Surrealism Art Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Surrealism Art - Essay Example The essay "Surrealism Art" states the surrealism movement and art. Artists of the 20th century that actively participated in the surrealist movement included but were not limited to Rene Magritte, Man Ray, and Giorgio de Chirico. The surrealist artists invented techniques which tended to portray the mechanisms of dreams, thus emphasizing upon the theory of liberation through their artwork. Giorgio de Chirico is known as the pioneer of surrealist aesthetic. The surrealist artists gained inspiration from his work and attempted to minimize the role of will and consciousness in the artwork. Potential examples of this include Andre Masson’s automatic drawings, Max Ernst’s use of collage and frottage techniques, and raographs made by Man Ray. Thereafter, oneiric images were made by Dali and Magritte by juxtaposing contrasting elements. The first group of the surrealist artists exhibited their artwork in 1925 in Paris. The exhibitions that were subsequently arranged in London and New York in the year 1936 led to the spread and recognition of the surrealist style of art at a larger scale. An exhibition was arranged in 1937 in Tokyo followed by another in Paris in 1938. The surrealist style of art has influenced the American art a lot. For instance, â€Å"the practice of automatism is one basis for Jackson Pollock's work and for Action Painting, while the Surrealists' interest in objects prefigures Pop Art†. Paintings contain familiar objects that are painted in such a way so as to make them appear strange and unknown.

Differences between male and female leadership

Differences between male and female leadership There are a variety of conflicting views regarding the differences between male and female leadership styles across the world. The researchers have come up with conflicting results and therefore there are two clubs now that project two opposite views. I will go on now to describe the research associated with the topic. Gender Differences are Significant: The first groups of people under discussion are those who believe that gender differences in leadership styles are very significant and obvious. According to Judy B. Rosener, (1995), A professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, the male and female leadership styles are different, as in, the male leaders generally believe in command and control form of leadership where they dictate orders whereas women believe in participative leadership where they are interactive and want to involve all the people around them in their vision and plans. According to Professor Judy, males are usually very keen about status distinctions, competition and hierarchy in general, whereas women are more interested in focusing on proper communication and breaking down hierarchy. Sally Helgesen (1995) in her book the Female Advantage observes that women in general have a behavior pattern that encourages equality among peers. Not letting their role get in the way. Helgesen continues, they seek to empower those around them by being direct and natural in a way that minimizes their own ego and strips them of the trappings of power which emphasizes boundaries and divisions (p.144). Similarly Nancy Badore, Executive Director of Ford Motor Companys Executive Development Center does not mind admitting that she doesnt mind showing that she doesnt know something or being herself. Mostly, men believe that they need to maintain an aura of control and knowledge to seem superior. She on the other hand has no issues admitting that she is human and does not believe that it makes a difference to her perceived respect as and executive. This highlights a key difference in the way men and women think. (Helgesen,1995, p. 151). Diane Lewis (1998) claims women are different as if it were a fact in her book Equal to the Challenge. In her book she claims that women are very different from men in not just the way they look, they are different as people and have entirely different personality traits. They have different attitudes, behaviors and beliefs and these have come into play because of the vast differences in which men and women are raised in society. She says in her book that These internal differences add up to one big external difference. We women often behave in ways contrary to our success, even to our survival, in the world of work because men are naturally competitive and put winning ahead of harmony and are generally comfortable with rules and structure, where as women are naturally inclined to put harmony above all and sometimes will break rules for the purpose of protecting their loved ones. According to (Powell. 1999) Women network; men do not. Women share information; men do not. Women place cooperation above competition; men do not. Women are more concerned with how things are done, with process, than with merely getting things done; they are more concerned with means than with ends. Unlike men, women do not have an instrumental view of work or of the workers. For women leaders, workers are ends in themselves, not means to an end. This, according to Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli in The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence is an advantage as females are more transformational leaders where as men in general are transactional leaders (based on their personality traits) Thus, these researches make the point that women and men are essentially different from one another and therefore have varying leadership styles that in turn effect their advancement up the corporate ladder. No Visible Differences: Then, another group that counters these researchers is the group that claims that there are no significant differences in the way men and women lead people. Epstein (1990) argues that even if women do bring a different set of qualities to the workplace its myopic to say that its only women who possess those set of qualities. It may be true that men in general are lower on levels of empathy as compared to the average woman; however it does not mean that men who are leaders have lesser empathy as compared to women leaders. Similarly, Gary N. Powell (1999) concludes in his research that sex differences are absent in task-oriented behavior, people-oriented behavior, effectiveness ratings of actual managers, and subordinates responses to actual managers (p.165). he also goes on to say that most of the studies conducted about differences in leadership styles among the sexes are basically biased in themselves as they were not conducted in the actual workplace or among people who were actually leaders (after all, gender differences among ordinary people do not necessarily reflect differences in personality traits of actual leaders) Another later research done by Jane Mansbridge (1991), the differences in between the gender leadership styles are just 1/5th of a standard deviation and are small enough to be ignored. She writes in her book that the difference between men and women styles may be much smaller than the differences between managers of small and large companies, of old and new companies, or old and young managers (pp.154-155). These people therefore argue that the claimed differences in male and female leadership styles are basically stereotypical and severe oversimplification of reality based on our own perceived biases. In actuality men and women are not so different in leading styles as they are projected to be. So what is the conclusion of all this research? Unfortunately, the research is inconclusive. It depends according to Captain Willie L. Parker, Jr. on which particular woman and which particular man we are talking about. This is because women and men are extremely broad classifications. They include people from different ages, education backgrounds, social settings they were raised in and different values. There is no one way that we can use a description that fits all the women all across the world. Therefore its when asking ourselves about qualities that define women, its important to ask ourselves which particular woman and which particular man we are talking about.

Reflection on Ethnicity Essays -- Reflection Essay

Our increased mobility has given us greater access to the world and the diverse people that inhabit it. With that mobility comes the shared responsibility to negotiate with people who may initially seem unfamiliar and learn to express the experience. The word â€Å"ethnicity† is used to describe a specific population’s characteristics of fundamental aspects that all humans share. When applied loosely, ethnicity becomes a blanket term to define large populations, undermining the worth and the diversity within that group and emphasizing the differences between cultures. Yet those differences come down to matters of preference and socialization within each culture. The dominant themes that rule human nature persist in every society – wondering where we came from and why we exist, social mores to guide how we relate to people or situations, and primal motivations such as hunger, fear, and a need to be loved and accepted. People communicate with language, have a sense of family structure, practice culinary habits, beliefs, and social values that evolved concurrent with the compounded revisions of a group’s public space and collective perception of reality. Over time, ethnic groups have interacted and negotiated public realms similar to the method each separate population underwent to develop into its present framework. We continue to co-mingle cultures, borrowing tastes that suit our own self-definition and determination. The definition of what is â€Å"right† and what is valued varies fr...

Outbreak and development of The Cold War Essay

The orthodox school sees the Cold War as the product of the aggressive and expansionist foreign policies of USSR. This view has been presented by historians such as W. H .McNeill, H. Feis, and A. Schlesinger. After WW2 a power vacuum was left in a large part of central and Eastern Europe. Stalin took the advantage of this in order to strengthen the Soviet Union and spread communism. In the Yalta conference (Feb 1945), Stalin demanded parts of Poland to be given to USSR. Stalin made a communist government of Poland although there was already a Polish government in UK. This kind of behavior made the West (USA, UK etc) fear that USSR would gain permanent control over Poland. Stalin went even further, in the same year (1945 July~August) Potsdam conference, Stalin wanted parts of Turkey, demanded trusteeship of one of the former Italian colonies in Africa, disabled USA and allies access in areas of Europe occupied by the Red Army, moved the frontier of the USSR westwards and gave Poland lands that the allies didn’t agree. Stalin’s actions and his wants made the West think Stalin was trying to make a huge communist empire. This marked a cooling in relations between the two sides. Between 1945 and 1948 communist regimes were established throughout Eastern Europe (Salami tactics). Albania (1945), Bulgaria (1945), Poland (1947), Hungary (1947), Romania (1945-1947), Czechoslovakia (1948), and East Germany (1949), all these countries went through a different process, but the results were the same. The Red Army retained a presence in much of Eastern Europe during and after this process. A ‘communist zone’ was created in Europe. This was seen as yet another example of Stalin’s expansionist foreign policy. The Berlin blockade could be another example, 24th June 1948; Stalin closed all rail and road links from Berlin to West supplies. The west saw this as an attempt to starve the west out of the city as a prelude to a possible attack on West Germany. It was defeated in 12th may 1949, only by the west’s airlift of all supplies into the western sector of the city. In result, NATO was created in 1949 by the Western Allies as a defensive allianc e against the USSR. March 1946, Churchill’s Fulton speech described the Soviet bloc as an ‘iron  curtain’. Stalin believed this was necessary to maintain the safety of the USSR. The tension worsened all the time. For example, March 1947 Truman Doctrine, The US implemented a policy of ‘containment’ towards the USSR, and this is the evidence of the increased tension between the two superpowers. By the end of 1949, East Europe was in the hands of USSR. The Communist states installed by Stalin were controlled by two organizations. One of them was Cominform (replacement of comintern) coordinated and ensured that communist parties over East Europe prevailed Soviet style communism. The other was Comecon, which coordinated the economies of their communist states. The movement of spreading of communism also started to show in the Far East. The victory of the Chinese communist party and the invasion of South Korea by the communist North Korea were viewed by the West as the evidence that Stalin’s expansionist policies have secured the spreading of communism. Although these actions were reasonable in the Soviet point of view, most of Stalin’s actions were offensive towards the West Alliance in the US point of view. The conflict’s outbreak was in part a consequence of the Western powers’ failure to accommodate Soviet security needs, but this very failure stemmed from Soviet policies. Stalin’s policies were too aggressive in the West point of view, and were unacceptable. Thus the Soviet foreign policies were quite responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative Essay

Kant believed that a moral action is made up of duty and good will. Without duty, an action cannot be morally good. This is how he developed the duty-based Categorical Imperative, also known as moral commands, as a foundation for all other rules and will be true in any circumstance purely based on reason. These tell everyone what to do and don’t depend on anything else, such as personal desires. Within the Categorical Imperative, Kant outlines three important maxims in ‘The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals’ which test how morally acceptable an action is. The first maxim states: â€Å"Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should be a universal law†. This can be interpreted to mean that only do something if it can be universalised and if it’s something that will always be acceptable for anyone to do. If it can’t be universalised then it is not a valid moral rule. To illustrate this, Kant uses the example of suicide, claiming that it is always wrong because it can’t be made a universal law. He asks us to consider if we would want everyone to take their own life in any situation, even if it is to escape a state of suffering and despair. Stealing would also be considered never to be morally acceptable in Kantian Ethics since it cannot be universalised as well. If it was to be universalised, everyone would be stealing from each other, therefore human relationships would fail because trust is the foundation of human relationships. Furthermore, this maxim is important in order for there to be a harmonious society. The second says: â€Å"Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means†. Here, Kant was telling us that we should value every individual and not use anybody to gain something else; he believed that the end can never justify the means. For instance, if you allowed a person to be humiliated to raise money for charity then this would be self-contradictory. While you are trying to do something good, you are devaluing a human being in the process. Devaluing another human being results in inequality because it denies the other person the right to be rational and independent in judging their actions, when in fact they are just as rational as us; this would be making you seem superior to them. Kant says you should always aim to help others, but not at the expense of self-destruction or harm of another person. His last maxim is emphasises on the Kingdom of Ends: â€Å"Act according to the maxims of a member of a merely possible kingdom of ends legislating in it universally†. The kingdom of ends refers to a social state in which all of the members desire the same good. It’s a society where moral laws are designed to achieve and these goods are common ends of humanity. Kant aims to remove all conflict in order for humans to realise their common aims. He believed that most humans are rational people who prefer moral life over immorality. However, this is not achievable in this life but we must attempt regardless. In this maxim, Kant reinforces the concept that everyone should act as if everyone was an ‘end’. According to Kant, every being is autonomous and able to make moral judgements through understanding the principle of pure practical reason then applying this to everyone equally. Anything that goes ignores the dignity of a human being in order to achieve its end is morally wrong because it would be going against the Categorical Imperative, which should be used as a basis for all actions.