Recap: Recurring Themes

by Amy Nogowski

Community

From the very creation of man we learn that, “It is not good for man to be alone,” (Gen 2:18).  Mankind inherently longs for community, for an intimate connection to others.

In Waiting For Godot, Pozzo thanks Estragon and Vladimir for their humanity.  Throughout the play, Estragon and Vladimir speak of splitting up but refuse to part ways.  Though they share a dreadfully monotonous existence, the inactivity would be much less bearable alone.  They are mutually dependent on each other’s company.

In Notes From Underground, the Underground Man constantly criticizes the world around him.  He mocks the people of St. Petersburg for their inability to see what he sees; yet he ardently envies them.  The Underground Man pains himself in order to prove his independence.  He is sick, but will not see a doctor.  He loves Liza, but drives her away.  He engages with his former classmates, even though they do not like him.  The Underground Man goes out of his way interact with humanity but cannot allow himself to be happy, and thus retreats to the underground.

In Faust by Goethe, Faust has read almost every book and still feels he knows not a crumb.  He makes a deal with the devil in hopes to “encompass all humanity.”  He asks for “love and hatred violently mixed,” but finds his desires almost fulfilled through a human connection to Gretchen.  Faust is not satisfied with the wisdom of the ages, but discovers there is peace in communion with humanity.

In Middlemarch, the members of the community seek this connection in different ways.  Dorothea seeks to provide shelter for the poor, Lydgate wants to provide health care for the needy, and Fred wishes to provide for Mary by making her his wife.  Though they drastically differ in means, each desires to be linked with mankind.  Although this connection is not always ultimately satisfied (at least not in the way they first imagined), the characters are driven to action by a craving for human connection.

Looking out, Looking in

Throughout the semester we have discussed how things we see externally can reveal a lot about what goes on internally.

When we discussed architecture, we realized that how a church is built says a lot about what it stands for.  Tall, ornamented churches, such as Notre-Dame de Reims, draw our eyes upward and facilitate thinking about God in heaven.  Evenly narrow and wide, solid-looking churches, such as Saint Sernin, communicate divine strength and call our attention to God on earth.  Octogonal churches, such Saint Vitale, place God at the center of His believers and invite us to observe God in one another.

When we read Hamlet, we found ourselves exclaiming “Kill him already!”  Throughout the entire play Hamlet contemplates killing his uncle, but cannot bring himself to commit the murder.  We became bored with his unwillingness to act.  We wanted him to do it, and at the time, it seemed he should.  When we re-evaluated the situation, Hamlet appeared to be showing us something about ourselves – the flawed, hungry for revenge, humans we are. For as Hamlet states, “Conscience does make cowards of us all.”

In our excursion to the National Gallery of Art, we spoke about the significance of mirrors in art.  Mirrors can represent vanity or self-knowledge.  Apart from the presence of mirrors in the paintings themselves, art can also act as a mirror, helping to reveal something about our own person.  When we discussed what it means to be good art, we arrived at the conclusion that we often find good art to be a reflection of ourselves, a previously unseen side, a sort of self-revelation.

Death

Death is an inescapable reality, infinitely bound to human existence since the fall of man.  Death is certainly the supreme fear of many, and we wondered why.

Death appears to be most prevalent in Hamlet, because of course, almost everyone dies by the end of the play.  But if death is an inevitable trait of mankind, what are we so afraid of? For Hamlet, man fears death not only because we do not understand it, but also because an exploration of own conscience reveals self-wickedness and its presumed consequences.  Throughout Hamlet, the characters’ treachery oddly leads to their demise.  Hamlet seems to warn us of the consequences of deceit and calls on us to examine our conscience.  As no one can escape death, we ought to live as best we can.

In Gilead, the first page reveals the imminent death of John Ames.  While John Ames understands that he should be excited to meet his creator, he cannot fathom a happier life without his wife and son.  John Ames finds so much beauty in humanity and believes he will truly miss the distinct earthly beauty he now enjoys.  John Ames does not fear death, but only wishes he had more time to revel at the mysterious wonders of the earth.

When discussing Mahler’s Resurrection, we heard the happy memories (strings) win the battle with death (brass).  As someone who had experienced the painful effects of death, Mahler wanted to compose a piece of music that truly communicated the presence of death in our lives.  Mahler seemed to believe that death could not steal away the happy memories. As we reach the fifth and final movement, all of the prior movements are turned upside down.  The fifth movement is joyful and represents the Resurrection.  We left our discussion wondering whether Mahler attempted to communicate the conquering of death or the peace that accompanies resignation.

The Human Condition

In the beginning, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good,” (Gen 1:31).  Unfortunately, man’s free will led to the fall.  The pure form of man was lost forever.

In Genesis and Paradise Lost, we learn of the fall of man. Mankind was bestowed with free will, an inestimable gift from God that enhances the sanctity of man.  While this free will allowed for a greater grace, it also allowed for the ability to sin.  Satan used Eve’s vanity and the prospect of self-knowledge to persuade her to sin.  (Recall that the mirror is the symbol of vanity and self-knowledge.)  Since the fall, man has been fundamentally flawed.  Perhaps a look in the mirror forces us to see the effects of original sin in our lives.

In Vives’ The Fable About Man, we see the gods delight in a play performed by characters bearing an unusual likeness to Jupiter. When the gods invite man to join them, they marvel at the beauty of his form and call him superior to some of the gods.  The fable communicates the joy God finds in us, as well as his amazement of us.  It also highlights the way in which man is created “in His image and likeness.”  Though we are flawed, God enjoys our very being.

In Petrarca’s The Ascent of Mount Ventoux, a man attempts to climb a mountain simply to experience the view for himself.  While his brother accepts the challenges of the mountain head on, the narrator attempts to reach the top by means of the slighter inclined paths.  The narrator soon realizes that avoiding the steepness has gotten him nowhere, and decides to accept the challenge.  We decided this could be a metaphor for faith.  While we can exist idly at the bottom just fine, we will never transcend our existence without accepting the challenges of faith.

Family

Family seemed to be an ever-present theme this semester.  In its absence, there seemed to be sadness, sickness, or grief.  In its abundance, there seemed to be joy in the little things, beautiful simplicity, and happiness found in union with one another.  The family relationship can often help us to understand our relationship to God.

In Genesis, we see the significance of the paternal relationship through Abraham and Isaac.  Though Abraham first fathers Ishmael through Hagar, Isaac is his only son through his wife, Sarah, and thus the main focus of the story.  When God tells Abraham that he must sacrifice his cherished son Isaac, Abraham is completely distraught.  Recognizing that he is Isaac’s earthly father, and that God is Isaac’s heavenly father, Abraham trusts that God’s love for them both will dictate what is best.  An angel intervenes and stops the sacrifice, but Abraham descends the mountain alone.  Abraham must now trust that the heavenly father will protect both his sons, since we are all ultimately his.

The sentiment is similar in Gilead, as John Ames becomes a father late in life.  John Ames says that he loves his son simply for his “existence,” and believes that God must love us in a similar way.  We are also introduced to the paternal relationship of Boughton and his son Jack.  Jack, as compared to the prodigal son, performed many disreputable acts; however, Jack was somehow Boughton’s favorite, the one whom he desperately wished to reach.  John Ames believes God must also love us as Boughton loves Jack – regardless of our sins, he urgently wishes to deepen our relationship with him.

In Middlemarch, there seems to be a glorification of family and domestic life.  The characters who have happy marriages and families seem to turn out okay, while those with dreadful marriages live unhappily.  While many of the characters sought lofty goals, their desires were ultimately fulfilled through family life.  Dorothea and Will thirsted for transcendence throughout the movie; however, it was in each other’s arms that they were satisfied.  Middlemarch exalts family life, and portrays it as the ultimate culmination of happiness. 

Love

Love is perhaps the most over-arching theme we have dealt with so far.  It is found in each work we have discussed, and remains the most complicated to define.  Love can lead us to the divine, draw us from the divine, or simply allow for a divine comedy.

In Paradise Lost the original relationship between Adam and Eve was characterized by their “mutual love” and “mutual help.”  As time went on, this relationship began to dwindle.  When Eve says, “Lets us divide our labors,” we first see complication arise. Eve is seduced to sin in her separation from Adam, later leading Adam to sin as well; however, it is possible that the fall may have been the separation itself, for at this point they are no longer “imparadised.”  Eve’s intense love for Adam and hope to be more desirable to him lead her to eat the apple.  Adam’s intense love for Eve and inability to live without her lead him to eat the apple.  Here, negativity causes their distorted love to draw them both away from the divine.

In La Vita Nuova, the narrator is absolutely obsessed with a woman named Beatrice.  He even remarks that God is “blessed to look upon her.”  The narrator finds beauty and grace in this woman, inciting forceful emotions within him. As the novel progresses, the narrator undergoes a transformation.  Through Beatrice, the narrator believes he experiences a glimpse of Heaven.  He now says, “Blessed Beatrice who gloriously gazes on the face of Him.”  Through his love of Beatrice, the narrator is ultimately led to the divine.

In The Miller’s Tale, Chaucer portrays Absolon, the closest representation of courtly love in the tale, as being foolish, silly, and pathetically unsuccessful in his pursuits; while “Handy Nicolaus,” the furthest from representing chivalry, wins the affection of Alison with little difficulty. Perhaps Chaucer means to say that love does not simply involve knights in shining armor or beautiful virgins, but rather a parade of noblemen, adulterers, weasels, and stupid people.  Or rather, that such behavior is not true love at all, but a perverted love – a consequence of our flawed human nature.  The Miller seems to doubt that pure love, such as that in The Knight’s Tale, can even exist, making his story a comedic tale of debauchery indeed.

Recap: Modern Art

by Liz Reinckens

Everyone has a different experience when viewing art in general and in particular modern art. Especially when viewing modern art there are usually the same comments made over and over again such as, “what is it?”,  “Its amazing!”, “My kid could do a better job than this fool.” or “How did this make it into a museum.” Many people have a tendency to make fun of the artwork because they don’t understand it. The question you have to get at is what makes art good and what makes art bad.

In class we focused on Mark Rothko’s, the Syrian Bull and Adolph Gottlieb’s, The Rape of Persephany. The questions we asked ourselves were, what is it? What is it meant to convey? And how do we judge it? Rothko’s and Gottlieb’s response to the brutal remarks of art critic Edward Alden Jewel made the definition of their works and modern art in general much more clear. The response says that art isn’t just a way to represent the world we live in. Art shows how someone else sees the world because not everyone sees the world in the same way. For example, flat pictures such as the ones we saw in the National Gallery, throw away illusion and reveal the truth. It shows all the things that make up a painting or pieces of art. All art has subject matter but no one ever said that it had to be deliberate and straightforward.

We saw several examples of art that shows someone else’s perspective of the world. One that stood out in particular was Henry Matisse’s, “The Joy of Life”. The painting is flat with color everywhere. The painting is unrealistic with chaotic bodies twisting unrealistically and the space is not naturally defined. Matisse says that none of this is accidental. The rhythmic arrangement of line and color express something, the bodies of the people are expressive without the use of faces to depict joy, and everything in the painting plays apart of the main goal, which is depicting the joys of life. There is never a painting about nothing, every piece has subject matter. In Matisse’s mind the way he sets up his painting from colors to the people and the undetailed nature behind depicts joy, he doesn’t need people with smiling faces to depict it.

Henri Matisse, The Joy of Life

Manet, The Fifer

Mantes’ Fifer shows his perception of the world around him. He uses the method of “pure painting” which shows the primary reality that he sees. He takes facial expressions away from the fifer boy and so the viewer is forced to really look at the painting not through it. This makes the subject matter more interesting and makes you wonder what Manet’s intentions of using his method of pure painting was.

Henri Matisse’s painting, Harmony in Redis shaped with geometrically and organic lines through out the painting. The form is flat and it is a crowded plane. There are crowded patterns everywhere and the lines of the furniture seem to disappear. The scene seems to be depicting a women sitting at her kitchen table with a window looking out onto a landscape in the background.

Matisse, Harmony in Red

What I derived as the subject matter from this painting is the color red is the harmony of the painting. The inside of the house flows with the natural setting in the background and there is a harmony between the women and her setting. The entire piece of artwork has a rhythm of color all through out the painting.

Mondrian, New York City

Mondrian’s New York City’s subject matter is one of the more difficult ones to figure out. He uses straight skinny lines of different colors to depict New York City. There is harmony between these lines but your first thought would not be New York City. In my opinion I thought it looked a lot like a grid plan of the streets of New York City and that’s why New York is the subject matter. Then I noticed the long extending lines, which made me think that they extend on forever. This made me think that he was trying to depict the enormousness of New York City and all of its glory. I think the subject matter of this painting is simply the size of the city itself.

Recap: Gilead

By Garrett Norris 

In the Gilead, we see one of the most influential relationships in mankind, a father and his son. The idea of the entire novel is that  John Ames, the narrator, who is in his seventies is on his deathbed and writing the memoirs of his life in order to help his young, seven year old son be able to know him since he will not have memories of him.  In the memoirs we see Ames reflecting back on the relationship that his father had with his grandfather in the stories that he is telling via letters to his son, we see the difference in the personalties that causes strife between the two.

A father and sons relationship is one that has multiple faces to it. The major relationship that we see in detail is the relationship that John Ames, the grandfather of the narrator, has with John Ames, the father of the narrator. We see these two characters as vastly different in their character, with the grandfather being a radical abolitionist, and his father being a christian pacifist. Even in this huge difference in belief and courses of action we see that there is still love, loyalty, and a mutual incomprehension between the two that unite them in a father and son relationship. I say that this unites them however I use that loosely because I feel a relationship between a father and son must have more than just those qualities. I feel that in order to have a successful father and son relationship the son must get some of his ideals and principles from his father, he must have something to carry on with him after his father has left him.

In class we discussed the relationship between Abraham and Isaac from genesis and how it relates to the relationship that we see between the narrator and Jack. Ames and Jack, who also shares the name of John Ames with out the blessing of Ames, are two people who do not see eye to eye after a very traumatic event occurs just as Abraham and Isaac have happen. In Gilead, Ames and Jack do not see eye to eye because of the abandonment of the young girl after he got her pregnant, after which Jack had left Gilead for 20 years. This was related to Genesis today when Abraham held the knife to Isaac. After that occurred in Genesis they both came down from the mountain separately and Isaac lived 50 miles from Abraham. Both of these events drove a father and son relationship apart. However in the end of Gilead, we do see the true love of a father son relationship show through when Ames forgives Jack and accepts him as his son. Whenever a son makes a mistake or is not who the father wants him to be we see a recurring theme in life and in the novel that the love a father has for his “son” is always stronger than the anger he feels.

Recap: Faust

by Duffy Barrett

Striving To Live

            Goethe introduces us to Doctor Faustus as he sits in his study pondering what worldly subject he should study next. The genius protagonist has come to a crossroads at this point in his life. “Alas, I have studied philosophy, the law as well as medicine, and to my sorrow, theology;  studied them well with ardent zeal, yet here I am, a wretched fool, no wiser than I was before.” (Faust, 31) states a defeated Faust. This is the first insight the reader gets of the main character. It has become apparent to both Faust and the reader, Faust is longing for something that the worldly knowledge his books give him does not satisfy. This then raises the question amongst the audience; what is it that Faust truly desires? When he considers all the subjects that are possible for him to study, the only one in which he is still interested is the practice of magic. By Faust’s actions and thoughts it seems as though he desires a feeling over power that would almost make him a God-like figure. He speaks of using magic to give him power and position. However, by his nature it is not characteristic of him to strive for an emotion over logic and knowledge. What Faust really desires is not a transcendent power or feeling, but instead a transcendent knowledge that cannot be obtained by the simple rational mind. He has attained any knowledge possible of earthly subjects, but his hunger for wisdom in insatiable and must be fueled.

When Mephistopheles is bargaining with God for an attempt at Faust’s soul, we receive a little more insight on Faust and his character. God seems to be particularly fond and confident in Faust that he will, even when tempted away, follow the path as a servant of God. This gives the reader reason to believe Faust has proven in his life to be an adamant follower of God. Faust yearns so much for this divine knowledge, his conscious becomes obscured by his desires. When he decides that he has nothing more on earth to learn from, he contemplates suicide. “The time has come to prove by deeds that man will not quake before the pit where fantasy condemns itself to tortures of its own creation when he advances to the narrow passageway about whose mouth infernal flames are blazing. Approach the brink serenely and accept the risk of melting into nothingness,” (Faust, 57) Faust declares as he stands in his study holding a goblet of poison contemplating suicide. He denies Heaven and Hell as nothing more than fantasies made up by humans. The fact that a human held as a good follower of God is this close to taking his own life provides just further information that Faust is at a time of despair and need in his life.

The sudden change of character in Faust raises even more questions for the readers. Why is it that after all this years and with all of his knowledge Faust is now choosing to stray away from God? The answer comes from Faust’s biggest character flaw. His unquenchable need for any knowledge of life and the mysteries of life becomes the reason for his downfall. He is so blinded with his want for this transcendent knowledge, that his actual self is masked by his desires, and the measures he is willing to go for them.

Another question is quickly raised from the previous answer. Is Faust’s wants really that negative and selfish, to want to obtain knowledge that normally remains out of human reach? You can’t condemn Faust for his longing of knowledge. It is in human nature to continue to strive to push the limits on life and everything in it. It has been implanted in Faust’s brain to strive for knowledge and anything else that educates him on life. That being said, it is not Faust’s wants that are dishonorable. It is Faust’s decision to sell his soul to Lucifer for the temptations the demons have promised him that can be held as forsaking God and the heavens. As I continued to read through the tragedy I couldn’t help but wonder something at this point. When Faust was introduced in his study, as he contemplated suicide, he made it clear that he now “knows” heaven and hell are nothing more than places created by the human mind. Those beliefs may be the reason why Faust so easily barters his soul for the promises of Lucifer. Even when Mephistopheles gives Faust the terms of the deal and it seems no matter what Faust’s soul will belong to the devil, Faust accepts. “If you should ever find me lolling on a bed of ease, let me done for on the spot! If you ever lure me with your lying flatteries, and I find satisfaction in myself, if you bamboozle me with pleasure, then let this be my final day!  This bet I offer you!” (Faust, 131) Mephistopheles wagers that if during his time of service to Faust, he is able to give Faust a moment of joy good enough that Faust is contempt in the moment itself, Faust’s soul will immediately be cast to hell. The only reason Faust agreeing to these terms makes any sense is that he believes in the modern world, morals and true happiness are non–existent giving him reason to believe there will never be a time where he is truly happy enough to lose his soul. All of Faust’s newfound beliefs about no heaven or hell and no possible chance of morals or happiness in the modern world is the reason for his throwing away of his soul.

The theme of good morals continues throughout the story, especially between the relationship between Faust and Gretchen. We are introduced to Gretchen as a religious, morally correct, peasant girl. Faust immediately falls in love. Gretchen represents everything that Faust has forsaken this far. He believes that happiness and morals are unobtainable in this life but Gretchen, at this point, holds both of those qualities. With the help of his demons, Faust is able to have Gretchen driven into his arms at which time he seduces her. Gretchen is corrupted by the dark powers Mephistopheles and  Faust are using against her. In order to get privacy for her and Faust, she doses her own mother with sleeping potion, leading to her mother’s death. To make matters worse we find out Faust has impregnated Gretchen, and he brother prepares to confront Faust about it. When Valentin does challenge Faust, Valentin dies at the hands of Faust. With all of this happening to Gretchen, she breaks, and drowns her illegitimate child. She is jailed, and dealing with a guilty conscience Faust makes it his duty to use his power to set her free. When she refuses to escape Faust flees and Gretchen is eventually killed for her actions.

Gretchen’s soul is saved and carried to Heaven and Faust is left to grieve on earth. This carries us to Part II of the tragedy. Here, we are from the beginning introduced to somewhat of a new story. It is obviously the same story, however, Faust awakens in a field of fairies and is taken through 5 stages, each with its own underlying theme. When Faust completes all 5 stages we find out his soul is saved and brought to heaven. The reasoning behind this comes from two things. Gretchen pleads with God to forgive Faust and save him while in heaven. Also, we are told this by the angels who bring Faust to heaven, “He who strives on and strives to live, can always earn redemption.” (Faust, 11936)

While some of the questions raised during the tragedy may go unanswered, the angels hymn as they carry him to heaven does give some understanding. This reveals that what Faust desired was not a bad thing. While he may have not even known what it was he wanted, he still never chose to give up on live and he chose to never be satisfied with what was available to him. He strived and strived until he got everything possible out of life. Also, we realize that what was negative about what Faust wanted was how he went about getting it. Using Lucifer and his demons ultimately did nothing for him. While they gave him the transcendent knowledge he wanted, he was still unsatisfied. When Faust finally found something, not only that he wanted but needed, it was the corruption of the dark power that took it from him. Gretchen would have been his saving grace, she represented all of the positives in life that Faust had lost sight of. Since the spells and magic used by the demons was the only thing that drove the lustful relationship of Faust and Gretchen, it was a doomed love. The powers used to drive her to him were the exact same powers that corrupted her to a point of insanity, leading to her death. So, to revisit the first question and reflect on it after reading the entire tragedy- it is not a matter of what Faust wants in this life. At this time in his life he has a void and what he wants is not what is going to fill it. Faust was blinded by his desires, when really all he needed to save him was a companion. Gretchen could have been his saving companion had he not sold his soul. Faust was so caught up with learning anything he could and achieving a transcendent knowledge that he nearly lived in hell for eternity for it. When really what he needed was something that his books would never be able to give him. He didn’t need any more knowledge he didn’t need any power, all he needed was someone to share what extensive knowledge he had with, someone who could give him back the morals in his life and let him be happy.

Recap Extra: On Marriage in Middlemarch and Gilead

 by Greg Stearns

As we well know from class discussion, Middlemarch and Gilead present the view that a well formed marriage or good family life are key for happiness. As discussed in class today, there is something that makes sense about this view and there is also something decidedly Christian about this view. However, there is a point that is worth reflecting on in order to ensure that this is the correct view for Christianity. Namely, at first glance it would seem that there is no point to priestly or religious celibacy if one needs to marriage and a family for happiness.

In a strictly biological sense, there can be no children for a celibate religious or priest. Likewise, there can obviously be no wife or husband for those who have agreed to a life of celibacy. One must ask oneself how John Ames would view life differently if he had no wife or children. He seems to have gathered so much from his relationships. In fact, about all he has to offer to the reader is wisdom gathered from these relationships, and further this is valuable and moving wisdom that he seemingly could not have gathered had he had a different experience. Likewise, where would the happy endings for the Middlemarch characters be if they decided to live a life in which they renounced a biological family?

However, it must be considered that maybe the view presented in Middlemarch and Gilead is completely wrong. After all, if God is the source of all happiness, then why not live a life completely devoted to him? Why not leave one’s family for the greater glory and service of God? Perhaps we should all be Mary’s and dedicate to being at the foot of Christ rather than being like Martha and being caught in worldly affairs. Further, when one considers the life of Christ, it is clear that he took no biological wife or family for himself. Shouldn’t we all be like him? In the end, could it be the case that John Ames and the view presented in Middlemarch is wrong, and that all of those married people only thought that they were happy or on the road to happiness?

There is plenty of scripture to support both of the aforementioned views. At a glance, it is perfectly acceptable to believe from reading Genesis that family is God’s answer for happiness. Likewise, when Christ declares in the Gospel of Luke that those who follow him are his family it seems that biological family is far from primary. What is one to do? The answer lies in the fact that there is no reason to pit the life of family and the life of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom against each other. The answer is not to say that anything goes. The answer is to say that whatever God plans for us goes. Celibacy and family are both goods so long as it is what God calls one to. Further, both further the cause of family and the Kingdom. By this, I mean that the family is meant to produce citizens of heaven insofar as it is the job of marriage and family for the members to mutually support each other in their journey to God. Also, those committed to religious or priestly celibacy do so understanding that they are part of the larger family of God. That is why we refer to them as fathers, sisters, brothers, and even mothers (as in a mother superior). Indeed, members of families are meant to be as religious as a celibate and a celibate must be as family oriented as any member of a family.

So it seems that Gilead and Middlemarch are not completely wrong, but only present half the picture. With both halves we find something more than literature, we see the Church.

A Death of One’s Own

I mentioned in class a passage from Rainer Maria Rilke’s The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge about a death of one’s own, born with you, growing while one grows. Here it is, abridged.

Formerly one knew (or perhaps one guessed it) that one had one’s death within one, as a fruit its kernel. The children had a little death within them and the grown-ups a big one. The women had it in their womb and the men in their breast. One had it, and that gave one a singular dignity and a quiet pride.

My grandfather, old Chamerlain Brigge, still looked as if he carried a death within him. And what a death it was: two months long and so loud that it could be heard as far off as the manor farm.

. . .

That was not the death of just any dropsical person; it was the wicked, princely death which the chamerlain had carried within him and nourished on himself his whole life long. All excess of pride, will and lordly vigor that he himself had not been able to consume in his quiet days, had passed into his death, that death which now sat, dissipating, at Ulsgaard.

How the chamberlain would have looked at anyone who asked of him that he should die any other death than this. He was dying his own hard death.

And when I think of the others whom I have seen or about whom I have heard: it is always the same. They all have had a death of their own. Those men who carried theirs inside their armor, within, like a prisoner; those women who grew very old and small, and then on a huge bed, as on a stage, before the whole family, the household and the dogs, passed away in discreet and seigniorial dignity. Even the children, and the very little ones at that, did not die just any child’s death; they pulled themselves together and died that which they already were, and that which they would have become.

And what a melancholy beauty it gave to women when they were pregnant and stood there, and in their big bodies, upon which their slender hands instinctively rested, were two fruits: a child and a death. Did not the dense, almost nourishing smile on their quite vacant faces come from their sometimes thinking that both were growing.

Recap: Mahler Symphony No. 2 “Resurrection”

by Michael Bissex

Mahler as a young man

Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 “Resurrection” is a powerful piece of music written by a man with a very intense personality, which I believe definitely comes across in his music.  The Resurrection Symphony is a work of music designed, both in effect and in musical construction, to convey the annihilation of death through the resurrection.  Mahler was writing from the perspective of one who had a deep dread of death, finding great personal solace in belief in an after-life.

The first movement begins as a funeral march, which crescendos rapidly, culminating in a stern fanfare from the trumpets.  This whole movement is focusing on the reality of death in our lives, and seeks to impress on us what a difficult and frightening reality it is.  The movement contains chaotic and fierce expressions of death, all within a recurring pattern of a funeral march.  However, Mahler also includes themes of hope; flickering sounds in the flute, violin, and harp (among others) that convey the possibility of release from the power of death.  The movement, however, ends with a crash that signifies death having the last word, so to speak.

The second movement presents the possibility that happy memories cannot be overcome by death.  The beautiful Viennese dance played by the violins and cellos is almost overcome by the brass, who consistently play the role of the messengers of doom.  This movement ends on a hopeful note, however, showing that even death cannot take away our happy memories. Mahler often remarked that this second movement disrupted the pattern of the whole symphony.  The first movement (death) the third movement (despair) the fourth movement (a plea for release) and the final movement (the resurrection) all are linked together in many ways, both musically and thematically.  The second movement sticks out of this pattern

Bernstein conducting Mahler No. 2

The third movement conveys what Mahler seems to believe is the worst of the human condition: total despair.  It is given to us in the form of a dance, but a dance that is eerie; a dance that is ignoring the reality of a meaningless existence.  The death shriek (listen here, at 2:06), the peak of this movement and the pits of despair, brings to mind Hamlet’s lament about “how weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” this existence seems to be, as well as practically the entirety of the Underground Man’s life.  This movement ends in a bleak way that leaves us contemplating the human condition as one of total despair.

The fourth movement briefly and effectively gives us a sorrowful plea for release from such a frightening and hopeless existence.  Although it is short, it goes without a break into the fifth and final movement.  This latter movement is a replaying of everything that has already been heard (both thematically and musically) with the exception of the second movement. The fifth movement brings us through the experiences of human existence as portrayed in this symphony.  Ending as it will in the ultimate high point of the resurrection, it begins at the ultimate low point of the death shriek.  Replaying themes of despair, it soon transitions into what Mahler calls the “March of the Dead.”  The dead soon move on, and we hear the distant sound of the trumpets from off the stage.  This is followed by a theme of resignation; an acceptance of death that brings with it peace.  But suddenly there is a faint glimmer of sound that heralds the beginning of something that is completely revolutionary to the symphony. The finale of the fifth movement (the resurrection itself) concretely transforms each musical theme and pattern of death and despair previously heard in the symphony. These pessimistic themes are transformed into the resurrection in the sense that they are now proclaiming an optimistic message of joy and triumph.  This finale is a revolution in the symphony, and presents the event of the resurrection as something in opposition to everything that was presented earlier.  It expresses the destruction of death.

This symphony presents what Mahler believed to be true, namely, that death is overcome by the resurrection.  In this symphony we are faced with very human questions regarding the reality of death, and also the reality of despair that can overcome our human condition.  I suggested in my presentation that this despair is where the Underground Man buries himself, but that Mahler is emphasizing that such despair (in the context of death) is not the ultimate end of our existence.  Instead, our existence culminates in the resurrection and eternal life.

In our comments on the symphony in the following class, it was asked if there was some other way to reach the final end of happiness without the experience of death and despair.  I would avoid describing the symphony as a representation of a process we go through to reach the resurrection.  It would be more accurate to say that Mahler is responding to questions and experiences which are very human, but not necessarily a part of every individual’s experience.  I would clarify that the symphony is not attempting to represent a process, but is trying to present the state of the human condition.  For Mahler (and for all Christians) the resurrection is the only escape from the tyranny of death and the inevitability of despair. This is what the symphony is meant to communicate.

Recap: Beckett, Waiting for Godot

by Rebecca Contini

In class we discussed how Samuel Beckett tries to explain in Waiting for Godot “how it is on this bitch of an earth.” In the beginning of the play, we are introduced to two characters: Vladimir and Estragon. Throughout the play they are both waiting for this mysterious someone named Godot. In Act I, Vladimir and Estragon are speaking to each other about Godot, and at one point Vladimir says “Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand…I’m curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we’ll take it or leave it.” A few lines further and we read that they asked Godot for “a kind of prayer” or “a vague supplication,” and now they are waiting to see what he’ll reply. These lines as well as many others, helped us conclude that Godot is the fulfillment of hope or God. In class we said that Vladimir and Estragon are a representation of mankind. However, it seems that neither Vladimir or Estragon know what Godot looks like. Estragon even says “personally, I wouldn’t even know him if I saw him.” They are both searching for him everywhere. With every sound, they hope that it is Godot.

They live in this world of absurdity and repetition. Repetition is experienced throughout, for example, in the stage directions there is an exaggeration of the use of pauses and silences. Between Vladimir and Estragon, their conversations are repetitive and almost meaningless. In Act I, Vladimir asks Estragon where he slept that night, and they have the same conversation in the second act. Another example, is when Vladimir, Estragon, and Pozzo are saying goodbye to each other. Let’s just say, it took them a good while. We see repetition also in Lucky’s speech and in the actions of the actors as well. For instance, in Act II when Vladimir and Estragon are trying on the three hats. This repetition, exaggeration, and absurdity isn’t done without reason. Lucky, we said was a Christ like figure, carrying with him all of the “baggage.” In his speech, he says man “wastes and pines.” This is clearly seen in Vladimir and Estragon. They have this huge desire and need for Godot to show up. The repetition represents how Man lives life. Every single day is the same exact thing; living waiting and pining for something or someone that is unknown. Hoping everyday for something to happen. Every day is lived the same way; and in the same way that Vladimir and Estragon have lost sense of time, Beckett is saying that mankind, in living in this repetition, also has lost a sense of time.

However, another very important theme that was discussed is hope. Vladimir and Estragon both hope throughout the entire tragicomedy that Godot will show up. There are many scenes when either Vladimir and Estragon threaten the other to leave, and yet they remain there. When Pozzo is saying goodbye he also realizes and says “I don’t seem to be able to depart.” What Beckett is saying is not to lose hope.

Recap: Excursion to the East Building of the National Gallery of Art

by Dania Leiva

In the past when we have gone to our excursions to study art, we have seen how paintings became almost like photographs, trying to replicate the essence of life in a still painting. Now we see artist painting ideas and feelings, but not in concrete concepts. Starting with the East Building’s architecture is an art work within itself.

Unlike the West Building, which is a beautiful building, it feels that it has the purpose just to house the art. While the East Building incorporates art into the design making the building a work of art within itself; the East Building has a play between chaos that meshes well together creating harmony. Throughout the East Building there is a repetition of different patterns, which are uniform within their section but are meshed up with other uniform sections, creating uniformity with disharmony. The East building’s structure creates various illusions within the building, just like the art is houses, the various cavities and large windows give this East Building a lighter appearance than the West Building, and the proportion in the East Building are more exaggerated than the West Building.

Just like the East Building, the art inside is also exaggerated. Unlike Vermeer, Gauguin and Newman have no concrete images to go with their concepts.

Gauguin, Yellow Christ

Many modern painters use exaggerations of human proportions and colors to reflect ideas they have. When we began the tour we were asked to think “what makes art good?” but, usually people have two bias opinions. Either the art is bad because it does not look like anything recognizable or the art is in a museum so it must be good art. In class when we touched on the concept on what makes good art we said a general idea that it has to do with how the art grasp the emotions of the viewer. Gauguin appeal to contrasting colors makes his art unique, the various blends of colors contrasting one another draw the viewer’s attention.  In the painting, “To Make Beautiful” by Gauguin, he uses soft colors that still contrast one another, which makes the painting appealing to the viewer; Gauguin in this painting (like many others) uses imagery of his figures in the Garden of Eden.

Gauguin, To Make Beautiful

Specifically in “To Make Beautiful” it charts the progression of man through the roles in the Eden to eventually fallen man. Gauguin (like many of his contemporaries) also does not add very much depth so their paintings, most paintings are very flat and blocks of contrasting colors. Unlike Vermeer who captured the visual qualities of his paintings, and make the fabric seem real, contemporary artist do not focus on this “reality” of painting. It could be because they see the work of painters before them trying to create illusions through paintings, trying to capture the life of the object. Contemporary painters see this idea as unnecessary because it is ultimately a painting and nothing can make it life-like, so they just paint the essentials and how they interpret the subject. Many famous Gauguin quotes where spread out throughout the exhibit, “I am a great artist and I knew it. It’s because I knew it that I have endured such suffereing”, that after discussing the quote we concluded that Gauguin may have believed that the true art was the artist journey.

After finishing Gauguin we moved onto Newman’s paintings; Newman’s style is focused mainly on blocks of color contrasting one another.  The first painting we saw was “Achilles” by Barnett Newman, which was a red block on a black canvas, making the bold red pop out against the black of the canvas. Color combinations between colors that highly contrast one another is a focus of modern artist.

Barnett Newman, Station of the Cross

Newman’s “Fourteen Stations of the Cross”, which show the path of Jesus, from his condemnation to his burial in the tomb. Newman does not use figures in his paintings, but zips with contrasting colors. In these fourteen pieces he uses grey, black, white, and off-white to show the emotions of each scene. During our observation the class tried to figure out whether the zips on the canvas represented Jesus or not. We concluded that we could not assume that the zips are a physical representation of Jesus because Newman tries to capture the feeling if each moment and not specifically makes each object in the painting represent a person. Based on our trip to the East Building can we determine what is good art?

Recap: Notes from Underground

by Braulio Santos

The actual story began on part 2 of the book and it was basically based upon three incidences. The first being the simple matter of bumping into someone. The underground man had thought after being bumped by some random officer that he felt the need to do the same back to him as revenge. When he did it however, it had no effect and the officer just did not even realize what the underground man had done. We discussed in class that it was the underground man trying to show some sort of dominance over him.

The second thing that occurs is when he goes to that dinner party amongst his “friends” to wish Zekrov a good bye since he was transferred out of the city. The underground man did not even like them when he was younger and for him to even go was rather odd of a decision. The friends failed to tell him that they were meeting at 6 rather than 5. Obviously this made him more upset and what is worse is how he gets into an argument with the friends and to finish it off he uses them as his symbol of his hatred of society. They left him behind and after this he goes to confront them and Zekrov at the brothel, but they had left. This is like adolescence at its highest like holding grudges and their anger spiking. We discussed how he was anti-social and it is also why he considers himself as the “Underground Man” since he is away from society.

Now to the final part of Liza, the young prostitute that most likely should have been the change in his life if he was not so stubborn and lost. The underground man had envisioned her future saying how her life would slowly descend until she gradually became useless and not wanted anymore. She at first was not affected as much but she came to the realization and believed in him. The thought of dying in such a horrible and disgraceful manner probably made her think this way. For whatever reason he gave Liza his address. Before she arrived however the underground man was worried she would actually come and when she did he just mocked her and humiliated her as he thought. In reality however he had just hurt himself. She had pitied him and embraced him, and yet he still acted horrible to her. When she was leaving he then tried to catch her.

How we discussed him in class as a madman, sadistic, and just an anti-socialist. He has shunned himself away from society and he always denies his hatred for what he is by saying he is superior to others. He tries to show his superiorness in all the situations, but it truly does fails every time. He tries to show dominance over the officer and the officer doesn’t even realize he did something. Then with his “friends” he tries again by getting angry, but they did not care. They left him alone and when he tried to confront them not caring for his safety, they were gone. Even with Liza he failed when he showed himself first as her hero, and upon her arrival to his home he just made her feel terrible. He thought it would make him show his dominance, but he realized after that it hurt him more. The tears in his eyes don’t lie. He ultimately fails and he can only blame himself.