Theories on Great Art

Now that's great art: The ordinary and extraordinary



Laura C. Mandell's Theory of literary art. The novel emerged in the 18th century, and the short story came about in 1800. However, the problem with literature and digital media is that now people are saying there is no more great art. The study of "great art" has been replaced by cultural studies, yet we still "worship the great art" of the alienated majesty that is in great art. For example, we project ourselves onto great art, giving credit to these artists and not to ourselves. The problem here is that we leave the great art to the past, without motivation or desire to continue art into the present. We are all artists, but we neglect our inner artists in refusing to consume it.

For example, right now, The Twilight Saga Series, which just came out (2005-2008), is one of the greatest works of pop culture and one of the greatest works of art in my opinion. This series was written by a middle-aged mother of three, an English Literature major who had a dream and wrote down her story. She is now one of the most popular best selling authors of the decade, comparable by many to J.K. Rowling. She's an amateur writer, and her works are by no account classics, but it's an easy read, easily to relate to by many generations, and is terrifically enthralling.

Like this example, as well as the Stand By Me worldwide song we listened to on YouTube, all ordinary people are artists. Instead of wanting to know what the great works of art are, we should dedicate the time, thinking and efforts, we can determine the great works of art for ourselves. Attention is a limited commodity so we want only the classics, only the greats and only the compact versions. However, now there's not enough left open. Now, we need to consider the possibility of considering everything great art, and deciding on our own.

"This painting has nothing to say to me became I have nothing to say to this painting, and i desperately wanted to speak." By saying that a piece of art is bad, without reason, without understanding, it is the same as criticizing the French for not speaking English. We need to be more open to understanding art, and all languages, especially of art.

Digitizing Texts: More on Different Analysis

A Child and Flowers by Mrs. Hemans




Page Image version

"For a day is coming to quell the tone
That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!
And to dim thy brow with a touch of care,
Under the gloss of its clustering hair;

And to tame the flash of thy cloudless eyes
Into the stillness of autumn skies;
And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part,
Midst the hidden things of each human heart!"

HTML version

Nature hath mines of such wealth--and thou

Never wilt prize its delights as now!

*For a day is coming to quell the tone

That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!

And to dim thy brow with a touch of care.35

Under the gloss of its clustering hair;

And to tame the flash of thy cloudless eyes

Into the stillness of autumn skies;

And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part,

Midst the hidden things of each human heart!*

TEI version


For a day is coming to quell the tone
That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!
And to dim thy brow with a touch of care.
Under the gloss of its clustering hair;

And to tame the flash of thy cloudless eyes
Into the stillness of autumn skies;
−

And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part,

Midst the hidden things of each human heart!


In our lines, 33-40, the speaker is talking about the inevitable day when the child will lose his or her innocence. The speaker is fearful for the child to see this, and to learn about grief and reality. It is a kind of superficial way of looking at children and innocence. Overall, this poem suggests that we should enjoy what we can while we can and not dwell in the past. The challenge is that the speaker is addressing a child, who could not read or understand its true meaning. This calls into question who the audience is. To me, the audience seems to be a child, but is meant to remind us of our own childhood, and to not forget our innocence and the little things that used to make us happy. In essence, the speaker is writing to and instructs us to analyze our own inner child. This poem calls us to appreciate the aesthetics in life instead of just going through life and letting the little joys pass us by.

The format of the poem does affect the meaning, but for me it does not necessarily help with processing what is going on and what is significant in the poem. It seems to me that the TEI version of the text does very little to help us understand the poem but it gives us as readers an interesting way of looking at it. Also the use of the different stanzas in the Page Image and HTML versions do help in changing the meaning because they give us different places to pause and focus. However, looking at these different versions is helpful because of both the visual tricks and the compilation of text and image. It allows us as readers to have a new, entirely different experience with the text even if, as frequently happens, we do not fully comprehend it.

And a Different Look at Frankenstein: Tagcloud

1. Create a tag cloud for each Frankenstein passage is small groups using www.tagcrowd.com.

My version was the 1818 Thomas Edition. My tag words were as follows:

admiration although appears believed confidence creature deep desire destroyed eloquence excites flow friend friendship gaze history hope interest life lost manner misery mortal neither night noble notices offended overcome pedantry plan pleased possible powers related respecting several silently speaks stranger succeeded suggested therefore throwing true trust utterly veil wise wish

There were several differences between our three versions of the text. My group found that the two different 1818 versions were much more similar than the 1831 version. Both 1818 editions had "friend" and "deep friend" as well as descriptions of the monster and of friendship. However the 1831 text was much darker, foreign, and brought up themes of conversation as opposed to the other two. Overall, the 1818 versions focus more on the emotions while the 1831 version focuses more on the action and motion.

My key bold words were "deep" and "friend." My key words were although, appears, believed, confidence, creature, desire, eloquence, excites, friendship, interests, misery, noble, powers, speaks, therefore, veil.

This helps to understand and visualize the text by providing different sources of emphasis. To me this is like reading a poem in different tones of voices with differing points of focus. Using this program helps to do so with less work :) .


2. Compare textual versions using JUXTA.
JUXTA allows you to compare two different versions side by side, in a much more detailed manner than tag cloud.

Did Mary Shelley write three different novels?
No I don't believe Shelley wrote three different versions of Frankenstein. I believe that in each revision of the novel, she realized something different about her own characters and adjusted the text and emphasis to support it. In this way, Shelley was able to insure she was portraying the characters to the readers in the way that we would best understanding. I think this is the point to revision: to make sure you explain, in the best way possible, which features and actions of the character are most important for the reader to understand.

In these passages, the stranger agrees to different things. Why do these changes matter?
In both 1818 versions, the stranger suggests that friendship is both desirable and possible to attain. However in the 1831 edition, the stranger explains the benefits of having friendship, and explains why it is desireable and necessary to have. These changes matter because, as stated above, they give us as readers differing insights into the thoughts and points of the author and the characters.

How does digitizing these texts help us think about the different versions?
Digitizing helps us visualize the important points in very different ways. In seeing these different versions we can see the different points that the author chose to emphasize each time she revised her novel. In this way we can get a better understanding of both the author's intentions and characterization of those she tries to portray.

A Different Look at Aurora Leigh

On BB go to Poetess Archive Folder under Course Documents
Look at 3 versions of the Bijou poem (1) Page Image, (2) HTML version, (3)TEI (XML language text) encoded version
Task: Do a close reading of the poem in the HTML version. Answer one or all or a combination of the prompts below

1. Is the poem the same in these 3 versions?
For me, these poems are definitely not the same. It is very difficult for me to process computer language let alone the TEI text. I'm also very unsure about how texts "talk" to each other online by using the same interface, because I actually don't know what an interface is. I do think it is very interesting to see the poem in this different language because, since I am a double English and Spanish major, I find myself crossing between languages in my head. I feel that this type of poetry is a kind of Spanglish for computer oriented people. I would probably have a much stronger opinion of the language used in these alternative texts if I were not so technologically challenged beyond all hope :(

2. What difference will digitizing make to our understanding of poems?
Digitizing these poems definitely gave me a new perspective on the "British Women Writers Digitized" title of our class. I am the complete opposite of a computer guru (and have tragically failed at every attempted technological activity thus far presented) but I am a good reader. This type of computer poetry presents readers with a new way to read. For me, it's kind of like reading latin, but there is certainly always something to gain from looking at things, especially art and literature, through a different lens.

3. BONUS: Apply the poem's theme about art to the poem itself: does digitizing contribute to Hemans' aim?

More Notes on Aurora Leigh

Can there be heroes in modern life? According to the poem? and to you?

According to Aurora Leigh, heroes most definitely exist within modern life. She writes "All actual heroes are essential men/And all men possible heroes" (151-152). Clearly, Aurora believes in the heroic potential of every individual. In order to find such heroes, AL encourages not to look to the past, but to be mindful of the present. If we depend upon the past for our heroes, we will find only conflated versions of mythic, larger-than-life idols. The true heroes are among us, and we must see them for who they are--"essential men", ordinary people.I agree with Aurora Leigh. There are heroes within our lives, whether we know them personally or view them from afar. These people are so much more real than the epic heroes we read of in history books or see in movies. These real people are not always famous enough to be recorded in the volumes of history, but such idolatry is not necessary is the making of a hero.

*Thanks Liz

Aurora Leigh: Guest Speaker

Elizabeth Barret Browning was one of twelve children, whose father forbade them to marry. She was put on very high amounts of morphine for nervous disorders. She had courtship with Robert Browning, whom she eventually eloped with, through letters.

Group Passage Analysis: Group 3

Book II: ll. 671 -84:

1. This passage is in response to Aurora's aunt threatening to write too Romney to accept his proposal on Aurora's behalf. How does Aurora defend her choice? Aurora says that it would be perjury to accept Romney's proposal, as she explains "I tie up 'no' upon His altar-horns, / Quite out of reach of perjury" (679-80). It is not what she wants, she desires to be a poet, not an assistant to Romney's work. She is saying she would rather die as an unfulfilled poet that for marrying Romney for security purposes.

2. What effect does Aurora's use of God have in this passage? In defending herself to her aunt, Aurora states, "O my God, my God! / God meant me good, too, when he hindered me / From saying 'yes' this morning" (675-7). In saying this, she supports the idea that God's will coincides with her own will to refuse Romney. By saying God allowed her to say no, she justifies it more in providing evidence of His support for her decision.

3. What can we make of Aurora's division between the "soul's life" and monetary life? What does this suggest of her character? Aurora says, "My soul is not a pauper; I can live / At least my soul's life, without alms from men" (681-2). She distinguishes that the life of the soul does not depend on gifts and things provided by men. It speaks to her character in that she values morals, and personal values over what is expected.

4. How does the aunt's response to Aurora's refusal (ll. 655-69) further re-inscribe the different notions of femininity held by the two women? The aunt desperately desires for Aurora to be the proper English housewife, as it is the only thing she has ever known. She is convinced that Aurora will starve and die without the support of a man, however Aurora prefers to be without a man. Aurora on the other hand, describes this ideal as femininity as an inconvenience, an objectification, and a pain, as in book I (ll. 455-64).

Group 1: In saying that her aunt was a caged bird, she has never really fulfilled her life. However, she can't really be to blame for something she has never been asked to challenge or question.

Group 2: In her answer, Aurora tells Romney that she is unworthy of being the things that he desires her to be. She says he is not unworthy of love, but that he does not love her, only what he wants her to be. However, by saying she is unworthy, she is actually implying that she is worth more than that. By twisting it around she makes it seem as if she is doing him a favor. (Book II, 400-6)

Group 4: After Aurora's aunt dies, leaving her with very little inheritance, she starts writing prose for a living and works on her poetry secretly. This is almost autobiographical of Elizabeth Barret Browning, the author. It is ironic that a women must be supported by a man and marriage in order to be a successful writer. (Book III, 302-12)

Aurora Leigh: Book 1

Aurora Leigh is one of the greatest epic poems of all time, written in prose. The language of Aurora Leigh is accentual and has great rhythm, although it for me is easy to sometimes get lost in her sub-thoughts without realizing they are not a central part of story.


Elizabeth Barrett Browning published her first book of poetry at age 22. She was a very famous poet, and wrote excellent love poetry for her husband, Robert Browning, another poet in 1845. She was claimed to be cloistered by her father, became an invalid and addicted to morphine. They met through letters, kept correspondence, eloped, moved to Italy, had a child and died some 15 years later. Her life however, was very different from that of the main character in her work Aurora Leigh.

Aurora Leigh's mother died when she was four years old, and then her father died when she was 13. After this she moved to live with her aunt who was very cold toward her. She claims her true life existed in the attic where her father's book was, where she first discovered poets. Aurora distinguishes between two types of "live," physical and spiritual. She says that her phsyical life existed in her aunt's home but her feeling of being alive was when she was among her father's books.

Her father was a man of property and money. No one expected his father to marry, and goes to Italy, travelling as a nobleman, and sees a parade and this is where he meets Aurora's mother. He falls instantly in love with this Florentine woman, who loves him, has his child and dies. He became uncommon when he marries and forgets his estate and life in England. His sister, Aurora's aunt in England, is very jealous of her mother because she took the title of Lady from her (as at this time if a man did not marry, female relatives were the Ladies of the house, whereas if he did marry, his wife was the Lady with the title).

Book 1
Aurora Leigh decides that she is now going to write for herself alone. She remembers her mother, telling her to be quiet but she really comes and plays wit her. Aurora thinks that her mother died of joy of having a child. She, just like Latimir in The Lifted Veil and Victor in Frankenstein, was a genius adored by her mother. She says her mother "could not bear the joy of giving life / The mother's rapture slew her" (34-5). Similarly, like her mother, Aurora claims to feel a "mother want" from the world; she wants the kind of love that mothers show and are comfortable and capable of showing that fathers are less able to provide. Mothers have a way of stringing pretty words together, despite the fact that they are not focusing on the meanings, such as in "Rock-a-bye Baby."

Is Latimer like Victor?

I think that Victor and Latimir are similar because they are both obsessive of their own powers and strengths and also burdened by them later in life. Latimir is at first amazed at his ability to read people's minds around him and see into the future, yet he later admits that he is annoyed by the constant presence of other souls in his life. Futhermore, he is limited in his powers because the one thing that could save him from his terrible fate would be to read Bertha's mind but he cannot. Similarly, Victor in Frankenstein was completely obsessed with his ability to create life once he discovered it, but did not realize the negative consequences until later. He too was extremely burdened by his own creation and power that, like Latimir, eventually led to his demise. Thus, while these two protagonists are similar in their mental capacities and weaknesses, their power and suffering come from differing sources.

The Lifted Veil:

"Low spirits! That is the sort of phrase with which coarse, narrow natures like ours think to describe experience of which you can know no more than your horse know" (Latimer contemplating his brother Alfred, p.28). Latimer is assuming that he alone suffers, and that Alfred can never understand him because he believes that Alfred has absolutely no doubts, no fears. This perhaps is evidence that Latimer cannot read Alfred's mind--if he could read his mind, he would inevitably find at least some feelings of doubt. Latimer doesn't really even seem to know his brother at all, and Latimer wants nothing to do with him. There has to be something more to Alfred than Latimer thinks he knows; Latimer can't even predict his brother's death, predicting instead that he would only be prevented from Bertha if he found a better woman.Bertha's marriage philosophy is very cynical. She says that loving the person you marry is problematic because you will always be jealous and it is much more elegant to marry someone you don't care about. When Bertha says this, Latimer tells her "Bertha, that is not your real feeling. Why do you delight in trying to deceive me by inventing such cynical speeches?" (6). Latimer is easily deceived because he already spends so much tome inviting his own ideas and placing them onto others.Here's a theory: Latimer is not clairvoyant, he can't tell what people think. Instead, he is just really good at projecting his own thoughts and feelings upon others. It may be impossible not to project on someone you really love. Perhaps you need that assurance that that person is who you think. But then do you love the person or what you have made of the person? In Latimer's case, it seems that Latimer does not love Bertha for who she is (a cynical girl who does not care about him) but instead he loves the Bertha he has made through his projections--he absolutely adores his creation. Later, when he no longer loves Bertha, he projects different feelings onto her--demonizing feelings of hatred and disgust.

Interior Thoughts...and The Lifted Veil
picture of women on couch (and her stream of consciousness):I wonder how this dress makes me look. I hope it doesn't show any of the gross side bulge I've been going to the gym to get rid of because those workouts are hard, excruciating actually, yes but they are worth it, I'm not fat, I have no bulges, I am beautiful I am beautiful Am I beautiful? Tell me I'm beautiful.Can Latimer read people's minds, or is he doing what we all do (in assuming what people say)??Latimer is perhaps just extremely imaginative and able to come up with people's "thoughts" by their body language and facial cues. Latimer, of course, unquestioningly believes in the accuracy and authenticity of his visions. Evidence for such power comes from his vision of Prague and his subsequent visit to the city (where he confirmed his belief). He also guessed his brother's speech before he made it, and saw the vision of Bertha before he met her. And yet, Latimer could just have easily seen a painting of Prague, for example.But why can't Latimer read Bertha's mind?Knowing what Bertha was thinking would take the fun out of the romance (at least for Latimer). He can instead project his own desires and thoughts onto Bertha; she becomes what he wants her to be. He sees her as pretending to love Alfred while she secretly loves Latimer. Latimer craves her love; he worships her. The hold that Bertha has over him comes from the tyrannical power she has over him.He sees her as having a deeply cynical soul, and that something is going to move her--and it is going to be him. Obtaining Bertha's love would be like winning a colossal struggle.Perhaps this strong desire for Bertha comes from the distance that has been established between Latimer and his late mother.How does Latimer feel about himself?He thinks he is an amazing person: "I am cursed with an exceptional mental character" (7). Clearly, Latimer feel himself to be governed by a fate that has been set before him, a fate this governed by his own intellect. He regards himself as an emotional poet in that he does not write, but has the same sensibilities as a poet. He doesn't trust anyone else; he feels alone and confined to his own wretched misery.

Frankenstein: Hero Machine

This is my interpretation of the monster-as hero- as is from Frankenstein. He is huge and scary and intimidating, but his face is kind and welcoming. He is very strong and capable of breaking, robbing and murdering however, he only wants affection and it is only seen in his facial expressions. The only way he can be understood is if we as readers and viewers can get past his scary persona and concentrate on his person beneath.

Giving mental images, as in this one, provides a new way to interpret the work.

At the end of the novel, it seems that Walton has learned Victor's lesson as he decides to turn his ship around. Because he does not choose the "ultimate hero" route, he saves himself, those he loves and the rest of his crew by doing so. Frankenstein on the other hand, does not really learn his lesson, as he tells Walton to heed his word but at the same time condemns the crew for wanting to return and begs him to continue in his search and destruction of the monster. It is heroic but is it justified or admirable? I don't think that sacrificing family is heroic. I think that the true hero is not the great man but the stable man, the person who knows what he or she stands for and what is truly important. In the end, Walton is the everyday hero while Victor is he big-time hero who in the end, loses the very most. However maybe Victor's speech at the end is true heroism and maybe there are motivations for heroism that is less than ideal.

There is also a different kind of heroism that is expected of women. Perhaps for women heroism takes a silent form for women, as with Elizabeth, who is the most or one of the most stable characters in the novel.

Are Frankenstein and Victor the same person? While they live together and die together and have all the same experiences and sufferings, they in my opinions are complements. As the monster is the character who is in need of affection and can't have it, while Victor is a character who has all the love and affection in the world but does not exactly want it.