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     

.

 

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

 

 

 

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