Discussion Week 2 - Humanities 112

The Arts and Royalty

1)After reading about Rubens and Poussin from your textbook (or eChapters in the Student Center) and how royalty used the arts for political purposes, write one paragraph of 125 words or more to discuss the dispute of the French Royal Court. Then compare and contrast one painting by Poussin and one painting by Rubens that were used for political purposes. In the paragraph, explain which you prefer and use at least two examples of each painting to persuade your comparison of each painting.

The disputes in the French Royal Court were initiated by tension between the members of the court and differing favoritism of artistic expression. The choice between classical art and the emotional drama of the Baroque made it necessary to choose between the two because of these tensions and the political need to not reflect excess and prevent a showing of lasciviousness, lewdness or that a tendency to be overtly sensual existed. Therefore, the classical approach was embraced publically and the sensual Baroque in privacy.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Kermis (La Kermesse). Ca. 1635.
Nicolas Poussin, The Shepherds of Arcadia (also called Et in Arcadia ego). 1638-39.

Both paintings are of excellent depiction, the Ruben uses a different pattern in painting with lots of sensuality, fleshy content, and various subjects modeled in differing viewing whereas the Poussin uses decorum and restraint and all subjects are decently clothed. Conformity to decency and composition using geometrical horizontals and verticals is strongly evidenced in the Poussin but not in the Ruben. Restraint is the Poussin while in the Ruben excess is clear.

A political tout for the Ruben was that Louis XIV purchase settled the tension of who was the best painter when he purchased The Kermis. As per his reputation he was owner of Europe’s greatest painter work with a slight for Poussin since he won his work by wager and not purchase. I prefer “The Kermis” even though levels of sensuality exist I am not adverse to the viewing of it or find it offensive. Clarity is very detailed and I feel more skill is reflected with the differing subjects included in the painting (of the two I would purchase “The Kermis” also). The Shepherds of Arcadia is detailed but it is a different style of painting and it reflects honor and decency that does not offend me either.

2) Continue your understanding of how Louis XIV used the various arts to settle disputes between playwright Moliѐre and Parisian and write one paragraph of 125 words or more to discuss the dispute and/or resolution.

Louis XIV being an apt appreciator of arts (plays, painting, dancing, musicals) and being the leader whose pursuit of the exquisite was legendary. He was also aware of the competitive nature of artists and writers who clamored avidly for the king’s patronage. Having the King as champion was the key to any resolution or dispute as to who was favored. One such dispute was the clash between Moliѐre and Madame de Rambouillet (Parisian) where she and her followers were savagely ridiculed by satirical thrusts that made her and her ladies a joke. The mockery of herself as a target drove her to intense anger which caused her to retaliate and try to drive Moliѐre from the city by having the theater torn down.

Unfortunately for her, the King was so delighted with Moliѐre’s quips, portrayals and sharp barbs of mockery that he rewarded him with a large monetary award and the privilege and right to perform in the Theatre du Palais Royal. Therefore the King protected him and ended the strife and clash.

3) Do a Google search to find one example of a modern political leader who uses the arts to further his political agenda. Write one paragraph of 125 words or more and compare the modern day political leaders approach to Louis XIV approach.

Louis XIV used the arts as a measure of control. Whoever was rich enough to associate and purchase the same caliber of expenditures on the “the arts” was welcome in the leader’s circle.

This allowed the king’s interest in the arts to support him politically and his patronage to be seeked constantly. Because the King only became a patron of exemplary talent…this and wise decisions allowed him to declare himself the greatest king and helped him exert control over his subjects.

Art became a lingo all its own with eloquence, class, distinction and produced memorable art that is priceless today. Therefore, his political clout was awesome and allowed the absolutism approach to be facilitated with ease with no constraints or strife.

Compared to Louis XIV, George Bush’s collection of artistical expression (his goal to me) was not to facilitate absolutism but an expressionist approach and tribute to the political world leaders portrayed. Therefore, asserting political clout is a natural continuance of his position in the political arena without the need to use art as a leveling board. I believe that other political leaders do not use the arts as a major maneuvering point when dealing with politics.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/04/george-bush-portraits-world-leaders

Isn't the Classical era after the Baroque era?

The Baroque is first and then the Classical era.

Reply to co-student

1) From the reading of the textbook (or eChapters in the Student Center) choose Hobbes side or Locke's side (be brave perhaps; take a side you actually disagree with) and write one paragraph of 125 words that identify the points (reasons) of political authority (view) by the chosen philosopher.

2) Using the writings of each given in our class text or at the Websites below, write one paragraph of 125 words and give two reasons why you chose one side over the other side. (Compare and Contrast)

3) Do a Google search of "philosophers" and give an example of one (1) modern philosophers who has a similar situation in the world where the modern philosopher agrees with either Hobbs or Locke. (Do these philosophies apply to todays modern politics?)

I agree with your points on Locke’s Theory of how the human mind is, consist of and methodology of evolution. Several aspects are singularly impressive and support Locke’s approach and that is the quality of mind is intricate, complicated and indeterminable in the understanding of what it is capable of and the untapped limitless ability.

Also, I agree with my own argument in this manner and that is “we are therefore I am” which essentially means as we exist, we are capable of learning, expansion and the pure evolution of a mind that will never cease in the acquiring and expansion. Therefore, our nature being true allows that self-government is natural as breathing and that humans at birth are new to the reality of now and what we learn becomes an inherent characteristic and therefore usable and allow us to be people of good reason.

Based on the true status of modern times, the divine right should be refuted for no one deserves the right of totality and absolute finality because as Locke stated we are humans and equitably by nature free, equal and independent.

Further that in order for society to function properly the submission to governmental rulings is necessary and apt to have structure to fulfill social norms and have a sense of normalcy. Also, that based on experience and perception comes understanding and clarity of thought enhanced by learning and change.

In consequence, absolutism is such an encompassing state of being that “heads will roll” is not a theatrical quip but an actuality that could be fulfilled as “do so” in the royal decree and it is done and no one could help you and mitigate the order. Unlike absolutism, liberalism gives all the right to be free thinking individuals with choice and freedom of the oppressive yoke.

Thank you.

Felicia