Importance of context

Importance of context Importance of Context For me context is the key from that comes the understanding of everything (K. Noland) Word context, taking its roots back from Latin contextus, is defined as the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event or situation. Context is an essential part of our everyday lives, it plays a key role in creating the right meaning in every form of communication between the source and its recipient. These include everything ranging from a simple newspaper article to most unusual examples of high art. Film is also an art, even though, a very young one, but the complexity of cinema makes it directly related to knowledge of different types of context. In this essay I will engage with these types of context, film theory context and socio-historical context in particular, to try to prove how vital it is to understand the importance of context in the art of cinema. To achieve this, I chose to built the arguments upon the work of one of the most unusual and difficult filmmakers of the past generation, Andrei Tarkovsky. Inscription on his gravestone reads: â€Å"To the man who saw the angel†. Andrei Tarkovsky was considered a classic, who brought so much to the culture of cinema, that his visions and way of thinking became part of human mind. Ingmar Bergman, in one of his interviews, said: â€Å"Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream†. And personally, this is absolutely true. His films are much above any other film of his time, they are rich with content, detail and hidden meaning much like Beethovens music or Da Vincis paintings, but from our century. He raised the art of cinema to a level which was only achieved in art like music or literature. Perhaps the most noticeable films Tarkovsky has ever worked on are Solaris (1972) and Stalker (1979). Although two films were seen as an improvement of one another, due to similarity of the problem, they both are incredibly different in terms of context. While Stalker is linked with unique film theory, as well as socio-historical events in Soviet Union, Solaris engages with almost every single film theory existent in that particular decade. Contextualising these two films will help the viewer to see them from different perspective and to understand beyond narrative meaning. Generally speaking, most common type of context used in Tarkovskys films is autobiographical.   In every his picture he managed to include small part of his personal life, part of his childhood. However Solaris seems to have inherited the least amount of Tarkovskys autobiography, probably because it was outshone by one astounding historical event whole world was talking about first man in space. Man who did it (Yuri Gagarin) was Russian, what soon had become a huge pride for then strong and growing Soviet Union, it also highly influenced the thematic element of Solaris, however, it didnt become the main focus of the motion picture. Tarkovskys vision was unique, he never tried to show all the scientific facts behind the journey to space, he focused on human spirit, which was present in different forms, elements, memories of Earth throughout the spaceship. He also didnt try to portray the people of future, it was enough for him, that they are still very same humans. Deep space journey was just a symbol for the same journey to the very soul of a man for him. Despite his arguments with the author of the book film was based on, Stanislaw Lem, Tarkovsky changed the original script by adding a small melancholic sequence of main character spending some time on Earth, wandering around his fathers â€Å"dacha†, himself, and the camera, in the very beginning of the film. This is where knowledge of film theory context steps in. Only semiotics and psychoanalytical theories can explain those tiny little details director showed in this episode, which, if stood on its own, wouldnt make much sense. Those who did not realise the importance of theories involved were saying that nothing was happening in this Earth scene, but no, it is life, in its brightest colors and purest form, that happened there. With this small and innocent episode Tarkovsky managed to show some sort of physical completeness of Earths being: sound of rain, morning voice of birds, living flame, his fathers house, full of memories and family photographs. Everything that is lef t unnoticed when it is present, and becomes painfully important when it is gone. He managed to show how beautiful and comfortable Earth really is, compared to huge cold cosmos. Long takes and mis-en-scenes are also pushing the picture in the direction of realism theory, while surrealistic problem of contact with a giant developing mind, which happens to be the Ocean, creates a juxtaposed contextualisation. Memories, dreams, symbols, signs, oppositions and metaphors they all form semiotics and psychoanalytical theories, and they are all dominant in Tarkovskys pictures. His heroes were artists or seekers, as well as fatherless children, abandoned houses, which, in Russian folklore, are opposed to the forest (where devils reign), were often shown as central images, combination of elements (water, fire, wind and nature) were always present, treatment of light, face reflections, nature sounds, juxtaposed images and of course art are all Tarkovskian â€Å"signatures†. All these theories are also present in Stalker, however this film is more famous of having a wider range of socio-biographical and socio-historical influences. By the end of the decade picture was made in, age of advanced Soviet socialism saw its end, and so called stagnation period of Soviet Union had begun. Remains of Stalinism were also present, followed by Siberian imprisonment for artists who showed their artistic freedom too much. Freedom of speech was also absent. To make it clearer, society was afraid and had problems with belief and hope; these have also become problems of Stalker. But for Tarkovsky, the relationship of the individual to history is central. Not just in Stalker, but in most of his pictures, Tarkovsky tends to address our feelings, rather than provoke need to verify the logic and credibility of the events behind the screen. â€Å"Highly visceral responses in the viewer, instead of triggering ideas meant to support a particular attitude toward society and hist ory† is what moved Tarkovsky in creating Stalker. Three protagonists: writer, professor and stalker all are subject to pervasive individual sense of Soviet history. One of them seeks inspiration, another looks for a discovery, and the last one is in search of hope. All three are lead into some mysterious room, located in the heart of so called â€Å"Zone†. The Zone is heavily guarded, and perhaps was named after a nuclear leak which happened in that decade of Soviet Unions history. Tarkovsky in his book â€Å"Sculpting In Time† wrote: †People have often asked me what The Zone is, and what it symbolises The Zone doesnt symbolize anything, any more than anything else does in my films: the zone is a zone, its life†. This mysterious place is used to represent hope and belief for those who seek for it. Without belief, the this room does not exist, and the phenomenon they are looking for is also nothing but an empty space. Because of this Tarkovsky wisely avoids any physical contact with this phenomenon. None of the three protagonists have actually seen the mysterious room, so they come back from their journey with nothing. This allows all kinds of different meanings and understandings to be assigned for The Zone individually in the complexity of the directors vision. Perhaps it wasnt so important for Tarkovsky to show how writer could find an inspiration or professor would find a discovery, most probably he wanted to show the audience how to stand for something you believe in with all your heart. Even when every single shot of his picture represented bitterness of soviet authority and lack of both creative and artistic freedom, Tarkovsky tried to revive the hope, hope and expectations people had of Soviet government, which let them down. Although to achieve this the director used elements of not so common oneiric film theory. In its context, all dreams and dreamlike impacts in Stalker become engaging for the viewer. Encouraged to look for the hidden meaning, beneath the narrative, audience understands the events in its own reflection. This oneirism is created by using lengthy tracking shots and chromatic rendition, opposed to Eisensteins montage, what is described in Tarkovskys book: â€Å"the film image comes into being during shooting and exists within the frame, while editing brings together shots which are already filled with time†. In addition, decelerated and dedramatized still shots also contribute to such dreamlike mood. That is noticeable in a scene, where all three protagonists sit in one of the Zones chambers, disappointed by realizing that the place they were searching for is not â€Å"the room where everybodys most heartfelt desire will be granted†. By using dreams Tarkovsky attempts to â⠂¬Å"reach into our innermost feelings, to remind us, stirring our souls like a revelation that is impossible to interpret in any particular way†. Dreamlike shots create their own narrative stalkers changing desire to escape from something dictatorial, brutal into something else, where there is place for freedom. Andrei Tarkovsky wasnt the man of science or logic, he always tried to make contact through his films with the audiences innermost feelings, emotions and soul. Perhaps this isnt exactly the way understanding of certain context works, because it is more related to logic and structure, but try to imagine how different would both of these pictures look like if there was no historical background behind them, or no film theory support to their complex nature. Solaris and Stalker, both are exceptional and unique films which have secured themselves a strong place in film history and will be discussed for ages. It would have been impossible for them to achieve this, without acknowledging the importance of context. Why else would Solaris be based in space? What could have been the reason for Stalkers repulsive landscapes? How else would dreams be interpreted without oneiric theory? Or why would there be so many   sign and symbols if there was no semiotic or psychoanalytical theory? Fro m acknowledging this comes the understanding of how important context really is. Especially nowadays, where every form of art and even media is based around the events happening around the world, understanding different types of context has become vital, not just for magnificent directors like Tarkovsky, but for every single human being.

Novel Object Recognition Test

The novel object recognition (NOR) test was used to determine working and spatial memory. In this study 75cm Ãâ€" 50cm Ãâ€" 30cm transparent box was used. Three days prior to the habituation sessions, the rats were exposed to the box to familiarize with the environment. On the test day, they were exposed to identical objects to acclimatize with for 5min thereafter, the rats were then returned into their home cage with food and water. Thirty minutes later, the probe test was conducted, each rat was placed inside the box with one of the object replaced by a novel one for 5 min. It is important that (a) the objects have a â€Å"neutral† shape in terms of its significance to the animal, (b) be devoid of any marked characteristics, such as odor and movement, for instance (Li et al., 2011). The total time spent exploring the two objects was recorded. â€Å"Object exploration† is defined as directing the nose and vibrissae to the object at a distance of less than 2 cm, as if â€Å"smelling† it with caution, while bumping, turning around or sitting upon the object were not considered. Discrimination ratio, which is the difference in exploration time, expressed as the ratio of total exploration time with both objects in the choice phase (this ratio allows to adjust for individual or group differences in the total amount of exploration time) was calculated as percentage memory index as shown below:Time spent with new object X 100Memory index (%) = Total time spent with both old and new object (Ogundele et al., 2014).Morris Water MazeThe Morris water maze (MWM) is another apparatus designed to examine the memory impairment in rodents, thus it is highly specific for hippocampal function. This study was carried out as earlier described by Barnhart et al (2015). Each trial began by placing the rat on the platform for 20 s in a bid to allow orientation to extramaze cues found around the apparatus. After orientation, rats were gently lowered into the pool by facing the wall at one of 3 positions (i.e., each at the center of the wall of a different quadrant not housing the platform). After the rat was released into the pool, the observer had to retreat away from the pool to a constant position within the room, such that he served as an additional distal visual cue. Maximum swim time was set at 60 s. Any rat that locates the platform before 60 s was removed from the pool immediately, while the rats that are unable to locate the platform after 60 s of swimming were gently guided to the platform and allowed to re-orient to the distal visual cues for an additional 20 s before being eventually removed from the pool. After removal from the pool, each rat was manually dried with a terrycloth towel and placed in a plastic cage with wood shavings for at least 5 min before returning to the home cage. Each rat was trained twice a day for 2 days with an inter-trial interval of approximately 30 min. Training was conducted at roughly the same time every day in bid to minimize variability in performance due to time of day (Morris, 1984). To examine spatial reference memory, a probe test was administered 24 h after the last training session. During the probe test, the platform was removed from the pool and the rat was allowed to swim freely for 1 min. The rationale of this task was to determine number of time the initial location of the platform was crossed/visited.

Reasons Why Cloning is Unethical Essay

From the day that ‘Dolly the sheep’ made it to the headline news, the controversy regarding her existence has never ceased. It is quite amazing, how the issues surrounding a sheep could create such a great divide on public opinion, stir up much debate in scientific halls, and whose implications caused a dilemma that reached a magnitude which needed a presidential decision. Needless to say, the debate did not concern agriculture or animal rights, but on how she came to be — by cloning. Contrary to popular belief, these clinical ventures though, were not done by sheer sense of adventurism, or by simple acts of human arrogance of ‘playing God’. Instead, this breakthrough in the field of biotechnology, along with other related cases, was carried out with the legitimate purpose of propagating livestock that carry desirable traits. Breeders can easily then raise farm animals that have the preferred traits and thus increase productivity and yield. Also, lab research for the noble intention of developing drugs, require numerous testing on animals before it can finally be declared effective and safe for human use. Cloning would allow them to produce test-animals that display similar or identical characteristics and thus help validate results. There are several other reasons why cloning is held by many scientists as an essential means for improving human condition. However, such so-called conditions had now been raised to the point of fulfilling needs other than physical necessities. Man’s many woes and flaws in life such as the pain of losing a loved one or childless couples having to bear the unfulfilled desire of loving and rearing their own children, are just a few of the many disadvantages that confronts finite man. Today through science, man is longing to challenge and ‘correct’ these impossible odds. Would cloning be the answer? II. Man’s Contemporary Alternative: Merits of Cloning-to Produce-Children Distinguished British philosopher Mary Warnock, expressed her support in favour of utilizing the technology of cloning to produce children. She believes that there is nothing wrong with this procedure and thereby there should be no question on the ethical soundness of such an endeavour (Connor, 2002). Together with the rest of those who agree with her, they believe that cloning offers an excellent solution for the following problems: A. To Help Sterile Parent/s Obtain Biologically Related Children Individuals or parents who long to have their own offspring, but are hindered by sterility or some other reason — the only presented solution so far have been adoption. There are different reasons why some had found this unsatisfactory. With cloning, a sterile man can now have the opportunity of producing a child that bears his own characteristics. The need to find a sperm donor is eliminated, and consequently eliminates the possibility of their child acquiring and passing on undesirable traits to future generation outside the couple. Such a method also opens for an attractive possibility not only for sterile couples but for homosexual couples and individuals who desire to raise a child of their own but do not want the entanglements of a marriage union. B. Pass-on a Genetic Disease Individuals or parents who carry defective genes such as a genetic disease can now hope to eliminate passing the disease to the following generations. Cloning would assure the parents of being able to raise children who will not be troubled by the heritable disorder. C. Pain of Losing a Loved One The grief of losing a loved one can now be alleviated by cloning the dying or dead significant person. Since cloning involves the passing on of exact physical characteristics, producing a cloned individual would invariably cause ‘replication’ of the deceased loved one or relative. Those who are left, will be comforted by ‘seeing’ their dead spouse, child or relative ‘live again’ on the cloned individual. Although, there would be major differences in experiences which would make it entirely impossible to make an exact copy of an individual in all aspects, cloning would bring a connection of the lost loved one with the grieving members. D. Society’s Desire to Have Individuals with Superior Abilities or Qualities Cloning brings families and societies to have super-human individuals by cloning outstanding athletes, musicians, men and women renowned for their beauty, or geniuses. By replicating these individuals, it is presumed that these superior qualities are determined by certain genetic make-up and thus, will be passed on through cloning. III. Reasons for Argument Cloning violates the ethics of human experimentation on the following grounds: A. Concern on Safety Of utmost concern when cloning humans is the high risk involved. As of the moment, the cloning procedure being done in experimenting mammals has shown how unsafe it is to be even applied in humans. Many embryos got wasted as it took 277 attempts before finally producing Dolly the sheep (Gawler, 2000). Barely just being six years old later, Dolly became severely ill and had to be submitted for euthanasia. Careful examination revealed that her chromosomes had shown premature signs of aging (â€Å"Cloning†). The possibility of creating inborn abnormalities or congenital defects caused by the procedure should even bring parents with a hereditary disease not to employ cloning. While it could hold promise of not passing on genetic diseases to their child, the latter is also vulnerable for congenital malformation. Also, since several donor eggs and substitute mothers are needed before achieving success, this places risks on several women. Experiments on animals had shown that there is high occurrence of premature abortion on cloned fetuses. If done on humans, continous abortion could lead to greater possibility of maternal death. B. The Issue of Consent Cloning also undermines the right of the cloned individual. In contrast to the risks that could bring to surrogate mother or the gene donor, the risks posed at the cloned individual do not have the individual’s consent. Most often, the right to exercise freedom is often called by those who promote it. This is often based on the ‘freedom to reproduce’. This means that the constitution protects individuals or parents to freely choose whether they are to have children or not (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972). However, in exercising that right, it overrides the freedom of choice on the cloned individual. True, reproductive freedom permits anybody to decide whether to have a child or not without hindrances by the government. It does not however, in any way, allow anyone to do it by whatever means and in complete disregard for the welfare of others. C. Possible Exploitation of Women Since cloning requires numerous tests before any attempts could become fruitful, large quantity of donor eggs will be needed. Getting the egg would subject the woman donor of hormonal treatment that gives high health risks. Furthermore, what would most likely happen is that these women donors would be offered a substantial amount of money, and thus could lure poor women to compromise their health in exchange for financial gain (Council on Bioethics, 2002). IV. Conclusion More often, the concern for safety is limited on the aspect of limiting or perfecting the procedure. It does not consider the possible undesirable effects it would have — after it is accomplished. This perspective of safety does not take consideration on the unexpected effects it would have on the individual, family involved and society in general. The relationships between members of those with cloned children would greatly be altered compared to conventional family set-up. Would the cloned individual of a father be his child or twin? Obviously, cloning will rearrange how family relations will be treated. Before any attempts to cloning-to-produce children be done, would be parent/s should give grave concern on the potential psychological effects this would have on the one being cloned. What also needs special consideration is it’s the social impact caused by confusion. Cloning might open for unnecessary expensive legal battles, over custody as to who really are the child’s parents. Each individual who has a part of the cloned child might fight to claim for custody over the child. Given that such asexual means to produce children is not strange, faulty or imperfect, there is serious error on the purpose by which it longs for implementation. It places more significance on the one which will be cloned by replicating the person, rather than the cloned child. Human experience has revealed that man has the tendency to abuse, and therefore such technology can be used for vain reasons. Cloning somehow claims to provide solutions for man’s problems, the solution however, creates more problems. Given the demerits of the cause, it would far benefit society to keep from toying with strange methods. Works Cited: 1. Connor, S. (2002). Warnock: ‘No ethical reason to ban cloning’. The Independent. Retrieved 20 Nov. 2008 2. Gawler, DM. Human cloning: Scientific, ethical and regulatory issues. [Electronic Version] Retrieved 20 Nov. 2008

Election of 1876 Hayes Became President

The election of 1876 was intensely fought and had a highly controversial outcome. The candidate who clearly won the popular vote, and who may have won the electoral college tally, was denied victory. Amidst accusations of fraud and illicit deal-making, Rutherford B. Hayes triumphed over Samuel J. Tilden, and the result was the most disputed American election until the notorious Florida recounts of 2000. The 1876 election took place at a remarkable time in American history. Following Lincoln’s murder a month into his second term, his vice president, Andrew Johnson took office. Johnsons rocky relations with Congress resulted in an impeachment trial. Johnson survived in office  and was followed by Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant, who was elected in 1868  and reelected in 1872. The eight years of the Grant administration came to be known for scandal. Financial chicanery, often involving railroad barons, shocked the country. Notorious Wall Street operator Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market with apparent help from one of Grants relatives. The national economy faced difficult times. And federal troops were still stationed throughout the south in 1876 to enforce Reconstruction. The Candidates In the Election of 1876 The Republican Party was expected to nominate a popular senator from Maine, James G. Blaine. But when it was revealed that Blaine had some involvement in a railroad scandal, Rutherford B. Hayes, the governor of Ohio, was nominated at a convention that required seven ballots. Acknowledging his role as a compromise candidate, Hayes delivered a letter at the end of the convention indicating he would only serve one term if elected. On the Democratic side, the nominee was Samuel J. Tilden, the governor of New York. Tilden was known as a reformer  and had attracted considerable attention when, as New York’s attorney general, he prosecuted William Marcy â€Å"Boss† Tweed, the famously corrupt political boss of New York City. The two parties did not have tremendous differences on the issues. And as it was still considered unseemly for presidential candidates to campaign, most of the actual campaigning was done by surrogates. Hayes conducted what was called a â€Å"front porch campaign,† in which he talked to supporters and reporters on his porch in Ohio and his comments were transmitted to newspapers. Waving the Bloody Shirt The election season degenerated into the opposing sides launching vicious personal attacks on the opposition candidate. Tilden, who had become wealthy as a lawyer in New York City, was accused of participating in fraudulent railroad deals. And the Republicans made much of the fact that Tilden had not served in the Civil War. Hayes had served heroically in the Union Army and had been wounded several times. And the Republicans continually reminded the voters that Hayes had participated in the war, a tactic sharply criticized by Democrats as â€Å"waving the bloody shirt.† Tilden Wins the Popular Vote The election of 1876 became notorious not so much for its tactics, but for the conflicted resolution that followed an apparent victory. On election night, as the votes were counted and the results circulated about the country by telegraph, it was clear that Samuel J. Tilden had won the popular vote. His final popular vote tally would be 4,288,546. The total popular vote for Hayes was 4,034,311. The election was deadlocked, however, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one vote short of the required majority. Four states, Oregon, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida had disputed elections, and those states held 20 electoral votes. The dispute in Oregon was settled fairly quickly in favor of Hayes. But the election was still undecided. The problems in the three southern states posed a considerable problem. Disputes in the statehouses meant each state sent two sets of results, one Republican and one Democratic, to Washington. Somehow the federal government would have to determine which results were legitimate and who had won the presidential election. An Electoral Commission Decides the Outcome The US Senate was controlled by Republicans, the House of Representatives by Democrats. As a way to somehow sort out the results, the Congress decided to set up what was called the Electoral Commission. The newly formed commission had seven Democrats and seven Republicans from the Congress, and a Republican Supreme Court Justice was the 15th member. The vote of the Electoral Commission went along party lines, and the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was declared to be the president. The Compromise of 1877 The Democrats in Congress, in early 1877, had held a meeting and agreed not to block the work of the Electoral Commission. That meeting is considered part of the Compromise of 1877. There were also a number of understandings reached behind the scenes to ensure that the Democrats would not challenge the results, or encourage their followers to rise up in open revolt. Hayes had already declared, at the end of the Republican convention, to serve only a single term. As the deals were hammered out to settle the election, he also agreed to end Reconstruction in the South and to give Democrats a say in cabinet appointments. Hayes Mocked for Being an Illegitimate President As might be expected, Hayes took office under a cloud of suspicion, and was openly mocked as Rutherfraud B. Hayes and His Fraudulency. His term in office was marked with independence, and he cracked down on corruption in federal offices. After leaving office, Hayes devoted himself to the cause of educating African-American children in the South. It was said he was relieved to no longer be president. Samuel J. Tildens Legacy After the 1876 election Samuel J. Tilden advised his supporters to accept the results, though he still apparently believed he had won the election. His health declined, and he focused on philanthropy. When Tilden died in 1886 he left a personal fortune of $6 million. Approximately $2 million went to the founding of the New York Public Library, and Tildens name appears high on the facade of the librarys main building on Fifth Avenue in New York City.