Romanticism blog post:

 Am I a product of Romanticism or Enlightenment?  I feel as though I am  a bit of both. I am a logical thinker and seem to pay attention to details but also I am emotional. I seem to put my own feeling in what I see is going on and feel closer to what is happening. In art, plays, music and movies I would have to say that I am a child of Romanticism being, that romantics are emotionally self aware, which tends to being more understanding of society. I feel If more people were more emotionally involved more of our societies problems could be lessened and changed for the better.

I do not really feel as though I am one or the other, but more of a combination of both. I am emotional to where i fell for others but I also am a critical thinker. I do not let one decide my decisions but use both to handle situations to decide what is the best outcome overall.
I have a love for art, theatrics,music and nature and enjoy all the things associated but also love to solve problems and try to understand what makes things tick. Life is meant to be felt and be alive in but not to be over thought of. enjoy the beauty it has for you and return it tenfold.

Enlightenment post: MArriage.

Marriage.

This is a disclaimer: the opinions expressed here are not to be taken personally and are merely just that, an opinion. So enjoy this post and feel free to express your opinion if you feel the need to.

When I began this assignment my first thought went directly to the scene from the movie, “The Princess bride”, ““Mawidge is a dweam wiffin a dweam. The dweam of wuv wapped wiffin the gweater dweam of everwasting west. Eternity is our fwiend, wemember that, and wuv wiw fowwow you fowever.” As human we desire to find that special person to be with and eventually get married. Here are my ideas on what is happening to the institution of marriage in today’s society.

The typical marriage used to be one made up of a man and a women married together. Today the term marriage is used very loosely.  There are many different forms of marriage, common law marriage, open marriages, same sex marriages, and marriage to multiple partners. Another common form of marriage is one that is not marriage but makes a mockery of the very idea of it. This is joked with many times as being said as “why but the cow when you can get the milk for free” attitude. So many couples choose to go this route long before the get married, and that is a big If they get married. This choice of a relationship is seen as a trial time to see if they couples can make it work.

In the past marriages were a religious/ social contract that was usually arranged and had nothing to do with love. Today we are more likely to marry for love and occasionally for social status and money.

I personally feel that marriage is not taken very seriously. In my life experiences marriage is disposable and can easily be replaced for whatever reasons. In my personal life I have seen multiple friends and family go into a marriage with a knowledge that if things don’t work out we can always get divorced and try again another time. My own brother’s new wife’s family did this on his wedding day after he was already married, just before his reception. They were talking to his new wife telling her if this marriage doesn’t work out she can always get divorced. 

A few more problems I feel that marriage face are lack of positive role models, lack of communication, rapid social changes, money, stress, children, in laws, family chores, lack of emotional needs met, substance abuse, and lastly, physical and emotional abuse.

If I were to make a cartoon of marriage today I would have a picture of all description of what marriage is seen as today with the varying descriptions and next to them have a “average” marriage couple nest to them while the rest look down on them as if mocking the m with the word love written above them crumbling and hanging by a thread above there heads.

The 3 Davids.

The 3 statues of David

In My humanities class we were asked to compare Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s, Michelangelo’s and Donatello’s statues of David, and how Bernini’s illustrates the Baroque perspective.

Donatello’s David: Was sculpted during the early Renaissance period around C. 1425-1430. The material used was bronze, standing 5’ 2 ¼” tall. The story behind his sculpture is depicted after the fight with Goliath.  The statue was at the beginning of Humanism and the first discovery of contrapposto and beauty of ancient Rome and Greek Sculptures. The statue has a sense of a victorious battle won, and being blessed by God. The shape of his sculpture is almost pyramid like as well as Michelangelo’s David. . It seems to be giving off the sense of immobility. David is wearing a helmet and has a sword at his side whereas the others show him without

these items.

                                                                

 Michelangelo’s David: Michelangelo's David was created during the time of high Renaissance around 1501-1504. The sculpture was made out of marble and stands 17’ tall. The sculpture depicted from the story of before the fight with Goliath. This statue has a beautiful figure which relates what the Renaissance era’s idea that man was created in God’s image, thus associating perfection, beauty and harmony in mathematics and God.  This was a time of high humanism and Renaissance.  His statue almost seems to be sitting and contemplating the art of beauty, beauty of man which was God’s greatest creation, which lead to the people coming to know God. The path to God was more through the mind than anything else. Donatello’s and Michelangelo’s David give the sense of eternal qualities that seem to separate us from David. David’s shape in this statue is at an angle or as in a diagonal composition which suggests movement energy and high drama.

                                                             

                                                                                                                                          

Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s David: To me Bernini’s David has the most feelings of movement. David seems to be actively fighting Goliath with God on his side, which was how the church most likely felt, as they were battling against Satan, the great battle of good over evil. David seems to have no time for contemplation but gives off a reaction to our bodies, not our minds as in the Baroque era.. He wants us to be able to relate to the image of the statue in our bodies and not just in our minds as in the days of Renaissance. To feel the movement and image of the sculpture physically and be able to relate to it physically, to feel it more as momentary then as eternally.

Baroque era was a time when the path to God in more direct, more emotional. The church at that time felt the statue needed to appeal very directly to the faithful people of its congregation.

                                                          

The last supper.

Leonardo Da Vinci’s , The last supper.

Leonardo Da Vinci triumphed in using perspective as illusion. He make it seems as though the room extending into the painting, it then continues into the windows and the landscape. 

He uses chiascuro which is the contrast between light and shadows. He uses this technique in the people or subjects in his painting of the last supper to make them appear as though they are in our world today as if they are right next to us. He used light and shadowing on Jesus and also on Judas to bring focus on them to show their relationship and the things to come. He highlighted Christ by placing Him by the window by using a clear sky and blue shades to convey almost a halo around his head. The window also helped to bring in “natural “light to highlight Jesus. The landscape was used as signifying “paradise” and that the only way to achieve going to paradise would be through Christ.

Shading was used on Judas almost degrading him by darkening his face with shadows and using his clothing with a color that is not as expensive as the pigment that was used on Christ and a few of the other disciples. 

Da Vinci has been stated as a genius for his way of capturing the emotions and also the physical likeness in his paintings. He has complex faces as the subtext in a parallel form to draw attention to his main subject. Almost to show what is going on in his subject mind.

Da Vinci uses lines of perspective with asymmetrical symmetry in the last supper. Lines were used to frame Christ in the door frame so that our eyes will be drawn to Him. The line of perspective is used to radiate from Christ’s head, signifying that He is the main focal point. These same lines of perspective blend in with the ceilings and walls.

The first line that I saw that drew my attention was the line used in the table, drawing your eyes to the main idea of the painting of Christ in the center and His disciples extending to the sides of the painting. Christ is at the center of his painting signifying that he is the main subject and the center, the point where all lines and attention will converge. Da Vinci then used his knowledge of architecture and geometry to map out the remaining of the painting.

Da Vinci uses foreshadowing in his painting with Peter. Peter is holding a knife in his right hand that will later used to cut the ear off of a soldier that is trying to arrest Christ.  He also used balanced composition by anchoring with an equilateral triangle and Christ’s body like the Renaissance in Neo-Platonism.

 Da Vinci has been labeled as the Renaissance man. He was great at everything. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, , scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, cartographer, botanist,  and a writer. He was the epitome of the Renaissance man with his humanist ideal and he had an “Unquenchable curiosity” and a “feverish inventive imagination”. He was the most diverse person to live.

He used a renewed interest with his knowledge of art and the classical world with something new to be his own work to resemble his individualism. This was a way to rebel against the medieval emphasis that oneness of everyone in heaven with a promise of everlasting life, rather than the belief of a rich diversity of life in this world.

Catherdrals and a blind man. Medievil blog post.

Recently I was able to read a short story  titled "Cathedral," by Raymond Carver. what I took from this story is that the women's husband was unhappy because he was not sure how to be with a blind person, he was uncomfortable talking about his daily life with sight with normal conversations that kept him from normally talking to others with out having to step out of his comfort zones and getting to know them and talk of such trivial things as, where he sat on the train ride and what view he had. His view and opinions change dramatically from almost being a racist  to a dear friend over the time they spent together. During the blind man's stay the two men eventually are given the opportunity to really talk and get to know each other, and in turn is able to get the same opportunity as his wife to have an amazing experience with the blind man just in s different experience. By this experience with the blind friend he is finally able to understand what his wife had been talking about all these years and their relationship with each other.

The cathedral is their way of seeing through each others eye's ( or view). I believe that it is as simple as the commonly known saying " You must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you know can truly them and not judge them." You must have empathy for others and give them the a chance to be who they are before you judge them. It's amazing  what happens when you let your insecurities down enough to see others as they truly are. A fine gift that many do not have. In this case cannabis was the thing that helped him let his guard down enough to calm himself down to really converse with the blind friend and open to sharing who he is and "see" through the blind mans eyes , sharing what he see's in return. We are all alike and change in oneself is attainable. The mighty change will better the perfectibility of oneself to really "see something" does not necessarily need to be " seen through eyes."

Americas epic.

America, Our national Epic.

 In class we were asked to state if we feel like America has an epic, why or why not? If so what is it?

I Feel as though America does not really have an epic. So many people look towards Hollywood to depict what they feel is an epic, but to many times it has been another rehashing of a story told many times, with their personal spin. We as American’s are such a melting pot of different ethnicity's, with different beliefs, religions etc.. that the one thing that I can only think of that brings us together as a country and is nationally known would be the constitution, and even now there are many who want to go against the very one thing that unites us as a whole country.

The heroes of our day would be the founding fathers of the U.S. and those who signed and created the Constitution. The all came together to represent and put into writing of all the things the felt would be necessary to state what the felt was to be an American. They fought for these rights and saw many die to protect all that they felt was precious to them and the future of this country. Just as in the Odyssey , they went to war to gain victory over the Trojans. We have been to war numerous times , but the wars we have been involved in the past have been to help other countries, except at the time of the civil war to establish the Us as a country of its own, not to be ruled by another country.

Happiness.

Blog post question.

3b. In a child’s game of musical chairs, one child is clearly the winner. Should the organizers of the game give each child the same prize in order to not hurt anyone’s feelings? Or should children be taught at an early age how the world usually works? Which of these 2 approaches is likely to produce the happier child?

I believe that the child who won should be given the prize. If the organizers decide to have something small for the participants to show for participation that is their choice, but the winner should be recognized for his/her accomplishment. If you live in a communist society where everyone is mediocre they must be treated the same no matter how well they perform, then they will award all the children. Those in an individualism community will breed patriotism thus resulting in a happier child. 

I know for a fact that when a child works hard and/or wins they come to feel more accomplished and feel as though they actually earned the award given to them creating a want and a desire to become something more. Not everyone can be perfect in all they do, but what we excel at should be acknowledged when appropriate without making others feel less than us. We need to celebrate our accomplishments that set us apart and in return be excited for others when they achieve their accomplishments.  What would be the point in doing better at certain things when you know that you will still receive the prize? What good can come from building their confidence when there is nothing to back it up with? When we do not win we learn from our mistakes,( hopefully) letting us know where we need to improve. 

 How would it be to be just like every other person around you, almost like a robot? Our accomplishments set us apart and help shape and mold a better person for the community. Those kids that are awarded the same will be momentarily happy but in the long run they will be unhappy and feel as though there is nothing that sets them apart from anyone else. Their wins, goals and accomplishment will bolster them and make them happier throughout life helping them become a better person. Not all rewards need to be outwardly recognized, many times the inner feeling of accomplishment is stronger than a reward that is outward and usually is momentarily justified.