Why I personally dislike the art movement of Mannerism (FW)

What is Mannerism?
Mannerism was a 60 year art historical period that started around the end of the Italian High Renaissance (1520) and continued until the start of the Baroque Period (1580). It is characterized by distorted body proportions (freakishly long necks and long legs), irrational settings, precarious poses and tension. 

Now, why do I hate it so much?
  That is a much more difficult question. Whether or not art is good is completely subjective. The things that bothered me most about Mannerism might appeal to another person's tastes. I can't say that Mannerism is bad or good because that is a opinion. However, I can state why I personally found it so completely disturbing.

Why I found Mannerism disturbing:
1.) Body Proportions
This painting by Parmigiano is correctly named "Madonna with the Long Neck" (1534)
Check out how huge that baby is. No baby should be THAT BIG. No neck should be THAT long. We can assume that Parmigiano mean the body proportions to be unrealistic, but why? I can't really understand his reasoning except that there are a lot of normal-necked "Madonna with child" paintings and mannerist artists liked to be original.
2.) I'm claustrophobic...
and the colors...
   This painting is "Entombment" by Pontormo (1528). The body proportions are not excessively stretched in this artwork which is a plus, however I am bothered by the color scheme and the act that Pontormo crammed ten people into a painting that should have held three. All the people are so distracting that I feel I can't focus on what the painting means. It takes me a few seconds to find Jesus each time I look at this painting because everything else is SO DISTRACTING. Also Pontormo chooses to uses pastels in his interpretation of the entombment of Christ which I feel is a bit too cheery for the situation.

 3.) Uncomfortable subject matter
  (1545)  "Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time" by Bronzino
Since the Renaissance was such a period of artistic growth and exploration, those in the Mannerist movement realized that they had little to explore other than new subject matter. This is how we arrive at a disturbing portrayal of a grown Cupid in an affair with his mother, Venus. I really like they symbolism of other parts of the portrait such as Folly carrying flowers and jealousy looking on with anguish but the whole mother-son relationship is too disturbing to look past. 
4.)Art for the Artist's sake
 "The Rape of the Sabine Woman" -Giambologna
I love this sculpture. The emotion is shown so clearly in the body position and it really shows off incredible artistic technique. This sculpture is so good that when I first saw it I felt that it might have that ability to redeem the Mannerist period. Then I researched it... Giambologna created this piece for no other reason that to show off his own artistic ability. I felt duped. I had felt like this sculpture makes so many statements, and I was truly dissapointed when I realized it wasn't meant to make any. The structure of this is still really impressive though. I'll admit that.

Reasons why Mannerism is okay
Mannerism really worked to push everyone outside of their comfort zones. Artists took on risky material and tried out new methods of creating a scene which were unheard of in the Renaissance. It's awesome that society allowed them this much artistic freedom and expression. I just didn't really like the products. However, I can appreciate the fact that Mannerism elicited such strong emotions from me. I'm sure the artists realized at the time that what they were creating would outrage a lot of people. I respect that they went on to create the art anyways. 

What would happen if our society followed the Old Testament? (IR)

For my Independent Reading, I read "A Handmaid's Tale."
It was incredibly disturbing.
The premise of the book was that the United States of America had been divided into different warring religious sects and the one that held the most power, the Republic of Gilead, was a branch of Christianity that took the Old Testament and New Testament at it's word. Many don't interpret the bible literally nowadays because many aspects of it are a bit out of date. The main outdated aspect that is exemplified in "A Handmaid's Tale" is the Bible's views toward women. Since I have read only catches of the Bible I decided that I needed to do some biblical research after reading the book just to make sure that everything the futuristic society made into law regarding woman was actually from the bible. Scarily enough, it was. Here is what I found from my research.
Biblical Quotes and how they connect to "A Handmaid's Tale":
 1.) To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."-Genesis
 In the Republic of Gilead, women are allowed no anesthetics in childbirth so that they can fully feel the pain of birth. They are also most certainly "ruled over" by their husbands.
2.)“When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, Give me children or I shall die! Then she said, Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees, and even I may have children through her.’”
This is where the Republic of Gilead got the inspiration for handmaids. Handmaids are basically mistresses sent out by the government to create children for families when the wife cannot conceive.  They take the scripture so seriously that in order to "follow scripture" the handmaids from Gilead must actually conceive the baby while resting on the wife's knees. No kidding.
3.)“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
In the Republic of Gilead, women are not allowed to learn, or to read. Even the Bible must be read by a man.

I don't know what else to say about this book other than it made me seriously frightened of all religion. It also made me think of "Imagine" by Paul McCartney. Do you think we'd be better off with no religion? I'm not sure. Religion can do a great deal of good, but when misinterpreted  or given too much power it can do a great deal of evil. 

Invictus

Invictus
by W.E. Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

If "Invictus" is not one of the most popular poems of all time, it is at least among the most well-known. Many scholars trash "Invictus" because it is very unspecific and does not clearly state what circumstance the poem is about. Frankly, this is the very reason that I love it. "Invictus" is like abstract art. The basic picture can be clearly seen, but what people make of the picture can vary drastically.


Most people recognize the theme of holding strong against adversity in "Invictus". The author, Henley struggled with arthritis throughout his life, and many believed that the poem was about his winning struggle against the affliction. Many interpret it to have a much deeper meaning and connection to their own lives. The poem was a central part of the movie "Invictus" which focused on South Africa's apartheid movement and Nelson Mandela's strength when he was imprisoned. Because the poem is non-specific to what the specific adversity the author is facing, the poem can be used in new revolutionary ways.
Also after doing some research on this poem, I became interested in the Christian message behind the poem. "how strait the gate" and "charged with punishment the scroll" are direct references to biblical scripture. One could see this reference to mean that the author is holding strong against death or fear of death. Or, perhaps more morbidly, it may mean that the author is giving into death. They are "the captain of their soul" and therefore cannot be spiritually harmed by physical torment ("bloody but unbowed") that happens on earth. There are so many ways to look at this poem. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a poem of great strength and passion. Memorize it and recite it in your head when you are facing hardship or find yourself not being able to stand up for yourself. It helps.

Invictus translates to "Unconquerable"

Magical Metaphors and Terrific Tropes (CC)

Throughout class the last week, we have been discussing different tropes(types of figurative language).
Tropes are everywhere.
In literature, in language, in jokes, and funnily enough, blog posts
This brought me to consider, where would our language be without tropes.
Well, language would be very concrete. There would be no comparisons, no exaggeration, and little room for hidden meaning. Every single writer and poet would be out of a job. More than that, everyone would be forced to talk like robots due to the absence of tropes. There would be no freedom. Our language exists the way it does only because there is room for expression and metaphors and irony.
So this is my love-note to tropes. I have hand-picked a few of my favorites and I will share them with you.
Metaphors:
1.) "He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the
East River."
2.) "He wanted to set sail on the ocean of love but he just wasted away in the desert."
Similes:
1.)"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever"
2.) "The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil,
this plan just might work"
Let's to appreciate how beautiful these comparisons are...
You see, metaphors are similes always add something to a description. It gives one something to connect to when dealing with an unfamiliar idea. Metaphors and similes can be funny and entertaining.  They can make one think, and try to come up with a connection between two unlike things. It is important to remember that poetry is also the base for some of the world's best poetry. In a robotic world without figurative language, Shakespeare would never be able to ask, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" There is no comparison, for comparisons would cease to exist. What a horrible world it would be to never be able to talk around a subject or compare least favorite teachers to super-villains. Language would be dull.

Yet, compared to the loss of irony, the loss of similes and metaphors would be nothing. You see, sarcasm is a type of irony. Without irony, sarcasm would be non-existent. Without sarcasm, many hormonal teenagers would not have a healthy outlet. It's quite possible that more teenagers would find themselves turning to hardcore drugs and sharpie-sniffing. Therefore, one can make the argument that if tropes were non-existent, my whole generation would go crazy and lose all ambition. All for lack of sarcasm.

Brilliant examples of sarcasm for your enjoyment:
"Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it?"
 "I majored in liberal arts. Will that be for here or to go?"
and wait for it...."Not the brightest crayon in the box now, are we?"
METAPHOR and SARCASM
Let us breathe in as many tropes as we can, dear earthlings. (the use of breathe is an implied metaphor because it compares tropes to air)
  

Reasons to be Buddhist (FW)

So I'm home sick today.
And just like every teenage girl when she's home sick I decided to research Buddhism.
It started last weekend when my dad brought me a book on mindfulness he thought I'd enjoy.
It was by a Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh...
and it was awesome.
Suddenly, almost everything my life seemed to be lacking was found in the wise words of this monk.
Everything the world seems to be lacking could be found in the wise words of this monk.
Which brings me to why I've started to love Buddhism:
1.) Simplicity:
There's something really nice about a religion that doesn't ask too much of you. Since Buddhism is more of a mindset than a religion it doesn't require you to go to mass every Sunday or to avoid certain foods on certain days. It just requires you to love the world and feel compassion toward everything and everyone. I like the idea of humans living out their religion rather than practicing it on certain days of the week.
2.) Mindfulness and being in the present:
Many people focus too much on the future and the past. For the future, they focus on getting into heaven. Some are so preoccupied with the ending goal that they miss out on living in the now. Others are so preoccupied with past sins and mistakes that they live out the rest of their life in guilty memory of their mistakes. Buddhism focuses one to stay in the present. One must forgive ones past mistakes and realize that it is only through the present that we get to the future.
3.) No ill will
Do you realize how much nicer this world would be if everyone agreed not to harm anyone else? There would be no wars, no crimes and very few problems. I know this is very idealistic but it's a nice thought. Plus, Tibetan monks live out this lifestyle already so maybe goodwill is not too far out of reach for the rest of us.
Buddhism Deal-breakers:
1.) No God
Although Buddhism is considered a religion, it does not exactly have a God. Rather it has this idea of spirituality and dharma that lies within all of us. Buddhist can pray to the Dalai Llama or to Buddha, but their is no deity in the way that there is in other religions. Perhaps this isn't such a bad thing though. Without a God, there is no God to fight over. This idea does however make it more difficult for a protestant like me to consider converting. To go from the idea of a God to no God is a huge deal.
2.) The men have the power:
All the many Buddhist sects the leading roles are given to men. This is of course the same in every single other large World religion, however it does serve as a reminder that Buddhism is not exactly my utopic religion.

What qualifies a saint: An examination of the suggested canonization of Emilio Sandoz

So my interest in what qualifies a saint began when I was reading "The Sparrow" and D.W. Yarbrough and Anne Edwards kept referring to the fact that Emilio Sandoz was so holy that he might in fact be a saint.
I was very confused.
Having been raised in a very protestant household my experiences and knowledge about sainthood only consists of having seen a sculpture of St. Francis of Assisi dancing in Santa Fe and putting a picture of it as my cellphone background for nearly a year.

He's beautiful, right?
So as one would, I went on to Google dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary to see if Emilio Sandoz really qualified as a saint. I mainly got loose terms such as "one of God's holy people" and "one eminent for piety or virtue". My favorite definition was a saint is "an illustrious predecessor". In these terms Emilio Sandoz could certainly be considered a saint at that time in the book. He acted pious, virtuous and seemed to all his friends as one looked on by God with favor. Yet many people are religious and live well. Does that make them all saints too?
Dummies.com doesn't think so (my second go-to resource after Google-dictionary). Apparently there is much more criteria one has to meet before being canonized than I thought. Firstly, one has to be dead to be a saint. Once a possible saint has died, the persons case is brought before the Pope who then decides if they qualify. The person needs to have completed at least two miracles with eye-witnesses and have a specific cause.Then they are given more background checks then a suspected terrorist. If the miracles seem completely legitimate and all is well then they are canonized. Deus vult. If God wills it.

In the traditional Catholic sense, Emilio Sandoz is nowhere near a saint. He was born to a life of drug-selling and stealing in La Perla, Puerto Rico. From there he led a rebellious life even after he was given a second-chance as a reformed school boy. Eventually he converted to Christianity and became a Jesuit Priest. In his journey on Rakhat there were times when he seemed blessed by God. He mentions on several times that he had "fallen in love with God." He does amazing things in Rakhat, such as establishing solid relationships with aliens and turning away from the women he loves because he knows he must remain celibate. Yet, are these miracles. No. They're extraordinary, yet doable. He must have had unbelievable charisma and piety to have all his friends believe he was a saint. He wasn't. He was a man, prone to make mistakes like any other man. This is seen even more in the end of the book, which I shall neglect to mention since my book group has not gotten that far.
Oh, I neglected to mention that to be considered a saint one's body has to be dug up and examined. A saints body does not decay, the blood never dries, and apparently it smells like roses. Since Emilio has not yet died in the book I cannot consider or examine this specific qualification.

How far have we really come?

In 1920, the 19th amendment was passed so that women in the United States could finally vote and have a chance to influence political decisions in some small ways. It was a huge step. Suffragists around the world were ecstatic. Feminists threw parties. Many agreed that with this step, women were on the way to being seen as equals to men. They would no longer be seen in terms of beauty or how well their house was kept up. Women dreamed that in time they would not be judged by their measurements but rather by the strength of their character.
I'm here to tell you that none of this has happened.
It has been almost a century since the passing of the 19th amendment and in many ways women are in the same positions and mindsets that they were 93 years ago.
Does America promote equality? No. One of the lead workers behind the passing of the 19th amendment, Alice Paul, tried for years to pass the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment) which basically stated that men and women should be treated the same under the law. Large groups are still trying to get the ERA passed but so far the United States government has taken no steps to do so.
So I'm sure many of you readers have pegged me as an angry feminist by now, and are currently googling statistics showing much larger percentages of women in the workplace since 1920.

Yes, I caught you. Although there has been an increase in women in the workplace in certain fields (almost half of people enrolled in Medical School are women) many fields have still remain predominantly male. Women workers also tend to get stuck at entry-level positions much longer than males. Studies have shown that although women make up about 50% of the workforce in America they make up only 6% of the corporate CEO and higher-level executive roles.

Have you ever heard that women make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes? I hear that all the time. It's complete nonsense. They actually make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. If you don't think of that as a big difference think about it in this way. If a woman and man hold the same job-level and the man gets paid $50,000 annually the woman only gets $43,500 annually. $6,500 a year could mean the difference of a single mom riding her bike to work or driving a car. It could also mean the difference between sending a kid off to college or not.
The giant rant:
Just to have some more comparison fun, lets look at 19th century 17-year old girls and 21st century 17-year old girls. In modern times, a larger percentage of 17-year old girls are in school, and a much smaller percentage are married with several children. Families also no longer have to worry about providing dowries for girls (although the bride's family does usually pay for the wedding).  So on the outside, 17-year old girls are in a much better position now... but on the inside, have they really changed? Seeing as I spend a large amount of time with 17-year old girls I can tell you that their main insecurities lie in superficial things: their appearance, and how many guys like them. Almost a hundred years after we won the vote, are we still determining our value in society by how attractive we are to men? Are we kidding?!? In group settings, girls are still unbelievably caddy, slyly putting others down, not about their intelligence or personality or anything that actually matters, but about their appearance. What the hell did Susan B. Anthony fight for? If Alice Paul saw how superficial teenage girls are, even after she fought for there right to share their opinions and make a difference, she would sob. Plus, I really don't think Alice Paul was much of a crier. Girls, we have been given the chance to to be more than a body, or a maid or a cook. Why waste this opportunity? The reason women make 77 cents to the dollar is because not enough people are standing up and saying that something is wrong. The reason only 6% of corporate managers are women is because women are too willing to sit back in their gender roles and do not believe that they are just as capable as a man in almost every single job. Some women think that acting dumb is attractive. This idea is supported by the fact that many men tend to go for dumb girls. This is a cruel fact of nature. Don't be afraid to be intelligent. It makes conversations SO much more interesting.
Give Alice Paul something to be proud of.

Apologies for this post:
This post was pretty intense. If you actually managed to read this whole thing, I'm impressed. If you're a man I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sure that you personally are a very nice person and would be just fine with the ERA passing. If you're a 17-year old girl, I also didn't mean to offend you. It's not girls' faults that they are insecure about appearances. Society and media tends to create an atmosphere that breeds insecurities. If you're Ms. Pyle, I apologize for the length of this post. I'm sure I went WAY past my word limit...