Thursday 10 January 2013
Response to Life on the Mississippi
As Twain suggests, I agree that understanding something and appreciating something aesthetically is exclusive to each individual. Through the pilot's perception, we could see a completely different interpretation from what people stereotypically see a river as. I feel like there is a link to ones education and his capability to comprehend in this case, because the pilot imagined a negative and suffering experience associated with that river. Which brings us back to the paradigm that conveys that some people see things completely differently. In each every day situation, or experience some people could feel differently, for example some people could enjoy observing the beauty of nature, whereas others could not find anything special about it. I think that the river-boart pilot gained most by mastering the language of the river because he not only gained a superficial understanding of it, but actually lived and felt moving emotions by observing it. Even if they were not necessarily positive, art is about creating a reaction and the cliche of romance and beauty associated with a river is not necessarily how everyone feels about it. Should our experiences be independent and proper to us? Or can we share the same understanding and meaning to a river in this case?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it would be difficult if not impossible to experience the river in the same way as somebody else, although I suppose an experience can be similar.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure whether the pilot has gained or lost most by mastering the language of the river.
It is curious that though he has lost this sense of splendour, he also still has the memory of the river when he did not yet master the language. So, it is not like he has lost interest in the river, but rather that his understanding of it impedes him from seeing its beauty. In a way, it is as if he has a murmuring voice inside his head that leads him to spot possible threats and implications everywhere. In a way, it is like the transition from child to adult. Once one has stepped over the boundary between one world and the other, it is impossible to go back. In the same way that we would probably be unable to play with puppets as if they were real beings, the pilot no longer can perceive the river through the eyes of a child, if you will.
There is a clear contrast between:
1. "... the red hue brightened into gold, through which a solitary log came flowing, black and conspicuous... the sombre shadow that fell from this forest was broken in one place by a long ruffled trail that shone like silver high above the forest wall a clean-stemmed dead tree waved a single leafy bough that glowed like a flame in the unobstructed splendour that was flowing from the sun."
and
2. "... that floating log means that the river is rising; the slanting mark on the river reflects a bluff reef which is going to kill somebody's steamboat one of these nights..."
I felt that the first extract 1 describes a Carpe Diem-like scenery of the moment, whereas the second extract 2 foreshadows and sets the beauty in a dangerous light. For example, the words "gold" and "silver" are used in 1, suggesting that the pilot once valued the river. Also, unlike in 2, the visual imagery in 1 is much more vividly and poetically painted in the reader's imagination.
Some artists say that it is more difficult to draw or paint like a child when one is an adult than it is for a child to paint or draw like an adult. In the same way, it seems that it is more difficult for the artist to perceive the river as he had at the beginning than it was for him to learn the river's language.
I think Siham is discussing the difference between an objective and subjective perspective. Probably two riverboat pilots would see the river in much the same way while focused on steering the boat - just like two people driving cars trying to get safely from a to b. However, the passengers (on the boat, or in the backseat) have the luxury to notice the setting sun... Raphaela I was really interested in your analogy of the child and adult perspective... Children's perceptions, I think, are more flexible and open minded. But perhaps as we grow older we can indeed hold two, or more, points of view in our minds simultaneously. Do you think we can 'manage' our perspective, consciously decide HOW we want to look at something?
ReplyDelete