Monday, June 27, 2011

"The Idiot" (1869) by Fyodor Dostoevsky

“They call me a psychologist. That is not true. I’m only a realist in the higher sense; that is, I portray all the depths of the human soul.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

The main theme of “The Idiot” is the contrast between the naive and innocent Prince Lyov Nikolayovich Myshkin and the materialistic and decadent society of the day. The prince truly believes in the good nature of people; he is constantly insulted, used and abused throughout the story only to instantly forgive and repeat the process once again. He even blames himself for their behavior, sometimes correctly but his reproaches are generally undeserved. Dostoevsky is being a realist in the sense that if a truly innocent were to try to survive without either being polluted and drawn into the world this would be the inevitable outcome. The story centers on a love triangle that develops between the prince, Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaia Epanchin. Plenty of drama ensues.

Prince Myshkin is frequently compared to Christ but I personally do not think this a correct correlation. While the prince is a genuinely good soul, he is not really a mystic or prophet. He is perhaps an ideal Christian, but still a flawed mortal. To me, that makes him more lovable and relatable than the lofty ideals he is frequently swept away with. And I did deeply relate to him; more so than to any other fictional character in fact. Is it too much for him just to have a pure heart?

Rogozhin is one of my favorite characters. He is craftily used throughout the novel; sometimes just a face peering out a window (or was it just your imagination?) and other times a very sympathetic victim of both his heart and circumstances. In my opinion, he is an excellent example of a base man who has become rich overnight and is ruined by it. He is not an evil man at heart but he does engage in villainous behavior as well as good old fashioned debauchery. He does love Nastasya but their coupling drives them both to a downward spiral. She becomes more erratic and scandalous and he behaves even more roguish until they are separated and then he obsesses over regaining her. It is true that Rogozhin is the type of man who will stop at nothing to get what wants. He does care for Myshkin but cannot help but see him as an obstacle between him and Nastasya and naturally resents that she loves Myshkin in a way that she will never love him. Rogozhin wanted to be like Myshkin but was not and Myshkin would have faired much better if he were a little more like Rogozhin. For that reason they are a pair of opposites which are eternally intertwined with each other.

One question that arises after reading this novel is “what is love?” A multitude of feelings that could be considered love are examined in the motives and thoughts of the characters. Rogozhin displays obsession, Myshkin compassion, Ganya mere financial gain with Nastasya over his true feelings for Aglaia, Aglaia cannot admit her feelings towards Myshkin and Nastasya really wants to be with Myshkin but always ends up running off with Rogozhin. From all this drama, the reader is left to ponder over who really loves who and how they end up where they are.

Throughout the story the prince, and reader, are drawn to each of the love interests only to meet their negative side and be repelled by them. Ultimately, it is rather difficult to say who he should choose. Maybe Yevgeny Pavlovich was quite correct when he tells Myshkin that he has really never loved either of them. At least not in the romantic sense; he took flight in altruistic and abstract ideas but never could see them in the normal sense. At the same time he saw people more clearly than anyone, but seemed to miss the fact that Aglaia “loved him like woman, like a human being, not like an abstract spirit” and Nastasya needed him to carry her away as Rogozhin would. This is one area where he is to blame, but he never meant to hurt them. I suppose that is why he is, in the end, an Idiot.

In my opinion, Myshkin should not have gotten involved with either of them as he could not love them as a husband or lover, but only in an altruistic way. He did truly love both of them, but not in the worldly way. He looked at them as wonderful pieces of art without objectifying them. He could have spent the rest of his life just looking at Aglaia but nothing more and she desired to run away with her poor knight in a romantic tryst. Nastasya loved him, but needed him to come down to Earth for her to feel deserving of him and Myshkin was in awe of her but never could be what she really needed him to be.

There are many more colorful personalities adding to the story and Dostoevsky does a superb job of developing all of them fully, showing both their good qualities as well as their short comings. Ippolit the consumptive gossip-hound, General Ivolgin the compulsive liar, Keller and of course Lebedyev cannot be forgotten. You really feel as if they are larger than life prototypes of people you have met in real life.

At the end of the day, I must agree with Prince Myshkin in his quixotic belief that “beauty will save the world.”

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

The Venus of Urbino

This is easily one of, if not my outright favorite painting. I first saw Titian’s “Venus of Urbino” when I was a teenager and instantly fell in love with her. I feel that this is a very remarkable work because of the unabashed eroticism it portrays.

There is no question as to the incredibly sexual intent of this piece. The screen coving the left side of the background draws a perfect line down the center of the work and points directly to her almost exposed vagina. This is the most obvious straight line in the entire painting. All the other lines are curved Her hand, which is the only thing covering her, indicates that she is about to begin masturbating or that she perhaps already has been pleasuring herself.

Venus stares directly at you with a neutral or perhaps even stoic expression. The fact that she is not only unashamed of her nudity or self stimulation completely makes this piece what it is. She is one of the only Venus’s worthy of the name out of all the other paintings or sculptures of this goddess. This expression immediately puts the viewer into their place, as if you are her subject and she cannot even be bothered to cover herself and she is not even aware that she would be expected to do so. Your intrusion into her chamber hardly requires a glace down at you while she lays on her bed rubbing herself.

The sleeping dog on her bed is also conspicuous. Dogs usually symbolize loyalty and trustworthiness and the fact that her dog is fast asleep implies the opposite of this, at least for now. This is the artists way of implying that she, like the goddess of love, may be quite polyamorous. This interpretation works well with the rest of the piece and I do believe it to be the intention of Titian.

The women on the right in the back of the chamber search in a chest, presumably for Venus’s cloths. They are the tether between our goddess and reality. They bring her down to earth so to speak. While she lays dreaming, they hurry to make their mistress decent. It is also telling that these women are surrounded by straight lines on the walls around them.

The right side of the work is very rigid and orderly while the curtain on the left is ruffled dark and composed of fluid horizontal lines. This is a duality of order versus chaos. The right side is light while the left is dark. It is no coincidence that her face is almost centered on the left portion and that the dog sleeps on the rear right corner of the bed.

The Venus of Urbino is truly a masterpiece by one of the Italian Renaissance’s best masters. This short treatise cannot begin to do proper justice to what I consider to be Titian’s magnum opus.