Watching this film had many complexities. You have to watch from begin to end to understand what is happening and to fully grasp the idea of the film or what the protagonist is trying to convey to its audiences. This film is all over the place, it's from scene to scene with nothing really connecting....as it relates to Nihilism I can tell this film is an illusion of the mind- where we might imagine things and think it's actually happening in real life.. Nothing is real...
The scene I chose was to the end when Francis came to the realization that he was probably just dreaming and all that he thought was happening was actually in his head. This scene gave me a clearer understanding of what was happening all along that and Francis was somewhere in an asylum and he only had been dreaming and that all the characters were made up, nothing was actually real. The scene was full of chaos and confusion.
I chose the last scene because it gave me a clearer and more concise version of what was happening all along. The last scene tells that the story was always in the mind of the protagonist, he seemed crazy yet he had a very creative mind, it shows how the mind works and if we aren't careful what we think is real and what we think happened, how they can actually become our reality. This somewhat confusing yet creative film shows just how potent the mind is and how the lines between reality, actually and fiction/fantasies are thin.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Siddharta
"A goal stood before Siddhartha, a single goal: to become empty, empty of thirst, empty of wishing, empty of dreams, empty of joy and sorrow. Dead to himself, not to be a self any more, to find tranquility with an emptied heard, to be open to miracles in unselfish thoughts, that was his goal. Once all of my self was overcome and had died, once every desire and every urge was silent in the heart, then the ultimate part of me had to awake, the innermost of my being, which is no longer my self, the great secret".
I think this passage is saying that he doesn't want to no longer be associated with the human sides of him. He doesn't want to feel anything, he doesn't want to think about himself, but rather he wants to free himself from all emotions, he doesn't want any attachment to the things around him. He rather not to feel anything but to ostracize himself from the lavish world he was used to.
I choose this passage because many times we as human beings are so caught up in "self", all we think about is us and what we want and care nothing for the anyone else or the less fortunate. But here we have Siddharta who wants to associate himself with the less 'fortunate". He wants to relate to them and in doing so he emptied himself and chose a life of discomfort. I think he wanted to see the world through the eyes of poverty.
I think this passage is saying that he doesn't want to no longer be associated with the human sides of him. He doesn't want to feel anything, he doesn't want to think about himself, but rather he wants to free himself from all emotions, he doesn't want any attachment to the things around him. He rather not to feel anything but to ostracize himself from the lavish world he was used to.
I choose this passage because many times we as human beings are so caught up in "self", all we think about is us and what we want and care nothing for the anyone else or the less fortunate. But here we have Siddharta who wants to associate himself with the less 'fortunate". He wants to relate to them and in doing so he emptied himself and chose a life of discomfort. I think he wanted to see the world through the eyes of poverty.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
The term "expressionism" is meant to refer to the artist's expression of their soul in the painting. This is contrast to artistic schools which favor realism and naturalistic depictions of art. Ironically, the development of photography in the late 19th century made the demand for naturalistic depictions of art somewhat obsolete, thus in a sense, freeing artists to pursue other means of using color and line (the foundations of painting). The artist I choose is Claude he was born 14 November 1840 – 5 December 1926) and was a founder of French Impressionist painting, and the most consistent and prolific practitioner of the movement's philosophy of expressing one's perceptions before nature, especially as applied to plein-air landscape painting.[1][2] The term "Impressionism" is derived from the title of his painting Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise), which was exhibited in 1874 in the first of the independent exhibitions mounted by Monet and his associates as an alternative to the Salon de Paris.
Impressionist Paintings
 |
| "The Scream", Edvard Munch, 1893 This picture uses bright colors with simplistic figures and shape. It screams, fright, fear, despondency. It looks as if he is afraid of the persons lagging behind and as such became frightened because he is by himself. Contrary the picture is colorfully, and bright and doesn't reflect the theme "The Scream" but his face screamed scared. Therefore I am not sure where the author was because by looking at the painting he doesn't seems to be in a lonely place, maybe it was a feeling or a flashback to something scary he had witnessed before which was captured in this painting. |
 |
| "Impression Sunrise" Claude Monet, 1872Impressionism painting are colorful which usually captures the atmosphere at a particular time of day. This picture has a beautiful backdrop, I can see the sunlight which normally signifies a new day, and how it reflections strikes the water, I see cloud covers, and I can see boat. This picture in essence captures the sun. As it regards to Nihilism even though we can see the sunlight you can also see cloud covers which normally means dull, dreary and possible rain. Those themes are characteristic of uncertainties. |
.jpg) |
| "San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk", Monet, 1908-12 This picture is colorful and beautiful, the colors mixed together gives a beautiful contrast. It captures the effect of when the sun is going down. This picture is abstract its as if i can touch it. This picture marks the beginning of twilight before sunrise (above pic). The moon shivers away and becomes weak as the sun peaks it way through the clouds. This picture symbolizes the uprising of a new day. The pictures above all reflect the Impressionist Theme. What I conclude is that there isn't any one way to express yourself your art. All three pictures have the same theme yet they all have different meanings. The Artist's using the Impressionism theme all use different style. I think the meaning of the picture and the themes are subjective. |
Title: "Trench Warfare" Otto Dix, 1932.
Name: Wilhelm Heinrich Ottox Dix
Born on December 2, in Gera. He is the oldest of four children born to Ernst Dix, an iron foundry worker, and Pauline Louise Dix, a seamstress. In 1910 Dix begins attending the School of Arts and Crafts in Dresden and visiting modern museums and galleries. The expressionist arts Max Klinger ad the philosopher Friedrich Nietszche have a profound influence on the young artist.
This picture depicts chaos to me, like a massacre happened "Trench Warfare" as the title suggests. It shows a world unsure of what is happening. I see skulls, possible dead bodies, bats. The lightening is bright and colorful which normally signifies hope and happiness, but there is nothing happy and hopeful about this picture. It screams utter chaos, despondency and despair. This picture depicts what the Dadaist believe and saw the world as "if life is ugly then art should be ugly too".
.jpeg)
Name: Wilhelm Heinrich Ottox Dix
Born on December 2, in Gera. He is the oldest of four children born to Ernst Dix, an iron foundry worker, and Pauline Louise Dix, a seamstress. In 1910 Dix begins attending the School of Arts and Crafts in Dresden and visiting modern museums and galleries. The expressionist arts Max Klinger ad the philosopher Friedrich Nietszche have a profound influence on the young artist.
This picture depicts chaos to me, like a massacre happened "Trench Warfare" as the title suggests. It shows a world unsure of what is happening. I see skulls, possible dead bodies, bats. The lightening is bright and colorful which normally signifies hope and happiness, but there is nothing happy and hopeful about this picture. It screams utter chaos, despondency and despair. This picture depicts what the Dadaist believe and saw the world as "if life is ugly then art should be ugly too".
"Each thing has it word, but the word has become a thing by itself why shouldn't I find it? Why can't a tree be called Pluplusch and Pluplubasch when it has been raining?
What i think that the author is saying why can't we name a thing, describe a thing however we want to whenever we want to. If we have free will why can't we use it all the time. I think the author is also saying that why can't a thing have several meaning or that same thing meaning changes depending of the state it is at a particular time.
I choose this quote because words is a form of expression and as human we they can choose to express ourselves however we want to . Sometimes we are led to conform instead of transform, we have to do what the masses are doing or say what they are saying and in the process we loose ourselves and our voices. But here we have a quote that is saying everything has it's own word, it own description of what that thing is. Why can't the meaning of that word or thing changes when the state (physical) of it changes also..
The quote did challenge me I would say. It shows that one thing can have several different meaning without changing that thing, just like human beings we all have our complexities, differences and all reason and believe in different things but we are all still humans. We might look, talk, behave differently but that doesn't make me human and someone else not. There isn't any one definition to any one thing. I might see something one way and someone else might see it another way but still, we are referring to the same thing. There isn't any rule that one thing or a word have to be called just that "word"
What i think that the author is saying why can't we name a thing, describe a thing however we want to whenever we want to. If we have free will why can't we use it all the time. I think the author is also saying that why can't a thing have several meaning or that same thing meaning changes depending of the state it is at a particular time.
I choose this quote because words is a form of expression and as human we they can choose to express ourselves however we want to . Sometimes we are led to conform instead of transform, we have to do what the masses are doing or say what they are saying and in the process we loose ourselves and our voices. But here we have a quote that is saying everything has it's own word, it own description of what that thing is. Why can't the meaning of that word or thing changes when the state (physical) of it changes also..
The quote did challenge me I would say. It shows that one thing can have several different meaning without changing that thing, just like human beings we all have our complexities, differences and all reason and believe in different things but we are all still humans. We might look, talk, behave differently but that doesn't make me human and someone else not. There isn't any one definition to any one thing. I might see something one way and someone else might see it another way but still, we are referring to the same thing. There isn't any rule that one thing or a word have to be called just that "word"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)