AP writing season is officially open, and our second stab at poetic analysis this year comes with a double helping of Dutch Renaissance painter Pieter Bruegel. Apparently he painted a bunch of masterpieces for the sole purpose of being used years later by poets who needed help expressing their poetry.
Ok, not quite. W. H. Auden and Sylvia Plath can hold their own. In fact, they are giants in the field. Which begs the question, gentle reader: why do Auden or Plath need Bruegel?
Answer: they don't. But wow, he sure comes in handy.
Consider exhibit A:
Auden's Musee des Beaux Arts explores the theme of inevitable, ubiquitous, unnoticed suffering. Auden's first stanza compliments the "old Masters" and their portrayal of suffering's "human position" in the world: as just one more thing. The interaction between things, events, people, and suffering...
...you know what, let's pause right there. Rather than make this a mini-sermon on what is the theme of the poem, let's focus on tactics for tackling our essay prompt:
How does a painting complement a theme?
or
How does x complement y?
or
How does x "complete or make better" y?
The first distinction we should make is that we are talking about the poets' theme, not the poem entire. It is the idea that is sharpened or bettered by the painting. As stated earlier, these two writers do not need help conveying their ideas. What they did was deliberately use a readily available resource that captures their idea and stands on its own.
As a concrete, tangible model. To be put under the microscope and pointed at.
Rather than say "like this" or "like this" a bunch of times (similes get so stale, don't they???) these two poets found a painting to use as the simile and simply referred to its details as support.
Pretty crafty. Well done, you crafty poets.
Our task is to explain how this simile-painting-model complements--or makes better--the initial idea--or theme--presented by the poet.
Suffering. Inevitable suffering. Ubiquitous suffering. Unnoticed suffering. Huh? I kind of get it, but can't quite put it into... Oh! Icarus drowning (suffering) and no one paying attention? The ploughman also suffering (because plowing fields is really hard work) and no one paying attention? The shepherd suffering (because shepherding sheep is really boring work) and no one paying attention? Yep, that is pretty ubiquitous, pretty inevitable. Very unnoticed. It makes sense in the painting.
Same with Plath's ideas in Two Views of a Cadaver Room. Whatever is happening in section 1 is being handled with the same attitude as whatever is happening with those "Flemish lovers" in section 2. Now, how does x (the Flemish lovers) complete or sharpen the ideas of y (whatever is happening in section 1)?
Whatever it is, please use complete sentences.
