https://www.dropbox.com/s/h2phlk7emh166in/IMG_2744.JPG?dl=0

Picasso’s Les Demoiselles D’avignon is a perfect example of modernism and cubism. The oversized oil on canvas sprawled from floor to ceiling, is the largest Picasso work at MOMA. So much can be said about this painting, the figures, all-naked are all contorted in different ways. It isn’t clear if the figure on the left is male or female, although the note next to the work did say that it was intended to be a male but changed in the final version. Some of the women are wearing African masks, a reference to another one of Picasso’s interests and era’s. The piece’s name references a famed street in Barcelona known for its brothels, so it could be argued that the piece is depicting prostitutes. That would also explain why the man/women on the left is lurking around. However from a simultaneity perspective the piece is also very interesting, time and space seemed to be very blurred in this work. It is almost impossible to define whether the figures are standing up or lying down, they seemingly exist in both states simultaneously. In addition, depending on from which angle you are looking at the piece, it can either appear that the women are moving, or that they are completely still. Beyond the physical women, the idea of combining different objects, people, concepts, and images all fall within the idea of simultaneity and cubism. All in, Les Demoiselles D’avignon is a marvelous work that can truly be understood through the idea of simultaneity, which can be seen throughout the piece in many different ways.

Josh woke up on time that morning and rolled out of bed. As he headed out the door he forgot to take his notes and seconds later ran back in to collect them. As he headed outside for the first time that day, he said to himself “its colder than I thought it would be.” According to forecast it was supposed to me a warmer day, but Josh was cold in his thin jacket. As Josh headed down the stairs to catch the 1 train that had just pulled into the station, he nearly fell over and almost knocked a few fellow commuters over. When he walked onto the train Mr. James, who had witnessed the whole ordeal nodded his head in dismay. He thought, “how could this kid be so dumb, has he never been on the train before? Everyone knows that the steps down are small and you have to walk carefully, but this scrawny young moron thought it be wise to run for it!” Josh could see the disappointment in Mr. James’s eyes, and said to himself “I am NEVER going to do that again!” As Josh transferred to the 2 train at 72^nd and then transferred again to the N train at 42^nd he was careful to walk slowly and calmly as to not hit anyone or fall on his way. He acknowledged that even if he were a bit late, at least he wouldn’t hurt anyone, or himself for that matter, in the process. Before he knew it he was walking through the doors of Baruch at 24^th and Lex, ready for his day. “Only 10 hours till I get to go home” he said to himself in an excited voice, as he walked into his first class.

Family Romance by Sigmund Freud discussed the importance of the “liberation of an individual” and by that he means the claiming of ones individuality from his parents. Freud says that the claiming of ones independence is one of the most important steps in their development. He discusses how children, at first look up to their parents as the end all be all, the ultimate role models of who they should be. But as they grow older they begin to compare their parents to the parents of their friends and other family members and begin to find flaw in their parents and no longer see them as the supreme role models they once did. In addition as kids begin to compete for their parents attention they feel “slighted” and hurt that they aren’t getting their full attention. As the conflict continues to brew the longing for individuality becomes even more central as the child attempts to break out of his/her parents grip. In truth, according to Freud this conflict is even more present in boys than girls, which makes sense given the presence of sexuality in the respective parental relationships. In practice Freud seems to be correct in his approach as it is often the case that children think the world of their parents but eventually they begin to develop their own opinion and in many ways grow apart. Freud concludes that this growing up actually makes the child replace his once idolized father or mother with an idealized version that has no flaws whatsoever. So in that, instead of the child growing far from their parents they actually form an idealized version of them and grow closer to them. Hence the conflict verses independence struggle that the child undergoes.

Douglass’s Narrative consistently discusses how language (knowledge and education) is at constant odds with slavery. The active prevention of educating slaves and teaching them language is something that is both emphasized in Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and M. NourbeSe Philips “Discourse on the Logic of Language.” Philips repeatedly mentioned the complex relationship between having a mother tongue a father tongue and no tongue at all. I understood this argument to mean that slaves had no mother or father tongue; they had no language of their own, and were forced to take on the language of their master. In addition, she emphasized how as punishment for speaking out, slaves would sometimes literally loose their tongue, so their lack of a native language can actually be the physical loss of their ability to speak. All of this is consistent with Douglass’s arguments, as he repeatedly discusses his yearning for learning, education, and language throughout his life, and how under slavery it was forbidden. Philips mentions that preventing communication and a uniform language between the slaves, helped block rebellion, because it would be impossible to formally rebel if there is no clear communication channel. Philips also brings up the complex relationship between mother and child under slavery; something that Douglass regards as non-existent under the reprehensible idea of tearing apart mother from child. In addition, Philips’s word bending throughout her performance is similar to Douglass’s performance of his language and speech at his first abolitionist convention in Nantucket. Douglass’s language is his history, his story, and his fight for freedom. By performing that, he is in many ways teaching the world the language of slavery.

One word that comes to mind at the mention of a tiger is danger. This association is based on our prior knowledge, which could then influence our behavior around this animal. If one were to be confronted by a hideous creature, our first reaction would be to run in the opposite direction because of our previous associations with such a sight. The Creature, who was abandoned the moment he came to life, sought out to find acceptance and love from the mankind. With each attempt, he was rejected because of “ the deformity of [his] figure” (78). The humankind’s inability to look past his deformity drove him to a very miserable state and in consequence getting revenge became his top priority. Since Frankenstein is the only individual who knew of the Creature’s existence, he couldn’t correct his behavior when it came to the false imprisonment of Justine. The purpose of the Creature’s animation was not destruction yet his immediate environment drove him to that state. In this manner, the Creature can be compared to tiger described in Blake’s poem. Blake poses the question, “What immortal hand or eye, / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?” When applied to Frankenstein, this question suggests that he is partially responsible for the destruction that the Creature has inflicted upon the humankind. Since the Creature’s existence spans beyond the natural world, every part of his being is questionable. Just like Blake makes the assumption that the tiger is dangerous based on his physical appearance, many of the humans that the Creature interacts with make a similar claim. By making this assumption, the tiger as well as the Creature are alienated by the rest of the society and this in turn causes them resort to violent acts. If both of these creatures were perceived in a different manner, the likelihood of them being a danger to society is rather slim. Perception and prior knowledge will not only influence the behavior of the eye of the beholder but also the individual on the other side of the spectrum.

While, I understand where you are coming from in connecting the fear in us all associated with both being approached by the tiger and the Creature, to me the lamb more wholly resembles the Creature. The lamb, in its constant questioning of who created it, and provides for it, is very connected to the Creature and his struggles. Throughout the novel the creature struggles with his creation and everything associated with it, and in that regard the lamb is the same. Blake writes “Little Lamb who made thee / Dost thou know who made thee / Gave thee life & bid thee feed. / By the stream & o’er the mead; / Gave thee clothing of delight,/  Softest clothing wooly bright; / Gave thee such a tender voice, /Making all the vales rejoice!” I understand this to be the lambs questioning of who created it and how it ended up where it is. It’s the lamb questioning who provided it with clothing, and who designed it. These are the same struggles as the Creature. Upon being created and left alone, the Creature was confused as to how he ended up in this situation. This is the essence of the novel, the fact that the creature never fully understood why he was created, and his purpose in this world, was arguably the central struggle throughout the novel. In addition, the poem calls the lamb’s creator “meek” and “mild” which are very similar personality traits to the creator (Frankenstein) in the novel, who was also both a meek and mild man.

The main difference I noticed between the two clips was how exciting the scene was in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein directed by Kenneth Branagh. The scene holds your attention and really involves the audience in what is going on. I think it has something to do with the music. On the contrary, Frankenstein directed by James Whale, is a lot more boring and technical. The scene is full of technical machinery, and depicts the creation as more of a science experiment than Branagh’s scene. It also has other people watching, which adds another dynamic to the whole creation. What struck me as an obvious difference between both scenes and the novel’s Frankenstein was the struggle Victor went through in the novel, as opposed to the obvious lack of struggle that both Victors go through in the clips. In the novel, there is a general scene of fear and uncertainty around creating such a creature, but in the clips, specifically James Whale’s clip, there doesn’t seem to be a struggle at all. In fact, in Whales scene Victor is so enthusiastic by the Frankenstein he has created. However in Branagh’s clip Victor appears to sway between struggling and excitement by what he has created. As Frankenstein is coming to life he sounds eager and excited by what he has done. However in the last seconds of the scene, right as Frankenstein is coming to life, he seems to be struggling somewhat. So much so that the people watching had to physically hold him up. All in all, I would say that each rendition of Frankenstein brings with it its own interpretation, in what is probably an attempt to relate Frankenstein to the era in which the scene was created.

To me this reading was a bit challenging to follow and grasp. I would imagine that has something to do with the structure of the writing and the ideas that are being conveyed. However a few things did stand out to me. When Descartes mentions the idea of “I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams” (15), I believe there is something to be said about this. We often view certain in truths in life as being definite and proven, however in many situation, truths are but a temporary belief in something that very well might end up being not true at all. For many years Americans held slavery was a truth, they were confident in it. However, now we know all too well, that there was no truth in slavery, it was but a fabrication to suppress a people. Therefore, treating our thoughts as dreams and not as truths, allows us to remove ourselves from the situation and not be mislead into temporary mistruths. Descartes goes on to discuss something even more profound, “I am thinking therefore I exist” (15), or “cogito ergo sum”. I have spent some time discussing this phrase in a philosophy class where we discussed it in the context of proving our very existence. Since we know we think, and one cannot think if they are not, we know we are. After further reading, Descartes mentions “Accordingly this me—this soul that makes me what I am—is entirely distinct from the body, is easier to know than the body, and would still be just what it is even if the body didn’t exist” (15). I understood this to mean, that regardless of the bodies existence through “cogito ergo sum”, we can prove the very existence of the soul, and to me once we have proven the soul extending that out as proof of the body, is a leap I am willing to take.

Raised in sunny Florida, I now find myself waking to the dreary winter days of New York. My alarm buzzes once, I say to myself its time to go but as I look out the window I can’t help but close my eyes. Before I know it, it’s buzzing again, that thing that is trying to get me going and start my day. This time, with more conviction, I hop out of bed and start my daily routine. I get dressed, grab a bite, and head to the trains. Its cold outside, but manageable; before I know it, I am on the train. I squeeze in, next to all sorts of people trying to make their way downtown. People are screaming, yawning, reading, and sneezing, but we are all huddled in together, rich and poor, everyone has their own daily routine that starts here. Finally after three transfers I am almost there, just a few more blocks and I will have finally arrived. I look around as I walk this final stretch. It’s a sea of people rushing on with their lives. No one, including myself, takes a minute to appreciate the park we all pass, the buildings hanging over our heads, or the beautiful faces we have just passed. It is all about moving forward towards the goal.

As I read Whitman’s Song of Myself, I see a struggle for his clear identity. In section 16 he discusses how he sees himself, and how he is “Maternal as well as paternal, a child as well as a man, Stuff’d with the stuff that is coarse and stuff’d with the stuff that is fine…” (Section 16). He is both everything and nothing all at the same time. He continues to say “I resist any thing better than my own diversity, Breathe the air but leave plenty after me, And am not stuck up, and am in my place” (Section 16). His lack of clarity gives him solace, because with it he finds himself in his “place”. As I enter the doors of Baruch, I am both a student and a teacher, a child and a man, a Floridian and a New Yorker, and most of all, in my “place” that gives me solace, and allows me to be me.