The two readings, "The "ism" that isn't" and "The 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War" discussed the backlash against art movements and the definition of such a movement, or an "ism".
I loved "The 1913 Armory Show" reading because of how clearly and informatively it discussed artists. It included the names of many famous individuals in a sensible, appropriate manner and did not just name drop in order to make their piece sound more sophisticated. Tom McCormack discussed the evolving definition of what makes true art and the reactions of important art individuals from that period. He discussed the one of art's pivotal shows, the 1913 Armory Show, which incorporated more than 12,000 works of art from distinguished artists and art movements, ranging from cubism to realism. He included two of the most controversial pieces at the show, both were works from cubism. I personally loved Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending the Stairs because of how confusing and complicated it was. I like how both art from both Europe and America was incorporated in the show in order to display the best art, not to compete with others. The brief reference in the introduction about Cold War art weaponry also added a nice cohesiveness to the entire piece that was filled with art controversies. On the other hand, I disliked "The "ism" that isn't" by Jonathan Jones that invalidates Charles Saatchi's creation of a new "ism". Throughout the entire piece, the point that Jones was trying to make and his writing style was vague and piece-y, making it confusing and boring to read. One example of this is this section, - "The annual Salon, a public exhibition of new painting that played a part in the French Revolution, was as hotly debated as the Turner Prize is today. The French painter Gustave Courbet published his Manifesto Of Realism in 1855." Just because Courbet was famous and one person wrote a manifesto on a painting style that was popular during that time, it does not validate the previous statement. Also, that whole quote and its following statements seemed like Jones just wanted to talk about Courbet. There were also other useless information scattered throughout the piece that did not contribute to the point Jonathan was trying to make. I did not know if I was just bad at reading comprehension or if Jone's piece was poorly written. However, I liked how Jones was able to capture the spontaneity of the creation of art movements when he described how the term "Cubism" and "Impressionism" was coined. This necessary spontaneity in an art movement contributes to his argument on how an art movement cannot be forcibly created by Charles Saatchi. I also searched some of the artists that Jones mentioned, like Nicky Hoberman and Tomoko Takahashi, and loved their works
1 Comment
Sabrina Sampson
3/7/2016 06:49:31 pm
I agree completely with your assessment of the style and mechanics of the two pieces. I think the differences and the shortcomings of the second one made them somewhat hard to compare in content. I also agree that you cannot cobble together and name an artistic movement on a whim; the movement needs to emerge naturally to be cohesive, relevant, and meaningful.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMaggie L. Walker Governor's School Student in Art IV. Archives
May 2017
Categories |