i've haven't fucked much with the past but i've fucked plenty with the future...
SO. tomorrow is the last day of classes this semester and i can't WAIT! i'm excited for new classes but i don't care so much for those classes. =/ i have figure drawing, german 4, women in art, and topics in lit theory but hopefully i can change that to a phil class. i'm in love! i'm also getting written into solar system astronomy so yay!
so i started and ended my day with paper writing. and both of them pretty much wrote themselves! the first one was for philosopy. i was having such a problem with it and then i realized it was cause of my claim. basically i had to disect a quote from pop culture, i ended up going with the patti smith lyric quoted as my subject line, and figure out if it's philosophically sound. i'm posting it on here and if you wanna reads it and lemme know what you think that'd be cool! =D
Megan Willis
Phil and Pop Culture
1. Pop culture source
“I haven’t fucked much with the past, but I’ve fucked plenty with the future.” Patti Smith lyrics from the song Babelogue from the album Easter.
2. Philosophical claim to evaluate based on above pop culture source
I’ve polluted the future.
3. Metaphysical aspects to claim
Assuming that a past and future in our existence doesn’t promote any of the three metaphysical theories. Unless if in this claim the present exists as well, then it would support eternalism. Even then, it’s not clear if I believe it all exists concurrently.
However, because there is no set definition when this ‘fucking up’ all occurs it could support reductionism.
4. Epistemic aspects to claim
Given that I may feel that I am messing up the future by what I am doing now I must know what exactly the future is. If it really exists. And I need to know who’s future I’m messing with. Am I messing with my own? Am I messing with everyone elses? Is there a difference?
5. Ethical aspects to claim
If I can truly mess with the future by saying a few words or doing a couple of actions, how do I know I’m not in some way messing with someone else’s future? Would I be held morally responsible for their actions if someone killed someone because I made a statement?
6. Philosophical Evaluation of Claim
Metaphysical evaluation:
To better understand the claim, we need to define ‘pollute’ and ‘future.’
‘pollute’ = ‘to make foul or unclean, esp. with harmful chemical or waste products’ or ‘to make morally unclean; defile.’
~To take something pure and/or untouched and defile it.
‘future’ = ‘pertaining to or connected with time to come’
Metaphysically it is impossible to tell if this is true. Not knowing whether our future is predetermined or not determines everything. If it is, then this claim is metaphysically not sound because we cannot be messing up with something that is already in the cards for us no matter how hard we try. If predetermination is not possible, then it is sound to say that by saying something we can defile our future, we can. If I have set out that I am going to live a peaceful life and by saying something ‘subversive’, if you will, I could totally ruin that image.
I don’t think that polluting the utter unknown is metaphysically sound. I don’t think this claim is metaphysically sound.
Epistemic Evaluation:
Given the above definitions, this does not epistemically make sense. Polluting something that hasn’t occurred yet and furthermore not knowing how to determine when the actual future is to occur, this is epistemically impossible.
Ethical Evaluation:
According to the second definition of pollute (6), to pollute anything would be immoral. However, because I’m unsure of how the future works, it would be impossible to even determine the moral values of this claim.
Therefore, this claim is ethically nonexistent.
7. Final Word
Though the claim can sound like it makes sense has an insight to what we have to deal with, it is metaphysically, epistemically and ethically impossible and/or pointless.
the second one i did for italian renaissance art class. he had us pick a painting out of a box, like we did in oriental, and compare it. i knew what it was from the aid of a certain light box WINK so all i had to do was find two other artists to compare and then i was done! i guess since this is really the second paper in this format i've written it was a little easier. also i felt really confident on both essays so YAYZ! this is defintely the most productive i've been all semester!
Megan Willis
Italian Renaissance Art History 312
Test Essay 3
When I first pulled my image out, I immediately thought of Botticelli and other artists around the time frame of 1450 - 1480. Just from a first glance. Mary had and unmistakable elegance to her that put brought me to realize that this artist probably painted this painting, more refined, between the 1470s and the 1480s. The quality of the painting has sharp crisp lines. There’s modeling around the figures’ faces but even that shading isn’t too warm and definitely not as advanced as a sfumato. All the lines are pretty crisp. The face puts off an almost innocence with the eyes and the general somber expression. The background is gold leaf which, from my studies, seems rare for the time. Mary is depicted in a blue robe with a gorgeous and lavishly decorated trim. She also has a pink robe underneath with some sort of light blue emblem in the middle of the chest. The Christ baby was depicted very healthy, clad in a blue robe and perched on little pillow. Also, there is a sheer fabric on the baby’s upper arms and upper thighs. There’s also residue around his head (it’s hardly noticeable, it just looks like a pattern in her clothing) that looks like my unknown artist started to paint in a halo but changed his mind.
In comparison to Botticelli’s Madonna and Child with Open Book, this painting has lavish decorations in robes and fabrics in common with Botticelli’s painting. Also there is almost an identical way of modeling. The lines are crisp and the colour scheme is similar as well. They both depicted the hands as sinewy as possible by twisting some fingers around, in feasibly uncomfortable positions, making them look good. They also both had plump, healthy babies and strangely similar faces. But the dead giveaway that my painting is not a Botticelli is the eyes. The unknown artist depicted the eyes very soft and subdued, looking downward. She has no eyebrows, at least noticeable ones. Botticelli used crisp lines around the eyes and a deeper shadowing technique. Still too crisp to be sfumato but more modeling than my unknown artist used. Boticelli also depicted both Mary and the Christ child with very elaborately painted halos. He also wrapped a thin ring of thorns around Christ’s wrist. My unknown artist depicted them simply and mortal looking.
The second possibility that I considered was Fra Filipo Lippi’s Madonna and Child with two Angels. The Mary in both have long elegant-looking necks. They both used the sheer clothing effect; Lippi made it obvious and used it as a hair piece. Both still had plump babies depicted. Lippi added a pillow on the armrest in the chair they were sitting in, similarly emphasized like the pillow in my unknown’s painting. I can tell that my unknown is not Lippi because the baby and angels have longer noses that protrude further out than my unknown’s. Lippi didn’t use the same kind of patterning as my unknown.
The last artist I compared my unknown to is Domenico Ghirlandaio. I looked at several different paintings by this artist since I knew the unknown was in the same time period and I had suspicion that my unknown was by Ghirlandaio. I took a gander at Ghirlandaio’s Madonna and Child Enthroned with Four Angels, the Archangels Michael and Raphael, and St. Gusto and St. Zenobius and noticed the one thing that gave it away. Mary had a blue pendant on her chest identical to the one in my unknown. Her gaze was cast down and her eyes looked the same way with almost invisible eyebrows. This painting was started in 1480 and it’s pretty crowed and has a lot going on. The two figures kneeling in front of Mary and the Christ child had an elaborately lavish trim on the robes. Mary also had a forced empire waist line with fabric that was in both paintings. There was light modeling on the Ghirlandaio painting just like the unknown. The other one I compared my unknown to by Ghirlandaio was The Visitation. In this painting, the faces of all the women have the same innocent face as the Mary in my unknown. They all had the same eyes and the almost vacant face. This Mary had a slight halo, almost resembling a stain, and a blue robe on fastened with a blue pendant. There was also a portion of the robe falling out that was lightly adorned with patterns.
After examining these three different, yet alike, artists I have come to my conclusion. My unknown painting is by Domenico Ghirlandaio and was created in the early 1470s to mid 1470s. I am assured by the blue pendant and the elegant, down cast eyes that all the women in Ghirlandaio’s paintings share.
OKAYZ so i'm done with my ego inflations of the day! =D i've never actually felt proud of my papers so it's big newz for me!! so yea, if you get totally utterly bored take a gander at them! =)
i must retire for the evening!
gnight all!
meg=)
so i started and ended my day with paper writing. and both of them pretty much wrote themselves! the first one was for philosopy. i was having such a problem with it and then i realized it was cause of my claim. basically i had to disect a quote from pop culture, i ended up going with the patti smith lyric quoted as my subject line, and figure out if it's philosophically sound. i'm posting it on here and if you wanna reads it and lemme know what you think that'd be cool! =D
Megan Willis
Phil and Pop Culture
1. Pop culture source
“I haven’t fucked much with the past, but I’ve fucked plenty with the future.” Patti Smith lyrics from the song Babelogue from the album Easter.
2. Philosophical claim to evaluate based on above pop culture source
I’ve polluted the future.
3. Metaphysical aspects to claim
Assuming that a past and future in our existence doesn’t promote any of the three metaphysical theories. Unless if in this claim the present exists as well, then it would support eternalism. Even then, it’s not clear if I believe it all exists concurrently.
However, because there is no set definition when this ‘fucking up’ all occurs it could support reductionism.
4. Epistemic aspects to claim
Given that I may feel that I am messing up the future by what I am doing now I must know what exactly the future is. If it really exists. And I need to know who’s future I’m messing with. Am I messing with my own? Am I messing with everyone elses? Is there a difference?
5. Ethical aspects to claim
If I can truly mess with the future by saying a few words or doing a couple of actions, how do I know I’m not in some way messing with someone else’s future? Would I be held morally responsible for their actions if someone killed someone because I made a statement?
6. Philosophical Evaluation of Claim
Metaphysical evaluation:
To better understand the claim, we need to define ‘pollute’ and ‘future.’
‘pollute’ = ‘to make foul or unclean, esp. with harmful chemical or waste products’ or ‘to make morally unclean; defile.’
~To take something pure and/or untouched and defile it.
‘future’ = ‘pertaining to or connected with time to come’
Metaphysically it is impossible to tell if this is true. Not knowing whether our future is predetermined or not determines everything. If it is, then this claim is metaphysically not sound because we cannot be messing up with something that is already in the cards for us no matter how hard we try. If predetermination is not possible, then it is sound to say that by saying something we can defile our future, we can. If I have set out that I am going to live a peaceful life and by saying something ‘subversive’, if you will, I could totally ruin that image.
I don’t think that polluting the utter unknown is metaphysically sound. I don’t think this claim is metaphysically sound.
Epistemic Evaluation:
Given the above definitions, this does not epistemically make sense. Polluting something that hasn’t occurred yet and furthermore not knowing how to determine when the actual future is to occur, this is epistemically impossible.
Ethical Evaluation:
According to the second definition of pollute (6), to pollute anything would be immoral. However, because I’m unsure of how the future works, it would be impossible to even determine the moral values of this claim.
Therefore, this claim is ethically nonexistent.
7. Final Word
Though the claim can sound like it makes sense has an insight to what we have to deal with, it is metaphysically, epistemically and ethically impossible and/or pointless.
the second one i did for italian renaissance art class. he had us pick a painting out of a box, like we did in oriental, and compare it. i knew what it was from the aid of a certain light box WINK so all i had to do was find two other artists to compare and then i was done! i guess since this is really the second paper in this format i've written it was a little easier. also i felt really confident on both essays so YAYZ! this is defintely the most productive i've been all semester!
Megan Willis
Italian Renaissance Art History 312
Test Essay 3
When I first pulled my image out, I immediately thought of Botticelli and other artists around the time frame of 1450 - 1480. Just from a first glance. Mary had and unmistakable elegance to her that put brought me to realize that this artist probably painted this painting, more refined, between the 1470s and the 1480s. The quality of the painting has sharp crisp lines. There’s modeling around the figures’ faces but even that shading isn’t too warm and definitely not as advanced as a sfumato. All the lines are pretty crisp. The face puts off an almost innocence with the eyes and the general somber expression. The background is gold leaf which, from my studies, seems rare for the time. Mary is depicted in a blue robe with a gorgeous and lavishly decorated trim. She also has a pink robe underneath with some sort of light blue emblem in the middle of the chest. The Christ baby was depicted very healthy, clad in a blue robe and perched on little pillow. Also, there is a sheer fabric on the baby’s upper arms and upper thighs. There’s also residue around his head (it’s hardly noticeable, it just looks like a pattern in her clothing) that looks like my unknown artist started to paint in a halo but changed his mind.
In comparison to Botticelli’s Madonna and Child with Open Book, this painting has lavish decorations in robes and fabrics in common with Botticelli’s painting. Also there is almost an identical way of modeling. The lines are crisp and the colour scheme is similar as well. They both depicted the hands as sinewy as possible by twisting some fingers around, in feasibly uncomfortable positions, making them look good. They also both had plump, healthy babies and strangely similar faces. But the dead giveaway that my painting is not a Botticelli is the eyes. The unknown artist depicted the eyes very soft and subdued, looking downward. She has no eyebrows, at least noticeable ones. Botticelli used crisp lines around the eyes and a deeper shadowing technique. Still too crisp to be sfumato but more modeling than my unknown artist used. Boticelli also depicted both Mary and the Christ child with very elaborately painted halos. He also wrapped a thin ring of thorns around Christ’s wrist. My unknown artist depicted them simply and mortal looking.
The second possibility that I considered was Fra Filipo Lippi’s Madonna and Child with two Angels. The Mary in both have long elegant-looking necks. They both used the sheer clothing effect; Lippi made it obvious and used it as a hair piece. Both still had plump babies depicted. Lippi added a pillow on the armrest in the chair they were sitting in, similarly emphasized like the pillow in my unknown’s painting. I can tell that my unknown is not Lippi because the baby and angels have longer noses that protrude further out than my unknown’s. Lippi didn’t use the same kind of patterning as my unknown.
The last artist I compared my unknown to is Domenico Ghirlandaio. I looked at several different paintings by this artist since I knew the unknown was in the same time period and I had suspicion that my unknown was by Ghirlandaio. I took a gander at Ghirlandaio’s Madonna and Child Enthroned with Four Angels, the Archangels Michael and Raphael, and St. Gusto and St. Zenobius and noticed the one thing that gave it away. Mary had a blue pendant on her chest identical to the one in my unknown. Her gaze was cast down and her eyes looked the same way with almost invisible eyebrows. This painting was started in 1480 and it’s pretty crowed and has a lot going on. The two figures kneeling in front of Mary and the Christ child had an elaborately lavish trim on the robes. Mary also had a forced empire waist line with fabric that was in both paintings. There was light modeling on the Ghirlandaio painting just like the unknown. The other one I compared my unknown to by Ghirlandaio was The Visitation. In this painting, the faces of all the women have the same innocent face as the Mary in my unknown. They all had the same eyes and the almost vacant face. This Mary had a slight halo, almost resembling a stain, and a blue robe on fastened with a blue pendant. There was also a portion of the robe falling out that was lightly adorned with patterns.
After examining these three different, yet alike, artists I have come to my conclusion. My unknown painting is by Domenico Ghirlandaio and was created in the early 1470s to mid 1470s. I am assured by the blue pendant and the elegant, down cast eyes that all the women in Ghirlandaio’s paintings share.
OKAYZ so i'm done with my ego inflations of the day! =D i've never actually felt proud of my papers so it's big newz for me!! so yea, if you get totally utterly bored take a gander at them! =)
i must retire for the evening!
gnight all!
meg=)