Monday, January 24, 2011

Life is a dream?

According to Freud, a simple dream is a puzzle made up of images requiring an organization to understand its meaning. The dreamer, within the dream, produces a whole new world in need to be interpreted. The meaning can only be found by substituting the images in the dream for letters or words to figure out what is happening in the unconscious thinking. In order for Freud to engage into this journey, he attempts to create patterns that would allow him to see through all the elements that are included in the dream-content. His approach is not only interesting but quite intriguing at the same time. It seems his desire to see what he wants to see allows him to actually see it! The symbolism attached to the image representing the thought or idea in the dreamer's dream are given by Freud in an almost arbitrary way. His interpretation is highly dependent on Freud's knowledge. Lacan points out in his essay “The Instance of the Letter” that “to interpret the unconscious as Freud did, one would have to be as he was, an encyclopedia of the arts and muses, as well as an assiduous reader of the Fliegende Blatter” (203). The image within a dream, as it was interpreted by Freud, made me think of the sign of Saussure: it is arbitrary and differential. The interpreter is giving the order and the meaning based on what the dreamer remembers, and not on what the dreamer actually dreamed. On the other hand, the dreamer is also interpreting and recreating his/her own dream while narrating it, so how reliable can it be? Words are tricky. 

Reading “The Instance of the letter” and “The interpretation of dreams” made me think about how much power we have given to words. They both seem to believe that "the signifier enters the signified". We don't seem to value what, in theory, made us develop a communication system (objects, places, etc). Everything needs to be translated into words, and yet words are so malleable that who knows what people really think when they're listening to your descriptions? It was not enough to attempt to create a world dominated by words, but people seem to have gotten interested into doing that the same thing with what is referred to as the unconscious. People even make formulas today to, ironically, have a better understanding of the world, when everything is being replaced by words (which many represent a single perspective). 'Signifiers' seem to call more our attention but that does not seem to be because we think in terms of words, but more because we have been trained to think of the world in a simplified manner...

Monday, January 17, 2011

Art as a communictive system?

     


   There seems to be a relationship between the Russian Formalism and Saussure's semiontics, even though semiontics is not a literary theory. According to Saussure, semiology is the study of conventional communicative systems, which can be called languages. Human language, then, is a mode of communication that, however, belongs to the public sphere, meaning that it was not originated by a particular individual. Shklovsky in his essay "Art as Technique" points out that "the purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known” (that's the artist's responsibility , correct?). To understand Shklovsky, I though it might be helpful to look for the meaning of perception, as it seems to be a key concept throughout the essay (s). Therefore, Perception is a "conscious understanding of something". If art can be used as a technique or device to make an object visible, that is, to make it available to the public to be consciously perceived as it is (and not as we know it, by employing techniques that make things unfamiliar) then, one could say that art, as a technique, is a mode of communication that seeks to show things through the process of perception. It's a system of signs that appeals the un/conscious. 

     Formalists seem to reject the notion of seen things for what we are accustomed to see them rather than for what they actually are. It seems to me they suggest a separation of the object from any (cultural, ideological, etc) connotation in order, for the reader/spectator, to be able to appreciate it. If the artist manages to present the object in a way that it is being appreciated, through the process of perception, by the reader, then we could say that the artist succeeded? So, could we say that the role of the artist is to make things “visible” to the viewer? Perhaps the value of the object is not found within its signified (because the meaning may vary depending on the employment in different discourses[?]) but in itself. But now, by perceiving an object for what it is and not for what we know it, what are we perceiving? 

     The formalists seem to rely on the reader, what I wonder is if there is an implicit reader in the author's mind while writing literature, or is the formalist critic suggesting that the author should have a reader in mind while s/he is creating? Or, is the critic suggesting that the reader must be trained to focus and distinguish features of literature in order to be able to understand and see? Or are both ideas being suggested?


    The essay “The Study of Fairy Tales” seemed to me as an example of how it is possible to create patterns withing a genre to allow it to be communicative. On the other hand, PE (poetics of expressions) appears to defend that PE seeks to capture the reader's natural reaction to the work of art.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

"...as long as it pleases God Almighty to let you live"

Maupassant's "The Little Cask" employs a pretty good deal of details to describe everyday life in combination with ironic and, at the same time, unexpected situations. From the start, the first paragraph seems to invite the reader to focus on the character that is being described (Jules Chicot), as he can be the key element that might turn things around. Throughout the story Chicot is shown as manipulative and greedy person willing to use a friendly attitude to disguise his true intentions. What could possibly be represented through such ruthless and avaricious man capable of referring to the Almighty for the purpose of persuading, who would later use alcohol and food to distract you from what matters, to finally be the one taking (over) your life? If the story were written within our contemporary time, I'd be inclined to say the banks (right?). However, taking into account that the author died towards the end of the 19th century (1893), the story may actually be referring to the expansion of industrialization and its effects on people (what most naturalists represented in their work).

Maupassant was, perhaps, seeking to awaken people's awareness on this issue by presenting his concerns regarding this situation through literary techniques such as the absurd, and irony to get the reader's attention. The author presents Chicot as a man "with a red face and a round stomach," which may suggest that this character is accustomed to a certain lifestyle related to consumerism (over-drinking and over-eating), which it is later revealed in the same sentence by emphasizing that he was "a very knowing customer ". However, later in the story Chicot is not only shown and a simple customer, but also as a businessperson who owns a hotel, land and, clearly, knows how to make profit (it is not explained how he acquired the properties he owns). Another particular detail that made me wonder about the male character was the fact that Chicot seems to drink almost as much alcohol as Mother Magloire, but he seems to be able to handle the effects pretty well, unlike the 72 year-old woman. It seems to me the alcohol in the story represents the capitalist system (as alcohol is a type of commodity) and that the reason why Chicot is able to handle it better it is because he is not only being exploited through certain commodities, but he is also part of the game by exploiting others, which makes him more resistant to survive within this dynamic.

At the end of the story, she dies due to over-drinking. The story ends with Chicot reflecting on her death and says: “It was very stupid of her; if she had not taken to drink she might very well have lived for ten years longer.” This conclusion seems to be used to warn the reader, in a didactic way, by suggesting that Chicot, aware of the effects of alcoholism, offered the woman the drink. The author, through Chicot, employs the word "stupid" to describe her action for not realizing the intentions behind the drink given to her, maybe, hoping to educate people on the issue by reflecting on the tragic ending of Mother Magloire.