The Controversy in the Deutsche Werkbund
The Werkbund Exhibition staged in Cologne, Germany, in 1914 presented the primary architectural differences during those times. The debate was based on industrial methods and standardization against craft and fine artistry. Hermann Muthesius, a German nationalist, led the standardization supporters while Henry de Velde, a Germany-based Belgian, was the leader of the individualism group.
Muthesius’ Perspectives
Muthesius argued that the architectural community and the Werkbund wanted standardization which was the only option left if Germany wanted to reinstate her universal significance in the architectural field. Muthesius thought that if standardization were employed in production for the right reasons and produced a high-quality product, the outcome would develop an international taste and attract many nations. Because of the standard quality, he argued that large export companies would distribute the product, making German art known to the world.
Henry de Velde Argument
Henry de Velde on the contrary, disapproved of all of Muthesius’ arguments Henry believes that the Werkbund’s hard work and financial resources should be used in mentoring the German’s architectural inventions. Henry also debated that a real artist will never follow regulations that limit his operations and force him to meet specific standards. Velde views Muthesius’ desire to build prototypes before planning the style, as like expecting results before action. On export, Henry believed that none of the quality products was created for export and viewed quality as exclusive to those who appreciated it. However, Henry de Velde agreed with Muthesius that the exhibitions would only be relevant if they focused on exemplary work.
Incorporation on New Material and Technology
In the quest to improve the German architectural inventions and produce, the artists were forced to search for new designs and materials. The architects sought to start using materials for their composition properties. And the plan was to be based on elementary geometrics preferences. The German architects conducted more experiments on new materials and technologies and incorporated them into constructing new building types. Through their studies, they impressed on the use of steel and concrete in construction. Further research led to the establishment of the Fagus factory and Turbine factory. Architects such as Gropius incorporated new materials and technology to set up tilted masonry, therefore, providing a pragmatic solution.
The Bauhaus and Cologne Cathedral Buildings
The Bauhaus building is the most historical building constructed in the 20th century. From its name, Bauhaus is a translation of Architecture House in the German language. Bauhaus building was an art school building in the 20th century. Walter Gropius designed the building, and later on, it was the reason behind the start of the Bauhaus movement. Cologne Cathedral building is another perfect example of German Gothic architecture. The building which hosts the Archbishop of Cologne is the tallest twin-spired structure on the globe.
Impacts of World War One and German Revolution on Architecture
The results of world war I and the German Revolution were very impactful on Berlin’s art and architectural work. Before the war, the tension of war had caused the government to introduce exhibitions to help identify plans for all existing built-up areas and unoccupied districts. The primary focus was on transport and open fields though no restrictions were put on architectural housing and public building schemes. The impacts of the war and the revolution made the government introduce the Great Berlin Law of 1920. The law eliminated the existing tension and merged all municipalities to form a more prominent city of Berlin.
Prussian Law on Housing Construction of 1918
Another bill referred to as the Prussian Law on Housing Construction of 1918 was passed. The law provided the base of the building ordinance and the zoning plan of 1925. The zoning plan gave legality on which urban planning that is proactive and social could be elaborated. This new planning, construction, and expansion of the city of Berlin provided an excellent opportunity for architecture. Each architect and planner was provided with a chance to initiate his views on current social-oriented house construction. Various ideas that had been formulated before the war but faced challenges in implementation were completed. These plans included the Garden City planning and the Bauhaus concepts. After the war, further research was conducted, and the projects were effectively implemented.
The post-war and revolution period led to great historical architects such as the Taut brothers, Gropius, Mendelsohn, the Luckhardt, and many more who provided architectural solutions to building and construction problems. Large structures, both private and public buildings, were constructed all over Berlin, and also small single residential houses were built. The emergence of public utility companies that make public and commercial homes in areas such as the Hufeisensiedlung in Britz demonstrated rationalization. The companies were relating the new architectural inventions to Muthesius’ argument on the demands of standardization. The Berlin development resulted from architecture, the field of architecture grew, and the ideas were sold out to other European nations.
Visionary Work After the War
After the war and the revolution, Berlin hosted galleries open to any contemporary art. The enthusiasm for the color and shapes used by the artist came from the natural setups. One of the visionary workings is the “Nolde”, which I an art by Emily Hansen close to the Brucke style. The art consolidated his composition by the way the color structure was used. The Nodle painting clearly defined the mystery of a soothsayer. The workings are a reflection of the north German in the protestant content. Tappert used paintings of naked women as the motifs and a demonstration of his animal-oriented love of life. Daniel used paintings and cartoon pictures to show the life of the Germans and the enlightenment of the Germans mentally.
The Dada Movement
Dada movement began in Zurich, Switzerland, as a reaction against world war I and the concept of nationalism which is believed to be the primary cause of the war. The movement’s output was diversified, including poetry performance, paintings, sculpture, collage, and photography. Dada’s aesthetics expressed its hatred of nationalism, and worldly desires were influential on artists in different locations. In Berlin, members of the Dada organized protests, protests, and public meetings where they criticized the stupidity of humankind. The movement’s influence was so strong that it had martyrs who gave their lives to the beliefs of the action. Though the Dada movement was finally disbanded because of the emergence of Surrealism, its teachings led to modern art.
The Bauhaus Movement
The Bauhaus was considered the most influential art school of the 19th century in the modern world. The movement had an exceptional understanding of relating art, society, and technology. The campaign was founded by Walter Gropius, who first started it as a school rather than a movement. The school provided teachings that have influenced modern architectural designs and arts. They wanted to bridge the gap by combining crafts and fine arts. The school finally morphed to be a movement with outstanding aesthetics that relate to fine arts and crafts.
Plato’s And Aristotle’s Dualism And Theory Of Forms
Background on the Philosophy of Truth
Western philosophy considers two different approaches to the topic of reality, such as the nature of reality itself as well as the relationship between the mind, including culture and language, and reality. When studying the relationship between knowledge, truth, and reality, it has been generally stated that the majority of philosophers primarily accepted the Correspondence Theory of Truth. According to the universally-accepted theory, truth is considered something which aligns with reality and the perceived world. Specifically, truth is a characteristic that is applicable to beliefs, statements, and propositions that qualify the sense of reality the way it is in real life. In this sense, beliefs are mental standpoints, statements are either written or verbal representations. At the same time, propositions represent transcendent logical entities that are being transferred with the help of statements and beliefs. Therefore, if a statement of belief or proposition shows reality the way it is in life, then it is actually true. In turn, if it shows the reality that does not match the way it is in life, then it is not true. As suggested by Tarski, the statement “snow is white” can only be true and only true if snow is white.
Dualism
Aristotle and Plato are regarded among the greatest philosophers of the Western world. In the conventional view, Plato’s philosophy is utopian and abstract while Aristotle’s approach has been characterized as practical, empirical, and generally based on common sense. Although such a differentiation fails to consider the continuities between the perspectives of the two philosophers, it suggests that their stances on such issues as knowledge and reality would be different. The specific differences between the approaches that Aristotle and Plato take in their philosophy include forms, ethics, and politics. For the purpose of the present exploration, forms represent the most relevant difference to explore as it is associated directly with the theory of Dualism (Robinson). In the theory, it is stated that the mental and the physical facets are both real, but neither of them can be assimilated into the other. According to Plato, Forms (in his philosophy, the term is usually mentioned in capitals, and the same applies to Plato’s individual Forms). For the philosopher, the Forms represent perfect points of example or perfect types of different forms that can be seen in the world (Robinson). Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory of Forms but not the idea of the form itself. In the philosopher’s view, forms cannot exist independently from the world in general, thus suggesting that every form is the form of something else. The difference between the ways in which Plato and Aristotle approached the theory of forms offers some background into how the philosophers chose their stances on different phenomena and explained them.
Aristotle’s Understanding of Reality and Truth
Considering the varied stances of the philosophers regarding Dualism and the theory of forms, it is essential to differentiate between their perspectives on reality. First, Aristotle’s approach to reality as the natural world will be explored. According to the philosopher, logic is the tool that allows people to know anything. Human knowledge, therefore, aims to find out the features of the things that exist. In the system of thought developed by Aristotle, propositions made in the subject-predicate form are the primary expressions characterizing the truth about the world because they allow transferring the features and properties that are inherent to individual substances (Robinson). The philosopher believed that his logical scheme about reality accurately represented the nature of reality as it is. Starting from simple and basic descriptions of specific things, Aristotle postulated that it was possible to ultimately attain the information that is needed for a detailed and comprehensive view of the universe as it really is. The formal rules for correct reasoning, which is represented by the basic principles of categorical logic, were universally accepted by Western philosophers up until the nineteenth century.
In Aristotelian logic, it was believed that universal truths could be revealed from specific things by means of inductive reasoning. Although, it is essential to note that the philosopher did not take into account the knowledge acquired from inductive logic as scientific knowledge. However, induction was a required preliminary framework for the main bulk of scientific research, providing the primary premises necessary for scientific demonstrations. Considering the principles that the philosopher developed, it is possible to discuss the general account of the account of the operation of individual substances in the natural world. Aristotle made a significant divide between two things, such as those that only when put in movement by something else and those that can move on their own without external facilitation.
The distinctions of things that were offered by the philosopher are also important because they explain why they have the functions that they have. The first crucial distinction is in the difference in the origins of things, as different accounts had to be offered for the functions of natural things and those of artifacts. The second is that a clear differentiation is needed between the form and basic materials, which together represent the nature of any separate thing. The third distinction is that recognition is necessary for acknowledging the variance between things as they are and things considered in the context of their purposes or ends. Thus considering the mentioned differentiations, Aristotle proposed four explanatory causes that can help attain knowledge on reality as explained by the things existing in the natural world.
The first explanatory factor is the material cause, which represents the general stud of which things are made. For instance, the material cause of a house includes the construction materials, which are a part of an explanation of the house because it cannot exist without the materials that composed it. The second factor is the formal cause, signifying the pattern or the essence to which the materials conform when they are assembled together. Taking the hypothetical example of the house, the formal cause is the design and the structure that has been reached through the drafted plans. The third factor explaining reality is the efficient cause, which is the force that has been directly responsible for bringing both the material and form together to make a specific thing. In the house, the efficient cause is represented by the masons and carpenters who worked on building the structure by using construction materials. Lastly, the final cause is the purpose of a thing that exists in the world. In the house, the final cause is to serve as a place of living and shelter for human beings. Therefore, Aristotle’s philosophy of the natural world is explained by looking for the causes of natural phenomena, and all four explanatory factors are essential components of any adequate account regarding the existence and nature of things.
Plato’s Theory of Forms
In contrast to Aristotelian reasoning, Plato’s perspective on reality was based on three crucial metaphysical and abstract views. First, the existence of an immaterial reality is separate from the physical world (Robinson). The second is that there is a radical differentiation between an immaterial soul and the physical body of a being. The third is about the existence of an immortal soul that finds its final accomplishment in the union with the external and transcendent realm of understanding. Within Plato’s Theory of Forms, the world is continuously changing, as reflected by the seasons. Therefore, the reality is never permanent as people pass away, animals and trees live and then die. Even the present world is deceiving as the sense of sight, touch and taste can sometimes offer confusing outcomes from time to time.
Thus, arguing against the approach offered by Socrates, Plato suggested that because the material is changing, it is also unreliable. Moreover, the philosopher believed that the considerations of reality were not limited to that issue. Behind the unpredictable world of appearances, there is also a realm of permanence and reliability. Thus, this world is made up of more real and permanent Forms or Ideas. According to the philosopher, people would make continuous attempts to recreate the Form although they would pale in comparison to the perfect idea, suggesting that all things that are present in the world are imperfect representations of the ideal Form (Robinson). How good the recreation of the Form will be depends on one’s capacity to recognize the proper Form. Even though no one has been able to see the perfect Form, Plato states that this is not an issue. The most important thing is being able to conceive the Idea or Form of an incredible thing in one’s mind, which would make it exist.
The uniqueness of Plato’s philosophical approach to reality and knowledge is that there is no limit to the considerations of the Form. For any conceivable thing or property, there is a corresponding Form that perfectly represents it. Anything, from a cloud to a house, is an example of presumably independently-existing abstract ideas of perfection. Therefore, true and reliable knowledge in the eyes of the philosopher is only attainable to those who are capable of comprehending the true reality behind the world and the mundane experiences that occur on a regular basis. Plato suggested that people had to be taught how they can recall the knowledge of the Forms because it already existed in their minds because their souls had apparently seen the world of Forms before being born. For instance, someone wanting to engage in painting would have to recall the knowledge of Forms of paint, color, shading, canvas, and so on. Following this logic, if one cannot recall the necessary knowledge about reality then they are not suited to be painted, according to Plato. Thus, a very high standard for a certain trade suggests a person’s knowledge of the Form. Since most people cannot be educated about the nature of the Forms because the latter cannot be reached through education but only recalled.
Reference
Robinson, Howard. “Dualism.” Plato Stanford, 2020. Web.
New Jersey V. Tracy Lois Odem Lawsuit Analysis
Introduction
T.L.O, whose real name is Tracy Lois Odem was a teenager and a student in high school. She was suspected of dealing with drugs by the school administration. Upon searching for her, a list containing students’ who owed her money was found in her purse, along with cigarettes and some marijuana. As a result, she was charged with owning hard drugs. In this analysis, we will discuss more about this case, relating it to the student rights and privacy, and the justifications of conducting searches in the learning institutions.
Body
Before the trial, T.L.O attempted to pacify evidence in the investigation, but the court declined to grant her the motion. Therefore, she was found guilty by Middlesex, the New Jersey juvenile and domestic relations court, and hence convicted to serve 1-year under probation (New Jersey v. T.L.O). However, in the proceedings, Tracy argued that, according to the 4th amendment, her rights against searches and confiscation of personal items had been violated (McAllister, 2016). She later appealed her case to the Supreme Court after the magistrate bench had found her guilty of the offense. Later, the petition was successful, and it was proclaimed that the evidence was not reliable enough to be used against her and that the search was unreasonable.
According to this case, there are three reasons which justify the search. First, in the report, the school’s assistant principal stated that the defendant had been smoking: which was against the school rules (McAllister, 2016). Hence, there was a probable reason to suspect that she was in possession of cigarettes: and this justified the search. Secondly, the rolling papers discovered in her purse made the administration believe that the girl was also dealing with marijuana. The finding also warranted the investigation since it presented additional proof that revealed drug-related activities, which is a severe violation of the school rules (McAllister, 2016). Lastly, the list found in her bag with the names of students who owed her money was enough indication to prove that she had been selling drugs to her colleagues. Furthermore, one of the teachers caught her together with another student smoking in the lavatory. The colleague later admitted to having committed the felony, whereas T.L.O. denied the allegations.
The legit expectation of confidentiality is a component of privacy law, which controls which places and actions an individual has a lawful right to privacy: this also applies to school-going children. Hence, school administration must obtain authorization before searching any student within their premises (McAllister, 2016). Besides, the exercise, which is a breach of personal privacy, should be conducted to the subject centered on the reasonable cause to believe the student violates the law. One can argue that the institution leadership infringed the defendant’s confidentiality by rummaging through her purse. However, it was justifiable because they had a reasonable ground to believe that the learner engaged in an illegal activity that would interfere with discipline and order.
In my opinion, the girl deserved to be disciplined because she acted against the school rules for possessing cigarettes and marijuana. She was also engaged in selling the same drugs to her fellow students, which was a serious matter. She was also a bad influence on her colleagues, and she had to be disciplined under the law. On the other hand, I believe that, even though the administration violated the legit expectation of privacy at school, they had to balance it with the facility authorities’ needs to maintain a peaceful and secure educational environment.
Conclusion
The above case serves as an excellent lesson to parents and school administration on how they both need to be vigilant in ensuring school-going children are well protected from harmful influences. It was inappropriate for Tracy to have been engaged in such illegal and destructive activities at that tender age. Therefore, parents ought to take full responsibility for their children’s welfare to avoid such occurrences. In this scenario, the court was, therefore, right in its judgment of the case.
Reference
McAllister, M. (2016). Rethinking student cell phone searches. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.