The articles being compared are "Artists v. critics, round one," which describes the legal dispute between the artist James Whistler and the critic John Ruskin and "Arab Spring: Modern Middle eastern Art Finds a New Audience in the West," which discusses the different forms of art coming out of the Middle East, specifically modern art. In both of the readings the question of what defines modern art is inherent. Where the line of where something no longer becomes modern art is blurred like most art form.
"Artists v. critics, round one" is a detailed reporting of the law suit against John Ruskin by James Whistler. Ruskin, while critiquing Whistler's work, called him a "conman", claiming that what was created should not classify as modern art. Ruskin represented the idea of "high modernism", preferring "order, in meaning, in moral form". This begs the question what is modernism and what separates the two? The Oxford dictionary definition of modern art is "Art of a style marked by a significant departure from traditional styles and values, in particular that created between the late 19th and the late 20th centuries." By this definition the work of Whistler is certainly included. He used his are to experiment and explore his ideas and possible creations, which is the purpose of art. Another issue brought up in this article was the value that people assign to said art. Although the jury ruled that Whistler was correct, they did not grant him a large settlement. What value do people assign art, specifically the jury in this case? If the piece had been less modern and more with the status quo would they have assigned it and its artist more value. Artists value the knowledge the piece gives them in the creation, Whistler saying"I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime" when asked about the price. However, those who did not get the experience of creating it will so easily undercut its value. "Arab Spring: Modern Middle eastern Art Finds a New Audience in the West" discussed the modern art being created out of the Middle East. Many people when approached about the Modern Middle Eastern art proclaimed that there is no such thing "They're just copying Picasso or Braque." The art of the Middle East has been held back for a long time, and artist are just now getting the chance to truly explore their ideas through it. This delay in the creation of art could have lead to the similar works being created. The artists are getting inspired by the artists who the western world have been exposed to for years, creating a time machine almost. They are rediscovering aspects of art and infusing it with their individual culture to create incredible work.
1 Comment
Marina
11/3/2017 08:26:57 pm
I like your analogy regarding the modern Middle Eastern art as a time machine. You say that what has been going on in the Middle East has not allowed for the people there to create art and take part in the same movements at the same time as the Europeans. Do you think the Europeans and people in the Middle East take this into consideration when talking about/ critiquing their art? Do you think they think of their modern art as having value? I know in Global we've been learning that Islam does not permit art of living things, so do you think perhaps the public in the Middle East is not willing to accept their art now as "modern" or even as art at all?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mia
|