Aims of Jackson Pollock

Explain the aims and goals of Jackson Pollock. What is significant about his work?

http://serdar-hizli-art.com/abstract_art/jackson_pollock.htm

Jackson Pollock wanted to express his feelings and not describe them.  

http://www.biography.com/people/jackson-pollock-9443818 

Jackson Pollock gave up painting with modern techniques and switched to abstraction expressionism.  As you can see in his splatter and action pieces.  This involved pouring paint directly on the canvas.  After Pollocks dad died he fell into a depression.  And the colors of his art work started to fade to black and white.  

Today people are still inspired by Pollocks work.  

Pollocks use of color really set the mood.  Except when he used blue, I think that was a symbol of being calm not sad.  Since when he was sad about his dad he used black and white.

Responses:

"That is interesting how he limited his colors to black and white when he was going through depression.  It was very thoughtful of you to compare his 'depressive state' work to his 'normal' work to define his use of blue.  It is a great point, because blue must represent something other than 'depressed' to him since he didn't use it while depressed."

"I think it's really cool that you found out about how his art was effected after he lost his father. I agree that his colors really set the mood and it definitely makes sense that he would chose darker colors to represent his grief about his father."

"In last week question when we read about the colors and what the colors mean in different cultures. Some blue means helps to slow human metabolism, is cooling in nature, and helps with balance and self-expression. Blue is also an appetite suppressant. So this is how he express himself."

"I agree that was a very interesting find about how he would use black and white when he was sad. Really gives the work a deeper meaning."

Tenebrism

Explain Artemisia Gentileschi’s use of tenebrism in her painting, Judith and Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes, and discuss the effects these techniques produce.

Tenebrism is where most figures are engulfed in shadow but some are dramatically illuminated by light.  Artemisia Gentileschi used tenebrism in her painting, Judith and Maidservant with the Head of Holofemes.  The bright light emphasizes Judith's facial expression.  She seems satisfied, confident, and determined.  What I thought was interesting, is that as long as I stared at the sword, I could not see any blood on it.  I thought it was wierd because there was was so much detail.  The maid was holding the head in a white rag that had spots of blood on it.

Responses:
"I also found it quite interesting that the sword did not have any blood dripping from it or anything considering they had just taken out Holofernes's head. Either he didn't bleed very much or they did a really good job cleaning up afterward."

Technology

Discuss how new technologies are redefining our sense of space. What does this mean for the future of art?

Before doing this assignment I read a few of my classmates posts to get a better sense of space.  

One post I read mention 3D movies.  I really enjoyed this, because I forgot about movies as art.  I remember going to a 3D movie, putting on those plastic glasses (once used to be card board with one lens red and the other blue. now look like normal sunglasses.), and feeling like i could touch the things on the screen.  Not only did it take an artist to make the movie itself, but it took a smart person to use new technology to make the movie pop out at you.  They creatively found a way to put you in the art.  

Line

Compare and contrast the use of line in the works of Vincent van Gogh and Sol LeWitt. How do the different types of lines affect how you read the artwork (omit color, texture, composition and content, and just evaluate according to the types of lines each artist used).

Vincent van Gogh and Sol Lewitt both used lines in their artwork.  But they both used them a little different.  Sol LeWitt used lines by mathematical terms.  Everything was so geometrical.  Every line had a place.  Also, Sol Lewitt's work was so colorful and fun.  There was not really a mood behind them just the intelligence.  

I noticed with Vincent van Gogh's work there was more of a flow.  Lines were placed in groups but not geometrically found.  They were placed to create images such as landscapes and portraits.  His paintings had more of a mood.  When you look at his work you can feel the emotion in his work.  Also, some of van Gogh's artwork is abstract.  While Sol LeWitt's work is more, like I said before, geometrical.  In the texture of the work of Vincent van Gogh some of his lines look almost three dimensional, as if they were just laid down.  

One thing I thought was cool, was that when I was reading about Sol LeWitt, I saw that he liked to refer to his paintings as "sculptures".  I think him calling them sculptures could make us look at his art work in an abstract way.  He turned his drawings three demensional.  They look as if they were just placed on a piece of paper.

Responses:

"I agree the way LeWitt describes them as sculptures definitely could lead people to look at them as more abstract and they do appear that way compared to Van Gogh's."

"Made me wonder, what if you combined the two artist and made a strong popping environment, something beyond comprehension (4rth dimension). nonethelss, good job, definately made me think about perfect their artwork was; as well as their desire."

René Magritte’s Treason of Images

Using René Magritte’s Treason of Images, discuss how representational paintings can be more abstract than abstract paintings. You’ll need to define the differences between “representational” and “abstract.”

This is not a pipe

COLLAPSE

The book defines abstract as, "In art, the rendering of images and objects in a stylized or simplified way, so that though they remain recognizable, their formal or expressive aspects are emphasized."  It defines representational as, "Any work of art that seeks to resemble the world of natural appearence."

Rene's Treason of Images is interesting.  Without knowing what the words mean, looking at the picture you would think that this work of art that it is representational.  Well, then I looked up the words, "This is not a pipe."  I saw that some people wrote that they were unsure of what Rene meant.  I do not know if he meaning was my reaction.  I was looking at the painting with my little brother and when the words translated, I looked at him and said, "Well, duh, of course it is not a pipe.  It is clearly a painting."  In a way I still feel the painting is representational.  The words are representational, but only if you understand that you have to take them literally.  Representational paintings are abstract they make you think to figure out what is actually going on.

Responses:

"I also think this painting is quite representational because it does represent an object from everyday life. Although some might say it's abstract because the pipe does not have a physical or concrete existance, it in fact does have an existance because it is painted, and paint is very concrete. Just as Rene said himself, "this is not a pipe", it's simply a representational painting of one."

Historical Items = Art?

In the West, when we see objects made in African, Oceanic, Native American, or Asian cultures in museums, we see them as works of art.  Why is this problematic?  How were many of these objects originally “used”? How much does context have to do with how an “artwork” is “viewed?” Is graffiti any different? Explain.

When we look at these "works of art" in muesems, we do not see them for what they really are.  The are religious aspects, family heirlooms, sometimes they are recreations of something evil.  And the only thing we see is something that looks cool.  Most people do not try to get to know a work of art.  Context has a lot to do with how art work is viewed.  You could be looking at a beautiful statue, out of context.  And not know it represents the devil.  Graffiti is not different at all.  Graffiti tell a story.  It represents something you want people to know, but sometimes people take the message differently.  

Some responses I got:
"I agree, that graffiti is something that the artist wants to let people know; I also believe that its just random in some cases, like when the artist is feeling inspired to just draw something crazy with no meaning or message at all."

"I definitely agree that context has a lot to do with how art is viewed. As you said we could look at something as beautiful when really to that culture is was a symbol of something bad and evil. I also agree that graffiti is no different, it tells and story or recreates a past event but because of the stigma attached that its illegal people tend to look down upon it."

"I defintly agree with someone could be looking at a piece of art and if they dont know the context and what it truly means they have no idea why it is truly a piece of art. Just like when people sing along with songs and if they dont know what the song is trying to portray and just like the beat they have no idea what message they are sending or what the artist truly feels."

Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa

Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa (fig. 8-21) is an interesting exercise in scale, with the boatsmen and their crafts dwarfed by the scale and the immensity of the sea.  In the distance is Mt. Fuji, also dwarfed by the wave.  However, as the text tells us, the wave will collapse, while Fuji will remain.  This is significant, as it affirms the Japanese view that Mt. Fuji is everlasting, like Japan itself.  Compare this work to The Inlet of Nobuto by Hokusai (this image is not in the book -- you can find it below).  In this image, Mt. Fuji seems void of descriptive information.  Are other subjects in this image handled in a similar fashion? In each of these two works, what do you sense is the unifying theme?  Is this theme fundamental to Japanese Art?

" In this image, Mt. Fuji seems void of descriptive information.  Are other subjects in this image handled in a similar fashion?"

The image does not tell you much information.  However, the the people in this image do have information in a way.  You can see that they look hard at work.  They are not done.  Looking closer, it seems as if the people are divided into their own social classes.  Looks like maybe children are swimming,  Looks like there is a higher class lady and gentleman in the middle.  And the other are lower class people working for their living.  

"In each of these two works, what do you sense is the unifying theme?"

If I am right on dividing these people into social classes than the image of the Great Wave states that everything will come crashing down eventually.  The socail standards would change and come to an end.  Just like the Great Wave will rise to its peak and crash til it is even with the rest of the ocean.

"Is this theme fundamental to Japanese Art?"

Japanese art depicts nature and water and peace and even though I don't see peace in the images.  I think that was the point to get across.  To get peace.

Jackson Pollock

Jackson Pollock’s paintings were described by Pollock himself as “energy and motion/made visible.”  Compare and contrast Pollock’s work with another work of your choice—visually, physically, or in media used.

I tried to look for a work of art that was similar to Jackson Pollocks work.  Looking throught the book I found on page 78, figure 5-1, 2002 Julie Mehretu's Dispersion.  The paint does not look splattered like Jackson Pollocks, but instead guided.  Julie's work is more modern, while Pollock's work is older.  

Pollock painted how he felt.  Julie, however, I am unsure. On http://www.art21.org/images/julie-mehretu/dispersion-2002 , she says:

"I’m not trying to make these paintings to understand my time in the same way that I was five years ago. I’m not trying to make a painting that makes sense at the moment. That will happen through the work whether the piece feels like it was made for the moment or not." 

-Julie Mehretu

Like she is just painting the first things that pop in to her mind and blending them all together as one.  If she did there is nothing wrong with that, it is just the vibe I get.

Pollock only seems to move the brush across the canvess.  Julie adds shapes and smudges.  She separates her work.  Uses the space on the canvas. 

Color

How is color interpreted in different cultures?  Do colors affect our behavior?  What are some of the scientific aspects of color? Relate the information you gather to your own experiences with color.

-How is color interpreted in different cultures?

I was reading the link for cultural color and I thought it was very interesting.  Some cultures are so opposite from the way we interpret colors.  I have always known green to be good luck.  However, if you give a chinese man a green hat, it is a sign his wife is cheating on him.  White is typically a calm color.  Representing peace and serenity.  You may think of heaven when you think about the color white.  Eastern culture believes it means death, mourning, funerals, and sadness.  China believes it is death, mourning, and misfortune.  India: (unhappiness, symbol of sorrow in death of a family member, the color a widow would wear).  And so on, with many other cultures.  Ironically, in most of these same cultures white also means peace and purity.

-Do colors affect our behavior?

I think color does affect our behavior and our mood.  On Valentine's Day, we see colors like red pink and white.  We perceive these colors as love.  When some one gives you roses, your mood depends on the color.  If the roses are not red your not going to have the same warm feeling than if you were to get red roses.  A romantic symbol.

-What are some scientific aspects of color?

I was curious on the debate of black and white as colors.  I went onto http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-design/are-black-and-white-colors.  There was a section with a good answer.

The website said black is not a color.  It is the absense of color.  When there is no light everything is black.  If there are no photons of light, there are no photons of color.  The website also said that white is a color.  It is the color you get when you blend all the other colors together.  Here is the explanation from this site that says why white is a color.  

" Light appears colorless or white. Sunlight is white light that is composed of all the colors of the spectrum.  A rainbow is proof. You can't see the colors of sunlight except when atmospheric conditions bend the light rays and create a rainbow. You can also use a prism to demonstrate this. "

There are many other answers to this question, but the one above made the most sense to me.

I can not remember where I read this, but I read that seven to eight percent of males have some color blindness.  While doing research on color blindness, I found an interesting fact.

Apparently, facebook is blue because Mark Zuckerberg is red and green color blind.  Blue was the easiest color for him to see.  

http://blog.bufferapp.com/the-science-of-colors-in-marketing-why-is-facebook-blue  

Space

Chapter 5 ends with The Critical Process, a look at Doug Aitken's the moment, where the technology involved in the creation of this work affects our comprehension of space.  Reference how constructed space, in which we can move and interact has affected our experience of “real space” and face-to-face interactions.  How does our sense of self, as constructed in this kind of artistic space, differ from “real life”? Most importantly, what does this mean for the future of art? 

Space is not just the amount of room on the canvas.  It is how you use it.  But it is also how you use the space given to present your work of art.  On a canvas you can paint something as sall as a molecule to as big and bigger as a city.  You just need to know how to work with your space.  You need to paint details smaller to portray the city bigger.  The picture above with the squinting eye is interesting. Why? Because if you were to stand in front of a real person and they squint their eye you think nothing of it.  But in the image it is beautiful.  I understand this because I am a graphic designer and am obsessed with eyes manipulating photos of them, but on a daily basis they are nothing special to me.  A picture slightlyy changed and hung around a room makes people move.  But it also makes them wonder.  Why is this considered art?  To me I do not know.  I do find it beautiful.  Not sure why though.  The room around these images is blank and all one color.  As to not cause a distraction.  The room make you notice the art.  Only the art.  You are surrounded by nothing but the art.  It is almost hypnotic in a way.  While you are trying to figure out what it means, you just can not get it out of your mind.  And I think that might be the point.  Maybe there is no meaning.  Maybe the meaning is just to get you thinking. To put the art work in your head, so that you just keep thinking about it.  That way you will not forget the artist and his or her masterpiece.  Future art is going to keep developing space is going to get bigger.  Artists are going to find more ways to make you want to see everything at once.  

I was looking at the questions for Doug Aitken's the moment, and I think they may help me understand the term space a litlle bit more.  

How would you speak of this space?

At the beginning of the presentation a voice whispers, "I want to see everything."  That is the point of this.  One page nine,  it says people are wanting to see every screen at once.  The way this is set up, there is so much going on.  Screens showing different peoples daily life.  The average person is nosy.  We want to know how everyone lives.  This art work spread each piece out so viewers can see a little bit of each one.  Excited to move one to the next, but wanting the first to finish.

In what ways is it two-dimensional?

Looking at the art as one piece, I feel it is two-dimensional because it is showing life in its simplest form.

In what ways is it three-dimensional?

However, it is three-dimensional.  It may show life in its simplest form but in a complex way.  Different people, different lives.  Scattered throughout a room.

How is space represented?

The space is represented as a guide line to distort your attention to the screens.

I hope some of those questions made my response a bit more thorough.  I know I have been having trouble at the beginning of the semester.  Hopefully, this one is a bit better.  Put a lot of thought into it.

Hung Liu

Hung Liu’s Relic 12 (fig. 81), Virgin/Vessel (fig.82), and Three Fujins (fig. 83) all address concerns related to both gender and social status.  Liu presents a seemingly contradictory union of classical and expressive line within one composition to evoke a sense of journalistic presentation and subjective interpretation at the same time.  Discuss this contradictory line usage, along with the biography of Liu, as you think of the artist’s desire to present her personal feelings about her heritage.  How does her expressive use of drips add to the emotional and/or aesthetic impact of her work.  Communicate your understanding of the power of the elements of art as essential components in presenting an artist’s idea.

Hung Liu is a Chinese-born American contemporary artist.  She was born February 17, 1948.  She immigrated from China to the United States in 1984, at the age of 36.  In 1975, she went to Beijing Teachers College. 

At the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing, she studied mural painting as a graduate student.  Her paintings and photographs are typically based off of anonymous historical Chinese photographs.  Usually 

women, children, refugees, and soldiers,  Her paintings are usually drip-ish.  Currently, she is a professor of painting at Mills College in Oakland, California.  

I had read that Hung Liu used the controlled lines as a symbol of power.  Also, that she used the drips to represent freedom and liberation.  Her paintings show momentin history and other things that intrigue her.  

I feel like she broke through the border lines with her art work.  She does not have one type of work.  Her art work is messy and strict in a good way.  In the third painting the drips and colors bring almost a weary 

vibe.  In the first painting the drips and colors show more beauty and cheerfulness.  I know I can be completely wrong on those guesses, but that is what I see.  The middle picture I do not understand.  I feel no vibe

to it.  I tried to figure it out, but I can not.  The drips make it look like it is harder to paint.  Because you need percision and time to get it just right.  That way it does not look sloppy.  The woman in Relic looks bold.

Not happy, but determined to be seen and understood.  The woman in Virgin/Vessel looks blank.  I see no emotion in her face.  And the women in Three Fujins have different facial expressions.  The first looks 

miserable.  The second angry, and the third happy.  I am not ure who these women are and what they represent.  But in my eyes it looks like a depressing painting.

Suzanne Lacy

Suzanne Lacy describes her role as an activist artist on page 54 of this chapter as she discusses her collaborative project with Leslie Labowitz, In Mourning and in Rage.  The artist states: “The art is in making it compelling; the politics is in making it clear.  In Mourning and in Rage took trivialized images of mourners as old, powerless women and transformed them into commanding seven-foot-tall figures angrily demanding an end to violence against women.”  What did Lacy mean by this statement?  Is performance art such as In Mourning and in Rage an effective means of communicating to the public?  How does her recent work Whisper, the Waves, the Wind (fig. 61) compare?

When Suzanne Lacy said "The art is in making it compelling; the politics is in making it clear.", she had a valid point.  The politics or news tells you what is going on it makes it clear to you, but it does not make you feel the devastation.  She portrayed her art to rip at your heart, making the message very compelling.  Performance art does get a point across.  A painting people have a choice to look at or not.  With performance art, it is right in your face.  You can not avoid seeing or hearing just a little of their message if it is happening around you.  I am not really sure how to compare her recent work.  It did not speak to me, like the first.

This was not one of my bests it was a little short.  If any one as anything to add on to help others it would be appreciated.

Museums

The magical power of African art, illustrated in the nkisi nkonde figure (fig. 12) is unfamiliar to Westerners.  Additionally, our knowledge of these figures and the cultures that produced them has been gained at great loss to those cultures.  As Western culture has encountered non-Western cultures, particularly from the 19th century forward, local customs and tradition suffered and art was pilfered.  Research the relationship between museums and non-Western collections.  Focus on recent attempts to return artifacts to the people whose ancestors produced them.


Museums have lots of different artifacts from different places.  They are not only works of art, but they tell a story.  They could be a religous work of art.  They could be sacred.  They could also be something evil.  We do not know and that is why museums are there to teach us.  Just recently the attempts to get them back have become more demanding.  First, governments asked for these items back politely because they feel these artifacts were just taken from them.  In the summer of 2004, Greece tried to pressure Great Britain.  Great Britain had Greece's Parthenon marbles.  During the summer Olypics in Athens, Greece anounced that they were building the Acropolis museum for the marbles.  For another example, Egypt decided to sue two museums.  One is in England and one is in Belgium.  Egypt wanted them to return two tomb carvings.  Egypt was ready to ban the archeaologists of those museums from ever digging in the "Land of the Pharaohs" again.  A man named, Zahi Hawass, who just happens to be the director of Egypts Supreme Council, is trying to get as many artifacts as he can returned to his country.  One of Egypts most famous artifacts, the Rosetta Stone, which is the key to Ancient Egypts hieroglyphic language has been taken away to a museum as well.  Some people argue that these artifacts should be in major cities like New York or London so different people can see them and learn about them.  While others argue they should be in museums of the countries they originated from.  Until recently, Natvie Americans could not claim ownership rights to artifacts found in their land.  It wasn't until 1990 when the federal government passed the Native American Graves protection act.  This meant Native Americans could reclaim their artifacts from museums.  After the tribes claim ownership, then they get to decide what happens to the artifacts.  Some museums, however do not want to hand them all over.  Some try to make a deal with these tribes to only return a few artifacts.  There are many artifacts looted from countries, tribes, or religous groups.  One of the earliest works of art known to be looted during a war, was the steele of King Naram-Sin of Akkad.  This artifact is now in the Louvre Museum in Paris.  In western literature, the Palladion was the earliest and most important taken statue.  It served as Troy's protective talisman.  It is said that two Greeks smuggled the statue out of the Temple of Athena.  Personally I am locked on the situation.  I feel museums should have these artifacts so us "foreigners" can be educated.  On the other hand, I do dont think these people should be robbed of their culture.

Emmeline Pankhurst

-What methods did Emmeline Pankhurst advocate be used to achieve the right to vote for women?

Emmeline Pankhurst called upon women to join her in striking the government.  Only in some cases were offenders arrested.  One of the few women arrested was a helpless cripple, a woman in who could only get around in a wheel chair.

There was an attack ade on letter boxes.  When opened, they would burst into flames.

-Why did she feel justified in using these methods?

Emmeline felt she needed to make a point.

-Do you think she was justified? Why or why not?

Yes and no.  I mean there may have been other ways to get her point across.  However, she may have felt that she had tried everything and had no other choice.

http://womenineuropeanhistory.org/index.php?title=Emmeline_Pankhurst

Emmeline Pankhurst was an important woman.  She led the suffrage movment with crazy tactics.  She has an autobiography called, "My Own Story".  It reveal her motivation and determination.  Her craze for women's suffrage led to a greater concern for human rights.

Impressionism

" The impressionist style of painting is characterized chiefly by concentration on the general impression produced by a scene or object and the use of unmixed primary colors and small strokes to simulate actual reflected light."

Taken from  http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/glo/impressionism/

Impressionism came to be in the 1870's and 1880's.  It involved small, thin, yet visible brush strokes.  Early impressionists violated the rules of academic painting.  

In 1874 a group of artists known as the anonymous society of painters organized an exhibition in Paris that launched impressionism.  

After a while these seemingly casual paintings became widely acceptable.  

The Monet Family in Their Garden at Argenteuil, 1874
Édouard Manet (French, 1832–1883)
Oil on canvas

Here is an impression painting.  In 1860 Edouard Manet was Claude Monet's hero.  In 1874, they became friends.  

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1976.201.14

Romanticism

The romantic poets started a new era of poetry.  Involving very vivd and colorful language.  For example, William Wordsworth a romantic poet.  He had a great love for nature.  Here is one of his poems:

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

 I WANDERED lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

His poetry makes it very easy to produce imagery in your head.

This is a self portrait of J.A. Dominique Ingres at the age of 24.

The reason I posted this picture is because I had a random question.

When I read another students post, he said during the romantic time period artist did not paint things as the were but how they felt they were.

Do you think people painted themselves as they thought they looked and not how they really looked?

http://facstaff.uww.edu/carlberj/romart.htm

The site above I found on google.  I think it would be a good idea for you guys to check it out.  It is full of paintings from the romantic era.  They are all so lovely.  It is interesting.  They name an artist and show some of their paintings.  What I really liked is by seeing a few works from each artist you can see what each artist signature thing is.  Like Joeseph Mallard William Turner. (1775-1851)  In his work he makes his brush strokes noticable, he tries to make his work not look realistic.  It helps to put in the emotion.  

I have noticed music of the romantic era did not have words.  Not that it needed it.  The instrumental really showed great emotion and could really grasp your attention.  But were there ever words in them, like commonly?

Industrialization

I wanted to focus this post on parts of the hard life in the textile system.

Accidents

Nearly a thousand people with wounds and mutilations from factory machinery were treated at one of any of the hospitals.  A doctor, Michael Ward, has seen many injuries.  Mostly children.  Their arms get stuck in machinery.  They lose fingers and their skin is stripped down to the bone.  Much other tragedies have occured.  The working conditions have changed children.  Abraham Whitehead, a cloth merchant, said, "I have seen a little boy, only this winter, who works in the mill, and who lives within two hundred or three hundred yards of my own door; he is not yet six years old, and I have seen him, when he had a few coppers in his pocket, go to a beer shop, call for a glass of ale, and drink as boldly as any full-grown man, cursing and swearing."  This man believed that the accidents were caused by how tired the children were.  

Here is a paragraph taken from  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRaccidents.htm?menu=Textiles

This paragraph explained a heart-wrenching accident that I could not think to put into my own words.

[Robert Blincoe saw several accidents while working in the textile industry: "A girl named Mary Richards, who was thought remarkably handsome when she left the workhouse, and, who was not quite ten years of age, attended a drawing frame, below which, and about a foot from the floor, was a horizontal shaft, by which the frames above were turned. It happened one evening, when her apron was caught by the shaft. In an instant the poor girl was drawn by an irresistible force and dashed on the floor. She uttered the most heart-rending shrieks! Blincoe ran towards her, an agonized and helpless beholder of a scene of horror. He saw her whirled round and round with the shaft - he heard the bones of her arms, legs, thighs, etc. successively snap asunder, crushed, seemingly, to atoms, as the machinery whirled her round, and drew tighter and tighter her body within the works, her blood was scattered over the frame and streamed upon the floor, her head appeared dashed to pieces - at last, her mangled body was jammed in so fast, between the shafts and the floor, that the water being low and the wheels off the gear, it stopped the main shaft. When she was extricated, every bone was found broken - her head dreadfully crushed. She was carried off quite lifeless." ]

Orphan Workers

Many parents were not going to allow children to work at these factories.  Especially, in those conditions.  But owners need workers.  So, they turned to orphanages.  Children would sign a contract that made them officially property of these factories.  They became known as pauper apprentices.  Reading on, it sounded like they tricked these orphans into coming to work.  John Birley was an orphan.  He said that about twenty men pulled him and about forty other orphans in a room.  Called them up one by one.  John went up and a man said, "Well John, you are a fine lad, would you like to go into the country?"  That isn't asking them to work in a factory under terrible conditions.  

To cut to the chase, factory life were basically terrible.

The French Revolution

The French Revolution lasted from 1789 to the late 1790's.  The revolution was influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment.  The revolution did not complete all of its goals and it was a very horrific time.  While looking at the photo gallery, I learned that during King Louis XVI's reign the country's finances began to fall apart.  It was part of some reasoning for the French Revolution.  But, the start of the revolution was during the fall of the Bastille (July 14, 1789).  Protesting against King Louis XVI, a group of Parisian revolutionaries seized the Bastille prison.  King Louis XVI was executed on January 21, 1793 for high treason and crimes against the state.  What I found randomly interesting was that in all of history I never heard of beheading women.  Everytime I would watch the history channel I would always see men being beheaded.  I actually thought that they did not behead women.  That is until I saw the picture of Marie Antoinette's execution.  

After the Kings execution the French Revolution got to its upmost violent times.  The reign of terror, a ten month period of bloody chaos.  Apparently, in June 1793, a new calender was established.  (Interesting.)  As the French Revolution ended, power was handed over to a five member directory.  Which was appointed by Parliament.  The royales protested this but were silenced by the army.  The army was now led by Napoleon Bonaparte.  (1769-1821)  The directory's four years in power were not the best.  It was almost chaotic.  They had to rely on the military to maintain power.  Most of their authority was handed over to the generals.

Napolean

Napoleon

COLLAPSE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bonaparte_napoleon.shtml

For anyone who wants a brief overall description of Napoleons life, this is where to go.  It gives you dates and events from his birth (August 15, 1769) to his death (May 5, 1821).  I am curious.  Is dying in your early 50's during this time period and early age for someone to die?  Or did people die earlier than this?  Because I know people did not live as long as they do now?

http://www.history.com/topics/napoleon

This website has many topics on Napoleon.  It covers his education and early military career.  His rise to power.  His marriage, children, and his downfall.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/napoleon_bonaparte.html

At first, when you look at these quotes you can not be sure if these are real.  I went further and checked multiple sites to compare and found most of the same quotes on different websites.  This website does not give you all this history on Napoleon like other sites.  It does, however, gives you an idea on how Napoleon thought.  You can understand the things that went through his mind. For example:

"Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/bionapoleon.htm

If it is harder for someone to follow along with this mans life, I would reccommend this site.  It is separated in sections and is much easier to follow.

http://www.neatorama.com/2009/04/11/a-few-facts-about-napoleon/#!jmAnY

This site was my favorite.  I found so many cool facts.

- Josephine's real name was Rose. Her full name, ( Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de la Pagerie).  Apparently, Napoleon did not like her name and he changed it to Josephine.

-Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon.

- Their divorce was actually because Josephine could not produce an heir.