Aesthetics and cultural theory The WritePass Journal

Aesthetics and cultural theory Introduction Aesthetics and cultural theory IntroductionReferencesRelated Introduction Subjectivity is the starting point of Hegel’s statement. His lectures on aesthetics give the significance of art within his philosophy while the German period of romanticism is being explained and critiqued. Recent theorists such as Theodor Adorno, Paul Guyer and Arthur Danto based their views on aesthetics from Hegel’s outlook on art. All support that Hegelian idealism was introduced with a poor consequence of personal subjectivity. The idealistic philosophers argued that only our conscience has real status and that the physical world is only a product of consciousness. The idealism (or utopianism) is closely linked to the religion either directly or indirectly and all philosophies based on this term are supporting the existence of a superior power that can not be interlinked with human’s capability. The most effective way of understanding the whole concept of idealism is to study directly the forefather of all theorists. Plato in his book, ‘The Republic’, gives an allegory (the ‘cave) to represent idealism in it’s simpler form. He describes men sitting in a dark cave who are chained in such a way that they can look in only one direction. Few meters behind them, light comes out of a fire which casts their shadows towards a wall they cannot see. Plato asks us to imagine those men in that specific position for their entire life. Having no experience of anything else, these men understand what they have experienced before reality is being represented to them. The philosopher continues with his metaphor and asks us to visualise that those prisoners got unchained and faced the existence of the fire and the shadows. They begin to have a sense of the environment they lived in.  The allegory ends, with Plato explaining that those men in the cave are us. As a consequence, we experience the world with our only five senses, but  as a matter of fact ‘our world’ is made with images and three-dimensional shadows. He claims that our mind has absoluteness perfection (‘absolute mind’). As we loo k into sun and turn away for protecting our eyes, thats how we turn back into the cave, in our safe place of sense perception. Now, modern idealism puts forward a cognitive human activity and attributes to a self-determined reality, such as the ‘absolute truth’ and creativity. Two German recent idealism theorists, J. G. Fichte and Friedrich von Schelling, which came to a climax in an absolute idealism of Hegel, started giving their explanation with a refutation of the uncertain thing-in-itself. However, Hegel formulated a complete structure of thought about art and the world. Most importantly, he hold up that reality should be logical, so that it’s eventual framework will be shown by our own thoughts. He did not think that symbolic, so by extension, conceptual art, has the ability to surpass the high nature of classical Greek art and its representational/imitative abilities. This is because, as he explains, since symbolisms, depend on the knowledge of man of the earth and society, and because, we can never know everything about the human psyche, trying to represent it with symbolisms, is just not enough. Hence, imitative art, which is what classical Greek sculptures, are of a much higher regard to Hegel, than symbolic art. He describes it as ‘the sensuous presentation of ideas’. It is in the communication of ideas excluding the connection between our reason and our sensory faculty and is distinctive successful. Modern aesthetic theorists turn first and f oremost to Kant, an 18th century German philosopher, and the historical convention of German romanticism to utilize the role of ‘pessimistic’ art. Hegelian view comes to support that art does more than sabotage the non†aesthetic. Thus, modern art can preferable take in contemporary artistic practices. Both theorists connect that art is superior to the external world, both opposed to appetite and enjoyment. Hegel gives his philosophy on art that is, as a whole, his main philosophical system. For us, to comprehend his philosophy of art we must understand his philosophy as a whole. Similar with Aristotle’s way of thinking, Hegel believes that the investigation of logic could lead to a key system of reality. Thus, logic is being characterised as dialectical. Poetry for Hegel seem not to have something physical as a sculpture. In that way, music according to him is the least spiritual form of art. On the other hand, Kant stated as an important matter that a generic explanation of the world could lead to an opposite observation. But Hegel explained that those two notions could be integrated by a move to a different way of thinking. Consequently, our mind moves from thesis, to antithesis, to synthesis[4]. This could be seen in history, nature and cultural progress. All the thinking consists by the idea (thesis), which antithesis is nature, while combining (synthesis) the two it forms t he spirit. This could also be named as the ‘absolute’ itself and is examined in more detail in Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’ as a transformation from subjective to objective to the absolute spirit. He is examining the organised structures in humanity giving absolute freedom and self determination to be essential. Those vitals principles include the practice of right, having a family and being part of a civil society (state). The most developed and sufficient perception of spirit is achieved by philosophy. It provides a conceptual understanding of the nature of reason while it describes why reason must take the form of time, space, life, matter and self-conscious spirit. In Christianity, however, the procedure which the ‘idea’ or ‘reason’ turns into self-conscious spirit is symbolised with metaphors and images as the procedure where God turns into spirit lies within humans. This is the process we place our belief and faith rather our notion of understanding. Hegel supports that humans cannot live   with just the hypothesis of things but also need to trust the truth. He asserts that ‘is in religion that a nation defines what is considers to be tr ue’. According to Hegel, art is different from religion or philosophy and it’s purpose is the formation of beautiful objects in which aesthetically pleasing indication is coming through. Therefore, the main target of art is not impersonate nature but to give us the opportunity to look at images being made by non-materialistic freedom. In other words, art exists not just for the purpose of having ‘art’ but for beauty. This union of freedom and beauty from Hegel shows his obligation to two other theorists, Schiller and Kant. Kant goes further to analyse that our understanding of beauty is a form of freedom. He explains, by judging an object or a piece of art as beautiful, we are discernmenting about a thing. By this we are declaring that the ‘thing’ or object has an effect on us, thus everyone will have the same effect. This results to a comprehension and   vision in ‘free play’ with each other, and it is this delight that comes from the ‘free play’ that guides us to our judgment if something is nice or not. Schiller comes in contrast with Kant which explains beauty as a belonging of the object itself. He stress that freedom is independent from our mind (Kant describes as ‘noumena’). ‘Freedom in appearance, autonomy in appearance [] that the object appears as free, not that it really is so’’ However, in Hegel’s view on beauty, is being described as the complete manifestation of freedom. It can be seen or sound like a sensory expression. Hegel moves a step further to explain that beauty can be created by nature but as he calls a ‘sensuous’ beauty’ it can only be found through art which can be produced by people. For him, beauty has symmetrical qualities. It has elements that are not organised in a framework but are joined organically. We were told, as he explains, that the Greek outline is beautiful, because the nose is flawless under the forehead while the Roman human profile has more sharper angles between them. Nevertheless, beauty’s importance is not only the shape but also the content. Modern art-theorists disagree with Hegel’s theory of beauty and art. They claim that art can include any content. This content is described in religion as God, then a beautiful art could be seen as angelic. Nonetheless, Hegel insists that Godly art is through a humankind form as freedom. He understands that piece of art could consists of nature such as plants or animals but he thinks that art is responsible to show the angelic form, as mentioned before. Only a human can represent reason and spirit through colors and sounds. Art, in Hegel’s eyes, is metaphorical. Not because it always comes to copy what is in nature, but the main motivation of art is to communicate and represent what he explained as a ‘free spirit’. It can mostly be attained   throughout humans and images. Particular, art exist to remind our mind that us, as human beings, have freedom and try not to forget the truth within ourselves. It is the only way the ‘freedom of spirit’ could be seen in it’s simplest form. The contradiction with art is that it links truth all through romanticised images made by someone. As mentioned before, according to Hegel, this spirit and beauty could be found through ancient Greek sculptures (Aeschylus, Praxiteles, Phidias and Sophocles). The German philosopher explains that are a lot of things we can be named as ‘art’, such as the Greek sculptures mentioned before, Shakespearian plays, but not everything is entitled to be called like that. This is because not everything represent what ‘true’ art really is. He sets some standards that a piece of work has to meet in order to be beautiful art. References BBC magazine, A Point of View: Why are museums so uninspiring? (London, BBC, 2011)bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12308952 [accessed 11 mar 2011] Hegel G. W. F., Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, (Oxford: University Press, 1977) Hegel G. W. F., Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art, Know, vol.1 (Oxford: University Press, 2010) Hegel G. W. F., Hegel: Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion: Volume II: Determinate Religion: Determinate Religion v. 2 (Oxford: University Press, 2007) Immanuel Kant, ‘Kant: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: And Other Writings’ (Cambridge, University Press, 2004) Jason M, Miller, ‘Research Proposal’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Notre Dame, 2004), p.2 Robin, Waterfield, ‘Plato’s Republic’   (Oxford: University Press, 2008) Stephen, Houlgate, ‘Hegel’s aesthetics’, (The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2009)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/ [accessed 15 Mar 2011] Schiller, Friedrich,   ‘Kallias or Concerning Beauty: Letters to Gottfried Kà ¶rner†, in Classical and Romantic German Aesthetics’, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

Battle of the Trebia in the Second Punic War

Battle of the Trebia in the Second Punic War The Battle of the Trebia is believed to have been fought on December 18, 218 BC during the early stages of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). For the second time in less than fifty years, the competing interests of Carthage and Rome came into conflict and resulted in war. Following his capture of Saguntum in Iberia, the noted Carthaginian commander Hannibal, advanced over the Alps and invaded Italy. Taking the Romans by surprise, he advanced through the Po Valley and won a minor victory at Ticinus. A short time later, Hannibal descended on a larger Roman force along the Trebia River. Taking advantage of a rash Roman commander, he won a crushing victory. The triumph at Trebia was the first of several that Hannibal would win during his time in Italy. Background Having lost Sicily after the First Punic War (264-241 BC), Carthage later endured the loss of Sardinia and Corsica to the Romans when they were distracted putting down rebellions in North Africa. Recovering from these reverses, Carthage commenced expanding its influence to the Iberian Peninsula which gave it access to a variety of resources. This expansion led to direct conflict with Rome over the Hellenized city of Saguntum which was aligned with the Italian nation. Following the assassination of pro-Carthage citizens in Saguntum, Carthaginian forces under Hannibal laid siege to the city in 219 BC. Hannibal Marches The citys fall after a prolonged siege led to open warfare between Rome and Carthage. Completing the capture of Saguntum, Hannibal began planning to cross the Alps to invade northern Italy. Moving forward in the spring of 218 BC, Hannibal was able to sweep aside those native tribes that attempted to block his path and entered the mountains. Battling harsh weather and rough terrain, Carthaginian forces succeeded in crossing the Alps, but lost a significant part of there numbers in the process. Surprising the Romans by appearing in the Po Valley, Hannibal was able to earn the support of rebelling Gallic tribes in the area. Moving quickly, Roman consul Publius Cornelius Scipio attempted to block Hannibal at Ticinus in November 218 BC. Defeated and wounded in the action, Scipio was forced to fall back to Placentia and cede the plain of Lombardy to the Carthaginians. Though Hannibals victory was minor, it had significant political repercussions as it led to additional Gauls and Ligurians joining his forces which raised his armys numbers to around 40,000 (Map). Rome Responds Concerned by Scipios defeat, the Romans ordered Consul Tiberius Sempronius Longus to reinforce the position at Placentia. Alerted to Sempronius approach, Hannibal sought to destroy the second Roman army before it could unite with Scipio, but was unable to do so as his supply situation dictated that he assault Clastidium. Reaching Scipios camp near the banks of the Trebia River, Sempronius assumed command of the combined force. A rash and impetuous leader, Sempronius began making plans to engage Hannibal in open battle before the more senior Scipio recovered and resumed command. Hannibals Plans Aware of the personality differences between the two Roman commanders, Hannibal sought to fight Sempronius rather the wilier Scipio. Establishing a camp across the Trebia from the Romans, Hannibal detached 2,000 men, led by his brother Mago, under the cover of darkness on December 17/18. Sending them to the south, they concealed themselves in stream beds and swamps on the flanks of the two armies. The following morning, Hannibal ordered elements of his cavalry to cross the Trebia and harass the Romans. Once engaged they were to retreat and lure the Romans to a point where Magos men could launch an ambush. Fast Facts: Battle of the Trebia Conflict: Second Punic War (218-201 BC)Dates: December 18, 218 BCArmies Commanders:CarthageHannibal20,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalryRomeTiberius Sempronius Longus36,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalryCasualties:Carthage: 4,000-5,000 casualtiesRome: up to 26,000-32,000 killed, wounded, and captured Hannibal Victorious Ordering his own cavalry to attack the approaching Carthaginian horsemen, Sempronius raised his entire army and sent it forward against Hannibals camp. Seeing this, Hannibal quickly formed his army with infantry in the center and cavalry and war elephants on the flanks. Sempronius approached in the standard Roman formation with three lines of infantry in the center and cavalry on the flanks. In addition, velite skirmishers were deployed forward. As the two armies collided, the velites were thrown back and the heavy infantry engaged (Map). On the flanks, the Carthaginian cavalry, making use of their greater numbers, slowly pushed back their Roman counterparts. As pressure on the Roman cavalry grew, the flanks of the infantry became unprotected and open to attack. Sending forward his war elephants against the Roman left, Hannibal next ordered his cavalry to attack the exposed flanks of the Roman infantry. With the Roman lines wavering, Magos men sprang from their concealed position and attacked Sempronius rear. Nearly surrounded, the Roman army collapsed and began fleeing back across the river. Aftermath As the Roman army broke, thousands were cut down or trampled as they attempted to escape to safety. Only the center of Sempronius infantry, which had fought well, was able to retire to Placentia in good order. As with many battles in this period, precise casualties are not known. Sources indicate that Carthaginian losses were around 4,000-5,000, while the Romans may have suffered up to 32,000 killed, wounded, and captured. The victory at Trebia was Hannibals first great triumph in Italy and would be followed by others at Lake Trasimene (217 BC) and Cannae (216 BC). Despite these stunning victories, Hannibal was never able to completely defeat Rome, and was ultimately recalled to Carthage to aid in protecting the city from a Roman army. In the resulting battle at Zama (202 BC), he was beaten and Carthage was forced to make peace.

Memo Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 4

Memo - Case Study Example The first thing the organization needs to establish is the goals. These will lean towards what the organization is aiming to achieve and what they want to attain within the short term that is less than a year and in a few years’ time. In order to attain the goals, it is necessary to have desired outcomes such as having financial security and a larger clientele base for sustainability of the organization. The desired outcomes will be accompanied by a timeline with set time limit to attain the outcomes. This will pressure the employees and board members into working harder and smarter. Strategies to attain the desired outcomes need to be put in place. These may include letting go of the unproductive board members, employees and trustees as they add no value to the organization’s success. New board members can be brought in who have knowledge in business and economics. The new members will work with the earlier proposals and plans of the development committee and the new goals in mind. Measure of the target and strategies should be put in place to be carried out after every two months and the final results to be released on or before the set timeline. Strong leadership provides direction and guidance for the rest of the people in the organization without which there will be disorganization and chaos as is currently the case in ECO. The board and trustees should come together with assistance from neutral party seek a new leader from outside the current individuals who has business experience. Evaluation of progress made will be carried out after every two months and will focus on the challenges and strengths made by the leader. The board is in charge of seeking funds to run the organization which is carried out through fundraising. Without the funds to run the organization, it will have to be closed and the employees lose their source of livelihood. The older more