The U.N. Security Council and the Korean Conflict

One thing I find rather interesting about the Korean Conflict is the fact that the United States and China had directly fought each other. The fact that the USSR and the US never fought each other during the Cold War is stressed by most historical accounts. However, I do not understand why the conflict between China and the US is played down so much. They were both permanent members of the Security Council. I think that's why I was surprised that this disagreement had not led to an all-out war. I also amazed that the United Nations did not fall apart when conflicts like this arose since the UN was made up of communist and democratic nations.

Of course, I think the Chinese delegates to the UN at the time did not represent the Communists of China. I read somewhere that the USSR had made motions to replace the Chinese delegates, but these motions were not passed through the '50s. I guess China did not really fight back against the containment of communism. The Chinese were more upset by having the war so close to their borders. I guess it all depends on if you would consider the Chinese UN delegates to support the Chinese involvement in the conflict. Either way it seems like MacArthur pushed the Security Council into a rather dangerous position.

Oskar Fischinger: Motion Painting I

Oskar Fischinger was actually not a painter. He was a movie producer. This picture is part of a motion picture that was played along with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3. The picture changed, at a rate of 24 frames a second, along with the music. Different moods might have caused the different colors, and elaborate runs might have caused the swirls. I don't really know because I have never seen the motion picture by Fischinger. I just thought it was really interesting how he had wanted to find a way to mix music and painting together in art. Apparently, he did it to find a way to escape the factory-like production of Hollywood.

Wols: Painting

Here is another painting called Painting, and it was painted around the same time as the painting by Bacon. This painting however, is kind of a mystery to me. It looks like a block of wood. The dark dots could be knots in the wood. However, the orange dots and lines would not be part of the wood. They would have been put there artificially by whoever is cutting the wood. Maybe this is a picture about removing imperfections. The Nazis did this by exterminating those that they did not believe were the perfect examples of the Aryan race. If these knots were removed from the wood, there would be no purpose for this painting. There would be no beauty in the would because it is variety that attracts the eye to the image. Just like it is variety that gives energy and excitement to civilization.

Francis Bacon: Painting

This painting, called Painting, by Francis Bacon was painted in 1946. The picture is supposed to be of a corrupted British politician, apparently. One of the reasons that I chose this picture was that it was one of the few that depicted human figures during this time period. While Bacon was known to be one of the few who did this, he was still regarded as one of the most influential painters of the time. Most of his paintings are of grotesque images that cause despair. In this, the figure in the "unofficial uniform" of a British official is standing in front of a cow carcass. This is designed to show that under the dress of an officer of civilization is a cruel and violent man.

I would also like to say that this painting reminds me of something that might be found in a comic book, judging by the way the colors are painted and the nature of the picture. I wonder if this is some of the first "comic book art" that was created. It all had to start somewhere.

What is Communism vs. Fascism?

We all know that Marxist Socialism was never established in Russia. Stalin's Communist Party was nothing more than a name. It never followed true communist ideals. No instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, a dictatorship of Stalin was established. I still lack some basic fundamental understanding of fascism, but I find it difficult to tell the difference between Stalin's Russia and Fascist Europe. Hitler and Mussolini were dictators. Stalin was one too. There does not seem to be much difference in the way they did things. So why did they hate each other? That is one thing I will never really understand. The book says that Communists were left wing, but I do not understand how there can be anything liberal about rule under a dictator.

It must only be in the name. I guess this should not be too surprising that this would be enough for Hitler to not like Stalin, given Hitler's racist beliefs. It might have also stemmed from his belief that Slavs were inferior people. Whatever the reason, the resulting alliance between Russia and the West after Hitler's attack on Russia seems very unlikely. Of course that was the cause of the post-war tensions and the split between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It is interesting to see that people of very different ideologies can unite against a common foe.

Connection Across Time

It is interesting to study the rise of dictators right before the second world war. All of the dictators seem to have started off in a relatively insignificant party. That would have made it easier to gain complete control of the party. The real challenge then lies in getting support for the party after control over that party has been gained by an individual. This support will only come during hard times. It was the economic troubles in Europe that brought Hitler and Mussolini to power.

While I doubt that there is any threat of a dictator coming to power in the United States, I wonder how bad the economy has to get in order to allow a third party a strong foothold in our country. I know that there are other parties around in the US, but they are overwhelmingly crushed by the popularity of the Republicans and the Democrats. Instead, other minor parties support the candidates of one or the other. Economic hardships just are not bad enough right now to cause any revolution of this system. We may be facing some of the worst times I have ever seen, but I am sure it does not match the difficulties of the Great Depression at all. Another thing that makes it difficult for a third party to gain power is the change in media. As the 20th century progressed, the media became a more integral part of society. It is expensive to advertise effectively. No third party can stand up to the raw financial power the two main parties possess. I do not know how the rest of the world functions in terms of elections (at least in those countries that do hold elections), but it seems incredible to think about how a small party, such as the fascists, could gain so much power.

Brutality of Soldiers

After learning about the atrocities of the Rape of Nanking, I can see how widespread the brutality of the Axis Powers was. The soldiers seem to be able to perform the most despicable deeds without being troubled by there consciouses. I also wrote about this in my journal and the one thing that this really makes me wonder is if the civilians of the same country as the military that conducted these activities would have wished their enemies to suffer as badly as they did. Was the cause of this brutality a result of gruesome training given to the Japanese boys by the government, or is that just the mindset people get when they go to war?

I wonder about the causes of the actions of the Japanese as well as the German soldiers, because we are led to believe that they were some of the most evil beings imaginable. However, the propaganda of the Axis Power nations probably was designed to cast the troops of the Allied Powers in a similar light. What kind of atrocities were committed by our side that we have never heard about? I ask this because I have heard a few stories of terrible things that the United States did to civilians in the Vietnam War. This is surely downplayed by the government because it was so recent, and many veterans remain scarred by what happened then. Hearing about events such as the Rape of Nanking makes me wonder if other countries tell similar terrible histories about the United States. I know there are plenty of people in the world who hate the United States, and maybe they have a better reason than our history books want us to know. Of course, maybe it is also through exaggeration.

Physics and Philosophy

I found it interesting how both physics and philosophy seemed to "fall apart" at the same time. Physics, always trying to delve for a more fundamental understanding of the universe, led to the realization that we have no idea why atoms behave the way they way they do. Before that, there had been great confidence in the fact that physics seemed to be able to solve any problem that society faced. The new physics also led to terrible new discoveries. The ability to split the atom led to the creation of the atomic bomb. This also led to the ability to harness nuclear power for peaceful energy, but the results of the Manhattan Project had caused people to fear and distrust physics.

Philosophy also grew more confusing and more threatening at the same time. Freud was the most famous and most controversial psychologist of the time. His views were not so widely accepted as those of physics however, even though the new views of physics were basically saying we knew nothing. A much less popular -- and in my opinion much less valid -- science, psychology seemed to be following the trends of physics. This might be because the overall view of the universe changed with physics. I think it was this sort of thing that gave rise to the modern trend of agnosticism.

Connection Across Time

After exploring the different forms of art and music of the Age of Anxiety, I realize that artistic movements are often limited in whom they appeal to, just like the cultural transformations during the Renaissance were restricted to the lifestyle of the upper class. Old movements still live on today. As I said before, the music that was introduced at this time broke the rules of composing that existed before. However, not all music today breaks these rules, or at least not so many rules. New movements seem only to pile on top of old ones. Artists also probably try to copy some styles of previous times. It is like part of the way humans learn by passing knowledge, and art, down through time. There are still people today who practice dadaism, but there are certainly a lot more people who don't. As new things are developed, they don't take over whatever field they are a part of. They simply add to it in a way that allows others to specialize according to their own personal preferences.

There is still music played today that was written by Beethoven and Mendelssohn. While there are new forms of music being created today, I certainly do not have any knowledge of what these new things might be. The music I listen to may be written during the current time, but the basic form of the music is fundamentally the same as older music. As Dali said, people are not always ready to be exposed to the new art of the day.

Pablo Picasso: The Three Musicians

I felt that I would not be able to complete an entry on the art of the Age of Anxiety without mentioning Picasso. I also figured I should do a piece of cubism. However, nothing that was cubism inspired any emotion in me. I thought the whole reason for art was to inspire emotion. This might just be a failing on my part to appreciate the beauty of this form of art, but these straight lines do nothing for me. I find this slightly ironic because I really enjoy looking at buildings that were created using functionalism. This painting should also be considered functional, getting its point across without excess lines or colors. There is not a complete disregard for the presence of lighting. There looks like there are a few shadows in the lower left hand corner of the painting, but the two-dimensional feeling of this piece makes it impossible for me to picture anything. I think I enjoy surrealism more, which may be abstract painting, but it at least inspires the imagination a bit more.

Salvador Dali: The Temptation of St. Anthony

This picture had caught my eye during class. The horse looks especially demonic. At the same time, it looks majestic. The man wielding the cross, whom I would presume to be St. Anthony seems to be warding off these godlike creatures of nature. At the same time, he is warding off the woman that is riding on top of the elephant. This scene makes a lot more sense when I learned the title of the work: The Temptation of St. Anthony, which I did not know during my search (as you can imagine that made it tricky to find the picture). Then a little bit of research revealed to me that the temptation that St. Anthony faced while in the Egyptian desert is a popular theme in art. That means that St. Anthony is trying to ward off these creatures which may be pagan gods. I think it is fascinating how majestic and terrible a little bit of surrealist distortion can make these animals. This picture is a very awe-inspiring work of art.

Henri Matisse: Woman with a Hat

This colorful painting done from 1905 by Henri Matisse demonstrates the increasing emphasis on color that took place during the "Fauves" movement. I find it interesting to see how many different colors are used on each object. The face has six or seven different colors on it, and that is not including the features such as eyes or her mouth. Still, her face is very distinct and it is not hard to picture what the model for this painting may have looked like.

Her face is sandwiched between two dark features of the painting, her body and her hat. This makes the face the artistic focus of the painting, but many people who look at the painting question the nature of her hat. The fact that it is so big makes me think it is one of those fruit hats. However, its dark colors seem to contradict this assumption. The features are very blurry and distorted, so it is impossible to say what it is for sure. This is probably by design. I am sure that many artists like to have an element of mystery in their paintings. If I had to take a guess, I would say it was a fruit hat, and it was given darker colors to give an overall balancing effect to the painting, with the bright face in the center of the painting.

20th Century Music

Being a musician, I am somewhat familiar with the music of the 20th century. I can also attest to the dissonant nature of this music. Each part, when played by itself makes no sense compared to what I am used to hearing from playing classical composers and even current artists. When it is all put together, though, it sounds amazing. I used to think that was due to the talents of the composers who were able to pull off a pleasing sound made up of chaotic, interwoven parts. If it caused riots at its introduction, that might not be the case. I might be used to hearing that kind of music. Still, there must be some talent involved because some of the stuff I have heard just sounds terrible. Unless my ear is not as adjusted as I would like to think, which I will admit could very well be the case.

Of course for the same reason, that is my background as a musician, I can see why people would have started to break the "rules" of composing. In music theory, we have learned that early music was all written for the church and certain conventions must be followed by these composers. Staying inside these rules results in a limited amount that one can do with music. That means that after a while, it would become impossible to write a song that does not sound like the work of an earlier composer. Being new meant being different to the popular taste. This is probably true in any field of art.