Futuristic William Morris

The read of New from nowhere of William Morris(1834-1896), a romance, is a fusion of the present and future, because the protagonist is from other time in a almost contemporary British, a bridge of 2003, in conformity of opinion of a boatman that brought the protagonist, that is called from other personages as guest, certainly a reminiscence of Homer(6^th century b.Ch) from Odyssey, when Nausica met Odysseus and she called him ξένος, this is foreign, because Odysseus doesn’t remember his name, whereby the classic culture of Morris is ascertained; but there is other as the alone hint the polemic against the industrial society, the protagonist, that here I preferred call him so, tells: “The soap factors the chimneys  that vomited the smog, were disappeared; and also the mechanical laboratories, and foundries of plumb…”, it can seems a futuristic representation alone and stop, but we must think to polemic of Morris against the industry that lacked the craftsmanship production of human nature and artistic personality, because the industry was the depersonalized the artistic works; it is certainly true, but “tempora currunt”, this is times are different and the progress is present always, therefore the Morri’s polemic is very childhood, because stopped the progress is stop the history, that is impossible; anyway the future time of Morris is manifest in other step, the protagonist turned toward a direction and he seen the bridge whose above, and the protagonist asked how much years has this bridge and the boatman answers: “ Not much because it was built, or that last opened to traffic, in 2003, before the passage was possible on a wooden bridge.”, we can think that Morris has though a future without industries, that is very utopic think, that is alone a Morri’s dream. The other polemic, very good hide but present, although alone hinted is in step when the protagonist want pay the boatman, and he asked how much is the tariff, and the boatman was amazing and he asked: “How much? I don’t understand what you are asking to me. You are asking about tide?...”, other literature memory, because this lacked tariff is evidently from Voltaire’s Eldorado, when two guests wanted pay the launch with a ingot of gold, that they have picked up on ground, and the host smiled and comment. “it is very strange that you want pay us through an our stone”, because the gold in Eldorado, from title is evident, the gold was very outclassing, but it is also a polemic against the easy gain, and the hint polemic follows for comment of boatman around the money of protagonist, because he said: “Your money is strange, but not certainly ancient…”, and he advised the protagonist to give these moneys to a museum; it is the future of Morris, where the money and industries  aren’t; he has thought as an ideological follower of artisan art, in fact he hasn’t thought that unemployed don’t  live for alone air, but they want eat something sometime. Morris is likely to read but absolutely distant and distinct from reality. The craftsmanship must be protected but it not means that the industry must be destroyed, the progress and hence the history is continue.

Alessandro Lusana 

    

 The prestige

We usually have got custom that the prestige is determined from the wealth, hence richness and the rich homes, cars and other that can stress our prestige, because we tie it to material life, certainly it is the concept and habit that we consider, but some example of history can think that other typology of prestige, and above all historic prestige is possible; the first example is Socrates (b.Ch.399), Athens philosopher that drunk the hemlock after the condemn of a tribunal, where he defensed herself, but for political questions, that didn’t inherent to him, wanted that he died; Socrates certainly wasn’t rich, actually he was very poor, and in fact Cicero(106-46 b.Ch.), called Socrates as callous feet, because he didn’t wear sandals, because he could not buy it; Socrates are more 2000 years that his think is studied and very much is written about his sacrifice, from ancient Greek. Other example, Diogenes(412-323 b.Ch.) cynical philosopher, that in front of Alexander Magnus(356-323b.Ch.), when the last asked if he needed of something, he answered: “Move from sun because it isn’t your again”; Diogenes is known above for this episode, and some book that now is lost; but he as Socrates was very poor, he in fact lived begging and he lived in a barrel naked. An Italian painter Tommaso di Ser Giovanni di Mone di Andreuccio Cassai(1401-1428) called Masaccio, for his look very poor, is a father of painting Renaissance in Florence, and he is remembered always in art history as the principal painter of glorious season of 15 century in Tuscan, but he was certainly more poor and precarious in his cloths, why he is remembered, from his cloths or for his style? May for his style because we can know him alone for description of Vasari, very summary, but we haven’t known directly Masaccio, and his style didn’t tell to us his clothes. Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) has sold a painting alone during his life, today one painting has cost of 80 millions of dollars, but from auto portrait we can see that this painter was very poor, but with one painting of van Gogh we could buy a house and other. These personages that I have summary descripted, are died very poor, but today nobody considers that they lacked of prestige, and this motive doesn’t determined the despise to them, but it is alone a characteristic but nothing that is important. Today we can be richer and very prestigious but after our death we are going to be forgotten for ever, and we are rich in confront of mentioned personages; we should think, but the prestige is tied to richness or no? But this think nobody is going to have, because it is an apologize of ourselves, because personages mentioned have made something instead we have made but certainly the daily works, hence nobody is going to remember us.

Alessandro Lusana      

                                               

 

The Janus man

Janus was a god of Roman mythology; it was also the name of access or exit, a gate or door that a man could open to go in and open to exit, whereby it represented also the past and future, in fact it has two faces, one to right and one to left; this is the present and past. This is alone mythology, certainly but if we consider that this character of this god is merely human, and may an anthropological origin of this god is possible, and may the Roman has took from reality, from human reality; because we are projected toward future, because every days we are building it, we build our occasions, we build motive for enhance our future, but we consider, for this, also the past, the past experience, because also it are necessary to think our actions; we consider both positive experience and negative, always valuing the context where we make something, and alterations that wile are occurred in regard past experience; the human nature of this god is directly reportable to behavior of mankind; the experience is past, therefore is time became, and we can consider it because it became, for the future instead it is going to become, thereupon it isn’t experience, as the present isn’t experience, because in that moment when something is happing we can think it but effects aren’t clear, because it is becoming now, thereby the end of this moment isn’t, hence the end is future, and we should look the face of Janus the gaze toward right, but after the that it is became we can gaze the left face. The study of history, art history, philosophy and other disciplines, no scientific, gaze alone the left face, because it turns alone the past, but the experience is alone necessary to consider summary the exit of some action, because the historic man consider that framework is different; therefore the present is necessary to value how much is altered the context in regard to past; our chance is very limited because the future is impossible to foreseen and thereupon we can consider alone the past, because the present is already visible. In military strategy the past can be useful because allows think a strategy to win a battle, but the generals must consider that the technique od armies and tool for war are very different, therefore to use the strategy the tactic used form Athens in battle of Marathon, today could be a defeat before the fight, and one general that has decided to use a similar tactic may could manage the traffic but no certainly a battle. It is alone an ascertain that human gender is always turned to past, this is the left face of Janus, because we can, also personally know much better, and it is necessary to calm our wit.

Alessandro Lusana       

            

 

 

Presumed think about the painting: Roland Fréart

The think about the taste of writer about the painting is note, and it is note above all for Vasari Life’s, that has privileged Michelangelo(1475-1564) on other painters and artist, and he has privileged the Tuscan artists on other; but that this opinion came from France it is may strange; Roland Fréart de Chambray(1606-1676), French writer is an author of treats about the architecture and painting, but alone a theoretical, because he has never drown something or painted or other artistic task. A his famous treatise is about the Perfection of painter, that he has written about the classic painting, and it represents the extreme try to defense a pictorial classicism that is a very representation of selection of painting between good and wreck; but we can analyze some step: “It is a question very curious to know because the painting is so fall from high perfection where it was…to seen today the weak tried of its factures in confront to ancient very admirable and of this today is alone the widow…”, he came to Rome during 1640, and in Rome, although the painter is very much, of ancient painting isn’t something, hence it is the judge of somebody that has seen alone the ancient sculpture, and no certainly painting. More ridiculous is second step: “For me I haven’t doubt that the principal cause of this decadence  is alone the despise that during the ignorance and barbarism of reigns of low empire, that has so degraded it from ancient nobility, that from the first grade that it has had among the sciences now is work more vulgar, that shows very good the failed of intellects during last centuries…”; the founder of Futurism, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti(1876-1944), loved repeat: “The words in liberty”, in regard the poetry of Futurism, now the words in liberty are, but de Chambrays isn’t the futurist is alone a burk in liberty, very free, because the confront to ancient painting he could not make because isn’t ancient painting, as above said, in Rome, and the scant ancient painting is today in Pompeii, but it was discovered from 1748, and Fréart de Chambray was died, fortunately, because it is wickedness? No it is despise for incompetence and presumption, that in these treat are predominant. The specialist of ridiculous follows his research, because for think and therefore to write these balls is necessary a research very demanding, the step: “The painting has had this disgrace that every written of ancient painters, and books of teaching while more excellent painters in ancient has given to public for understanding of their art are buried by time…”, this propositions I think that is punishable through the capital pain, because it is the ball more great that history has heard, never and never a painter during ancient time has written a treatise about the painter; in fact Fréart didn’t mention the titles, very cunning, but these words demonstrate also that Fréart hasn’t read Vasari and other painters that in stead has written about the technical art of painting; thereupon we are read an ignorant that speaks about arguments that didn’t know, very compliment.

Alessandro Lusana     

.

 

Tempora currunt: Bernini and Heraclitus

I want stressed in this essay a concept that unifies two matters, that can also interpenetrate, through the Aesthetic discipline but now have took the different matters although it have took same physic greatness, this is the time. We are costumed to measure the time with clock or the smart phone and other, but the time of art we are costumed to consider during the centuries and never momentary; I want devoid the attention in a particular moment of sculpture, this is the Baroque, and his major exponent that is Gian Lorenzo Bernini(1598-1680); we must consider different sculptures, The David and Goliath(Fig.1)both in Galleria Borghese Rome, Italy, datable 1623-1624; Bernini took in a moment precise the actions of two protagonist, and for better understand the concept that I want express is necessary to a confront to David of Michelangelo(1475-1564), in Florence(Fig.2), datable1501; the David of Michelangelo is the moment before that the Biblical hero kills the giant, because he gazed the arrive the Goliath and he is took in the moment when he is toking the sling, and Bernini took the moment of David when he is throwing the stone and the sling; we have considered always the gesture very realist strictly to baroque art and the classic style for Michelangelo; but the critic hasn’t never considered the time, no certainly the years or century past between these two sculptures, but the human time between these two actions, that is the Heraclitean time, this is of Heraclitus(b.Ch.535-475b.Ch.), because prescind to the century and logic time past between these works, I want consider alone the momentary of these two actions, this is the concentrated glance of David of Michelangelo and the explicit action of David of Bernini, because between the take the sling of Florentine David(Fig.3) and throw the stone(Fig.1), are necessary other actions, this is pick the stone, that David has took on ground, that in conformity to Biblical tale David has picked in river and took the sling he come toward Goliath; the comment are: “Yes but so what to Bernini and Michelangelo?”, the connection is in the time; because neither Michelangelo and Bernini has represented the whole biblical tale, thereupon we can alone read the Holy Bible to know what is the actions that while are occurred; but concentrating on the specific actions of these two David, time is past, because the first action of David is gazed the Goliath(Fig.3), and after load the sling, action that nobody has represented, but we can imagine, and after to aim and throw the stone, until here nothing of original, because these are two moment  of an action; certainly, but I want consider that time that is a Heraclitean concept, this is; the action of Florentine David is a moment, but after, although Michelangelo hasn’t represented it, we can imagine that David has took the stone and loaded the sling and after he has thrown; but this action requires time and the time, although for these actions is very limited, time passes, and it is a concept purely Heraclitean; this is the David of Bernini(Fig.1) has loaded the sling and he is throwing the stone instead David of Michelangelo is again concentrated to arrive of Goliath, but time that is past between these actions is Heraclitean because these are two distinct moments that require time, whereby the Heraclitean time is passing, this is the πάντα ρεϊ, this is everything passes, hence the time between the actions of David(Fig.4) are distinct and want time, therefore Heraclitean aids us with is philosophical concept, this is πάντα ρεϊ; and the last notation; in Galleria Borghese is other work, now painting, that tells the end of this tale, this is the David with head of Goliath(Fig.5) of Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio(1571-1610); we can use the same concept, after the decollation of Goliath, time is past, thereby the πάντα ρεϊ of Heraclitus is again valid, time that we can imagine but that is passed, whereby we must think that time among these three actions, although very scant is past; this is a connection between the Bernini and Heraclitus, that are lived among more than a thousand years of different, but the concept of time is valid also in this moment, albeit between sculptor and philosopher are past a millennium. It is attests that the concept of Heraclitus is true because both is time some moment of David or centuries between Bernini and Heraclitus πάντα ρεϊ is always present.

Alessandro Lusana  

   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

                

 

Dialectic logic: the stoicism

The other essay about the dialectic, that for me is fight, verbal, physical or other, because alone so we can grow, our opinion, our thinks, and we can think what other has said, also to change our opinion, but for Stoicism, this is that philosophical school born in ancient Greek about 300 b.Ch., founder was Zeno, in opinion of Stoic, that name is from the Stoa, in ancient Greek, this is portico of building where was the school, they anyway this school wanted the first consideration of moral problems, also on daily life, this is the Epicurean ataraxia, this is the absence of passions hence the calm life in medium need without obsessions or utopian will; they has divided their teaching on three address reference, we consider alone that regard the dialectic: the dialectic is logic, this is the science of hypothetical think, whose introduction expresses an objective date, thereupon visible and immediately understandable, for example, following the Stoic dialectic, and the system of their think in regard the evidence of their dialectic, that must begin from evident premises, this is: “Now is morning hence is light. The light isn ‘t now therefore is night”, they identified the dialectic as the science of true and false and that isn’t true and false; it is the deny of the syllogism of Aristotle that in stead wanted the true premises and premises probable that he has used for his syllogism, for Stoic all must be or true or false or neither; it is impossible because something must be or true or false, other isn’t, but the Stoic has though something that become true also in absurd expression, how? Simple they, and it isn’t philosophy but an motive of originality and stop, because the clarification of this judge is ridiculous; in fact the neither false or true is that word in proposition that is single, for example, man, or animal, extern from a contest isn’t true or false, because hasn’t premise and conclusion, hence it isn’t neither; but it is logic, for this isn’t necessary the Stoa is necessary alone the animal intelligence. The difference and origin of this dialectic logic is in the difference between Aristotle and Stoicism in regard dialectic; because the Stoic used the anapodictic concept, from ancient Greek αναπόδεικτος, indemonstrable, because it is evident, as now is morning hence is light, that above we have read; but the origin of this criterion to demonstrate something, has origin in Socrates, because he begun from evident and elementary proposition that after became pure logic, because took from reality; the think of Stoic in regard dialectic is Socratic, purely and merely Socratic.

Alessandro Lusana   

       

 

 

 

Politic plays

A company of tourism organized a visit for tourist in Saint Helen Island, where in 1815, died Napoleon, and Richard very impassioned of history booked soon this visit. In the day of departure after all necessary checks, he was excited; and he was reading memories of Saint Helen Island of personal doctor of Napoleon; and he some steps was interesting but other was very boring, anyway he wanted know more about this jail and its guest, hence he read this book. Arrived to Island one warden welcomed them, and he hailed the group and he accompanied about the island, he explained the nature, the homes of very scant residents, among 4300 and 5200 citizens, and he indicated the capital of Jamestown, and after he accompanied the tourists to principal attractive of island this is the residence of Napoleon, Richard followed the group, and in a room, gather other, he was impressed from simplicity, almost poorness of this room; a window, very great looed the sea and the light was very sheening, he approached to the window and he looked the sea, very admirable, and while he was concentrated in this bliss, he heard from back a voice: “Can I know are you?”, he very soon turned toward the voice and he seen a man that dressed a military uniform he was high meter 1,69, black hair and gazed Richard with attention that was typical of military. Richard excuse hem and asked if he was an actor or other, the military gazed him and asked again: “Can I know who are you?”, Richard followed the with of this interpretation and asked: “I asked to you who are you?”, and the military answered: “Napoleon Bonaparte”, and Richard said his name and after that the Napoleon was seated also Richard seated on a stool. Napoleon looked the window and after, without gaze Richard: “I must admit that the policy is always similar, certainly with modern tools and strategies but the fundamental actions are equal”, and Richard: “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because the egoism of nation is equal, and it is right, because a chief must think the first to his people, and after other; but now the politic man works above all to herself and after for the nation, but…”, Richard interrupted this judge and : “Who are these politic men?”, and Napoleon: “Every, also because the politic is a play among the states, that in first plane of politic palace row and give the boats and promise war and destructions, it is in first plane, but after in basement they make the accord so that the wars don’t occur”, and Richard: “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because the people isn’t now what was in my time, when the faithful was sure, now people is informed and thousand among journals and magazines explain the politic and the actions and because the actions happen; every strategy is note to print before that it is used, and the today lead a nations, because it is aware of his power, the democracy has given it to people”, and Richard: “A question: why do you say used and not think? A strategy is used certainly but before it must is though, or not so?”, and Napoleon: “Yes it is so, but I have said used on stead think or though because the contemporary strategy, is false to everything”, and Richard. “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because nothing state wanted the war, and it are declared alone when it is indispensable; every chief knows perfectly that nobody want the war or fight, because the people is grown up and now is no possible but certain that the people is rebel to a decision of chief; I have to work through wars and actions because I have to give the importance to people, but giving the image that the people was the principal my think”, and Richard: “It was not certainly”, and Napoleon: “My principal think was the French and other is literature”, and Richard: “But you have founded the republics in Italy and…”, and Napoleon: “Strategy, alone strategy, but in 1796, when I have invaded Italy I have given the new politic model of politic, apparently, but truly a wanted alone the conquest, because the first think was the French, I repeat, today unique interest is herself, but during my time was not the tools that today you can use, because then were other generations and other costumes, today if I present myself through speech or ideal speeches, may somebody have time to blow a raspberry, because nobody believes to politic”, an voice on the open door said: “Majesty your medicine”, he was the doctor that has in the hand a flask. Napoleon greeted Richard and gone away. Richard made same and on the fly he rethought what Napoleon has said, and arrived to final stop, he wanted greet the pilot, and he gone in the cabin and he gazed the pilot and he greeted him, and the pilot turned to Richard and he recognized Napoleon, and asked: “But you was in Saint Helen Island, what do you making here?”, and the pilot: “Somebody must lead the airplane, as the states, nobody believes to politic, but majority votes, why? Simple because nobody want responsibility of command, hence who are available to this position is very fit, and I am available to lead a empire or an airplane”, and Richard gone out form cabin and after soon he reentered, but the cabin was empty, and an hostess approached to him and asked: “What do you are searching?”, and Richard: “Napoleon”, and hostess gazed him and: “Napoleon is died in 1815, if you can go out, please, because the fly is ended, thank you”.

Alessandro Lusana