New Criticism- Analysis # 2

         This is a painting done by Banksy in the West Bank on a security fence. To me, this painting tells a story of two kids who are painting a wall and stumble upon a whole, which leads them to paradise. They are working kids, painting the wall for money but instead of working, find a utopia where all their dreams are going to come true. The kids look happy and their is optimism on their face that life has more to offer them. After just watching the film “Exit Through the Gift Shop,” I believe that Banksy’s work is done to make people happy and provoke questions about society. 

  If I were to look at this painting from a New Criticism perspective I would have to erase what I just watched about Banksy in “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” In New Criticism, a piece of art or writing is self contained, the biography of the artist and the historical context are unimportant.  From this perspective I would say that the painting is of two children who are painting a wall. As they are painting the wall they see a hole and discover that there is a beach.Their is irony and paradox in the painting. The paradox is seen by looking at the color contrast and the children’s lives in front of the wall as opposed to what is behind the wall. The color contrast also emphasizes irony because the wall and children are black and white and “paradise” is very colorful. Taking a New Criticism perspective, I did not include any background on Banksy and, I resisted telling what the painting means to me. Along with historical and biographical context, New Criticism does not rely on psychological or sociological impact. I think that this perspective is not as effective. I find it impossible to get everything I can get out of a piece of work without knowing some background information on the artist or historical context. For this piece of work, from a New Criticism perspective, the audience has no idea that Banksy is one of the pioneers of street art or that his paintings often time get erased because what he does is illegal. The context is crucial to understand the painting as a whole. I understand why this technique is effective though because often times in works, people rely to much on the author or historical context for analysis. Once in a while it is interesting to see what you get just by reading the work or looking at the painting and analyzing the form. 

word count: 427

Week 5 Enlightenment

           In this week’s class we discussed Enlightenment Theory which began in Western Europe in the 17th century. The period of the Enlightenment introduces rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism. Rationalism is the idea that through reason, knowledge is gained and understood. Empiricism believes that knowledge is gained through the senses and experiences felt through the senses. Skepticism says that true knowledge is impossible. 

  Rationalism is the idea that through reason, knowledge is gained and understood. Empiricism believes that knowledge is gained through the senses and experiences felt through the senses. Skepticism says that true knowledge does not exist. This theory begin with Rene Descartes who famously said “I think, therefore I am.” This was the birth of rational thought. The idea that all we need is our mind and common sense. 

  This theory begin with Rene Descartes who famously said “I think, therefore I am.” This was the birth of rational thought. The idea that all we need is our mind and common sense. In Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism he lists things to be aware of when giving criticism. His criticism is a neo-classicist reprisal, which means upholding rules and conventions. 

  Immanuel Kant introduced German Idealism which is the idea that how a person perceives an object is based on the properties we discover in them. I like this idea because I feel that people can look at one object but everyone can see something different based on their experiences or knowledge. Kants German Idealism is a mixture of rationalism and empiricism. 

          This painting reminds of me of what Kant talks about. This is a paint by Mark Rothko. I think it provokes a lot of emotion but it is abstract and different for everyone. This one painting does not mean the same thing for everyone just because it is painting. 

Analysis # 1

         Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see the available means of persuasion.”(86) Aristotle’s rhetoric emphasizes three important types of talking; deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. The key to rhetoric was to keep it short and keep it memorable. Along with that there are mechanics that can be used such as induction, syllogism, ethos, pathos, logos, and style. 

          For this analysis I will be focusing on an example of deliberative speech. A deliberative speech is one where you are persuading people about what is going to happen next. The clip I found is from the 2005 film “Thank You For Smoking,” in which Aaron Eckhart plays chief spokesperson, Nick Naylor, for a large tobacco company. What is interesting about this clip is that even though most of the general public can agree that smoking is bad, Nick Naylor persuades his audience that smoking is in fact “cool.” The below clip illustrates the power of persuasion seen in Naylor’s speech.

  What makes Naylor’s speech so persuasive is the mechanics of rhetoric he uses. Like the clip in class from “Wall Street,” both Gekko and Naylor know that it is not just what they say but how they say it. Their use of ethos is extremely effective. He walks around the table, making sure to look everyone in the eye. He does not act as if he is above them or knows more, but instead finds ways to include them by asking questions.  He clearly is trying to sell an idea, but his conversational tone makes it a more comfortable environment. His use of ethos comes through in his look too. His attire helps him be taken seriously. He talks with confidence and conviction and makes his audience want to listen to him.

  His use of induction and logical fallacies are seen when he discusses films of the past. He makes a correlation between films and what made them cool. His first premise is that movie stars are cool, the second being movie stars smoked in films, the conclusion being that smoking must be cool. This is really the key to his speech. While this may not be true, by putting it in that format helps emphasize his point.

  Nick Naylor’s speech in “Thank You For Smoking” has the two key components of rhetoric that was discussed in Kevin O’Neill’s lecture, it was short and memorable. The clip is only one and a half minutes and yet all of his points were made and are clear. He talks in a way that is easy to understand and does not dwell on any one idea for too long. He wants to keep their attention and to do that he moves quickly so that his audience doesn’t bore.

  As a spokesperson for cigarettes, Nick Naylor has to have good rhetoric. Because most of the time he is dealing with people that do not agree with him, his arguments must be convincing and logical. The power of Aristotle’s rhetoric is displayed in the scene above. He employs induction, logical fallacies, ethos and style to form a persuasive argument.

Works Cited:

Kevin O’Neill Lecture

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &,

2010. Print.

YouTube 

March 14 2011 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdbldsnSxE

word count: 547

Week 3- Kevin O'Neill Lecture

I expected to be confused when I walked into the lecture room to listen to Kevin O’Neil speak about rhetoric, theories and their origins. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that I understood and was able to follow what he was saying. He was extremely charismatic and he proved that if you know how to relate to your audience, you will make a bigger impression. Between his different accents, pitches, and references I couldn’t help but listen and be intrigued. It was great that he gave us a brief history of what type of people the greeks were. I should have guessed, but never knew just how much weight they put on speech. Its actually very impressive. It really helped to have someone put into clearer terms the ideas that we had previously read. I walked out feeling a little bit more comfortable with the theories jargon. 

The clip from “Wall Street” was a great example how the things talked about in the lecture are applied. What made Gordon Ghekko’s speech so convincing was his use of rhetoric compared to the man before him. He made himself part of the crowd like he was “just like them.” He made certain not to seem of a different caliber so that the people would trust him. He points fingers at the shareholders even though he is the biggest shareholder. Looking at movies or even the news you can see how rhetoric is used to encourage, persuade, and manipulate people. I think that the use of good rhetoric is a very powerful tool as seen in your example of “Wall Street.”

More Then Just “A Doll on a Music Box”

In this weeks class the clip from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang,” “A Doll on a Music Box,” really intrigued me and caught my attention. While we were watching it, I thought to myself that this was a really weird scene and didn’t understand its significance to our studies. In the past, I felt that I needed to know the whole story in order to understand a particular part. So with that idea in mind, I looked at the scene skeptically, thinking that it was impossible to analyze without knowing the rest of the film. As is turned out, that was definitely not the case. I was blown away by all the theories my classmates had come up with. I am somewhat naive to theories and how to analyze them, but after that class, I came out with a different perspective on how to approach theories. I think that you can’t always use the same theory for everything your read or watch. My theory turned out to be insignificant for this particular occasion. I didn’t need to know the whole movie to see what was going on. “A Doll on a Music Box” was a great lesson for me in that there is always more than what appears at the surface. More then anything, this week got me over my fear of now knowing as much as other people in the classroom. I am extremely eager to learn more from everyone and look at new perspectives to approaching literature and film. 

Introduction

Hi everyone, and welcome to my first-ever blog post. I have always wanted to start a blog, but my insecurities about putting my ideas in a public forum have prevented me from doing so. I will be honest; I am a little apprehensive about writing this blog because I recognize that some of you are more educated than I am on literature theories. However, my hope is that this blog will help me reach some personal goals that I have been putting off. For one, it will force me to not to be insecure about expressing my ideas, even if I think someone elses may be better. Secondly, it will allow me to learn from my classmates’ knowledge and understanding of critical theory. And three, it will help me overcome my fear of writing a blog and ultimately motivate me to start a film critique blog.

Now, a little about my background: I grew up in Malibu, California and am currently living in Venice, CA. I work at a boutique on Abbot Kinney Boulevard, a trendy and popular neighborhood located in Venice. I have attended several different colleges, beginning with University of Colorado at Boulder, then Santa Monica College, and now finally to CSUN. It has been a long journey that led me to question whether or not college was the right option for me. After taking a hiatus from college for six months, during which time I did some traveling through Europe, I eventually came to the realization that I wanted to return to school and get my degree. I am only 23, but I can’t help but think that if I stayed on track I would have graduated by now. I fit the cliché of the perpetual student; it feels like my college experience will never end. While I do have a strong desire to learn, it sometimes takes me a little longer than most to act upon it. I started off as a Film major, and have since moved from Psychology to Criminology and now to English Literature. Some may say that this demonstrates that I’m indecisive, but I honestly struggled to pick just one area of focus. Ultimately I am happy with my decision to be a Literature major, as I feel it can branch off into other areas of interest and be widely beneficial. My ultimate goal is to be a film critic, which often involves applying theories of literature to the medium of film. There are many ways to approach film criticism, and I have no doubt that the knowledge of Critical Theory I gain from this class will be useful in my chosen career path.

As far as this class goes, I will say that I’m slightly intimidated by many of my fellow students. In my opinion, the objective of a class is to learn as a group. But as is often the case, many students know so much about the subject before the class begins. This leads me to wonder, when and how did these classmates become so much more knowledgeable about this subject matter? I know the primary issues pertaining to Literature Theory, but I am looking forward to learning from, and being challenged by, Professor Wexler and the class. I am excited to prove to myself that just because I may not initially know as much as my classmates doesn’t mean that I am at a disadvantage, both in this class and throughout the course of my education.

Looking forward to a great year!