thank you cory

art in sona

one of the works submitted by my student

descarte' s cogito ergo sum

D. Descartes' Life

* Born 1596 in La Haye, France (now called "Descartes-La Haye")
* Studied classical mathematics, philosophy and theology at La Flèche. Really only interested in mathematics.
* Joined the Dutch army, basically became a musketeer
* Had a dream for a new system for the sciences and philosophy in 1619
* Left the army, did important work in mathematics and science (system of optics, Cartesian axis, etc.)
* Finally got around to writing the Meditations in 1640
* In 1649, Taken to Stockholm at the request of Queen Christina of Sweden, who wanted him to teach her philosophy
* Official story: caught pneumonia, died early the next year
* Unofficial story: got caught up in court intrigue and was assassinated

II. Descartes' Vision for a New Philosophy

A. Wanted a philosophy modeled on mathematics

* All other disciplines full of controversy and uncertainty, yet no one doubts that 2+2=4
* Admired the axiomatic method of Euclidian geometry, where there was a small set of fundamental truths from which everything else is deduced
* Focus on systematic proofs -- like those you had to do in high school -- where you started with a set of premises and carefully proved things using simple deductively valid steps of reasoning. Try to eliminate any possibility of error.
* Thought this would once and for all allow for precision in philosophy and for final certainty to be reached

B. Project of the Meditations

* Realized that he previously had believed a lot of false things. Wanted to "wipe the slate clean", so-to-speak.
* He put it off for so long since it seemed like such a difficult project.
* Meditation One: "Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called Into Doubt"-- "At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of my opinions."
* If there is any doubt to whether something is true, we must throw it out. Certainty of the sort possible in mathematics is only possible by starting with indubitable axioms.
* Once something is thrown out, every belief based upon it would also crumble

III. The First Meditation: Descartes's Flight Into Skepticism

Remember that Descartes wants to throw out anything that isn't certain. So he's looking for something that he can keep -- somethng he cannot doubt. In the first meditation, he seems to alternate between finding problems with his beliefs and finding glimmers of hope. But at the end of the first meditation, the problems win.

First problem: The senses are deceptive. There are optical illusions and hallucinations that trick our senses. If our senses are deceptive at all, we can never trust them completely. Therefore, we have to throw out all sensory knowledge.

First glimmer of hope: But our senses really only deceive us about small and distant things. Certainly something right in front of my face that I can perceive with a number of senses cannot be doubted, e.g., that I'm sitting here next to the fire. Maybe those things I can still believe.

Second problem: But I might be dreaming! Then I might perceive something as being right in front of my face and still be mistaken.

Second glimmer of hope: Even if I'm dreaming, I know that the general kinds of things I experience in my dreams exist. Even the bizarre monsters I experience are just composed of colors and shapes that I experience in daily life. This would mean that some sciences might be mistaken, but that mathematics is still indubitable. After all, the mathematics of triangles doesn't depend on the existence of any particular triangles anywhere... only on the essence of triangles in general.

Third problem: But God is all powerful. God could make it so that I think there is a physical world and things corresponding to the general sorts of objects I experience when there is not. In fact, God could even deceive about the truth of mathematics. Therefore, even these things can be doubted.

Third Glimmer of Hope: But God is supposed to be supremely Good. He would not deceive me, at least not all the time.

Fourth problem: But God might not exist at all. That would only make me less sure that I might not be deceived. What is worse is that instead of God, there might exist an evil genius who does everything he can do deceive me. All my experiences are mere illusions. There is no earth or heavens. I have no body. He makes me think false things about mathematics. In short, he deceives me about everything.

Conclusion of the First Meditation: Descartes has now been reduced to total skepticism. The possibility of an evil genius existing instead of God makes him doubt everything. He has yet to find anything which meets his criteria for knowledge. He gives up for the night, concluding at least that he will spite the evil demon by at least refusing the believe the false things he used to believe.

IV. The Cogito: Descartes' Fundamental Principle (Meditation II)

A. The night before Descartes was lead to utter skepticism, and is now certain only that nothing seems certain.But he has hope that if could find just one indubitable truth to cling to, he might use it as a starting place to discover more. So he starts looking for one. He had assumed that God or an evil genius was the cause of his false experiences. So he asks whether then God or the evil genius must exist in order to cause the illusions. But he concludes that it might be he himself who somehow tricks himself. But then he asks whether then he himself must be something, which leads him to his great discovery.

B. Descartes's famous saying "Cogito ergo sum." (Latin), "Je pense, donc je suis" (French) or "I think, therefore I am." (from the Discourse on Method)

* That "I exist" must be true every time I think it
* It's impossible for me to doubt that I think. It's just incoherent to say "I think I don't think." So I know I'm thinking, and if I'm thinking, there must be a "me" to do the thinking
* This one fundamental principle ("The cogito") can serve as a foundation upon which to arrive at truth

C. But what am I? I know I exist. What is my essence ?

* I used to think I was a "rational animal" or a being with a body that walks around and eats
* But all of this are uncertain. I might not be those things, but even then I would still be me. They cannot be part of my essence.
* I know I exist so long as I am thinking. What am I then, fundamentally? I am a thinking thing (res cogitans).
* I am a mind, something that doubts, understands, affirms, wills, refuses, and also imagines and senses.
* Senses? How can the "mind" sense? Don't sense organs "sense"? If the mind senses, then sensing must be a kind of thinking. Descartes admits this. I might not have any sense organs and all my sense perceptions might be false, but I can't be wrong that I at least seem to see things, that certain images are present in my mind. I can't be wrong about whether or not I have those images, only about whether they represent things outside me. So,.yes, they are like thoughts. And yes, they exist within the mind and not in the sense organs. Sense organs might not even exist!

V. The Wax: Rationalism and Substance

A. At this point, Descartes stops and thinks it's strange that the mysterious self or "I" should be better known and more certain than the things we see and feel every day. How can this be?

B. He decides to take the piece of wax as an example and considers it. What do we know about it, and importantly, how?

* By my senses, I see the color and shape of the wax, I smell its fragrance, I feel its hardness, I hear a noise when I tap it.
* But if I bring the wax close to the fire and it melts, what changes? It's not the same color, shape or size. It doesn't smell the same. It is no longer hard and no longer makes a noise when tapped.
* Now the wax still exists, but none of the attributes it had which I perceived by the senses are the same.
* Descartes' conclusion: The senses only allow us to know the accidental properties of the wax. The wax itself--the thing that exists throughout the changes--the wax as substance, is not something I know by senses. Rather, I know it by my mind or intellect.

C. What does all this mean? Everything we see and touch is most directly grasped by the mind. The mind is needed to perceive anything. So it really isn't so strange that the mind should be better known than ordinary physical things.

D. Of course, I might be wrong. My intellect may be in error. Maybe there is no wax itself, no substance "out there". But that just goes to reiterate that my mind must exist, for even if I am in error, it is me or my mind that is in error.

E. The conclusion: There is nothing better known to me than my mind . Certainly not my body or my sense organs or the attributes perceived by them.

VI. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

A. What we skipped

* Meditation III: Descartes's first proof of God
* Meditation IV: A discussion about whether God could be a deceiver and what is necessary in order to avoid making errors on one's own

B. First of all, why does Descartes want to prove the existence of God at this point?

* The possibility that he is controlled by an evil genius still keeps him from being sure of anything -- the physical world, mathematics
* Even the cogito is uncertain for this reason -- the evil genius might be tricking me (me?) about what seems like the clearest and distinct and most indubitable truths, even about logic itself.
* But if God existed, then since we know God is supremely good, we know that God would not deceive us about the things that we clearly and distinctly perceive or have concluded to be true by careful use of reason
* So we'd better prove that God exists, otherwise we'll always have lingering doubts

C. The Existence / Essence distinction revisted

* Descartes here talks about the idea of a triangle
* Even if there are no triangles "out there in the world", or in Aristotle's term, there are existing traingular substances, there still is an essence or form of triangles
* We can still deduce geometric truths about triangles just based on their essence or their definition. These things about the essence of a triangle would be true even if no triangles existed "out there". After all, we can deduce all sorts of truths about shapes which we've never seen in nature and probably don't exist anywhere in nature. (i.e. a 127 sided figure). The mathematics is still true.

D. The proof of the existence of God


* Descartes has an idea of God. God's essence is being a supremely perfect being.
* What's different is that this makes God's existence inseparable from his essence. A supremely perfect being must have all perfections, and something that doesn't exist lacks the perfection of existing.
* It is as contradictory to think of God without existence as it is to think of a mountain without a valley or a triangle without three sides.
* It might seem at first that we can imagine God as not existing or separate his existence from his essence, but not if we think more about God's essence. We might also at first think that there are right triangles which do not follow the Pythagorean theorem, but if we think about it, we will recognize that this is impossible.

E. Now that God has been proven to exist, Descartes can breathe a sigh of relief. Now, since God is not a deceiver, he can trust any perception he has which is clear and distinct, and he can trust his reasoning about mathematics, etc. There is no evil genius.

F. Problems

1. Problems with the ontological argument

* What is a "supremely perfect being"? Does this make any sense?
* Why is existence a perfection?
* Can we really define things into existence? Personal ad example. Perfect island example.

2. "The Cartesian Circle"

* Descartes wanted to prove that God exists so that he could trust his reasoning
* However, Descartes used reasoning to prove the existence of God
* If the evil genius was truly able to deceive him even about logic itself. then the evil genius could have tricked him about his proof for the existence of God.
* So Descartes's solution to the evil genius problem is circular. He uses reasoning to try to justify his reasoning as sound.
* Did he really have any other options?

VII. The End of Descartes' Skepticism and the Arguments for Dualism

A. Descartes has proven that whatever he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. This means

* While the senses are not to always be trusted, when they are used properly and the ideas that they furnish are clear and distinct enough, they can be a source of knowledge
* In general we can conclude that there are things out there that resemble the ideas we have from sense -- sky, earth, sea
* I also know that there is one physical thing in particular -- the body, which bears a special relation to me as a thinking thing. I cannot be separated from it. I feel certain desires and sensations, pains and hungers and excitements "on its behalf"

B. And in general, if two things are clearly and distinctly perceived to have different natures, they are different substances. This is true of the mind and the body.

* The essence of the mind is that of a thinking thing which is not extended, corporeal or divisible.
* The essence of the body is to be extended, corporeal and divisible.
* As we've seen, one can be known to exist without the other. Therefore, it is possible that they could actually exist independent of one another; hence, they are different substances.
* Still, there is a connection between them. The activities of the brain are especially correlated with the activities of the mind (although they are surely not the same thing!)
* Nerves in our body connect to our brain and when they are "pulled", not only do they cause motion in the brain, but also a sensation in the mind
* Similarly, certain acts of the mind (acts of willing) bring about "swerves" in the mechanics of the body
* This area of Descartes's thought is rather puzzling: How it possible for something immaterial to cause motion in the material world and vice-versa? Descartes doesn't tell us, but suggests it has something to do with the pineal gland.. This is not very helpful. "The problem of mind-brain interaction."

C. Finally, Desartes rids himself of the doubts considering whether he's dreaming. The images of dreams are not clear and distinct like regular experiences. Instead, they involve people appearing and disappearing, no continuity, etc. So my dream experiences are not to be trusted, but my regular experiences, which are not like this, are trustworthy.

chapter 3 philo notes

I. Philosophy after Descartes

A. At first, Cartesian rationalism thrived in philosophy

* Philosophers such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) first made their names by writing responses to Descartes
* Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677): actually wrote in axiom/theorem form
* Gottfried von Leibniz (1646-1716): coinventor of calculus, also held very Cartesian philosophy

B. Especially in Britain, things started to take a more empiricist turn. With the growth of science, there was an increased focus on the nature of observation and use of the senses. This impacted philosophy as well.

C. "British Empricism": usually refers to three major figures

* John Locke (1634-1704)
* George Berkeley (1685-1753)
* David Hume (1711-1776), arguably the most important of the three
* We're going to focus on Berkeley, perhaps because his empricism is the simplest and in some ways the most radical
* But you can't understand Berkeley without first understanding Locke

II. Locke on perception

A. Some things Locke borrows directly from Descartes

* The distinction between two different types of things: mind and matter.
* Minds think, feel and perceive. They are immaterial and unextended.
* Matter does not think, feel or perceive. Its most important trait is physical extension.
* Perceptions, therefore, exist not in physical bodies, but are activities of the mind.
* Throughout the empiricst tradition, the word "idea" is used very broadly: it means anything in the mind, including perceptions, thoughts, feelings, imaginations, memories, etc.

B. General model of perception. Example: flower

* External material object (the flower itself) causes a set of ideas in the mind (the perception/image of the flower)
* The image of the flower resembles the flower itself
* There are certain qualities which are shared by both the image and the object. These are called primary qualities.
* There are certain qualities which only the image really has. These qualities are only ideas. These are called secondary qualities.
* The traditional view was that most or all qualities fall into the first group. Every quality of the image is also a quality of the flower itself: shape, size, texture, color, etc.
* Locke and certain of his contemporaries suggested that this was mistaken, and insisted that many of the attributes of our ideas do not correspond at all to anything "out there", e.g. color is a secondary quality
* Secondary qualities include color, sound, taste, smell, softness/roughness
* Primary qualities include extension (size), figure (shape), motion/rest, solidity, number

III. Berkeley's Life

* Born in 1685 in Kilkenny, Ireland
* Studied at Trinity College, Dublin and eventually joined the faculty. He did most of his philosophical work early in his life.
* While at Trinity, he became an Anglican clergy member
* His lifelong dream was to found a University in the "New World", and Bermuda in particular (Remember that both Ireland and America were then a part of the British empire)
* Got married to Anne Forster and travelled to the Rhode Island colony to raise funds in 1728
* Returned a few years later when the funding fell through. Went back to London and politicked to be appointed bishop.
* Returned to Ireland as Bishop of Cloyne, until right before his death. (He died in Oxford visiting his son.)
* The University of California system remembered his lifelong dream and named their Berkeley campus after him

IV. Berkeley's reaction to Locke

1. Accepted Locke's arguments that secondary qualities are ideas in the mind, but said they could be pushed further

* From our point of view, there is no difference between primary and secondary qualities. Why should we think that extension is any different than color?
* In our ideas, primary qualities are dependent on secondary qualities. In a visual image, size and shape just are certain configurations of color. Why should we suppose that size and shape can exist without color "out there"?
* Conclusion: none of the qualities of our ideas correspond to qualities of external objects. Primary qualities and secondary qualities are both ideas.

2. Ideas cannot resemble things outside the mind.What could it mean to say that a color resembles something unperceivable? What could it mean to say that a feeling of touch resembles something intangible?

3. External objects cannot cause perceptions. How can something inert and material cause an idea in an active, immaterial mind or soul?

4. Without any of that, there is no reason to believe in material substances at all. In fact, the idea of them is incoherent. They are supposed to be matter, and thus substances that don't think, feel or perceive. But they are also supposed to have primary qualities, which are ideas . How can a substance that doesn't think, feel or perceive have ideas?

5. What are we left with? Immaterialism/idealism: the only things that exist are minds/souls and their ideas.

6. What is the flower then? Berkeley doesn't think that the flower doesn't exist. Instead, he thinks that it is just a collection of ideas or perceptions. As he says, Esse est Percipi. "To be is to be perceived." For objects of sense, their being is their being perceived by us.

assignment for my humanities class

present your "own" state of the nation address using art as medium

due on thursday

you can draw, write a paper, poem, song, take pics, make a collage, comics, canvass, paint.... anything.... you can use any canvass

make your own version.... be creative...

UP won..... againts Ateneo.. hehehe

an overzealous UP stud, gushing with joy that UP "finally" won. hehehe. grabeehh....
gumawa ka na ng paper mo

sseayp 2003

i am a proud member of sseayp batch 2003 where i served as the over-all discussion head. this is the video which my batchmates presented at the end of the program.

indonesian choir singing filipino love song

watching this video makes me miss jakarta. i was in jakarta in 2003. indonesians are very much like filipinos. i miss the food and the warmth of the people. i miss singing "rasa sayang".

enrique the malay

The first man to go around the world is always subject to dispute.

Is it Ferdinand Magellan or Sebastian Elcano? Behind these two Europeans, there is a possibility that Enrique was the first man to go around the world. What is even amazing is there is a possibility that Enrique was a Filipino.

Magellan before coming to the Philippines sailed for Portugal. He volunteered for an expedition to the Moluccas, known as Spice Islands. His ship reached Malacca and had he gone hundred more miles north he could have landed in the Philippines that he did years later coming from the opposite direction. Sometime during his stay in Moluccas he picked up a Malay boy who came back with him to Europe. The boy was given the name Enrique and this is just another speculation of mine that this was probably done after the great Portuguese , King Henry, the Navigator (anglicized for Enrique). Magellan left Portugal and persuaded the King of Spain to finance his westward voyage. The rest is history but Magellan was killed in Mactan Island before he could really complete thecircumnavigation of the word. Sebastian Elcano successfully steered the onlyremaining vessel, Victoria back to Seville, Spain. Where did Enrique fitin this historic voyage? He was aboard the ship when it landed in the Philippinesin 1521. He served as Magellan interpreter and even Pigafetta the expedition's historian did not trust him because the way he mingled with the local Filipinos.He was very friendly and spoke the dialects well with the natives. Trade and commerce between these islands as far as Indonesia was already well established.People from the Philippines were already sailing the region. It is very probable that Enrique was visiting Malucca Island when Magellan first came in contact with him . When Magellan discovered the Philippines, it was also Enrique's homecoming. That day should be as marked as the day when the first man went around the world as significant as man landing in the moon. It is only fitting that the first man to accomplice the feat would come from the descendants of the ancient mariners of the Pacific.

(taken from: http://firstcircumnavigator.tripod.com/)

submission by theo van gogh

this is an interesting video made by theo van gogh regarding violence against women in islam. unfortunately, theo van gogh, the director, was shot by a religious fanatic. this is an interesting video for discussion on cultural relativism vis-a-vis universal rights, particularly pertaining to women's rights.

cinema paradiso

i want to watch this again with the class. i hope someone can find a dvd of the film.

cyrano

one of the most romantic scene in the film

artists as revolutionaries

artists are citizens of this country. in fact, artists are often revolutionaries in their own right.
to celebrate the last SONA of GMA i am posting these videos

leonardo da vinci

biography

leonardo da vinci a man before his time 1194



the notebook of leonardo da vinci


Da Vinci\'s Artwork

history presentation

tourism history class presentation






i particularly like the spoof of who wants to be millionaire

renaissance art

The Italian Renaissance was one of the most productive periods in the history of art, with large numbers of outstanding masters to be found in many centers and in all the major fields painting, sculpture, and architecture. In Florence, in the first half of the fifteenth century, there were great innovators in all these fields, whose work marked a beginning of a new era in the history of art. These innovators included Masaccio in painting, Brunelleschi in architecture, and Donatello in sculpture. Their new ideals and methods were systematized in the theoretical writings of their friend and fellow artist Leon Battista Alberti. There can also be observed in this period a change in the social status of the artist. Heretofore, he had been an artisan, a craftsman. Now the attempt was made to include artists among the practitioners of the "liberal arts," which were regarded as being on a higher level than the "mechanical arts." These efforts bore fruit, and some of the great masters, for example, Titian and Michelangelo, by the force of their genius and personality, were able to achieve a measure of status and respect rarely enjoyed by their predecessors. The idea of artistic genius became popular; Michelangelo was called "divine" because of the greatness of his creative powers.

In the Renaissance, art and science were closely connected. Both the artist and the scientist strove for the mastery of the physical world, and the art of painting profited by two fields of study that may be called scientific: anatomy, which made possible a more accurate representation of the human body, and mathematical perspective. Perspective in painting is the rendering on a two- dimensional surface of the illusion of three dimensions. Previous painters had achieved this effect by empirical means, but the discovery of a mathematical method of attaining a three-dimensional impression is attributed to Brunelleschi in about 1420. Henceforth, the method could be systematically studied and explained, and it became one of the chief instruments of artists, especially painters, in their pursuit of reality. Some men were both artists and scientists, notably Leonardo da Vinci and Piero della Francesca. It is doubtful whether they would have understood our distinction between art and science.

mozart

again, as to what is art...

interesting presentation as to what is art

vincent

The 10 Most Expensive Paintings Ever Sold

* $140 million for No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock (2006)
* $137.5 million for Woman III by Willem de Kooning (2006)
* $135 million for Adele Bloch-Bauer I by Gustav Klimt (2006)
* $104 million for Boy with a Pipe by Pablo Picasso (2004)
* $95.2 million for Dora Maar with Cat by Pablo Picasso (2006)
* $82.5 million for Portrait du Dr. Gachet by Vincent van Gogh (1990)
* $78.1 million for Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1990)
* $76.7 million for The Massacre of the Innocents by Paul Rubens (2002)
* $71.5 million for Portrait de L'Artiste sans Barbe by Vincent van Gogh (1998)
* $60.5 million for Rideau, Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne (1999)

"And my aim in my life is to make pictures and drawings, as many and as well as I can; then, at the end of my life, I hope to pass away, looking back with love and tender regret, and thinking, 'Oh, the pictures I might have made!'"


Vincent van Gogh
-
Letter 338 to Theo
-
19 November 1883






Vincent Willem van Gogh (30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890) was a Dutch Post-Impressionist artist. He was a pioneer of Expressionism with enormous influence on 20th century art, especially on the Fauves and German Expressionists. Some of his paintings are now among the world's best known, most popular and expensive works of art.

Van Gogh spent his early adult life working for a firm of art dealers. After a brief period as a teacher, he became a missionary worker in a very poor mining region. He did not begin his career as an artist until he was about 27; however during the last ten years of his life, he produced more than 2,000 pieces, including around 900 paintings and 1,100 drawings and sketches. He worked only with sombre colours until he encountered Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism in Paris. Van Gogh incorporated their brighter colours and style of painting into a uniquely recognizable style, which he had fully developed by the time he spent at Arles, France. Most of his best-known works were produced during his final two years, amid the recurrent bouts of mental illness which led to his eventual suicide at the age of 37.

roman art

the ever dependable wikipedia is always a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art

other notes....

Roman Art

(taken from http://www.ancient-rome.biz/roman-art.html)
The definition 'art of the ancient Rome' is usually used to describe art created in Rome but having no tight cultural connections with the native art of a specific region, being under the reigns of the Empire. The art came into being in the period from the 6th to the end of the 4th century b.c., i.e.till the Empire was divided into the eastern and western part.

Etruscan art


The eldest stage of the development of the ancient Rome's art is associated with the reigns of Etruscan kings. Its heyday lasted until the Gaul's invasion of Rome in 390 b.c.
Romans took over many Etruscan skills connected with architecture and the technique of casting sculptures in bronze. Statues coming from those times were heroes' life-size statues, statues of leaders dressed in togas or armours. Gods' statues were executed in a similar style but the material used was baked clay.
Painting was represented mainly by landscapes portraying conquered cities. They were painted on boards that were carried during triumphal marches.

Greek influence on Roman art


Relevant development of Roman art took place after conquest of Greece, when the capital of the Empire was overwhelmed by great amounts of works of art from those areas. Roman art was born for the second time, this time under the influence of the conquered.

Roman handicraft


Development of Roman handicraft was also influenced by Greek patterns. Production of vessels from clay and silver was connected to a great extent with demands of court and particular bloom of these domains of art took place during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. Vessels were adorned with the relief pattern with mythological and historical motifs. Silver vessels were made from double thin metal. Their internal part was smooth and the external one was embellished with an imprinted pattern.
In Rome clay vessels were most popular. Vessels, chalices, bowls, plates were adorned with convex vegetal or figurative patterns whose main subject was mythology.
Patterns were imprinted on the potter's wheel, on moulds with convex patterns. It was so-called Aretinian ceramics. Ceramics was also produced in provincial areas. It differed from Aretinian ceramics in the kind of clay and technique of workmanship.

Roman painting


Painting from the Empire's times is actually unknown. Some examples of frescoes made in tombs from the 2nd century were preserved as well as a couple of examples of house interiors' adornments from the 3rd century, found in Rome and Ostia. We can state on that basis that two styles dominated: an illusionistic one and a late Roman one. The first one is represented by pictures of figures with landscapes or architectural elements in the background. The second one is represented by figurative painting on the neutral background, outlined in red.

Architecture of Rome


Architecture of the ancient Rome was initially connected with Rome only, later, as a result of numerous conquests, it was spread across almost the whole Europe, Balkans, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Northern Africa.
Roman architecture was formed mostly under the influence of Hellenic and Etruscan architecture. The first Roman temples were erected during the reigns of Etruscan kings. In those times Romans learned how to cast bronze, bake terracotte, they got acquainted with arch constructions and vaults.
Romans owe the Corinthian style to Greeks. But they created the composite style on their own. Romans also invented cement that was produced from lime and volcano ashes, water and fine stones. It allowed them to master the technique of producing mortars and plasters. The skill of baking bricks, learnt in the 2nd century b.c., contributed to a breakthrough in Roman art.
There are roads, aqueducts, sewage installations, bridges, public utility biuldings: curia, basilica, thermaes, circuses preserved from those times. An example of sacral architecture was unpreserved temple of Jupiter the Greatest, built in the Tuscan style.
The time of the Republic was the time of development of town planning and architecture. Towns were surrounded by defensive walls with gates, towers; aqueducts and sewage system had been extended. Rome had been rebuilt. Necropolises arose along the roads. Mausoleums, e.g. Hadrian's Mausoleum and catacombs as well as magnificent palaces were built. Use of domes became more common. Public utility buildings got monumental sizes, e.g. the amphitheatre Coliseum, theatres, Caracalla's thermaes. Triumphal arches started to arise. Stationary military camps were founded on conquered areas which was the beginning of numerous towns.

Roman sculpture


Roman sculpture was born twice. The first stage was shaped by Etruscan influence and the second one was the time connected with takeover of many precious masterpieces after conquests that took place in the 2nd century b.c.
The beginnings of development of Roman sculpture are usually dated the end of the 2nd century b.c. It was produced on demand of magnates collecting works of art. Copies started to be made to satisfy the still growing demand. They reflected the originals more or less truely. Initially copies were made in Greek workshops, later in various towns of Asia Minor, at last in Italy, particularly after discovery of abundant marble deposits in Carrara.
Statues were also copied, the whole groups were made of them, often imitating single figures. Sculptures served mainly as decoration of interiors and gardens.
Decorative sculpture, whose main subject was mythology, arose from imitating Greek sacral sculpture. Copyists did not sign their names on it usually.
Simultaneously to copyists' activity two other streams of sculpture were developing: portrait and historical relief.

Historical relief


The beginnings of historical bas- relief's development are dated the turn of the 2nd and 1st century b.c. They showed events that really took place in the recent past. Creators tried to reflect characters that took part in these events, their real costumes, weapon, gear and surroundings.Characters were shown on many planes. That helped Roman sculpture to develop its main features such as keeping to facts (historisism), narrativity and illusionism.
The fact that god figures were shown at all and often in the foreground, was a kind of contradiction to historisism. They played a propaganda role because they were persuading the audience that persons shown were right and got necessary support. Historical relief started to play a particular propaganda role after Octavian Augustus had taken the power. The way in which Octavian and his family was illustrated was to justify the fact that the power was in his hands, and allow its succession in the future. That is why his merits were exposed and the legend about his divine origin started to be created.
Relief became more picturesque during the rule of Flavian dynasty. Sculptors tried to get rich chiaroscuro and illusion of picture depth. In the times of Trajan bas-relief reverted to classical patterns by using pattern richness of Greek art. Historical bas-reliefs were mostly exposed on bulidings, monuments put up in public places.

Roman portrait


Roman portrait ranges over two groups of sculpture. The first one means depictions of the whole figures, put up in order to honour people of great merit for the country. Casts were made in bronze and posed on public squares, especially on Forum Romanum. Some time later statues made from stone emerged. It was the way in which portraits of historic and legendary characters but also of creator's contemporaries were executed. Characters depicted, although similar to original, were idealized to a large extent.
The second group of portraits were busts. Their form was changing as the time was going by, from head with a part of neck to sculpture containing a considerable part of torso.
This kind of sculpture is believed to come from Roman practice of taking off wax deathmasks that
later started to be copied in stone. Masks were exhibited during funerals and then exposed in houses. Size of such collection was testimony to ancient descent of the family. The privilege of taking off the masks and making ancestors' galleries was given to officials of higher rank. The others, often wealthy citizens or freemen' successors had no such possibilities. Their portraits in the form of busts were placed in Roman necropolises. Characteristic feature of these figures as well as portraits made on the basis of deathmasks is figures' realism, accuracy of features even with some exaggeration in lack of comeliness.

obscenity or art

The Issue: Obscenity and Art: Nudity

(taken from http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/obscenity.html)

In the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "obscenity" was a type of speech not protected by the First Amendment. As with several other narrow categories of speech listed by the Court, obscene expression was undeserving of First Amendment protection because it played "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" and was "of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit ...derived from [it] is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

But what is obscenity? The definition is often in the eye of the beholder. Some people are offended by any depiction of human nudity, while for others, even highly sexual images are a classical form of artistic expression. Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart struggled to come up with a coherent definition of obscenity, declaring in 1964, "I know it when I see it." Since then, the Supreme Court has articulated a more precise terminology, making it clear that nudity alone does not make an image obscene. The Court's 1973 guidelines for defining obscenity, laid out in the case of Miller v. California, are still being used today.* But haziness remains: even now, it is difficult to predict with certainty what material courts will classify as unprotected obscenity, and what they will safeguard as protected speech.

*Under Miller v. California, a work may be adjudged "obscene" only if it meets all of the following criteria:

* the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (exciting lustful thoughts)
* the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
* the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

The Case: The United States of America v. Ten Erotic Paintings

In 1969, U.S. Customs agents in Baltimore seized ten paintings and drawings being shipped from Europe for an exhibition in the United States. The works were part of a much larger collection of erotic art previously shown in museums in Scandinavia. Among the ten pieces were works by Hans Bellmer, George Grosz, Karel Appel, Melle, Cesare Peverelli, and five other works by artists whose identities were unknown.**

The U.S. Customs agents seized the works under the authority of a federal law prohibiting the importation of obscene materials. The paintings and drawings were explicit in their showing of male and female sex organs, sometimes in conjunction or approaching conjunction. Although this case was decided before Miller v. California, the court applied a similar three-part standard as to what constituted obscenity. Despite the explicit sexual content of the works, both the trial court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the works all had artistic value and therefore did not meet the third legal criterion of obscenity.

**The reported decisions only identify the artist (if known) and the type of work of each the ten pieces that were the focus of the case. The above image, if not the specific drawing by Hans Bellmer involved in the case, is very similar in content and theme to other drawings by Bellmer contained in the larger collection.

we are all greeks

(Batista_half-pinoy half-greek)
please click to the link

http://www.webs.csu.edu/~amakedon/articles/GreekCulture.html#Influence

Reasons why not to define art

Art has been an unfettered creativity, hence, to define it is repugnant to the very idea that it is a creative expression.

Art is perceptual. In short, one uses his/her senses to appreciate art. Likeiwse, each creation of art is sui generis ( or a class of its own).

When viewing same object viewers do not see--or in terms of art theory, "read"-- the same images and ideas. Each viewer reads the object differently based upon distillation of experiences, attitudes, and beliefs, and responds accordingly.

Art succeeds over time when it continues to precipitate these individualized interpretative perceptions of viewers beyond the time period of the creator's context.

( compare the two images of Mona Lisa. Which is art?)

defining art

Before anything else, a few words about art. Art has been part of human existence even before mankind decorated the first cave.

Homo sapien has compulsion to create an art for ceremonial, celebratory, religious, decorative and for other reasons.

But really what is Art?
Answer: what would you like it to be?

Artists would reject the need to classify it or respond by saying it is what they say it is.

Hence, if art cannot be defined subjectively or objectively by looking at it, it is equally clear that art is not definable by any particular litmus test.

Broadly, things have been categorized art if 1) they sell 2) creators offer them for sale 3) paradoxically, they are designated as art.

While consensus might be obtained on image that have become veritable archetype as art, like the Mona Lisa, as to just what particular things are to be art and that ought not, things generally are still fuzzy.


Judicial definition

standard use in courts is: I know it when i see it! Some rely on dictionary definition. Still, many rely on subjective definition.

"One man's mural is another's graffiti"

first

this will serve as the blog for my humanities class in PLM. i will be posting the materials required in the class as well as other assignments.