What are the two principle demands for artefact in Italy between 1300 Essay

What are the two principle demands for artefact in Italy between 1300 and 1600 - Essay Example Between 1300-1600 years, Italy was influenced by economic and social changes which had a great impact on social values and traditions, tastes and preferences. The demand for art was caused by different factors including wealth accumulation and the role of religion in everyday life. The principle demands for artifacts in Italy were increasing role of religion and church in life of citizens and new consumption patterns caused by accumulation of wealth and financial prosperity.The demand for a religious art was caused by increasing role of church and religion in life of the state. The supreme task of church art was to serve the liturgy. Hence church art was determined by a particular purpose. The building and furnishing of the House of God were subordinate to that purpose. This subordination was the very reverse of a restriction or hampering of creative power. It was not so much a matter of subordination as of integration into the great reality of God's dealings with man. Images in chur ch were meant to be at the service of the preaching of the faith. This immensely high task required the artist to submit his creative action to the judgment of the word of God. His uncontrolled subjectivity and creative fantasy had to be disciplined by faith. Since he was being called to be a witness to the truth through his work, he did not regard it as a restriction of his freedom when the Church exercised her pastoral office and refused to have images inside the church which contradicted truths of faith. This ordinance was not concerned with aesthetic questions of style and form. In these, so long as no offense was offered to the dignity and holiness of the faith, the artist was free. The Church's preaching, whose task was to declare and explain it, had to conform to this same order. Hence it had to be the measure of the making of images. No indifference could attach to the question of what was displayed in a church, nor to that of where the emphasis was placed in the choice of t hemes (Nanert, 2006). In Italy, literary texts were essential for understanding the devotional trends, and the art of the era was likewise a rich source of information. This was particularly true of panel painting, in which the artist was free to incorporate a wide variety of primary and secondary motifs. The painting of the fifteenth century, for example, was well known for its elaborate symbolism: not only conventional details such as saints' attributes but also specific vestments worn by angels could hold symbolic value (Nanert, 2006). The painter of an annunciation scene, for example, could draw upon several kinds of symbolic and expressive vocabulary: nuances of emotion might be conveyed in the Virgin's facial expression and posture; the painter might suggest linkage between the Old and New Testaments by showing Mary with a Bible open to a prophetic text; an anachronistic portrait of Jesus might hang on the wall behind his mother-to-be; Trinitarian theology could be expressed by showing the Father ho vering above the scene, while the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove winged its way from the Father to the Virgin along a beam of celestial light; and the artist might use flowers, candles, and other objects for their established symbolic value. "Liturgical utensils, accessories, and furnishings constituted a distinct category of these goods that satisfied a steady demand generated by religious needs, and Italian products enjoyed great success in markets abroad" (Goldthwaite 1995,p. 9). Panel painting was increasingly used to represent narrative scenes as well as static portraits (or icons): scenes from the life of Christ, the legend of the Virgin, and legends of the saints were favorite narrative motifs. The accumulation of symbolic, iconic, and narrative elements reached its fullest development as individual

The Man at the Well Essay Example for Free

The Man at the Well Essay Some say it’s not what we do but what we don’t do that can truly define who we are. In the tenth chapter, â€Å"The Man at the Well†, from Tim O’Brien’s memoir, If I die in a Combat Zone, O’Brien manages to portray one of the most powerful messages throughout his entire journey. It’s about American ignorance, the inability to help those in need, the true meaning of humanity and whether we, as a population, are capable to break down barriers and walls that we, ourselves, have constructed. â€Å"A blustery and stupid soldier, blond hair and big belly, picked up a carton of milk and from fifteen feet away hurled it, for no reason, aiming at the old man and striking him flush in the face. The carton burst. Milk sprayed into the old man’s cataracts. He hunched foreword, rocking precariously and searching for his balance. He dropped his bucket. His hands went to his eyes then dropped loosely to his thighs. His blind gaze was fixed straight ahead, at the stupid soldier’s feet† (Page 100). O’Brien’s language it’s purposefully proposed and constructed to paint one of the most vivid images in the whole memoir. He creates a scene which the reader’s innovative mind engulfs and produces it into one of the most captivating and heart wrenching pictures easily shown like a movie in our own heads. His undeniable choice of descriptive words can’t help but have the effect of a film-like image flowing through the reader’s imagination. O’Brien uses this carefully disguised writing technique to ultimately grasp the hearts of his followers and use their sacrificing vulnerability to engrave a philosophical idea in their minds such as humanity’s opinion of right and wrong. â€Å"The Man at the Well† produces a foundation of shame and disbelief to think that a human being, an American soldier who is looked up to by children, Vietnamese and American, can fabricate such a hurtful scene. The audacity to even act out the horror and hate is appalling to any reader it makes he or she question the motives of several American soldiers and whether or not their morals are politically correct. It is a fine line between what is right and wrong there is little gray in a situation such as this. It’s clear the anecdote was an act of hatred. There was no question to whether the ignorance of the â€Å"stupid soldier† was right it was far past right. However why then, did no one do or say anything? Instead an audience watched as a man, a blind and elderly man, who voluntarily was helping them, suffered from one man’s intolerable actions. People are afraid and that fear creates a boundary. It changes people’s beliefs and ideas one thought always to be right and those ideas could change in an instance with the doubt fear carries. People come to a crossroads in their lives; where what they once thought their morals were, what they once thought they would stand up for is no longer because fear created a wall a wall that is unbearable to take down. It is a wall built in front of different people however sharing a common sense of right and wrong. These people cannot see past their own selfish fear to solve a crisis outside of themselves. If just a few attempted to demolish this imaginary roadblock the outcome could be greatly beneficial, however, it’s impossible to achieve unless people step outside of themselves and into a world they desire. The chapter argues one’s sense of humanity and the pressure that people feel and sometimes are burdened by. However, O’Brien places himself, as an author, in a position which he attempts to break down the wall. He asks you, â€Å"What is and what is not right? What are you going to do? Stand there and watch? Or are you going to do something about it?† I found the section powerful, moving and inspirational, and even more so if those who did answer his underlying questions, answered with an optimistic, â€Å"yes we can do this† point of view.

Contrast The Representation Of Friday In Foe And Robinson Crusoe English Literature Essay

Contrast The Representation Of Friday In Foe And Robinson Crusoe English Literature Essay According to G Scott Bishop, it is important to read post-colonial literature in English, and see the reactions to the discussion of colonialism held by the English, as they reflect the way our historical actions created the world. Taking the plot of the father of the novel (Judith Hawley, spoken, 7th October 2010), and a novel focussed around colonialism, Robinson Crusoe, the post-colonial Foe deconstructs it to expose the lies and injustices that are seen in Robinson Crusoe, but never challenged. The change in cultural norms, from Britain in 1719 to South Africa in 1986 has been vast, and the challenging differences between the two novels purported to tell the same story is shocking. The central point of these differences is not, as some would suggest, Susan Barton, the interloper character, and female narrator, but more Friday, a character who is the same across the books, and yet incredibly different. Defoe used Friday to explore themes of religion, slavery and subjugation, all o f which were supposed to a natural state of being at that time in history, and Coetzee uses him to explore more strongly themes of slavery, black identity, and the voice of the oppressed. In neither book is Friday left simply to be a character, he is instead always used as a device through which the reader can explore other topics. Your master says the slavers cut [your tongue] out; but I have never heard of such a practiceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Is it the truth that your master cut it out himself and blamed the slavers? (Coetzee, J.M, Foe.) The fact that this question is never answered, and that all attempts to force Friday to communicate fail drastically leave the reader wondering whether the slavers that captured Friday removed his tongue, or whether that was done by the colonialist Cruso, who felt there was no need of a great stock of words, (Coetzee, J.M, Foe). This contrasts vastly with Defoes Crusoe, who said I began to keep my journal; of which I shall here give you the copy (though in it will be told all these particulars over again) as long as it lasted; for having no more ink, I was forced to leave it off. This implies clearly that Defoes Crusoe gave a lot more care and interest to language than Coetzees Cruso. Defoes Crusoe, much as he appreciated journaling in his own language whilst alone, also took pleasure in teaching Friday to speak, In a little time I began to speak to him; and teach him to speak to meà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ I likewise taught him to say Master; and then let him know that was to be my name: I likewise taught him to say Yes and No and to know the meaning of them. Defoes Crusoe was certainly concerned with language, but never investigated the language that was Fridays own, erasing Fridays history by naming him, and teaching him English. In this way, he could only voice the thoughts that Crusoe had given him language to speak. This was challenged by the voiceless Friday in Coetzees work, a character who literally couldnt speak. In this, it could be argued that Coetzee was asserting that it was not his right to give voice to an oppressed black character, and let Friday stand for the victims of apartheid and slavery, where Defoe (due to the beliefs of society at his time) believed that it was right and natural for Crusoe to claim the position of Master to Friday, and to speak for him. Hearing the voice of the ethnic minorities in both Foe and Robinson Crusoe is important, but so is acknowledging their different racial identities. Friday in Foes work, in standing for the victims of apartheid and slavery, is a black African character he was black, negro, with a head of fuzzy wool (Coetzees Foe), whereas Crusoes Friday, not standing for those causes, is portrayed as being an anglicised version of a Caribbean man, who had all the sweetness and softness of a European in his countenance. This implies that Friday was somehow better than the average Caribbean tribesman by dint of looking somewhat European, but at the same time, the first language Crusoe taught him was that he was his master. He was an improvement on the average savage, since his appearance was somewhat European, but still his race left him to be the natural servant of Crusoe. This Friday is very much a dramatic device used to portray Crusoes development as a religious man; [Crusoe] began to instruct him [ Friday] in the knowledge of the true God. This allowed Defoe to expand on Crusoes earlier mentions of religion, in his conversion, and in the hegemony of the time, caused Crusoe to be seen as a good and moral character, who treated his slave well, and brought him up to be religious (McInelly Colonialism, the novel and Robinson Crusoe). In Coetzees work, Friday is allowed to be sullen and unpleasant, easy to see, but hard to like, he is created to be the embodiment of all the oppression experienced by a racial group, to only be able to take in, never to give out ideas or understanding, to be central to a story he can have no part in. The silence of Coetzees Friday could also be said to reflect the reader, who, like Friday can only react and respond to situations. Katherine Wagner however argues against this, saying that criticism and silence are mutually exclusive terms. Coetzees Friday can only be silenced, but Defoes Friday has no room to criticise, and no part in making decisions for Crusoe, because in that time, a slave wouldnt have that option at all, Coetzees Friday can take no part, being unable to speak. His isolation and treatment as second class is made far more visible by his disability, a device Coetzee used to avoid speaking the black voice, as a privileged white man, whilst still drawing attention to the plight of slaves. Crusoe, Cruso and Barton were all seen to treat Friday very differently, but all see him as a possession in their own way. Crusoe did this most blatantly, in claiming, naming Friday and instructing him to call him Master, with Defoes Friday being portrayed as making signs of subjection, servitude, and submission to Crusoe without even any bidding. This added to the moral message of Robinson Crusoe, because it showed the savage being tamed, and later taught religion. This contrasts strongly with the Cruso created by Coetzee, who was sullen (J M Coetzee, Foe) in his service, who obeyed Cruso, but did not have the childish excitement or comically expressed pidgin (Chris Boignes, Lost in a maze of doubtin) portrayed in places by Defoe. Barton also claimed him, despite trying to treat him as an individual if Friday is not mine to set free, whose is he (J M Coetzee, Foe), and on some level saw him clearly as her property, forgetting that maybe it was not her right to set him free either. ( Chris Boignes, Lost in a maze of doubtin). The representation of Friday in these two texts is vastly different, and one could hardly believe that the two were in fact the same character. With different histories, and different personalities, in fact all both have in common is playing the role of the non-white slave in the text, to serve a literary purpose, in both reflecting the views of wider society towards non-white people, and in showing the development of other characters. This is not to say that either Friday was one-dimensional, in particular Coetzees Friday was multi-dimensional and complex, but more that despite the character complexity, despite his being resistant to being interpreted (Bishop C Scott, J. M. Coetzees Foe), and how central they were, both were created to serve only a purpose. 1. Bishop, C. Scott. J. M. Coetzees Foe. World Literature Today 64.1 (1990): 54. Print. http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx:sfxsici=0196-3570(1990)64:1%3C54:JMC%22%3E2.0.CO;2-H 2. Wagner, KM. Dichter and Dichtung + Foe by Coetzee, John Susan Barton and the truth of autobiography. English studies in Africa 32.1 (1989): 1-11. Print. http://pao.chadwyck.co.uk/articles/displayItem.do?QueryType=articlesResultsID=12B06460CF2F1F413filterSequence=0ItemNumber=1journalID=4273 3. Joanna Scott. Voice and trajectory: An interview with J. M. Coetzee Salmagundi.114/115 (1997): 82.22. Print.  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/searchFulltext.do?id=R01511343divLevel=0area=abellforward=critref_ft 4. Bongie, Chris. Lost in the Maze of Doubtin: J. M. Coetzees Foe and the Politics of (Un)Likeness. Modern Fiction Studies 39.2 (1993): 261-0. Print. http://pao.chadwyck.co.uk/PDF/1286892456412.pdf 5. Brett C McInelly. Expanding Empires, Expanding Selves: Colonialism, the Novel, and Robinson Crusoe. Studies in the Novel 35.1 (2003): 1. Print.   http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/searchFulltext.do?id=R01665469divLevel=0area=abellforward=critref_ft 6. Cohen, D. Fashioning Friday (Robinson Crusoe). Queens Quarterly 115.1 (2008): 9-11. Print.   http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-179351988.html 7. Wheeler, Roxann. My Savage, My Man: Racial Multiplicity in Robinson Crusoe. ELH 62.4 (1995): 821. Print.  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx:sfxsici=0013-8304(1995)62:4%3C821:SMRM%3E2.0.CO;2-Q 8. Ritchie, DE. Robinson Crusoe as Narrative Theologian. Renascence essays on values in literature 49.2 (1997): 94-17. Print. http://find.galegroup.com/shax/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-DocumentsresultListType=RESULT_LISTqrySerId=Locale(en,,):FQE%3D(tx,None,39)robinson+crusoe+as+narrative+theologian$sgHitCountType=NoneinPS=truesort=DateDescendsearchType=AdvancedSearchFormtabID=T013prodId=SHAXsearchId=R1currentPosition=1userGroupName=rho_ttdadocId=A19983243docType= 9. Donoghue, Frank. Inevitable Politics: Rulership and Identity in Robinson Crusoe. Studies in the Novel 27.1 (1995): 1-0. Print http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/searchFulltext.do?id=R01532799divLevel=0area=abellforward=critref_ft 10. Ngugi Wa Thiongo. The language of African literature. Decolonising the Mind. London / Portsmouth N.H James Currey / Heinemann 1986 11. Judith Hawley Robinson Crusoe (University Lecture) 7th October 2010

Revenge :: essays research papers

Taking revenge is a bitter sweet thing. I have always thought that people should always get what they desire, whether it be a grade, a smile and hug or in some cases, revenge. When I was in high school there seemed to be someone always trying to get me in trouble, they would say things that wouldn’t be true or do things to make me look bad. The fact that I never seemed to do anything to them would make me mad and wonder what I could do to get them back. Revenge would usually come in some sort of verbal put down or I would try to physically hurt them. It always seemed when I would get the revenge right away I would feel really good but as I thought about what I did, and what they did to me I would always feel guilty or wish I would have never done anything to them in return. In the bible it is said that we should treat others as we would like to be treated, and when I would hurt someone physically or mentally I would be disobeying what the bible said. If I am to get revenge on others, what happens when they get revenge on me, will it ever stop or would it have been easier to just walk away and no say anything or let it bothered me. Now that I’m in college I feel that revenge comes in different forms. Now instead of hurting others I am in for taking revenge on the basketball floor. If I get beat, it means my team and I didn’t play up to our potential or that they worked harder than us on a given night. Its not a life or death matter but when the next game comes I want to beat the life out of them. When the game is over and I feel that the revenge has been taken I don’t feel like I shouldn’t have done it or that I feel bad that they lost and I won, I have feelings of happiness and joy.

Anatomy, Atoms, Cells

Please define the terms anatomy and physiology. Explain the connection between anatomy and physiology within the human body; basically how do they influence one another? Then using the terminology of the anatomical landmarks/regions and directional terms, please write 2 example sentences with proper usage. For example, â€Å"the axilla region is superior to the cubital region of the body†.Anatomy is the study of internal and external structure and the physical relationship between body parts (which means cutting open). Physiology is the study of how living organisms perform their vital functions ( Another word for Greek). The connection between anatomy and physiology within the human body is that structure and function are always presented. You can not have physiology without anatomy because physiology is the study of the function of anatomical structures. Two examples: 1.) â€Å"The Abdomen is located in the Epigastria region of the body.† 2.) â€Å"The calf is inferi or to the hips.†2.Compare and contrast the two feedback mechanisms our bodies use to maintain homeostasis. What would happen if our thermoregulation (temperature control) used a positive feedback to maintain homeostasis?There are two feedback mechanisms our body uses to maintain homeostasis, they are negative feedback and positive feedback. Both feedbacks signal a response to the situation. Negative feedback however will correct the situation where positive feedback drags the process on or exaggerates the situation. If our thermoregulation used a positive feedback to maintain homeostasis our system would start to fail, malfunction or even produce a disease. This is because homeostasis would not be able to fully compensate itself correctly.3.Please define pH and briefly describe the pH scale. Do you think all of our body fluids (stomach juice or blood, as examples) are the same pH? Why or why not? How do pH changes affect protein (enzyme) function? How could this interfere with the body's physiology?pH is the negative exponent of the hydrogen ion concentration, expressed in moles per liter. The pH scale is a solution with a pH of 7 is neutral. pH above 7 is called basic or alkaline, pH below 7 is acidic. I do not think that all our body fluids are the same pH because some things have extreme acidic some are neutral and some are extremely basic. pH changes the shape and enzymes functions start to deteriorate. This is because the pH shifts out of normal limits. This could interfere with out body’s physiology by slowing down the reactions to support life. It could alter our chemical reactions to make them permanently change itself.4.The plasma membrane (cell membrane) is a dynamic component of the cell. What is the plasma membrane composed (made) of? Compare and contrast active and passive transport.Plasma membrane is composed of phospholipids, steroids, proteins and carbohydrates. Passive transport moves ions or molecules across the plasma membrane w ithout any energy expenditure by the cell. Active transport is the high energy bond in APT provides the energy needed to move ions or molecules across the membrane. Both active and passive transport can provide for the Carrier-Mediated Transport.5.What would happen to the cell and body function if there were damage to the mitochondria? Damage to the Ribosomes? Damage to the DNA? Damage to the receptors on the plasma (cell) membrane?If there were damage to the mitochondria the cell and body function would lose energy. This is because mitochondrion is a organelles that provides energy to a cell. If there were damage to the Ribosome the cell and body function would lose manufacture proteins. If there were damage to the DNA the cell and body function would not be able to collect genes or hold the information needed to synthesize thousands of proteins. If there is damage to the receptors on the plasma membrane the cell and body function would  lose the ability to bind materials togethe r or trigger the cells activity.

Free Essays on On David Hume And Rene Descartes

On David Hume and Rene Descartes â€Å"There are more things in heaven and Earth than dreamt of in your philosophy† (Shakespeare, 211). This quote from William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark presents quite an idea. It suggests that in our modern philosophy we have not even began to scratch the surface of what causes the nature of things around us. Our philosophy is centered on the idea of cause and effect or interaction with the external world or for some philosophers being aware of certain and necessary truths. Descartes focus on the concept of methodological doubt and the concept of innate knowledge and oppose against Hume’s experimental knowledge and cause effect relations. From my perspective whether a person realizes it, every standpoint that they argue from is based on a cause and/or its effect. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this, but most people don’t bother to analyze what the true connection is between a cause and it’s effec t. David Hume does an outstanding job of presenting a point of view that many people do not consider at all. He asks what is this connection and what makes us impose this connection immediately. If all of our findings are based on causes and their effects, and yet, we do not completely understand the connection between the latter, then how can we presume to hold our finding absolutely certain? Maybe this is partly what Shakespeare was hinting in his quote. Hume’s exploration of the matter of cause and effect is an excellent tool for use in understanding the possibilities and limitations of our â€Å"matter of fact† knowledge and a strong counter argument while trying to understand Descartes’ certain and necessary truths. Hume begins his paper by pointing out that humans are essentially ignorant to the world around them. Everything that we understand is based on someone else’s findings or research. Hume points out that on his own, with no inpu... Free Essays on On David Hume And Rene Descartes Free Essays on On David Hume And Rene Descartes On David Hume and Rene Descartes â€Å"There are more things in heaven and Earth than dreamt of in your philosophy† (Shakespeare, 211). This quote from William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark presents quite an idea. It suggests that in our modern philosophy we have not even began to scratch the surface of what causes the nature of things around us. Our philosophy is centered on the idea of cause and effect or interaction with the external world or for some philosophers being aware of certain and necessary truths. Descartes focus on the concept of methodological doubt and the concept of innate knowledge and oppose against Hume’s experimental knowledge and cause effect relations. From my perspective whether a person realizes it, every standpoint that they argue from is based on a cause and/or its effect. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this, but most people don’t bother to analyze what the true connection is between a cause and it’s effec t. David Hume does an outstanding job of presenting a point of view that many people do not consider at all. He asks what is this connection and what makes us impose this connection immediately. If all of our findings are based on causes and their effects, and yet, we do not completely understand the connection between the latter, then how can we presume to hold our finding absolutely certain? Maybe this is partly what Shakespeare was hinting in his quote. Hume’s exploration of the matter of cause and effect is an excellent tool for use in understanding the possibilities and limitations of our â€Å"matter of fact† knowledge and a strong counter argument while trying to understand Descartes’ certain and necessary truths. Hume begins his paper by pointing out that humans are essentially ignorant to the world around them. Everything that we understand is based on someone else’s findings or research. Hume points out that on his own, with no inpu...