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

 

 

 

Momentary present: the past is always present

We are involved from our daily busy because we certainly don’t think a truth, because also the indifferent toward the philosophy is dominant, but if we think some minutes to who are we, certainly we can find a thousand of qualities and certainly scant defects, or nothing, because unconsciously we readily lie to ourselves constantly, always finding justification that are opportune to our wit thereby the psychology. We can’t think that the present is momentary alone, because between a second it is the past, and the past is major time of mankind, why? Simple because we can know it through the read of a book, thereupon it is very easy, but the future? We can’t know the future, it is cause of foreseeing, that are a historical document, because from ancient Greek they existed, and they insured the customers with previsions that some historical man of ancient Greek translated, as the Salamis fight in 23 September 480 b.Ch., when the foreseeing, this is Pythia, oracle of Delphi temple said to Athens: “You must cover yourself between wall wood”, but was Themistocles to interpret this prophetic words, in fact the Athens fought in ships, therefore they has gather between wood wells. The present is alone momentary because the historical words: “We are the our past is true, we are past, as early as this morning we are the past, but it is also from a second, the present is alone momentary. We are the past of ourselves, as a document of our generation and of our time, because we are the past, and the future? We don’t know it and the foreseeing are very well to idiots, because the foreseeing don’t preview never when they die, it is strange, but it is enough ask it: “When do you are going to die?”, the answer is a call phone to police to menaces, that the foreseeing has not had previewed. The alone way to stop a moment is a photo, sculpture, painting, certainly we can add to it also the records, but the records are momentary because after the death of bearer, these records disappear; hence also the records are momentary. Unique acknowledge that we have now and also to future is past, our autobiographical past and the past of mankind; and taking a think of Hegel(1770-1831), that rightly defined the eternity as a moment, because the eternity is gather of moments, from this the eternity is every moment, because every moment is eternity; we can take this philosophical reality and we can defined every moment alone as momentary present, because after second it is past, thereupon we are alone past; the future is unknown, whereby we are alone past.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Philosophical nonconformism

From a scripto about of Actualism of Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944) he said and defined the spiritual life as: “Whole the spiritual life  what other we can think that it is if not the position of determined moments and stable of same wit?  Spiritual concreteness is always to be in precise form, exacts, limited?” These words are very educative for conformist, because they are going to search always the common position that has security because if everybody makes it is the right; hence he has searched a dimension that is common, this is search of determined moments and fixed of with, this of brain; it is the safety that gives the certainness that something is not right but it is less, or nothing, harmful, because all make it, all think it and thereupon I am in the right, because it is common action; it is conformism and stop. The conformist works in limited space of wit, these are the “precise, exacts, and limited” of Gentile, fundamentally he is an unsafe, because he find his safety in united of works of gather, an psychologist would explain it is the compensation dynamic, this is the safety that is necessary to calm the grief and worries, thereby the nonconformist is who avoids this dynamic, who avoids this safety because is useless, why? Simple, because I can see from external the other behaviors or behavior, because the conformists follow the same precise form. The non conformist is explained involuntary fro same Gentile, although he didn’t called so: “Since neither the multiplicity, neither the determination of spiritual reality is excluded from the concept of progressive unity of with during its develop”; Gentile has explained the nonconformist, the aske is: “how?” Simple through the some word, it are: “during its develop”; it seems alone an unfinished proposition, but it is really a truth of nonconformist, because the develop of wit, that is in unfinished proportion that we have read has an substantive that is the secret of with, this is the develop; John Locke(1632-1704), was an British philosopher, and in his book Essay on human intelligence he said that the with is projection of brain in interior form; hence we enriching the brain limited the unsureness and limited the worry and griefs and we can annihilate the conformism, because we have other sureness, this is the capacity of analysis that is an other dynamic compensation different from that has the conformist, that follow the crowd because in it he find the sureness, nonconformist has the safety in his wit, this is in his brain, in conformity of opinion of Locke; whereby the develop of wit is to annihilate the “precise and exact and limited forms”, of Giovanni Gentile. The last philosophical reference is Socrates because he, differently from all philosophical schools during 5^th century b.Ch. in Athens, he wanted the develop of with through the brain, he didn’t give a truth but he given the method necessary your truth, it is evidences that Socrates has had reached a spiritual develop very important, in fact he wasn’t conform to common teaching but absolutely different, truly different, because he wanted that you find your think, in fact he hasn’t never spook about the ideas word, but Plato, that was his pupil has though it and has written about this word.  

Alessandro Lusana

 

   

 

 

 

 

Athens schools: other student

Raphael has followed his mother, very boring because he studied philosophy and hated the art history and generally the art, actually he doesn’t bores the painting, sculpture and architecture; but that day was birth of his mom and he has accepted of accompany her to Vatican Museum; he known perfectly that his mother would be stay there ores, but he would have bear; in front of Athens school, of Raffaello(1483-1520), he stayed in front the frescos and he asked to his mother who was the philosophers, this is, where was Plato and Aristotle and other; he asked it while he gazed the frescos, but he turned toward his mother and he seen a figure dressed with a chiton and he very amazing asked to this guy: “Excuse me but…”, and the guy shut immediately him, and he indicated a figure bearded that going in school and the man with bearded indicated toward the sky and spoke to other figure, to beside, that indicate with open hand the word; Raphael asked, when the bearded has finished his discourse: “Excuse me, where we are?”, the guy gazed him and: “In Athens school”, and Raphael: “But in what year”, and guy: “Every year, you little time ago was there”, and he indicated the space out the fresco where Raphael seen his mother, and he called insistently, until the guy: “She can’t hear you, therefore quit now because you must hear the Socrates that is there”, and he indicated  the left of room, where a man with beard, as philosopher in ancient Greek, the spoken to a group, Raphael approached to Socrates, and he gazed the face of philosopher because this face remembered that of his father, that was died when he was 15 old, that he remembered very good, anyway he was involved from discourse of Socrates, above all when a young, whose name was Antisthenes, asked to him: “What is secret of your philosophy and your knowledge?”, and Socrates: “My secret is the logic, elementary logic, I find the illogic contradictions in other thinks and ask why? It is motive of hate the Sophist and other, because I want to aid to search your truth, but a truth that is logic, major my teaching is the logic; I proof the my knowledge through the logic and show the irrational thinks of other, in fact after they accused me…”, and Antisthenes: “In fact after you has had condemned to capital sentence”, Socrates smiled and: “No, it isn’t motive, the principal cause was the politic action, because the Athens people have to find his calm, whereby somebody have to die, and Socrates, although innocent have to die, so that Athens was calm and riotous, it politic dear Antisthenes”. Raphael turned toward the staircase, and he seen a man that was seat there, and he asked to guy: “Who is there?” and the guy: “Heraclitus”, and Raphael: “can I speck to him?” and guy: “Certainly, I will arise you to him”, and the guy anticipated Raphael, and after the same beckon to Raphael, he very soon approached to Heraclitus and asked: “Good morning I am…”, and Heraclitus: “I know you perfectly, and good morning in this time but very soon you have to good afternoon and good night”, and Raphael: “Yes it is the teaching of Heraclitus, this is you, panta rey, everything passes”, and Heraclitus. “Good, you have studied well my think, and Paul, because his name is Paul”, he indicated the guy: “has said me that you are a student of philosophy”, and Raphael noted and: “You have the contribute very much to…”, and the guy interrupted because a voice of woman called Paul, and the Paul took the hand of Raphael and: “We must go out”, and Raphael asked: “What, why?” and Paul: “Because mom called both, this is me and you”, Raphael looked the Heraclitus that beckoned to go away and he added: “Because she is very boring when is time of dinner”, Raphael seen and he asked herself what was the motive. He come to the voice and he met his mother, he goggle your eyes and: “Why are you here?”, and Laura, it was the name: “Because I have searched you in every corner of museum and after your father has said that you was here”, and Raphael: “But dad is died and Paul: “Out here I am died, but in this school I am very life”, and he indicated to Laura and Raphael the exit, and Raphael: “When can I meet you again?”, and Paul: “Tomorrow, because you have to follow the Aristotle’s lesson”.

Alessandro Lusana    

   

 

 

The impressionist sculpture: Medardo Rosso

The Impressionism painter we know well because it was that first deny, for technical motives, of academic painter, hence nothing that can interest, because it is known perfectly; but the sculpture is different, because translation of this sharp technique, through the quick brushstrokes is other matter and above all difficult to representation. Medardo Rosso(1858-1928), Italian sculptor, has translated in sculpture this style, that he could know from 1889, when he moved about to Paris, and in 1902 he become the French citizen; he could see the Impressionist painter, and the real subjects the impressionist painters used; he translated this realism, that in painter was landscapes, because the light was in plain air, Medardo hasn’t used the light, but alone the definition of forms, that are very sharp and imprecise, he has used the quick technique of Impressionism for the human portrait; he has took alone the brushstrokes, but for human and not certainly to landscapes; to confirm it is sufficient the confront between a Impressionist(Figs.1-4) painter and the sculpture of Medardo(Figs.5-7); the same approximate definition of form, same imprecise touch, that in painter is through the brushstroke, but in sculpture it is possible through the matter that sculptor uses, in this case Medardo used above all the wax, chalk, bronze and terracotta, all almost the soft materials necessary to give that effects of confusion that Impressionist given to their paintings. The subject of Medardo are common people, I don’t think that it is a ideological choose but alone a monetary question, because a model, woman or man were too expensive, instead the common people(Figs.8-14), were certainly more forthcoming; other great innovation, regard to Impressionism was that Medardo hasn’t used the landscapes, it is more than revolutionary is cunning, because on landscapes the translation of this approximation was very difficult, and the effects could be more partial, and also on the human bodies the light could not have same effects, because the iridescent effects is very limited, because the change of the light on body are very irrelevant, and in sculpture the change of light are very impossible translate, because the moment is very soon and the matter doesn’t allow these identification of these changes. We can appreciate the use of the style of impressionism, that then was a very good idea because nobody has made that before. The momentary embrace of a mother is moment to an subject(Fig.10), hence Medardo has translated the real use of Impressionism, but he has translated also this concept to human behavior, thereupon the subject is real both to Impressionism painting and also sculpted, I repeat, without the ideology, otherwise the Impressionist painters today could be eco-fanatic, but both the Impressionist and Medardo evidently have had scant money to pay models, but we must consider that the landscape want not the payment and common people neither, whereby other the style, that in art is essential, there is also a economic question, that never is considered, but is basic to work of art. The last notation about the correspondence between Medardo and Impressionism is a step of his declaration, when he has said that the face and the space around are symbiotic because one interpenetrates in other being the symbiotic matter; this concept is alone an impression of Medardo certainly, but if we consider attentive this concept it is the same concept that the Impressionism used for the light, that was symbiotic with environment, the light was the basic factor of union between the human and natural matters, Medardo could not mentioned the light because in a studio it is impossible, he sculpted in home and no in plain air, but the similar concept is evident, and I think that one is from other.  Other consideration directly from Medardo is in his written, that shows the proximity to Impressionism, this is the nearness to light that for Impressionism was a fundamental element, it said: “The light is true essence of our existence, an artistic work that hasn’t affinity to light hasn’t motive to exist. Without light it lacks of unity and space, it is become irrelevant, without valor, wrongly thought, made alone from matter. Nothing on this word can detaches from round, and our vision or impression, is the outcome of reciprocal or valor given from light…”; the element of light is central in this think, equal to painting of Impressionist.    

 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

 

 

 

 

 

.