top of page


Público·10 Miembros

The Bird And The Bee Interpreting The Masters Rar ((TOP))

Much of what Dali does has its roots in the great traditions of painting, and the artist has always freely acknowledged his debt to the great masters, such as Raphael, Johannes Vermeer, Rembrandt, and Diego Velazquez. His technique is traditional. His treatment of surfaces recalls Flemish painting of the time of van Eyck, and work of the Dutch little masters of the seventeenth century. He has painted still life resembling that of his great compatriot, Zurbaran. His drawing often has Renaissance qualities. His fantastic compositions have been likened to those of Hieronymus Bosch, and mythological and religious themes that he has used are centuries old. "Hidden forms" recur constantly in the history of painting, most recently in Redon and the Nabis, Bonnard and Vuillard. Some of Dali's later work, with splashes of paint or the effects of "shots" and "explosions", reminds us of what Leonardo da Vinci wrote in his "Treatise on Painting" quoting Titian, who said that "by throwing a sponge full of color at a wall it leaves a stain in which a fine landscape can be seen... as well as heads of men, animals, battles, rocks, seas, clouds and other things...In this you will find marvelous ideas because the mind of the painter is stimulated to new inventions by obscure things."

the bird and the bee interpreting the masters rar

Although actively engaged throughout his life in a serious dialogue with the history of world art which ranged from Renaissance Art masters Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci to Cubism Pablo Picasso and Dadaism Max Ernst - Dali's aspirations always remained courageously and even chauvinistically of this continent. In the future, when Dali's paintings have fallen into the proper perspective with the work of artists of all periods, much that seems significant to us today may lose its interest. However, Dali will always stand out as one of the very few twentieth-century painters who combines profound respect for the traditions of the past with intensely modern feelings. People will always look at his work because of his extremely personal and always surprising imagination, for that is where his genius lies.

The problem is that Socrates is not just some random "Christian" chronicler. Christianity was never a homogenous entity (neither is Islam, BTW). Socrates had strong sympathies for the Novatian sect, whereas he was highly critical of Cyril and the "orthodox" community represented by him. One of the most discernible biases in Socrates's account is his dislike for Cyril's way of interfering with secular politics. More importantly, if Socrates chose to suppress the "true" background of Hypatia's murder ("anti-female", "anti-pagan"), one would expect that some hints in this direction would appear in Damascius' account, as it is (partly) preserved in the Suda. Since he's writing from a pagan perspective, it is quite baffling how little he does to bolster Amenábar's version. Also, if you think the idea of an "anti-female" and "anti-pagan" background is "compelling and plausible", you should ask yourself why you find it so plausible. Because of all the historical evidence or because it complements our contemporary stereotypes of late antique Christianity, which are derived not from a close reading of the sources, but rather from Victorian novels and movies such as "Agora"?Historians try to avoid this kind of speculation as to what is "plausible" precisely because they don't want their personal preconceptions to get in the way.Don't get me wrong: of course it is possible that Hypatia's death was a product of "anti-female", "anti-pagan" violence. But then again, if it wasn't, most people today would still believe so, which shows how futile such speculations are. And why stop there? We could go on re-interpreting all sorts of historical events based on what we find "plausible" (i.e. what we would like to be true). But in the end, that's not what most of us mean when we talk about "history".

Since the DVD has only become available recently and the film had such as stunted run in the US, for anyone seeing it here in the US, it was excusable to watch parts on YouTube even though that is not koscher per se. Now, get the DVD because a) it is spectacular cinematography which Flash can't reproduce and b) it has a features section which refutes some of the claims made by the author of this blog and some of the commenters and affirms others. It is a work of fiction and that is made clear.That said, I appreciate the time taken by some to delve into the fictional aspects of the film. Given the fictionalization of much of what we accept as gospel about many religious figures of antiquity including Jesus of Nazareth, one should be better informed.What cannot be disputed is the impact of the film in the time for which it was made: now. I do not see it as a hit piece on Christianity and I am reasonably informed about the sources having first become interested in the main character in the 1960s. I see it as a parable on the politicization of religion for purely political purposes in a time of rage, when rage machines can be used to activate mobs who will thoughtlessly even if earnestly do the bidding of the rage masters.As such, this is possibly the most important film of this decade. It should be viewed widely and with as much commentary as can be mustered on the messages it very ably sends. Even if the parable is fictional, the messages are not.

I therefore find Tim O'Neill's review of this film from his own erudite perspective very illuminating indeed.You're welcome. But ...The history of the Spanish Inquisition, and numerous stories of burnings at the stake for heresy, the drowning of witches to demonstrate if they miraculously resisted the drowning and survived, they were confirmed as witches, but confirmed as innocent if they did drown, has tended to give me the impression thaty religion is a form of lunacy.Or it gives the impression that if you give humans ANY kind of absolutist ideology - religious or otherwise - some of them will use it to do horrible things to others. I've also tried many times over the years to find any evidence of the stuff about throwing suspected witches into water etc and come up with zero. There were other equally weird ways of (supposedly) determining if someone was a witch, but you might want to be careful about referring to that one - as far as I can tell it's a myth.This film, Agora, confirmed that view.Yes, it was meant to. The fact that (i) that "view" is a vast oversimplification and (ii) the movie warps history to make that point should give you pause.Religion and politics seem to be one. There seems to be no separation.I tend to think this may have been the case in 4th century Alexandria. Therefore, any distinction between politics and religion is a moot point.Sorry, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that religion played any part in her murder. Some vague handwaving about how they were often linked in this period won't cut it. If there was a religious aspect to her murder, where is it to be found in the evidence? History is done by interpreting the sources, not by making up neat stories.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that religion played any part in her murder. Some vague handwaving about how they were often linked in this period won't cut it. If there was a religious aspect to her murder, where is it to be found in the evidence? History is done by interpreting the sources, not by making up neat stories.I see your point, Tim, but I also see that you admit that interpretation of the sources is required.In a sociey in which there is little distinction between political power and religious power, a society in which political power and religious power go hand in hand, one may not expect current commentators on events, such as Socrates Scholasticus, to even try to make a distinction.On the other hand, if we have frequent accounts of turbulent events from a similar period where such a distinction between political and religious motives is clearly made by the commentators, then the absence of any such distinctiion in the comments of Socrates on this issue, could then have the interpretive meaning you ascribe to them.

Films: William Powell in Life with Father; Spencer Tracy in Father of the Bride; Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs. Kramer; Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird; Lamberto Maggiorani in The Bicycle Thief; Raymond Massey in East of Eden (shadow).

The original sin of Colombian society is fear of truth. The grandmother's nervous reassurances that everything is fine, and the house stands strong, and what are you waiting for to go back to the dance floor, call to mind the amazing Colombian ability to not ignore the elephant in the room but successfully pretend to ignore it. (Yes, that's two levels of self-deception, and we're the masters at it.)

I love embroidering flowers and birds so naturally I gravitate toward the colors of nature. The greens and yellows particularly are fun to work into a pattern with splashes of red (poppies!) and different shades of blue.

I seem to always choose blues, whites and some greens. I just love all the different shades of blue and green that DMC comes in and I love to embroider botanicals and birds. I do use yellows, pinks and reds, but not alot. I embroidered an iris a while back and I did it in several shades of lavendar and purple, and it was beautiful. I am partial to the blues, but love to branch out sometimes. Thank you Mary for all the wonderful information that you provide for us novice wannabes.

Oh, my, my favorite colors to work with and to wear are in the blue and green range, so the example you showed from the Color supplement is right on. And the sample page from the miniatures shows my favorite subject of late, birds, since we have moved to an area where we see many birds from our porch and I am considering ways to incorporate them into my needlework. So, both works would be of such great value to me!

Acerca de

¡Te damos la bienvenida al grupo! Por acá puedes hablar con...
bottom of page