العودة   منتديات طلاب الجامعة العربية المفتوحة > منتديات المشرفين والمنتديات المساعدة > أرشيف المواد والمواضيع القديمة > A123b

 
 
أدوات الموضوع انواع عرض الموضوع

قديم 05-04-2012, 01:37 AM   #1
malak14 malak14 غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية malak14
هام اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس للميدتيرم A123b






اهم النقاط التي ركز عليها اخي امرؤ القيس


نقطة مهمة 1



انتبهوا لهذا السؤال




Question :

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”

This ringing slogan from Rousseau’s first chapter of The Social Contract was used to explain the change that took man from living in the state of nature and unlimited freedom to living in the civil state and its laws.

Why should such a change occur? What are its assumed benefits and what can render it legitimate?

Student answers should include the following:

• Reasons for leaving the state of nature
• Reasons for wanting to live in the civil state
• Issues on legitimacy - when would these "chains" not be regarded as such ( this point entails a discussion of the particular will of the individual and the general will of the state)?
• Rousseau’s line of thinking on why individuals should accept the general will and put aside their particular wills.

The above quotation comes from the first chapter of The Social Contract (1762) in which Rousseau explains the move from the state of nature to the civil state. Man has unlimited freedom in the state of nature. This may sound very tempting; however, the right to own everything means ownership of nothing, as everyone owns everything. In the state of nature, the rule of the jungle applies whereby power decides ownership.

Laws and regulations need to be devised to protect freedom and the right of ownership. Thus, the need to move away from living in the state of nature to living in the civil state becomes necessary in order to preserve one's rights and freedom. However, if man decides to live in a civil state, he is forsaking his unlimited freedom in the hope of gaining more benefit from the civil state. This inevitably means that we need laws to make us free. The unlimited freedom of the state of nature is really very limiting since in reality, one is not free to own anything.

The social contract is the agreement between the individual and the state whereby the individual enters into a contract in which he abides by the laws of the state, and these laws in turn will protect him. If the laws are chains on the individual then there is a conflict between the individual’s particular will and the state’s general will. Here the problem of legitimacy arises. The will of the state should represent the will of all its citizens. Individuals should know what is best for the state and forsake their individual particular wills in order to adopt the general will of the state, which is in the interest of the individual. If they can do this, then the state’s authority is legitimate because in obeying the general will of the state, individuals are really only obeying themselves.

In order for the chains that control the actions of the individual to become legitimate, the individual must adopt the general will of the state so that his particular will is the same as the state’s general will. Rousseau’s line of thinking is as follows:
• The particular will is the product of appetite
• The general will is the product of reason
• To act on appetite is slavish and bad
• To act on reason is noble and good
• We should be noble and good
• We should obey the general will

If individuals put aside their particular wills and think instead according to the general will, there would not be a clash of wills. What the individual wants and what the state wants would be the same. In this way, man can live in a state and yet remain free.


أخوكم


أمرؤالقيس





نقطة مهمة 2


وهذا شبه سؤال مؤكد في الاختبار




Look at Colour Plate 39, The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons, 1789 in your Illustration Book. Write an essay in which you discuss how it could be argued that this painting by Jacques-Louis David reflects the spirit of the French Revolution politically, Rousseau's ideas philosophically and the cultural and social climate artistically.

Suggested Answer and Marking Emphasis:
Student answers should include all the elements of this question. This entails a discussion of the painting:

a.) politically (French Revolution)
b.) philosophically (Rousseau)
c.) artistically (cultural and social climate)
d.) obliquely (no proven link)

Students should be able to:
a.) display knowledge of the required background information-i.e. some events of the French Revolution, the language of art, Rousseau’s particular and general will, and so on.
b.) Connect political, philosophic and artistic elements.

Politically, this painting could be connected to an especially active year during the period leading up to the French Revolution in 1789. Brutus could stand as a parallel to the revolutionaries, both known for rousing oratory skills, or as a parallel to the National Assembly in his opposition to the King (The Roman King Tarquin whom Brutus opposed and took an oath to overthrow could stand in for the tyrant Louis XVI against whom the National Assembly took an oath demanding a constitution.) This painting fits into a growing politicization of art, where art seems to reflect the social, cultural and political moods of the populace. It also represents David’s own growing revolutionary activities. The painting seems to be the beginning of David’s revolutionary status (ending of course with his becoming first painter to Napoleon). But, it also reflects the social, cultural and moral values of the time which seem to have nourished the painting. The painting reflects and is perhaps shaped by the ideas and values of Rousseau and became a vehicle for expressing revolutionary views in visual form, such as the idea that heroism entails putting the interests of the state and society ahead of those of the individual. The painting seemed to appear at the right moment of the people’s dissatisfaction with the monarchy, and Brutus became a revolutionary symbol.

Philosophically, the point of the focus David creates is to draw a sharp contrast between the group of women in the painting and Brutus. Brutus displays the heroic, desired reaction, and represents the sacrificing stoicism of the classical ideal which Rousseau saw as the necessary feature of persons who go through a remarkable change when faced with political transformation. Brutus sits in the left foreground in a chair, under a statue symbolizing Rome, tensely holding a piece of paper, which seems to be the letter that proves the pro-royalist treason of his two sons, a treason incited by their mother’s family; their mother now stands mourning her two sons, executed by an order of their anti-royalist father, the magistrate. The Lictors, who obey the order of the magistrates, are now returning the bodies of the two sons. David imagined this moment (since Brutus actually attended his sons’ execution) and presented it in a painting. This imagined moment dramatized the contrast between political duty and family allegiance. Political duty to the state is the more important here, embodied in the figure of Brutus. He acts with reason, courage, steadfastness and thinks of the general will and the good of the state rather than with his emotions, instinct and family affairs. He is ennobled in the face of this serious, testing and extreme experience.

Artistically, this painting can be seen as fitting into the neoclassical artistic movement of the time. David’s choice of a Roman character not only had many precedents but was actually commissioned and requested frequently by the government. The themes of heroism, nobility and bravery were especially demanded. David might simply be following a well-established artistic tradition in France at the time of dealing with subjects from Greek and Roman history (as well as the Bible or mythology). This was called “Grand Art” or “Grand Style.” Such art was supposed to be morally uplifting and intellectually challenging. The “Grand Manner” in which it was painted was supposed to be reflected in style (smooth brushwork, rich drapery and Roman or Greek architecture) as well as subjects who demonstrated noble thoughts and feelings during serious or significant experiences. The painting classicizes moral concerns. Although the painting follows closely traditional classical techniques, David provoked surprise and criticism in the way that the painting deviates from certain aspects of the classical style: the difference between the background and foreground is too stark and abrupt; the hero is placed in the dark rather than in the spotlight, and the major characters are separated (Brutus and his wife and daughters). Hence, the painting lacks the typical harmonizing effect of the classical style which would aid in seeing the painting as a whole rather than seeing it as made up of discrete elements or spaces. This lack of harmony, created by the painting’s formal features, such as colour contrast, lighting and angle of vision, helps the viewer focus on discreet groups.

Firstly, the illusion of depth and dimensionality created by perspective lines in the tiles of the floor, the bricks and the tops of the columns, are extended towards a vanishing point right above the standing women’s heads. These lines immediately draw our vision towards them, especially as the horizontal lines and the head-on angle of vision create the effect of making the viewer feel as if he/she is standing at a similar height to and parallel with the tall female figure. The effect of backstage and front stage, created by the curtain and perspective lights, make the women appear closer to us, as if they are the center of a dramatic staged event. Ultimately, the female group’s viewpoint and reactions become the central focus. The use of light and colour also draws our focus to the group of huddled women. Although there is light on the columns, the chair and the feet of Brutus, the spotlight effect is on the group of standing women; they are brought into sharp relief in contrast with the dimmer background and surroundings. The contrast between the colours of the women’s clothes and everyone else’s, as well as the colours of the columns and curtains create a contrast between oranges/reds and blues/greys, between warm and cool colours. This also has the effect of placing the women in focus and in also making them appear closer; although Brutus is actually in the foreground, the huddled standing women in the middle ground appear closer to us, and are the first thing we see when we look at the painting. It seems that all of these formal elements come together to make the focus the tragic reaction of the women in contrast to the sombre stoicism of Brutus.

David, then, uses contrast and separation to highlight the difference between family loyalty, particular will, emotionalism and weak sentimentality as represented by the women on the one hand, and stoicism, reason, loyalty and obedience to the state and the general will as represented by Brutus on the other.

أخوكم

أمرؤالقيس


malak14 غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
 

مواقع النشر (المفضلة)

أدوات الموضوع
انواع عرض الموضوع

تعليمات المشاركة
لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك

BB code is متاحة
كود [IMG] متاحة
كود HTML معطلة

الانتقال السريع


الساعة الآن 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. TranZ By Almuhajir
جميع المواضيع والمشاركات تعبر عن وجهة نظر أصحابها
ولا تعبر باي شكل من الاشكال عن وجهة نظر منتديات AOUA
تصميم وتطوير : التكنولوجيا الماسية