Well, TMA06 just went in! I wrote it in a couple of hours this evening whilst watching Ricky Gervais and Johnathon Woss! Not enough words and nowhere near enough use of resources but who knows, I thought the last one was really good... and it wasn't!
Anyway, here it is...
TMA 06
Religious Studies
How far do you think observing a visual religious activity - such as a festival, can help you to understand the part a religion plays in the life of an individual and a community?
Religion, in today's world is both a very personal issue and very public display of belief and faith. An observer of any religious festival can obviously see the community effects, the clothing, processions, activities, songs and praise. These can not only be observed, but they can also be researched, taught and in many cases, descriptively broadcast, enabling further understanding of them. Personal effects, however, are much more closeted. They are held within the minds and souls of the participants and they differ from believer to believer. Overall however, the effects of any religion depend on attaining a depth of feeling which simple observation cannot hope to understand.
The first question we need to answer is that of the insider or outsider. Otto suggested that if you cannot direct your mind to a moment of deeply-felt religious experience (Block 4, page 49), then you will find it hard to understand religion and therefore can be considered an outsider. This is particularly relevant when we look at the Christian festival of Christmas. The deep religious meaning behind the festival of Christmas has been hijacked by modern life. It is now as much a time for family, holidays and celebration of life in general as it is the Christian festival to honour the birth of the son of their Lord. This actually has the effect of both improving and at the same time, impairing the outsiders' view of the festival.
Whilst an insider knows, and understands, the specifically religious activities entwined in the festival, an outsider would have to delicately pick through the pieces and try to separate the religious from the holiday. The benefits here, to the outsider, are that the festival is so widely publicised, so broadly celebrated and as such, there is an enormous amount of source material for them to view. This does mean that many of the religious subtleties of the festival are intrinsically wrapped up with the 'extras' however and many important religious aspects could be overlooked as simply modern bastardisations.
An example of this could be the act of gift giving. This has become, to many, and especially to children, the single most important aspect of the Christmas period. An outsider would see no correlation between this act and the religious festival, but an insider would understand that the act does have grounding in the Christians Christmas story.
Of course, this broad celebration will also limit anybodies understanding of the part that the religious side of it plays on either an individual or a community. The argument could follow the line that without the religious undertones, the holiday or festival would be entirely groundless. Christmas is, without doubt, a Christian religious festival.
Christianity itself however, allows the festival to become diluted through its own sub-divisions and more importantly, its acceptance of a blasé attitude from its followers. As a community, the festival is celebrated by almost every member of the religion. Many followers attend church for the one and only time during the year, to sing carols and hear the nativity. The media and shops are saturated by images, programmes and other reminders of the festival and most businesses close. To an observer the effect would be one of the communities total submersion in the festival and whilst that observation would hold true, the religious aspects of that submersion might not be what is gripping the community in such fever. Christianity allows this in a way that many other religions would baulk at.
The sight, to an observer, of queues of worshipers outside a church on Christmas Eve, revellers standing at the back of church, singing carols of praise which they all know and understand would certainly lead that observer to come to some very obvious conclusions about the effect that the religion was having on the community. They would not, however, understand that personally, many of the attendees of the service were merely there because they enjoy carols. That it's seen as the 'thing to do' and as such, they would maybe misinterpret the effect the festival has had. Many Christians believe that the spirit of Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus, is totally overlooked these days but in the society we live in today, their voices are certainly not loud enough to make a difference, or even, more importantly here, to be heard by observers. They are swept along with the general will!
We could try to analyse the festival using a more scientific method. Ninian Smarts seven dimensions of religion could be used to tell an observer how intrinsically linked into the religion the festival is. Again, this could only ever be used to show that religion was playing a part in the festival. The effect of this part cannot really be analysed out of the situation. For example, if we look at the practical and ritual dimension we can see that, quite obviously, there are many examples over the Christmas period of rituals and practices. Again, how many of these are religious in their basis is another matter. The whole community celebrates them but only study and inside knowledge will help to determine which are based in religious celebration and which are not.
To conclude, although the Christian festival of Christmas is almost swamped by the holiday celebration, at its fundamentals it is still a religious festival and can be observed as such. Observation of the community involvement, at a cursory glance, would lead to a belief that the festival was all-consuming and hugely followed. More serious observations of the depths of the festival and community show that everything is not what it seems but regardless of this, without the religion, the community would not be stirred. Personal feelings are another matter as they do not show amongst the celebration. There are not avenues for these feelings to be adequately expressed and an observer would not be able to tell either the significance of the festival to that individual nor the depth with which they felt a part of it.
Gwilym Beckerlegge. (2005) Units 14 and 15, Studying Religion, Block 4 - Religion and science in context, Second Edition. pp. 11-83
Resource Book 3, (2005), Section A5, pp 34-45
Friday, 22 February 2008
Thursday, 7 February 2008
OK, so it wasn't as good as I'd hoped!
Maybe I should spend more time reading the question! Anyway...
TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT:
Dan,
You have made a good effort with the questions and there is potential here. You make some interesting observations about Rousseau and David, however, while the Rousseau section is relatively clear and shows that you understand the general will and how exercising reason leads to moral liberty, the David section is a bit of a jumble, although it is not without merit.
It would have been a good idea to look at the subject matter of the painting - it has a republican theme, which one could argue mirrored what was happening in France in the 1780s. But as is pointed out on p. 168, Roman republicanism was different to that being espoused by the Revolutionaries. And the painting isn't really about 'the nobility falling apart'. And it's not entirely accurate to refer to David as an 'entertainer' (p. 4). Well done, though, for mentioning the fasces and for using the Cuvillier letter.
It is your answer to the third question that is a bit puzzling as it doesn't really explore 'areas of shared concern'. Rather you discuss their effect on society. Duty to the state is one idea that both share. It is central to Rousseau's thinking and to Brutus's decision to condemn his sons to death.
Please see my comments throughout your assignment. And please cite sources for all quotations.
TMA 05
Art History and Philosophy
1 - How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.
Rousseau published his Social Contract in 1762, opening with the words, 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains'. source of quotation? His philosophical argument is based around human freedom, human reasoning or morality and a unity, bringing men together as non-reasonable animals can never be. Interesting.
To answer the first half of the question, we initially have to understand the terms general will and moral liberty as used by Rousseau.ü Rousseau describes general will as 'that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals'. Good quote to use, but you must cite where it came from. The general will is determined by the reasoning of the people. It looks beyond individual desires and dictates that if humans follow the general will rather than their base desires, they will be free. yes, now explain how and why this occurs. Humans may feel that they know what they want, their particular will, but if this differs from the general will, then they are binding themselves in bestial chains. They are a slave to their instincts and animal desires; they live in a state of nature.
To discover how Rousseau understands the term moral liberty we must look to his own reasoning. Rousseau believed that nature lacked both nobility and reason. Jump from moral liberty to legitimate authority He suggests that legitimacy can only be derived through following the will of the sovereign, an individual’s will has no legitimacy Through sovereignty of the people. This is different from the sovereign. He believed in the liberty derived from following this general will, in a sense, a feeling of belonging and having brought about your own place in the world. This is true moral liberty, legitimate and reasoned. good point to make. Discuss ennoblement, justice (pp. 111, 113).
We can, therefore, start to see how Rousseau took a view which on the surface looks extraordinary. The idea that following the crowd makes us free! When deciding on the general will, man must use reason to look beyond his own needs and see the needs of the many.ü Only once this man exercises his reason and subsumes his individual will to the general will will man ascend to nobility and take steps away from the animals. This looks to civility, intelligence and a lack of any limiting ambition and appetite.
Mention the civil state.
One objection to this political philosophy is that the general will does not allow for any reasoned deviation. It reasoned deviation’ or the general will? accounts for an individual who uses the state for personal gain, forcing them to accept their freedom, but when an individual uses reason to develop an argument which differs from the general will, they are forced to dismiss their opinion. The entire social contract is based on reasoning, looking to the good of the many, but it can only see one correct answer. It does not look to the future nor accept that there can be more than one correct solution to a problem.ü In many ways this allows the general will? to fall back into the world it is so desperate to claw its way out of, the natural world. It mirrors sheep walking together and herds packing for safety, not nobility.
2 What evidence can be put forward in support of the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons?
To answer this question we need to look at both the setting of the picture itself and the time in which David painted it.ü This gives us our first major piece of evidence that David could have been portraying political ideals in his work.
The ‘Brutus’ painting depicts a time of great change in Roman history, the forming of a great republic. Although David began his painting in 1788 before the beginning of the French Revolution, it could be argued that David was contributing to the build up of feeling and the beginnings of change in France, which he was sensing around him at the time. Surely, it is no coincidence that David's ‘Brutus’ and the time it was painted both share the same political backdrop. Block 3, p. 168 – Roman republic a bit different than the one to which the revolutionaries aspired. Periods of history when law and consensus replaced individual rule and autocracy. Not a grammatically correct sentence.
Further evidence that David intended to convey a political message is revealed in the content of the painting. The lictors carrying Brutus' sons are carrying fasces. Fasces are bundles of rods which were known to represent solidarity and fraternity, ideals of the Revolution, ü and their presence in the painting is, again, no coincidence.
New idea, new paragraph The painting is split into two halves. On the right, the grieving family, women filled with emotion and feeling. On the left we see the bodies being carried by the lictors, very formally and without fuss. Again, this seems to suggest that the system, the rulers, were in charge of themselves whilst the nobility were falling apart. Well, not quite. It does, however, suggest conflict between duty to the state and family allegiance. The family are surrounded by white sheets, framing them in their vivid colour whilst also promoting their Family’s failure? To do what? failure, whilst the lictors, or the state if you will, are subtle and almost faceless, but nevertheless, effective.
More evidence of the political effects of David’s ‘Brutus’ is in the evidence we get from the people who saw it at the time. In a letter to Joseph Vien in 1789, Charles-Etienne-Gabriel Cuvillier, of the Royal Fine Arts Office, argues that the painting has the potential to 'inflame political passions' source of quotation? and he is worried that it should not be a part of an exhibition to be opened on the King's feast day. Cuvillier’s views are hardly surprising if he felt the painting supported republicanism, which was building in France at the time. There is, however, no evidence that anybody who saw the painting was stirred to dash off and start chopping the heads off the ruling classes!ü In fact, the people who saw the painting, and had the intelligence to understand its contents, were almost certainly those who might fear any portentous content.
David must have known the feelings his paintings could stir when he began ‘Brutus’, and although there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he was 'giving visual form to political ideas', in reality there is no hard evidence that David was, in fact, doing this. Use examples from course material to support this point of view. One could be cynical and suggest that David was doing what entertainers! He’s not an entertainer! have done throughout history in mirroring their times for personal gain. One could suggest that David, who had no particular political leanings before Brutus, actually changed his views and Brutus was his first step towards a more politically active future. An interesting suggestion, but where is the evidence for this? One things is certain, however, Brutus is both an inflammatory and succinct observation of the time in which it was conceived.
3 What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus?
In comparing Rousseau and his philosophical thinking to David and his painting, we can first look to the effect both men had on the time in which they lived. Whilst they both 'performed' to crowds and were held up as bastions of change and visionaries, they neither of them actually facilitated any of this change; they simply contributed to a new mindset which was sweeping France at the time. Interesting, but this isn’t answering the question. Both men saw a need for change and used the resource they had to do what they could to promote this. While we can definitely see that Rousseau was a political animal, although he would hate such a description, David's role is slightly more ambiguous in as much as he can be seen as either an entertainer or social commentator, with possible political leanings. Ok, but this isn’t identifying areas of shared concern between Rousseau and David.
Both The Social Contract and ‘Brutus’ share a determination that the state works at its best without autocracy. Brutus depicts the ruling class falling apart Not really. , whilst The Social Contract gives power to the population, and in both cases this results in order from chaos and a faceless, but nonetheless, reasoned and noble calm. Freedom from tyranny has been achieved in both pieces of work; Rousseau in the power of the General Will and David in the rule of law dictated by the population.? The theme of the painting is that Brutus has condemned his sons to death because of their role in a royalist plot. He is putting duty to the state before his personal needs or considerations of family allegiance.
Derek Matravers. (2005) Units 10 and 11, Rousseau and Democracy, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 91-154
Linda Walsh. (2005) Unit 12, Art History and Politics, David and Friedrich, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 156-200
The Open University. An Introduction to Humanities, Illustration Book. Colour Plate 41
Only 66%!
TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT:
Dan,
You have made a good effort with the questions and there is potential here. You make some interesting observations about Rousseau and David, however, while the Rousseau section is relatively clear and shows that you understand the general will and how exercising reason leads to moral liberty, the David section is a bit of a jumble, although it is not without merit.
It would have been a good idea to look at the subject matter of the painting - it has a republican theme, which one could argue mirrored what was happening in France in the 1780s. But as is pointed out on p. 168, Roman republicanism was different to that being espoused by the Revolutionaries. And the painting isn't really about 'the nobility falling apart'. And it's not entirely accurate to refer to David as an 'entertainer' (p. 4). Well done, though, for mentioning the fasces and for using the Cuvillier letter.
It is your answer to the third question that is a bit puzzling as it doesn't really explore 'areas of shared concern'. Rather you discuss their effect on society. Duty to the state is one idea that both share. It is central to Rousseau's thinking and to Brutus's decision to condemn his sons to death.
Please see my comments throughout your assignment. And please cite sources for all quotations.
TMA 05
Art History and Philosophy
1 - How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.
Rousseau published his Social Contract in 1762, opening with the words, 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains'. source of quotation? His philosophical argument is based around human freedom, human reasoning or morality and a unity, bringing men together as non-reasonable animals can never be. Interesting.
To answer the first half of the question, we initially have to understand the terms general will and moral liberty as used by Rousseau.ü Rousseau describes general will as 'that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals'. Good quote to use, but you must cite where it came from. The general will is determined by the reasoning of the people. It looks beyond individual desires and dictates that if humans follow the general will rather than their base desires, they will be free. yes, now explain how and why this occurs. Humans may feel that they know what they want, their particular will, but if this differs from the general will, then they are binding themselves in bestial chains. They are a slave to their instincts and animal desires; they live in a state of nature.
To discover how Rousseau understands the term moral liberty we must look to his own reasoning. Rousseau believed that nature lacked both nobility and reason. Jump from moral liberty to legitimate authority He suggests that legitimacy can only be derived through following the will of the sovereign, an individual’s will has no legitimacy Through sovereignty of the people. This is different from the sovereign. He believed in the liberty derived from following this general will, in a sense, a feeling of belonging and having brought about your own place in the world. This is true moral liberty, legitimate and reasoned. good point to make. Discuss ennoblement, justice (pp. 111, 113).
We can, therefore, start to see how Rousseau took a view which on the surface looks extraordinary. The idea that following the crowd makes us free! When deciding on the general will, man must use reason to look beyond his own needs and see the needs of the many.ü Only once this man exercises his reason and subsumes his individual will to the general will will man ascend to nobility and take steps away from the animals. This looks to civility, intelligence and a lack of any limiting ambition and appetite.
Mention the civil state.
One objection to this political philosophy is that the general will does not allow for any reasoned deviation. It reasoned deviation’ or the general will? accounts for an individual who uses the state for personal gain, forcing them to accept their freedom, but when an individual uses reason to develop an argument which differs from the general will, they are forced to dismiss their opinion. The entire social contract is based on reasoning, looking to the good of the many, but it can only see one correct answer. It does not look to the future nor accept that there can be more than one correct solution to a problem.ü In many ways this allows the general will? to fall back into the world it is so desperate to claw its way out of, the natural world. It mirrors sheep walking together and herds packing for safety, not nobility.
2 What evidence can be put forward in support of the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons?
To answer this question we need to look at both the setting of the picture itself and the time in which David painted it.ü This gives us our first major piece of evidence that David could have been portraying political ideals in his work.
The ‘Brutus’ painting depicts a time of great change in Roman history, the forming of a great republic. Although David began his painting in 1788 before the beginning of the French Revolution, it could be argued that David was contributing to the build up of feeling and the beginnings of change in France, which he was sensing around him at the time. Surely, it is no coincidence that David's ‘Brutus’ and the time it was painted both share the same political backdrop. Block 3, p. 168 – Roman republic a bit different than the one to which the revolutionaries aspired. Periods of history when law and consensus replaced individual rule and autocracy. Not a grammatically correct sentence.
Further evidence that David intended to convey a political message is revealed in the content of the painting. The lictors carrying Brutus' sons are carrying fasces. Fasces are bundles of rods which were known to represent solidarity and fraternity, ideals of the Revolution, ü and their presence in the painting is, again, no coincidence.
New idea, new paragraph The painting is split into two halves. On the right, the grieving family, women filled with emotion and feeling. On the left we see the bodies being carried by the lictors, very formally and without fuss. Again, this seems to suggest that the system, the rulers, were in charge of themselves whilst the nobility were falling apart. Well, not quite. It does, however, suggest conflict between duty to the state and family allegiance. The family are surrounded by white sheets, framing them in their vivid colour whilst also promoting their Family’s failure? To do what? failure, whilst the lictors, or the state if you will, are subtle and almost faceless, but nevertheless, effective.
More evidence of the political effects of David’s ‘Brutus’ is in the evidence we get from the people who saw it at the time. In a letter to Joseph Vien in 1789, Charles-Etienne-Gabriel Cuvillier, of the Royal Fine Arts Office, argues that the painting has the potential to 'inflame political passions' source of quotation? and he is worried that it should not be a part of an exhibition to be opened on the King's feast day. Cuvillier’s views are hardly surprising if he felt the painting supported republicanism, which was building in France at the time. There is, however, no evidence that anybody who saw the painting was stirred to dash off and start chopping the heads off the ruling classes!ü In fact, the people who saw the painting, and had the intelligence to understand its contents, were almost certainly those who might fear any portentous content.
David must have known the feelings his paintings could stir when he began ‘Brutus’, and although there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he was 'giving visual form to political ideas', in reality there is no hard evidence that David was, in fact, doing this. Use examples from course material to support this point of view. One could be cynical and suggest that David was doing what entertainers! He’s not an entertainer! have done throughout history in mirroring their times for personal gain. One could suggest that David, who had no particular political leanings before Brutus, actually changed his views and Brutus was his first step towards a more politically active future. An interesting suggestion, but where is the evidence for this? One things is certain, however, Brutus is both an inflammatory and succinct observation of the time in which it was conceived.
3 What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus?
In comparing Rousseau and his philosophical thinking to David and his painting, we can first look to the effect both men had on the time in which they lived. Whilst they both 'performed' to crowds and were held up as bastions of change and visionaries, they neither of them actually facilitated any of this change; they simply contributed to a new mindset which was sweeping France at the time. Interesting, but this isn’t answering the question. Both men saw a need for change and used the resource they had to do what they could to promote this. While we can definitely see that Rousseau was a political animal, although he would hate such a description, David's role is slightly more ambiguous in as much as he can be seen as either an entertainer or social commentator, with possible political leanings. Ok, but this isn’t identifying areas of shared concern between Rousseau and David.
Both The Social Contract and ‘Brutus’ share a determination that the state works at its best without autocracy. Brutus depicts the ruling class falling apart Not really. , whilst The Social Contract gives power to the population, and in both cases this results in order from chaos and a faceless, but nonetheless, reasoned and noble calm. Freedom from tyranny has been achieved in both pieces of work; Rousseau in the power of the General Will and David in the rule of law dictated by the population.? The theme of the painting is that Brutus has condemned his sons to death because of their role in a royalist plot. He is putting duty to the state before his personal needs or considerations of family allegiance.
Derek Matravers. (2005) Units 10 and 11, Rousseau and Democracy, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 91-154
Linda Walsh. (2005) Unit 12, Art History and Politics, David and Friedrich, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 156-200
The Open University. An Introduction to Humanities, Illustration Book. Colour Plate 41
Only 66%!
Friday, 25 January 2008
And now... TMA 05
So, I'm quite pleased with this one! Surely a sign that it will be dreadful as the previous one, which I thought was awful turned out not too bad! Well, not as bad as I expected!
Have a read, we'll see how I got on in a couple of weeks! Now, Religion!
TMA 05
Art History and Philosophy
1 How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.
Rousseau published his social contract in 1762, opening with the words, 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains'. His philosophical argument is based around human freedom, human reasoning or morality and a unity, bringing men together as non-reasonable animals can never be.
To answer the first half of the question, we initially have to understand the terms general will and moral liberty, as used by Rousseau. Rousseau describes general will as; 'that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals'. The general will is determined by the reasoning of the sovereign or population. It looks beyond individual desires and dictates that if humans follow the general will, rather than their base desires, they will be free. Humans may feel that they know what they want, their particular will, but if this differs from the general will then they are binding themselves in bestial chains.
To discover how Rousseau sees the term moral liberty we must look to his own reasoning. Rousseau believed that nature lacked both nobility and reason. He suggests that legitimacy can only be derived through following the will of the sovereign, an individuals will has no legitimacy. He believed in the liberty derived from following this general will, in a sense, a feeling of belonging and having brought about your own place in the world. This is true moral liberty, legitimate and reasoned.
We can therefore, start to see how Rousseau took a view which on the surface looks extraordinary. The idea that following the crowd makes us free! When deciding on the general will, man must use reason to look beyond his own needs and see the needs of the many. Only once this need has been satisfied will man ascend to nobility and take steps away from the animals. This looks to civility, intelligence and a lack of any limiting ambition and appetite.
One objection to this political philosophy is that the general will persecutes any suggestion of reasoned deviation. It accounts for an individual who uses the state for personal gain, forcing them to accept their freedom, but when an individual uses reason to develop an argument which differs from the general will they are forced to dismiss their differed opinion. The entire social contract is based on reasoning, looking to the good of the many, but it can only see one correct answer. It doesn't look to the future or accept that there can be more than one correct solution to a problem. In many ways this allows it to fall back into the world it is so desperate to claw its way out of, the natural world. It mirrors sheep walking together and herds packing for safety, not nobility.
2 What evidence can be put forward in support of the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons?
To answer this question we need to look at both the setting of the picture itself and the time in which David painted it. This gives us our first major piece of evidence that David could have been portraying political ideals in his work. The Brutus painting depicts a time in Roman history of great change. The forming of a great republic. Although David began his painting in 1788, before the beginning of the French Revolution, and it is based on much earlier sketches, it could be argued that David was adding suggestion to a build up of feeling and the beginnings of change in France which he was sensing around him at the time. Surely, it is no coincidence that David's Brutus and the time it was painted both share the same political backdrop. Periods of history when law and consensus replaced individual rule and autocracy.
Further evidence is portrayed in the content of the painting. The lictors carrying Brutus' sons are carrying fasces. Fasces are bundles of rods which were known to represent solidarity and fraternity, bywords of the revolution. They were commonly used symbols of the revolution and their presence in the painting is again, no coincidence. The painting is split into two halves. On the right, the grieving family, women, filled with emotion and feeling. On the left we see the bodies being carried by the lictors, very formally and without fuss. Again, this seems to suggest that the system, the rulers, were in charge of themselves whilst the nobility were falling apart. The family are surrounded by white sheets, framing them in their vivid colour whilst also promoting their failure whilst the lictors, or the state if you will, are subtle and almost faceless, but nevertheless, effective.
More evidence of the political effects of Davids' Brutus is in the evidence we get from the people who saw it at the time. In a letter to Joseph Vien in 1789, Cuvillier, of the Royal Fine Arts Office argues that the painting has the potential to 'inflame political passions' and he is worried that it should not be a part of an exhibition to be opened on the king's feast day. Hardly surprising if he felt the painting supported a republicanism which was building in France at the time. There is, however, no evidence that anybody who saw the painting was stirred to dash off and start chopping the heads off the ruling classes! In fact, the people who saw the painting, and had the intelligence to understand its contents were almost certainly those who might fear any portentous content.
David must have know the feelings his paintings could stir when he began Brutus and although there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he was 'giving visual form to political ideas', in reality, there is no hard evidence that David was, in fact, doing this. One could be cynical and suggest David was doing what entertainers have done throughout history in mirroring their times for personal gain. One could suggest that David, who had no particular political leanings before Brutus actually changed his views and Brutus was his first step towards a more politically active future. One things is certain however, Brutus is both an inflammatory and succinct observation of the time is was conceived.
3 What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus?
In comparing Rousseau and his philosophical thinking, to David and his imagery, we can firstly look to the effect both men had on the time they lived. Whilst they were both 'performed' to crowds and were held up as bastions of change and visionaries, they neither of them actually facilitated any of this change, simply forming a piece of a new mindset which was sweeping France at the time. Both men saw a need for change and used the resource they had to do what they could to promote this. While we can definitely see that Rousseau was a political animal, although he'd hate such a description, David's role is slightly more ambiguous, in as much as he can be seen as either an entertainer or social commentator, with possible political leanings.
Both The Social Contract and Brutus share a determination that the state works at its best without the autocracy. Brutus depicts the ruling class falling apart whilst The Social Contract gives power to the population and in both cases, this results in order from chaos and a faceless, but nonetheless, reasoned and noble calm. Freedom from tyranny has been achieved in both pieces of work, Rousseau in the power of the General Will and David in the rule of law dictated by the population.
Derek Matravers. (2005) Units 10 and 11, Rousseau and Democracy, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 91-154
Linda Walsh. (2005) Unit 12, Art History and Politics, David and Friedrich, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 156-200
The Open University. An Introduction to Humanities, Illustration Book. Colour Plate 41
Have a read, we'll see how I got on in a couple of weeks! Now, Religion!
TMA 05
Art History and Philosophy
1 How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.
Rousseau published his social contract in 1762, opening with the words, 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains'. His philosophical argument is based around human freedom, human reasoning or morality and a unity, bringing men together as non-reasonable animals can never be.
To answer the first half of the question, we initially have to understand the terms general will and moral liberty, as used by Rousseau. Rousseau describes general will as; 'that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals'. The general will is determined by the reasoning of the sovereign or population. It looks beyond individual desires and dictates that if humans follow the general will, rather than their base desires, they will be free. Humans may feel that they know what they want, their particular will, but if this differs from the general will then they are binding themselves in bestial chains.
To discover how Rousseau sees the term moral liberty we must look to his own reasoning. Rousseau believed that nature lacked both nobility and reason. He suggests that legitimacy can only be derived through following the will of the sovereign, an individuals will has no legitimacy. He believed in the liberty derived from following this general will, in a sense, a feeling of belonging and having brought about your own place in the world. This is true moral liberty, legitimate and reasoned.
We can therefore, start to see how Rousseau took a view which on the surface looks extraordinary. The idea that following the crowd makes us free! When deciding on the general will, man must use reason to look beyond his own needs and see the needs of the many. Only once this need has been satisfied will man ascend to nobility and take steps away from the animals. This looks to civility, intelligence and a lack of any limiting ambition and appetite.
One objection to this political philosophy is that the general will persecutes any suggestion of reasoned deviation. It accounts for an individual who uses the state for personal gain, forcing them to accept their freedom, but when an individual uses reason to develop an argument which differs from the general will they are forced to dismiss their differed opinion. The entire social contract is based on reasoning, looking to the good of the many, but it can only see one correct answer. It doesn't look to the future or accept that there can be more than one correct solution to a problem. In many ways this allows it to fall back into the world it is so desperate to claw its way out of, the natural world. It mirrors sheep walking together and herds packing for safety, not nobility.
2 What evidence can be put forward in support of the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons?
To answer this question we need to look at both the setting of the picture itself and the time in which David painted it. This gives us our first major piece of evidence that David could have been portraying political ideals in his work. The Brutus painting depicts a time in Roman history of great change. The forming of a great republic. Although David began his painting in 1788, before the beginning of the French Revolution, and it is based on much earlier sketches, it could be argued that David was adding suggestion to a build up of feeling and the beginnings of change in France which he was sensing around him at the time. Surely, it is no coincidence that David's Brutus and the time it was painted both share the same political backdrop. Periods of history when law and consensus replaced individual rule and autocracy.
Further evidence is portrayed in the content of the painting. The lictors carrying Brutus' sons are carrying fasces. Fasces are bundles of rods which were known to represent solidarity and fraternity, bywords of the revolution. They were commonly used symbols of the revolution and their presence in the painting is again, no coincidence. The painting is split into two halves. On the right, the grieving family, women, filled with emotion and feeling. On the left we see the bodies being carried by the lictors, very formally and without fuss. Again, this seems to suggest that the system, the rulers, were in charge of themselves whilst the nobility were falling apart. The family are surrounded by white sheets, framing them in their vivid colour whilst also promoting their failure whilst the lictors, or the state if you will, are subtle and almost faceless, but nevertheless, effective.
More evidence of the political effects of Davids' Brutus is in the evidence we get from the people who saw it at the time. In a letter to Joseph Vien in 1789, Cuvillier, of the Royal Fine Arts Office argues that the painting has the potential to 'inflame political passions' and he is worried that it should not be a part of an exhibition to be opened on the king's feast day. Hardly surprising if he felt the painting supported a republicanism which was building in France at the time. There is, however, no evidence that anybody who saw the painting was stirred to dash off and start chopping the heads off the ruling classes! In fact, the people who saw the painting, and had the intelligence to understand its contents were almost certainly those who might fear any portentous content.
David must have know the feelings his paintings could stir when he began Brutus and although there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he was 'giving visual form to political ideas', in reality, there is no hard evidence that David was, in fact, doing this. One could be cynical and suggest David was doing what entertainers have done throughout history in mirroring their times for personal gain. One could suggest that David, who had no particular political leanings before Brutus actually changed his views and Brutus was his first step towards a more politically active future. One things is certain however, Brutus is both an inflammatory and succinct observation of the time is was conceived.
3 What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus?
In comparing Rousseau and his philosophical thinking, to David and his imagery, we can firstly look to the effect both men had on the time they lived. Whilst they were both 'performed' to crowds and were held up as bastions of change and visionaries, they neither of them actually facilitated any of this change, simply forming a piece of a new mindset which was sweeping France at the time. Both men saw a need for change and used the resource they had to do what they could to promote this. While we can definitely see that Rousseau was a political animal, although he'd hate such a description, David's role is slightly more ambiguous, in as much as he can be seen as either an entertainer or social commentator, with possible political leanings.
Both The Social Contract and Brutus share a determination that the state works at its best without the autocracy. Brutus depicts the ruling class falling apart whilst The Social Contract gives power to the population and in both cases, this results in order from chaos and a faceless, but nonetheless, reasoned and noble calm. Freedom from tyranny has been achieved in both pieces of work, Rousseau in the power of the General Will and David in the rule of law dictated by the population.
Derek Matravers. (2005) Units 10 and 11, Rousseau and Democracy, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 91-154
Linda Walsh. (2005) Unit 12, Art History and Politics, David and Friedrich, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 156-200
The Open University. An Introduction to Humanities, Illustration Book. Colour Plate 41
Over Christmas...
Hiya,
Ok, so Christmas and new year were a little testing, and my OU work got a little forgotten about, along with this blog! I applied for, and got, an extension for TMA04 and then left it to the very last minute anyway and wrote it in just over an hour on the night it had to be in, a week late. I'm not proud! I know the whole idea behind this has now vanished in smoke! Work hard at it! My ass!
Anyway, my result, well, it wasn't too bad to be honest!
TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT: 66%
Dan,You are certainly heading in the right direction with your comments and you make some interesting observations about Roux's speech.
The source is indeed public (it was a speech given before the Convention), however, as it reveals opinions and views it is actually discursive and not a document of record. You are correct to suggest that the speech may contain bias, however, the main weakness which you neglect to mention is that it gives us the views and opinions of one radical faction in Paris in the summer of 1793. The accuracy of the events it describes is secondary.
Well done for mentioning the Constitutional Act and the Declaration as two things that would need elucidation. Capets and sovereign don't really need elaborating on as they are discussed in the notes at the bottom of the speech. The reference to Marseilles, which refers to the success of the Jacobin camp there, might also need explaining.
You provide an interesting, and overall relevant, synopsis of the contents of the speech, however, you never really differentiate between witting and unwitting testimony, therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether or not you fully understand each. Well done for mentioning Roux's accusation that the Convention is condoning hoarding. This wittingly reveals that Roux believes that those who do so are part of the counter revolution, the existence of which is revealed in the references to the Capets and emigres. Roux's suggestion that hostages be taken reveals the extreme measures that some believed were needed to deal with that counter revolution. Roux's emphasis on hoarding suggests that there is a subsistence crisis in Paris in the summer of 1793, which has a class dimension to it with the rich oppressing the poor. Reference to rights and sovereign people reveals the presence of a political culture in which men were demanding their rights, something that Roux unwittingly extends to the economic realm when he demands freedom from want and economic rights for all. The tone of the speech, which is critical and condescending, unwittingly reveals the distrust in which the enrages held the Convention. Roux also claims to speak on behalf of the people, which can be read as an attempt to bargain with the Convention. Discussion of some of the other points that are wittingly and unwittingly revealed, plus distinction between the two would have strengthened your essay, but in general you are heading in the right direction.
Ok, so Christmas and new year were a little testing, and my OU work got a little forgotten about, along with this blog! I applied for, and got, an extension for TMA04 and then left it to the very last minute anyway and wrote it in just over an hour on the night it had to be in, a week late. I'm not proud! I know the whole idea behind this has now vanished in smoke! Work hard at it! My ass!
Anyway, my result, well, it wasn't too bad to be honest!
TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT: 66%
Dan,You are certainly heading in the right direction with your comments and you make some interesting observations about Roux's speech.
The source is indeed public (it was a speech given before the Convention), however, as it reveals opinions and views it is actually discursive and not a document of record. You are correct to suggest that the speech may contain bias, however, the main weakness which you neglect to mention is that it gives us the views and opinions of one radical faction in Paris in the summer of 1793. The accuracy of the events it describes is secondary.
Well done for mentioning the Constitutional Act and the Declaration as two things that would need elucidation. Capets and sovereign don't really need elaborating on as they are discussed in the notes at the bottom of the speech. The reference to Marseilles, which refers to the success of the Jacobin camp there, might also need explaining.
You provide an interesting, and overall relevant, synopsis of the contents of the speech, however, you never really differentiate between witting and unwitting testimony, therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether or not you fully understand each. Well done for mentioning Roux's accusation that the Convention is condoning hoarding. This wittingly reveals that Roux believes that those who do so are part of the counter revolution, the existence of which is revealed in the references to the Capets and emigres. Roux's suggestion that hostages be taken reveals the extreme measures that some believed were needed to deal with that counter revolution. Roux's emphasis on hoarding suggests that there is a subsistence crisis in Paris in the summer of 1793, which has a class dimension to it with the rich oppressing the poor. Reference to rights and sovereign people reveals the presence of a political culture in which men were demanding their rights, something that Roux unwittingly extends to the economic realm when he demands freedom from want and economic rights for all. The tone of the speech, which is critical and condescending, unwittingly reveals the distrust in which the enrages held the Convention. Roux also claims to speak on behalf of the people, which can be read as an attempt to bargain with the Convention. Discussion of some of the other points that are wittingly and unwittingly revealed, plus distinction between the two would have strengthened your essay, but in general you are heading in the right direction.
TMA04: History
Daniel Tarry
Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In an essay of no more than 800 words consider the following three questions;
1. What kind of primary source is this and what strengths and weaknesses does it have as a source for your study?
2. Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it?
3. What can you learn from this source with respect to Paris during the Terror? You should distinguish, where appropriate, between witting and unwitting testimony.
The extract is taken from a speech given by Jacques Roux before the French Convention on 25th June 1793. As such, the type of primary source would be considered to be an unpublished document. It would, however, have been made in front of a large number of people and therefore it would not have been as difficult to find as letters home to the family or school report cards I can see the point you are trying to make here, but this isn’t really answering the question and reference to school report cards is anachronistic. . It is also a document of record, having been aired very publicly Yes, it is a public source, but it is not a document of record. As a speech that reveals opinions and views it is actually a discursive source. Block 3, p. 25.. This is a strength as we can trust the source.
One weakness is that we are not told if the speech was written down by one of these spectators or by Roux. If a spectator transcribed it then it is a discursive document. If Roux kept a written copy of the speech he gave then it is a document of record. A discursive document would not be the best source as there can be inaccuracies or bias. One of the weaknesses of this discursive source is that, yes, there may be bias and Roux could be open to claims of exaggeration in order to make his point. We can assume, as the speech was given to a crowd, that it did actually happen, however! A bit repetitive. You have already said this above.
As the speech was given in France in 1793 we can expect it to contain elements that would need clarifying today. The extract we are given has two notes attached for a start. Which means that you don’t really need to explain the terms that the notes provide definitions for. Whereas we, today, would see sovereign as a single supreme authority, Roux was referring to the people of France. This, in context, does still ring true as Roux saw the common population as the power or rulers of France, as one, enmasse.
Combine this paragraph with the one above; you are still discussing terms that require elucidation.
We are also told that Capet was the family name of the French Royal Family, something we would need to know for the speech to make complete sense to us. There are other 'French' phrases that we would need to look-up to ensure complete accuracy before we could use the document. These include 'sans-culottes and émigrés.
There are two separate acts which are referred to by Roux during the extract. 'The Constitutional Act' and the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man'. If we were to make proper use of this extract then we would need prior knowledge of these two acts,ü along with a clear background on the time Roux lived in, the world around him and the events he was referring to. Yes, but the latter is contextual information and isn’t really examples of words or phrases in the document that require elucidation.
From the extract you Try not to use ‘you’. Perhaps, ‘it can be determined…’ or ‘one can determine…’ can determine that Paris was confused, dangerous and in the midst of change. Although we know this much from other background reading, the clues are in this extract. Roux is speaking to the French Convention. He urges them to pass decrees, which shows us that they still had the power to govern Jacobins in control of Convention for the first time. and that Paris was not entirely anarchic. The Convention is urged to pass a decree outlawing speculation and hoarding, stopping the merchants oppressing the poor, bringing the people into the revolution and increasing its Vague reference. To what does ‘it’ refer? power.
Reference is made to the striking dead of those who 'dare propose a king' and the outlawing of counter revolutionaries, showing us that the people are beginning to be heard. Their power is beginning to come to the fore. Royalty, however, has not yet been chased out and this shows us that the Convention still has not bowed completely to the will of the revolution. They do not expel nobles, and in Roux’s opinion most importantly, they are allowing the merchants to continue their monopolistic stranglehold over commerce and food.ü which wittingly suggests that those who condone hoarding are part of the counter revolution.
We learn that the merchants still have control of Paris. They keep the 'sans-culottes' unfed, fuelling counter-revolution as the citizens starve and wonder whether this really is the way forward. The idea that France could revolutionise is hanging in the balance, regardless of the steps already taken, because the poor majority is not yet taking part, and Roux is pleading for the half measures to stop and the Law and the Constitution to be used to finally bring down all of the ruling classes. ü an interesting suggestion.
Arthur Marwick. (2005) Units 8 and 9, Introduction to History, Part 1 : Issues and Methods, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 1-88
http://www.edteck.com/dbq/more/types.htm#oral
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)