Postmodern Theory in Art Essay Example for Free

Postmodern Theory in Art Essay Philosophy refers to the search for truth, existence, knowledge and performance through sense and rationale. Philosophy attempts to study the nature of existence, soundness, impartiality, beauty, mind and language. Art on the other hand refers to the process of arranging elements in a creative manner that makes them appealing to the senses and the emotions. Art includes performance which involves the use of language. The artist Paul McCarthy, born in 1945 in Salt Lake City, learned his art skills at the University of Utah in the year 1969. On his further studies at San Francisco art institute, he studied painting and went further to study film, video and art at the University of Southern California. McCarthy majors his work in video and sculpture having taught performance, video, installation and performance art history at the University of California (Bronfen 214). McCarthy in his works institutes color as a central theme in his story of modern and contemporary work. McCarthy’s life and art works are connected to the practice centered on the role of artists within the cultures and the system of art. In his works he proves a bit of a chocker. The use of language and descriptions of all the American culture that he grew up with, he works towards bending and transforming the familiar into the disturbing. The works of McCarthy definitely removes the dark side of the American dream and presents a selection of postmodern works produced between 1966 and 2006. The philosophies of Kierkegaard involved a unifying factor which evolved around three spheres of existence, which is the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious choice in constant tension. According to Kierkegaard the personal aesthetic enjoyment is in the inconsistent search of pleasure which is self-centered. Comparing the artist Paul McCarthy to this philosophy, it is clear that the philosophy involved beauty and pleasure which is mainly egocentric just like the work of McCarthy which involves the provision of pleasurable activities, through performance and beautiful paintings (Robert Adorno 132). The ethical sphere however is not egocentric but impersonal. It involves a law centered on reasoning as opposed to personal inclination and expediency. Kierkegaard asserts that at this stage, life does not just involve a succession of separate moments of pleasure but is a long range venture which should be structured according to rational principles. The principles according to Kierkegaard’s philosophies do not only include the rules of eventual interest but the conceptual ideologies of morality that describe what an individual should do. Just like Kierkegaard’s ideals, in McCarthy’s attempts to reduce the disadvantages of painting, he resorted to using the body as a canvas. He later involved the use of bodily fluids and foods to act as surrogates in his work. Other than painting the work of McCarthy included transgressive presentation art, psychosexual events which were meant to test the emotions of both the artist and the viewer. McCarthy in his works was known for shocking, sexually charged pieces that feature benign cartoon and pop culture characters reflecting the ideologies of morality which teaches the viewers and the artist on what they should do (Glennie 34). Much of the works of Kierkegaard looks into religious premises like the faith in God, the organization of the Christian church, the Christian ethics and divinity and the emotions and feelings of different people when dealing with the choices of life. Kierkegaard remained the most influential figure in modern philosophy’s consideration just like McCarthy who remained the most influential artist in the postmodern artistry. Kierkegaard believed and insisted on individual rather than collective responsibility before God. In the stage of true religious choice, only a leap of faith that provides a ground for decision is employed, however there are no automatic rational decision procedures. According to the philosophy of Kierkegaard, acknowledgment of the need for religion as a personal dedication to truth is the major component of life. Relating to this principle of Kierkegaard, McCarthy centers his interest within the daily activities of life and the confusion created by such activities. Due to misinformation by people, McCarthy has been taken to be influenced by the Viennese Actionism. Due to his dedication to truth as his life component, McCarthy clarifies that he knew the activities of the group in the 1970s but there exists a big difference between the self deleterious activities of the Viennese and his own performances. This is a reflection that as Kierkegaard’s principle of individual responsibility to God, McCarthy obeys the same principle and would therefore not engage in the injurious activities of the Viennese (Ben 56). The view of Kierkegaard on the free press can be understood on why he hated the press. He was mainly concerned on the public sphere which had been a source of problem for many intellectuals in the middle of the 18th century before the democratization and the expansion of the press. In his view to the free press, Kierkegaard abandoned the use of internet with the claims that it promoted risk free ambiguity and idle curiosity that undermined responsibility and dedication. Kierkegaard’s opposition to the press is said to have had sociological, political and psychological motivations. He however claims that he does not attack the press because of the liberalism or any other political reason. As has been noted earlier, the works of Kierkegaard mainly revolved around religious issues. His view was therefore opposing free press because he believed that the press and especially the daily newspaper were making Christianity and religious matters impossible. Definitely from his political, sociological and psychological qualms, he considered the press as a threat to both cultural and religious practices. Because of these reasons Kierkegaard continued to attack the public and the press up to 1846 in his writings. With the democratization of the public sphere by the daily press, Kierkegaard felt that the public sphere was becoming a new and a dangerous cultural experience whereby the ranking created by the press was to produce something that was very wrong right from the beginning. In the modern society Kierkegaard gives his total view on the relation of the press, public sphere and the ranking taking place in his time. He considers the press mysterious and desituated with no obsession and dedication and combines in this philosophical age to produce the public. The ideals and the philosophies of Kierkegaard strongly affected the theologians and the existential philosophy. Even though Kierkegaard was a very strong defender of religious faith he was an unhappy, neurotic and a terribly suffering man (Ben 356). His belief was that the best way to disclose truth was through dramatic confrontation of conflicting practices to life. In addition to his ideals and philosophical works, Kierkegaard was a thinker and a genius. His philosophy despite having not been presented in a systematic and analytical manner, contain several wealth of sharp intellectual insights. Due to lack of coherent stance, the philosophies of Kierkegaard have remained questionable. Nevertheless according to Kierkegaard, his principles have been mainly on how one can become a Christian. Other than his philosophical work, Kierkegaard had complex poetic work which rewards careful reading. The totals of moral of his philosophy can be put into a single sentence that the existence of human beings needs real passion and thought. Conclusion Art and philosophy may be two different disciplines, but still some principles or morals of an artist and a philosopher may relate in some way. The revealed example is between the artist Paul McCarthy and the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. The ideals and the philosophies of Soren Kierkegaard match the artist Paul McCarthy for instance, both of them seems to value aesthetics, ethical values and religious choices and issues.

Essay --

A. Specific Aims West Nile virus (WNV) was first identified in New York City in 1999 and quickly spread across the US to become the dominant mosquito-borne viral infection in humans in the country. Since its introduction to the US, WNV has been estimated to cause more than 3 million infections resulting in 37,000 confirmed cases of WNV disease in humans, 43% of which resulted in neuroinvasive diseases, and 1,100 deaths3. WNV has also been responsible for declines in certain US avian populations affecting over 100 different species. Avian species that are highly susceptible to severe WNV disease belong to the Corvidae family, including American crows (AMCRs) in which WNV infection is 100% lethal. This high mortality rate has led to the creation of a national surveillance program based on AMCRs in order to forecast WNV transmission to humans4. The genetic and pathological mechanisms to explain the interspecies variability in WNV susceptibility that have caused such large-scale declines in North American bird populations have not been determined. The objective of this proposal is to investigate: a) the antiviral response elicited in three avian species which contribute differentially to the amplification of WNV and have different disease outcomes following WNV infection, b) the differential antiviral induction potential in host cells and the sensitivity to antiviral host responses of three strains of WNV displaying a range of virulence capacities, and c) the role of cellular tropism in the elicitation of the host antiviral response and on WNV replication within host cells. I hypothesize that avian hosts susceptible to severe WNV disease do not mount an effective innate antiviral response that could control viral replication and diss... ...ent bird species. Based on data generated in Aim 1.1 genes identified to contribute to either susceptibility or resistant phenotypes in the type I interferon pathway will also be examined in this subaim. To identify the cell types critical for WNV amplification in each avian species, viral load will be quantified by qRT-PCR for each of the 8 time points. The mosquito cell targeted virus will serve as a control since replication will be unrestricted. Expected outcomes and potential pitfalls. It is anticipated that gene expression within the type I IFN pathway will be differentially expressed between the different inoculation groups and bird species. By limiting viral replication, we might also negatively impact the antiviral response in cell types that are major contributors to the type I IFN pathway thereby altering dissemination and viral replication potential.

Hobbes vs the Fool

Hobbes vs the Fool In Hobbes case, justice is characterized supporting a covenant, and for those who shatter their covenant will be penalized accordingly. The fool first expresses his assertion having â€Å"said in his heart: ‘there is no such thing as justice'† (L p. I ch: xv [4]). If there are no covenants to be broken, this would signify neither just or unjust actions exist. The fool by rejecting the reality of fairness is rejecting the achievement of covenants in general, yet as we currently understand from our own know-how, the fool’s contention is unsound.In every day interactions persons manage in diverse examples support their covenants. Here, Hobbes makes the fool's place appear blatantly untrue for its conspicuous betrayal of the genuine world. Yet, as he extends, it is not the case that the fool refutes the reality of fairness in this way. He answers, â€Å"[the fool] does not therein refute that there be covenants and that are occasionally broken, occ asionally kept, and that such break of them may be called injustice, and the observance of them justice† (L p. I ch: xv [4]).However the fool accepts as factual that it is precisely his right of the covenant, one made in evolving part of a commonwealth, that it is flawlessly in good standing to better ones place even if he will take from his or another covenant. The period covenant from Hobbes viewpoint identifies a kind of agreement in which both parties either acquiesce to fulfill their part, one presently and the other in the future, or both at a subsequent time. This is distinct from a normal agreement in which both parties proceed presently, neither having the possibility to falsify their activities from their agreement.Hobbes identifies a covenant's susceptibility to deceitful agreement, when one or both parties acquiesces to their part with shady aims, or when one or both parties makes a legitimate responsibility and subsequent end up shattering it. For the fool, if he has a possibility to better himself in any way whatsoever he will manage so despite of any covenant made. But the fool solidly accepts as factual that he has the right to shatter one covenant if he feels that he has revealed himself to strike needlessly increasing his vulnerability as the covenant continues.Hobbes composes as the fool saying â€Å"every man's conservation and contentment being pledged to his own care, there could be no cause why every man might not manage what he considered conduced thereunto, and thus furthermore to make or not make, hold or not hold, covenants was not contrary to cause, when it conduced to one's benefit† (L p. I ch: xv [4]). From the fool's viewpoint it is only sane to shatter covenant with other ones, being foes with all other ones rather than of holding covenants with those who might traverse him in a world where every individual is just seeking to survive.At this issue protecting against of one's own life as well as exploitation of other ones, premier in numerous situations to their decrease of life, are revealed with some rationale. Hobbes subsequent recounts the likely situation of vying persons and their procedure of attack. Hobbes sees the right of the one-by-one to manage anything is essential to endure, not less than while dwelling inside a State of Nature and Ware, ethics in a sense non-existent. Hobbes refutes the fool, carrying the reality of fairness inside a commonwealth.It is the individual's right as it is recounted in the State of Nature and Subsequently the State of War of which we are all a part, as long as we subsist without affirmation on and acknowledgement of a mutual sovereign, is therefor habitually called into inquiry while at the identical time identified and supported. Hobbes states â€Å"in a status of conflict wherein every man to every man is an foe, there is no man can wish by his own power or wit to fight back himself from decimation without the assist of confederates† (L p. I c h: xv [5]).Thus in eager to eliminate one's self from a state of conflict, banding simultaneously is the only salvation and this needs covenant finally producing in a commonwealth. For Hobbes, the less sensible is that considered which adds one to live as an one-by-one contrary to all other ones, shattering covenants or producing none. The more sensible considered then: acknowledging reality as part of a assembly of others; sustaining some allowance of fairness, some reality in affirmation between young individuals under a mutual rule.Some decisive affirmation upon the situation of interactions of persons should be made, identifying a widespread power distinct and overhead the body of the assembly, and more mighty than any one-by-one so as to sustain control. In confederacy Hobbes contends, power and security can be discovered, asserting â€Å"he affirms he conceives it cause to deceive those that assist him can in cause anticipate no other entails of security than what can be had from his own lone power† (L p. I ch: xv [5]).Here, Hobbes weighs the scale between the just and the unjust, the one-by-one and the assembly, honesty and self-centred cunning, revealing the benefit of calm over war. The fool is only involved in short viewed goals, instant retribution for one's activities, which live mostly in the state of nature. Hobbes considers the larger advantage of relying on other ones, or not less than living in a assembly with a widespread aim contending that living inside a commonwealth is the favorable alternative because the advantages outweigh the loss.He considers the essential situation for the reality of just and unjust actions when he composes, â€Å"there should be some coercive power to compel men identically to the presentation of their covenants†¦ †¦ and to make good that propriety which by mutual agreement men come by, in recompense of the universal right they abandon; and such power there is no one before the erection of a commo nwealth† (L p. I ch: xv [3]).Hobbes states that attaining the â€Å"secure and perpetual felicity of heaven† is vein, â€Å"frivolous†, in   a State of Nature, â€Å"there being but one way imaginable, and that is not shattering, but holding of covenant† (L p. I ch: xv [6]). This is his direct objection to the fools fondness for completely acknowledging and exploiting freezing hard individualism. He conceives that not anything will convey us out of a State of Nature and War other than mutual acknowledgement of a sovereign power which can, because of it's power, preside over all men (in commonwealth) such that no one-by-one see's it in his better concern to disobey.This salvation for man, without rejecting that he actions for the advantage of himself, Hobbes explains:   â€Å"The last origin, end or conceive of men (who routinely love liberty and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves in which we glimpse them reside in commonwealths is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to state, of getting themselves out from that sad status of conflict, which is inevitably consequent†¦ †¦ to the natural passions of men, when there is no evident power to hold them in awe, and bind them by worry of penalty to the resentation of their covenants and fact of those regulations of environment set down in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters. † (L p. II ch: xvii [1]) Here, Hobbes recounts the trade off. One should vitally stop certain one-by-one privileges, and in come back are exempt from a state of war. The steadiness of the commonwealth, of the current facet of calm, and likewise of the sovereign are all reliant upon this â€Å"awe† Hobbes converses about and the worry which is essential for binding one to the fulfillment of covenant.He contends that acquiescing to covenant out of worry of one's own life, deserves that one should fulfill it, saying that in â€Å"covenant to yield ransom, or service, for my life, to an foe [in the state of Nature], I am compelled by it† (L p. I ch: xiv [27]). Hobbes indicates the untrue compromise that in dealing away some of you're right to manage anything you delight, so much as it is permitted in preservation of you're life in the State of Nature, which has no restrict, you rather than gain worry, not only of the sovereign and it's direct, but furthermore a worry about those round you who may select to exploit your believe in justice.In the ‘natural' state worry is glimpsed as essential for the reasonable and tired to sustain protecting against of their life. When matching the State of Nature, to that of a commonwealth we glimpse worry lives non the less, when there is a ruling sovereign. Fear is like the equipment which drives the motor of the commonwealth, which Hobbes states defends contrary to a state of war. This worry he states, is the â€Å"terror of some pena lty larger than the advantage they anticipate by the break of their covenant† (L p.I ch: xv [3]). However, worry lives as an absolutely crucial survival constituent in the State of Nature as well, and therefore is not certain thing profited or swapped in justice. Hobbes devotes us the idea of The Third Law of Nature to classify truth, saying that because of that â€Å"which we are obliged to move to another such privileges, being kept, hinder the calm of mankind†¦ †¦ [and thus] men present their covenants made, without which covenants are in vain†¦ and the right of all men to all things residual, we are still in a status of war† ( L p. I ch: xv [1]). Either it is fairness living in a state of calm, or not anything just or unjust living in a state of war. In a very considerable way, the fool presents Hobbes with a grappling colleague, one who can both articulate the ‘other side' of what he is saying, but furthermore extends to be that sticker in his neck which he can't assist but fiddle with, its stubbornness departing a feeling of nearly anxious discomfort.It is unclear at times if Hobbes really contends with the fool or contrary to him, as Edwin Curley remarks â€Å"The place Hobbes ascribes to the fool is very like the one Grotius ascribes to Carneades, who he takes as agent of those who refute natural law. Since Hobbes himself had appeared to be close to carneades' place in Dcv I, 10 (proclaiming that ‘in the state of environment earnings is the assess of right')† (L p. I ch: xv [4] 2 ).

The Effect of the Molecular Weight to the Rate of Diffusion - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 329 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/09/14 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? The effect of the molecular weight to the rate of diffusion Based on the experiments, sd f f f f s wrefwe fwe rfwjv rwefhnw fwer fwe fwef fwe fwe fwe fwef wef w fwe fwe From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Sucrose is the organic compound commonly known as table sugar and sometimes called saccharose. This white, odorless, crystalline powder has a pleasing, sweet taste. It is best known for its role in human nutrition. The molecule is a disaccharide derived from glucose and fructose with the molecular formula C12H22O11. About 150,000,000 tonnes are produced annually. [2] Structural ? -D-fructofuranosyl-(21)-? -D-glucopyranoside In sucrose, the component glucose and fructose are linked via an ether bond between C1 on the glucosyl subunit and C2 on the fructosyl unit. The bond is called a glycosidic linkage. Glucose exists predominantly as two isomeric pyranoses (? and ? ), but only one of these forms the links to the fructose. Fructose itself also exists as a mixture of forms, each of which has ? and ? somers, but again only one particular isomer links to the glucosyl unit. What is notable about sucrose is that unlike most disaccharides, the glycosidic bond is formed between the reducing ends of both glucose and fructose, and not between the reducing end of one and the nonreducing end of the other. This linkage inhibits further bonding to other saccharide units. Since it contains no anomeric hydroxyl groups, it is classified as a nonreducing sugar. Crystallography is the technique that gives highly p recise information on molecular structure. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Effect of the Molecular Weight to the Rate of Diffusion" essay for you Create order Sucrose crystallizes in the monoclinic space group P21, with values at 300 K being a = 1. 08631Â  nm, b = 0. 87044Â  nm, c = 0. 77624Â  nm, ? = 102. 938Â °. [3][4] The usual measure of purity of sucrose is by polarimetry — the measurement of the rotation of plane-polarized light by a solution of sugar. The specific rotation at 20 Â °C using yellow sodium-D light (589Â  nm) is +66. 47Â °. Commercial samples of sugar are assayed using this parameter. Sucrose is not damaged by air. [edit] Thermal and oxidative degradation