two papers each one 2-3 paragraph. the first one discuss to part one question and part two write a response to what written in part two.

Part one: The central argument of Chromophobia is that a chromophobic impulse - a fear of corruption or contamination through color - lurks within much Western cultural and intellectual thought. This is apparent in the many and varied attempts to purge color, either by making it the property of some "foreign body" - the oriental, the feminine, the infantile, the vulgar, or the pathological - or by relegating it to the realm of the superficial, the supplementary, the inessential, or the cosmetic. Chromophobia has been a cultural phenomenon since ancient Greek times; this book is concerned with forms of resistance to it. Writers have tended to look no further than the end of the nineteenth century. David Batchelor seeks to go beyond the limits of earlier studies, analyzing the motivations behind chromophobia and considering the work of writers and artists who have been prepared to look at color as a positive value. Exploring a wide range of imagery including Melville's "great white whale", Huxley's reflections on mescaline, and Le Corbusier's "journey to the East", Batchelor also discusses the use of color in Pop, Minimal, and more recent art. Please read WhitescapesPreview the document from the book Chromophobia by David Batchelor <--------- the file uploaded below. After you have read through the chapter: There is a quote on page 18 by Mikhail Bakhtin: "... an entirely finished, completed, strickly limited body, which is shown from the outside as something individual. That which protrudes, bulges, sprouts, or branches off is eliminated, hidden or moderated. All orfices of the body are closed. The basis of the image is the individual, strickly limited mass, the impenetrable facade. The opaque surface of the body's 'valleys' aquires an essential meaning as the border of a closed individiality that does not merge with other bodies and with the world. All attributes of the unfinished world are carefully removed, as well as all signs of it's inner life" In 2-3 paragraphs discuss how the author uses this quote to support his ideas in this chapter, and does it relate to more than just architecture? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part two: In 2-3 paragraphs make a response to what written below. To understand what Bakhtin was writing it is necessary to state some of his history. He lived and wrote during the failed Russian revolution and the Stalin dictatorship. He founded the Bakhtin Circle, a group of radical intellectuals that identified, at least in part, as Dialogics- the philosophy that ideas or words are formed in the process of social interaction. An important idea related to this discussion is his idea of the I-for-the-other, in that identity does not merely belong to the individual, rather it is shared by all. For clarification, at least part of the 'Circle' found their ideas to be compatible with Marxism. The group was arrested by the Soviet Secret Police and sentenced to ten years hard labor, but Bakhtin was granted exile to Kazakhstan and continued to write. He was largely forgotten until the 1960's and published into the 70's when he wrote against the Structuralists and others, having a big influence on Neo-Marxism. So I don't think it is much of a leap to say he was embraced with the likes of Foucault, Derrida, and the other Postmodernists. So from this perspective I interpret this paragraph to be an attack on the individual. The individual represents the State, and not the collective or the I-for-the-other. To take it a step further this may in part have been taken by the Postmodernists as the impetus to attack Classical art especially Greek and Roman statuary. He sees the individual as stone, rigid, with closed orifices, and ultimately selfish. Ultimately stoic, unflinching, and uncaring. White. "The border of a closed individuality that does not merge with other bodies and with the world." Now to 2018 and identity politics. The ideas of Foucalt and especially Derrida are complicated and notoriously difficult to read, even amongst philosophers. It appears Bakhtin also falls into this category. Whiteness seems to be a favorite subject to attack and criticize among some social circles. Notoriously, Sarah Jeong was recently hired as an editor for the New York Times despite the backlash when her Twitter feeds were littered with ant-white male tweets. Ezra Klein writes an article for Vox claiming in some liberal circles, these are just epitaphs directed towards the established power structures. I can't help but wonder how well these philosophical ideas are understood by most social activists. What started out as an attack on class difference and government oppression may quickly deteriorate into something more vitriolic through sheer ignorance. Each one in seperate file please.