Great Works II

Recently, I visited MoMA, the Museum of Modern Arts. This was actually my first time visiting the MoMA considering that I have lived in NYC my entire life. I haven’t been to a museum since the fourth grade if I can recall. As soon as I walked through the doors of the museum, I felt a bit irritated. Maybe because of all the tourists that were there.

The Main Exhibition on display was Robert Gober: The Heart Is Not a Metaphor. At first, all I wanted to do was to turn back around and go home, but as I walked deeper into the exhibition, my imagination expanded and further in i walked. It could’ve been the high ceilings with weird sequenced wall paper of private parts or sculptures of legs sticking out from the walls or lying on the floor. Or maybe it could’ve been his paintings that were filled mostly with dark colors and abstract which then I ironically found myself thinking to myself trying to figure out what could the meaning of Gobers art work be. Then it hit me, I wasn’t trying to figure out what they meant. His art reminded me of something. It reminded me of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor to be exact. The sculptures of legs placed throughout Gobers exhibit and paintings of  naked bodies reminded me of  how Victor was infatuated with the human body. Gobers paintings of symmetric stuff were mostly dark and creepy which reminded me of the book.

I had my mind set on leaving right after the exhibition but ended up staying for another hour and a half roaming around the fourth and fifth floors which were their private collections. I was pretty amazed looking at pieces from Picasso and Van Gogh because I’ve only seen there work through television or advertisements. to experience it up close and personal was a different feeling, or it could’ve been the hype with all the museum goers and tourists trying to take a picture of all the famous art work.

At the end, visiting the MoMA was an eye opener. It was nothing as I had expected it to be. It was an experience.

No blog post for me.

-Ramanpreet

“The Lamb” and “The Tyger” written by William Blake seems to be poems that are polar opposites of each other. “The Lamb” is written under the songs of innocence while “The Tyger” is written under the songs of experience. There was such happy and bright feelings in “The Lamb”; Blake uses such words to characterize the “lamb” as delight, softest, and bright. However, there were much more vicious words to describe the “tyger” in “The Tyger,” such as: burnt, dread and terror. Blake seems to portray innocence as something that everyone has when they are young. It is perpetual, after all, how could you know about the entire world when you are incredibly young? But in the case of the tyger, it seems that the tyger has gone through much more than the lamb has. The tyger is always questioning itself, always fighting with emotions, and always grasping with some kind of negative action. It even goes as far as to say, “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?” (339). It is wondering how someone who could make something so innocent, so cheery, and so positive make the tyger who is subject to all of these infernal feelings? It indeed questions the power of a supposed God, as the poem of “The Tyger” ends, “What immortal hand or eye / Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?” (339). Blake rationalizes that this supposed God wields immense power to create something in such a positive sphere as well as something in a negative sphere.

“Ode on Intimations of Immortality” written by William Wordsworth brings a much more light hearted point of view in my opinion. It depicts nature and all of its glory as well as childhood as one of the recurring themes. The poem always associates children as something extremely positive, such as, “Thou Child of Joy, Shout round me, let me hear thy shouts, thou happy / Shepherd-boy!” (355). It depicts scenes of children playing with nature while it also depicts adulthood in a negative way, remarking that it is always muddled with darkness. I get the feeling from the poems that children really do appreciate nature, yet as they grow older, they eventually lose that appreciation. However, the narrator seems to express extreme fondness of nature just like the children do. Although he has gotten older, he didn’t forget his childhood and his interaction of nature. He remarks that regardless of what humans do to nature, “The clouds that gather round the setting sun / Do take a sober colouring form an eye” (359), and the Earth will continue to turn as it has been doing.

Overall I found the progression of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to be very interesting and enlightening in terms of character development and the how the sublime affects other characters. It is evident that Shelly had written this purpose during the time to convey a warning to others of the dangers of the pursuance of knowledge. I found it interesting how in the story one would think that despite Victor’s wisdom and knowledge of the liberal arts, he could have foresaw the consequences of his creation. Therefore this goes to show how even the smartest or wisest of beings still fall victim to the ignorance that is a byproduct of the blissful knowledge they acquire. It is also interesting how Victor’s character undergoes a breakdown to the point where his “sanity” is on the brink of being destroyed.  This is clearly evident when his tumultuous emotions of guilt and despair in response to the loss of his loved ones are reflected through the sublime nature of the cold and desolate environment that is the setting for the begging and ending of the story.

I found it interesting how this arctic setting serves as a reflection for not just Victor, but also the “Creature”. The cold and harsh characteristics of this setting certainly transcends in the monsters hatred toward human society for shunning it and casting it as a being that does not belong to humanity. I also found the creature to be a very interesting character considering the identity in respect to whether or not it is even human. Therefore, the creature also illustrates the dangers of pursuing knowledge through its journey of learning about it’s identify. In this case, the danger is the revelation of the truth as to why humanity hates it. Thus, when the creature first knew of the reason, it began to question Victor’s intentions of creating and its rejection from Victor himself. Also I found the creature’s rapid mental development to be fascinating from the time it was reanimated to life to when it began learning how to read, and talk. Therefore, through learning to read and talk, the creature was able to perceive things around its environment related to itself. Thus, this higher level of thinking enabled the being to outsmart Victor. Furthermore, one can understand that Shelley was writing this novel to serve as a warning of the negative consequences that can happen if scientists abused their knowledge in seeking further truths of the field.  Therefore, such possibility of creating another human being may seem farfetched but not impossible.

“The Lamb” wrote by William Blake is a very interesting and symbolic poem. It starts with a very naive and profound question “little lamb, who made thee,” asked by a little child. Obviously, the little child is curious about the creation of a lamb; why a lamb has the “softest clothing”, “a tender voice” and can make “the vales rejoice”.  In the next stanza, the little child answers his own question in a mystical way. He tells readers that a little lamb is created by the person who calls himself a lamb. I was really confused at the first time, but I found that Jesus was symbolized as the sacrificial lamb in the story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22: 1-14) throughout my research. Implicitly, Blake refers Jesus as the one who creates the little lamb. This short poem is full of romanticism and vivid imagination. The author depicts the image of a child playing and talking to a little lamb. The tone of the poem is very peaceful, gentle and meek, which also reveals the child’s affection for Christian values and his faith in a benevolent world.

Blake begins with “The Tyger” the same way as he did in the “the lamb” by asking the question who creates a tiger. Then he elaborates more on the tiger’s physical frame including its eyes, wings and heart. In addition, he briefly mentions the process of creating a tiger. The difference between this poem and “The Lamb” is that Blake leaves readers an unanswered question. Who is the creator of a tiger? Is the creator a blacksmith sine he uses hammer, chain, furnace in the creation process? However, the author implies that it could be the same person who creates a lamb before. How could this be? If “The Lamb” is written from an innocent child’ perspective, “The Tyger” is more from the perspective of a middle-age man who has mixed feeling for the creator of the benevolent universe. Through two complementary poems, Blake shows us the complexity of Jesus’ creation and the inscrutability of his power.

“Ode on Intimations of Immortality” is the recollection of Wordsworth’s childhood, in which he describes the process of his growing up. The poem begins when Wordsworth self-discloses that he can’t see the things that he was able to see. When he was a child, everything is delightful and enjoyable; but that feeling fades away as “a glory has passed away from the earth”. As an adult now, joyous bird singing, sunshine and fresh flowers become merely “a thought of grief”. He wonders “where is it now, the glory and the dream”. From the stanza V to VII, the author takes us with him to his journey of growing up. From the stage as a new-born to the life of 6-year-old boy to other “humorous stages”, he concludes that all human life is just an imitation to each other. Here he raised another question why a child is so eager to become an adult when he can still enjoy the best part of his entire life. We might experience or at least understand this dilemma-the youth wants to grow up quickly while the adult wants to stay young forever. However, the author does not desperately desire to bring back his childhood. Even though he loses the naive feeling for nature, he realizes that he has a “philosophic mind” now as a grown-up. With this thought, he can still enjoy nature and life and regain his glory in a meaningful way.

Volume 3 of Frankenstein starts off with Victor returning to Geneva and ends with his death onboard Robert Walton’s boat. Although Frankenstein initially agrees to create a female companion for his Creature, he reneges on the deal to give himself peace of mind, but that doesn’t sit well with his creation. Because of his decision, Victor suffers many trials and loses many of his friends and family members; the loss of each person gradually erodes Victor’s conscience to the point where his sole desire in life is to slay the Creature. Even though he had a chance to reconnect with humanity/society after making a deal with his Creature, Victor gradually returns to being selfish and becomes driven by an extreme passion to exact revenge against his “wretched” creation”.

Through the end of his story, we can see that Victor is obviously distraught by the Creature’s threats against his life and the lives of his companions. Victor’s misinterpretation of the Creature’s promise to “be with [Frankenstein] on [his] wedding-night” (121) reminded me of his selfishness. While the Creature threatened to cause him harm, he assumed that the intended target was himself rather than his future wife. When I read the section of the Creature’s threat I thought that Victor should first move to protect Elizabeth after their wedding because he promised to cause Victor grief by harming his friends and family. Rather than fulfilling his duty as a husband and protecting his wife, Victor foolishly leaves her alone as he tries to prepare himself for a final showdown with the Creature. Although Elizabeth was brutally murdered, I partially blame Victor for not protecting what might have been his last source of happiness.

The ending to Frankenstein was less dramatic than I would have liked, however, it stayed true to the sad/solemn mood of the story. When Walton shifted from one frame to another (his manuscript of Victor’s story to his perspective on the boat), I expected more action in the final scene. Despite agreeing to Victor’s final request of killing the Creature if he appeared, Walton speaks with the Creature and allows him to escape the boat and humanity. For the first time in the novel, a character other than Frankenstein directly speaks with the Creature and hear his plight against his creator. In my opinion, the Creature’s monologue summed up his incomplete relationship with Frankenstein: he remains upset about his life and future prospects, yet he regrets his stubborn creator’s death. For a brief moment, the Creature receives the fair treatment he desired from humanity before he disappears into the distance.

Ah, what to say, what to say?

Well, in my opinion, reading through the end was quite possibly the toughest thing to do. The inaction of Victor and the cowardice of the monster to come after Victor directly was quite upsetting. When the monster threatened Victor that he would be with him on his wedding night, I imagined that there would finally be some epic clash between the monster and Victor like any good guy – bad guy story. But was I waaaaaaay off. Instead, the monster sneaks past Victor and kills his beloved Elizabeth and that too off scene. No retaliation from Victor, no hand to hand combat between the two. This was supposed to be the climax, and I have to say, I was thoroughly disappointed when this happened, but I guess if the clash happened, then I guess the story would not have existed then.

I also acknowledge that just as Victor killed the monster’s love interest, the monster reserved the right to kill Victor’s makes sense. “Quid pro quo,” but i just wish there was some sort of confrontation between the two so that Victor had the chance to avenge Elizabeth’s death.

The ending in my opinion, was not as exciting as I would have imagined either. I was under the assumption that when Victor would die, the monster would be happy until he discovered Robert Walton observing his presence. I was also under the impression that there would be a battle of some magnitude between Walton and the monster where they would lock horns and fight to the death. Needless to say, I found it disappointing that the monster, in no way, felt any positivity towards his creator’s death. The bane of his existence was forever gone and now, the monster was free from his lifelong goal to exact revenge from his creator. To think that your enemy was dead would quite likely be at least a sigh of relief for me. A heavy burden has been lifted from his shoulders, but I am curious as to why Mary Shelley decided to give the monster more misery in the end by implying that the monster would go commit suicide instead of roaming free to find his utopia like Candide.

I realize that the monster and Victor are related in more ways than simply creator and creation because I felt that there was more of a father-son relationship and that neither party was able to understand each other’s respective feelings. Though, call me biased, I felt that Victor’s shunning of the monster was extreme for any father to do to his own children. And despite the mutual hatred for each other, in the end, the monster weeps as if he had lost his only family in the world which he is not wanted in. His implied suicidal tone, seems to be of regret realizing that when he killed Victor’s family, he inadvertently caused the same pain to Victor that he himself faced. Also, by acting this way, he repeatedly damages any chance of reconciliation that he could have potentially had with Victor in regards to his birth and his plight.

I just wish that the book had a little more flavor and a little more action than all these off scene killings that the reader is presented with. If that was the case, maybe I wouldn’t have found it so difficult to comment positively on the end of Frankenstein.

Most of the time, children during their adolescent years tend to love attention and constantly act to receive that attention from their parents. Just like a child, Frankenstein’s creature wants attention from his mother/creator. A child is born innocent and pure and what happens around him greatly effects how the newborn will act and who it will become. The creature was denied by his creator, marked as hideous and dangerous. Not only did his created betray him but all human beings are scared even of just the sight of the creature. He can not be blamed for his evil actions because the creature wasn’t even raised to know what is moral and what isn’t. Isolated and banished, the creature had no other means of grabbing the “attention” of his master but murder and direct conformation. “How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favorable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion. Believe me, Frankenstein: I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am i not alone” (86 Shelley). It is Frankenstein’s responsibility for all that the creature has done; if he were to accept the creature and nurture it properly into the chaotic world, then maybe Frankenstein’s successful experiment wouldn’t have been a giant stress which causes Frankenstein to get extremely ill.

Right from the start of volume 2, the effects that arose from monster’s creation looms over Victor like a dark cloud he can’t escape. We can see that he tries to escape himself and his consciousness by wandering to the valley of Chamounix then followed by the glacier and taking in nature itself. Although it fulfills his purpose and intention for the time being, nature reminds him of everything he wishes not to. It reminds him of the grief and sorrow and he has produced with his creation of the monster which comes as the ultimate outcome of his obsession for knowledge and science. He is constantly haunted by his own thoughts and his exposure to nature itself draws a grand connection to the monster that leaves Victor trapped by his own grief.
The story offering from the monster to Victor sheds light on the monster’s process of understanding the world on its own due to Victor’s abandonment. The monster is learns great values and explores himself to find that he is a mere outsider to all humans. Seeing his own reflection consumes him and that labels his physical difference from everyone else. Realizing that his appearance usually drives others away, he finds refuge in a hut where he is peek, discover and learn from the cottagers about the basics of communications which is language. Understanding their stories and the sad history of Felix and Safie, the monster grows to understand his solitude more than ever. Some part of him wishes that Victor would do the same and accept him for who he is and provide him with all that he needs just as Felix did as he lives in poverty due to his attempt to save Safie’s father. The monster wishes the same affection and acceptance from his creator, Victor Frankenstein.
Through his newfound capability or reading, he is able to read the writings authored by Victor Frankenstein and what he finds in the letter reveals to monster that his creator disgusted him as his appearance horrified him. The books he reads with an utterly realist lens, confirms his creators dislike of him. Within the closing chapters of this volume, we begin to see that the monster has reason and purpose for his existence. Having learned all of these humanistic qualities, he seems more human than monster despite his physical attributes saying otherwise. His solitude and sorrow leads him to kill as he reveals his side of the story as the murderer of Victor’s younger brother, William. What he seeks from Victor is a companion, a soul mate that will relieve his seeking of revenge mentality and his request is agreed upon to the delight of the monster.