Understanding the Ocean: Art vs. Science

While reading The Blue Humanities, by John R. Gillis, I kept thinking about the relationship between art and science.

I believe that both art and science are ultimately trying to accomplish the same goal – albeit by taking different steps. To me, the goal of art is to spread awareness and an overall understanding of any specific issue or topic by creating something an audience can observe and explore with their imagination. Whether its a movie, song, painting, etc. it is my understanding that art is to be carefully crafted in order to raise a question in the viewers mind that they are supposed to answer for themselves. Science, seems to be the opposite. Where art aims to ask questions, science wants to provide an answer. Science produces theories that are meant to be tested and experimented with to get the greatest understanding of the subject as possible.

So where does the Ocean come in with all of this? Well, with the ocean being so vast and mysterious – it is no question why so many works of art have been produced with the ocean being the main character. It’s unpredictable and violent while also being calm and serene. It is the perfect canvas to paint upon the fears, desires, and wonders of the human mind. But how does writing a book affect the ocean? Making a movie? Writing a song? The biggest influence art has on the ocean is how we view this integral part of our world. Could it lead us to wanting to investigate it.

Where we observe the ocean through art, we could disrupt it with science. While we can learn a lot about the ocean through research, there’s a difference between observing it as it currently exists and observing it with a plethora of variables. Human beings have an impact on everything they decide to get themselves involved with. I am not against science in the slightest, but I do tend to associate the urge we have to “understand” the world around us with the tendancy to try and control it. I think that we cant fathom the perfectly chaotic synergy of the Natural World. We require structure in our lives to make the world go ’round, so we intend to implement that structure on a world that would be better off without it. The way I see it, we are product of the Natural World, but we are in no way a part of it. I dont think we can return to it, so ultimately this debate on whether understanding the world through art is better than doing so through science or vice versa is rather moot.

Sorry for the downer post, I’ve just been chasing this idea around in my head and reading The Blue Humanities somehow made the idea click into place.

“The Great Old Hunter” and Evil Nature

Humanity’s connection to the natural world has always been complicated. On the one hand, people make significant efforts to protect and regenerate natural ecosystems and resources. On the other hand, several of humankind’s advances toward technological progress and solidifying its spot on top of the food chain have resulted in the displacement and extinction of hundreds of species throughout humankind’s comparatively brief rule over Earth. It may seem that a steady population increase and a strong dependence on an industrialized lifestyle are the primary reasons humans have had such a negative influence on the environment. Still, it might be more significant than that. In a chapter of The Romance of the Faery Melusine titled “The Great Old Hunter,” a depiction of man’s ideals implies that humanity’s connection with nature is influenced by a desire to demonstrate supremacy.

The story points out that, in the time of the Great Hunter, Aimery, humans and nature lived close together. The chapter describes nature as a sort of hidden threat, stating, “In hamlets and villages wild animals in their lairs could watch unseen all that went on around human dwellings” (Lebey and Knight 11). The wording in this sentence gives off the impression that humanity was surrounded by nature in an almost malevolent way. This notion of impending violence is further supported by the next sentence, “Foxes and wolves knew just when to raid” (Lebey and Knight 11). In this section of the story, humans feel more like the wildlife, while animals seem to be the hunters. It shows us that humans were fearful of their bestial neighbors. In describing the aftermath of one of these canine raids, the author makes a direct reference to the Devil, writing, “A strange wild smell, something like sulphur, hung in the frozen air, stinging the nostrils, as in a room where a fire, smoking before going out, has left a scorched smell like He of the cloven hoof” (Lebey and Knight 11). Cloven hooves are found in animals like sheep, deer, and goats. The personal pronoun “He” infers that these cloven hooves belong to a human, as any other reference to nature is met with the pronouns “they,” “them,” and “it”. All this suggests that this simile is an easily understood comparison between nature and the Devil. This just further proves that humanity was scared of nature, and it helps justify their rationale for hunting.

The forest itself is described as “…stretched beyond, menacing and dangerous, full of the unknown, concealing the surprising and the supernatural” (Lebey and Knight 11). Describing the forest as “stretched beyond” gives the audience a good idea of how surrounded early humans felt. The word “beyond” suggests that the forest’s reach had no visible end. It’s hard not to imagine a raft in the middle of an endless ocean. Both the hypothetical raft and the aforementioned hamlets and villages are stranded, encircled by a not-so-obvious danger. The audience knows that the forest is dangerous because the first two paragraphs describe the animals who come from the woods to terrorize people – but also because the text uses the words “menacing and dangerous” to personify the woods. Writing that the forest is “full of the unknown” is important, as the word “unknown” will be repeated later in the text to explain what drives Man to be brave. To say that the forest conceals “the supernatural” indicates that not only is nature frightening to humankind, but it is almost incomprehensible – it doesn’t follow humanity’s rules; therefore, it is mystical and fantastical.

The story then shows us that humanity is able to defeat these evils – the story says, “…evil reigned only if heroes failed to confront its dangers” (Lebey and Knight 12). This sentence reveals a lot of information to the audience about humanity’s values. Saying that “evil reigned” strengthens the prior implications of mankind’s stranded identity. To reign over something is to predominantly rule something. The idea of nature (AKA evil) predominantly ruling over the world is an alien concept to modern humans, as the tables seemingly turned millennia ago. The text continues, stating, “It seemed that the one existed to give rise to the other,” (Lebey and Knight 12). The nonspecific nature of this sentence fragment is purposeful. Its obvious implication is that evil exists to make humans stronger, but it also implies that the existence of humans makes the surrounding evil more powerful. This one fragment opens up the possibility of an infinite cycle where humanity and nature progressively become more and more impactful on each other. With melting ice caps and other adverse effects of climate change, it’s safe to say that this relationship between man and the natural world is still in effect. The sentence ends by saying, “for humans do not show their mettle if left to themselves.” (Lebey and Knight 12). A rough translation into simpler terms would be that humans do not show their tenacity if there is no evil to brave against. 

The word “unknown” returns in the sentence, “In those days men identified with things that could lead them further into the unknown;” (Lebey and Knight 12). The last time the word “unknown” was used, it described the “menacing and dangerous” essence of the forest. Using a phrase as vague as “the unknown” in this sentence works great; it describes that humanity has an instinctual fascination with things it does not understand, as well as further exploring humanity’s association with forests and nature in particular. The story continues with, “they sought in all directions the extension of their physical and spiritual power” (Lebey and Knight 12). It seems humans have always been determined to take over everything, as demonstrated by the phrase “in all directions.” The sentence mentions both physical and spiritual power, and this is like saying violence and understanding. The order in the wording is crucial to understanding the implicit attitude humans have towards the unknown – destroy first, understand later. Since nature is akin to evil in this story, it would be fair to think that these early humans would try to defeat nature before they try to observe and reason with it.

All this is not to say that Man never tried to understand nature; in the next paragraph, the narrator says, “Man developed without dissociating or abstracting himself from the world,” (Lebey and Knight 12). When one dissociates or abstracts oneself, one removes oneself from one’s own existence and lets go of any attachments that are associated with one’s sense of identity. This remark demonstrates to the audience that whatever information that humans have accumulated about nature has been done so on a level that is ultimately trivial. If one wants to have a complete understanding of anything, one must put oneself in that thing’s position and make an effort to see the world from the perspective of that thing. In the absence of the dissociation and abstraction processes, no attempt is made to fully understand anything. 

Finally, the narrator discusses hunting, saying, “Hunting, so different from our own… maintained the extension of human power” (Lebey and Knight 12). To get better at killing something, one must learn its behaviors and use them to one’s advantage. This is the “spiritual” power mentioned before. Through hunting, people can demonstrate their spiritual power through the act of tracking and the use of animal calls. The kill itself is the obvious demonstration of the physical power humans crave. This sentence paints hunting as a necessary activity for humans to partake in to maintain balance in the natural world – but it seems like hunting is necessary to keep human beings secure in themselves, which is a lot less valiant than the former.

In conclusion, “The Great Old Hunter” illuminates the intricate dance between humanity and the natural world, revealing a timeless struggle for supremacy. The text suggests that humans understand nature as evil, but humanity’s view of the wild seems to be a lot more positive in the contemporary era. If the ideals presented by the text were widespread, then this could explain why humans still tend to negatively impact the natural world. But it’s important to remember that the relationship between Man and nature is complex and changes over time. Stories from the past like this one teach about how people thought and felt in earlier times, but they also make us consider how humans think and act now when it comes to the environment. In order to try to solve the environmental problems of today, it’s important to understand how complicated our relationship with nature is and work toward a peaceful union that respects both humans and the environment. Understanding where we fit in the environment as a whole is important, should we want to face the difficulties of the future with knowledge and kindness.

Week 7: My First Impression of The Little Mermaid… ever.

Hello all!

This week we all read Hans Christian Anderson’s The Little Mermaid. I’m sure many of us had never read the tale before, but I assume plenty of my classmates had watched the animated Disney film of the same name. I have not. The ride at California Adventure is where I’ve had the most interaction with The Little Mermaid; my friend took me on the ride a couple of times because there’s a slope near the beginning of it that keeps you relatively hidden, so we would hit their wax pen and be all goofy for the rest of our visit. You get the gist of the animated film’s story through attraction: Ariel lives under the sea but yearns to be a human, falls in love with a prince, they get married, neptune attends the wedding and everything is happily ever after. I knew the original story was darker, but I had no idea it was as sad and harrowing as it actually was.

Just a couple of things that interest me about the story:

  1. The fact that, in order to gain human legs, she had to give up her tongue is CRAZY. That stacked with the addition of her NEEDING him to marry her or she would die. Physically not being able to explain to the Prince that she was the one who saved him is such a scary predicament – it kinda left a pit in my stomach as I was reading.
  2. I think the note about mermaids dying and turning into seafoam is so neat. I wonder if Anderson came up with that himself or if it was a pre-established detail in the mythology around mermaids at the time. I have the image of a lonely sailor coming across a patch of seafoam in the middle of the sea and telling that to himself to make the monotony of floating in the ocean a little less dreadful.
  3. I was a little confused about the ending. Did she turn into a cloud? Where was the cloud going? Was she to eventually turn back into a mermaid? I’d love to discuss it.

Those were three big takeaways I got from Anderson’s The Little Mermaid. I really enjoyed my reading of it.

Week 6: Tricked by the Feejee Mermaid

Good evening, everyone.

This week’s reading took me on a trip through time, back to when I was about 6 years old. In elementary school, I would always listen to The Show on Rock 105.3 – a talk show hosted by younger people talking about things I was far too young to be hearing about – on my way to school every morning. I remember one day, they talked about the Feejee Mermaid – they were trying to figure out whether it was real or not. I think it was a bit, often the cast of the show would poke fun at how gullible and silly Boston Rob (one of the hosts) was – so perhaps they were trying to gaslight him into believing the hoax. But to me, I was sold on the idea that the hideous half-man, half-monkey they would make jokes about existed. When I got home from school I hopped on the family Mac and looked up the hoax for myself. Seeing as I was 6, I expertly ignored all the big words that disproved the Feejee mermaids existence. I was amazed and proceeded to tell everyone I saw and met about it for about a week – and then I forgot about it and moved on with my life until this weeks reading. Even reading the words “Feejee Mermaid Hoax” didn’t connect those dots in my head until I looked it up on google images. It was fun reliving that really small but exciting time of my life.

Week 5: Melusina, the Ghost Mermaid

One thing I absolutely love about this course is the fact that we are learning so much about other cultures’ core values and beliefs through these stories. This week, we took a look at France through the story Legend of Melusina. Count Raymond is married to a beautiful woman named Melusina in the story. She promises their love will be long and plentiful as long as he never tries to see her on Saturdays. Greed (a recurring sentiment we should all be familiar with by now) takes over Raymond’s heart, and he makes a point of seeing her on a Saturday – but he is shocked to see that she has transformed into a snake. After this, she curses him and his lineage and turns into a spectral entity that – when seen – is the precursor for the current crown’s death. This feels like a campfire story, and that’s awesome. It’s got clear morals like don’t give in to greed and respect your partner’s boundaries – the combination of the two makes this piece genuinely progressive and timeless.

What’s more is the fact that, even though she put a hex on Raymond and his bloodline, she isn’t necessarily portrayed as a malignant entity. She’s simply the victim of a broken promise. This isn’t a cautionary tale of vicious monsters or women who are up to no good. This isn’t a story about a righteous man who can do no wrong. Melusina is the victim – and the man, Raymond, is a fool. This is a story about appreciating what you are given, especially if you didn’t ‘earn’ or create it. I am excited to hear other students’ interpretations of the piece, its message, and its literary value compared to some of the other stories we’ve covered. It’s cool to see a story that wants its audience to treat each other respectfully.

Also, I wasn’t sure where to fit this in, but Melusina is doomed to spend eternity in pain and suffering as a ghost – which hammers in the idea that she isn’t the ‘monster’ here. I am a little worried about the detail of Raymond and Melusina’s children being born with deformities – it almost makes me feel like the intended moral of the story is something more along the lines of “don’t be so blinded by desire that you don’t recognize the monster in your home.” However, as we saw with the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of day one, words can stay the same and change meanings. No matter an author’s intent, it is what you take away from it that really makes a difference in anything.

Week 4: A Collection of Observations – Kāliya, the Snake

I took some notes during my reading of ‘Kāliya, the Snake’. I don’t know a super coherent way to organize my thoughts here, so I am going to separate them by bullet points.

  • “Serpent worship is among the world’s oldest and most widespread religious practices.” This surprised me. Maybe it’s because I was raised, and the snake is a symbol of the Devil in Christian/Catholic ideologies. It might be because my dad has an ungodly fear of snakes, so I’ve always seen them as something to avoid and not to worship. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock – either way, it’s cool. The only snake-like God or deity I can imagine is Geb from Ancient Egypt.
  • “Then he came upon the river Yamunā, whose waves were tossing about as if she were laughing, throwing patches of foam on the banks.” I really like the use of personification to describe the river Yamunā. I firmly believe one of the fundamental problems with us as a species is how we stopped looking at the natural world as its own being. I don’t know if that makes any sense. To most people words like ‘lake’, ‘river’, ‘tree’, ‘mountain’, etc. are just that – words. They are void of personality and I’d be willing to bet for a lot of people, placing humanlike behaviors on these words would be considered weird or hippy-esque. As a species, it almost seems like we stopped trying to understand the natural world – we replaced that connection with the hellbent desire to conquer it. We stopped adapting to Earth, now Earth has to adapt to us. Unfortunately I think its too late to turn the tides on humanity (singular) we view our planet.
  • “How can I, a mere woman, describe you? . . . Since silly women and miserable creatures are to be pitied by the virtuous, please forgive this wretched creature, you who are eminent among the forgiving!” Once again, gross gross GROSS. It’s so crazy to write a story and have a woman just blatantly say this. I’m assuming this story was passed down orally in Hindu for centuries, so for centuries these ideals were fed to young boys and girls. I know that this note isn’t very constructive as its saying somethings thats already been said and will probably be said for the rest of our course from time to time – but golly, this undisguised degradation of women as an entirety is so baffling and strange.

Week 2 or 3: Noah as a Merperson

I had a very Catholic/Christian upbringing, so the name Noah and terms like “the Great Deluge” ring a bell or two. I know the gist; God gets angry and wants to essentially factory reset the world. He makes an exception for Noah and his family. He bestows upon him the responsibility of gathering two of every living animal and putting them on a big boat to survive the flood. I’ve seen movies and countless illustrations showing that big boat and the grumpy old man of God who built it – but I’ve never seen or witnessed Noah portrayed as a Merperson.

In Chapter 1 of Merpeople: A Human History, Scribner mentions Noah being depicted as half-man, half-fish. He also mentions that Early Christians saw Noah as “The second father of the human race, and the preserver and teacher of the arts and sciences as they existed before the Great Deluge” (third page of Chapter One). This is super interesting because while mermen symbolize knowledge and religion, Mermaids weren’t held in such high regard by Early Christian leaders. According to Scribner’s book, women were symbols of “lust, weakness, and man’s fall from grace.” But with Mother Mary being a symbol of purity and faith, they had to get creative – and thus, they borrowed the mermaid to make it clear that there’s no correlation between Mary and all the other evil women in the world. While this drastic generalization of women is, on all accounts, silly – nobody can deny that both the mermaid and the merman share a trait -power. Mermens’ power inspires Early Christian men. It almost seems like they are a representation of what man should strive to be—master of men and sea. The power mermaids hold is meant to be interpreted as something to be cautious of. Women tempt men on land; mermaids tempt men at sea? I don’t want to speak too confidently about this, as I am still learning, but I find this line of thought fascinating.

Luckily, my Catholic/Christian upbringing was very loose, and I’m able to freely think for myself. That being said, I read the first chapter out loud to myself and thought the Early Christian interpretations of women and mermaids were wild.