John Van Hamersveld Art style Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

John Van Hamersveld Art style - Essay Example In the late 60s, John boosted his portfolio after he assumed the role as an art director at the Capitol Records. This position, gave him an edge in designing more posters for famed musicians (Surfing Heritage & Culture Centre Web). John has designed more than 300 album covers and the most popular ones according to Surfing Heritage & Culture Centre were, â€Å"The Beatles’  Magical Mystery Tour  and  The Rolling Stones’  Exile on Main St† (Web). In the present, embodied legacy of John Van Hamersveld is located in the Coolhouse Studio. John Van Hamersveld has exemplary art works that are likeable. The digital print on the canvas ‘Waiting on the Storm’, of 2009, ‘Johnny Girl’ of 1972, and ‘Pipeline’ on digital print on Vinyl 2009 are the remarkable drawing that the essay will describe. John Van Hemersveld drawing "Waiting for the storm" digital print on canvas 2009 was a classical drawing that I saw. Though the drawing is simple, a person can derive some information from the design. The design emphasizes the ideas that the drawing brings forth in the mind of the viewer. John Van Hemersveld drawing was insightfully done to differentiate the background from the foreground. The foreground print of the drawing has numerous clouds that were blue at the base and white at the top. The blue color in the drawing generally creates a calm and peaceful environment in my mind. The clouds with the blue base was capturing to my eyes. The drawing indicated to me that the storm is not necessarily detrimental as most people think. Hence, the drawing depicts that when I prepare for the storm, the calm moment is likely to be experienced. †Waiting for the storm† by John Van Hemersveld illustrates that a storm can yield time for meditation and a quiet moment of peace. According to the drawing, I learn that my preparation for challenges in life determines the peace I can experience throughout the moment. Typ ically, blue is a color for calmness signifying that in my life I really need to prepare for the storm all round to always have a calm state. Another drawing that also captured my attention was â€Å"Johnny Girl† which was John Van Hemersveld digital print of canvas 1972. The drawing was of John who was all smiles and very happy. Johnny Girl drawing showed a boy who had typically gotten a girlfriend for the first time. Therefore, the drawing depicted Johnny’s achievement, which to him the achievement was something out of the ordinary in his life. Although the drawing may have brought out the feelings a person encounters when in a relationship for the first time, I did not like it at all. The drawing reminded me of my first relationship in High School which did not last for long. The amazing moments I had and the thought of a beautiful future were the ideas going through my mind. Despite the insightfully designed canvas, my past memories were the reason of my dislike fo r the photo. The 2009 Vinyl print of â€Å"Pipeline† drawing was generally amazing. A person who is keen to understand the drawing could only appreciate the remarkable design. I also became a victim of bypassing the drawing because the drawing was not as striking as the drawing of â€Å"Waiting in the Storm.† The â€Å"Pipeline† drawing was showing a sharp wave with high amplitude and a narrow front. The wave looked dangerous than

evilmac Shakespeares Lady Macbeth and Evil :: Macbeth essays

Macbeth: Lady Macbeth and Evil         Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In a play that is abundant in evil occurrences,   Lady Macbeth is the overriding source of evil in   the first act. Lady Macbeth persuades Macbeth to kill Duncan, despite Macbeth listing eight reasons against the murder. When Macbeth is alone, we discover that he is a loyal thane to Duncan, not a murdering savage. When Duncan is in his house at Inverness, Macbeth comes to a decision not to kill Duncan. Lady Macbeth convinces Macbeth, who decided strongly against murdering Duncan, to go ahead with their plan to murder Duncan. Lady Macbeth is very successful at persuading him to do things that he knows are wrong. Macbeth is not an evil person, but when he is allowed to be influenced by Lady Macbeth, he is vulnerable to committing deeds he knows are wrong. Lady Macbeth entirely breaks the stereotype of women being kind and benevolant in the first act. After Macbeth writes home telling of his murderous plans, Lady Macbeth begins talking to evil spirits. Because women often lack the ruthlessness to kill someone, Lady Macbeth asks the spirits to make her male. One of the most vivid descriptions of Lady Macbeth's wickedness is directly after Macbeth announces to her he does not want to kill Duncan.This speech epitomizes Lady Macbeth's evilness. She is ruthless, and her evil accounts for the murders that occur throughout the play Macbeth.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Lady Macbeth is far more savage and ambitious than her husband, yet she convinces Macbeth to commit the murders that will make them king and queen. Macbeth is without his wife's cruel and uncompassionate attitude towards life. Lady Macbeth is aware that her husband is genuinely a gentle person. However, she is able to manipulate Macbeth into committing   evil deeds in order to achieve her desires. Lady Macbeth fears that Macbeth lacks enough courage and killer instinct to murder Duncan. Lady Macbeth might be a more vicious individual, but she is more afraid than Macbeth about killing Duncan. She never mentions herself committing the murder, and she always insists upon Macbeth executing the killing. The opportunity arises for Lady Macbeth to murder Duncan, but she decides not to. This is the first humane feeling that we see from Lady Macbeth in the play. Her desires and inspiration are very strong, but when opportunity presents itself, she can not carry through with the act. Therefore, she uses her husband's vulnerability to persuasion to achieve her dreams.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The relationship between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth is based on political triumphs, not love.Lady Macbeth often accuses her husband of talking but not

I’m the King of the Castle Essay

Qn: In her after word, the writer talks about â€Å"the evil – for I think I evil-of Hooper†. What do you think the novel says about the nature of evil in people? In my perspective, I do not believe that people are born evil. â€Å"Evil† is undisputedly an arbitrary term whereby different people have different scope of what evil is. Susan Hill’s definition of â€Å"evil† is that of Hooper -being sadistic and afflicting harm in others, as seen in Hooper. Yet, I feel that Hill’s definition of â€Å"evil† is rather cynical and biased. Hill should not even relate Hooper to â€Å"evil† in the first place, as the child is still growing up and does not know how to differentiate between good and bad, and the fact that he does not receive any love and care sort of make him an â€Å"emotionless† person. Thus purely describing him as evil is somewhat biased. I think better adjectives to describe him are probably contumacious and unfeeling. In my essay, I’ll first prove that Hooper’s cruelty is due to his lack of fundamental love and care and that it is due to some circumstances that drove him to be who he is. Secondly, I’ll prove that Hooper cannot be really blamed for his evilness, and lastly, I’ll counter opposing arguments put across and further reinforce on my motion. Firstly, the fact that Hooper is cruel cannot be denied. Yet, one must take into consideration that it is the environment and external influences that led him to be evil. Hooper is born into a dysfunctional family. His mother died when he was very young, and that deprived him of mother-love, which is often thought to be very important and influential during a child’s growing phase. In addition, Hooper’s situation is made worse due to lack of father’s care and understanding. Hooper is thus deprived of any love and care, which any other normal child would have gotten. Thus, he could only turn to being evil, probably to attract attention from his only kin, which is his father. Hooper’s hostile attitude towards Kingshaw indeed makes readers feel indignant. However, the crucial point here, which I feel, is why Hooper is so mean towards Kingshaw. It is a fact that all living beings need companionship. Hooper’s cruelty towards Kingshaw could be a way he shows affection. Well, we never know for sure how some people choose to show affection. And cruelty could be how Hooper chooses to show. Furthermore, Hooper has never ever experienced the true feeling of love and care. So most probably, he doesn’t know anything about love. So, that explains why he thinks cruelty is a form of affection. Taking for instance the case of ailing pets. Veterinarians and pet lovers, in a bid to stop their precious pets from suffering more pain, put them to sleep. This, irrefutable, is a cruel thing, but it is a way pet lover show their affection towards their pets. Now, are their actions really evil and inhumane? I, basically, think this action is not a cruel thing, but rather, something piteous as it helps to alleviate the pet’s pain. Basically, this sentence sums up that the fact that I do not believe that people are born evil, but rather it is â€Å"nurture†, rather â€Å"nature†, that turns people evil. In addition, Hooper’s actions, to me, can be justified as being selfish rather than evil. We all know that Hooper is possessive. He wants Warings to himself and does not waste any attempt drive away â€Å"redundant people† living in Warings. His actions are certainly more of Selfishness than Evilness. The fact that Hooper is merely a young child further accentuates and explains why he is so selfish. Afterall, young child are more self-centered and possessive. This can be illustrated by the fact that a young child only accepts their parents’ full, unscattered love and concern, and more often than ever, news of the arrival of another child, only make them fret about the amount on concern they would receive. Thus, Hooper’s selfishness is somehow understandable. On the other side of the coin, Kingshaw is undoubtedly kind. Critics have commented on Kingshaw as having â€Å"natural goodness†. Now, the question is, if people are born evil, then why is Kingshaw still so kind? Kingshaw has been inundated with taunts and torments from Hooper. Yet, there is still this tinge of kindness inside him that made him remain good right from the start, albeit he did harbour some ill intentions of harming Hooper initially (â€Å"had only to move his hand†¦so that he would topple through the well of the staircase†, chapter 2). So, if people were to born evil, then, why is Kingshaw still benevolent? Therefore, my motion, that people are not born evil, is further reinforced here. In conclusion, I’d like to state that it is nurture, not nature, that made Hooper evil, and that people are certainly not born evil. Perhaps one simple analogy one to reinforce my point is that when an adopted child commits a crime, the ones he would blame are definitely his foster parents and not his natural parents. Why? Because it’s nurture rather than nature, that makes one who he is. With this, I end my essay.

Black Environmentalists Making a Difference