Undergraduate / ART HISTORY - Comparison between two works of art linking to abstract expressionism. [2]

I will attach the two images. Also, the citation style is Chicago.
Andy Warhol's Hammer and Sickle (1976 acrylic and silkscreen ink on canvas 72 x 86 x 1 1/4 in. (182.9 x 218.4 x 3.2 cm.) The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh and Barnett Newman's Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue? (1966 75 X 48 inches Oil on Canvas) are two works that that follow the tradition of modernism. Although these two works are from two totally separate eras of modernist art, the stylistic similarities of Abstract Expressionism between the two works are uncanny. The elements of Abstract Expressionism heavily influenced both Hammer and Sickle and Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?

Andy Warhol's pop-art portrayal of the Hammer and Sickle (the symbol of Communism and ultimately anti-expression) is a satirical play on the Communist propaganda that existed during the Cold War. By his usage of bright, bold colors and a stylized hammer and sickle he is showing us elements of abstract expressionism. Warhol has created a work that is very similar in nature to Barnett's work, very expressive and moving in nature, unfocused on trying to uncover meaning and conventionalities. Abstract expressionism is more focused on seeing the artist's art for what it is -a form of true expression.

Abstract Expressionism was the movement in American painting that flourished in the 1940's 50's and 60's, sometimes called as the "New York School" (because of its main artists primarily based in New York). "They were linked by a concern with varying degrees of abstraction used to convey strong, emotional content" (Bricker) . However, the majority of Abstract Expressionists rejected critical labels and shared; they did though, share a common sense of moral purpose and alienation from American society. They believed that art had become too much a part of the Western Cannon and that the message of true expression had been lost.

Barrett Newman himself perhaps best described the tenets that abstract expressionism followed:
"1. To us art is an adventure into an unknown world, which can be explored only by those willing to take the risks.
2. This world of imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to common sense.
3. It is our function as artists to make the spectator see the world our way not his way.
4. We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth."

5. It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism." (Wells-Wallace)

.
Looking at Warhol's Hammer and Sickle,

A few things that come to mind are its striking, bold and blatant use of communist imagery. Although the work could suggest a sympathetic Communist narrative, it actually portrays the opposite. Warhol's style is known as being characteristically Pop Art -the epitome of capitalism, consumerism and ultimately individual expression. This idea of individuality, and the break from stagnant, expressionless art gives way to defining this work as being Abstract Expressionist as well with its use of vibrant, striking and almost spontaneous strokes of red, black and grey.

Warhol was trying to construct this image of the Soviet Hammer and Sickle (which kills off all sense of individual freedom and expression) and warp it into a piece of art that is actually very expressive. The way the piece was created showed how innovative it was created. The bold, thick red strokes, the superimposed picture of the hammer onto the background creates a very feeling that is both outwardly expressive and satirical. It puts a spin on the non-expressive, non-artistic, stagnant realism of Soviet life.

It's very bold graphic power and the vivid contrast of red and black give Warhol's work a tremendous amount of energy and emotion, which almost makes us think of Abstract Expressionism and more specifically Newman's Color Field work, Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?

Color Field was considered breakthrough in modernist painting's attitude to both space and overall style because it had created a daringly new and simple form of art. Color field also created new trends with its elemental conflicts of light and scale, and of void and presence meaning that where there were no images, there was color. The color is the prime feature, it is meant to create an intensity that no other classical, renaissance or romantic periods could invoke. "Among the main characteristics of Abstract Expressionist color field painting are its use of colors close in tonal value and intensity, its radically simplified compositions and the choice of very large formats" (Anfam).

The artists had essentially lifted the symbolism concrete figures depicted in earlier works. "Moreover, the primal field of color, accentuating the viewer's isolation and sense of self, may equally have reflected a need for strong emotional experience in the barrenness of the Cold War during the late 1940s and the 1950s in the USA" ("Abstract Expressionism; 3. The 1950s: climax, reaction and later work"). Simple, easy to recognize colors was the motif of most color field paintings of the time; since red was perhaps the color that was most recognized during the height of the cold was, Barnett wanted to connect the audience with an emotional response that carried a message that was up to the interpretation of the audience.

Newman's piece is a later piece of Abstract Expressionism and one of the pioneers of many of the color field works that existed all throughout the late 50's to 60's.

Newman doesn't create a narrative for us to follow, or even a cohesive image for us to understand and attach meaning to it, rather, he wants us to focus on the bold and striking colors of the piece itself and understand the ultimate expression behind it.

The use of simple vibrant colors in both Warhol and Newman's works are elements of abstract expressionism. However, colors are not the only definer of the style; both works are abstractions, meaning that they do not have "An immediately cohesive set of symbols that can be recognized" (Carmen).

Both pieces show bold, striking elements that express the raw emotion of Abstract Expressionism. Warhol's piece is a satirical spin on a well-known (and hated) symbol at the time, representing cold expressionless, planned out life; he warps it into a work of art that is largely spontaneous, vivid, captivating and to the point. Newman's piece portrays the same image in terms of these elements. Newman, much like many of his color field contemporaries, wanted to rid his art of the unnecessary rhetoric and conventions created by previous artists. The straightforwardness of his work is truly expressionism at its height. There are no recognizable images, but rather pure color that focuses our attention on the cohesiveness of the work rather than hidden imagery; the red, blue and yellow of the piece focuses our attention on the artists immediate emotions rather than diverting our attentions away from our emotions and attaching any external meaning from the art.

Bibliography

Abstract Expressionism; The 1950s: climax, reaction and later work." Oxford University Press. .
Balkan, Bricker, Abstract Expressionism. London, United Kingdom: Tate Publishing, 2005
E.A, Carmen. The Great Decade of American Abstraction; Modernist Art 1960 to 1970. Houston, Museum of Fine Arts, 1974: 1974.
David, Anfam. "Abstract Expressionism." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online.
Wallace-Wells, David. "Splatter-Day Saints." Newsweek 156, no. 14 (October 4, 2010): 51-53. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

• 
  Hammer_and_Sickle.pn.png
  
• 
  Red_Blue_Yellow.png
  

Writing Feedback / Political and Social Philosophy -Is power the driving force behind politics? [2]

Politics is only power. It is the constant struggle for those who want to stay on top of the social order. As Thrasymachus claims, justice is only the will of the stronger -the same could be applied to politics as a whole. In order to understand the concept of power, we must begin with the initial conditions in which man is -in his natural state. Man according to Hobbes is conniving, hedonistic and concerned with his own well being and essentially evil in his own right. Man is estranged and does not have the ability reason with one another. He is concerned with his own preservation and therefore needs strong leadership in order to maintain full order, because otherwise they would destroy themselves. Man is evil in his natural state so therefore cannot reason because he is so self-interested.

Machiavelli is often the same page when it comes to man and his initial state. He asserts the fact that man is merely concerned with his well being and therefore needs strong handed leaders to maintain some sense of order. That power cannot be conceptual, it is practical and based off the idea of power. The prince (or benevolent leader) for Machiavelli is the best exemplification of how power can be used in the most practical of ways. The prince must be powerful and concentrate on keeping order through the use of constant assertion of that power.

"A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves."

The leader must exert himself practically and have shows of both complete authoritarian and reserved, cunning power. A higher sense of morality or virtue cannot exist because we are essentially estranged from one another. That is why we are constantly involved in conflict and that is why we need strong concentration of power. For Socrates, however he believes that man has the capacity to reason. He is drastically different from both Hobbes and Machiavelli and presents the different side of the features of politics.

Justice and moral values exists in the realm of Socrates. In The Republic, he speaks of the unifying greater moral virtues we have; man is essentially not estranged or evil as Hobbes or Machiavelli would state, rather he has the capacity for reason, understanding and compassion. Humans do care for one another and can show an aspect of unity. In Plato's dialogue Gorgias, Socrates begins by stating;

"Happiness surely does not consist in being delivered from evils, but in never having them."
He asks his listeners to picture a person suffering from illness. Would this person remain ill, or would he go to seek a cure? Without a doubt he would seek the cure for his ailment. He then points out the man who never falls sick is happier than the man who is cured from sickness. After stating this, Socrates claims that punishment for the crime is the cure for evil, and justice leads to that punishment.

Unfortunately, these principles of "goodness" and a higher sense of morality are all based on human emotion; hard to quantify and do not have much practical use in the running of a state. Understanding that man has no real intrinsic values and that we are so concerned with ourselves understands the practicality that must exist in politics. The concept that reason and justice are elements of politics is highly idealistic. There is no practical element; it is based all on the belief that man can govern himself without getting into conflict in his natural state. Man wants to do what he wants and continue to do what he wants to do because he is free. But man does not want to suffer consequences of his actions, and that is why there must be the exertion of power according to how man acts. This is the most practical and best manner to run a state.

One cannot believe that the conception of the state is essentially good mainly off the basis that it is not practical. Power is the main feature of all politics because the exertion of power is what is most practical. If you take into account "morality" and constructions of what is "good", then the state no longer becomes maximized to its fullest extent and would work. The ends justify the means in politics. We cannot claim that man is good because conflict constantly arises. As Machiavelli claims, power must be concentrated in a charismatic, practical man who understands that he must be purely political thereby exert power not only powerfully, but in a practical manner. It is better to be rational and logical rather than purely idealistic. There is no practicality to Socrates claims of his "ideal" Republic where he focuses mainly on "keeping the state pure and completely ordered".

Understanding that power is the premier feature of politics will better understand how the state of government functions in terms of pure reality. That isn't to say that man is purely a practical and rational animal. Power defined will often be misguided into thinking that man doesn't comprehend the tensions that exist in society. "We are aware of the tension between the moral command and the requests of successful political actions". If power is doles out in an authoritarian way, then A will occur. If power is administered in a more passive, cunning way then B will occur. It understands the discrepancies of how power should be administered and finding that balance.

Research Papers / Freshman Poly Sci Paper- China and The U.S: Economic Power Struggle [4]

Hey everyone, this is a paper on the subject of the U.S-China economic relationship. I speak about how China's emerging markets along with massive technological ingenuity and practical economic thinking will boost it into the limelight of the world economy.

The expanding age of globalization has etched our world in an alternative way. Relationships are much more complicated between nations; nations that once had little hope of growth now have a glimmer. China's increasing role in the world economy -the massively growing GDP after each successive year (making it the largest growing economy) has made it a force to be reckoned with. The Chinese have not only the largest growing economy in the world; it is simply the largest. China has people. Its population of 1.3 billion is one of the defining characteristics as to why the world views China as a burgeoning power. A massive population means a massive propensity for ideas, ideas that use ingenuity, scientific and economic, that will further aid the growth of China's economy in the form of its gross domestic product and its technological advances.

China is far from the authoritarian regime that it once was. It is no longer the impoverished Communist nation that struggled to remove itself from the binds of un-modernized agrarianism. China's "opening up" (the ability for free trade and foreign investment with other countries) of its markets in the past decades has led to great positive economic growth every year, especially with regards to its GDP. The mass amount of people China holds along with money contributed by the U.S is mainly to do with this -the change from an almost "preindustrial" country to a fully growing one is partly to do because of the millions of people that have now found themselves working in factories, creating mass quantities of things to be shipped all over the world with the "Made in China" label.

China was once predominately an agrarian based society. Most of the population lived in rural areas -the economy was largely based on agricultural based products. China's economy was mostly characteristic of a lower tier developing economy with little growth. There was little to no investment from other countries (seeing as it was unattractive because it was a "poor country"), and most of the population worked on the fields as laborers. The urban bourgeoisie population that now characterizes China's growing working class that was almost non-existent because of the lack of industrialization that was so desperately needed. It was only until very recently that China saw some investment in its country by the United States. Companies have seen some tremendous growth since those investments. This new and effective urbanization is a far cry from the Maoist suppression of ideas and technology. Before, authoritarian regime of Mao was definitive of Chinese poverty. "During the Mao era, urbanization was often suppressed. This bias has been dramatically reversed as those same cities are now at the center of activity connected with an explosion of international trade". (Small 1-7) It was characteristic of the Mao regime to have essentially no foreign trade whatsoever; no domestic stimulation; consumer goods were basically non-existent (leaving out the most essential market for any sort of growth) and industrialization was at an all time low. Today, it is an entirely different story; industrialization is the absolute hallmark of the Chinese economy.

Products are still being produced at a booming rate, and all incredibly cheaply. China is known for "cheap labor" and "cheap products" for the rest of the word to eat up. China will not solely be making cheap physical products and cheap physical labor; it will be creating ideas that will change our perception as to who will become the economic leader of the world. The ability to create quickly comes from industrialization; the ability to create new and better comes from ingenuity. And ingenuity makes it so every possible sector of life becomes more prosperous and in the long run richer. The new technological advancements such as green energy and power makes it so there will be new markets to invest that are not characteristically American. Continued investment from other industrialized nations will make it so the economy of China will grow at an even higher percentage.

The American model of industrialization aided China in the most positive of ways. Not only did it benefit American industry by the new huge influx of cheaper goods within the country (a sort of hyper form of industrialization) but also the Chinese workforce increased by working in American factories, and thereby increasing their income (and allowing for more growth and domestic spending in the economy). Ultimately, over the past thirty years ever since the "opening up of China" to the U.S and other countries, it allowed for the Chinese to make their own model of hyper industrialization.

"That growth - among the most rapid in human history - has been a result of strategy and good fortune. The Maoist period was brutal and repressive, but despite the terrible famines and the Cultural Revolution's assault on education, China did emerge with an unusually literate and healthy population for a poor country." (Leonhardt 1)

The massive wave of industrialization not only lays its claim to American investment, but also in its brand of political structure. In the United States, most industry comes from the private sector, predominately consumer goods. The U.S is good at creating things oversees that are ready for mass consumption, with revenues in the billions of dollars every year. The problem lies in the public sector or government run projects. In the United States, infrastructure, health care, military goods, social benefits must all be speculated and must go through "the people" and the arduous political process. If this process did not exist, then these public projects could be passed through with no problem; they can be made quicker. The urban Chinese population experiences some of the most sophisticated and effective forms of infrastructure and technology in the entire world. The Chinese government has no problem passing any form of public projects because the Chinese Communist Party essentially goes unchallenged. This, on top of foreign investment and openness to trade creates a massive wave of industrialization that is unseen in countries with a more liberal political structure. The government, if needed can create any public work at a massive rate without challenges or any opposition whatsoever. This not only creates a good level of public goods being consumed (which aides in the increase of GDP) but it also increases the levels of scientific ingenuity (the ability to create better, safer and more efficiently with the use of science), which in turn turns into a higher focus in technological and scientific advancements. These new advancements not only make it so that the Chinese have a light rail that can transport people from city to city in less than 5 minutes, but it also entices more people to work in fields that are new, alternative, eco-friendly and cost efficient. China simply has the sheer numbers of people working in these fields to surpass the United States in any sense. The government knows that these fields of science are incredibly valuable and allow for billions of dollars to be used exclusively for these projects.

Not only did the Chinese create jobs for people who had not had them before because of American corporations but they also allowed for the Chinese industry to stem out from U.S based corporations. This American model allowed for the increase in ingenuity and the growth for new marketplaces that would otherwise not be American based. Ever since the beginnings of foreign investment, the Chinese have made it so that they too make domestic changes within their industries.

Energy is the word on every major country's mind; and it's interesting enough that the Chinese are the top consumers of any form of energy in the world. It seems if more strides are being put forth quicker and much effectively than the United States or any other country for that matter. The methods for newer and greener technology for energy consumption will be highly in demand within the upcoming years. The United States started the wave of new and sustainable forms of energy, but the Chinese are perfecting it, making it cheaper and more accessible.

"Instead of copying our innovations, the Chinese government has decided to copy our very model of innovating. They have studied our centers of invention, the Silicon Valleys and Research Triangles, where university scientists, venture capitalists, high-tech entrepreneurs..." (Wallace-Wells 27-31)

The mixture of traditional Chinese scientific genius and the decades of scientific investment in China are now paying off. As of the last 3000 years of Chinese history, we have seen the massive amounts of technology that has come of the country and that has influenced all forms of Western Civilization. China, as many Westerners fail to understand was one of the most elaborate, ordained, respected and most advanced countries in the entire world. For most of the worlds history, the Chinese were the first to conceptualize things such as casting iron, creating the crank handle, deep drilling for natural gas, the fishing reel, chess, matches, brandy, gunpowder, the spinning wheel, the umbrella. These ingenious inventions and ideas were all products that significantly changed western life significantly; Europe and the rest of the world owe quite a lot to Chinese ideas. When Europe was struggling to cope with widespread illiteracy and the plague, China was writing novels, creating paper and early forms of the printing press; things that largely characterize Europe. Much like in the past, China will soon lead the globe in newer, more impressive innovations than ever before.

Today, in the urban centers of China we see some of the most sophisticated structures; we see impressive ivory towers that are worth billions of dollars; we see the growth of the Chinese elite urban population, with just as tough as of some of the top competitors on Wall Street; we see some of the most impressive infrastructures in Hong Kong and Beijing (their ability to move millions of people around in a matter of minutes). The sheer magnitude the country has to create new and fantastic projects can be seen in the 2008 Olympics. China left the world entirely in awe with their creations of new and beautiful stadiums that showed the fantastic displays of Western technology with a Chinese twist. While Americans are stumbling to figure out some sort of way out of the recession and into some positive economic growth, the Chinese are making the most positive growth in the world, essentially at the expense of the American economy. Even during periods of poverty and negative economic growth with little to no jobs in the private sector, the Chinese have managed to make outstanding achievements in its basic science studies. China has established high-energy physics research base, built the Electron-Positron Collider, installed the super energy latex lab on the Ganbala Mountain with an altitude of 5,500 meters among various other achievements. Chinese biologists, physicists, are even more so making massive achievements in the ways of creating alternative energy by the ways of bio-fuels and alternative energies.

It's odd to see this shift in Chinese industry. The economic relationship between the United States and China is becoming a gradual power reversal; in the past 10 years, we have seen more overall growth (both scientific and economic) in China than in the United States. More and more Chinese entrepreneurs are buying up shares of American corporations than Americans themselves.

Increasingly now more than ever, we see the takeover of companies by other Chinese companies and corporations. These rich Chinese entrepreneurs are gobbling up more and more control of the international stock, investing more and more than some of the most developed countries in the world. A country's FDI or Foreign Direct Investment is one of the most significant indicators of its strength in buying and investment. In China, the FDI is growing at an unprecedented rate and it is because of these factors such as new entrepreneurs with their interest in investment and the government's new aim at controlling more raw materials and focus of added investment in foreign markets. As for buying up companies, China is taking over more, eating up shares western companies. Coal, oil refineries, iron mills (specifically western based) are all being bought up by Chinese heads of companies.

"... Executives at 11 Western companies have been bought by or have sold stakes to Chinese firms. Ten of the deals discussed were worth more than $1 billion. What these people say provides an insight into both China's capacity to expand its companies abroad and the opaque workings of its state-backed firms. The impression they give is a mixture of awe at China's ambition and technical skill and a far more qualified assessment of Chinese companies' ability to run international businesses." ("Economist")

Some might argue however that China's rise will come with serious consequences in the future. Some say that China will not be able to cope with the massive weight of becoming the "hegemonic power" of the world. They merely cannot cope with the massive amounts of poverty that exists within the country; nearly half of China's population is still entirely in poverty, living with less than a dollar a day. The urban population that is growing (and growing quickly) will be the only ones that see prosperity; the top elite will be the ones running the show in the massive ivory towers that are being built in the metropolises of eastern China.

What the nihilists do not understand is that China, unlike the rest of the developing world, has an incredibly sophisticated and organized government, an industrialized economy and a massive propensity to create (and consume) at rapid rates. The mass amounts of people that are in poverty are but a lowering statistic on the Chinese chart. Singapore and Japan (both deemed economic success stories) are perfect examples of people living in poverty that were almost all eliminated. In comparison, China is growing much quicker than these two countries combined and with continuous industrialization, previously unemployed and impoverished people will have greater opportunities to work and create wealth.

Granted, an authoritarian regime with little to no personal freedoms isn't the "model" for a world that is so used to seeing liberal styled leaders. On a human rights point of view, it is terrible what the Chinese government is doing to its people, censoring any ideas that foster individual freedoms and practice; but at a more practical point of view, does it matter? If the government can foster more growth without the constant stalemates that happen between two parties, then they are much more effective. Authoritarianism in China works for now. The amount of growth and overall prosperity with the current regime has been unprecedented. "Between 1995 and 2001, China has seen a steady increase in its overall GDP; the amounts of investment, government expenditures, exports and imports, and from 2001, this trend will continue" (Wing Thye Woo 2-15). The thought of oppressing ideas that foster any sort of liberal value is not typically on the agenda of most developed countries with industrialized economies (Western Countries); but who are they to say? China's current model works; perhaps the trend of a strong central government is what is needed for growth. This "Beijing Consensus" of a strong government along with private businesses in new resource and consumer markets that hire millions of people is China's perfect mix for success.

As the rest of the developing world typically follows the model of the free market and liberalization, China takes an interesting position. While most developing countries are struggling to seem valuable in the world economy attempting to claw to the middle with little success, seeing no investment opportunities, along with useless governments, China is the opposite. China does not try to be the United States by attempting economic strategies that make no sense in their context; rather China is taking away from the United States. The East Asian country has become the center for things new and valuable, things that were once American. Massive new cities with fantastic architects being built at rapid speeds, shares of American businesses being bought up by new entrepreneurs, energy consumption and creation of energy, technological advancements in all fields of the private sector are all doings of the Chinese. China has its work cut out, but with all this at their disposal, the United States will owe much more than money.

Works Cited

"Being Eaten By The Dragon." Economist November 11 2011: n. pag. Web.
Leonhardt, David. "In China, Cultivating the Urge to Splurge." New York Times (2010): 1. Web.
Small, Kenneth. "Chinese Urban Development: Introduction." (2007): 1-7.
Wallace-Wells, Benjamin. "America is Losing it's Competative Edge, and Washington Hasn't Noticed." Off Track. 2005: 27-31. Print.
Wing Thye Woo, . "China: the analytics of increased economic interdependence and accelerated technological innovation." (2007): 2-15. Web.