March 28, 2005

I'm "Standing at the Beginning of a Road": which one, I'll never know

Isn't it amazing what a divorce could possibly cause? For Crowther, his divorce caused him to put together the game "Adventure." Another interesting fact: his hobby, of which he shared with his wife (rock-climbing), "was indirectly the catalyst for 'Adventure'." According to Dr. Jerz's article "You are Standing at the Beginning of a Road: Examining Will Crowther's 'Advent'."

To start with, I don't understand why there is not much information on Crowther. If he is the one who influenced computer programers to create computer games, you would think there would be at least a book written on him (or he would write a book about his experience himself). I find it odd that Don Woods seems to get more credit just because there is not too much known about Crowther. I understand that in this article it stated, "Will Crowther keeps a low profile," but I think he should still write about this.

Buckles was the only one who wrote a dissertation on this, according to Dr. Jerz's article, but she "makes no attempt to examine the cultural context in which Adventure was created and received." To this, I would have to ask, "Why?" Why are these people not interested in a game that was first to spark young minds towards imagination?

To be honest, the only video game I have ever really liked was Super Mario Brothers. I thought that game was so great! Well, until you beat the whole game and then it gets boring to start back at the beginning. Other than that and Spider Solitaire, I never really played video games.

After reading this article, I now know how to master the game "Hunt the Wumpus" and when a player thinks the wumpus is going to help you if you are wounded, it decides to eat you instead. As Amanda states in her blog (of which I have to agree), "I had to laugh at the irony of talking about a 'wumpus' in a scholarly article."

I have to add my own thoughts to this as well. I would say the funniest in this scholarly article was, "Elsewhere, a caver whose lamp runs out of water solves his problem by urinating into the receptacle."

Posted by Anne Stadler at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Imp A is dead, Imp B is trying, and Imp C is just beginning

Yes, yes, yes (it seems my blog entries are becoming more positive due to starting with yes all the time-or at least that is what ELIZA would say), Galatea 2.2 was confusing at first, but after a while it started to spark my interest. I have to admit that I didn't quite catch on with the first 88 pages so I decided to read to 138 (until I finally got to some of the good stuff).

I just find this whole book hilarious that they came up with this idea over drinks. They were joking around, laughing at one another, drinking (yes, in a bar). This is where the whole idea derives. Funny, isn't it.

This idea is Implimination (Imp) A, Imp B. and Imp C. This is supposed to be a machine that can (correct me if I'm wrong--I am still having some problems interpreting this book) think for itself, as a human can. They want it to pass a Turing Test, which is where a human being would not know if they are typing to a machine or a human.

The first program, Imp A, had a problem with it. It was "dying of its own nostalgia" (Powers 79). As the book stated, "Implementation A sat paralyzed, a hoary, infantile widow in a house packed with the undiscardable mementos, no more room to turn around. Overassociating, overextending, creating infinitesimal, worthless categories in which everything belonged always and only to itself" (79). Wow, you got to love the personification in this book!

I did relate Imp A to Rick. At first, Rick was very attached to Imp A, and he did not want to move on to Imp B. Rick is always overexplaining/overanalyzing things, which was exactly what Imp A was doing. This is why I feel that it is a perfect comparison.

Imp B worked a little better than Imp A. An example of a conversation with this machine went along these lines (page 113):

Powers: John is a brother of Jim's. Who is Jim's brother?

Imp B: John.

Powers: Who is Jim?

Imp B: John's sister.

...

Powers: Jim eats an apple. The apple is sour. Jim throws the other apples away. Why does Jim throw the other apples away?

Imp B: Jim throws the apples away because the apples were given by John.

So as you can read for yourself, there happen to be some problems with this machine as well, but not as bad as Imp A. As stated on page 120, "B's problem was that it could manipulate idea tokens, but not ideas about those tokens." I find it interesting the problems these people are trying to overcome with these machines.

I was kind of distracted by the whole switching back and forth between autobiography work with story-telling. It seems as though Richard Powers wants everyone to know about his life on top of everyone knowing about this machine he is working on with Lentz.

To be honest, I am learning more about Lentz, C. and Diana more than I am of himself. And the names confuse the heck out of me. Who is named C. for crying out loud! What kind of place is named U.? Is he trying to keep this person and place a secret, (that's what it seems like to me) or is this really what he called them?

But you definitely have to appreciate this man's writing. It will confuse you to a point where you are so interested that you want to read more (yes, that may be why I read to 138). With all of the A. B. C.'s, it seems that this book has really taken shape.

I don't want to ruin this for the others in my class, but the best part (I think) about the book so far was when Diana and Lentz tricked Powers into thinking Imp C. really worked. She tricked him into believing that the machine thought on its own. Only until Diana said Rick's name into the speaker, the joke was no longer funny to Rick (well, not until later). I don't want to give too many details, but this was the highlight of this book (I repeat--so far).

Just as a quick comparison, I want to say that this experiment is a lot like Pygmalion's statue. I can understand how the cover on the front of this book ties in with the story. Pygmalion's statue is brought to life by the gods. Well, this computer game is as stiff and thoughtless as a statue, until the people bring it to life. It's almost as though this computer system Powers and Lentz are putting together is Pygmalion's statue being brought to life.

Ok--I promise that's my final thought. :)

Posted by Anne Stadler at 07:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 22, 2005

Playing video games in class?

Yes, yes, yes, very interesting. I have not had the experience to play the older video games, ELIZA and Colossal Cave Adventure, because they would not load on my computer in my dorm room. I have read through the information and decided that these games were obviously the start to the computer games/video games that are out there now in the world. They were definitely a big influence.

Well, due to not being able to play them before class, I got to play ELIZA in class to pretty much demonstrate how it works. I have to admit, when I first read the text at the beginning, I thought it was going to take over my job as a psychiatrist when I graduate. But, I was informed in class from Dr. Jerz that Wiezenbaum was not trying to fulfill the roles of a psych at all, he was just trying to prove that he can turn what a psych does into what was called a chatterbox. ELIZA simply just uses "active listening" techniques.

While I was writing in the text box and sending messages to ELIZA, I realized how annoying it was to get back pretty much the same information back that I wrote. I learned that if you typed no, it stated something about being negative and if you typed yes, it stated being positive. I found it to be quite an interesting invention. I didn't really find it to be annoying, I found it to be intelligent. Wiezenbaum seemed to want to create something that seems to help someone with their problems (without spending a lot of money on a psych).

After reading the information about the Adventure game, I found it to be interesting that the commands may be different in a different version of the game. I thought that would be pretty confusing. Why not keep the same set of commands? That I didn't understand. I guess the updated commands make the game work better.

The only thing I find confusing about this game, is that you have to memorize commands to get around. There would be no way to play this, if you did not have a crash course first.

After playing this for myself, I felt that the verbose mode was quite helpful. I understood the game a little bit more, due to the extra detail. It also made the game a little more interesting--describing that there was tasty food, an empty bottle, etc.

After I was finished following the hints, I was lost (I felt the same as Johanna). I tried to use the command "use keys," but the game stated, "I only understand you as far as wanting to use." It did not recognize keys. I thought that was pretty weird, so...

I tried something else (of course any curious person would). I tried to use every command as I could (n, e, s, w, ne, and se) It just wouldn't work. I could not get past that grate. Oh well, maybe I just wasn't cut out to be a video game player, but I have to admit, for being created in 1976, it seems like a pretty advanced game.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 07:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 21, 2005

RUR vs. Metropolis

In RUR by Karel Capek, there are robots being made who are not machines (as Dr. Jerz clarified for me today in class), but they are actually made up of flesh, tissues and bone (sort of like cloning--but they don't call it that). This is the information I got from Dr. Jerz's summary of R.U.R. The only difference is that they cannot have personalities.

The main difference I saw of the robots in this play and the film Metropolis was that the robot in Metropolis actually had a nasty and rude personality to her. She was going against the machines and getting the people to destroy them. She was smiling while destoying the workers mindset. In RUR, the robots have no personality. According to the website, the robots cannot love. In the play Domain said, "Mechanically they are more perfect than we are, they have an enormously developed intelligence, but they have no soul."

The only similarity in this aspect of the robots was that Helena actually felt that the robots had souls and was trying to help them. Another similar idea was that the robot in Metropolis looked human on the outside, in which the robots in RUR look like humans as well.

When I read the line, "Nothing but life! Nothing but robots!" from Dr. Jerz's summary, I felt the impression that the robots were starting to think that they were the ones who were alive, rather than the humans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I felt that the robots thought the humans (over time) were the ones with no personality and that the robots should be in control.

RUR seemed to be a hard play to analyze because there is a lot to it. The question arose in my mind, "What does Domain mean by 'beautiful' when he said, 'Very neat, very simple. Really a beautiful piece of work'?" I'm not too sure of why they are beautiful and neat if they have the same body parts as human beings. If these robots are neat and beautiful, then humans must be too. Right? Or am I going down the wrong road with this? This is a line that really confused me when I read Dr. Jerz's summary of how the robots are made up from the same things we are.

Metropolis is confusing in the same way, only because, like Denishia said in class, we do not know of all the information the character's talk about. I know one thing for sure that I agree on: the play RUR and the film Metropolis leave a lot of room open to interpretation.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 06:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 17, 2005

Metropolis: speechless!

I found Metropolis to be quite an interesting film. The first thing that was noticed while watching it (well, other than the fact that it did not have words) was that there was a ten hour clock rather than a twelve hour clock. Towards the middle of the film, there was a worker moving the clock hands looking pretty exhausted saying that ten hours of work is torture.

One other thing that I feel is very important was the lighting of the film. It got darker and fuzzier in some places of which I feel are important. Such as when Maria was speaking of the mediator soon to come, there was a fuzzy, darker circle around her and the lighting on her face was bright. In a way, it made her stick out more and makes the viewer feel that she is a more interesting character in this film.

Well, after pointing that out, I just want to say that this whole film reminds me of the Industrial Revolution. The thinkers remind me of the bourgeois and the workers reming me of the proletariats. The thinkers tell the workers what to do without getting physically involved in doing it themselves. The workers go in steadily and the workers going out of the workplace are walking more slowly. Their lives seem to revolve around the machines. The son is the only one who isn't a worker that seems to think that the pressure on them is wrong. The idea of the people making the plans for the city and the workers building them was stressed by the actor Maria. She said that the brain and hand need a mediator and need to come together--the heart is more important than the two.

Well, Maria's appearance is placed on a robot who turns the workers against the people who are the thinkers (and pretty much watch them work). She (the robot) puts the idea in their head to revolt and to destroy the machines.

I feel that the seven deadly sins were perfect to put into this film, due to robot Maria transforming people to think in different (bad) ways. I feel that that was very representative to the robot's actions.

It turns out at the end of the film, the son is the mediator; the one who joins the brain and the hand together. This turns out to be a happily ever after sort of film, but in it's own unique way.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"Americanization and Expressionism"...and much, much more

I agree with Amanda on this one--I had no idea what expressionism was until I read "The Americanization of Expressionism: The Hairy Ape (1922) and The Adding Machine (1923)" written by Dr. Jerz. It simply means an artist is showing their feelings--expressing themselves (you can look at Amanda's blog for further details on this term). I also found out from Wikipedia that "expressionism centers on the artists vision rather than on the viewers impression."

This chapter speaks of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which was created in 1919, and describes it as "the first to aspire to an artistic, rather than photorealistic, vision of the world."

Throughout reading this, I would have never guessed that what our class was reading earlier, such as "The Great Figure" and "To Brooklyn Bridge," was related to the changing of technology or the representation of "technologocal monuments."

After reading the fan site on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari I thought it was interesting that in this story, Dr. Caligari thought it would be an interesting test if he could get one of his patients to commit murder.

(Just a note: after reading the explaination from Wikipedia on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, I realized that the expressionism of the film was similar in Metropolis. Metropolis had harsh lighting as well to get some of the ideas across-interesting)

I learned from Wikipedia that "German Expressionism is dotted with dark images, sharp contrasting figues, jagged geometry..." This is exactly what I viewed while watching Metropolis as well.

I know I'm switching the topic, but think that the Wired 7.11: Blast From the Past was sort of cool. There was a composer who was listening to an older composer's, George Antheil, music who had never heard his masterpiece performed. I found that to be interesting. There is also the fact thrown in about how there needs to be the efficient technology to be able to perform it, which is what we now have. Of all Antheil's trys, he just couldn't seem to get his performance the way he wanted it performed. I would think that Antheil would be proud that Paul Lehrman was taking the time to use technology to get his Ballet mécanique performed the way he originally wanted it to be.

I then learned that Antheil's work wasn't fully performed until 1999 from The Ballet mécanique page. The reason this wasn't performed fully back when Antheil wrote it. was because "the technology to synchronize 16 player pianos together simply didn't exist." And as for the film, well there were some communication problems at first, but according to About the film Ballet mécanique, "Pulitzer Price-winning critic Lloyd Schwartz, of the Boston Phoenix, was the first reviewer to see the film, and he pronounced it 'brilliant.'"

As I read "The experimental seduction of mechanistic modernism in Eugene O'Neil's 'Dynamo' and the Federal Theatre Project's 'Alters of steel'" by Dennis Jerz, I found out a little more detail about the film Ballet mécanique. It states that "gears and wheels (i.e. components of machines) alternate with shots of women's eyes, lips, hats, and shoes (i.e. components of a sexualised woman)." I also learned that "Antheil's symphony mimics the sounds of a machine breaking down." I thought that was kind of cool.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

Comparing art and poetry: William Carlos Williams

In William Carlos Williams poem, "The Great Figure," I feel as though the poem is moving faster and faster, as if the truck is. The lines even get longer towards the end of the poem, which I feel is representing the train moving faster and faster. I think it's weird that there is a poem about a number 5 on a truck, but I believe that someone could write a poem about anything.

The painting goes well with the poem as well. The fives seem to start small and grow bigger and bigger, as if the truck is moving closer and closer to you. I also thought the color was interesting. They were bright colors in the center: red and yellow. These colors form a certain excitement and spark interest, especially in the bright number five. I like the idea Dr. Jerz gave in class about the shadows mixed into the painting, and how they look like the Roman numeral five. I found this painting to represent the poem very well.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 07:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2005

Thorough Thoureau reading

While reading Solitude, I felt as though I was in solitude. There was so much imagery that I felt like I was there. I like how Thoureau reflected on the characters life so smoothly. He states that being alone is sometimes better than being around others, which I sometimes find to be very true.

I like Thoureau's writing style to a certain extent. Some of the things he mentions seem to jump out at me. One sentence I really enjoyed from this reading was, "I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude," and "We meet at meals three times a day, and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we are." Wow, he really tells it like he feels it, and that is a great thing to be able to express in writing.

I really liked the imagery in the fourth chapter, Sounds. I found it interesting how he cleans his floors. He takes everything outside, throws water on it and sand on it from the pond and scrubs it down. He uses what he calls solitude not only to help him think, but to help him clean as well. I also noticed that he calls the woods, "my woods" as if they are noone elses. Also, it Solitude he does the same thing. He says that he knows when he had visitors because the grass is walked on or pulled out--it's as if the whole woods surrounding where he lives are his, but he doesn't really seem to mind sharing it (these are the feelings I get from the reading).

Posted by Anne Stadler at 08:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Twin Towers

It's a shame that something bad has to happen to something before someone appreciates it being there. Dave Lehman spoke of the World Trade Centers in 1996 of being ugly. He considered them a bad representation of architecture. It wasn't until there was a bomb that went off, that he appreciated the buildings for their importance, not their looks.

Like I said in my past blog on skyscrapers: a certain skyscraper is what makes a city a city. Most people recognize a city by the way the big buildings look. Not only are the World Trade Centers gone, but a part of the city is gone now too.

I feel that people need to open up about this topic more and be able to discuss what happened. 9/11 is never going to disappear and people shouldn't just shrug it off. I heard that there is going to be a memorial placed where the twin towers were and I am very happy to hear that. What happened was a really horrible thing, but it's still nice to remeber the people that had to go through that and we should give them our respect, love, and care.

The poem "To Brooklyn Bridge" by Hart Crane seems to describe just how important buildings are to us. Reading this poem makes me feel that Crane has tied in man-made buildings relating to our new for of a certain nature.

My favorite quote of this poem was "Till elevators drop us from our day." It makes me think that going down an elevator from a building a person works in alliviates stress from their fulfilled workday. These are the only ideas I seem to have gotten from this poem. I have to admit that this was a pretty complex poem.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wow, that's a tall building!

I have never took the time to really think about how important a skyscraper really was, not only to a city, but to the people who live there.

In Donald McNeill's "Skyscraper geography," a skyscraper holds major importance over a city. The first surprising fact was that the US has only three of the world's 15 tallest buildings. This, of course, I am assuming will change over time. There is so much competition going on, according to McNeill, with who has the tallest/largest skyscraper. These buildings are definitly powerful objects in society.

The World Trade Center gave a different form of importance to society. "...the World Trade Center site provided yet another twist: a skyscraper as monument and memorial." After the fall of the Twin Towers, there was a new awareness: "architects and developers to improve evacutation, fire and structural technologies."

Many skyscrapers were built for the publicity and to gain attention. After reading the section "Knowledge flows in the design," I felt that cities wanted skyscrapers to scream out to people, "Look at me, look at me!" The most important part of this is that it worked. A skyscraper becomes the main view of a city--it's as if it wasn't for a specific skyscraper in a city, a person would not be able to recognize (by looking at it) what that city is. The skyscraper is the main view, these are the buildings in "adverts, in-flight magazines, postcards, and even Hollywood feature films."

Why is there a race for the tallest building in the world? McNeill gives a good explaination, "The skyscraper has always played a role in the representational strategies of financial and political elites to endow their city or nation with projected self-consciousness."

It seems to me that a city is taking on the characteristics of a human. The more beautiful a building is, the more people would want to see it. A city does not want to lack skyscrapers, due to feeling self-conscious. What a way to view the characteristics of a skyscraper! I never would of thought!

Many examples were also given of tall buildings that took place in movies. In Batman, there was the city Gotham and the Emerald City in The Wizard of Oz. I completely agree with McNeill that skyscrapers are important parts of any city, even made-up ones.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 10:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2005

How do you sum up Media Aesthetics--I think I just did...

Summing up Media Aesthetics may sound like a challenging task, but I have actually managed to do it.

Pygmalion: Burne-Jones and Gerome had a different way of viewing Pygmalion's story through their artwork. There paintings can tell the whole story of Pygmalion.

Mike May's Journal: Gaining your site back after over 40 years seemed to be a wonderful experience for Mike. I reflected on what I thought Mike had gained from this experience and wrote about my thoughts on how Mike being able to see after so long was a beautiful thing.

Seeing is Believing?: "Cathedral" was a very interesting reading. I wrote about how I did not like the husband's character at the begining of the story, but towards the end of the story, I started not to mind him as much. The blind man 'opened the husband's eyes' to what it's like to be blind, and the husband finally realized that sometimes seeing is not always believing.

Insight on Amanda Cochran and Julie Young's Blog: I already know how to blog, but I said that the hints Amanda and Julie gave would be useful to a person who is a newbie. I also made comments about why I do not blog as much as I think I should.

The Allegory of a Cave: Plato always seem to have the very agreeing character in order to make the readers agree with his ideas as well (as if the character agreeing represents the reader). I felt that Plato was expressing that humans are always looking away from the truth. I wrote how Plato notions towards humans not understanding that the ideal is the truth.

Technology advances: Churchill opened my eyes to a new understanding of the process of a fact: it takes information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. I also agreed with Churchill that there is nothing better than a classroom education, and technology, I do not think, will ever come as far as taking over the classrooms.

Plato's "Republic": Plato explains many of his ideas through his writings of Socrates. I wrote about Socrates saying that there is only one ideal of everything, such as a chair, bed, ect. and not one person can create that same bed, ect. He said that a painter and carpenter are all imitators of this ideal. I also, of course, threw my own opinions in there on what I thought about this reading.

Aristotle's "Poetics": I did not agree at all with Aristotle's view on beauty. He said it could not be too small or too large. I simply disagree. I also wrote on Aristotle explaining how a person should write a tragedy. If you use mean/rare/unusual words, watch out...

Professorless Discussion: A coffee-house disscussion that took place in the classroom was a wonderful experience. Our ideas were free-flowing and productive in thought. Amanda, Johanna, and I all agreed with the arguement of beauty that took place in Aristotle's "Poetics." We decided that Aristotle should not tell us what's right and what's wrong. We also discussed how Aristotle discussed tragedy over comedy, when he should have discussed both.

Poem for Pope: This poem is a reflection of my thoughts on some of Alexander Pope's lines of his own poem, "An Essay on Criticism." I wrote about how I agreed with poets not giving credit to those who taught them. I also stated that I do not like Pope's idea of the critic. I also give the impression that rules are meant to be broken, which disagrees with Pope. My favorite of this poem is where I wrote, "I do not like this idea of following rules, When your own ideas are your own poems tools."

T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent": A quote from T. S. Eliot stikes me to think in ways that I never had before. I brought up many reflections on how we know more than those before us, simply because they are the ones we know. I said that if it was not for these writers advancing the way they did, then we would not be where we are today. I also agree that criticism should be based on the poem, not on the poet.

"The Decay of Lying": I get sort of confused after trying to explain my own ideas of the quote, "Life imitates art far more than Art imitates life." I give an example of a tree, but start to contradict my own ideas. I also bring up the idea, which disagrees with "The Decay of Lying," that health can be a form of beauty.

The Picture of Dorian Gray (preface): In the preface, there were many lines that struck my interest. I reflected on many of them within this entry. When the quote, "All art is quite useless" appeared, I felt that Oscar Wilde was bashing art. In this follow-up blog, I realized that this quote tends to be true, but not in a bashing way. (After a discussion in class and reading The Picture of Dorian Gray, I understand these ideas more fully. I realized that the reader may not know what the preface is referring to until the whole book is read.)

A picture says a thousand words: refers to my thoughts on the book The Picture of Dorian Gray written by Oscar Wilde. I discuss thoughts on relating the destruction of a flower to the destruction of one's soul. I also speak on how Dorian Gray, in the end, finally had evil done to him, rather than him doing evil to others.

Dorian Gray's realism: I spoke about how I felt on the article about aesthetic realism and how I also feel that Oscar Wilde used realism in a most fascinating way. I also said how I disagreed with the idea of Lord Henry being gay in this book; he may have been flirtacious, but not gay.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 11:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dorian Gray's realism

I know, I know that you may be sick of reading about The Picture of Dorian Gray, but I promise this will be the last blog entry. After reading "The Aesthetic Realism of Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray," I personally felt that Oscar did use plenty of realism in his book. Chapter 11 was full of realism. I agree with the author of this selection, Shelton Waldrep, that Wilde's upper-class portrays plenty of realism.

"...Wilde was detailing the physical reality of his time." This is stating that there is plenty of realism in this chapter, because Wilde was bringing alive the many things in his book that were around during those times his book was written.

I really like how Waltrep explains that Wilde expresses things through Dorian, such as "you are what you own and what you can feel." However, I do not agree in the whole idea of Lord Henry being flirtatious in a gay way. He may have been flirtatious and manipulative, but not in a "male-male desire" stated in this excerpt. I feel that The Picture of Dorian Gray has to be read with an open-mind. I don't believe in assuming anything, so I definitely do not agree with the authors statement on this idea.

As a last note (I know I probably said this before), I really liked this book and I think everyone should have to read it. There is a sort of aesthetic realism in it that you just would not realize in any other book but this one. THere is so much symbolism and representation that it is so hard to explain how everything fits together with words. It was a really good book and I enjoyed the realism.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 02, 2005

A fresh look into the preface and book

After reading The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, I grew to be more aware of the meaning behind the last quote, "All art is quite useless." In a class discussion, I brought up the use of opium that takes place in the book. Because in my last blog I referred to flowers representing the destruction of one's soul, I found the way opium was used in this book to be quite interesting. Dorian Gray was using opium as a drug--to fulfill his need for it. Well, my step-dad informed me that opium is also a flower (Thanks to my step-dad for opening my eyes up to this great idea the book seemed to be hinting at).

Dr. Jerz stated in class that a flower is beautiful only if there is no use for it. It is beautiful because it is there--for the spectator to soak in it's beauty and to lable it beautiful. This is where the quote, "All art is quite useless" comes into the picture. The usefulness of art is what makes it beautiful. If someone creates a use for a flower, the beauty is no longer there. It is destroyed.

Well, because Dorian wanted to make a use of opium (the drug), it was as if he was destroying the beauty from a flower. He was finding a way to use destruction as a need for healing. Because he made use of this (even though it was not a flower, it was a drug), the beauty was gone--it had disappeared. There was no more beauty in Dorian's life whatsoever anymore.

He took the beauty away by making use of it.

Posted by Anne Stadler at 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack