The eternal question is, does the artist lose control of his art the minute it leaves his brush, pen, or mold? Does the audience have a right to interpretation? Can the art take on a life of its own? More importantly, should it?
In the old myth of Pygmalion and the original proverb, Galatea was a work of art that literally came to life. In the context of George Bernard Shaw's play, Eliza Doolittle can be seen as the product of Henry Higgins' professional work of linguistics. So that begs the question, of whether or not Eliza is the woman Henry had intended her to be. Is she really the duchess Pickering and Higgins had made the bet for in Act I, or is she something else? Certainly by the end of the work she has grown into a well educated lady, but whose creation is it? Should Eliza's transformation be attributed to Higgins or herself? If she is seen as a product of Higgins' knowledge, does he have a right to claim any sort of ownership over what she became? Is he responsible for her actions?
It would be easy to say that Eliza is entirely responsible for everything she does, especially since she is old enough to make decisions for herself, but in regards to the play, it was very obvious that she did not know what she was getting into when she went to go meet Higgins and Pickering, so how much blame could really be put on her when she realized she was in over her head?
In Shaw's Pygmalion, Eliza could be considered a work of art, but this masterpiece was one that literally had a life of its own. This play is a parallel to the original myth in that sense, because instead of an artwork being brought to life, a life was turned into a piece of art. Would it be unethical for Higgins to treat her as art? Artwork most certainly can gain a new life through the interpretation of its audience and the ideas that result because of them, but does that apply to Eliza? Should Eliza use her new-found education and manners as if she had always had them, or could it be seen as concealment if she never credited Higgins with her knowledge?
Another important thing to consider is the mortality of Higgins' art. Paintings, tales, and sculptures could all live indefinitely, but Eliza is as ephemeral as anyone else, quite short-lived in regards to other art work. Does this change how she should treat her given skills, or how she should be treated by others or even Higgins? Should she be promoted as a product of Higgins' capabilities because of how fleeting a piece of art she is? Of course, she is still human and needs to be treated as such, but she is also unique in the sense that she was also made into a specific masterpiece.
In the old myth of Pygmalion and the original proverb, Galatea was a work of art that literally came to life. In the context of George Bernard Shaw's play, Eliza Doolittle can be seen as the product of Henry Higgins' professional work of linguistics. So that begs the question, of whether or not Eliza is the woman Henry had intended her to be. Is she really the duchess Pickering and Higgins had made the bet for in Act I, or is she something else? Certainly by the end of the work she has grown into a well educated lady, but whose creation is it? Should Eliza's transformation be attributed to Higgins or herself? If she is seen as a product of Higgins' knowledge, does he have a right to claim any sort of ownership over what she became? Is he responsible for her actions?
It would be easy to say that Eliza is entirely responsible for everything she does, especially since she is old enough to make decisions for herself, but in regards to the play, it was very obvious that she did not know what she was getting into when she went to go meet Higgins and Pickering, so how much blame could really be put on her when she realized she was in over her head?
In Shaw's Pygmalion, Eliza could be considered a work of art, but this masterpiece was one that literally had a life of its own. This play is a parallel to the original myth in that sense, because instead of an artwork being brought to life, a life was turned into a piece of art. Would it be unethical for Higgins to treat her as art? Artwork most certainly can gain a new life through the interpretation of its audience and the ideas that result because of them, but does that apply to Eliza? Should Eliza use her new-found education and manners as if she had always had them, or could it be seen as concealment if she never credited Higgins with her knowledge?
Another important thing to consider is the mortality of Higgins' art. Paintings, tales, and sculptures could all live indefinitely, but Eliza is as ephemeral as anyone else, quite short-lived in regards to other art work. Does this change how she should treat her given skills, or how she should be treated by others or even Higgins? Should she be promoted as a product of Higgins' capabilities because of how fleeting a piece of art she is? Of course, she is still human and needs to be treated as such, but she is also unique in the sense that she was also made into a specific masterpiece.