User:Lolakpl/sandbox

How does it come to realise/evaluate the truth? (Architecture and History of Art)
Architecture:

One defines what relates or not Architecture. The main consensus on this subject is that architecture is not only about the construction of a building structure, but also about the artistic creation of what makes up a building (light, interior, technical aspects of access to facilities), as well as the analysis of architectural styles from ancient times studied by anthropologists, archaeologists, historians....

It is subjective to evaluate the visual aspect of architecture, as it relates to tastes towards an architect's own style. We cannot define what is "good" and what is not from this point of view. However, the creation of construction plans requires absolute certainty of the feasibility of an architectural project. A positive truth emerges from the use of mathematics, geometry and engineering to keep the building in place in defined proportions and with these specific materials. Furthermore, the study of architectural theories overtime has developed (with the use of science such as mathematics, physics and later the advent of technologies) that have made it possible to approach old buildings. More knowledge on ancient civilizations and their relationship to architecture have resulted from this. This use of science has allowed the borrowing of styles over time, such as churches in the Roman style during the Renaissance.

History of Art:

As Art History focuses its study on artwork over the millenia, art historians establish theories that stand for truth. They agree on terms and principles that classify and define certain artworks, by finding common points of analysis between them. For instance, the Canon of Art History is one of the most common ways of defining famous artworks across different time period like Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Renaissance... Therefore, a constructivist truth is widespread in this dicipline, it makes certain analytical criteria universal.

The main goal of History of Art is to question the artwork. Each interpretation is different. There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in this discpline as it is defined by its process of understanding a work of art, its features, its message, its techniques. Moreover, what is said to be an artwork by historians has evolved throughout the years, which makes it difficult to come up with an exact definition of Art.

However, the history of art bears some commonly accepted criteria for analysis. Thus, if the substance is subjective, the form of analysis is quite common, and the historian is invited to focus on particular criteria (such as light, color, period, subjetc...).

Thus, what the disicipline evaluates is the work of research and understanding the works. Its purpose is to reveal the truth about these works, but it is in line with the almost impossible nature of explaining a work of art in its entirety.

The purpose of architecture is discussed. Some philosophers (such as Samuel Davies) refute the fact that architecture serves any other purpose than to create practical and useful objects. On the other hand, others say that the creative process of building construction is an art form, with a few exceptions. Similarly, some will see art history as the analysis of human culture through artworks, while others will emphasize a technical approach to the works, where in reality they are interconnected. This discussion highlights the fact that the truth about the purpose of architecture and history of art is not absolute. Therefore, the truth in some of these humanities is more a matter of the philosophy of art and architecture than of the two disiciplines themselves.

Power in Disney: How Disney used and uses cultural appropriaton in their movies, and how it builds Disney's influence.
- Gender studies: Power animation as a male-dominated industry in the 20th century (capitalism --> economics)

- Visual studies/ Film studies: How are cultures represented via animation movies (cliché features of cultures used by Western ppl) "outdated cultural depiction"

- Sociology: gender/race/ethnicity, use of racist images, why was it okay in the 20th century USA to use these images (general opinion and morals), how it increased the power of the US

- Psychology: What image of their own culture is reflected to them, Other bad effects of these depictions: Body image - influences on young girls

- History (especially American Studies): apologising/altering past, accepting past mistakes

- (Public relations?): To what extent is a ‘warning’ effective, what else needs to be done by Disney to reduce the impact of these images

(Possible intro: "That's the power of Magic", Disney Campaign)