The original Pygmalion is a sculptor who creates a beautiful woman out of clay and is rewarded when she turns human. How does Henry Higgins mold Eliza’s character in much the same way? As Eliza’s creator, does Higgins deserve a certain amount of control over her? Where does his creation end and Eliza’s independence begin? What is the nature of the relationship between artists and their art? Discuss.
In the main plot structure for Pygmalion, Professor Henry Higgins takes a normal street urchin and molds Eliza's character into what is essentially a work of art. It was Higgins' prowess and proficiency in linguistics and phonetics that was able to transform Eliza, and in this sense it was a work of artist to art, not person to person.
Eliza's character was essentially created by Higgins himself, but as a human being Eliza is still her own person. Higgins can realistically take the credit for molding her into the person she became and thus her respectability as a supposedly high class duchess (or princess), but he cannot hold responsibility for the woman she is. Eliza's independence lies in her responsibility to make her own informed decisions, and the only thing Higgins should really have any sort of control over is her speech and manner.
That being said, Higgins should not be held accountable or really have any sort of control over Eliza in the slightest. She is still a fully grown woman with her own mind, so in that sense her transformation was a joint effort on both of their parts. As the creator Eliza the duchess, however, Higgins is entitled to something. Since he created he speech, it seems fitting to allow him full use of her voice in the use of the phonograph, record keeping, and the like.
Under normal circumstances, the relationship between artist and art would be one of simple ownership, such as how painters would have the rights to their paintings or authors the rights to their books. In this case, though, Higgins cannot simply be allowed to have the rights to Eliza as a human being, especially since the only real part of her he made was the characteristics that make her high class. Their relationship is certainly more complicated, then. It should not be unfair to say that Higgins should be entitled to see his work every so often.
In the main plot structure for Pygmalion, Professor Henry Higgins takes a normal street urchin and molds Eliza's character into what is essentially a work of art. It was Higgins' prowess and proficiency in linguistics and phonetics that was able to transform Eliza, and in this sense it was a work of artist to art, not person to person.
Eliza's character was essentially created by Higgins himself, but as a human being Eliza is still her own person. Higgins can realistically take the credit for molding her into the person she became and thus her respectability as a supposedly high class duchess (or princess), but he cannot hold responsibility for the woman she is. Eliza's independence lies in her responsibility to make her own informed decisions, and the only thing Higgins should really have any sort of control over is her speech and manner.
That being said, Higgins should not be held accountable or really have any sort of control over Eliza in the slightest. She is still a fully grown woman with her own mind, so in that sense her transformation was a joint effort on both of their parts. As the creator Eliza the duchess, however, Higgins is entitled to something. Since he created he speech, it seems fitting to allow him full use of her voice in the use of the phonograph, record keeping, and the like.
Under normal circumstances, the relationship between artist and art would be one of simple ownership, such as how painters would have the rights to their paintings or authors the rights to their books. In this case, though, Higgins cannot simply be allowed to have the rights to Eliza as a human being, especially since the only real part of her he made was the characteristics that make her high class. Their relationship is certainly more complicated, then. It should not be unfair to say that Higgins should be entitled to see his work every so often.