No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This work examines the perceptions of women in art and literature in Russia during the later half of the nineteenth century. It specifically focuses on the women question and examines women's function and role in Russian society and how different visual artists along with Tolstoy examine this issue through their artwork. The first section of the work focuses specifically on women's social conditions in Russia highlighting their role as daughter, wife and mother. It examines the educational system in place designed for women and the limitations placed upon women concerning marriage and family life. Along with the historical and social analysis, this section also examines three Russian artists' portrayal of various issues relating to the woman question and the role, or lack thereof, of women in society. The second section examines Tolstoy's initial examination of women's issues through his novella "Family Happiness," and attempts to answer the question: On what side of the woman question debate is Tolstoy? It challenges the accepted,traditional reading of Tolstoy's work as misogynistic and anti-woman, and reveals through a careful reading of the text, a sympathetic female character. The last section deals with his monumental work, Anna Karenina, with a specific examination of how Tolstoy deals with the character Anna. It negates previous readings of the text by other critics who attempt to reveal Tolstoy's antagonistic behavior toward the women characters in the text. Through a careful reading of specific passages of the text, the work shows that Tolstoy also creates a sympathetic character in Anna. This work concludes attempting to position Tolstoy on neither side of the woman question, not the case with the artists studied in the work nor other authors mentioned during this period in history, and instead reveals Tolstoy's determination to create characters and situations which are present in every society. In his approach, Tolstoy has succeeded in surpassing the boundaries of class and time and created characters and situations universal.

No description available.

I filmen Anna Karenina (Wright, 2012) används mise-en-scène för att skildra det sociala livet hos den ryska aristokratin i slutet av 1800-talet. Men på vilket sätt kan filmens narrativ förmedlas till publiken genom filmens visuella uttryck? Den här uppsatsen undersöker hur iscensättning kan använda symbolik för att skildra en films narrativ. Analysen utgår från sju scener ur Anna Karenina som tolkas efter dess scenografi, kostymering och ljussättning. Uppsatsen använder denotation och konnotation för att undersöka vilka tolkningar som kommer av filmens visuella uttryck. Analysen visar hur aristokraterna porträtteras i en teatral miljö för att skildra hur deras sociala interaktioner blir till ett framträdande, den teatrala miljön skildras genom både scenografi och ljussättning. Kostym tolkas bland annat utifrån färgsymbolik vilket kan ge flera olika tolkningar angående karaktärernas motiv och sinnesstämning. Undersökningens slutsats blir att filmens narrativ förstärks av dess scenografi, kostym och ljussättning men att det ofta finns flera möjliga tolkningar att göra gällande symboliken.

No description available.

Anna Karénine raconte l'histoire de deux destinées opposées, mais intrinsèquement liées par une question centrale : comment donner un sens à l'existence humaine? Obsession vitale de Tolstoï, ce problème traverse et unit l'oeuvre, ouvrant sur une vaste réflexion philosophique. Nous avons choisi deux thèmes majeurs pour la développer. Le premier axe se concentre sur la conscience tragique de la mort, le deuxième explore l'impact du lieu sur l'identité des personnages en opposant la ville et la campagne. Au fur et à mesure du roman, la recherche existentielle des personnages s'amplifie à tel point que la frontière entre fiction et réalité s'amenuise. C'est finalement la quête de Tolstoï lui-même qui est en jeu dans Anna Karénine, transformant l'ouvrage en un témoignage de sa pensée.

No description available.

In recent years, there has been an undeniable shift in how we think about nonhuman animals. A growing philosophical literature on animal rights has encouraged a deep consideration of the moral status of animals, while scientific research has simultaneously confirmed the fact that many animals have complex cognitive, emotional, and social capacities that strongly mirror our own. Although there is still disagreement about what all this implies in terms of our responsibilities to animals, the idea that animals can experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure is the starting point and not the conclusion of the present inquiry. Many species of animals are sentient beings who possess a viewpoint from which they experience and act in the world around them - and hence may be said to be agential. My dissertation explores what it means for us to extend, conceptually and morally, agency to animals. I address this "extension of agency" predominantly from an aesthetic perspective, although in doing so I in no way intend to limit the range of related philosophical concerns. On the contrary; to extend agency to animals, I argue, calls for a revised understanding of our habitual spectatorial stances--how we look at animals. To grasp these stances, I investigate how animals have been looked at in literary works of art. Does the literature show our spectatorship to extend agency to animals or do we objectify them so as to deny their capacities as agents altogether? My dissertation focuses on excerpts from three significant works of literature--works by Nathanael West, Ernest Hemingway, and Leo Tolstoy--each of which stages a specifically athletic engagement involving animals, in this way bringing focus to the issue of our spectatorship. Each excerpt serves as philosophically illuminating material and as an exemplary case regarding humanity's willingness or refusal to extend agency to animals. I am particularly interested in the role of animals in human-engineered sports, and in how extending agency to animals in sports changes or ought to change the way we watch sports that involve animals. Within the philosophy of sport, the accepted approach has been to liken animals to sporting equipment or tools, and thus to make no substantive distinction between animal and non-animal sports. This, I argue, reflects a refusal to extend agency to animals, which has led also to an oversimplification and mischaracterization of sports involving animals in the first place. Nathanael West's The Day of the Locust takes up cockfighting, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises centers around bullfighting, and Tolstoy's Anna Karenina includes a memorable, emotionally stirring, steeplechase episode. In addition to investigating what I refer to as the "extension of agency" to animals in these literary works, I revise some of the basic assumptions that have recently guided the burgeoning subfield of the philosophy of sports. I argue that we must acknowledge that there exists a fundamental difference between the modes of spectatorship that accompany sports that only involve humans, and those that involve animals. For to extend agency is to extend the moral domain to that or those who are "other" than ourselves. Once animals are introduced into a sport, they imbue the sport with all the aesthetic complexities that come with looking at an animal outside of sport: the unique exotic beauty of the animal body and its fitness to function, but also its vitality, wild autonomy, expressiveness, and reciprocity of gaze. This means that our interactions with animals, even in the case of organized sport or performance, are not purely aesthetic in a formal artistic sense; they are also expressive and communicative. The concept of the formal aesthetic that many employ when talking about art - the formal qualities that we attribute to the arts - is not sufficient to accommodate sports that involve animals and a spectatorship of animals. Animals are expressive, and this expressiveness is fundamental to correctly understanding our spectatorship of them. Animals are far more than our equipment. The aesthetic of animal sports must, I conclude, accordingly incorporate expressiveness and empathy, such that we see animals in fellowship with us as participants in sports. Extending agency to animals is the core concept of a morally inflected aesthetic of inter-subjectivity.