I really enjoyed writing essays at college. They're their own animal. These essays are by no means revelatory or exhaustively researched, but hopefully you'll find them somewhat insightful and an enjoyable little read.
The Moment Modernism Replaced Reality
The only thing truly modern about the period of art and literature labeled by scholars as Modern is the label itself. The Modern period does not mean new and up-to-date, but rather the period of time generally described as the tail-end of the nineteenth century to the end of World War II.
Exactly when the Modern period begins is unclear. “Virginia Woolf wrote, ‘In or about December 1910, human character changed.’ D.H. Lawrence suggested ‘It was in 1915 the old world ended’” (Wilkie 1443-1444). They were not being over-dramatic. A shift occurred in the late nineteenth century of biblical proportions when a large percentage of Western civilization came to doubt their religious faith. Religion was not just challenged but interrogated. The accusers were many and varied, and each brought powerful arguments. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) turned human history on its hairy legs when his theory of evolution proposed that life was, essentially, “survival of the fittest” (a term originally coined by the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, and adopted by Darwin). Karl Marx’s Capital (1867-1894) spiritually illuminated the class struggle between the middle classes and the proletariat. Friedrich Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy (1872) cast well-reasoned and acutely intelligent doubt on our interpretations of legendary Greek myths and argued, convincingly, for dramatically new views. Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams (1899) threw subconscious fuel on the flames that were by now licking lustily at peoples’ faith. And amazing scientific breakthroughs, such as Max Planck’s quantum theory of atomic and sub-atomic particles (1900) further elevated science to the seat of honor in human consciousness. Then in 1914, World War I broke out.
The effect of all this on art and literature was intense and ignitive. Order in the outside world was crumbling so artists turned inwards. Literature plumbed the depths of man’s depravity (“Dulce et Decorum Est,” written by soldier-poet Wilfred Owens in 1917) and sang its praises more sublimely (“Before Action,” written by W.N. Hodgson in 1916). In examining the self, in expressing perceptions and processes and concepts, entirely new ways of creating art were conceived. Innovation was born of annihilation. Henri Matisse, too old to fight in WWI, moved to the South of France in 1917, at which time his painting started to become more abstract. “The Red Studio” was an attempt “to render emotion” (Shock 141). Cubism and Surrealism were born in the late nineteenth century, but grew and developed as Modern children. Picasso, Braque and Léger painted in architectural forms never seen before (Cubism), while Dali, Miro and Magritte took Surrealism to other worlds. Stéphane Mallarmé (1842-1898), the renowned French Symbolist poet, captured the essence of Modernism when he wrote, “Poetry should not inform but suggest and evoke, not name things but create their atmosphere” (Wilkie 1445).
This new belief system challenged the prevailing artistic atmosphere of Realism, described by the American realist, William Dean Howells, as “The truthful treatment of material” (Wilkie 1147); a form of un-varnished expression used to such powerful effect by writers like Gustave Flaubert (“A Simple Heart”), and impressionist artists like Claude Monet (“Waterlillies”). In essence, Realism was an Impressionist point of view (Shock 113).
Modernism also cast in its shadow the murkier movement that oozed from Realism — Naturalism, which desired to disturb the bourgeoisie and influence societal change. Naturalism is perhaps best exemplified by the unrelentingly raw prose of Dostoevsky (“Crime and Punishment,” “The idiot”) and the art of Seurat (“A Sunday afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte”). Seurat’s revolutionary use of “the dot” as a style of painting (Pointillism) relied on deconstruction and rebuilding, molecule by molecule. It was a scientific journey into the nature of art that mirrored Dostoevsky’s life-long expedition inside the mind (“Notes from Underground”). Realism and Impressionism both created the illusion of reality.
However, aligning Seurat with the Naturalist period would not truly represent him because “his work predicted the way in which art would come more and more to refer to itself” (Shock 118). Self-actualization via self-reflection is one of the principal imprints by which Contemporary Art and Literature is distinguished from other periods. Yet, Seurat is simply a representative of numerous other artists and writers that have left indelible footprints in more than one period — often three or four. This confluence of labels is to be expected because great artists are often of more than one time. They are of their past, present and future. For example, “The Art of Poetry,” a poem about the craft of writing poetry, by Paul Verlaine, the French Symbolist poet, was first published in 1874. Its date shows that one of the so-called distinguishing features of Modern literary expression, a text within a text, is nothing new. In fact, “the title suggests an addition to the venerable tradition begun by the Ars poetica (c. 17 b.c.e.), in which the Latin poet, Horace, established rules for the writing of poetry” (Salem). As soldiers have a code of honor, so too do artists. They live on through their art, be it honorably or dishonorably.
Samuel Beckett, the Irish genius who wrote some of the most brilliantly contemporary plays of the twentieth century, is widely considered to be the man who more than any other built the bridge between Modernism and Post-Modernism. Beckett would feel quite at home being in two places at once, or is it neither, considering he explored the indecision and uncertainty of the moment more uniquely than any other Modern writer. He’d find it amusing. Or would he? He would. He wouldn’t. Ah, he would.
At the end of Beckett’s masterpiece, “Waiting for Godot” (originally written in French in 1948), after an entire play about a decision to wait or not wait for Godot, the two central characters, Vladimir and Estragon, eventually agree not to wait any longer. They get up to go. Then don’t move.
VLADIMIR:
Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON:
Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
This is how art and literature is. It’s a mash-up of stillness and movement; of past, present and future. Somewhere in its wildest transformations is often something familiar. The moment Modernism replaced reality is therefore fluid, like the art and literature it represents. Its shadow straddles two centuries. But for the sake of appeasing historical compartmentalists, I’ll concur that it is sometime between 1850 and 1914.
Works Cited
Dean de la Motte. "The Art of Poetry." Masterplots II: Poetry, Revised Edition. Salem Press, 2002. eNotes.com. 2006. 17 Oct, 2009. <http://www.enotes.com/art-poetry-paul-verlaine-salem/art-poetry-9650000035>.
Hughes, Robert. The Shock of the New: The hundred Year History of Modern Art: Its Rise, Its dazzling Achievement, Its Fall. Second Edition. New York: McGraw, 1991.
The Internet Movie Database. “Memorable Quotes for: Waiting for Godot.” IMDb.com. 17 Oct. 2009. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276613/quotes>.
Wilkie, Brian and James Hurt. Literature of the Western World: Volume II: Neoclassicism Through the Modern Period. Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice, 2001.
=============================================================================================
The only thing truly modern about the period of art and literature labeled by scholars as Modern is the label itself. The Modern period does not mean new and up-to-date, but rather the period of time generally described as the tail-end of the nineteenth century to the end of World War II.
Exactly when the Modern period begins is unclear. “Virginia Woolf wrote, ‘In or about December 1910, human character changed.’ D.H. Lawrence suggested ‘It was in 1915 the old world ended’” (Wilkie 1443-1444). They were not being over-dramatic. A shift occurred in the late nineteenth century of biblical proportions when a large percentage of Western civilization came to doubt their religious faith. Religion was not just challenged but interrogated. The accusers were many and varied, and each brought powerful arguments. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) turned human history on its hairy legs when his theory of evolution proposed that life was, essentially, “survival of the fittest” (a term originally coined by the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, and adopted by Darwin). Karl Marx’s Capital (1867-1894) spiritually illuminated the class struggle between the middle classes and the proletariat. Friedrich Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy (1872) cast well-reasoned and acutely intelligent doubt on our interpretations of legendary Greek myths and argued, convincingly, for dramatically new views. Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams (1899) threw subconscious fuel on the flames that were by now licking lustily at peoples’ faith. And amazing scientific breakthroughs, such as Max Planck’s quantum theory of atomic and sub-atomic particles (1900) further elevated science to the seat of honor in human consciousness. Then in 1914, World War I broke out.
The effect of all this on art and literature was intense and ignitive. Order in the outside world was crumbling so artists turned inwards. Literature plumbed the depths of man’s depravity (“Dulce et Decorum Est,” written by soldier-poet Wilfred Owens in 1917) and sang its praises more sublimely (“Before Action,” written by W.N. Hodgson in 1916). In examining the self, in expressing perceptions and processes and concepts, entirely new ways of creating art were conceived. Innovation was born of annihilation. Henri Matisse, too old to fight in WWI, moved to the South of France in 1917, at which time his painting started to become more abstract. “The Red Studio” was an attempt “to render emotion” (Shock 141). Cubism and Surrealism were born in the late nineteenth century, but grew and developed as Modern children. Picasso, Braque and Léger painted in architectural forms never seen before (Cubism), while Dali, Miro and Magritte took Surrealism to other worlds. Stéphane Mallarmé (1842-1898), the renowned French Symbolist poet, captured the essence of Modernism when he wrote, “Poetry should not inform but suggest and evoke, not name things but create their atmosphere” (Wilkie 1445).
This new belief system challenged the prevailing artistic atmosphere of Realism, described by the American realist, William Dean Howells, as “The truthful treatment of material” (Wilkie 1147); a form of un-varnished expression used to such powerful effect by writers like Gustave Flaubert (“A Simple Heart”), and impressionist artists like Claude Monet (“Waterlillies”). In essence, Realism was an Impressionist point of view (Shock 113).
Modernism also cast in its shadow the murkier movement that oozed from Realism — Naturalism, which desired to disturb the bourgeoisie and influence societal change. Naturalism is perhaps best exemplified by the unrelentingly raw prose of Dostoevsky (“Crime and Punishment,” “The idiot”) and the art of Seurat (“A Sunday afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte”). Seurat’s revolutionary use of “the dot” as a style of painting (Pointillism) relied on deconstruction and rebuilding, molecule by molecule. It was a scientific journey into the nature of art that mirrored Dostoevsky’s life-long expedition inside the mind (“Notes from Underground”). Realism and Impressionism both created the illusion of reality.
However, aligning Seurat with the Naturalist period would not truly represent him because “his work predicted the way in which art would come more and more to refer to itself” (Shock 118). Self-actualization via self-reflection is one of the principal imprints by which Contemporary Art and Literature is distinguished from other periods. Yet, Seurat is simply a representative of numerous other artists and writers that have left indelible footprints in more than one period — often three or four. This confluence of labels is to be expected because great artists are often of more than one time. They are of their past, present and future. For example, “The Art of Poetry,” a poem about the craft of writing poetry, by Paul Verlaine, the French Symbolist poet, was first published in 1874. Its date shows that one of the so-called distinguishing features of Modern literary expression, a text within a text, is nothing new. In fact, “the title suggests an addition to the venerable tradition begun by the Ars poetica (c. 17 b.c.e.), in which the Latin poet, Horace, established rules for the writing of poetry” (Salem). As soldiers have a code of honor, so too do artists. They live on through their art, be it honorably or dishonorably.
Samuel Beckett, the Irish genius who wrote some of the most brilliantly contemporary plays of the twentieth century, is widely considered to be the man who more than any other built the bridge between Modernism and Post-Modernism. Beckett would feel quite at home being in two places at once, or is it neither, considering he explored the indecision and uncertainty of the moment more uniquely than any other Modern writer. He’d find it amusing. Or would he? He would. He wouldn’t. Ah, he would.
At the end of Beckett’s masterpiece, “Waiting for Godot” (originally written in French in 1948), after an entire play about a decision to wait or not wait for Godot, the two central characters, Vladimir and Estragon, eventually agree not to wait any longer. They get up to go. Then don’t move.
VLADIMIR:
Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON:
Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
This is how art and literature is. It’s a mash-up of stillness and movement; of past, present and future. Somewhere in its wildest transformations is often something familiar. The moment Modernism replaced reality is therefore fluid, like the art and literature it represents. Its shadow straddles two centuries. But for the sake of appeasing historical compartmentalists, I’ll concur that it is sometime between 1850 and 1914.
Works Cited
Dean de la Motte. "The Art of Poetry." Masterplots II: Poetry, Revised Edition. Salem Press, 2002. eNotes.com. 2006. 17 Oct, 2009. <http://www.enotes.com/art-poetry-paul-verlaine-salem/art-poetry-9650000035>.
Hughes, Robert. The Shock of the New: The hundred Year History of Modern Art: Its Rise, Its dazzling Achievement, Its Fall. Second Edition. New York: McGraw, 1991.
The Internet Movie Database. “Memorable Quotes for: Waiting for Godot.” IMDb.com. 17 Oct. 2009. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276613/quotes>.
Wilkie, Brian and James Hurt. Literature of the Western World: Volume II: Neoclassicism Through the Modern Period. Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice, 2001.
=============================================================================================
Note: The below essay was written in July, 2008
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Terrorists
When the horror of 9/11 was rightly classified as an act of war, President Bush did something that no President had done since Eisenhower. He authorized the use of military commissions. The principal goal of the commissions was to try enemy combatants in a military trail — with no review by any U.S., foreign, or international court — and deliver justice expeditiously. Since the commissions were introduced, squadrons of attorneys have waged a shadow-war of their own, firing off supportive and dissenting legal opinions as to the commissions’ constitutionality. Meantime, the “War on Terror” kicked off in Afghanistan, spread to Iraq, and prisoners were taken by the thousands.
Caught in a legal no-man’s land, whenever the government has sporadically tried to press forward and conduct hearings, it has been found to be consistently insufficiently prepared. As a result, flaws have dogged every step of the proceedings, undermining the credibility of the commissions as a serious judicial vehicle. To date, only one detainee has been tried: the March 2007 guilty plea of David Hicks, an Australian, sentenced to seven years confinement.
In the Department of Defense record of the Hicks military trial, U.S. Marine Corp Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kohlmann (since promoted to Chief Judge for the Guantanamo military commissions), spoke eloquently and presciently:
The members of al-Qaeda may or may not “deserve” trials in a time tested and jurisprudentially sound forum. However, the world respected reputation of United States criminal courts has not been built nor maintained for the benefit of any evil person.... The use of an established court system at this critical time should not be viewed as an action on behalf of accused terrorists, but rather as a representation to needed international partners that the course of our ship of state is steady, and properly charted for the rough waters ahead (qtd. in Glazier 70-1).
The U.S. government has enjoyed absolute authority over its 47 square-mile naval base at Guantanamo Bay since it signed a perpetual lease with Cuba in 1903. Critically, though, the land itself falls under Cuban sovereignty. Made famous in the movie, A Few Good Men, wherein Jack Nicholson memorably yelled in the climactic court scene, “You can’t handle the truth!” Guantanamo has historically acted as a kind of half-way house for refugees from around the world, including Haiti, Kosovo, and Cuba (Koh). Along with Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, Iraq, it now acts as one of America’s principal detention centers for the holding and interrogation of suspected terrorists.
On June 28, 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay detention camps were entitled to rights of habeas corpus. Prior to this date, the decision reached in Johnson v. Eisentrager in 1950 had withstood all challengers: “aliens detained outside United States sovereign territory may not invoke habeas relief” (qtd. in Welsh). In its 2004 decision, the court pointed out that rights of habeas corpus pre-date the Bill of Rights, is referenced in the Constitution itself, and goes as far back as the common law tradition the United States shares with Britain (Welsh).
Habeas Corpus — “produce the body” — is a fundamental human right believed by most constitutional scholars to pre-date the 1215 Magna Carta (Blackstone, vol. 3). The Magna Carta states: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights (...) except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we (...) deny or delay right or justice” (British Library). Absent evidence acceptable in a court of law, the right of Habeas Corpus prohibits the state from taking an individual’s liberty and the individual must be released immediately. In “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Sir William Blackstone examines the writ of habeas corpus extensively: “A writ antecedent to statute and throwing its root deep into the genius of our common law (...) it is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England” (3: 129-37).
Almost exactly two years after the 2004 decision, on June 29, 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled the commissions deployed by President Bush did not comply with Geneva Conventions and that the plaintiff (a detainee at Guantanamo) was entitled to rights of habeas corpus (Glazier 5); solidifying the 2004 ruling. With unprecedented speed, Congress authorized the Military Commissions Act of 2006 four months later. Widely accepted as being much improved, it never-the-less “stripped courts of habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo” (Singleton). In the press release accompanying the Act’s signing into law, the Bush Administration reiterated, “Those believed to have orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 will face justice” (United States).
Two years later, on June 12, 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court held five to four that U.S. federal courts have appropriate jurisdiction to hear claims of habeas corpus from 270 detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Singleton). The court’s landmark ruling led the president of the American Bar Association, William Neukom, to declare the credibility of the U.S. as a “model for the rule of law across the globe” restored (Neukom).
Dissenters will point with alacrity, and in many cases abject disgust, to the numerous cases put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision, now jostling for position like planes waiting to depart from LAX. Included in them is a request for Osama bin Laden’s former driver to be released. If “high value” terrorists are captured and have their liberty water-boarded in the name of the greater good, is that not a necessary part of war? Are these not the people who rejoiced on 9/11, fired guns in the air, and exalted in having committed the mass murder of thousands of innocent American men, women, and children? Are they not the kind of people who believe murdering in the name of Allah is an act of honor? These men are angry, pessimistic, bigoted, and ignorant. Are we really going to be this sensitive about their rights? What about our rights? Should we bust our asses working at jobs we don’t like so we can pay for their tickets home? Should we inquire as to special dietary restrictions for their in-flight meals?
These questions are the kind posed by the men and women responsible for our security; for ensuring there is never a repeat of 9/11 on American soil. Do we really want them worrying about lawsuits and hesitating to do what their instincts tell them is necessary? Do we want them in handcuffs or the suspects?
Questioning of detainees has led to breaking up a cell of 17 Southeast Asian terrorist operatives being groomed for attacks inside the United States; has uncovered key operatives in al-Qaeda's biological weapons program – including a cell developing anthrax to be used in terrorist attacks; has identified terrorists who were sent to case targets in America – including financial buildings in major cities along the East Coast; and has stopped a planned strike on U.S. Marines in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, and a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, England (United States). These are facts.
Colonel Morris D. Davis, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate and Chief Prosecutor for Military Commissions, believes the facilities, cultural accommodations, and general treatment afforded detainees at Guantanamo Bay would be the envy of many of our own incarcerated citizens (Davis). I very much respect the rationale of experts like Colonel Davis, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and our military leaders who do not agree with the historic Boumediene decision. I truly do.
However, if Lady Liberty’s flame is to lead us through the darkness of evil, she must remain virtuous and worthy of our discipleship.
In April 1945, Robert H. Jackson, chief prosecutor at the opening of the Nuremburg Trials, said, “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well” (qtd. in Glazier 72).
They are words that ring particularly true for America today.
Works Cited
Blackstone, William. “Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769.” The Founders’ Constitution. Ed. Kurland, Philip, Ralph Lerner. 3 (1979): 129-37. U of C P. 4 July 2008. <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_2s4.html>.
Davis, Morris D. “In Defense of Guantanamo Bay” Pocket Part 21. (2007). The Yale Law Journal. 4 July 2008. <http://yalelawjournal.org/2007/08/13/davis.html>.
Glazier, David. “A Self-Inflicted Wound: A Half-Dozen Years of Turmoil Over the Guantanamo Military Commissions” Lewis and Clark Law School. 12.1 (2008). 4 July 2008. <http://lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_12_1_Art7_Glazier.pdf>.
Koh, Harold Hongju. “Captured by Guantanamo.” Open Democracy. 26 Sep. 2005. 6 Jul 2008. <http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/guantanamo_haiti_2867.jsp>.
Neukom, William H. President's home page. American Bar Association. 6 July 2008. <http://www.abanet.org/op/>.
Singleton, Jane. “Media Advisory: Legal Experts to Discuss Implications of Boumediene Supreme Court Ruling.” American Bar Association. 12 June 2008. 7 July 2008. <http://www.abanet.org/abanet/media/release/news_release.cfm?releaseid=364>.
“Treasures in Full: Magna Carta.” British Library. 7 July 2008. <http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html>.
United States. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Fact Sheet: The Military Commissions Act of 2006. 17 Oct. 2006. 4 July 2008. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html>.
Welsh, Steven C. “Supreme Court Guantanamo Decision.” Center for Defense Information. 30 June 2004. 6 July 2008. <http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm>.
