Symbolism and Realism Essay -- Symbolism Realism Literature Essays

Symbolism and RealismSymbolism and Realism were unambiguous only if parallel literary movements that swept atomic number 63 and much of the cosmea in the late 19th century. Social order was unrivalled of the main(prenominal) concerns of symbolizers and Realists, which reflects the unprecedented growth of the middle class and its values across Europe during that time period. Morality and ambition were homogenized and, in some cases, institutionalised to a degree never before seen in civilized social club, and many a(prenominal) intellectuals and artists saw this homogenization as a conformist social imbibe that threatened individual perspective. Thus, Symbolists and Realists works lashed out against social institutions and values and were especially concerned about the domestic sphere, because of its dependence on social norms and plastic effect on individual perceptions were disturbed by the decaying effects of ossification and were troubled by the disconnection between new(a) individuals. Moreover, Symbolists and Realists argue that these tierce themes of domesticity, decay, and disconnection are linked, a connection explored especially in the Symbolist Charles Baudelaires poem, Spleen LXVIII (1862), in the Realist Leo Tolstoys novella, The final stage of Ivan Ilyich (1886), and in the Realist Anton Chekhovs play, The Cherry Orchard (1903). Specifically, these authors argue that the various forms of modern domestic life lead to the ruination of substantial interpersonal connection. As long as one drowns in lifes tedium, asserts Baudelaire, the kind experience and ones connections with another(prenominal)s decay. Spleen LXVIII describes a overwinter rain that pours On corpses fading in the near graveyard, On misty suburbs pours lifes tedium (1550.II 3, 4), and, speaking of a ... ...orms in one way or another destroy ones connections with other human beings. Not only does such focus on forms go for the social nature of humanity, creatin g generations of socially approved outcasts, but also it staidly restricts the individuals perspective by forcing it to conform to preordained, rigid structures, thereby suffocating the blessing of human creativity. Such restriction does not rifle to modern civilization alone, however creativity never exists without limit, for every society upholds rules of conduct that its members are taught to obey. Therefore, contemporary conformity is not new but rather reborn and strengthened. Correspondingly, the task of the modern citizen is ancient, but difficult in its originality to strike a balance between creativity and conformity, between move our own diverse forms and following the accepted forms of society.