Humanities Homework: Romanticism Blog Post

I would definitely say I am more a product of Romanticism than Enlightenment.  Though there are a few things I can relate to in Enlightenment and things I do not identify myself with in Romanticism, I feel like I see things in life more from a Romantic point of view or perspective. 

One, I see truth is beauty like Romantics do.  I would rather go through my life knowing the truth and finding the real beauty in it rather than choosing beauty over truth, where I would feel manipulated and sheltered from what is really out there.  I think in my life, since I have experienced both sides to Truth vs. Beauty, I have found that it is better to find truth, even if it is ugly or negative and find some beauty in it.

I also relate to Romanticism with the “feeling is thinking” and the “how it feels” concepts or beliefs.  I belief it is a way of finding truth in something and that it is how you focus more on your individual self.  In my life I see my individual self and how I express myself through how I feel and think.  I also think nature ties in here as well.  I have never been a huge nature lover- I don’t like to go on camping trips or hiking miles and miles in the mountains, but I do love to stand in a canyon, or at the beach, and just look at what is around me.  I am a religious person so I feel close to God when I am in nature and get the sense of gratitude and spirit when I am standing in a place that I believe God has created for me. 

I am not a scientific person and it is hard for me to see things from a scientific view, I like to look for the meaning in life’s experiences and things with a deeper, more spiritual view.  I am one to use imagination when anticipating for something. 

Humanities Homework: Enlightenment Blog Post

Marriages and how they stand today have made a very large impact in the marriage society.  With half of all of marriages in the United States ending in divorce, it is not surprising that many people do not take marriage seriously or see it as a top priority and positive step in life.  Most problems that affect marriages today have a lot to do with money, independence, habits, and communication.  Though arranged marriages are not common in the US today like Hogarth’s series show, actually arranging how a marriage will work out is very popular these days.  Many couples will decide to experiment how their marriage will work out by living together first.  Many have lawyers and plans ready so if they decide marriage isn’t worth it, they will have a fair share what of “what’s mine and what’s yours.” 

Another problem we see is financial stability.  Though people still marry for money and wealth, there are a lot of very successful men and women who are independent and can rely on themselves for financial stability, many of a mindset that they do not need anyone else when they have a nice place, a nice job, and make enough money to provide for just them, so why share or change that?  I think if I were to come up with a series to represent today’s marriages, it would be a little similar to Hogarth’s, just with different circumstances.  I would start with a couple who is preparing to “experiment” living together before getting married sitting down with their attorneys, making a plan and deciding how to split things if their living situation doesn’t work out.  I would then show the two in their home together, looking satisfied and content.  The next picture would probably be them becoming aggravated or no longer interested in each other, maybe a fight happens because of unfaithfulness or financial problem, and last, I would show them moving on and going their separate ways. 

I think this relates to Hogarth’s in the way of the somewhat “corrupt” marriage, it is arranged, just in a more modern way.  Something happens where they become distanced from their partner because of an affair or other disagreement and then move on with their lives.  Because Hogarth’s shows murder and a marriage based off money, today’s marriage would not be able to relate to it.

Humanities Homework: Baroque Blog Post

Bernini’s interpretation of the David sculpture is almost like an “in-between” when compared to Michelangelo and Donatello’s David’s.   Though this may not be entirely true, you could think of Michelangelo’s sculpture being before David killed the giant, Bernini’s being during, and Donatello’s being after the giant had been killed.  As I mentioned before in my last blog post, the David’s were considered a posed, plain, passionate, and structured piece of art.  They were very defined in the human form, something common during the Renaissance Era. 

Bernini’s sculpture on the other hand, was almost the complete opposite.  Just like we had defined about the Baroque Era, this sculpture is very “candid.”  David is completely un-posed, in-action, and has the in-the-moment look and feel to him.  His action, in my opinion, brings upon a sense of emotional and physical inspiration.  You don’t look at Bernini’s David the same way you look at Michelangelo’s and Donatello’s.  With their David’s, it is easy to want to sit and study and contemplate its meaning and beauty- which is what the Renaissance did.  A lot of the belief in God was through the mind; creation, beauty, and thought.

The Baroque Era brought a new view in how to get to God.  They brought upon more direct ideas through emotion, body, and faith.  I think Bernini’s sculpture of David shows all of this in the way he formed it.  This illustrates the Baroque error in all of this; his un-posed and in-action portrays the candid shot, which illustrates the type of naturalism the people in the Baroque Period painted and sculpted.  There are also many diagonal lines that are easy to spot with they way his body is sculpted.

Humanities Homework: Renaissance Blog Post

Michelangelo and Donatello’s David sculptures differ in many ways.  First, I do agree that Michelangelo’s was Apollonian and Donatello’s Passionate Individualistic.  You can see the difference in the form that each was sculpted; Michelangelo’s has a very objective view and definition to it; the plainness and simplicity of it, made of marble, and built so David’s stance is fearless and bold.  He sculpted David to look at ease, with the sling over his shoulder and looking outward, with no obvious sign whether it was depicting the before or after he killed the giant.  This sculpture is also more of a mature man, very God-like with a very distinct and “perfect” form of the human body.

 Donatello’s on the other hand, has the passionate look to it.  Sculpted with bronze instead of marble, Donatello’s David is more of a young peasant boy.  Though both pieces are very detailed, this David is smoother in the way of his stance, how he is holding a sword looking down at the giant’s head at his feet, with his head down, showing that he obviously had already killed the giant.  Another difference is Michelangelo’s David has the tree at his feet for stability, bare foot and naked, where Donatello’s David has boots and a hat on, but is naked; and though there is a time difference between when these two pieces were made that could explain the reasoning to it, you still wonder what the significance to that is.

There are a few ways that these models reflect the Renaissance World View.  With this time being the “rebirth” you can see the new and difference techniques used in these sculptures.  When I googled these sculptures, many pictures came up of each in different angles, which I think reflects the Renaissance.  It shows that they were sculpting these to look more life-like from every angle possible.  There is also a lot of blending with math and science, the size and shape of the figure with the anatomy side of it as well. 

Humanities Homework: Medieval Blog Post

The Cathedral starts out by the narrator introducing a blind man who is coming to stay with him and his wife. The way he describes this visit has no excitement in it whatsoever. He tells the story how his wife and the blind man met year before, and how they had always kept in touch. He seems bitter and jealous about the blind man coming to stay at his home; a stranger, who he has only heard of from his wife, who is blind. His stereotype of this blind man was very generalized, and he liked to joke about it in a very dry, sarcastic way, that was funny to his wife. He could see that his wife was very tense about her friend coming, she wanted everything to be perfect and that made the narrator jealous. He didn’t seem happy with his life, he didn’t seem totally in love with his wife and listening to her get excited about her friend coming wasn’t helping.

When Robert, the blind man, finally comes he becomes very skeptical. How was this blind man normal? Throughout the story, he slowly becomes comfortable with Robert, finding out that they have a lot in common. He slowly begins to see that Robert was just like any other human being.

Another view of a person that changed for the narrator was his wife. I think he came to the realization that he didn’t know a lot about her. She was almost a totally different person when Robert came, and he learned that he seemed to know more about her than he did, and I think that also brought upon a lot of bitterness and jealousy about Robert.

 Robert and the narrator are different in many ways, especially in the way they view things. The narrator is really negative and selfish, where Robert views things on a more positive and free spirited level. The narrator is very stubborn, he feels that what he already knows in life is good enough for him, where Robert, who is much older, still strives to learn whatever he can.

A very distinct similarity between the two characters is that there is a sense of loneliness. The narrator is too laid back, he doesn’t see outside his little world that is all about him. He loneliness is more of a mental loneliness. He doesn’t seem to have the best relationship with his wife, which he mentions when he says that they rarely go to bed at the same time, and that he always sits by himself to smoke and drink late at night. The blind man is also alone, but in a more physical way. His wife has passed away, and all he has left is his blind old self.

The narrator and the blind man truly connect at the end of the story, when a TV program comes on about cathedrals. When Robert asks him to describe what the cathedral looks like, the narrator is able to step into his shoes, and view a world where everything comes from your own image. There was such beauty and significant detail in describing to Robert what a cathedral looked like, and then for them to draw it together with no sight. I think the narrator got a sense of joy here, he felt alive though he could not see with his eyes close. He saw the world as Robert saw it, with beautiful and significant detail. It also portrayed the darkness’s both felt in their life. Robert’s world was literally dark, and the narrator’s was dark in the sense that he had no passion for anything; he was alone and had a dark and cold soul. Comparing that to cathedrals, they have a dark sense to them. But they are also so beautifully built that you can’t help but see the beauty in the dark, cold, and empty feeling you have about them.

Humanities Homework: Greece Blog Post

     I really liked The Charioteer of Delphi statue (page 110 in The Art of Being Human).  I liked the description the book gives it, “it shows that classical Greek artists did indeed imitate real people.”  It also talks about the young man being without flaws, that he was a chariot driver, not a god.  He was human.  I think that brings great significance to this piece, we are able to see the vision of a perfect human form in Greek times instead of a God or other perfect being to be compared too.  The sculpture is very detailed in human form, and I think that showing that great of detail proves the artist knew a lot about the human body and structure, which had to have been a great knowledge to have, when compared to today knowing we are still learning more and more about the human body. 

     I think it serves a few purposes.  One, it shows real human structure, a real person.  And that itself shows significance.  Two, it proves the understanding the Greeks had about the human body was very detailed and precise, and three, it shows the endurance of a charioteer; A young, strong, victorious, and self- disciplined man of Greece.  His emotion is serious and in deep thought, just like when one faces a crowd and has to put on a so called, “brave face.”  I think it connects to my world view, and the world today in the way of how we view human nature and the journey that goes along with it.  Young adults have to stand in the face of a “crowd” (the world), they must choose how to be strong and self- disciplined in today’s society.  Society today has put a lot of pressure of people to look like the “perfect human,” to have the perfect body and perfect life, etc.  We have to choose how to face and deal with that type of pressure, either to turn and shy away, or to stand and face it and reach to be victorious, just like a charioteer.

Humanities Homework: Happiness Blogpost

Question #6: Which theory in your opinion is most helpful to the world and which is least?

                I think Aristotle’s theory on happiness is most helpful to the world today.  He believed happiness was the purpose for which we lived, that it wasn’t a moment-to-moment experience.  It was living and having lived a good life.  If one decides what makes life good, including the highest possible of good, then that leaves nothing else to be desired.  I see that statement as once you learn how to be happy, you won’t accept anything that would make you feel anything less.  Many people in this world today think that if they experience one small moment of sadness or despair, their life has lost all hope of happiness, which isn’t true.  Aristotle also reasons his theory with reason and virtue, how we can best live.  According to this theory, life is good for one who is good. In other words, a good life is a happy life; but not terms of feeling happiness or joy, but life was full enough to meet one’s pleasure or needs to make life feel whole. And in order to do that, the decisions you make now, in the present will be the result of it, because you cannot undo what you decided in the past. It’s what can you do now to feel as if that is the right way to be happy. 

                The theory that I think is least helpful to the world today is stoicism.  Though stoicism has a “coping” and/or “rationalization” trait to it, I don’t think that is something that would help the world function in a positive way.  I think that there is always something you can do that change your state of mind or where your life is now, but you have to work for it.  It isn’t going to be handed to you on a silver platter when you are at your lowest.  Stoicism is to accept one’s fate, but if they are in a place where they believe coping is doing nothing, they rationalize it and think that happiness won’t come unless it just happens to suddenly appear.