The Hudson River School Response

The Hudson River School (1825-1880) was a school for artists who painted the wilderness of America and it was actually a government sponsored school. It was the first coherent school of American art and shaped the vision of American landscape. These were the first paintings that were attributed to America. These paintings were so important because they broadcasted the wilderness that America still had instead of Europe who had built up buildings all through their wilderness. Nobody believed that these paintings were real, the wilderness was too good to be true and in fact, the way the artists painted their scenes, it made people want to go to the places in the paintings because they looked so nice. Everyone who saw these paintings wanted to move west, they were an open gate for westward expansion.

            Thomas Cole- The Ox Bow (1836)

            I think the way that Cole portrayed nature in this painting is generally nice but he added in the rain clouds on the left side of the painting which made it look a little dark and scary, like the clouds are coming in to take over the happy scene on the right side of the picture. This connects with the HRS and their ideals because like I said, the right side of the picture looks happy and carefree so it looks live-able. Cole didn’t paint animals or any sense of danger except the weather but who sees that as a major threat?

            Asher Durand- Kindred Spirits (1849)

            In this picture, Durand portrays nature as an oasis. There is not a thing in this picture that gives me the feeling that there might be danger lurking in the woods. It doesn’t help that the men are in normal clothes of that time, not hunting and trapping clothes. This scene makes you think, wow, I could be out there too. It looks so nice, let’s go! This is the epitome of the ideals of the artists of the HRS because they painted the American landscape in an appealing way that made people want to visit that place.

Jasper Francis Cropsey- Autumn- On the Hudson River (1860)

            This picture is beautiful. Cropsey definitely painted this as an oasis as well. This picture is actually better than the last picture because it looks way more peaceful. With no people already there, it looks like something you could go to and have a great time at, make a nice home for yourself. There is no hint of danger. In fact you can’t even begin to imagine there could be danger there at all.  Once again, this definitely ties in with romanticizing the American west because they painted pictures that made everyone feel this way.  It made people want to move there, which they did.

            I connect the artists and paintings of the HRS to Polemic and Abbey’s shear love for the wildlife. Abbey loved his national park so much as he said here, “Could there be a more genuine testimonial to its beauty and integrity?” (pg. 386) I think that the artists tried to make everyone have that king of love for the wilderness by painting it in such a heavenly way. I think that they accomplished their goals since so many people wanted to move to these wild places after they viewed the art of the Hudson River School artists.

A Fable for Tomorrow

     A Fable for Tomorrow is about a town that at first is full of life and nature. There are farms everywhere with an abundance of animals on them. The hills were always green and there were always birds out, even in the winter. Then all of a sudden, things started to die, there was sickness throughout the town, the crops withered away, and the people could no longer hear the songs of the birds. This downfall was not due to witchcraft because it turns out the people had done this to themselves. Of course, this is something that the author, Rachel Carson, made up but she says, “Yet every one of these disasters has actually happened somewhere, and many real communities have already suffered a substantial number of them.” (pg. 371)

            Because I read her bio, I knew that one of the issues Rachel Carson focused on was DDT, a pesticide. I think Fable is about the pesticides but I also think it’s about something much bigger than that. I think she was trying to say that it will start with something like pesticides but then move into much bigger issues. For example, not recycling and polluting our planet will lead to not only small areas suffering but also larger areas, growing into the entire world that will suffer from our bad decisions. I think it’s funny that she lived so long ago and thought that we were killing our environment; I wonder what she would say now. I think she would be really appalled at the way we live life.

Reflect and Connect: Week 7

Connect:

Refelct:
     This week in class, we read and talked about an article called Polemic. The author, Edward Abby, rants about how we put roads through the natioanl parks attracting more motorized vehicles and how we should keep the vehicles out of the parks and use our bodies to get around them and see the parks instead. I agree with Abby because I have a personal connection that I can make to driving in a car through a national park.
    I have been to Yellow Stone three times and each time we drive through it to our destination but we never stop and get out of the car. I like the outdoors and I think it's pretty, but being stuck in a car for hours just driving by endless stretches of trees is really boring and that is not how I want to spend my "vacation". I would rather be out there, smelling the leaves and feeling the breeze and sun on my skin. I agree with Abby and say that you really have an experience in nature when you are in it. It's not the same thing to see it at a distance.

Polemic

Edward Abby grew up in Pennsylvania and wrote his own comic books as a kid. He served in the military after WWII and went to the University of New Mexico. He then wrote books about how much he loves the land.

            The general argument made by Edward Abby in his work Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks is that we should leave nature how it is. More specifically, Abby suggests that we should have parks that no motor vehicles can enter. He writes, “Get out of your motorized vehicle, get on your horse, mule, bicycle or feet, and come on in. Enjoy yourselves. This here park is for people.” (pg. 390) In this passage, Abby is saying that no matter how we decide to travel through a park, it shouldn’t be in a car. In conclusion, it is Abby’s belief that we should leave parks how they originally were and leave the cars out of it.

           
          In my view, Abby is right because we have turned parks into a sit in your car and travel

through it kind of thing were we really should be out experiencing it. For example, I have been to

Yellow Stone three times and I hated it each time because we just drove through it. I don’t think

spending hours in the car looking at miles of trees is a vacation. It was stupid and I’d rather be out

exploring than in the car. Although Abby might object that Yellow Stone is beautiful enough to look

at it from the car, I maintain that there is no where pretty enough to visit three times and not get

out of the car. Therefore, I conclude that we do need to get out of our cars and experience the

parks in their natural state like they were meant to be experienced.

Reflect and Connect: Week 6

Connect:

Reflect:
Above is a picture of my brother, Jake, with his first elk. My dad with a fish and his halibut, and my brother's first deer.
In class we were talking about hunting and how many of us do it and how many of us eat exotic meat. I don't hunt myself but obviously my brother does and my dad is an avid fisherman. I used to fish all of the time and I thought it was really fun and I like the feeling of catching something all on my own. I also liked that I was a catch and release kind of girl, which benefited both me and the fish. As I got older, I no longer liked fishing. I think it's boring all for a catch and release deal. I don't oppose hunting or fishing but I think you should do either for more than sport. You should use as much of the animal you can so that you don't waste anything. Your catch should be more than just a trophy on the wall. Jake has been on the deer hunt and the elk hunt. He got his first deer this year as well and he sends his catches into a meat plant to get them turned into hamburger, sausage, steaks, jerkey, and salami. I don't know how much of the animal that they use but I feel that we get a lot of meat back so I feel that it's ok that Jake is a hunter. Also, him and my dad have been to Alaska to fish for halibut and salmon and they alsways come back with a lot of fish. This is where I think we waste a lot of animal. We always have so much fish in our freezer and we don't eat it often. I don't even like fish! We give it away a lot so that's good. My entire point is that you should hunt an animal if you need to and take as much as you can from it because that is the way of the food chain and also you shouldn't hunt just for sport.

Wildlife in American Culture

Aldo Leopold is considered the father of wildlife ecology, growing up in Iowa and receiving a Master of Forestry from Yale University. He spent 19 years in the US forest service working in Wisconsin. He was then appointed Professor of Game Management in the Agricultural Economics Department at the University of Wisconsin.

            The general argument made by Aldo Leopold is that natural experiences are good for us. More specifically, Leopold suggests that we need reminders of our origins and dependency on the land. He writes, “First, there is a value in any experience, which reminds us of our distinctive national origins and evolution… Second, there is value in which reminds us of our dependency on the soil-plant-animal-man food chain. Third, the conquest of nature by machine has led to much unnecessary destruction of our resources.” (pg. 372) In this passage Leopold is suggesting that we need to go back to our original roots of living in nature for value and also, we are using up resources. In conclusion, it is Leopold’s belief that we need to be more in touch with nature.

            In my view, Leopold is right because I think being out in nature is nice and I think it has some calming effects but also makes you feel… more primal than you are. For example, I go camping a lot and I like when I can make a fire on my own without help from any other people or chemicals. I feel really accomplished and I feel like I could survive in the wilderness if I wanted to. In reality I probably couldn’t but it feels that way when you accomplish something in nature. Although Leopold might object that conquering nature in the sense of doing something on your own isn’t what he meant, I maintain that it still feels like I could go kill a deer with my bare hands if I needed to. Therefore, I conclude that we need to be more in touch with nature.

Reflect and Connect: Week 5

Connect:

Reflect:
We discussed Walden in class and we were talking about happiness and what it is and there was a debate on success equaling happiness or happiness equaling success. In my opinion, happiness is success. I feel this way because I can make a personal connection with "success is happiness". I come from a family where if you ask for something, you will get it. In my experience, I want something really bad and I ask for it, I then receive it, but then as time wears on, I no longer feel the need to play with or use my new toy. Over time the novelty of it wears off and I stop paying attention to it after a week maybe. The new object made me happy for a period of time, not for the rest of my life. It didn't better me as a person. I don't even use the new object again, it's just nice to say I have it. Having all of these things in my life makes me no happier. I am happiest with my friends, doing things that make me feel like I have a purpose. Objects don't do that for me. I have another connection I can make with objects because of a close friend. The same thing happens to her. She wants something really bad to the point where she thinks she NEEDS it so she buys it and then about a week later she stops using it and I never see or hear about it again. There are more important things in life than a fancy house or car. Happiness is success.

Intro/Peach Blossom

At the beginning of the article, the author just tries to ask what exactly nature is by asking a lot of questions to get us to think of what we think nature is. Then it goes on to talk about how nature is perceived in different cultures. For example, the English looks at nature as something that we can change and control to our liking; something that we are apart of but the Native Americans saw themselves as part of the nature that surrounded them. “Europeans talked of ‘landscapes’ which they stood outside of and could manipulate and in this sense were very unlike Native Americans who saw themselves, as Leslie Marmon Silko tells us, as part of what they surveyed and thus who did not presume to tamper with what had been created.” (pg. 342) When I read the part of the article about the cave drawings relating people to animals I thought of the movie Ice Age when Manny sees the cave drawings and pictures how his family died because of the hunters.

            The Peach Blossom story is about a fisherman who is floating down a river and then sees beautiful peach trees and floats farther down coming to a cave with light coming through it. He goes in the cave and discovers a whole colony of people who moved away from the dynasties that ruled the land. They tell him not to mention them when he goes back to his city but he does. People try to find the cave again but they never do. I think this means that if you are one with nature, or if you understand it and respect it, you are kind of more powerful I guess you could say, than other people. The best way I can explain that is using Pocahontas as an example. When she sings about all of the colors in the wind, you can see the colors and it almost seems like the wind is responding to Pocahontas. Another example is the tree that comes to life to talk to her. I think that is metaphorical saying that if you “listen” to the signs of nature, you can understand it. One more example from Pocahontas that is great is the fact that she can approach wild animals and they are not scared of her. What I’m trying to say is the colony in the cave probably just knew how to hide themselves by using nature and nature was willing to help them out. I think a very long time ago, with the Native Americans, we appreciated nature but these days we take it for granted by using up all of its resources and polluting it.

Reading Quiz 2

We, as a country, only see an argument or conflict as having two sides: a right and a wrong side. We don’t know how to think through a problem and discover more angles that we could possibly think about. We think that because there are no other options, we have to choose one or the other. This also affects the way that we have learned how to argue. We see arguments as a war; something to “win” or “lose” at. We don’t realize that an argument can be a simple conversation, a sort of sparring match if you will, that by the end we shake hands and have more insight than we did at the beginning. Argumentation is a way to become less ignorant about an issue rather than beat your opponent with your words.

            In the article A Method for Reading, Writing, and Thinking Critically by Kathleen McCormick, her general argument is that “…we do not possess a wide spectrum of ways to adequately understand or negotiate the complex positions people occupy…” (pg. 21). In simpler terms, we can’t think for ourselves and so when we see the win or lose, right or wrong, we agree with one or the other. She also gives us a model for critically analyzing the varied texts around you, visual or written. We need to break them down through historical analysis or by cultural analysis. These will help you better think critically about an issue in the way of connections being made.

            I will use the example of being pro-life or pro-choice. I feel that whenever this issue comes up, you either have to be on one side or the other. I myself am a fence sitter on the issue. For example, I think it is ok to get an abortion if you have been raped, either by someone you didn’t know or by a family member leading to incest, or if the baby will damage the mother’s health. I don’t think its ok, however, if you simply don’t want the baby. Adoption would be a better choice in that situation. Personally, I think abortions are really sad and so inhuman that I would never get an abortion unless one of the three reasons I gave were specific to my situation.

            In the article Argumentation in a Culture of Discord by Frank L. Cioffi, he uses the idea that we see things in right or wrong, win or lose, black or white because of the media and that effects the way that we argue in this country. “Our media do not provide a forum for actual debate. Instead, they’re a venue for self-promotion and squabbling, for hawking goods, for infomercials masquerading as news or serious commentary. In terms of discussing issues, they offer two sides, pick one…” (pg. 63). This ties in that if we only have two views of an issue or argument, how can we expand the knowledge of it without broadening our horizons? We won’t be seeing all of the angles of the problem and therefore probably won’t implement the best way to solve a problem.

            A perfect example I have relates to my online government class. We are supposed to comment on a message board with our opinion, lately about super pacs, and then respond to someone else’s post. By doing this we see a majority of opinions and the reasons why. By reading the reasons why you start to stray off of your path of thinking onto their path and maybe change your view about it a little bit. I read a girls post and didn’t even think about the issue in that way at all and she opened my eyes to that line of thinking and I was actually excited because I now had another way to look at something I never would have thought of.

            On the other hand, I suppose one might argue that they have thought about the issue enough to know that only two arguments exist and there is room for no more. And why in the world would we see an argument as a polite conversation? The point of an argument, according to some people’s opinion, is to get the opponent to side with your opinion, because your opinion is the right opinion. There is no need to see anything in more than black and white. But that is just other people’s opinions.

Reflect and Connect: Week 4

Connect:

Reflect:
         I personally like to read. As talked about in class, it is the way I can "escape" from my reality. Some people said that music was the medium that they go to, and I don't disagree, but for me, I can get lost in a book quickly. I believe that even if people claim that they don't like to read, there is something out there for everyone that they will enjoy. That is why I put the first picture up there of a book called I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell by Tucker Max. I LOVE this book because it is so interesting and SO funny. I put it on my blog because I think this is a book that boys can relate to and as said in the article Why Literature?, boys/men are the people who read the least in our society. I think that this is such a guy book that anyone who picks it up would thoroughly enjoy it.
        I think literature is important to read because it keeps your brain engaged while you are doing it. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to implement critical thinking every second you are reading, it just means that your brain is being used. Besides, I think reading should be more for leisure and entertainment than anything else. Going back to what reading means to everyone, I think that if someone is told to read something, they will enjoy it less than if they were to read something on their own. For example, when we are assigned to read books in school, no one likes to do it because they are being forced to do it and the books the school chooses aren't interesting to everyone or even anyone. Or when we are assigned to read text books, no one wants to do that, we don't want to learn. Text books are boring and I feel that the words go through one side of the mind and right back out the other, something like words going in one ear and out the other. The information just doesn't stick in the mind when you are not interested and engaged in a piece of writing.

Education by Poetry

Robert Frost was a great American poet who lived in New England but didn’t become recognized until he moved to England. He returned to the US and his fame spread. He was a farmer who got inspiration from the land and faced the challenges of life head on.

The general point made my Robert Frost in his work Education by Poetry is that we have not been educated enough in contemporary literature. More specifically, Frost suggests that we need to be graded on taste and judgment and that we have not been educated enough in “finding our own way” through contemporary literature. He writes, “They don’t know what they may safely like in the libraries and galleries. They don’t know how to judge an editorial when they see one. They don’t know how to judge a political campaign. They don’t know when they are being fooled by a metaphor, an analogy, a parable… Education by poetry is education by metaphor.” (pg. 48) In this passage Frost is suggesting that we need to be more educated in literature but also that we are taught by metaphor in poetry. In conclusion, it is Frost’s belief that we are uneducated and need to become that way so we know when to not believe a metaphor.

In my view, Frost is right because I feel that we don’t study poetry and writing enough. For example, I had no idea what Hamlet was about because I have never read it in school and I’m not willing to read it on my own time. Although Frost might object that Hamlet is in the curriculum, I maintain that not everyone has read it and we would benefit from it. Therefore I conclude that Frost is right because we do need to learn more about poetry and writing in general and we are uneducated in it.

Why Literature?

Mario Vargas Llosa is a Peruvian novelist that began his career in 1957 with publications of short stories. In the 1960’s he began publishing the novels that would make him successful. He is active in his country’s political life. He ran for president of Peru and was defeated and then moved to London.

            The general point made by Mario Vargas Llosa in his work Why Literature? is that reading has become obsolete. More specifically, Llosa suggests that the number of men who read is decreasing while the number of women who read outnumbers the men. He writes, “According to the widespread conception, literature is a dispensable activity, no doubt lofty and useful for cultivating sensitivity and good manners, but essentially an entertainment, an adornment that only people with time can afford.” (pg. 39) In this passage, Llosa is suggesting that men claim they like reading but don’t have time for it because it is something that is for entertainment only. In conclusion, it is Llosa’s belief that reading has decreased because people think they are too busy to sit down and read a book, specifically men.

            In my view, Llosa is totally right because I feel like people don’t read at all. For example, I really like to read and I read all the time when I have free time and when I tell people that they give me a weird look and ask, “You like to read? Who reads these days?” Another great example is that a teacher friend of mine told her students to read about one hundred pages in the time span of a week and they complained that they couldn’t read that much in a week. Although Llosa might object that there are people who do in fact read, I maintain that it isn’t very common. Therefore, I conclude that Llosa is right when he thinks people don’t take the time to read anymore.

Shakespeare in the Bush

Laura Bohannan is a cultural anthropologist. She has a degree from Oxford University and worked in West Africa with her husband studying the Tiv tribal culture. This article, based on the information among the Tiv, appeared in Natural History Magazine.

            The general argument made by Laura Bohannan in her work Shakespeare in the Bush, is that human nature is the same around the entire world. More specifically, Bohannan suggests that the older works of our time will always be translated in the same way. She writes,”…at least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear-everywhere- although some details of custom might have to be explained and difficulties of translation might produce other slight changes.” (pg. 29) In this passage Bohannan is suggesting that interpretation of great works will be the same with slight differences with culture that can be easily explained. In conclusion, it is Bohannan’s belief that interpretation of work won’t be an issue because it will be translated in the same way.

            In my view, Bohannan is wrong because different cultures can interpret readings very differently than we do therefore changing the entire meaning. For example, the Tiv tribe obviously doesn’t understand the Hamlet in the way that Bohannan herself does and they change the work for her in a way that she didn’t look at it before. By the end of the reading you can tell that Bohannan changes her opinion from the beginning of the reading. Although Bohannan might object that the Tiv tribe is an extreme example of a culture difference, I maintain that there can be serious changes in interpretations because of culture difference. Therefore, I conclude that you can’t assume that a different culture is going to interpret a piece of work the same way that you do.

Reflect and Connect: Week 3

Connect:

 In Shakespeare in the Bush, I made the connection of misinterpretation. This is because the author thinks that the overall message of Hamlet would be understood world wide with slight variations through translation but the message itself wouldn't actually change. An example of misinterpretation I can think of is when one uses equivocal language, or ambiguous language. For example, "I got a buck last night!" Are we talking about a dollar bill or the animal? Did you win money or shoot a deer? The message all depends on how you interpret the meaning.

Reflect:
I thought it was interesting reading Shakespeare in the Bush because before I read the story, I had the same opinion as the author. Hamlet is a commonly known story that you would assume everybody understood in the same way. However, with the Tiv tribe being an illiterate tribe, they can't read or write. They have never heard the story before until the author told it to them. This left them to dissect the story in a way that matched their customs and beliefs. For example, when the author talks about the ghost appearing, they don't believe in such a thing and claim it to be a sign of witch craft. I also enjoyed learning that the tribe starts drinking beer early in the morning. When I read that in the story, I didn't think of them as drunks, in fact I didn't even find it weird. I assumed it was a tribe custom and didn't question it. As we talked about it in class, I think people opened their eyes when the point was brought up that they don't have clean drinking water so they make beer and that is what they drink. What I liked most about reading Shakespeare in the Bush is that by the end of the story, the author changes her opinion about the interpretation of Hamlet. Obviously these people in the tribe turned the story into something that the author had never thought about before and I liked seeing the change in her thinking.

Questions 2,3,5 page 75:

#2. I think that when I hear the news on the radio I understand it better because they are less formal about the news than they are on the TV and they make it simpler and condense it down more. I also think that radio is more objective they aren't neutral about the news like the people on TV have to be. They have their own opinions about the story and they are happy to share them.
#3. Some things I use everyday are shampoo, conditioner, soap, make up, clothes, contacts, pencils, paper, toothpaste, and sheets. Every item I use on a daily basis has been advertised at some point or another. I think our world is over run with advertising. In my health class we learned a statistic that said by the time a child is twenty, they will have been exposed to one million advertisements in their life. That is a lot of advertising.
#5. I think it is still possible to be a Renaissance Man. There is a lot of information in the world but it is still possible to get a little bit of knowledge from each subject. Even knowledge of the past is important. It is important to know what has happened so that you are aware of certain events and so that hopefully you will know how to prevent them in the future. It's like learning from mistakes. You can't learn from something that hasn't happened yet. Honestly, I think that schools don't need to "prepare" us for the amount of knowledge we are going to learn. A lot of the stuff we learn happens outside of school anyways.  I think schools should go on teaching how they are now and it will be fine. I do think though that schools shouldn't waste so much time on things that don't matter. Like assignments we do just to say that we've done something but that we actually don't learn from. Schools should focus on the basics of what we need to learn and then send us on our way. Humanities knowledge helps us understand people better and it helps us become better critical thinkers in the long run. By taking humanities, we are learning how to dissect a thought and respond in a critical manner.

Reading and Interpretation Exercise

Reading and Interpretation Exercise

Musee des Beaux Arts

Page 36-38

Amanda Rekoutis

      1.      Subject: ‘The Old Mastsers’ the subject is in second line of poem. Words in ‘incorrect order’

2.      Auden Argument is “The old masters were never wrong about suffering.”

3.      He begins with the general statement and moves more and more into specifics into the picture.

4.      We don’t think of other peoples suffering and we don’t consider it as much as we should, that’s what he’s trying to say. The old masters knew how to portray human pain and suffering.

5.      He makes his argument by saying that everyone turned away from the drowning of the boy.

6.      Yes he provides evidence by using examples like the plough man that could have heard the splash and the cry or the ship that had somewhere to be and sailed on.

7.      The title means museum of beautiful art obviously it’s in French.

8.      Yes Musse looks like museum and beaux apparently looks like beautiful.

9.      The old masters are the old artists. It’s capitalized because it is important. I can find out more by researching it on my own.

10.  Brueghel’s Icarus is a painting that shows a young man drowning with no one helping him or even acknowledging that he is there.

11.  He moves through the poem by being general and then getting more specific. Starting with his general statement and then using examples from the painting.

12.  Yes I agree because I feel that we are well aware that people suffer every day and yet we turn a blind eye and do nothing to help them. For example, all of the kids in Africa who have no water or even food and I know that there are programs and donations to help but a lot of people don’t even think about it during their day.

13.  I think with Auden being alive around world war two, he was right in the middle of major suffering and I think that effected what he says. Because obviously the entire German race knew what was going on and yet they kept quiet. Living in the 30’s totally affected his views on suffering. We couldn’t even grasp how emaciated the Jews were when they left concentration camps and he was there to witness it firsthand.

14.  He says the old masters are never wrong when they display suffering because they are very observant of that and they are very concerned about the humanities and how everyone is affected by it and they know every detail of it enough to portray it exactly how it is and how it should  be.

15.  This says that the old masters are considered great because they are able to portray and notice the suffering that goes on around them when everyone else turns away from it and pretends that they don’t see it. This is the case because like I said, they observe it and know the ins and outs of suffering so they are experts.

16.  Yes being in a museum affects his views because he is seeing the art of the old masters and those are the ones that he thinks are the greatest artists of all time, which they were, that’s why they are in the museum, and so he is swayed by the way they paint.

17.  He uses the painting for examples since there are great examples in the painting of people ignoring suffering while suffering is going on.

18.  I think there might be historical similarities that connect Auden’s views to the old masters’ views. For example, Auden was around during world war two and the death and dying but the old masters were around when the world wasn’t extremely evolved yet and they didn’t really know how to get the best out of life. So the quality of life wasn’t very good. I’m sure the masters looked around and saw suffering in the street every day with poor people and people who needed food.

19.  I think that if Auden hadn’t have been alive in the 30’s, that would have made a difference in the way he did interpret the old masters because he wouldn’t have been right in the middle of so much pain and suffering and maybe he wouldn’t have known any better.

20.  Painting can be read by how our eye moves through the picture and what the images we see tell us about the picture by how we interpret them. The details in a painting help us distinguish and add more clues to the story that we have created in our minds.

21.  By looking at the title, we would expect to see a falling of someone or something named Icarus. We really see a scene that looks like normal town life until you notice the legs that are disappearing into the water at the side of the picture. To me, the plough man and the field at the “front” of the picture dominates it because it is closest to the “seer” and it is the largest subject.

22.  I feel that the picture is not symmetrically balanced and that helps the way your eye moves through the piece, finally landing on the legs of Icarus and that is how the painting wants me to “see” Icarus. Icarus, though, is actually hard to notice because he is so small. But the way the light color of the legs stands out in the dark of the water makes me know that I am to notice him. I think he is so small because that is the point of people ignoring suffering. The old masters wanted to prove that people don’t notice and made him something of a “Can you see what I see” thing.

23.  The people in the painting appear that they don’t know someone is drowning at all. They are carrying on as if they don’t see him and no one appears to be on the verge of helping him. This matches perfectly with what Auden says. I think this means that he read the painting very well because he knows what he is talking about. I also think Brueghel’s context is great for the painting because of the historical and cultural connections it makes.

24.  I don’t know if his interpretation was correct because I had no idea it was a story so I would need to go look up the poem and try to figure out what it was about and see if my interpretation of the poem matched the one that Brueghel himself had.

25.  The main difference I can see is that I don’t see the father in the sky in front of Icarus with his own wings on. I also can see the feathers but there would be no way to assume that the feathers were from the boy himself, flying on wings that his father made.

26.  Ovid’s view is so different because humans and human nature was so different 1600 years ago and we or even Brueghel couldn’t relate to him because we live in different time periods than Ovid did.

27.  I have no idea what was happening in the first century when Ovid wrote so I don’t know how it would affect his story telling. Maybe something to do with the Spartans? I don’t know but it would change the meaning of the picture by how people saw death at that time.

28.  I like the picture personally and I don’t think I would notice the legs right off the bat and if I did I wouldn’t connect them to some sinister meaning. Obviously I would know that person was drowning but I wouldn’t put a story behind it. Or even really think about it (point proven by Auden).

29.  I think overall yes, I am confused. I don’t remember who wrote the poem, I don’t know who wrote the article in my textbook, I don’t know who painted the painting.  And I am confused why all of this is connected. I think its cool how it is and how one person comments on another person’s work but I am a little confused.

30.  I would agree with the author and say that no one pays attention to suffering and pain. But I haven’t studied the old masters work enough to agree that they understood it best. 

31.  I assume that because the poem was written around World War II that he was mainly focusing on suffering and pain but what if the boy was fine with dying? Maybe he didn’t suffer. How are we to know?