What is Context?
The word "Context" holds its meanings in the Latin word Contextere which means "to weave together" (Online Etymology Dictionary). I always insist on this idea that whenever you are going to investigate and dwell into any subject of study, go for the roots of the subject - the beginning of the subject to understand the true purpose and meaning of that subject. For instance, just look at the root-meaning of the word Context. Normally, we do not have any idea what we are really talking about when we say "Context of the story is political", and while using this word we associate its meaning with the word "background", which makes the meaning of this phrase "context of the story is political" as the "background of the story is political". This baseless association actually sullies our understanding about the word "Context", and this Context-is-Background association is partly true and partly false.
This association, Context-is-Background is partly true because whenever a Main Character performs, his action is performed in a certain "background". By the word "background" I mean the situation (a series of events) which are mostly external to the character that spring not out of the character's action, rather they spring out from other characters and other objects, in order to influence the main character. The background is not affected by the main character unless the he is portrayed as a Hero figure. This is because traditionally those characters who overpower the powers above them are named as Heroic, for they did not act like other menial characters who accepted the influence or authority of the powers above them (either the power of ruthless nature or the power of a humanly dictator) . In short, as a general observation, it is only the Heroic character who can deny/alter/overpower/ the background that is influencing his actions, the non-heroic characters do not often know what is the background color of their life; while some characters are sensitive enough to realize that background.
Till this time, we have two kinds of backgrounds:
A background that has no concrete connection to anything except the life. For instance, in GoodBye Mr. Chips, Mr. Chippings background is his past life (full of events), which he realizes and remembers every time. The background of Mr.Chipping's story is his life. And the background of his life is the War, which greatly influenced his life. War is a concrete background to everything, which he also realizes and feels that deep and horrifying connection between the war and the lives of people, therefore he weeps. On the other hand, his overall life events (including war) is a background to his loving and caring personality, which he realizes but not much. This background is mostly abstract, and in response to this Chipping could not act like a Hero.
Another kind of background is that we see in The Lord of the Flies. This background is a concrete event, an event that is an action of external forces (Nature) that a plane crashed in a particular setting and forced the main characters to stay in a specific background. So, here the background of main characters is now the forests, wild life, skies and waters as far as their eyes could see; and this background has an incessant power over their actions. This kind of background is very much concrete in nature. The war in Chipping and the forest in Lord of the Flies, both are concrete backgrounds, which are invulnerable to the main character's actions - the main characters are not of that personality to influence these backgrounds.
From now on, I will not use the word "background" to explain the word "Context"; for I hold background to be too full of the double meanings to be studied. The word "background" imbibes in it so diverse meanings that it, in my opinion, cannot redeem itself from over-generalization. Instead of "background" I will use those real factors that actually work to give us a complete understanding of the Context.
Context is not just the presence of some "scenery" behind the characters, like we have a scenery of snow trees behind this man.
It is actually the presence of the character standing within the scenery:
It is not denied that Context is a background color given to a situation, that it is an underlying base whose threads can be seen beneath the canvas. Nothing similar to this concept is denied. The point that is focused here is that Context is not all about having a particular background, it is about these three components that all combine together to give context to a story:
1. Setting (Places and Objects - Structuralism)
2. Event(s)/Situation and the gravity of the situation
3. Character personality and actions
When all these three components get linked, interconnected and inter-influenced - only then we are able to infer the Context of something. When a Character in a specific Setting interacts with the other Objects of that Setting, a Situation rises, which can consist of one or many events. When these events influence the actions of other characters, or when the actions of other characters influence the event, there begins an interaction at a greater scale - an interaction that supersedes every other character, every other action - like a night that dawns upon the world. And this intense connection among all the components brings into life a Context, under which every story is told.
Some contexts are easy to infer like this one:
A hammer might stand for many things, but once a hammer is placed against a red background along with a chisel it means just the one thing - Soviet Union. The context gets clear only when hammer, chisel and colors are in special arrangement. In other words, we need two important things:
1. Objects
2. Interrelation of Objects
Some contexts are very difficult to infer and they might contain sub-contexts or multiple-contexts, like this one:
There are three characters here doing different things, five "backgrounds" of different sorts, and very contrasting color scheme.
This painting is named as The Scream by the painter. Apparently, the context is Nature - but here natural waters and skies aren't the only contexts that give meanings to the painting. The meanings are derived not merely by observing few objects of the context and missing out the other. When we say context of this painting is nature - that's fairly wrong and injustice to the painting! Because, we haven't yet investigated all the components of the Context.
Let's discover the connections between the components of the Context, and see what meanings do we get out of it.
You say:
The character who is screaming has no sign of happiness on its face, nor does he blushes, the character is pale, thin and is painted in twirls and curves, as if it will annihilate at any moment.I say:
Very well done.You see you have only analyzed the Main Character and yet you were able to make your assumption that the painting is about Nature but it's not a happy one. What if we analyze the Main Character in its entire CONTEXT instead of just looking at only one component of the whole painting?
There are 5 backgrounds. Now, here at this moment, if we apply your conception of Context as Background, we will baffle as to which background is associated to which character out of three.
One background color is Blue that fades into mountains - showing water's coming from the mountains. The second background is of sand-brown colour - showing land with no or little signs of vegetation. The third background is of a bridge on which the three people are standing, two are walking away, one is screaming at us. The fourth background is of orange red color of the sky - showing the sunset. The fifth background is the entire body of colors imaged behind the main character.
We have identified the objects of the context now: Bridge, Red Sky, Running Water, Mountain, People and the Land with no vegetation. Now, let's see how these objects correlate with each other, what are the techniques applied to make these objects look similar?
So, let's correlate all these objects:
If you notice the style in which the paint brush is been used to paint, you will realize that everything in this painting is twirling and curving. the objects are painted in curls. However, only one object remain uncurved - that is the Bridge. Which means that all the objects (including the main character) share something common, except the bridge which is not painted in twists. The technique employed here is of twirls in the objects. Normally, human figure is not painted in twirls, unless the human body is deformed. But when it is painted like this it often makes the human more mysterious, and in this picture this gives a sense that the main-character will dissipate into air along with everything in just the next second, everything seems twirling up, rising up in the air.
So, now we come to know that the context of this painting is understood not because some particular objects are present in the background (as I have told you earlier in the soviet union flag) - we are able to understand the context because of the manner in which these objects interact and share their properties with each other to become a combine whole! In this painting all the objects are related to each other by their feature of twirls. All those objects that are twirled share something unique in them. Only the bridge and the two people are not twirled, which means that they are not related to the other twirled objects. So, now if we divide the picture into two parts: curly part, and uncurly part - we will have two sets of objects:
1. the Bridge and the two people
2. Main Character and the Nature
When analyzing a work of art, our main concern is normally the main character. And we have just said that our main character and the scenery (sky, water, land, mountains) are not different - they are ONE. This is because the painter has made the character and the nature to share their twirly appearance. So, this makes even the nature our main character, the scenery behind is NOT the context of the painting, it is not an additional part added behind the main character to give him new colors - the scenery behind is the extension of the character's self, it is the inner expression of the character, The Scream is not alone with the character, it is accompanied by the mind-boggling screams of the bloody angry sky in the red. And in this scream, everything is annihilating, everything is in destructive motion, except the people at the back, except the unchanging distance of the bridge. The purpose of the Bridge is to reduce the distance, but the distance seems a constant reality, and unchanging unmoving, indestructible truth.
You see, before analyzing we were thinking that perhaps the red sky and the barren land are the context of the painting, it is not so - it is not the ruthless nature that inflicts misery upon the character and therefore he is screaming - it is the ruthless man inflicting misery upon the other man, and upon this brutality screams both the nature and the character together.
And this speaks the painter himself:
"I was walking down the road with two friends when the sun set; suddenly, the sky turned as red as blood. I stopped and leaned against the fence, feeling unspeakably tired. Tongues of fire and blood stretched over the bluish black fjord. My friends went on walking, while I lagged behind, shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous infinite scream of nature."-- Edvard Munch.If you read the biography of the painter you will realize the depth of the hidden meanings behind his description of his own painting:
hat does the famous Edvard Munch quote associated with The Scream mean? On the surface, Munch describes a typical evening in Norway, taking a walk at sunset with some friends beside a "fjord." While an evening out walking by the water might sound relaxing and enjoyable at first, on closer look we see that Munch is really describing a moment of an almost existential personal crisis. In the painting's background, we can see two people walking away (probably the "two friends" Munch describes) in the other direction, creating the feelings of isolation and "fear" the artist talks about in his quotation. In the manner of a true Expressionist painter, Munch uses color to express his emotional reactions to his environment, commenting on the "red" sky and the "bluish black" fjord, described almost as an all-consuming black hole hell where "tongues of fire" savagely lick at the frazzled and overwhelmed subject, unidentifiable as either a man or woman.
While there is certainly something ominous about Munch's description of The Scream landscape, the repeated use of the word "blood" in combination with the twirling, swirling, and whirling warm tones used to paint the background suggest actual physical violence. What is the source of violence in this seemingly isolated landscape in Norway? Art history sources indicate that a slaughterhouse was within earshot of the the spot illustrated in The Scream painting. The proximity of the slaughterhouse could very well account for Munch's repeated mentions of "blood" in connection with the painting.
Along with the slaughterhouse, the very mental asylum where Munch's own sister was hospitalized was very nearby, too, causing us to wonder: Who is the subject in The Scream? While it seems obvious that the painting is a self portrait of the artist himself, due to the ambiguity of the subject's gender, the sexless person depicted in The Scream may actually be a working combination of both Edvard Munch and his sick sister, hospitalized in the asylum nearby.
(Description taken from Legomenon)
Before we further look into the technicalities of the connections between the objects, let us tackle these questions:
What is a Setting?
How Setting is Determined?
What are Objects and their Types?
What Happen when Objects Interact?
These are those questions, which once answered, will forever clear your concept about the Context.
These are those questions, which once answered, will forever clear your concept about the Context.
What is a Setting?
Setting is the combination of Objects, Actions, Intentions/Cause, Relations and Systems. Consider this illustration below in order to understand the setting:How Setting is Determined?
What are Objects and their Types?
What Happen when Objects Interact?
Writer's Context
Context of the book is all history and obvious
Story's Context
Context of the story is all observation and discrete.
How do we identify the Context?
= Words
= External Events
-Time
History
-Place
Setting (Places and Objects - Structuralism)
Event/Situation and the gravity of the situation
= Internal Events
-Character Personalities
Personality translates into Approach
-Character Decisions
Approach translates into Decisions
-Character Actions
Actions translate into Events
-Character Speech
Speech adds into the gravity of events
No comments:
Post a Comment