My thoughts on Bergman's Persona

In the immediate time after watching Persona, I didn’t know what to make of it. It felt so bizarre, like my mind had just been melted and trickled out of my ear. But now, looking back at it, I understand why I found the movie so mind- boggling. Ingmar Bergman uses the interaction between the artist and the viewer/ audience as a vehicle for examining how we perceive things. He shows how Alma perceives Elisabet, at first and then after the “betrayal”, but more importantly, he shows how Elisabet perceives herself. How she knows herself to be, how she views her role in society as a mother, and how society sees her. Or doesn’t, as the case maybe. Ingmar Bergman ties all of this into the visual look of the film itself, as well. He fills this movie with many layers of meaning, on many different levels.

            Alma serves the dual purpose of showing the two views of Elisabet. She has, at first, the view of Elisabet that she believes society has, but then Alma sees Elisabet as she views herself. Elisabet believes that society has expectations of how she should act as a mother. When she can’t meet these, she uses her skills as an actress to hide herself, her hate for her son. The artist quite literally loses her sense of self in the work. She becomes a blank canvas, in a way. Bergman shows this by making her mute, always having her play background to Alma. By this, I mean that in shots of Alma and Elisabet together, Alma is usually in front.

Alma is shown as the dominant character, even though she may seem more assured than Alma at first. We perceive Alma as an innocent, less experienced in the ways of the world. This is shown first in her conversation with the head nurse, when Alma suggests an older person be assigned to Elisabet. Alma perceives herself as less experienced. But we learn that she has had profound life experiences (the orgy and subsequent abortion). This persona makes her shift to vindictive and cruel all the more startling. She accuses Elisabet of being unfeeling, of not being compassionate to people. Yet she loses her compassion. She becomes what she perceives to be Elisabet’s true personality (leaving out the glass on purpose).

One scene in particular, I believe, shows what Bergman is trying to say about persona and our perceptions of people. It is the scene where Elisabet’s husband comes to the cabin, and Alma acts as Elisabet. Because of the way it is filmed, with Elisabet there, but ignored and facing the camera, it could be seen as a dream (or nightmare) of Elisabet’s. However, it could just as easily is an actual event. Either way, the fact that Elisabet’s husband sees Alma as Elisabet illustrates the idea of persona. Is it our outside features that define us, make us recognizable, our persona, or how people perceive us? Alma acts detached, calm, and even clinical. This is how she believes Elisabet’s personality is. Does the husband react to this personality, seeing his wife in the mannerism? Or is this just Elisabet’s fear, that how Alma acts is how people perceive her, to the extent that her loved ones see her as manipulative and cold?

Our fear of how other perceives us guides many of our choices in life. It can be in the basic decisions of what to wear to bigger choices, such as altering our behavior to fit into society. Bergman takes this idea to an extreme in Persona, where fear of perception leads two women to completely deny and reinvent themselves. One woman ends up in the mental hospital as the consequence, and the other carries on the idea of reinventing herself. Ingmar works in a circle. We are left to wonder what fate will befall Alma. I take this as a warning. That perception can rule our lives, and we must avoid this. Not only as people, but also as artists. For an artist who is lost is the perceptions of others will lose their voice, and stagnate. Maybe not in the extreme way that Elisabet did, but stagnation of any kind can be “death” for an artist.

My review of Stefan Zebrowski-Rubin's review of Stephan Talasnik's exhibit

Stephan Talasnik at Battat Contemporary in Montreal

My review of this review:

In critiquing artwork, a review that is favorable can easily fall into the trap of one dimensionality. That is, the reviewer, whether working for a paper or a student in a classroom, is unable to articulate why they like a work beyond very basic ideas. The focus is put on the conceptual, emotional aspect or the technique and the craft. For a positive review to have real substance, it must address both of these sides of art. Zebrowski-Rubin’s review of Stephan Talasnik’s exhibit Panorama: Monolithe intime is very complimentary of the work. However, underneath his praise, Stephan shows insight in the connections between the work, the work in the context of the work, the technical virtuosity, and the significance of the viewer’s emotional response. He continually returns to these threads in his article, making it a well-executed piece of writing, as well.

            Stefan’s observations about the connections between the pieces go beyond the fact that they are similar in appearance. Such surface level observations are obvious in a curated exhibit. But he dives into ideas about the conceptual similarities, the ideas that might be driving the artist to repeat these forms. Zebrowski starts this by citing the audience’s reactions to the pieces, noting that they identify the art with architecture, technology, and weaving. From there, he turns to the context of the work in contemporary art (Herzog) and in art history (Escher). Zebrowski’s article repeatedly returns to the idea that these sculptures and drawings are rooted in these pre-existing structures, yet the artist has manipulated them so that they become fantastic, universal forms. Stefan Zebrowski- Rubin explains why the works are fantastical by using visual language to describe the works “precise pencil marks to atmospheric smudging…. certain fluidity…faded contours…definition in erasure and precision.”

            It is, in fact, this use of visual language that saves Zebrowski’s article from becoming mindlessly effusive. His praise is heavy handed at times, “modern-day Da Vinci.” However, he is able to day why he is praising the pieces, why he is so drawn to them, in an intelligent way. Going back to the idea of one-dimensional praise, he doesn’t focus on one trait of the work. He observes them as a whole, noting the context of the work and the actual construction not as separate things, but as working together to intrigue the audience. In the quote in the above paragraph, he is describing the hard and soft, intricacy and definition of the works. The visual language supports the claims he makes about the reality and fantasy in the art, and the praise he heaps onto it.

            I can understand why Zebrowski- Rubin is so complimentary of the work. The images in his article of Stephan Talasnik’s exhibit make me wish I could see the art in person. I had never known this artist before reading this review, but I have had an interest in taking the structure and ideas of architecture and translating them into art. I feel, as Zebrowski does, that Talasnik does this extremely successfully, partly because he has allowed the forms of his sculptures to move beyond the typically rectilinear forms of buildings and into the organic, while retaining the idea of infrastructure. In choosing an article to read for this, I was mostly influenced by my opinion of the art being reviewed first, and the article itself was a secondary consideration. I enjoyed reading this article, as a refreshing example of a positive art critique that, while Zebrowski may have gotten carried away at times, was able to draw back and support his opinions articulately and with concrete knowledge.

2D Sketchbook assignment, week two

This week, we had to work with one image, in stencils. This is the cover page of my sketchbook. I'm going to go back into the others, and I may post them after I'm done. Here I used black and white paint and India ink, if anyone's curious. (India ink on top of white paint creates a very cool, glossy look.)

Drawing- 5 foot, contour me

This is a 5 foot long drawing, which is just as hard to do as it sounds, when you can't lift your pencil. My teacher liked the hand, saying it was very believable, so I included a close up.

2D Sketchbook assignment, week one

These are not all the images from my sketchbook, just my favorite pages.

Still Life

My First Memory

 

So, my first memory is a little hard to describe, because it could be one of two things. I have an actual memory, of being in my backyard. In the back-right corner, we used to have a bunch of sunflowers, and I remember being among them, and seeing my cat Chloe in front of me. In the above picture, the black blob next to my dad is Velma, Chloe's  sister cat. 

My other first memory isn't really a memory, but a dream. However, my memory of it is as old if not older than the memory of Chloe. I'm in my bedroom, looking at myself, who is across the room. Across the room me is being held my my dad, who is in a rocking chair, singing to me. So, the above image isn't directly of either of these incidents, but it's related to both.