A so called “scientific focusing” technique was promoted, which imitated the way the eye perceives a scene: sharply focused on the main subject, with the foreground and the background slightly out of focus. Although as Alex described Emerson later became convinced that photography was not an art form at all but only “a handmaiden to science and art”, his earlier ideas had already influenced a new generation of photographers who no longer felt the need to imitate painting but began to explore photography as an art form of its own
Since these creators are the source of the idolization of nature, she writes to them in order to reverse their misconception. Oates realizes that their subject is not the authentic force, but rather one that was handed endless meaning by artisans. She addresses them mockingly, utilizing rhetorical questions as a way to aggravate their thought process. Including herself in the audience of authors, she toys with the image of authors and jokes that the reason they write so profusely on nature is that “...we must, we’re writers, poets, mystics (of a sort) aren’t we, precisely what else are we to do but glamorize and romanticize and generally exaggerate the significance of anything we focus the white heat of our “creativity” upon?” (Oates 226). Through this query, Oates succeeds in reminding her audience of both their need to give significance to meaningless subject matter and that nature falls into the former category.
In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s famous speech, “The American Scholar,” Emerson proposes the provocative argument that in order for one to be a great thinker and not just be a mere mocker of societies words, one can not worship nor be inspired by another one’s own words. As someone who loves and moreover finds purpose through music, reading as well as processing such an argument against what I believe in is quite disheartening. Whilst describing his ideal characteristics of a scholar as well as just the average joe, Emerson explains, “One must be an inventor to read well” (9 Emerson). Words alone can not do much, it takes an intelligent mind as well as an “inventor” to make something of these phrases presented to us. It takes a different kind of scholar
Out of the four Nathaniel Hawthorne stories we’ve read The Birthmark is my personal favorite, while My Kinsman Major Molineux is my least favorite. Both stories are different allegories for subjects that Hawthorne cared about. The Birthmark criticized the desire for perfection in your own way instead of appreciating something for its flaws. This message is one that the world needs to understand, but never will because of other people’s opinions. My Kinsman Major Molineux criticized England’s rule over America during the revolution, something that has no real value outside of that time-period.
She uses her own generational culture and her own beliefs of the current generation to try to support her claim, but she does not provide, and possibly cannot provide any factual evidence since her argument is merely a form of opinion. In my opinion, her written piece is an ideological critique which says that if you are intentionally trying to look a certain way from a past generation then you are ironically living. She even implies that using “pre-wash” filters for photos, is ironic and possibly insincere. I agree with some of the points made, but she is painting this generation with a broad paintbrush. Would be fair to claim that her generation were also ironic hipsters?
David Abram’s book, “The Spell of the Sensuous” is an exploration of the relationship between humans and the Earth. His philosophical viewpoints are biased, which gives the reader room for interpretation and argumentation. In an unknown author’s analyses of this piece, he/she firmly agrees with Abram’s “strong denunciation of the Western worldview” (1), but rejects Abram’s negative views about the hard sciences, and proposes strong arguments for each of those perspectives. The author’s thesis, although intricate and lengthy, effectively portrays the arguments he/she presents in his/her essay. In the first part of the author’s thesis, he/she thoroughly walks the reader through each reason he/she agrees with Abram’s denunciation of Western views; the author believes that it is more than acceptable in the Western culture to disrespect nature and other people.
The Still Life could be interpreted as pure genius and an interesting and realistic view on life, or could be seen as boring and uncreative. Pieter Claesz was special, he added extra meaning to the paintings, not just leaving it as what you see is what you get, but making viewers use their brains to figure out what it’s supposed to mean, which is a great thing, as a common complaint of Still Life is that artists often don’t provide any sort of hidden meaning. If any sort of complaint were to be made of this painting, it would be that it’s perhaps a bit lacking, only one point of interest and that he’s used the same point of interest over and over again, it’s colors are uninteresting, which is different from his earlier work, and that a lot of the objects visible are unfamiliar to people of today’s age, although that is not the fault of the
Sherman sought to force the public to question the seductive and often oppressive influence of mass-media over our individual and collective identities. Sexual desire and domination, the fashioning of self-identity as mass deception, these are among the unsettling subjects lying behind Sherman's extensive series of self-portraiture in various guises. Despite not aligning herself directly with feminism Sherman does conclude her work is, in fact, feminist. The work is what it is and hopefully, it's seen as feminist work or feminist-advised work, but I'm not going to go around espousing theoretical bullshit about feminist stuff. The portrayal of women is a central theme throughout Sherman's career and can still be seen in her more recent works.
Those included Lin herself, artists, and architects of the memorial. Architects from the Architects Fight Additions Journal argue “The additions, which treat the original work of art as no more than an architectural backdrop, reflect an insensitivity to the design 's subtle spatial eloquence”(AIA Journal, 1982). The architects were, in a sense, arguing that any additions would destroy the original thought and meaning of the sculpture. It was created with a specific purpose and had a specific design but adding additional sculptures would take away from the intensity and original
“Without protest, she takes on the euphemisms used to label the artificially created humans and to describe, or avoid describing, their fate” (Groes 108). She chooses specific moments of her life and narrates it with her own justification, which makes the novel frustrating to read. Though Kathy tries to hide this through her narrative, the reader still understands how unjust the program of clones really is. The existence of human duplicates serves the sole purpose of carrying organs. It is hard to relate to Kathy’s acceptance of her existence, since the story is based on injustice.