©Sven Hansche/Shutterstock.com
Earlier versions of the descriptions of these paintings first appeared in 1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die
, edited by Stephen Farthing (2018). Writers’ names appear in parentheses.
The Pillars of Society (1926)
A member of the Dada movement from 1917 to 1920, George Grosz satirized corrupt bourgeois society. As the moving force behind the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) movement, his attacks began to focus on the rising Nazi party. Constantly in trouble with the authorities, he continued to express his revulsion with postwar Germany. The title
The Pillars of Society refers to a play by Henrik Ibsen. It shows an old aristocrat in the foreground, his head full of the pageant of war, sporting a dueling scar on his cheek. In his hands he holds a beer glass and a foil. His monocle is opaque he cannot see. On the left is a nationalist with a chamber pot on his head clutching his newspapers. To the right a Social Democrat, his head full
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - FOXNEWS - 20130402:04:01:00
comparemela.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from comparemela.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
supreme court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. i ve asked you a lot of questions and never asked you that. what are your thoughts? well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. it s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they nambla, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn t matter what they are, they don t get to change the definition. so it s not something against gays, it s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. it has significant r ramificatio ramifications. sean: dr. carson gave the statement, it s not my intention to equate those groups, those who know me well, i have no hate, the
because then we re changing the definition. if we begin to change definitions, of pillars of society, where does it stop? what if in 25 years there is another group who says, i think we should change it again? you know, you have to have some standards. and god has set a standard. man is the one who likes to change things. and, you know, i m sure there are a lot of people who will just, you don t give much credence to god. but the fact of the matter is, you know, it is my opinion. it s something that i ve developed over the course of years. and again, i m not sure that it s necessary for it to be called marriage. for them to have equal rights. nobody should have more rights than anybody el. nobody should have the right to change the definition of marriage you are old enough to remember and i certainly am when it was illegal in many states in the
controversy. then we ll discuss. listen to what you said. marriage is between a man and a woman. it is a well established, fundamental pillar of society. and no group, be they gays, be they namla, be they people who believe in beastiality. doesn t matter what they are. they don t get to change the definition. so it s not something that is against gays. it s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. all right. you said that actually on tuesday to sean hannity. it s causing a lot of controversy. i want to give you a chance, dr. carson, to explain what you meant because it sounded like you were lumping in gay marriage with basically criminal activity whether beastiality or the man/boy love association. go ahead and explain. sure. okay. well, first of all, let me say that my comments are my opinion. they have nothing to do with john hopkins.
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.