I never thought I would start blogging on this blog again, since this had only been created for a college course I was taking and because I blog about books on Pixie Dust Book Reviews. But then I realized something. I've never blogged or even written about me. My life has always been about focusing on the future, dreaming up the great schemes of my life, and somewhere along the lines I lost sight of me. Of what it meant to have a childhood and not trying to grow up to fast. Of what it was like to be a teenager and be young and crazy. I was so focused on growing up and becoming an adult that I lost sight of what it meant to be young, in love with life, and how to live completely in the moment.

My life has been a sum of moments anticipating the future. But now, now that I am here and that I am eighteen, I just can't see what I once imagined the future would be. In fact, it somehow only makes the heartache worse.

Now, I just want to find me. I need to find me. The future is full of endless possibilities - some of heartbreak, some of happiness, some of loss, and some of love. How can I possibly predict what the future will be? I can't but I can make the moments of every day that much more worth living.

I'm done looking for an escape. I'm done hoping for a future that I cannot promise will happen. I'm ready to live and live my way. Whether it is spending too much on books that I will not be able to read or scrapping my good grades for a happy life, I just need to find me and not some other person's version of me. I'm tired of being in mourning for the life that I should've had. That will never get me anywhere and lifetimes can be wasted away on dreams of what if.

I'm going to let go for once and live because what a lovely adventure life truly can be.

Everyone is a product of the past. The past surrounds us in the way architecture is constructed, words are formed, music is composed, and art is created. Without the past, we would lose an essential part of who and what we are as a society and individually. This doesn't mean that the past dictates our futures but rather that we are the sum of a cultural past that makes us entirely unique. The whole idea of being a product of the Enlightenment versus the Romanticism is baffling when it comes to my personal opinion. We are the sum of all the parts of our past and present. I doubt I would be who I am without both of these eras. But if I based the whole idea on the values of each era, I would be decidedly a product of the Romanticism.

The values I relate to are ones like the adoration towards nature and the natural look of things. I can without a doubt say that one of my favorite places is in the world is a place I have gone camping with my family since I was an infant. There has always been something personal about being in nature and I find a great deal of solace in surrounding myself with it. My elder brother would run off chasing some deer or rabbit that he came across while I was content to lay on a rock and stare up at the tops of the trees, imaging a world of my own.

One of the other things that I found really relatable about Romanticism is the personal nature of religion and the afterlife. I have always been the type of person that believed I would get a better religious experience outside of a church's walls instead of in them. For me, it seems like I can create a better understanding of my place in the whole religious scheme of things on my own because I won't be bogged down by everyone else's experiences that overpower my own. The afterlife is something that I think everyone grapples with at some point in their lives and the idea -- the belief that there is something to look forward to after this is what makes living bearable most days. It's easy to lose hope when you think there is nothing to hope for.

I find myself caught between two eras that have brought about marvelous beauty and wondering whether it matters which one you are a product of. Truthfully, many of the ideals from each era can be found throughout the history of mankind and therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to call us a product of our cultural history? Everything begins somewhere and once it begins, it becomes entwined in every facet of past, present, and future. We are nothing without our pasts for they make us who we are.

^-- Blogging: a demonstration of self expression, which is a product of the Romanticism.

Donatello, born around 1386 in Florence, became well known for creating sculptures that did not need to be supported by an obvious stand which was instead incorporated into the sculpture itself. He is known for works such as St. Mark, Judith and Holofernes, Magdalene Penitent, and of course, David.

Unlike the typical version of David, Donatello asserts his desire to make his statue standout by making it nude -- something which could have been considered controversial. The statue itself shows that artists are not afraid to press the boundaries in society. Of course, it's these choices that often form ideals in later societies.

If you look closely at the feet of this statue, you can see that its support is in fact connected to the helmet/Goliath's head. The ankles of human statues are the weakest point of any sculpture that attempts to recreate the human body. By adding the scenic details which not only add to the story of the sculpture, it also creates the necessary support of this statue and makes it much less obvious than in other statues. It maintains the true art of human body, although perhaps a bit more provocatively than needed.

Michelangelo, born on March 6, 1475 in Caprese, was a man of his time and could be called a Renaissance Man without a doubt in my mind. His works of art are among the most famous in existence, comparable to that of another Renaissance Man, Leonardo Da Vinci. Many of his documents still exist which is another thing he has provided for that age. He is best known for Pieta and David, both sculptures were done before he could've hit a midlife crisis if that tells you anything about his abilities as an artist.

In a feat that even astounds me, he managed to complete this sculpture in what I consider to be a short amount of time: two years. He surged beyond the typical interpretation of the tale of David and Goliath by not capturing the decapitated head of Goliath in his sculpture, instead focusing on David alone. The sculpture is a great example of contrapposto, exploiting both relaxed and tensed parts of the body.

In this example of David, the stand meant to support the weakest point of the statue is plain to see unlike the one that was created by Donatello. Michelangelo uses a tree stump as the stand for the sculpture. I still greatly admire the way that this artist has managed to make his subject appear so lifelike and perfect. Instead of appearing as a forced or stiff position, the subject seems unperturbed by his current position, relaxed enough to appear natural to the human eye.

Bernini, born on December 7, 1598 in Naples, became known as the leading sculpture of his day and was well versed in the baroque technique used in art. He seemed to know how to capture the movement of a person during a narrative, such as the biblical story of David and Goliath, with a shocking amount of realism. It appeared that the statue would surely come to life. He was known for both his paintings and sculptures.

This sculpture of David, instead of remaining static much like its predecessors, interacts with the environment around it, creating a very lifelike sculpture. While others strove to portray him in his moment of victory or preparing for battle, he chose to demonstrate the moment before the victory. He showed his audience the actually story of David casting the stone which would lead to the demise of Goliath. The three-demonstional quality of this David urges the viewers to move about the statue and view it from as many angles as possible. That is the talent of a baroque statue.

Okay, I just have to say one thing that thoroughly surprised me about these artists. The amount of time they took to create these works of art, which would've taken me decades if I attempted, sometimes only took a matter of months or years. To be able to create something so masterful -- so perfect -- truly shows the talent of each artist. I admire them all for various reasons but I have to say that Bernini won me over with his use of movement and the fact that it made me want to see in person just to view it from every angle available.

I chose to watch A Knight's Tale directed by Brian Helgeland for this blog post. It is a show that I have watched since it came out and I've always loved the story that it told. The blend of both historical and modern culture makes it more relatable than perhaps a very accurate portray of the story. It definitely wouldn't have been as intriguing or interesting if it had lacked the modern aspects and it wouldn't have been a good story if it hadn't stayed true to the roots of the story.

It is a tale of a man who desperately wants to be a knight in an era that placed great value on bloodlines and titles. As he succeeds event after event, despite the fact that he is not of royal blood, the truth comes out and destroys the fragile life he had built for himself.

The movie holds true to the belief of feudalism, where the aristocracy held the power and left very little, if any, for those who were deemed peasants because of their lack of titles, land, and royal blood. Much of the plot of the movie is based on the fact that William, the main character, does not have the bloodlines to make him a worthy participant for the jousting tournament. Yet all he wants is the title of a knight and the ability to joust and win the fair Jocelyn's heart. But marriage to a noble does not a knight make and neither does falsified genealogy. So, it is very true to how that era perceived the worth of a person.

Primogeniture and dynamism didn't play a particularly big role in the story, if they played a part at all. I think the reason why those weren't as noticeable or as focused on was because of the heavy focus on feudalism. Primogeniture would've been a hard topic to focus on simply because William was an only child and had little, if not nothing, to gain from the demise of his father. Due to the plot of the movie, it is understandable as to why it didn't play a particularly large role in the show. Dynamism is an interesting idea of the Medieval Era simply because it can be displayed in the simplest of statements or in the largest of gestures. Based on what I viewed from the movie, I didn't see it play any large role in the film.

The doctrine of the original sin actually kind of played a role in the film, at least from my view point. It was the part of the film where William, known as Sir Ulrick by this point, finds himself meeting with the debtors of Geoffrey Chaucer who are religious men. When faced with the amount of debt that Chaucer has accrued through gambling, William asks what would happen to him if he refused to pay of the debts. The one named Simon says, "We, on behalf of the Lord God, would take him of his flesh, so that he may understand that gambling is a sin." The original sin is that flesh is generally a bad thing which is drawn to sin and I guess, rebells against the spirit of God. By taking it out on his flesh, especially in the name of God, his debtors are proclaiming that they will teach him what a sin really is by tormenting that which is drawn toward sin in the first place. 

Religion played a huge role in the different speeches made throughout the movie as well and it seemed like everything was tied to it. Of course, during that era, much was focused on God and religion. That was very true to the era as well.

There was also a lot of the story that clung to the modern day opinions and beliefs of what the era was like or stayed true to our time by keeping somethings similar to everyday life. Things such as the way that Jocelyn dressed, the way she acted, and the way her hair was done was very true to our modern ideals of how a woman should act, dress, or be to appeal to men. 

Behavior was another huge thing that stuck out to me as modern. The way that women seemed to find themselves alone with men, especially Jocelyn, a woman of noble birth. Also the attitudes that seemed to follow most of the women characters who did not hold true to the belief that women should be seen rather than heard that seemed very common in that era. Jobs such as blacksmith were men's work and to see a woman holding that as her lively hood was surprising. Although, I can also see where it could possibly come from. A woman who has lost her husband must maintain income in some way to keep from being sent to the streets for debts that she cannot pay. So I guess I can see why one of the main female characters had that job as well.

The dancing and music was very modern. It was like there was a fine line between what would have been acceptable for that era and what actually happened. The scene of the banquet comes to mind. At first, the music and the dancing is very true to the Medieval Era because it was neither suggestive or obscene. But then the music changed to modern day music and it was like a switch had been flipped. Suddenly the dancing was very modern and would've been typically unacceptable in that sort of venue. So, the dancing for the main part straddled the line between what was acceptable for that era and what is acceptable for ours.

Overall, I think they did a good job for creating a story that typically would've lost a lot of people's interests and making it relatable enough to hold their attention.

It's funny to consider the fact that in modern day, a lot of what our culture is based on is deemed "popular culture" or rather, "low culture". Where everything is so in the moment, it's hard to say whether anything at all will leave a lasting impression on our society. The constant state of mind is the newest, hottest piece of art, literature, or music is the thing that will last in the grand scheme of things. But then we forget the newest and the hottest the moment that it becomes not so new.

Of course, the same thing could be said about Shakespeare's time. He was the popular culture of his era, the one that everybody loved, and yet he has endured longer than those who were deemed "high culture" in his day. In a way, I guess it's all relative to how a person thinks or feels.

I guess because I love reading, it's my favorite pass time, I consider a bunch of different books worthy of remembering but they very well might not be even mentioned as the years continue. For now, based on popular opinion and how long it's lasted, I'll support the "Harry Potter will last forever" campaign. There's the whole other side which is Twilight but let's not get into that.

What makes J.K. Rowling's literature worthy of classifying our time as a society is that although it is full of fantasy, it resonates with many people. The characteristics of the literature such as the characters, the settings, and the circumstances have something that allows even young readers to connect with. It's hard to be able to reach a wide variety of people and have them coming away changed in some way. Just like how the people in Greece connected with the characters and stories in The Illiad and The Odyssey, people from our day find themselves entwined with the characters in a way no other book has. It illustrates good morals such as placing an importance on family, doing what's right, and in the end being obedient when asked to do something. 

The fantasy aspect of the books has little to do with the fact that it should and very well might end up lasting beyond this point. Who knows what the future holds but just based on merit alone, who says it won't last forever?

So as to not feel the horrible burden of time that breaks your back and bends you to the earth, you have to be continually drunk. - Charles Baudelaire

Be drunk on something is what both Baudelaire and the professor, Mark Edmundson, are urging people toward. Their goal is the same, they want people to have passion and teach others to be passionate as well. They don't care what people are drunk on as long as they are drunk.

Passion by definition is a powerful emotion, sometimes barely controllable and can come in a sudden burst of inspiration. Sometimes, it takes a person a lifetime to find something to be drunk on and for some, it can be as fleeting as a winter snow in springtime. Just based on how rare and difficult it is to hold onto, it isn't hard to see that many people lack passion and continually go through the motions of daily life. At the same time, how does one judge what a person can be drunk on? I believe many people are drunk on their family, on their work, and on their life as a whole. Is it hard to believe that people can find passion in even the smallest of places?

The first time, I suppose, that I felt the urge to be drunk on something was when I was eight and at the time, this passion was unattainable. I had been watching a television show and that commercial about the starving children in Africa popped up. Suddenly, I couldn't stop thinking about it. All I wanted was to go there. But how does an eight-year-old convince their parents to let them go to Africa? Well, in case you're wondering, it is not effective in the slightest. Something about it being dangerous.

Ever since then, any time Africa comes up, I immediately pay attention. I still am passionate about going there and being there. I want to be the person that changes those starving children's lives. I want to teach them to read. Of course, having a passion like this does not come without opposition. Anytime I mention it, the response from my parents is that I wouldn't survive there without running water and the food I'm used to. Is it possible that my passion can override my fears? Yes! I am determined to prove them wrong.

So yes, I agree with the professor that passion is hard to see in every day life but it is also hard to find. They both have valid points but I am not afraid to say that I am drunk on life, on books, on art, on serving people.