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.