Thursday, July 16, 2009

Analysis Two

An Animated Moment: Defamiliarized




Nine characters have gathered to give their respects for a person who has either passed or can no longer perform. As the nine characters have come together on stage, with the backdrop of an elegant curtain scene behind them, representing the finale of a performance, none are able to speak and deliver their eulogy. Possibly they realize that they no longer have the ability, or they are too overcome by grief, regardless they find themselves speechless, and none of them attempts to approach the solitary microphone only a few feet away from them. They pay their respects, and mourn in silence.



Formally Animated: An Formalistic Approach to “Speechless”

Arguably, art is a representation of life, through the eyes of the artist. Artistic expression is represented in an abundance of forms, and although some may be considered intellectually inferior, they nonetheless can carry the same depth and emotional impact. Comic strips, animated film, cartoon, all can symbolically represent humanity in life lessons, political and economic dilemmas, and yet still provide pleasurable entertainment for the viewer. It must be clear however, that the intent of such art, is sometimes blurred by conceptions which we associate to it’s intent. What we associate may not necessarily fit the original intent of that piece. By using the school of Formalism, we can identify when these association are made incorrectly, in regard to original intent.

Before we can identify when associations are incorrectly made, we must recognize how we make these associations. Looking at the picture above “Speechless,” the event which has taken place is clear. There are various animated characters, in mourning, possibly over another character which has passed on. One of the most notable aspects of this picture, is the difference in the characters themselves. A closer view, grants us a representation of each character, or symbolically who or what group of people each character represents. Notably, these differences are distinct, by immediate comparison to the rest of the characters which surround them. For example, Speedy Gonzalez. If we were not privy to the information of the name of the character, most individuals would look at Gonzalez and recognize that he represents the Mexican, or a South American race. The small stature, darker brown complexion, and obvious use of certain cultural attire would immediately associate cultural traits of a Latin American ethnicity. This is heightened, as one of the characters that towers over Gonzalez is Foghorn Leghorn, who can arguably represent the White race of a Southern Origin. It is in light of these contrasts that their differences become obvious.

Although the characters image grants us an idea of where they may originate from, it is indeed our association that we attach to the characters behavior and the manner in which we expect them to act that is also notable. Viktor Shklovsky would argue that it is “habitualizaton” which blurs character, which becomes a symbol to us, and which “fades and does not leave even a first impression,’’ because we have associated our own ideas to that symbol (15).

Reviewing the picture again, we are granted with the microphone stand and the spotlight, alone at the forefront of the stage. Does this represent a character who was singularly more important than the rest, or was it a character who was simply more liked that the rest of the individual characters? Is it possible that that empty spotlight represents the inability to comment on politics and the government due to recent mandates and restrictions of freedom of speech, or perhaps these characters originate in a country where the government is oppressive in all aspects of media. Although, the empty spot light is undefined in the picture as to its purpose, we again associate many different ideas attributes in which formalism would promptly point out as false. Indeed, the empty spotlight only represents the one human voice of all the characters who has passed on.

Works Cited

Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD., 1965.

Van Citters, Darryl. Speechless. 1993. Lithograph Reprint.
< http://www.animationartwork.com/artwork/sku10019 >

Analysis One

Philosophy or Poetry: A Classical Struggle between Censorship and Free Art



Although both Plato and Aristotle are both part of the classical school of literary criticism, both individuals seem to have almost opposing views in poetry and the various arts associated in literature. In the short film, “Goodbye to the Normals, ” “Magnus” is a child displays almost mature adult behavior in his interaction with his parents as he decides to leave home (Smith). The singularly disturbing, yet also comical side of this event is that the child is clearly very young, prepubescent in fact. But his vocabulary and behavior could be considered deplorable by a parent’s standards. Should this form of artwork be censored in order to develop proper behavior and a singularly uniform foundation from which children should not have any other form of exposure, so as to prevent corruption?

Although the interaction with Magnus and his parents is fictional and meant for comedic purposes, such exposure to children and even young adults is questionable, as they could very possibly attempt to imitate such behavior. It is Plato’s firm argument that if poetry is not properly censored and monitored, an individual or group would be influence by their passions and emotions to control their behavior, or contrarily, lose their overall control. “If you allow the sweetened muse of lyric or epic, pleasure and pain will rule in the city instead of custom and…rational principles (Murray 54). Plato’s argument is that a child “cannot distinguish between what is allegorical and what is not,” therefore any media with a potential negative message must be censored (Murray 17). Indeed, certain language used by the child and behavior, such as calling his father’s statements, “ridiculous” and shortly questioning his mother, “is that what I asked you” would be unfathomable in a child so young (Smith).

However we must also consider its comedic contribution, as such behavior although deplorable, is outright unheard of, and very effective in its humor. Aristotle’s argument in favor of such art, would clearly state that the “history of comedy…is obscure, because it was not taken seriously” (Murray 63). Furthermore “comedy represents the worse types of people…not in the sense that it embraces any and every kind of badness, but in the sense that the ridiculous is a species of ugliness or badness” (Murray 63). Through tragedy and comedy, all of which are forms of poetry, individuals can find a release for emotions in a healthy manner, and with proper guidance it should not affect the morality of the individual. It is human nature to mimic; humans have an “instinct to enjoy works of imitation…as learning is a very great pleasure…they enjoy seeing images because they learn as they look at them” (Murray 60-61). Not only would this clip provide dark humor, but it could also be appreciated as therapeutic.

Indeed, if Plato represents a system of rigid philosophy, and Aristotle represents a school of open poetry, then perhaps the only accord, which can be reached, is upon“[a continuing] ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.” No stalemate can be reached, as long as different levels of media are present in society, and enlightenment, pleasure, and entertainment are sought by the masses (Murray 55).

Works Cited

Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD.,1965.

Goodbye to the Normals. Dir. Jim Field Smith. Perf. Alfie Field, Steve Furst, and Juliet Cowan. Idiot Lamp Films, 2006. Short Film. 16 July 2009 < http://goodbyetothenormals.com