Arts Analysis

Painting by Albrecht DÜrer, painted in 1516, is oil on parchment on fabric called Portrait of a Clergyman. The painted surface measures 41.7 x 32.7 cm. It is thought that the character in the portrait is a man by the name of Johann Dorsch, a Clergyman in Nuremberg, Germany. Europe in the sixteenth century was embroiled in a religious debate that would spiral out of control and span generations. The painting shown below exhibits the ideals of the time.

During the sixteenth century many religious groups were rebelling against the Catholic church and its practice of selling forgiveness for sins by charging patrons money. The church justified these charges as donations for penitence however; many saw this practice as simply an easy way to fill the coffers of the church. Martin Luther is historically credited with beginning this reformation by nailing his 95 Theses to the door of a local church for everyone to read. There were many other points brought up in the 95 Theses among which were the many superficial items traditional to the Catholic Church which reformers believe(d) took away from the true meaning of the sacraments and basic turning points like the existence of purgatory. This reformation resulted in not only a schism in the religious world but also the excommunication of anyone subscribing to the reformed faiths. Many religious conflicts involving the military power of nations resulted from the strict Catholic Church and the many spin-offs that followed in the wake of Luther’s reformation. Although Martin Luther was not the only person by any means that was raising the questions of the Reformation, there were many others simultaneously questioning the same types of things, he was the person credited with this transition in history.
At the very heart of the reformation was the financial corruption that ensued once a priest or clergyman came up with the idea of selling forgiveness. Forgiveness is as abstract a notion as the money that purchased it. Forgiveness hinges solely on the believer accepting that their deity has forgiven them for something they believe is a transgression. The priests operated a profitable business for years convincing parishioners that they were doing things that were “sins”. Then they convinced people that charitable donations represented by cash (usually coinage) were the purchase price of forgiveness rather than charitable deeds or prayers. The reformation was directly rejecting this idea that the easy purchase of forgiveness was acceptable rather than the true contrition of the churchgoers. The morally bankrupt actions of the church clergy showed that when money gets involved in religion neither can exist in the same province. Moral questions that crop up when money is used to ensure faith and everlasting happiness in Heaven such as: How much money is acceptable? Do the ends justify the means (what the money is used for) or is it all corrupt? These questions are hard ones to answer and seem to be revolving questions when money is concerned. There are also opposing viewpoints. Those with the money generally find a way to justify the collection of money because of the work being done or the uses for the money. Those without money generally call the collection of money and what it’s used for a corruption of the principle behind the religion, political function, or charitable work. There does not seem to be a singular answer as to whether or not things are able to be justified by what the money is used for.
Along with the indulgences the Reformation stirred up controversy around the overly ornate imagery used by the Catholic Church to represent the Saints, Christ and the decorations making the churches more and more pieces of art themselves as time went on. Paintings and Reformation styled churches moved toward the extreme opposite of the Catholic Church using minimal decorations, no visual representations of Christ and Saints, using more earthly colors and somber representations of their heroes of the movement. The painting shown above is a good representation of the time fighting against the more ornate artwork of the previous century. The dark colors, sober expression, strong jaw line and pursed lips create an authoritative presence that seems to be sitting in judgment ready to condemn anyone doing anything frivolous with themselves. Down to the clothing worn by the figure in the painting shows that the flamboyant clothing of the Catholic Church clergy were being called into question along with all other things expensive and distracting from the purpose of going to church to worship. The painting shows in one frame the main issues of the time and the celebration of a group of people’s ideals during a turning point in religious belief.

Interview Paper

The assignment given was to ask questions regarding money and its importance of those people in my life. The answers led to one conclusion. That money itself is not important, at least to the people in my life, it’s the outcome of the money that matters.
Although the familiarity with money does not surprise me, knowing the name of the person’s face that appears on a Twenty Dollar bill does surprise me. I could not even venture a guess and the two people I interviewed took at the most fifteen seconds to come up with the right answer. Both felt the need to verify this information, so they were not perfectly certain. Nonetheless, they got the appropriate answer. If money is not important to people, why is it then that they have such a familiarity with it? From the answers to the other questions in this assignment I take that the familiarity comes from the necessity of use. Money is a driving force that procures everything in our lives from food to the fancy shoes we wear. The moral or personal decisions as to how we live our lives are based on our vision of how our lives should be. However, the base factor remains the same, money is necessary to procure all of these things. If education is important but to one person that means going to a community college and to another that means going to a major four year university, the amounts of money necessary to make that happen will be different. The money itself is not the headlining actor here, merely a minor character. It’s a means to an end that has been dictated by society as the ONLY means to achieve the ends desired.
There appear to be two kinds of workers in this world. The workers that work to accomplish something during a day that they either believe in or they can see a difference at the end of a day and the workers that simply work to gain money (usually more technology based jobs-office). As far as accomplishments go, both have a certain kind of accomplishment when the day is done. The money focused worker knows that no matter what they have actually accomplished during a day, they have made money which was their goal. The achievement based worker (usually more manual labor) sees at the end of the day what they’ve accomplished and feels a sense of pride. In the end goals are attained for both. The difference appears to be belief based. The money motivated worker doesn’t seem to care what’s been accomplished or how the world has been affected while the achievement motivated worker wants to see that they’ve left the world a bit better off in whatever small way they can. This in a broader scheme equals in my people that like to take the easy way out (money motivated) and people that like to earn what they can (achievement motivated). The money motivated worker corresponds to the types of people that invented credit and support Government Bailouts. While the achievement motivated workers are more conservative in their thinking. Hard work that earns “real” money is a safer option because it’s actually there, whereas the credit is not and is actually counter-productive. These varying types of outlook on money appear to be drawn along moral lines. Those who believe in hard work building character and those who believe in finding the next easiest thing whatever the outcome or long term planners verse short term thinkers.
Both of the interviewees in this exercise are workers that need to accomplish something in a day. They work hard and want to see that a difference is being made around them rather than see their bank accounts get bigger. The easy, or less physically present, options to attain an end are not the way to accomplish things in their perspective. Easy government bailouts that are based on money that does not technically exist and jobs pushing around paper where no discernable difference has been made, are just not the right answer. Although money moves the world for now, morality and strength of character are more important in the end.
Question 1: Whose Picture is on a Twenty?
Sean: Andrew Jackson
Dad: Andrew Jackson
Question 2: Why do you “believe” in money?
Sean: I don’t believe in money. Money makes you able to progress through life. Other founding fathers like Jackson put value on money to purchase things and that’s just how the world revolves.
Dad: It moves the world, generates creativity and initiative
Question 3: Do you imagine a time in which people might not believe in money?
Sean: No. Society today feels they need something in return for everything they do. If I give you something you need to give me something. People would need to move passed the concept of getting something in return for giving something.
Dad: Money may become worthless in value if our current administration continues to generate TARP money to defunct corporations. How can you determine the value of a stock with government interference? This intervention with Government agency bailing out corporations with no accountability will have a lasting effect on our economy and our nation’s will to strive forward (Tax Burden). For a current example, look at our nation’s unemployment rate. Will congress pass another extension of unemployment checks? Some have been out of work for two years or more. Remove the extended unemployment benefits and I guarantee creativity and initiative will kick in.
Question 4: Why is Money Important?
Sean: It’s not that it’s important. You have to have money to have a certain quality of life. It’s the quality of life and your importance put on that that creates the importance. It’s the things valued by the person that determines the importance of the money itself. You have to invest time or money to get an education if education is important to you.
Dad: It’s a necessity for a standard of living that I prefer.

Question 5: What’s more important to you: Morals or Money?
Sean: Morals/values are what make people what they are. Money may give you what you want but at the end of the day all you have is your name. No one can take your name from you but they can take your money.
Dad: Morals
Question 6: Is there a set amount of money that you would need to feel satisfied or do you feel like you would need an endless sum of money?
Sean: No. I would always feel the need to accomplish something (work). I could be the richest person in the world but I would still need to work to feel like I’m accomplishing something and contributing to the world. It wouldn’t be about the money.
Dad: Yes. In 1982, I attended a Zig Ziglar seminar the topic: Setting Goals. The no work amount with inflation factored in was calculated @ 5000.00 a month. This sum would allow a modest standard of living. Factored in is a small house payment to include taxes. A new car if and when chosen and daily living expenses. The key is to live within your means keeping up with the Jones’s is out.

Movie Review-Pickpocket

Pickpocket was the most ridiculously sentimental French film that I’ve ever watched all the way through. The plot line is severely lacking in common sense and the acting was atrocious. However, its merit lies in the ties between money and stability. Humans have tried over the years to rebel against the pure business of marriage and drag the heart and flimsy feelings into the transaction, the fact remains that to have a happy life people need to have a means of providing for their families. This is what ultimately drives our goals, ambitions, and work ethic along the way. If we’re practical enough to care about reality, that is.
Pickpocket was released in 1959 by French film director Robert Bresson starring Martin LaSalle and Marika Green. Although I realize that 1959 did not have the same cinematic options as films today, which seem to be lacking a basic plot at times in favor of simply blowing things up and being incredibly loud. However, the acting being so obvious was at times painful to watch. No self respecting subway car thief would be so obvious. The only thing NOT obvious in the whole mess was the budding love between the Michel and Jeanne. I realized that this was going to end up happening after reading other reviews and information on the film before watching it but still never saw the signs of this happening. Even during an awkward conversation between Michel and Jacques reference whether Jeanne and Jacques love each other, it never occurred to me that the pathetic Michel was in love with Jeanne. I simply saw him as being a weak and pathetic character all around merely wishing he could be more connected to people not specifically Jeanne.
During the progression of the “love story” or Michel and Jeanne it is noticed that the pathetic, out-of-work thief has begun to pull away from all humans including his own sickly mother. The saintly mother lays dying in her small apartment while Michel helps her with money by stealing it turning down the offer of legitimate work from Jacques. Michel gives some intriguing diatribes about the legitimacy of thieving and its place in society. Thievery can serve to save civilization and is in some respects acceptable for noble purposes such as a poor person stealing bread to eat. This so of Robin Hood talk would be moving if this particular character was stealing money from those rich people betting on horses, which in a sense is the long drawn out process which could be accomplished by flushing money down a toilet, to give to a charity or children’s hospital. Instead he’s simply avoiding work to live a life stealing from those who go to work each day to earn a respectable income for their families or gain a sense of helping the world in some way. Michel is content to take the profits of the hard work of others. The only slightly more pathetic creature in this film, arguably, is Jeanne.
She has convinced herself that it is noble to choose to be poor and sickly with her bastard child rather than spend a loveless marriage with the other man of this story, Jacques. Jeanne leads poor Jacques into a relationship making it look as though she will follow through with what should be the inevitable outcome of all of Jacques’ hard work, marriage. She then flakes on the unspoken (assumed) promise of a content companionship that Jacques has been working toward to end up being unable to provide well for herself or her child. At this point a spark of hope comes into the film. The audience sees a noble bone grow in Michel who vows to help dear Jeanne provide for her bastard child in ways that she has turned away with Jacques. Michel gets a stable job and manages to give Jeanne a small amount of money which probably lead her to believe things would turn out in the end as we all hope they will. But what Jeanne doesn’t realize and what the audience is tricked into thinking isn’t true, is that the man who is deteremined to always take the easy way out of situations that are just a bit to “real” for his liking will never change. The temptation to see if he’s still “got it” returns to Michel and he ends up in jail, sad and solitary. Jeanne stays away at one point saying that the baby has been sick but any woman watching this knows that there was an inner struggle happening here. Does she go back and try to mend things with the man that can provide for her and her child but never allow her to be a dreamer or does she go with the perpetual hope that never turns out for very long? She makes the decision that most silly girls make at some point in their years growing up, she chooses the dreamer that really has no concept of real life. He will continue to go through life not making much of himself and the same cycle will repeat itself. Its a tragedy which was acted out as a comedy, though I’m willing to bet unintentionally.
In an effort to show an accurate picture of life at the time the movie should have shown the hovel that Jeanne and her child were living in more clearly. Jeanne should have sought out the protection and stability of the man who was willing to love her in the only way he knew how. Jacques would have provided a home and food and ability for Jeanne to not only take care of the one child she had but to also have more children if she so chose. The modern viewer may forget that work options for females were not, even in France, what they are today. Jeanne had limited options at best to provide for herself and relying on a man who’s only marketable skill is stealing from others is just not a rational choice. Instead of the romanticized storyline of the heart winning out over the head, maybe a better angle would have been to simply show the trajectory of life and its inability to care of one would want it to be.

Mortgage Crisis

During the years leading up to the mortgage crisis in September of 2009, lenders seemed to be finding any reason they could to lend money to people in order to help the applicants go after the American Dream. Purchasing a home, putting down roots, and beginning a family seems to have been one of the main goals of most Americans. At least at one time it was. Banks and lenders in general took awful advantage of this causing an enormous mess that will take years to correct.
People looking to own a piece of America for themselves approached banks and lenders seeking opportunity hoping that they could start a chapter in their lives that would be a spring board into their future. Banks and lenders created rules for loan applications people would fill out as the first step toward home ownership. The applicant must have so many years of stable employment. They must earn a certain percentage each month above and beyond their mortgage payment. They should be married if going into the loan with another person (not a hard and fast rule). All of these rules were intended to help guarantee that the bank or lender would see a return on their investment. If all these rules are taken together and met by the applicant it is not a far leap to assume that the applicants are stable individuals that will not default on their loans and the bank would in fact see a return on their investment. However, two things happened to work against the loan companies and banks. The rules not being adhered to and the unemployment spike that occurred immediately before the mortgage crisis blew wide open worked together to completely turn the housing market upside down.
In an effort to get rid of the high risk loans before the situation gets too bad the unscrupulous lenders sold the loans to other investors to pass the buck along. This created a massive crisis with many of the high risk loans ending up on the plates of larger lending groups which eventually when things when sour needed the help of the government to make a recovery. It will take years for the housing market to recover from this crisis. The immediate problem in some people’s view is to learn a lesson. After all, if there is nothing to learn from a situation, it will just occur again. There is a moral undertone to this problem. Honesty, integrity, and a view of credit as a person’s good name being what induces others to loan them things coupled with pride in one’s good name are in desperate need of a come back in the American Dream or else there won’t be more left to dream about.

This is what money really is without us putting importance in it.



This is what would happen in an ideal universe (assuming in that universe we still used money to purchase things and not imaginary credit).

Fashion Show

I've always wondered who wears the clothes that designers show during a fashion show. Fashion Week is an entire week that the fasion world dedicates to coming together and showing off the best of the best designs. One of the many things that pop into my head that I wonder about during the day, while sitting in my office trying VERY hard to not watch YouTube now that I've discovered it, is why designers make clothes that I can't imagine a person wearing unless they were paid to. These freakish designs would frighten small children if a soccer mom wore them to drop their own terrified children off at practice, so why make them? So much money and time goes into these designs that seem pointless from my very humble perspective. Although, Lady Gaga has seemed to find crazy designs to be very flattering...maybe I'm wrong? Yet again, something that I wonder about in my spare time! :^)

Amazing

I work in an office full time doing miscellaneous things. No need to get into what it is that I do for work right now :^) But while I was working I was presented with the task of figuring out why our internet was slow and why our server was over crowded. I'm not good with computers and beyond doing internet searches am pretty useless, so I had to work with our IT people to figure out what was going on. Apparently the people in our office spend an inordinate amount of time watching things on YouTube. I had no idea that there was anything so interesting on YouTube that someone would risk their job looking at videos on YouTube for 5 hours out of an 8 hour day. That is until I thought of this topic and looked at YouTube for a while myself. Three hours later I'm writing this and giving you all examples of the stupidity that is YouTube! Enjoy!!