The
Bride, painted by Marcel Duchamp in 1912, carries with it the basic elements of
cubism and abstraction. Duchamp was a leading figure of a movement known as “Dadaism.”
Glen Macleod, The Visual Arts, made a
few claims that I think are very pertinent and relevant to this piece. He said,
“…Dada is not an artistic style but an attitude or way of life” (209). “…that it rebelled against all
established institutions and traditional values” (209). In this piece, cubism (which is the techniques of
fragmentation, the multiple perspectives and the juxtaposition) is clearly seen
(202). This piece looks more like some
type of a machine. On sight it does not resemble a traditional bride as we in
society know it today. Cubism, according to Macleod, leads to pure geometric
shapes that uses straight lines, right angles and primary colors. This canvas
is pretty much following this conjecture. The image is
Another point Macleod points out, especially within
Dadaism, is where he speaks to the “viewer’s automatic first reaction, Is it
Art” (210)? However, this cannot be
answered until you address the age old question, “What is Art” (210)? When looking at this piece, the
first question that came to my mind was, “what is this, because this does not
look like a bride?” Duchamp was looking more for the idea behind the product,
not the product itself. This movement fanned this notion that it was not so
much what people saw with their visual eye, but rather what their mind could
generate when they saw an image that was not so distinctly clear, as for an
example, an obvious tree. The concept was abstract and the technique was cubism.
Allowing the audience to come to their own conclusion about a piece of work offers
a freedom not boxed in by the standard norms of what somebody says you have to
think or believe.
Joseph Conrad’s, Heart of Darkness
had a great deal of Glen Macleod’s philosophical existentialism of that “What
is this, what is going on” element. The narrator retelling the story has this
mediated point of view. They have no factual sense of what is real and what is
not because they are so far removed from the actual account and this individual
is hearing from this random man on a ship that is docked and cannot go anywhere
for the night. As this narrator is retelling the story, there is a feel of disorientation
and a strong confusion at certain points, especially when the un-named narrator
is giving an account of Kurtz. It utilizes the techniques of cubism and
abstraction at its best, from what is known about these terms. Marlow also has
his moments where he seems to be all over the place and trying to disassociate
himself with what is going on, while at the same time trying to identify with
it. It was like he was attempting to make sense of what was going on around him
even though he knew it was wrong.
Mina Loy, a poet, without a doubt
encompasses the, “What Is This” element. Her poems (any of the ones we read in
class) leaves the reader in a state of ambiguity and confusion. There is
so much going on in the poems and all at one time. The reader cannot really get
a grip on the poem. Cubism uses fragmentation and juxtaposition and that is exactly
what Mina Loy does in her poems. Without even reading it and you just look at
the physical structure of the poems, the reader can tell that they are
fragmented and not following the standard formula of how poetry had been normally
seen in metrical iambic pentameter, with the lyrical flow of rhythm and rhyme.
Macleod described this “attitude or way of life” that emerged from Dadaism as
being the aim of the movement. It was not so much a style. Mina Loy reflected
this in her work. She had this “attitude” about the way she wanted to represent
herself as a poet and her “ideas.” The same ideas that Duchamp was talking
about when he said the aim was to produce ideas not a product. He did not want
the focus on the product itself, but rather what the person could gain from it.
“The Bride,” “Heart of Darkness,” and the poems by Mina
Loy all share the elements of cubism, abstraction and Dadaism. The authors and
painters of the piece present their work to the audience and tell them to make
of it what they will. The abstraction is probably one of the most powerful
tools because it leaves the audience in a state where they can come to their own
conclusion about what is actually going on with the information that is in
front of them. The audience can begin to ask themselves, “How deep do I need to
go into this analysis? What is the symbolic representation? What is the deeper
meaning and how can I get there?” Seeing that authors and painters did not just
come right out and say, “this is what I meant and this is what I was going for
and this what I want you to get from it,” we are left to our own devices. Ironically,
that is the beauty of it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment