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                                

 

Classic Rubens

Peter Paul Rubens(1577-1640), was an one of major German painter, he was German to birth, because is born in Siegen, Westphalia, but the art critic considers him as Flemish painter, anyway two origins both cultural and birth that excluded totally a series of documents both papery and painting; because the address of Rubens was merely realistic, because Flemish to culture, but in Italy, from 1600 to 1608, he has painted in Italy and he has study also Italian works, we can are sure about it for some drawing that is directly emanation from Universal judge of Michelangelo(1475-1564)(Fig.1), we must not consider it as copies from Michelangelo but suggestion that Rubens has took and translated diversity: a figure of man(Fig.2), is directly suggestion from the nudes on vault of Sistine chapel(Figs.3-6), that evidently Rubens has studied and has took, as good idea for eventual painting, the painters seen a determined painting, or others thing, and they keep in the brain imagines, a catalog necessary for execution of their works, it is normal for every painter and sculptor, architect or artisan, for literary the catalog is the mentions. Other figure(Fig.7) while posture is very different but the model was the Christ of Judge(Fig.8); and other male figure(Fig.9), that has followed directly the nudes(Figs.3-6); other drawing with naked man from the back(Fig.10) has took from a figure of Michelangelo in same painting(Fig.11); beyond the posture of Christ(Fig.8), Rubens has took also other posture(Fig.12), the arm is from Christ but the posture outspread is directly from this figure, hence Rubens has gathered two postures of two figures; it is catalog that I have mentioned above; a perfect gather of two figures and the while postures, is for two figures of God(Fig.14), that Rubens has took to a figure from the back but with left arm opened(Fig.13); Rubens has took the figure of God from the back, and has took also the opened arms of God figure on right; but certainly to him hasn’t rested indifferent the posture of Eva(Fig.15). These considerations about the classic address of Rubens, that in art critic is a true oath, because Rubens was Flemish and stop, are valid also to other drawn figure(Fig.16), the posture is directly took from the fragmentary sculpture, called the torso of Belvedere(Fig.17), and for the legs of man Rubens has took the Moses(Fig.18); the influences of classic culture is evident also from painting, a figure of Hercules(Fig.19) Rubens has took again the posture of Christ(Fig.8), but for body very statuary he sees to painted sculptures of Judge(Figs.20-21). It attests that a painter must follow the will of costumers and he must took everywhere the suggestions necessary to his painting, the canonical address we have given, but they were above all artists and after also classic, naturalist and other.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21

          

 

Against though: the utility of luxury

A Italian writer, Stefano Zecchi, in his book The luxury said: “Actually, the luxury is considered as absolutely useless, and superfluous and useless, but it is true? No certainly, because if it is was useless nobody would want it, instead it is useful because every day we have demonstration, during journalistic service about the meeting in some presidential home, no certainly private, that it is the Quirinal in Italy, the White house in USA or Palais de l’Élysée in France or other States, the residences are the mirror of country; hence the representation of luxury is representation of wealth and elegance of State, because from these meeting would come affairs and money and economy, the guest must be welcome in luxury house, because from it depends the presentation to guest that isn’t a private citizen but a chief of State, whereby he is the country in that moments and the guest represents other State thereupon the luxury is necessary to whole country that welcomes the guest. On private level the same costume is necessary, a business man can’t welcome a guest in a hut, because it isn’t elegant and from these meeting could or certainly come affairs, because the elegance, and luxury are necessary to everybody, because to house image is tide the owner; the restaurant in the hut I don’t think that must deny booking; the image in politic, both personal that public is all, and the luxury is fundamental to give this image. In history the politic power is always shown for luxury, also to private citizen, the villas of lords, during Renaissance, were the present oneself, for this the villas were often decorated, because it was necessary to celebrate the lord or owner that he was a pope or laic, but it was possible alone a luxurious residence or villa, and often the official meetings were among private citizens; the peace called commonly as peace of Paris, in year 1783, between the independent states of USA and British kingdom was signed in Versailles; why this luxurious palace, they must alone signed a document, they could make it also in tavern in front of a bottle of wine and with some whore, or not? If this meeting was occurred so, the war would be again present; the embassies have the same protocol, this is those formal rules that are necessary to speak to a strange represent, above all if he is a politic, the ambassador must be keep his rule and his behavior that must be always polite and diplomatic, without emotions and sentiments, but he is a person, the seat of representation is embassy, that must be perfect and luxurious because it represents the owner of embassy that is a State. Hence the common opinion about the luxury is false, the luxury is useful, in fact the private citizens haven’t this luxury because they don’t welcome the guest so important; the rich men must be keep their luxury because they must keep their richness.

Alessandro Lusana                 

 

 

 

 

 

Idealization of ideal: neoclassic sculpture

Now we must leave the realism for a consideration that very scant is said. the idealization of ideal; apparently it is a contradiction, because the ideal is the translation of a idea, in this context alone formal, therefore it we can’t represented something that is ideal in its nature; but if we think about the Neoclassic sculpture we can find that the ideal can be improve, alone in formal translation, and overcoming the original idealism, because the formal definition is perfect and smoothed, because these sculpture are more near to ideal than original, a confront is sufficient, the Doryphores(Fig.1),datable between the 2th and the 1th century before Christ, is perfect to its body and definition of every particular, certainly, but the Thorvaldsen(1770-1844), for his Jason with golden fleece(Fig.2), is more cured and more beauty. Although this paragon and word in art history is an oath, because the art is a production of man in his contest, in his moment, in his social environment, hence we must tie it to framework, otherwise nothing is possible understand; whereby the Neoclassicism has idealized the ideal, because although the Jason of Thorvaldsen is directly retook from the Doryphores, because the posture is similar, the left arm raised that is directly suggested from Neapolitan sculpture, to a confront is evident that the Thorvaldsen is formally better, certain, because the technique of sculpture was improved and the material is worked through others techniques, but it is a confirm of my think; because the framework is indispensable, to understand, but the idealization of ideal is possible to Thorvaldsen and Canova(1757-1822) because the technique was very improved, but it has aided the neoclassic sculptors to smooth the superficies, for this is sufficient see the sculptures, for example the Hercules and Lyca of Canova(Fig.3), for the body of Hercules Canova has took directly from Hercules in Naples(Fig.4), it is very interesting because although the dynamic of this sculpture is very sharp, the sculptor has smoothed the superficies because the final result is important and the form is all, because to neoclassic sculpture is fundamental the form, that is important, certainly, but the neoclassicism cures alone it, for example the Paolina Borghese(Fig.5), sister of Napoleon, and portrayed in sculpture from Canova, formally is perfect and certainly Canova has improved the form of body, although the Canova’s sculpture is very similar to other portraits(Fig.6) of Paolina, but the face of model is changed(Figs.7-8), evidently or Paolina or Canova has chosen delete that real physiognomy, and the realism all; because the Neoclassicism is so, absence absolutely of real connotes; it is necessary to idealization, that must overcome the model and the ideal to idealize the ideal. The last note for reprove this concept, the Perseus(Fig.9) of Canova is a specular representation of Apollos in Vatican(Fig.10), but Canova has cured better the formal definition, thereupon the ideal is overcame.

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

 

Platonic dialectic

The concept of dialectic, in philosophy, is variegate, and in fact four distinction we can find for this concept, the definition Platonic, Aristotelian, Hegelian and other; reading Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944), he to give a distinction from his dialectic concept he define the Platonic dialectic as: “The Platonic dialectic is alone apparent dialectic, because it is the develop of unity through the multiplicity…the dialectic truth, whose way it is possible understand that of head, but it isn’t the dialectic of head, but that of ideas, that don’t make the unity but it are the unity…The ideas don’t realize the unity, because it are the unity, neither it realize the multiplicity because it are the multiplicity: and it haven’t the principle of mutation or movement”. It expressed so it seems a kick on the balls, because incomprehensible, in fact it is so; but we must consider that the word of ideas of Plato is unique, hence there are every ideas of real object in the word, in fact Gentile explained this concept through these words: “The Platonic dialectic is alone apparent dialectic, because it is the develop of unity through the multiplicity…”, this is the word of ideas is one but the ideas, that are the projection of earthly in the word, but the essence of these objects are in the word of ideas; hence the objects in earth word are millions in the word of ideas are millions, but the word and the concept that gathers ideal everything is one; the projection from ideas word in the earth word is one, the word of ideas is one; all these concept are one, but the object are millions, thereupon the unity in multiplicity of ideas, in fact gentile ends this chapter: “The ideas don’t realize the unity, because it are the unity…”, the unity in the ideas word, the unity in ideas concept, in abstraction, whereby gather in same nature, in same essence, therefore it are in same unity. Plato given a criterion for his concept of dialectic, that is the research between two or more person through the opinion confront, it is Socrates(b.Ch. 399); and after Plato  explains what results can gives the dialectic, the first is the refer to unique ideas every thing, in fact in the book of The republic, Plato said that the dialectic is beyond the particular science, this is the science specialist, because these hypothesis are alone the start of research, to after come to conclusions. The dialectic and the discussion about something  is the identification of a context and so, in Socratic sense, every ides can be divided and after divided again the part of ideas that is already divided and so until the solution. This is    explicitly method of Socrates that discussed with others and he researched the your truth; thereby Plato follows the method and teaching of his master until the end.

Alessandro Lusana