by Dr. Parme Giuntini
Log in Alex Uemura 10 years agoPosted 10 years ago. Direct link to Alex Uemura's post “Why aren't these painting...” Why aren't these paintings new when they are called modern? • (0 votes) jodiyoung0410 10 years agoPosted 10 years ago. Direct link to jodiyoung0410's post “Modern art is not the sam...” Modern art is not the same as contemporary art. Modern art isn't exactly modern. (33 votes) Jeff Kelman 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Jeff Kelman's post “I disagree with the concl...” I disagree with the conclusion drawn from urbanization that was outlined above in the following sentence, "The gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” increased and were more visible in the city." Frankly, I think there is validity in the statement that "the gap" (between the wealthy and poor) may have been "more visible" in the city, but I don't think there is any such evidence to support the statement that the "gap" itself was widening post-industrialization. For example, I cannot imagine that under a Feudal system, the serfs and servants of a land would have seen them selves as even in the same world as their Kings, Princes, and landowners. As opposed to the workers in large factories...who in many cases were still able to work hard and move up the ladder of society and thus become foremen or even own a factory some day. This sort of "upward mobility" would have been practically and physically impossible for your average working man or woman to accomplish in the centuries that preceded Industrialization and Capitalism coming into existence... • (8 votes) erikavisual 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to erikavisual's post “Does the term avant-garde...” Does the term avant-garde only apply to Modern Art or can it also be applied to current art of this decade? If so, what artists or art of today might be considered avant-garde? • (4 votes) Khalil Pineda 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Khalil Pineda's post “Hey, Erika. One thing th...” Hey, Erika. One thing the lecture noted is the "optimism" of modernity, the idea of progress. What gave the "avant garde" its value was the fact that artists that did something different were seen as proponents of progress, as somehow being more culturally advanced, as ridding of the (worse) old to have the (better) new. Today people are not likely to use that term because they do not view things that way anymore. Most people don't believe the future is necessarily better than the past, that one culture is more "advanced" than another, or that everyone's future is or ought to look the same. The author of this text mentioned the legacy of colonialism - part of the reason why a lot of people aren't fond of the idea of progress is because the idea of "modernizing" was often used (and still is used) as a pretext for the west to colonize other nations. Without the narrative of progress, without this idea that history is a line constantly progressing towards a better future, the idea of the avant garde becomes a philosophical anachronism. Newness doesn't enjoy the connotations of progress and advancement that it did in the early 20th century, so innovative or experimental art is no longer called "avant garde". (6 votes) Ester Malzahn 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Ester Malzahn's post “I feel the need to point ...” I feel the need to point out that while capitalism may have offered opportunities for great wealth, it also offered opportunities for great exploitation. • (4 votes) Priscilla vides 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Priscilla vides's post “i wonder why they call it...” i wonder why they call it modern art • (1 vote) David Alexander 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to David Alexander's post “This was answered in the ...” This was answered in the essay. It came in the period from 1850 to 1960, which was known as "modern" as opposed to classical, baroque, romantic, victorian, etc. (4 votes) jechevarria 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to jechevarria's post “Did religion get in the w...” Did religion get in the way of art at this time? • (1 vote) Gretchen 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Gretchen's post “Religion sort of stepped ...” Religion sort of stepped back. Painting biblical or religious scenes was not popular and not many people bought the works. There were a couple of artists who did center their artwork on religion, but they were persecuted. One artist who did paint spiritual works was James Tissot. His work is still used in a lot of illustrated bibles. But he was more popular for his portraits of young ladies than his bible scenes. Hope that helps. :) (3 votes) Michael Boudreaux 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Michael Boudreaux's post “Where can I find informat...” Where can I find information about Miro • (1 vote) drszucker 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to drszucker's post “Start here: http://www.f...” Start here: (3 votes) Jake Suzuki 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Jake Suzuki's post “I find it slightly curiou...” I find it slightly curious that a lot of the massive social, cultural and artistic upheavals of the period between 1850-1960 are kinda glossed over. I mean, if you're going to start an essay with "capitalism is a inherent identifier of a modern nation" I'd like that backed up a bit more than with simple silence on all the lower class achievements in those 110 years. Even if you don't feel leftist political thought is relevant today, can you ignore the massive influence it had in those years? Doesn't it seem a little bit glib just to relegate those entire spheres of modern thought to "well, the capitalists won"? It just seems a little strange to me to mention in passing the soviets, the industrial revolution, and movements akin to the Paris Commune, and not say anything specific to the topic, even though capitalism gets its own paragraph? • (1 vote) Ester Malzahn 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Ester Malzahn's post “I have the same hesitatio...” I have the same hesitations, but am hoping there is more in-depth political analysis in the coming sections. There's also a lot in the partner sections, especially the Tate, that you might find interesting (I'm working my way through the general history sections while jumping into more specific partner content - the Tate's section on women in art has been really good so far). (3 votes) CherenceJerboh 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to CherenceJerboh's post “were women allowed to vot...” were women allowed to vote in the 1800's • (1 vote) Noble.Leah 9 years agoPosted 9 years ago. Direct link to Noble.Leah's post “no they were not. native ...” no they were not. native american, African american, and women were not aloud to vote. women won their right to vote in 1918. (2 votes) Aquila Mandelbrot 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Aquila Mandelbrot's post “When did the avant-garde ...” When did the avant-garde artists begin to appear? • (1 vote) danderson 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to danderson's post “Can't say exactly, becaus...” Can't say exactly, because the definition of avant-garde doesn't include how far ahead or away from the mainstream it has to be. In the 1850s, look at Manet, then follow up with the Impressionists, who self-identified as being outside the academic tradition of their time. (1 vote)Want to join the conversation?
Here's a couple lines from the passage that help:
"This new middle class audience that made its money through industrialization and manufacturing had lots of “disposable income”, and they wanted pictures that they could understand, that were easy to look at, fit into their homes, addressed subjects they liked. Not for them the historical cycles of gods, saints and heroes with their complex intellectual associations and references; instead, they wanted landscapes, genre scenes, and still life."
http://www.fmirobcn.org/fundacio/joanmiro/en_index/
and here:
http://www.moma.org/artists/4016
