Art Encounters #3

For my final Blog posting of the semester, or at least relating to this art and concept bloggings that have been assigned, I look forward to ending the semester on a positive note and hopefully accomplish something that I have yet to do this semester. This final blog will be my best, yes I have it set in my head, thick as it might be, that I will get my best grade of the semester on this assignment in an attempt to meet a personal goal, in addition to ending the semester on a great note.

With that being said, I have decided to pick a piece of art that is from the Baroque period, and one that definitely stuck out to me for more than one reason. In addition to the contrast of color in this piece, it is also something that during this time period would have been socially unacceptable for a number of reasons. The individuals seen in this picture, the situation that might possible be taking place, and finally the social consequences for this sort of 'depiction'.

I have decided to elaborate further on Manet and Impressionism. The picture that I selected is Olympia by Edouard Manet. I took it upon myself to look at a couple of different color images of this painting on google. I found the photograph in the book provided me with sufficient reason to select it, however I wanted to feel the full perspective of the paintings power. It was truly amazing with color. This piece of art remains striking even today. People see this not as a classical beauty, but a very real and provocative perspective of a women, her naked and volatile body open to full inspection by anyone who wishes to see without inhibition. I find that the paleness of her skin is coupled with the brightness and beauty of the colorful flowers in addition to the previously touched on contrast to the dark skin by her servant blending into the background. There is also a black cat in the photo. This seems to show a more comfortable perspective, in addition to balancing the thin black ribbon found around Victorine's neck. When you notice the glazed look on her face, it is a cold look that shows no expression on emotion. I find it to be challenging and direct in almost a confrontational manner. As stated in the book (The Human Spirit, page 192), "it is almost as if she were staring into the very eyes of her next client, placing the viewer in an immoral position". I find this last statement to be even colder than the glaze Victorine maintains in her eyes. Creepy in a sense of emptiness and endlessness.


But with every piece of artistic expression comes critiques and accusations. Many saw this painting as "ugliness", and an impersonation in the sense that, "the body has lurid tones of a corpse at the morgue". All painful at the time, but this painting has withstood the test of time.


People saw Olympia has the heroine of shocking modernity. Manet at times was shaken by the criticism. His desire for formal acceptance by the art establishment conflicted directly with his equally strong sense of artistic independence. Manet was a traditionalist, though a rebellious one.

Ultimately, after reflecting on the artistic features of the painting, and investigating the perspectives and opinions of those who witnessed the Olympia, it is considered safe to say that this piece was definitely considered provocative during the Baroque Period. Not only did the color definitions used in this painting express ideas of lucid vulnerability and social outcasting of this Victorine individual, it was many years ahead of being socially acceptable. The expressiveness of Manet was one inn which brought people together to reflect on a different perspective that wasn't restricted by the corset of societal norms.

This painting I found to be inspirational, not only for its reactions, but for the rules it broke and the barriers it brought down. It allowed Manet to show the world that restrictiveness doesn't produce greatness, it produces complacency.

Concept Blog #3

I always get such amusement out of writing a new entry into the blog assignments of this semester. So, this is always the way that I start off my blog posts and I think that by keeping these as informal as possible, and allowing people to read these more as a reflection of myself as a person, it allows this class to become a little more interactive on a personal level. I apologize if when you are reading this you are thinking to yourself that this individual must be a little 'nutso' haha.

So as I sit here at my desk typing this post out, I listen to the one and only Beetles, and I sit down to read this chapter, and the one thing that has really stuck with me more than anything else throughout the past couple chapters is a quote by Preserved Smith. "No other factor in history, not even religion, has produced so many wars as has the clash of national egotism sanctified by the name of patriotism". This quote in itself is a very strong quote, and the idea that is based behind it. I think that this concept can not only be applied to many of the conflicts today in our society, but on a smaller scale, as society has progressed, we can relate to this on a smaller more personal and social scale.

The Belle Epoque time was one of great struggle and perseverance. Starting in the 1870's, the world witnessed a great competition for imperial expansion as both Germany and Italy had unified, and France, Austria, and Great Britain invested their monarchs with the guardianship of national pride. With these events taking place, and the eventual demise of of many of the leadership roles and figureheads around Europe, the structure of political power shifted greatly in a number of different ways. With that being said, the idea of nationalism and the fervent belief in the sanctity of one's nation and ethnic origins both contributed to a unified Europe and lead to the generation of personal freedom at home and abroad. In addition, citizens around the world saw nationalism become a spiritual factor in political developments.

Ultimately the reason I decided to use this quote as the basis for my blog post was because I couldn't agree with that statement any more wholeheartedly. Being a Canadian and being from a different country, I am blessed with the opportunity to see things through a different light here in America.  This blog post is not something that should be taken personally. This is not an attack on the United States, but this is something that I have noticed since being a resident in the United States since Sept. 2009.

When Preserved Smith states that "the clash of national egotisms", is the factor throughout history that has produced more wars and clashes than anything else, including religion, he is stating truth. In our society today, there is nothing more intimidating or unreliable than a nation's willingness to show their dominance on a world scale. Throughout history, we have been plagued with such examples. During World War Two, Hitler and the Nazi regime took a risk by dividing their troops and sending a portion to Russia to face the Allied forces throughout the winter. This was not a smart tactical move on Hitler's behalf. His momentum and 'egotistical'' approach to fighting this war ultimately cost him the entire war in the long run. Because of this personal self-faith, he lost on both fronts, costing him any opportunity at world domination. Another key example can be connected to the falling of the twin towers on 9/11. Not only was it within reason for the United States to defend their nation and their pride by attacking Afghanistan, but the basis for which this decision was made was based on greedy, egotistical circumstances. Colin Powell, the secretary of state at the time, surrendered his chair position and stepped away from the Bush administration, prior to it being found that false information was included in the report that was ultimately sanctioned by the United Nations for entry into Afghanistan and soon after Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. I feel that the true motivations by President Bush were warranted. The defense and safety of his nation was jeopardized, and his response would ultimately provide a sense of security and patriotism among its people. However, this would not be the case. Patriotism continues to mask the idea that Americans feel they are entitled to continue the fight in the Middle East. This false sense of PAtriotism has lead thousands to death overseas, and the American government continues to battle a war that ultimately no one will ever win. It is under sad circumstances that this even started in the first place, but to this day, I continue to witness the destruction that it has contributed to on the home front here in Arizona, but also the division that it has brought between supporter and non supporters of the war, in addition to Republicans and Democrats.

When considering this egotism on a smaller, more social and interactive scale, we are driven by what we can obtain. Our motivations are based on the opportunity to win, and our ultimate desire to be the best. Americans, ore than any other nation in the entire world, have been conditioned at birth to think this way. This is part of the American way, and the American dream. I understand that I may be coming across as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, but this post is something that is very close to me. I am motivated by American politics, and the international relationships that accompany those political relations. As a societal whole, we are always considering the best outcome possible and what we have to do to obtain a certain lifestyle of way of life. This may mean stealing, this may mean killing someone, or this may mean just working harder than someone else. But aggressive and egotistical approaches by the members of the United States are unfortunately categorized by the rest of the world as 'American/ patriotic/ egotistical', approaches that aren't healthy. Not only do members of the international community see Americans as liars and cheats, they see them as people who 'assume' they deserve the best because they are Americans. They are 'entitled' to freedom, and they feel they have the 'right' to come in here and fix all our problems.

I agree that this has not been a very politically correct approach to this blog post, but I feel so passionate about this because this is what I want to do for the rest of my life. I am a Canadian Citizen, but I want to work for the American government and political system for the rest of my life (if of course my baseball career doesn't work out haha). But I want to help bring the United States back to the respectable nation it once was; the way it was back in the early 60's and 70's. I feel that this quote has not only shown true throughout history so far, but for Preserved Smith to have made this remark in the late 19th and early 20th century, I can only imagine what he might have thought about our current state today. Nations constantly at war, arguments, missile crisis, and the constant threat of a nuclear or terrorist attack throughout the world.

"No other factor in history", may ultimately lead to our eventual demise.

Art Encounters Blog #2

For my second Art encounters blog, we were asked to discuss the ideas behind the Romanticism period, in addition to Modern Nationalism. As i tried to decide between the one in which I wanted to approach, I couldn't help but be drawn to the idea of the "Arch of Triumph" on page 119. I have a little bit of an interest in all things architectural, but this piece really inspired me because of its close resemblance to a similar arch that is located by my house.

If I haven't mentioned previously in one of my blogs, I am from Vancouver, Canada, and more specifically White Rock. White Rock is located roughly 10 miles from the border between the United States, and Canada. The crossing (which is both commercial and pedestrian equipped) is named "Peace Arch Crossing". With that being said, there is a giant arch that is located in what is known as "no-mans land". This is basically the area of land between the United States border crossing, and that of Canada's. I find it interesting that the arch located there, and the one that was originally created in France can share such a similar resemblance, while still maintaining the same principles of peace, prosperity, and resilience.

Relating back to the actual "Arch of Triumph", the initial basis for the construction of this arch was due to the idea of future French glory, and the sustainability of French success throughout Europe, created by the imperial mantle of the time, Napoleon Bonaparte. The initial feat and direction in which the French would commemorate such willingness and prosperity, would first be commemorated on the battle field, and eventually through the great artists and architects that helped to produce such a beautiful and strong masterpiece that would be the vision of French prosperity for centuries to come. The motivation behind such a triumphant piece of architecture was to not only commemorate but to substantialize the integrity and determination of the French, and their ability to overcome such odds and hardships through those who only wished to see France fail in their attempt of dominance. I feel that throughout the chapter, the ideals of liberty, prosperity and sacrifice are all interrelated because of the people's unselfishness and patriotism to their country. Nationalism is something that I feel was strongly developed throughout this time period. Not only was there situations where one situation prompted nationalism to become well known and understood, but the idea of patriotism to one's nationalism was truly exemplified with the unification of societies, but also armies and country nationals.
The architect, Jean-Francois Therese Chalgrin constructed this beautiful piece of architectural history through times of hardship, and lack luster leadership on the part of the French government. At one point, the project was cancelled, and the Arch of Triumph languished under the restored monarchy of Louis XVIII. With that being said however, the July Revolution of 1830 brought forth the 'Citizen King' Louis Phillipe, and once again restored a wave of enthusiasm to reclaim French glory that was captured by artists like Eugene Delacroix in his LIberty Leading the People.

In my opinion, this not only solidifies a French nationalistic movement, and the idea that the French may never die, and live stronger and prosperously forever, but it also speaks to the libertarian state in which the French people found themselves in. This directly relates back tot he ideas of liberty and life in which was discussed in the readings of this chapter. I feel that Giuseppe Mazzini summed this up best when he stated, "O my brothers, love your country! Our country is our home, our common workshop."
Although in some cases, it may be understood or deemed that democracy may degenerate into extremism, however, the revolutionary spirit is strong within every French and patriotic nationalist.
Another key issue that was touched on in this chapter, and can be exemplified through the construction and process of creating the "Arch of Triumph", was the issue of the Divine- right Monarch. Napoleon was clearly moving towards a godly figure, but at some point entered to far into the realm of which people now deem to be too spiritualistic, and overstepped his boundary possibly?

Ultimately, I found that throughout the readings, and relating closely to my focused area of the "Arch of Triumph", nationalism was truly and inexplicably depicted in the ideals of the French Revolution. By expressing themselves through art and music, this also lead into the romantic movement and a bold new vision of the interrelationship between the natural and the supernatural worlds.

Concept Blog #2

I always like to start off my blogs in kind of a different manner. I think that because this is a more direct reflection of myself, and my process of reasoning, I think of it as a more intimate and personal look into the person I am, and almost in a sense as if we (you being the reader and myself of course), are having a conversation. I think that because this class is not one in which we get the opportunity to make a connection and create relationships, we do so by blogging and sharing our ideas. With that being said, the topic that I decided to expand upon for this component of our semester is the idea of the Social Contract and my thoughts that at one point, this could be adopted into civilization and society, but of course with manipulations and a more general understanding of the gist of the concept.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested an idea in the late 1760’s that at the time may not have sounded as bazaar and totally incomprehensible as it does today. The idea was one in which the general population would rule themselves. Society as a whole would be compelled by one another, and by the inner moral reasoning of one’s self, to act respectfully of others, respect their property, respect the social order, and generally be a law-abiding citizen with only the best and purest intentions in life. Obviously in the society that we find ourselves today, this would not be possible.

I had the opportunity in the previous year to take some political science classes at the university of New Mexico, where I was exposed to the workings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the idea of the Social Contract. With that being said, it is unfortunate but it would not work in our society today. People are too driven by selfishness and their own personal agendas and motivations that in our world today, it is just not something that can be done. We say that we have good intentions and we do have good intentions in society but we don’t. We are driven by our greed and by the opportunity to beat someone else or win something compared to somewhere else. Whereas the entire basis of the Social Contract is as a group and as a society we can come together and maker a difference in the sense that we don’t need the idea of intimidation to behave properly. Rousseau states that it should be human nature to want to help one another and benefit society to provide a better understanding of why we are here on earth, and why we need to help one another. But unfortunately, that will never happen, because the Social Contract realistically isn’t plausible, because of our willingness and ability to hurt someone in the process while winning or beating someone else. Really, the only thing that I think is true in what Jean-Jacques Rousseau was trying to state was the idea of a cohesive group of people that are working towards a certain goal or achieve something in the long run. You can witness this in society today. There are small pockets and small clicks of a Social Contract theory based group, such as sport, political affiliation, racial (ethnic) affiliations, and religious affiliations. These are small social based groups that I think that people could fall into the Social Contract theory, because as I have mentioned earlier, they are working to achieve a certain and common goal. They are working towards the idea of protecting each other and only doing what is beneficial for one another in achieving this goal. The Social Contract’s ultimate goal was to have a self-sustaining life, where there was no necessity for war, and for anger and for stealing; all aspects of life that are not beneficial and productive to life and why we are here. They are all things that take away from the fact that we are here possibly to do something great with our lives and help others. This should make life an easier and more understandable place. However, when you start to add stealing, greed, and the killing of other people to prove a point is not something that contributes positively to the ultimate goal. And this could possibly be true, as you look back and think that this common goal may not be the same for everyone. Not everyone wants to achieve the same things in life, and therefore the Social Contract cannot apply directly to everyone in life. People have different agendas, and that is not saying that one agenda is more productive throughout life than the other, because again, it comes back to personal belief systems and personal moral understanding. I would never want to work my entire life towards something that I have no passion for and something that I do not truly believe in. People are clearly motivated and driven to achieve different things in life, and for Jean-Jacques Rousseau to suggest an idea that we can govern ourselves just with the best intentions possible could never work.

Again, this would never work because when you are compiling and creating this, you cannot take into consideration greed, and the ever-constant opportunity to one-up someone else. As much as we say we may not like it, we as human beings like coming in first place, and like beating other people in competitions. There is no sharing of anything in society today. It is unfortunate, but it is just human nature. Even in the animal kingdom, you do not see tigers sharing their prey with a lion. It is simply a dog-eat-dog world, and I am going to do everything in my power to get there and take that, and unfortunately, you are going to have to stop me. That may sound violent, and that may sound unnecessary, but Rousseau had a very positive perspective and interpretation of what life could be, it just wasn’t possible.

Quickly going back to my time and studies at the University of New Mexico, this theory was a basic building block of many of our conversations in International Affairs, and basic Governmental Operations. It was discussed in the sense that yes, it would save money, and resources, and human manpower; unfortunately it just is not plausible because we are too self-centered. If someone were to get hurt, and it has been showed on TV, and magazines, and in novels, that if you are on a mission and you have an appointment at 12 o’clock, and someone falls deathly ill in front of you at 11:45, 9 out of 10 times you are not going to stop to help that person.

The main reason behind this is because there are just too many opportunities and too many people that want to take advantage of someone’s vulnerability. The idea and the thought that there could possibly be a risk in picking someone up off the side of the road with a broken car, thus looking out for one another has taken a completely different meaning in our society today. Ultimately, you need to look out for yourself because there are too many traps, and too many ploys to contribute to these vulnerabilities that we may have put ourselves in over time but at this point in society and time, it is not a society that we can take the chance of risking our own well being for the unknown. This leads right into the idea of a safety net and the safety mechanism in the sense that people are not secure enough in their abilities to fend for themselves. I think that the Social Contract theory leaves people vulnerable for their kindness, and the idea that we have been conditioned over time to look after ones self, instead of a group as a whole.

I do think however, that the Social Contract theory is effective in those small clicks and groups. You can look at it from the perspective of Police Officers, and Firefighters, and Paramedics (I wouldn’t go as far as to say politicians, because hey, that’s a scary thought) but in these professions, there is an understanding and a willingness to sacrifice your own personal well being for the betterment of a societal whole. You don’t find this in any other profession in my opinion. They are willing to jump into a burning building to save you, however, I will not make this correlation when these officers are off duty. Yes they may have been conditioned over time to take affirmative action, because there is still selfishness tendencies that are within us. And this again is not a choice; it is just within all of us. It is part of us, and our understanding of the world and our lives. It is the way we have grown and developed as a society. We have been told since we were born, that we need to stand up for what we believe and for our rights to be who we are.

Ultimately, I would like to end this blog by saying that yes there are certain aspects of our lives today that abide by certain aspects of the Social Contract Theory and ones in which affect our lives and world positively as a societal whole. I also believe that there is Socially Contracted clicks in our society today. These range from religious, ethnic, and sport related field where these people are willing to protect their own. From a negative perspective, white supremacists are willing to protect one another, and respect one another for the betterment of their own, but not as a societal whole. In sport, there is an understanding of cheating in practice and cheating in certain aspects of development only hurt the team, and yes there are certain aspects of that where greed, and the hunger for self wealth is still present, but there is a bigger and stronger hunger in these social clicks for not hurting the whole, whereas there isn’t that understanding in some regards. There is the lacking of a societal whole, instead of a societal click.

That is the way I would like to end my blog, and at least expand a little on my perspective of Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory and what he was trying to express.

Art Encounter Blog #1

For my very first art Encounters blog, I have decided to select the Sculpture aspect of the Beginners Guide to the Humanities. I believe that throughout the readings we have come across and addressed numerous different examples of Sculptures, so I believe that it is only fitting to discuss this aspect in my very first Art Encounters Blog.


Through reading the assigned chapters and pages in the Beginners Guide, I have grown to better understand and relate to the idea of sculptures, and what it takes in order to thoroughly understand and embrace such pieces of art. You cannot look at the individual piece and see it as a solitary figure and judge it based on what you see. You need to be able to embrace the idea, the motivation and the process in which was taken to create such a symbol to society and history.


Not only should you take the opportunity to walk around and introduce yourself to the piece, but you should also take a better understanding of what went into the creation of this piece, what the sculptor's hands look like, what his building surface resembled, and what his motivation background may have been for the piece.


The sculptor of the piece is Gianlorenzo Bernini. The title of the piece is Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. It was created through the time period of 1646 though 1652. The location in which the sculpture was created in the same area as where he was completing the Bronze Baldachin over the altar in Saint Peter Basilica.


Finally, the sculpture that I decided to critique and elaborate upon, is the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa.It was created by Gianlorenzo Bernini. The structure was created in 1646- 52. Saint Teresa was the Spanish Carmelite nun. She was well respected by the Catholic Church and was seen as one of the most charismatic saints. Ultimately, I think that this sculpture not only provided individuals back in that time period with the idea that there was some holiness and godly expression to the artistic output, but also a sense of profoundness and prophecy that accompanied it. 


In the end, the physical features and details of the sculpture are very flowing and with very detailed facial and cosmetic features. The shape is of two human bodies, one draped over the other almost in a god-like figure. I find it difficult to tell what the sculpture's color is but I would assume a marble texture. The lines of the piece are very smooth and contextual, giving the piece movement and the idea of space as the bodies are stretched length wise.

I think this sculpture is very beautiful and provides viewers from all backgrounds and age groups a feeling of ecstasy and godliness.

Concept Blog #1

As I have read over the instructions and the grading rubric, I think that this concept of posting your ideas to a blog might actually be kind of fun. I have never done this before, so if my blog looks different from everyone else's I apologize in advance.

Throughout time there have always been influential periods and events that shape the fabric of the world and society that we live in today. Through our readings, we have been exposed to ideas from the early Renaissance period, or as it is also known, the Baroque Ages (1600-1715). Throughout this time period, we were exposed to such individuals as William Shakespeare, Galileo, King James I, and Sir. Isaac Newton. We were also exposed to the ideas and accomplishments that they generated over their lives; poetry, inquisitions, theory of gravity. All of these individual accomplishments that many of these individuals we scrutinized for, are now building blocks to the society that we have forged ourselves around today. The life and society as we know it are simply further developments in a life of events and inventions that have already encompassed our development as a society over time.

As interesting as all of these events and historical accomplishments are, I personally have made a close connection and relation to one individual development that I believe has shaped societal norms and extremes in our society for the past thousands of years.

The building and construction of the Palace of Versailles has truly shaped the architectural world around us today. Many may say that Shakespeare, Galileo and Newton may have contributed more to society than simply the building of the monstrosity of a building. But if you take a closer look at the world and society we live in today, I believe that King Louis XIV greatly contributed to the idea that many people base their entire lives off today; bigger is always better. The building of the Palace of Versailles was one in which was based off the idea of expressing to the people of the world, just how majestic and powerful King Louis was at the time. His idea of wealth, power, and influence in the world was truly expressed by his building of the palace. “France was the envy and terror of Europe, its most powerful state and cultural center” (Rogers, P page 25), as deemed by the rest of the world.

In today’s society, this idea of greatness and superiority can still be witnessed by the massive construction projects of residential and business buildings in metropolitan areas, in addition to rural suburbs and residential communities around the world. The basis in which the majority of society bases their wealth and influence today, is through the car they drive, or the square footage that one house may have compared to another, less exclusive house in a poor location. King Louis XIV truly exemplified the meaning of lavish luxury, and sparing no expense. “The expense of the Palace was indeed a concern” (Rogers, P page 25), however, the building progress and the eventual finalization of the building was going to contribute to King Louis’ monarchy, and eventual legacy as a world ruler. Once again, this same justification can be seen in our world today.            

Not only has the world become status driven, but they have also lost the true understanding of what King Louis was trying to accomplish. His motivations as a King was to bring security and prosperity to his people by demonstrating that his people were safe, and were provided for. In today’s society however, people will see themselves go into bankruptcy before they stop spending money to provide themselves with a lifestyle they cannot afford. Ultimately, people today have found themselves trying to live a lavish lifestyle, without fully understanding the repercussions for their actions, and the misfortunes that could come from this.

In the end, society has greatly benefitted from the massive expansive building projects of King Louis XIV, and we to this day still witness the amazing structures and god-like buildings that are being created. These structures were not made in vane or stupidity, but through the belief that they have created one of the greatest structures in all of history. The Empire State Building, the Space Needle, the Great Wall of China, the Opera House in Sydney Australia; all of these individual buildings have a story and a possess a piece of history in them that the entire world has come to acknowledge and enjoy. We live in a society that may see and believe that bigger is always better, however the truth of the matter is, you can make something as small as a pen into something truly spectacular. All you need to do is have the right motivations, and a sense of self-gratitude, because ultimately when you think you have accomplished something that will live on forever, it just might.

Bibliography:

Rogers, Perry McAdow. The Human Spirit: Sources in the Western Humanities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.

Yavapai Roughrider Website

www.goroughriders.com

The specific baseball website is as follows:
http://www.goroughriders.com/index.php/baseball