Assignment_3_post

__[|задание]__ ____

__By Ekaterina Melnikova__

The poem by W. H. Auden is about what Brueghel wanted to show in his painting ‘The Fall of Icarus’. In the first part of the poem we can recognize that point ‘About suffering they were never wrong…’, and the second part describes the painting as an example. The poem refers to the painting several times. When we read ‘In Brueghel's Icarus, for instance’, we need to see it. We would understand the first part, but we would not understand the whole poem without seeing ‘Brueghel's Icarus’. The poem by William Carlos Williams portrays everything what we can see in the painting. It is different from the Auden’s poem, because it doesn’t add anything new. Auden analysed the painting and made a new work of art, so the poem by Auden has the features of intertexuality. Williams just gave a description.

By Ksenia Romasheva

W.H. Auden and W.C. Williams were both inspired by Pieter Brueghel’s “Fall of Icarus”. Despite responding to the same painting, these poems differ in meaning as they describe different details. Auden’s version. As the author mentions The Old Masters, we understand that the poet tells us not only about this particular artist but about a whole generation of talented painters. We can find the reference to the “Fall of Icarus” at the end of the poem. It is mentioned “for instance”; Auden turns description of the painting into the narrative about suffering. This ekphrasis is more interpretive than representative, that’s why we can consider it as independent from the painting. Intertextuality is used just to clarify the author’s idea. Williams’ version. This ekphrasis describes exactly what we see, the description is closely related to the picture. The ekphrasis and the painting create the same meaning: we understand that Icarus’ fall goes seemingly unnoticed.

By Nastya Abaikina

Considering the picture “Fall of Icarus” by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, we deal with such phenomenon as ekphrasis. According to this term, there are some comments about some piece of art. In our case we have a picture and two poems about it (Musee des Beaux Arts by W. H. Auden and Landscape with the Fall of Icarus by William Carlos Williams). I would consider the first poem dividing it into two parts. In the beginning of this poem there are some general thoughts and they would rather describe the feelings about this picture than comment it. I can say the same about the translations this poem into Russian. They are all about the picture for sure, but at the same time, if I saw these words without the picture, just separately from it, I wouldn’t think about this particular piece of art. As I’ve said, there are only author’s feelings which are caused by looking at this picture. Talking about the second part of the first poem, I would think about intertextuality. It begins with the words “In Brueghel's Icarus, for instance…”. This part is not only describing the picture, namely the details, but also has the author’s attitude and feelings about the characters. Indeed we should look at the details. The author of the poem pointed at the main details and characters. That’s why I can say there is repetition and all what we see in the picture we can find reading the last part of the poem. The translations also describe picture pointing at picture’s features and expressing author’s attitude. Although it is really difficult to find some features of intertextuality in the last poem’s translation. It is very general, and without mention of the picture I wouldn’t think of it. Considering the second poem I have some mixed feelings. At first sight, to my mind, this poem looks like simple description of the picture. But according to the definition of ekphrasis, it has to be a comment about some piece of art. But after reading this poem several times I would say that there is not only enumeration of the details but also the author’s mood. But still it is really hard to say about the presence of the intertextuality without any doubt in this poem.

__By Ekaterina Gordeyeva__

Here we have two texts (pictures). I think there is intertextuality between them. Obviously, they have common elements: the man looking at his reflection in the mirror, a mirror itself is a common element and reflection, which seems to be wrong for the viewer. Why it is wrong? We see the back of the man instead of his face. In reality it cannot happened. So it gives us idea, that the world in the picture is unreal and it’s a symbol of man who can't identify himself or this man wants to live in another world, we don’t know for sure the author's intention. The main idea of these two pictures is common. Both authors represent a lost in self-identification. In this case we have the same meaning and the same elements. I can find the connection between both texts. We know that the second work refers to Rene Magritte’s picture. His work is a prototype for the second one. It gives the idea and the author of the modern picture develops the meaning, but it is still the same – the concept of a lost in self-identification. People are trying to find their places in life. To sum up, I have defined all signs of intertexuality in these pictures.
 * Intertextuality** is the term for the common properties of the text, which is expressed in the presence of links between them, through which text can refer to each other.

by Kalashnikova Svetlana I consider that intertextuality is presented in these two paintings. The first picture was made in war time and means the lost of self-identification. We see a man standing back to us, book lying near the man and mirror. The reflection of the man is wrong and shows us his back not his face, but the reflection of the book is right. So in difficult time world of things doesn’t change, but people change. The second picture was made in modern world which is full of problems. The main problem of modern world is environment. At painting we again see the man standing back, the mirror near the man and the big mirror which reflects the man and the mirror. The reflection of the man is wrong. It shows us his back, not his face. The reflection of the mirror is wrong too. In the real mirror we see world is full of dust and smog. But in the reflection of this mirror we see clean and blue sky. So these two pictures show us real and unreal world, problems which change world and us. The main idea of these two pictures is common. The first original painting is a source for the second. We may suspect that the second picture will be the source for another’s pictures which have a such idea. So I think that the intertextuality is presented in these two paintings.

=
In my opinion there couldn't be a definite answer for a question whether intertextuality is used in these pictures or not. On the one hand, in both pictures we see the man looking at his reflection in the mirror, but we can see only his back in the reflection, not his face. And this external element is the same in both pictures.======

=
But the meaning is different. Actually, even the exterior is different. In the first picture only the reflection of the man is wrong, reflections of the book and the wall are the same as in reality. But in the second picture windows in real world and in reflection are different. As it's written One world is shown having a cityscape with a lot of smog. However, the second world contains heavenly and blissful clouds. And the foreshoterning of the second picture also differs from the first picture. Honestly you can't even definitely say whether it's the reflection in the mirror or a real man, looking like a copy or twin of the first one. And the meanings of these two pictures are different. In the first picture it's a symbol of man who can't identify himself, can't find the place for himself in this world (elements of reality are reflected in right way). And the second picture is a symbol of a man who dreams to live in some other place, better than one where he lives now. (Reflections of sights from the window are different and the sight in reflection is much better). But it's only unuseful dream because he even can't imagine himself in this unreal world, that's why we see (and he sees, too) only his back but not his face in the reflection. So we are in difficult situation. On the one hand, some elements of the first picture were copied (however not exactly) in the second picture. But some other meaningful elements were added and the whole meaning was changed. ======

__by Kristina Khariv__

It is really difficult to decide, whether between these two pictures is intertextuality or not. At first sight these patterns are definitely connected. The main elements are the same: a young man, looking in the mirror and seeing only the reflection of his back of the head.

In the 1st picture we have the right reflection of the whole background and the book, lying on the table.

But in the 2nd picture besides wrong reflection of the man we can see the different reflection of the window (opposition city/clouds). Also, the 2nd picture has the different perspective: the angle of how we are looking at the picture is not the same, our sight is focused not only on the man and his peculiar reflection, but also on the window and because of this the message of these 2 pictures is different. The meaning of the 1st picture is connected with self-identification, lost generation. The meaning of the 2nd picture shifts from human nature to the problems of the modern world, changing of the way of life.

Thus, I can suggest, that perhaps there is no intertextuality between his two patterns, because the meaning is different, but distinctly one picture is associated with another one because of using same means (mirror, man, reflection).

=
In the first picture Rene Magritte’s picture "Not to be Reproduced"is depicted. There are two reflections in a mirror the person and the book. The book's reflection is correct, but the person's reflection is of the back of his head instead of his face. In my opinion, Magritte wanted to say that we are always so obsessed with seeing what is “behind” and image.” We don't see all things which are. That's why we don't see ourself and how we actually look like. Rene Magritte refers to the problem of losing self-identication.======

=
The next picture is the modern one. Here there is the same situation. There is reflection of the person, but it is wrong. We see the back of him instead of face. I think, here the artist wanted to say us that we don't see surroundings problems especially ecological problems. We see blissful clouds and sunny day in the reflection while in the reality the sky is full of smog, there are a lot of factories which pollute the air. In my opinion, the main problem shown here: we see only what we want to see. We see the blue sky with blissful clouds becouse we like it in comparision contaminated sky.======

=
I think there is intertextuality between two pictures because there are the same elements: a mirror, wrong reflection, the man (as representative of Humanity) and so on. But I think the artist of the second picture developed the idea of the first. The first author emphasized the idea of losing self-identication, the second ephasized the idea of losing identication of the whole world.======

by Tanya Zlobina It’s very hard to me to say whether intertextuality is definitely presented in these two pictures or not. On the one side, we suppose that there is intertextuality here because both pictures include the same elements. On the other side, these pictures have different meanings. In the first painting we see a man looking into a mirror with his reflection having its back facing us. But the book in the button left corner has its real reflection and it looks truly to reality. In my opinion, the message of this painting is that people are changing all the time and it’s become very difficult to understand who they really are. They can’t see themselves. So the author represents a loss in self-identification. The second picture also illustrates a man with his wrong reflection in the mirror. But in contrast to the first picture this one depicts a different reflection in the window (a cityscape with a lot of smog and heavenly and blissful clouds). The message of this panting is that people have destroyed the environment and they understand that the life has become worse. So they start dreaming about the better future, imaging the happy place where they can live in. So we may consider that one picture refers us to another one because of the same elements. But I don't think that we can assert that there is intertextuality between these pictures because they have different meanings.

by Masha Dekker

=
When we look at these pictures at first sight we can easily find some similarities between them. On both of them we can see a person looking at his back. On the first one (painting by Rene Magritte ) we can see a man standing back to us. He is looking at his reflection in the mirror and again: sees only his back. A boy on the second picture is also looking at his back, although we’re looking at him from a different angle. Even though I couldn’t distinguish a mirror here at the lesson, now I realize that the boy is also looking at his “back” reflection.=====

=
So, we see the equal idea in both works and that make them intertextual, I suppose. The idea of seeing ones back instead of normal reflection, I think, is rarely used that’s why the boy borrowed it from the painter and interpreted it in his own way. So, the meanings here are quite different (the painter shows loosing of self-identification and the boy thies to expose the changes in the world) but there are intersections.=====

__By Kseniya Makeeva__

In my opinion, it is very difficult to say, whether there is intertextuality or not. We see that both of these pictures have similar external element, but the meaning is different. In both pictures we see the man looking at his back in the mirror. In the first picture we see that the reflection of the man is wrong, but reflections of the book and the wall are the same as in reality. Also our sight is focused on the man. But in the second picture we see that reflections are different. For example the window, in the real mirror we see world is full of dust and smog. But in the reflection of this mirror we see clean and blue sky. Also the second picture has the different perspective: the angle of how we are looking at the picture is not the same and also we are looking not only at the boy, but also we are looking at the window. And again, the meaning of these two pictures is different. The meaning of the first picture is connected with loosing self identification and the meaning of the second picture is connected with modern problem in the world. The boy on the second picture imagine that he can change the world. So, in conclusion I want to say, that probably there is no intertextuality, because of differen meaning, but they have the same elements: reflection, man and mirror.