از پیکاسو تا براک، از ون گوگ تا ماتیس و از رنوار و گوگن و مگریت تا خوان میرو و اندی وارهول و جکسون پالاک و ده‌ها نام و شاهکار دیگر هنری را می توان یک‌جا دراین‌جا یافت: گنجینه موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران.

این گنجینه‌ -که در ۳۰ سال گذشته تنها هرازگاهی تعدادی از آثار آن برای مدتی در سالن‌های موزه هنرهای معاصر به نمایش در آمده- همیشه تحسین همگان را برانگیخته‌ است.

این آثار که تمامی آن در سال‌های پیش از انقلاب به ایران راه یافتند، اغلب با تلاش فرح پهلوی، آخرین ملکه ایران، بود که ازحراجی‌های لندن و نیویورک و سایر نقاط جهان خریداری شد. برخی از این آثار نیز از سوی سران کشورهای جهان، به خانواده سلطنتی ایران هدیه شد.

اثری از ماکس ارنست، نقاش آلمانی در موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران

تابلوهایی که در زمان خود نیز اگرچه بسیار ارزشمند بودند اما گذر زمان بر ارزش آن‌ها افزوده است؛ تنها یک تابلوی این گنجینه از جکسون پالاک از سوی شرکت‌های بین‌المللی بیمه، تا ۱۲۰ میلیون دلار و مجموعه این کلکسیون چندین میلیارد دلار قیمت گذاری شده است.

شاید به همین دلیل است که تاکنون هیچ شرکت بیمه‌ای در جهان به تنهایی قادر به بیمه کردن آثار این گنجینه نبوده است.

به گفته دکتر جهانگیر کازرونی، کارشناس هنری در تهران، گرداوری نسبتا تدریجی چنین گنجینه‌ای بود که فکر ساختن موزه هنرهای معاصر را به ذهن مسئولان وقت آورد: «علت اینکه موزه هنرهای معاصر در آن سال‌ها شکل گرفت، به دلیل مجموعه ای بود که از هنر معاصر دنیا خریداری شده بود، به طوری که [این گنجینه] یکی از بزرگ‌ترین مجموعه‌های منتخب از هنرهای تجسمی آمریکا و اروپا است که یک‌جا جمع شده است».

اثری از نقاش روس واسیلی کاندینسکی در موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران

جهانگیر کازرونی که خود مجموعه‌دار و صاحب گالری آثار هنری در تهران است، می افزاید: «قرار بود در کنار اینکه این مجموعه [برای مردم ایران] به نمایش گذاشته می‌شود، اقداماتی هم درباره هنر معاصر ایران انجام شود و آثار ایرانی نیز در این موزه به معرض نمایش درآید.»

در سال‌های پس از انقلاب ، آن بخش از آثار هنری که از کاخ‌های خاندان سلطنتی و یا سایر سران حکومت پیشین به جای ماند و از وقایع دوران انقلاب -چون سرقت در ماه‌های اول انقلاب، فروش یکجا در کنار مبلمان و وسایل لوکس و تزئینی توقیف شده از منازل وابستگان حکومت پیشین یا مصادره‌ و یا خروج از کشور- جان به در برد، نیز به تدریج به این گنجینه اضافه شد.

اگرچه از سرنوشت این موزه تا سال‌های دولت محمد خاتمی هیچ خبر تائید شده‌ای در دست نبود، اما از اواسط دهه ۷۰ خورشیدی و با جان گرفتن موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران، آثارموجود در این موزه نیز در مسیر تبادلات فرهنگی، چند باری به موزه‌های بزرگ جهان فرستاده شدند و به نمایش در آمدند.

اثری از پابلو پیکاسو، نقاش اسپانیایی، در موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران

همین تبادلات توجه موزه‌های بزرگ جهان را به گنجینه موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران جلب کرد.

دیری نگذشت که از سوییس تا اسپانیا و از فرانسه تا ایتالیا و حتی موزه‌های مهم آمریکا، همه خواستار امانت گرفتن این آثارشدند و از این رهگذر، آثار مهمی نیز به موزه هنرهای معاصرتهران برای نمایش عمومی امانت داده شد.

پس از آن بود که این مجموعه در گزارش‌های منتشر شده در برخی نشریات معتبر جهان به عنوان یکی از پنج تا ۱۰ کلکسیون اول دنیا و البته بهترین و ارزشمندترین مجموعه هنری در خاورمیانه، شناسایی شد.

با این حال در سال‌های اخیر ، کمتر به این گنجینه پرداخته شده است. اما مسئولان این موزه در اعلام برنامه‌های ماه آینده خود ، خبر از نمایش  این آثار داده‌اند؛ نمایشگاهی که بر اساس این خبر متشکل از ۱۲۰ یا ۱۵۰ اثر منحصر به فرد از آثار گنجینه موزه هنرهای معاصر تهران خواهد بود.

http://www.radiofarda.com/content/f35_Tehran_Cont_Art_Museum_Collection/1604494.html

Thomas Hardy as a Social Reformer

‌‌‌‌‌‌‌By: Amir Taheri

Introduction

Thomas Hardy is considered as one of the England's greatest novelists. His works resemble that of the earlier Victorian novelists in technique, while in subject matter it daringly violated literary traditions of the age. Hardy was born in the village of Higher Bockhampton, on the edge of Puddletown Heath. At the age of 22 he moved to London and started to write poems, which idealized the rural life. He did not first find public for his poetry and so the novelist George Meredith advised him to write a novel. THE POOR MAN AND THE LADY, written in 1867, was rejected by many publishers and Hardy destroyed the manuscript. His first book that gained notice was FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD (1874). After this success, Hardy was convinced that he could earn his living by his pen. His later works are, The Return of the Native (1878), Two on a Tower (1882), The Mayor of the Casterbridge (1886), Tess of the D’Urbervilles (1891), and Jude the Obscure (1895).

According to the critics, Hardy is a pessimist writer, because they believed that his outlook on life was primarily gloomy. His novels and poems are charged with a deep note of pathos.

In this paper, based on the following novels, I have tried to consider him not as pessimist rather a realist and social reformer.

Far From the Madding Crowd (1874)

Far From the Madding Crowd was the first novel by Thomas Hardy, which has tragic elements. Many critics are of the view that Hardy is a pessimist by his works; because almost the major characters of his novels are facing with death, and the novels are tragic dominate rather than happy. Hardy’s ‘Far From The madding Crowd’ as a matter of fact was the first novel, which arouse criticism. In this novel, the major characters are not free from agony. Bathsheba is not an exception to the fact. Her suffering is not because of the fate or chance but because of her own actions.

In fact, it is she who brings tragedy into the life of another two major characters Gabriel and Boldwood. And, her own tragedy initially was as a result of her own deeds. However, Troy, the man whom she likes very much is also responsible for her tragic life.

The novel ends with the elements of happiness. She got married to Gabriel, but she could never remain the same Bathsheba, as she used to be. Thus, one can claim that there are not lots of elements of pessimism.

Pessimism is a doctrine that reality, life, and the world are evil rather than good. It denotes a belief that the experienced world is the worst possible. It describes a general belief that things are bad and tends to get worse.  

Taking this definition into account, it is unjust if one regards Hardy as a pessimist. On the contrary, I believe that Hardy is more of a social reformer than a pessimist. If we analyze his first novel ‘Far From the Madding Crowd’ we would be able to realize that he is not a pessimist. Bathsheba, the main character of the novel is a tragic figure, but this is because of her own flaw. Her attitudes, manners, and egotism show that all the events that happen to her are because of her own action.                 

First, the way Bathsheba behaves with Gabriel Oke, arouses some feelings of love in Gabriel. He thinks that Bathsheba loves him. That is why, he dared to propose to her. Her rejection to his request brought surprises to Gabriel. She said “I don’t love you” and in reply Gabriel says, “You chase after a man, then you say you don’t love him”. Here Gabriel is perhaps wrong, but it was Bathsheba’s manner, which brings misunderstanding. Her conduct to Boldwood too shows her childish behaviour. She sends him an anonymous valentine card and asks him to marry her. This foolish action made the solitary Boldwood to think upon love and marriage in his old age, and making him eager to marry her. But after coming of Troy her first beloved, she rejected Boldwood. This motivated Boldwood to kill Troy. Consequently, Bathsheba returned to Gabriel and both got married.

The above discussion shows that in contrast to ‘Tess’, Bathsheba could behave in such a way so that happiness would come to her. Choosing Troy was not a right decision for her.

Although chance and fate play an important role in our daily life, they cannot be considered as major factors of tragedy in this novel. What happened to the other major or minor characters of the novel is not because of the pessimism on the part of the novelist, they only happened partly by characters themselves and partly by chance. For example, if we consider Gabriel as a tragic figure, that was the chance which ruled upon him, not the pessimism of Hardy. If we take Hardy as a pessimist, then why Gabriel, whom chance had a crucial role on him at the beginning, faced happiness in the end of the novel, and so does with Bathsheba, Hardy gave her a second chance in her life.

The reason which I do not believe Hardy as a pessimist is that a pessimist does not believe in chance and fate at all. As I mentioned before, they believe, things are bad, and tends to become worse.

Hardy does believe in fate and chance, but why he always depicted the negative aspects of chance or fate, is perhaps because (to me) from the evil the good emerges.

He just criticizes the society of his time and his only attempt is to transfer the mistakes of the individuals to the society.

The Return of the Native (1878)

‘The Return of the Native’ is another masterpiece of Thomas Hardy. In this novel, like his previous novel ‘Far From the Madding Crowd’, It has a major character which she suffers much in her life, and also like Bathsheba, her tragedy is because of her own action.

It will be good to say that those characters who are kind in relation to the nature are good characters in Hardy’s novels, and those who are not good with their environment and their surrounding are almost tragic figures, with exception to ‘Tess’s’ character.

In the Return of the Native Hardy, through his characters depicts the social problems. Chance and fate also play an important role in this novel. But, the main thing which causes the tragedy is the flaw and error of judgment of the protagonist, Clym Yeobright.

Clym is a good character; he is handsome and has strong discipline in his life. He is working as a manager in the company of diamond in Paris. But, because of the patriotic feeling, came back to his native place Egdan Heath. Though he is a serious and wise person, on the contrary, he has his own flaw. His most crucial flaw was his decision to marry a woman like Eustacia Vye, a woman whom slopes the path of his life from happiness to sorrow. Eustacia wants to be far away from Egdan Heat. She does not like the city and desires to leave, and live in a modern city like Paris. Because of her selfishness and self-will manner, she rejects her beloved Wildeve of marrying him and tries to be the wife of Clym, so that she will be able to go to Paris. Though Clym decided not to return to Paris, she thought that, she will be able to change his mind but in vain. Through the character of Eustacia, Hardy tries to say that the feeling of selfishness and self-centeredness or egotism should be vanish from the society. In fact, he tries to say that those who have such kind of behaviour are not succeeding in their aims or future life. As we observed, the ambitious nature of Eustacia resulted in her tragic life.

Clym could not escape from the immenseness power of the fate and became semi-blind. So, he could not fulfill his desire to become a school master, and he became a furze-cutter, he becomes a mere labourer. The question is that, why the fate became so cruel to him? Why he should suffer this agony? In fact, more or less, this happen to all of us. Since human binges have no control over their own activities, they are unable to know what is going to be happening for what they have planned. This is true with Clym. But what should we do if the same thing happens to one of our family members like mother, father, wife, husband, child, etc. Should we leave them? Like Eustacia did, or we should take care of them. That is why, I am trying to say that Hardy is more a social reformer than a pessimist. Through the mistakes of Eustacia, he tries to reveal the social problems, which can be committed by all of us. Eustacia left Clym for the sake of Wildeve, and her desires. Their efforts of going away from Egdan Heath were in vain. Fate did not allow them to escape and both face with death by drowning into the river. The shadow of fate is always upon us, that is why, Hardy tries to warn us that the fate is more cruel than we think. Wildeve also encounter the same tragedy as Eustacia faced. At the end of the novel, some of the major characters face with a happy life e.g. Thomasin Yeobright married to Mr. Diggory, though she rejects him twice.

Mrs. Yeobright’s tragedy also is heart touching. We feel sad for her, when Eustacia did not open the door, and on her way she is stung by an adder. The rustics could not save her life. The killing of Mrs. Yeobright by writer has some reasons. I think Hardy wants Clym to bear more agony. Because he did not cares of the warnings of his mother about Eustacia. And, it should be added that Mrs. Yeobright’s death also was a kind of tool to push forward the tragedy of Eustacia. So, all the events are interrelated with each other and one suffers because of others, this is the true fact of life.

Two on a Tower (1882)

This novel is one of the minor works of Thomas Hardy. The two main characters are so sympathetically sketched as to make it one of Hardy’s most memorable novels. It charts the tragic romance of Lady Viviette Constantine and Swithin St. Cleve, who is her social inferior as well as ten years younger. These two characters suffer in life. Viviette is deserted by her husband. Because of her suspicious husband, for several years she hardly goes out of the house. But, when she heard about his death, she falls in love with Swithin, however, because of her brother, she has to marry Helmsdane.

Helmsdane dies and Viviette becomes a widow for the second time. For some reasons, Swithin had to leave for South America (Hemisphere) and when he comes back, he finds Viviette sad and thin. When he tells her that he has come to marry her, she dies of over-joy. Swithin vows to take care of the little son of Viviette.

Hardy criticizes the marriage institution not only in this novel but in most of his novels. Marriage is one of the important aspects of the human life, and so as to Hardy’s time. Through his novels he tries to depict the worst aspects of the society so that the idea of reformation may come to the mind of every individual.

 It was the marriage as an institution and society, which leads to tragic life of the two main characters. The most tragic event is the death of Viviette at the time when she is supposes to have a happy life with her lover.

The Mayor of the Casterbridge (1886)

The Mayor of Casterbridge is a story about Michael Henchard, a hay trusser, who sells his wife and daughter while drunk at a fair. After eighteen years, both wife and daughter return to him, while he is the mayor of Casterbridge. But, because of some personal reason he fails. So we can call him a tragic hero of the book, which have elements of classical tragedy. We see how Henchard's appearance and feelings of self-worth becomes worse, as he is punished for his pride and doubts his own strength.

The novel is one of those novels which are not free from the views of the critics. They called him (Hardy) as a pessimist; it is because we cannot see any occasion of happiness for Henchard throughout the novel. But, from the angle observed by me, I think still we cannot call him a pessimist. Through his novel, Hardy criticizes the men and women relationship of his time. At the very beginning of the novel, we see how Mr. Henchard sells his wife and his little child to a sailor in an intoxicated state. It was out of his control, and we may blame the fate for this, it is because unlicensed wine (Ram) was available only at the very day that Henchard and his wife arrived at the place. But, again we can say that he could control himself, having no much Ram.

If we deeply consider the Hardy’s novels we come to know that everything which is happened in his novels is real --- there is the real depiction of the societies.

We cannot say that Henchard is a villain, but his impulsive, jealousy, drinking habit and uncertain moods, were the causes of his misery. This is the adjudication of the nature which decides who wins or who loses. But, Hardy did not rely that much on the fate and chance in his novels as critics believe. For example, Henchard’s drinking habit was his own fault, his impulsive nature, his jealousy and etc., contributed to his misery life. These are all the social problems which we cannot exactly hand it over to the fate and chance.

As we mentioned before, Hardy tries to transfer the mistakes of the individuals to the society. So, if we deeply consider all of the novels, which have been written by Hardy, we come to a conclusion that every protagonist more or less has his/her own flaw. These characters are the representation of every individual in the society. Therefore, in this novel, Hardy tries to depict the social problems such as marriage, relation between classes (capitalism and proletarians), egotism, etc.

Tess of the D’Urbervilles (1891)

Tess of the D’Urbervilles was Hardy's bestseller and the heroin of the novel remains his most striking and tragic characters. She hopelessly had torn between two men, Alec D’Urberville, a wealthy dissolute young man who seduces her in a lonely wood, and Angel Clare, her provincial, moralistic and unforgiving husband.

Tess's life is full of misfortunes. Although she is portrayed as an innocent girl, she makes wrongful decisions, which leads to her destruction. Tess's parents, Angel, and Alec, play an important role in her life, leading to her tragedy. Her parents started the cycle of tragedy in Tess’s life by thinking of themselves. The first weakness of her parents is her father's laziness and her mother's simplicity. They needed a new horse, and her mother wanted her daughter, to claim kin, against her will with a noble family member of the D’Urbervilles. This fact was the starting point, which put her on a journey towards destruction. Tess is simple and unaware of danger. The deception and manipulation of Tess^’s parents triggers her tragic life.

Angel's refusing to accept her unfortunate past is the beginning of an intensely tragic portion of Tess’s life. After Angel leaves for Brazil, she sends him a letter in which she confesses her loyalty and her love, and asks for his help against the temptation presented by Alec. Angel's stubbornness and pride puts a dent not only into his life, but to Tess’s life, as well.

Alec D’Urberville adds the most to Tess's tragic life, because as a result of their relationship, she gets pregnant, though her child dies later on. This incident would play a crucial role in her marriage with Angel. This whole affair with Alec made Angel's leaving Tess. Alec is an immoral man, who only seems to care about himself and his needs more than others.

Tess also becomes the victim of social attitudes, financial problem, severe cold, torturous master and teasing of women, which contributes to her suffering. Finally, the novel ends with the sorrowful incident of Tess’s hanging.

All the events which we discussed above are the horrible situations of a pure and simple girl like Tess.

There are some events in the Tess of the D’Urbervilles which we can rely on fate and chance but they are insignificance. In fact, the most important element which brings a tragic life for Tess are the societal norms. Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles perhaps is one of the most important novels which he could criticize the society so skillfully.

Jude the Obscure (1895)

Hardy’s last work of fiction, Jude the Obscure is also one of his most gloomy fatalistic, depicting the lives of individuals who are trapped by forces beyond their control. The novel is about the tragedy of three people, Sue, Jude, and Phillotson. It is described as a tragedy of love and a tragedy of unfulfilled aims. The tragedy of unfulfilled aims lies in the frustration of the intellectual aspiration of Jude. Jude is a young man whose life is a mixture of thwarted dreams, despair, and tragedy. He was born disadvantaged, but loved books and learning and had long harbored dreams of acquiring an education in Christminster. We see him from the very beginning suffering till his death.

Sue is also a tragic character. She marries Phillotson in hurry. Soon she finds it torturous to live with him. She does not like to have sexual relationship with her husband. So she deserts him and goes back to Jude. First she does not have sexual relation with him, but then feeling jealous of Arabella, she yields to him and bears children. After some years the catastrophe of hanging her children by FatherTime falls upon her. She is so mad of agony that wishes to dig the grave, to see her children. She then goes back to Phillotson to have sexual relationship with him. She suffers a lot and lives with Phillotson, just as a living corpse. So, her tragedy is more painful than Jade's tragedy.

The tragedy of Phillotson also wins our deepest sympathy in his distress and suffering. His intellectual ambitions are shattered, because of his poverty. He marries Sue, but allows her to go to her lover. So, he loses his job for doing so. Even when Sue returns to him, she does not bring any comfort to him. Thus, his life becomes more miserable.

This novel is full of tragic atmosphere, as compared with the earlier novels of Hardy. There are many reasons for the tragedy in the novel such as characters themselves, chance, fete, nature, and society in the novel, which contribute in the suffering of the characters. But, still I do not accept that Hardy is a pessimist. Because again he is trying to depict the reality, for example, the deaths of the children were laying in the roots of the social problems. Jude and his family tried to find accommodation, but because of the large number of his family and lack of marriage certificate, no one was ready to give them a place, and even more I think the behaviour of the Sue to FatherTime was one of the reasons of this incident.

A night before incident FatherTime, the little child of the Jude could not sleep and went to enquire for the reasons of their leaving from the house. It was midnight and the impatient manner of Sue made her reply to him in an uncontrolled mood. She said, “We are many, and that is why nobody is ready to give us any place, and now go back to your bed”. So this was one of the faults of the Sue, though after that, Jude tries to convince him (Father Time) to bear the difficulties of their life for little more time, but all in vain, and on the next day the horrible incident was before their eyes. Thus, if we consider that what factors contributed to this incident, we easily come to know that again the social problems such as  marriage, hasty decision of the individuals like Jude and Sue regarding sexual relationship, and jealousy towards others (Sue to Arabella), are responsible.

 Conclusion

We can conclude that Hardy’s novels are not pessimistic but more realistic. Regarding this, we can refer to some characters of the novels as an example that shows Hardy’s realistic or moralistic views upon life. In Far From the Madding Crowd we see how Gabriel helps Bathsheba throughout the novel, though she was not good enough to him. In the same situation we have Diggory in The Return of the Native who also was one of the important and helpful characters for Thomasin. In The Mayor of Casterbridge we have Able Whiittle who has a notable sense of gratitude and innate humanity. That is why he plays a noble part in the end of the novel. Henchard is old, helpless, tired and outcast when he comes to his hut. Able forgets the rebukes and unkind acts of Henchard. Henchard breathes his last in the hut of Able. This behaviour of Able makes him as idyllic figure. Philitsone is a man of tragedy in Jude the Obscure and suffers much because of Sue.

If we say that Hardy is a pessimist, then why he put such kind of helpful characters in his novels.  Hardy does not believe himself as a pessimistic novelist as well, but more a kind of social reformer. Finally, I will conclude this paper with Hardy’s own words:

“But my pessimism, if pessimism it be, does not involve the assumption that, the world is going to dogs. On the contrary, my practical philosophy is distinctly meliorist”.

Bibliography

•   Far From the Madding Crowd
•   The Return of the Native
•   Two on a Tower
•   The Mayor of the Casterbridge
•   Tess of the D’Urbervilles
•   Jude the Obscure

موريس ژار

موريس ژار، موسيقي‌دان و آهنگساز فرانسوی مقيم آمريکا، روز يک‌شنبه در اثر بيماری سرطان در سن ۸۴ سالگی در لوس آنجلس درگذشت.

موريس ژار موسيقی متن فيلم‌های مشهوری از سينمای جهان را ساخته است که از ميان آنها می‌توان لارنس عربستان و دکتر ژيواگو را نام برد.

اگر نام ژار در ميان دوستداران موسيقی امروز با نام ژان ميشل ژار، سازنده موسيقی اکسيژن، بيشتر بر سر زبان‌هاست، برای دوستداران سينما، نام پدر او، موريس ژار، يادآور موسيقی فيلم‌های عظيم تاريخ سينماست.

موريس ژار، موسيقي‌دان فرانسوی، که عمدتأ در آمريکا زندگی می‌کرد سه بار برای ساختن موسيقی متن فيلم‌های لارنس عربستان، دکتر ژيواگو و گذری به هند موفق به دريافت جايزه اسکار بهترين موسيقی فيلم شد.

وی گذشته از آفريدن موسيقی متن فيلم در طول فعاليت‌هايش در اروپا، از ۱۹۵۱ تا ۱۹۶۳، در زمينه تئاتر نيز حضوری معتبر داشته، و با نويسندگانی چون آلبر کامو، ژان کوکتو و هارولد پينتر همکاری داشته است.

موريس ژار کار هنری خود را در فرانسه آغاز کرد و موسيقی متن ۴۰ فيلم در سينمای فرانسه را آفريد که «آيا پاريس می‌سوزد» يکی از مشهورترين آنهاست. وی از اواسط سال‌های ۶۰ ميلادی به کاليفرنيا می‌رود و لوس آنجلس را به عنوان مکان اقامت خود برمی‌گزيند.

اعتبار جهانی موريس ژار پيامد خلاقيت او در آفريدن بيش از۱۵۰ موسيقی فيلم در دوران هنری اوست که اغلب به هنگام عرضه شدن‌شان، نام او را به عنوان آهنگسازی منحصربه‌فرد به ثبت رساندند. موريس ژار همچنين به عنوان پايه‌گذار شيوه استفاده توأم موسيقی الکترونيک و کلاسيک شناخته می‌شود.

گذشته از دريافت سه جايزه اسکار برای فيلم‌های لارنس عربستان، دکتر ژيواگو و گذری به هند موريس ژار جوايز بين‌المللی ديگری نيز برای موسيقی متن فيلم‌های شاهد در سال ۱۹۸۵، انجمن شاعران مرده در ۱۹۸۹، دختر رايان در ۱۹۷۰، گوريل‌ها در مه در ۱۹۸۶، و روح در ۱۹۹۰ و چند فيلم ديگر دريافت کرده است.

موريس ژار همچنين به عنوان رهبر ارکستر، با ارکسترهای معتبری چون ارکستر فيلارمونيک لندن، ژاپن، اوساکا، لوس آنجلس و ارکستر راديويی ايتاليا همکاری داشته است.

از جمله فعاليت‌های ديگر ژار، آفريدن آثار مختلف موسيقی صحنه‌اي است که از ميان آنها می‌‌توان باله «گوژپشت نتردام» را که در اپرای مشهور پاريس اجرا شد نام برد.

موريس ژار در دوران رياست جمهوری فرانسوا ميتران مدال باارزش «لژيون دو نور» را با عنوان مهم‌ترين مقام فرماندهی هنر و ادبيات از دست رئيس جمهوری فرانسه دريافت کرد.

وی که به عنوان آهنگساز مورد علاقه «ديويد لين» موسيقی متن اغلب فيلم‌های او را ساخته است، با کارگردانان مشهور ديگری چون جان هیوستون، آلفرد هيچکاک، لوکينو ويسکُونتی و هانری ورنوی فرانسوی نیز همکاری داشته است.

http://www.radiofarda.com/content/f3_Jarre_france/1564408.html

Introduction:

There have been many debates regarding the nature of human mind and its relation to the world. In this paper I have tried my best to remove most of the confusions regarding the understanding of human nature. Central to the understanding of human mind and external reality is the nature of language. In this paper, I emphasize that nature of language should be understood not in an ordinary sense. Rather we should analyze it from the philosophical point of view. The other things to which I refer will be the ideals which have prevented us from approaching reality. We will also see how linguistics plays an important role in shaping human minds. I attempt to emphasize that what has been referred to as linguistic properties of language in ordinary sense is nothing but the bundles of energy, or merely a wave or particles. After this I’ll discuss the other aspect of nature of human mind that cannot be conveyed through the linguistic properties or through ordinary language. This is the mystical state. It abounds in mysticism.

Creation of Thought in Relation with Environment and language:

According to Saussure, the connection between the particular signifier (sound-image) and the particular signified (concept) is itself completely arbitrary. This is evident from variety of words with which I can use to communicate the same concept in different languages.  The system of language itself, though, is a system of the relations of signifiers.  If I explain the meaning of a word to you, or explain to you what I mean by a particular word, I can only give you more signifiers; I can never guarantee that they evoke the same signified emotion or content. Thus language is a linear chain of signifiers, each one following from the last, in the order spoken and each relating to others as a matter of definition and context.  Language itself, Saussure suggests, can be thought of as this purely relational system of differences.

Saussure compares the system of differences to that of economic exchange.  In economic exchange, a particular unit of money (e.g. a dollar) has the value it does because it can be: 1) exchanged for something of value (e.g. a loaf of bread) or 2) exchanged for another instrument of value (e.g. a Euro).  In the same way, signifiers can be exchanged for signified (thus we cross the bar of signification) or they can be exchanged for other signifiers.

To this system of exchange, all that matters is the differences in value between the terms.  (e.g., it doesn’t matter if a dollar is printed on paper or is made of something else – all that matters is what it can be exchanged for).  The properties of signification are defined by the differences between significant elements, not by these elements themselves.

 “Everything that has been said up to this point boils down to this: in language there are only differences.  Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms.  Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither idea nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system.” So Saussure has opined.

A young child learns from his environment, the variety in behavior, the objects and their characteristics. These are received by means of cognitive system (eyes, ears,…). The microstates and their natural characteristics along with their events define the physical structure of the world. This is connected through visual and auditory particles into the active physical states of brain called ‘Neural Network’ by means of wave signals. The energy which leads and carries these particles transmits the physical states of the world into psychological states. For children, it is very important to have the events and world’s phenomena defined in a logical and correct manner. Otherwise they tend to be misled. Every language has its grammar. The universal rules are common to all languages. Below I have shown the process of thought creation in relation with environment and language and the transmission of the real world to the virtual world through its embedded language and symbols.

     (Fig-1 F=function)         

The process of gaining knowledge by two persons and interaction among many is called the social activity. The psycho sources (human being) put certain energy into each phoneme. These acts as a particle of sound and energy and transmit them to the psychological receptors. Mankind has natural capacity to hear or receive certain frequencies, in order to learn or to memorize the certain pitch and tones of the natural phenomena of speech. This is called social communication. A very young child in the primary stages of his life is blind and deaf. As he grows, he learns to recognize the environments and society. Even in the primary stages when he cannot recognize what is what, it does not mean that he is blind or deaf, physiologically. It means he has not matured to the level of recognizing speech phenomena and behavior patterns of societies or peoples. So, here we have to bear in mind that several phenomena depend entirely upon the biological abilities. The physiological phenomena enhance further stages of human cognition.

The process of recognition takes place through physiological growth and the physiological growth changes from time to time. This means, that the process of growth takes place non-stop. It is continuous. The natural phenomena and social structures will become more recognizable and cognizant with time.

So the process of speech for children depends upon their natural development, and so do their visual recognition ability.

 Fig-02 The Steps toward the understanding the human cognition

When the human beings observe the physical world, they get the picture of natural phenomena either in societies or other social settings. When they consider the received picture, carefully it connects the elements (objects, attributes or characteristics) of that picture to another. So through connecting of these elements with their characteristics, he becomes sensible of them. He senses and perceives the whole picture with its psychological states. This is called ‘Sensation’. The process of perceiving through the senses is called ‘Perception’. The process of manipulating the perceived sensation is called ‘Thought process’.

The process of finding the hierarchical parts of the perceived phenomena is called ‘Conception’. It is sometimes defined as the process of arriving at an abstract idea or belief. It also signifies the moment at which such an idea starts to take shape or emerge. One might be tempted to ask what is the role of language in above figure-02. The role of language is to create the virtual world by means of symbols. These are saved through the learning process as the electrochemical substances in physical brain system. This process creates the memory.

Language is embedded in culture. It conveys the senses which exist in culture. So the development of language depends upon the human culture and its ability to observe and conceptualize the natural phenomena so as to construct an ideal language for its social affairs. Language plays an important role. It is a tool and means of transmission of ideas. It provides means of comprehension. Without language, improvement and development of societies is impossible.

The concepts and meanings remain static, unless they are encoded and interpreted and transmitted by the human mind, so human mind is nothing, but the grammatical structure which is ruled by logic. In the depth of the structure of the mind (language) we have logical structures which share common form with the world.

The proposition and mental structure which have been grasped through the external and internal world carry the energies which convey the sense and bring out the meaning of phenomena, interpreted by the mind.

The meaning of the proposition must be understood in terms of its context, that is, in terms of the rules of the game of which that proposition is a part.

The rules of language are like the rules of game. In any game no one is at the same level as the other. So the players are different in playing the particular game like ‘Chess’. The rules are known to all, but the way one plays is different. So players should know how to bring the objects and characteristics or attributes of the language into use.

Every culture has its own language and the language used in any culture has its own concepts and meaning of itself.

There are many phenomena which we cannot sense through our cognitive system, but which are felt, and through attuned senses which create special meaning which only the individual is aware of. So we conclude that the meaning is embedded in psychological state of every individual. The concept or meaning of, say for instance 'happiness' might vary from individual to individual and society to society and this entirely depends upon the culture and the psychological states of the individuals.

Words are intangible objects along with their very own characteristic and attributes, they exist on their own, their configuration helps us to grasp the way they would be, their state of affaire would bring out certain facts.

At the end of this discussion I would like to mention about the concept of two words which are helpful for understanding the concept of language in relation to the world. They are as follows.

Concept of language regarding what is sense and what is nonsense:

 Sense in philosophical term as cited by Wittgenstein, means:

 Those objects or the phenomenon, which exist in nature and which is grasped by our thought so as to express them in language or in words are called ‘sense’. They make sense and are comprehensible to human mind, because they can be transmitted in any manner through linguistics properties.

Nonsense in philosophical term as cited by Wittgenstein means:

Those objects or the phenomenon, which exist in nature and also in our thought, is inexpressible e.g. morality, which can be gained only through action. They are difficult and abstract and not easy to comprehend in tangible terms.

So we can conclude that our language has limitations for expression of our    personal experiences, (especially mystic ones). Mysticism is the state of thought or mind which is personal experience and we cannot transmit it to other individuals, what is meaningless on transmission to others becomes nonsense to them. As it is a personal experience, it is meaningful only to you not to others. As it makes sense to you it can be meaningful for you, not for others, Wittgenstein called it ‘nonsense’. I have given an analogy or example of ‘nonsense’ which can help to understand it better what ‘nonsense’ is.

First we have the Nature, then thought, then language.

Our thought (Mind) oscillates between our language (Linguistics’ properties) and the external world, So, those things which are known or can be made known to others have ‘sense’, but those which can’t be said or expressed, but have the reality in personal experience are called ‘Nonsense’ or doesn’t have any meaning to others.

Signs  are  the  senses  which  have  embedded  meaning in them,  a  picture  has  its logical  form  and  it  has  its  meaning  within  its  states  where  its  connection resides. The images are the very connections which imply the meaning.

A picture is a logical proper connection of senses conveyed through the function called ‘language’.

The world is a totality of facts. According to Wittgenstein's ‘picture theory’ of meaning, it is the nature of elementary propositions logically to picture atomic facts, or ‘states of affairs’. He claimed that the nature of language required elementary propositions and his theory of meaning required that there be atomic facts pictured by the elementary propositions.

The main idea that Wittgenstein emphasizes is to draw a limit to language, in that what so ever can be said, can be put it into expression; for that which can’t be said it must be passed over in silence. In his conclusion regarding language, he states that the limit is in language, and not in thought. and  what  lies  on  the  other  side  of  the  limit,  will  simply  be nonsense.

Conclusion:

The philosophical concept of mind in relation to the world resides in language. Language itself has been embedded in two concepts of sense and nonsense. Finally I refer to the analogy of the garden in order to explain it properly. 

Suppose one goes to a Garden and sees many beautiful flowers, smells their fragrances and then returns from Garden, and tries to express the scenic beauty and the fragrances to his friends. He explains about all that he has seen, but finally, he is unable to explain the fragrance in terms. He has only one choice i.e. to take his friends to that place and let them enjoy the fragrance of flowers. Then all of them may feel similarly about that scene. The question of person’s privacy and ethics can be grasped through this analogy.

According to Wittgenstein we cannot draw boundaries to thought but language limits our expressive abilities through its limitations.

However, subsequently in his later work ‘Philosophical Investigation’ Wittgenstein, in contrast to the Tractatus, confines the use of language and the meaning of the words to the society and culture, which he refers to it as ‘language game’, that is why he rejects his previous theories.

References

• Philosophy of Mind by G.W.F. Hegel.

• Part Three of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences/ William Wallace translation.
• Philosophy of Language/by David Mertz/University of Colorado, Boulder.

Fall, 1987

• The analysis of mind by Bertrand Russell.
• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/ by Ludwig Wittgenstein Published (1922).

·       Philosophy of Language: Questions and Answers By Steve Hoenisch Last updated on August 4,2004 Copyright 1996-2006 www.Crrticism.Corn

·       Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

·       Encyclopedia of Encarta.

·       Philosophical investigation by Wittgenstein.

علی امینی نجفی

منتقد هنری

فیلم سینمایی "میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" ساخته دنی بویل فیلمساز بریتانیایی بی‌تردید مهم‌ترین اثر این فصل سینمایی است. فیلم تا کنون دهها جایزه، از جمله هشت اسکار مهم را برنده شده است.

"میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" در عین وفاداری به چارچوب‌های سنتی هالیوود، برخی از عناصر آشنای سینمای "بالیوود" را نیز به کار می‌بندد، که در سال‌های اخیر به رقیب جدی هالیوود بدل شده است.

پسر هجده ساله‌ای که در آلونک‌های فقیرنشین بمبئی بزرگ شده، با زرنگی در مسابقه معلومات عمومی یک شوی تلویزیونی به عنوان "چه کسی می خواهد میلیونر ‌شود" شرکت می‌کند و به تمام سؤال‌های دشوار جواب می‌دهد.

برگزارکنندگان شو به او بدگمان می‌شوند که در یافتن پاسخ‌ها تقلب کرده است، پس او را به دست پلیس می‌دهند.

مأموران پلیس می‌کوشند با شکنجه دادن جمال معما را حل کنند. جمال برای خلاص شدن از دست مأموران، مقاطعی از سرگذشت خود را برای آنها (و تماشاگران) تعریف می‌کند. با نقل هر داستان روشن می‌شود که جمال طی تجارب گوناگون به این اطلاعات رسیده و در شوی تلویزیونی از روی "تصادف" با سؤالاتی روبرو شده که پاسخ آنها را از پیش می‌دانسته است.

عشق پرشکوه در حلبی‌آباد بمبئی

جمال برای توضیح هر پاسخی که در شو ارائه کرده، برشی از زندگی خود را برای مأموران پلیس تعریف می‌کند. بنابرین بیشتر فیلم در رفت و آمد میان کودکی جمال و زمان حال ساخته می‌شود. در این رفت و آمدهاست که کلاف زندگی جمال گشوده می‌شود: پسر خانواده‌ای مسلمان که مادرش را در ایلغارهای تعصب‌آمیز از دست می‌دهد.

جمال در شبی بارانی به عشق دخترکی به نام لاتیکا گرفتار می‌شود. سپس به همراه برادرش سلیم به دام باندی مخوف با رهبری بیرحم می‌افتند. پسرها با زرنگی از دست رهبر باند فرار می‌کنند و طی حوادثی از هم جدا می‌شوند. اما دختر نخست به فحشا و سپس به حرمسرای شخصی رئیس باند کشیده می‌شود.

جمال در طول سال‌ها از یاد لاتیکا بیرون نمی‌رود و همیشه به دنبال یافتن اوست. از نقل‌های او برای مأموران روشن می‌شود که او در اصل نه به خاطر پول و با هدف "میلیونر" شدن، بلکه تنها برای جلب توجه "عشق بزرگ" خود در شوی تلویزیونی شرکت کرده است.

با ریتم تند و پرتحرک

فیلم سینمایی "میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" داستان ساده و کمابیش سطحی خود را در ساختاری محکم و قالبی سنجیده بسته‌بندی کرده است. تمهیدهای تکنیکی مانند دوربین پرتحرک و نماهای اوریب و مونتاژ سریعی که گاه یادآور سبک کلیپ‌های رایج و شوهای تلویزیونی است، فیلم را مدرن می‌نماید، درحالیکه قصه آن تکراری است.

فیلم با اینکه بر پایه‌ی رمانی پرفروش ساخته شده، و گفته‌اند که در زندگی واقعی هم مرجعی داشته، اما دهها خطای روایتی دارد که در اثری واقع‌گرا غیرقابل قبول است: نظام زمانی و مکانی و منطقی فیلم بارها در هم می‌ریزد. در زندگی واقعی بچه‌های زاغه نشین، هرقدر هم که مثل جمال باهوش باشند، و یا هراندازه که مانند لاتیکا زیبا باشند، مشکل بتوانند از مدار زندگی جهنمی خود بیرون بروند، مگر به نیروی خیال، که فیلم هم همین کار را می‌کند.

زبان فیلم به ویژه در ارائه نقد اجتماعی سخت الکن است: صحنه‌های فقر و محرومیت، حقه‌بازی بچه‌ها با توریست‌های "تاج محل"، خشونت مأموران پلیس، بیرحمی باند تبهکاران، که آخرش روشن نمی‌شود کارشان چیست!

اما در خط روایتی مهمترین مشکل فیلم آن است که در ارائه شگرد "بازگشت به گذشته" منطق این گونه روایت را رعایت نمی‌کند. راوی که باید تنها خاطرات خود را بازگو کند، نباید از چیزهایی بگوید که خود شاهد آن نبوده است. به علاوه فیلم گذشته‌ی جمال را در ده سالگی او "فیکس" می‌کند، گویی او تنها در دو مرحله‌ی سنی زندگی کرده: ده ساله و هجده ساله!

از دنیای پریان و جادوگران

اما فیلم "میلیونر زاغه‌نشین"، به عنوان اثری تخیلی برای دوست‌داران سینمای فانتزی، فیلمی سرگرم‌کننده و جالب است. فیلم ژانر فیلم‌های افسانه پریان را با رشته‌ای از کلیشه‌های آشنا تداعی می‌کند، که شاید قوی‌ترین حلقه مشترک هالیوود و بالیوود باشد. احتمالا معروف‌ترین نمونه‌ی هالیوودی آن فیلم زیبای "جادوگر شهر اُز" است با بازی فوق‌العاده جودی گارلند، ستاره بزرگ بعدی.

دو پاتل و فریدا پینتو (چپ)، بازیگران اصلی فیلم

"میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" ماجرای بچه‌ای فقیر است که به یاری بخت و اقبال (قسمت) به اوج سعادت می‌رسد. این طرح ساده در ایران با سینمای فردین و به ویژه فیلم‌های "گنج قارون" شناخته شده است، که خود تحت تأثیر سینمای هند شکل گرفت.

در این نوع روایت، شخصیت‌ها و حوادث و عناصر داستانی پراکنده، نه با الزام منطقی بلکه تنها به کمک "تصادف" به هم پیوند می‌خورند. این اصل را می‌توان عنصر بنیادین سینمای بالیوود دانست. مقوله‌هایی مانند قسمت و بخت و اقبال حتی در عنوان فیلم‌های هندی تکرار می‌شود.

در "میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" همه شخصیت‌ها طبق الگوی سینمای پریان، سیمایی ساده و یک بعدی دارند: جمال قهرمان جوانمرد فیلم است؛ لتیکا شاهزاده زیباست که به دام نیروهای پلید و اهریمنی افتاده است، و نجات او رسالت اصلی "قهرمان" است. سلیم، برادر جمال، سرشتی پاک دارد، اما به دام افراد خبیث می‌افتد. او سرانجام به گوهر پاک خود بر می‌گردد، اما به خاطر خطاهای گذشته، تنبیه می‌شود و به قتل می‌رسد. رئیس باند هم که معلوم است "به درک" واصل می‌شود.

زیر سایه‌ "همای سعادت"

ستایشگران فیلم "میلیونر زاغه‌نشین" به ویژه بر دو صحنه فیلم انگشت گذاشته‌اند: یکی آنجا که جمال خود را به آمیتبا باچان، بت معروف سینمای هند می‌رساند تا از او امضا بگیرد.

جمال که در توالتی چوبی زندانی شده، برای رساندن خود به هنرپیشه‌ معروف بالیوود به درون چاهک مستراح می‌پرد. تصویری گویا از عشق مردم به سینما و ستاره‌‌های آن. در سینما این صحنه را با پرداختی بهتر دیده‌ایم، از جمله در فیلم "گربه سیاه، گربه سفید" ساخته امیر کوستوریتسا.

صحنه دیگر در پایان داستان است، که فیلم با مونتاژ موازی و با استفاده از فرمول "انتظار قهرمان و نزدیک شدن ناجی" هیجان تماشاگر را بالا می‌برد. جمال قصد دارد آخرین و مشکل‌ترین پاسخ شوی تلویزیونی را با تلفن از برادر خود بپرسد. اما موبایل او که به دست لتیکا افتاده، اینک در ماشین جا مانده است. این نوع "تعلیق" در فیلم‌های مسابقاتی، از بوکس تا بیلیارد و پوکر و رقص، سابقه‌ای طولانی دارد.

فیلم به خوبی و خوشی به آخر می‌رسد، و جز این هم نمی‌تواند باشد: شر نابود و عشق پیروز می‌شود. نیکوکاران پاداش می‌بینند و بدکاران به عقوبت می‌رسند. جمال پس از مصیبت‌ها و مشقت‌‌های بسیار، سرانجام به هدف می‌رسد و به عشق پرشکوه خود را در آغوش می‌گیرد، البته به پول فراوان هم می‌رسد!

در پایان فیلم تمام بازیگران فیلم در ایستگاه راه آهن بمبئی رقصی بالیوودی راه می‌اندازند. از نظر منطق روایت، صحنه‌ای عجیب و ناموجه، اما زیبا و دلپذیر برای تماشاگری که خوش دارد زندگی را یک قصه ساده ببیند.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2009/03/090325_pm_slumdog_millioner.shtml