In this photo, the two living, yellow flowers are meant to represent the Monster and his hypothetical female companion, or anyone else who is considered to be an “outcast.” By depicting them using the more “conventionally beautiful” object (flower) in the image, I wanted to challenge the idea that difference is wrong or a “deformity,” as the Monster’s treatment in the novel suggests. It is possible for us to shift the perspective to see the Monster as alive and beautiful, while we see the ugliness in the close-minded and violent behavior of humanity that bring about his downfall and descent into evil. In the photo, as in the novel, the Monster and his companion are isolated from humanity as a result of their different outward appearance, but there are ways to see this in a more positive light. The photo portrays an alternative scenario in which the Monster finds his companion to settle down with. This shift in perspective now considers “the Monster’s gaze,” as opposed to humanity’s, which enables them to be loveable to one another and admired by a viewer – the roles of humans versus monster in Frankenstein now reversed. The contrasting effect of this new perspective serves to highlight the subjectivity of how we define what makes something beautiful or good.
My first creative project on Frankenstein is an exploration of how we define beauty, and the subjectivity of that definition. The Monster’s journey with self-image is so impactful because, as readers, we are able to watch as he gradually internalizes society’s negative perception of him. He begins as a kind of “blank slate,” with no mention or awareness of his appearance – uncorrupted by such conventions, as we all are before a certain age. The first time it comes up is an encounter with an old man in his hut: “His appearance, different from any I had ever before seen, and his flight, somewhat surprised me” (76-77). He is not only confused by the man’s fear of him, as he has not yet learned that he is “ugly” in the eyes of society, but also his neutral “surprise” at the man’s own unusual appearance proves that our aversion to difference is learned, as yet another product of social convention. Only after repeated occurrences of others’ repulsion towards him, the Monster begins to understand the nature of his “deformity” (83). When he finally sees a reflection of himself, his opinion of it is influenced by what is seen as “normal” and “beautiful,” conventionally. He asks, “Was I then a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled, and whom all men disowned?” which is the primary question I am responding to with this photograph (87).
In this photo, the two living, yellow flowers are meant to represent the Monster and his hypothetical female companion, or anyone else who is considered to be an “outcast.” By depicting them using the more “conventionally beautiful” object (flower) in the image, I wanted to challenge the idea that difference is wrong or a “deformity,” as the Monster’s treatment in the novel suggests. It is possible for us to shift the perspective to see the Monster as alive and beautiful, while we see the ugliness in the close-minded and violent behavior of humanity that bring about his downfall and descent into evil. In the photo, as in the novel, the Monster and his companion are isolated from humanity as a result of their different outward appearance, but there are ways to see this in a more positive light. The photo portrays an alternative scenario in which the Monster finds his companion to settle down with. This shift in perspective now considers “the Monster’s gaze,” as opposed to humanity’s, which enables them to be loveable to one another and admired by a viewer – the roles of humans versus monster in Frankenstein now reversed. The contrasting effect of this new perspective serves to highlight the subjectivity of how we define what makes something beautiful or good.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|