I just graduated from Palm Bay High School in 2011 and this it my first year (second semester) at BCC. I wanted to take an online class to see how I liked them and if I should take more later on in my BCC career.
I have not yet declared a major, but I would enjoy pursuing something in the botanical field, however no such major exists at BCC.
After I finish my schooling at BCC I'm not sure what I'll do next, it will rely mostly upon which course studies I choose to follow and how much I enjoy them.
I do not know how to use this site very well and the more I try to figure it out the more my computer decides it is an ancient piece of junk that should be in chapter one of our text book and freezes up and crashes :(. So here are my essays.
My revised Humanities Essays:
Essay 1: On The Calf-Bearer vs. The Good Shepherd
The statuettes The Calf-Bearer and The Good Shepherd differ in a multitude of ways when given more than a first glance. The first difference you can see is the attitude that is given off by the sculptures by their countenance and other body language. You can also see a rather large difference in the level of detail that was put into the crafting of each sculpture.
The Calf-Bearer would appear to be the happier of the two, where as The Good shepherd stands with a moderate slouch as if bearing the lamb across his shoulders is something he does by trade. In this same scenario the Calf-Bearer seems to have a more upright posture, and projects himself in a more positive manner. The Calf-Bearer carries the calf not because he must, but because he cares to.
As far as the craftsmanship, The Good Shepherd seems to have a lot more detail. The Calf-Bearer has minute details, enough to shape out the man and his distinguishing characteristics. The Good Shepherd goes much beyond that though, from the cloth robe, to the hair of the shepherd and calf, to the satchel he carries, and to the very boots he wears the finest detail is struck out. His robe has detailed folds and creases on it and the hair of the shepherd and lamb curls as one would expect to see it in actuality.
Through the analysis of the attitude and craftsmanship of the two sculptures they become much easier to distinguish from each other as the differences you can notice begin to pile up. The artwork of the Calf-Bearer says “I am a man, this is my calf, know the calf and know me.” The artwork of The Good Shepherd says “I am a shepherd, this is my duty, I am a work of art.” The Calf-Bearer tells a story, The Good Shepherd displays a mastery of sculpture.
Essay 2: On Venus of Wilendorf
Venus of Wilendorf is a lime stone sculpture found in lower Austria around the time period of 25,000 to 20,000 B.C.E. Venus of Wilendorf can be analyzed from two angles, it can be viewed for its physical structure or for its symbolic meaning it held among those who created it.
The sculpture physically consists of a depiction of a large breasted female with a distended stomach that suggests pregnancy. The sculpture boasts a lack of any facial features suggesting it represents a nameless entity of sorts, or that it is not particularized to a certain individual. Through this one can gather that Venus of Wilendorf represented an idea, a cultural norm, or expectancy rather than representing an idolized individual.
Besides its physical attributes the sculpture has a lot of symbolic meaning. The statue represents a mother earthly figure. Early civilizations understood the importance of the Earth around them and knew the Earth was a life giver. Being such Earth was personified as a female, since females are the child-bearers and are seen as the life givers among all animal species.
Early peoples lived at the mercy of nature and knew it was nature that ultimately affected their fate. Mother Earth looked over all the inhabitants as a mother looks over her own children. The Early peoples understood the Earth and the ways of nature, and they brought this to life through their art such as Venus of Wilendorf through which they gave praise to their great mother and thanked her for protecting and providing for them.
Essay 3: On Horace's Civil war
Horace’s poem Civil War is very reflective of Horace’s critical view of life, and more importantly his view on war. Horace’s uses his life experiences to help write this outcry and configures his writing in such a way that it can deliver his message and question the readers own ideals.
Having grown up through the violence of civil wars Horace understood the horrors of war and saw no point in it. Civil War portrays his stance in the tone he takes in his writing. Horace speaks in a very negative manner on the topic of civil war. Horace even references the fact that even when beasts turn to slaying they at least do not slay their own kind. Horace presents a view on war especially vicious civil wars, from the point of view of a lifelong observer of it.
The poem is written in small stanzas that are short and concise. Each stanza tends to end with a question that’s meant to pierce the morals of the reader. It is written in a manner that resembles a plea, as an outcry to the moral conscious of society to realize the idiocy that is war. The poem is Horace’s plea to the reader to question themselves and see that war is pointless. It is the type of thing that would possibly be on a pamphlet similar to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Horace wrote this as an argumentative point to the public.
By the end of Horace’s Civil Warone cannot help but reconcile with Horace’s stance, he presents his argument in a very convincing manner, he tells the reader of the horrors he witnessed all of his life and he delivers his message in a way that it could be received by all who read it.
Essay 4: On Pyramids vs. Ziggurats
When one first gazes upon the ancient architectural structures of Pyramids and Ziggurats they may take to thinking they are both similar structures being fooled by their moderately resembling appearance. This could not be more misleading however because from the top to the bottom pyramids and ziggurats strive to meet different purposes. One was used for life and the other being used only in death, where you may find a welcome opening in one, the other waits in silence ready to strike at those who enter.
Pyramids were built by the Egyptians in Ancient Egypt and housed the remains of Egypt’s rulers. Ziggurats were first built in Mesopotamia and are believed to have been used for religious purposes. Ziggurats where built in stepped fashion with a main temple area at the peak, the contrary is true for pyramids where the main focal point of its architectural purpose is located at its base in the tomb.
Other than their structure, the two differ in many ways. Believed to be a religious temple ziggurats would have been a gathering point for a society and this would mean ziggurats were a place of worship and/or celebration. Life reaches its pinnacle in a ziggurat, while its end is exemplified in a pyramid. Where people would have congregated at a Ziggurat the opposite is so for Pyramids. The point of pyramids was isolation. In a pyramid a Pharaoh would be buried away with all of their treasures and wait to be beamed into the afterlife with as much preparation as they could possibly have. Pyramids are even known to have contained traps to ward off possible crypt raiders, thieves, and other unwanted visitors further distinguishing them from ziggurats by going through extra effort to keep others out, while ziggurats would have wanted all around to come in and gather.
Taking these facts into consideration a clear line of distinction is drawn between pyramids and ziggurats. While they may strike a false resemblance to one another one should be wary of this possible mistake, for while stepping into one promotes fellowship, stepping into the other asks for death.