Blogpost 6

1) People who are not “evil” take the first step to being evil when it is out of personal interest. However, it is important to recognize that personal interest is not always a negative thing, personal interest simply just pushes people to take particular action for a specific result. For example (I’m creating an extremely random and broad example), if a man put a gun to your head and said, “Shoot this man or I will kill your family,” most people would shoot the man, out of self interest of still being able to be with their family. Shooting the man could still be considered an act of evil, but so would have been being the cause of your family’s death. Macbeth killed King Duncan out of personal interest, he wanted to be king and this pushed him to commit an evil act. Even Lady Macbeth acted out of personal interest, she wanted Macbeth to be king so she pushed him to devise a plan to kill King Duncan. However consequences are prevalent when people commit evil deeds. In my opinion, it makes people more willing to do it again, people who steal once are more likely to do it again, according to shopliftingprevention.org. Just like how Macbeth jumped on the opportunity to kill Banquo to protect his crown, another evil deed pushed by personal interest. Not only does turning evil make it more common for the individual to commit crimes, but it also can take a toll on a person mentally. Macbeth is a perfect example of this, when Macbeth freaks by saying, “ List'ning their fear I could not say ‘Amen,’ When they did say ‘God bless us!’” Macbeth killed a man who trusted him, which is not an easy thing to do. The consequence is that he is now impure and cannot say Godly terms, which can be argued as an internal thing created by Macbeth’s paranoia or the presence of a devil, which can still change a person for the worse.

2) Shakespeare would agree with the statement, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”The more power one desires the more corrupt actions one must do to attain it. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Macbeth’s craving for power leads him to do terrible deeds that leads to his fall. Shakespeare shows that power corrupts by using Macbeth who corrupts under the thought of have power over others. He becomes corrupt under the thought of becoming king and gaining almost complete control over the people that he rules. Macbeth wants the power badly enough to do horrible deeds, the main being the murder of King Duncan. Lady Macbeth becomes very ambitious and allows herself to become seduced to the idea of becoming Queen. Her ruthlessness urges Macbeth to murder king Duncan by questioning his love for her and his own manhood. In most cases, power tends to corrupt. I think a prime example of this happening in real life could be the rise and fall of Hitler, he had Germany but yet he wanted world domination. If it wasn’t for Hitler’s desire to be the supreme ruler, he would not have attempted to continue expansion of German territory and lost the war.

3) I am more of a believer in chance instead of fate. I am a person who believes that humans have free-will, and although some things do happen at the right time at the right place, or the wrong things, I would not categorize that as fate, I would categorize that as chance, or maybe even luck. I don’t think our lives are predetermined, I think we have as much control over them as we want to. For example, let’s say you are an alcoholic, you can’t blame your alcoholism on your mother if she is an alcoholic, you were the one who took the steps to drink even after knowing of the condition in your family. Fate did not make you an alcoholic, you took the chance by drinking, if you had avoided it completely you would not have put yourself in this situation, but yet you chose not to (keyword CHOSE). Macbeth most definitely had a say in his future after the witches told him he would be king, he did not have to kill King Duncan, that was a choice. Shakespeare never made it evident that some supernatural force overtook his body and made him kill King Duncan. When Macbeth says, “If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly: if the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here,” this shows the free-will of Macbeth. He is fully aware of the wrong-doing of the murder of King Duncan, yet he chooses to do it anyways. He brings to attention the consequences, if the supernatural had overtaken him, he would not have doubted himself.

4) In the year 2016, it is difficult to define manhood without making someone upset about something like gender roles and expectations, but I personally would define manhood by making it someone who provides for his family and sacrifices his own self interests for the sake of the people he loves (this is making it as broad and applicable to all men as possible). In order to distinguish a regular man from a good man, I would relate it to the difference between someone being a friend versus a good friend. A friend would just be someone I associate as someone I could stop and talk to passing in the hallway or seeing them in public, a good friend would be someone who you can go to when needing advisement on a situation or just someone to be there for you, and a good friend wants what is best for you. A man is just someone who exists in passing, like a friend you see in the hallway. A good man is someone the community can look to when in need, and takes it upon himself to see the betterment of everyone around him. Macbeth could only be seen as a good man if you choose to look at him through the perspective of a man trying to make his family (meaning Lady Macbeth) better off by making her Queen. Macbeth screws it up for everyone else though, he did not take action for the betterment of the community, he took action for personal interest.

Blogpost 5

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/63.160/

1: Identify artist, title, date, medium, and size
Reliquary Pendant with Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath
Date:1174–77
Culture:British
Medium:Gold
Dimensions:Overall: 1 15/16 x 1 1/4 x 1/4 in. (5 x 3.1 x 0.7 cm)
Classification:Metalwork-Gold
Credit Line:Purchase, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, 1961

2: Stylistic period/culture/context (When – and Where – geographic location of production)
Geography:Made in Canterbury, England
Date:1174–77
With the arrival of the Normans, art and architecture produced in England reflects French influence. The Norman and Plantagenet kings hold French territory during the period, and artists and objects travel between the two countries. Majestic cathedrals are erected from the end of the eleventh century; those at Durham, Canterbury, Ely, Wells, and Lincoln are among the most famous. By the end of the period, English embroideries are so renowned for their refinement that they are known throughout Europe as opus anglicanun.
→ God very prevalent in the lives of the people in England during this time, as evident by the cathedrals

3: Subject/Iconography (What is represented? What is the idea/concept?)
What is the subject? Could it be considered a new treatment of a traditional art theme such as portraiture, landscape, etc.? *This is part of a "little picture" understanding*
The engraved Latin inscription on the back identifies the subject: “Bishop Reginald of Bath hands this over to Queen Margaret of Sicily.”
The inscription on the front lists the relics once contained under a crystal: “Of the blood of Saint Thomas martyr. Of his vestments stained with his blood: of the cloak, the belt, the hood, the shoe, the shirt.”
Picture on pendant: Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath
The inscription and image of Reginald and Margaret on the back convey the pendant's original use.

4: Style/technique (How does the artist handle light, form, color, texture, and shape as well as composition? or How the art is arranged or organized?)
How did the formal elements communicate or reinforce the meaning of the work? How does the media and/or technique influence and/or enhance the meaning?
Light: does not really play a role
Color: gold, represents wealth
Texture: smooth except where there is engravings
Shape: square
Composition: gold


how do the elements reinforce the work: gives a simple representation of multiple events and feelings


How does media/technique influence the meaning: Uses a picture surrounded by indirect statements that are meant to be applied to one person



5: Significance/function/purpose (How does the work convey social, political, popular, or religious values? What is the purpose of the work?) *Remember- we need to always think about context!*
The bishop probably presented this pendant to the queen on the occasion of her son’s marriage in 1177 to the daughter of Henry II. The king had instigated the murder of his former friend and chancellor, Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, on December 29, 1170.
What do you think is the meaning of the piece?
I think that this piece intends to call out the king for his murder of Thomas Becket, since the pendant was made in Canterbury, England, and Thomas Becket was the archbishop of Canterbury. What lead me to this was the engraving on the front said, “Of the blood of Saint Thomas martyr. Of his vestments stained with his blood: of the cloak, the belt, the hood, the shoe, the shirt.” The pendant attests to the importance of relics and reliquaries in the political and social commerce of the Middle Ages.


Does the artwork cause you to re- consider these ideas or think about them in new ways?
Yes, I find it interesting that the inscription is not as related to the picture of Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath, even though the title of the work describes what is going on in the artist's picture.


Does this work have special relevance or significance to viewers today?
It displays the backstabbing tendencies of kings, the mourning of someone over a friend, and the important role religion played during this time. When it was originally created, it intended to apply to the audience at the time, the audience being King Henry II, as well as him family. Now, it shows historical significance since it shows the bishop calling out the king.


What is the value of this art in today’s society?
Art in today’s society plays a role because it is a form of expression. This is similar to the pendant because it is the way this bishop expressed his emotions about the death of Thomas Beckett. Art can be used to convey an emotion, one that is more challenging to express directly.