Art

I found it very difficult to find an art piece I 'connect' with, simply because I can't connect with pictures. My mind works in words- I can relate to writing, but pictures are just, well, pictures. Just images, just colours (or hues, if black and white and gray) on a surface. Sculpture is sort of the same. I admire people who can create art- but I can't connect with it. Therefore, I have chosen this piece:



I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.

Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:

Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.

I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.

(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)

End

What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?

His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.

Artists and politicians

Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?

No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.

Crowd

Ch. 17-18, Blog – Can one voice move a crowd to action?

Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.

Election

Ch. 16, What do you think of Wright's action during the election?

This sort of goes back to what we were talking about in class one day- about whether Wright was 'good' or 'bad' and I said neither because he was human. So this isn't as deep and profound as that, but I think what he did made sense. He may have participated bribery and a corrupt election, but as he said- he needed the money. Even if he hadn't done anything for it, someone else would have. One person can't change anything; only groups can (though one perrson can incite a group to movement). After he did all that, then he wrote I Protest This Fraud on his ballot. What do I think of that? I think that all votes should be honest, even if they don't count individually, and if that was how he felt, that was a good thing to do. (Also, my dad did something like that once: he disliked both candidates so he put 'the corpse of Benjamin Franklin') Wright wrote something else about how he knew that the politicians would know that at least one person knew what was going on and that made him feel better. I understand that feeling.

Change

Ch. 12-14 Blog – Is the change Wright sets in motion at the end of Part I a positive or negative change?

Wright's change- his move to the North- is a positive change. He's going to try and change himself so that he can be more himself and won't have to act so subservient to the whites. He thinks that in the North, the people won't discriminate against him so much. His desire to become more equal is a positive thing. The North will help him along that path, even though there is just as much prejudice there, too. So it is a positive change because he's trying for something close to equality, which all humans deserve.

Stealing

Explain Wright's moral dilemma concerning stealing. Is he justified in what he does?
~
He has never considered stealing before because he didn't think that stealing was an effective way to get anything. He views stealing as behaviour that makes blacks seem less equal to whites, because it's something whites can despise about blacks and so he also doesn't want to act as if he is inferior. However, after the incident at the eye people, he decides he has to leave the South or else he knows he'll slip up and get killed. However, he needs money. He isn't making enough money on his own. After his moral barriers break down a little after he smuggles liquor like everyone else, he finally does decide to take part in doing some illegal selling of tickets to get enough money to leave. I think he is justified in what he does. Getting killed and/or remaining miserable helps nobody, least of all him. Compunctions against stealing are all well and good when one isn't struggling for one's very existence. I think it's commendable that Wright held out as long as he did. I don't know that I would have. And since the white people were apparently practically encouraging blacks to steal, it might be what they deserve.

Live in the South

What does Griggs mean by ‘learn how to live in the south’?
~
He means that Wright has to learn how to act around whites- as if he is inferior. That Wright has to be subservient to them and not protest and not ask questions or act as if he were equal to whites. That the south is like that and if Wright doesn't learn to live in the south, then bad things will happen. He says this because Wright is having trouble acting the way he is supposed to. Griggs is concerned for him- knowing that if Wright doesn't 'learn to live in the south' by not suppressing his own equality, then he could get beaten or worse.

Speech, justified?

Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?
~
Yes. If he had wanted to continue with his education, go to college, etc., then refusing would not have been justified. The principal's speech might not have been what Wright wanted to say, but it was only a ninth-grade graduation speech that wouldn't have been remembered. I don't think anyone involved would have particularly cared after a year or so. So it would have been silly not to say a speech that didn't matter for a goal that did. However, Wright is perfectly fine with not teaching, not going to college, not continuing with his education. Because he doesn't care and doesn't want to continue living down south, the speech doesn't matter- nor does what the principal thinks of him. Sticking up for what he thinks he should say is justified, because there would be no reason to capitulate. So, yes, he is justified.

Uncle Tom

His Uncle Tom takes something he said the wrong way and goes to beat him for it. Wright doesn't understand what he said that was so wrong. He is angry because he feels that his Uncle Tom has no right to beat him. Tom has had no say in how Wright was brought up, has not cared for him before and is basically just a stranger to him. What happens is similar to what Wright said before, in chapter 1 I think, that 'only a father has the right to beat a child'. He doesn't know Tom, doesn't think Tom cares for him and doesn't like Tom and so refuses to be taught how to behave from someone he doesn't even know, for something he doesn't think is even an issue.