Abstract: Looking at the Native Americans and the Europeans, this paper will discuss whether a civilization can develop while living in cyclical time. A civilizations concept of time can greatly affect how they develop together as well as how quickly. Support and sources include The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson as well as http://www.abia29.hemscott.net/Inner_Dialogues.htm and discussions in class.

~Cyclical Time vs. Linear Time~

Looking at Native Americans and Europeans

by Alex Butler

How if, some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you:

"This life, as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh. And everything unutterably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence, even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself.

The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over and you with it, a mere grain of sand."

From The Joyful Science, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Time is a very important part of a civilizations development and growth. Two different kinds of time, or ways of looking at time, are linear time and cyclical time. Time is one of the most important aspects to a successful civilization, and civilizations ultimately can depend on how they define or view time. If Native American and European civilizations are compared, it can be seen whether a civilization can or cannot develop while living in cyclical time.

When looking at cyclical time, it is observed as a 'timeline' that is actually a big circle. When looking at this, it seems that time has no beginning or end, but the future and the past are joined at one point. It implies that the future has already happened and that it is already determined. This means that nothing can be changed or 'improved' as well as meaning that, in all of time, there is no final place to end up and no ultimate purpose for anything. Linear, on the other hand, is observed as more of a straight line, or as the typical timeline. Linear time has a set or definite beginning as well as a set or definite end. It is also always moving on a certain path towards a certain point or a certain goal. With linear time, it progresses and looks toward the future and possible opportunities.

Different civilizations that use cyclical time cannot actually directly experience time, they can only experience what is with them or what they are doing 'here and now'. This means that their time is only a certain way of interpreting what they perceive, which is also the same with linear time, the straight-traditional model.

The Europeans were a civilization that lived in linear time. Their beliefs were that God created the world and that the world would end after so much an amount of time, there was a creation and eventually would be an end. They wanted to try and advance as much as they possibly could to better themselves for their future as a civilization. They knew that they would have to advance themselves so that they would have the best possible to them in their future. Their linear time was not only a straight timeline, it was also a line of constant progression. However, the Native Americans cyclical view of time created a very different view of their civilizations own future. The Native Americans were a part of the earth and the land that they lived on, and were connected with it for such reasons. Cyclical time can be viewed sometimes in Native American myths or stories. They also did not believe that they were, in any way, deprived of or lacking anything in their lives or in their civilization that they needed to improve upon and so they did not find it necessary to develop into something more. They did not think of their future because they were content with their lives and their cyclical way of thinking did not need them to think about anything such as future betterment for them.

The Europeans were always interested in the future when dealing with their food and crops. They started a mass production of the crops that they could have available to them so that they would be better off in the future. They needed to make sure that they would be set for a progressing future and would never struggle to advance their civilization. Europeans were always working for wealth and progression. The linear timeline follows this developing and progressing path of the Europeans. The Native Americans worked as well, although only just as much as they had to. They would only grow enough food they needed for one year and they knew that to be enough for their civilization. They wold know that they could do the same thing in the next cyclical cycle and they would survive with only what they needed for that certain point in their time. The cyclical timeline follows this as the Native Americans knew only the 'here and now' of their survival.

When the Europeans saw how them Native Americans were living, they wanted to change and advance things. The Native Americans were not using all of their land and resources as the Europeans were. They thought that the Native Americans were insane and some used this as an excuse to say that they were not good enough as people. These Europeans knew only of linear time and of advancing and gaining all that you possibly could by using absolutely all that you had to make it happen. The Native Americans living in cyclical time were obviously not at all focused on their economy and their 'underdevelopment'.

With these civilizations two conflicting religions, the Europeans did not have an easy time trying to move the Indians to maximize the use of their land. The Native Americans religion related them directly to a certain place on their land. This place would have a certain significance to a legend, myth, or story for the Indians. The Europeans did not understand this thinking because their christian religion could be practiced anyplace and did not have any special connection to any particular place for it to have meaning. Problems were caused because of this when Europeans wanted to use their land to its fullest and they wanted the Native Americans to move to a different place.

In looking at the differences between a civilization living in linear time and one in cyclical time, it is right to say that the outcomes are very different. The Europeans could maximize their use of resources in order to develop the best future they could have. The Native Americans only cared to use their resources enough to survive. It can be seen that the Europeans, living in linear time, thought about progression and development and it worked well enough that they could maximize their future as they pleased. It can also be seen that the Native Americans could have cared less about their future and did not care to think about it until it arrived. By looking at these, it can be said that the Native Americans were also very happy and content with the way they lived and felt no need for change. In conclusion, civilizations living in cyclical time cannot advance, although they can produce enough so that they stay alive and do not fall apart, if not for an outside invasion of their way of life.

My Essay Question

Can a civilization advance/develop living in cyclical time?

Abstract: This paper will talk about how, thinking about history, we may need to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to choose means", as David S. Landes said in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Looking at hundreds of years of history, we possibly need to think about these words and how this could be a trend in history.

Honors History 10 Mid Term Essay

by Alex Butler

There are things in history that happen over and over and we are supposed to learn lessons from doing these things over and over, correct? There must be lessons that we should learn over hundreds and hundreds of years of doing things that people before us have done. The question is; do we need to keep trying? Is this the lesson that the past 600 years has brought to teach us? It could possibly be that all we need to do is to try and try until we get things right. According to chapter 29 in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations(1 ) we also need to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to choose means". What this means is that we need to improve our skepticism of faith, to avoid believing something just because it is what others believe, to learn as we listen and watch, and to try and clarify and define what we believe to be true and knowledgeable. What I get from this is that we need to keep learning and questioning and watching what is happening in our world and try to improve ourselves.

What we learn from history is going to help the future, in a sense. We learn how and how not do do things. As stated in class many times, Thomas Edison(2 ) was asked how he felt about not being able to find a way to make the light bulb work, he stated "I found 3,000 ways how not to make a light bulb". Things that people learn do not always have to be the 'right' way of doing something, or how something is 'supposed' to be done. We can also learn from doing things the 'wrong' way, or in a way that does not work the way we want or need it to. We can learn from history, not necessarily the correct way of doing things, but a different way that was already tried and we could improve upon.

To look at this question by means of 'the flat world' in The World is Flat(3 ) , there are examples of how and why we need to keep trying. The flat world had changed the way business and communication is done all over the world. Instead of now using horse and buggie to deliver a handwritten letter to someone, all you have to do is type something on your computer, hit send, and it is available to the person within seconds. Would we still be using horse and buggie to deliver mail to people if we had not kept trying to improve and had questioned what was always done? I would think probably not. If we had not always questioned what we could do to improve communication, would we be where we are today?

We might want to "cultivate a skeptical faith" by finding an equal ground for different beliefs, if at all possible. Maybe we need to avoid improving a skeptical faith and possibly be skeptical of faith. During the Enlightenment(4 ) and Scientific Revolution(5 ), when the church had power as well as many beliefs disapproving discoveries in science it brought about the question; 'what criteria can we go by to help us to define what is truth'? Many of these same views and beliefs still have people in conflict today as well. The Scientific Revolution was a time when there was a lot of discovery (as well as development and improvement) in science. It gained its connection to religion during this time as well when it questioned the traditional religious views of the Universe as well as the way people understood the Bible.

The reason for people questioning and trying to define a better truth was to learn and be educated. We learned that humanists started to question and search for truth during the scientific revolution in order to better themselves in their life and to live as individuals and not only as part of a group. Humanism(6 ) made people begin to see themselves as a person who could break out of a certain way of doing things and try something new. They were not only part of a group anymore, but individual people. People tried to develop new knowledge and ways of understanding certain things. The way to do just that was and is to question things all around you. Be sure that you improve yourself and the world that you live in by finding all the knowledge that you can, in any way that you can.

In his book, Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion(7 ) , Thomas Paine says that all religious members are deists and that "they need none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence". He is saying that religious people can be sure of God by his own existence. Which means that he also is saying there is no need for questioning, because you have all of the evidence and knowledge that you need already.

Humans need knowledge. There is not a way that humans could keep gaining knowledge if they did not question and want to learn. We need to try to gain knowledge in order to advance and develop as humans as well as a world and as a whole. Humans should never accept something as it is. We need to try to improve it and make it better for themselves as well as for others in the future. To question things in life is to learn about yourself and improve things for the future. Asking is improving your life

ABSTRACT: The Industrial Revolution brought about new changes with technology. Many inventions were innovated including the steam engine, electric power, railroads, advances in transportation, and also the steamship as well. This went into a world of "higher incomes and cheaper commodities, unheard-of-devices and materials, insatiable appetites. New, new, new. Money, money, money". Dr. Samuel Johnson said "all the business of the world is to be done in a new way".

The Industrial Revolution

~Mental or Material?~

by Alexandra Butler

The process of the Industrial Revolution could be interpreted by being either mostly a mental or mostly a physical revolution. There are many ways to look at how the Industrial Revolution changed the way things were done in many instances. It brought about new innovations and that in turn made this period of time 'the Industrial Revolution'. People 'industrialized' technology and that helped to industrialize the way that many things were done by humans. "The Industrial Revolution brought the world closer together, made it smaller and more homogenous. But the same revolution fragmented the globe by estranging winners and losers. It begat multiple worlds".

The Industrial Revolution could be defined as the time of power machinery turned to manufacturing. It is still going on in some places in thw world as well. Europe, in the eighteenth century, began to industrialize very quickly, although this whole process was probably most quickly industrialized in England. Although, by 1850, western Europe was fairly industrialized because of the coming of electricity as well as cheap steel speeded up the whole process.

There were many technological changes during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries including methods of making glass, clocks, and also chemicals. During this time, these methods advanced greatly with technology. By the start of the eighteenth century in England, many people were already using machines in manufacturing. The steam engine was one of the machines which helped the industrial development in Europe. The use of electricity for machines was limited and cost very high prices through the nineteenth century. Up until about 1900, the only cheap electricity that was used was the electricity made by generators using falling water in mountains of parts of France as well as Italy. Europe eventually gained electricity to use, in the twentieth century. Germany gained electricity in the 1920's, and Great Britain had electricity nearly all over the country by 1936. Electricity was also a huge factor in the quickly changing industrialization of Russia during the 1930's.

What these changes and innovations meant was that machines would now be substituted for human work, effort and skill. This also meant that sources of power opened up a new limitless supply of energy. During the Industrial Revolution (as stated in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, pg. 187), both the economy and knowledge were growing fast enough to generate a continuing flow of improvements. It also changed political power in nations, between nations, and also between civilizations. It also changed the social order. The Industrial Revolution changed ways that people thought as much as ways that people did things. The word 'revolution' could mean many varying things. It could mean simply 'transformation' or it could mean a 'turning'. In the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, David S. Landes uses revolution to mean "instance of great change or alteration in affairs or some particular thing". Revolutions can be considered good, or something that changes everything. Or they can be considered bad, or destructive of things of value. Revolutions note that it takes many small, as well as large, improvements to make an idea into a way of doing things.

On page 191 of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, it says that "innovation was catching because the principles that underlay a given technique could take many forms, find many uses". This means that there could be many ideas put together to make one thing work, and that these ideas could also be used in another way with other ideas, to make other things work. Examples from the book include; if you could print or make fabric by using cylinders, you could also print or make wallpaper that same way. You could use it to print text faster than by using a press, and make cheap tabliods and novels by the hundreds of thousands. The early economists did not have statistical proof. They relied on history and on personal observations. "We now put our trust in hard data provided they are sanctioned by theory". We probably expect the economic historians to have put their own trust in hard, numerical data, although only if they are proved by historical evidence.

We can see that through the Industrial Revolution came many new ideas and thoughts as how to do things mostly involving manufacturing. It can be seen that there was a lot of thought put into making new innovations in technology and thinking about how things would work and work together. It seems that the Industrial Revolution took a lot of mental skill from humans to 'industrialize' ways of doing things. This also meant that once things were 'industrialized' people did not have to work as hard to get things done, they relied on 'materials' to do things for them. Thinking of the Industrial Revolution like this, you can see how people could consider it either a mental revolution or a material revolution.

Alexandra Butler

Mr. Viles

Honors History 10

12/18/2007

High Street Congregational Church

~United Church of Christ~

High Street Congregational Church is one of the oldest churches in Newport, Maine. The church is located, fittingly, at 24 High Street in Newport. It has grown immensely over 176 years and over generations of people and families.

The high street church grew from an organization, on February 25, 1831, which wanted a Christian church in Newport. Elder Joseph Merrill (who lived and grew up in Cornville, Maine) as well as nine other members, helped organized the church. This organization gained two more members by Sunday February 27, 1831. The first monthly conference was held later that year on March 5^th. The first communion was held on April 2, 1831. The population of Newport grew and different religious groups started to appear alongside the Christian church. These different groups included Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalists, and Universalists. For lack of a better place, all of the religious groups had to meet in private homes.

In the spring of 1837, the Christian church, as well as the other religious groups, decided to build a joint meeting house. It was called the Union Church and the minister of each group was able to use it one Sunday per month. The group raised a total of about $1, 500 was raised. In the late fall of 1837the new high street union meeting house was built and given and dedicated to the members of the Christian community who was attending.

Over the sixty-five years from 1837 through 1902 the church continued to be successful, even though there may have been very difficult things to deal with during these times. Starting about 1850, the Methodists started to have their own meetings and slowly, the other religious groups went their own separate ways as well. In 1902, the church society made as decision that they needed a building that was newer. They again raised money, about $3, 000 total. The old church was then redesigned. More seating was added, electricity, city water, a new kitchen, as well as a ladies parlor. In 1915 the parsonage was built next to the church. With this a new parking lot had to be found to keep the horses and buggies.

The church did not keep a complete record of all the ministers for the church. Starting only at the decade before the 20^th century was anything recorded. Reverend John Webster was the pastor from 1889 to 1916; it was believed that there were sixteen pastors before him. Reverend John Reynolds came to the church in 1925 and was there until he retired in 1941. From 1941 through 1971 the church was served by eleven ministers, ten of which happened to be student pastors during their academic years at Bangor Theological Seminary. In 1971, Reverend Terry Dinsmore became the full time minister at High Street Church. The church flourished under the authority of Dinsmore, while he reached out to both the church community and local community. Under the new leadership, Dinsmore Hall (a new building) was added. Dinsmore Hall included Sunday school rooms, a big meeting room, and a kitchen.

Between 1980 and 1998, six different ministers served the church. During this time, the church had started to fall behind financially. It could not afford a full time minister anymore. Reverend Dr. Henry Wyman, who was a ‘fill in minister’, led the decision for the church to go back to a part time minister. In July of 1998, Al Warden (who was a member of the church) became the new Pastor of the church.

Generous members of the church helped to make many changes in and around the church. They added a new elevator, handicapped accessible restrooms, coverings for the stained glass windows, low voltage lighting for the windows at night, new landscaping, and new siding for the outside of the church building. The parsonage was taken out in 2001.

The High Street Congregational Church has a lot of history dating back for many years. It has developed and has grown through many generations. Thanks to the many contributions and changes so many people made, it has only grown better and stronger over the almost two centuries that it has been open. Newport may be a fairly small town, but every town has history to be looked back on.

Faith or Fact?

by Alex Butler

Throughout history, both religion and science have been a huge part of the human ability to understand truth. In Europe, during the scientific revolution and enlightenment, the church had a lot of power and beliefs that disapproved new discoveries in science. This aroused questions along the lines of 'what criteria can we go by that will help us to define what is truth?' There are different views that came about during this time period that still have people in conflict today. Deism is one of those different views that some people looked at and started to think about, starting during the Scientific Revolution. It helped to clarify thoughts for some people and helped them to define their own truth. From the Renaissance through the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, and a lot of the Enlightenment, many religious leaders thought that religious and scientific views could exist together and actually benefit each other.

During the late half of the Enlightenment the church started to lose their control over education. With the new science, it brought science and religion into a conflict that continues still today. Humanism at the time was also developing as both religious and scientific and sometimes showed how the two ideas could help each other. The humanists are actually some of the first people to look at both scientific and religious ideas and would also sometimes put them together to make ideas that would be acceptable to many more people.

The Scientific Revolution was a period of time in which there was a lot of scientific discovery, development and improvement. It was also a time in which science developed its connection with religion because there was questioning about the traditional religious views of the Universe as well as the understanding of the Bible. What could possibly be the biggest part of the Scientific Revolution is the creation of a more 'accurate' view of the universe. The Geocentric theory was challenged by the new Copernican System, which stated that the sun was the center of the universe. The church's view was of the Earth being the center of the universe which in turn questioned God's role in creation. At this time the Catholic church thought it was a crime to stand for this system of thinking and so, when Galileo backed Copernicus' discoveries, the church decided to put him on trial. Galileo went on to defend himself saying "(the church leaders) have failed to understand (the bible) properly" and they "had a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth." In saying this, Galileo made another conflict for the church and and science which was how to interpret the Bible. He also suggested that the Bible, although the things that it taught were still correct, should be interpreted more symbolically. Which, if this were true and the Bible were more symbolic than literal, the many religious institutions of the time would have to make many, many changes to their beliefs. The Scientific Revolution was important to science and the church because it developed and uncovered information about the universe and a rational approach towards the scriptures.

The Enlightenment grew through the rational approach set by the Scientific Revolution. This also meant that religion was challenged immensely. Rationality went against recognizing superstition, and miracles, without proof. In his book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume discusses miracles. He describes them as "violations of the laws of nature". He basically says that a person has to decide if it is more likely for the miracle to have occurred, or for the person who says to have witnessed the miracle to be wrong; whichever is more likely to be accepted as a fact. This challenges the base of very many religious beliefs by implying that both biblical and contemporary miracles may not have occurred.

Many thoughts of new rationality showed in the development of Deism. Deists were not atheists. They simply said that everything and anything in the universe had its own rational laws given by God which humans could understand using their own reason. This meant to them that the ways both the human and physical worlds worked could be understood by humans when they used their reasoning. What this means is that the ways in which the world (human and physical) could be comprehended was separated from religious thoughts. John Locke thought that people should use nature, their senses, and reason to establish their true knowledge of God. Thomas Paine showed his views on this in his book Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion. He starts by saying that all religious members are deists and then goes on to say "The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence". What he says in this is that all religious people can be reassured to the truth of God by their own existence.

When we move on to science and religion and the conflicts we have today we see that one of the biggest issues happening right now is stem cell research. Many researchers are saying that a lot of very effective medical treatments can be understood through cloning stem cells. The reason for this is because stem cells can be made to copy specific human tissues. The cells offer a possible renewable source for replacement cells and tissue to treat a numerous amount of diseases and disabilities which include Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There are many, many sections of medicine that this will help.

On the American Catholic website, the Catholic Church describes why they are against stem cell research by saying this 'The Catholic Church is against embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Pope John Paul II said embryonic stem cell research is related to abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on human life'. The controversy surrounding this is similar to that of abortion because the stem cells are gained from destroyed embryos. There is another possibility that cell lines could be developed using cloned embryos, which raises many concerns and controversy that also has to do with human cloning. The biggest opponent of this research is the Catholic church (although many individual Catholics do not have the same view). The official Catholic position is opposed to in vitro fertilization as well because it is 'unnatural' and it results in the production of embryos that are not used.

As long as there are new scientific discoveries being made, there are going to be conflicts and controversy with religion. Between fact and faith. More along the lines of having faith in someone or something would be color. A color to one person could be different from that of another person. Someone could have something wrong with them physically and not see 'true' colors, or colors as they really are. These people need to have faith in other people to know and understand what a (certain) color is. Evidence and proof are the base of where some people put 'fact' and 'truth'. Although many people put faith in scientists and professionals that they know what they are doing and they know how to do their job. These people also put faith in these scientists that they know the 'truth' and are displaying 'facts'.

There are both similarities and differences between the conflicts of these two time periods. During the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment period, it seemed to be that science would keep challenging the church and, in effect, the bible and the faith of the religious people. There were huge discoveries in science that would go against the church and the church would have to defend itself. In the current world, the church is especially concerned with ethics and what is morally right in science and especially in the (human)n and (physical) world. It seems today that the church and religion go against new scientific discoveries and now science has to defend itself against the church.

Although there are many ways to understand and comprehend the universe as well as both the human and physical world, deism seems to be a good thinking process to bring some of science as well as religion into one. Deism focuses on bringing reason into a thought process instead of focusing only on belief and 'miracles'. Belief is still in ones thinking about the universe, but reason helps possibly clarify that enough to have a legitimate thought based on other things in the universe.

The ongoing disputes and controversies between science and religion will never completely cease. As long as there are two kinds of people and two different opinions in the world there are going to be conflicts between different beliefs in science and the church or religion.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and works of art, and chiaroscuro come together to influence later works of art and many new techniques for painting and even photography as well.

Leonardo di Vinci was born on April 15, 1452 in Vinci, Italy. He was the son of a wealthy Florentine notary and a peasant woman. He and his family settled into Florence in mid-1460 and Leonardo was given the best education that Florence, being a very cultural and artistic part of Italy, could offer. About 1466, Leonardo di Vinci was sent to be trained as a studio boy to Andrea del Verroccio (who happened to be a great Florentine painter and sculptor). Later, in 1482, he entered the service of the Duke of Milan (Ludovico Sforza) as the principal engineer and as an architect as well. The Duke had him painting, sculpting and designing court festivals as well working on designing weapons, buildings, and machinery. Leonardo's interests and studies differed so much that he failed half the time to finish projects and other things he had started. He only finished about six works of art in the seventeen years that he worked for the Duke of Milan. These works of art include The Last Supper and The Virgin on the Rocks, although he also left many paintings and works of art unfinished.

In 1499, after the French invaded and Ludovico Sforza fell from power, Leonardo di Vinci was left to look for a new patron. Over those next sixteen years, he worked and traveled throughout Italy. He found a few new patrons during those years, including Ceare Borgia. He traveled with Borgia’s army for about one year serving as a military engineer. In 1503, Leonardo di Vinci was a member of a group of artists who were supposed to decide on the right location for the David, the marble statue by Michelangelo.

From about 1513 to 1516, he worked in Rome on projects for the Pope Leo X, running his own workshop as well. During this time, he lived in the Palazzo Belvedere in the Vatican.

After his patron of this time (Giuliano de Medici) died in March of 1516, he was offered a job as Premier Painter, Engineer, and Architect of the King by Francis I in France. King Francis I, who happened to be his last patron, gave Leonardo di Vinci a well-paid, easy job. This job included an allowance of some sort and a manor house in Cloux, France, where he would later die on May 2, 1519.

Leonardo di Vinci has many, many paintings and works of art for which he is famous for. One of the most important of his paintings, during the Milan period was called The Virgn on the Rocks, which he seemingly worked on for a very long time. From 1495 to 1497 worked on his work of art called The Last Supper, a painting that shows the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. This was one painting in which he tried painting with oil on dry plaster and because of this, it had started to deterriorate by 1500. While staying in Milan, Leonardo also produced many other paintings, drawings, theature designs, and dome designs for the Milan Cathedral. During this time he also started a monument toFrancesco Sforza (who is the father of Ludovico) in the courtyard of Castello Sforzesco. Although this was left unfinished because in December 1499, the Sforza family was driven away from thier home from a french invasion, who also destroyed it.

During the second Florentine peroid, Leonardo painted many paintings, the only one of those surviving happens to be the Mona Lisa. The other name for this painting happens to be known as La Gioconda, supposedly after the name of the woman's husband. This painting is also known for the mysteriousness of the woman in the painting, some rumors say that she was pregnant and that is the reason for the grin on her face. Other scientists are saying that the woman was actually Leonardo himself, after studies of photoraphs of him and the painting. This painting is also an example of two different painting techniques, sfumato and chiaroscuro, which Leonardo was one of the best at.

The definition of chiaroscuro on dictionary.com is the distribution of light and shade in a picture: Painting. The use of deep variations in and subtle gradations of light and shade, esp. to enhance the delineation of character and for general dramatic effect.

Chiaroscuro is a painting technique that uses tones, shades, shadows and highlights to make it look like there are three dimensions on a two dimensional surface.

Developed in the Renaissance, chiaroscuro comes from the Italian words for bright or clear and dark or obscure. It is usually translated as ‘light-dark’. Prior to the Renaissance, shapes were made to have outlines and were also flat and seemingly two-dimensional. They could even be considered as looking cartoonish today. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is the painter (other than Leonardo di Vinci) who is associated with chiaroscuro a lot. The idea behind chiaroscuro is that most people cannot design a colored object with a three-dimensional look or ‘feel’ mostly because their brain ‘overprocesses’ what a persons eye will actually see.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and chiaroscuro come together by Leonardo di Vinci wanting to set himself apart. He was seeing the same pattern with all paintings before his time and even during his time. All of these paintings were ‘flat’ and lifeless. Even though they were on a two-dimensional surface, they could still look real and lifelike. Leonardo di Vinci decided that there should be a certain lifelike quality in art if it was supposed to be of something real like a human or an inanimate object. He wanted his paintings to be different and realistic so he came up with or ‘discovered’ chiaroscuro.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and works of art, and chiaroscuro come together to influence later works of art and many new techniques for painting and even photography as well. Leonardo's discovery and invention of chiaroscuro affected art centuries after he had died, especially the 16th century. This new technique affected how artists painted in the 16th century, and in affect changed art forever. Chiaroscuro is also used today in photography and in flim as well.