Red Balloon

The Red Balloon picture is one which keeps in mind perfect geometric figures. All around you find rectangles, rounded figures, and other straight lines. All of these are present at the lower edges of the painting, almost forming a sort of triangle facing down. Then there is the red balloon in the center of the painting. When you make that sort of triangle it becomes a sort of arrow, but since in this case there is no point where the 2 lines meet to make a point in the triangle, the focus automatically moves up to what is in the middle of it, which is the red balloon. Also at the top edges the line in one side is guided directly towards the balloon and at the other side is a rounded figure that ends in a sort of step going under the balloon, which sort of delineates the importance of what’s above it. Whenever there is a figure formed, whether it's a triangle or a rectangle, it is colored in a brighter color from the rest of the painting to make it stand out. And there is a small detail about the balloon that makes it even more special, which is that around the balloon there is a sort of glow that different from the rest of the space around it, without there even being a geometric delineation to consider it another figure.

.

And since the background is blue and the glow that the reddish balloon gives off is yellow, it becomes extremely similar to the sun, as if the balloon was what was brightening the place. The line coming down from the balloon is the same line that is continued a bit lower with the triangle and rectangle that are there present, which gives it a parallel effect since that line is almost parallel with another one towards the left of the painting. By using a series of geometric figures, the painter in this case is capable of giving and showing the importance and highlights the picture contains.

The Last Supper

The first thing you get to notice as you look at the painting of the alternative Last Supper from the one we are all accustomed to, is the apparent disorganization in which the scene is presented. Da Vinci's Last Supper shows all the disciples seated in an organized way, but here they are presented in various ways. All of them seem to be talking to each other about who is going to betray Jesus, but the position their bodies have are actually intended to be lines that guide you towards Jesus and give emphasis on him. The table also is a line that goes perpendicular to Jesus, so that sort of perfect geometric arrangement takes you to emphasize on Jesus once again. You also see that the colors on the back are brighter around the edges, but as you start to come back towards the center, it becomes darker. What this does is that it makes Jesus appear to be brighter than the others because he is a light in the dark. Also, the other people apart from Jesus wear colorful outfits going from green, to blue, to yellow, while Jesus wears white, making him different as well. You also notice something particular, which is that only Jesus and one other person are looking straight out of the picture. Making this something which stands out could take us to give greater importance to this other person, and if we are talking about importance in the scene of the last supper, that person would be Judas.
.
Then there are other elements about the picture you notice that have a lot of significance. You see a sort of women lying right in front of Jesus. This woman is without a doubt Mary Magdalene, who many people consider to be Jesus' lover. By introducing her into the piece, you now begin thinking on how she symbolizes an unclear truth about Christianism. Also there is a sheep head on one of the plates. This is clearly a representation of how Jesus was supposed to be the Lamb of God, and how he was going to be sacrificed for the good of mankind. There is also bread and wine on the table, which is what Jesus says will signify the body and blood of him and how it will always be sacrificed for the human kind. Elements present all around the piece of art are intentionally put there for us to truly view and give importance to aspects of the picture the painter wants us to notice.

Style

"Ah, what people are! He is almost not with us, and his life is nearly gone, but T.R once yelled at him, so he loves him." pg 98. The way in which Seize the Day by Saul Bellow is written shows a lot about what the author wants us to feel. The style it imposes gives us a sense of understanding the characters more personally. The way in which Willhelm, being the main character, expresses his emotions and thoughts, gets us to understand and get into the story at a greater scale. Bellow's way of making it a personal interaction between the characters and the readers in terms of the way in which they express themselves and how you see their thinking patterns, gets us to feel more comfortable and at the same time more integrated to what the character is going through. This is because once you start to identify yourself with the character by how it communicates to you, the reader, you feel a connection and therefore understand the characters point of view much better.

.

If Bellow had used a more formal and more to the point sort of style with his characters, the result would be a much different. When it is written in a style such as that one, you usually get the feeling that style usually imposes, being it more serious and more attentive to facts. In other words you could say it is a sort of connotation-denotation difference, since one of them gives you the feeling to follow it along in a fresh way while the other makes you feel you need to pay close attention to details and what the precise meaning of it might be. He also writes making a lot of emphasis on some points by making them sound as full of emotion, or even sarcasm, as he possibly can. He writes energetically, and the way in which the character's conversations go along create an easy flow, one without that many difficult words or sentences. His style is therefore sensed as a very fresh, but energetic one.

The Truth To Confusion

"There truth for everybody may be found, and confusion only- only temporary, thought Willhelm." pg 80. One way or another, we all have the same problems and joys. We all know what pain is, what fear, hope, love, and other such feelings are. We have all lived through them at a moment or another. Then why is it so hard for us to sometimes see and understand what the other people are feeling? Aren't we supposed to know what effect a certain emotion has on us? Unless we are someone that has never experienced something like pain or hope, we are bound to knowing what effect these emotions have on ourselves. If you see someone going through a situation you know about because of your personal experiences, you automatically begin thinking about what you felt and how that person must be feeling it. All of our experiences tie in with them, but many times we don't react, but rather think it alone and recreate it for ourselves. How hard is it for us to actually try and help the person out as we know we would love others to do if it were us that stood in their place? The situation is the same, we know that. We know what happens, what we could do, and what the possible outcomes are. But then comes a second problem, which Willhelm talks about. We know the situation other people are in, but the way in which we communicate with them is having trouble.
.
Both people involved in a conversation know to what they want to get to, but the communication process is difficult to get through. We often have to go through long processes while explaining to someone the circumstances that lead to something ending up being another thing. And it goes beyond feelings. We all share characteristics such as having a mother and a father, the way we are physically, with the characteristics every human being has, and stuff such as how we are taught and the activities we carry along. We know we share this with other people, but stuff as simple as that sometimes get confused in our conversations, so we end up spreading them even more by putting stuff that's supposed to be that way anyways. We therefore all know the truth of something, only that we keep adding stuff in our way of transferring information that doesn't need to be said, creating confusion. Once we get everything together, we understand each other because we know what it feels like to be in their position. We know a situation and perform according to it because we are involved with it in a way. We share various characteristics, and so our logical way to act would be in an understanding, prudent environment

Truth

"Was he a liar? That was a delicate question. Even a liar might be trustworthy in some ways." pg 54. Is it sometimes better to tell a lie than tell what actually happened? Many times we face two options when we have to face another person about something we did. We can either tell the truth or a lie about what happened, but then comes the dilemma of what's the best thing you should do. Is it always better to tell the truth? Ethical values play an important role in this choice making. So how can we judge others about the choices they make if it's all based on what they believe to be good and bad? And then there's the positive and negative effects of telling the truth or a lie. When we make the choice of electing one of them, we know there will be consequences, but how do these consequences vary? We are taught to tell the truth always, and never lie to a person. But sometimes a lie can bring more positive things than telling the truth. Hiding some things from some people can actually keep them in better shape than if they were told the truth about something. In other words, lying can sometimes prove to be more ethical than telling the truth. An example of this would be a normal case scenario anywhere. When you meet a person you have never seen before, you automatically begin to analyze him of all the good and bad things he has. When we talk to them, though, we don't greet them by telling them: "Hi, your pants suck, your head is too big, and you walk like a 3 legged giraffe." And wouldn't that be telling the truth?

.

That's why it becomes obvious we are telling lies all day long in order to maintain order, and to have a more positive effect on the person than if we told them the truth about everything. But then there's also the other case where you have to take responsibility for your actions. In this case there's no doubt of what sticks to the ethical values. Telling the truth will always be the best, even if we know it might not be the best for ourselves. Finally, there's the hardest of all choice making regarding whether to tell the truth or a lie. If there was an old woman to whom her sister who lives far away, and with which she doesn't talk regularly, had just passed away and you had to either tell her or not, what would you do? You know that at her age she is very sensitive to anything that happens, and might not be able to take it, but then you also think about her right to know. This is one of the hardest cases you can find, but it does happen. How would you choose? In cases like this one it all depends on what you consider the best choice. Neither of the two choices could be considered better than the other, since they both have a positive and negative side to it. Deciding which one to tell her would depend on your values, on what you believe to be the best.

A Fish For The Future

"I can't give you money. There would be no end to it if I started. You and your sister would take every last buck from me." pg 51. This is pretty similar to the popular saying where its better to give a poor person a rod and teach him how to fish for himself than giving him a fish. If people get accustomed to getting stuff the easy way, they will become nonstop beggars. They will have to depend on others in order to survive, and what they will give back is nothing more than being consumers. Our world can't afford to have people who are consumers but give nothing back to society. It is as if a few had to work for the good of the many, without the many giving something back to help those few. It is almost related to the selfish gene theory proposed by Dawkins, where those that try and get something out of others without them having to give anything back, is the same as how there are organisms that decide to not help other organisms back because they know they will be looked after anyways. The problem with this is that then a person will appear that will decide not to help them out if they don't work, which also applies in this case with those that work and those that don't. But then there are also people who can't work by themselves, including people with disabilities and those that don't have the tools to do so. In the first case it is really hard to actually demand that that person work to get what he wants instead of giving him what he needs, since the problem originates in that the person is physically unable to do what we want him to do. In the second case, though, there is a way in which we can follow the idea of not giving him exactly what he needs, but help him get it himself.

.

It's called education. Those that are poor sometimes lack the tools to do things we want them to do instead of begging in the streets. If we give them education as a tool, rather than giving them money as a usable resource, we will be enabling them for the future. But then comes the problem you see in the book. Willhelm was well educated, and still there is the problem of him not having enough money, so he has to rely on his father. When a person is given the opportunity to do something, and is given the tools for it, there is no reason why he should not do it. Those that don't appreciate the opportunities they are given, should not be helped after in terms of giving them the things they need. Only those that are willing to change and think about their future should be given another chance, a chance to advance and take care of themselves.

The American Invention

"It doesn't mean a thing. Inventors are supposed to be like that. I get funny ideas myself. Everybody wants to make something. Any American does." pg 37. We are always urged with the need to want to make something, whether it's a physical creation or an achievement. I take myself as an example, being somebody who loves creating stuff. Whenever I want to make something up for a project or such, I usually think of something that's either very recognizable, which people connect easily, or something completely new. Making ordinary things keep you ordinary. That is why people choose to either make something new or something people can connect easily without it being completely predictable. We tend to think that one of the best things we can make in our lives is to create something. By creating something we are immortalized somehow, which is what the human being has always wanted to do, become immortal. We are also helping others out in something that wasn't as easy to do before the invention, as well as wanting to be recognized in life by the creation of it. It sort of gives us security that we actually got to do something worth the while during our life time.

.

And in accordance with Willhelm, it's true that inventors many times think of simple ideas that maybe one day could become extremely useful. A clear example is Benjamin Franklin, who thought of ideas as simple as tying a key to a kite to experiment with lighting and electricity, and which turned out resulting in having almost everything around us being run by electricity. He also invented many other things including the idea of firefighters, which at that time might have seemed more of a silly job since fires weren't that common, and paying for the expenses of it would be nonsense. And many ideas turn out to be like that, first being an idea that is either not affordable or simply is considered something nonsense, to becoming a widely used invention.

For Sale: My Son

"For many weeks there had been no executive, no sales, no income. But how we love looking fine in the eyes of the world- how beautiful are the old when they are doing a snow job! It's Dad, thought Willhelm, who is the salesman. He's selling me." pg 11. In Saul Bellow's Seize the Day, Willhelm's dad tries to make out of Willhelm, the main character, something he's not. Willhelm notice's it and therefore says that the true meaning of his father concealing the truth is intended to make his father look good. Could Willhelm's father be the cause of his actual situation? A father making up things about his son while in front of him could have a serious effect on the sons perspective of the father, and of himself. Thinking about it myself alongside my own personal experiences, my father has never invented lies about me to show off, but if he would ever do it, I think it would discourage me from what I want to do with my life. And I bet it wouldn't be true only in my case. When your father has to make something up about you, it's because that's what he considers to be what would be the best case scenario possible. By him making it up, it's also proving you aren't filling the expectations your father had for you in the first place. So the direct effect is a case of unworthiness in the son. His mind begins to change and take decisions based on what he thinks he deserves and should therefore do.

.

It's not the same if a father is constantly telling you how proud he is of you and at the same time helps you to improve in your weaknesses than one that has to rely on making things up so that people can see him and yourself with 'good' eyes. Maybe this was the case with Willhelm's father, where he had to rely on making stuff up to make him look good. Could it have been that because of his father, Willhelm might have ended up where he is, without a job, insecure, and in a difficult family life without his wife and kids? The most probable answer is yes. If his father would accept him with his likes or dislikes, or maybe even give him support to overcome problems and be proud of all he has achieved, maybe Willhelm's situation would be different. We need to consider when we can help others overcome difficulties, and what the best way to help them gain self confidence is. If we are able to make a person feel he is able to do anything and achieve any goal, there is no doubt he certainly will.

How Much Will The Insurance Cost?

"From that time on, Felicite thought solely of her nephew. On warm days she feared he would suffer from thirst, and when it stormed, she was afraid he would be struck by lightning." What Felicite is feeling is not something new to our every day lives. We tend to think on "what if's" all the time, and many times we create things which don't really exist. We might miss a person that has gone off in a trip, or maybe we don't want something to happen in a certain way. We do something, or someone else does something, and then we begin to think on what the outcomes of that might be. Will he be coming back? What if he doesn't make it? What if something happens to him and nobody knows about it? All of these questions are common in our way of thinking of things. We imagine all the possible ways in which a situation could end up. Are we trying to be prepared for what is to come? The reality is that there is no way of being a 100% sure that something will turn out in a certain way. We could spend ages trying to prepare for a moment, but there would be no way to be sure that it will happen. There are so many ways in which a situation could end up turning out, that trying to prepare for some things is rather useless.

.

Even though it is true we must prepare for our future, take cautions for what we know will have a big influence in the future, and perform actions that will affect us positively, we must also learn to let some things be. If we were to always be thinking of things we might think will happen or things we don't want to happen, our world would be submerged in an imaginary, chaotic world where we would forget about our present. Letting things be is sometimes the best thing we can do. We don't have control over many of them, so whether we spend our time or not thinking about it, it wont be any different to what is going to happen. When we can influence something, however, then that is the moment we should act and do all we can to change a situation, but when there really is nothing we can do to change something, the best thing we can do is to continue life as it goes, and let that moment come, whatever the outcome may be.

Happily Ignorant

"Felicite developed a great fondness for them; she bought them astove, some shirts and a blanket; it was evident that they exploited her." In A Simple Soul by Gustave Flaubert, Felicite was a person of virtue, a person who was devoted to serving people around her. But what happens when people know we are willing to give something simply for charity? This resembles one of the arguments mentioned in Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. People will begin to take advantage of her being so nice, while they themselves don't have to give anything back. While Felicite gives, the children take advantage and benefit themselves. And what is it that causes Felicite to not react and see the truth? In this case it is not so related to genes specifically, but on what her formation is. If she doesn't know that she is being taken advantage of, she wont care for the difference. Ignorance is different from genetical formation. But does that mean that we are born good, or that simply we don't see we are doing good by our own formation? Could it be that we are good because we are programmed to be so?

.

The most reasonable answer would be that we are not born ignorant, but rather are affected by our surroundings on the choices we make. So does ignorance make us happy? In this case Felicite is ignorant, but at the same time she is happy. People are taking advantage of her, and she still is happy. So what is the pursuit of happiness? As Chris Gardner clearly states it in the movie The Pursuit of Happiness: "There's no 'Y' in Happiness, it's and 'I' ." Going further ahead from the literal meaning of that sentence, you identify the true meaning of the expression. You shouldn't ask yourself what is it that is making you happy. You should keep away from thinking material things are what actually creates our happiness, but rather think about yourself, and how it is possible that you yourself find happiness in what you do. This was the case of Felicite, who didn't have to look for a reason to be happy, but simply was. So it ties up closer to our formation, to how we decide to live no matter what others do around you, and learn to get the best out of every occasion.