In this blog you are to comment on one or more of the assigned articles in relation with any of the topics touched on in the lecture PDFs every week. Your posts should be brief (150 words or the equivalent to 1 paragraph) and, most importantly, a reflection of your preparation for class.
Sec 1C - Week 8
The Napoleonic Invasion, 19th Century Civil Wars and Portugal
This week, I was particularly intrigued by Spain’s tumultuous relationship with France. I was shocked to learn that Guerilla tactics were first used by the Spanish against the French during the Napoleonic Wars. I had always associated Guerilla warfare with more recent conflicts like the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War. After reading the article, I learned that not only were Guerrilla tactics used in the Napoleonic Wars, but that they were also essential in limiting French dominance in Europe. Although Spaniards knew they could never defeat the French Army in a conventional war, by using unconventional methods, they were able to surprise their enemies and keep them from focusing their attention on other important matters. Napoleon did not anticipate the strong will of the Spanish people to resist foreign invasion and was forced to increase his initial force of 50,000 men to 80,000 in 1808. Because the French were preoccupied in the Iberian Peninsula, Great Britain remained dominant on the seas. Furthermore, France’s invasion of Spain limited their ability to make war and ended up being more trouble that it was worth.
It’s quite intriguing that one of the articles goes into depth with Francisco de Goya because in lecture, he was the topic that caught my eye. Before his accident, he offered an optimistic view but the accident made him quite bitter and his work then became very negative and black. The before and after works, of Goya, have a huge contrast. They differ in design, color, and even in the titles. His black painting was the weirdest, says Torrecilla but the article mentions that his work “heightens the believability of Goya’s imagination.” I believe Goya to be different and interesting. I really like his work. On another note, I started watching the video on the majesty of Madrid and the part that caught my eye was the flamingo dancer. She matched the stereotype of Madrid because she was dancing the flamingo and she was wearing the color red. Of course she caught my eye because I’m a dancer as well. But any who, she represented Spain’s stereotype which connects to the article about Spain and Portugal being one someday. I honestly don’t think that’ll happen, no matter how powerful Spain is, because Portugal has held its ground for this long already.
Spanish 42: Blog Post Week 8 In lecture this week, we took an in-depth look at Francisco de Goya and his life as an artist during the 18th century. Born in Aragon, Goya was considered to be one of the most promising artists of all times (even dubbed the “Father of Modern Art”). Furthermore, Goya painted in the late 1780s and early 1790s, revolutionizing the tapestry industry and illustrating views of daily Spanish life. Though life in Spain during the late 18th century was not considered to be necessarily favorable (constant warfare after the reign of Charles IV), it is expressed that he offered a very optimistic view of Spanish life, where he captured very gracious moments using warm colors in his tapestry cartoons. However, after falling ill and ultimately becoming deaf, Goya completely changed the content of his art. As opposed to illustrating warm, happy Spanish settings, Goya started a period in which ruled his “black paintings.” Capturing the horrors of constant warfare, illustrating weird macabre creatures, and capturing the bestiality of human behavior, Goya’s paintings were considered to be some of the most horrifying and odd pictures that had ever been painted. Relative to this week’s article entitled “Master of the Macabre” by Lucy Li, we are exposed to a lot more information regarding the “devastating illustrations of the instability and cruelty of Spanish society.” Moreover, it is interesting to point out that despite the fact that Goya’s paintings changed dramatically after he became deaf and moved to France, Lucy Li states that his paintings are in actuality on-point with what was occurring during the French occupation of the kingdom of Spain—which could have been an influential factor for such content. The painting that really caught my eye during lecture was entitled Saturn Devouring His Children (1820-23). Since this painting illustrates a very odd-looking, human-like beast decapitating a little child with his mouth, I found it incredibly disturbing and hard not to question Goya’s mental state when he painted this particular piece. In essence, while this piece may be conspicuously upsetting, I now ponder whether the distressing content depicted in his paintings during the latter part of his career serves as an allegory to the tumultuous period of both his personal life and the political environment of the Iberian Peninsula during the late 18th century. Jose Alberto Rojas
I was very captivated by the video of Madrid. The history and grandeur of the capital city is amazing. When I was there 3 years ago, I noticed that everything was organized to promote a friendly, social atmosphere, as Rick highlighted. The open plazas and the Royal Palace demonstrate this attempt. Madrid tells the history of Spain as a majestic empire that once dominated both hemispheres. The rug (of the 2 conjoined worlds) they showed in the Royal palace is a perfect representation of Spain's power during the 16th-17th centuries. Spain was the first "global empire" and it's influences were spread through all regions of the world. Another thing that caught my attention was the various "stereotypical" activities that Rick highlighted. In the Plaza Mayor, he watched flamenco dancers dance with passion and pride of their nation. We learned in lecture that the Flamenco dancer was a representation of "true Spanish" during the times of French influence. This reversed influence carried over into Spain's image today, where emblems of passion and authenticity define the fierce and traditional society. Another aspect of Spanish culture that represents a "true Spain" is the practice of bullfighting as an art-form. Rick ventures into a "Bull Bar" that honors the most prominent and winningest matadors in Spanish history. The tour guide believes that bullfighting isn't defined by the cruelty towards the bull, but by the beauty and richness of tradition it plays in Spain. Bullfighting is just another way that Spain resisted French influence. The brutality was seen as primitive and beastly by Europeans, so to spite these outsiders, the Spanish decided to glorify the sport as a national pastime. One thing that really stood out to me was that the Royal palace was called "Philip V's Versailles", a very French landmark. The French Bourbons established their dynasty in Spain during the 1700s but were met with much opposition. However, this palace was glorified as a symbol of power, heavily dominated by French influence. And even today, this palace stands as another "Versailles" which is ironic since the Spaniards tried to resist all things French during the Bourbon dynasty. It is living proof that, despite the Spanish resistance of the French, France had an outstanding influence on their "enemy."
I want to talk about the article on how the Nobel laureate poet for Portugal, Jose Saramago, has claimed that Portugal and Spain will not only benefit from a union, but will "inevitabl[y]" combine their nations to create a united Iberian Peninsula one day. This really interested me because throughout the first half of the quarter, Professor Torrecilla has talked about how the Iberian peninsula was settled and how "Spain" (today) has gone through Romanization, Gothic rule, Muslim and Catholic rule to become "Spain" today. However, I always wonder why Portugal is its own country today since it appears that Spain itself is already a giant mezcla of the cultures and religions of the various conquerors who have overtaken Spain throughout the years. Why did Portugal not want to be part of Spain? And furthermore, why are people so passionately anti-unionization of Spain and Portugal? Reading this article really gave me a sense that Portugal is fiercely independent, according to the statistics that they cited (only a very low 28% of Portuguese people want to unite with Spain). Why don't the other 72% want to unite, especially because such an action--as Saramago said--would only serve to bring positive benefits to the political and economical infrastructure of the nations? This was something I did not know before and it makes me very curious to find out what Professor Torrecilla has to say in lecture.
The article that I found the most interesting this week was the article about uniting Spain and Portugal. I think that with more authors talking about the unity of Spain and Portugal more people will support the unity. If there is already a 28% of Portuguese allow the union and another 45% of Spaniards support the union it would be a good idea. If there are good economic benefits for both then why not? I think that the only problem here would be the rest of the people that don't want the union. I remember professor Torrecilla mentioned in one of the lectures that there was no real logical reason why the peninsula was split into two countries if the "shared the same rivers and mountains." Another interesting point in this week's material are the Goya's paintings. For me his paintings were very dark, and as professor Torecilla mentioned and the article says were influenced by the Age-of-Reason. I like how in the article about his paintings the author explains every detail of the painting. Lastly, about the guerillas, I had no idea that was the way how the Spanish were fighting the french, even though they were not completely successful they helped. Something that never came to my mind was how did the Spanish loose all the territory in the Americas but now it all makes sense after reading the article about the independence of America. The Spanish were just to busy and were to weak to this point to be fighting more people over seas.
This weeks lecture on Monday was really interesting to me because we saw how Spain Colonial Empire power diminished due to the lack of unity as a whole and the lack of a good ruler. As we learned, Charles III was a experienced ruler and supported the enlightened despotism, which was a type fo govt that wanted to reform Spain and modernize it. However, when Charles III son Charles IV became rules, Spain took a turn downward. As stated in the article of this week, " Latin America: causes of independence", they state that , "Charles IV was weak and indecisive and mostly occupied himself with hunting, allowing his ministers to run the Empire". Charles IV was not a good rules and as stated in lecture, radically changed the progressive orientation of his father, he lacked political aptitude, was affected by the affairs his wife was having and the development of French revolutions were all the negative factors that contributed to the Spanish colonial empire weakening. Therefore, I am not surprised how Napoleon from France took advantage during the reign of Charles IV, because he knew Spain was not at its strongest point, thus could be easily overpowered. A weak spain meant that the French took over and would be the ones in charge of modernizing Spain based on the Enlightened ideals. In my opinion, I support the war of independence in the sense that the French did Spain a favor in taking over because Spain was not progressing with such a weak rules, Charles IV, thus they needed a fresh new start with rulers who would make a change and continue the prosperity of Spain .
Out of all this week’s articles, one that caught my attention was Lucy Li’s “Master of the Macabre” about Francisco Goya, “The Father of Modern Art.” Francisco Goya was truly an amazing painter and I can see why he set the pattern for the art of the 19th century towards realism. On one hand he was able to paint the positive view of 18th century Spain, and in the other hand “…created devastating illustrations of the instability and cruelty of Spanish society.” His paintings “The Disasters of War,” “The Second of May, 1808,” and “The Third of May, 1808” about the Napoleonic War clearly illustrated how truly war was where there were only assassins and victims. Through his paintings he was able to document what was really going on in Spain during the Napoleonic invasion and change the way paintings were used. The other article that interested me was Giles Tremlet’s “Portugal and Spain Will Be One, Says Nobel Author.” Although according to the article, Nobel laureate Jose Saramago says Spain will eventually swallow up Portugal, I think it will not. Even though Spain has the majority of the Iberian Peninsula I think both countries are better off on their own. Jose Saramago says that Portugal would not lose anything from the integration of both countries but despite this, a poll revealed that only 28% of Portuguese countrymen were in favor of the union. Similarly in Spain another poll revealed 45% of the population would accept the unification but only under certain conditions. These polls indicate that the majority in both countries is not in favor of this coming together so why create conflicts when they can be avoided, it is better to leave things as they are.
The article I found the most interesting this week is “Portugal and Spain will be one, says Nobel author” by Giles Tremlett.” He argues that in the future Spain and Portugal will be one. He believes the union would actually beneficial to both countries. He also argued that the Portuguese would retain their language and culture. I found this article interesting because I had never thought about that, even though we learned in class that Portugal and Spain had almost the same history up until the 16th and 17th centuries. After learning about Portugal during this class and especially during today’s lecture, I do not think this will happen. It seems like the Portuguese have very strong patriotism. The poll in this article showed that the Portuguese people consider the day they regained independence from Spain the second most important date in their history. They are obviously happy to be independent. What makes me think that this might be a possibility is recalling the article from a couple weeks ago that stated that Spain is declining in power and prestige. I also read an article in a different class that stated that Spain currently has a very high unemployment rate. It seems to be that both Spain and Portugal aren’t doing that great in today’s day. The question would then be if two struggling countries would benefit from being together or just be a bigger struggling country. I would be very interested to see what Spaniards think about this.
This week’s lecture discussion of Portugal had an interesting tie to the article “Portugal and Spain Will be One, Says Nobel Author.” In regards to the lecture discussion of Portugal’s history and culture during the 18th and 19th Centuries, I was surprised to find out how many historical and cultural parallels Portugal shares with its neighbor Spain: Fado is the equivalent to Spain’s flamenco, both countries had fascist dictatorships during the same time period, and both overthrew those unjust regimes through revolutions around the same time. As the article asserts, some people view such similarities as a foundation for a strong union that could exist between Spain and Portugal; Jose Saramago was certainly in favor of an Iberian union, claiming it would benefit Spain and Portugal alike. However, many Portuguese do not feel the same way. They fear that as part of a union with the larger neighboring Spain would be swallowed up, and in the process perhaps lose some of their culture. Considering the Portuguese hold dear to their heart the year 1640—when they regained their independence from Spain—it seems that for better or for worse, actual steps toward creating such a coalition will be gradual.
I read the article from the Cornell Daily Sun regarding the exhibit containing multiple Goya paintings. I found the article to be quite informative describing how Goya's artwork accurately reflected the Enlightenment period. The article describes how Goya depicted the instability and cruelty of Spanish society. It furthers how Goya satirized the nobility's obsession with genealogy by depicting a donkey looking at a family tree of donkeys. As Professor Torrecilla mentioned in lecture, Goya's choice of subject matter was not restricted by tradition, but instead he recorded his inner visions. I found the article particularly interesting because I had the opportunity to go the Prado and see much of his artwork in person. His painting the third of May was particularly inspiring because it accurately depicts Spain's struggle to fight off Napoleon. I found the emotion and realism present in that particular piece of artwork to be extremely impressive.
The article I found to be most interesting this week was the one explaining Goya’s paintings. In lecture, as well as in the article, we learn that Goya’s inspiration for his paintings came from the world he lived in. Goya took Spain’s history and created macabre depictions of what it was like to live in 19th century Spain during Napoleon’s rule. I find his paintings to be first, really creepy and scary, and second; I am intrigued to learn about them. I wonder what was going on through Goya’s thoughts and imagination to create such paintings, why make a donkey read a family tree, why draw a man eat its own child, what were his intentions in creating these works? Of course, one can only interpret them as one finds correct, and that was perhaps his intention, to make one think and wonder, come up with one’s reason/explanation for them. With some of his other work, it is easier to understand his purpose, for example, May 2nd and May 3rd. Here Goya portrays the suffering through which Spain was going through at the time with Napoleon’s invasion. Goya’s paintings are really intriguing, they show both Spain’s reality, Enlightenment ideas, and yet they are ambiguous, left to the spectator’s interpretation.
Despite his stature which is the punchline to many jokes, Napoleon Bonaparte was arguably the greatest ruler of all time. By 1811 Napoleon has control of most Europe, including Spain(although not effectively). As we learned in class, the death of Louis 16th forced Spain to declare war on France at the end of the 18th century. France more than welcomed an attack, as the perception of the Spanish was that they were weak and inept in combat. Although it might have been true in traditional combat, the article on Suite 101 "The Napoleonic Wars and Guerrila Tactics" , explained just how "weak"the Spanish really were not. The use of Guerilla Warfare devestated French troops, as Napoleon had to increase troops by 30 thousand from 50 to 80k. If the Spanish were not hitting the French directly, they would ambush their transports and destroy the food supplies that the soldiers desperately needed, depleting the troops. To me, it is interesting to see how early Guerilla Warfare began, as I only recall reading that in the Vietnam War obviously. This makes me question what the end result of Napoleon using guerilla tactics himself, maybe he would have never been defeated. This also says a lot about the resistance of Spain, as this was a pivotal moment in its history, because if Spain would have folded to the force of Napoleon, the layout of Europe would probably look very different in the present.
Francisco de Goya (1746-1828) What I found to be interesting about Goya was the way in which he was so influenced by the events surrounding him. The events that greatly influenced his artwork were the changing of powers from Charles III to Fernando VII. In his beginning years he used tapestry cartoons usually to depict common people and the aristocracy, however, due to the event of being deaf, Goya’s pictures greatly changed from light to more dark. This is also very representative of the different events going on during this time. During the time that the paintings became darker, the Spanish were fighting against Napoleon, and during this time there was a lot of blood shed and feminine. As Spain was making a transition into a dark period, so were the Goya and his paintings. Many of Goya’s paintings directly correlated with what was going on of the time of the Napoleon invasion such as the series of his paintings that was entitled “ The Disasters of War” and two of his artworks that were called “The Second of May” and “The Third of May”. Goya is also known for his “black paintings”, in these paintings very humanesque figures are painted and they have an eerie and horrific experience to them.
The article that I found the most interesting was the one about Goya especially after I saw the movie “Goya’s Ghosts” for my paper. It is quite interesting that the article notes all the qualities of his art work and how the unusual paintings were perceived to be horrendous and unnatural to those who do not actually understand the context under which they were depicted. Understanding the historical background and the circumstances in which he painted most of his artwork, it is easy to see that his artwork was a representation of the actual nature of the human behavior at the time. The behavior was inhumane thus why he depicts his main characters as not human. It could have been that he painted people as strange creatures in order to draw attention and consciousness to those people participating in those atrocities that they were not acting like human beings rather like animals or even something out of this world. In my opinion, all his paintings have to do with the inhumane human nature in all of us that we seem not to notice because we are too involved in our own pursuits of power.
This week, my favorite article was the one on Goya's art, and also the Rick Steve's video clip was cool. I really love Goya and did a report on him in earlier studies, so I like learning more about his art and style- it seems there is always a new meaning or understanding to find in his paintings. It is interesting how Goya's paintings, although haunting and odd, all have something to say about the enlightenment and the state of Spain at the time. In class, we discussed the huge influence Goya had on art in the 19th century, and the liberty he took in his almost nightmarish paintings. He produced realistic images of war, and visions of humanity, hence people dubbed him, "the first war reporter". The article touches on the stories behind the art, and how Goya's art showed the suffering of the poor, common people during the French occupation in Spain. The most intriguing painting in the article, though, was "Hasta Su Abuelo", where Goya satirizes the way that the Spanish nobility was obsessed with their genealogy by portraying a donkey looking through a book of donkeys. This specific painting reminded me of Charles II and the ignorant end of the Habsburg dynasty, due to the nobility's obsession with their family lineage. It is so interesting to learn about very old works of art that still have hidden meanings and applicable messages today.
I find it really interesting that for the most part, we talk about Spain and Portugal like they’re the same. Up until today’s lecture, we paid little attention to the specifics of Portuguese history. I know Professor Torrecilla has talked about the fact that Portugal and Spain have mostly the same people and culture, and much of what we say about Spain also applies to Portugal. However, after reading the article that talks about how Jose Saramago expects that the two countries will one day unite, I wonder about the bigger distinctions between them. According to the article’s statistics, the Portuguese don’t want to unite with Spain, so I wonder what they consider to be irreconcilable differences. One of the articles at the beginning of the quarter talked about how Spanish people tend to ignore the Portuguese, and I feel that might be why more Spaniards see no problem in unifying with Portugal; they don’t see Portugal as a threat to their autonomy or overbearing, the way Spain might be seen. As a sidenote, Professor Torrecilla has really emphasized the fact that “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos” could refer to either the sleep or the dream of reason. The article on Goya, however, made it seem as if it unambiguously refers to the sleep of reason. I thought it was strange, and it demonstrates that there’s clearly a debate about the dual meanings.
I found the article about the reasons for Latin America's strive for independence a great one about the Paradox of Spain's idea of power. I feel like throughout Spain's history they somehow had this notion that by spreading their dominance globally, yet were never able to sustain stability within the their own country. This idea of," you can't have your own cake, and eat it too", came up as I read this article. The fact that Spain becomes to prideful makes them become neglectful of their legacy of bad relationships with other groups, and the fact that they had the nerve to rob the autonomy of other nations, really illuminates Spain's legacy as pure corruption. I feel that the importance of Spain's global empire, is a great lesson to modern society.
This week, I was particularly intrigued by Spain’s tumultuous relationship with
ReplyDeleteFrance. I was shocked to learn that Guerilla tactics were first used by the Spanish against the French during the Napoleonic Wars. I had always associated Guerilla warfare with more recent conflicts like the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War. After reading the article, I learned that not only were Guerrilla tactics used in the Napoleonic Wars, but that they were also essential in limiting French dominance in Europe. Although Spaniards knew they could never defeat the French Army in a conventional war, by using unconventional methods, they were able to surprise their enemies and keep them from focusing their attention on other important matters. Napoleon did not anticipate the strong will of the Spanish people to resist foreign invasion and was forced to increase his initial force of 50,000 men to 80,000 in 1808. Because the French were preoccupied in the Iberian Peninsula, Great Britain remained dominant on the seas. Furthermore, France’s invasion of Spain limited their ability to make war and ended up being more trouble that it was worth.
It’s quite intriguing that one of the articles goes into depth with Francisco de Goya because in lecture, he was the topic that caught my eye. Before his accident, he offered an optimistic view but the accident made him quite bitter and his work then became very negative and black. The before and after works, of Goya, have a huge contrast. They differ in design, color, and even in the titles. His black painting was the weirdest, says Torrecilla but the article mentions that his work “heightens the believability of Goya’s imagination.” I believe Goya to be different and interesting. I really like his work.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I started watching the video on the majesty of Madrid and the part that caught my eye was the flamingo dancer. She matched the stereotype of Madrid because she was dancing the flamingo and she was wearing the color red. Of course she caught my eye because I’m a dancer as well. But any who, she represented Spain’s stereotype which connects to the article about Spain and Portugal being one someday. I honestly don’t think that’ll happen, no matter how powerful Spain is, because Portugal has held its ground for this long already.
Spanish 42: Blog Post Week 8
ReplyDeleteIn lecture this week, we took an in-depth look at Francisco de Goya and his life as an artist during the 18th century. Born in Aragon, Goya was considered to be one of the most promising artists of all times (even dubbed the “Father of Modern Art”). Furthermore, Goya painted in the late 1780s and early 1790s, revolutionizing the tapestry industry and illustrating views of daily Spanish life. Though life in Spain during the late 18th century was not considered to be necessarily favorable (constant warfare after the reign of Charles IV), it is expressed that he offered a very optimistic view of Spanish life, where he captured very gracious moments using warm colors in his tapestry cartoons. However, after falling ill and ultimately becoming deaf, Goya completely changed the content of his art. As opposed to illustrating warm, happy Spanish settings, Goya started a period in which ruled his “black paintings.” Capturing the horrors of constant warfare, illustrating weird macabre creatures, and capturing the bestiality of human behavior, Goya’s paintings were considered to be some of the most horrifying and odd pictures that had ever been painted. Relative to this week’s article entitled “Master of the Macabre” by Lucy Li, we are exposed to a lot more information regarding the “devastating illustrations of the instability and cruelty of Spanish society.” Moreover, it is interesting to point out that despite the fact that Goya’s paintings changed dramatically after he became deaf and moved to France, Lucy Li states that his paintings are in actuality on-point with what was occurring during the French occupation of the kingdom of Spain—which could have been an influential factor for such content. The painting that really caught my eye during lecture was entitled Saturn Devouring His Children (1820-23). Since this painting illustrates a very odd-looking, human-like beast decapitating a little child with his mouth, I found it incredibly disturbing and hard not to question Goya’s mental state when he painted this particular piece. In essence, while this piece may be conspicuously upsetting, I now ponder whether the distressing content depicted in his paintings during the latter part of his career serves as an allegory to the tumultuous period of both his personal life and the political environment of the Iberian Peninsula during the late 18th century.
Jose Alberto Rojas
I was very captivated by the video of Madrid. The history and grandeur of the capital city is amazing. When I was there 3 years ago, I noticed that everything was organized to promote a friendly, social atmosphere, as Rick highlighted. The open plazas and the Royal Palace demonstrate this attempt. Madrid tells the history of Spain as a majestic empire that once dominated both hemispheres. The rug (of the 2 conjoined worlds) they showed in the Royal palace is a perfect representation of Spain's power during the 16th-17th centuries. Spain was the first "global empire" and it's influences were spread through all regions of the world. Another thing that caught my attention was the various "stereotypical" activities that Rick highlighted. In the Plaza Mayor, he watched flamenco dancers dance with passion and pride of their nation. We learned in lecture that the Flamenco dancer was a representation of "true Spanish" during the times of French influence. This reversed influence carried over into Spain's image today, where emblems of passion and authenticity define the fierce and traditional society. Another aspect of Spanish culture that represents a "true Spain" is the practice of bullfighting as an art-form. Rick ventures into a "Bull Bar" that honors the most prominent and winningest matadors in Spanish history. The tour guide believes that bullfighting isn't defined by the cruelty towards the bull, but by the beauty and richness of tradition it plays in Spain. Bullfighting is just another way that Spain resisted French influence. The brutality was seen as primitive and beastly by Europeans, so to spite these outsiders, the Spanish decided to glorify the sport as a national pastime. One thing that really stood out to me was that the Royal palace was called "Philip V's Versailles", a very French landmark. The French Bourbons established their dynasty in Spain during the 1700s but were met with much opposition. However, this palace was glorified as a symbol of power, heavily dominated by French influence. And even today, this palace stands as another "Versailles" which is ironic since the Spaniards tried to resist all things French during the Bourbon dynasty. It is living proof that, despite the Spanish resistance of the French, France had an outstanding influence on their "enemy."
ReplyDeleteI want to talk about the article on how the Nobel laureate poet for Portugal, Jose Saramago, has claimed that Portugal and Spain will not only benefit from a union, but will "inevitabl[y]" combine their nations to create a united Iberian Peninsula one day. This really interested me because throughout the first half of the quarter, Professor Torrecilla has talked about how the Iberian peninsula was settled and how "Spain" (today) has gone through Romanization, Gothic rule, Muslim and Catholic rule to become "Spain" today. However, I always wonder why Portugal is its own country today since it appears that Spain itself is already a giant mezcla of the cultures and religions of the various conquerors who have overtaken Spain throughout the years. Why did Portugal not want to be part of Spain? And furthermore, why are people so passionately anti-unionization of Spain and Portugal? Reading this article really gave me a sense that Portugal is fiercely independent, according to the statistics that they cited (only a very low 28% of Portuguese people want to unite with Spain). Why don't the other 72% want to unite, especially because such an action--as Saramago said--would only serve to bring positive benefits to the political and economical infrastructure of the nations? This was something I did not know before and it makes me very curious to find out what Professor Torrecilla has to say in lecture.
ReplyDeleteThe article that I found the most interesting this week was the article about uniting Spain and Portugal. I think that with more authors talking about the unity of Spain and Portugal more people will support the unity. If there is already a 28% of Portuguese allow the union and another 45% of Spaniards support the union it would be a good idea. If there are good economic benefits for both then why not? I think that the only problem here would be the rest of the people that don't want the union. I remember professor Torrecilla mentioned in one of the lectures that there was no real logical reason why the peninsula was split into two countries if the "shared the same rivers and mountains." Another interesting point in this week's material are the Goya's paintings. For me his paintings were very dark, and as professor Torecilla mentioned and the article says were influenced by the Age-of-Reason. I like how in the article about his paintings the author explains every detail of the painting. Lastly, about the guerillas, I had no idea that was the way how the Spanish were fighting the french, even though they were not completely successful they helped. Something that never came to my mind was how did the Spanish loose all the territory in the Americas but now it all makes sense after reading the article about the independence of America. The Spanish were just to busy and were to weak to this point to be fighting more people over seas.
ReplyDeleteThis weeks lecture on Monday was really interesting to me because we saw how Spain Colonial Empire power diminished due to the lack of unity as a whole and the lack of a good ruler. As we learned, Charles III was a experienced ruler and supported the enlightened despotism, which was a type fo govt that wanted to reform Spain and modernize it. However, when Charles III son Charles IV became rules, Spain took a turn downward. As stated in the article of this week, " Latin America: causes of independence", they state that , "Charles IV was weak and indecisive and mostly occupied himself with hunting, allowing his ministers to run the Empire". Charles IV was not a good rules and as stated in lecture, radically changed the progressive orientation of his father, he lacked political aptitude, was affected by the affairs his wife was having and the development of French revolutions were all the negative factors that contributed to the Spanish colonial empire weakening. Therefore, I am not surprised how Napoleon from France took advantage during the reign of Charles IV, because he knew Spain was not at its strongest point, thus could be easily overpowered. A weak spain meant that the French took over and would be the ones in charge of modernizing Spain based on the Enlightened ideals. In my opinion, I support the war of independence in the sense that the French did Spain a favor in taking over because Spain was not progressing with such a weak rules, Charles IV, thus they needed a fresh new start with rulers who would make a change and continue the prosperity of Spain .
ReplyDeleteOut of all this week’s articles, one that caught my attention was Lucy Li’s “Master of the Macabre” about Francisco Goya, “The Father of Modern Art.” Francisco Goya was truly an amazing painter and I can see why he set the pattern for the art of the 19th century towards realism. On one hand he was able to paint the positive view of 18th century Spain, and in the other hand “…created devastating illustrations of the instability and cruelty of Spanish society.” His paintings “The Disasters of War,” “The Second of May, 1808,” and “The Third of May, 1808” about the Napoleonic War clearly illustrated how truly war was where there were only assassins and victims. Through his paintings he was able to document what was really going on in Spain during the Napoleonic invasion and change the way paintings were used. The other article that interested me was Giles Tremlet’s “Portugal and Spain Will Be One, Says Nobel Author.” Although according to the article, Nobel laureate Jose Saramago says Spain will eventually swallow up Portugal, I think it will not. Even though Spain has the majority of the Iberian Peninsula I think both countries are better off on their own. Jose Saramago says that Portugal would not lose anything from the integration of both countries but despite this, a poll revealed that only 28% of Portuguese countrymen were in favor of the union. Similarly in Spain another poll revealed 45% of the population would accept the unification but only under certain conditions. These polls indicate that the majority in both countries is not in favor of this coming together so why create conflicts when they can be avoided, it is better to leave things as they are.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found the most interesting this week is “Portugal and Spain will be one, says Nobel author” by Giles Tremlett.” He argues that in the future Spain and Portugal will be one. He believes the union would actually beneficial to both countries. He also argued that the Portuguese would retain their language and culture. I found this article interesting because I had never thought about that, even though we learned in class that Portugal and Spain had almost the same history up until the 16th and 17th centuries. After learning about Portugal during this class and especially during today’s lecture, I do not think this will happen. It seems like the Portuguese have very strong patriotism. The poll in this article showed that the Portuguese people consider the day they regained independence from Spain the second most important date in their history. They are obviously happy to be independent. What makes me think that this might be a possibility is recalling the article from a couple weeks ago that stated that Spain is declining in power and prestige. I also read an article in a different class that stated that Spain currently has a very high unemployment rate. It seems to be that both Spain and Portugal aren’t doing that great in today’s day. The question would then be if two struggling countries would benefit from being together or just be a bigger struggling country. I would be very interested to see what Spaniards think about this.
ReplyDeleteThis week’s lecture discussion of Portugal had an interesting tie to the article “Portugal and Spain Will be One, Says Nobel Author.” In regards to the lecture discussion of Portugal’s history and culture during the 18th and 19th Centuries, I was surprised to find out how many historical and cultural parallels Portugal shares with its neighbor Spain: Fado is the equivalent to Spain’s flamenco, both countries had fascist dictatorships during the same time period, and both overthrew those unjust regimes through revolutions around the same time. As the article asserts, some people view such similarities as a foundation for a strong union that could exist between Spain and Portugal; Jose Saramago was certainly in favor of an Iberian union, claiming it would benefit Spain and Portugal alike. However, many Portuguese do not feel the same way. They fear that as part of a union with the larger neighboring Spain would be swallowed up, and in the process perhaps lose some of their culture. Considering the Portuguese hold dear to their heart the year 1640—when they regained their independence from Spain—it seems that for better or for worse, actual steps toward creating such a coalition will be gradual.
ReplyDeleteI read the article from the Cornell Daily Sun regarding the exhibit containing multiple Goya paintings. I found the article to be quite informative describing how Goya's artwork accurately reflected the Enlightenment period. The article describes how Goya depicted the instability and cruelty of Spanish society. It furthers how Goya satirized the nobility's obsession with genealogy by depicting a donkey looking at a family tree of donkeys. As Professor Torrecilla mentioned in lecture, Goya's choice of subject matter was not restricted by tradition, but instead he recorded his inner visions. I found the article particularly interesting because I had the opportunity to go the Prado and see much of his artwork in person. His painting the third of May was particularly inspiring because it accurately depicts Spain's struggle to fight off Napoleon. I found the emotion and realism present in that particular piece of artwork to be extremely impressive.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found to be most interesting this week was the one explaining Goya’s paintings. In lecture, as well as in the article, we learn that Goya’s inspiration for his paintings came from the world he lived in. Goya took Spain’s history and created macabre depictions of what it was like to live in 19th century Spain during Napoleon’s rule. I find his paintings to be first, really creepy and scary, and second; I am intrigued to learn about them. I wonder what was going on through Goya’s thoughts and imagination to create such paintings, why make a donkey read a family tree, why draw a man eat its own child, what were his intentions in creating these works? Of course, one can only interpret them as one finds correct, and that was perhaps his intention, to make one think and wonder, come up with one’s reason/explanation for them. With some of his other work, it is easier to understand his purpose, for example, May 2nd and May 3rd. Here Goya portrays the suffering through which Spain was going through at the time with Napoleon’s invasion. Goya’s paintings are really intriguing, they show both Spain’s reality, Enlightenment ideas, and yet they are ambiguous, left to the spectator’s interpretation.
ReplyDeleteDespite his stature which is the punchline to many jokes, Napoleon Bonaparte was arguably the greatest ruler of all time. By 1811 Napoleon has control of most Europe, including Spain(although not effectively). As we learned in class, the death of Louis 16th forced Spain to declare war on France at the end of the 18th century. France more than welcomed an attack, as the perception of the Spanish was that they were weak and inept in combat. Although it might have been true in traditional combat, the article on Suite 101 "The Napoleonic Wars and Guerrila Tactics" , explained just how "weak"the Spanish really were not. The use of Guerilla Warfare devestated French troops, as Napoleon had to increase troops by 30 thousand from 50 to 80k. If the Spanish were not hitting the French directly, they would ambush their transports and destroy the food supplies that the soldiers desperately needed, depleting the troops. To me, it is interesting to see how early Guerilla Warfare began, as I only recall reading that in the Vietnam War obviously. This makes me question what the end result of Napoleon using guerilla tactics himself, maybe he would have never been defeated. This also says a lot about the resistance of Spain, as this was a pivotal moment in its history, because if Spain would have folded to the force of Napoleon, the layout of Europe would probably look very different in the present.
ReplyDeleteFrancisco de Goya (1746-1828)
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be interesting about Goya was the way in which he was so influenced by the events surrounding him. The events that greatly influenced his artwork were the changing of powers from Charles III to Fernando VII. In his beginning years he used tapestry cartoons usually to depict common people and the aristocracy, however, due to the event of being deaf, Goya’s pictures greatly changed from light to more dark. This is also very representative of the different events going on during this time. During the time that the paintings became darker, the Spanish were fighting against Napoleon, and during this time there was a lot of blood shed and feminine. As Spain was making a transition into a dark period, so were the Goya and his paintings. Many of Goya’s paintings directly correlated with what was going on of the time of the Napoleon invasion such as the series of his paintings that was entitled “ The Disasters of War” and two of his artworks that were called “The Second of May” and “The Third of May”. Goya is also known for his “black paintings”, in these paintings very humanesque figures are painted and they have an eerie and horrific experience to them.
The article that I found the most interesting was the one about Goya especially after I saw the movie “Goya’s Ghosts” for my paper. It is quite interesting that the article notes all the qualities of his art work and how the unusual paintings were perceived to be horrendous and unnatural to those who do not actually understand the context under which they were depicted. Understanding the historical background and the circumstances in which he painted most of his artwork, it is easy to see that his artwork was a representation of the actual nature of the human behavior at the time. The behavior was inhumane thus why he depicts his main characters as not human. It could have been that he painted people as strange creatures in order to draw attention and consciousness to those people participating in those atrocities that they were not acting like human beings rather like animals or even something out of this world. In my opinion, all his paintings have to do with the inhumane human nature in all of us that we seem not to notice because we are too involved in our own pursuits of power.
ReplyDeleteThis week, my favorite article was the one on Goya's art, and also the Rick Steve's video clip was cool. I really love Goya and did a report on him in earlier studies, so I like learning more about his art and style- it seems there is always a new meaning or understanding to find in his paintings. It is interesting how Goya's paintings, although haunting and odd, all have something to say about the enlightenment and the state of Spain at the time. In class, we discussed the huge influence Goya had on art in the 19th century, and the liberty he took in his almost nightmarish paintings. He produced realistic images of war, and visions of humanity, hence people dubbed him, "the first war reporter". The article touches on the stories behind the art, and how Goya's art showed the suffering of the poor, common people during the French occupation in Spain. The most intriguing painting in the article, though, was "Hasta Su Abuelo", where Goya satirizes the way that the Spanish nobility was obsessed with their genealogy by portraying a donkey looking through a book of donkeys. This specific painting reminded me of Charles II and the ignorant end of the Habsburg dynasty, due to the nobility's obsession with their family lineage. It is so interesting to learn about very old works of art that still have hidden meanings and applicable messages today.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that for the most part, we talk about Spain and Portugal like they’re the same. Up until today’s lecture, we paid little attention to the specifics of Portuguese history. I know Professor Torrecilla has talked about the fact that Portugal and Spain have mostly the same people and culture, and much of what we say about Spain also applies to Portugal. However, after reading the article that talks about how Jose Saramago expects that the two countries will one day unite, I wonder about the bigger distinctions between them. According to the article’s statistics, the Portuguese don’t want to unite with Spain, so I wonder what they consider to be irreconcilable differences. One of the articles at the beginning of the quarter talked about how Spanish people tend to ignore the Portuguese, and I feel that might be why more Spaniards see no problem in unifying with Portugal; they don’t see Portugal as a threat to their autonomy or overbearing, the way Spain might be seen.
ReplyDeleteAs a sidenote, Professor Torrecilla has really emphasized the fact that “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos” could refer to either the sleep or the dream of reason. The article on Goya, however, made it seem as if it unambiguously refers to the sleep of reason. I thought it was strange, and it demonstrates that there’s clearly a debate about the dual meanings.
I found the article about the reasons for Latin America's strive for independence a great one about the Paradox of Spain's idea of power. I feel like throughout Spain's history they somehow had this notion that by spreading their dominance globally, yet were never able to sustain stability within the their own country. This idea of," you can't have your own cake, and eat it too", came up as I read this article. The fact that Spain becomes to prideful makes them become neglectful of their legacy of bad relationships with other groups, and the fact that they had the nerve to rob the autonomy of other nations, really illuminates Spain's legacy as pure corruption. I feel that the importance of Spain's global empire, is a great lesson to modern society.
ReplyDelete