Saturday, March 17, 2012

John Donne - Poetry Madness 1

John Donne!



Bio
·        Born in 1572 London England during a time of political/religious unrest (Protestant Massacre in France on Saint Bartholomew’s day; persecution of Catholics)
·        Studied at Oxford and Cambridge in his early teen years but never took a degree from either because it meant subscribing to the 39Articles of Anglicanism.
·        Studied law at Lincoln’s Inn, and two years later joined Anglican church after his brother died in prison, having been put there for being a Catholic. Wrote his Satires and Songs and Sonnets volumes during these times
·        He was appointed private secretary to Sir Thomas Egerton in 1598 after a 2year naval expedition against Spain
·        He sat on Queen Elizabeth’s last Parliament in 1601 and secretly married Anne More, for which her father (Egerton) imprisoned him and refused them a dowry
·        They succame to extreme financial instability in their subsequent isolation,  especially cuz they had so many kids. He published a group of works called Divine Poems during this time
·        1615 – James I pressured him to enter the Anglican Ministry by declaring that Donne could not be employed outside of the church, and he was appointed Royal Chaplain later that year
·        His wife died in 1617 after giving birth to their 12 child, a stillborn (only 7 actually lived). It is during this period of his life he published Holy Sonnets
·        In 1621 he became dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral, and during this time wrote his private prayers, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions
·        He was the founder of the Metaphysical School of poetry (a term created by Samuel Johnson, the actual word “metaphysics” developed by Dryden upon observation of Donne’s odd terminology) who are known for their ability to startle the reader and coax new perspective through paradoxical images, subtle argument, inventive syntax, and imagery from art, philosophy, and religion using an extended metaphor known as a conceit
·        His learned, charismatic, and inventive preaching made him a highly influential presence in London (especially amongst the younger generation of poets), best known for his vivacious, compelling style and thorough examination of moral paradox. Died 1631

Influences
He drew influence from:
·        Ovid (treating love cynically or as reduced to mere sexual attraction) note, there is some debate on whether he was actually involved in the rank sexual lifestyle or if he was just using Ovidian themes satiricly for implicitly moral purposes à his first published works, the Satires, almost seem to suggest the latter
·        Petrarch (impassioned and romantic) – quote “For Rachel I have severed, and not for Leah” became his motto, also was influenced by the Petrarchan idea that it is idolatrious to attach your love to a person, and so to rectify your love you must redirect it to the unchanging image Dei  (God; that is, turn from worldly love to divine love – perhaps Donne’s reaction after Anne’s death, and definitely in part the message of Farewell to Love)
·        The Church (his mother was catholic, but he was taught at Anglican universities, led to his acceptance of  Christian Platonism à a reconciliation of the human need to love with both body and soul, but with each not beyond what they should be so that they don’t  take from the relationship with God ----- there would be three types of unions, the union of human bodies sexually, the union of souls emotionally, and the union of souls with God spiritually) This is why so many of his poems are so shockingly sexual, even when dealing with religion
He influenced:
Renaissance love lyric and conational 16th century poetry
·        Passages are not as smooth or mellifluous, but instead he speaks with “a vocabulary and syntax reflecting the emotional intensity of a confrontation and whose metrics and verbal music conform to the to the needs of a particular dramatic situation” (using “living speech”)
·        He used conceit more fully
·        Drew his imagery from more diverse fields (alchemy, astronomy, medicine, politics, global exploration, philosophical disputation)
·        Direct confrontation of the “ladies” of his poems, instead of about them but apart from them
·        Through all these he influenced Robert Browning, William Butler Yeats, T.S. Eliot, Alexander Pope, and Ernest Hemingway (for whom the bell tolls)

Work Cited
"John Donne." Poets.org. The Academy of American Poets. Web. 13 Mar. 2012
Naugle, David. "John Donne's Poetic Philosophy of Love." Web.

Farewell to Love
WHILST yet to prove 
I thought there was some deity in love, 
So did I reverence, and gave 
Worship ; as atheists at their dying hour 
Call, what they cannot name, an unknown power, 
As ignorantly did I crave. 
Thus when 
Things not yet known are coveted by men, 
Our desires give them fashion, and so 
As they wax lesser, fall, as they size, grow. 

But, from late fair, 
His highness sitting in a golden chair, 
Is not less cared for after three days 
By children, than the thing which lovers so 
Blindly admire, and with such worship woo ; 
Being had, enjoying it decays ; 
And thence, 
What before pleased them all, takes but one sense, 
And that so lamely, as it leaves behind 
A kind of sorrowing dulness to the mind. 

Ah cannot we, 
As well as cocks and lions, jocund be 
After such pleasures, unless wise 
Nature decreed—since each such act, they say, 
Diminisheth the length of life a day— 
This ; as she would man should despise 
The sport, 
Because that other curse of being short, 
And only for a minute made to be 
Eager, desires to raise posterity. 

Since so, my mind 
Shall not desire what no man else can find ; 
I'll no more dote and run 
To pursue things which had endamaged me ; 
And when I come where moving beauties be, 
As men do when the summer's sun 
Grows great, 
Though I admire their greatness, shun their heat. 
Each place can afford shadows ; if all fail, 
'Tis but applying worm-seed to the tail. 


Sunday, March 11, 2012

Beauty, in all it's Beauty


            Wow. I do not know if I shall be able to look passed the last three minutes of the video series objectively enough to give credit to all the truth it contained. Even writing the end of that sentence made me a little ill. Shake it off….whew. So first you tell me that when beauty was based upon the principles of beauty as defined by Christian religion (yes, mr. video-man, you did mention other religions, but your screenshots only showed churches and cathedrals – I can only assume that Christianity is the one you meant to highlight) that it was done right. You say that the moral and spiritual needs of man fulfilled in man-made beauty (art) were grasped completely when God was the standard upon which that pursuit was based. Then you tell me that when science got in the way and people became skeptical of those bases, that art turned to ugliness and real beauty was forgotten. Then you tell me that beauty is a SUBSTITUTE for this religion that captured and DEFINED it?!?! What the….?!?!?! I’m sorry, but did you just miss everything else you just said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Really?! Seriously ?! a SUBSTITUTE?!?! Up to this point, the video described an inherent connection between what real beauty is and an attempt to connect to, reflect, and reveal some sort of “God”. How could beauty as defined in the video even exist apart from that, if all of beauty’s standards were written with that connection! Really, how could “religion” be a “beauty-substitute”? If this incredible heaven-beauty connection that video-man was pushing is true, then beauty serves to prove religion just as much as religion serves to define it. Religion cannot stand alone as something put in place of beauty – the beauty of God is intrinsic to that which truly is Christianity! Not only was that statement so contradictory to the rest of the video(s) that it made me ill, it reveals an awful understanding of religion and horrible, horrible logic!
            Okay, I feel I just repeated the same thing like, four times, but that took me so completely aback that I cannot bother to care. Anyway, up until the end, I believe that the essay and the video were in pretty strong accord, save for the fact that the essay acknowledged the hand (and duty) of Christianity in regards to beauty, rather than the hand of beauty in regards to religion. The essay was pretty spot-on I believe. I myself have heard of the contrasting symphonies of which it speaks, some completely insane and some very orderly and graceful. What I feel was not defined enough (in either the essay or the video) was the delineation between “truly creative” and “ugly”. This is something I have struggled with quite often. Even though the symphony in complete discord does not perhaps reflect “Christian beauty”, but the understanding of music, the vision, the talent….everything that went into just how bizarre it was…can be incredibly imaginative! Those sorts of pieces require a vision that so few in this world could ever even dream of. Real, quality instruments, put to unique tempo and unique sound…there is something to be said for those pieces by those who understand what the composer is doing. It may not be the most seamless song, but there is something there. And no, I’m not describing trash that is just sound. These sounds had a purpose. Like…hm…better example: contemporary art is mostly crap. However, if an artist can take something normal and beautiful and do something completely different with it, something unique, something with a real vision and use of talent through whatever medium, that doesn’t make it ugly. That doesn’t mean it is valueless just because it’s in pieces. I mean, Venus de Milo has no arms, but she’s “beautiful”. Michelangelo’s David’s hands, head, and feet are not true to real human proportion, but it’s still “beautiful”. There is a certain type of artistic license that can be had with nature and its beauty, but this fine line between inventive/unique/creative and ugly I feel was not addressed. I mean, I sculpted an iguana once. It’s a pretty awesome iguana - really accurate and well done - however just because I can replicate nature, to me doesn’t feel like I’m actually an “artist” (although some would think I am). Some people think I’m a musician too, but I am not. So I know a few chords and can appreciate the more intricate things in music that others may not recognize. So what? …We addressed this in class, when Mr. Dyck spoke about his nephew that can play music vs. his niece that can “play” music, but I just felt like the essay and videos didn’t. Those who can actually “do” will do something more.
            The video and the essay did both talk about uplifting the mundane though, and I suppose they had a point there: putting the simpler things into certain lights so that we will appreciate the truth and beauty behind them. So cool, my iguana is a “beautiful” iguana. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it is that I think more in terms of music. That song of Mary’s mourning at the end of the video series really spoke to that for me, as do many string-based symphonies: There is a story behind them that can only be shown by a particular manipulation of the music; one that writing is just so beyond me in grasping. I mean, if you want to make something sound sad, use minor chords. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star in a minor key is incredibly depressing. Thank you Bryan. But to turn a story into sound requires a level of real vision and composing ability that absolutely boggles my mind. To me, THAT is creating real art. That is abstract in the most beautiful form. Soooo beyond me. I wish both the video and essay would have spent more time on music….
            Overall, the way by which art should reflect real beauty and truth as expressed by the essay and (most of) the video I agreed with. Sometimes I struggle with what real creativity is, however….for myself, it is often times the creativity and ingenuity behind the work that is more beautiful and fascinating than the end product. 

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Conundrum of a Cloud

Okay, so this poem isn't that great, but it has a real meaning to me. People think I'm a good artist, but the truth is I am not. Whether the medium is words or graphite or paint, I can only ever make decent art when my mind goes to a particular place that I can never get it to by sheer will. It's really annoying. Honestly, no matter how I try, that wolf I painted on that reversible coffin for Walker's class not only could I never ever replicate, but I couldn't paint anything that decent right now. I couldn't sculpt like I made that iguana, I could not envision a Model-T in a box of pencils. This frustration came to a head last night when I watched Hugo. That movie was the most AMAZING piece of art...my mind totally went to that place, like, extreme. But when I tried to draw, I couldn't hold on to anything. See, when I do create a good sketch, or make something people think is "good", it's only ever a crude replication of something that's already there. I can't REALLY create anything, like the stuff in Hugo. While I can only roughly mimic the beauty of the world around me, there are others in the world that can do so much more. I love/hate those people!! I couldn't even hold on to one vision to replicate after watching that movie though. It was really frustrating. Soooooo I turned my symbol of a "cloud" from class into a poem about all this. Yay! Here goes!


Mimicry is the 
Most sincere form of flattery,
They tell me - 
Just look up, see
That celestial ballerina
Extend her cotton arm o'ertop the 
Ethereal silhouette of a mushroom?
Look, how effortlessly she skims and flits 
Across the undulating topside of a crocodile,
Morphing west as impatient winds
Cause 't to give chase to migrating geese!


Is that all?
I reply. Their semblances are crude
at best.
No matter the dreams 
Forged within the endless billows of white
and grey, 
A cloud can amount to nothing
but rain.
And even less, I confess,
Without the true artists' visions
Who alone may aspire to more
than mere mimicry.





Thursday, March 1, 2012

Islamic Church and American State?

Mixing? Doubt it. It is one thing to be knowledgeable about Islamic culture, and sensitive to it. Perhaps I would even go so far as to feel it would be alright to have pro-sensitivity laws (ignorant Americans don't do anybody any good, and are much too prevalent for my liking). However, to promote laws that are inherently biased against the minorities that America so uplifts like women and homosexuals? And on top of that, to only show favor to one specific religious group? Goooooood luck with that. 


I guess that means we have to kill...hmmmmm...most of Americans for not being Muslim? This spells alot of trouble for capitalism and democracy too. The entire machine that is America is honestly too far 1st-world to support real, strict Shariah law. 


That journalist did have a point - to mock a religion without knowing a thing about it does make one look like an ignorant doofus. However, ignoring the laws already in place to condemn that man and pardon one who reacted violently towards him in the end only serves to support violence. Yay violence?


Please, by all means, make people more sensitive. But Shariah law would only dethrone America's entire way of being - equality (however corrupted) would be dead, many pro-equality movements would be quashed and probably rise up in anger at being thus silenced in a world where they are used to freedom of speech. ...in the words of Bartok from the cartoon Anastasia movie, "this can only end in tears!"

Monday, February 27, 2012

That's a Laugh

To think, that the corrupt government of a corrupted society could possibly by the determiner of laws! Laws are created to regulate and bring justice. What could a law be based upon, what standard, what truth, where it up to but a corrupt group of old men (and women...) in fun-looking robes who argue all the time? Yeah, we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but this authority is all God's my friends. 

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Not Fear, But Love

How would I respond to this? I suppose I would respond with my character more than anything. This passed summer I worked with three females who were all lesbian, and one got married while I was still with them. I never hated, I never treated any of them any different. I actually became good buds with them all, proved myself through hard work (I was a Restoration Laborer) and deep, insightful conversations. If we had ever discussed the topic, I do not think they could accuse me of being that kind of hateful, judging person. If at all possible, I would prove with my character that real Christians know how to say "I love you, I just cant "walk" with you" (walk meaning the walk of lifestyle). I would know, then, how to assert this point. What good does it do for either persons' agenda if I hate? Besides the feelings that would get stirred up, which would lead to no good in and of itself, but logically, what good would come of that? There is plenty of evidence after mentioning this - Biblical, Scientific, and all the crossroads of the two - to support where I stand and how I choose to act about it. How exactly I go about introducing these things and just how successful I am will depend on the temperament of whoever I'm talking to.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

A Necessary Evil ?

Q:    Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?

A:    This is a rather touchy subject. As a Christian looking in on a Secular world, I find that it will be very difficult for a society with no base for their values to answer this sufficiently. If I were to get right to the heart of the matter, I would say that parenting - both in discipline and lunchmaking, as these seem to be the topics at hand - should be completely dependent upon parents. However, the reality of mankind's fallen condition makes this impossible. Because people are inherently untrustworthy, because there is no single foundation upon which to base that which is "proper parenting", and because people come from so many financial and ethnic backgrounds, some regulations by an overarching authority (government) must by necessity be set forth. In a society where the attitudes of the people and the realities of their lives determines the state of mind held in that governing body, those regulations will inevitably be imperfect and oftentimes dissatisfying in one way or another.
        All this being said, it honestly is hard for me to care one way or another what government regulates. In all three of these articles, the issue at hand actually reminds me of the gay marriage legislation going through Washington state right now: throwing the problem of discipline (behavioural or in terms of food intake) at the state and throwing the desire for gay marriage to be legalized at heart contain the same basic motive, the same basic yearning. It is a cry for normalcy. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason people even need question if the government should or shouldn't regulate something is because they no longer know how to do it themselves. Without the Bible as your basis for both your personal standards and the standards of general consensus, you are left floating out in space. Basic instinct inside you calls for a human society, a loving family, all these good things...however, without the proper base, humankind has no way to properly meet those ends. Gay marriage is in question because marriage is a standard for life that people want. Do they even know why they want it? A structured, able, caring family that knows how to discipline properly (as the writers of Proverbs did) and know how to properly care about their children's physical and mental needs is something strongly desired by all, but with no all-encompassing means to that end. 
        My point is that it may become necessary that the government become more involved. Life now is not like the life Mrs. Obama had - people are more casual, less respectful. There is a greater and easier access to the foods that are detrimental to one's health, and there are fewer mothers able to set time aside to cook a family dinner because so many have to work now. But that is mainly on the part of foods. If a child is being abused, and they tell someone, the parent can be arrested and the child protected. CPS is enough when it comes to regulating the way a parent can discipline their child. With the overarching philosophies of the modern day consisting of a skewed view of tolerance, a complete lack of moral character, and a "you can do anything" message, a reality check can really only come from one's family and/or church family. Or friends, whoever closest to any particular individual actually has a brain between their shoulders. 
        This does not mean I am by any stretch of the imagination a proponent of government involvement in any of this - quite the opposite really. And while I hold absolutely no expectations towards man's behaviour -so often they err on the side of sinful- I have every hope and every faith in the God-shaped hole inside them. This hole cannot help but recognize God's goodness and the beauty of the simple complexities that are His flawless plan for the life of man, especially if thrown in contrast to the reality of how broken a godless world truly is. 
        So I suppose this still leaves me on the fence, save on the singular point of discipline. I do not want the government regulating that ever. That can only lead to more brainless, moral-less proponents of marijuana (and other sinful behaviours/lifestyles, haha). In this case, I see the "necessary evil" of government as more detrimental than "necessary". Perhaps I am just disaffected and ignorant of what life is like when one is actually, actively dancing the government's tango - that is very possible. But that LAST article especially just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing.