Answer:
Many of the well known personalities from the first part of the Baroque period hail from Italy, including Monteverdi, Corelli, and Vivaldi. (By the mid- eighteenth century, our focus shifts to the German composers Bach and Handel.) Many of the forms identified with Baroque music originated in Italy, including the cantata, concerto, sonata, oratorio, and opera. Although Italy played a vital role in the development of these genres, new concepts of what it meant to be a nation increased the imperative of a “national style.” Differences between nations are often audible in music from the period, not only in the way music was composed, but also in conventions of performance; particularly obvious was the contrast between Italy and France
Explanation:
Answer:
That the group is unaware of the Apaches and think themselves out of danger.
Explanation:
The text shown in the above question shows the influence of the soundtrack of a movie scene. The soundtrack is a fundamental resource for any film work. It is the element that gives the movie its rhythm, makes the viewer thrill, get scared or get excited. The right song helps with a character's narrative and scene composition. But it should be remembered that the term “soundtrack” applies not only to the music composed for the movie, but to all sound components such as noise, narration, silence, among others.
In the scene shown in the question above, the music suddenly changes to an ominous Indian theme, but then when the camera pans back to the stagecoach, the stagecoach theme returns. This return means the group is unaware of the Apaches and is out of danger.
I’d suggest downloading the app, it helps explain everything.
What materials do they use for woodblock painting?
Answer:
Sheet of drawing paper.
Lead pencil.
Block of wood.
Curved burnisher or bone fold.
Set of wood carving gouges.
Rubber or non-slip mat (optional). I cut mine from an old place mat.
Glass surface (like the glass from a frame).
Water-based block printing ink.
Putty knife.
Rubber brayer.
Block printing paper like Kozo or mulberry.
Rice spoon.
Answer:
There is an old question that has entertained the minds of many thinkers who look to art and wonder whether it is a mirror offering a reflection of life itself. Art has the power to evoke the same emotions, thoughts, moral and ethical controversies, and conflicts that we experience in life. Anyone who has had a personal reaction towards a work of art will be in agreement. What is it then about the essence of art and the essence of life that are so unmistakably different? Is it a possibility that art gives humans the opportunity to experience phenomena that are not accessible in quotidian life? Is art merely an imitation of life as Plato once asserted with such conviction, or is art a freestanding sphere in which humans can learn in exceptional ways? Through the deliberation of such questions the artist can perhaps move closer towards understanding his tremendous capacity to illustrate our existence in a distinct and remarkable way.
The Greek philosopher Plato declared the artist to be “an imitator of images and is very far removed from the truth” (Republic X, 27). Plato was certain that art was nothing but a dangerous and shallow imitation of life that served only to draw humans far away from the Truth. This unique concept of ‘Truth’ refers to the idea that the purest existence of any given thing lies not in the physical manifestation of the thing itself, but rather in its invisible and eternal ‘Form’. Let us take an example of a table vs. The Table. Any given table is a table that has been modeled after the eternal form of The Table. Somewhere in an otherworldly domain, alongside all the other eternal forms of the universe, exists the One and Only Table in all its truth, purity, and Tablehood. The carpenter may look towards but not at the Form of the Table (or else the carpenter would be God and at which point probably no longer a carpenter) in order to produce, or ‘mimic’ a lesser yet sufficient model of The Eternal Table. In a similar way the artist can be compared to the carpenter, only deserving of less respect according to Plato. The artist does not look to the Form of Beauty, say, but rather looks to the physical image or projection of Beauty. This removes him even further from Truth than any other ordinary laborer. The artist is in this way an imitator, and art is a ‘mimesis’ or imitation of the visual display of Eternal Forms such as Beauty. Consequently it is Plato’s persuasion that art as a mere impression of life is detrimental to the inner soul and its understanding of righteous Truths.
Explanation:
is this the type of essay you're looking for?
