However instead of bemoaning the statues broken state he admires it instead, and insists that it's brokenness lends it a special kind of beauty.
"And yet his torso is still suffused with brilliance from inside, like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned low, gleams in all of its power."
Even without a face or arms or legs the statue is still an admirable piece of art, perhaps even more so for its brokenness. Because the bust has no face or arms we can imagine them instead, and sometimes the ability to create something in our mind is better than …show more content…
Again, there is still beauty in the creature although he is not what his potential would haveallowed him to be. Instead he was forced into a dull existence, but there is still a flash of hope in him that "rushes down through the tensed, arrested muscles, plunges into the heart and is gone.".
The scene with the iron bars holding the panther in the zoo makes me think that is how Rilke views humans in the city, blocked in and deprived of any mental stimulation until their vision has "grown weary" as well.
"The Swan" is different from both previous poems however, in the fact that the swan isn't broken, but simply isn't as beautiful until it gets into the water. On land the swan is an awkward and hobbled creature, unable to move quickly or gracefully; however once he is in the water he completely transforms and turns into a magnificent fowl, gliding effortlessly along the water as he never could on land. I think Rilke is trying to convey that environment is everything and even if someone is a horrible failure at one thing, in another medium they could be a genius and that appearances can be