Painting and The Ambassador
Wednesday March 30th 2011, 11:23 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

The first that caught my eye when I looked at this painting was the two men and the difference in their clothing. While one is dressed looking very well groomed and wealthy the other seems to look very dressed down. One man is covered in fur and jewlery while the other is in raggedy clothes. Both men seem expressionless yet one can read so much from their faces. The wealthy man looks as if he is someone who is very hign class, withthe know it all attidude while the man who is poor looks like he doesnt really have a voice. He isnt someone who people would look up to. Looking at the picture and reading The Ambassador I felt was helpful because the book so far talks about the two differnt sides of class status, two differnt countries, and two different types of men and women. i was connecting the wealthy man to Chad and Waymarsh and the poor man to Lambert. I felt that the painting helped potray the wealth difference and the status difference that the book constantly talks about.

When I think of looking at the painting and then basing my view of the book on the painthing. I get the feeling it doesnt give me as much of a choice to be as creative. I felt that the painting kind of takes away the ability to make all the connections from the reading because you can point out the differences without the need for the book. I am not sure if this is making much sense. But what I think is the better way of understanding the image is to read the book and then draw the comaprison because then you can think more and be more creative rather than looking at the picture first and getting the feeling of the painting does all the explaining needed so why think harder. Sorry I dont even know if i am getting my point across its just hard to explain in writing.

Solnit and Muybridge
Thursday March 17th 2011, 7:38 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Form is henceforth divorced from matter.  In fact, matter as a visible object is of no great use any longer, except as the mould on which form is shaped.” (Solnit 21) is what Holmes had said in the piece by Solnit. In her article shhe seems to be arguing aganist what james and holmes believe to be the correct way of preceving a photograph. Holmes believed that having a photograph of the original object was fine and in fact it was the best way to et the viewer to feel the realness and the closeness of the object. James argued that a photo can remind you of the event but it doesnt remind you of the feeling you would get if you were really there. He said the viewer doesnt get to “experience” the event in the photograph.

When we were asked about the motion pitures and what they presented and how did the affect the time and space. I wrote that motion pictures was a way to help the viewer see the impossible. In other words throug motion pictures we were able to shhhow scences that one can probably see only once in a life time. For example the piture of a horse up on all four feet. we know the horse can do it because we have the picture that it can do it, the only problem is that the horse wont do that act all the time. SO having these motion pictures were helpful in the sense that they helped capture the scenes that the eye would miss in a blink. This affected the time and space becuase the time limits the viewers understanding of the event or object it sees, because of the technology advancement was so rrapid the viewer was rushing with time to be able to understand the image and move on.

Muybridge’s motion pictures was very interesting becuase it helped viweres see the images through different lenses The viewer was able to pinpoint the horse at differnt angels and how it moved.

I felt that

Carter and James explaination of the Stream of Consciousness
Thursday March 17th 2011, 6:48 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

While reading the work of both James and Carter I realized that they both seem to be following almost the same views on consciousness. Interesting thing is that James’ interpertation dates back to the 1890s while Carter’s is much more recent in 2002. Just from the dates I noticed that this topic on a way one observes things has been going on for so many years trying to establish a set ground or a set meaning for it.

When I read James’ piece one line that stood out the most to me was “Immediately, after 0 [seconds], even before we have opened our mouths to speak, the entire thought is present to our mind in the form of an intention to utter that sentence” (280) here I thought that James view on preception is that one always has thoughts of the object. Our minds view the object, think of what it could be and then say well this is what it is. I think James tries to say that our eyes and minds work together. In James’ piece i felt as though he was saying that the order in which we see things is very important, in the sense that when we are looking at an object what we first see, then second, third and so on is what out brain will pick up and put all together to make sense of it.

In Carter’s piece she uses reading as a exapmle to prove her theory of consciousness, which is very simlar to James’ Carter questions “Does your consciousness flow smoothly, continuously, and in real time? Or does it lurch along, punctuated by jump-cuts and freeze-frames, flashbacks and fade-outs” (Carter 12) as she tries to explain that your mind is countinuly processing words it sees on a page while you read. Your eyes read the indivdual words but it is your mind that makes seanse on it.

I feel taht both James and Carter seem to have the same thoughts in mind and that is that the thought of the human mind is continous.  Both writers state that the mind is constantly thinking and the eyes are the factor used to help the mind think. What the eye sees is what the brain will make sense of, as proved in James’ theory of the thoughts being continouus yet broken down in parts. Carter uses the computer reading as the exapmle, the rapid movement of the eyes that can be obtained by the computer shouws that the eyes are one source for seeing but the brain is the main source that works with the eyes to help percieve the object and make sense of it all.

paper 1
Tuesday March 15th 2011, 9:51 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Betty Mohammad

March 13, 2011

Professor D. Zino

English Senior Seminar 391

“Seeing the reality behind the poetry of Emily Dickinson in: The Brain is Wider than the Sky”

Vision is defined in Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “a thought, concept, or object formed by the imagination.” In the late 19th century the introduction of the stereoscope, a popular invention helped bring objects in view closer to the viewer through the viewer’s experience of the object. With the ability to view “solid” objects in a 3-dimentional lens, the stereoscope allowed two dissimilar objects to be separately viewed through the eyes and then let the brain make sense and connect the thought and imagination to the image. Jonathan Crary’s Techniques of the Observer argued that it is not merely important for vision to be viewed only for its biological and physiological truth but to also put into consideration the relation between vision and perception of the human mind. Emily Dickinson follows the similar techniques of observation as of Crary’s in her poem “The Brain is wider than the Sky.”

            “The most significant form of visual imagery in the nineteenth century, with the exception of photographs, was the stereoscope.” (Crary 82)  The stereoscope creates a 3-D image off of a 2-D offset image that is viewed by the eyes and then perceived and combined to give the brain a depth meaning of the image. The different angular perceptive of the image makes the image seem as if it is “alive.”  The stereoscope allows the viewer to be able to see an object as if he or she is actually in the presence of the object itself. “[T]hese stereoscopic photographs are so true to nature and so lifelike in their portrayal of material things, that after viewing such a picture and recognizing in it some object like a house, for instance, we get the impression, when we actually do see the object, that we have already seen it before and are more or less familiar with it.” (Crary 85)

            The stereoscope was first invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1838. Wheatstone believed that the angle of the degree in the axis of the eye differed when focused on the same point. He claimed that the human eye had the power to combine the two “different ways it sees” into a single unitary image. “When the object is placed so near the eyes that to view it the optic axes must converge…a different perspective of it is seen by each eye, and these perspectives are more dissimilar as the convergence of the optic axes becomes greater.” (Crary 83) Wheatstone’s invention of the stereoscope helped create a relation between the observer and the experience of disjunct images which can help depict Emily Dickinson’s theory of “seeing.”

            Emily Dickinson is one of the most famous American poets of the 1800s. It was only after her death when her poetry was published and out came almost 1700 poems that she had written, leaving her readers to think of the many hidden meanings and depth behind her work. Her poems vary in range of themes but one theme that stands out amongst the many is the theme of “sight” or “seeing.” After doing a thorough reading of her poetry it is very hard to depict what exactly Dickinson wants her readers to get out of her poems but how she wants them to “see” the poetry is very clearly presented. The readers of her poetry are to be able to vision her words as if they are images that can be seen. Dickinson’s poetry helps readers see objects that are of two different spectrums through one lens similar to the stereoscope.

In her poem “The Brain is wider than the sky…” the reader is placed almost like on a globe where she has to run from one end of the pole to the other end and then somehow come back to the center and make sense of the whole thing. In this poem Dickinson describes objects that don’t really connect but yet when really thought about a similarity can be found within them. Like the stereoscope where the image is viewed though the right and left eye and then the mind plays the devil’s advocate and makes sense of the two images Dickinson’s poem seems to be following in the similar footsteps.

The Brain -is wider than the sky-

                        For-Put them side by side-

                        The one the other will contain

                        with ease- and you-beside-

                        The Brain is deeper than the sea-

                        For-hold them-Blue to Blue-

                        The one the other will absorb-

                        as sponges- Buckets-do-

                        The Brain is just the weight of God-

                        For-Heft them-Pound for Pound-

                        And they will differ if they do-

            As syllable from sound-

            When she writes her first lines of  “The Brain -is wider than the sky- For-Put them side by side-The one the other will contain with ease- and you-beside-” as a reader what comes to mind is imagining a brain that is so big that the sky seems to be this little blue thing within the brain. If one really thinks about it it seems as if Dickinson is making a connection of what the outside world and the mind share. By her saying the Brain is wider than the sky it seems as if she is saying that the mind’s ability to see things, understand things, and interpret things can be measured wider than the sky. Here is presented two different objects, the Brain and the sky yet in the mind of Dickinson they are similar because when a reader who actually looks at the two not through the physiological view but through the experience of the eye and mind as Crary states, the reader will be able to see the connection Dickinson is trying to construct.

            In her second stanza she says “The Brain is deeper than the sea-For-hold them-Blue to Blue-The one the other will absorb-as sponges- Buckets-do-” she compares the Brain to a sea and the sea to being soaked by a sponge or in a bucket. In these lines you see that she is constructing the brain in the form of an object that absorbs things as a sponge does. She visualizes the brain as how she sees it and then compares it to the sea. She says the sea can be absorbed with a sponge and like that the brain can be soak in all the things it sees and construct things to the way it wants to see it. The stereoscope can be used to explain Dickinson’s view again because here she uses the whole stereoscope theory of two dissimilar images that can be seen together to create a connection and meaning.

            In the third stanza of the poem she says “The Brain is just the weight of God-For-Heft them-Pound for Pound- And they will differ if they do-As syllable from sound-” Here she says that the brain is just the weight of god in other words it seems as if she is saying it is the brain that give god its existences. When she compares a syllable to a sound it’s like saying that a syllable gives a word structure while a sound keeps the word without a form. While looking at it from this perspective its seems as if she is suggesting that God is only in the mind and that it is the mind that gives God an existence.

                Dickinson’s poetry like the poetry of many other poets has been criticized, attacked, beaten through critics to get the real meaning out. Reading line by line each of her stanza’s readers can try to pick up what she wants her readers to get out of her poem and what she wants them to see in her poems. When she writes the words to her poems it’s like she takes words that can have simple meanings such as a brain but turn it so that one sees the brain in a totally different light. A reader may not ever think of a brain being as big as the sky but when Dickinson puts these images in the reader’s mind it gets the reader to look at the brain through a different view. The fact that she allows her reader to take something as simple as the Brain and come out by the end of the poem with such a complex meaning for Brain is applaud worthy. She makes the reader look behind the basic images of a brain, sea, and sky to what they actually mean.

            “In devising the stereoscope, Wheatstone aimed to simulate the actual presence of a physical object or scene, not to discover another way to exhibit a print or drawing.” (Crary 84) The main point of the stereoscope was to allow the viewer to see the image as a “solid” object rather than a replica of it. Unlike the camera obscura, the stereoscope didn’t not want to take the viewer away from the “realism” of the object but in fact bring them closer to it. Dickinson’s poem “The Brain is wider than the Sky…” similarly to the stereoscope seems to bring the reader as close to the truth of the world as it possibly can. The fact that Dickinson constantly does this comparison between two different objects to prove a point of similarity between them shows that she is trying to bring her readers to a conclusion that objects can be viewed through different degrees but with the help of the mind the reader will be able to see the object’s existence past just the physiological view of it.