The singular focus on creativity in Hailsham was
something that I always questioned. As a math and logic-oriented person myself,
it frustrated me that the students were only valued if they were good at art.
Tommy was ostracized solely because he was bad at art and it made me sad.
However, I, like the students, was still curious about the concept of the
Gallery. Similar to the concept of the Gallery, so much of the students’ lives
was unknown. The novel emphasizes the idea of letting go and accepting your fate,
but that doesn’t stop the students from theorizing about why things are the way
they are.
Tommy’s theory about the
gallery made me think about art and the accuracy of his ideas. He says to
Kathy, “Suppose two people come up and say they’re in love. She can find the art
they’ve done over years and years. She can see if they go. If they match. Don’t
forget, Kath, what she’s got reveals our souls” (176). If they really are using
the artwork to prove that the clones are human-like, the artwork is proof of
their creative brains. However, the artwork might not necessarily explain their
souls. How can a collection of artwork prove that a human loves another human
purely? What criteria would they use to determine if the clones were a good
match based on their artwork? Couldn’t clones make artwork that wasn’t
representative of their pure souls? I believe Tommy holds onto this theory
about the Gallery to have hope that there might be an exception to the rules.
It’s one last way for them to possibly escape the system.
Even at the end of the
novel, Ruth holds onto this idea and hopes Kathy and Tommy will be an exception.
She told them to try to contact Madame for the deferral, and months or years
later, at the end of Ruth’s life, it was still important to her. Kathy says, “I
could tell it was never far from Ruth’s mind, and that’s why, that very last
time I saw her, even though she wasn’t able to speak, I knew what it was she
wanted to say to me” (235). Even though there was never any proof to confirm
this theory, Ruth had so much hope in it that she thought about it until her
dying breath. Clones, just like humans, want to believe in a perfect match.
They want to believe in true love. Their theories about the artwork which
intends to prove their humanness prove their humanness even further. The ideas
of love and hope are both easily relatable to the reader.
The simple answer to your questions is that Tommy was wrong in his ideas. However, the idea behind art showing a person’s soul is an old belief among people. Animals can show logic and reasoning to an extent. I am also a science student and am awful at art, so I understand how it was a little upsetting. I think the author needed just something that is solely human (i.e. making art) to create this idea for hope. Regardless of the reasoning, it is a flawed idea no doubt. Regarding your question about them faking it, at the time, the students were just making art. They had no idea why they were making it. In general, the best art you make is the art that is dearest to you at the moment. Therefore, the students would just make the art they wanted, and this would be best. You are right that that judging art is incredibly subjective. However, if you look at art you can tell what has been given careful thought and effort. No doubt, each person has a bias as to what they consider good art, but that was Madame’s job. She decided what she felt was good art by her own opinion. It does not make any sense to me either how they could use the art to prove fits, but the characters’ logic is not always sound. As you point out hope is a big factor. We tend to make a lot of errors when emotions crowd our judgement.
ReplyDeleteUsing art to determine the character of one’s soul is certainly flawed. I think, as the previous comment stated, this particular concept may have been chosen by Ishiguro because it was the easiest – not the most effective – method for the outside world to judge the students’ values. Art and creativity can often be linked to a person’s character, but this is not absolute. We can see exceptions to this in society today. In recent years alone, we have seen plenty of public figures regarded as highly talented musicians, authors, or actors be involved in highly controversial scandals. This is not to say that these individuals are “faking” their abilities – they are genuinely talented and passionate, but that talent is not reflective of their soul. You can be a passionate person and channel that passion into art. But artistic passion and a good or loving soul are not mutually exclusive. There are people who are more scientifically minded who may be involved in some of the most loving, intense relationships. Conversely, some artistic individuals may be classified as "loners" and not form many meaningful relationships with others.
ReplyDelete