Write an essay about examine the difference between the art and politics
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Intersection of Art and Politics: An Exploration of Their Differences
Art and politics are two distinct realms that have long coexisted and often intersected throughout history. Both have the power to shape society, challenge norms, and provoke thought. However, it is essential to examine the differences between art and politics to understand the unique contributions each makes to our world.
At its core, art is a form of creative expression that encompasses various mediums such as painting, sculpture, literature, music, and more. It allows individuals to convey emotions, ideas, and experiences through the lens of their own unique perspectives. Art has the capacity to evoke deep emotions, challenge societal conventions, and provide a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. It can be a means of exploring personal identity, social issues, and universal human experiences.
Politics, on the other hand, refers to the activities, actions, and policies undertaken by individuals or groups to gain and hold power within a society. It involves decision-making processes that shape governance, public policies, and the distribution of resources. Politics is primarily concerned with power dynamics, ideology, and the pursuit of societal change through legislation and governance.
One fundamental difference between art and politics lies in their respective objectives. While art seeks to provoke thought, inspire emotions, and encourage individual interpretation, politics aims to influence societal structures, enact change, and shape collective action. Art has the potential to challenge the status quo, question authority, and offer alternative perspectives without necessarily seeking immediate tangible outcomes. Politics, on the other hand, operates within a framework of power dynamics and seeks to achieve concrete goals such as passing legislation or implementing policy changes.
Additionally, art often transcends boundaries and can exist outside the constraints of political systems. Artists have the freedom to critique political systems or challenge authority figures without fear of electoral consequences or legal repercussions. Art can provide a platform for dissent and act as a catalyst for social change by highlighting injustices or advocating for marginalized communities. Politics, however, operates within established structures and institutions where compromises and negotiations are necessary for progress.
While art and politics have distinctive objectives and operate within different frameworks, they are not entirely separate entities. Throughout history, art has played a significant role in political movements and activism. Artists have used their work to shed light on social issues, challenge oppressive regimes, and advocate for justice. From Picasso’s “Guernica” depicting the horrors of war to Banksy’s graffiti addressing social inequality, art has often been a powerful tool for political commentary.
Conversely, politics has also influenced art in various ways. Governments or ruling powers have historically patronized artists to create propaganda pieces that promote their ideologies or enhance their public image. Political leaders have recognized the power of art as a means to shape public opinion and reinforce their agendas. However, these politically motivated artworks often lack the authenticity and freedom of expression found in independent artistic endeavors.
In conclusion, while art and politics are distinct realms with different objectives and frameworks, they are intrinsically linked in many ways. Art has the power to challenge political systems, evoke emotions, and inspire social change. Politics, on the other hand, operates within established structures to enact tangible policy changes and shape governance. Despite their differences, art and politics will continue to intersect as artists use their creativity to comment on political issues while politicians recognize the influence of art in shaping public opinion. By understanding these differences and acknowledging their interconnectedness, we can gain a deeper appreciation for both art’s expressive power and politics’ role in shaping society.
