Answer

Historical Arts

The word utopia, derived from Greek words means ‘no place,’ and it is usually used to show the idea of an ideal place, which does not exist. This is significant since most utopian stories are satire and designed to show the weaknesses in the contemporary societies. The utopian narratives have been published through a range of times, around the world, and for diverse readers, but many similarities and dissimilarities exists between the stories. This paper compares and contrasts Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland, George Orwell’s 1984, and the art work of Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s painting ‘Fränzi in Front of a Carved Chair’ with the Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck.

The two novels, Herland and 1984, have several similarities. Both novels revealed a future designed by arms destruction — biological and chemical weaponries in Gilman’s situation, nuclear warfare in Orwell’s. The two narratives corresponded about the danger of unending stratification, with human race alienated into groups influenced by genetic engineering and mental conditioning (Herland) or traditional social class matched with totalitarian allegiance structures (1984). Both books thought future cultures entirely controlled with sex, although in completely differing behaviors: state-imposed domination and celibacy in the incident of Orwell; cautious, encouraging promiscuity in the novel Herland.

One of the main differences between Herland and 1984 is the manner in which the people are controlled. The administration through fear and intimidation controls the citizens in Orwell’s 1984, while in Herland, the regime handles them willingly. In 1984, people recognize that the government is spying on them and are frequently reminded how risky it is in case the system fails. This scares the people so much and protesting is not tempting. Herland, on the other hand, demonstrates a society where the citizens are provided with whatever they need, from education to medicine; the public trust that they will get anything they need. Consequently, there is no motive to rebel. The citizens realize several subjects “to such fullness of knowledge as made us feel like schoolchildren” (Gilman, 2016, p. 55). The women are exceptionally brilliant and are also “profound educators” (Gilman, 2016, p. 68) in their own demands.

Another difference between the novels is that in 1984, individuals are created and fostered by the parents. Families are government tools, whose only aim “was to beget children for the service of the Party” (Orwell 57, 1989). Consequently, differences exist in their nurture, which has an opportunity they reasonably build a personality. The case is different with Herland. They are all nurtured by the system and most the people are mass-produced. It results to no dissimilarities in the nurturing; hence, it is difficult to have a different identity.

Finally, there is a difference on the role of technology in the two novels. Technology occupies a major role in Herland than in 1984. There are different reasons for using technology. In 1984, it is majorly used in monitoring the members of the Party (commonly the Outer-Party). The members of the Party are to some degree conscious of the reality that they are being followed. They are supervised with microphones. In Herland, the whole culture is built on technology, which is so advanced that the experts are capable of creating life (children). The administration is not only watching its citizens, like in 1984; however, children are created and can easily be controlled. It turns out to be more challenging for the poor even unbearable to rebel. Consequently, it is easier to control them.

Fränzi in Front of a Carved Chair and The Arnolfini Portrait

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s painting ‘Fränzi in Front of a Carved Chair’ from 1910 is believed to be a representation of artistic freedom. The image is of a girl from the proletariat area of Friedrichstadt depicting an ideal example of a style mostly used by Die Brücke. Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting by Jan van Eyck in 1434. The painting exemplifies a married couple on an agreement depicted by the features of the painting. From the portrait, it can be determined that there is a joint agreement that this painting works as an evidence concerning the association amid the pair.

One of the main differences between two artworks is that Jan van Eyck’s painting offers a clearer account of social status of the couple, which is not seen in Kirchner’s painting. Eyck  has shown the social status of the pair through the bright colors of the garments in showing that they are among the rich people in Bruges. For example, the woman’s robe is designed with fur with great amount of fur, to depict the social status of the pair. The color green in Italy was set aside for people who bank money, which depicts the woman in green a merchant class (Jan van Eyck, 1434). On the other hand, Kirchner’s painting is considered to represent artistic freedom. It portrays a fashion of the Die Brucke depicted by the simplicity and the impulsive use of color. The usage of color is far distant from realism.

Another difference is seen by the use of light. Van Eyck used both direct light from the window into the picture reflected by the oranges on the chandelier and coats indirect light. The reason of using such light is because of the minimal use of oil and level of covering obtained by paint layering (Jan van Eyck, 1434). Kirchner’s painting has not used the direct bright light but the picture has impulsive use of color that portrays the features of the painting. The pattern leans on the curved chair that assumes a lady’s silhouette in the manner of an unrealistic shadow (Kirchner, 1910). The girl gazes rebelliously as the deep green color of the face, determined by thick, un–naturalistic brush strokes, that does not contrasts deeply the details of the picture.

One can easily depict the use of brush strokes in comparing the two pictures. Brush strokes in Van Eyck’s painting are almost unrealistic to be seen in his work since they show the deep rich colors where the colors are involved unlike the brush strokes in Kirchner’s painting, which does not clearly separate the colors and much details of the images in the picture hidden by impulsive use of color.

The two arts depict different aspects of symbolism. In Kirchner’s painting, the lady’s expression is the most intricately depicted section of the image; her hair is covered in an un-naturalistic way with a thick yellowish green color, pink and blue colors applied thicker brush strokes unlike other parts of the image. Her big, lips with intense red color are specifically impressive and changes the entire picture into the symbol of an arousing sexuality (Kirchner, 1910). Van Eyck’s painting, on the other hand has symbols linked to religion, affection, fertility, and fidelity (Jan van Eyck, 1434). The three symbols that are most significant in Eyck’s painting include, firstly, the ‘God’s eye’ mirror, which represents how God sees everything. Secondly, the position of the pair demonstrates the domestic place of the woman. Arnolfini’s position indicates confidence and control, and his hand shows a blessing the position of his right hand suggests a blessing gesture. Finally, the dog represents the fidelity between the pair.

In conclusion, the paper has discussed the similarities and difference between the two novels and the two arts, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s painting ‘Fränzi in Front of a Carved Chair’ with the Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck. The most significant feature about the two books, Herland and 1984 is that the authorities are maintaining their dictatorial states through propaganda. On the other hand, the Arnolfini Portrait is rich in iconography and gives the viewer an insight into Flemish culture. Eyck’s painting has so many different features than Kirchner’s painting. The symbolism of the Eyck’s painting is immeasurable and very complex than Kirchner’s painting.

The world currently has replaced the Big Brother slogan that war is peace and having the nuclear arms is peace. For example, China is catching up with the super powers by increasing its nuclear capability. The U. S. has its missiles in Europe to control the nuclear arsenal in Europe and Asia so that their military and economic might will rely on America (Bossche 1996). We have seen changing alliances between nations to facilitate conquest and strengthen their defense. Another aspect is that the administration through fear and intimidation controls the citizens in Herland. The government is manipulating people through technology. For example, Donald Trump exercises a new digital influence via the social media and can “communicate to his base” when he’s annoyed, uninterested or overwhelmed by impulse. These are the authorities to manipulate and influence many citizens by accessing their data. The two books depict how the cultures entirely is controlled with sex. For example, lesbian science fiction has found its way on classic American films and T.V programs and it currently appeals to a multicultural audience of all ages (Nelson, 2009). It has depicted the hearts and thoughts of those in looking for confidence, strength, companionship, and explanations to global matters.

The novels and the two works of art show the meaning of life by expressing the importance of freedom, honesty, love and loyalty in the society. These stories and their handling of the earlier stated themes are a call to distinguish faults within peoples’ lives and general society. The family is a basic unit of life and this is where people need to get their hope and power to influence their lives but not to be controlled by the system or manipulated psychologically.  The two arts, on the other hand, show the meaning of life by demonstrating the importance of fidelity, sanctity of family and hope. They demonstrate the purpose of aesthetics, economics and diverse cultural matters, which depicts the origin of the current philosophical situations.