In a perfect world, maybe..

Personally, I really dig Voltaire's whole satirical approach.  He parodies three main topics:  fatalism, Christian orthodoxy, and schisms.  I really liked his view on the Garden of Eden.  So many of the texts we have been reading have been serious views.  Voltaire was kind of like a breath of fresh air.  He makes everything seem less intense and more funny.  For example, his name of Eve - Cunegonde - I thought was hilarious.  I thought this was the perfect time in the semester to read this book.  As the end of the year is nearing, we needed a less deep story to read and one that we could really understand. 

Ro-co-co (co-co)

It's just kind of fun to say.  I feel like I could keep adding co-co's and it would just get more fun.  Or it would turn itself into a song.  Okay.. maybe not.  But seriously.
I can't decide if I dig Rococo work or not.  The architecture really just isn't my style.  It's too gaudy and excessive.  I like ivy, but I like real ivy, you know, outside - alive - green.  Granted, these people may not have liked the style either, they just wanted to show off their wealth.  I guess if you've got it, flaunt it?  The Rococo painting was very different also.  I did like the fact that the painting wasn't necessarily serious though.  All of the paintings we have been looking at have been so deeper meaning and all that jazz.  Rococo is just erotic, overly sentimental subject matter.  It is kind of nice to look at a painting and not tear it apart - either they just got it in or they're about to get it in.  Very simple.  I've often wondered if all of these books and paintings maybe don't have deep meanings, and as a curious being we simply assign possible meanings to all of these different works.  Maybe the artist was tripping and just drew what he wanted to.  Who knows.  But my stance on Rococo (cocococo) remains the same, comme ci commme ca.
Until next Sunday...

Oh the benefits of going to class..

First and foremost, I am super excited that I do not have to do my second cultural critique.  Apparently attending class can pay off.. and the discussion my group had on Alexander Pope was also intriguing.  His viewpoint on man not needing to know the workings of what is above him made so much sense.  When individuals question God's purpose, which happens frequently, the idea can be somewhate disturbing.  However, Pope just trusts in God's workings.  He believes we don't need to understand what God's intentions are, and that we simply need to trust him.  God knows what he is doing, and we don't need to question the motives or meaning behind any of it.  In his words, "Whatever is, is right."

how about we work with those emotions?

That's what we are.  Emotional beings.  We have feelings, oh yes we have feelings, so why not manipulate those feelings through art?  Catholic Baroque Art did just that, appealed to our emotions as human beings.  This completely went against all aspects of art up until that point, which focused on ideal order.  This new form of art was off balance, went against realism, and warped space.  A main focus within the paintings were the light and dark contrasts.  Another key feature within these works was that a lot of the action was happening in the background - woah, curveball!  When observing this new style of art, the goal was to feel the same emotions as the artist.  However, being Catholic, all of these artworks went through the doctrines of the church.  This new style of artwork, honestly, is kind of scary.  Some of the details in the paintings we observed were almost to the point of spooky, if you ask me.  Then again, you probably didn't :)
Until next time..