On Wednesday, Oct. 16, I had the pleasure to go and witness the interdisciplinary marvel that was the “lecture” on “Room in Brooklyn” and “A Gradual Dazzle.” I say “lecture” in quotations because I cannot in good conscience call what I experienced just a lecture.
First, and maybe foremost, the wonderful Bonnie Glidden, Buchanan Professor of English Literature, and Associate Professor of English Timothy Spurgin gave us all cookies and clementines, which were much needed after a day of classes. This wouldn’t be the sweetest part of the evening, however.
The event was to be an examination of three different pieces of art. The first, a painting called “Room in Brooklyn” by Edward Hopper; the second, a poem of the same name by Anne Carson; then finally, a musical inspired by the aforementioned poem called “A Gradual Dazzle” by the talented Grammy winner Caroline Shaw, who also performed on campus on Friday, Oct. 18 with So Percussion.
First up to officially talk in the lecture was Associate Professor of Art History Elizabeth Carlson. She had us take several minutes to take a close look at the painting — thankfully not the standard hour normally required — and ask ourselves what we saw. I highly recommend searching up “Room in Brooklyn” by Edward Hopper so you can share in this same experience. Carlson had us talk with our neighbors and then share out as a group our thoughts on the painting. We talked about the ambiguity of the woman in the painting, how little we could really know about her. We talked about the tension between fact and abstraction, and organic and artificial.
And we talked about the stillness of it all. Professor Carlson gave us more background information, explaining how Hopper was interested in the isolation and alienation of big cities like New York and how he was influenced by film noir, where you’re stuck as an audience member, unable to interact with what’s in front of you — stuck as an observer only. This painting was done in 1932, the year that Hopper first made it into the then Whitney Annual where he was included every subsequent year until his death. In a way, this painting was a part of his big break.
Next, Professor Spurgin took the stand to discuss the poem by Anne Carson. He handed out copies of the poem as it originally stood along with a re-lineated version by himself. He had two different audience members read the poem aloud and asked them if it was difficult to do due to the punctuation — or lack thereof. They both agreed that it was and that there were places that they automatically wanted to punctuate the poem themselves, places that were very similar to where Professor Spurgin punctuated in his re-lineated version.
We once again talked as a crowd and small groups about what we noticed about the poem. The poem, unlike the painting, felt like it was really from the perspective of the woman within the poem. Instead of being on the outside looking in, there was a shift to being an active participant in the painting — or, in this case, the poem. The other thing we noticed was the motion that the poem gave with lines like its opening, which plainly says: “This / slow / day / moves / along the room / I / hear / its / axles / go.” I noticed the irony of trying to quote this poem and choosing where to stop. In a way, I am once again taking part in punctuating a poem that does not have any punctuation until the very end.
The final part of the presentation was given by Visiting Assistant Professor of Music Erica Scheinberg and Associate Professor of Music Sara Ceballos. Before letting us listen to “A Gradual Dazzle,” they asked the audience a very important question: why do these close looks? These close readings? These close listenings?
It gives us a moment to connect to the pieces, to each other. It gives us a moment to slow down in a world that is fast-paced. It helps us understand why we respond the way we do to a given work of art. The professors reminded us that as readers and listeners and art admirers, we all react to pieces differently. This particular trio of works gives us an opportunity to see those reactions at play and the effects that they in turn produced.
Professor Scheinberg said, “[Caroline Shaw] is working with these pre-existing works. She’s laid her cards on the table, saying, ‘Here’s the thing I read. You can read it, too, and we can have a conversation.’”
Before listening to the song, Professor Ceballos asked us to consider taking notes on the page that the poem was on and follow along as we listened. We would listen to the song a couple times, but as had become the theme of the evening, we would discuss what we thought we were hearing between these listens.
The song was not what I expected. I highly recommend — as I did with the painting and the poem — to look this song up. You can easily find it on YouTube.
Once again, we shared out our opinions about the piece: the heartbeat that seemed to permeate the piece and the strange places that were disjointed or had a complete “breakdown”; the dissonance. Once again, we talked about the movement that this piece had — just like the poem, but so unlike the painting.
In the end, things came back to time: to how time and space and pacing all worked together — not just within the song itself, but within each individual piece and the way they worked together.
The entire experience was incredible. It wasn’t a dull lecture where everyone sat still. It was alive. It was a discussion between faculty and students and performers, and it made it all the more enjoyable. It was a truly interdisciplinary experience that I think showcases Lawrence’s strength at interweaving all of the different disciplines represented at this school.