Michigan Wild Things

When I first came to college I could relate to Max. I was in this new environment and everything around me seemed new and foreign. My old dwelling and surroundings turned into this “forest” over night. I had no mom telling me to clean my room, to shower, or to eat healthy. I came to this forest and found myself surrounded by wild things! Scary lecture classes with three hundred plus students, a meal plan i quite didn’t understand, clubs I don’t know how to join because I get bombarded with too many emails, and people who I’ve never met in my life. I was completely torn out of my bubble and thrust into the midst of the wild. The teachers showed me “their terrible roars” with essays and midterms, and these strange peers showed “their terrible claws” and worked harder and played harder than any other kids I know. In the story Max was able to tame these wild things and become the king. It’s hard coming to college and hard to adapt to all these new strange things around us, but, as max teaches us, “if you surrender to the wind, you can ride it.” If we accept that we have to write essays, accept that we are going to have to eventually meet new people, and accept that a class of three hundred is no big deal we can succeed. It took some time to adopt this mentality at first because it seems like you are succumbing to peer-pressure and just trying to conform instead of being unique. In reality you are just accepting the way things are and learning how to survive in this jungle. The best part of this book is that no matter where I am, I know I can always go back home to a loving family like max came back to find his supper waiting for him.

Close Looking at the UMMA

Our past few class assignments have made me think about an interesting question for all of us to consider: What makes a "good" interpretation? Close looking and reading breaks down large images and texts to scrutinize every possible detail in order to support an idea. The key word that Sendak focuses on is "interpretation". Interpretation makes up the foundation of what we call the humanities--where there is more than one right answer to every question, and each and every point of view can yield a different conclusion. Hence, an objective critique of one's subjective interpretation cannot be based on that interpretation, but rather on one's ability to support their ideas with significant and relevant evidence.

As I stared at the sculpture that I chose to focus on last week it didn't take long for me to realize that it will be impossible to ever know what this piece really means without consulting its creator. I felt like I was cheating when, after a few minutes of blankly staring at the elegantly welded hodgepodge of semi-human metal body parts, I peeked at the placard set of to the side. The placard mentioned a few names, dates and places--all unfamiliar to me--and then it discussed the meanings that some art historian assigned to a few regions of the piece. I immediately began to disagree with the historian's conclusions. The placard never explained why these assumptions would be true, and I had no specific knowledge with which to validate them. Apart from being credited as a professional in this field, I had no reason to consider his assumption more or less valid than mine.

This whole situation reminds me of a great quote I found on the internet (of all places):

"You Can’t Believe Most of the Quotes You Read On the Internet” -Abraham Lincoln

In the context of Abraham Lincoln quotes, this example is obviously fabricated, but when it comes down to a literary or visual analysis of a work, understanding which interpretations are reliable can be quite difficult. What it comes down to is one's ability to support an opinion. That is where I feel specific knowledge comes into play. Knowing close to nothing about cubism or metalwork from the late 30's, perhaps it would be difficult to support my opinion. But, just the same, anyone else's opinion is only as strong as the evidence that supports it.

What Is Art?

In my high school English class we did a group project revolving around the question “what is art?” The word “art” seems so commonplace, but try to stick a definition to it—it’s a lot tougher than you might think.

For one part of this project my group members and I walked around downtown interviewing random people and asking for their interpretation of the word “art.” One man claimed that “art is making something out of nothing and making money off of it.” A second man said that “art is drawings and designs.” And a lady claimed that “it’s a form of expression that goes beyond words.”

I found it interesting that when we asked the question, “what is art?” seven out the ten people interviewed implied that art is solely visual, four claimed that art involves a career or income, and four additional interviewees (not included in the ten used for the project) could not even answer the question.

Perhaps we were asking a trick question though. Does art really have a set definition? Depending on the perspective, art can range from literature, to paintings/ drawings, to dance and music, to fashion, to architecture, and so far beyond.

Wikipedia claims that “art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.” While this may be one of the better definitions I’ve come across so far, I still notice a couple of flaws. My first problem with this definition is that many artists do not do things deliberately. Some let the paint drip, some smash and overlap objects randomly until they’re satisfied with the appearance--a lot of times art is accidental, not deliberate. This definition also implies that something considered to be art to one person may not be considered art to another. But does this mean that if one person’s emotions, sense or intellect are not affected by a certain painting he can say that it’s not art, even if someone else thinks it is?

Our visit to the art museum raised this question in me. As we stood in front of the first abstract painting where Mark introduced us to art analysis, I overheard someone say “that’s not art, I could do that.” And I think that fosters an interesting conversation…

Protecting Children

As I read "An Interview with Maurice Sendak," his thoughts on the exposure of children to the media really struck a chord with me. Growing up, I wasn't allowed to watch TV or listen to popular music or see movies because it was part of the curriculum of my school - the point was to keep the innocence of childhood for as long as possible. As far as I can tell, it worked. Kids at my school spent their time creating things, exploring and learning. We weren't even given homework until 5th grade, so preserving our childhood innocence and curiosity was really a primary goal of my elementary school. When Sendak mentioned how he thought it was ridiculous that we try to control what children read, and that only books that "follow the course of what a childhood specialist considers right" are okay, it really prompted me to think about how much media children are exposed to today. I don't know about you guys, but it really frightens me when I see a first grade girl wearing a sexy outfit singing Britney Spears. I think Sendak brings up a good point, from the perspective of a picture book author, that what children read should really be the last of our concerns. With how the media permeates our lives on an every day basis, it seems like letting a child read what he or she wants isn't something we should be scared of. If anything, a child who wants to read at all in our current media-controlled society is something that should be encouraged. What do you guys think? Should we be scared of what children can read? Or does the issue lie more with controlling what children can see and hear in the media?

Daydream Believer

I would just like to preface my comments by saying that I am absolutely loving this book! I am so mad at myself for not listening to all my friends when they told me to read it all throughout high school. The way that Sylvia Plath writes is incredibly captivating and immediately draws me into the story. I feel for Esther, her anger and disappointment at Buddy Willard, and her feelings of having a stunted sense of direction. Who among us has never felt the emotions she has? Disappointment in a peer? Check. No clue what to do with your life? Check. Third wheel to a couple? Check. It happens to all of us. She weaves a story of such detail and description that even if I did not know that this book is semi-autobiographical, I would have guess that she poured her heart and soul into it.

For my blog post I would like to address a single sentence from the seven chapters we had to read.

"I wanted to crawl in between those black lines of print the way you crawl through a fence, and go to sleep under that beautiful big green fig tree" (Plath 55).

The moment I read this sentence, my heart surged with the recognition of a kindred soul. I consider myself to be an avid reader, whether it be The Help, Harry Potter, or The Catcher in the Rye, I'll read it all. And I cannot count the number of times I have finished reading a book only to want to spread it open and swan dive into the text. To become best friends with the characters I've fallen in love with and mess around with them throughout their adventures is my goal. What I wouldn't give to explore Redwall Abbey with Matthias, contemplate the American Dream with Nick Carraway, or pal around in Maycomb, Alabama with my two favorite characters of all time, Scout and Jem. Although, these are simply the wishes of an adolescent daydreamer, I shall continue to let my mind wander, for the possibilities of the impossible are endless.

Image of Purity and Whiteness in The Bell Jar

Has anyone read a book where the image of certain colors appears so many times he can't help but notice them? For example, I've read a couple books where the color red comes up several times, and accordingly, it symbolized Communism.

Well in this book, for chapters one through seven, I've notice the color white a couple dozen times, at least once a page. I'm sure everyone here too has noticed it. Here are a couple notes I have written to try and understand the purpose/ meaning of this:

1) We all know that white typically symbolizes purity and innocence and goodness (for lack of a better word),

a) (The word "pure" is also repeated several times)

2) however, the color white has some pretty negative associations, which is the opposite of white should do.

a) For Esther, white symbolizes a taint in this idea of purity. She believed Buddy to be pure and a virgin, and to be a wholly honest person. However, when she discovers his affair, not only is this idea innocence lost because she discovers he's not a virgin, she also loses her trust in him.

i)Notice how this happened after the baby was born, as Esther described. Babies being born should symbolize new life and purity, but for Esther, she associates this with Buddy's loss of innocence. She also describes the birth to look like torture, and to Esther, "whiteness" is a sort of torture because of what she associates it with.

ii) Also, Buddy had "white teeth" and a "white turtle neck."

b) Another bad association that I discovered is when she became ill from the crabmeat. This theory of mine is a little more far-fetched than the above one and a little harder to recognize, but I think it is plausible and relevant to the book. At this point in the book, there again are very many uses of the word "white." Also notice that what made her sick was the crabmeat, which was made with mayonnaise, which is white. Something about whiteness is not good for Esther. Crab meat is also is a symbol of wealth, because only the rich people eat it. We discussed on Wednesday that Esther is not very fond of this idea of wealth. Altogether, she has a "bad taste in her mouth" about wealth, which is associated with white,

i)and the reason I say wealth is associated with white is because many of the wealthier other women are described with images of whiteness. page 10 "[Doreen had] white hair and white dress she was so white she looked silver."

ii) There is also darkness to the whiteness and silver, as shown in this quote: "The same silver glow on them at the front and the same black shadow on the back of them." There are other examples of this too. ". . . stiff blond hair fell from [Doreen's] dark roots." This happened right after she was drinking and threw up in the hotel.

So I don't know. I could be right, I could be wrong. To me, it seems like something is going on with this "white" and "purity" and wealth thing. Are my outlined ideas far-fetched? or do you guys agree with me? What do you think?

The Bell Jar

Sylvia Plath's first chapter of The Bell Jar, which we read as a class, is definitely one of the most striking and intriguing first impressions that I've ever read. In her first paragraph, she considers the idea of being executed and being "burned alive." I, who have yet to find a passion for reading, was immediately intrigued. I wondered, is this what it takes to secure the reader's interest? Is it more or less vital to begin your novel off in a shocking, odd, or even controversial anecdote? I'm sure that for many other readers out there, introductions may be given some leigh-way in terms of how interesting they are. But for readers like me, who could live without reading books, I think that a different yet interesting introduction is really necessary in order to grab the reader's attention and make sure that they are truly enthralled and interested in every line that you write. 

There is definitely something fresh about her writing, though. From her frequent descriptions of what her true steam of thoughts are, to her perfectly accurate descriptions of New York, Plath's writing really captures my attention. Her constant focus on death, of some sort or another, did raise my attention because she killed herself not too long after the book was published. Now, looking back on it and knowing that she did take her own life, it leaves the novel with an eerie vibe (in my opinion) that may, actually, help make certain circumstances in the book that much more dramatic and intense.