Pale sea foam softly laps the waterlogged body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi in an image that crystallized the senseless suffering of thousands of Syrian refugees. Though the photo undoubtedly confronts its global audience with a reality that, oceans away, is easy to passively accept, could a single image really inspire viewers to take progressive action? As ocean levels rise, poverty ravages the third world, and both sexual and racial discrimination run rampant, it seems clear that something needs to be done; however, society seems content to or possibly clueless as to what to do to improve the dire situation. Maybe the answer lies in something that society tends to overlook in an era of technology: the arts. What if we could begin to shape
…show more content…
1), David exhibited another painting that, similarly to “The Oath of the Horatii,” used Roman history to stir revolutionary fervor: “The Lictors Bring Brutus the Bodies of His Sons.” David was originally commissioned by the monarchy to paint Coriolanus, an aristocratic leader, being restrained by his family from betraying Rome but, unannounced to both the government and Academy, he pointedly switched subject matter instead to “the story of [Brutus] whose devotion to Rome and to the cause of the republic was . . . unrelenting” (Crow 462). After expelling the Tarquinians, Brutus, “[the establisher of] the first Roman Republic,” is informed of his sons’, Titus and Tiberius, involvement in a plot to reinstate the monarchy, so Brutus executes them both (“Study for ‘The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons”’ par. 1). In lieu of mounting Revolutionary momentum, the story of Brutus “acquired new . . . political significance,” which made David’s choice to paint it particularly insurgent. Schama theorizes, that the painting created a sense of Revolutionary harmony by depicting the extrusion of stymying forces (492); consequently, David’s painting once again united its audience, only this time, in an outwardly violent and zealous fashion. However, it barely even foreshadows the political fanaticism that eclipsed David’s artwork at the onset of the
1), David exhibited another painting that, similarly to “The Oath of the Horatii,” used Roman history to stir revolutionary fervor: “The Lictors Bring Brutus the Bodies of His Sons.” David was originally commissioned by the monarchy to paint Coriolanus, an aristocratic leader, being restrained by his family from betraying Rome but, unannounced to both the government and Academy, he pointedly switched subject matter instead to “the story of [Brutus] whose devotion to Rome and to the cause of the republic was . . . unrelenting” (Crow 462). After expelling the Tarquinians, Brutus, “[the establisher of] the first Roman Republic,” is informed of his sons’, Titus and Tiberius, involvement in a plot to reinstate the monarchy, so Brutus executes them both (“Study for ‘The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons”’ par. 1). In lieu of mounting Revolutionary momentum, the story of Brutus “acquired new . . . political significance,” which made David’s choice to paint it particularly insurgent. Schama theorizes, that the painting created a sense of Revolutionary harmony by depicting the extrusion of stymying forces (492); consequently, David’s painting once again united its audience, only this time, in an outwardly violent and zealous fashion. However, it barely even foreshadows the political fanaticism that eclipsed David’s artwork at the onset of the