The 19th Century Painting That Most Blockbuster Movie Posters Are Based On
tor.com
tor.com
Yes, the spiritual wanderer contemplating existence is a Western archetype of indeterminable root. Yet the Wanderer is a specific concrete precipitation which propagates forward in time but does not appear to have any precedent (to a certain, albeit arbitrary, level of pattern-matching strictness). Thus, while the Wanderer does not monopolise the archetype, it does lie at the root of a specific visual heritage of that archetype.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Byron was the absolute Elvis of 1818, when this was painted, and the image is as Byronic as can be.
I live not in myself, but I become
Portion of that around me; and to me,
High mountains are a feeling, but the hum
Of human cities torture: I can see
Nothing to loathe in Nature, save to be
A link reluctant in a fleshly chain,
Classed among creatures, when the soul can flee,
And with the sky, the peak, the heaving plain
Of ocean, or the stars, mingle, and not in vain.
(This from a man who used to spend four hours on his toilette before breakfast at 1 pm.)It's also as far from Kant as you can get. Kant never travelled more than 10 miles from Konigsberg in his life, for Pete's sake – where the housewives, as the saying goes, would set their clocks by his afternoon walk.
Byronic hero: the wanderer, the outcast, the Wandering Jew, the mysterious criminal whose crime is never explained.
The Visionary: the first stage of recovery and the first positive Romantic anti-role. The word often used at the time was “mystic.” The Visionary tries to observe the world so intensely as to get to the essence outside of all mental categories. It was felt to be the special task and privilege of the artist and poet to communicate that experience.
The Bohemian: perhaps the most modern of the anti-roles, characterized by a fascination with alcohol and drugs and sexual experimentation as ways to shift and change consciousness, put the mind through permutations of perceptions which are impossible for the square who is boxed in by his social role. Similar is the interest in non-bourgeouis modes of living, in indifference to middle-class standards of dress, furnishing, and cleanliness.
The Virtuoso: The Visionary avoided role-playing; the Bohemian defied it; the Virtuoso and Dandy transcended it, the one by fantastic mastery, the other by irony. Paganini was the first great Virtuoso and for decades the anti-role model and ideal. Other examples are Richard Burton the Virtuoso traveler and translator of the Arabian Nights, and the Virtuoso mountain climber who performs sublime feats of superhuman effort “because it was there.”
The Dandy: transforms the role not by excess but by irony. The role of the highest status in European society is that of the aristocratic gentleman of leisure. By willfully playing this role better than those born and trained to it, the Dandy reveals the pointlessness of the socially adapted. The social type with the highest status spends his life in play and pettiness. The Dandy instead offers perfection and elegance without content, without social function. By stealing the clothes of society, he reveals its nakedness. He demands a greater exquisiteness and perfection than society can achieve. This explains the irritation of society with the Dandy, its efforts to deprive him of his ironic authority, the moral nastiness with which England relished the downfall of Oscar Wilde.
Do any of these not evoke the hacker?
I think your last sentence is selection bias at play - a non-Russian is more likely to meet an educated Russian, rather than the average one. This bias likely accounts for 99% of the appearance. For the remaining 1% you may actually have a valid point - literary education in the 20th century Russia was a bigger part of the education system, even on the technical tracks, when compared to the US.
There's also your name, which narrowed it down to Russian or French, and I don't think the French care about Byron :)
It would be better to learn something about Byron. He is arguably the most iconic figure of the 19th century, extraordinarily compelling and interesting, and his life was one of the laboratories in which modern identity was created.
On the other hand it might just be that they are teaser poster. If we are really going for similarity the poster for 2012 is a pretty good fit[0]. Of course I'm not sure if you actually had anything to add or just wanted a Seinfeld moment?
OK, perhaps I didn't get all of that from a painting and a couple of movie posters but you get the idea. At some point everything in art derives from something else. The notion that, absent permission, this is somehow "wrong" just blows my mind completely.
(Maybe not too literally...)
Philosophy grad here. Absolutely none of these characters are exemplary of Kantian moral philosophy. That goes for about 99% of blockbuster heroes.
The key thing to understand is that 'universal' is a technical term in Kantian philosophy. Kant doesn't use this term to designate a relationship like that between a genus and its species, a class and its instances, or a set and its members. 'Universal' in Kant is synonymous with 'necessary', as in, "all stones necessarily fall back down to the ground if I throw them in the air." So what the categorical imperative really says is, "Live your life as if it were a force of necessity", or a more humanist formulation, "Live your life as if you were fulfilling your duty." If that sounds weird, realize that Kant doesn't think altruism qualifies as a foundation for morality because it's still based on pleasure, which for him brings us right back to egoism.
In terms of blockbusters, Watchmen's Rorschach or The Dark Knight's Joker are better approximations.
Doesn't he simply mean universal law as in "a law that applies in every situation"? So the universe of discourse would be situations. I think your formulation with "necessity" is rather more ambiguous, because it doesn't stress the deontic nature of the statement.
Pure Universality is strictu sensu synonymous with necessity because a principle of this sort is a condition of possibility. This example is technically incorrect, but for illustrative purposes all stones either necessarily fall back down to the ground when thrown up in the air or I'm not able to write this. Kant thought causality in much the same way, either human beings can necessarily conceive of it without any empirical support or experience in toto is impossible.
Kant explicitly wants to derive morality from Pure rather than empirical reason. Self-interest, altruism, pleasure, and even our everyday notion of happiness are set by the wayside in the name of actions that wholly brought about by principle than any expectation of reward, service to a higher cause, or just plain conformity (which are all arguably the same thing).
The key thing to realize is that Kantian morality is really really inhuman: for all intents and purposes, Kant wants to automate morality. Hence my language of "Act as if you were a force of necessity".
Interesting article, but blockbuster posters come in a myriad of formats - I was actually expecting a "hero prominently at the center, sidekicks scattered around the background of the frame" kind of thing, much like that GI Joe: Retaliation movie (cf links). I just checked a few on the top of my head, and the only one that follows the painting style is I Am Legend for obvious reasons.
Armageddon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/
Fast and Furious: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/
Avatar: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/
Transformers: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/
GI Joe: Retaliation: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/
I Am Legend: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/
But yeah, it's just one of many 'themes' in blockbuster posters.