Here's a subject that we all enjoy...class. What is class? Who determines what "upper", "middle", or "working" class is? Can we truly coexist?
Dr. Mark Boden, guest lecturer for my BLC course earlier this month, brought up several interesting points during that week’s lecture, the first of which was that class is embodied within all of us, whatever level it may be. Boden claimed that it would take generations for a family to “jump” social classes, based upon the amount of effort and convincing it takes to integrate into a particular class. Sure, one can work hard and move up social classes, but according to the Boden, an internal conflict may arise, posing a contradiction.
Are people ever fully integrated into this higher level on the hierarchical chain? Dr. Boden doesn’t think so. He asserts that class operates through culture , and is ultimately set by society. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, class is arbitrary.
Additionally, Boden affirms that class stems from where people think they are in society (politically or socially), so all hope for obtaining comfort in one’s own mind is not lost, though they would probably never be truly accepted into society. This may be more believable here in Britain due to the fact that so much of British history, and even modern day life, is centered on class, but I, for one, would have to disagree. It isn’t unlikely for a person from a lower class to integrate into a higher classed system, and surely doesn’t take generations to do so.
A previous lecturer (Dr. Wendy Stokes) mentioned, “No matter how far I go, I’ll never be Queen.” Here in Britain, if you aren’t of royal blood, then transcending across classes is fairly unlikely due to the fact that two “main” forms exist: upper class and working class.
Is it any different in America? I believe so. The western world has a different approach. All that’s needed is a solid education, and common interest in your area of expertise, since “work” and accomplishments are at the center of most “upper class” conversations anyway. One doesn’t have to sacrifice his/her own interests simply to be integrated. If so, the ideas of social mobility, “rags to riches”, and the “American Dream” were and have always been myths, which is evidently false.
I definitely invite comments for this post, as class is arguably a hot topic. Are their truly limitations to this hierarchical structure that centers around aristocracy? Perhaps I just have a biased, egocentric view and am unwilling to change...
Let the dialogue commence.
Darrion
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
The effects of British art on society
To some, art may simply be any visually stimulating piece, cultivated by hand. To others, it involves emotion and appeals to the senses. During my British Life and Culture lecture that took place on January 27, speaker, scholar, and artist Mark Bishop brought up several interesting points, one of which stood out among the crowd. That point is this: British art, particularly in the so-called Golden Age, was revolutionized by new approaches from five main ‘greats’: Hogarth, Blake, Gainsborough, Constable, and Turner. How exactly was art revolutionized and did it fit with society at the time? Does it fit now?
In order to fully address these questions, it’s rather important to analyze a particular artist and talk about his work. Thomas Gainsborough (an 18th century painter), is known for changing how British art was viewed. Instead of catering to those who harped over theory-based, academic and conventional methods, Gainsborough introduced a style of art that was centered on visual and intellectual stimulation through originality. He was concerned with using his art as a means link to the social world rather than appealing to the abstract appeal of the times. Bishop pointed out that the Greek conception of art involving nature, math, and natural beauty leaked (good word) into the 18th century. Gainsborough seemed to be connected to this, and was widely accepted thereafter for his “unique” vantage point.
With that said, was society really ready for Gainsborough and the “Great Five” during the late 18th century? Due to the fact that art was thought of as nothing more than pleasing to the eye rather than intellectually challenging during those times, society’s level of preparedness was probably extremely low. However Gainsborough, along with his colleagues changed the perception of art, widening the scope and instilling a vast appreciation in the process, thereby making it easy to connect then and now with the naturalistic form that we know today.
There are many more 'art' stories that I have planned to speak about, but each is unique in its own way and deserves individual posts, so more on that later!
Cheers!
Darrion
In order to fully address these questions, it’s rather important to analyze a particular artist and talk about his work. Thomas Gainsborough (an 18th century painter), is known for changing how British art was viewed. Instead of catering to those who harped over theory-based, academic and conventional methods, Gainsborough introduced a style of art that was centered on visual and intellectual stimulation through originality. He was concerned with using his art as a means link to the social world rather than appealing to the abstract appeal of the times. Bishop pointed out that the Greek conception of art involving nature, math, and natural beauty leaked (good word) into the 18th century. Gainsborough seemed to be connected to this, and was widely accepted thereafter for his “unique” vantage point.
With that said, was society really ready for Gainsborough and the “Great Five” during the late 18th century? Due to the fact that art was thought of as nothing more than pleasing to the eye rather than intellectually challenging during those times, society’s level of preparedness was probably extremely low. However Gainsborough, along with his colleagues changed the perception of art, widening the scope and instilling a vast appreciation in the process, thereby making it easy to connect then and now with the naturalistic form that we know today.
There are many more 'art' stories that I have planned to speak about, but each is unique in its own way and deserves individual posts, so more on that later!
Cheers!
Darrion
London and Roman Civilization
Yes, Yes, I'm long overdue for a post! I apologize for keeping the masses waiting, but life as a student in London is very busy, you know!
To briefly catch everyone up, I will talk about a list of different aspects of London in addition to my travels since last post, beginning with the Stonehenge/Bath trip that occurred on the 21st of January(well over a month ago...yikes!). The significance of Bath and Stonehenge also contains a recurring religious theme that will more than likely be referred to more than once, so prepare yourselves. Let's dive in!
First, after visiting the sites of Bath and Stonehenge, I would venture to say that the Roman Baths and their religious affiliation caught my attention the most. The religious significance of the Roman Baths and how they came to be was particularly interesting given the current secular nature of this area, which is only about an hour outside of Britain. Upon entering the baths, one of the first things that I noticed was the Sacred Spring. This spring, with a hot water temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, was believed to be the work of the gods, hence the sacred nature of the area. The Romans even went so far as building a temple near the spring that was dedicated to the worship of the healing goddess Minerva (goddess of wisdom and war), according to information gathered from the bath site.
Because the site was dubbed holy ground, many people threw various objects into the spring as offerings to the goddess Minerva. These acts of generosity and/or religious worship contribute to the fact that this spring is the largest votive deposit known in Britain. In addition to offerings, many individuals tossed curses, spelled out on rolled up pieces of pewter into the spring, which was thought to deliver justice to the violated.
These archaeological discoveries show that Roman London was built upon a firm religious foundation, one that has since seemingly dissipated. To continue, though slightly different in tone, the Stonehenge visit also supports the existence of religious principles in prehistoric London. According to information gathered from Diana, our Stonehenge tour guide, some individuals believe that this mysterious set of stones was built for a variety of reasons, more popular of which range from astronomical to sacrificial.
Overall, the existence of prehistoric sites such as the Roman Baths and Stonehenge solidify the existence of strong spiritual worship in a now secular society. London’s ancient predecessors proved this through works of art such as the aforementioned sites. I find it interesting that archaeology is instrumental in uncovering this semi-forgotten period in time.
It was very neat to see how much of an impact archeology has on history. Before attending this trip, I rarely paid archeology any mind, but I see now that archeological findings can definitely go hand in hand with science and solidifying/verifying many religious and/or historical aspects about any given society. Very interesting!
Until next post,
Darrion
To briefly catch everyone up, I will talk about a list of different aspects of London in addition to my travels since last post, beginning with the Stonehenge/Bath trip that occurred on the 21st of January(well over a month ago...yikes!). The significance of Bath and Stonehenge also contains a recurring religious theme that will more than likely be referred to more than once, so prepare yourselves. Let's dive in!
First, after visiting the sites of Bath and Stonehenge, I would venture to say that the Roman Baths and their religious affiliation caught my attention the most. The religious significance of the Roman Baths and how they came to be was particularly interesting given the current secular nature of this area, which is only about an hour outside of Britain. Upon entering the baths, one of the first things that I noticed was the Sacred Spring. This spring, with a hot water temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, was believed to be the work of the gods, hence the sacred nature of the area. The Romans even went so far as building a temple near the spring that was dedicated to the worship of the healing goddess Minerva (goddess of wisdom and war), according to information gathered from the bath site.
Because the site was dubbed holy ground, many people threw various objects into the spring as offerings to the goddess Minerva. These acts of generosity and/or religious worship contribute to the fact that this spring is the largest votive deposit known in Britain. In addition to offerings, many individuals tossed curses, spelled out on rolled up pieces of pewter into the spring, which was thought to deliver justice to the violated.
These archaeological discoveries show that Roman London was built upon a firm religious foundation, one that has since seemingly dissipated. To continue, though slightly different in tone, the Stonehenge visit also supports the existence of religious principles in prehistoric London. According to information gathered from Diana, our Stonehenge tour guide, some individuals believe that this mysterious set of stones was built for a variety of reasons, more popular of which range from astronomical to sacrificial.
Overall, the existence of prehistoric sites such as the Roman Baths and Stonehenge solidify the existence of strong spiritual worship in a now secular society. London’s ancient predecessors proved this through works of art such as the aforementioned sites. I find it interesting that archaeology is instrumental in uncovering this semi-forgotten period in time.
It was very neat to see how much of an impact archeology has on history. Before attending this trip, I rarely paid archeology any mind, but I see now that archeological findings can definitely go hand in hand with science and solidifying/verifying many religious and/or historical aspects about any given society. Very interesting!
Until next post,
Darrion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)