rockett’s Blog

“Starving hysterical”

“Who poverty and tatters…”

“Who bared”

“Who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpintine in Paradise Alley…”

“lonesome farms”

“Who lounged hungry and lonesome… seeking soup…”

“skeletons”

“Who ate the lamb stew of the imagination or digested the crab at the muddy bottom of the rivers of Bowery”

“Who cooked rotten animals lung heart feel tail borsht & tortillas dreaming of the pure vegetable kingdom, who plunged themselves under meat trucks looking for an egg”

“…of life butchered out of their own bodies good to eat a thousand years”

“Ate up their brains and imagination”

“Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genious!”

During this reading, Allen Ginsberg changes his the meaning of this motif many time.  The starvation can be applied to things such as actualy hunger or a longing to something more.  Ginsberg uses this motif, because it is able to tie into every other motif that he suggests for this poem.  Because they all tie together nicely, it comes into a good poem.  Something that is more than just black words on white paper.  It is a thought that makes us think about what the auther is really thinking… True Literature.

What makes loyalty so tragic in a play?

Loyalty is tragic in a play because of the hold that it puts on people.  Meaning that loyalty is something that ties you to a human being no matter what happens in the course of your life.  There will be tests throughout life that test this.  Sometimes it can be a good thing, and sometimes it can be a bad thing.  For instance, a good example of loyalty would be to have a friend that will always be there for you.  An example of loyalty being bad is when someone automatically believes that their friend is right because they are loyal to them whereas that person might be wrong.  Loyalty is something that is good and bad, and this is what makes it tragic.

Loyalty is important in the blue-collar workers because the are a middle class people, maybe even lower and they are the only ones that stick to each other.  Loyalty is important to them because they are close like family.  It heightens the feeling of family. 

Loyalty is however a complicated issue.  Who should you be loyal to?  When does loyalty go too far?  This was something that Miller included in his play.  Was Eddie supposed to be so loyal to Catherine?  Was he supposed to be loyal to Rodolpho and Marco?  The answers are unknown.  Loyalty comes to those who have a close relationship with those around him.  The tragic flaw of loyalty in this play is what it does to other people.  For instance, because Eddie is so loyal to Catherine, he has no problem telling the immigration police about Rodolpho and Marco.

Loyalty makes Eddie’s life tragic because of the people that he is loyal to.  Eddie is loyal to Catherine and his wife Beatrice.  Becuause Beatrice is loyal to her two cousins, Rodolpho and Marco, Eddie is torn apart…  Because these two men have entered Eddie’s house, his whole life has been thrown for a loop.  This is the tragic flaw of loyalty.  It changes you.  It changes your interpretation of the world.  It changes our views on what is important.

I have loyalty to my family and friends, but nothing of it has made my life tragic.

I think the woman in this story is overly selfless.  She is willing to do whatever her husband would think is best so that they could be happy again.  She does not care about what the procedure is or if it is going to hurt, she just wants to know that she will be with her husband and happy forever.  So towards the end of the story when she says “I feel fine, there is nothing wrong with me. I feel fine,” it totally embodies her cut-off from emotion.

Because she is so selfless and willing to do anything to keep her partner happy, she has cut all other emotions from her life.  It does not matter how she feels, and if she was feeling something other than happy she would not admit to it because she would not want to jeopardize the other person feeling there best.

This is why I say that the woman is overly selfless.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of modern is: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of contemporary styles of art, literature, music, etc., that reject traditionally accepted or sanctioned forms and emphasize individual experimentation and sensibility or characteristics of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete.  In an easier way, things that represent the present and future rather than the past.

In the 1913 Armory Show Galleries, we see many types of different exhibitions of art that were considered modern in 1913.  This collection of painters and sculptures were both American and Foreign works of art that helped depict a modern angle of art, and life in general in their time. 

Dear Friend, Let me tell you all about the modern art that I saw!

Some of these pieces were just brilliant.  If you take a look at Gallery R, you will see paintings that are not as concerned with the way that the painting looks, but how the painting shows its point.  There is a painting by a french man named Henri Matisse who was more concerned about making the naked body seem formal than creating a physical landscape and primitive culture for the painting.  This was closely compared to that of Paul Gauguin, because Paul tookthe time to create the primitive cultural landscape.  This is something that we have learned in American Literature.  We have learned that modernism exhibits the idea of “deformalization.”  This shows that in modern art, the artist will stray beyond the normal structure so that he or she may use her art to show the meaning behind the painting in the first place.  It is not the words they are using that are important; it is the reaction to the words that we have that make the difference.  It is what we, the audience, takes away from the piece of art.  This is why these two men (mentioned above) are modern artists.  They want us to see this NAKED person in front of us.  This is important, because it shows everything modern about that time.  Women and men were not shown naked to anyone except their husband or wife, to show the naked body was to completely open up art.  To add on top of this, the pamphlet made by Paul Gauguin was banned, because even though it taught of what he learned while in the Tahiti painting, it had “Lewd material” because he had an affair with another woman.  This goes to show that painting is a way of expressing feelings that were not yet excepted in words.

(THE BLUE NUDE – Henri Matisse)

 (WORDS OF THE DEVIL – Paul Gauguin)

Another form of modern art was through sculpture.  These pieces were considered modern because they were brought to a smaller size.  These sculptures however, were criticized heavily and mocked.  Some of the new sculpture artists were scolded for the way their art was shown.  Were the proportions right?  Did it look like what was being told was represented?  In the picture on the top, Wilhelm Lehmbruck’s Kneeling Woman was made fun of for looking like a praying mantis.  My question to those who criticize so heavily is.. Can you do it any better?  The way that they took such a complex sculpture and did it so that the size was small enough to fit in a museum is something modern.  We remember sculptures like the Washington Memorial, and although beautiful, the sculpture was HUGE.  And on the bottom, we have Alexander Archipenko’s Salome, this sculpture was scolded because the proportions were off.  It is ok though! What do people not understand?  If an artist is modern, then sculptures and other pieces of art do not have to classify into what we used to call art.  Times are changing, don’t be so harsh!  Both of these pieces were mocked, and yet they were still accepted into The Armory Galleries.

(KNEELING WOMAN – Wilhelm Lehmbruck) 

(Salome - Alexander Archipenko) 

This gallery was awesome to look at.  Some of these pieces are not going to be well known anymore, because once again, modern art has changed.  We can walk into the MOMA and see a canvas painted purely blue, or we can see a toilet signed in Sharpie.  Modernism is always changing.  It is based off what the artist is trying to teach us, and how they are going about doing it. 

So, what makes this stuff modern?  We do.  It is how life’s interpretations are shown in our art, and our literature.  Life is changing from day to day, and our future is going to be different from our past.  Living everyday teaches us something new, and pushes us into being modern.  Modern art today is the best.  This is because it does not have to be classified to be accepted.

“Now why should that man have fainted? But he did, and right across my path by the wall, so that I had to creep over him every time!” 

Victory:  This can be considered a victory because she has finally made it outside of the yellow wall-paper.  She is finally freed.

Defeat:  This can be considered a defeat because she is not able to share her “getting better” with the one that she loves the most, her husband.  She felt as if to get better she had to escape captivity, but in doing this, her husband is disposed by her escape.

They shut me up in Prose –

Who is they?  Who is shutting Emily up?  Why is Prose capitalized?  Whoever is shutting Emily up is making her incapable of being able to express herself outworldly.  She is trapped in having to express herself through words on paper.  Prose (poetry) is her way of expressing herself and through this line, it makes it seem like she was pushed to be this way.

As when a little Girl

Emily is now comparing the way she is now to the way she was when she was a little girl.  I assume that girl is capitalized because the transition from Girl to Woman was a big deal to her. 

They put me in the Closet –

I am assuming that when Emily was a little girl she was not paid close attention to.  I don’t know if being locked in a closet is literal or figurative.  I believe it is literal, and that would mean that she has been pushing her feelings back since she can remember.  Closet being used as a metaphor for her mind.

Because they liked me “still” –

Now, she talks about the way they liked her still.  She is saying that even though they put her into a place where she cannot share with them all of what is on her mind, they still liked her.  Why is still is parenthesis?  Still stands out so that we can see Emily’s tone of voice on the matter.  It seems like she does not care that they still like her, she is still not going to share.

Still! Could themself have peeped –

We see that still is something that is important.  She is saying that it does not matter that they still cared… Just because they say they care, it does not mean anything.  She is wondering why if they say they care, they would not peep.. Peep meaning just showing that you care.  It seems like she wanted someone to just ask what she thought, and to take some time to see how she was doing.

And seen my Brain — go round –

If you see the previous paragraph… She just wanted someone to ask what was going on in her brain.  Emily was willing to discuss what was going on her brain, but only if someone asked.  The dashes is just a pause, I am assuming to show her attitude towards the subject.  The go round is just expressing how much she thinks and rethinks.

They might as wise have lodged a Bird

This line shows her contempt for how they made her feel.  In comparing herself to this trapped bird, she is saying that she was trapped inside herself.  It is like taking a bird and not letting it fly.  This was Emily, she is trapped inside herself where she was not able to share with anybody.  She felt this way because nobody ever asked her. 

For Treason — in the Pound –

I do not know what to make of the first part of this line.  But it seems as if Emily feels that she did something wrong and that is why she is put in the pound.  I would say that the pound is a jail to Emily.  It is just another word to express the motif that she is confined to her thoughts. In the pound being capitalized, it is portraying the importance of feeling like a captive.

Himself has but to will

This man that is keeping her captive has the will to change things.

And easy as a Star

It would be easy as a star, something that is easily seen.  It would be easy for this man to ask her what she was thinking.  It would be easy for this man to show an interest in what is going on in her mind.

Abolish his Captivity –

To release his hold over her.

And laugh — No more have I –

But because this man has not released his hold on her, he will not laugh.  He will not know her stories and her thoughts, because he has put her in captivity.  And because he has not let her go, she cannot laugh.  She cannot outworldly express herself, and that is why she is shut up in prose.

OBSERVATIONS:

• This poem shows an attitude and a tone.
• Emily was not in the happiest place while writing this.
• It is important to Emily that she can express herself.

The I vs. Crowd and I vs. the Tide is hard for Whitman because he is the one looking and observing everyone else.   This is hard because he does not feel attatched to the crowd.

This is fixed at the end of the poem when Whitman uses ‘we” instead of ‘i’ therefore including himself with the crowd so that he is not just observing the people around him. 

1.  I liked this assignment for a couple reasons, the first is the interesting twist on the Whitman poem.  It was interesting to see the way that other students understood the poem, and how their pictures related to the words of the poem.  The second reason I liked this assignment is because is was soley based on my opinion to what I had read.  It gave me the chance to think creatively by putting an image to the words.

2.  The first thing that I did not like about this assignment was the fact that it was necessary to sign up for another web site. The second thing I did not like about this assignment was that because of this newly joined webpage, my e-mail box was bomb barted with updating e-mails that the website promised not to send.

3.  By participating in the Wiki, I learned how to put a picture to Whitman’s words and by doing so, it helped me to understand the importance of nature to Whitman.

4. I would not change this assignment, although I did not like that we had to sign up for another website and deviate from the blogs, it was a good way to show how everyone thought of Whitman’s poem.

    I chose this image because in Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” the man laying in the grass is completely happy with himself. He even says that he adores himself. This is about a man who is celebrating how he is made.

    It has to do with the poem because he states at one  point that being in the nature, there is nothing more perfect.  And the Vitruvian was once the foundation of the perfect man imitated in art.

    Now, in modern day times, we cannot lay naked in the grass and find such peace as the grass running through our toes. However, this poem creates a wish that we could be that perfect man/woman laying in the grass.

“Colleges and books only copy the language which the field and the work-yard made”

Emerson’s quote is telling us that books are only one source of learning and that we should not rely on just these books for our education, but we should venture out into nature where the history is actually happening.  These books are copies of ideas that other men and women have come up with on their own.  Emerson is insinuating that you and I go into nature and come up with our own ideas, instead of just taking the past writings to be indefinitly true.

When we open a book to read it, we are being told a story.  Especially in history books.  If we were to gather all the books pertaining to World War Two, we would likely read the same material in every book.  The books are likely to have different views of the war, whether you are reading from the “enemy” stand point or from the American’s stand point.  But all the information is going to be similatr.  This is the knowledge that we have from this time period, there is no way that we can go out and learn more; the time has past.  Some books we must rely on for our education, but when we read the second and third and forth book, the concept remains the same and we simply relearn what we already know.

Emerson’s concept that nature is better is quite understandable. When you go into nature, everything is different. No one thing is going to be the same as the other.  For instance, if we go into a Redwood Tree forest, every tree would be different. Yes, they are all Redwoods, but they are not all the same heighth or width. They will all differ in the amount of branches and the amount of leaves that they have as well.  When we go into nature, there are so many different things that will be different.  If we go to a different forest in a different region of the Earth, are there going to be Redwoods there?  Every forest is going to be different because of the location that it is in, and the nutrients it has to feed it.

We, as humans, are a lot like nature.  We are all different, even identical twins have their differences.  And we are all different in the way that we learn.  Some of us take the seed of an idea, and will go and look for more information to make that seed grow.  Others of us will be filled with little seeds, not wanting to learn or extend more…  It will take more than just a book for the seed to grow, it will take a yearning for more information as well as experience.

As for the argument between imitation writing and creation writing.. My question is why do we create new copies of history book?  History is not changing, it is stuck where it is.  Why should we write new books of what has happened?  Why don’t we go into “nature” and do creation writing?  Create something out of our own thoughts instead of imitating the thoughts of others.