Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Responses to the Final Discussion: Portrait of the Artist
In the comment section below, please respond to one of your classmate's ideas during the discussion of the book on Wednesday. You can extend their ideas, disagree with his or her ideas in a constructive way, or use his or her ideas to go a bit deeper into something you have been thinking about. Please post your response by Tuesday, January 22.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe our class discussion on Wednesday went very well. While reading, I hadn't fully understood or took the time to wonder some very monumental areas of the novel, and this discussion helped me cope with this ideas. For starters, the idea of identity got brought up, and I had a few thoughts on this. Stephen has struggled with his identity through the entirety of this novel. This can be especially seen in the beginning of the novel where he is so easily pursuaded. For instance, rather than sticking with his decision to marry Eileen despite her religion, he is quick to apologize and take back his actions. I believe by the end of the book Stephen has made some significant progress into becoming his own person, and this is illustrated when he takes the plunge and goes off to live a life of isolation in order to intensify his artistic potential. I agree with all aspects of what pauline said, but would like to expand upon the idea of him also making this move for not only himself but his country. Based on Irish history, it has taken a lot for them to become their own. They have constantly been the country of the opressed, and have struggled to form their own identity. I believe Stephen realizes this, and decides to go on this artistic excretion in order to voice the identity of his Ireland. Through his works he will most likely tackle the subjects he struggled with most, and these topics all involve some aspect of Irish culture. He will most likely take a look at both viewpoints in these conflicts (such as religion, politics, etc) and in by doing so will voice the views of Ireland and its people. By being an artist, Stephen will give Ireland the identity it has strived for.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this, I loved what Zoe (sorry I don't know how to put umlauts) got to with the Emma subject. To be honest, I saw that there was a shift at this point, but did not fully understand the implications it held. From my memory, she basically said that he saw her as an image of upmost beauty but not for the reasons he had seen others for in the past. For example, he had always seen the Virgin Mary as beautiful but for her purity and religious dedication. In retrospect, Emma is beautiful for her carefree lifestyle and her content with life as a whole. It is the first time in the novel where he does not feel lust for a women figure. This makes him realize he can seperate himself from religion and still be content with life (as Emma is), and also does not have to go down the sinful path he lived before. By seeing the world through an artists perspective, he can ultimately be happy.
During Wednesday's discussion on Portrait of the Artist, Pauline said something that interested me. She made the claim that throughout the book, Stephen is always trying to please people, and I agree with this to a certain extent. In the beginning of the book his desire to be approved of can be clearly seen by the way he reacts when he's asked if he kisses his mother before he goes to bed. His initial reaction is yes, because that is the truth, then changes it to no when he's laughed at. But no matter how he answers, the group of boys always laugh at him, something that happens repeatedly through the book. Somehow he always ends up being scoffed at or joked about. There's also his early obsession with religion, both as a young boy and then later on to a more extreme point when he's repenting for sleeping with so many women. He fears hell and is sure he'd be sent there if he didn't beg for forgiveness for all his sins he'd committed. So he lives a miserable life for a while as an extremely religious man to re-gain the favor of the God whom he feels he's let down.
ReplyDeleteThis is where his mindset starts to shift however. After a long time living like this he's given the opportunity to become a priest, a high honor. He's finally achieved approval from people, and given the chance to wield enormous power, something he'd never had. After all that though, he rejects the offer after coming to the realization that “he was destined to learn his own wisdom apart from others or to learn the wisdom of others himself wandering among the snares of the world.” From then on he speaks his mind, and is looked at with a mix of disgust and admiration. At the very end of the book, he talks to his friend Cranly about how his mother wants him to make his Easter Duty and explains that he doesn't want to. Cranly responds by essentially saying that if he loves his mother and wants to make her happy, he should do it for her, since because he doesn't believe in God it won't mean anything to him. He says, “It is a form: nothing else.” But Stephen is not into the whole idea. In the end, I don't know that I'd go as far as to say he'd been trying to make people happy throughout the whole book, but it was definitely there. He experienced two extremes of wanting to please, and refusing to please.
Henry brought up an idea during the discussion that struck me. He said that Stephen is taking the emotion out of art with his theory, approaching art like a science. This point moved me to think very critically about and revisit that portion of the book. Though I enjoyed all of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man I think that the selection in which Stephen addresses the very core of his theory is the novel’s most interesting part. Stephen delves very deep into his developing artistic consciousness here, and I agree that his description of the “wholeness, harmony and radiance” of something reads less like a creative exploration and more like a scientific assessment. This boggles me, though. Why would the language in which Stephen relates something that seems intrinsically unscientific be so logical? I think that Joyce might be throwing out a larger point here. Stephen’s method may be considered scientific, but embedded in his science is his art.
ReplyDeleteThe involvement of emotion in art was an idea that bounced around in class, and I think that some of the thoughts expressed in our discussions support this view. On a few occasions students have mentioned that art should not “cheaply” evoke emotion. (Mentioned examples of this included a painting/photograph of a gun or of a dead body in a casket) Stephen may be taking all of the “cheap” emotion out of art, leaving only the essential core. His very logical analysis of a something’s wholeness, harmony and radiance allows him to see all that is significant within it and separate out all that is of superficial importance. He is not able to do this with Emma, since he cannot openly deal with his feelings for her, and thus cannot view her in the type of aesthetic stasis required for true expression of beauty. To truly behold something beautiful one must suspend any prior conceptions. I agree that the first time Stephen looks at something from an artist’s perspective is when he witnesses the girl standing in the stream. That scene is the definitive transition for Stephen and his artistic views, the moment that defines his subsequent theory. In that moment and after it Stephen looks upon art and the aesthetic without the friction of hidden emotion slowing his step.
On Wednesday, I thought the discussion went very well. As we discussed earlier, we as readers can clearly see how Stephen is maturing and growing as the story progresses. I especially liked Zoe’s statement about his aesthetic revelation when he sees the girl wading in the water. This epiphany truly shows us that he has come to fully understand the meaning of beauty without it becoming tainted by his past encounters with prostitutes. This could tie into Stephen’s choice to abandon a completely devoted lifestyle to religion since he finally sees that he can obtain an appreciation of love and beauty without having to turn to religion, so there is no point in torturing himself by thinking he is not doing enough for religion.
ReplyDeleteI like how Elizabeth and Danielle expand on Stephen’s tendency to try and please people. For example, he is quick to repent for wanting to marry outside of the Catholic faith and he changes his answer to the boys’ question when they start laughing at him. This could be interpreted as insecurity in establishing his own identity and relying on his friends and family to create one for him. By pressuring him to do certain things or respond a certain way, they make Stephen feel as if they are trying to mold him into something that will appeal to them. As we see in later events, this pressure eventually causes Stephen to snap and rebel against everything his family wants him to become. Perhaps we could see this as Stephen finally growing up a little because now he has decided to take action for himself and shape his own future and destiny.
I never got a chance to speak in class, but I was lucky enough to get to hear what everyone had to say. I think the material in the book is true enough to life that, like life, everyone has a unique perspective. I want to respond first to what Henry said, comparing Stephen's philosophizing to forensics--that he seemed to have taken the life out of art by defining it. something lifeless is clean, and Melody said something similar to what Henry did when she observed that, by the end of the book, Stephen has purified what was once a salacious admiration of beauty. Stephen discusses this "purification" though, making the distinction between the stasis and the kinesis of observing beauty. I don't believe he has taken the life out of art, rather, he has come up with a synthetic theory, which, while it appears to be dispassionate, allows him to create art of the best kind--not something merely provocative, but something that attempts "to express, to press out again, form the gross earth...from sound and shape and colour...an image of the beauty we have come to understand," (p. 183). Stephen still is repulsed by the physical needs and desires that he previously tried so hard to deny himself, and to understand beauty as something primal or carnal disgusts him because, he says, it leads to a dead end. Divining the characteristics of art and the aspects of our apprehension of it is best part of art--i'd say it's why art exists. to respond to Nate's assertion that "Why would the language in which Stephen relates something that seems intrinsically unscientific be so logical? embedded in his science is his art," I have to point out that science can be art and art can be science, Stephen is currently discovering how he looks at the world, and to do so, he has to use logic, because humanity's beliefs and convictions are rooted in logically fabricated excuses and paradigms. Art is just one experience in the lives of people who are less artistic, like Lynch, to whom stephen describes his theory, but the reason Stephen's theory is in the book is because how he sees art is how he sees the world, therefore how he sees religion and how he lives. His aesthetic theory allows him to see Catholicism with clarity of mind. He observes religion the way he shows Lynch how to observe the basket-- "Three things are needed for beauty: wholeness, harmony, and radiance."
ReplyDeleteZoe pointed out in response to stephen's aesthetic theory by saying that she didn't think it was possible to see the basket for only its intrinsic qualities--without connotation. I would agree, but I would also disagree with stephen's assertion that see beauty for what it is, without desiring to have it or be part of it, is not the ideal--i believe that's a bastardized, backward, ineffectual way of looking at the world, and it's hardly possible; we are creatures who inherently admire beauty and want to be part of it, and we can't admire anything without either indulging ourselves in experiencing it or else emulating it. Stephen expresses his view that i detest so much when he is witness to the bird-girl, but while he describes his aesthetic theory to Lynch, he says that art is a recreation of the beauty we understand in the world--not that we see, but that we understand. on page 37, when he is a small child, he make the observance that, "by thinking of things, you could understand them." to think of something as more than to be witness to it--it's to incorporate it into your mind, to be part of it. to justify his two views, i could say that he changed his mind, or i could say that he makes a clear distinction between apprehending beauty and creating art. beauty evokes either a kinesis or a stasis of thought, the stasis leads to understanding which leads to art. the observer can either indulge in the kinesis or in the stasis; lynch wrote his name on the ass of the Venus--Stephen sees the beauty in a basket and uses it to share his understanding of beauty.
The class discussion about A Portrait of the Artist provided a different point of view from how I read the text. Our class focused on identity, or lack of identity that was blatant throughout the novel. We discussed how Stephen bounced from extreme to extreme and never really found his true identity or meaning. Zoe pointed out the importance of the scene with Emma as he finally sees what he believes is true beauty without any feelings of lust or desire. This is in contrast to the drastic piety that he expirements with as he is invited to be a priest. This demonstrates a new found independence that has not surfaced since the beginning of the book. Also many students pointed out that Stephen has constantly been trying top please people, an idea that he abandons in chapter 5 and develops as an artist as well as a human being in general.
ReplyDeleteI like what Elizabeth said about the two extremes: wanting to please and refusing to please. In the begging, like she said, Stephen is to young to understand that he is being made fun of and makes several unsuccessful attempts to adjust. In this case, he tries to please those around him so that they will stop teasing him, but fails pretty miserably. Throughout the story, Stephen goes through various phases of attempting to please those that hold power over him - such as the bullies - and later, the church. Interspersed throughout these appeasement binges are swings in the opposite direction, towards complete rebellion.
ReplyDeleteIn his younger years, Stephen not only attempted to fit in with and to please his fellow classmates, but tried to do the same with his superiors. In some cases he succeeded, in others, he failed. The cycle of appeasement attempts continue into his early teenage years, at which point he can no longer stem the tide of rising emotions within him. These emotions, which to him are completely without explanation, create a seemingly unsolvable problem of self explanation. At this point, he is not able to satisfy himself, let alone those around him. So he rebels, goes off on a tangent and sleeps with a lot of prostitutes, all in the name of quelling the surge of his disturbing emotions.
After this period of rebellion, Stephen again swings in the opposite direction and seeks to purify his soul with the help of the church. He continues in this vein for a while but decides, after being offered a chance at priesthood, to go back to a less pure, but not awful, way of life. He decides to stick with this new tack and to take it even further, in the end declaring his independence from the church and in so doing, ceasing his attempts at appeasement.
What Henry had to say about Stephen viewing art in a scientific way struck me particularly because of how connected I think Stephens artistic views and his attempt to make sense of the world are. Stephen's theory about the"whatness" of an object do serve him in his art, but they also I think stem from his struggles with comprehending the actions of those around him, as well as his own actions. His problems with viewing things in their entirety seems very noticeable, especially when it comes to women. They are either full of sin, or completely pure, because of this, even when he sees the girl wading in the water, and thinks he sees her "whatness" in reality he is only seeing the other side of an extreme. I think it is a step in the right direction, because only once both sides have been acknowledged can they be combined into a complete perspective. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that Stephen's artistic attempt seeing "whatness" is never going to be successful, but in the attempt he will be better able to understand the world, and people.
ReplyDelete*Was not here on day of discussion.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Elizabeth was saying about Stephen’s relationship with religion, I agree with nearly everything she mentioned. Religion helped Stephen overcome the constant worry of what his standing was with God, his family, and his peers. It was only after becoming completely reliant on the catholic religion, in hopes of washing away some of the many sins he committed, that he was able to truly see how much better off he could be without it altogether. It opened his eyes to the vast artistic development he could be capable of if religion was no longer his concern. I must disagree with Pauline’s comment that Stephen is able to not think only pure and clean thoughts when seeing the girl bathing in the water towards the end of the novel. I believe that the complicated feelings he has toward women is a part of him he will never really be able to escape and that at that point he is still not able to view women in an entirely normal way. I will agree with Pauline that at that moment he has certainly reached a new point in his life where his view on women is certainly better off than it had been and the insight he is granted here helps him become the artist he aspires to be. I think now Stephen has the capability to control his inappropriate emotions toward women but that they are not completely gone or erased from him. I believe in dealings with women he could still encounter problems later throughout his lifetime.
During Wednesday's discussion, there were a few things that were brought up that I hadn't really stopped to think about before. Something that especially struck me was Zoe's comment about the girl in the water. When I initially read through that part of the book, I noticed that the scene seemed to be important, but I never actually went back to look at it more closely. However, after it was mentioned that Joyce was using particular wording to describe the girl, I went back and thought about that scene in a different way. It's very interesting how he described this mysterious girl in words that could describe a bird. This is a turning point in the book, because this is when Stephen can see something beautiful without being filled with lust. He can look at something with beauty and that it free, and not not feel shameful at all. When he saw the girl in the water, he was able to, for the first time, see someone who was beautiful and not concerned with the fact that they were so. This realization that Stephen makes is the first step of him becoming more aware of who he is. After this scene it becomes more obvious that his time of always seeming to be searching in life for something is coming to a close.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Elizabeth said about wanting to please and wanting to not please. All i wanted to say during the discussion is that Stephen struggles a lot with what he wants and what society wants. He, for a long time, was always trying to please people. He went out of his way to follow his religion and be as holy and selfless as possible. This wasn't working for him and we can see that throughout the book. There is always another side pulling at him with equal strength. That side consisted of his wants, desires, and dreams. He was attracted to women, all the time. He wanted to explore and depict art. For example, when he saw a woman walking across a beach, he saw beauty and was physically attracted to her. His religion told him not to pursue her or use her for any form of art. Stephen needed to be able to express himself and seeing this woman was very symbolic for him. He realized that he isn't a horrible person or all of the things religion has been telling him, he is himself.I think that overall, the book was weird. I am happy he chose a life of art over priesthood. As long as he is happy, I believe he is doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Portrait of the Artist discussion on Wednesday, many different ideas were given but there was one that stuck with me a bit more than others. The idea of figuring out when exactly his identity is found was portrayed through the book as the moment he sees the girl on the beach, but I felt it was more of a process. Seeing her on the beach may have been that accepting moment but when exactly was the release, that created room for the acceptance? One of the major turning points was the moment he realized religion wasn't going to save him from his sins. As Zoe mentions, the way Stephen viewed women was one of his biggest struggles. Through out much of the first part of the book, because of one instance with the prostitute, all female figures become somewhat tarnished. Religion was something he grew up with, it was something he was taught from a young age, but most importantly, it was suppose to forgive you. The pureness of the world of religion that he was trapped in seemed to keep him from growing in the way that was favorable for him.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man I had a hard time putting all the intricate pieces together, however after the discussion I was able to hear what others took out of it and build my own understanding. I really liked what Pauline said during the discussion concerning Stephen's search for identity. During most of his early adulthood Stephen did not know what he was meant to do in life, and in turn he did not know what was truly best for him. He grew from a wandering soul without an idea where he should turn to, to an individual whose soul was open to the world. Stephen's dramatic changes from a believer in his religion, to a sinner, back to a devoted believer and finally to an understanding artist twisted and turned his track many times. Another point which was brought up was Stephens constant desire to please others. However, the major twists and turns which he made in his life seem to be more for him. Smaller details in his life, such as his answer when asked about kissing his mother, as well as many others concerning his schooling and his family seem to be decisions that he made with others in mind.
ReplyDeleteA scene that really hit me was the scene involving the girl wading in the water. It was such a pivotal scene in Stephen's life and it really expanded my view of Stephen. I liked what Zoe said about that scene. I liked how she described what Stephen saw as her "whatness" because what he was seeing was exactly the opposite of how he had been previously thinking. The realization of her being in an artistic way completely changed his perspective of the world around him as well as settled his troubled mind.
I appreciated Zoë mentioning Stephen’s experience with seeing the woman in the water. I hadn’t quite read this passage closely and therefore didn’t notice the great significance of this incidence. This particular part of the discussion made me go back and look over the end of chapter IV. (I copied and pasted the dots for Zoë, I hope she’s grateful for the trouble I went through to find an e with dots.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I liked Henry’s ideas about Stephen’s philosophy. While reading, my attention was frequently drawn towards Stephen’s analytical—but allegedly “artistic”—thoughts. A particular thing Stephen said regarding art irritated me, he claimed that literature was the highest and most spiritual art form. I disagree, and I would like to see his argument. He provides little support for this statement. This isn’t a particularly insightful observation, but it made me even more angry with Stephen than I already was.
The discussions between Stephen and his friends in chapter V were important displays of how he had developed and I’m glad that Elizabeth mentions them. For me, the simple fact that Stephen was talking to people about something so significant was surprising and a little refreshing. However, it seems that just when he starts to become more social he leaves to pursue his career as an “artist.” During his discussion with Cranly, Stephen said some things which made me conclude that he was incapable of loving anyone or anything. To me, it seemed like it was a foreign concept to him. I was somewhat disturbed but not surprised. A display of his inability would be his ‘interactions’ with prostitutes which not only related to his feelings of lust, but were also desperate attempts at connecting with someone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese are some great responses -- thank you for taking time to fully develop your thoughts. I'm glad that many of you took some issue with Stephen in the end or found some discord in his theory. It seems like the problem for many of you rests on the concept of beauty: as artists, can we really be at an almost clinical remove from the object of beauty or meaning we're intending to represent? How can we avoid being "kinetic" as artists and readers? We should keep these questions in mind as we move on to the next group of books.
ReplyDelete