FAH101H1 Lecture : Art History 11.3.11.docx

62 views2 pages

whitemink371

19 Apr 2012

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

The renaissance of the north: a new version of reality. Breaking point when the old testament ends and new testament starts. Worked for the duke of burgundy, phillip the good and wealthy italians including. : frame with inscription inscribed, signed and dated. Focus was on contemporary reality, not on version of reality. Branch of the history of art which concerns itself with the subject matter of meaning of works of art, as opposed to their form. It tries to define the distinction between subject matter or meaning on the one hand, and form on the other. (according to panofsky) Angel that"s about to put a crown on mary"s head: mary the queen. The book (cardinal"s personal prayer book with mary"s picture) so mary sitting there is. Cardina"s imagination while he"s reading the book and praying. Portrait of a guy drawing christ child. The convex mirror (luxury item used by bankers) in the background reflection the artist and another person.

Related Questions

Check the Course Announcements at the beginning of the week following the deadline for Part 1 to discover exactly what happened to the deer population on the Kaibab plateau. This information is essential for completion of Part 2.

The second part of your project is to take what you've learned about the Kaibab forest ecosystem and write an accurate description of the boom and bust of this deer population, using correct ecological language. Consider as many of the aspects of these events as you can. Be sure to consider the effects on the other species in the ecosystem as well.

Refer to your on-line materials and the appropriate sections of your textbook. Your discussion should include (but not be confined to) consideration of all of the following concepts: carrying capacity, predator/prey relationships, population cycling, resource partitioning, competitive exclusion, fundamental and realized niches, food chains, food webs and trophic pyramids.

Note that the purpose of this exercise is for you to demonstrate to me that you understand these important concepts of ecology by utilizing them accurately and appropriately in the description of the disaster in the Kaibab forest. Your essay must include both clear indications that you understand the meanings of these principles and clear indication that you understand how these principles can be used to describe what happened to the ecosystem on the Kaibab plateau.

information given of part one: On the north rim of the Grand Canyon, an area called the Kaibab plateau, there is a conifer forest called the Kaibab forest. The forest's trees include pine, fir and spruce. Shrubbery includes a variety of willows, raspberries, etc. A hundred years ago, this forest was a stable ecosystem, housing, among other species, a population of about four thousand mule deer.

These deer were hunted by local Native Americans, who used them for food and other materials. They were also hunted by predators like pumas, wolves and coyotes.

In 1906, the US made this region into a National Game Preserve. With the intent of protecting the deer, hunting was forbidden. Bounties were paid for killing the pumas, wolves and other large animals that preyed on the deer. By 1925, more than 6000 predators had been killed, virtually wiping out the ecosystem's large predators.

*Read the instructions* for Part 2, then consider this additional information about the Kaibab forest.
There are some hints in here to suggest the *minimum* range of the subjects you need to discuss to explain this; You will need to read the chapters and the course materials to understand the meanings of these concepts, and to be able to use them to explain the Kaibab disaster. There are other important concepts as well--so keep your eyes open as you read. It wouldn't hurt to go back and read the original description in Part 1, either. And you may find it necessary to do some quick browsing in areas of your book not directly related to ecology. (For instance, you might just want to do some looking into the nature and importance of the bark and twig ends on a tree.) Do not neglect the on-line essays which are provided for you in this Unit. What you should *not* do is Google the Kaibab, or look it up on a source like Wikipedia. This is not about what you can *discover* about the Kaibab forest.
Your grade will depend upon how completely you convince me you understand the concepts involved in this description. This is your test on ecology--your goal is to convince me that you understand the concepts and terminology of the subject, and can apply them to a real life situation.
Before we go on to the new information, there are a few things that came up as I was grading the Part 1 submissions which I think I should mention, just to keep you from straying in some incorrect directions.
First, remember that your concern is the fate of the Kaibab forest in the *immediate* sense--over tens of years, not thousands. There are no evolutionary issues here, at least in the short term (and that's your concern right now). So we won't be talking about adaptive radiation.
Also, keep your focus on the *Kaibab forest*, not on other ecosystems. Oh, and remember that the Kaibab is pretty isolated--emigration really isn't a reasonable alternative for the species living in this forest.
And finally, until we get to Part 3, the only human interaction we are considering is the initial decision to put bounties on those large predators, which led to their near-extinction in the area. You will be thinking a bit about human hunters trying to control the deer population toward the end, but the rest of the time you're just concerned with the natural processes going on in the ecosystem.
Okay, now on to the actual description of what happened in the Kaibab Forest as a result of killing almost all of the large predators. Remember, your task in Part 2 is going to be to describe and explain all of this using the concepts of ecology which you are learning in Unit 2 of the course.
*****
The primary, most immediate outcome of the removal of the predators from the ecosystem was that the deer population exploded, because the loss of the normal predator populations removed a primary source of population control. And the expanding deer population ate a *lot.* [Hint: explaining this requires discussion of population cycling, predator prey relationships and carrying capacities.]
As the deer population got larger and larger, their impact upon their favored food plants became extreme. They ate a much larger percentage of each year's plant populations, and they ate a larger portion of each individual plant. They also began to eat more from the plants which they didn't like so well--plants normally consumed by other herbivores in the ecosystem. In the winter, the starving deer ate about anything remotely resembling food, including twigs and bark from trees. As a result of the destruction of many of the twig ends of the trees, the spring tree growth was inhibited (why?). The stripping of the bark caused the death of some of the trees (why?). The extreme browsing on the herbaceous plants caused shifts in the plant population diversity, as the deer drove many of their favored plants into extinction within the ecosystem. [Hint: Explanation here will need to include discussion of resource partitioning, competitive exclusion, and realized vs. fundamental niches.]
All of this also impacted upon the rest of the animals in the ecosystem, since many of them depended upon the same kinds of food the deer ate, or depended upon the foods that the deer were eating because they could no longer get the food they favored. Then of course, the smaller predatory species (like foxes and owls) depended upon the health of those populations of small herbivores (like rabbits and mice). [Hint: sounds like food chains, food webs and trophic pyramids come into this part.]
After a couple of decades, the ecosystem was quite altered. The plant community was very different from what it had been before, and the deer herd, though not extinct, was composed of significantly smaller and weaker deer than the herd from the 1890s. (This was partially due to their straightened circumstances re. food, but also partially due to the absence of predators. Why would the removal of the natural predators cause this change in the general vigor of the deer in the herd (and why would the substitution of *human* hunting not exert the same positive influence)?)
Okay, the next phase of your assignment is to describe all the things going on in this ecosystem using the proper terminology that you should be learning from studying this unit of the course. Note that your use of terms like, for instance, "resource partitioning" needs to show that you understand not just what the concept means, but how it is reflected in this specific ecological disaster. Feel free to discuss this as much as you want to on your Discussion Board. Don't ignore the little questions tucked into the above description, and pay attention to those hints. Your response must demonstrate proper understanding of these concepts and how they are demonstrated by the disaster in the Kaibab forest.
This is the largest part of your exam project; your response should reflect the fact that this is a 50 point "essay" question. You are given a lot of organizational clues and hints about what issues you need to include in the information above. Make use of those things.

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term âfeminist theoryâ is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word âfeminist,â which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically âfeminist.â Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as âwomencenteredâ
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the disciplineâs theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled âfeminist theoryâ consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of âmalestreamâ sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marxâs and Mannheimâs discussions
of ideology, Foucaultâs work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, âmasculinist,â âobjectivist,â and âpositivistâ social science, and
develop a âfeministâ alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a âwomanâs standpoint,â Collinsâ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a âmasculineâ
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed âessentialism,â a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and menâcognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioralânot
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

SUMMARY: Sales of non-GMO foods are outpacing organic foods at U.S. grocery stores. This has important implications for the organic food industry which is responding with marketing to educate consumers. Organic foods are also non-GMO. Organic foods are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which sets standards for the use of chemicals, antibiotics and animal welfare. The federal government regulates foods that are labeled organic, but not those labeled non-GMO. The distinction matters to companies because it can take years to be certified organic. It costs thousands of dollars initially and annual renewal is required. Non-GMO sales increased about 70% a year since 2013. This is significant to organic food companies because sales in one category can come at the expense of the other. Non-GMO and organic foods compete for shelf space. There is the perception consumers place a higher value on the non-GMO label than they do on certified organic foods. Non-GMO costs less and customers may feel it is just as good as organic. California Certified Organic Farmers developed a label to communicate that "Organic is non-GMO and more." Other cooperatives are considering marketing efforts to clarify that organic standards encompass non-GMO.

CLASSROOM APPLICATION: As consumer behavior changes, companies need to adapt. Organic foods are both non-GMO and they meet additional federal standards for certification which include the use of pesticides, antibiotics and animal welfare. Consumers seem confused about the differences between non-GMO and organic. This is important for organic food companies because the price of their foods is typically higher than those which are only non-GMO. Educating consumers is the goal of marketing efforts to clarify "Organic is non-GMO and more." The distinction is more important because of changes in consumer behavior which are driving shopping decisions. About 49% of consumers who responded to a poll thought non-GMO was important when shopping for food and beverages while 47% indicated the importance for organic. Consumers are interested in the safety and characteristics of the foods they buy and organic foods face new competition from efforts to market non-GMO foods.

QUESTIONS:
1. (Introductory) Define the term "non-GMO." Why would shoppers demand either non-GMO or organic foods?
2. Compare and contrast the standards and certification process for the non-GMO as compared to the certified organic label.
3. Discuss the efforts of organic food producers to market their products and educate shoppers about what organic certification entails.
4. Some producers think sales of non-GMO foods will boost sales of organic foods. Do you agree? Explain whyâ¦

Organic vs. Non-GMO Labels. Whoâs Winning?Organic and non-GMO companies push for prominenceâand meaning for their labels

Natural-foods makers have spent years going after the industry establishment. Now, they are taking on each other.Surging sales of foods marketed as made without genetically modified crops are outpacing sales of food labeled organic in U.S. grocery stores. That is frustrating some organic companies and farmers, who invest significant sums to meet government organic standards and to get their foods certified.

The organic industry is responding with marketing campaigns touting that its foodsâin addition to being made without genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, as such crops are knownâalso abide by other requirements.

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has certified organic foods since 2002, requires that producers also keep out most synthetic pesticides and certain fertilizers, and that animals used to produce organic food can go outdoors year-round and arenât given hormones or antibiotics.

âOrganic is non-GMO,â said Cathy Calfo, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers, a trade group that recently started promoting a new label to highlight the difference. âNon-GMO is not organic.

The federal government doesnât regulate non-GMO labeling. Instead, certification is done by private groups, mainly the Non-GMO Project. The Bellingham, Wash., nonprofit doesnât prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides on crops used as ingredients, or ensure animal-welfare standards. But it says it tests more stringently to ensure GMOs arenât inadvertently mixed into ingredients during transportation or production.

The distinctions might seem like hairsplitting, but they matter for companies. Earning the Non-GMO Projectâs imprimatur or the USDAâs organic certification can take months or years, depending on the item and the applicant backlog. Each can cost thousands of dollars initially, and must be renewed annuallyâa significant expense for smaller producers. Prices for organic and non-GMO ingredients also are significantly higher than regular ones.

GMOs have become a focus of skeptical consumers. U.S. government agencies and international bodies including the World Health Organization long have said that GMOsâwhose DNA is altered to withstand pests or weedkilling spraysâare safe. But the technologyâs critics say it facilitates harmful use of pesticides and that GMOsâ safety for human consumption isnât proven.

That doubt has driven rapid growth for non-GMO foods, which this year are on pace to surpass those of food bearing the USDAâs certified organic seal, according to data compiled by research company Spins LLC.

ENLARGE Non-GMO sales soared by an average of about 70% annually from 2013 through this year, and are expected to top $13 billion this year. That is five times the rate for food tracked by Spins that bears the organic seal, sales of which total nearly $11 billion for the 52 weeks ended Nov 1. The Spins data donât include sales from Whole Foods Market Inc., a major seller of both categories.

The USDAâs organic certification applies to foods that are 95% or more organic. The Organic Trade Association, whose numbers include estimates of Whole Foods sales and some other retailers not measured by Spins, touts the much larger figure of $35.9 billion in 2014 for foods containing 70% or more organic ingredients.

One categoryâs growth can come at the expense of anotherâs, since specialty foods often compete for the same limited shelf space in supermarkets. Last year, foods labeled non-GMO claimed 3.7% of total food sales in U.S. grocery stores, more than the 3.5% for organic items, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV. About 49% of consumers polled by Nielsen called non-GMO an important factor in food-and-beverage shopping, versus 47% for organic.

Organic-food companies say many consumers are confused about the labelsâ different attributes. Vernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics in Kingsburg, Calif., says he often receives inquiries about the peaches, persimmons and other crops that his company distributes to customers including Kroger Co. and Whole Foods.

âEven though we [are] a 100% organic company, I get a question or two a week, âis any of your produce genetically modified?ââ he said. âWe see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.â

Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, said the ârelationship between non-GMO and organic is probably the most politically sensitive thing we deal with, and weâre careful not to undermine consumer trust in the organic label.â She said consumer confusion around the definition of organic predates the Non-GMO Project, but she acknowledged that some organic-food producers have expressed concerns about her group infringing on their turf.

âWe see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.â

âVernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics

Rising non-GMO food sales are âa two-edged sword,â said Oren Holle, a longtime organic farmer in Bremen, Kan. While some consumers may migrate from those to organic foods, Mr. Holle said he worries about âa perception out there that if I buy the non-GMO itâs a little less costly when you run up to the checkout counter, and itâs just about as good.â

Mr. Holle last year participated in an online-video campaign trumpeting organic foodâs purported superiority over items that are only non-GMO. The Organic Farmersâ Agency for Relationship Marketing Inc., a cooperative that funded the campaign, is now discussing marketing materials that brand organic as âthe real non-GMO.â

California Certified Organic Farmers, based in Santa Cruz, Calif., debuted its new label in March that boasts âOrganic is non-GMO & more.â The labels are designed to attract shoppers looking for non-GMO foods while highlighting organicâs curbs on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, said Ms. Calfo.

Mr. Peterson hopes the new label, which he has added to Abundant Harvest products, will clarify things. âWhen you have a confused public, itâs never good,â he said.

Some bigger organic brands are more sanguine. George Siemon, chief executive of Organic Valley, the largest U.S. cooperative of organic farms, said that while some consumers may find non-GMO easier to understand, it ultimately will boost organic-food sales by drawing more attention to how food is produced.Still, Mr. Siemon said that Organic Valley is considering adding a non-GMO label to some of its products.

FAH101H1 Lecture : Art History 11.3.11.docx

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

FAH101H5 Chapter Notes - Chapter 216-249: Rogier Van Der Weyden, Champmol, Jan Van Eyck

ART-2100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Très Riches Heures Du Duc De Berry, Ghent Altarpiece, Jan Van Eyck

HUM-2020 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Ghent Altarpiece, Jan Van Eyck, Giovanni Arnolfini

Related Questions