He was asking

He: philosopher

Common people

A man in a great city given questions and the people avoided the answers because considered him a crazy, he asked

 He :The war is right or failed.

Common people: It is failed certainly.

He: Why?

Common people: Because very much men and women are going to die.

He: But men and women are going to die also during the peace.

Common people: Yes but the war is contrast of nations and enmity

He: But enmity we have also during the peace, when we lament to somebody, and we are in war but our nation is in peace.

Common people: Yes but everybody says that the war is very bad.

He: Thereupon if everybody says that the war is very good, the war would be very good.

Common people: I no idea.

He: Why? Because nobody has said to you what is common opinion?

Common people: No, absolutely!

He: Do you have an opinion?

Common people: Certain!

He: What is?

Common people: In my opinion you have broken the balls.

He: Yes, but you haven’t answered.

Common people: Fuck you (he goes away)

He;(to other person)I give to you same question and I want…

Common people: I know and I can say to you that every would answer so because is common opinion and if you aren’t common people, you never are going to accept, because also the who is uncommon people is following a rule and the role, because it is alone a part of theatre.

He: But the principal motive for my exclusion is that I am common people, and I am bearer of common opinion, and I am despised for my courage and strength, because nobody, in conformity of current morality, nobody says it because it isn’t moral accepted, it is alone necessity of simulation, because the weakness of contemporary man compels to follow the moral dictate, but the morality is alone temporary, because tomorrow is going to be other opinion or morality, certainly hence everybody follows that.

Common people: What can gives strong to human gender?

He: The sureness that we can took from different way, through the read, the gymnastic, the speech to other, and awareness that if other aren’t going to follow us, it is very scant important. And the sureness is alone a dynamic compensation, it is alone the object or everything that can calm our wit, it is the force, the capacity of front difficulties, and the difficulties of common people is overcome the morality.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

Michelangelo’s speculative poetry

The rhymes of Michelangelo are very poor, he is better and universal as artist, but as poet is very scant; anyway, he isn’t born as poet, and he hasn’t the necessary culture, hence we can apologize him because the compensation to this lack is compensated from arts. The poetry although is poor we can identify some character that can gives to us some interest as the speculative poetry, the first question is what is speculative poetry? It is in literary critic isn’t, but it is alone the description of reality through some poetic word, but he has took directly from Dante Alighieri(1265-1321) this is from Divine comedy, because the steps aren’t in Italian of 16^th century, some example, here (I have translated the poetries of Michelangelo and the word is set in Italian and translated in English): “Much years fassi(it makes) much happy in a very short hour it compels and worry herself; and for or famous or ancient offspring other are proud s’inlustra. These Italian words are took directly from Dante the second is from Paradise chant 14^th verse 132, and the first is also from Dante from Hell Chant 23th verse 63; because after proud, he followed: “…in a moment it is obscured this is in Italian is imbruna, other word of Dante that he has used in Purgatory Chant 4^th verse 21, and continuing: “Mobile thing isn’t under the sun it doesn’t death and changes(cangi) the fortune; but the question is normal, where is the speculative character? It is in the whole sense of this sonnet, because these verse say, I have summarized the sense, that is that these are persons that has been happy for years and after these persons compel and worry themselves, and for famous offspring they are proud but after they are obscured; this is the sense of these verse, but the comment is that the poetry are very scant, Michelangelo has took from Dante and in English it isn’t but in Italian the distance from the Michelangelo’s and Dante’s language is very clear; anyway beyond the differences in regard the language, the sense is purely speculative, because it is normal phenomenal of history of humankind. Other sonnet says(it is alone a summarize): as a bird can save himself from net and after die for worse death, so love has saved me for much years and during old age he has wins me, other speculative poetry, because it is occurred to Michelangelo but can occurs to everybody, because the man can ignores the love and after falls in love passionately, but it is normal nature of men, hence it is the speculative poetry.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

Platonic Michelangelo

We can’t think that Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) known the Platonic philosophy, he was an artist, and he was very distant from this will, also because to read Plato was necessary to know the Latin or ancient Greek language, and he didn’t known neither or other, he written the poetry, or at last tried it and one sonnet expressed a concept that after the critic of art has took and used much times, it says: “The very good artist hasn’t concept that an marble alone surrounded in itself  for its excess, and alone to it come the hand that obey to brain”, these poor verses can seem alone words without a sense, but the experience of sculptor that Michelangelo has made, inducts him to consider that the sculpture was already in marble block, and the matter that surrounds the sculpture is alone more matter that the sculptor must remove, because the work is already in the block; this concept is very fantasy as Platonic, the verses that we have read are a heredity from Neoplatonic academy, that Michelangelo attended and where he, after the store of Ghirlandaio(1448-1494), he learned the sculpture, hence the frequentation of this academy has allowed to him of learned some philosophic concept, that he has used for this sonnet, written on 1538-1544; because it is a translation very synthetic of an ideal word of ideas of Plato, and the sculptor is alone an instrument necessary to pick up the sculpture, fortunately this sculptor was Michelangelo, because we can admire his art, but on philosophic level, the nature of this think is alone the academic think, and it is reproofs also from the following of this sonnet, that is dedicated to Vittoria Colonna(1492-1547), after these words he turned the attention to Vittoria, the woman that he Platonically loved, but after the read of following of sonnet the first question is: “So what?”, because. “The hell that I escape, and the good that I promise to me, in you, beautiful woman, dive and proud, so it is hide…”; the question is same: “What cock so what?”, answer: “Absolutely nothing” would answer Michelangelo, . “but some memories of Platonic philosophy is came and I a wanted send this sonnet to a cultured woman, hence this Platonic think was necessary, also because I am Michelangelo and not certainly Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), whereby I am an sculptor, painter and architect, no a poet”. This valuation of this sonnet learns to us that of Michelangelo is certainly better study the sculpture, the painting and architecture rather that study his poetry. Anyway I wanted alone consider that the concept of matter that surrounded the sculpture is a Platonic concept, and following Charles Baudelaire(1821-1867) “the remain is literature”, and it is alone literature because the critic of art is literature, thereby we can also say: “The remain is alone critic of art”.

Alessandro Lusana     

             

 

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.The polemic around the industrial society continues because Morris’s protagonist bought objects in some store, but he doesn’t pay; it is simply absurd, certainly, but it is alone the continuation of polemic that he has begun with hints, that now become more clear, because he doesn’t pays, and it is a sort of anarchism well hidden, this is the absence of money, I think the practice, likewise utopic of Pierre Joseph Proudhon(1809-1865), that theorized the banks of people, where aren’t money but object that were changed for other object, one object was given and other took, this exchange eliminated the money; in fact our protagonist took a piper and tobacco in a store but he doesn’t pays it and he given nothing; hence it isn’t the exchange of Proudhon, but the protagonist recognized that he hasn’t money in carriage and the driver asked what occurred and he confessed that has forgotten the money, but the driver insured him because it isn’t necessary; thereupon it is  the utopic Proudhon and his bank of people. Other step Morris compelled the indolence of some social class, in fact he hints: “it says that during fist times of our era there are much persons sick of indolence, because they were the direct descents  of the class social the during dark times compelled other to work for them…” it is the polemic for industrial society and for worker’s condition. The utopic Proudhon continues his hidden utopic wit, because the protagonist hint to prisons that in the London of future, that imagined from Morris in this romance hasn’t prisons. The craftsman is some pages after, because during the journey, the protagonist seen some fabric and the driver explained that one fabric works the ceramics and glasses, but the worker work all to their pleasure, it is the polemic to industrial society  

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     

.