Plato was a seemingly hard man, who had little faith in the common man. He thought art would corrupt us and lead us into a world of falsehood. Plato was right about Literature being mimetic, that is an imitation of nature, but, in knowing this, can we not then use Literature to understand the nature of ourselves, of our souls? If Literature copies and corrupts truth, would not what we choose to corrupt teach us what is important to our society and our sense of humanity? I believe that through Literature we explore, disfigure, pull apart, and recreate the parts of ourselves and our world which are too rigid to live by, and in doing so we give room to imagine any type of possibility which might give way to a new kind of truth, not Plato’s logical truth, but something more poetic, the truth of our souls.
3) Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Poetics, On Rhetoric
Aristotle was a student of Plato and his work is a non-unified piece assembled by way of student notes pressed into wax tablets. In Aristotle’s time the Greeks sought to be a “free person”, that is to rise above the level of labor and even “work” to that of a man known by speech and action. To the Greeks, speech turned a man into an object of change and a man who spoke in way he need not was in a way a hero, because he undertook the risking of his “life” to compete publically. To be a master of speech, to think logically, and to be in constant discussion was to create an assertion of reality or rather to prove your humanity. Men are not beasts, because they ask about the meaning of life and know they are going to die, thus to live like a beast, that is to merely labor, one loses sight of their humanity. The Greeks were vividly aware that they were creating city states through their words not by something akin to divinity, thus, to harness the power of speech is to harness the power of creation.
Aristotle in some ways created the art of persuasion, but his genius was not rooted solely in invention for men argued before him and they argued well; Aristotle’s genius lied in description. Aristotle’s work On Rhetoric reads almost as a rhetorical guidebook. To Aristotle, rhetoric was a scientific endeavor and he sought to know the ins and outs of the game. Here is a simplified list of some of his main rhetorical points:
5 Stages of Preparation: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, Delivery
3 Kinds of public speech: Forensic-legal/past, Deliberative-future, Epideictic-present
Aristotle’s scientific approach to persuasion marks him as an authority on speech and in turn leads to his authority on prose or written works, for is Literature not just a different type of persuasion? In his work Poetics, Aristotle creates the first work created solely to critic literature, in other words, Aristotle is our first self-proclaimed Literary Theorist. He divides poetry into Comedy, Tragedy, and Epic Verse. He describes the differing characteristics of each, but, regards them each differently. Comedy he sees as a representation of the ugly or ridiculous within us, Tragedy is a representation of people who are better than us who fall from grace in some way or another, and Epic Verse is similar to Tragedy but longer. Tragedy brings about Catharsis which is a purging of emotions. Aristotle felt that Cathartic works allow us to release that which is pent up inside, thus freeing us from our emotions; this directly contradicts Plato’s theory of art which stipulated that poetry makes us unreasonable slaves to our emotions.
How Can I apply this to Literature? Aristotle birthed the idea of logical, step by step, analysis of rhetorical and prose works and thus opens the door to Literary Theory. Through Aristotle’s works I can begin to see the boxes I might put works in, in order to help dismantle, interpret, and free their meanings.
