What would count as examples of ‘utter flatness’. List five things an artist might do to exploit the idea. In other words what kind of things might one put on a gallery wall that could pass for an abstract or figurative paint but also reveal themselves to be everyday objects?
The idea of “flatness” had never really occurred to me before this section of the coursework. In preparation for this exercise, I read Greenberg’s essay on Modernist Painting in order to try to decipher what exactly he meant by “flatness”. I found the article confusing, and a little above my head. One explanation that I found useful from Greenberg was “One is made aware of the flatness of their pictures before, instead of after, being made aware of what the flatness contains” (Greenberg, 1960).
Further reading brought me to the “Theory of Flatness”, as discussed on The Art Story website (The Art Story, here). This website very clearly explained that “before the advent of the Modern artistic era (approximately pre-Impressionism), art was not created to call attention to itself, but to celebrate figurative forms and accurately depict things that had some basis in reality.” (The Art Story). In Modernist painting, attention was brought to the act of painting itself, with the artist consciously drawing attention to the fact that this was a painting, not a recreation of a three dimensional object. The website goes on to state that this acknowledgement of the flatness of the canvas, and the constraints that the frame of the canvas provide, is most obvious in abstract art, which featured non-objective paintings.
“Modern artists began consciously drawing viewers’ attention to two important factors: the shape of a painting’s support (canvas) and the properties of the painting’s forms. Thus the painting’s flatness became an integral component in the viewer’s experience of the artwork”
With this information in mind, I tried to tackle the task of this exercise. The “criteria” I’m looking for, from what I researched, are:
Confined within a shape/frame
have a flat surface
have no real central focus
not attempt to represent depth visually
not attempt to represent anything else (e.g. a painting of something)
Ceiling Tile
My first example is the ceiling tile in my office.
It is definitely a flat surface, confined within the “frame” of the supporting bars. The surface has no real central focus, but does have interesting markings on it. There is no attempt to disguise this as anything but a flat, white surface.
Wall Tiles
Wall tiles designed to accentuate the flatness of the wall surface. They are flat, they have specific frames or constraints, they do not have a specific focal point and they do not attempt to show depth.
Page of a Book
This is one that I think might be incorrect, but I wanted to include so that I could argue my reasons behind it’s inclusion.
The page of a book is most definitely defined by a frame or shape; and is also confined within the constraints of the book itself (between covers). It is a flat surface. It does not attempt to convince the viewer of any visual depth. This page, in particular, has no heading, which means that it does not have any one, central focal point. Yes, there is text which one is expected to focus on; but one can only focus on one word at a time, and there are dozens on this page, meaning that no one word is more “central focus” worthy than another. In fact, I have several issues with reading, and when I look at this picture I notice first the shape of the text overall, in it’s equally distanced margins and it’s slightly misshapen edge on the right, before I notice the words themselves. Perhaps I am incorrect in this assumption, but I thought it would be a worthy inclusion here.
Two whole weeks ago I visited the Lavery & Osborne exhibition at the Hunt Museum, Limerick. I have been meaning to upload my notes since then!
I took notes by hand during the exhibition, along with some photos (where photos were allowed) and they are listed below.
Osborne, Milking Time in St. Marnock’s Byre, 1898
I really loved this piece. The use of light in the painting was incredible; particularly the shaft of light that was coming through a small window in the roof. I found it interesting that there was very little detail for the people in the painting, while the animals had much more. The cow being milked appeared to be looking out at the viewer, giving the impression that she was the only one who took note of the artist in the moment. There didn’t seem to be any white paint used at all, with variations of pale yellows and creams used as highlights. Even the white of the cow was made up of small strokes of blues, browns, yellows and reds. It made me think of Ruskin’s quote about “the innocence of the eye” – where the artist focused on recreating the small patches of colour in the scene rather than a realistic interpretation, resulting in his capture of the feeling at the moment.
Osborne, Potato Gathering, 1888
Potato Gathering was one of the pieces I was looking forward to seeing. Unfortunately, the gallery had hung the piece quite high up, which made examining the details quite difficult. I was trying to decide if the painting had been made at sunset or sunrise; I think it was sunset, as the light is situated mostly on the land, rather than the sky, but perhaps I am wrong. Again, there are very few facial features for the figures in the painting. Only one figure appears to be facing the viewer, although she seems to be looking at the woman and girl to the fore, rather than out at the viewer. There is, however, great detail in the small birds flying in the distance to the back left of the scene. This gave an awesome depth to the landscape. As in Milking Time, there was no white visible on the piece, despite the white clothing of the girl. It was created with a mixture of tones and hues, matching the atmosphere of the scene. It seemed as thought the majority of people in the scene were from a poorer class, while the girl at the front appears to be dressed more finely with a hat and nice dress. The light on the hills in the background almost splits the scene in two. The brushstrokes were very small and sharp, creating an almost blurred appearance.
Osborne, View from Templeogue Bridge, 1879
I have been trying to find a modern view from this area, as it’s a massively populated area of Dublin now, but can’t see anything similar to this landscape anywhere! The first thing that I considered with this piece was that it seemed much more detailed than the previous two Osborne pieces. This was the earliest of the three, painted in 1879. It shows, I think, how the artists style changed over the years becoming more impressionist. The river draws the eye in a meandering path towards the mountains in the distance. What I found most fascinating about this piece was the detail of the shadow from the clouds on the mountains in the background. I live in a country area with lots of mountains nearby, and this is always my favourite thing to see. It makes the landscape so much more interesting, with varying colours and shades, adding depth and excitement to an otherwise regular landscape. The detail in this painting was amazing; very small, thin brushstrokes to create the grasses and flowers at the forefront of the piece meant you could almost feel the blades of grass, as though they were three dimensional. Even the larger trees to the right were made from very small, individual strokes of paint.
Lavery: Tangier, 1919 and On the Cliffs, Tangier 1911
To be honest, I went to this exhibition for Lavery’s work. Upon entering the gallery, these were the first two Lavery paintings on display. I wanted to put the two together as I feel they can be much easier compared and contrasted that way.
On the Cliffs, Tangier was painted in 1911, 8 years before Tangier. What struck me most about both pieces was the size; Tangier measuring 64 x 76cm and On the Cliffs measuring 64 x 77cm, they were almost identical in size. Both paintings feature an expanse of water that almost covers the whole canvas – particularly in On The Cliffs. I was struck by how engaging such a subject could be – particularly when it features such a calm expanse of water, as opposed to something with more energy, perhaps rough weather. A calm sea is difficult to paint, difficult to keep your eye in any one place and difficult, at least in my opinion, to keep the viewer intruiged. Somehow, Lavery does just that with both pieces. Granted, Tangier does have some more activity to draw the viewers attention, but On The Cliffs is so simple but so engaging. The figures have no distinct identities; they appear to be mother and daughter, from a wealthy family, sitting on the cliffs overlooking the sea and the landmass in the distance. The weather feels hot, the sunshine hazy. The water is so still, that only the varying colours on the surface that match the cloud cover above. Some areas of the water are more shaded, where the darker clouds are, and this adds dimension to the piece. The brushstrokes appear to be of varying sizes, supplying little in terms of definition to their subject, and in some places incorporating circular strokes. This makes the texture of the painting itself very interesting to look at. Perhaps that is what draws the eye.
Tangier is more detailed in terms of activity and colour. The brighter colour suggests a clearer atmosphere than the previous piece, with brighter sunshine enhancing the colourful clothing of those on the beach. The sky itself is less clouded and hazy than the previous painting, and this is reflected in the lightness of the scene. The figures on the beach consist of men and camels – none with much definition or facial features. In fact, some of the figures are no more than suggestions of persons, singular strokes of paint. The eye is drawn by the curved shore to the city on the cliffs. The reflection of the city can be seen on the water. Small streams of water and areas of wet sand can be seen on the beach at the front which helps with the perspective of the piece. This painting seems to be done with thin, sharp, quick brushstrokes.
Lavery, The Bridge at Hesterworth, Shropshire, 1884
I wanted to post this painting next because I think it is a great example of how Lavery incorporated the weather into his work. The last two paintings were made in Tangier, Morocco; the atmosphere is light, airy, bright and colourful. In contrast, The Bridge at Hesterworth, Shropshire is the epitamy of British weather. The painting itself is dark. It didn’t come out in the photo as much as I wanted, but to see it in person it is much darker that it appears above. Without even painting the sky, the viewer is drawn in to a wet, dull, dark English day – very similar to the weather in Ireland! The tones of the colours are quite muted, but still bright in pigment. The brushstrokes are thin, the painting gives a feeling of a slow day.
Osborne, Boy on Donkey in a snowy landscape, 1884
This painting was really small, only 11 x 17cm. Being honest, I was not very impressed with it. I sat for a long time trying to pinpoint what I didn’t like, and the only thing I wrote down was “perspective”. I felt that the depth the artist tried to portray just didn’t happen. In the close-up photo above you can almost identify what I mean; the house painted in the valley below is so much smaller than the man and donkey, which obviously means that they were further away in the distance. I just felt that there was no break between the road and the valley below to make it deeper. The man is also much larger than the donkey – I’m sure that’s how it was at the time, as donkey’s are quite small and can be ridden by adults – but I think it throws the perspective off a little. The man is looking straight at the viewer, but there is actually very little detail on his face, which is quite uncomfortable. I did enjoy the painting of the dog to the right, which was much more detailed than the man and the donkey.
Osborne, Primary Education, 1886
This was one of two paintings of children by Osborne that I had taken notes for, but unfortunately I did not get a photo of the second painting, titled Children and Rabbits, 1886.
Both paintings were made in the same year, which I found interesting, and both featured young children with animals. The painting above was interesting to see up close. It looked as though it had begun as a study of the young boy, with the background and animals added afterwards. What suggested this to me was the “halo” around the child’s head, as though Osbourne was trying to blend the newly added background to surround the child without upsetting the original painting. Again, I found the depth a little lacking, I think because there is no obvious source of light and therefore the light is just “coming” from above, leaving very little shadow to allow depth to appear. While the child is quite detailed, the dog has the emotion. The artist really captured the emotion of the dog looking at this bird that could be prey, you can feel the intensity just by looking at it. I also enjoyed the glass bottle on the bottom left; it’s transparency can really be felt in the image.
I can only apologise for the quality of the photo. This piece was small, and hung very high up on the wall. As a result I had to reach high up to take the photo without any glare from the lighting and it came out quite shaky! It is a beautiful piece. The way that the light was captured is mesmerising. It is almost photographic. I would have loved to look more closely, but it was hung too high up (and I am tall! So I think that was a fault on the part of the gallery). I wanted to see more clearly how the light on the sea behind the boy was painted on the canvas – was it really just white? Could something so simple really create such light? Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see it any closer.
Lavery Portraits
As I reached the Lavery portraits, the gallery was filling up and photo opportunities decreased.
The two paintings above are just some of the paintings that were on display, but I thoroughly enjoyed them. Portraits fascinate me, because I find them so difficult. I find it difficult to get a likeness, a feeling of the person behind the pose. Lavery did not have this problem! All of the portraits, except those of his wife, had the same sort of rushed urgency about them. The detail of the face was fine, the clothing and the remainder of the pose were rarely finished. The brushstrokes were large but quick, and it seemed to me that really they were all just sketches, on the go, but that still struck the observer as a completed portrait.
Conclusion
Lavery and Osborne were quite different in their styles of painting, but covered similar subjects. I found myself drawn more to Lavery’s paintings visually, but found it difficult to critique them and therefore had little to write! Osborne’s paintings did not always appeal to me, but they did provide a lot more food for thought.
While I enjoyed the setting of the exhibition – it’s a large, old, family house that has been turned into a museum in Limerick City, Ireland – I found the set up a bit disappointing. The lighting was wrong; there was a glare on all of the paintings that made viewing them from a few steps back difficult. I found I was constantly leaning forward just the see the complete pitcure, and this became impossible as the gallery filled up with onlookers. I also would like to see them hung at an even, lower level. Some walls were hung with paintings above my head height, and it really was impossible to appreciate them fully at such a distance and angle.
I was delighted to hear that most of the paintings in the exhibition were from Private Collections, and had never been seen together before. It was a wonderful collection of work and very inspiring.
Describe
the features in each of these paintings that you think correspond to Greenberg’s view that kitsch ‘imitates the
effects of art’. In other words how has the artist made
the painting look artistic – as if for a sophisticated
taste.
First, I think it is important to define what made Greenberg come to the conclusion that kitsch “imitates the effects of art” – what is the effect of art?
What is art? According to Pooke, G. and Newall, D. in Art History: The Basics (2008), a general understanding of art is something which has been produced without a function (not a craft, such as chair making), activities which produce works with aesthetic value, made of any medium. (pg. 4-5). Essentially, art is whatever an artist makes, that has been accepted as art by the art community.
What is Kitsch? Oxford English Dictionary defines Kitsch as “art, objects or design considered to be in poor taste because of excessive garishness or sentimentality, but sometimes appreciated in an ironic or knowing way”. We should expect Kitsch Art would be over-exaggerated in terms of colour or design, sentimental emotions or garish imagery. Art, as an institution, can seem exclusive and haughty, ‘not for regular people’ and almost religious in nature, especially when one considers museums and galleries with their hushed tones and special lighting. Perhaps Kitsch art has developed such a following as a rebellion against this atmosphere, this religiosity. Kitsch is more approachable, more accessible, more “normal” than say Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.
So what is the effect of Art? According to Clive Bell (1949), a Work of Art will ‘provoke our aesthetic emotions’ (Bell, 1949: 8). Similarly, Collingwood (1975) stated that art is distinguished (from craft) by a particular emotion which is communicated with the viewer (Pooke. G & Newall G, 2008:14) .
Therefore, for this exercise, I would expect the two paintings to deviate from the traditional arts in terms of exaggerated colours and design, but using traditional materials or methods of painting in order to still create a visual image that stimulates a response within the viewer.
Vladimir
Tretchikoff, The Chinese Girl, 1950
The painting features a Chinese woman in traditional clothing. The painting is done using Oils on Canvas, which is quite typical for traditional portrait paintings. The subject looks out to the right of the painting, and not directly at the viewer, which makes her seem aloof or as though she does not want to be seen. While her features and clothing are distinctly Chinese, her makeup and hair seem more commercial or modern. The artist has used exaggerated colours to emphasis bright lipstick, bright coloured silk on her kimono. Her face is, however, a rather dark sky blue colour. The remainder of her clothing is uncoloured, as is the background, which makes the painting appear unfinished. It also makes the bright colours stand out even more to the viewer.
The colours that the artist uses are definitely not typical of portraiture. The skin tone is unnatural, the lip colour is overly exaggerated. While the subjects pose and the realistic form of the painting might imitate traditional art, the unnatural colouring makes it stand out as rather garish. Placed in a gallery of traditional portraits, for example, the piece would stand out exaggeratedly. Does it stimulate a response within the viewer, as is the typical effect of art? Yes, I believe so. The painting itself is wonderful in terms of form and composition. The woman is beautiful, her expression is very communicative, it makes me feel sadness or longing.
Andrew Hewkin, Do you Leave Footprints in the Sand?, 2002
The painting features a faceless woman, posed in an entrance way overlooking the sea. The woman’s facial features are hidden from the viewer by a large sun hat, her hands hidden by long gloves and her body mostly concealed by a loose dress. It appears to be a resort of some type, overlooking the sea, which is surmised by her dress and the exaggerated foliage around what appears to be a balcony. Palm trees often symbolise tropical places, vacations.
The painting is made using oils on canvas. The imitation of depth in the scene, painted from a single point perspective, is definitely a tradition in “art proper”. The silhouette of the woman through the dress is quite skilfully painted, as is the detail of the foliage and the sky. The colours are bright and unusual; even within the context of a “holiday” scene. I feel as though the long gloves, which I would associate with dinner parties or glamorous ball gowns, seem completely out of place in this seaside image. The colouring of the pillars, which I feel were an attempt to imitate marbling, are unusual and quite jarring. Also, while the railings have been painted in a realistic form, their colouring suggests that they were painted unusually to show the foliage through what should be solid form. Alternatively, they could be painted to imitate some sort of reflective material which is reflecting colours and images to the viewer. Does it invoke an emotional response from the viewer? Yes; I really dislike it. I feel uncomfortable looking at it, as though the colouring is just too off for my liking. I dislike the combination of the glamour and the relaxed, the contrasting tones and the faceless woman. I would still say that this image, as Kitsch Art, does imitate the effect of art, because art can invoke all types of emotions, not just joy or pleasure.
REFERENCES
Bell, Clive (1949) Art, New Edition, London: Chatto & Windus
Pooke, G. & Newall, D. (2008), Art History – the basics, Routledge, London & New York.
Make your own copy of Barr’s chart and extend it up to the year 2000 by including movements such as Pop Art. In a separate column list major events in politics and culture that you think have had some bearing on the kind of art practiced at the time.
updated Barr Chart – Shona O’Brien
The text is quite small, so I have listed my “Political and Cultural Events” below.
1940s
Pearl Harbour – 1941. Hiroshima – 1941. Indian Independence –
1947. Communism in China.
1950s
I imagine that the effects of the 1940’s events carried on
through the 1950’s in Art, as those who lived through these events processed
their meaning through their artwork. Abstract Expressionism seems to be
somehow related to the feeling that spontaneous events, outside of ones
control, can occur at any moment. There is an urgency in this work.
1960s
Assassination of JFK – 1963: perhaps this could relate to the
rise of Pop Art, which brought attention to the mass production of banal
advertising for materialistic things, at a time when many American’s lost
their sense of hope as they grieved. Advancement in the development of
photography and digital means of recording the world, leading to increased
artistic interest in photography, photorealism, video art.
1970s
The Vietnam War: I think that this would be considered the major
event of the 1970’s, and one that certainly influenced art and artists. I
think as a movement thought,
the effects of Vietnam would not be seen in art as an “ism” until
the 1980’s.
1980s
As above, the effects of Vietnam may be seen in the 1980’s; Neo Expressionism featuring frequently violent, intense subject matter, as the world came to grips with the brutality of that war. Fall of the Berlin Wall – 1989. The AIDS epidemic; fear, illness and death began to spread in the 1980’s. In general, it was quite a decade of upheaval and anxiety.
1990s
The launch of the World Wide Web! Again, this surfaces in Art in
the following decade.
I completed two oil paintings this weekend based on my recent readings and how they made me feel.
Rain in the distance
This piece was inspired by the landscapes I saw at the Lavery and Osborne exhibition. Very different in style, but the feeling it brings me is similar. It was done based on the view from my studio over the fields behind my house. It has been a terrible summer in terms of sun, but the changing weather and (what feels like constant) rain have made for some beautiful skies. Often we see the rain falling from a distance before it arrives. It exists without us even knowing – essence before existence.
Condemned to be free
This piece is a much smaller canvas. I wanted to convey the feeling that I got from reading about Existentialism and how man is “condemned to be free”. The unidentified landscape towering over the nameless figure in the centre was to emphasise the space and freedom we are born with; which is often made out to be a scary prospect, constant bombardment in the media of the dangers of an ever shrinking world society, which in fact is only partly true. There are huge expanses in this world where one can be utterly free. Only the choice to find them holds us back.
I have had such a busy week between study and work. I still have the photos and notes from Saturday’s exhibition to post, I have exercise 2.1 almost done but again needs to be photographed and posted, and I have exercise 2.2 done too! I also started two oil paintings over the weekend.
Hoping to post everything tomorrow, if I get time in between work.
This evening, my thought for the day is “breathe”. I absolutely panicked about exercise 2.1 when I saw it. I thought there is no way I can research and find out that much information in such a short space of time! I procastinated for 2 days! But once I had calmed down, I decided all I can do is my best, and stop comparing my work to others. So I have it done now, just need to photograph it and post it.
It has been months since I was last at an exhibition and I can’t wait.
I had only recently come across a Lavery painting during some research and immediately fell for the style, the colour, the movement of his work. I am fascinated. When I came across this exhibition (also by accident!) I thought it was such wonderful timing.
According to the website, the exhibition features selected works by Sir John Lavery and W.F. Osborne, many from private collections, being shown publicly for the first time.
I am really looking forward to it, and hope to post some photos and thoughts tomorrow
For now, some of my favourites of Lavery:
Lavery, John; A Quiet Day in the Studio; Glasgow Museums; online here
As part of my tutor feedback, I was encouraged to look into Existentialism, as a complement to J.R. Searle’s The Construction of Social Reality (which I have yet to finish).
The wording that was suggested to me was “existence preceeds essence”, and so a quick internet search led me to the most amazing, beautiful, scanned copy of Existentialism and Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre (can be found here).
Having never really heard of existentialism before, this was a great way to dive in the deep end. The book itself is based on defending the theory from criticisms which it had received – this made the layout of the book and the explanation of the theory so much easier to follow than I had imagined. With each topic laid out clearly, explaining the criticism to the topic and then very clear and definitive responses was very easy to follow.
Some thoughts on this book:
Simple example to help definition: consider a paper-knife to be an article of manufacture, which has a particular purpose. It was conceived of, as an idea for a purpose, by an artisan. It was then laid out as a method of production, then produced and used for the purpose as it was conceived. The conception of the idea of a paper-knife is to say that the essence of the object existed before the item itself existed, and it now exists only for the sole purpose as conceived. Similarly, if man was created by God, then the essence of man would have existed before the existence of man, and with a sole purpose. Existentialism proposes that there is no God, and therefore there is no Essence before Existence, and therefore no “sole purpose” (or in other words, no human nature, no divine fate for a man’s life).
“when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realization of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence…. Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declare with greater consistency that if God does not exists there is at least one being whose existence comes before it’s essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man” (Sartre, 1948)
This makes so much sense to me; not to say that I am an atheist (or am I?) but that I have never understood God as anything more than a human creation – in my mind, God is a concept of man, created in order to a) put some sort of explanation as to where we came from and b) to help impose a moral culture among masses of people living together in communities, cities countries.
This ties in somewhat with one of the lectures I am listening to at the moment on The Great Ideas of Philosophy by Daniel Robinson. The last few lectures that I have listened to are relating to morality and moral epistemology – how do human beings become aware of, or acuire knowledge about moral good and evil. I found Sartre’s atheist existentialist approach to this subject to be very interesting; that one does good not because God has decreed he should, but that it is a choice between two actions – one producing better results for mankind than the other – and that man understands he is the example for all men.
“the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.”
I related Sartre’s discussion on “Anguish” to that question of moral epistemology. Sartre explains that anguish is brought about by man’s realisation that he acts as a role model for all men, and that he should understand if he acts in such a manner, so will others. This anguish should promote action – positive action – by all men based on their desire to improve the human race, rather than leaving the responsibility with God. Critics will say that existentialism promotes doing “nothing” because there is no pressure from God or the promise of an afterlife or morals etc. however the opposite is true. If there is no-one else responsible, and you know that you are to set an example, then you should always act – proactively – to promote what is good.
“Everything happens to every man as though the whole human race had its eyes fixed upon what he is doing and regulated its conduct accordingly. So every man ought to say “Am I really a man who has the right to act in such a manner that humanity regulates itself by what I do…Far from being a screen which could separate us from actions, it is a condition of action itself”
It was interesting then, to read this paragraph on the existence of a priori good and bad:
“He discovers firthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. … What is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”
I have a couple more pages to go, but I like the idea of creating something based on the feelings that this book has brought up for me.
As I have started section 2 of the course, I am now looking more closely at modern art. Being completely honest, I’m lost. I have started reading Modern Art – a very short introduction by David Cottington. Perhaps it will become more clear as I get further through the book, but at the moment it is just causing more confusion.
What I would like to see – and maybe this is naive of me – is a simple list of what makes art modern. So far, I have managed to gather various snippets of information like:
it challenged traditional definitions of art
it pushed boundaries and rejected standards of the past
it explored new modes of expression
used light, colour, brushstrokes and materials in new ways
focused more on the “everyday man” as opposed to historical figures, myths, wealthy patrons
Maybe that is all there is? I feel like something is missing though. I am going to keep reading this book and see if it clears anything up for me. One thing that always throws me off is when the author lists various names and places that obviously should have some meaning in relation to the text, but that I have never heard of and therefore lose out on the meaning.
I have just completed Exercise 1 of Section 2 and I feel deflated, like maybe I missed the point entirely. We will see.
UVC - Shóna 