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.