La seule chose plus dangereuse que l'ignorance est l'arrogance.
Citation apocryphe. La première attribution remonte à 2003 dans une œuvre de fiction: «Still Life With Crows», de Douglas Preston et Lincoln Child.
snopes.com/fact-check/einstein…
|La seule chose plus dangereuse que l'ignorance est l'arrogance.|
Être bon, c'est être en harmonie avec soi-même. La discorde, c'est être forcé à être en harmonie avec les autres.
Citation déformée extraite du roman "Le Portrait de Dorian Gray" d'Oscar Wilde (1890). Cette citation glorifie l'individualisme. Ce n'est absolument pas une parole recommandable.
Extrait du roman "Le Portrait de Dorian Gray" d'Oscar Wilde (1890):
- Ah! qu'entendez-vous par être bon, s'écria Basil Hallward.
- Oui, reprit Dorian, s'appuyant au dossier de sa chaise, et regardant lord Henry par-dessus l'énorme gerbe d'iris aux pétales pourprés qui reposait au milieu de la table, qu'entendez-vous par être bon, Harry?
- Être bon, c'est être en harmonie avec soi-même, répliqua-t-il en caressant de ses fins doigts pâles la tige frêle de son verre, comme être mauvais c'est être en harmonie avec les autres. Sa propre vie, voilà la seule chose importante. Pour les vies de nos semblables, si on désire être un faquin ou un puritain, on peut étendre ses vues morales sur elles, mais elles ne nous concernent pas. En vérité, l'Individualisme est réellement le plus haut but. La moralité moderne consiste à se ranger sous le drapeau de son temps. Je considère que le fait par un homme cultivé, de se ranger sous le drapeau de son temps, est une action de la plus scandaleuse immoralité.
|Être bon, c'est être en harmonie avec soi-même. La discorde, c'est être forcé à être en harmonie avec les autres.|
La théorie, c'est quand on sait tout et que rien ne fonctionne. La pratique, c'est quand tout fonctionne et que personne ne sait pourquoi. Ici, nous avons réuni théorie et pratique: Rien ne fonctionne... et personne ne sait pourquoi!
Citation apocryphe apparue à la fin du XXe siècle dont on ne connaît pas l'auteur. En France, elle est vite attribuée à Albert Einstein. Aux États-Unis et en Allemagne, les deux premières phrase sont attribuées à Hermann Hesse (à tort).
|La théorie, c'est quand on sait tout et que rien ne fonctionne. La pratique, c'est quand tout fonctionne et que personne ne sait pourquoi. Ici, nous avons réuni théorie et pratique: Rien ne fonctionne... et personne ne sait pourquoi!|
Le passé appartient au passé. Il ne doit pas jeter son ombre douloureuse sur le présent.
Citation extraite du roman "Dolorès" de Harry Bernard (1932).
Extrait du roman "Dolorès" de Harry Bernard (1932):
Il est évident que le sujet ne lui plaît pas. Je comprends. Il en est pour elle comme pour moi, dans une certaine mesure, quand il s'agit de Lucile. Le passé appartient au passé. Il ne doit pas jeter son ombre douloureuse sur le présent. Dolorès m'a montré ses livres. Il y en a de tous genres. La bibliothèque la plus hétéroclite qui soit. Cette petite fille lit tout. Son père lui adresse de Montréal les nouveautés, au fur et à mesure de leur mise en librairie. Des livres français, anglais, canadiens. Son information littéraire l'emporte sur la mienne. Depuis quelques années, j'ai été trop absorbé par mes études, mon bureau, la vie mondaine. Il faudra rattraper le temps perdu. Dolorès m'y aidera, me guidant. Si vous n'aimiez pas les livres, dit-elle, vous baisseriez dans mon estime. Ils sont pour moi de tels amis, si sincères, toujours présents.
|Le passé appartient au passé. Il ne doit pas jeter son ombre douloureuse sur le présent.|
Quand je me regarde, je me désole; quand je me compare, je me console.
Ce diction serait plutôt originaire du Nord de la France. On le trouve cité dans le roman "Au carrefour de la vie" de Michel d'Haëne (1954).
|Quand je me regarde, je me désole; quand je me compare, je me console.|
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Johann Georg Meyer
Johann Georg Meyer von Bremen (28 octobre 1813 Brême, Allemagne - 4 décembre 1886 Berlin), communément connu sous le nom de Meyer von Bremen, était un peintre allemand spécialisé dans les scènes bibliques, paysannes et familiales.
Meyer est le fils de Johann Georg Meyer, boulanger. Sa mère a une pratique religieuse stricte. À Brême, il suit des cours de dessin. À partir de 1833, il étudie à l'académie des beaux-arts de Düsseldorf. En plus de Wilhelm von Schadow, Karl Ferdinand Sohn en particulier y est son professeur. Meyer acquiert les compétences manuelles nécessaires pour pouvoir vivre de la vente de ses peintures, mais il échoue d'abord. De 1841 à 1852, il a son propre atelier à Düsseldorf. À partir de 1841, Meyer mène des études approfondies sur la culture Schwalm (de) à Schrecksbach. En 1843, il devient membre honoraire de l'Association des artistes de Brême (de). Lors de ses voyages à Bruxelles et à Anvers, Meyer découvre les œuvres de Peter Paul Rubens et d'Anthony van Dyck. Le 25 novembre 1851, il épouse à Brême la cantatrice Juliane Henriette Beer (née le 21 avril 1826 à Stockholm, morte le 22 mars 1910 à Berlin), fille du maître de chapelle Johann Adolph Ferdinand Beer (1792-1864) et de la chanteuse Marie Julie Henriette Grund (vers 1793–1861). Le cercle d'amis proches du couple comprend les peintres Hans Fredrik Gude et Adolph Tidemand, Wilhelm Camphausen, Andreas et Oswald Achenbach et Caspar Scheuren.
Lorsque son tableau La Prière d'une veuve reçoit la petite médaille d'or à l'exposition académique de Berlin, Meyer s'installe à Berlin en août 1852, où il devient professeur et ouvre plus tard un atelier. La vente de ses œuvres va de mieux en mieux : en 1838, il ne reçoit que 19 thalers et 25 gros pour le tableau Mère et enfant, tandis qu'en 1886 son dernier tableau La Chérie rapporte 25 000 mark à Berlin.
Meyer est particulièrement populaire auprès des émigrants en Amérique. Son œuvre La Lettre se trouve au Metropolitan Museum of Art de New York1. En 1854, le roi de Prusse le nomme professeur à l'académie des beaux-arts de Berlin.
Johann Georg Meyer est l'auteur d'environ 1 000 œuvres. À sa mort en 1886, il est enterré à l'ancien cimetière Saint-Matthieu de Schöneberg. En 1938-1939, dans le cadre des plans d'Albert Speer pour un axe nord-sud, sa tombe comme environ 15 000 autres tombes sont déplacées dans le cimetière de Stahnsdorf, où elle se trouve encore aujourd'hui.
Gaetano Chierici
Gaetano Chierici né à Reggio d'Émilie le 1er juillet 1838 et mort dans la même ville le 16 janvier 1920, est un artiste peintre italien principalement influencé par les Scènes de genre du mouvement néo-classique.
Né à Reggio d'Émilie, Chierici va étudier à l'École des beaux-arts de Reggio d'Émilie pour une période d'un an entre 1850 et 1851. Il poursuit ensuite ses études à Modène et à Florence avant de compléter ses études à Bologne sous la tutelle de Giulio Cesare Ferrari, peintre néo-classique. Il subira l'influence de nombreux artistes de son entourage dans ses jeunes années comme Alfonso Chierici, son frère, et Adeodato Malatesta mais sera plutôt animé par les prouesses des peintres du mouvement des Macchiaioli. C'est vers la fin des années 1860 que Chierici se spécialisa dans les scènes de genre. Sa participation dans les expositions des beaux-arts de l'Académie des beaux-arts de Brera en 1869 le rend célèbre, mais, son œuvre décline aussi à cette époque par une certaine répétition dans ses œuvres. Il fut aussi directeur de l'École de Dessin des Travailleurs de Reggio d'Émilie de 1882 à 1907 et son premier maire socialiste de 1900 à 1902.
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Stalin: Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Stalin: The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory. That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Stalin: What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another? This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values – food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. – which are indispensable for the life and development of society. In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values, people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced, they must be able to produce these instruments and to use them. The instruments of production wherewith material values are produced, the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill – all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society. But the productive forces are only one aspect of production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature which they make use of for the production of material values. Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's relations of production. Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production. In the production of material values men enter into mutual relations of one kind or another within production, into relations of production of one kind or another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual help between people who are free from exploitation; they may be relations of domination and subordination; and, lastly, they may be transitional from one form of relations of production to another. But whatever the character of the relations of production may be, always and in every system they constitute just as essential an element of production as the productive forces of society. "In production," Marx says, "men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." (Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 429.) Consequently, production, the mode of production, embraces both the productive forces of society and men's relations of production, and is thus the embodiment of their unity in the process of production of material values. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Stalin: Five main types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist. The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighboring societies. Labor in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defense against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes. The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production, he also owns the worker in production – the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor tillage, there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labor between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and the conversion of the majority into slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labor of all members of society in the production process – here there prevails the forced labor of slaves, who are exploited by the non-laboring slave-owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership. Here the slaveowner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full sense of the term. Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them – such is the picture of the slave system. The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production – the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based on his personal labor. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plow and the loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft workshops – such are the characteristic features of the state of the productive forces. The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a laborer who has no interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord. Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system. The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production – the wage laborers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and) in order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property being based on personal labor. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage-workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery. But having developed productive forces to a tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character of the process of production. These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of over-production, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there is an overproduction of goods. This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them. This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership. This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited. The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system, which so far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely cooperation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces; for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production. For this reason socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of over-production and their accompanying absurdities. For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace; for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development. Such is the picture of the development of men's relations of production in the course of human history. Such is the dependence of the development of the relations of production on the development of the productive forces of society, and primarily, on the development of the instruments of production, the dependence by virtue of which the changes and development of the productive forces sooner or later lead to corresponding changes and development of the relations of production. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Stalin: When, in the period of the feudal system, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small guild workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the productive forces of society, it, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this innovation would lead to; it did not realize or understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces which was to end in a revolution both against the power of kings, whose favors it so highly valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply wanted to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw larger quantities of goods on the markets of Asia and of recently discovered America, and to make bigger profits. Its conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this commonplace practical aim. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
Henri-Pierre Picou
Henri-Pierre Picou (Nantes 27 février 1824 - 17 juillet 1895) est un peintre français. Son œuvre commence par des portraits et des sujets historiques classiques, mais il passe ensuite à des thèmes allégoriques et mythologiques.
Peintre académique, il est l'un des fondateurs de l'école néo-gréco, avec ses amis Gustave Boulanger, Jean-Léon Gérôme et Jean-Louis Hamon, également peintres académiques. Tous ont étudié dans les ateliers de Paul Delaroche et plus tard de Charles Gleyre. Le style de Picou est nettement influencé par Gleyre. Alors que le reste du groupe peint généralement des sujets classiques et mythologiques, Picou reçoit également des commandes de grandes fresques religieuses pour de nombreuses églises, dont l'église Saint-Roch.
Il fait ses débuts artistiques au Salon de 1847. L'année suivante, il reçoit une médaille de deuxième classe pour son tableau Cléopâtre et Antoine sur le Cydnus. Également connu sous le nom de Cléopâtre sur le Cydnus, ce tableau est généralement considéré comme le chef-d'œuvre de Picou. Cette exposition au Salon de 1848 a fait l'objet d'un article du critique Théophile Gautier, qui a estimé que le sujet était trop ambitieux, mais a également déclaré que «tel qu'il est, il donne le meilleur espoir pour l'avenir du jeune artiste, et se classe parmi les sept ou huit tableaux les plus importants du Salon» En 1875, le tableau a été exposé à New York, et a ensuite trouvé refuge sur les murs d'une galerie d'art privée à San Francisco.
Picou possédait un grand atelier à Paris, boulevard de Magenta, qui lui permettait de travailler sur ses vastes fresques. Sa popularité ne cesse de croître et il remporte le deuxième prix de Rome en 1853 pour son tableau Jésus chassant les vendeurs du Temple, ainsi qu'une autre médaille de deuxième classe pour son tableau du Salon en 1857. Dès ses débuts en 1847, il fut un habitué du Salon, exposant presque chaque année jusqu'à sa dernière exposition en 1893. On a dit de lui qu'il était le peintre le plus en vogue vers la fin du Second Empire français.
Stalin: When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern large-scale machine industry in Russia, while leaving tsardom intact and turning the peasants over to the tender mercies of the landlords, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this extensive growth of productive forces would lead to; they did not realize or understand that this big leap in the realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a regrouping of social forces that would enable the proletariat to effect a union with the peasantry and to bring about a victorious socialist revolution. They simply wanted to expand industrial production to the limit, to gain control of the huge home market, to become monopolists, and to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the national economy. wordsmith.social/protestation/…
You can follow us in other languages. Visit our website for more information wordsmith.social/protestation/…