Real fiction: the life is a theater

Casting: Ambrose Amory(police man) and Anthony Barnum(producer), Ann(waitress), A voice behind the scenes

Ambrose (knock to door of a citizen): Good morning, I am Ambrose Amory, a police man; I must ask to you something, can I go in?

Anthony: Certainly, I was reading a script of a movie that I would produce, but I think that you are here because is important your question.

Ambrose: Yes very important, because I must ask about an homicide…

Anthony (interrupting the explication of Ambrose): An homicide?

Ambrose: Yes it is! An homicide, hence I must disturb you to it.

Anthony: I am at your disposal, please set here.

Ambrose: Thank you. Do you know Dominick Barrett?

Anthony: No, I don’t remember this name, do you have some image of him?

Ambrose(extracted from the san of jacket a photo and given it to Anthony): Do you know him?

Anthony(looking attentively the photo): Yes I recognize him! He is a modest actor that has recited in movie, very poor, that I have produced some years ago, a very dirty, but it is necessary to gain some money; I don’t remember the name but he, alone it remind that he was a very bad actor, in fact I remember…

Ambrose (interrupting): I haven’t interest to it; I want know if you have known or no and stop.

Anthony(looked intensely Ambrose): Yes, an indirect knowledge, because I wasn’t the director of this movie, sometime I looked the filming, but no other, anyway I can phone to director and aske to him

Ambrose: He is the victim of homicide.

Anthony: Albert Lytton is victim?

Ambrose: Yes he is it!

Anthony: My God, it’s terrible, and do you think that killer is…

Ambrose (interrupting): he is principal suspected but I can’t know if he is guilty, I must, in conformity with practice, find the proofs.

Ann: Can I give to you the tea? Although you have broke my balls!

Ambrose (looked Ann and speaking to Anthony): Dear producer can I present to you this bitch?

Anthony (smiling and looking Ann): certainly policeman and you must present her very well because she is a woman that doesn’t remember the cues and uses these expression, or not?

Ann: What do you are saying?

Ambrose: he is saying that you don’t cues and…

Ann (looking intensely Ambrose): I don’t must remember nothing, because it isn’t a movie.

Anthony(very astonish): What it isn’t a movie? What is hence?

Ann: (looked other side of room): it is reality.

Anthony and Ambrose(got up and looking one other): Stop, I have end here, because you are making fun of me, I go away.

(he go out from scene and the a man with camera follows him and he give indications)

Adrian: Ok, continue so, go away and stop.

Anthony(stopped): Who are you?

Adrian: Good morning I am director of this movie, and you are very skilled!

(a voice from behind the scenes): Adrian you must say: “You are very skilled! Compliment.” Ok?

Adrian: Excuse me, I didn’t reminded it.

(voice behind the scenes): Make up to Anthony; Ann explain to him what is reality and what is the movie.

Ann: Dear Anthony you have confused the reality and movie, because it is movie and before was alone reality, now you are actor.

Anthony: If before was reality now it is impossible that theatre.

Ann: On stead so it because the life is theatre and you are, now, protagonist.

Anthony: Until when?

Ann: Until you are going live. Compliment.

Adrien: Ann it is cue that I must say.

Ann: Ok.

Adrien(saying to Anthony): Welcome to reality.   

 

        

         

 

Librarian experience: Leon Battista Alberti

Flow theoretic have learned very flow from a discipline as Alberti(1404-1472): the treatise about de painter art is a sum of consideration that has forgotten the practical aspect, differently from Giorgio Vasari(1511-1574), that in introduction of his Lives of artists(1568) has descripted the practical aspect of art of painting, because he was a painter and architect, hence he keeps the practical experience; to Alberti is sufficient read his De pictura, to realized that he is alone theoretic painter; in fact he explain arguments absolutely useless. This theoretic nature of this author is evident in the first book of his De architectura, because he said: “About de drawings and its power and rule. We must write about drawings of building and we give to this book every better things that we know from ancient and that is written and these they seen making these building”; it is sufficient to indicate the theoretic nature; why? Simple Alberti describes alone the drawings, he have to describe the building and, as Vitruvius in De architectura, tell about constructions, technical way and material, and following the discourse the second confirm, because he says: “…that from our ancient we can know be written”, but way from ancient authors? Also why written? If you dear Leona Battista have experience in painter and architecture you need no certainly of description, because you have experience directly in art, or no? He would answer, no certainly! Further he following: “The edify is above all the drawings and construction of well”, fortunately that Alberti has explain this practice because otherwise we would don’t know it. Theoretical explication, through obviousness, following: “Where men have decided stop, they built her home and they decided that here they are going to sleep, here prepared the food and elsewhere they quit other; and after they begun to think that the roof and the wells…”; it is simply idiots, this is the obviousness that is a theoretical treatise; but the nature of intellectual and literate man emerges from the following step: “And hence anybody he was, or Vesta goddess daughter odf Saturn, or Euryalus and Hyperbius or Gellio…”, three personages of ancient mythology, that aren’t nothing connection with the house and architecture, but the intellectual vanity is preponderant in every writer. It is therefore a boring description of natural obviousness and stop; Alberti is and rests a theoretic alone, hence this treatise is absolutely useless.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

 

First empire and after faith

This essay took origin from a note of Ludwig Baron von Pastor(1854-1928), the more eminent historical of popes in modern era, and he has told, in the first volume of his opera on popes from 15^th to 19^th centuries, the return of pope to Rome, with election of Martin 5^th(1369-1431), after the period that lasted for 68 years; during the Constance council(1414-1418), where the Church bore a reform very important to ecclesiastical customs and moral behaviors; but pastor has described also the imperial wills, this is Sigismund of Luxemburg(1368-1437), king of Bohemian, king of Hungary and Croatia, that in opinion of von Pastor: “To motive of this question born the vehement discussion about the reform, that Sigismund has defended with major conviction, and he didn’t save both menaces and flattery and insults, but he didn’t realize his intent”; we must also consider that then was born the idea and it developed the will of monks and religious men that the predominance, and thereupon the govern of Church must be of council and no of pope; why this opinion? Evidently after the Avignon period something, in theological conviction, was weakened, may that Rome isn’t the capital of Christianity, and the power of pope, this is the pope Clemens 5^th that was French decided his residence to Avignon, therefore a man decided it and no God, evidently the Church could govern by men, and the council was composed by men that could govern; hence the Church becomes human, and the reform of Church, so much would from Sigismund, has had the purpose this reform of papal power, why? Evidently because Sigismund that has had a vast empire has had interest that the Church didn’t has a political role, that during Avignon period hasn’t because saved the interest of France, thereupon the Europe could enjoy of very much independence, and the imperators and kings could work to his country and their power both in his country and out; this is the time of Henry 4^th, king of Germany, that in 1077 was kneeling on the snow to receive the pardon of Gregory 7^th pope, because he was excommunicated, and the electors were against to him. This time I repeated, was very afield both in chronological scale and the laic wit that by now was born and developed; thereupon the request of predominance of council and interests of state were political motives to reform of Church; in fact Sigismund asked the first the reform and after the election of pope, it is other political motive, because with reform of power of Church, that become of council Sigismund would have had major possibilities  of condition the power of Church, as has made the king of France, Philip 4^th , this is save his interest and his countries from papacy power. We can consider that this changement of wit is sign of modern time and think, the almightiness of pope was ended, and after 80 years Luther is going to reform, radically, the power of Church, although also that reform was alone to political motive and richness, but the common think about the Church was modified and very much. A short note of Medieval history; Beyond empire also the nation, now Italian or city as Rome because in chronicle of Theodoric from Niem the roman people asked that  the new pope: “saltem Romanum uel Italicum in Papam eligerent”, this is translated: “The new pope at last Roman or Italian”, we must consider that after 68 years of residence in Avignon, France, the first Italian pope, this is Urban 6^th (1378-1389) is natural that a city as Rome, that was lived on the papacy wanted a Roman or Italian pope, it was an economic question of primary importance; hence the empire is important but to Roman was more important economic Rome.  

Alessandro Lusana        

 

Aristotelian semiotic

The semiotic is a science that interprets the sign that it is evident or no, for example a road sign is indication to travels that want come to a city or other town, and it is explicit, but on sign is written indication that are signs, distance and direction, that is indicate usually with an arrow, but an arrow is useless to who doesn’t know the significate of this indication, but a driver knows it and he knows interpret this arrow, or an architectonical style can says to us who is architect, and who is architect; all are some example that we see every day, but by now it are normal thereupon our attention is momentary because we know perfectly the mean of these signs, that are to their nature always signs, and the semiotic studies these significance; in art history, other example, is iconology, an address that studies the signs and the meaningful of determined objects that in art history are called attributes; Aristotle in his book The categories adopt this method, some example: “Homonyms, synonyms and paronyms. We call homonyms of things whose the name is common, but the definition is different, for example the animal is called both the man and the painting, their name is alone common but the definition is different; because if we give a definition to every to each has the own. Its called synonyms the tings whose  the name is common and the definition corresponding to name is same, for example; we can called animal both man and the ox; in fact each is called animal through the common name, and the definition is same, because the definition of each, what is to each being animal, we are going to give same definition is same. It are paronyms every things that differing to case but have took the name from things that is equal, for examples courage and courageous”; these examples are clear and very easy, and it seems haven’t importance to a semiotic, but we consider the last example; the courage is a substantive, but we can understand this quality from behavior in from of danger of somebody, the is a sign, but what means? That he has courage, and we to semiotic discipline we can think that this is courageous, hence he has courage; the name is same almost, but meaning is in subject, in opinion of Aristotle, and in semiotic the courage is own of man courageous, equal but different to nature, why? Simple because the courage is a quality, it is a virtue, but is a substantive that can be common to humankind, however it isn’t so; because the danger that is affronted can be much different, also assume the a responsibility is courageous, but it isn’t lethal, but in particular circumstance, when the reputation is shown, but it isn’t lethal; when somebody uses parachute to jump from an fly it is very courageous but is different in confront of reputation; but we can understand the courage of a man both to reputation and parachute, and although we can adjective these cases as courageous the frame is different, same difference that Aristotle sees and identify: “When the kinds are different  and no one under to other also the differences are diverse, for examples “Animal and science; in fact differences of animal are terrestrial, volatile, aquatic and biped, but nothing of these is difference of science because isn’t a science biped”; this difference is evident and the meaning is and can be different both the courage, because has courage in different frames, but every courage is, and the judgement is equal or is radical different because are things absolutely different, but the example of animal, that we have seen above is very fitting because the man is animal, therefore it is equal to every animal, but the difference is in form, in brain, in habit, whereby what is this animal? A man, that is biped, also the bird is animal and it is biped, but is different although it is animal and biped, the difference is both in Aristotle and in the semiotic, because if I buy bird food, without confess why, the cashier can understand that I keep the bird or birds, because prepared the dinner with bird food to a family or host is impolite beyond to jail; I haven’t tell because I am buying this bird food, but it is evident; the semiotic is study of association of meanings that we can take pick of the daily life or the philosophy or other; when we can’t make this association thereupon say . “I don’t know” or “I am not specialist”, it is so because to us is impossible make the bond and justify some cause; this exercise is natural in man, but it is science today, and this science is the semiotic, that in Aristotle is in the Categories also.

Alessandro Lusana  

    

 

Academical contradiction

The contradiction that here I want consider is so evident that nobody has seen, a academic painter that is against the academic tradition; who is? Dante Gabriele Rossetti(1828-1882), that despite his name was British but evidently influenced from his origin, because he was son of a Italian patriot Gabriel Rossetti, banned from Italy and exiled to London after 1821. The contradiction is in his style, because he want outrun the academic style but he uses it always, and the principal of his brotherhood, this is take the style and the spirituality of painter before Raphael(1483-1520) is a failed in painting because he took the academic style, because we must consider that he lived in Victorian British when the form was more important than essence; in fact he repeated same style to face and subjects: same face and subject (Fig.1), is sama face, whilethe posture Rossetti has took from Guido Reni(Fig.2); what is characteristic that bond these painting? The beautiful of drawing, the drafting of colors, the line very perfect; the cloth of model, that is the wife of Rossetti, Elizabeth Siddal(1829-1862), is perfect woman and perfect model, the similarities is due by the same model, but the cloth is different, and the academic culture of Rossetti is evident in treatment of this matter, that is silky may, we can think that this accurate definition of textile matter is due from influence of Beato Angelico(1395-1455)(Fig.3), that Dante could studied very much and take the cloth matter; and may from study of this painting Dante has had the idea of this brotherhood; but an influence certainly radical to cloth of Rossetti is that of Peter Lely(1618-1680), a portraitist painter that in London from 1640 has portrait major part of British aristocracy, and an painting, above all, could influenced the light and formal definition of Dante, this painting is Portrait of young lady(Fig.4) and the portrait of Nell Gwynne(Fig.5), that keep the refulgent light of cloth of Dante; the line and drafting are of Dutch origin; hence the style of Rossetti is a translation of academic model of British, this is he took the model that before and after the Raphael, because Lely lived on 17^th century; thereupon the intent of ideal of the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood is absolutely failed, because Dante took from after and before Raphael, fro contradictions it is very exemplar.Further is likewise contradictory models that a member of this brotherhood, because Peter von Cornelius(1783-1867), to his The Parable of Wise and Foolish Virgins(Fig.6), dated 1813-1816, he culls the model that changed to posture but, certainly, he took the Virgin in Universal judgment(Fig.7) that is took to central female figure, and Pontormo, this is Jacopo Carucci(1494-1557), is necessary to the female figures on right that embraced one other; and the return to Raphael and Athens school is to male figure on the center of same painting(Fig.11), because it took from other figure of Raphael(Fig.12); the architecture of Athens school was necessary to other building in Joseph Recognised to his Brothers(Figs.13-14)of same von Cornelius. The Raphael now is accompanied to Girolamo Siciolante called Sermoneta(1521-1575), because Friedrich Johann Overbeck, to his Joseph Being Sold by his Brothers, in 1816(Fig.15), to the figure on right from behind(Fig.16) followed two models one is in front of and other from behind, I intend two figures, the first from Siciolante, above mentioned, (Fig.17) and the second is from Raphael in mentioned School of Athens(Fig.18), that has suggested the from behind position.Some hint of history of this brotherhood given Steven Adams(The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, p.28) was founded in London in September 1848. Initially a secret society, there were seven founder-members: John Everett Millais (1829-96), William Holman Hunt (1827-1910), James Collinson (1825-81), FG Stephens (1828-1907), Thomas Woolner (1825-92), who was the only sculptor among the group, and William Michael Rossetti (1829-1919), a tax clerk by trade and the Brother- of Dante Gabriele. But the contradiction is constant to Pre-Raphaelite exponents because we can consider the models that Peter von Cornelius, has took to his The Last Judgement(Fig.18); he took from Raphael the Christ of Ascension(Fig.19), and the crow is directly took from Universal judgement of Michelangelo(Figs.20-21); we must also consider that sometimes also in Pre-Raphaelite is some coherence, because Edward Burne-Jones, to his painting The Mill(Fig.22) has took the cloth of Giovanni di Paolo, to painting the Final judgement(Fig.23), same finesse of sewing, and Giovanni di Paolo(1403-1482) is precedent to Raphael; and Jones encouraged from John Ruskin(1819-1900) gone to Italy, where he certainly could see the medieval painter of Italian, and Jones become a connoisseurs very skilled of Tuscan painters, hence he seen certainly also Giovanni di Paolo in Siena(Fig.24), but I think that Jones hasn’t lost the cloth of child of Madonna of milk(Fig.25) of Ambrogio Lorenzetti(1290-1348), same folds and intensity of cloth and the Purification of the Virgin(Figs.26-27) and the Annunciation in Scrovegni chapel(Fig.28) frescoed by Giotto(died in 1337) ; but to each virtue of coherence a sin of incoherence occurs, in fact the posture of three figures of Jones is took from The three graces of Canova(1757-1822)(Fig.29) and Thorvaldsen(1770-1844)(Fig.30). To Ford Madox Brown, Wycliffe Reading his Translation of the New Testament to his Protector(Fig.31), Brown has considered and developed to his iconography the Baptism of Christ of Piero della Francesca(Fig.32); he developed the right side with other figures, it is necessary to equilibrate iconography, that Piero has balanced with figure of Saint John Baptist and other figure on back that is stripping, hence the equilibrium is reached, but Brown have to paint other subject and other iconography, therefore he has took the composition of Piero and has conceived his composition, and the naturalism of Piero is present; the boy that is bringing the books on left side is a touch of naturalism the to wit has took from Piero, the figure on back, that we has seen in Piero, that is very natural, has a correspondence here to this boy, because he is natural, thereupon Brown saved the mystical representation and also the human nature. Raphael is present to composition and ideation of The Seeds and Fruits of English Poetry is suggested from Athens school of Raphael; we must give attention to this inspiration, because apparently nothing connection is, but two figures on high to center are directly from Aristotle and Platoon(Fig.34), and the crowd is took directly from same numerous below of same school(Fig.35), after all the intellectual subject is present also to painting of Brown, on stead be philosophy is poetry. To Sir John Everett Millais(1829-1896), that has painted Isabella(Fig.36), Michelangelo Merisi called the Caravaggio(1571-1610) is motive to composition, the Dinner in Emmaus(Fig.37) is ideation to composition, although Millais has composed with more figures, but the subject is different; it is enough consider the edge of table(Fig.38), that is directly kinsman of painting of Caravaggio, same ideation of space, the edge is stressed from leg of the figure, but composition is very similar, also because the waiter on right is correspondent to waiter of Caravaggio. Raphael is always ready to use, because Millais is convinced user of the School of Athens, because the Cymon and Iphigenia(Fig.39) is remade of two central philosopher Platoon and Aristotle(Fig.34) and the figures around. But Caravaggio turns to Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Ecce Ancilla DominiFig.40), although more terrain than Caravaggio, because in Annunciation of Nancy(Fig.41), angel is touching down whereas the Rossetti’s angel is on land, but same posture from behind is same, the posture of Mary is similar, although the composition is different because nneds of painters were different, and the times are very different. Always Raphael is useful to William Hunt(1827-1910) to Christ and two maries(Fig.42), onstead to one mary he has took the Virgin of Caravaggio(Fig.41); and same Caravggio, above mentioned, is usefull also to composition of The return of dove(Fig.43) of Millais, whose composition is directly took from Incredulity of Saint Thomas. Hunt after sees alone Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel because in his A converted British family sheltering a Christian missionary(Fig.45), he didn’t lost the appointment to Michelangelo and the very famous Chapel, because to figure from shoulder on right is took from posture of Sybille’s, on the vault of chapel above mentioned, and from the Christ in the church of Minerva, of same Michelangelo(Fig.48); and the Sistine chapel is catalog of postures always present, because to the adolescent on ground, laid on ground the posture of legs is suggested from different figures(Figs.49-54); Ford Madox Brown took from Raphael and Madonna Sistine(Fig.55) to The Pretty Baa-Lambs(Fig.56), further the clot that to Raphael is evidently and dynamic in Brown is very splay, but the cloth dresses the figure as Raphael, almost an homage to Renaissance master.  

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

Fig.22

Fig.23

Fig.24

Fig.25

Fig.26

Fig.27

Fig.28

Fig.29

Fig.30

Fig.31

Fig.32

Fig.33

Fig.34

Fig.35

Fig.36

Fig.37

Fig.38

Fig.39

Fig.40

Fig.41

Fig.42

Fig.43

Fig.44

Fig.45

Fig.46

Fig.47

Fig.48

Fig.49

Fig.50

Fig.51

Fig.52

Fig.53

Fig.54

Fig.55

Fig.56