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%!