TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

To Kill A Mocking Bird is a novel by the american writer Harper Lee, it was published in 1960. It deals with big issues such as rape and racial inequality at a time when racism was very present in the USA. It tells the story of a family who live in an invented "tired old town" in Alabama during the great depression. The story focuses on the two young children, Scout and Jem who befriend their neighbour Dill. Their father, Atticus is a widowed lawyer who takes on a very difficult and polemic case. He decides to defend Tom a young black man who is accused of raping a young white women. The children face mockery and criticism because of their fathers decision to defend a black man but they respect and agree with him entirely. Despite the fact that Atticus defends Tom brilliantly and makes it very clear that he is innocent, he is found guilty and shot after he tries to escape from prison. The children who secretly watched the trial are shocked and their faith in their country's justice is lost.

I think we can relate this book to the notion of myths and heroes thanks to Atticus's character. He is a honest and brave man who takes a big risk and put's his family's reputation at risk to defend Tom because he knows it's right. In many extracts of the book Atticus explains to his children why he made this decision and they both admire him hugely for his sense of justice. He is a very wise and calm man who raises his children very well despite the fact that he has lost his wife. He has become an image of true justice and many lawyers think of him as a true hero.  The scholar Alice Petry explains that "Atticus has become something of a folk hero in legal circles and is treated almost as if he were an actual person." He is seen as a true hero and has been honoured publicly many times in Alabama as has Harper Lee. The book was so successful that in 1962 the director Alan J. Pakula decided to make a cinematographic adaptation of the story. The film was very well received and the book is often studied in school in anglophone countries. 

AN ART EXHIBITION REVIEW

I  saw an excellent exhibition at the Thyssen museum in Madrid that I really enjoyed! "POP ART MYTHS", as it's name suggests is an exhibition on the pop art and culture during the late 50's and early 60's. It focuses on the works of art or artists that have become myths in the world of pop culture. You can go get some extra information on the museums website here or go check out the virtual visit online because unfortunately it's no longer on as it took place from the 10th of June to the 14th of September. The museum is really easy to access via public transport as it's located at the Paseo del Prado, num 8, 28014 if ever you find another exhibition that interests you!

This exhibition contains amazing pieces by the Pop Culture legends such as Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol and Peter Blake, but also some more original collage style prints by Wolf Vostell or Mimmo Rotella. A great team of technical curators and the head curator Paloma Alarco did a really exceptional work for the organisation of the exhibition, dividing it in pertinent "sections".

The first real target, by Peter Blake, 1961

Enamel on canvas and paper on board, 53.7 × 49.3 cm Tate. Purchased 1982 
© Peter Blake. All rights reserved, DACS/VEGAP 2014

Cleopatra, by Mimmo Rotella 1963
Décollage on canvas, 134 x 137.6 cm Private collection 
© Mimmo Rotella, VEGAP, Madrid, 2014

This exhibition was truly aesthetically pleasing as pop art consists in lots of bright colours and shapes.  I personally really enjoy this style as it portrays a time where everything was changing very quickly. Some pieces really illustrate how consumerism became fashionable and essential in society during this time, for example, this is seen in one of my favourite paintings of the exhibition: Still life # 34 by Tom Wesselemann.

"Still life #34", Tom Wesselmann, 1963

As you can see Wesselemann has inspired himself from classic paintings of still lives in the construction of his piece and the flowers and pear but has added a modern touch with the Coca Cola bottle and the Lucky Strike packet. Both of these labels are emblems of consumerism in the 60s and the bright colours also create a contrast with original still life paintings.


Even though I thought the whole exhibition was quite outstanding, my utmost favourite work of art was Andy Warhol's "details of renaissance paintings". It portrays a cut out of the famous renaissance painting "the birth of Venus" by Botticelli. Warhol chose to keep just Venus' head, and inspiring himself from the original work of art, he changed the colours to a more pop art style. I find it extremely clever to chose a painting from the Renaissance seeing as the movement consists in getting rid of all the old rules and styles and creating something completely new and different, but still using as inspiration ancient Greek and roman styles (hens the name "rebirth"), just like the Pop art movement. Not only does it show a new version of an old painting but it also illustrates the huge influence that Greek gods, or in this case goddesses have had during the whole of human history. Venus, the goddess represented in this work, is the Roman goddess whose functions encompassed love, beauty, desire, sex, fertility, prosperity and victory. The Romans adapted the myths and iconography of her Greek counterpart Aphrodite for Roman art and Latin literature. In the later classical tradition of the West, Venus became one of the most widely referenced deities of Greco-Roman mythology as the embodiment of love and sexuality. I found it really eye opening to see this painting because I realised the importance these kind of heroes can have, even in our society today. They are eternal references in our culture that have been used time and time again in all kinds of Arts. They have become pure myths having been represented in so many different ways.  As I am a big fan of ancient cultures and I am currently writing my final year dissertation on the importance of Greek myths, it was really an excellent surprise to come across this painting as it's not one of the most famous pieces of Pop art and I honestly wasn't expecting to come across it.

All in all, it was a real pleasure to go see this exhibition and I'm really pleased I went to go see it. Unfortunately it won't be touring anywhere as it's no longer on which is also why I decided to write this review so that you guys could get an idea of the exhibition even if you haven't had the chance to go. 

Here is a picture of the painting I mentioned,

"details of a renaissance painting" by Andy Warhol, 1964

Well, thanks to all of you for reading and see you soon for my next review!!

INTO THE WILD FINAL ANALYSIS

Alexander Supertramp from Into the Wild

The noble savage 

2) the myth of the noble/good savage

The idea of the noble/good savage was created in the 17th century and developed during the 18th century. It consists in the belief that without civilisation, humans are genuinely good people, and that the cause of the violence and hatred between men has been created by civilisation. Therefore humans who have never been in contact with civilisation tend to be  much more respectful, kind and peaceful, for example native Americans, who believe that all objects and living things have souls and that land is not something you can own. It is perhaps more appropriate to use the words of  Shaftesbury,  one of the main founders of this idea:“to search for that simplicity of manners, and innocence of behaviour, which has been often known among mere savages; ere they were corrupted by our commerce”.  In other words he is explaining how before men and women were corrupted by commerce and human civilisation they lived in innocence and this is portrayed as a negative thing by the "civilised" men because they have attributed the negative word of savage to define them and their way of life. He also believed that the moral sense of humans is based on feelings and is natural and innate and does not come from an education through religion. Although many philosophers have studied this notion, not all of them agree, for instance Hobbes believed the complete opposite. Personally I agree with Shaftesbury.

3) a. Chris seems to believe that the wilderness is a more peaceful place, it's composed only of natural beauty and has never been contaminated or touched by men and their civilisation. He believes that our world has come to a hopeless point where living in society poisons us. This is illustrated in the film thanks to the scene when he arrives in Los Angeles and after going to the homeless shelter he walks around the city. During his walk he sees people in suits having drinks in bars and it reminds him of himself and what he would be like had he made different life choices. We see that he thinks money corrupts us and makes us greedy and unkind. This is also seen in the scene where he abandons his car and burns the few dollar bills he has left. For Chris the wild is a place full of beauty and innocence, untouched by man. Whereas society is made of greedy, power hungry people who don't share the same views as him. He therefore embodies the myth of the noble savage in the way that he doesn't want to be influenced by society and civilisation. But he isn't a noble savage himself because he has grown up in society and therefore has experienced and been influenced by civilisation. This contradicts the very definition of a noble savage because a true good savage must have never been in contact with civilisation or society. Therefore I would say that Chris shares the same opinions of a noble savage in his way of thinking and his views on the world, but isn't one himself seeing as he grew up in society.

b. When Chris decides to go live in the wild I think he had in mind a simple but free lifestyle. He hoped he would achieve ultimate freedom as this is the one thing he has always been longing for. He wished to be able to make his own decisions about everything and never have to compromise or make sacrifices. He thought the wild was a pure untouched place where he could be himself and therefore discover who he truly is through a spiritual awakening. He had set his heart on finally finding true happiness.

c. Unfortunately there are a few elements that he failed to grasp when taking the decision to walk into the wild. Firstly he didn't realise how important it is to satisfy basic needs to survive. For instance, in the scene where he goes hunting and sees a female moose, he decides not to kill it because he sees her baby arrive behind her. He is a very sentimental man and clearly didn't have the heart to kill a mother. But when living alone in the wild this could be very dangerous because if he doesn't hunt he can't feed himself. Furthermore, during the beginning of the film he explains many times that he want's to live without material possessions, but the second he finds the magic bus filled with utensils and man-made objects he doesn't hesitate in using them and staying in the bus. The last example we could use is at the end of the film when he poisons himself. He doesn't realise the dangers that nature holds and didn't look carefully enough. These few mistakes eventually got him killed so this also shows he wasn't fully prepared for the dangers he would have to face in the wild.

d. I personally think Chris is more of a romantic rather than a good savage because as I said previously the definition of a good savage is someone who has never been in contact with civilisation. But Chris has grown up and lived his whole life surrounded by civilisation. Therefore, it's only his lofty ideals that link him to the myth of the good savage. His opinions and views are very romantic because he only sees the beauty of living in the wild without taking into account the danger it holds as well. Furthermore the ideals of a noble savage are innate and natural whereas for Chris, I think they were influenced partly by his parents attitudes and he was not born with an incredible sens of freedom and anti-violence, he grew into it as he matured.

e. Although it may at first seem impossible to return to a state of nature after having experienced living in society for obvious reasons such as being used to material comforts and safety, and not having  had to hunt to survive etc. I don't think it's truly impossible. I think that many people like Chris believe that the world is a rotten place and that they would be better off living by themselves in the wild. But they just have to plan it much better that Chris and be much more prepared. I also think that the key element to survive would be to not be alone, as Chris discovered at the end of the film "true happiness can only be found if shared". I think men are not made to live and survive entirely on their own, we are made to interact, share, communicate, and live of one another. So going into the wild by one's self would not be advisable.

Although it would obviously be very difficult and require lots of motivation and preparation I think living in the wild could definitely be possible. A compromise could be to do it for a short period of time, to experience ultimate freedom and independence for as long as it makes you happy and then return to civilisation if you are no longer satisfied by the lifestyle.

   

THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

      An introduction to the idea of progress, here is the link to the completed worksheet on google drive! (click   here to access the link)