I thought I had it figured out on Friday, but then I read Professor Thomas's blog and I'm back to being confused again.
Here's what I had worked out before:
Demystifying is concerned with answering the "What?" of the piece- What is it, What does it do.
Deconstruction is more concerned with the "Why?" and the "How?"- Why does the author do this instead of that, Why does it work in the way it does, How does it work the way it does.
Now I'm convinced that demystifying is concerned with the What, Why, and How, and deconstruction is concerned with something I don't necessarily have a word for.
On my break I took the opportunity to go into Chicago for two days with my freinds and visit the Art Institute, one of my favorite museums, and I decided (this was Monday before I had read the Professor's post) that maybe I could analyze a painting. And I like Professor Thomas's example, so I think I'll have a go at that.
"Europe Supported by Africa and America", by William Blake. At first glance, a very ordinary engraving in the Allegorical sort of mode.Emphasis here on Allegorical.
So for the formalist analysis, we observe the individual elements and their perceived meanings. Three women (the preferred choice for portraying continents in art, for reasons I'll explore later) of different ethnic backgrounds, metaphorically three continents, standing on a grassy field with flowers at their feet. The one in the middle, whose eyes are looking downward, is supported by the other two, who are looking out of the engraving. The woman in the middle is holding what looks to be a laurel garland, and is wearing a rope of pearls. The other two women are wearing golden armbands. America's knee is bent inward to point towards Europe, and Africa is turned towards Europe also, focusing the observer's eye on the middle figure even more. Europe's hair is also long and curled to cover her genitals, and so, coupled with her downcast eyes and the pearls, is an metonymic image of purity while the two chargers, so to speak, of Africa and America are brazenly inviting the observer to look at them. In this way, Europe is symbolically more civilized (read: less sexual) than the other two.
Chargers, for the record, are a heraldic device used when displaying a shield, the two figures outside of the shield who hold it up. The United Kingdom's chargers, for example, are a lion and a unicorn, for England and Scotland, respectively. (Interestingly, if you look carefully, you'll notice the Unicorn is chained.)Now to demystify, examining the ideology behind the piece; why the author does what he does. This engraving was done in 1796, a period when Europe was just beginning the quest for colonial power. Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, the four major players in European Politics at the time, all had colonies in both America and Africa, whose revenues were a great source of income for the Europeans, the "Support" that both these continents offer Europe. Their great wealth of natural resources is given by the golden armbands they wear. Since Europe is victorious over the other two, she holds the laurels in front of all of them, emphasizing her supposed power, but since Europe would be nothing without the colonial revenues, she leans on both of them like a sick woman. Europe is also standing a little higher than the other two, another indication of dominance.
And finally, the deconstruction, examining the questions this piece raises for us and the binary oppositions. One thing that entered my mind as I was writing this: Why Women? We're talking about the continent of Europe here, the most powerful political force in global politics! Theoretically speaking, that should be a man, the man who has dominated the other two! But then I remembered that we're talking about continents here, not people. the continents are women because it's the land we're talking about, and the European ideal is that land is property and made to be subjugated, in contrast with the Native American and even the African idea that land is community property and made to be shared. Maybe that's demystification; I don't know.
Another thing that occurred to me is that I mentioned up above that since Europe's eyes are cast down and her long hair is covering her private parts she appears less sexually charged than the other two. But long hair has been (and still is, in some parts of the world) a very sensuous and sexual thing; we still 'let our hair' down on occasion and the phrase still means the same thing it did back when women were sporting updos like the Gibson Girl here; going wild and behaving in disregard of the rules. In that sense, Europe is the most sexual of them all- she has the longest hair and it is down- but at the same time is looking down, not inviting or brazen about her sexuality at all but rather repressing it, hiding it with that 'double standard' hair.
Posts
I also have been struggling with what exactly deconstruction is, but I talked with Steve after class on Friday and I will try to pass on what we talked about because it helped me understand deconstruction a little better. Its a process of challenging what already exists, but not as a truth/lie process like demystification. It's more understanding where it has come from in history. History is really important in deconstruction, so what you were doing with the painting kind of made sense. Maybe you'd go about deconstructing such a painting (the painting was really cool by the way. I'm taking a post-colonial literature class and it sums up everything we are studying.) by first saying that the painting portrays the white representation of Europe as all of these positive things- pure, dominant, etc and the American and African women as the opposite things, brazen and servile. Then you would deconstruct by asking "why?". Why is she portrayed in this way? You have already given the answer. Europe believed it was infinitely superior to the "savage" lands of America and Africa. You can also ask "why is Europe being held up?". This reminds me of the J-Lo song. It would seem that Europe is saying it is dependent on its colonized countries, just as it would seem J-Lo is trying to show she is real. But J-Lo is really unconsciously showing off how she has gotten ahead. In the same way, Europe is showing off its dominance by portraying itself as dependent. Wow, that was a long ramble, but maybe it will help. You should respond back and maybe we'll figure this whole deconstruction thing out!
ReplyDeleteSarah, you're my hero. That makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeletereally nice job, both of you
ReplyDeleteAlso my hero. Relating it to J lo, ballin. That helped me out a lot because I feel like I understood J lo but not this. Now I feel like I know both of them a little better. Nice post by the way not just the comments. Taking a stab at it proved to help you and people like me who just read it.
ReplyDelete