A New Approach to Art

Art is how you express yourself, and everyone does it in their own way, in their own style. I chose to write about the two following art works because I believe they have so many similarities but are done in completely different ways. For this comparison and contrast assignment the two works of art I chose to write about are called; End “Mixed Media” by: Terry Peterson,shown in the art building at Shasta College, and Forlakeph “Mixed Media in a Glass Jar” by: Gioia Fonda, also shown in the art building at Shasta College.

It is a reasonable fact that the culture of art or the visual art culture changes in direct proportion with the social and political changes in societies and around the world. For example the South African arts, in music, performance, poetry and visual arts of today cannot be equated to that of the 1950s and 60s when apartheid laws were just being newly introduced and imparted into societies and simply as a result the peoples struggle or resistance was very relevant. The struggle or resistance to bring about social change, was not only through uprisings, violent protests or demonstrations, but the arts on the other hand was involved and has been in history, always as a usable element to voice up and act up for the voiceless, unheard and ignored when it is very necessary, due to dissatisfactions of a society or a nation with its leadership or an injustice perform by a state or a government that can no longer be tolerated by its people or any people. The arts have been always able to question the unquestioned and even able to simplify problems and bring solutions especially during the modern age of industrial revolution, for example today in the case of an architectural, vehicle or any structural design, the first step would be to draw, paint, digitize and sample build a plan, before building an actual structure, and art is involved in all these procedures.

n reflecting on this week’s readings, I can see the connection between the previous readings on the Harlem Renaissance and the one on Abstract Expressionism, especially as it relates to art being used for social change. Just as our society was moving at a fast pace, so was our art. Looking back, it’s amazing to see how racism, women’s rights and war brought on so many different attitudes and the art of the 20th century represented these different ideas. As it relates to war, many people were concerned about the dangers of democracy, while others emphasized patriotism. In either case, you can see a split between people’s perceptions and beliefs. It’s clear that most of the artist of the 20th century that we discussed were always on the cutting edge toward cultural change. Their shocking and innovative techniques reflected the changing values that represented a forever changing society; and often times their art helped shaped our culture, and at the same time, reflected that culture back on to us. From all the different art movements discussed during this course, this week’s readings represents the changing role they art is beginning to play in the political area. I believe that art plays a vital role in democracy, by creating openness and the freedom of expression. It’s amazing how art, be that it through a painting, literature, sculpting or through music can bring about change. Art really makes an impact on our culture and society, from instilling values or by changing opinions. It seems at the heart of every major change throughout our history, you will find an artist that created that change through his or her works. We form our ideas by seeing,

Art has evolved and regenerated itself many times during our human existence. These differences are defined through changes in styles under various theories. During the nineteenth and early twentieth century, a style known as Expressionism became popular. During this movement the artists were trying to use their artwork as a tool of expression toward life. It was mainly dominant in the nonrepresentational arts, such as abstract visual arts and music. It also was probably one of the most difficult movements to understand because the whole point of the piece lay within the artist. Not only was it a movement, it defined the act of art as a whole. From the beginning of time, each work of art, excluding replicas, show a way of expressing

He started his article, “How African-American Artists Fought to Diversify Museums”, with an overview of the history of the issue. The article stated the importance of the initial attempts to mollify black artists and how the attempts sparked more outrage by displaying the blatant disproportion of diversity. It concluded that all of these events built up and provoked a movement to include more art as seen to this day. It focuses on how museums are still guilty of conforming to social and political views, as seen by the types of art displayed and who created them. The article then turns into an interview with author, Susan Cahan, to discuss political influences in museums throughout history and what effect it has on the art world today concerning black artists. Unlike the New York Times article, this story went into excessive detail of how the movement to include more African American artists started and the progress that has been achieved throughout the years. It granted the reader a more thorough understanding about the movement and why it has been (and still is) a serious issue today. The comparisons it brings up from the very first attempt to include black artists in an exhibit—“Harlem on My Mind”—to the exhibits today document the remarkable progress made as well as the excessive amount of protesting that accompanied it. Both articles were great sources of information for people looking into the history of black artists exhibition, but the critical difference between the two was the tone: the first article viewing the situation to be long-overdue but hopeful, while the second article spoke of the situation from the perspective of an author who felt the museums should be ashamed of their lack of effort throughout the

The way we see and perceive this art is predetermined by a variety of different factor ranging from cultural background to socioeconomic status. “A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why -- and this is the only reason why -- the entire art of the past has now become a political issue” (J. Berger pg. 33) He argues that if a group of people are robbed of being able to create their own culturally relative and socially correct standards for art, then they are being oppressed from engaging as political equals. People use art to understand their place within world history and create social and political meaning for themselves or their culture. Art gives you the power to control how people perceive the past, the present and possibly even the future. Although now the ability to control what art people see isn’t as “regulated” as it once was, but prior to the invention of the camera and the internet, art was controlled by the minority of the elite and wealthy. “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (J. Berger, Pg.157). The upper class mystifies the general population to stay in control; without the ability to see things through our own eyes, people are being deprived of their right to understanding themselves and placing themselves in a role of society. Mystification contributes a negative influence on our society. Mystifying of art distinguish upper class and low class, and more importantly causes the past of certain groups and cultures, such as women,

Art history: a useless pondering over sketches that have little significance to life, at least this is the notion held by many. Delving into art history is a slippery slope that requires more than any one person knows. James F. Cooper and Alan Wallach explore the considerations art historians go through to decipher the relevancy of artworks. However, James F. Cooper’s arguments retro and one-track minded, while Alan Wallach’s arguments on which artworks to pick apart, the methods to attack them, and the reasons people spend so long analyzing a piece of paper are far more relevant to today’s emerging standards.

In this research paper I will not be talking about the full life of Jackson Pollock, rather I will only refer to the time when Jackson Pollock was at the peak of his career, which are the years from 1943 to 1950. When I discuss Pollock’s abstract paintings, I am referring to the paintings such as, Number 1(Lavender Mist), Number 5, Number 30 (Autumn Rythm), and the other paintings that have no subject. Also, when I discuss that America wants to gain more attention for its art I am referring to the state of New York as Americas chosen location to be the center of the art world. There are many similar research papers that discuss this same topic, but

- The lines of traditional art have blurred over the years as new artistic movements have appeared and transformed the notion of what is considered art. As these movements have revolutionized the art world, popular culture has branched off from art, causing a shift; art is no longer a representation of popular culture and visa versa. In contemporary society art doesn’t exist to win any popularity contests, it exists to please the viewer, and is often deemed art by highly acclaimed art critics who don't speak from a popular culture standpoint. Art highly regarded by critics often goes against the grain and makes a statement, while popular culture is dictated by what the general public likes,

At first glance, someone with the an eye trained in art history and lore would look upon some of Jackson Pollock 's art and think, “How is this even art?” Maybe even said with some foul language. Some may even take it as an insult to Art History. “How can someone completely disregard the divine techniques in which our classic art is founded upon?” Well, this is all in the perspective of following the suppressive laws of a mind which may not be be susceptible and/or unwelcoming to change. At first glance, Jackson Pollock 's controversial work, “Number Thirty-one” is a messy, unsuspecting work of art. “Number Thirty-one” labors your eyes to follow the nearly

In the poem One Art, the speaker reflects over the many material things that she has lost in the past, like her mother’s watch, and even bigger things like houses. By the end of the poem she ends up confronting and reflecting over the loss of her loved one, which in turn shows a more intense side of loss for her and how she as a person deals with it. Elizabeth Bishop uses repetition, and her own interjections to help convey her belief that loss is an everyday part of life, but it is how you deal with it that changes the situation. Bishop uses her repetition to describe an aspect of loss, and how it changes and affects people over time.

This can be seen in relation to various artists, who work towards a solution of this issue of women oppression by using artwork as a form of voice. This is something that has been continuously worked into art as a content piece, but focuses on different issues. Artists discussed such as Carrie Mae Weems and Carmen Herrera used this method of speaking, metaphorically so, to demonstrate the importance of issues surrounding women, not just within the specific field. This can be displayed in contemporary artwork to delve into the world of oppression, allowing others to see the interest and importance of the subject. Like artists have always done, there is a reference to modernity within each piece, specifically the style of the artwork or the message. This can even be seen in not just famous artwork, but the unseen and unheard. Though, looking at the availability of opportunities to display artwork, especially in smaller galleries, there is a higher chance of using this to an artist’s advantage to display a change in the

“I think a lot of people think of art as taking place in these discreet places like galleries and museums things like that and just getting it out of that is a way of redirecting your thoughts about the potential of art and what it can actually do and how it can function socially”, Curtis Jones.

Ever since the 1980s, LGBTQ artworks has been more prevalent and popular in America. LGBTQ art is sometimes referred to queer art because of how the LGBTQ group was seen in the past. Over the twentieth century, it has been evident that its art has transformed significantly. Past forms of LGBTQ activism consisted of violent acts of protection or passive expression. For example, in 1969, a numerous amount of the LGBTQ individuals defended themselves against policemen who bullying them for their sexuality in a gay bar. As stated in “The Philosophy of Art”, Stephen Davies affirms that “such works are often made to be ambiguous, enigmatic, multi-layered, or otherwise challenging in ways that demand of the audience that it adopts an interpretation approach to appreciating the story” (Davies 106). They felt that others’ interpretations of their sexuality will be filled with hatred; therefore, they felt the need to hide their identity. The artists may have wished to be appreciated for their true self before they reveal themselves in their artworks. LGBTQ art was used as an outlet for gay and lesbian artists to make artworks that referred to their true self but never made it obvious to the viewers. But recently, society has been promoting individuals to reveal their true identity as LGBTQ, instead of keeping it in and following social norms. This idea was circulated to many artists’ mindsets. An instance of this is the artist, Andy Warhol. Mentioned by the article “A Brief History of

The beginning of 20th century was a time of drastic change. New developments were made in the arenas of the classical sciences, social science, psychology and philosophy - each challenging traditional thought. Industrialization and the introduction of many new, challenging concepts in the fields of politics as well as the development of new technologies gave artist more freedom to innovate and break the rules of traditional art. By using new materials, techniques and the new approach artists were pushing boundaries of what has previously been accepted art practice in order to invent radically new styles.