With respect to the central message it shows she cannot trust the reliable reputation of Othello. As it is looked into more, the audience did not expect Othello to become evil. He is dynamic with the expectations of learning from his mistakes and becoming a better person. The audience did not see show evil within him until the story progressed more towards the end. Shakespeare is trying to drive into the audience once again the characters and people in life with respect to the central message may not be as they appear.
This has challenged a lot of people as they have not been faced with these sorts of challenges of experiencing a concealed object before in the timeframe given. Most of us have to settle for the photographs the artist has taken to document the event. The artwork is ‘experiential’ because the artwork would leave the audience with intense and memorable experiences. The artwork challenges them to remember what the object originally looked like before it was concealed, changing their impressions of the object in the process.Christo and Jeanne-Claude 's art interventions changed the way we see the physical form of the site as the viewers start to appreciate their ‘formal, energetic, and volumetric qualities’. They also
In “T.E. Hulme and the Question of Modernism”, several writers, amongst whom are Todd Avery and Rebecca Beasley, attempt to tackle this question. After all, “modernism is unintelligible now because it had truck with a modernity not yet fully in place” (14). What this implies is that modernism cannot be fully grasped nowadays because even the modernists themselves did not and could not know what the future they desired to shape for themselves would be like. They toyed with modernity in a world that was not yet modern, causing their art to be created from a perspective no person will ever see again.
Religion is not supposed to be like a vending machine where you go, put in your request, and get something in return, but that is how these characters and many real people treat it. This shows another misuse of religion by showing a one-sided relationship where only the people get their desires. After arriving to see the angel, many were disappointed because the "consolation miracles, which were more like mocking fun, had already ruined the angel 's reputation" (3). Instead of being amazed the miracles were taking place, the people are disappointed that their desires are not being granted. These people do not come for religious purposes, they come to have their personal desires granted.
Douglas Adams uses many different techniques to make this character comedic and absurd at the same time. Many readers would think that Arthur Dent becomes the hero in the end and saves the universe. This however is the complete opposite of what he accomplishes. Arthur is not the type of character who would do something to benefit others. He is very blunt about difficult situations.
The use of personification here exaggerates Orsino 's devotion to Olivia which she apparently doesn 't appreciate. He implies his existence expelled a constant love for her that came out with ease due to its surplus, however, Olivia failed to be grateful for such. This idea is further exemplified by his repetitive rhetorical questions reflecting his disbelief. The start of the scene is structured in a stichomythia format which indicates the build up of Orsino 's loss of patience. Shakespeare encorporates this to build momentum as Orsino 's emotions toward Olivia transition into resentment.
Because he feels like he is not getting the appreciation or recognition that he deserves Ralph leaves the game in the hopes of becoming a hero elsewhere. However, without Ralph in the game it is unplayable, which places all the other characters at risk of being unplugged. Sometimes it can feel like what we do is meaningless or insignificant until we learn to see the bigger picture and realize how valuable our contributions really are. This movie teaches us that our jobs do not have to define us and even if we cannot all be the hero it doesn’t mean what we do is not
He then wastes no time in finding personal ties to this event through his family, which shortly thereafter, he states his main argument. Although this use of pathos in the opening is quite enticing, Milbank does not support it properly throughout the piece. As mentioned earlier, he states that the fight for apartheid to end, gay to have protected rights, and environmentalism to be more care for are not really powerful movements in society, though as seen in recent years, many people can beg to differ. Of course, if Milbank had made such a statement with sufficient evidence, it might have had a chance to win the reader over; however, he hardly scratches the surface of any possible evidence that could have been used, which makes this statement seem more like a shallow insult than just a simple criticism. Also, this lack of evidence makes the reader question Milbank’s legitimacy pertaining to this issue, as it begs the question: Does Milbank really know how much sacrifice went into these merely “noble” movements?
By this he means that ‘art’ does not want to be accessible only to a few “highly cultivated men” but instead also to ordinary people, like the people in the audience. By using words such as “cheerful freedom”, “open-heartedness” and “reality” in contrast with “sickens”, “selfishness” and “luxury” he creates the sense that the bad things happen because of the limitation of art and that the better things will come if only people learn to enjoy art. He then says that if art has a limit he “does not wish her to live” which is a strong exaggerated statement and was made to convince the audience of his argument. Morris relates “an honest artist” not sharing his work with “a rich man” who eats food in front of starving soldiers, this could also be interpreted as an exaggeration and might have been so by part of the audience, however the use of imagery would have added to his conviction. He ends his lecture on a powerful note, “I do not want art for a few, any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few”, by using the repetition and relating art to education and freedom he heightens the importance of art in the eyes of the audience as a final technique to persuade
The group of people who said no tried to prove their arguments by saying that the subject choosen wasn 't original, that art and interpretation have a limit and they even use a controversial interview of Andy Warhol as the final proof. In this interview he aswered a question about why he represented common items in his artwork: “Uh yes, because is not original it is easier to do [and] gives me something to do” (Modern Masters, Andy Warhol), a strange reply that make many people think that his art was just a way to get money. Instead the group of people who said yes said that it is the idea that counts in a artwork, not the skills and the medium used to make