Juvenille Diabetes Research foundation describe how it helps the Essay

Juvenille Diabetes Research foundation describe how it helps the community - Essay Example JDRF facilitates research to identify ways to gain maximum results with least inconvenience to the individuals suffering from diabetes. A lot of children as well as adults in our country are suffering from obesity. To make it worse, obesity comes with numerous side-effects including high blood pressure and diabetes. Research conducted by JDRF tends to find cure for such diseases as diabetes and high blood pressure. â€Å"JDRF is committed to improving the lives of the type 1 diabetes community by keeping you informed about the latest developments in type 1 diabetes research and by providing a range of support services to help you from initial diagnosis through to managing life with type 1 diabetes† (JDRF b). Thus, JDRF not only targets the direct effects of obesity like individual’s looks, consciousness and self-perceptions but also the symptoms and health conditions indirectly associated with obesity. I place so much confidence in JDRF because it has made a lot of diff erence in the life of my own younger sister, Maria. When Maria was 5 years old, she was diagnosed with obesity by JDRF. We thought she had just put on a few extra pounds that would be gone with a little bit of dieting. It was not until JDRF confirmed she was obese that we stopped thinking she was just overweight. To our surprise, JDRF took Maria’s tests and informed us that she was having type 1 diabetes. We could not imagine a girl as young as 5 years old would be having diabetes! Since I am emotionally too attached to Maria, this came to me as nothing less than a shock. Back then, I couldn’t imagine how awful life would be if I had to live without sugar. JDRF proposed that we took immediate measures to alter Maria’s eating habits and walkout patterns in order to do our bit to make her future secure. Mom, dad and I decided that if Maria was not going to consume sugar, so would be we! Now that about 8 years have passed since then, everything has changed for the better. What came as a shock to all of us 8 years back proved to be a forewarning with the passage of time! When JDRF diagnosed Maria with those diseases, they not only tested Dad, Mom and me for the same health hazards, but also took notes about what we ate, how often we ate, when we ate and why we ate whatever we did. They informed us that they would use that information for research purposes. We assisted them in all ways we could because it felt like a way to do our little bit in the well-being of the whole society through JDRF. At the time when Maria was diagnosed with obesity and type 1 diabetes, mama and I were also overweight. JDRF told us that we were quite likely to become obese within few years from then if we continued with the same dietary and exercise habits. For about 8 years since then, Maria, mom, dad and I have had no chocolates, no carbonated drinks, no deep fried foods, no Big Macs and no junk food. Since the time we consulted JDRF, we have placed full emphasis of living upon fresh foods and vegetables. We have been going for a walk every morning and it has become a very important part of out everyday life, and we did gain positive results! Maria has recently tested negative for type 1 diabetes. All of us are in perfect shape. Today, when I look myself into the mirror, I become overwhelmed to see how nice I look and much of this is due to my smartness. We are grateful to JDRF that they informed us about the potential risks just in time so that we were able to take

Role of the Advanced Practice Nurse Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Role of the Advanced Practice Nurse - Assignment Example , DeCristofaro, & Smith (2004), NPs use a clinical decision-making worksheet a tool that eases organization of information, which reinforces documentation and communication as well as a design that can increase clinical problem solving (p. 535). On the other hand, an RN always communicates through their ‘nursing forms’. In regard to documentation and reporting, the NP is expected to recognize and support a medical diagnosis while an RN is restricted by nurse practice act definitions. Moreover, an NP writes documentation that is constant with reimbursement codes, while an RN holds on to the values of addressing the individual from a holistic point of view (Spain et al., 2004). RNs are educated to share information in a stylized writing that consist redundant or superfluous data. An excellent example is where the nurse receives a patient and records â€Å"received patient awake and alert† where no observation is required in regards to the individual neurological status and may implant the major complication in slang. The RN has a scientific education background that helps them in recognizing patients’ emotional needs (Claywell, 2013). The fulfillment of this profession depends on the possession of practical knowledge such as current treatment measures, the science of diseases and physiology. The NP on the other hand, is in a position to employ critical thinking expertise to develop hypothesis, ranking them by expectation and making decision on what more information is required, therapeutic intervention plan and formulating a final impression. The NP also possesses the nine core competencies regardless of the setting (Thomas et. Al.,

Theories of Justice Essay Example for Free

Theories of Justice Essay Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as Justice as Fairness, from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. Objective In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties facing such circumstances, similar to some of Immanuel Kants views. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and right-libertarian accounts. A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The raditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. , of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bu reaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. Three Theories of Justice: Utilitarianism, Justice as Fairness, and Libertarianism (1) Utilitarianism A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy , satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. What do you think a Utilitarian would say about universal medical care? Would he or she be for it or against it? What about affirmative action programs, anti-hate crime legislation, welfare, a graduated income tax, anti-trust laws? For or against? What would decide the issue for a utilitarian? (2) Utilitarianism and Competitive Capitalism The key claim about market capitalism for the utilitarian is that free, unregulated markets efficiently allocate resourceschiefly labor and capitalin the production of goods. By a market is meant only any pattern of economic activity in which buyers do business with sellers. In the classical system of economics competition is presupposed among producers or sellers. Toward the end of the nineteenth century writers began to make explicit hat competition required that there be a considerable number of sellers in any trade or industry in informed communication with each other. In more recent times this has been crystallized into the notion of many sellers doing business with many buyers. Each is well informed as to the prices at which others are selling and buyingthere is a going price of which everyone is aware. Most important of all, no buyer or seller is large enough to control or exercise an appreciable influence on the common price. The notion of efficiency as applied to an economic system is many-sided. It can be viewed merely as a matter of getting the most for the least. There is also the problem of getting the particular things that are wanted by the community in the particular amounts in which they are wanted. In addition, if an economy is to be efficient some reasonably full use must be made of the available, or at least the willing, labor supply. There must be some satisfactory allocation of resources between present and future productionbetween what is produced for consumption and what is invested in new plant and processes to enlarge future consumption. There must also be appropriate incentive to change; the adoption of new and more efficient methods of production must be encouraged. Finallya somewhat different requirement and one that went long unrecognizedthere must be adequate provision for the research and technological development which brings new methods and new products into existence. All this makes a large bill of requirements. Rawlss Theory of Justice as Fairness The reformulation of Utilitarianism we just saw comes from John Rawls, who did not present it as a version of Utilitarianism at all. He presented it as a first approximation to a quite distinct conception of justice from Utilitarianism, a conception that he calls Justice as Fairness. I presented Rawlss idea as a reformulation of Utilitarianism, anyway, because it seems to me to be greatly clarifying of whats wrong with Utilitarianism to have an alternative to compare it to, an alternative that blocks the kinds of fairness objections that are typically raised against Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism everyone, in a way, is given equal consideration at the outset inasmuch as everyones happiness is taken into consideration and is given the same weight in the reasoning by which a form of social organization is settled on as the one that, in the circumstances, yields the greatest average utility. But, as we saw, Utilitarianism may in some circumstances settle on a form of social organization that treats some people unfairly, by imposing undue burdens on them for the sake of the greater average utility or happiness of the whole social group. In the light of this fact it is reasonable to conclude that something is wrong with the Utilitarian procedure for weighing the interests of the individual members of the social group in deciding on what forms of social organization best serve those interests. The procedure puts individuals at and undesirable and unfair risk of being sacrificed for the overall social good. In the principle that we suggested as a revision of Utilitarianism, people would not be put at quite the same risk. Rawls in fact argues for a more elaborate principle of justice in social organization, one that we havent seen yet, and he does so by employing a hypothetical model of a situation requiring people to choose the fundamental principles by which the basic institutions of their society are to be evaluated and organized. He argues that in the hypothetical conditions under which the choice of principles is to be made, only fair or just principles can be chosen. He argues that this is so because of the hypothetical conditions he imposes on the situation of the people making the choice. Then he argues that under those conditions people would choose the following conjunction of principles: The Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to have the maximum civil liberties compatible with the same liberty for all. The Difference Principle: Inequalities are permissible only if (a) they can be expected to work to everyones advantage, especially to the advantage of the least well off, and (b) the positions, offices, roles, to which the inequalities attach are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Libertarianism The Libertarianism, as the name suggests, emphasizes individual liberty as the central and indeed exclusive concern of social justice. A just society, according to the Libertarian, must grant and protect the liberty or freedom of each individual to pursue his desired ends. In the Libertarian view people are essentially rational end-choosers, to use our earlier term, and the kind of life appropriate to rational end-choosers requires them to be free to choose their own ends and free to pursue them without interference from others. This may seem to imply that the Libertarian holds that everyone should be able to do whatever he or she wants, but really the Libertarian holds no such view. The Libertarian view is that each person should have the same freedom to pursue his chosen ends, that each is therefore obligated to refrain from interfering with others in their freedom to pursue their ends, and that the function of the state is solely to protect each individuals freedom to pursue his chosen ends. The Libertarian therefore conceives of everyone as having certain rights, which protect his or her liberty to pursue a desirable kind of life. What is distinctive about Libertarianism is its conception of the rights that each individual has. The libertarian philosopher John Hospers states the fundamental libertarian principle in a variety of ways that it may clarify the Libertarian view to repeat here. He says (in The Libertarian Manifesto, reprinted in Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives, edited by James P. Sterba, Third Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 24, 25): [E]very person is the owner of his own life[;] no one is the owner of any one elses life,  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   and consequently every human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices No one is anyone elses master and no one is anyone elses slave. Other mens lives are not yours to dispose of. The rights recognized by the Libertarian include all the rights we called civil or personal liberties in our discussion of Rawls, but in regard to property the Libertarian favors a scheme in which each person has a quite unrestricted right to acquire property, including full capitalist rights to acquire ownership of the means of production and full rights of bequeathal. Libertarians emphasize property rights as essential to the liberty essential to the life of a rational end-chooser. Property does not mean only real estate; it includes anything that you can call your ownclothing, your car, your jewelry, your books and papers. The right of property is not the right to just take it from others, for this would interfere with their property rights. It is rather the right to work for it, to obtain non-coercively the money or services which you can present in voluntary exchanges.

Depictions of Paranoia in Art Exhibitions

Depictions of Paranoia in Art Exhibitions An essay relating a text from Art in Theory (ed. Harrison and Wood) to a current exhibition or work of art located in United Kingdom In this essay I will look at a selection of art from the exhibition entitled â€Å"Paranoia† situated at the Freud Museum. The exhibition is intended as an investigation of â€Å"suspicion, fear, trauma and delusion in the post 9/11 world† and investigates the abuses of political power and the media in generating a public consensus of good and evil in the world. In particular, I will look at the work of Franko B., a London based artist who uses paintings and performance to challenge perceptions of our bodies and of how the political relates to the artistic and the individual. In this exhibition there are exhibits of a couple of his black acrylic paintings. These paintings are heavily wrought, naively painted and concerned with depth and texture rather than with notions of prettiness. Because they eschew certain relationships between what comprises art, and are coupled with Franko B’s place as a performance artist, whose blood-letting performances in 2003 at Tate Modern, they challenge the aestheticism and the inability for the artist to be a politically relevant individual. A number of video installations also attempt to directly politicise art in crude rather than subtle ways. Jackie Salloom’s Planet of the Arabs and other works is a 20 minute video that pieces together stills from films, magazines, newspapers, television and advertising media, and functions to expose how myths and prejudices are developed and disseminated across society. Because I am interested in the political effects of art, and whether art can be established effectively as a critiquing tool to place against society, I will be looking in particular at how this exhibition relates to Joseph Buoys theories on the democratization of art, and upon whether performance based â€Å"Action Art† by artists such as Franko B. can effectively empower the individual, making him or her an artist him or herself. The 1960s signalled a movement away from the perception of the artist as a unique purveyor of singular genius towards a more inclusive, incorporative process that questioned the underlying mechanisms and mythologies of artistry. Andy Warhol in particular sought to fabricate the notion of the artist as a Promethean character; a sort-of demented idiot-savant, whose suffering brought light upon the world, by questioning the very foundations of the artist. Warhol’s techniques were designed to automate and remove any particular response from the art. Similar to the collage techniques of the futurists, the pop art movement could be seen as both an attempt to contemporize art and furthermore to erode or, at the very least, to change the perception of the artist and how he or she relates to the world around him. Politically this has important connotations. Because of Warhol’s techniques towards the mass dissemination of art and of factory produced Warhol pieces of art, the arti st is no longer seen as objective and singular, and the â€Å"truth† offered by the artist is no longer situated above society, but alongside it. Politically, this means that the sweeping and grandiose ideologies signified by futurism, cubism, surrealism and other modernist movements no longer have the same currency. Therefore, politics have changed and art has become a fusion of high and low forms of entertainment and politics. The video installation and performance-based art that looks to remanufacture the artifice of the artistic self is innately political in Joseph Beuy’s terminology because it seeks to confront and democratize the artistic world, making artists of everybody that interacts with it. â€Å"To impose forms on the world around us is the beginning of a process that continues into the political field. Discussion used to centre on the participation of the public and it became apparent that actionism as a sort of joint play was not enough; the participant must also have something to contribute from the resources of his own thought† (905). Therefore, in accordance with Buoys, the political field of art is in its struggle to empower and to transform others into artists. Buoys’ theory posits that, while there are people excluded from art, there can be no democracy. Thus, rather than art being a peripheral critique of society and politics, it forms a principle component of art i tself. He continues by saying that â€Å"A total work of art is only possible in the context of the whole of society. Everyone will be a necessary co-creator of a social architecture, and, so long as anyone cannot participate, the ideal form of democracy has not been reached† (905). At the exhibition, techniques are adopted which serve to democratize art. Two books are present in the museum in which people draw things related to their dreams. Also, in a more abstract way, much of the art leaves gaps and ambiguities into which the artist can place his or her engagements. The use of video footage and stills from mass market publications in Salloom’s Planet of the Arabs suggests that the artist is attempting to democratize the art in question. The intentionally crude collage nature of the work which juxtaposes images sharply, quickly and crudely also serves to denounce the role of the artist as talented, serving instead to perceive the artist as a facilitator to bring abo ut other artists. The use of footage that we are all familiar with; war torn countries, bombings, newspaper images and other forms of mass media serves to invoke a sense of feeling in the viewer, and the satirized nature of the piece helps the viewer confront one’s own prejudices, which in turn empowers the viewer and helps to denounce the controlling mechanisms of mass-media. â€Å"Truth† and the specific role of artist are further interrogated by the artist Tim Blake and his piece The Big Secret. This simply features an interview with the prominent conspiracy theorist David Icke. Although widely denounced in scientific communities for his â€Å"crackpot† theories, here David Icke is allowed to speak in an unmediated way about his theory that extraterrestrial insects control and govern the planet. Here Tim Blake attempts to provoke the viewer into a reaction by filming Icke in an unelaborated way. In the accompanying pamphlet, he uses a quotation from Freud: â€Å"The psycho-analyst, in the light of his knowledge of the psychoneuroses, approaches the subject with a suspicion that even thought-structures so extraordinary as these and so remote from our common modes of thinking are nevertheless derived from the most general and comprehensible impulses of the human mind† (1). Thus, here there is an attempt made to democratize humanity a nd to assume that all emerges from a general principle. Coupled with the absence of any particularly artist-like pretensions in the film, the question of artist is interrogated and jeopardised, allowing for democracy, in Buoys’ sense, to occur: â€Å"In a true democracy there are no other differences than capability; democracy can only develop freely when all restrictive mechanisms are gone. One of the greatest of these restrictive mechanisms is the present-day school, because it does not develop people but channels them† (905-6). In Franko B’s retrospective of his art, he posited that the best reaction to his work would be for somebody to mention themselves in relation to it. His work has always attempted to denigrate his own position as technical artist in favour of more openly politicised attempts to democratize his viewers. His work in multiple medias over the years, from performance art involving blood letting to mass-produced flags that he would stain with his own blood, to more â€Å"traditional† painting, suggests that he is attempting to transform the image of the artist and how it is conceived by the masses. As most people feel politically isolated from art, it is of especial importance that the artist relates to people outside of the artistic world. Franko B’s crude and naà ¯ve painting, his simple iconography, and his lacerating, self-sacrificing performance pieces attempts to achieve this by making his work both accessible and vague simultaneously. His massive black portraits echo Rothko in their minimalism, but are concerned with iconic and image based themes that Franko B. takes from his own life. Because these pieces don’t use any colour other than black, they appear more concerned about depth and line. Also, because they are made from blown up photographs, they also deny singular artistic talent in favour of a more inciting, democratic painterly technique. Buoys argues that â€Å"The times educate people to think in terms of abstract concepts†¦ most people think they have to comprehend art in intellectual terms – in many people the organs of sensory and emotional experience have atrophied† (905). Buoys attacks what he sees as â€Å"the prevailing scientific concepts†, which constrain and hamper the development of artistic imagination. According to Buoys, the concept of art must be widened to incorporate all things. The use of multimedia and various sources fragment the traditional role of artist as a singular paradigm of a truth that cannot be interacted with. Also, the conception of mass-produced art, which can be disseminated through video also serves a similar purpose – to allow for a larger audience to be incorporated into art, not as passive but as active components. The crudity of the art on offer at the museum, which directly and unambiguously interrogates the role mass media has to play in the f ormation of mechanisms of racial hate, terrorism and power, echoes the sentiments of Joseph Buoys. Works Cited Leaflet for Paranoia at the Freud Museum, 2007 Beuys, Joseph (1921-1986) ‘Not Just a Few Are Called, But Everyone’, Art in Theory, pp 903-6 Harrison, Charles Wood, Paul (2003), Art in Theory: 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Marcus Garvey Essay -- essays research papers fc

I believe one of the most influential African Americans of all time is Marcus Garvey. Marcus Garvey achieved accomplishments in not just one, but many areas. His accomplishments ranged from a worldwide Black political organization, The Untied Negro Improvement Association, to the first, and to this day the largest Black-owned multinational businesses, the Black Star Lines. Marcus was criticized by many of his fellow African American leaders because many of his projects failed. In despite of that, Marcus Garvey talent to attract followers towards his beliefs is inspiring.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Marcus Mosiah Garvey was born into a poor family on August 17, 1887 at St. Annà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Bay, Jamaica. Marcus was born the youngest of 11 children. His father was a stonemason who supposedly descended from the maroons. Maroons are African American slaves who defended their freedom from British and Spanish invaders. Garvey had to itemize his pride in the unmixed African heritage of his parents. Marcus grew up and received little education in Jamaica, so he was largely self-taught. At age 14 Marcus had to find work in a print shop to help out his family. Marcus began to doubt the value of trade union after he was involved the first printers strike of 1907. Marcus Garvey began to complain about the mistreatment of African workers to British authorities and was appalled by the little response and that left him very skeptical about any hope for justice from the white people (Rogoff 72). In 1912 Marcus Garvey studies abroad in London. He began writing African p ublications and became an avid supporter of African independence. I believe the turning point in Marcus Garveyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s fight for African freedom and equality came after he read Booker T. Washingtonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s book, Up From Slavery. Garvey à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“responded warmly to ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s thesis of black self helpà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? (Kranz, Koslow 86). With that notion in mind Marcus Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914 ready to make a difference.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Marcus was not noticed for just one accomplishment is his lifetime, but many on them. When Marcus returned to Jamaica he got re-acquainted with a group of friends and founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which sought, among other things, to work on black emigration to Africa. It also promoted racial pride, education, and black business activity. In Jamaica Garvey didnà ¢... ...y of Wisconsin Press. The reason I believe this is a quality book that deserves more study is because it involves Marcus Garveyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s most renowned accomplishment, the organization of the UNIA. It also shows how Marcus overcame his failures to become a black role model and leader. All of the books on Marcus Garvey show people that no matter what happens, wither you fail or succeed, you can become a successful person as long as you believe in what your doing. BIBLIOGRAPHY à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Black Nationalismà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 24 Feb. 1999 http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=15698&sctn=1. Cronon, David E. Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Hill, Robert A. Marcus Garvey: Life and Lessons. Calif.: University of California Press, 1987. Krans, Rachel and Philip J. Koslow, The Biographical Dictionary Of African Americans. New York: Checkmark Books, 1999. Rogoff, Edward G., John Trinkus, and Alvin Puryear. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Perhaps the times have not yet caught up to Marcus Garvey, an early Champion of Ethnic Entrepreneurship.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? Journal of Small Business Management 3 (1998) 66-71

Impure Puritans in The Scarlet Letter :: Scarlet Letter essays

Impure Puritans in The Scarlet Letter In a world where society is disorganized, unhappy, and chaotic, it can be extremely difficult to provide an honest, and just law system. As a result, in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, people use their religion (Puritan), as judge, jury, and executioner. For some people, it can be very troublesome to live a normal life when you are surrounded by biased and chauvinistic men and women. In this story, Hester Prynne is a victim of her religion, and her fellow townsfolk. Throughout the book, Hawthorne writes about the townspeople and how they act and behave towards each other, Hester, and life in general. The novel starts with Hester walking towards the town scaffold to be seen for public display, because she committed the crime of adultery. A lane was forthwith opened through the crowd of spectators. Preceded by the beadle, and attended by an irregular procession of stern- browed men and unkindly visaged women, Hester Pyrnne set forth towards the place appointed for her punishment. A crowd of eager and curious schoolboys, understanding little of the matter in hand except that it gave them a half-holiday, ran before her progress, turning their heads continually to stare into her face, and at the wink-ing baby in her arms, and at the ignominious letter on her breast. P. 52, 53 As this is happening, all the people see is the crime that Hester committed, not the person behind it. They do not take into consideration, that the crime itself, is not as evil as they make it out to be. Hawthorne describes it as enjoyable to the spectators, by showing the children watch her and laugh as she makes her way to the scaffold. It's as though the people of the Puritan religion are heartless, ruthless, cold blooded, and that what is going on, is considered fun. Aside from forcing Hester to stand on the scaffold, they make her knit an "A" onto her chest. The "A" symbolizes adultery. The plan was for people to look upon this symbol, pity her, and make Hester feel deprived of humanity. Instead of knitting a simple "A", Hester designs a very complex and elaborate one. The reaction from the people shows how evil some of

Looking For Alibrandi †realtionship with John Essay

One of the most significant relationships in the novel is between Josie Alibrandi and John Barton. The relationship changes in various ways at different stages. It’s through this relationship that Josie learns much more about what is important in life and learns to accept her identity. Initially they were the best of friends, but Josie wanted to be with John Barton because she thought he was the best man she would ever meet. She sees him as an upper class man who is witty, charming and everything she wants in a man. John Barton also likes her and doesn’t feel any racism towards Josie at all, but he has mixed feelings between Josie and Ivy. Josie wants to be in the same law class as John but he isn’t allowed to choose what course he wants to study in because he is under constant pressure to do what his dad wants him to do. As the book progresses John Barton and Josie become closer together because John was spending more time with Josie than with Ivy, so Josie believes that John is falling for a middle class working woman over a upper class snob like Ivy. Josie also sees a side of John she doesn’t like, he was extremely negative about life which Josie disagreed with and didn’t like what he was saying so they start to break away a bit at that moment because of his negativity towards life. Josie and John grew even closer when they wrote down their deepest feelings and gave it to each other to hold onto, which before then she was too afraid to tell anyone what she was thinking, which by this action of trust was a definite big step towards their relationship. John wanted to go against his father’s wishes and take control of his own life and enrole in the law course. A couple days after John decided what he wanted to do in life he committed suicide, most likely because his dad disagreed with his actions that caused him into a depression. John never tried to get into a serious relationship with Josie or Ivy because he new the only way he could be free was to kill himself so he didn’t want to just string them along. John’s suicide affected Josie in a number of different ways, she started off begin extremely angry at John and everyone around her but when she was with  her parents she was very scared about dieing so she had her father stay with her that night. Josie also realised that John didn’t live in such a perfect world as Josie had suspected that she didn’t have it as worse off as John Barton did, also that money doesn’t solve all problems and by that Josie realises how lucky she is. In conclusion Josie realises that John had to die to be emancipated but Josie’s emancipation came from living against all of her unfortunate events with her and her family.