Answer TWO of the
following...
Q1: How does “Hell Screen”
share with stories like “Rashomon” and “In a Bamboo Grove” a very cynical view
of human nature? According to these stories, why is there no fundamental
difference between a thief, a painter, and a lord? Why might the moral of
“Rashomon,” that “All I can do is become a thief” be the moral for all
of these stories?
Q2: The painter,
Yoshihide, claims that he can only paint what he has personally observed with
his own eyes—and nothing else. This often leads him to observe rather gruesome
spectacles, such as rotting corpses and chained prisoners (and at the end of
the story, something even worse). Responding to criticisms of this practice, he
responds, “Other painters are such mediocrities, they cannot appreciate the
beauty of ugliness” (48). Despite his depraved character, why might this be a
very “non-Western” sentiment, and a valid philosophy of art itself?
Q3: “Hell Screen” contains
a curious doubling: both the painter and the monkey are named Yoshihide. Even
though the monkey is named after him as a joke, in the story itself, it serves
a larger purpose. What role does the monkey serve in the story, and how might
it help us ‘see’ the true character of the painter?
Q4: The narrator of this
story has a character all his own, as he tells the story in fits and starts,
and makes commentary throughout. Why do you think he is so captivated by this
story, and how might his manner of telling the story color how we read and
understand it?
Q2: I believe this to be a very valid philosophy of art because creating something is a beautiful thing, and to recreate something you've seen, even if it's ugly, possesses some form of beauty. To start with a blank canvas and use hues of paint to create realistic dimensions and images is kind of poetic. It's very mediocre for an artist to ONLY depict things they find to be nice and pretty. Life is not always pretty, and neither is good art. I think this might be a non-western sentiment because as a society, we tend to only approve of images that are aesthetically pleasing and images that makes us "feel good"... and we hold contempt towards things that don't fit our standard of beauty.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The monkey in this story seems to be a direct reference to her father and his love for her even in his absence. I understood the monkey to be more of a symbol of his presence (when he was gone painting) and symbolized the small part of him that was not hard and cold. She saved the monkey from the king's torments and then the monkey was there to save her when she was attacked and it got help for her. The king had no respect for the painter or the monkey which is probably why the daughter always rejected him. In the end when the monkey burned with her, it symbolized the artist dying with her as well. I believe the king in the story is the cruel one for doing this. The daughter probably saw him as cruel which is why she denied him. The artist was just weird. Not necessarily cruel. It's normal for people who seem strange and cold to have something they love and treasure, like a son or a daughter.
Q2: My representation of artists is that they can make something out of nothing. Meaning, they can create a beautiful or horrible picture from just their imagination. Yoshihide may be a very talented painter, but to me, he is no artist. An artist can make these screens without seeing the actual horrible thing happening to another human. Yoshihide is just a painter who has a a great skill, not an actual work of art. His works are mere copies of what is happening in real life. They are more like pictures capturing moments than paintings.
ReplyDeleteQ3: Yoshihide the monkey and Yoshihide the man are completely different. I believe the author is being rather funny by portraying an animal that has feelings and a man who seems to have none until the very end of the story. I think the monkey Yoshihide is a symbol of how Yoshihide the man is more animalistic and only cares about himself. Even as he watches his daughter burn, he only cares about getting the painting done for his lordship. It is only when he hangs himself that we see the "soft" side of Yoshihide.
Q2: Perhaps Yoshihide’s depravity and deranged behavior as we see it could be seen as dedication and commitment to his work. Yoshihide is already described as absolutely committed to a painting once he begins it, and is somewhat of a perfectionist. It could be argued that because Yoshihide is just doing what his job requires him to do to complete it sufficiently, he is doing no evil by torturing his apprentices, and even allowing a woman to die burning in a carriage. Although, I am not sure that any culture would view his actions as “good”, and I think that this story would better serve as an example on how far NOT to go with your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteQ4: The narrator is so captivated by this story because he was a living part of it, in his eyes. He was directly involved with Yoshihide, his daughter, and the lord. The narrator is telling the story as he has heard it himself and the details that his coworkers have given him, and it helps give the story more of a victim feel. It isn’t strictly descriptive, and is instead more focused on the mad torturing and habits of Yoshihide to his apprentices. The narrator gets this knowledge directly from those apprentices, and I believe that it helps paint the story darker than it already is, giving us a feel of dread and fear about Yoshihide’s intentions.
Q1: All the people in these stories are susceptible to “human” thoughts. They are vulnerable to pride, greed, envy, lust, and hate. These stories are kind of like Aesop’s fables, but from the other side of the world. Some basic scenario is spiced up for the purpose of interest, and for teaching a lesson at the end. But these stories don't have a moral the same as Aesop’s do; fables end with an easy-to-digest, formulaic, and broken down ideas that children use to navigate the world. These are grown-up stories, filled with lessons on how to get out of the endless cycle of maya, to help you reach the good end.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The monkey seems to serve as the opposite half of Yoshihide. He’s focused and immersed in this screen of the torments of hell. But the monkey is focused and immersed with his daughter. And at the end, when his daughter is burning, the monkey jumps into the fire with her. Previous to the monkey, Yoshihide is staring at the fire, white-faced and full of fear. When the monkey jumps in and the narrator looks at him again, Yoshihide is no longer the fearful father - he is the depraved painter who demanded a sacrifice for a simple screen. The monkey symbolized the human part of Yoshihide, and when it was gone, his essence was gone too. So he was already dead before he killed himself at the end of the story. And it wasn't because of grief for his lost daughter, or the horror of what he’d done. His deal with the devil overwhelmed him and he was lost to humanity.
Q2: Although Yoshihide certainly opts for extremism in this philosophy, I think his reasoning is valid in the sense that what most people perceive as "good" and "evil" are just preconceptions brought on by maya. That is to say, what your average person would describe as aesthetically pleasing or disturbing is based on a set of values determined by the material world. When you choose to look beyond the moral subjectivity in a piece of art (or moral objectivity, which might be more fitting for this story), all you're left with is a profound image, rife with raw emotion. I think the "beauty" Yoshihide refers to is the emotional power a work of art can possess.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The monkey is most likely there to represent the "good side" of Yoshihide the painter. Yoshihide, who becomes increasingly obsessed with the screen, begins to neglect his daughter. At the same time, the monkey becomes the daughter's primary companion. Even though the author claims that Yoshihide the painter cared very deeply for his daughter, the monkey was the one actually acting this out. As Yoshihide's daughter burned in the carriage, the monkey is the one who jumped in to save her - once again acting on the painter's more humane desires. However, once the monkey perishes, the painter seems to be enthralled with the whole spectacle. The loving, paternal side of him died along with the monkey.