Ethics by Linda Pastan (b. 1932)
In ethics class so many years ago
our teacher asked this question every fall:
If there were a fire in a museum,
which would you save, a Rembrandt painting
or an old woman who hadn’t many
years left anyhow? Restless on hard chairs
caring little for pictures or old age
we’d opt one year for life, the next for art
and always half-heartedly. Sometimes
the woman borrowed my grandmother’s face
leaving her usual kitchen to wander
some drafty, half-imagined museum.
One year, feeling clever, I replied
why not let the woman decide herself?
Linda, the teacher would report, eschews
the burdens of responsibility.
This fall in a real museum I stand
before a real Rembrandt, old woman,
or nearly so, myself. The colors
within this frame are darker than autumn,
darker even than winter — the browns of earth,
though earth’s most radiant elements burn
through the canvas. I know now that woman
and painting and season are almost one
and all beyond the saving of children.
Read the above poem and answer the prompt.
Prompt: In reading the above poem, a question is posed. How does the author answer the question, and what is the author's purpose? In answering the prompt, be sure to use your literary vocabulary to help you make your point.
In this poem, it is asked whether a famous piece of art or an old woman is more worth saving. By posing this question early on in the poem, (isolated from the poet’s own, legitimate answer) the feeling of it being a rhetoric question is created. This allows for the reader to gather his or her own opinion before Pastan begins to give her thoughts in the closing lines. This question is one that was posed to Pastan first as a student, and followed her throughout her life until she was the old woman standing before the Rembrandt. Finally being able to answer the question, Pastan writes, “I know now that woman/ and painting and season are almost one” (lines 23-24). Through her experience and reflecting on that question which she carried with her for many years, Pastan realized that the woman and the painting are dependent on each other in order to persist. Without an audience, the value of the painting--aside from the monetary worth--would be nonexistent because there is no one there to appreciate it. Likewise, without the existence of the art, the woman loses whatever she may have learned, felt, or gained emotionally by looking at it. When Pastan thought about the situation as a younger student, she was barely able to recognize the existence of the painting. To her it was merely a hypothetical instance that she was distant from and could “eschew/ the burdens of responsibility” (lines 15-16). However, it was when she experienced the painting firsthand that she realized the importance of art in both her life and the life of others. Without the wisdom gained in her older age by viewing the Rembrandt in person, she probably would not have recognized the true price for the loss of art and its audience. Pastan shows the readers that losing art presents great stakes and that art has a value which can only be fully realized through experience.
ReplyDeleteThe author is asking the audience if a few years of someone else’s life is more valuable than a timeless piece of artwork. The students being described in the poem have little interest in what the teacher is discussing. The situation seems unrealistic so the students are detached and disinterested. The is no clear line between the economics of life and art and their values when compared are forever changing. Pastan answers the question by saying that if the woman and the painting are only to communicate to their audience through the experiences of art, then that is the meaning they hold. It is the experience of art, not the art’s existence that holds meaning for our lives. The question Pastan poses does not have a straightforward answer, however she leads us to believe that at this point in time the conversation between life and art is left in the dark by youth and beyond capable of being saved by a typical student in ethics class. The author uses detailed imagery to establish a setting and show growth of from an ignorant student to a more knowledgeable adult. Imagery such as “restless on hard chairs” allows for the audience to picture students in class, unwilling and unable to understand the ethics dilemma present. Pastan’s word choice also contributes to the development of the theme. Words like”half-imagined” and “half-heartedly” give the reader the idea of how faintly the questions is understood, adding to the idea that the children cannot understand the burden the speaker has upon herself. Also, by Pastan referring to a Rembrandt as just a "picture" and to the woman as "old age," we can see that these two symbols are considered trivial by the children, thus contributing to the concept that the children cannot feel what the speaker is feeling. Overall, this poem is not just about a lesson of ethics learned in school by a student, rather focuses on the life of an old woman and the true experience people must have while connecting with artwork and the elderly.
ReplyDeleteFirst I have to ask: how many times did this author fail their ethics class that they heard the professor ask the same question “every fall” and “one year” attempted an answer?
ReplyDeleteWhatever.
Anyway, the question seems to ask which is more worth saving in a fire: a decrepit old person or a Rembrandt painting?
The author reflects upon this question, now a decrepit old person herself. She stands before a Rembrandt and examines it with a deep appreciation for its color and depth, admiring the painting’s colors that are “darker than autumn, darker even than winter” and “the most radiant elements [that] burn/through the canvas”.
She eventually concludes that both she and it are “beyond the saving of children”.
I think her point here is that it doesn’t matter whether or not either of them gets saved from a fire. If a young ethics student chooses to save her, she will die soon for one reason or another. If the student saves the painting instead, it it still meaningless because children have no understanding or appreciation of the work.
The author answers the question not with one of the prescribed answers, but by arriving at her own profound knowledge; that art itself is beautiful and life is also beautiful, but an artwork without an audience is worthless and a life without art has little meaning. The point of the poem is to show how disinterested the students or "children" are and to impress the value of age and knowledge that comes with it. The initial response from the students demonstrates truly that the art, in their hands, would be beyond saving because of their lack of appreciation. Once the author has her catharsis in front of the painting she becomes truly valuable as a viewer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhy
DeleteThe poem asks the question that if there was a fire in a museum, should a Rembrandt painting be saved or an old woman be saved. The fellow classmates of the narrator are oblivious, uncaring youth. They are young, and the thought of ever being old never crosses their mind. Also, they don’t care for art. All they care about is getting through a class and getting out of it, as they are “restless on hard chairs” These things don’t matter to them. They cannot see past their present: they are young, and should be having fun instead of sitting in ethics class. So they answer the question the easy way: save the old lady. And still they really don’t care about the matter at hand. The narrator does care. Later on in the poem, upon being asked the same question, the narrator answers that the old lady should be able to make the choice herself. And later the narrator gazes at a Rembrandt painting in a museum, and sees the art in question of being saved or not. This poem demonstrates that the youth are ignorant. They are preoccupied with their present lives, and are unable to make that kind of decision about life and art. The author is unable to come to terms with the question until they are facing the painting in question of being saved or not. It takes time and experience to be able to be able to a question that puts life against art, therefore young people sitting in their ethics class are unable to answer.
ReplyDeleteLinda Pastan answers her question by stating how women and art exist together and are vital to children’s lives. Through her youth, she notices the assumed behavior of other people toward art, disrespectful in only associating it with old age or passing years. The museum and the painting become a revelation for her, “The colors within this frame are darker than autumn, darker even than winter - the browns of earth, though earth’s most radiant elements burn through the canvas.” (Lines 19-23) The painting is her soul, showing every act and sin committed and the physical wear of life. By leaving it up to herself, she accepts the responsibility of preserving this feeling, so that children can learn about art’s history, theirs, and empower women and other people alike to decide what their impact will be.
ReplyDeleteThe question directly posed by the author’s teacher is whether or not the ethics students should save the painting or the woman; she wants to know whether or not they believe it’s better for them to save one life, or to save something that makes all of humanity better, something that has been important to many people in the past and will be important to many people in the future, if it survives. She wants to know which is more valuable – life, in its most pure, tired, and exhausted sense, or something that makes life worth living. The author, however, muses that they are one and the same, that love and life of others are what makes life worth living. And I would have to agree. “Sometimes/the woman borrowed my grandmother’s face/leaving her usual kitchen to wander/some drafty, half-imagined museum.” Thus, it becomes impossible to choose, and “Linda, the teacher would report, eschews/the burdens of responsibility.” Don’t we all? At the conclusion of the poem, the author essentially concludes that none of it matters, because neither the woman nor the painting nor the things that the painting depicts could be saved by anyone anyway. They will all not only fade from our hearts and memories, but also physically be gone from this earth. So I suppose the real question then, is, why do we even ask if our answer doesn’t matter anyway? Does challenging oneself and putting oneself in this position really make any kind of a difference if the impact is negligible, if it even exists at all? The individual’s judgment of which is more important, or any conclusions drawn, doesn’t mean anything; it all will fall to dust anyway, but I suppose the most important thing is we’re still talking about what Linda Pastan’s ethics teacher was asking her when she was in high school in the fifties and haven’t forgotten what she wanted from us even though she probably has fallen to dust herself long ago.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this poem, linda Pastan, posed the following question, which she had been asked many times in her ethics class: "If there were a fire in a museum, which would you save, a Rembrandt painting or an old woman who hadn’t many years left anyhow?" (lines 3-6); which is more important, history, or the life of another? The author points out that the students in her class all seemed to respond automatically with the answer of the old woman, as if the question was rhetorical, having an obvious answer which is morally deemed correct. Although, the diction used in the question places more value on the painting than the old woman, technically making the question harder. Still, the students answer quickly, but "always half-heartedly" (line 9) as Pastan recalls. This shows how the students have virtually been programmed to a certain mindset regarding ethics, instead of determining their own opinion on the matter. Pastan then goes on to pose another question as an answer to her first: "why not let the woman decide herself?" (line 14); that is, why not let the old woman decide whether the artwork or herself be saved. Through the proposal of this question, it is suggested by Pastan that the students are not qualified enough to make the decision, which they are not. The students have not developed their own ethical beliefs, and do not seem to care much about neither the old woman, nor the painting. The old woman has had a long time to live and experience things that have shaped her beliefs and morals, while the students have not experienced much beyond the classroom. Essentially, the classroom can only teach you so much, because time and experience are the ultimate teachers that allow individuals to determine their own thoughts and opinions when it comes to questions of ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe poem begins by the narrator reflecting on events from her past, when in class a professor would ask the students who they would save, an old woman or a Rembrandt painting. After describing the scene, the author goes into her musings as a child, using a conversational tone to portray her thoughts and how he experienced growth over the years. The narrator states that in some instances she would save the old woman, picturing her grandmother. At other times the narrator wondered why the old woman couldn’t just save herself. An answer is not truly found until the narrator reflects back on the question, now being an old lady standing in front of a Rembrandt painting herself. The author concludes that children are not capable of saving either, so the question is pointless. The question becoming a reality, and she realizes that both the old woman and the painting are far more complex in reality than they seem in the minds of children when considering a simple question. A human being, full of memories and life so unique and valuable, cannot be saved by a child because a child has a limited understanding of every intricacy that makes a person a person. For this reason, the old woman is closely connected to the painting, which also holds history and the essence of humanity, which is also too vast for a child to save. Through her answers, we essentially see the narrator grow up, and increase her understanding of the world. We see her ask questions in response as a child, and build a deep understanding, using imagery to describe the painting, as she is older.
ReplyDeleteThe author as a child is asked to decide whether to save a Rembrandt painting or an old woman from a fire; something loved and appreciated by many and someone who only some know or love; between the animate and inanimate; the seemingly eternal and the mortal. The young author changed their answer and never really chose one honestly. The author could not relate to the art or the woman so did not care for either of the objects' fates. When the author is herself nearly an old woman and is standing before a Rembrandt herself, realizes neither of them could be saved by her past self.
ReplyDeleteThe author's purpose is to show how she has learned and how little she knew as a child. Children believe they know more than they do and the woman is one such example. Trying to be clever, she once answered that the woman should decide her own fate instead of relying on her to be a savior. Her teacher reprimands her and this shows the contrast between the mind of a child and the knowledge of an adult. The child does not care if the painting survives or if the woman does, for in a child's mind they are both of little importance. The woman knows that it would not matter what the children would choose to save, for the artwork would not be appreciated by those who saved it and the woman would die soon anyway.
In the above poem the author Linda Pastan asks us to answer one of the hardest questions for a human being to answer. She puts the life of a person in our hands and asks us if we would rather save her or an ancient beautiful painting from a museum. The author uses subtle timing of her descriptions of each in the poem to imply that she would save the painting and not the grandmother. Specifically how she gives us the description that the old woman is like our grandmother in the middle of the poem. To give us a sense of sympathy and connection in envisioning a person we love. She then describes the painting about 10 or so lines later as being timeless with having many vibrant colors that leap off the canvas to your face. This gives time for our impression of the old lady to wear off and leaves the description of the painting fresh in our mind at the end of the poem. This demonstrates that the author would choose to save the painting and not the old woman near death. And also in effect strongly persuades us the readers to save the painting and not the old woman. Also throughout the poem she uses increasing level of diction throughout the poem to go from a young child incapable of saving either to a wise old woman who has knowledge of which to save. In her opinion we should choose to save the timeless painting.
ReplyDeleteTime is relevant to this specific poem as the narrator begins the poem reflecting on a question asked in class as an adolescent and ends the poem as an old woman in a museum. When originally asked the question by her teacher, the narrator points out that the question did not matter to the students by stating “Restless on hard chairs/ caring little for pictures or old age” (lines 6-7). The question continues to be asked as the narrator ages and as the narrator ages, her answer changes. In the middle of the poem, she questions why the old woman cannot choose herself and the teacher replies that it would not teach responsibility. As the narrator becomes elderly, she concludes that her and the painting are beyond the saving of the youth or her previous self.
ReplyDeletePastan’s purpose is to show the wisdom one gains throughout their life by experience. In the beginning of the poem she did not care for either the valuable Rembrandt painting or the value of life. However, the end of the poem is when she actually experiences the painting and states that the “woman and painting and season are almost one” (lines 23-24). This is when she realizes life, art, and the Earth should be treasured more by society, specifically the youth.
Why do we teach about the holocaust? To remember the past as to not repeat it. Does the recreation of gruesome acts of the holocaust teach our children how not to repeat it? No.
ReplyDeleteThe argument within the poem is one of preservation of history versus human life, and the speaker argues that teaching the children of tomorrow is more important than the preservation of history. With the holocaust example, the speaker believes it more important to teach about the hatred and bigotry that led to mass killings than the mass killings themselves.
The women asks whether or not the ethics teacher's question is relevant to the grand scheme of life. Is is supported by her refusal to engage with her ethics teacher the first time he asks the question. This is supported by his recognition of her deferment of her responsibility. She then asserts what she believes to be the more important moral delema of educating children and our responsibility to improving future generations based on current knowledge. However, this means she missed the point of the original question asked by her prof. Elie Wiesel said, " the greatest human injustice is the comparing of human suffering." There are always more and less important human dilemmas to think about. What matters is coping with and discussing the immediate one, which she failed to do.
ReplyDeleteThis poem poses the same question that was posed to the author in her Ethics class: if you were trapped in a fire with an old woman and a Rembrandt painting, who would you save? She then comes to the conclusion that both must be saved, because both the Rembrandt painting and the old woman rely on each other. If the old woman lived life without admiring art, her life would have been pointless. Additionally, what is the point of beautiful artwork if no life is around to admire it?
ReplyDeleteThe author's purpose of this poem is to remind the reader that life and art rely on each other. Remember to admire any form of art you see, for you are giving it and yourself purpose.
In the poem the question is posed on whether a person would save a timeless painting or an elderly woman that does not have long to live from a fire. The people asked however do not seem to care, for they are not forced to make that decision. After many years Pastan writes that in experiencing the actual situation in which she is observing the painting she realizes that “I know now that woman and painting and season are almost one” (lines 23-24). Pastan has realized that a work of art is worthless without an audience there to observe it and put meaning behind the paint strokes and colors. However in return having people there but no art, there is no knowledge gained. The audience and the art go hand in hand and can not strive without one another. In the end Pastan states that “all are beyond the saving of children” (Line 25), because children do not have the same respect and wisdom to be able to realize how a piece of art and the audience are necessary. They are unable to learn from painting and so for them to be the audience they would fail to see its potential. A child would be unable to make that decision because it means nothing to them. Pastan is trying to stress the importance of art within our society and how art has to continue to keep an audience that will bring meaning to the work and allow people to learn and gain wisdom.
ReplyDeleteThe author answers the question with the statement that children are incapable of choosing either the Rembrandt painting or the old woman to save. By describing her own experience with the question posed to her, the author portrays that her and her classmates would always “half-heartedly” save the picture or the life, never committing to one or the other; as if it did not matter which option they chose. Children, especially in this electronic day and age, are raised to not simply want, but need instant-gratification, which this question does not provide. It is only as they grow older, as the author grew older, that they begin to develop the capabilities to process the meaning and philosophy behind the ethical dilemma. The author spends much of the poem building the setting at the end of the poem, where she is actually in a museum, seeing colors “darker than autumn” contrasting with “earth’s most radiant elements”. It seems all of her efforts have gone to waste when everything she spent all those years contemplating, “women and painting and season”, is concluded to be “beyond the saving of children”. The author either is writing this poem to feel an attempt at closure regarding the question posed to her as a child or is writing to say that there is no point in asking such a question to a child in the first place. The latter assumes any child incapable of making decisions on their own, a skill they will need to build for adult life anyway, while the former displays the author herself as a child unable to live with something that did not have a definitive end.
ReplyDeleteIn the poem, the author poses the question: If you were in a museum and it was on fire, would you save the famous painting or the old women viewing the painting? At the end of the poem the author comes to the conclusion that both are in need of saving. Although the women is older, it does not give reason to deprive her of her life by saving the painting instead. However, by not saving the painting, it causes a disconnection from that moment in time, that time period, and what the artist was trying to express during that time period. Pastan concluded that life and art history are woven together and needed for survival because life is needed to create paintings, music, poetry, and other forms of art. Without both, life would be bleak. Art gives us a different view of history and the events of that time. It also teaches future generations about the emotions of that time period and allows them to learn something that textbooks cannot teach.
ReplyDeleteA valuable ethical question is asked that does not sit well with the students. The author first decides to ask the women if she would like to be saved or if she wants the paintings saved, but that, "eschews
ReplyDeletethe burdens of responsibility." Too often do people remove the burden of these ethical problems, as it is easy to find an excuse. Yet there is urgency in answering these questions, and the author tries to remind that these excuses are not the right answer. The author then turns to the setting of when she is asked this question every year; why in autumn? She connects all three factors and concludes: "I know now that woman
and painting and season are almost one and all beyond the saving of children." Most people would save a child over a painting or old women, but the author compares them to something as valuable as the seasons. She believes that the hardened display of art and old age are a testament to human culture, and are needed for life to go on. Of course children are still valuable, as they are the next step in the process, yet they would be nothing without the history of the past generation. The author's purpose is to remind the younger generation of the important of the past. While she somewhat still avoids directly answering wether she would save the women or painting, she does this because they are one of the same. Both contributed to the vastness of human culture, and while the painting's lifespan may be longer, who is to judge that the woman's importance is not as valuable?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the poem, Linda Pastan, answer’s what is worth being saved by reviewing the past responses of her classmates. Year after year her ironically named teacher asks the same question of who is to be saved between a famous work of art or an old woman? In writing about her past years the author notices that each class fails to truly grasp the gravity of the question with:” Restless on hard chairs caring little for pictures or old age we’d opt one year for life, the next for art and always half-heartedly(lines 6-9).” By using the phrase,” always half-heartedly” we as the reader can gain a sense of failure upon the students as well Linda herself. They are too young to comprehend the value of any relic living or otherwise. Now after aging long enough for herself to be an old woman Linda realised that all relics are.” beyond the saving of children(Line 25).” People can easily say one thing and then do another, and in this case the younger generations could answer in any manner they deem sufficient. Yet, any answer even if the teacher said it was correct could not be enough. The young man/women answering may not fathom the true repercussions to the decision. It is only after living her life that Linda can finally answer that question herself with them containing equal importance. What Linda might be displaying is that to understand the value of life one must experience it from a budding birth until nearing a cruel cessation, but these students, whose age is left to ambiguity, can be rendered as being too young to have truly lived life. The grand bastions of antiquity, whether of flesh and bone or faded parchment cannot be truly grasped by the young. To judge art you must be able to experience it, gather your own understanding of it, and then defend your decision. However, the children did not live the same lives as did rembrandt or the old women. They do not see the painting as anything but a representation of art as a whole, all the while in their heads they are,” caring little for pictures or old age(line 7).” Perhaps the old woman survived a war or some other unfathomable abomination that only those who have lived through it can ever hope to explain. People can easily assign a label to any notion without comprehending what that notion could carry. To one aggravated person that old women could be considered a waste of energy, and to another she may be a source of wisdom. Maybe younger generations are too quick in their judgements for they have not comprehended the history buried in the hourglass of time, under enough sand for them to possibly never reach it. Perhaps it is only when the younger generation sifts through the sands, as they age, that they will be able to accurately discern what is perceived.
ReplyDeleteIn this poem, the question being asked is essentially whether a famous painting is more valuable than the last few years of an old woman’s life. The students portrayed in the poem seem to have very little interest or concern for this question, because they cannot relate to the situation, or it is simply too unrealistic in their eyes. The author soon realizes that the old woman and the artwork go hand in hand. Art is nothing if there is no one around to appreciate it and the old woman’s life would have lacked meaning had she not had art to admire. The poem essentially comes to the conclusion that the question and it’s two subjects do not really matter. Neither the old woman or the painting and it’s contents could be saved by anyone, let alone children. Both will eventually be forgotten and physically removed from our reach anyway, so one should not focus so hard on answering the question at hand, but how that answer reflects the rest of the world and their understanding of it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author answers the question initially with ambiguity. She achieves this with imagery which effectively communicates that the reasons for this ambiguity are the question’s extreme difficulty, and a lack of interest in what seems to be an unimportant concept. The phrase “restless on hard chairs” conveys the students’ impatience for more important learning and thus their lack of attention to detail to the question. Imagery is further used to counterbalance bias. The stage is initially set for students to choose art over the old woman as the use of the relative pronoun clause “who hadn’t many years left anyhow” introduces bias. The interposition of the writer’s “grandmother’s face” with the old woman helps tip the bias back towards neutrality; this back and forth action around neutrality is a testament to the significant difficulty of this problem and the reason for its ambiguous answers. The author uses the image of a real Rembrandt to find herself in the painting: The depth, the darkness, the complexity, and the seasons of the painting are so striking that she sees herself as a part of that darkness, and falling, and brownness, and depth. She uses the untouchable beauty of the painting to make the simultaneously literal and figurative point that if the youth can’t save both her and the painting, then they haven’t saved neither. She uses descriptions to paint the Rembrandt painting for us and support a conclusive, yet still ambiguous, answer. The author’s purpose is to make two points: ethics are far beyond our ability to resolve; and every single thing in life is valuable to the point that if, in a particular scenario, even one thing is left behind to be destroyed, then that scenario is a lost fight.
ReplyDelete