I did not enjoy her essay, mostly because I do not like cubsim. I understood her essay, but I rather have not had to try and keep rereading the almost exact same sentence time and time again.
I was talking to Michelle about it the other day and she made a good point. She said, "It was a good idea but it was executed poorly" - or something along those lines. I agree. I give her madd proppage for trying to put cubism into literary form, but I don't think she did such a great job - not that I could - just that she couldn't
I agree with Dean with the repetitive sentences in Gertruse Stein's essay. I think that the repetitive sentences serve to portray the subject, Picasso, in many different perspectives and also serves to build up the subject's characteristics. I don't like this tecnique. The subject could be better portrayed from another perspective by an unlikely narrarator.
I kind of loved her essay due to the length and easy sentences. However, besides that, I didn't like it at all. I definitely agree with Michelle's statement that Andrew pointed out. I think what she said could have been summarized in about five total sentences. But then again, I guess that is the whole purpose of the technique. I think I would have gained much more from a strictly analytical piece of writing.
I think that I'm going to echo Michelle and Wise: I think that the work was interesting in that it represented thoughts in different forms, but still, the sentences were essencially the same. I found it cumbersome to read yet stimulation.
I can't say I liked it either. I think it's more fun when your own eyes get to digest a cubist painting rather than have someone narrate it for you. I have a feeling Stein didn't really like it that much either, but did it 'cause it was under the Picasso section...
I think that a strickly analytical portrayal of Picasso would have been informative and interesting but would not have come from someone like Gertrude Stein, who spent time with Picasso and therefore probably could not portray him in a non-creative way. His sporatic cubism techniques are apparent in Gertrude Stein as they are in his paintings.
Personally, I enjoyed Stein's essay. I wouldn't want to read an entire book like that, but one essay was pleasant enough. Once I read the first sentence of each paragraph, I had an idea what the rest of the paragraph was going to say. I allowed my eyes to roll through the body of each paragraph with a sing-song rhythm.
I actually liked her essay and thought it was very creative and original! i would have never thought to transfer the concepts seen in the cubism art and put that into writing, and then write a whole essay in that form and i commend her for that!
I actually liked Stein's essay. I think it was really clever how she got (in my opinion) a written essay to imitate a piece of visual art.
It's interesting how she was able to do that, but I did not understand what she was trying to do. Was the essay an imitation or was it trying to convey another message?
i liked the first few paragraphs of her essay. then, it started to get really annoying. i liked the idea but it was too long.
haha I agree with Jane! The essay was extremely annoying, however, I applaud the idea. The idea of cubism in writing is cool, but in practice it's terrible.
It was very different and cool that she tried to include cubism into writing. But, the same words over and over again kind of got a little repetitive and boring to read over and over again. All the surprise of what's going to come next and looking forward to the end just never happened. That was kind of a disappointment.
I could not stand reading more than two pages of that writing style, i would continue to think i would be reading the same sentence.
now that i know she was a great, influential art critic and supporter, i see her essay in an even better light. i think it's definitely art and i think she got shortchanged by picasso with that ugly painting. i find it easier to sleep now that i know she can right normally too.
"she can right normally" can she also wrong oddly? sorry had to correct you Jane :DSeeing her write normally does comfort me too, and knowing she had a back story of excellence. But is this what happens with authors? we hate her but then we here she is famous and then like her? is this why directors get away with bad movies due to their name?
Post a Comment