Since my first reflection post, I have only written two blog posts (along with detailed comments that I wrote instead of blog post 7). Regardless, reading over those two posts and thinking about my personal engagement with the text I have a few observations.

My first observation, which I could have included in the first reflection post, is that  I am very reluctant to write about works of art. I am much more comfortable analyzing literature since I have experience doing so. I struggle to analyze art, even in comparison to literature, since I don’t even know the correct vocabulary to do so. I seem to have made the unconscious decision to focus mostly on what Dante writes and then supplement it with a painting rather than focus on the painting alongside the poetry. While I am always an advocate of pushing oneself to try something more difficult, I also kept finding myself spending too much time trying to discover the meaning of the painting over the meaning of the text.

I did find the guided questions we had to answer about art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to be very challenging and instructional. Having guided questions to focus on helped me, although I still felt very lost at some points trying to answer them. I ended up writing over a thousand words and still did not feel satisfied I had answered all of the questions in their entirety when I submitted the post. The post actually would have been a lot longer but I edited out any observations I made that did not directly relate to the questions being asked. After reading other peoples posts about their Met visits I am not sure if I made the right choice in doing so but it is the choice I made all the same.

My other major reflection isn’t so much related to the blog posts as it is related to how I am engaging with the text. I personally have been struggling to find the same deep interest I had with Inferno while reading the later two canticles. I am somewhat of a completionist, meaning I have a hard time skipping around and not studying things in their complete original order. My mom loves to poke fun at me for it. I have to read book series in order starting from the beginning even if there is no connecting plot between the books. I mention all of this seemingly unimportant information because I am still trying to discover why I am struggling so much to engage with the text and find ways to do so. In a perfect world, I would just read the parts we aren’t assigned but doing so initially left me with even more confusion. If anyone else has had this problem and has any suggestions I would love to try any ideas out.

As I look back on my blog posts, I learned that I would summarize and analyze too much where I would repeat myself. However, I feel with each post I was able to successfully navigate through the canticles and make connections between various cantos. For example in blog post six I am able to discuss the different emotions between Dante and Virgil and identity the theme of Canto 24.  For my final paper, I hope to use all the skills I learned with blogging, which include being short and to the point, strong analysis, incorporating quotes when needed from The Divine Comedy as well as a thoroughly explained thesis. One blog post I feel proud of is the most recent: blog post 8 when I talked about the Garden of Eden, rather than spending hours on details I wrote the most important facts from that canto and a short analysis. I was also able to relate blog post 8 to the MET museum and a work of art which I feel is an important skill to have as a writer; being able to connect ideas even though they are different which is also part of the final paper.  Although it still has been difficult for me, I’ve been trying to stick to one topic rather than several because condensing my writing to one single idea is much better than several scattered ones. I’ve noticed that I write too many ideas not only for this class but for other writing intensive classes as well. I feel my strong point is that I am able to explain ideas thoroughly so someone else reading my work isn’t confused but I overelaborate to a certain point. My favorite blog post was the blog post from the MET, it was interesting to see different types of works of art face-to-face rather than on the computer and being able to relate them to Dante and the text was a fun interactive way of combining various works to get one main idea.

In my first reflective post I set a goal for myself to try using more outside sources.  Before that post, I had only used an outside source once.  In my last three posts since then I have used at least one outside source.  I am happy with the quality of these posts over my previous posts and I am glad I chose this goal.

My first post after I set this goal was comparing the Inferno and the movie As Above So Below, which I knew had made various references to the Inferno, but I did not fully understand some of them until after we had finished reading it.  For this post, I first looked for images and other resources through our class site but nothing seemed to strike me as something I could write a lot about.  I had never written about artwork and literature before, but I had written about film and literature which is where I got the idea to connect these two works.  I really enjoyed writing about the movie and its connections to Dante’s poetry.  There were so many references to the Inferno that I only touched on a few in my post, which is why I am excited to write my final paper on the same topic so that I can include more of these connections and adaptations.

I had to write about artwork in connection to Dante’s poetry for the Met post.  I enjoyed going to the Met and seeing these pieces in relation to Dante.  My problem with writing on artwork in previous posts was that art based on the Inferno seemed to be so extensive and it was somewhat overwhelming while at the same time I was unsure of where to begin writing about it.  The questions we were given for this post and the fact that we had specific works of art to see and write about made it easier for me to understand how to write about art and its connection to literature.  Because I enjoyed this post and finally understood writing about art, I chose to write my last post on a piece of art.

As I look back on my posts since my previous reflection, I have becomes more comfortable with fully analyzing images related to our readings. Prior to this, I would give a brief summary of our readings for the week. As I look at every element of the images, rather than just the obvious action, I was able to find small details I have not noticed before. In my 7th post, I chose to use two images, one for Dante and Virgil’s encounter with Satan, and another when they finally reach purgatory. I was still focusing on the narrative rather than truly analyzing the details of the images, which tells us a story of its own. After the met visit and answering the questions given, I learned to view art in a different perspective rather than seeing what’s on the surface. In post 8, I chose an image related to Dante finally meeting Beatrice again in Purgatory. In that post I briefly mentioned the fated meeting, and paid close attention to how the artist, John Flaxman, chose to depict the moving scene. Rather than just mentioning what was stated in the canto about Dante crying over the disappearance of Virgil, I also acknowledged Beatrice’s stance, and the figures in the background. I was able to understand that every aspect of the image contributes to how to artist chose to portray the scene. Although I have become more comfortable with analyzing, I still have difficulties grasping Dante’s symbolism for what he is telling us in his poetry.

Makeup for Blogpost 4

Giant and whore atop the transformed cart, John Flaxman, engraving.

Giant and whore atop the transformed cart, Gustave Doré, woodcut

John Flaxman and Gustave Doré both depict the same scene from canto 32 of Paradiso. At the end of the canto 32, the chariot which Beatrice had arrive on is transformed into a group of beasts. Dante sees “ungirt whore” sitting upon them (line 149).

Doré’s rendition, the giant has his hands placed on the woman, as if he is forcing her down. In Flaxman’s, she appears more of a willing participant, with the giant’s arm loosely around her waist, but without the forcefulness of Doré’s. In Flaxman’s, the giant wears a crown, carries a sword behind him. The woman wears a feathered hat on her head. This lends to a more regal look to the pair, than in Doré’s, where the giant is barely dressed, giving him the look of a savage and unkempt, more animal than man. The back of the chariot can still be seen in Flaxman’s depiction, and presumedly the transformation into the beasts has not fully taken place yet. However, for Doré’s work, the chariot has already completely disappeared from view.

Doré displays the beasts that the chariot has transformed in as looking straight forth, towards the audience of the artwork, whereas Flaxman’s beasts are looking to the side of the frame. The beasts looking forward appear more fearsome, because they can be seen as targeting the viewer.

Dante writes that the woman “turned her greedy, wandering eye towards” him, and the giant reacted in anger to this (line 154-159). Flaxman shows the giant and the woman looking at each other, albeit from the corner of their eyes. However, with Dante’s account in mind, she is most likely looking towards the poet, and the giant is looking at the woman in annoyance. In Doré’s depiction, the woman and the giant are both looking in the same general direction. The giant’s head is tilted downwards and to his right, away from the woman. Since Dante tells us the woman is looking at him, the giant’s gaze must also be on Dante.