Journal Entries
cdsiamlisteningtoatworkthisweekare
Posted Sep 23, 2003
shedsevengoingforgoldradioheadthebendsradioheadokcomputerthesmithshatfullofhollowthesmithsmeatismurderthewhitestripeswhitebloodcellspulpdifferentclasssexpistolsliveatwinterlandtheflaminglipsyoshimibattlesthepinkrobotsthechemicalbrotherssurrenderthelibertinesupthebracketmorrisseysouthpawgrammarpulphitsthelasthelasaphextwincometodaddythesmithsstrangewaysherewecomethesmithsthequeenisdeadsuperfurryanimalsfuzzylogicthevineshighlyevolvedonestepbeyondskacollectiontheraptureechoeshappymondayspillsthrillsandbellyachesspacemen3playingwithfirethestrokesthisisitadamandtheantscompilationthedandywarholscomedownblurthebestofthesmithsranksexpistolsnevermindthebollocksrollingstonesfortylickspilthegreatesthitssofarmanicstreetpreachersforeverdelayedinterpolturnonthebrightlights
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Sep 23, 2003
Assignment
Posted May 28, 2003
The value of historical context in understanding and appreciating the works of Rousseau and David.
It is possible to examine the works of both Rousseau and David in a purely ahistorical manner. However, given that they were high profile figures whose work was viewed against the volatile backdrop of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, this would seem to be a somewhat blinkered approach. Rousseau advocated Republicanism, which was established - rather severely, and with Totalitarian overtones (OU block 3, p.126) - by the Revolutionaries, and David's Neoclassical paintings were used to champion the cause of whichever faction was in ascendancy, a fact that he was astute enough to realise throughout a series of ambiguous works.
Rousseau's political philosophy was concerned with personal freedom and the legitimacy of government, and the way in which this can be brought about by equating the particular will with the general will. This was of great interest to the Revolutionaries, who were seeking ways in which France could throw off the yoke of a bankrupt monarchy and an essentially medieval system of landowners and vassals. The particular will, Rousseau argued, was the product of appetite, whereas the general will was the product of reason. If, with the ennobling application of reason, the general will became also the particular will, then obedience to the state would also be obedience to self, a citizen would be free while also living in a civil state, and the legitimacy of government would be upheld. By 'evolving' from a state of nature, civil liberties and proprietary ownership replace natural liberty, which is only notional in the sense of the amount of personal force that can be mustered to protect it. The ruling classes were seen as an expression of particular will, in that they maintained power simply because they had the means to do so.
The Social Contract argues that the general will must be '…general in its object as well as its essence' (The Social Contract, bk. 2, ch.4, p. 205). The appeal to the French Revolutionaries of statements such as this was enormous, as it effectively negated the need for hereditary rulers and handed sovereignty instead to the populace. Rousseau's citizenry would be equal under the general will, and 'No citizen shall ever be rich enough to buy another…' (bk. 2, ch.2, p. 225). The Revolutionaries were especially keen to promote a state run on reason rather than monarchical or traditional privilege, and the notion of automatic civil liberties over the automatic rights of the wealthy was a cornerstone of the Revolutionary government. So flammable was The Social Contract that it was read aloud by Jacobin agitator Jean Paul Marat in the early days of the Revolution to incite Parisians to rally to the cause. (OU block 3, p. 93)
However, the turmoil of the French Revolution is very important in considering the manner in which Rousseau's works were interpreted. The notion of 'forcing people to be free' (OU block 3, p. 126-132) - that is, forcing dissenters to embrace the general will or be punished, usually by death - seems somewhat removed from Rousseau's ideal, which is bound up with protecting people from the contrary will of others. In fact, the Terror, instituted by the Revolutionary Government in August 1792, (OU resource book 2, A1, p.7-8) was in many ways reminiscent of the natural state Rousseau had spurned, in that power equalled legitimacy: a hallmark of a totalitarian
state. A Republic had indeed been achieved; however, it was of such a limited franchise - consisting of the Jacobins - that it was far removed from the Social Contract ideal.
While Rousseau's work was inextricably linked to the French Revolution, his death before it actually started meant that he was never directly subject to the shifting fortunes of patrons in the same way that David was. David's work is essentially ambiguous in content, but revolutionary in style, being a reaction to the rococo sentiment of decorative appeal over intellectual importance (Block 3, p. 180). His Death of Socrates (1787) is an example of a painting that is very much a product of historical context. Here, David portrays the great philosopher as he is poised to take the hemlock that will kill him, in accordance with his state-ordained suicide. His students, in degrees of unhappiness, ranging from stoic to hysterical, surround him. This painting would be pleasing to Revolutionaries: the scene takes place in a prison cell, where we would expect to find those not in accord with the general will. A small oil lamp guttering above Socrates' outstretched hand as it reaches for the hemlock would appear to symbolise the guttering out of the particular will in the face of the Revolutionary general will.
However, this painting can also be viewed as a triumph of the particular will, and thereby be appealing to the monarchy, which essentially revolved around the particular will of the crown monarch. Socrates is somewhat Christ like - illuminated from above while all around him his twelve 'disciple' students are subject to a deeper tonal range - and clad in a shroud. Crucially, he appears to be voluntarily reaching for
the hemlock, which is neither forced upon him by the distraught youth that is holding it (wearing red, the colour of death), nor desperately grasped for by Socrates himself.
In keeping with David's Neoclassicism, the form of the piece is reliant upon a linear style and dignified restraint to enhance the drama of the scene. The inclusion of a 'gagged' Plato is artistic licence, and perhaps illustrates David's own reflection upon a state that would oblige such a man as Socrates to commit suicide. An inkwell and parchment lies unused next to Plato: again, this can either be interpreted as a symbol of the invalidity of the particular will, or David's own comment upon the loss of innovative, 'dangerous' thought with the ushering in of the Revolutionaries. This was also noted by Sebastien Mercer in 1791: 'Within a very short space of time, France has lost the writers in whom she justifiably takes such pride…' ('J.J. Rousseau, considered as one of the finest authors of the Revolution', June 1791).
An appreciation of David's painting and Rousseau's philosophy can only be enhanced with a consideration of the upheaval into which they were pitched. The fact that an interpretation of the Social Contract was a root cause of the Terror (Rousseau was publicly praised by the radical Revolutionary Robespierre) (OU Block 3, p.138) does not immediately condemn it to simply being an incitement to totalitarianism. The Revolutionaries' lack of regard for pluralism (OU Block 3, p.138) and honourable disagreement (OU Block 3, p.130) is countered by events in post-Apartheid South Africa, which saw a peaceful transition from divisive government to modern Democracy (OU Block3, p.120-121). While Rousseau was certainly not a Democrat, his view upon the freedom of individuals is to a large extent echoed in the modern democratic ideal (OU Block 3, p.151) which gives his work a timelessly relevant quality. The notion of David's work as sensitive political currency is enhanced in a letter from Monsieur Cuvillier of the Royal Fine Arts Office to Joseph Vien, President of the Royal Academy (OU resource book 2, C2, p.102). Cuvillier voices concerns about the showing of David's The Death of Brutus (1789) which he feels is politically contentious. David's works perhaps stand ahistorically somewhat more easily, as they are important examples of Neo-classical style and can be appreciated perfectly adequately as such. However, that they were produced by a politically aware artist in an explosive environment and were admired by both sides of the Revolution means that, like Rousseau's work, it is impossible - and perhaps naïve - to entirely separate them from historical context.
Discuss this Journal entry [2]
Latest reply: May 28, 2003
How highly skilled telecoms professionals spend the day.
Posted Jan 2, 2003
paul.smith2: This can't go on. For all I know, I could be dead.
phil.hynes: it's pointless, give in to it. let the warm embrace of failure envelop you. polos and a copy of my liberal broadsheet please, if you're passing the shop.
paul.smith2: Yes, that lovely warming feeling of knowing that the next fifty years are going to be spent in this state. Sort of comforting, knowing you never have to make a decision again.
phil.hynes: 'i was only joking when I said by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed' I downloaded a load of Smiths last night.
paul.smith2: Cool.
paul.smith2: Still, nice to have an education behind you.
paul.smith2: I mean, imagine being stuck in some pointless dead end job with no prospect of advancement, or of any day being any different to any other. I'd hate to live like that.
phil.hynes: as my grandad would say 'at least I never worked for the jews'. Oh God...
phil.hynes: there's an alarm going off in lucy woods office right now
paul.smith2: £50 if you shout out 'Don't touch me, just don't f*cking touch me' really loudly now.
aul.smith2: How odd is it that everyone in this department exhibits signs of post traumatic stress disorder, without ever having been in battle?
phil.hynes: can you imagine Ian in the trenches? He'd just wander round saying 'Oh boy' all day.
paul.smith2: Oh wow, my legs have been blown off. Oh boy. OK then. Oh boy.
paul.smith2: £150 if you profess an interest in Christianity to Colin. You have to ask for literature and everything.
phil.hynes: used to work with a mad mullah who I used to tease by professing an interest/asking stupid theological questions. He bought me a Koran. maybe I should drop to my knees, stretch my arms out to the sky and shout out I've been saved. the dinosaurs are obviously a fake anyway.
paul.smith2: Please do that. Cry and everything. You could deliberately walk into tall people carrying hot tea as your jihad.
Discuss this Journal entry [2]
Latest reply: Jan 2, 2003
Odo for the politely interested
Posted Nov 9, 2002
Born 1030 Normandy. Half-brother of Duke William of Normandy.
1049. Appointed Bishop of Bayeaux by Duke William.
1050-66. Generous sponsor of arts, especially architecture. Becomes noted church leader.
1066 Norman Conquest. Normans beat Saxons at the dramatic Battle of Hastings, in which Odo distinguishes himself and argueably saves the day for the Normans. European and subsequently world history changed forever. Duke William is now King William I of Englahd - William the Conqueror.
1067. Rewarded with massive estates and titles by William. Assumes vast power. Earl of Kent, Justice of England among other titles. Essentially, Odo becomes the law at this point. A great rivalry with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canturbury born, as Odo attempts to seize lands around Canturbury Cathedral.
1077. Rebuilds Bayeaux Cathedral at massive expense. Houses many treasures, including the remarkable Bayeuax Tapestry - funded by Odo -which portrays him as masterminding the Norman Conquest.
1067-82. Widespread abuses of power in England. Destroys sea trade in Dover by allowing an uncle to build a windmill in the harbour entrance. Confiscates lands, embezzles riches, destroys Bristol and Durham. Hated by the Saxons. Goes somewhat loopy with power, especially after hearing that a soothsayer has foretold that an 'Odo' will be the next Pope. Tries to set sail for Rome, but apprehended by King William - with opportunistic chicanery by Lanfranc - and exiled to Rouen, and apparent impending obscurity.
1088. King William dies. Is haraunged into pardoning Odo by Odo's brother. Duke Robert - heir apparant to English throne - falls somewhat under Odo's spell. Odo released from prison and recovers many of his previous titles and powers.
William Rufus - supported by Lanfranc - becomes king. Odo leads a rebellion by supporters of Duke Robert.
1088 March - seige of Pevensey Castle. Castle, held by Odo's brother, falls.
1088 June - siege of Tonbridge Castle. Castle garrison surrenders to King Rufus.
1088 July - Odo is marched to Rochester under heavy guard to instruct the garrison to serrender. It is a trick: a party of knights snatches Odo and takes him into the castle. Fierce fighting for several weeks. Odo hangs prisoners from the battlements: this enrages the local population. 30,000 Saxons unite with their Norman rulers and lay an impenetrable siege on Rochester. Eventually the exhausted garrison capitulates due to disease.
1088 September - Odo banished again to Rouen. However, remains influential in Normandy, and eventually dies in Palermo in 1092, on the way to the First Crusade. The Pope who called for the crusade was Urban II - whose original name was Odo.
Many questions remain, including a tantalising hint of a son - Stephen of Albermarle - whose existance it seems impossible to verify, but is a fantastic other aspect to Odo.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Nov 9, 2002
Odo for the politely interested
Posted Nov 9, 2002
Born 1030 Normandy. Half-brother of Duke William of Normandy.
1049. Appointed Bishop of Bayeaux by Duke William.
1050-66. Generous sponsor of arts, especially architecture. Becomes noted church leader.
1066 Norman Conquest. Normans beat Saxons at the dramatic Battle of Hastings, in which Odo distinguishes himself and argueably saves the day for the Normans. European and subsequently world history changed forever. Duke William is now King William I of Englahd - William the Conqueror.
1067. Rewarded with massive estates and titles by William. Assumes vast power. Earl of Kent, Justice of England among other titles. Essentially, Odo becomes the law at this point. A great rivalry with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canturbury born, as Odo attempts to seize lands around Canturbury Cathedral.
1077. Rebuilds Bayeaux Cathedral at massive expense. Houses many treasures, including the remarkable Bayeuax Tapestry - funded by Odo -which portrays him as masterminding the Norman Conquest.
1067-82. Widespread abuses of power in England. Destroys sea trade in Dover by allowing an uncle to build a windmill in the harbour entrance. Confiscates lands, embezzles riches, destroys Bristol and Durham. Hated by the Saxons. Goes somewhat loopy with power, especially after hearing that a soothsayer has foretold that an 'Odo' will be the next Pope. Tries to set sail for Rome, but apprehended by King William - with opportunistic chicanery by Lanfranc - and exiled to Rouen, and apparent impending obscurity.
1088. King William dies. Is haraunged into pardoning Odo by Odo's brother. Duke Robert - heir apparant to English throne - falls somewhat under Odo's spell. Odo released from prison and recovers many of his previous titles and powers.
William Rufus - supported by Lanfranc - becomes king. Odo leads a rebellion by supporters of Duke Robert.
1088 March - seige of Pevensey Castle. Castle, held by Odo's brother, falls.
1088 June - siege of Tonbridge Castle. Castle garrison surrenders to King Rufus.
1088 July - Odo is marched to Rochester under heavy guard to instruct the garrison to serrender. It is a trick: a party of knights snatches Odo and takes him into the castle. Fierce fighting for several weeks. Odo hangs prisoners from the battlements: this enrages the local population. 30,000 Saxons unite with their Norman rulers and lay an impenetrable siege on Rochester. Eventually garrison capitules due to disease.
1088 September - Odo banished again to Rouen. However, remains influential in Normandy, and eventually dies in Palermo in 1092, on the way to the First Crusade. The Pope who called for the crusade was Urban II - whose original name was Odo.
Many questions remain, including a tantalising hint of a son - Stephen of Albermare - whose existance it seems impossible to verify, but is a fantastic other aspect to Odo.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Nov 9, 2002
DogManStar
Researcher U183422
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."