How Golding Uses Symbols in Lord of the Flies Essay

William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies (published in 1954) tells the story of a group of boys, who are stranded on an unknown island, when their plane crashes. On the surface, it is an interesting story of how the civilised English boys, during their time on the island, gradually lose their veneer of respectability and â€Å"decent† behaviour and devolve to the basest and barest form of humanity. Eventually, the boys almost entirely shake off the civilisation of the world they once knew. If we scratch beneath that surface, what we find is a much more complicated observation of society, laden with corporeal, philosophical and religious symbols. Indeed, the superb use of symbolism in the book is one of the contributing factors to the profundity of the book. The symbols that stand out the most are the conch; the gradual destruction of the island; Piggy’s spectacles; fire, and how it is used; and the beast, or the Lord of the Flies (another name given to the Devil), the crucial symbol, used throughout the book. All of these will be looked at into more detail, and, also, whether the beast is real or a physical manifestation of the boys’ fears, as well as the key comment that it is the evil which resides within man, will also be discussed. First, is the conch. This is the shell, which is discovered by Ralph and Piggy, and is used to represent power, authority and rules. From the very first time it is mentioned, Golding describes it as: â€Å"pretty and a worthy plaything†. It is, like everything else on the island, a simple and innocent object: and immediately afterwards, it becomes something so precious, due to its apparent beauty. Also, in the beginning, it is a mere utility: Piggy suggests that, when blown, it would be able to â€Å"call† the other boys, scattered around the area of the crash, to have a meeting. The fact that it is used to call already highlights its importance in the book, as it has instant results. The sound is, as Jack later says, like that of a trumpet, using the metaphor of summoning the boys: it has an authority all on its own. By the time of the next meeting, in the afternoon of that same day, Ralph, now elected leader, decides that it will be used during meetings, where only the person with it may speak. â€Å"‘I’ll give the conch to the next person to speak. He can hold it when he’s speaking†¦And he won’t be interrupted. Except by me.'† Rules have been established, and the conch is at the centre if them, so it, now, is the means of putting across one’s feelings and/or ideas. Naturally, everyone agrees, including Jack. Golding puts this into the book, commenting on man’s need for rules within a society, and a code of behaviour, thus demonstrating what the conch symbolises. As well as these, it also symbolises democracy and free speech in our modern society, one of the few positive statements on humanity within the book, in the fact that all the boys are able to say something, as opposed to rule by force, or an autocracy, as demonstrated by Jack’s leadership, later on in the book. By chapter Five, things have already drastically changed among the boys. The threat of the beast has been lurking among them all for some time, now, and it has been left to grow to such an extent, that more and more people are behaving differently towards the island and each other. When Ralph has to call an assembly concerning these issues, he finds it difficult to get anything across, or even to be listened to, without brandishing the conch, or repeatedly reminding them that he has it. This symbolises that the power and authority of the conch is weakening, as the boys are tiring of adhering to the rules. Ralph even comments on this during his speech, when he says: – â€Å"things are breaking up†¦We began well; we were happy. And then-â€Å". It also makes a sly comment on rules and authority among real human societies, saying that we are unable to keep to them because of our nature as â€Å"free† beings, and therefore, the very idea of a rule, something that will confine us, is only temporarily effective, because we just cannot rigidly or lastingly keep to them. Many have argued for and against this theory, and much of it has to do with where we believe our origins as humans lie. For instance, if one believes in the Christian God, they believe that we are the way we are, because of the Original Sin; if Atheist, one may believe in evolution, and that we should, possibly each of us, create our own rules and boundaries, and not let any one person or body decide for us. It is, indeed an interesting debate. The idea of power corrupting, and being corruptible in return, is also evident in the way that Jack speaks out openly against Ralph, repeatedly, either with or without the conch. He even says, during the assembly scene in chapter Five, â€Å"bollocks to the rules!† In chapter Eleven, by which time Jack has succeeded in taking almost complete control over the island, the idea of the conch has become a laughing stock, and it has physically become worn and faded, and less beautiful. Golding shows how everyone, including Ralph and Piggy, regards the conch. Despite them knowing, and seeing in practice, that the conch is virtually useless, Piggy still tells Ralph to call an assembly, and use it, because he is so rule-rigid and loyal to Ralph, that he refuses to undermine him by abandoning the rules; while even Ralph only uses it, under the direction of Piggy: – † ‘†¦You call an assembly, Ralph, we got to decide what to do.’ ‘An assembly for only us?’ ‘It’s all we got†¦Blow the conch,'† This strict allegiance of Piggy’s, even now, to Ralph and the conch proves to be his fatal feature, as, when he, Ralph, Sam and Eric go up to the Castle Rock of Jack’s tribe, among jeers, insults and being ignored, Piggy still says: â€Å"I’ve got the conch!† This annoys Jack and Roger so much, that both he, and the conch, now having â€Å"lost its glow†, are destroyed by the boulder, the conch being: â€Å"exploded into a thousand white fragments and ceas[ing] to exist.† Although there has been no real authority or rules for some time, by now, apart from Jack’s, the end of the conch marks the real end, as even the husk, the last remaining vestige of organisation and rules, has been done away with. The fact that it is destroyed along with its one true follower, and the way that Golding writes it, links it with the idea of a murder: not only of Piggy, but of the conch, itself. Golding cleverly emphasises how insignificant it has become by putting its destruction into half of a sentence, and concentrating on the main part of the event, Piggy’s death. The next symbol to be discussed in the book is that of the island, and its gradual and subsequent ruin. Like the conch, it is a beautiful, peaceful and untouched world, but it is constantly affected by the boys’ actions throughout, even from before the book. From the first paragraph, the site of the crash is referred to as the scar, as if it were an injury to a living being, which, it could be argued, it is. Nevertheless, in chapter One, Golding creates a beautiful image of the island as a whole, using vivid description to emphasise it’s natural beauty, and this is continued right up to the point of the discovery of the conch: â€Å"a great platform of pink granite†; â€Å"a criss-cross pattern of trunks, very convenient to sit on†; â€Å"bright with the efflorescence of tropical weed and coral†; â€Å"a golden light danced and shattered just over his face†; â€Å"the brilliance of the lagoon†. Golding’s intense description of t he lagoon and the watery areas all create the calming effect of water, due to his detailing their appealing aspects. The boys’ initial reactions to it are similar to what the reader should have. They find it amazing and exotic, seeing their whole situation as an adventure, likening it to popular adventure stories, aimed, mainly, at boys, such as Swallows and Amazons, Treasure Island, and Coral Island, which they say. Their excitement overpowers their sense of reality, and the fact that they are alone, without any parents or adults, which piggy reminds them of. But in chapter two, only just after Jack, Ralph and Simon have surveyed the island, and told everyone else how big and beautiful it is, their enthusiasm leads them to make an irreparable mistake. In an attempt to make some sort of signal to the outside world, they start a fire, which subsequently ends up scorching a large chunk of the island’s vegetation. This clearly symbolises man’s effect on the natural world, and how selfish and inconsiderate we have been, in furthering our own society. The excitement and vigour with which the boys readily execute the fire also comments on this: – â€Å"‘A fire! Make a fire!’ At once half the boys were on their feet.† Just like the young and carefree boys, man has created and used industry and technology to advance his own civilization, without the slightest thought for anything else. Already the intrinsic beauty of the island has been permanently tarnished twice. Piggy says, sarcastically, when commenting on the fire: – â€Å"You got your small fire all right.† This theme of the gradual destruction of the island is continued throughout the rest of the book, which charts, in a way, the time and scale of man’s destruction of the Earth. In chapter Six, the mother pig is brutally murdered, meaning that, now, although there will be plenty of meat, there won’t be any new pigs to hunt, when they are all hunted down. And, of course, it all comes to an end, when the fire courses through the island, at the end, in chapter Twelve, finally completely obliterating anything natural, or pure, about the island. â€Å"[Ralph] heard a curious trickling sound†¦as if someone were unwrapping great sheets of cellophane†¦Smoke was seeping through the branches in white and yellow wisps†¦and then the smoke billowed around him.† Concerning the island, and what it represents, Golding has used such vivid imagery in his description, that, when the island is being razed to the ground, the reader is left to feel slightly sorrowful about its end, and it encourages the reader to reflect on what has happened on it ever since the boys arrived. This ties in very well with the religious connection, the island even being described as an â€Å"Eden†: the idea of the Original Sin being the cause of man’s present physical and moral condition. At the beginning, the boys enjoy the island and are treating the whole experience as a great big adventure; after time elapses, and the boys have become afraid of the beast, lurking around the island, their terror and fear causes them to fight back against the island, thus doing things which, though they are not fully aware of it, are ruining their environment. Towards the end, they are conducting an all-out attack on the island, with the beast on it (though, with the leadership of Jack, this is somewhat directed against Ralph). Another distinctive symbol in the book, is Piggy’s spectacles. Not only are these a utility, when being used as the means to start a fire, but they also symbolise more: Piggy’s (or just, on its own) intelligence. It is the only asset that Piggy has over the others on the island, and it also ties in with him, his behaviour, and what they symbolise. Like the conch, and what it symbolises, Piggy holds dear his spectacles: this can be argued as natural, for reality’s sake, but he is not the only boy who has such high esteem for them. Jack seizes them from him twice, and it could be said that Jack only does it partly for their usefulness, partly for what they symbolise (intelligence and foresight), and partly because Jack just hates Piggy and will do anything to cause harm or suffering towards him. When in chapter Four, they are damaged, with one of the lenses being broken, he doesn’t care, as he mimics Piggy’s cry of â€Å"Just you wait.† And, in chapter Ten, Jack behaves triumphantly, when it is revealed that he and a couple of members of his tribe have raided the huts, and stolen Piggy’s spectacles: – â€Å"The chief led them†¦exulting in his achievement†¦From his left hand dangled Piggy’s broken glasses.† This reaffirms how jack abuses intelligence, by stealing the spectacles, and glorifying his triumph. Another clear sign that the glasses represent intelligence is the fact that Piggy, the most rational and scientific boy there, is less confident, without them. In chapter Ten, after the damage, but before the raid, Piggy says, to Ralph: â€Å"‘I only got one eye, now. You ought to know that'†. Despite his reliability, even Ralph is beginning to lose hope in Piggy, his spectacles, and the meaningless conch. Golding makes the glasses now represent hope, or the lack of it. Because Piggy’s sight is dimmer, no one can see a way out of their predicament. This links with what Golding is saying about how man needs rules, with the conch: so, man must also need hope, otherwise, listlessness and hopelessness set in. Therefore, the link between rules and authority, hope, intelligence and foresight, and rationality is strongly emphasised. Golding is saying that we, as â€Å"civilised† humans need all four, which have made up our present society. It’s also telling that their present society is in the middle of a nuclear war, which could be argued as what’s happening on the island, anyway. This is most clearly represented by the fact that, at the end, where the island has been devastated, and the conch, Piggy and the glasses have all been done away with, there is no moral code. The island now mirrors both their and our present society. The next major symbol in the book is the fire, and it has many different uses in the story. In chapter One, the boys have the idea of making a fire, to act as a signal to any passing ships, despite their lack of concern or consideration for the rest of the island, already discussed. But, towards the end of the chapter, the fire is described as being something different: dangerous and destructive, as it burns down a part of the mountain. This is a hint of what is to come, both in terms of the plot, and Golding’s way of using fire to symbolise how destructive humanity can be. â€Å"All at once the lights flickering ahead of him merged together, the roar of the forest rose to thunder and a tall bush directly in his path burst into a great fan-shaped flame†¦the heat beating on his left side and the fire racing forward like a tide.† It is telling, also, to what Golding believes about man’s effect on the earth, as the fire has made the island a hell, compared to the paradise that it was at the beginning. When, in chapter Four, the fire goes out, it symbolises the loss of hope, in Ralph, as he is losing control of Jack and his hunters, and Jack is wresting the boys to his power. This is also where Piggy’s spectacles are damaged, and the chain of events, here, all symbolise the despair that Ralph is beginning to have. It also ties in with chapters Eight and Eleven, where Ralph speaks of Jack â€Å"stealing† the fire, or hope, that was keeping him and the boys sane, and working together. Here Golding’ is making another comment about our society: without hope, there is nothing worth fighting for or bothering with. The boys have become savage over a period of time, during which they were almost rescued, but due to their own selfishness in wanting to enjoy themselves, they have concerned themselves with fun and pleasure, seeing as there is no hope of anything else. And this is where fire, as a symbol, takes on a darker side. In chapter Nine, during the feast, and having used it to cook the meat of the mother-pig (though the utilisation of the fire for cooking the could be a positive thing), the boys dance around it, as if in some ritualistic sacrament: shouting, howling and chanting: – â€Å"Jack leapt on to the sand. ‘Do our dance! Come on! Dance!’ †¦A circling movement developed and a chant†¦the littluns ran and jumped†¦Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky, found themselves eager to take a place in this demented but partly secure society†¦The movement†¦began to beat like a steady pulse†¦There was the throb and stamp of a single organism.† The way that Golding describes it, conjures up the image of the boys transforming, literally, into the very same beast that they are all afraid of. The pace and the language of the words give off a feeling of great tension, signified by the coming storm in the scene. Also, the boys are described as a â€Å"single organism†. Due to the nature the story, Golding deliberately dehumanises the boys, and turns them into a mob, to comment on humanity as it acts in a very closed society. When one looks into human history, it is evident that in any one group, as factions, we have done terrible things to each other and to our environment. Simon’s death, included here, is probably the most lucid example of how destructive human beings are en masse. The final, and most distinctive, symbol to be discussed is that of the beast. This is the most profound icon used by Golding to convey his overall message of the evils within man, and his pessimism towards human nature. The beast is first introduced by one of the littleuns in chapter Two, after Ralph and Jack have explained their situation to the other boys. † ‘He wants to know what you’re going to do about the snake-thing.’†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Now he says it was a beastie'† The idea that the beast is a â€Å"snake-thing† links in with the idea of the Original Sin: the Devil taking the shape of a serpent (snake) to tempt Eve, the â€Å"mother† of humanity, into wrongdoing. As looked at in discussion of the conch, the island, and the fire, we already know that things go wrong on the island, and that Golding attributes this to human nature. The beast, and this idea of it being inescapable represents this. For instance, the different methods by which the boys dream up its presence (from water, air, snake-like) al are natural, or biblical references. Every idea of the form of the beast is a comprehensible, human, one. Also, during the frequent discussions among the boys’ meetings, as the fear of the beast increases among the boys, so, too, does Simon’s understanding. In chapter Five, he says: – â€Å"Maybe there is a beast†¦maybe it’s only us† This shows his comprehension of the idea of something evil and primitive growing within the society of the boys. This is made completely evident in chapter Eight, with his â€Å"conversation† (in actual fact, an epileptic fit) with the beast. Simon is in his â€Å"special place†, originally a peaceful area of contemplation, abused by Jack’s placing the head of the hunted mother pig there, as an offering to the beast. The conversation itself is very insightful towards Golding’s view of humanity and towards what Simon represents, also. The beast, or â€Å"Lord of the Flies†, as it is called, here, mentions Ralph, Jack, and Piggy, hinting at how they each represent an important aspect of human society (leadership, dictatorship, and rationality, respectively – all of the â€Å"secular†, or physical features of humanity). The fact that the pig/beast is named as the Lord of the Flies links in with Golding’s view that it is humanity’s one true fault, that we have it in ourselves to be evil. Man is the beast; it’s simply the evil within the boys that motivates them to think of it. The Lord of the Flies says: – â€Å"You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you?†¦I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are what they are?† Of course, Simon isn’t really talking to the Devil; the fact that it’s all taking place inside his own head highlights that he is merely seeing that this is the darker part of human nature. When Simon then goes up the mountain, to search for the truth about the â€Å"beast† which he, Ralph and Jack â€Å"see†, Golding is showing us that Simon is representative of Christ. He is the one who sees the problem with humanity, right from the beginning. He tries to explain this to his fellow man, and is laughed at about it, and considered to be mad or a fool; he eventually reaches â€Å"enlightenment†, when he finds out the truth (the figure they saw was only the dead body of a parachutist); and when, again, he tries to make this clear to the other boys, he is killed, tragically, during the feast-turned-ritual, while they are out of control: – â€Å"the crowd surged after it, poured down the rock, leapt on to the beast, screamed, struck, bit, tore†¦the tearing of teeth and claws.† Here, again, the boys are described as being the beast. Though extremely graphic and violent (as the death of Jesus was), Golding writes a beautiful aftermath, when describing the body being carried out to sea, paralleling the angelic ascension to heaven of Jesus: – â€Å"The edge of the lagoon became a streak of phosphorescence which advanced minutely†¦The clear water mirrored the clear sky and the angular bright constellations†¦the advancing clearness was full of strange, moonbeam-bodied creatures with fiery eyes.† The way in which Golding has crafted the language to create this imagery, is conjuring up the thought of Simon’s spirit, as it were, drifting up. It also emphasises the idea of the calm after the storm. A storm, during which, dark and violent events have occurred amongst the boys, and on the island. Now, as an irredeemable act has been carried out, Golding helps the reader reflect on this, with the serenity and beauty of the aftermath. As we know, after Simon’s death, everything happens very quickly. Within two days, Jack’s hunters raid Ralph, Piggy, Sam and Eric, and take Piggy’s glasses; Piggy is consciously murdered, in an attempt to retrieve them, and the conch is destroyed with him; Ralph is hunted down like a pig, and the island is destroyed completely by a raging fire, which, ironically, is the beacon that gets them rescued. The beast is Golding’s main device, used to convey this overall theme of the evil within man and his society. Most of the events in the book revolve around it. Ralph, the leader, tries to reassure the boys that it doesn’t exist, while being unsure of that himself; Piggy, the rational scientist, completely denies it’s existence, and pins the boys’ behaviour down to things which he can be certain of; Jack, the dictator, pragmatically uses the beast as fodder for the boys, denying it’s existence at one point, then offering it gifts at others. While Simon, the philosopher, is aware of its true form all along, but is ignored and killed for his speaking out about it. In conclusion, Golding’s exceptionally complex novel is, probably, one of the grimmest, pessimistic, cynical, and yet extremely profound literatures ever written. His view of humanity and human nature is unparalleled in the way he conveys it. Whether it is realistic or not would need another essay to discuss it, but by studying all of his injected symbols, and the different purposes he creates for them, we are given a very vividly bleak image. The conch, a beautiful shell, used for a noble purpose, is abused and ridiculed, eventually unceremoniously destroyed, by which point it is dirty and uncared for. It’s symbolising hope, authority, rules and freedom of speech comments on how we use these ideas today, in our society. The island, a paradise world, untouched and naturally beautiful, is ruined right from the boys’ very entrance, and is progressively destroyed, due to their unconcern for it. This shadows man’s behaviour towards his surroundings and how he has advanced his own race without caution or care for the earth. Piggy’s glasses, rationality and intelligence, cherished by Ralph and Piggy, and abused by Jack, mirror how people have used science and philosophy for their own ends, so as to get away with terrible things. The fire is, at one point, a symbol of hope and rescue; and at other points, it symbolises destruction, danger, and fear. And, of course, the beast: Golding’s main means. The evil within man, and how it is manifest. It is telling, however, that Lord of the Flies is only the first in a series of novels by Golding, used to convey his pessimistic view of humanity. As mentioned, there is so much to say about just the symbols he uses here, that makes this book one of literature’s finest pieces.

Importance of arts Essay

Now we must study the following questions: What significance does art acquire if we assume that our interpretation of it is correct? What is the relation between aesthetic response and all other forms of human behavior? How do we explain the role and importance of art in the general behavioral system of man? There are as many different answers to these questions as there are different ways of evaluating the importance of art. Some believe art is the supreme human activity while others consider it nothing but leisure and fun. The evaluation of art depends directly on the psychological viewpoint from which we approach it. If we want to find out what the relationship between art and life is, if we want to solve the problem of art in terms of applied psychology, we must adopt a valid general theory for solving these problems. The first and most widespread view holds that art infects us with emotions and is therefore based upon contamination. Tolstoy says, â€Å"The activity of art is ba sed on the capacity of people to infect others with their own emotions and to be infected by the emotions of others. †¦ Strong emotions, weak emotions, important emotions, or irrelevant emotions, good emotions or bad emotions – if they contaminate the reader, the spectator, or the listener – become the subject of art. This statement means that since art is but common emotion, there is no substantial difference between an ordinary feeling and a feeling stirred by art. Consequently, art functions simply as a resonator, an amplifier, or a transmitter for the infection of feeling. Art has n6 specific distinction; hence the evaluation of art must proceed from the same criterion which we use to evaluate any feeling. Art may be good or bad if it infects us with good or bad feelings. Art in itself is neither good nor bad; it is a language of feeling which we must evaluate in accordance with what it expresses. Thus, Tolstoy came to the natural conclusion that art must be evaluated from a moral viewpoint; he therefore approved of art that generated good feelings, and objected to art that, from his point of view, represented reprehensible events or actions. Many other critics reached the same conclusions as did Tolstoy and evaluated a work of art on the basis of its obvious content, while praising or condemning the artist accordingly. Like ethics, like aesthetics – this is the slogan of this theory. But Tolstoy soon discovered that his theory failed when he tried to be consistent with his own conclusions. He compared two artistic impressions:  one produced b y a large chorus of peasant women who were celebrating the marriage of his daughter; and the other, by an accomplished musician who played Beethoven’s Sonata. The singing of the peasant women expressed such a feeling of joy, cheerfulness, and liveliness that it infected Tolstoy and he went home in high spirits. According to him, such singing is true art, because it communicates a specific and powerful emotion. Since the second impression involved no such specific emotions, he concluded that Beethoven’s sonata is an unsuccessful artistic attempt which contains no definite emotions and is therefore neither remarkable nor outstanding. This example shows us the absurd conclusions that can be reached if the critical understanding of art is based upon the criterion of its infectiousness. Beethoven’s music incorporates no definite feeling, while the singing of the peasant women has an elementary and contagious gaiety. If this is true, then Yevlakhov is right when he states that â€Å"‘real, true’ art is military or dance music, since it is more catchy.† Tolstoy is consistent in his ideas; beside folk songs, he recognizes only â€Å"marches and dances written by various composers† as works â€Å"that approach the requirements of universal art.† A reviewer of Tolstoy’s article, V. G. Valter, points out that â€Å"if Tolstoy had said that the gaiety of the peasant women put him in a good mood, one could not object to that. It would mean that the language of emotions that expressed itself in their singing (it could well have expressed itself simply in yelling, and most like ly did) infected Tolstoy with their gaiety. But what has this to do with art? Tolstoy does not say whether the women sang well; had they not sung but simply yelled, beating their scythes, their fun and gaiety would have been no less catching, especially on his daughter’s wedding day.† We feel that if we compare an ordinary yell of fear to a powerful novel in terms of their respective infectiousness, the latter will fail the test. Obviously, to understand art we must add something else to simple infectiousness. Art also produces other impressions, and Longinus’ statement, â€Å"You must know that the orator pursues one purpose, and the poet another. The purpose of poetry is trepidation, that of prose is expressivity,† is correct. Tolstoy’s formula failed to account for the trepidation which is the purpose of poetry. But to prove that he is really wrong, we must look at the art of military and dance music and find out whether the true purpose of that art is to infect. Petrazhitskii assumes  that aestheticians are wrong when they claim that the purpose of art is to generate aesthetic emotions only. He feels that art produces general emotions, and that aesthetic emotions are merely decorative. â€Å"For instance, the art of a warlike period in the life of a people has as its main purpose the excitation of heroic-bellicose emotions. Even now, military music is not intended to give the soldiers in the field aesthetic enjoyment, but to excite and enhance their belligerent feelings. The purpose of medieval art (including sculpture and architecture) was to produce lofty religious emotions. Lyric appeals to one aspect of our emotional psyche, satire to another; the same applies to drama, tragedy, and so on †¦ Apart from the fact that military music does not generate bellicose emotions on the battlefield, the question is not properly formulated here. Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii, for example, comes closer to the truth when he says that â€Å"military lyrics and music ‘lift the spirit’ of the army and ‘inspire’ feats of valor and heroic deeds, but neither of them leads directly to bellicose emotions or belligerent affects. On the contrary, they seem to moderate bellicose ardor, calm an excited nervous system, and chase away fear. We can say that lifting morale, calming nerves, and chasing away fear are among the most important practical functions of ‘lyrics’ which result from their psychological nature. It is therefore wrong to think that music can directly cause warlike emotions; more precisely, it gives bellicose emotions an opportunity for expression, but music as such neither causes nor generates them. Something similar happens with erotic poetry, the sole purpose of which, according to Tolstoy, is to excite lust. Anyone who understands the true nature of lyrical emotions knows that Tolstoy is wrong. â€Å"There is no doubt that lyrical emotion has a soothing effect on all other emotions (and affects) to the point that at times it paralyzes them. This is also the effect it has on sexuality with its emotions and affects. Erotic poetry, if it is truly lyrical, is far less suggestive than works of the visual arts in which the problems of love and the notorious sex problem are treated with the purpose of producing a moral reaction. Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii is only partly correct in his assumption that sexual feeling, which is easily excited, is most strongly stirred by images and thoughts, that these images and thoughts are rendered harmless by lyrical emotion, and that mankind is indebted to lyrics, even more than to ethics,  for the taming and restraining of sexual instincts. He underestimates the importance of the other art forms, which he calls figurative, and does not remark that in their case also emotions provoked by images are counteracted by the nonlyrical emotion of art. Thus we see that Tolstoy’s theory does not hold in the domain of the applied arts, where he thought its validity to be absolute. As concerns great art (the art of Beethoven and Shakespeare), Tolstoy himself pointed out that his theory is inapplicable. Art would have a dull and ungrateful task if its only purpose were to infect one or many persons with feelings. If this were so, its significance would be very small, because there would be only a quantitative expansion and no qualitative expansion beyond an individual’s feeling. The miracle of art would then be like the bleak miracle of the Gospel, when five barley loaves and two small fishes fed thousands of people, all of whom ate and were satisfied, and a dozen baskets were filled with the remaining food. This miracle is only quantitative: thousands were fed and were satisfied, but each of them ate only fish and bread. But was this not their daily diet at home, without any miracles? If the only purpose of a tragic poem were to infect us with the author’s sorrow, this would be a very sad situation indeed for art. The miracle of art reminds us much more of another miracle in the Gospel, the transformation of water into wine. Indeed, art’s true nature is that of transubstantiation, something that transcends ordinary feelings; for the fear, pain, or excitement caused by art includes something above and beyond its normal, conventional content. This â€Å"something† overcomes feelings of fear and pain, changes water into wine, and thus fulfills the most important purpose of art. One of the great thinkers said once that art relates to life as wine relates to the grape. With this he meant to say that art takes its material from life, but gives in return something which its material did not contain. Initially, an emotion is individual, and only by means of a work of art does it become s ocial or generalized. But it appears that art by itself contributes nothing to this emotion. It is not clear, then, why art should be viewed as a creative act nor how it differs from an ordinary yell or an orator’s speech. Where is the trepidation of which Longinus spoke, if art is viewed only as an exercise in infectiousness? We realize that science does not simply infect one person or a whole society with thoughts and ideas, any more than technology helps man  to be handy. We can also recognize that art is an expanded â€Å"social feeling† or technique of feelings, as we shall show later. Plekhanov states that the relationship between art and life is extremely complex, and he is right. He quotes Tairfe who investigated the interesting question of why landscape painting evolved only in the city. If art were intended merely to infect us with the feelings that life communicates to us, then landscape painting could not survive in the city. History, however, proves exactly the opposite. Taine writes, â€Å"We have the right to admire landscapes, just as they had the right to be bored by it. For seventeenth-century man there was nothing uglier than a mountain. It aroused in him many unpleasant ideas, because he was as weary of barbarianism as we are weary of civilization. Mountains give us a chance to rest, away from our sidewalks, offices, and shops; we like landscape only for this reason.† 6 Plekhanov points out that art is sometimes not a direct expression of life, but an expression of its antithesis. The idea, of course, is not in the leisure of which Taine speak s, but in a certain antithesis: art releases an aspect of our psyche which finds no expression in our everyday life. We cannot speak of an infection with emotions. The effect of art is obviously much more varied and complex; no matter how we approach art, we always discover that it involves something different from a simple transmission of feelings. Whether or not we agree with Lunacharskii that art is a concentration of life, we must realize that it proceeds from certain live feelings and works upon those feelings, a fact not considered by Tolstoy’s theory. We have seen that this process is a catharsis – the transformation of these feelings into opposite ones and their subsequent resolution. This view of course agrees perfectly with Plekhanov’s principle of antithesis in art. To understand this we must look at the problem of the biological significance of art, and realize that art is not merely a means for infection but something immeasurably more important in itself. In his â€Å"Three Chapters of Historic Poetics,† Veselovskii says that ancient singing and playing were born from a complex need for catharsis; a cho rus sung during hard and exhausting work regulates muscular effort by its rhythm, and apparently aimless play responds to the subconscious requirement of training and regulation of physical or intellectual effort. This is also the requirement of psychophysical catharsis formulated by Aristotle for the drama; it manifests itself in the  unsurpassed mastery of Maori women to shed tears at will, and also in the overwhelming tearfulness of the eighteenth century. The phenomenon is the same; the difference lies only in expression and understanding. We perceive rhythm in poetry as something artistic and forget its primitive psychophysical origins. The best repudiation of the contamination theory is the study of those psychophysical principles on which art is based and the explanation of the biological significance of art. Apparently art releases and processes some extremely complex organismic urges. The best corroboration of our viewpoint can be found in the fact that it agrees with Bucher’s studies on the origins of art and permits us to understand the true role and purpose of art. Bucher established that music and poetry have a common origin in heavy physical labor. Their object was to relax cathartically the tremendous stress created by labor. This is how Bucher formulated the general content of work songs: â€Å"They follow the general trend of work, and signal the beginning of a simultaneous collective effort; they try to incite th e men to work by derision, invective, or reference to the opinion of spectators; they express the thoughts of the workers about labor itself, its course, its gear, and so forth, as well as their joys or sorrows, their complaints about the hardness of the work and the inadequate pay; they address a plea to the owner, the supervisor, or simply to the spectator.† The two elements of art and their resolution are found here. The only peculiarity of these songs is that the feeling of pain and hardship which must be solved by art is an essential part of labor itself. Subsequently, when art detaches itself from labor and begins to exist as an independent activity, it introduces into the work of art the element which was formerly generated by labor: the feelings of pain, torment, and hardship (which require relies are now aroused by art itself, but their nature remains the same. Biicher makes an extremely interesting statement: â€Å"The peoples of antiquity considered song an indispensable accompaniment of hard labor.† From this we realize that song at first organized collective labor, then gave relief and relaxation to painful and tormenting strain. We shall see that art, even in its highest manifestations, completely separate from labor and without any direct connection thereto, has maintained the same functions. It still must systematize, or organize, social feeling and give relief to painful and tormenting strain. Quintilian puts it this way: â€Å"And  it appears as if [music] were given to us by nature in order to make labor bearable. For instance, the rower is inspired by song; it is useful not only where the efforts of many are combined, but also when it is intended to provide rest for an exhausted worker.† Thus art arises originally as a powerful tool in the struggle for existence; the idea of reducing its role to a communication of feeling with no power or control over that feeling, is inadmissible. If the purpose of art, like Tolstoy’s chorus of peasant women, were only to make us gay or sad, it would neither have survived nor have ever acquired its present importance. Nietzsche expresses it well injoyful Wisdom, when he says that rhythm involves inducement and incentive: â€Å"It arouses an irresistible desire to imitate, and not only our legs but our very soul follow the beat. †¦ Was there anything more useful than rhythm for ancient, Superstitious mankind? With its help everything became feasible – work could be performed magically, God could be forced to appear and listen to grievances, the future could be changed and corrected at will, one’s soul could be delivered of any abnormality. Without verse man would be nothing; with it, he almost became God.â €  It is quite interesting to see how Nietzsche explains the way in which art succeeded in acquiring such power over man. â€Å"When the normal mood and harmony of the soul were lost, one had to dance to the song of a bard – this was the prescription of that medicine †¦ First of all, inebriation and uncontrolled affect were pushed to the limit, so that the insane became frenzied, and the avenger became saturated with hatred.† Apparently the possibility of releasing into art powerful passions which cannot find expression in normal, everyday life is the biological basis of art. The purpose of our behavior is to keep our organism in balance with its surroundings. The simpler and more elementary our relations with the environment, the simpler our behavior. The more subtle and complex the interaction between organism and environment, the more devious and intricate the balancing process. Obviously this process cannot continue smoothly toward an equilibrium. There will always be a certain imbalance in favor of the environment or the organism. No machine can work toward equilibrium using all its energy efficiently. There are always states of excitation which cannot result in an efficient use of energy. This is why a need arises from time to time to discharge the unused energy and give it free rein in order to reestablish our equilibrium with the rest of the  world. Orshanskii says that feelings â€Å"are the p luses and minuses of our equilibrium.† These pluses and minuses, these discharges and expenditures of unused energy, are the biological function of art. Looking at a child, it is evident that its possibilities are far greater than actually realized. If a child plays at soldiers, cops and robbers, and so on, this means, according to some, that inside himself he really becomes a soldier or a robber. Sherrington’s principle (the principle of struggle for a common field of action) clearly shows that in our organism the nervous receptor fields exceed many times the executing effector neurons, so that the organism perceives many more stimuli than it can possibly attend to. Our nervous system resembles a railway station into which five tracks lead, but only one track leads out. Of five trains arriving at this station, only one ever manages to leave (and this only after a fierce struggle), while the other four remain stalled. The nervous system reminds us of a battlefield where the struggle never ceases, not even for a single instant, and our behavior is an infinitesimal part of what is really included in the possibilities of our nerv ous system, but cannot find an outlet. In nature the realized and executed part of life is but a minute part of the entire conceivable life Oust as every life born is paid for by millions of unborn ones). Similarly, in our nervous system, the realized part of life is only the smallest part of the real life contained in us. Sherrington likens our nervous system to a funnel with its narrow part turned toward action, and the wider part toward the world. The world pours into man, through the wide opening of the funnel 154), thousands of calls, desires, stimuli, etc. enter, but only an infinitesimal part of them is realized and flows out through the narrowing opening. It is obvious that the unrealized part of life, which has not gone through the narrow opening of our behavior, must be somehow utilized and lived. The organism is in an equilibrium with its environment where balance must be maintained, just as it becomes necessary to open a valve in a kettle in which steam pressure exceeds the strength of the vessel. Apparently art is a psychological means for striking a balance with the environment at critical points of our behavior. Long ago the idea had been expressed that art complements life by expanding its possibilities. Von Lange says, â€Å"There is a sorry resemblance between contemporary civilized man and domestic animals: limitation and monotony. Issuing from the patterns of bourgeois  life and its social forms, these are the main features of the individual existence, which lead everybody, rich and poor, weak and strong, talented and deprived, through an incomplete and imperfect life. It is astonishing how limited is the number of ideas, feelings, and actions that modern man can perform or experience.† Lazurskii holds the same view when he explains the theory of empathy by referring to one of Tolstoy’s novels. â€Å"There is a point in Anna Karenina where Tolstoy tells us that Anna reads a novel and suddenly wants to do what the heroes of that novel do: fight, struggle, win with them, go with the protagonist to his estate, and so on.† Freud shares this opinion and speaks of art as a means of appeasing two inimical principles, the principle of pleasure and that of reality. Insofar as we are talking about the meaning of life, these writers come closer to the truth than those who, like Grant-Allen, assume that â€Å"aesthetics are those emotions which have freed themselves from association with practical interests.† This reminds us of Spencer’s formula: he assumed that â€Å"beautiful is what once was, but no longer is, useful.† Developed to its extreme limits, this viewpoint leads to the theory of games, which is accepted by many philosophers, and g iven its highest expression by Schiller. The one serious objection against it is that, in not recognizing art as a creative act, it tends to reduce it to the biological function of exercising certain organs, a fact of little importance for the adult. Much more convincing are the other theories which consider art an indispensable discharge of nervous energy and a complex method of finding an equilibrium between our organism and the environment in critical instances of our behavior. We resort to art only at critical moments in our life, and therefore can understand why the formula we propose views art as a creative act. If we consider art to be catharsis, it is perfectly clear that it cannot arise where there is nothing but live and vivid feeling. A sincere feeling taken per se cannot create art. It lacks more than technique or mastery, because a feeling expressed by a technique will never generate a lyric poem or a musical composition. To do this we require the creative act of overcoming the feeling, resolving it, conquering it. Only when this act has been performed – then and only then is art born. This is why the perception of art requires creativity: it is not enough to experience sincerely the feeling, or feelings, of the author; it is not enough to understand the structure of the work of art; one must also  creatively overcome one’s own feelings, and find one’s own catharsis; only then will the effect of art be complete. This is why we agree with Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii who says that the purpose of military music is not to arouse bellicose emotions but, by establishing an equilibrium between the organism and the environment at a critical moment for the organism, to discipline and organize its work, provide appropriate relief to its feelings, to chase away fear, and to open the way to courage and valor. Thus, art never directly generates a practical action; it merely prepares the organism for such action. Freud says that a, frightened person is terrified and runs when he sees danger; the useful part of this behavior is that he runs, not that he is frightened. In art, the reverse is true: fear per se is useful. Man’s release per se is useful, because it creates the possibility of appropriate flight or attack. This is where we must consider the economy of our feelings, which Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii describes thus: â€Å"The harmonic rhythm of lyrics creates emotions which differ from the majority of other emotions in that such ‘lyric emotions’ save our psychic energies by putting our ‘psychic household’ into harmonic order.† This is not the same economy of which we talked earlier, it is not an attempt to avoid the output of psychic energies. In this respect art is not subordinated to the principle of the economy of strength; on the contrary, art is an explosive and sudden expenditure of strength, of forces (psychic and otherwise), a discharge of ene rgy. A work of art perceived coldly and prosaically, or processed and treated to be perceived in this way, saves much more energy and force than if it were perceived with the full effect of its artistic form in mind. Although it is an explosive discharge, art does introduce order and harmony into the â€Å"psychic household,† of our feelings. And of course the waste of energy performed by Anna Karenina when she experienced the feelings and emotions of the heroes of the novel she was reading, is a saving of psychic forces if compared to the actual emotion. A more complex and deeper meaning of the principle of economizing emotions will become clearer if we try to understand the social significance of art. Art is the social within us [55], and even if its action is performed by a single individual, it does not mean that its essence is individual. It is quite naive and inappropriate to take the social to be collective, as with a large crowd of persons. The social also exists where there is only one  person with his individual experiences and tribulations. This is why the action of art, when it performs catharsis and pushes into this purifying flame the most intimate and important experiences, emotions, and feelings of the soul, is a social action. But this experience does not happen as described in the theory of contaminati on (where a feeling born in one person infects and contaminates everybody and becomes social), but exactly the other way around. The melting of feelings outside us is performed by the strength of social feeling, which is objectivized, materialized, and projected outside of us, then fixed in external objects of art which have become the tools of society. A fundamental characteristic of man, one that distinguishes him from animals, is that he endures and separates from his body both the apparatus of technology and that of scientific knowledge, which then become the tools of society. Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society which brings the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle of social life. It would be more correct to say that emotion becomes personal when every one of us experiences a work of art; it becomes personal without ceasing to be social. â€Å"Art,† says Guyau, â€Å"is a condensation of reality; it shows us the human machine under high pressure. It tries to show us more life phenomena than we actually experience.† Of course this life, concentrated in art, exerts an effect not only on our emotions but also on our will â€Å"because emotion contains the seed of will.† Guyau correctly attributes a tremendous importance to the role played by art in society. It in troduces the effects of passion, violates inner equilibrium, changes will in a new sense, and stirs feelings, emotions, passions, and vices without which society would remain in an inert and motionless state. It â€Å"pronounces the word we were seeking and vibrates the string which was strained but soundless. A work of art is the center of attraction, as is the active will of a genius: if Napoleon attracts will, Corneille and Victor Hugo do so too, but in a different way. †¦ Who knows the number of crimes instigated by novels describing murders? Who knows the number of divorces resulting from representations of debauchery?† â€Å"Guyau formulates the question in much too primitive a way, because he imagines that art directly causes this or the other emotion. Yet, this never happens. A representation of murder does not cause murder. A scene of debauchery does not inspire divorce; the  relationship between art and life is very complex, and in a very approximate way it can be described as will be shown. Hennequin sees the difference between aesthetic and real emotion in the fact that aesthetic emotion does not immediately express itself in action. He says, however, that if repeated over and over again, these emotions can become the basis for an individual’s behavior; thu s, an individual can be affected by the kind of literature he reads. â€Å"An emotion imparted by a work of art is not capable of expressing itself in immediate actions. In this respect aesthetic feelings differ sharply from actual feelings. But, since they serve an end in themselves, they justify themselves and need not be immediately expressed in any practical activity; aesthetic emotions can, by accumulation and repetition, lead to substantial practical results. These results depend upon the general properties of aesthetic emotion and the particular properties of each of these emotions. Repeated exercises of a specific group of feelings under the effect of invention, imagination, or unreal rnoods or causes that generally cannot result in action do not require active manifestations, and doubtless weaken the property common to all real emotions, that of expression in action. †¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"I Hennequin introduces two very important corrections, but his solution of the problem remains quite primitive. He is correct in saying that aesthetic emotion does not immediately generate action, that it manifests itself in the change of purpose. He is als o correct when he states that aesthetic emotion not only does not generate the actions of which it speaks, but is completely alien to them. On the basis of Guyau’s example, we could say that the reading of novels about murder not only does not incite us to murder, but actually teaches us not to kill; but this point of view of Hennequin’s, although it is more applicable than the former, is quite simple compared with the subtle function assigned to art. As a matter of fact, art performs an extremely complex action with our passions and goes far beyond the limits of these two simplistic alternatives. Andrei Bely says that when we listen to music we feel what giants must have felt. Tostoy masterfully describes this high tension of art in his Kreutzer Sonata: † Do you know the first place? Do you really know it?† he explains. Oh! †¦ A sonata is a frightening thing. Yes, this part, precisely. Music, generally, is a frightening thing. What is it? I don’t understand. What is music? What does it do? And why does it do whatever it does? They say that music elevates our  soul. Rubbish, nonsen se! It does work, it has a terrible effect (I am talking for myself, but it certainly does not lift the soul. It does not lift the soul, nor does it debase it, but it irritates it. How can I put it? Music makes me oblivious of myself; it makes me forget my true position; it transfers me into another position, not mine, not my own: it seems to me, under the effect of music, that I feel what I don’t feel, that I understand what I actually don’t understand, can’t understand. †¦ â€Å"Music immediately, suddenly, transports me into the mood which must have been that of the man who wrote it. I become one with him, and together with him I swing from one mood into another, from one state into another, but why I am doing it, I don’t know. That fellow, for instance, who wrote the Kreutzer Sonata, Beethoven, he knew why he was in that state. That state led him to certain actions, and therefore, for him, that state was sensible. For me, it means nothing, it is completely senseless. And this is why music only irritates and achieves nothing. Well, if I play a military march, the soldiers will march in step, and the music has achieved its purpose; if dance music is played, I dance, and the music achieves its purpose. Or, if Mass is sung and I take communion, well, here too the music has achieved its purpose; otherwise, it is only irritation, and no one knows what to do with this irritation. This is why music occasionally has such a horrible,terrifying effect. In China music is an affair of state, and this is how it should be †¦ â€Å"Otherwise it could be a terrifying tool in the hands of anybody. Take for instance the Kreutzer Sonata. How can one play its presto in a drawing room, amidst ladies in decollete? Play it, and then busy oneself, then eat some ice cream and listen to the latest gossip? No, these things can b e played only in the face of significant, important circumstances, and then it will be necessary to perform certain appropriate acts that fit the music. If it must be played, we must act according to its setting of our mood. Otherwise the incongruity between the place, the time, the waste of energy, and the feelings which do not manifest themselves will have a disastrous effect.† This excerpt from The Kreutzer Sonata tells us quite convincingly of the incomprehensibly frightening effect of music for the average listener. It reveals a new aspect of the aesthetic response and shows that it is not a blank shot, but a response to a work of art, and a new and powerful stimulus for further action. Art requires a reply, it incites  certain actions, and Tolstoy quite correctly compares the effect of Beethoven’s music with that of a dance tune or a march. In the latter case, the excitement created by the music resolves itself in a response, and a feeling of satisfied repose sets in. In the case of Beethoven’s music we are thrown into a state of confusion and anxiety, because the music reveals those urges and desires that can find a resolution only in exceptionally important and heroic actions. When this music is followed by ice cream and gossip amidst ladies in d’collet, we are left in a state of exceptional anxiety, tension, and disarray. But T olstoy’s character makes a mistake when he compares the irritating and stimulating effect of this music to the effect produced by a military march. He does not realize that the effect of music reveals itself much more subtly, by means of hidden shocks, stresses, and deformations of our constitution. It may reveal itself unexpectedly, and in an extraordinary way. But in this description, two points are made with exceptional clarity: First, music incites, excites, and irritates in an indeterminate fashion not connected with any concrete reaction, motion, or action. This is proof that its effect is cathartic, that is, it clears our psyche, reveals and calls to life tremendous energies which were previously inhibited and restrained. This, however is a consequence of art, not its action. Secondly, music has coercive power. Tolstoy suggests that music should be an affair of state. He believes that music is a public affair. One critic pointed out that when we perceive a work a work of art we think that our reaction is strictly personal and associated only with ourselves. We believe that it has nothing to do social psychology. But this is as wrong as the opinion of a person pays taxes and considers this action only from his own viewpoint own, personal budget, without bearing in mind that he participate the huge and complex economy of the state. He does not reflect that by paying taxes he takes part in involved state operations whose existence he does not even suspect. This is why Freud is wrong when he says that man stands face to face with the reality of nature, and that art be derived from the purely biological difference between the principle of enjoyment toward which all our inclinations gravitate, and that of reality which forces us to renounce satisfaction and pleasure. Between man and the outside world there stands the social environment, which in its own way refracts and directs the stimuli acting upon the individual and guides all  the reactions that emanate from the individual. applied psychology it is therefore of immense significance to know I as Tolstoy puts it, music is something awesome and frightening to average listener. If a military march incites soldiers to march proudly in a parade, what exceptional deeds must Beethoven’s music inspire! Let me repeat: music by itself is isolated from our everyday behavior; it does not drive us to do anything, it only creates a vague and enormous desire for some deeds or actions; it op ens the way for the emergence of powerful, hidden forces within us; it acts like an earthquake as it throws open unknown and hidden strata. The view that art returns us to atavism rather than projecting us into the future, is erroneous. Although music does not generate any direct actions, its fundamental effect, the direction it imparts to psychic catharsis, is essential for the kind of forces it will release, what it will release, and what it will push into the background. Art is the organization of our future behavior. It is a requirement that may never be fulfilled but that forces us to strive beyond our life toward all that lies beyond it. We may therefore call art a delayed reaction, because there is always a fairly long period of time between its effect and its execution. This does not mean, however, that the effect of art is mysterious or mystical or that its explanation requires some new concepts different from those which the psychologist sets up when he analyzes common behavior. Art performs with our bodies and through our bodies. It is remarkable that scholars like Rutz and Sievers, who studied perceptual proc esses and not the effects of art, speak of the dependence of aesthetic perception on a specific muscular constitution of the body. Rutz was the first to suggest that any aesthetic effect must be associated with a definite type of muscular constitution. Sievers applied his idea to the contemplation of sculpture. Other scholars mention a connection between the basic organic constitution of the artist and the structure of his works. From the most ancient times, art has always been regarded as a means of education, that is, as a long-range program for changing our behavior and our organism. The subject of this chapter, the significance of applied arts, involves the educational effect of art. Those who see a relationship between pedagogy and art find their view unexpectedly supported by psychological analysis. We can now address ourselves to the last problems on our agenda, those of the practical effect of art on life  and of its educational significance. The educational significance of art and its practical aspects may be divided into two parts. We have first criticism as a fundamental social force, which opens th e way to art, evaluates it, and serves as a transitional mechanism between art and society. From a psychological point of view, the role of criticism is to organize the effects of art. It gives a certain educational direction to these effects, and since by itself it has no power to influence the basic effect of art per se it puts itself between this effect and the actions into which this effect must finally resolve itself. We feet therefore that the real purpose and task of art criticism is different from its conventional one. Its purpose is not to interpret or explain a work of art, nor is its purpose to prepare the spectator or reader for the perception of a work of art. Only half of the task of criticism is aesthetic; the other half is pedagogical and public. The critic approaches the average â€Å"consumer† of art, for instance, Tolstoy’s hero in The Kreutzer Sonata, at the troublesome point when he is under the incomprehensible and frightening spell of the music and does not know what it will release in him. The critic wishes to be the organizing force, but enters the action when art has already had its victory over the human psyche which now seeks impetus and direction for its action. The dualistic nature of criticism obviously entails a dualistic task. The criticism which consciously and intentionally puts art into prose establishes its social root, and determines the social connec tion that exists between art and the general aspects of life. It gathers our conscious forces counteract or, conversely, to cooperate with those impulses which have been generated by a work of art. This criticism leaves the domain of art and enters the sphere of social life, with the sole purpose of guiding the aesthetically aroused forces into socially useful channels. Everyone knows that a work of art affects different people in different ways. Like a knife, or any other tool, art by itself is neither good nor bad. More precisely, it has tremendous potential for either good or evil. It all depends on what use we make of, or what task m sign to, this tool. To repeat a trite example: a knife in the hands surgeon has a value completely different from that of the same knife the hands of a child. But the foregoing is only half the task of criticism. The other half consists in conserving the effect of art as art, and preventing the read spectator from wasting the forces aroused by art by  substituting for its powerful impulses dull, commonplace, rational-moral precepts. Few understand why it is imperative not only to have the effect of art shape and excite the reader or spectator but also to explain art, and to explain it in such a way that the explanation does not fill the emotion. We can readily show that such explanation is indispensable, our behavior is organized according to the principle of unity, which is accomplished mainly by means of our consciousness in which any emotion seeking an outlet must be represented. Otherwise we risk creating a conflict, and the work of art, instead of producing a catharsis, would inflict a wound, and the person experiences what Tolstoy when his heart is filled with a vague, incomprehensible emotion of depression, impotence, and confusion. However, this does not mean that the explanation of art kills the trepidation of poetry mentioned by Longinus, for there are two different levels involved. This second element, the element of conservation of an artistic impression, has always been regarded by theoreticians as decisively important for art criticism but, oddly enough, our critics have always ignored it. Criticism has always approached art as if it were a parliamentary speech or a non-aesthetic fact. It considered its task to be the destruction of the effect of art in order to discover the significance of art. Plekhanov was aware that the search for the sociological equivalent of a work of art is only the first half of the task of criticism. â€Å"This means,† he said when discussing Belinskii, â€Å"that evaluation of the idea of a work of art must be followed by an analysis of its artistic merits. Philosophy did not eliminate aesthetics. On the contrary, it paved the way for it and tried to find a solid basis for it. This must also be said about materialistic criticism. In searching for the social equivalent of a given literary phenomenon, this type of criticism betrays its own nature if it does not understand that we cannot confine ourselves to finding this equivalent, and that sociology must not shut the door to aesthetics but, on the contrary, open it wide. The second action of materialistic criticism must be, as was the case with many critic-idealists, the evaluation of the aesthetic merits of the work under investigation †¦ The determination of the sociological equivalent of a given work of literature would be incomplete and therefore imprecise if the critic failed to appraise its artistic merits. In other words, the first action of materialistic criticism not only does not eliminate the need for  the second action, but requires it as a necessary and indispensable complement.† A similar situation arises with the problem of art in education: the two parts or acts cannot exist independently. Until recently, the public approach to art prevailed in our schools as well as in our criticism. The students learned or memorized incorrect sociological formulas concerning many works of art. â€Å"At the present time,† says Gershenzon, â€Å"pupils are beaten with sticks to learn Pushkin, as if they were cattle herded to the w atering place, and given a chemical dissociation of H20 instead of drinking water.† It would be unfair to conclude with Gershenzon that the system of teaching art in the schools is wrong from beginning to end. In the guise of the history of social thought reflected in literature, our students learned false literature and false sociology. Does this mean that it is possible to teach art outside the sociological context and only on the basis of individual tastes, to jump from concept to concept, from the Iliad to Maiakovskii? Eichenwaid seems to believe this, for he claims that it is impossible as well as unnecessary to teach literature in the schools. â€Å"Should one teach literature?† he asks. â€Å"Literature, like the other arts, is optional. It represents an entertainment of the mind. †¦ Is it necessary that students be taught that Tatiana fell in love with Onegin, or that Lermontov was bored, sad, and unable to love forever?† Eichenwald is of the opinion that it is impossible to teach literature and that it should be taken out of the school curriculum because it requires an act of creativity different from all the other subjects taught at school. But he proceeds from a rather squalid aesthetic, and all his weak spots become obvious when we analyze his basic position, â€Å"Read, enjoy, but can we force people to enjoy?† Of course, if â€Å"to read† means â€Å"to enjoy,† then literature cannot be taught and has no place in the schools (although someone once said that the art of enjoyment could also he taught). A school that eliminates lessons in literature is bound to be a bad school. â€Å"At the present time, explanatory reading has as its main purpose the explanation of the content of what is being read. Under such a system, poetry as such is eliminated from the curriculum. For instance, the difference between a fable by Krylov and its rendition in prose is Completely lost.† From the repudiation of such a position, Gershenzon comes to the conclusion: â€Å"Poetry cannot and must not be a compulsory subject of education; it is time that it again become a guest  from paradise on earth, loved by everyone, as was the case in ancient times. Then it will once again become the true teacher of the masses.† The basic idea here is that poetry is a heavenly guest and it must be made to resume the role it played â€Å"in ancient times.† But Gershenzon does not concern himself with the fact that these ancient times are gone forever, and that nothing in our time plays the same role it played then. He ignores this fact because he believes that art is fundamentally different from all the other activities of man. For him, art is a kind of a mystical or spiritual act that cannot be recreated by studying the forces of the. According to him, poetry cannot be studied scientifically.† One of the greatest mistakes of contemporary culture,† he says, â€Å"application of a scientific or, more precisely, a naturalistic method to the study of poetry.† Thus, what contemporary scholars consider to be the only possible way of solving the riddle of art is for Gershenzon the supreme mistake of contemporary culture. Future studies and investigations are likely to show that the i creating a work of art is not a mystical or divine act of our soul, I real an act as all the other movements of our body, only much complex. We have discovered in the course of our study that a creative act that cannot be recreated by means of purely conscious operations. But, by establishing that the most important elements in art are subconscious or creative, do we automatically eliminate any and all conscious moments and forces? The act of artistic creation cannot be taught. This does not mean, however, that the educator cannot cooper ate in forming it or bringing it about. We penetrate the subconscious through the conscious. We can organize the conscious processes in such a way that they generate subconscious processes, and everyone knows that an act of art includes, as a necessary condition, all preceding acts of rational cognizance, understanding, recognition, association, and so forth. It is wrong to assume that the later subconscious processes do not depend on the direction imparted by us to the conscious processes. By organizing our conscious, which leads us toward art, we insure a priori the success or failure of the work of art. Hence Molozhavy correctly states that the act of art is â€Å"the process of our response to the phenomenon, although it may never have reached the stage of action. This process †¦ widens the scope of our personality, endows it with new possibilities, prepares for the completed response to the phenomenon, that is, behavior, and also has educational  value †¦ Potebnia is wrong to treat the artistic image as a condensation of thought. Both thought and image are a condensation either of the conscious with respect to the phenomenon involved or of the psyche, which issued from a series of positions preparatory to the present position. But this gives us no right to confuse these biological elements, these psychological processes, on the basis of the vague argument that both thought and artistic image are creative acts. On the contrary, we must emphasize all the ir individual peculiarities in order to understand each as a part of the whole. The tremendous strength that arouses emotions, inspires the will, fortifies energy, and pushes us to action lies in the concreteness of the artistic image which is in turn based upon the originality of the psychological path leading to it.† These considerations need one substantial correction if we move from the field of general psychology into child psychology. When we determine the influence exerted by art, we must take into account the specific peculiarities facing one who deals with children. Of course this is a separate field, a separate and independent study, because the domain of child art and the response of children to art is completely different from that of adults. However, we shall say a few brief words on the subject and trace a basic line along which child psychology intersects this field. There are remarkable phenomena in the art of children. First, there is the early presence of a special structure required by art, which points to the fact that for the child there exists a psychological kinship between art and play. â€Å"First of all,† says Biihler, â€Å"is the fact that the child very early adopts the correct structure, which is alien to reality but required by the fairy tale, so that he can concentrate on the exploits of the heroes and follow the changing images. It seems to me that he loses this ability during so me period of his development, but it returns to him in later years. †¦Ã¢â‚¬  Apparently art does not perform the same function in a child as it does in an adult. The best example of this is a child’s drawing which in many cases is on the borderline of artistic creativity. The child does not understand that the structure of a line can directly express the moods and trepidations of the heart and soul. The ability to render the expressions of people and animals in different positions and gestures develops very slowly in a child, for various reasons. The principal one is the fundamental fact that a child draws patterns, not events or phenomena. Some claim the opposite, but they  seem to ignore the simple fact that a child’s drawing is not yet art for the child. His art is unique and different from the art of adults, although the two have one very interesting characteristic in common. It is the most important trait in art and we shall mention it in conclusion. Only recently was it noticed that certain absurdities or amusing nonsense which can be found in nursery rhymes by inverting the most commonplace events play a tremendously important role in child art. Most frequently the required or desired absurdity is achieved in a nursery rhyme by assigni ng certain functions of object A to object B, and vice versa. †¦ â€Å"The hermit asked me how many strawberries grow at the bottom of the ocean. I answered him: ‘As many as there are red herrings in the forest.’ To understand this nursery jingle the child must know the truth about life: herrings exist only in the ocean, and strawberries only in the forest. He begins to look for the absurd only when he is absolutely sure of the facts.† We, too, feel that the statement, that this aspect of child art comes very close to play, is true; as a matter of fact, it gives us a good explanation of the role and the significance of art in a child’s life. â€Å"We still do not quite understand the connection which exists between nursery rhymes and child’s play. †¦ When evaluating books for small children, critics frequently forget to apply the criterion of play. Most folk nursery rhymes do not issue from games but are play, a game in themselves: a play of words, a play of rhythms, sounds; †¦ these muddles always maintain some sort of ideal order. There is system in this folly. By dragging a child into a topsy-turvy world, we help his intellect work, because the child becomes interested in creating such a topsy-turvy world for himself in order to become more effectively the master of the laws governing the real world. These absurdities could be dangerous for a child if they screened out the real interrela tionships between ideas and objects. Instead, they push them to the fore, and emphasize them. They enhance (rather than weaken) the child’s perception of reality.† Here, too, we observe the same phenomenon of the dualism of art. In order to perceive art, we must contemplate simultaneously the true situation of things and their deviation from this situation. We can also observe how an effect of art arises from such a contradictory perception. Since absurdities are tools for the child to use in understanding reality, it becomes suddenly clear why the extreme leftists in art criticism come up with a slogan: art as a method  for building life. They say that art is building life because â€Å"reality is forged from the establishment and destruction of contradictions. When they criticize the idea of art as the cognition of life and advance the idea of a dialectic perception of the world through matter, they reach agreement with the psychological laws of art. â€Å"Art is an original, chiefly emotional †¦ dialectic approach to building life.† Now we can envision the role of art in the future. It is hard to guess what forms this unknown life of the future will take, and it is even harder to guess what place art will take in that future life. One thing is clear, however: arising from reality and reaching toward it, art will be determined by the basic order of the future flow of life. â€Å"In the future,† sa ys Friche, â€Å"the role of art is not likely to change substantially from its present role. Socialist society will not be the antithesis of capitalist society, but its organic continuation.† If we regard art as an embellishment or ornament of life, such a viewpoint is admissible. However, it basically contradicts the psychological laws of art. Psychological investigation reveals that art is the supreme center of biological and social individual processes in society, that it is a method for finding an equilibrium between man and his world, in the most critical and important stages of his life. This view of course completely refutes the approach according to which art is an ornament, and thereby leads us to doubt the correctness of the above statement. Since the future has in store not only a rearrangement of mankind according to new principles, not only the organization of new social and economic processes, but also the â€Å"remolding of man,† there seems hardly any doubt that the role of art will also change. It is hard to imagine the role that art will play in this remolding of man. We do not know which existing but dormant forces in our organisms it will draw upon to form the new man. There is no question, however, that art will have a decisive voice in this process. Without new art there can be no new man. The p ossibilities of the future, for art as well as for life, are inscrutable and unpredictable. As Spinoza said, â€Å"That of which the body is capable has not yet been determined.†

Peace Like a River

You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples. ‘ This is verse 14 from Psalm 77 in the Bible. This verse shows that God is constantly working in people's lives. It also shows us that He wants their faith to grow in Him. The miracles of Reuben continuing to live in spite of hardship, Jeremiah walking on air, and Jeremiah surrendering his life for Reuben are Important In the novel because they help him build his relationship with God. The first miracle Reuben witnesses is during his birth.After not breathing for twelve minutes, his father revives him. This miracle is significant for Reuben because he realizes that God is capable of doing anything. Also, He has something planned for Reuben because he lived and did not die. The miracle of Reuben's birth starts off with an understanding of how God works in mysterious ways. The second miracle Reuben witnesses is when he sees his father actually walk on the air. While he was walking, he was deep in pr ayer. This is Important because Reuben sees his father â€Å"walk on the hand of God†. This miracle shows Reuben that with God, all things are possible.It also pulls him Into a relationship with God. The third and final miracle that Reuben witnesses is the death of his father in a valiant effort to save his life. The miracle is important because Reuben realizes how blessed he is to have a humble, self- sacrificing father who loves him and would do anything for his children. Jeremiah's death symbolizes Christ's death on the cross for us. His love for Reuben represents Jesus' love for everyone. This miracle shows Reuben that even through tragedy; God will always be there and will never leave nor forsake him.Thus, allowing him to grow a close relationship with the Lord. ultimately, miracles are only miracles If they are witnessed. Reuben, the witness, develops an Inseparable relationship with God through the miracles of his birth, his father walking on air, and his father sacrif icing his life for him. Reuben knows that God is always with him because of the many hardships he has been through. This contributes to the meaning of Peace Like a River which Is: there Is more to life than the bad things. Life Is about witnessing to the good things that are more important than the bad things. Peace Like a River You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples. ‘ This is verse 14 from Psalm 77 in the Bible. This verse shows that God is constantly working in people's lives. It also shows us that He wants their faith to grow in Him. The miracles of Reuben continuing to live in spite of hardship, Jeremiah walking on air, and Jeremiah surrendering his life for Reuben are Important In the novel because they help him build his relationship with God. The first miracle Reuben witnesses is during his birth.After not breathing for twelve minutes, his father revives him. This miracle is significant for Reuben because he realizes that God is capable of doing anything. Also, He has something planned for Reuben because he lived and did not die. The miracle of Reuben's birth starts off with an understanding of how God works in mysterious ways. The second miracle Reuben witnesses is when he sees his father actually walk on the air. While he was walking, he was deep in pr ayer. This is Important because Reuben sees his father â€Å"walk on the hand of God†. This miracle shows Reuben that with God, all things are possible.It also pulls him Into a relationship with God. The third and final miracle that Reuben witnesses is the death of his father in a valiant effort to save his life. The miracle is important because Reuben realizes how blessed he is to have a humble, self- sacrificing father who loves him and would do anything for his children. Jeremiah's death symbolizes Christ's death on the cross for us. His love for Reuben represents Jesus' love for everyone. This miracle shows Reuben that even through tragedy; God will always be there and will never leave nor forsake him.Thus, allowing him to grow a close relationship with the Lord. ultimately, miracles are only miracles If they are witnessed. Reuben, the witness, develops an Inseparable relationship with God through the miracles of his birth, his father walking on air, and his father sacrif icing his life for him. Reuben knows that God is always with him because of the many hardships he has been through. This contributes to the meaning of Peace Like a River which Is: there Is more to life than the bad things. Life Is about witnessing to the good things that are more important than the bad things.

To what extent is it possible you justify any type of censorship in Essay

To what extent is it possible you justify any type of censorship in the creative media world within democracy - Essay Example According to Kieran (1997), censorship is the limitation of expression for the sole intention of shielding people from themselves by selectively limiting access to a variety of ideas deemed to be harmful by some authority. Such ideas are perceived harmful, objectionable, or sensitive. Censorship is common in any country – authoritarian, democratic, dictatorial or otherwise. Though political diversity has brought about some freedom, censorship, especially in the creative media is still prevalent in nearly all the countries of the world. The justification of censorship in the creative media is a subject of debate. Some countries, especially the undemocratic countries, are often high-handed in implementing censorship in the creative media to an extent of crushing some basic individual rights. This shall be discussed elsewhere in this essay, but first lets start with the justification debate. First, according to Kieran (1997), censorship in the creative media is a necessity to manage the spectrum of thought, and prevent any kind of dissent against the practice. Some programs may be fit to be viewed by adults, but have long-term negative effects on juniors. In such an instance, censorship of such materials would do more good than harm, thus justifying its practice. In democratic institutions, civil liberties must be rooted in the freedom of speech and expression. Infact, one of the essential foundation stones of a democratic society is freedom of expression. The freedom of information and expression must be entrenched and guaranteed in the constitution. In a democratic society, the media must be let free to publish, and the public must be let free to receive the information and the opinions. This is an individual entitlement. In essence, for individuals to be autonomous and have a sense of self-fulfillment, they must be free to receive and impart ideas and information. Freedom of expression is also beneficial in society in that it promotes debate,

Personal Statement for admission of University majoring in Psychology

For admission of University majoring in Psychology - Personal Statement Example I am particularly interested in enrolling for a Bachelor of Psychology Degree Program as I have a persuasion that it will give me the privilege of not only meeting my academic objectives, but also fulfilling my mission in life – I long to play a part in healing and building the society as well as my life and family. I developed this interest during my undergraduate studies at Irvine Valley College where I pursued an Associate Science Degree. I was first drawn into Psychology when I took a class of Introduction to here in this College. I must confess that my teacher was encouraging, and advised me to continue with this subject. I developed a great interest in comprehending the human mind and particularly the way it works. Principally, I was trying to understand my past and myself – I realized that philosophy was helping me to unravel the mysteries of my childhood. The memories of my childhood and all I went through in and with my family are still vivid. When I was six years old, my family escaped Vietnam, following which we were always on the run and hiding. Actually, it took more than several attempts. First, the harsh and corrupt communist police captured and jailed us, then robbed and starved us. After having tried many times to leave Vietnam, we ultimately managed by means of a hand-made wooden boat with a portable engine. As we sailed, the waters were full of danger; drowned dead bodies of many whose escape attempts in the previous days failed were floating all over. After several days of misguided directions, without any knowledge of whether we were heading to open seas or back to where we had come from; after surviving stormy weathers over and above sea pirates overlooking us, we approached an American oilrig. The people we met there took us in and gave us food and warm bath. Then, they transferred us to a Malaysian Island refugee camp. Although life was hard, we were happy and we did whatever it took to survive. We learned how to make a

Theology and Philosophy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Theology and Philosophy - Essay Example This approach emphasizes that belief in existence of god relates to the self-interest of people, rather than their faith in the god’s existence. This approach is supported by the argument that believing in god’s existence will mean being rewarded in heaven. However, if god does not exist, then only loss that people can have is the absence of this reward. Similarly, god’s existence would mean, for non-believers, going to hell and receiving infinite punishment. However, if god does not exist, it means no change in their condition. Pascal’s Wager is a better argument as it clearly defines the reason as self-interest of people to believe in god’s existence, while ontological argument is based on abstract reasoning only. (Arguments, nd) Natural theology and philosophy cannot be different, when discussing about the personal beliefs. For example, natural disasters such as the recent Nepal earthquake and Asian Tsunami reaffirm the belief that god exists. However, rational thinkers and philosophers provide scientific evidence for such happenings. The timing of these disasters cannot find any support from philosophical reasoning. Hindus and Buddhist have strong faith that the god is creator, destroyer and responsible for recreation as well.(Burke, 2015) When discussing about natural theology and philosophy, rational thinkers cannot deny about the existence of god, as the plain proofs such as above are sufficient to convince them. As human beings begin to ponder on the issues involving life and death, they realize that people are obliged to remain obedient to the god’s commands. However, these aspects of natural theology find scientific support from philosophy in establishing that the events or situations created by god can be scientifically explained and justified, as is evident in the Nepal’s earthquake. This affirms the existence of god, which is supported by the

Othello's tragic Flaw Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Othello's tragic Flaw - Essay Example The jealousy he feels makes him insane, and he fails to look for solid reasons. It seems that it is Brabantio’s warning â€Å"Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see†¦She has deceived her father, and may thee† (Act I, Scene 3) that makes Iago realize the possibility of great revenge. As Othello says â€Å"My life upon her faith; Honest Iago† (Act I, Scene 3), Iago becomes almost certain about the outcome. It is very evident that even this declaration adds to the basic jealous nature of Othello. As Iago develops his plan, this jealousy grows deeper and deeper. Though Othello continuously goes on denying his growing jealousy, mere hints from the part of Iago make him say that â€Å"No Iago†¦I’ll see before I doubt†¦when I doubt, prove†¦and on the proof, there is no more but this, †¦away at once with love or jealousy† (Act III, Scene 3). At this point, jealousy overcomes him with such a force that he delves into a fit of ep ilepsy. Soon, one can see a conversion of his jealousy into anger as he says â€Å"Arise, black vengeance, from thy hollow cell! Yield up, O love, thy crown and hearted throne, to tyrannous hate!† Soon, he accuses Desdemona of infidelity. Though she denies it, his mind is unchangeable. As Emilia points out â€Å"But jealous souls will not be answered so; they are not ever jealous for the cause, But jealous for they are jealous: ‘tis a monster Begot upon itself, born on itself† (Act III, Scene 4). Soon, Othello decides to kill her saying â€Å"let her rot, and perish, and be damned to-night, for she shall not live: no, my heart is turned to stone† (Act IV, Scene 1). However, Emilia’s statement that Desdemona is honest makes Othello confused. He seems a man too confused to think rationally as he attempts to get any proof. Through Iago’s brainwashing, he seems more eager to find fault in Desdemona than to prove her innocence. Despite her repeate d question â€Å"what ignorant sin have I committed?† (Act IV, Scene 2), he goes on blaming her. Sooner, he kills Desdemona. The play reveals the power of jealousy. Iago is driven by Jealousy. In other words, it is jealously that makes Iago develop the plot to devastate Othello. Again, he uses the same element of jealousy in Othello to bring his idea into practice. It is this content of jealousy that makes Othello feel violated and betrayed. When one feels betrayed, there are two possible outcomes; either the person turns revengeful or the person becomes depressed. In the case of Othello, he has the power to implement what he wants to do. In addition, he is a man who believes in righteousness. So, as a warrior, he is not ready to given in. Instead, he decides to do justice in his own way. It seems that Shakespeare presents the tragic hero Othello with a number of personality defects, or, indeed as a representative of a common human being who is ruled by feelings of insecurity , jealousy, hate, and revenge. The entire play is driven by the fact that he shows blind faith in the loyalty of Iago who is the real villain. However, it is rather surprising to note that he fails to show the same level of blind faith in Desdemona. Here, it becomes evident that when it comes to the matter of Desdemona, he is influenced by other factors too. He is influenced by a number of feelings at the same time. The strongest ones are his love for Desdemona. However, as time passes, jealousy gains upper hand. Soon, it gets

Financial Research Report for Ford Motor Company Paper

Financial Report for Ford Motor Company - Research Paper Example The company, at present, is one of the biggest producers of cars and trucks at a global level. The different brands of Ford Company vehicles include Ford, Lincoln, Mercury and its redesigned Ford Mustang and the F-Series pickup which have been very successful. The company also possesses interest in Mazda and commands the Volvo nameplate. Ford Motor Company has 95 plants spread throughout the world with 41 distribution centers and warehouses. It also has 50 engineering, research and development centers. The company carries its operations under the two sections namely, Automotive and Financial Services. For the year ended on December 31, 2008, Ford traded the ACH glass business to Zeledyne, LLC. The Nashville, Tulsa, and VidrioCar plants were also included in this sale. In the year 2008, Ford and its subsidiary, the Volvo Car Corporation sold the Thai-Swedish Assembly Group to Volvo Holding Sverige, AB. The company was able to acquire 72.4% of the shares of S.C. Automobile Craiova SA in March 2008. The sale of the company's Jaguar and Land Rover operations to Tata Motors Limited took place in June 2008. The share value of Ford has reached $1.56. Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader told the Fox News Sunday that he expects that the plans of the companies will win governmental aid. However, its accountability and feasibility are yet to be seen in the long run. But the Republican leader Mr. John Boehner was sceptical about these plans. He remarked that it was a matter of convincing the American tax payers that the government was financing a viable corporation. The following is the stock activity of the company: Stock Activity Last Price 6.11 52 Week High 6.75 52 Week Low 1.01 Volume 54.58 Mil Average Daily Volume (13wk) 102.05 Mil 50 Day Moving Average 5.19 200 Day Moving Average 3.31 Volatility (beta) 2.55 F Intraday Chart 5d 1m 3m 1y 3y 5y 10y Beta 2.55 Dividend & Yield NA Earnings/Share -7.03 Forward P/E -15.28 Market Cap. 19.39 Bil P/E -0.86 Return on Equity NA Total Shares Out. 3.17 Bil Financial data in U.S. dollars (Source: http://moneycentral.msn.com /detail/stock_ quote'Symbol=F, retrieved on 14th June, 2009) Ford Motor must strive hard to find out new strategies to make the company progressive. That is what the Democrats told the executives of the major three companies last week, when they sought an emergency financial aid of $25 billion. They were told by the Democratic leaders to submit new proposals with bailout plans to Congress on 2nd December. On getting the proposals they would hold hearings for voting on it the next week. Stock Charts (2009-06-14) Ford Motor The companies have to prepare a plan as to how the governmental loans will be utilised and period for which the financial loans are required. In order to get these loans the companies must forego the payment of dividends and the huge amount of executive compensation. (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market- dispatches-112408.aspx, retrieved on 14th June, 2009) Ratio analysis Gross Profit Margin 19.4% EBIT Margin -5.1% EBITDA Margin 4.4% Pre-Tax Profit Margin -12.8% Current Ratio 2.4 Quick Ratio 1.9 Receivables Turnover 1.2 Inventory Turnover 11.2 Asset Turnover 0.5 Revenue to Assets